Case Reference: 3261401

Appeal Decision
Hearing held on 30 June & 1 July 2021
Site visit made on 8 July 2021
by Robert Parker BSc (Hons) Dip TP MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 19 August 2021
Appeal Ref: APP/Z3825/W/20/3261401
Land north of Sandy Lane, Henfield, West Sussex
• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
against a refusal to grant outline planning permission.
• The appeal is made by [APPELLANT] against the decision of
Horsham District Council.
• The application Ref DC/20/0427, dated 28 February 2020, was refused by notice dated
29 May 2020.
• The development proposed is 35 new dwellings, including 35% affordable housing with
vehicular and pedestrian access via Dropping Holms, the provision of public open space,
associated infrastructure and landscaping.
Decision
1. The appeal is dismissed.
Preliminary Matters
2. The application is made in outline with details of access provided for
consideration. Matters of layout, scale, appearance and landscaping are
reserved for future approval. I have treated the submitted block plan as being
indicative of the proposed layout.
3. A final draft of a unilateral undertaking (UU) was tabled for discussion at the
hearing. A signed version was submitted after the event. The UU secures 37%
of the new dwellings as affordable units and a financial contribution towards
advertising a Traffic Regulation Order to restrict parking on Dropping Holms. It
also deals with matters relating to the provision and transfer of the public open
space on the site. The Council is satisfied that the UU has addressed the fourth
reason for refusal in respect of affordable housing.
4. The Henfield Neighbourhood Plan 2017-2031 (HNP) was formally made on
23 June 2021. This document, which was still emerging at the point the Council
issued its decision, now forms part of the development plan and I have
determined the appeal on this basis.
5. Following the hearing, the Government published a revised National Planning
Policy Framework (‘the Framework’). The parties have had an opportunity to
comment on the implications for the appeal.
6. My site visit followed a route jointly agreed between the main parties and the
Campaign to Protect Rural Henfield (CPRH). I was able to make an assessment
of the proposal from two residential properties in Chanctonbury View.
Main Issues
7. The main issues are:
a) whether the proposal would conflict with the settlement strategy of the
development plan;
b) the extent to which the Council is unable to demonstrate a five year supply of
deliverable housing sites;
c) the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area; and
d) the effect on the setting of nearby listed buildings and the setting of Henfield
Conservation Area.
Reasons
Settlement strategy
8. The appeal site covers an area of 2.11 hectares. It lies outside of, but adjoins
the defined built-up area for Henfield within the Horsham District Planning
Framework (2015) (HDPF). The significance of this in policy terms needs to be
understood by reference to a number of HDPF policies.
9. Policy 2 sets out the overall strategy for development within the District.
Amongst other things, this policy supports the sustainable development of
settlements through an appropriate scale of development which retains the
existing settlement pattern over the plan period. It also seeks to manage
development around the edges of existing settlements in order to prevent the
merging of settlements and to protect the rural character and landscape.
10. Policy 3 is not directly relevant to this appeal, but is useful context. The policy
is permissive of development within towns and villages which have defined
built-up areas. This reflects the priority to locate appropriate development,
including infilling, redevelopment and conversion within built-up area
boundaries, with a focus on brownfield land. The supporting text explains that
land outside built-up area boundaries is considered to be in the countryside and
development here will be more strictly controlled.
11. Policy 4 sets out the circumstances under which development will be permitted
outside of built-up area boundaries. The use of the term ‘and’ within the policy
is a clear indicator that proposals should meet all five criteria in order to be
acceptable. The first criterion stipulates that the site should adjoin an existing
settlement edge and should also be allocated in the Local Plan or in a
neighbourhood plan. On plain reading, the policy does not permit unallocated
sites outside of built-up area boundaries. The appellant’s interpretation would
undermine the spatial strategy which is predicated on planned expansion of
existing settlements through the Local Plan or neighbourhood planning.
12. Policy 26 seeks to protect the rural and undeveloped nature of the countryside
against inappropriate development. In order to be acceptable, a proposal
outside of settlement boundaries must be essential to its countryside location
and it must meet one of the four criteria. Although it is suggested that the
proposal would enable the sustainable development of rural areas, there is no
compelling evidence to persuade me that major housing schemes should be
deemed acceptable in principle under this policy.
