Case Reference: 3266503

Horsham District Council2021-07-30

Decision/Costs Notice Text

7 other appeals cited in this decision

Available in AppealBase

Case reference: 3265861
South Oxfordshire District Council2021-06-25Allowed
Case reference: 3261401
Horsham District Council2021-08-19Dismissed
Case reference: 3265925
St Albans City Council2021-06-14Allowed
Case reference: 3261691
Vale of White Horse District Council2021-05-28Dismissed
Appeal Decision
Inquiry (Virtual) Held between 25 May and 4 June 2021
Site Visits made on 19 May and 6 July 2021
by Dr A J Mageean BA(Hons), BPl, PhD, MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 30th July 2021
Appeal Ref: APP/Z3825/W/21/3266503
Land south of Newhouse Farm, Old Crawley Road, Horsham
• 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/20/0470, dated 3 March 2020, was refused by notice dated 29
July 2020.
• The development proposed is an outline application for the erection of 473 dwellings,
with new access provided off the Crawley Road, plus associated areas of open space
and landscaping. All matters reserved apart from access.
Decision
1. The appeal is dismissed.
Preliminary Matters
2. I have used the fuller site address set out on the decision notice and appeal
form as it more accurately locates the appeal site.
3. The application was submitted in outline with all matters except access
reserved for future consideration. I have had regard to the Indicative Site
Layout (1909/PL.04 Rev J) for the purposes in determining the appeal. I have
also had regard to a Parameters Plan (1909/PL.06 Rev F) provided to establish
the principles for accommodating development on the site.
4. An Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of the proposal was undertaken
prior to the appeal. The resulting Environmental Statement has been found to
meet the requirements of the EIA Regulations.
5. Following the Inquiry, a legal agreement, signed and dated 24 June 2021, was
submitted under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (the
S106 agreement). This reflected the earlier draft document, though was
amended to reflect the discussion at the Inquiry.
6. The S106 agreement contains provisions to secure the delivery of affordable
housing and also self-build and custom house building plots. It includes
obligations relating to: the ongoing management and maintenance of open
spaces; the details and contributions for upgrade works to public rights of way
(PROW); an Air Quality Mitigation Strategy; and highways improvements,
including a bus stop upgrade. It secures the implementation of a Design Code
and a Biodiversity and Landscape Management Plan. Finally, it includes a
contribution towards the improvement of the Horsham Riverside Walk.
7. Following the close of the Inquiry additional evidence relating to housing land
supply, the local plan review, and recent appeal decisions was submitted. I
have considered this where relevant and appropriate. However, whilst the
appellant has referred to the contents of the Regulation 19 version of the Local
Plan, as this document is not before me it is not appropriate that I consider its
implications.
8. On 20 July 2021 a Revised National Planning Policy Framework (the
Framework) was issued. The main parties were given the opportunity to
comment on the implications of the resulting changes for this appeal. I have
considered these as far as they are material to the outcome of the appeal. The
paragraph references made within the decision are to the 2021 Revised
Framework.
Main Issues
9. Prior to the Inquiry the Council confirmed that the S106 agreement would
resolve the concerns contained in its fourth reason for refusal. This related to
the lack of provision for affordable housing, PROW improvements, the delivery
of outdoor amenity space, upgrading of nearby bus stops and highway
contributions.
10. Whilst the Council’s reasons for refusing the application included highway
safety matters, following technical discussions between the parties prior to the
Inquiry, the Council withdrew its objection in this regard. Nonetheless, as
highway matters remain a concern for interested parties, this was handled as a
main issue to allow for full consideration of outstanding concerns.
11. The remaining main issues are:
• whether the proposal would conserve and enhance the landscape and scenic
beauty of the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (the AONB);
• whether this would be an appropriate location for development in relation to
the spatial strategy for the District;
• the effect of the development proposed on the capacity and safety of the
local highway network;
• whether the Council has a five-year supply of housing land; and
• other matters, including the benefits to be weighed in the planning balance.
Reasons
Landscape and AONB Matters
12. The appeal site comprises two cultivated fields and one deciduous woodland
parcel, ‘The Birches’, and forms part of the wider countryside to the east of the
built-up area of Horsham. The northern boundary of the western field with Old
Crawley Road marks the north western tip of the AONB. The ancient woodland
of High Wood forms much of the eastern site boundary, and the dispersed
properties along Forest Road lie directly to the south. An informal grassed
recreation space and allotments are located to the west, along with part of the
identified built up area boundary of Horsham and the B2195. The site rises
gently from north west to south east by a little over 20m to around 100m AOD,
and then falls slightly to the south east.
13. As the AONB covers an area of some 1,461km2, it is inevitable that the
presence of the defining components of natural beauty will vary across its area.
The characteristic elements apparent in the vicinity of the appeal site include
highly interconnected areas of ancient woodland, productive fields bound by
hedgerows, woods dissected by historic routes and isolated farmsteads. Other
elements, including the landform pattern of faults and folds, numerous streams
and the dispersed settlement pattern of late Medieval villages, including
distinctive vernacular architecture, are less apparent. This, however, does not
in itself determine that this landscape is somehow more ‘ordinary’, particularly
as, via footpath routes, this area is closely connected and provides a gateway
to more intimate landscape areas around Woodland Farm, Roffey Park and
Faygate Forest to the east.
14. Unsurprisingly the AONB qualities are similarly reflected in the High Weald
National Character Area (NCA). The rising land to the north of the A264 crosses
the boundary into the Low Weald NCA. This area is recognised as being closely
linked to the High Weald, and its characteristics include views from lanes and
PROW to the higher ground of adjacent NCAs. The finer grain county and
district level Landscape Character Area (LCA) assessments refer to this being a
densely wooded area with a landform of flat top rides and steep sided ghylls,
divided by fields. It is a strongly enclosed landscape with confined views and a
sense of isolation and remoteness, despite the closeness of large towns and
roads, though suburban development has spread along ridge top roads. Whilst
the landscape value of these areas is judged to be medium to high, with high
sensitivity to change, it is recognised that the overall condition of the district
level LCA, that of St Leonards Forest, is declining.
15. At the site level some of these characteristic elements are experienced. The
main PROW 1587, a route present since at least the mid-19thC, leads directly
through to the eastern field where these qualities are most clearly apparent.
The strong landscape framework around the fields, including the containment
by High Wood and the separation provided by The Birches, along with the open
views north across the vale to the wooded landscape opposite, together
establish a strong sense of rurality. The road noise from the A264 and built
form of Newhouse Farm to the north are apparent, and there are glimpsed
views of perimeter dwellings to the west and south, but this does not
significantly undermine the sense of being within rural fields. Representations
indicate that PROW 1587 and its connecting paths and informal routes
stemming from these are much valued and well used by local residents,
particularly during recent times.
16. The western field is at a slightly lower level and appears less well connected to
the wider landscape. The lack of buffer from the road noise and the visibility of
the built form of the settlement edge to the west, mean that whilst it provides
a rural setting for Horsham, it has a more transitional character.
17. In visual terms the containment provided by High Wood, and mature trees
screening much of the Forest Road and Beech Road properties mean that the
most important receptors are in close proximity to the site. Those to the north
and north west are associated with residential receptors and transient road
users and have clear visibility of the gently rising ground. From the west and
south views into the site are restricted by intervening vegetation, though this
also serves to limit awareness of the urban edge to glimpses only. Of greatest
sensitivity are the viewpoints from within and closely adjacent to the eastern
field. From within the field, whilst partial views of some Beech Road dwellings
and the dispersed Forest Road properties is possible, the edge of settlement
location is not readily apparent. It appears that there may be glimpsed views
of the Land North of Horsham (LNH) development from viewpoint (VP) 12, but
this would be largely screened by existing tree cover.
