Industrial and logistics warehouses at Land At Temple Bar Junction, Stane Street, Boxgrove
Summary of planning committee decision
Decided by Chichester Planning Committee on 13 May 2026.
What was proposed
The application sought outline permission for up to 42,487 square metres of industrial and logistics floorspace, with access and landscaping decided at this stage.
“Proposal Outline application some matters reserved except Access and Landscaping - construction of industrial/warehousing floorspace (Use Class B2/B8) with ancillary office accommodation, associated car parking provision, utilities and other infrastructure, green infrastructure, landscaping and highway works.”
“The application seeks outline planning permission, with all matters reserved except access, for industrial and logistics warehousing with a maximum floor area of 42,487 sqm (GEA), together with associated office accommodation, parking and supporting infrastructure.”
Officer report
Earlier advice
Earlier pre-application advice indicated that officers were unlikely to support a larger logistics warehouse proposal on the site.
“23/01776/PRELMP Unlikely to receive officer support Pre application advice for Outline Planning Permission, with all matters reserved except access, for erection of a new logistics warehouse development for up to 60,385 sqm B2/B8 floorspace.”
Officer report
Why officers advised refusal
Officers found conflict with the employment strategy, harmful countryside and National Park effects, unresolved flooding, parking and ecological impacts, despite economic and highway benefits.
“The proposal would result in unjustified development within the designated countryside, together with the unjustified loss of Best and Most Versatile agricultural land. The proposal conflicts with the Chichester Local Plan (CLP) strategy for meeting strategic employment land needs and could potentially undermine the CLP strategy for employment land, particularly if the A20 allocation in not fulfilled due to the accommodation proposed by this application.”
“The proposal would compromise the site's transitional role in marking the start of the rural landscape and its role as setting for the SDNP, would result in a harmful urbanising effect, substantially altering the rural character of the area, impact the setting of the South Downs National Park, and fail to demonstrate sensitivity towards the setting of the South Downs National Park and local landscape character.”
Officer report
Who spoke
The committee heard from a Boxgrove Parish Council representative and the applicant’s agent after the report and update information were presented.
The committee vote
Members agreed by a show of hands to support the officers’ recommendation to refuse the application.
“Following a vote by show of hands, the Committee agreed to support the report recommendation to refuse.”
Minutes
Required obligations were missing
The refusal included the absence of a signed legal agreement securing highway works, landscaping management and biodiversity net gain monitoring.
“Off-site highways work (New Road interventions, Old Arundel Road cycle route improvements plus street lighting and speed limit, Stane Street bus stop upgrades, change from derestricted to 50mph on Stane Street – the latter requiring successful completion of a TRO) • Travel Plan and Travel Plan monitoring fee (£3,950) • The provision of the off-site landscape works, and ongoing management and maintenance including measures • The provision of off & on-site ecology woodland…”
“7) In the absence of a signed Section 106 legal agreement the application makes no provision for securing the necessary infrastructure obligations the proposal generates including the provision of off-site highways works, the provision and on-going management and monitoring of off-site landscaping, and a monitoring fee for the on-site BNG, which would enable the Local Planning Authority to undertake its statutory duties to monitor the BNG provided by the applicant for the…”
Officer report
The members' reasons
“The Members agreed that wildlife corridors adopted in a development plan should be included as an excluded site.”
Minutes
Source: the council's minutes, quoted word for word.
Sources
- Chichester Planning Committee minutes, 13 May 2026
- Agenda and papers (council website)
Source: Plota analysis of Chichester's committee minutes and officer report. Quotations are the council's own words; headings and summaries are Plota's.
Committee decisions and nationwide planning applications, in one API
The Plota API returns planning applications from every council we cover, each with its decision, whether a committee or officers decided it, and the committee date. Build it into your own tools.
See the API →At the meeting
- Committee
- Chichester Planning Committee
- Council
- Chichester
- Date
- Wednesday 13 May 2026
- Recommendation
- Officers recommended refusal
- Committee decided
- Refused
- Minutes
- The council's minutes
- Meeting
- Agenda and papers (council website)
- Application
- The application (council website)
- All decisions
- Chichester committee decisions →
This committee's year
31 decisions in the 12 months to this meeting, 4 against officer advice.
Source: Plota analysis of the committee's minutes.