Case Reference: 3284653

Appeal Decision
Inquiry held on 8-11 and 14-16 February 2022
Site visit made on 25 February 2022
by G Rollings BA(Hons) MAUD MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 11th April 2022
Appeal Ref: APP/L3815/W/21/3284653
Field South Of Raughmere Drive, Lavant West Sussex, PO18 0AB
• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
against a refusal to grant outline planning permission.
• The appeal is made by [APPELLANT] against the decision of Chichester
District Council.
• The application Ref LV/20/02675/OUTEIA, dated 16 October 2020, was refused by
notice dated 16 July 2021.
• The development proposed is an outline application with all matters reserved (except
for access) for the development of 140 dwellings, public open space, landscaping,
parking and associated works.
Decision
1. The appeal is dismissed.
Preliminary Matters
2. The development plan for the area comprises the Chichester Local Plan: Key
Policies 2014-2029 (CDCLP)1 and the Lavant Neighbourhood Development Plan
2016-2031 (2017) (LNP)2. The Council’s Local Plan review is at an early stage
and is subject to further consultation and revision. I therefore accord it only
minimal weight in my decision. However, various documents have informed
the development of the Plan thus far and were presented as evidence to which
I refer below.
3. A completed and signed Planning Agreement (s106 Agreement) was submitted
after the Inquiry closed. It contains no alterations to the version discussed at
the Inquiry. The third reason for refusal on the Council’s decision notice stated
relates to the absence of a s106 Agreement. It was common ground at the
Inquiry that provision of the Agreement meant that this reason would no longer
be in contention.
Main Issues
4. The main issues were agreed at the Inquiry as being:
• whether the Council can demonstrate a five-year housing land supply;
• the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area,
including the setting of the South Downs National Park (SDNP) and the gap
between Chichester and Lavant; and
1 CD 4.1.
2 CD 4.2.
• whether the proposal would provide satisfactory living conditions for
occupiers of the development, with particular regard to road traffic noise and
noise associated with the operation of the Goodwood Aerodrome and the
Goodwood Motor Circuit.
Reasons
Housing land supply
Calculating the need
5. The appellant disputes the Council’s claim that it can demonstrate a five-year
housing land supply (HLS), with the parties citing a supply of 3.7 and 5.3 years
respectively. The CLP is more than five years old, and a recent appeal
decision3 in the district found that the relevant housing supply policies are out
of date. Assessing local need is complicated by the incursion of the South
Downs National Park (SDNP) into the Chichester District Council area, with
each of the authorities having its own objectively assessed need (OAN) figure.
6. Using the standard method set out in the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG),4
the Council published an updated position of its HLS in April 20215 to cover the
2021-2022 period, indicating a need of 759 dwellings per annum (dpa),
including land within the SDNP. This figure is not disputed but requires
adjustment to account for that part of the district within the SDNP. The 2017
SDNP Housing and Economic Development Needs Assessment6 (HEDNA) was
published in 2017 found an OAN for 125 dpa within the Chichester portion of
the SDNP, representing 28% of the need within the whole of the SDNP, which
the Council has subtracted from its figure to reach a five-year housing
requirement figure of 666 dpa (incorporating a 5% buffer).
7. However, the subsequent South Downs Local Plan (2019) (SDLP)7 designated a
lower figure, with reference to restrictions to development in the protected
landscape of the SDNP. The expected housing figure of 250 dpa within the
whole of the SDNP represents a shortfall of 197 dpa against the OAN. The
appellant’s calculation method uses the 28% figure to extrapolate a figure of
70 dpa, and following the same method as the Council, has calculated a
housing requirement of 723 dpa.
8. The HEDNA is the most up-to-date analysis of the housing need and its
underpinning issues within the SDNP. Its methodology is robust. Furthermore,
the SDLP figure is based on an expectation of supply rather than need alone,
and whilst I have some sympathy for the view that unmet need within the
SDNP will continue to be unmet, apportioning this need requires a level of
analysis best suited to the local plan review process. The Council’s approach
considers the ‘best available information’ as set out within the PPG in cases
where a locally determined method of assessing need is suitable,8 given that it
considers local circumstances in detail. Accordingly, the Council’s housing
requirement figure is the most appropriate for use in this appeal.