13. The appellant contends that the proposal would constitute a windfall site. The
HDPF glossary defines such sites as those which are not specifically allocated
for development in the Local Development Framework but which unexpectedly
become available for development during the lifetime of a plan. The appeal site
would comply with that definition as it is not allocated for development, but that
in itself does not make the proposal acceptable as the development plan needs
to be read as a whole. The majority of windfall housing developments will take
place within settlement boundaries, whereas those that do not will need to be
justified by other material considerations as departures from HDPF Policy 4.
14. In the Threals Lane decision1 cited by the appellant the Inspector concluded
that there would be a small conflict with one single element of Policy 4, in
terms of the fact that the site is not allocated within the development plan or a
neighbourhood plan. However, in that case it was determined that there would
be no other harm. For reasons I will go on to explain, that is not the situation
with the current appeal.
15. A number of other appeal decisions have been cited in support of the Council’s
case. I agree with the finding of the Inspector and Secretary of State in the
Sandgate Nurseries2 appeal that Policy 4 should be taken at face value. If a site
is not allocated in a Local Plan or a neighbourhood plan, it fails the first criterion
and hence the expansion of the settlement is not able to be supported by
development of that site, no matter how well the site performs against the
other criteria.
16. The Council is content that the proposal for 35 dwellings would be appropriate
to the scale and function of Henfield. There is no dispute that the settlement
has a good range of services and facilities, strong community networks and
local employment provision, together with reasonable bus services. In that
respect, the proposal would comply with the second criterion of HDPF Policy 4.
However, the site’s position outside of the built-up area boundary creates a
conflict with HDPF Policies 2, 4 and 26. This is not a technical breach, as the
appellant suggests, but a conflict with the plan-led settlement strategy.
17. Policy 1 of the HNP sets out a Spatial Plan for the Parish. It reaffirms the
built-up area boundary and states that development proposals outside of this
boundary will be supported where they conform, as appropriate to their location
in the neighbourhood area, to national, HDPF and South Downs Local Plan
policies in respect of development in the countryside. The explanatory text
notes that the effect of the policy is to confine housing and other development
proposals to within the built-up area boundaries. The HNP allocates sites for
270 dwellings but this does not include the appeal site; its approach to sites
outside of the built-up area boundary is parasitic upon the HDPF. Thus, the
proposal is also in conflict with the Spatial Plan within HNP Policy 1 (P1.2).
Housing land supply
18. Prior to the hearing the parties submitted a Statement of Common Ground in
relation to housing land supply. This identifies the five year period to be used
1 APP/Z3825/W/16/3150965
2 APP/Z3825/W/14/3001703
for the purpose of calculating the housing land supply position as 1 April 2020
to 31 March 2025. It is common ground that for the purposes of this appeal the
minimum housing requirement is 4735 dwellings, using the standard method
and based on the use of a 5% buffer. The main parties disagree over the
deliverable supply, with eight sites and the windfall component in dispute. The
Council believes that it can demonstrate a 4.98 year supply of deliverable
housing sites, whereas the appellant puts the figure lower at 4.08 years.
19. The Framework states that to be considered deliverable, sites for housing
should be available now, offer a suitable location for development now, and be
achievable with a realistic prospect that housing will be delivered on the site
within five years. In particular, it states that where a site has outline planning
permission for major development or has been allocated in a development
plan, it should only be considered deliverable where there is clear evidence [my
emphasis] that housing completions will begin on site within five years.
20. The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) explains that evidence may include current
planning status (for example, on larger scale sites with outline permission how
much progress has been made towards approving reserved matters, or whether
these link to a planning performance agreement that sets out the timescale for
approval of reserved matters applications and discharge of conditions); firm
progress being made towards the submission of an application; firm progress
with site assessment work; or clear relevant information about site viability,
ownership constraints or infrastructure provision.
21. Kilnwood Vale is a strategic development site, originally allocated in the West
of Bewbush Joint Area Action Plan adopted by the Council and Crawley Borough
Council in 2009. The site is complex and in multiple phases across two parishes.
There is agreement that Phases 1-3 and 6 will deliver 750 dwellings within the
five year period. The dispute relates to Phases 4 and 5 in the parish of Rusper.
These phases have outline permission as part of a much larger site. The Council
anticipates that a reserved matters application will be submitted in early 2022.
