Planning permission has been granted for a 70 home housing development in West Wittering. A planning inspector ruled that the development's contribution to needed housing provision in the area outweighed the harm that the development would cause to the surrounding countryside.
Developers Welbeck Strategic Land IV LLP, applied for planning permission for 70 homes on a four-hectare rural site. Initially, Chichester District Council refused planning permission, citing the impact of the development on the surrounding area and the lack of access to local services as their reasons, but the developer appealed their decision. The developer and council also contested the area's supply of housing land.
Chichester District Council claimed a 5.28 year supply of housing land, this was disputed by the appellant who suggested that some windfall sites should be discounted from the calculation of the housing supply. The planning inspector on appeal found that amount of windfall housing sites in the area was historically high.
At appeal, the housing inspector, Anne Jordan, accepted evidence from Welbeck Strategic Land that some sites which were counted as windfall in the housing supply calculation were actually appeal sites given permission when the council could not demonstrate a five-year supply, or were draft allocations. Jordan stated she could not include major windfall sites in the housing calculations, and consequently removed 280 homes from the supply. She also scrutinised other sites included in the supply, and removed a further 180 homes from the total. This meant that the housing land supply was 4.6 years, which was below their five-year target.
The planning inspector also looked at the impact of the development on the appearance and character of the area. They accepted that the development would utilise sensitive landscaping however there would still be a significant harmful impact on the countryside and a loss of open views.
Inspector Jordan dismissed grounds that the residents of the new development wouldn't have access to local services and infrastructure, as the site has good transport links to Chichester.
When ruling on the appeal, Jordan weighed up the harm on the rural landscape the development would cause, along with the loss of agricultural land, against the benefits of the development which included 21 affordable homes and local jobs. She stated that because Chichester District Council did not have a five year housing supply, the balance therefore automatically tilted in favour of the development, as it would bring 70 homes to the area. Jordan ruled that these benefits outweighed any harm the development would cause to the surrounding countryside and allowed the appeal, providing the development with outline planning permission.