3 CD 6.02.
4 PPG: Paragraph: 001 Reference ID: 68-001-20190722.
5 CD 8.3.01.
6 CD 8.2.05.
7 CD 8.2.04.
8 PPG: Paragraph: 014 Reference ID: 2a-014-20190220.
Supply: Windfall allowance
9. Neither the National Planning Policy Framework (2021) (the Framework) nor
the development plan define windfall sites in terms of their size. That
paragraph 69 of the Framework omits plots larger than ‘small or medium’ does
not mean that these are precluded as windfall sites, nor is there anything to
suggest that the inclusion of small or medium sites makes this a closed list. My
view accords with that of the Secretary of State’s on the Hanging Lane appeal.9
10. The Council’s ‘Critical Friend Review’ analysis of windfall completions of recent
years indicates that these comprise a high percentage of overall completions –
between 71% and 100% between the periods 2011/12 and 2019/20.10 Figures
for 2020/21 were lower, but the overall trend over this lengthy period suggests
that windfall sites would also constitute a large proportion of approvals within
the district. Although perhaps not the strategic approach envisaged by the
Framework at paragraph 68, it does allow for the use of windfall sites provided
that there is compelling evidence that they will be a reliable source of supply
(paragraph 71). The high delivery rate continued for several years following the
adoption of the CDCLP in 2015 which suggests that completions during this
time would have been approved under the then recently adopted plan. Given
the long-term trend, there is nothing to suggest that windfall sites should not
be considered as a reliable supply source.
11. The aforementioned analysis does not define ‘large’ sites but refers to major
development: that of ten or more dwellings. The trend was reflected in the
delivery of major windfall development,11 with the rebuttal evidence of the
Council’s witness indicating that such development was generally permitted by
the Council, rather than through the appeals process. This is an indicator of
major windfall development as a reliable delivery source. The Council’s
preferred figure of 140 dpa includes a downward adjustment on the past trend,
allowing for the adoption of a new local plan in the coming years and is, in my
view, based on a robust assessment.
Supply: Individual sites
12. Two sites were identified by the appellant as potentially being undeliverable
within the current five-year HLS period. Firstly, Cooks Lane has outline
permission for 199 dwellings, granted in March 2020. There were strong
indications at the current period’s base date that reserved matters applications
were to be submitted in the following months. The development would be
delivered by a reputable volume housebuilder, and I see no reason to dispute
this site’s inclusion in the current HLS period.
13. The second site, Tangmere, did not have outline permission at the base date.
The PPG indicates that permission is a good indicator of site availability12 but
also sets that other evidence may be suitable.13 At the base date, the
development agreement had been signed with the development partner nearly
two years previously and a Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) had been made.
In addition, the site is allocated for development within the CDCLP but a s106
planning agreement had not been signed, despite progress being made.
9 Appeal ref: APP/P4605/W/18/3192918.
10 CD 8.3.02 table 12.
11 CD 8.3.02 table 22.
12 PPG: Paragraph: 019 Reference ID: 3-019-20190722.
13 PPG: Paragraph: 007 Reference ID: 68-007-20190722.
However, despite the Council’s expectation of a successful outcome to the CPO
process, this was not assured.
14. Given the potential for uncertainty on site assembly, I am not convinced that
the deliverability of the site was assured at the base date. In my view this does
not constitute the clear evidence that housing completions would begin on the
site within 5 years, as set out within the Framework’s definition of ‘deliverable’.
15. I have considered the possibility of including information received between the
base date and the present time, and whether this should be added to the base
date position to update the deliverability of sites. The Inspector in the Hanging
Lane decision suggested that such information could be taken into account in
instances when, for example, this could confirm previous assumptions to be
well founded. My views on the potential uncertainty of the CPO process,
despite the Council’s confidence of a positive outcome, leads me to be hesitant
in applying this to the Tangmere development. The fact that there was an
agreement signed with a national housebuilder does not alter my view that, as
of the base date, the development was at too early a point to be considered
deliverable in accordance with the Framework. Accordingly, I have removed
178 dwellings from the supply calculation.