18. Several more than partial views through to the eastern field are gained from
the PROW 1587 approach to the east, and also a limited number of longer
distance views from walking and cycling routes across the vale from the north
to the higher ground of the appeal site. In these views, particularly VP 31, the
valley side position of the appeal site is seen as part of the combination of
fields and intervening woodland forming the vista of the High Weald. The
eastern field is particularly prominent as an open field rising up the valley side
and is not significantly filtered by existing tree cover. There is some loose and
indistinct sense of the built form beyond the woodland setting to the west,
though at the time of my summer site visits the extensive tree cover masked
the presence of Horsham to a very considerable degree. I accept that this may
be less effective in winter months.
19. The LNH development may become apparent at lower levels on the western
side of these views, though to a limited degree only due to existing woodland
cover and the fact that this will mostly be sited below the 75m contour, around
20m lower than that proposed on the appeal site. It will not, therefore, fetter
views across to the open aspect of the eastern field. Nonetheless it is
probable that in other views further west, such as VP 26 and 28, and VP 33 and
34, the current restricted views of the appeal site will be interrupted by the
built form of the LNH development.
20. Therefore, in landscape and visual terms the appeal site cannot be described as
deeply rural, with evidence indicating that this outer part of the AONB is,
perhaps unsurprisingly, one of its least tranquil areas. The area lacks elements
of the inner parts of the AONB: specifically, the strong sense of intimacy
generated by the more intricate topography, the remoteness associated with
distance from larger settlements, and the visual interest associated with
Medieval villages. Nonetheless, local and more distant views reveal that the
appeal site does reflect important elements of AONB and NCA/LCA character.
Specifically, there is a sense of the complex and well-connected mosaic of
woodland and field structure which evokes an essentially rural and human scale
character, from which the outstanding beauty of the AONB is said to stem. The
eastern part of the site is more closely related to the rural qualities of the
AONB and is only loosely connected to the town. Further, notwithstanding the
urban influences around the western field, the experience of walking the
footpaths in and around the eastern part of the site, do provide a sense of
intimacy and escape.
21. The Horsham District Landscape Capacity Assessment (HDLCA), prepared in
2014 and updated in 2020, is an objective and consistent assessment of the
capacity of land around existing and new settlements to accommodate new
housing and employment development. More specifically, it seeks to identify
areas where new development could best be accommodated without
unacceptable adverse landscape and visual impacts. The appeal site covers
much of the southern part of Area 17. This landscape is assessed as being in
good condition, despite the proximity of Horsham, with the southern part
having a strongly rural character. Area 17 is identified as having moderate-
high visual sensitivity with some limited capacity for housing development
closer to the existing urban edge but this should not extend further east1 as
this could be perceived as a significant incursion into the AONB. It is
categorised as having ‘moderate’ capacity for medium scale housing
development of around 100-500 units.
22. Be that as it may, the levels of landscape sensitivity and capacity identified in
the HDLCA are generalised statements, providing indicative landscape and
capacity levels with further analysis expected at a smaller scale to determine
the actual capacity of the site. In the current case the landscape evidence
broadly corroborates the findings relating to Area 17, though at this finer grain
level it identifies the variability of sensitivity across the site.
23. Whilst submitted in outline at this stage, the appeal proposal illustrates how
the main blocks of residential development would be introduced into the east
and western fields, connected by two new road corridors running through The
Birches. It is inevitable that the transformative nature of this scheme with the
permanent loss of agricultural fields and their replacement with significant
housing development would cause varying degrees of landscape and visual
harm.
24. In settlement terms much has been made of the comparative circumstances of
the LNH development, noting that its area relates to land previously identified
as having similar capacity to Area 17 (though varying from no/low to mod/high
capacity). Full details of what will be a significant urban extension are not
before me, though the fact that it will be on lower land than the appeal site
suggests that it has been sited to minimise intervisibility across the vale into
the AONB. This development has established the expansion of Horsham to the
north, beyond the A264 in an area not distant from the appeal site. However,
these areas are separated by the A264, the railway line and fields. As such
there is no evidence to support the suggestion that the development of the
appeal site would somehow integrate with a wider settlement edge.
25. Whilst the development of the western field would have some connection with
the existing settlement edge, the same cannot be said for the eastern field.
Therefore, even though only around a quarter of Area 17 would be built on,
this larger part of the development would amount to a distinct incursion into a
rural setting, the part of Area 17 of greatest sensitivity.
26. At a more detailed level it is clear that efforts would be made to sensitively
integrate the development into the site, with built form set in from its
boundaries, its overall profile remaining the same, the retention and
improvement of the route of PROW 1587, and the retention of an area
estimated to be 48% as green infrastructure. This would include the
establishment of a country park and the creation of a 20m wide block of native
woodland and scrub planting to contain the northernmost part of the eastern
field. This would reinforce the wooded character of the site context, with the
retained open area also connecting with the rural setting to the east.
Nonetheless, notwithstanding that the spaces would include naturalistic and
semi-formal planting areas, their essential role would be to provide an
attractive setting and recreation opportunities for the new homes. As such
there would be a change in character from an essentially modest agrarian
landscape to a managed setting for significant residential development.
1 CD7.8 p34 Whilst referred to as ‘west’ it was agreed that this was a mistake
27. At this outline stage in order to give some certainty, principles of the design
and layout have been set out in the Design Commitment Statement (DCS) and
Landscape and Ecology Commitment Statement (LECS), which are tied into the
S106 agreement. These documents set out that the scheme would be a little
below the threshold density range set out in the HDLCA, and that its character
would seek to draw from the intrinsic qualities of the wider AONB to provide
new homes that would be characteristic of the High Weald. This would include
being of an appropriate scale and layout, the use of local vernacular elements
and colour palette, and the presence of trees throughout. On this basis it
would certainly be possible to create attractive and high-quality homes in this
setting, and overall the scheme could be perceived as a ‘beautiful’ place to live.
However, whilst assisting to a degree with visual integration and mitigation,
this does not in itself demonstrate that development here would be appropriate
in landscape or visual terms.
28. The creation of a total of over 3ha of new woodland cover would be a benefit
and would, in time, have the effect of moderating the harm caused by the
insertion of two 10m wide roads through The Birches. However, the 20m
buffer to High Wood would be bordered by development, resulting in a loss of
visual appreciation of this feature in the landscape.
29. The upgrading of PROW 1587 to a bridleway would support year-round access
for all and provide an attractive tree-lined route. Nonetheless it would also be
bordered by roads, houses and associated infrastructure. This would transform
the character of this rural route, currently very much valued for its relative
tranquillity and opportunity for escape.
30. In visual terms the most significant effect would be on the highly sensitive
internal and closely adjacent visual receptors, particularly VP’s 12, 14 and 15
along PROW 1587 in which built form would fill much of the field of vision.
Distant views north would also be lost due to both built form and the additional
woodland planting. Beyond the built form to the east, open space and
woodland planting would provide a green outlook, though onto managed space.
31. When approaching from the west (VP 16 and 17) awareness of the site is
restricted by the presence of trees, serving to highlight the kinetic experience
of arriving to appreciate the scale and openness of the site. Whilst some
openness would remain around PROW 1587, Verified Visual Montage (VVM) 16
illustrates the change to an essentially suburban character. Even with
mitigation, the effect on these sensitive viewpoints would be to cause major
adverse harm.
