# 150 Barnhorn Road, Bexhill

- **Decision:** dismissed, 17 August 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Bhupinder Thandi
- **Authority:** Rother (South East)
- **Appeal reference:** 6009653
- **Application reference:** RR/2025/1832/FULL
- **Procedure:** written-representations
- **Development:** Single-storey (self-build) dwelling formed by altering and extending an outbuilding in rear garden
- **Homes:** 1
- **Site context:** inside-settlement
- **Green Belt:** no
- **Housing land supply (years):** 3.04
- **Framework applied:** December 2024 NPPF (transitional)
- **Determinative policies:** NPPF2024 para 11(d), Rother CS OSS4, Rother CS SRM2
- **Development plan policies:** Rother Local Plan Core Strategy 2014 OSS4, EN1, EN3, SRM2, DaSA Local Plan 2019 DEN1
- **Main issues:** character and appearance, surface water drainage, neighbours' living conditions
- **Tags:** transitional, old-wording-slip, decided-on-publication-day, backland, garden-land, housing-shortfall, self-build, small-scheme, drainage-not-conditionable

## Summary
A backland self-build bungalow in a Bexhill rear garden was dismissed for harm to character and for unproven surface-water drainage. The letter is dated 17 August 2026, the day the 2026 Framework took effect, but it runs the December 2024 tilted balance: "paragraph 11 d) … is engaged" (3.04-year supply). It found the adverse impacts "significantly and demonstrably" outweighed the benefits (DL ¶31, 36). The new Framework is not mentioned.

## Issues and findings
- **Character.** "significant urbanising effect … back-land position, uncharacteristic tandem arrangement with the host property and small plot" (DL ¶10). Harm visible only from neighbours' private windows still counted (DL ¶11).
- **Drainage.** "there are gaps in the technical information submitted including in respect of infiltration testing and run off calculations … I am not satisfied that the proposed development could be made acceptable through the imposition of conditions as the surface water drainage system would have a direct bearing upon the layout" (DL ¶17-18).
- **Amenity.** Acceptable (DL ¶20-24).

## Planning balance
Old 11(d) tilted balance. The conflict with the most important policies was given "very significant weight" (DL ¶35). Benefits were modest or moderate (DL ¶32-33).

## What made the difference
Character harm plus a drainage evidence gap that affected the layout. Under the 2026 Framework the same facts would fall to S4(1) with its higher "substantially outweighed" bar, and L2(1)(d) would give substantial weight to an extra home in a residential curtilage. But the scheme takes about two-thirds of the garden (DL ¶9), so the L2(1)(d)(iii) 50% retained-curtilage threshold would likely not have been met. The outcome may well have been the same, but the test was the old one.

## Transferable points
- Transition: at least one 17 August 2026 letter applied the December 2024 Framework without mentioning the new one. Such letters are of limited value as authority on the 2026 tests.
- Where surface-water drainage design would change the layout, it cannot be deferred to a condition (DL ¶18).
- Backland character harm can rest on private views from neighbouring windows (DL ¶11).

## Policy findings
- **NPPF2024 para 11(d): fail.** tilted balance applied under the December 2024 Framework on 17 Aug 2026 — "paragraph 11 d) … is engaged … adverse impacts … would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits" (DL 31, 36); maps to S4(1) in the 2026 Framework
- **OSS4/EN1/EN3 (Rother CS): conflict (significant weight).** backland tandem plot takes two-thirds of garden; urbanising; private views count (DL 5-14); "very significant weight" to conflict with most important policies (DL 35)
- **SRM2 (Rother CS): conflict (significant weight).** code mapped by harvester — F8; gaps in infiltration testing and runoff calcs; drainage affects layout so cannot be left to condition (DL 16-19)
- **HO7: benefit (limited weight).** one self-build dwelling, construction and spend "modest" (DL 32); reuse, energy, BNG etc moderate (DL 33)

## Key facts
- Council supply 3.04 years (January 2026 position statement), undisputed (DL 30)
- Previous refused application and dismissed appeal on the site not addressed (DL 3)
- Decided on 17 Aug 2026, the day the new Framework took effect, but applies old para 11(d) and does not mention the new Framework

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009653
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/09bfe426-3e00-429b-9634-909dec2ead62

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009653.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.