Five-year HLS position
16. Taking the above in account, the Council has a total supply of 3,356 dwellings.
With a small surplus of 26 dwellings above the agreed five-year housing
requirement of 3,330 dwellings, I consider that the Council has a HLS of 5.039
years. I therefore conclude on this main issue that the Council can demonstrate
that it has a five-year housing land supply.
Character and appearance (landscape)
17. The northern edge of the site adjoins the SDNP and forms part of its setting,
both through its proximity to the site and in views and approaches to and from
the SDNP. The site is also located between the built-up area of Chichester to
the south and the various small settlements of Lavant, which are within the
SDNP. It is bound on its western edge by the A286, Lavant Road and is part of
one of the strategic gaps between settlement identified in policy, with land to
the west and east of the site also part of the gap.
18. Relevant Development Plan Policies include: CDCLP Policy 2, which seeks to
prevent the coalescence of settlements; Policy 33, which seeks to ensure that
new residential development respects the landscape and character of the area
in which it is set; Policy 45, which sets out criteria for development outside
settlement boundaries in limited circumstances; Policy 47, which seeks to
maintain the individual identity of settlements; and Policy 48, which sets out
that there should be no adverse impact on the setting of the SDNP, amongst
other considerations. Further policies relevant to this appeal are LNP Policies
LNDP1, which seeks to protect the gaps between the Lavant settlements and
Chichester; LNDP2 pertaining to the setting of the SDNP; and LNDP3 which
protects against the coalescence of settlements, amongst other factors.
19. In a journey along Lavant Road, by vehicle or on foot, the traveller experiences
the three ‘zones’ of Chichester, the gap, and Lavant/the SDNP in relatively
quick succession. The transition between each of these is perceptible, due to
the clear edge to existing development in Chichester, the openness of the gap,
and the village character of Lavant. As well as its role in preventing the
coalescence of the settlements, the open nature of the gap and the site in
particular is a sharp contrast to the built-up nature of Chichester and Lavant
and contributes to both the physical and perceived separation of the two.
20. Views across the site are an important component of this experience. Although
the built-up edge of Chichester and/or Lavant are almost always visible from
either Lavant Road or the right-of-way along the eastern edge of the site, the
size of the existing field provides a sense of distance that does not detract from
the site’s open nature, or its contribution to the rural character of the gap.
21. The southernmost part of the site was previously the subject of an application
for residential development, which was dismissed on appeal in 201414 (the
2014 appeal/scheme). The Inspector in that instance found that development
of the site would be harmful to the strategic gap and diminish its purpose.
Protection of the site was carried through to the subsequent LNP as set out
above, and the Local Plan review evidence recognises that there are significant
constraints to the development of the site.15
22. Although residential development in the current proposal remains clustered in
the southern part of the site, it differs from the 2014 scheme through different
siting and incorporating landscaping elements that seek to mitigate the impact
of new buildings on the existing character. This includes a tree band with the
purpose of visually screening the new dwellings from Lavant Road. Setting
aside the fact that the trees would take many years to mature and achieve
their intended purpose, the open part of the site would be substantially
reduced, which would diminish the gap and correspondingly affect both the
visual and perceptual separation of Chichester and Lavant.
23. This effect would be compounded by the interventions proposed on Lavant
Road and the northern part of the site. At present, despite its traffic, the
appearance of Lavant Road is not urban. Upon passing the petrol filling station
and emerging from the wooded area, the immediate impression of leaving
Chichester and entering rurality is reinforced by the narrowing of the road, the
treatment of its edges, its enclosing/bordering features and the visibility of the
South Downs. The new junction into the site would necessitate a widening that,
although affecting only a short part of the road, would nonetheless have an
urbanising effect. The proposed crossing interventions on the road would have
a lessened but similar effect.
24. The outline proposal provides for a country park on the northern part of the
site which the indicative plans show as remaining generally open. Whilst the
design of the park would be a reserved matter, I acknowledge that there is an
intention for a pastoral landscape within this area. However, any land of a
publicly managed nature is likely to have a detrimental effect when compared
with the quiet rural nature of the existing land, by virtue of visitor activity, as
well as any proposed hard or soft landscaping interventions.