32. Directly to the north in VP5 and VP6 from Old Crawley Road, a route well-used
by walkers, initially the development in both fields would be seen behind farm
buildings, rising with the landscape. This would be moderated in time by
planting, though rooftops would remain visible breaking the skyline, such that
the harm would remain moderately adverse. Similarly, slightly further east
from VP 9 on PROW 1588, a section of open views across the field boundaries
to the western field would be lost to the development, though again in time
this would in part be filtered by vegetation. Also, the moderate visibility of the
open aspect of the eastern field from the PROW, would initially be dominated
by built form. Woodland planting would significantly mask this in time,
reducing harm to minor-moderate adverse.
33. In the limited number of longer distance views from the north, particularly
around VP 31, the development would be visible stretching across the two
fields on either side of The Birches, close to the skyline and set apart from
existing built form. Additional woodland planting would provide some
mitigation of visual impacts over time, though roof tops and higher levels of
built form would remain visible, particularly noting that the parameter plan
includes areas of 2.5-3 storey units. The presence of development would
remain moderately harmful.
34. For those receptors close to the western field the development would meet the
settlement edge and the view of the wooded valley side would be blocked.
Efforts to mitigate the immediate visual impact of the scheme through planting
would be hampered by the fact of the gently rising valley side. Similarly,
notwithstanding the fact that development would be set back from the
entrance on Old Crawley Road, VVM 2 illustrates that it would be hard to
moderate the presence of the development and infrastructure associated with
what would be a significant junction. Whilst it is agreed that the overall effect
would be adverse for residential receptors, the presence of the existing
settlement edge and road infrastructure would to some degree contextualise
perceived harm.
35. Turning to consider wider AONB management objectives, the retention of most
of the existing woodland framework, reinforced with further planting, would
assist with managing the visual intrusion associated with development of this
scale, and it would be of a high standard of design, taking cues from elsewhere
in the High Weald. However, this would not in itself ensure that this would be
a positive addition. The development of the eastern field would have a tenuous
relationship to the settlement edge. The dispersed settlement structure of the
AONB is part of its natural beauty which management objectives seek to
protect. Pressure for greenfield housing development such as this, which is not
well related to the existing residential area nor its setting, is threatening AONB
character.2 Whilst historic routes would be retained and improved to support
increased usage, their rural character would change significantly. In terms of
perceptual qualities, the sense of being in the countryside and able to
appreciate AONB character would be lost.
36. The fact that Horsham does not itself possess the natural beauty of settlements
fully embedded within the AONB, and that this is an outer part of the AONB,
are not primary considerations when assessing landscape and visual impacts.
The appeal site is within the AONB. The appellant’s reference to the fact that
further exploration of the AONB would still be available 400m to the east,
underestimates the intrinsic value of the eastern field in itself and as a gateway
to the wider countryside.
37. Summing up, the appeal proposal would introduce a significant area of
residential development into an area of moderate to high landscape sensitivity.
Whilst it would be sensitively handled in relation to some existing site features,
I have found moderate to high adverse effects in relation to a number of
landscape receptors, particularly associated with the eastern field. In visual
terms the effect of existing woodland, in combination with the woodland cover
proposed, would to some degree screen the presence of the development in
2 CD7.1 AONB Management Plan, p32
some local and more distant views. Nonetheless, I have found residual
moderate and major adverse effects to some visual receptors.
38. On this basis I find that the significant harm to the landscape and visual
qualities of the site means that the proposal would not conserve and enhance
the landscape and scenic beauty of the High Weald AONB. There is conflict
with the requirement of the Horsham District Planning Framework 2015 (HDPF)
Policy 25 to protect, conserve and enhance landscape character, and Policy 26
which seeks to protect the undeveloped nature of the countryside against
inappropriate development. Whilst design quality is not at issue, there would
be conflict with those aspects of Policy 32 and Policy 33 requiring that
development relates sympathetically to and integrates with its surroundings.
39. Whilst not referred to in the reason for refusal, the relevance of Policy 30
relating to protected landscapes is agreed. There is conflict with the Policy 30
requirement that there should be no adverse impacts on natural beauty and
public enjoyment.
40. In terms of policy and statute, the notion of relative beauty, and the fact that
the appeal site is not with in deep countryside, with other areas perhaps having
greater scenic beauty, is not important. Neither is the fact that the appeal site
is a tiny corner of the much larger AONB, two fields out of some 10,000.
Nonetheless, the assessment of harm to landscape and scenic beauty set out
above is qualified. In this regard Policy 30 refers to the fact that decision
making in relation to major development should also include public interest
considerations, reflecting the balanced approach to AONB planning decisions
set out in the Framework paragraph 177, points to which I return below.
Spatial Strategy
41. The appeal site is located outside though adjacent to part of the built-up area
boundary of Horsham. Policy 2 sets out that the overarching spatial strategy to
2031 seeks to protect rural character, whilst ensuring that the needs of the
community are met through sustainable growth. This indicates that
development should be focused in and around the key settlement of Horsham,
with growth in the rest of the district in accordance with the identified
settlement hierarchy. It also requires that development around the edge of
settlements be managed in order to prevent the merging of settlements and to
protect rural character and landscape. As such my conclusion of harm in
relation to the first main issue is of direct relevance.
42. Policy 3 further defines the settlement hierarchy and allows for development
within built-up areas, whilst Policy 4 sets out how development around the
edge of settlements is to be managed. This establishes the mechanism for
growth through the designation of built-up area boundaries and the planned
expansion of existing settlements through the Local Plan or Neighbourhood
Planning. In this case, whilst the site does partly adjoin the settlement edge,
as the proposal relates to land that is neither allocated in a Local Plan nor
Neighbourhood Plan, there is conflict with the first criteria. In basic terms the
proposal may meet criteria 2 given the scale and function of Horsham.
However, in relation to criteria 5, the proposal would not maintain and enhance
landscape character features.
43. Also of relevance, Policy 26 seeks to protect the rural character and
undeveloped nature of the countryside against inappropriate development. It
sets out that development outside built-up areas must be essential to its
countryside location and additionally must meet one of four identified criteria,
none of which apply to the present case.
44. I therefore conclude that this would not be an appropriate location for
development in relation to the spatial strategy for the District, as set out in
Policies 2,4 and 26. I will return to the matter of the weight to be attached to
this policy conflict as part of the planning balance.
Highway safety
45. A SoCG on traffic and transport matters addresses considerations relating to
the access onto the B2195 Crawley Road in terms of its safety and possible
increased hazards for road users, and also the effect of the development on the
capacity of the local highway network.
46. Vehicular access to the site would be provided by a three-arm signalised
junction which would include pedestrian and cycle crossing facilities, and a new
3m wide shared pedestrian/cycle link on the western side of Crawley Road.
Measures to improve safety would include appropriate signage on the shared
pedestrian/cycle routes to minimise risks of conflict between users on these
routes and through the junction. From the details before me I agree that this
access arrangement would be appropriate for the scale of development
proposed, and on this point there are no outstanding highway safety concerns.
47. Updated traffic data modelling to 2031 has incorporated cumulative
considerations relating to the LNH and Kilnwood Vale developments.
Interested parties expressed particular concern about queuing from the
Moorhead Roundabout. On this point adjustments made to signal timings at
the Moorhead Roundabout junction, and other junctions, could be made to
optimise operations and reduce queuing. On this basis I agree that the impact
of the proposed development could be mitigated, and capacity impacts
managed, such that the performance of the road network would be comparable
to that previously accepted when assessing the LNH and Kilnwood Vale
developments. As a result, the development would not have severe capacity
impacts on the surrounding road network.
