# 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 (years):** 3.23
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** S5
- **Development plan policies:** Arun Local Plan W DM2
- **Main issues:** suitability of location for residential development
- **Tags:** PIP, s5-1-j, s5-limb-not-identified, flood-risk, pdl, housing-shortfall, small-scheme, costs-application, transitional-no-consultation

## 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- **Flood risk.** "The Environment Agency has subsequently revised its position and withdrawn its objection to housing being located on the site.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
- **S5(1)(j): pass.** letter cites "Framework Policy S5" without a limb; 3.23-year supply as unmet need, well related to the settlement, scale accommodated by infrastructure - the (j)(i) wording (DL 14)
- **F7: pass.** Flood Zone 3a; Environment Agency withdrew objection subject to floor levels; no safety risk (DL 11, 13)
- **F5: not-engaged.** sequential test not mentioned for a Flood Zone 3a housing site (DL 11-13)

## 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
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010637
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/77c35548-fcdb-45fc-bddd-a0340ca917a3

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010637.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.