Land on north side of Lodge Lane, Bolney

Decision

dismissed, 16 September 2026

Decided by

Planning Inspector: A Wright

Authority

Mid Sussex (South East)

Appeal reference

6009838

Application reference

DM/26/0317

Procedure

written representations

Development

Permission in principle for a phased development of up to 9 self-build dwellings

Homes

9

Site context

open countryside, rural lane, conservation area, listed building setting

Green Belt

No

Housing land supply

3.38 years

Framework applied

August 2026 NPPF

Determinative policies

S5(1)(j), S5(4), HE6, TR3

Development plan policies

Mid Sussex District Plan 2014-2031 DP6, DP12, DP15, DP21, DP26, DP34, DP35, Bolney Neighbourhood Plan 2016 BOLBB1, BOLE2, BOLD1

Main issues

suitability of location; character and appearance; heritage

Summary

Permission in principle for up to nine self-build homes in a field near Bolney (Mid Sussex) was refused on appeal. Supply was 3.38 years, so there was an evidenced unmet need. But the site was not "physically well-related" to Bolney for S5(1)(j): it was reached by a single access onto a lane far from the village core and separated by gaps from nearby houses. S5(4) therefore applied, and the substantial HO7 weight did not substantially outweigh the location, character and heritage harms.

Issues and findings

• S5(1)(j): FAIL on "well-related". "Development in the settlement of Bolney is largely centred around The Street … In contrast, the proposed residential development … would have a single access point onto Lodge Lane some distance from The Street, with a gap between it and the public footpath and nearby properties. As such, regardless of whether it would be of a scale which could be accommodated … it would not be physically well-related to the existing settlement" (DL ¶15).
• Unmet need. "There is no dispute that the Council is unable to demonstrate a five year supply … 3.38 year supply … Consequently, there is an evidenced unmet need" (DL ¶14).
• TR3: FAIL. Lodge Lane "includes two very sharp bends … no separate footways or streetlights and for the most part is subject to the national speed limit" (DL ¶19). "There are examples where Inspectors have accepted that unlit lanes with no footpaths may provide acceptable walking or cycling routes in rural locations … However, the nature of the route … and the infrequent bus services … would limit their attractiveness, particularly for older people, those with reduced mobility or with children and at times of darkness and bad weather" (DL ¶20).
• Heritage (HE6): limited harm to the CA and The Thatched House, not outweighed (DL ¶37-40).
• Self-build. The UU was unexecuted, so self-build could not be secured and got limited weight (DL ¶46).

Planning balance

S5(4): "it should only be approved in exceptional circumstances, where the benefits of the proposal would substantially outweigh the adverse effects" (DL ¶44). HO7 carried substantial weight (DL ¶45). The location, character and heritage harms carried "considerable weight" (DL ¶48). The benefits did "not substantially outweigh", so there were no exceptional circumstances (DL ¶49).

What made the difference

The "physically well-related" limb. The inspector judged it by the village's form (centred on The Street) and by physical contiguity: the site kept gaps to existing houses and had its own access onto a remote lane. The council's large Foxhole Farm approval, also outside the boundary, was distinguished because it came with pedestrian and cycle links and bus improvements.

Transferable points

• "Physically well-related" in S5(1)(j) looks at relationship to the settlement's form and core, and at gaps between the site and existing houses (DL ¶15).
• The infrastructure-capacity limb of (j)(i) is irrelevant if the site is not well-related (DL ¶15).
• Failing (j) sends the scheme to S5(4), where the benefits must substantially outweigh the harms (DL ¶44-49).
• Unlit lanes without footways are not automatically unacceptable, but sharp bends, national speed limit and infrequent buses tip the balance (DL ¶19-20).
• A larger nearby approval outside the boundary is distinguishable where it offered active-travel links and bus enhancements (DL ¶21).

Policy findings

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

Key facts

• Site set about 6 m off the Bolney built-up area boundary - not "contiguous" for DP6 (glossary definition; Corbett v Cornwall considered)
• Supply 3.38 years (from appeal APP/D3830/W/25/3361729, Oct 2025); self-build deficit 488 plots; UU not executed
• Council-approved 200 homes at Foxhole Farm (DM/25/1129) distinguished - it had pedestrian/cycle links and bus enhancements

Sources

• Appeal on the Planning Inspectorate appeals service
• Decision letter (Planning Inspectorate)

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.