However, delivery of housing north of the railway line is contingent upon the
discharge of a condition on the outline permission relating to a bridge. There is
currently no agreement on the provision of this infrastructure and no firm
timescales on when the condition will be discharged. This leads me to the view
that it is premature for the Council to include 180 units within its supply.
22. Land north of Horsham is a strategic development site, originally allocated in
the HDPF. The site has outline planning permission for 2750 dwellings across
various phases and some of the key infrastructure is either in place or under
construction. The Council has counted 700 units towards its five year supply
figure, based upon information supplied by Legal and General with whom the
authority has a positive working relationship.
23. Reserved matters approval has been granted for 193 dwellings on Reserved
Matters Area (RMA) 1 and all pre-commencement conditions have been agreed.
Construction is scheduled to start imminently and consequently there is no
reason why this scheme cannot begin to deliver units in 2021/22. There is a
current reserved matters application for 197 dwellings on RMA 2 which I
understand is due to be approved soon under delegated powers. The Council is
also considering a further reserved matters application for 221 dwellings on
RMAs 6 and 7 and has held pre-application discussions for 178 units on Phase
1E. For the latter site there is no information from the developer on timescales
for submission of an application and I note that development of this site will be
partly reliant upon construction of a link road which is yet to be approved.
24. The above phases would be built out by a minimum of four developers. Based
on credible evidence of build-out rates for other sites on the edge of Horsham,
it is reasonable to expect each developer to deliver 75 units per annum. The
schemes on RMAs 6 and 7 would use modular construction methods and this
would reduce the build-out time. Consequently, I consider that there is a
realistic prospect of building out these phases within the five years, even
allowing for unforeseen delays in the as yet undetermined reserved matters
application. There is clear evidence to demonstrate that 6113 dwellings will be
delivered in the five year period. There are uncertainties relating to the balance
of the 700 units, not least because they are not yet the subject of any
application, and therefore I have omitted these from the Council’s supply figure.
25. The former Novartis Site in Horsham has outline planning permission for up
to 300 dwellings which are to be built out in two phases. The site is owned by
West Sussex County Council which is proposing to partner with a developer.
That partner has been identified, but the legal relationship had not been
formalised at the date of the hearing. Although the County Council has provided
a projected timeline for development, this will be dependent upon a successful
reserved matters application. Despite the aspirations of the landowner to forge
ahead, I have seen no evidence of pre-application discussions and there is no
other information before me to indicate that firm progress has been made
towards submission of a reserved matters application. As such, it is premature
to include 133 dwellings in the supply.
26. Turning now to allocations within the HNP, the appellant contends that none of
the sites were deliverable at the base date as the neighbourhood plan had not
been made. Notwithstanding the Inspector’s comments in the Woolpit4 case, I
can see nothing within the Framework or PPG to support the assertion that
these sites cannot be included in the five year supply, if more up-to-date
evidence clearly demonstrates that they will deliver within the five year period.
27. Land north of Parsonage Farm is allocated for 205 dwellings. The site is being
promoted by a strategic land company who have an agreement with the sole
landowner. The Council has supplied evidence of technical site assessment work
and a viability appraisal which was carried out to support the proposed site
allocation. At that stage, the promoter provided anticipated timescales for
planning applications and details of its delivery record on other schemes. Whilst
this demonstrates intent, I have no means of knowing whether this site will
follow the same trajectory. It is possible that the site will deliver the projected 40
units within the five years, but this is by no means certain. There are hurdles to
jump in terms of getting a developer on board, gaining outline and reserved
matters permissions and discharging conditions. Furthermore, I am told that the
outline application will be for up to 230 dwellings; there is no guarantee that this
increase in numbers will be supported. There are too many unknowns and thus
the information before me does not meet the bar for proving deliverability.
28. Land east of Wantley Hill is another HNP allocation, this time for 25 units.
The site has been subject to water level and infiltration tests, and there have
been some preliminary discussions with the parish council. The County Council
3 193 + 197 + 221
4 APP/W3520/W/18/3194926
has been in the process of tendering for a development partner and I note the
intention to submit an application by December 2021. However, until the joint
venture agreement is finalised and further progress is made towards working
up a scheme, the dates are only speculative. I appreciate that the site is small
enough to be built out quickly towards the end of the five year period, but the
information before me does not constitute clear evidence regarding delivery.
