“Mixed use development comprising up to 475 dwellings along with associated access, internal roads and footpaths, car parking, public open space, landscaping, local centre (uses including A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, D1, D2, as proposed to be amended to use classes E, F and Sui Generis) with associated car parking, car parking for the adjacent railway station, undergrounding of overhead HV cables and other supporting infrastructure and utilities”
“01. The proposed development is outside of the built-up area as defined in the Worthing Core Strategy and the emerging Submission Draft Worthing Local Plan and is not allocated for residential development. The proposal is therefore contrary to policy 13 of the Worthing Core Strategy and emerging policies SS4, SS5 and SS6 of the Submission Draft Worthing Local Plan, resulting in the coalescence of settlements and the loss of an important area of green space that contributes to local amenity, sense of place and wildlife. Furthermore, it is considered that the adverse impacts of the development would demonstrably outweigh the benefits as substantial adverse landscape and visual effects would arise from the development affecting the local area and the wider landscape, including the landscape setting to the National Park (therefore adversely affecting its statutory purpose to conserve and enhance its natural beauty and cultural heritage), Highdown Hill scheduled Monument and the Conservation Area. 02. The application is considered to be premature as the development proposed is so substantial, and its cumulative effect would be so significant, that to grant permission would undermine the plan-making process in particular its overall spatial strategy about the location of new development, its landscape evidence and proposed green space designations that are central to the emerging Submission Draft Worthing Local Plan. The proposal therefore fails to comply with paragraph 49 of the National Planning Policy Framework.”
“Policy 13 The Natural Environment and Landscape Character Worthing’s development strategy is that new development needs can be met within the existing built up area boundary and, with the exception of the West Durrington strategic allocation, will be delivered on previously developed sites, therefore: • Residential development outside of the existing built up area boundary will only be considered as part of a borough-wide housing land review if there is a proven under-delivery of housing within the Core Strategy period. • Other proposals that support countryside based uses, such as agriculture and informal recreation may be considered if they are deemed essential and/or can contribute to the delivery of the wider strategic objectives. If development in these areas is proposed it must take into account and mitigate against any adverse effects on visual and landscape sensitivity. ……”
“SS1 SPATIAL STRATEGY Up to 2036 delivery of new development in Worthing will be managed as follows: The Local Plan will: a) seek to provide for the needs of local communities and balance the impact of growth through the protection and enhancement of local services and (where appropriate) the safeguarding of employment sites, leisure uses, community facilities, valued green/open spaces and natural resources; b) help to deliver wider regeneration objectives, particularly in the town centre and seafront, through the allocation of key urban sites; c) seek to increase the rate of housing delivery from small sites. d) The strategy for different parts of the Borough is as follows: i) Land within the Built Up Area Boundary - development will be permitted subject to compliance with other policies in the Local Plan. Development should make efficient use of previously developed land but the density of development should be appropriate for its proposed use and also relate well to the surrounding uses and the character of the area. Within the existing urban fabric nine key regeneration sites are allocated for development. ii) Edge Of Town Sites - six edge of town sites are allocated for development. iii) Open Spaces / Countryside / Gaps - valued open space and landscapes outside of the Built Up Area Boundary are protected. This includes important gaps between settlements, the undeveloped coastline and the features which provide connectivity between these areas.”
“SS5 LOCAL GREEN GAPS The four areas listed below are designated as Local Green Gaps between the settlements of Worthing & Ferring and Worthing & Sompting/Lancing, and will be protected in order to retain the separate identities and character of these settlements. a) Goring-Ferring Gap; b) Chatsmore Farm; c) Brooklands Recreation Area and abutting allotments; and d) Land east of proposed development (site A15) at Upper Brighton Road. Outside of those areas designated as Local Green Space, all applications for development (including entry level exception sites) within Local Green Gaps must demonstrate that individually or cumulatively: Development within these Gaps will be carefully controlled and will only be permitted in exceptional circumstances. Any development must be consistent with other policies in this Plan and ensure (individually or cumulatively): i) it does not lead to the coalescence of settlements; It would not undermine the physical and/or visual separation of settlements; ii) it is unobtrusive and does not detract from the openness of the area; It would not compromise the integrity of the gap; iii) it conserves and enhances the benefits and services derived from the area’s Natural Capital; and iv) it conserves and enhances the area as part of a cohesive green infrastructure network.” i) it does not lead to the coalescence of settlements; It would not undermine the physical and/or visual separation of settlements; ii) it is unobtrusive and does not detract from the openness of the area; It would not compromise the integrity of the gap; iii) it conserves and enhances the benefits and services derived from the area’s Natural Capital; and iv) it conserves and enhances the area as part of a cohesive green infrastructure network.”