25. I heard at the Inquiry that although the site would be outside the current
Chichester settlement boundary, it would be considered by existing residents
as neither part of Chichester nor Lavant. Given what I heard regarding the
importance of the gap in contributing to the settlements’ boundaries both
14 CD 6.01.
15 CD 8.1.01 and CD 8.1.02.
physically and perceptually, it also provides a ‘sense of place’, contributing to
the legibility of the area for those who use it. Part of this is the anticipation of
entering a new area in the context of a journey between the two settlements,
which includes the approach and arrival into the SDNP. The reduction of the
open part of the site and corresponding length of the ‘rural’ part of a journey
on Lavant Road would negatively affect this legibility and be detrimental to the
setting of the SDNP.
26. Cumulatively, these changes would result in a deterioration of the rural
character of the site, a diminution of the gap and its purposes in separating
Chichester and Lavant and harm the setting of the SDNP. I therefore conclude
that it would have a harmful effect of the development on the character and
appearance of the area. It would conflict with CDCLP Policies 33, 45, 47 and 48
and LNP Policy LNDP3, for the reasons set out above. These policies are
generally consistent with the Framework.
Living conditions (noise)
27. Three main noise sources are identified: general aviation traffic from the
Goodwood Aerodrome on the Goodwood Estate to the east of the site; racing
activity also at the Estate; and Lavant Road to the west. The prevailing wind
direction is from the west and south-west, which affects both noise carriage
and aircraft movements. The Noise PPG16 states that the cumulative impacts of
more than one source of noise is a relevant factor to consider. Although
prospective residents would be unlikely to hear noise from all three sources at
once due to wind direction and the resultant use of various aerodrome
runways, the existence of multiple sources suggests that the use of cumulative
data would be the most appropriate in assessing any impact on prospective
living conditions.
28. Runway 24 is used during south-westerly wind conditions and is thus one of
the busiest runways for take-offs17. During ascent, aircraft turn over the site,
reflecting its present undeveloped status. The summer is the aerodrome’s
busiest period.
29. The Noise Policy Statement for England (2010) (NPSE)18 identifies the Lowest
Observed Adverse Effect Level (LOAEL) as the level above which adverse
impacts on health and quality of life can be detected; and the Significant
Observed Adverse Effect Level (SOAEL) as the level above which significant
adverse effects occur. The appellant has identified the SOAEL for the site at an
equivalent continuous level over 16 hours (L ) of 60 decibels in dwellings’
Aeq
gardens and 40 dB L in living rooms. Externally, this is higher than the BS
Aeq
8233:201419 upper guideline value for external space in noisier environments
of 55 dB L , which recognises that this level may not be achievable in some
Aeq
circumstances and that design should mitigate higher levels.
30. Nonetheless, 55 dB L is the Council’s SOAEL baseline, which is adjusted
Aeq
downward to 52-53 dB L to take account of the circumstances of the site and
Aeq
the multiple noise sources. However, given that not all noise sources would
have the same impact or be heard at the same time, I am not convinced that
this is appropriate. The appellant’s design target is 55 dB L . Taking into
Aeq
16 CD 8.4.44 (Paragraph: 006 Reference ID: 30-006-20190722).
17 ID 09.
18 ID 10.
19 CD 8.4.33.
account the guidance and given that there is some common ground in this
matter, this is an appropriate level at which to set the SOAEL.
31. The aerodrome may operate up to 70,000 flight movements per annum under
its current section 52 agreement, but infrastructural constraints mean that
52,000 is the highest possible level of operation, and I heard that 30,000 has
been more typical of recent years. It is reasonable to assess the development
based on the operational capacity of 52,000, and assuming that 26,000
movements would be take-offs, the noise assessment submitted by the
appellant20 calculates a 54.3dB L . However, this can ‘spike’ – for example, if
Aeq
there were busy days with 104 aircraft movements over the site, as is possible
during the summer, there would be a cumulative noise level of or over 55 dB
L at five of the garden receptor points within the indicative design layout of
Aeq
the scheme on these days. The SOAEL would be exceeded at three of these
and given that both flights and garden use increases in the summertime, this
noise could be a particular source of annoyance for residents. Moreover,
cumulative noise levels modelled for internal areas with windows open would
exceed the relevant SOAEL of 40 dB L at all of the receptor points.
Aeq
32. Quantitative analysis provides only ‘half the picture’ of what it might be like to
live at the site. The Government’s 1988 qualitative analysis of general aviation
traffic21 found that 15% of the population would be “very much annoyed” at
general aviation noise levels of 55 dB L measured over one week. The
Aeq
evidence indicates that although this level would not generally be exceeded
externally, it would be internally. It is not reasonable to expect residents to
accept that they would need to keep their windows closed to experience
acceptable noise conditions during the hottest time of the year. Such
conditions could result in complaints from residents, which could lead to
implications for the future operation of the Aerodrome. Paragraph 187 of the
Framework states that development that could be significantly adversely
affected by the operation of an existing business, suitable mitigation should be
provided. Given the data, I am not convinced that this could be satisfactorily
achieved.
33. The effects of noise on prospective living conditions was also an issue in the
2014 appeal. That appeal considered only aircraft movements, but the
Inspector found that noise levels at that time were sufficient to potentially
induce “serious annoyance” which would affect living conditions and “impinge
on the enjoyment and use of gardens by prospective residents” with no
mitigation possible. The usage trends of the aerodrome do not indicate that
there has been a substantial change since then, and taking account into the
above considerations, I consider that similar conditions would apply in the
proposed scheme.
34. I therefore conclude that the proposed development would not provide
satisfactory living conditions for the occupiers of the development, with
particular regard to road traffic noise and noise associated with the operation of
the Goodwood Aerodrome and the Goodwood Motor Circuit. It would conflict
with CDCLP Policy 33, which requires that new residential development
provides a high-quality living environment in keeping with the character of the
surrounding area and its setting in the landscape, amongst other
considerations, and which is generally consistent with the Framework.
20 CD 8.4.35.
21 CD 8.4.05.
S106 Agreement
35. The heads of terms of the s106 Agreement were agreed between the main
parties prior to the Inquiry. Given that an obligation may constitute a reason
for granting planning permission only if it meets the tests set out in Regulation
122 of the Community Infrastructure Regulations 2010 and paragraph 57 of
the Framework, it falls to me to reach a finding on its acceptability.
36. The proposal would provide on-site affordable housing comprising 30% of the
total number of dwellings. This complies with the requirement set by Policy 34
of the CDCLP and contribute to local supply as set out in the planning balance
section below.
37. Contributions would be paid by the appellant to the Council to mitigate the
impact of development on the Chichester and Langstone Harbours Special
Protection Area (the SPA). The development is within the 5.6km ‘zone of
influence’ of the SPA and it had been determined by both the Council and
Natural England that the development would result in increased recreational
pressures causing disturbance to birds. Natural England has no objection to the
development, based on the measures proposed, which are in line with the
Council’s Planning Obligations & Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning
Document (2016) (the SPD). I have not considered the implications of the
effects on the SPA in further detail because the scheme is unacceptable for
other reasons.
38. The proposed highway works would be necessary to enable both efficient and
safe access to the site, provide new access across Lavant Road, and bus stops.
There would be a contribution paid to National Highways towards the cost of
carrying out proposed works on the A27, based on the impact of additional
traffic generated by the development, and a travel plan would be prepared,
which would encourage sustainable modes of transport. These matters satisfy
the requirements and guidance of CDCLP Policies 7, 8, 13 and 39, and the SPD.
39. Provision and installation of the green and play spaces around the
development, the management company and a monitoring fee satisfy the
requirements of CDCLP Policies 9, 33, 43, 45, 47, 48, 49, 52 and 54, the SPD
and LNP Policy LNDP3. The various sums within the obligation are justified and
I am satisfied that the Council could rely on the document to secure the
contributions. Moreover, I am content that the obligations meet the
requirements of the statutory and acceptability tests.