29. Land west of Backsettown is similar in that it is a small neighbourhood plan
site which could be built out swiftly. Some master planning work has been
undertaken, including a road safety audit. However, a grant of planning
permission is estimated to be between 12 and 18 months away, and the
evidence points to uncertainties regarding unit numbers and the form of
development. A full application is anticipated due to heritage and landscape
issues. Based on progress to date, there is no clear evidence that the site will
deliver within the five year period. I shall therefore delete 30 dwellings from
the Council’s supply figure.
30. Ravenscroft Allotments, Storrington is an allocation for at least 35
dwellings within the Storrington, Sullington and Washington Neighbourhood
Plan. This site spans the boundary with the South Downs National Park
Authority. A scheme has been worked up and consulted upon through public
exhibition. However, the proposal will be for more than double the number of
units in the allocation. This may be contentious and could lead to difficulties in
gaining permission from both local planning authorities. The Council argues
that there is scope for some slippage in timescales, but this does not alter the
fact that there is no clear evidence to demonstrate that the site will deliver
units within the five year period.
31. The last disputed site is Upper Beeding where there is a neighbourhood plan
allocation for around 70 dwellings on land east of Pound Lane. A substantial
amount of assessment work has already been carried out in connection with
previous applications at the site. These applications were either refused or
withdrawn. The Council has advised that a fresh application is expected by the
end of August. Notwithstanding recent pre-application discussions, I have no
means of knowing whether permission will be forthcoming this time around.
Furthermore, there is no detailed information before me regarding timescales
for build-out. As such, clear evidence on delivery has not been provided.
32. The final supply component in dispute is windfalls. Paragraph 71 of the
Framework states that where an allowance is to be made for windfall sites as
part of anticipated supply, there should be compelling evidence that they will
provide a reliable source of supply. Any allowance should be realistic having
regard to the strategic housing land availability assessment, historic windfall
delivery rates and expected future trends.
33. The Council is relying upon a figure of 605 dwellings whereas the appellant has
estimated windfall supply to be lower at 466 dwellings. The difference between
the parties (139 units) lies in the contribution from major sites. Following on
from a previous appeal for the site, the Council carried out an analysis of
historic trends going back a further two years back to 2012 on sites of 5+ units.
This additional data makes the authority’s assessment more robust.
34. However, the appellant contends that for an allowance to be included for windfalls
from major sites within the next three years, these schemes must already be with
the Council for determination, to enable them to deliver by
31 March 2025. The allegation is that the authority has not provided any evidence
to show that there are sufficient pending applications which could deliver the
projected level of major windfalls. There is some substance to this argument.
35. Notwithstanding this, the Council has been conservative in its consideration of
supply by omitting sites brought forward under permitted development rights.
These amounted to 467 dwellings between 2014 and 2018. Although delivery
has been inconsistent across this period, I have no reason to think it will not
continue at broadly the same scale, especially with new permitted development
rights having come into existence since 2018. This component of supply can be
factored into the equation. Even if, as I suspect, the Council has over-estimated
the future yield from windfalls on major sites, the contribution from permitted
development schemes will comfortably make up the difference. Consequently, I
have not reduced the Council’s windfall figure for the purposes of this appeal.
Conclusions on housing land supply
36. Based on the above, 180 dwellings should be discounted from the Council’s
figures for Kilnwood Vale, 89 dwellings for land north of Horsham, 133 dwellings
for the former Novartis Site and 170 for neighbourhood plan sites. This results in
a supply of 4142 dwellings, which translates to approximately 4.4 years supply of
deliverable housing sites, when measured against the agreed requirement of
4735 dwellings. Self-evidently, this analysis is a snapshot in time based on the
evidence presented in connection with this appeal.
37. I have a degree of sympathy with the Council in relation to its neighbourhood
plan sites. A number of referenda were delayed by the pandemic and some
developers have held back to respect the neighbourhood planning process. The
community argues that it should not be penalised for this, and I agree with that
sentiment. It may well be the some of the sites make rapid progress and end
up delivering units within the five year period. However, the Framework makes
explicit the requirement for clear evidence to demonstrate deliverability, and
therefore I have applied that strict test.
