# 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 (years):** 4.8 - **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 - **Tags:** PIP, national-park, s5-1-e-infill, s5-1-j, s5-4-exceptional, sustainable-location-fail, self-build, small-scheme, rural-lane-no-footway ## 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 - **S5(1)(e): fail.** next to one dwelling only; other buildings sporadic and distant — not limited infilling within a group (DL 26) - **S5(1)(j): fail.** 4.8-yr supply gives unmet need, but not physically well-related to Findon — unlit, unpaved narrow NSL lane then A24 bypass crossing (DL 15-17, 26) - **S5(4): fail.** outside all categories; benefits do not substantially outweigh harm (DL 27-29) - **N4: fail (substantial weight).** elevated site near PRoW, would reduce views to Cissbury Ring; N4 substantial weight to natural beauty of National Park (DL 9-13, 29) - **DP3: fail.** does not respond to context (DL 13) - **TR3: fail.** highly reliant on private car "irrespective of the precise distance" (DL 17-18) - **TR4: neutral.** TR4/TR6 matters for technical details stage (DL 19) - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** 4.8-yr supply signals general need — substantial weight (DL 28) ## 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 ## Sources - https://www.planninggeek.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Findon-Permission-in-Principle-Appeal-6006900.pdf - https://www.planninggeek.co.uk/2026/findon-self-build-pip/ --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6006900.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers.