®Planning appeal decision
Land East of the Spinney, Pagham Road, Runcton, West Sussex, PO20 1LD
Planning appeal 3353137 at Land East of the Spinney, Pagham Road, Runcton, West Sussex, PO20 1LD (Chichester District Council) was allowed on 2 July 2025 by Inspector Szymanski D, by written representations. The main issue, as the Inspector framed it: the effect of the proposed development upon the character and appearance of the area including the gap between settlements.
change of use of land to a traveller’s caravan site for 5No. pitches
- Authority
- Chichester District Council
- Appeal type
- minor · Planning Appeal
- Procedure
- Written Representations
- Development
- caravan-gypsy · Minor traveller and caravan pitches
- Inspector
- Szymanski D
- Postcode
- PO20 1LD
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- the effect of the proposed development upon the character and appearance of the area including the gap between settlements
- protected species and the qualifying features of the Singleton and Cocking Tunnel Special Area of Conservation (the SCTSAC) as a habitats site
- the Chichester and Langstone Harbour Special Protection Area (the CLHSPA) and the Pagham Harbour Special Protection Area (the PHSPA) as habitats sites
What decided it
The very significant shortfall in gypsy and traveller pitch provision in the district (around 71 pitches), the absence of any five-year supply, the lack of alternative sites for the appellant and other travellers, and the equality implications of providing a settled base to persons unable to travel, outweighed the moderate harm to character and appearance when the tilted balance was applied.
The moderate harm to character and appearance and the settlement gap was outweighed by the very significant benefits of delivering 5 pitches to address an acute and persistent shortfall in gypsy and traveller accommodation, the absence of alternative sites, and the equality implications, applying the tilted balance under paragraph 11(d) of the Framework.
What the Inspector cited
- Development plan policies
- Policy 36Policy 40Policy 47Policy 48Policy 49Policy 50Policy 51Policy NE2Policy NE3Policy NE5Policy NE7Policy NE8Policy NE10Policy H13Policy H14Policy P1Policy P2Policy P5
- National Planning Policy Framework
- Paragraph 11Paragraph 26Paragraph 27Paragraph 28Paragraph 135Paragraph 139Paragraph 193
- Judgments
- Holborn Studios Ltd v The Council of the London Borough of Hackney (2018)
How the Inspector dealt with each one is set out in the app, in order: the development plan, national policy, housing land supply, other considerations and the planning balance, beside the letter.
See how each was appliedThe decision letter
Town Planner Pro holds this letter. The Appeals plan opens it and every other letter we hold, all of them searchable, with the main issues and what decided each case picked out. We do not show letters on the free site because they carry people’s names and addresses.
With an account
What an account adds to this decision
More decisions in Chichester
The authority’s record since 2016 · every decision in 2025
- Dismissed5 August 20263371769Melita Nursery, Chalk Lane, Sidlesham, PO20 7LW
- Notice varied and upheld3 August 20263372472Littlemead Business Park, Tangmere Road, Tangmere, West Sussex, PO20 2EU
- Dismissed6 July 20266003763Unit 1 The Old Army Camp, Cemetery Lane, Westbourne Emsworth, PO10 8SB
- Dismissed6 July 20266003762The Old Army Camp, Cemetery Lane, Westbourne Emsworth, PO10 8SB
- Dismissed6 July 20266003760Land South of Unit 1, Cemetery Lane, Woodmancote, Westbourne Emsworth, PO10 8SB
The main issues, what decided it, the planning balance and the policies and judgments listed as cited are read from the published letter by Town Planner Pro and are our summary, not the Inspector’s words; the letter itself is the record. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Research, not advice.