“21. The requirement in Policy SS5 to demonstrate ‘exceptional circumstances’ within LGGs is ……unjustified and ineffective and thus should be removed, The suggested changes to criteria i) and ii) also better reflect the perceived purpose of the LGG designation and are more consistent with similar policies in neighbouring areas. They also remove reference to coalescence and openness, which are akin to Green Belt policy. I agree that modifications are necessary to these criteria to be justified and ensure effectiveness.”
“(i)whether the appeal site offers an acceptable location for development having regard to local and national planning policy, the need for housing, the Council’s emerging local plan and the effect of the proposed development on local green space; (ii) the effect of the proposed development on the landscape, including the setting of the South Downs National Park (SDNP); and (iii) whether the residual cumulative impact on the road network would be severe.”
“6. In my judgment at first instance in Bloor Homes East Midlands Ltd. v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government[2014] EWHC 754 (Admin) (at paragraph 19) I set out the “seven familiar principles” that will guide the court in handling a challenge under section 288. This case, like many others now coming before the Planning Court and this court too, calls for those principles to be stated again – and reinforced. They are: “(1) Decisions of the Secretary of State and his inspectors in appeals against the refusal of planning permission are to be construed in a reasonably flexible way. Decision letters are written principally for parties who know what the issues between them are and what evidence and argument has been deployed on those issues. An inspector does not need to “rehearse every argument relating to each matter in every paragraph” (see the judgment of Forbes J. in Seddon Properties v Secretary of State for the Environment (1981)42 P. & C.R. 26, at p.28). (2) The reasons for an appeal decision must be intelligible and adequate, enabling one to understand why the appeal was decided as it was and what conclusions were reached on the “principal important controversial issues”
“36. The reasons for a decision must be intelligible and they must be adequate. They must enable the reader to understand why the matter was decided as it was and what conclusions were reached on the ‘principal important controversial issues’, disclosing how any issue of law or fact was resolved. Reasons can be briefly stated, the degree of particularity required depending entirely on the nature of the issues falling for decision. The reasoning must not give rise to a substantial doubt as to whether the decision-maker erred in law, for example by misunderstanding some relevant policy or some other important matter or by failing to reach a rational decision on relevant grounds. But such adverse inference will not readily be drawn. The reasons need refer only to the main issues in the dispute, not to every material consideration. They should enable disappointed developers to assess their prospects of obtaining some alternative development permission, or, as the case may be, their unsuccessful opponents to understand how the policy or approach underlying the grant of permission may impact upon future such applications. Decision letters must be read in a straightforward manner, recognising that they are addressed to parties well aware of the issues involved and the arguments advanced. A reasons challenge will only succeed if the party aggrieved can satisfy the court that he has genuinely been substantially prejudiced by the failure to provide an adequately reasoned decision.”
“If regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under the planning Acts, the determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.”
“Section 18A [the parallel provision in Scotland] has introduced a priority to be given to the development plan in the determination of planning matters…. By virtue of section 18A the development plan is no longer simply one of the material considerations. Its provisions, provided that they are relevant to the particular application, are to govern the decision unless there are material considerations which indicate that in the particular case the provisions of the plan should not be followed. If it is thought to be useful to talk of presumptions in this field, it can be said that there is now a presumption that the development plan is to govern the decision on an application for planning permission….. By virtue of section 18A if the application accords with the development plan and there are no material considerations indicating that it should be refused, permission should be granted. If the application does not accord with the development plan it will be refused unless there are material considerations indicating that it should be granted…. Moreover the section has not touched the well-established distinction in principle between those matters which are properly within the jurisdiction of the decision-maker and those matters in which the court can properly intervene. It has introduced a requirement with which the decision-maker must comply, namely the recognition of the priority to be given to the development plan. It has thus introduced a potential ground on which the decision-maker could be faulted were he to fail to give effect to that requirement. But beyond that it still leaves the assessment of the facts and the weighing of the considerations in the hands of the decision-maker. It is for him to assess the relative weight to be given to all the material considerations. It is for him to decide what weight is to be given to the development plan, recognising the priority to be given to it. As Glidewell L.J. observed in Loup v. Secretary of State for the Environment (1995) 71 P. & C.R. 175, 186: “What section 54A does not do is to tell the decision-maker what weight to accord either to the development plan or to other material considerations.”
