Land at Rogers Lane, Findon

Decision

dismissed, 18 September 2026

Decided by

Planning Inspector: Alice James

Authority

South Downs National Park Authority (South East)

Appeal reference

6006900

Application reference

SDNP/25/04240/PIP

Procedure

written representations

Development

Permission in principle for one chalet-style (self-build) dwelling

Homes

1

Site context

national park, open countryside, rural lane

Green Belt

No

Housing land supply

4.8 years

Framework applied

August 2026 NPPF

Determinative policies

S5(4), N4, DP3, TR3

Development plan policies

South Downs Local Plan 2019 SD1, SD4, SD6, SD21, SD25, Findon NDP 2016-2035 HD4

Main issues

National Park landscape; spatial strategy and accessibility

Summary

PIP for one self-build dwelling on an elevated field in the South Downs National Park, reached by an unlit single-track lane. Dismissed. Not infill (only one neighbouring dwelling), not well-related to Findon (so S5(1)(j) failed despite a 4.8-year supply), so S5(4) exceptional-circumstances test applied; National Park harm (N4), design (DP3) and car-dependence (TR3) substantially outweighed one home.

Issues and findings

• Transition. Parties given opportunity to comment on the 2026 Framework (DL ¶2).
• National Park — N4 / DP3: FAIL. "A dwelling in this location would reduce views towards Cissbury Ring which is a key feature of the SDNP and would erode the sense of openness that the public experience form the public right of way" (DL ¶10); "it is not sensitively located to avoid harm to the statutory purposes and special qualities of the Protected Landscape, does not respond to its context and would not enhance its surroundings" (DL ¶13).
• Accessibility — TR3: FAIL. "accessing Findon on foot or by bike from the appeal site would involve going along an unlit, unpaved narrow lane before crossing the Findon Bypass (A24)" (DL ¶15); "future residents would likely be highly reliant on private cars for most journeys, irrespective of the precise distance. In this context the proposed development would not be physically well related to the settlement of Findon" (DL ¶17).
• S5 categories: FAIL. "The proposed dwelling would be next to one existing dwelling, but the other dwellings and buildings are sporadic and some distance away from the appeal site. In this context, the proposal would not constitute limited infilling within groups of houses" (DL ¶26). Not isolated either (DL ¶14).
• Self-build. "there is no mechanism at permission in principle stage to secure self-build housing" (DL ¶20).

Planning balance

S5(4): outside the S5(1) list, so approval only if benefits "substantially outweigh" harm (DL ¶27). HO7 substantial weight to housing given 4.8-yr supply (DL ¶28), but conflicts with DP3, N4 and TR3 plus N4 "substantial weight" to National Park beauty: "the benefits of the proposal would be substantially outweighed by its adverse effects" (DL ¶29).

What made the difference

The access route (unlit, no footway, national speed limit, then a bypass crossing) meant the site was treated as not "physically well-related" for S5(1)(j) — the inspector read accessibility into that phrase — and there was only one neighbouring house so infill failed. National Park designation then weighed heavily. A plot within a continuous frontage group (cf. Spring Gardens PINS-6009593) or with a footway to the village would have had a route into S5(1).

Transferable points

• "Physically well-related" in S5(1)(j) can be failed on accessibility grounds — an unlit, unpaved lane to the settlement (DL ¶17). (Contrast Whitchurch PINS-6006893 ¶69, which read it as physical connectivity.)
• Proximity to a single dwelling is not "limited infilling within groups of houses" (DL ¶26).
• A site outside every S5(1) category falls to S5(4), where the burden flips: benefits must substantially outweigh harm (DL ¶27).
• A 4.8-yr supply still attracts substantial weight to housing under HO7 (DL ¶28).
• Self-build status cannot be secured at PIP stage (DL ¶20) — but see Cople PINS-6011253 ¶¶17–18 for the opposite view.

Policy findings

Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.

Key facts

• Elevated field in South Downs National Park, some distance from Findon, beside one dwelling; PRoW views to Cissbury Ring
• Rogers Lane narrow single-track, no footways or lighting, national speed limit; reaching Findon requires crossing A24 Findon Bypass
• SDNPA supply 4.8 years
• Self-build could not be secured at PIP stage (no mechanism) — contrast Cople PINS-6011253

Related decisions

• PINS-6011253
• PINS-6009593

Sources

• planninggeek.co.uk
• planninggeek.co.uk

This note is one of the decisions behind the NPPF 2026 Navigator, which shows how each Framework test has been applied across all the decisions in the database. Also available as Markdown.