Longbrook Pavillion, Hook Lane, Bognor Regis

Decision

allowed, 24 September 2026

Decided by

Planning Inspector: Stewart Glassar

Authority

Arun (South East)

Appeal reference

6010637

Application reference

BR/51/26/PIP

Procedure

written representations

Development

Permission in principle for a maximum net gain of 8 dwellings on the site of a former nursery school building

Homes

8

Site context

settlement edge, PDL, flood zone 3

Green Belt

No

Housing land supply

3.23 years

Framework applied

August 2026 NPPF

Determinative policies

S5

Development plan policies

Arun Local Plan W DM2

Main issues

suitability of location for residential development

Summary

Permission in principle for up to eight homes on a former nursery-school site at the edge of Bognor Regis, just outside the settlement boundary in a strategic gap and in Flood Zone 3a. The Council accepted the location under its plan, and the Environment Agency withdrew its flood objection subject to floor levels. With a 3.23-year supply the inspector found the scheme accorded with S5 (the (j) wording). The letter does not mention the sequential test. Allowed.

Issues and findings

• Transition. The 2026 Framework was taken into account (DL ¶5). No consultation.
• Location. "even though the site is physically and visually well related to the nearby houses, it is not within the built-up area of Bognor Regis and is instead within the strategic gap" (DL ¶9). The plan allows development in the gap that does not undermine separation, and the Council did not object on location (DL ¶10).
• Flood risk. "The Environment Agency has subsequently revised its position and withdrawn its objection to housing being located on the site. Subject to certain floor levels being achieved for the new houses, there would be no safety risk were the site to flood" (DL ¶11). No F5 sequential test is discussed.
• S5: PASS. "As the site would be well-related to the existing settlement and be of a scale which can be accommodated taking into account the existing availability of infrastructure, it would accord with Framework Policy S5" (DL ¶14).

Planning balance

Plan accordance plus S5. No explicit S5 balance of benefits against adverse effects is set out (DL ¶13–14, ¶18).

What made the difference

The Environment Agency's change of position and the Council's acceptance of the location. The inspector treated the flood issue as settled by the floor-level safety answer.

Transferable points

• A previously developed site across a boundary path from houses can be "well-related to the existing settlement" for S5(1)(j) even though it is outside the plan boundary and in a strategic gap (DL ¶9, ¶14).
• Caution: a Flood Zone 3a housing PIP allowed without any sequential-test reasoning. Contrast PINS-6009106, where a thin sequential test was fatal at PIP stage.

Policy findings

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

Key facts

• Site is outside the settlement boundary (a foot/cycle path) and in the strategic gap between Bognor Regis and Felpham, but previously developed and physically and visually well related to houses (DL 9-10)
• Costs application by the appellant against the Environment Agency, decided separately (DL 2)
• Highway authority did not object in principle (DL 15)

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.