Character and appearance
38. The appeal site comprises a triangular-shaped, sloping parcel of arable land
adjoining the built-up area boundary on the south-western edge of Henfield. It is
bounded to the north by modern housing in Chanctonbury View, to the south by
Sandy Lane and to the west by a belt of mature oak trees. The site tapers to a
point at its eastern end, where it meets Dropping Holms. Beyond Sandy Lane to
the south lies a horticultural nursery and a scattering of residential properties.
39. The site is well-contained in the sense that it is not visible at a distance from the
surrounding countryside. It does not have the same prominence as other land
along the sandstone ridge on the southern fringes of the village. Nonetheless,
the land is open and undeveloped, and there are views across it from adjoining
public footpaths and residential properties. Some of the views from footpaths
were heavily filtered by vegetation at the time of my visit, but the site will be
exposed for long periods of the year when the trees are not in leaf.
40. The site is also conspicuous when approaching from the direction of Nep Town
Road, due to its position on the outside of a bend. From the corner of Mill End
and Dropping Holms there is an attractive vista towards the South Downs on
the horizon, with the site in the foreground and the oak trees on the field
boundary in the middle distance. This ‘prominent view’ is identified in
paragraph 5.81 of the HNP as being worthy of preservation under Policy 10.
41. A previous application for 42 dwellings on the site was dismissed at appeal5.
The Inspector in that case noted that the site has rural qualities that make a
strong contribution to the setting of Henfield. Based on my observations at the
site visit, I concur. The current proposal differs from the earlier one in that the
number of dwellings has been reduced to 35. Furthermore, the indicative layout
shows the houses pushed towards the western end of the site where the land is
lower. The eastern part would be used as public open space. It was put to me
that this would address the concerns of the last Inspector by maintaining a
buffer to Dropping Holms and preserving views of the South Downs.
42. The omission of the plots nearest to Dropping Holms and concentration of built
form further down the slope of the site would reduce the prominence of the
development from the road relative to the previous scheme. Wire frame
modelling demonstrates how the South Downs and the tops of the trees on the
western boundary would be visible above the roofs of the dwellings. Despite
these improvements, the proposal would urbanise the site; its character would
be altered from that of an undeveloped arable field to one of a modern housing
development with buildings, hardstanding and domestic paraphernalia.
43. Whilst the eastern part of the site would remain free of buildings, the internal
road and engineered access onto Dropping Holms, together with the new
pavements on either side of the junction, would significantly erode the rural
character of the site. Notwithstanding any improvements over the previous
scheme, the depth and quality of the view identified by the local community as
being important would be irreparably damaged.
44. The Horsham District Landscape Character Assessment (2003) notes the
existence of a harsh abrupt urban edge along the north-eastern boundary of
the site. It is contended that the appeal scheme would present an opportunity
to improve this interface. Additional planting within the site would help to
soften views of properties in Chanctonbury View, but any benefits in this regard
would be outweighed by the harm arising from the introduction of buildings
onto a significant proportion of the site.
45. The application is submitted in outline. The scheme would provide additional
landscaping, the principles for which are shown on the indicative block plan and
details for which would be provided as part of the reserved matters. The
planting would assist in screening the development from public footpaths.
However, it would not address the fundamental change in the character of the
site arising from the loss of openness and the introduction of urban form. This
land provides a visual connection between Nep Town and the countryside and it
is significant in this regard. Notwithstanding the proposal to confine the
buildings to the lower end of the site, the development would read as a harmful
extension of the built-up area into the countryside.
46. The Council is not contending that the site is a valued landscape within the
meaning of paragraph 174 a) of the Framework. However, paragraph 174 b) of
the Framework recognises the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside.
Policy 25(1) of the HDPF is consistent with national policy in seeking to protect,
conserve and enhance landscape and townscape character, taking into account
5 APP/Z3825/W/19/3227192
individual settlement characteristics. In harming the rural setting of the village,
the proposal would conflict with this policy. There is also a conflict with HNP
Policy 10 (P10.3 d.) in respect of the need to protect important views.
47. One of the main underlying purposes of HDPF Policies 2, 4 and 26 is to protect
the countryside and landscape of the District. Policies 32 and 33 of the HDPF
seek to ensure that development integrates with its surroundings. There would
be conflicts with these policies also.