48. Further measures would be introduced to improve pedestrian and cycling
facilities in and around the appeal site and on routes to local destinations,
including schools and Horsham town centre. These measures, along with
enhanced bus stop facilities, would assist in supporting the sustainability
credentials of the site, as well as addressing concerns about traffic and
pollution levels.
49. I therefore conclude that the development would not have an unacceptable
effect on the capacity and safety of the local highway network. In this regard
the requirements of HDPF Policy 40 relating to the provision of safe and
suitable access and the need to minimise potentially significant impacts on the
wider transport network would be met. The Framework paragraph 110
requirement in relation to the mitigation of significant impacts on the transport
network would also be met.
Housing land supply
50. As the HDPF is more than five years old the adopted housing requirement of an
average of 800 dpa (dwellings per annum) is now out of date. It was agreed at
the Inquiry that the standard method for calculating local housing needs results
in a figure of 897 dpa. Whilst subsequent to the Inquiry the Council have
indicated that 902 dpa has been used elsewhere, both parties agree that 897
dpa is consistent with planning practice guidance (PPG). As such the five-year
requirement for the period 1 April 2020 to 31 March 2025, is 4,485. If a 5%
buffer is added then the five year requirement figure is 4,709.
51. The Annual Monitoring Report December 2020 indicated that the five-year
supply of deliverable units for this period is 5,104 dwellings. The Council has
updated this figure, such that the supply is considered to be 4,780 dwellings,
that is a 5.08 years supply.3 The appellants position is that the deliverable
supply is 3,252 dwellings, equating to a 3.45 year supply. The deductions
relate to the anticipated build out rate on two sites, the deliverability of three
sites with outline planning permission for major development, the deliverability
of eight neighbourhood plan allocations without planning permission and finally
the disagreement about whether a windfall allowance for sites of over 10
dwellings should be included.
52. In determining ‘deliverability’, the Framework Annex 2 sets out that Category A
sites which do not involve major development and have planning permission,
and all those sites with detailed planning permission should be considered
deliverable in principle, unless there is clear evidence that homes will not be
delivered within five years. In contrast Category B sites, including those which
have outline planning permission for major development or have been allocated
in a development plan, should only be considered deliverable where there is
clear evidence that housing completions will begin on site within five years.
The essential point for both categories is whether or not it is reasonable to
assume that they will contribute to the five-year supply, though caselaw has
determined that it is not necessary for there to be certainty of delivery as
anticipated.
53. Some examples of the nature of ‘clear evidence’ is provided in the PPG.4 These
are necessarily generalised and refer to indicators such as ‘progress towards
approving reserved matters’ and ‘firm progress with site assessment work’.
Nonetheless, as the Framework definition makes clear, the key test for all sites
should be whether there is a ‘realistic prospect’ of delivery within five years.
54. Looking firstly at the disputed sites in relation to build out rates, the two sites
in question have full planning permission for major development and so in
accordance with the guidance are agreed to be ‘deliverable’, unless there is
clear evidence that homes will not be delivered within five years.
55. Site A01 – West of Horsham (East) Highwood. Around half of this 1,000+ unit
scheme had been developed by the base date. The average build rate on this
site by the developer is 70.75 dpa, with a slightly lower build rate of 65 dpa
over the past five years. The appellant notes that delivery so far has included
a number of apartment blocks, reasonably assumed to have a faster
completion rate than houses. Remaining phases include a mix of houses and
flats. The Council’s anticipated delivery of 75 dpa, is based on the current
buoyancy of the local housing market and the fact that an established builder
has been on site for the past eight years. As such 375 units are included in the
3 The Council has since conceded in its 30 June 2021 response to correspondence from the appellant that for a
future appeal its supply level is considered to be 4.98 years.
4 Para 007 Reference ID:68-007-20190722
deliverable supply. These propositions appear to be reasonably sound and
provide a not unrealistic basis for the prediction. As such there is no evidence
to suggest an adjustment to the supply figure is necessary.
56. Site A02-Kilnwood Vale-Colgate. The Kilnwood Vale site overall gained outline
permission for up to 2,500 dwellings in 2011. Completions started in 2013, and
137 dpa have been completed on average. An occupation schedule provided
by the developer indicates that 570 dwellings will come forward for the Colgate
site and 218 dwellings for the Colgate Reserve site. The Council has removed
30 from the first figure to allow for slippage, giving a supply figure of 758,
equating to an average of 152 dpa.
57. It is clear from earlier completion figures that this site is capable of higher
delivery rates (353 in 2017/18 and 196 in 2018/19). I also understand that
the lower delivery rate of 74 units in 2019/20 related in part to the completion
of the infrastructure for a school. However, the appellant provides evidence
that the developers prediction in 2018 of 204 units for 2019/20, presumably at
a point when the requirement to provide a school was understood, was
completely unrealistic. This provides reason to doubt the credibility of the
current predictions. I therefore agree that a more realistic basis for the supply
figure is the average of past completions, that is a deduction of 73 units from
the five-year supply.
58. The three sites where the dispute relates to the deliverability of major
development with outline planning permission are Category B sites, where the
Council is required to demonstrate deliverability. The first relates to site B02,
Former Novartis Site, a proposal for a mixed-use neighbourhood with outline
consent for up to 300 dwellings, with 245 dwellings currently planned. The site
is owned by West Sussex County Council (WSCC) who have appointed Muse
Developments as its preferred development partner. WSCC anticipates that a
reserved matters application for the phase 1 development of 133 dwellings will
be submitted in ‘late autumn’ 2021, with construction starting in August 2022
and completing in 2023/24. The Phase 2 programme of 112 homes is
anticipated to be completed in 2025/26. Whilst the AMR included 250 units,
this has been updated to reflect the anticipated completion of phase 1 only.
59. This timeline has been set out by the landowner and not the developer. It may
be reasonable to suggest that WSCC as landowner has less reason to
exaggerate delivery speeds, and some on site clearance works have
commenced. However, the email correspondence relied upon falls short of the
robust and practical supporting evidence referred to in the PPG. It does not
reflect the challenges around gaining reserved matters approval, noting also
that there is no evidence of pre-commencement conditions associated with the
outline approval having been discharged. As such it is not clear this site will be
able to deliver the 133 dwellings anticipated by the Council, though it appears
reasonable to assume that development will have started on site.
60. Site B03 Kilnwood Vale, Rusper, is linked to Site A02 and refers to phases 4
and 5 of the overall development. It is allocated for 594 dwellings, with the
developer’s occupation schedule suggesting that 180 dwellings should be
included in deliverable supply, with delivery starting from Q1 2023. Whilst the
Council assumes that a reserved matters application could come forward in
early 2022, there is no sound basis for this assumption, noting that the current
outline approval is scheduled to expire in October 2023. This approval also
contains a condition requiring details of a railway bridge to be submitted with
the reserved matters application, stating that dwellings are not to be
constructed until this is in place. No evidence of progress towards such an
application is provided, suggesting that delivery from Q1 2023 is unrealistic.
Further, the reliance on the previous delivery rates in earlier phases of
development as in indicator of future performance is not a sound basis for
evidencing the deliverability of this Category B site. Whilst it is probable that a
proportion of these units will be delivered within five years, my view is that it is
not appropriate to include all 180 units in deliverable supply.
