A Bolney holiday let can become an unrestricted home after a Planning Inspector allowed an appeal against Mid Sussex District Council’s refusal. The decision, issued on 4 November 2026, applies the August 2026 National Planning Policy Framework to an existing rural building outside the village’s defined settlement boundary.
Inspector F Leung granted permission for the change of use of a two-storey holiday property near Cross Colewood Lane, under appeal reference 6013096 and council application DM/25/2970. The existing permission restricted the building to holiday occupation and prevented its use as anyone’s sole or main residence. The appeal removes that limitation through a new planning permission.
The Bolney holiday let decision is notable for two separate findings. The Inspector accepted that the proposal conflicted with policies protecting countryside locations, tourist accommodation and sustainable travel, but gave greater weight to the newer national policy supporting reuse of existing buildings. A separate application for a full award of appeal costs was refused.
Why the Bolney holiday let appeal succeeded
The existing two-storey property is within the grounds of Tyler House, less than one kilometre from Bolney. It is outside the district plan’s built-up area boundary and is reached by an unlit rural lane with no continuous paved footway. The application sought an unrestricted dwellinghouse rather than a new building or an extension.
Mid Sussex’s 2018 district plan restricts housing in the countryside unless specified criteria are met. Policy DP15 supports certain special justifications and appropriate reuse of rural buildings, but the Inspector found that the proposal did not meet those particular criteria. The existing holiday property was not a heritage asset and the change would not improve its setting.
There were also conflicts with Policy DP1, which protects existing employment and tourism premises, and Policy DP21, which addresses sustainable travel. The Bolney holiday let provided some tourism and servicing employment, while permanent residents would have regular travel needs for shops, education, healthcare and employment.
Yet those conflicts were not the end of the matter. The appeal turned on how much weight the policies should receive alongside the revised national framework, and on the distinction between introducing a new house in open countryside and allowing people to live permanently in a lawful existing building.
How the August 2026 national policy changed the balance
The August 2026 National Planning Policy Framework introduced decision-making policies expressly supporting certain developments outside settlements. Policy S5 applies a presumption in favour of specified forms of development unless their benefits would be substantially outweighed by adverse effects assessed against the relevant national policies.
The Inspector concluded that the Bolney holiday let proposal qualified under Policy S5(1)(c), concerning the reuse or alteration of an existing lawful building of permanent and substantial construction, and Policy S5(1)(d), concerning previously developed land and change of use to residential. No additional building or physical alterations were proposed.
The decision treated the existing property as previously developed land within the Framework definition. Planning Geek’s guide to previously developed land explains why the planning history and current lawful use matter when assessing that classification, especially on rural sites.
Annex A of the revised Framework directs that development plan policies materially inconsistent with its national decision-making policies should receive very limited weight. The Inspector considered Policy DP15 inconsistent with national support for certain changes of use and redevelopment outside settlements, describing its weight as “only very limited” in this case, a short extract from the Planning Inspectorate decision under the Open Government Licence.
In the Bolney holiday let appeal, the modest housing gain nevertheless carried substantial weight under national Policy HO7 because the council could not demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. One additional home would not solve that shortfall, but the Inspector applied the policy’s prescribed importance to housing delivery rather than dismissing a single home as negligible.
Tourism and car dependence still counted against the scheme
The council’s concerns were not rejected out of hand. The Inspector found no substantive evidence that the holiday-let business was unviable, that it had been marketed unsuccessfully or that there was no reasonable prospect of continued tourism use. Its loss would remove some direct servicing work and potential visitor expenditure from the local economy.
The Inspector also recognised that residents would probably use private cars for many regular journeys because the lane had poor walking infrastructure and limited nearby public transport. That was different in character from visitors’ temporary patterns of travel, even though the council had not proved that permanent occupation would generate more vehicle journeys overall.
Those harms received different weights in the Bolney holiday let planning balance. The loss of a relatively small tourism enterprise attracted moderate weight, and the sustainable travel conflict limited weight. The existing building would remain in place, no new house would be constructed and the Inspector found no unacceptable effect on highway safety.
That does not mean holiday accommodation can generally be converted to an unrestricted dwelling without permission. A restriction in the existing planning consent can require a fresh application, and each proposal’s lawful baseline, development plan and national policy context must be assessed. Our guidance on serviced accommodation and holiday letting explains why occupation patterns and consent conditions matter.
Existing case law did not determine the outcome
The appellant referred to Moore v Secretary of State [2012] EWCA Civ 1202, a Court of Appeal authority concerning whether commercial holiday occupation may amount to a material change of use. The Inspector acknowledged the fact-and-degree principle discussed in that case.
However, the existing Bolney permission expressly limited occupation to holiday purposes and ruled out a sole or main residence. That made the appeal a decision about the planning merits of unrestricted occupation, rather than an attempt to use the court judgment as a shortcut around the condition. The planning balance was decided on the evidence and current policies.
Why the separate costs application was refused
The Bolney holiday let appellant also sought a full award of costs against Mid Sussex District Council. The separate costs decision, also dated 4 November 2026, refused that application. The Inspector concluded that the council had provided a reasoned assessment under the development plan and the policies relevant at the time.
The appellant argued that supporting transport material and earlier appeals had not been given proper attention. The costs decision noted that the council’s officer report addressed policy conflicts, highway considerations, the lack of objection from the parish council and the benefit of an extra dwelling. Reaching a different planning judgement was not, by itself, unreasonable conduct.
Crucially, the revised Framework had been published after the application decision and before the appeal determination. That change introduced national policies carrying weight in favour of the proposal. The Inspector concluded there had been no unreasonable behaviour causing unnecessary or wasted appeal expense, the test applied under Planning Practice Guidance.
The result is a useful distinction for applicants. Winning a Bolney holiday let appeal because policy has changed during the appeal process does not automatically establish that the council was wrong to make its original decision, still less that it behaved unreasonably for costs purposes.
The Planning Inspectorate appeal record identifies the underlying case. The appeal decision and separate costs decision are also available on AppealBase.
0 Comments