Designated heritage assets
48. The appeal site is located outside of the Henfield Conservation Area but falls
within the setting of this designated heritage asset. It is common ground that
the settings of a number of Grade II listed buildings, namely Old Mill House,
Wisteria Cottage and Rosemount Cottage, would be affected by the proposal.
Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990
requires decision-makers to have special regard to the desirability of preserving
the setting of a listed building. There is no equivalent duty for conservation
areas, but the principle is established within Government policy.
49. Historically, this end of Nep Town has been associated with sand quarrying and
market gardening, and there is some evidence to link the site with these
activities. Nowadays, the site presents itself as an arable field – a property in the
corner of the site nearest Sandy Lane and Dropping Holms having long since
been demolished and the land incorporated into the field. The site contributes to
the significance of the Conservation Area by maintaining a connection between
Nep Town as a historic rural settlement and the worked landscape surrounding it.
This link between heritage and landscape has been recognised through the
erection of interpretation boards near the site for one of Henfield’s heritage trails.
50. Old Mill House is the closest listed building to the appeal site and is orientated
towards it. This property stands to be most affected in heritage terms by the
proposed development. Although within the built-up area boundary, the dwelling
retains an intimate relationship with the countryside to the south and west; this
is particularly evident from Sandy Lane. Together, the three listed buildings form
a distinctive group on the edge of Nep Town and these vernacular cottages are
an important reminder that this is an historic settlement with rural origins.
51. The appellant explained that the current scheme had been designed in direct
response to the previous appeal decision. In that case, the Inspector concluded
that the proposed development of 42 dwellings would have had an urbanising
effect which would reduce the legibility and understanding of Henfield and Nep
Town as historic rural settlements and dilute the appreciation of the transition
between the historic hamlet of Nep Town and the adjacent countryside.
52. The latest proposals show a reduction in the quantum of development to 35
dwellings and a shift in the location of built form down the slope of the site.
The absence of buildings at the end closest to Dropping Holms would be an
improvement, but the site access road would remain an alien urban feature.
Although careful design of footways, kerbs and lighting could lessen the visual
impact, the site’s rural character would be significantly harmed and this would
have an adverse effect on the manner in which nearby heritage assets are
experienced. The setting of Old Mill House in particular would be eroded, its
status as a vernacular building on the edge of countryside diminished. The
impact on the settings of other heritage assets would reduce with distance,
with Rosemount Cottage being the least affected.
53. The decision notice does not reference the development plan in relation to
heritage matters. Nevertheless, Policy 34 of the HDPF has been cited in the
Council’s evidence. This policy was found in the last appeal to be out-of-date on
the grounds that it was not wholly consistent with the Framework. Inasmuch
that Policy 34 seeks to protect heritage assets there is a conflict with the
development plan. However, it is also necessary to apply the provisions of
Framework paragraphs 200-202 which set out the most up-to-date policy tests.
Paragraph 200 requires clear and convincing justification for any harm to the
significance of a heritage asset and paragraph 202 requires that less than
substantial harm should be balanced against the public benefits.
54. At the hearing, there was agreement amongst the parties, including CPRH, that
the proposal would lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of
heritage assets through changes to the site within their respective settings. The
Framework does not require the impacts to be placed on a sliding scale, but the
previous Inspector noted that the harm to the significance of Old Mill House
would be towards the middle of the spectrum and the harm to other assets,
including the Conservation Area, at the lower end of the scale. I have reached
much the same conclusions in relation to the current scheme, albeit there
would be a minor reduction in the degree of harm relative to the last scheme.
I shall undertake the paragraph 202 balance later in my decision.
Other Matters
55. The proposed site access onto Dropping Holms would provide adequate visibility
for road users and the submitted UU secures funding to advertise a Traffic
Regulation Order which would prevent parking within the splays. Traffic
volumes on Dropping Holms are not excessive and surveys demonstrate that
vehicle flows have not increased as a result of recent housing development on
West End Lane. Whilst I note the concerns of local residents, the Highway
Authority is satisfied that the proposal would not result in adverse highways
impacts. There is no technical evidence to lead me to a different view.
56. The site is located wholly within Flood Zone 1, but residents report problems
with localised flooding. I saw evidence of this when I walked the footpath along
the site’s western boundary. Although layout is a reserved matter, the appeal
scheme would incorporate Sustainable Drainage Systems. These would ensure
that there is no increase in water run-off leaving the site.