61. Site B04 Land North of Horsham. This is a large strategic site with outline
planning permission to provide up to 2750 dwellings and a range of supporting
uses. As at March 2021 there were 42 live applications relating to this site,
including a range of outline, reserved matters and approval of details
applications. Substantial progress is being made towards delivering necessary
infrastructure, including a school, due to open in September 2022, and a
footbridge over the A264. Detailed consent has been obtained for 193
dwellings at RM Area 1, with construction due to commence in summer 2021,
and a further detailed application for 197 dwellings (RM Area 2) is currently
under consideration. There have also been pre-application discussions in
relation to a further 219 homes (RM Areas 6 and 7), which are to be affordable
dwellings constructed using modular construction methods which, the
developer anticipates, would speed up delivery considerably.
62. It is realistic to expect residential development to be completed on this site
within five years, and progress on RM Areas 1 and 2 can be expected to deliver
390 units within this period. Whilst there is a reasonable prospect of RM Areas
6 and 7 also starting to deliver, the evidence relating to this is less than clear
and cannot be relied upon. As such the Council’s anticipated 700 dwellings in
the five-year period is optimistic, noting that this is based on the developers
current generalised trajectory, which they acknowledge is prior to land sales.
Evidence of build rates on similarly sized local sites does not represent the sort
of clear evidence of deliverability anticipated by the PPG.
63. The next group relates to neighbourhood plan (NP) allocations. The first of
these, Site C01 Land north of Parsonage Farm, Henfield is included in the draft
Henfield NP, which recently passed referendum, for around 205 dwellings, with
the Council suggesting that 40 dwellings should be included in supply.
Correspondence from the site promoter indicates that preliminary site appraisal
work is underway and that an outline application is anticipated by June/July
2021. It appears that pre-application advice was on the basis of 270 units,
though the details of that are not before me, with the promoter most recently
stating their intention to progress an application for around 230 units and
suggesting commencement in winter 2022/23. Given uncertainties about site
capacity and the lack of supporting information, including the required
masterplan, the ambitious statements of the promoter fall short of realistic
evidence that completions could be achieved within five years.
64. Site C02 Land East of Wantley Hill, Henfield is also included in the draft
Henfield NP for around 25 dwellings. It is a WSCC site and is one of a number
involving a recently agreed joint venture with Lovells. Email evidence suggests
that it is ‘hoped’ that a planning application will be submitted in December
2021, though this is subject to joint venture programming. Details of the
nature of the application and future programming are limited. Some
preliminary site assessment work in terms of ground level water and filtration
tests took place earlier this year. However, such generalised aspirations fail to
show a realistic prospect of housing completions within the five year period.
65. Site C03 Land West of Backsettown, off Furners Lane also relates to a site
allocated in the draft Henfield NP. The Council suggest 30 dwellings should be
included in supply. Evidence of detailed site assessment is provided, however
the planning agent indicates that a planning application will not be prepared
until early 2022 at the earliest, and that full planning permission is 12-18
months away. As there is some uncertainty about timings it is not realistic to
expect delivery within the five-year period.
66. Site CO5 Land at Holly Farm, Mannings Heath is allocated in the Nuthurst NP,
for five dwellings. Planning permission was refused in October 2020, with a
second application submitted in March 2021 seeking to overcome previous
reasons for refusal. Having reviewed the supporting documentation, which has
been presented to the Parish Council, it does appear that the revisions
proposed could address previous concerns, and that there is some momentum
around gaining approval. As such, I am satisfied that there is a reasonable
prospect of this site delivering within the five-year period.
67. Site C06 Crosby Farm is allocated in the Slinfold NP for up to 24 dwellings. An
outline application for up to 24 dwellings was refused based on the scale of the
proposed site access works. This has been appealed and a revised outline
application seeking to address this concern has been submitted, as has a full
application. As such, whilst planning approvals are not yet in place, it does
appear that, as with the previous case, there is evidence of some momentum
behind this case, such that there is a good prospect of this site delivering
within the five-year period.
68. Site C08 Land North of Downsview Avenue is allocated in the Storrington NP for
at least 60 dwellings. Outline planning approval for 62 dwellings was gained in
May 2020 and a reserved matters application submitted in March 2021. Whilst
there is limited evidence of pre-commencement conditions having been
discharged, the detailed site analysis and design work is presented, and the
developer confirms the intention to start on site in early 2022 with completions
being made 9 months later at a rate of 1 dwelling per week. Even if such
timescales are optimistic, the evidence suggests a sensible prospect of delivery
within the five year period.
69. Site C09 Ravenscroft Allotments, Storrington is allocated in the NP for at least
35 dwellings. A hybrid application is anticipated which will include an outline
element for up to 78 homes. As this is more than double the initial allocation it
is likely to lead to local objections. As such there is no clear prospect of
matters relating to this site being resolved, and even the suggestion that 35
dwellings should be included in supply is unrealistic at this stage.
70. Site C11 Land East of Pound Lane, Upper Beeding is allocated for around 70
dwellings in the NP which has now passed referendum. The site has been
subject to previous outline applications relating to different parts of the site
and dating from three to six years ago, none of which were successful. Pre-
application discussions took place last year with a view to developing the whole
site and providing various community benefits. Whilst a range of site
assessment work was undertaken in relation to the earlier scheme, it is not
clear how relevant this will be to the scheme currently being considered. Given
the uncertainties and lack of detail relating to the forthcoming application,
there is no clear evidence that the 40 units anticipated by the Council will be
completed within the five-year period.
71. Finally, turning to windfall figures, the dispute relates to whether a windfall
allowance on larger sites of over 10 units should be included. Windfall sites are
those not specifically identified in the development plan, though the Framework
paragraph 71 sets out that they can be included providing this is realistic
having regard to strategic housing land availability assessments, historic
windfall delivery rates and expected future trends.
72. The Council have included a figure of 663 windfall dwellings in this category
derived from analysis of completions 2012-18. This data does reflect historic
delivery rates and this six-year period is a reasonable time from which to draw
trends. Further, as updated information demonstrates, as these figures
exclude prior approvals the average figures underestimate actual delivery.
However, data from more recent years suggests more variable windfall
approval rates for sites of over 10 dwellings, with the appellants evidence
indicating that no approvals were recorded in 2020/21. At this stage there is
no evidence of further potential sites coming forward, therefore falling short of
the evidence referred to in the Framework paragraph 71.
73. The view of the Inspector in the Hanging Lane decision,5 supported by the
Secretary of State, is that by definition the detail of these sites is unknown and
the only logical basis for determining the allowance is by reference to past
completions on such sites. This appears sensible though in this case, given
recent faltering windfall approvals, 663 completions appears somewhat
optimistic. On the other hand the appellants suggestion that 431 units should
be removed from supply is overly pessimistic. My view is that a moderate
deduction of around 20% from supply, giving 530 units, would be appropriate.
Conclusion on housing land supply
74. Based on the above, I have agreed that it is appropriate to include full supply
from sites A01, C05, C06 and C08, and a large proportion of the windfall
allowance in supply. However, I have found some uncertainty around the
Council’s reliance on the remaining sites, suggesting that the allocation for site
A02 should be reduced, and that the allocations for sites C01, C02, C03, C09
and C011 should be removed. I have also indicated that whilst the supply
figures for sites B02, B03 and B04 cannot be relied on in full, it is likely that
there will be completions on these sites. As such my view is that for these
sites the supply level should be at a mid-point between the Council’s and the
appellant’s positions. As a result the total deductions from the supply figure
amount to 732,6 giving a figure of 4,048 and a supply of 4.3 years.
75. The implications of not having a five-year supply of housing land are of great
significance in as the most important policies for determining the application
are deemed to be out of date for the purposes of paragraph 11 d).