“98. …. The second ground on which the Lord Chancellor’s Decision is challenged encompasses a number of arguments falling under the general head of ‘irrationality’ or, as it is more accurately described, unreasonableness. This legal basis for judicial review has two aspects. The first is concerned with whether the decision under review is capable of being justified or whether in the classic Wednesbury formulation it is ‘so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever have come to it’: see Associated Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corpn[1948] 1 KB 223 , 233–234. Another, simpler formulation of the test which avoids tautology is whether the decision is outside the range of reasonable decisions open to the decision-maker: see eg Boddington v British Transport Police[1999] 2 AC 143 , 175, per Lord Steyn. The second aspect of irrationality/unreasonableness is concerned with the process by which the decision was reached. A decision may be challenged on the basis that there is a demonstrable flaw in the reasoning which led to it—for example, that significant reliance was placed on an irrelevant consideration, or that there was no evidence to support an important step in the reasoning, or that the reasoning involved a serious logical or methodological error.”
“11. Plans and decisions should apply a presumption in favour of sustainable development. For plan-making this means that: a) all plans should promote a sustainable pattern of development that seeks to: meet the development needs of their area; align growth and infrastructure; improve the environment; mitigate climate change (including by making effective use of land in urban areas) and adapt to its effects; b) strategic policies should, as a minimum, provide for objectively assessed needs for housing and other uses, as well as any needs that cannot be met within neighbouring areas [FN 6: As established through statements of common ground (see paragraph 27).], unless: i. the application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a strong reason for restricting the overall scale, type or distribution of development in the plan area [FN 7: The policies referred to are those in this Framework (rather than those in development plans) relating to: habitats sites (and those sites listed in paragraph 181) and/or designated as Sites of Special Scientific Interest; land designated as Green Belt, Local Green Space, an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, a National Park (or within the Broads Authority) or defined as Heritage Coast; irreplaceable habitats; designated heritage assets (and other heritage assets of archaeological interest referred to in footnote 68); and areas at risk of flooding or coastal change.]; or ii. any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole. For decision-taking this means: c) approving development proposals that accord with an up-to-date development plan without delay; or d) where there are no relevant development plan policies, or the policies which are most important for determining the application are out-of-date, [FN 8: This includes, for applications involving the provision of housing, situations where the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites (with the appropriate buffer, as set out in paragraph 74); or where the Housing Delivery Test indicates that the delivery of housing was substantially below (less than 75% of) the housing requirement over the previous three years.], granting permission unless: i. the application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a clear reason for refusing the development proposed; or [FN 7: The policies referred to are those in this Framework (rather than those in development plans) relating to: habitats sites (and those sites listed in paragraph 181) and/or designated as Sites of Special Scientific Interest; land designated as Green Belt, Local Green Space, an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, a National Park (or within the Broads Authority) or defined as Heritage Coast; irreplaceable habitats; designated heritage assets (and other heritage assets of archaeological interest referred to in footnote 68); and areas at risk of flooding or coastal change.] ii. any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole.”
“60. To support the Government’s objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes, it is important that a sufficient amount and variety of land can come forward where it is needed, that the needs of groups with specific housing requirements are addressed and that land with permission is developed without unnecessary delay.”
“Green infrastructure: A network of multi-functional green and blue spaces and other natural features, urban and rural, which is capable of delivering a wide range of environmental, economic, health and wellbeing benefits for nature, climate, local and wider communities and prosperity.”
“Strategic policies should set out an overall strategy …. and make sufficient provision for: ….. d) conservation and enhancement of the natural …..environment, including landscapes and green infrastructure….”
