Worthing council wins court battle to block homes in Goring Gap

Plans had been drawn up to build 475 homes on 20 acres on the edge of the South Downs but the planning application was rejected by the council.

Developers took the case all the way to the Court of Appeals, but the plans have now been quashed by a bench of judges.

Worthing Borough Council leader Dr Beccy Cooper said: "Our communities have been united in their desire to keep this green land as part of our coastal environment and I am absolutely delighted by the Court of Appeal’s decision.

“We are very mindful of the need to balance our acute housing need, particularly for local residents currently struggling to afford homes here, with our need for green space.

MOST READ:

• Time called on classic car run as organisers blame ULEZ and 'reduced parking' in city
• Restoration of historic Madeira Terrace delayed again over 'escalating costs'
• 'Brighton and Hove is the best city in the world' - new leader call for ambition

“Both are essential for our community wellbeing and we will continue to balance these needs as we move forward with building new homes in Worthing and along our coastline.

“In the middle of a climate emergency, protecting our green land is essential to ensure our children and grandchildren can thrive."

Goring Green Gap

Developers Persimmon Homes had submitted a planning application to build the homes on Chatsmore Farm between Worthing and Ferring in 2021 but this was rejected by the council.

However, this decision was later challenged by the housebuilders who appealed and were supported by the planning inspectorate. The council then appealed itself in the hope of going back to its initial decision and a bench of three judges at the High Court eventually ruled in favour of the council.

In a written statement Judge Sir Keith Lindblom said the High Court had been right to overturn the decision of the planning inquiry because the planning inspector had not explained why he thought the development would not damage the national park.

He said: “At least, in my view, the inspector’s reasons fell short of what was required in law. They leave a substantial doubt about the lawfulness of his approach to one of the principal issues he had to resolve. And that is enough to require his decision to be set aside.”