5 APP/P4605/W/18/3192918, para 14.57-14.59 and para 20.
6 This comprises deductions of: 73 from A02; 66 from B02; 90 from B03; 200 from B04; 40 from C01; 25 from
C02; 30 from C03; 35 from C09; 40 from C11, and 133 from the windfall allocation
Other Matters
Development plan policies
76. Whilst the most important policies for determining the application are deemed
to be out of date, the Framework paragraph 219 sets out that due weight can
be given to such policies according to their degree of consistency with policies
in the Framework. However, the Framework does not prescribe the weight to
be given to conflict with development plan policies. This is affected by the
purpose of the policy and the circumstances of the case.
77. In this case the most important policies include those relating to the spatial
development strategy as set out at HDPF Policies 1, 2, 3 and 4. Policy 1
reflects the Framework presumption in favour of sustainable development and
is fully consistent. As noted above, Policies 2, 3 and 4 set out how sustainable
growth will be achieved, though as they seek to focus development within
settlements and only allow expansion on allocated sites and where landscape
character will be protected, they have a restrictive element. Nonetheless as
they generally reflect the Framework preference for development to be well
located in relation to services and facilities, I give them moderate weight.
78. Policy 15 sets out the approach to ensuring that there is sufficient housing
provision for the district, including meeting the needs of other authorities.
However, as the Council has not demonstrated a five-year supply of deliverable
sites this Policy has limited weight.
79. Policy 25 seeks to protect the natural environment and landscape character
and is fully consistent with the Framework in this regard. Policy 26 refers
specifically to countryside protection outside built up area boundaries, requiring
development to be essential to this location. Whilst again this reflects the
Frameworks preference for development to be well located in relation to
services and facilities, as the definition of built-up areas is based on out of date
housing numbers, I give this Policy moderate weight. Policy 30 sets out
measures relating to protected landscapes. Whilst the wording differs slightly
from the Framework, the principles are the same and so this Policy receives
substantial weight.
80. Other policies are referred to by the appellant in support of the proposal. It is
agreed that Policies 16, 24, 27, 31, 32, 33, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 42 and 43,
have a high degree of consistency with the provisions of the Framework, such
that they should be afforded substantial weight.
Framework Paragraph 177 considerations
81. The lack of 5-year housing land supply triggers the Framework paragraph 11 d)
and the presumption in favour of granting planning permission, unless the
application of policies in the Framework that protect areas or assets of
particular importance provide a clear reason for refusing development. This
includes AONB, with paragraph 177 requiring that planning permission should
be refused for major development, other than in exceptional circumstances,
and where it can be demonstrated that the development is in the public
interest. In this case there is no dispute that the development would be
‘major’. As such the appellant has set out a number of factors considered to be
exceptional and in the public interest, which I now consider in relation to the
paragraph 177 criteria.
The need for the development, including in terms of any national considerations,
and the impact of permitting it, or refusing it, upon the local economy
Market Housing need
82. There is no doubt that there is a national housing crisis that manifests itself
particularly in the South-East, as reflected in house price inflation which in
turn pushes affordability ratios up to eyewatering levels. The high level of
unmet need across the East and West Sussex Housing Market Areas is not in
dispute. It is also clear that this undersupply has accumulated over the
recent past, with the planned-for housing of a number of Sussex authorities
falling below need. The level of unmet need is estimated by the appellant to
be around 45,000 homes across the combined area. It appears that this is a
long standing and systemic problem.
83. Whilst the position in Sussex overall is bleak, Horsham is one of the few
authorities whose plan requirements have exceeded need. In terms of
delivery, whilst between 2011/12-2019/2020 net housing additions have fallen
a little below need when measured by the standard method, over the period
2015/16-2019/20 net additions have exceeded need using this measure, with
an accumulated surplus of 663 dwellings over the period 2011/12-2019/20.
84. Nonetheless, the HDPF examining Inspector did make clear his concerns
regarding the need for an early review of the Plan in order to identify areas for
new housing development needed towards the end of the Plan period (2011-
2031) in order to meet the increased housing requirement figure. It was
agreed that this should commence within the first three years of the adoption
of the Plan. As the HDPF is a strategic document making a limited number of
large allocations, the need for a Site Allocations document (SA DPD) to enable
a range of smaller scale housing sites to come forward was identified, though
the Inspector stated that this was only necessary if initial monitoring showed a
potential shortfall in the short term supply of land. As the data indicates that
early delivery was above the housing requirement, the suggestion that a SA
DPD was unnecessary is not unreasonable per se.
85. The examining Inspector also considered that an early review of the HDPF was
required to assist in addressing the housing need of the wider area. I
understand that such discussions are ongoing, with the case being made for
some of the high levels of unmet need across Coastal Sussex and Northwest
Sussex to be addressed by Horsham. Whilst the connection between Horsham
and coastal authorities may be tenuous, there is a SoCG between the local
authorities of Horsham, Crawley, Mid-Sussex and Sussex County Council
setting out that they will work together to address future housing need across
the HMA. That said, only Worthing, Crawley and Mole Valley have asked the
Council to take on part of their unmet need through the Duty to Cooperate.
86. The Regulation 18 Draft Local Plan (Reg 18 Plan) looks at options for housing
provision, noting that in addition to its own objectively assessed need of 965
homes per year, additional development will be required to meet the unmet
needs of other districts. It sets out to test the deliverability and impacts of
three potential options for housing growth: 1,000, 1,200 and 1,400 homes per
year. The 1,000 figure would only provide for Horsham’s needs, plus a 5%
buffer, whereas the 1,200 and 1,400 figure would provide around 200/400
homes per year to help meet the unmet needs of Crawley and beyond. As
such, noting support for the higher figures from neighbouring councils, the
latter positions represent more realistic propositions.
87. A range of large-scale potential housing sites (over 800 dwellings) are
identified in the Reg 18 Plan either as new settlements or urban extensions. It
is inevitable that a number of these sites will have considerable infrastructure
requirements and, if included in the adopted plan, will take some years to
deliver homes. The Reg 18 Plan does include smaller scale sites (up to 500
dwellings) which are likely to have greater prospects of earlier delivery, though
not at scale. At this stage the plan has excluded sites which are fully within the
AONB from consideration. Whilst this does not take into consideration the
variable character of the AONB, considering that the designated area covers
only 6.8% of the district, it is not unreasonable to expect that there is scope
for meeting need outside the designated area.
88. Whilst the HDPF review commenced in 2018 progress has been slow, with the
Reg 18 consultation held in February/March 2020. Following the close of the
Inquiry it has been confirmed that the Council’s intention to publish and consult
on a Regulation 19 Submission Draft in September/October 2021 will be
subject to delay for an undefined period. This is to allow for additional work to
meet the requirement to set out a 30-year vision. Therefore, the suggestion
that it could be adopted by autumn 2022 is not realistic, noting also the
challenges of translating the Reg 18 options for housing growth into an agreed
strategy. Whilst it is not suggested that progress has been completely halted,
realistically it is unlikely that the new Local Plan will be in place for some time.
89. The significant need for housing in Horsham is not exceptional as it reflects
what is happening elsewhere. Nonetheless, in the context of the current lack
of five-year housing land supply, the delays in the allocation of housing to meet
the needs of Horsham, as well as wider needs through the plan-led system,
means that there is a vacuum which, until addressed, will exacerbate the
housing shortage in the district. In this context the provision of market
housing is a benefit of substantial weight.
Affordable housing need
90. With increasing affordability issues generally, the parties agree that the acute
need for affordable housing (AH) in England is reflected in Horsham.