Planning Balance
40. I found above that the Council is able to demonstrate that it has a five-year
HLS. Although the CDCLP is older than five years, I do not consider this appeal
to be one where the development plan policies that are the most important for
determination are out of date, and therefore paragraph 11(d) of the Framework
is not engaged.
41. The development would provide 13 shared ownership dwellings, 15 affordable
rented dwellings and 14 social rented dwellings. The appellant calculated that
the Council had an undersupply of 1,245 affordable homes in the five-year
period to 2015/16. An undersupply of 208 dwellings was recorded in
2019/2020 based on an affordable need of 348 dwellings and 140 completions.
The mix would accord with the need set out in the Council’s HEDNA22 and
taking account of the persistent undersupply, I give the provision of affordable
homes significant weight in my decision. I acknowledge that the market homes
would also meet local need but given that the Council can demonstrate a HLS
and appropriate levels of past supply, this attracts only minimal weight.
42. The proposal would provide economic benefits to the local area through the
effects of construction and impact on local services. The parties considered
that this matter should attract moderate weight, and I agree.
43. The new play areas would be unlikely to provide benefits for those living
outside the development, due their distance from and lack of connectivity to
existing homes. New pedestrian connections would be created, although I am
not convinced that these would be of great benefit to those outside the
development. I have no evidence to suggest that the country park would meet
any identified need for local open space and I have afforded these
considerations only minimal weight. However, a net gain in biodiversity
through habitat creation attracts moderate weight. There would be a net loss of
nitrogen into protected habitats, mostly as a result of the loss of the site’s
current agricultural status, which also attracts moderate weight.
44. Nonetheless, the harm caused by the proposed development’s impact on the
character and appearance of the area, and the likely living conditions of
residents, would be substantial. The adverse impacts of the proposal
significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits such that the proposal
does not represent sustainable development. Accordingly, there are no material
considerations to indicate that I should determine the appeal otherwise than in
accordance with the development plan.
Conclusion
45. For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.
G Rollings
INSPECTOR
22 ID 26d.
APPEARANCES
FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY
Andrew Parkinson Instructed by Nicola Golding,
of Counsel Solicitor, CDC
He called
Alex Roberts AssocRTPI Director, Lambert Smith Hampton
Robyn Butcher FLI Director, The terra firma Consultancy
Mike Stigwood MIOA FRSPH MCIEH Director, MAS Environmental Ltd
Andrew Robbins MRTPI Senior Planning Officer, CDC
FOR THE APPELLANT
Christopher Boyle Instructed by Jon Lambert MRTPI,
of Queen’s Counsel [APPELLANT].
He called
Matthew Spry MRTPI MIED FRSA Senior Director, Lichfields
Andrew Smith CMLI Joint Managing Director, fabrik
Nigel Mann MIOA Director – Environmental Scientist,
Tetra Tech Ltd.
Also appearing
Jamie Lockerbie Solicitor, Pinsent Masons
Jessica Craske Solicitor, Pinsent Masons
INTERESTED PERSONS
Nathaniel Belderson MRTPI Planning Link Officer,
South Downs National Park Authority
Ruth Childs Landscape Officer,
South Downs National Park Authority
Haydn Morris MRTPI Director, HMPC Ltd
(for Goodwood Estate)
Cllr Jeremy Hunt Councillor, Chichester North,
West Sussex County Council
Nick Reynolds Lavant Parish Council
Alan Taylor Lavant Parish Council
James Pickford Lavant Parish Council
John Halliday Summersdale Residents’ Association
Richard & Nicolette Meyer Local residents
Mark Todd Local resident
Roger Hitch Local resident
John Long Local resident
Clifford Vince Local resident
Graham Reed Local resident
David Priscott Local resident
Carley Sitwell Local resident
Philip Scott Local resident
CORE DOCUMENTS REFERENCED IN THIS DECISION
CD 4.1 Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies 2014-2029.
CD 4.2 Lavant Neighbourhood Development Plan 2016-2031 (2017).
CD 6.01 Appeal Decision ref: APP/L3815/A/13/2200123.