Planning Balance
57. The failure to demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites
engages paragraph 11 d) of the Framework. This states that, in circumstances
such as this, permission should be granted unless the application of policies in
the Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a
clear reason for refusing the development proposed, or any adverse impacts of
doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when
assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole.
58. For the reasons I have set out above, I have found that the proposal would
cause less than substantial harm to the settings of the Henfield Conservation
Area and nearby listed buildings. There would be a minor reduction in harm
comparative to the previous scheme but it would be harm, nonetheless. Less
than substantial harm does not equate to less than substantial objection.
Moreover, the Framework makes clear that any harm to the significance of a
designated heritage asset should require clear and convincing justification.
59. In terms of public benefits, the proposal would deliver 35 new dwellings and it
would make a modest contribution to remedying the shortfall in housing sites.
The development would comply with HDPF Policy 16 by including 13 affordable
homes for which there is a pressing need in the District. Bearing in mind the
Government objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes, these
factors attract significant positive weight in favour of the scheme.
60. The proposal would create employment during the build phase. Thereafter, it
would add to the local labour supply and expenditure by new residents would
provide some support for businesses in Henfield and the wider district. The
Council would also receive additional revenue through the New Homes Bonus
and the Community Infrastructure Levy, albeit I have no means of knowing
whether these monies would benefit the residents of Henfield. The overall
economic benefits would be relatively modest on a scheme of this scale and
therefore I have afforded them only a small amount of weight.
61. The development would be capable of providing net ecological enhancement
through the provision of new landscaping, and this attracts some limited weight
in favour of the scheme. Although the appellant cites public open space as a
benefit, this is intended to serve the occupants of the new dwellings and
therefore it is neutral in the planning balance.
62. Applying the balance within paragraph 202 of the Framework, the public
benefits would not outweigh the less than substantial harm to designated
heritage assets. As such, heritage harm provides a clear reason for refusing the
application and the proposal does not benefit from the presumption in favour of
sustainable development set out within Framework paragraph 11.
63. Moving onto the overall planning balance, the appellant’s case is predicated on
the Council’s housing land supply position and the Framework stipulation that the
development plan policies which are most important for determining the
application are out-of-date in such circumstances. In particular, it is argued that
the increased levels of housing need identified through the Government’s
standard method and the emerging Local Plan means that the HNP was instantly
out-of-date the moment it was made.
64. The housing land supply position means that I have attached limited weight to
the policy conflict arising from the site’s location outside of the built-up area
boundary. That boundary was defined against an outdated housing need figure
within Policy 15 of the HDPF. Nevertheless, development of the appeal site
would run contrary to community aspirations as expressed through the HNP. To
allow this appeal so soon after the neighbourhood plan is made would
significantly undermine public trust and confidence in the planning system. The
community has engaged positively with the Government’s neighbourhood
planning agenda by agreeing a quantum of development with the Council and,
through local consensus, identifying housing sites that would cause the least
harm to planning interests. The proposal would drive a coach and horses
through this community-led process.
65. I have taken into consideration the community’s stated willingness to find
additional housing land as part of the emerging Local Plan, to help meet the
increased housing need at district level. Although progress on the emerging
plan has stalled due to the publication of a revised Framework, there would be
nothing to prevent an immediate review of the HNP to consider future directions
for growth. The availability of alternative, potentially less harmful, sites lends
weight to my view that the harm to designated heritage assets in this case is
not justified.
66. Paragraph 14 of the Framework applies in situations such as this, where
paragraph 11 d) is engaged. It explains that the adverse impact of allowing
development that conflicts with the neighbourhood plan is likely to significantly
and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, provided that: a) the neighbourhood
plan became part of the development plan two years or less before the date on
which the decision is made; b) the neighbourhood plan contains policies and
allocations to meet its identified housing requirement; c) the local planning
authority has at least a three year supply of deliverable housing sites; and d)
the local planning authority’s housing delivery was at least 45% of that required
over the previous three years.
67. It is common ground that the above criteria are met. The HNP is recently made
and it identifies sites for the housing numbers agreed with the Council. That the
overall district-wide level of housing need has increased does not mean that its
identified housing requirement has not been met. The Council can demonstrate
a 4.4 year supply of deliverable housing sites and the Housing Delivery Test
measurement for 2020 indicates that the authority has delivered well in excess
(155%) of its housing requirement over the past three years.