91. Looking at past delivery, the HDPF requirement of 35% AH on larger sites was
found to be a sound basis for meeting the minimum level of affordable housing
required. This had been identified in the Northern West Sussex Housing Market
Area Affordable Housing Needs Update 2014 as a range between 225 and 404
dwellings per annum. Between 2014/15 and 2019/20 average net AH
completions fell short of the minimum figure by 3%, with a shortfall of 43
dwellings, and with a shortfall of 46% or 1,117 dwellings, on the upper part of
the range. It appears that, unsurprisingly, actual need levels fall somewhere
within the range, with the number of households on the Council’s register at
675 on 1 April 2020, increasing from 582 on 1 April 2019. As such, it appears
that the Councils track record of delivery of AH has been at a reasonably
steady level, though has fallen demonstrably short of meeting AH needs.
92. Turning to future supply, the Council anticipates an AH supply of around 240
units per annum, though based on the housing land supply evidence considered
earlier the actual figure is likely to be somewhat lower. Furthermore, the 2019
Northern West Sussex Housing Market Assessment has identified a much
higher need figure of 503 affordable homes in Horsham. Whilst this has yet to
be tested at examination, it is clearly a considerable increase on current supply
levels. The Council is considering increasing the policy target to 50%, a point
to be explored through viability testing. The Council is also committed to using
its affordable housing company to build AH, stating that Section 106 monies of
around £16 million are available for this purpose. However, the estimated 96
dwellings this could provide would not make significant inroad into the shortfall.
Given the delays to local plan progression, the capacity for enhanced provision
at any time soon is uncertain.
93. Whilst national policy does not require local planning authorities (LPAs) to meet
their assessed AH needs in full, the very real social responsibility of providing
for each household within this group is without doubt, recognising also that
their interests often go under-represented at Inquiries such as this. In
Horsham it is relevant to note that of those households on the housing register,
387 indicate Horsham East and 93 indicate Colgate Civil Parish as their areas of
choice. A further 506 households were on the help to buy register on 22
February 2021 seeking shared ownership. In these circumstances the
appellant’s enhanced offer of 45% AH, which would be secured by the S106
agreement and would amount to 213 new homes for local people (149 homes
for affordable rent and 64 for shared ownership), is an important matter
attracting very substantial weight.
Self-build and custom-build housing (SBCB)
94. In response to rising demand over the past decade, government has sought to
boost the supply of SBCB housing, and now attaches great importance to this
element of housing supply. The HDPF was prepared in the context of the 2012
Framework, which required LPAs to identify the scale and mix of housing and
the range of tenures needed by local people over the plan period, including
people wishing to build their own homes. Provision for this was made in Policy
SD4 relating solely to the LNH allocation for at least 2,500 homes, which will
include 30 SBCB plots.
95. Local policy does not yet reflect the provisions of the Self-Build and Custom
Housebuilding Act 2015 which formalised SBCB requirements, placing a legal
duty on local authorities to establish and publicise a local register of custom-
builders who wish to acquire suitable land to build their own home. The
Housing and Planning Act 2016 added the requirement to grant suitable
development permissions in respect of enough serviced plots of land to meet
the demand for SBCB in the authority's area arising in each base period.
96. The dispute between the parties relates to whether this demand has been
captured, and specifically whether a robust assessment of SBCB demand in the
district has been undertaken, in line with PPG. The PPG sets out that LPAs
should use demand data from the registers in their area, supported as
necessary by additional data from secondary sources, to understand and
consider future need for this type of housing. Secondary sources can include
data from building plot search websites, enquiries for building plots recorded by
local estate agents and surveys of local residents.7
7 Paragraph: 011 Reference ID: 57-011-20210208
97. In this case the Council introduced an annual fee of £20 to remain on the
Register in November 2018, which resulted in the removal of entries. As such,
whilst the current cumulative total entries on the Register from Base Period 1
to Base Period 6 is 103 (76 resident; 27 non-resident), if previous removals
were added the cumulative total would be considerably higher, estimated by
the appellant to be 332 individuals and four groups.8
98. The Regulations do set out that fees may be charged to be entered onto and
remain on the register, and the reluctance to pay such a nominal fee may
reflect a lack of commitment. Nonetheless, evidence of secondary sources
presented by the appellant, which was not disputed, indicates that demand is
higher than the Register would suggest.
99. The Reg 18 Plan does acknowledge the Council’s duty to pursue SBCB plots,
though it will be some time before its provisions are in place. Until then the
Council’s inability to fulfil its duty in terms of registered demand remains. The
provision of 47 units of SBCB housing secured by the S106 agreement would
more than double the Council’s supply, providing for local demand and going
some significant way towards meeting statutory duties in this regard. This is a
benefit attracting substantial weight.
100. The demonstrable need for housing in Horsham district is without doubt.
Looking at the effect on the local economy, whilst refusing the scheme would
not have any specific adverse impacts, permitting it would deliver short to
medium term benefits such as the boost to the construction industry, and
additional spend in the economy. These are generic benefits associated with
major development of this nature which attract modest weight.
The cost of, and scope for, developing outside the designated area, or meeting the
need for it in some other way
101. The appellant has considered nearby sites outside the AONB, but has
concluded that they are constrained by the railway line or already have
permission for development (the LNH and Kilnwood Vale developments).
However, as the designation covers only 6.8% of the district, this is not an
adequate basis for concluding on the scope to meet needs outside the AONB.
102. Whilst at the present time the housing land supply evidence indicates that
sites under development will not achieve the necessary targets, it is clear that
there is a lot of development in progress which will deliver within and beyond
the five-year period. The Council also considers that it can meet future needs
without relying on AONB land, with a range of large and smaller scale sites
included in the Reg 18 Plan. It will be some time before this emerging Local
Plan is in place and it has limited weight at this stage, with the viability of
these sites not having been fully considered. Even if viable, it is clear that
larger sites will take some time to come forward, as demonstrated by the fact
that the LNH has not yet delivered units. That said, not all would be required
to meet future need and it is agreed that the Reg 18 Plan demonstrates the
direction of travel, with considerable scope for meeting housing need outside
the AONB.
103. The nature of the housing offered by the appeal scheme is not constrained to
any particular location unlike, for example, in the Broadway appeal where
8 Compare Fig 1 of Mr Hermitage’s PoE with Fig 4.2 of Mr Moger’s PoE.
reference is made to the rarity of the opportunity to viably provide extra care
housing that is affordable.9 Similarly in the Sonning Common case the
Inspector found that, due in part to viability issues, the immediate unmet need
for extra-care housing could not be met elsewhere.10
104. Whilst I conclude that the scope for developing a scheme of this nature
outside the AONB has been underestimated by the appellant, the issue of
meeting the urgent need for housing within the short to medium term
remains.
Detrimental effect on the environmental, landscape and recreational opportunities,
and the extent to which they can be moderated
105. In relation to landscape and visual matters I have found that, perhaps
unsurprisingly in relation to a site on both the edge of an AONB and the edge
of a town, the site provides the opportunity to experience some, though not all
of the AONB special qualities. Whilst the western field has elements more
characteristic of a transitional edge of settlement environment, AONB qualities
are experienced in the eastern field. The development would be a significant
intrusion into this essentially rural space.
106. The site has a high degree of visual containment by virtue of The Birches and
particularly the tall trees of High Wood. Additional planting would further
moderate visual impacts over time. Nonetheless, I concluded that there would
be residual moderate and major adverse effects to some landscape and visual
receptors, and significant harm to AONB landscape and scenic beauty.