“119. Planning policies and decisions should promote an effective use of land in meeting the need for homes and other uses, while safeguarding and improving the environment and ensuring safe and healthy living conditions. Strategic policies should set out a clear strategy for accommodating objectively assessed needs, in a way that makes as much use as possible of previously-developed or ‘brownfield’ land.”
“174. Planning policies and decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by … b) recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside, and the wider benefits from natural capital and ecosystem services - including the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land, and of trees and woodland; …”
“This would limit the overall visual impact and with around 14 ha of land remaining undeveloped, the physical or visual separation of the settlements would not be undermined.”
“….whilst I acknowledge the appeal site is of landscape and amenity value to the local community, and that its loss would result in some harm in this respect, I am not persuaded that the proposed development would materially undermine the landscape value of the ‘gap’.”
“Strategy for Worthing 3.8 As previously highlighted, the most significant constraining factor when considering future development is land availability. Worthing is tightly constrained and there is little scope to grow beyond the current Built Up Area Boundary without merging with the urban areas of Ferring (to the west) and Sompting/Lancing (to the east) and without damaging the borough’s character and environment. Furthermore, the town is relatively compact and there are very few vacant sites or opportunity areas within the existing Built Up Area that could deliver significant levels of growth. 3.9 Therefore, the reality is, that when compared to many other local authority areas, there are relatively few options for growth. As a result, in many respects, the spatial strategy taken forward in this Plan is similar to that incorporated within the Worthing Core Strategy (2011) which placed a strong emphasis on regeneration and transforming key previously developed sites within the urban area. This approach reflects the NPPF which encourages local authorities to make as much use as possible of brownfield sites to meet development needs. However, in response to the need to meet as much as possible of the housing need for Worthing, one key change has been the need to now look more positively at potential development options located around the edge of the borough. 3.10 The spatial strategy seeks to achieve the right balance between planning positively to meet the town’s development needs (particularly for jobs, homes and community facilities) with the continuing need to protect and enhance the borough’s high quality environments and open spaces within and around the town. The overarching objective is therefore to maximise appropriate development on brownfield land and add sustainable urban extensions adjacent to the existing urban area. The core principles, set out in the policy below, take account of the characteristics of the borough and provide a clear direction for development in and around the town. The spatial strategy will help to steer new development to the right locations whilst at the same time helping to protect those areas of greatest environmental value / sensitivity.”
“8.10 The development strategy set out in this Core Strategy (and as supported by the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment) is clear in that all of the borough’s development requirements can be delivered within the existing built up area boundary. Furthermore, with the exception of the West Durrington strategic development, all major developments are expected to be located on previously developed sites. This will comply with the requirements of PPS3 – Housing, to locate the majority of new housing on previously developed land.”
“46. The starting point to be taken when interpreting planning policy seems to me to be the wording of the policy itself, assisted, if necessary, with words from the supporting text. If the words of the policy with the supporting text are not clear or are ambiguous then, but only then, it may be permissible to have regard to documents incorporated within the plan itself. That is consistent with the approach in the case of Phides. It would be entirely unrealistic to expect any party reading the development plan, whether a member of the public, developer or land owner to have to resort to an investigation of other background documents. That is particularly so given the public interest in the role of planning. It follows that even if the policy is ambiguous or not clear I do not accept that it is appropriate to have resort to the various versions of the inspector's report to clarify the meaning as the first defendant invites the court to do. The extent to which one can have regard to other documents in determining the meaning of policy is not, in my judgment, at large but is circumscribed by the development plan and what is incorporated within it.”
“(2) In exercising or performing any functions in relation to, or so as to affect, land in a National Park, any relevant authority shall have regard to the purposes specified in subsection (1) of section five of this Act and, if it appears that there is a conflict between those purposes, shall attach greater weight to the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the area comprised in the National Park.”
“(1) The provisions of this Part of this Act shall have effect for the purpose— (a) of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the areas specified in the next following subsection; and (b) of promoting opportunities for the understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of those areas by the public.”