68. The wording of Framework paragraph 14 is caveated with the word ‘likely’.
However, the expectation is that, more often than not, the conflict with a
neighbourhood plan should prevail and I judge this to be the case here. The
specific circumstances are such that I attach the conflict with the HNP very
substantial weight. I have also given considerable weight to the adverse
impacts on the character and appearance of the area and heritage assets.
These impacts cannot be adequately mitigated and would be irreversible.
69. I have been referred to a recently allowed appeal for a site adjacent to the
settlement boundary for Burton on the Wolds in Leicestershire6. There are some
similarities to the current appeal, including in respect of a core strategy which
dates from 2015, a very recently ‘made’ neighbourhood plan and the absence of
a five year housing land supply. However, there was a particular set of
circumstances which led to the Inspector placing reduced weight on the
dwelling figure set out in the neighbourhood plan. Such circumstances do not
apply here and it is common ground the HNP contains policies and allocations
to meet its identified housing requirement. Whilst I have taken the Burton on
the Wolds decision into account, it does not alter my findings on this case.
70. To conclude, the proposal is contrary to Policies 2, 4, 25, 26, 32, 33 and 34 of
the HDPF and Policies 1 and 10 of the HNP. It conflicts with the development
plan taken as a whole. Notwithstanding the absence of a five year land supply
and the level of housing need, including for affordable housing, the combined
harms would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. As such,
there are no material considerations sufficient to justify a decision otherwise
6 Ref. APP/X2410/W/20/3264488
than in accordance with the development plan. The appeal scheme would not
constitute sustainable development and it follows that planning permission
should be refused.
Conclusion
71. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.
Robert Parker
INSPECTOR
APPEARANCES
FOR THE APPELLANT:
Christopher Boyle QC Landmark Chambers
Richard Brookes BSc (Hons) Dunelm Director, Turley Heritage & Townscape
MTP(UC) IHBC MRTPI
Steven Brown BSc (Hons) DipTP MRTPI Principal, Woolf Bond Planning LLP
Michael Kitching BSc (Hons) MSc CMILT Director SK Transport Planning Ltd
Ian Newton BA (Hons) Dip LA CMLI Director, Hyland Edgar Driver Landscape
Architecture
Tim Rodway BSc (Hons), DipTp, Director, Rodway Planning Consultancy
Licentiate member RTPI Limited
Paul Whitby BSc MCIEEM, CEcol Managing Director Ecology Co-op
FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY:
Adrian Smith BA (Hons) MA MRTPI Major Applications Team Leader
Tal Kleiman BA (Hons) MPlan MRTPI Senior Planning Officer (strategic)
Sean Rix MSc IHBC Senior Conservation Officer
Ines Watson CMLI Senior Landscape Architect
INTERESTED PARTIES:
Steve Bailey CPRH
Malcolm Eastwood Chairman, Henfield Parish Council
Rob Gordon Local Historian & Chairman Henfield Museum
Andrew Griffith Arundel and South Downs MP
David Huskisson Managing Director, Huskisson Brown
Associates
Philip Johnson Chairman, CPRH
Mike Morgan District Councillor
Joshua Potts District Councillor
Mike Russell Chairman Sussex Ornithological Society &
Chairman Henfield Birdwatch
Liz Taylor Owner of Rosemount Cottage
Jessica Thomas-Seaton Local resident
Jilly Wallis Owner of Old Mill House
CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED AFTER THE HEARING
1. Emails dated 1 and 2 July 2021 with written transcripts of oral submissions from
third parties at the hearing
2. Email dated 6 July 2021 confirming the route for Inspector site visit
3. Emails from the parties dated 14 July 2021 regarding housing requirement figure
4. Email dated 15 July 2021 attaching signed UU
5. Email dated 22 July 2021 with an update on the emerging Local Plan
6. Email dated 23 July 2021 regarding witness qualifications, suggested conditions
and the implications of the revised National Planning Policy Framework
7. Email dated 28 July 2021 with an update on progress with the emerging Local
Plan following publication of the revised National Planning Policy Framework
8. Email dated 6 August 2021 with a consolidated list of agreed conditions