Decision date: 11 February 2014.
CD 6.02 Appeal Decision ref: APP/L3815/W/21/3274502.
Decision date: 4 November 2021.
CD 8.1.01 Chichester District Council Landscape Capacity Study –
Section B Sub-area Reports: East West Corridor (2019).
CD 8.1.02 Chichester Local Plan Review 2035 Landscape Gap Assessment for
Chichester District Council May 2019.
CD 8.2.04 South Downs Local Plan (2019).
CD 8.2.05 South Downs National Park HEDNA Final Report (2017).
CD 8.3.01 Chichester Local Plan Area – Five Year Housing Land Supply
2021-2026 Updated Position at 1 April 2021.
CD 8.3.02 Chichester District Council 5YHLS Critical Friend Review (2021).
CD 8.4.05 A Study of Community Disturbance Caused by General and Business
Aviation Operations, Final Report. Department of Transport,
July 1988.
CD 8.4.33 BS 8233:2014.
CD 8.4.35 Noise Assessment, October 2021.
CD 8.4.44 PPG: Noise
CD 8.4.45 BS 8233:1999.
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED AT THE INQUIRY
ID 1 Opening Submissions on Behalf of the Appellants.
ID 2 Opening Comments on Behalf of CDC.
ID 3 Schedule of Major Site ‘Windfalls’.
ID 4 High Resolution Verified Visual Montages.
ID 5 Goodwood Motor Circuit Diary 2022.
ID 6 Oral Submission of John Halliday / Summersdale RA.
ID 7 Draft s106 Planning Agreement.
ID 8 Statement of Common Ground in relation to noise.
ID 9 Goodwood Flight Data.
ID 10 Noise Policy Statement for England, March 2010.
ID 11 Landscape submission of Richard Meyer.
ID 12 MAS Adjustment of Tetra Tech Table 5.4 data to reflect higher
Summertime flight activity.
ID 12a MAS Adjustment of Tetra Tech Table 5.4 data to reflect higher
Summertime flight activity (update).
ID 13 Appendix 4 extract from proof of Vernon Cole, appeal ref.
APP/L3815/W/21/3270721.
ID 14 Lavant PC submission on additional 3D information.
ID 15 Tetra Tech 11 Feb 2022 – Additional Flight Analysis.
ID 16 Status of CDC Policies.
ID 17 Scant Road appeal committee report (CH/20/1826/FUL).
ID 18 CDC Rural Housing Needs Survey report, Lavant Parish, June 2014.
ID 19 Questions for the appellant from Graham Reed.
ID 20 Lichfields Note on Planning Issues Raised by Third Parties.
ID 21 Statement from Alan Taylor / Lavant PC.
ID 22 Email from Goodwood Estates in response to flight data request.
ID 23 Statement from Nick Reynolds / Lavant PC.
ID 24 Site visit programme, 18 February 2022.
ID 25 Statement from Carley Sitwell.
ID 26 GL Hearn Coastal West Sussex Strategic Housing Market Assessment
Update, Final Report, November 2012.
ID 26a GL Hearn Coastal West Sussex SHMA Update, Chichester District
Summary Report, November 2012.
ID 26b GL Hearn Chichester Housing and Economic Development Needs
Assessment, January 2018.
ID 26c GL Hearn Chichester Housing and Economic Development Needs
Assessment, Final Report, January 2018.
ID 26d GL Hearn Chichester Housing and Economic Development Needs
Assessment, Final Report, September 2020.
ID 27 Approved Judgment – Wavendon Properties v SSHCL
[2015] EWHC 1524 (Admin).
ID 28 Approved Judgment – Gladman Developments Limited v SSHCLG
[2021] EWCA Civ 104.
ID 29 PPG – Neighbourhood planning.
ID 30 PPG – Determining a planning application.
ID 31 Statement from David Priscott.
ID 32 Further statement from Lavant PC.
ID 33 Closing Comments on Behalf of CDC.
ID 34 Closing Submissions of Behalf of the Appellants.
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED AFTER THE INQUIRY
Planning Agreement (submitted 1 March 2022).