“176. Great weight should be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in National Parks, the Broads and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty which have the highest status of protection in relation to these issues. The conservation and enhancement of wildlife and cultural heritage are also important considerations in these areas, and should be given great weight in National Parks and the Broads. The scale and extent of development within all these designated areas should be limited, while development within their setting should be sensitively located and designed to avoid or minimise adverse impacts on the designated areas.”
“46. In my judgment the East Northamptonshire DC case is not directly applicable in this case since the 1988 Act requires the planning authority not to have “special regard” to the matter as does section 66(1), but simply to have regard to it. In this respect the 1988 Act follows other planning legislation, for example, theTown and Country Planning Act 1990, s. 70(2) ; theNational Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, s. 11A(2) ; and theNational Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, s. 40(1) . To have regard to a matter means simply that that matter must be specifically considered, not that it must be given greater weight than other matters, certainly not that it is some sort of trump card. It does not impose a presumption in favour of particular result or a duty to achieve that result. In the circumstances of the case other matters may outweigh it in the balance of decision-making. On careful consideration the matter may be given little, if any, weight.”
“30. This, in my view, is plain on a straightforward reading of paragraph 172 in its context, having regard to its obvious purpose. The policy is not actually expressed in terms of an expectation that the decision will be in favour of the protection of the “landscape and scenic beauty” of an AONB, or against harm to that interest. But that, in effect, is the real sense of it – though this, of course, is not the same thing as the proposition that no development will be permitted in an AONB. If the effects on the AONB would be slight, so that its highly protected status would not be significantly harmed, the expectation might – I emphasise “might” – be overcome. Or it might be overcome if the effects of the development would be greater, but its benefits substantial. This will always depend on the exercise of planning judgment in the circumstances of the individual case. 31. In Bayliss v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government[2014] EWCA Civ 347 , at paragraph 18 of his judgment (cited by Ouseley J. in Franks v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government[2015] EWHC 3690 (Admin) , at paragraph 25), Sir David Keene said this of the concept of “great weight” in the equivalent policy in the first sentence of paragraph 115 of the original version of the NPPF, which was in almost exactly the same terms as the first sentence of the paragraph 172 of the July 2018 version: “18. … [That] national policy guidance, very brief in nature on this point, has to be interpreted in the light of the obvious point that the effect of a proposal on an AONB will itself vary: it will vary from case to case; it may be trivial, it may be substantial, it may be major. The decision maker is entitled to attach different weights to this factor depending upon the degree of harmful impact anticipated. Indeed, in my view it would be irrational to do otherwise. The adjective “great” in the term “great weight” therefore does not take one very far. … .” 32. I agree. The most important point here, however, as Holgate J. recognised (in paragraph 53 of his judgment), is that the requirement in the policy in the first part of paragraph 172 for “great weight” be given to the conservation and enhancement of landscape and scenic beauty in an AONB does not prevent its application providing a clear reason for the refusal of planning permission.” “18. … [That] national policy guidance, very brief in nature on this point, has to be interpreted in the light of the obvious point that the effect of a proposal on an AONB will itself vary: it will vary from case to case; it may be trivial, it may be substantial, it may be major. The decision maker is entitled to attach different weights to this factor depending upon the degree of harmful impact anticipated. Indeed, in my view it would be irrational to do otherwise. The adjective “great” in the term “great weight” therefore does not take one very far. … .”
“Setting of the NP and views from within it. 44. As noted above, the appeal site is visible from within the SDNP, with clear views of the appeal site possible from the Scheduled Monument at Highdown Hill as well as from parts of Highdown Rise and the car park at Highdown Gardens. It forms part of the middle distance, framed to either side by the settlements of Goring-by-Sea and Ferring, with longer range, extensive views towards the sea. 45. The SDNP Authority has not raised any specific concerns in relation to views from within the SDNP or with the impact of the proposed development on the setting of the National Park. Nevertheless, the Council consider that the overall effect of the proposal on views from Highdown Hill would be substantial adverse. 46. I do not agree. While I note that views are breath-taking from this vantage point, I observed that the appeal site itself is not prominent in those views and the focus is clearly on the sea. This accords with the Viewpoint Characterisation and Analysis Study (2015) [FN17: South Downs National Park: View Characterisation and Analysis (November 2015) (CD-G6).] which identifies Highdown Hill as a good vantage point from which to view the surrounding landscape and recognises that, notwithstanding the densely populated areas of Worthing and Ferring, extensive sea views are the main focus. Even though the proposed development would be visible in the mid-ground view, it would nevertheless be seen in the context of existing development-much of which already extends further north and in closer proximity to the SDNP than would the proposed development. 47. I accept that the addition of built form on the appeal site would result in a clearly perceptible and noticeable change to the existing view. However, these views already include intrusive development which affect the tranquillity from within the SDNP. The appeal site would be seen within this context. Extensive views towards the sea and the sense of tranquillity within this part of the SDNP would not materially alter and while I accept there would be change to the view, I concur with the appellant that the level of harm would be moderate adverse and not significant. 48. Turning then to the views from Highdown Rise and the public car park at Highdown Gardens [FN18: See LVIA Appendix C (Photographs 19 and 20) and Appendix I (Viewpoints 19 and 20) (CD-A11).], from these locations within the SDNP I acknowledge the proposed development would, from certain viewpoints, be more noticeable. However, as with views from Highdown Hill, it would be seen within the context of the existing development south of the A259 and would appear neither overly prominent, visually intrusive or materially affect views towards the sea. 49. Paragraph 176 of the Framework does not seek to restrict development within the setting of a national park but instead advises that it should be sensitively located and designed to avoid or minimise adverse impacts. In view of its location towards the southern end of the site, and the limited impact on views from within the SDNP, I consider that would be the case with the development proposed and do not therefore consider that the setting of the SDNP or views from within it would be materially affected.”
“Visual magnitude of change Substantial Large and dominating changes which affect a substantial part of the view. Moderate Clearly perceptible and noticeable changes within a significant proportion of the view. Slight Small changes to existing views, either as a minor component of a wider view, or smaller changes over a larger proportion of the view(s). Negligible Very minor changes over a small proportion of the views. Neutral No discernible change to the views.”
“Substantial The proposals would have a significant impact on a view from a receptor of medium sensitivity … and would be an obvious and dominant element in the view. Moderate The proposals would impact on a view from a medium sensitive receptor … and would be a readily discernible element in the view. Slight The proposals would have a limited effect on a view from a medium sensitive receptor but would still be a visible element within the view … Negligible The proposals would result in a negligible change to the view but would still be discernible. Neutral No change in the view.”
“6.51 The release of a greenfield site for development will inevitably give rise to a certain level of landscape harm but for the reasons I have already given, the Appeal Scheme has been landscape led and has been carefully crafted to respond to both its landscape and townscape setting in a sensitive manner. As such, it creates a more appropriate and softer boundary to the urban area that presently exists. ….It will not introduce a form of development that is at odds with the prevailing character of the coastal plain and as such will not materially impact on the setting of the South Down National Park.”
“8.51 As required, I attach great weight to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in National Park, but in the present case the proposed scheme could be carried out without any significant harm. The development would not therefore conflict with the relevant NPPF policies relating to the setting of the National Park. 8.52 It is important to note that national policy in NPPF paragraph 176 does not establish a requirement for nil detriment in all cases. Instead, schemes should be designed to avoid or minimise adverse impacts. It states that:- “176….. The scale and extent of development within all these designated areas should be limited, while development within their setting should be sensitively located and designed to avoid or minimise adverse impacts on the designated areas.” 8.53 The evidence explains how a landscape led approach has been taken in the masterplanning of the site in order that any necessary mitigation is embedded into the proposals. 8.54 Even though Mr Self concludes that the proposals would not materially impact on the setting of the South Downs I have adopted a precautionary approach in light of NPPF paragraph 176 and would be prepared to afford up to moderate weight to the adverse effects of the development on the wider area including the setting of the National Park given its status.” “176….. The scale and extent of development within all these designated areas should be limited, while development within their setting should be sensitively located and designed to avoid or minimise adverse impacts on the designated areas.”
“5.31 The Inspector made his own evaluative judgment and plainly identified “moderate adverse and not significant” harm in respect of views from within the SDNP. It is therefore manifestly clear and obvious that harm to the SDNP was properly assessed and thereafter taken into account by the Inspector …..”