107. The secondary mitigation includes the commitment to design quality, secured
by the DCS. That a high standard of design that would be of the High Weald
could be achieved is not questioned. Whilst this level of commitment to
design excellence may be unusual for an outline scheme, it is not exceptional
for development within an AONB to be of the highest standard, rather this is
an expectation, noting Government’s renewed commitment to creating well-
designed and attractive places. Nonetheless, design standard could assist in
managing some aspects of visual integration and I note that the Framework
paragraph 134 requires such considerations to be given significant weight.
108. The measures set out in the LECS include the commitment to the provision
and management of green infrastructure, making up 48% of the site area and
including LEAPs, LAPs, allotments, a sports pitch and a country park. The
future management of these areas would be secured by the S106 agreement.
This exceeds the policy requirement for Public Open Space by a considerable
margin in an area said to be deficient in open space, though evidence to back
this latter point was not provided. The legal access to the spaces provided
would improve recreation opportunities for existing and new residents. The
PROW itself would be upgraded and a financial contribution made via the S106
agreement to the improvement of the Riverside Walk. Whilst some of this
provision would be necessary to support the increased local population, the
recreational benefits to the wider community attract moderate weight.
109. The LECS also sets out how the green infrastructure would deliver ecological
mitigation measures and reasonable levels of biodiversity enhancement which
would secure measurable net biodiversity gains. The importance of planning
9 APP/H1840/A/14/2224292
10 APP/Q3115/W/20/3265861
decisions in mitigating impacts and providing net gains for biodiversity is
reflected both in national and local policy. In this case the predicted outcomes
based on the LECS and using the Biodiversity Metric 2.0 demonstrates a net
gain of around 20% habitat units and 55% linear habitat unit increases.
Whilst in part demonstrating policy compliance, I give this consideration
moderate weight.
110. Finally, the appeal proposal contains several measures relating to sustainable
design and construction seeking to address climate change. These provisions
largely reflect the need for a proactive approach to mitigating and adapting to
climate change, as set out in legislation as well as national and local policy. As
such they are for the most part now expected in new development, and do not
attract beneficial weight.
Other benefits
111. Paragraph 177 a)-c) criteria are not an exhaustive list of what may be
considered exceptional circumstances. The appellant highlights a number of
points relating to what is considered to be the exceptional location of the site
adjacent to Horsham town. Firstly, it is agreed that the town has a pivotal
role in the spatial strategy, providing district-wide services and facilities as
well as extensive public transport links. The HDFP highlights the importance
of retaining the existing settlement pattern, ensuring that development takes
place in the most sustainable locations and is of a scale that retains the
character and role of the settlement.
112. The HDLCA of 2014 and 2020 considered a range of sites around the
circumference of Horsham town, providing an objective assessment of the
sensitivity and capacity of the landscape around existing settlements to
accommodate development. With the exception of the areas which will form
part of the LNH development, most of the remaining perimeter of Horsham
town is considered to have no/low capacity for development. The appeal site’s
location in Area 17 is unique in that it is considered to have moderate
capacity. This is subject to further detailed consideration, as has been
undertaken here, with harm identified in relation to the physical extent and
form of the appeal scheme. As such the suggestion that the site is unique is
of limited weight in determining this appeal.
113. That said, a development of this scale would not be disproportionate to the
size of settlement, and in basic terms adjacent settlement size does provide a
starting point for judging appropriate development scale. The appellant
sought to highlight this with reference to other AONB developments adjacent
to smaller settlements which have been permitted at appeal.11 These cases
engaged paragraph 177 and considered whether exceptional circumstances
justified major development. Beyond this the case details differ. In the
Broadway case, in addition to the challenge of viably meeting the need for the
development elsewhere, the Inspector found no significantly harmful effect on
the scenic beauty of the AONB, and that the development would appear as a
marginal extension of a significant area of housing. In the Tetbury case12 the
Secretary of State agreed that there would be some harm to AONB scenic
beauty, but that there was very limited scope to develop on sites that were
outside the AONB. Therefore, notwithstanding the appellant’s point about
11 INQ12
12 APP/F1610/A/11/2165778
proportionality in relation to settlement size, these cases demonstrate that
whether the conclusion can be drawn that circumstances are so exceptional
that development would be in the public interest is dependent on the careful
balancing of harm to the protected area with meeting wider needs. I therefore
attach limited weight to these other decisions.
114. Finally, the site is well located in relation to transport networks, with the A264
and bus routes along the Crawley Road close by. It is also well connected by
PROW leading into the urban area. This would support sustainable travel
methods, which can be of particular value to the occupiers of AH. Whilst the
provisions of the S106 agreement seeking to enhance walking/cycling routes
and upgrade bus stop facilities are required to make the development
acceptable in planning terms, these improvements would also be enjoyed by
the existing residents of the Roffey area. As such this would be a wider
benefit of moderate weight.
Planning Balance
115. The starting point for reaching a conclusion on the Framework paragraph
176/177 is that great weight should be given to conserving and enhancing the
landscape and scenic beauty of an AONB, which has the highest status of
protection in relation to these issues. This reflects the statutory duty under
Section 85 of The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 to have regard to
the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of AONB. As
such, the scale and extent of development within these areas should be
limited, and planning permission should be refused for major development
other than in exceptional circumstances.
116. I agree that the collective of benefits should form part of the consideration of
whether exceptional circumstances exist. This is confirmed by Compton PC v
Guildford BC,13 which also indicates that general planning needs such as
ordinary housing are not precluded from being part of the judgement that
exceptional circumstances exist. Further, this term does not mean that the
factors involved have to be unlikely to recur in a similar fashion elsewhere.
117. In this case there is no doubt that the collective of benefits identified present
considerations of great importance. As such I have afforded substantial
weight to market housing, very substantial weight to affordable housing and
substantial weight to self-build and custom-build housing. I have recognised
that in very basic terms the site aligns with the spatial strategy in somewhat
constrained circumstances, and that there would be sustainable travel benefits
associated with the proposal. There would also be recreational and
biodiversity benefits, and a high standard of design would be achieved. Whilst
I have found that the scope for developing outside the designated area to be
underestimated by the appellant, I recognise the short to medium term issues
with achieving this, and also that the appellant is committed to securing the
early delivery of the appeal scheme.
118. Set against this, I have found significant harm to the landscape and scenic
beauty of the AONB. This relates particularly to the eastern field which I have
found to reflect qualities of the wider AONB, a fact valued and appreciated by
many. Whilst I have recognised the efforts to moderate these impacts
13 Compton Parish Council v Guildford Borough Council [2019] EWHC 3242 (Admin)
through design and green infrastructure, this would not significantly address
the effects of the degree of physical and visual intrusion proposed.
119. The range, sensitivity, and importance of the issues on both sides of the
balance are not taken lightly. I recognise that the identified benefits in
relation to housing matters would clearly be in the public interest. However,
the reality is that the circumstances of the housing shortfall, including huge
challenges around providing for affordable housing and self-build and custom-
build housing, are not unusual. The location of the site has been carefully
considered: it is part of an area considered to have capacity to accommodate
significant housing development adjacent to the main district settlement,
though this is subject to detailed landscape analysis. The challenge of
accommodating development that accords with the spatial strategy remains
and is a material consideration, though the locational circumstances of the site
have not been found to be unique. The other benefits identified are
commonplace and do not add significantly to the balancing. Overall, my view
is that these considerations do not together present exceptional
circumstances. I conclude that when they are balanced against the significant
harm to the landscape and scenic beauty of the AONB, a development of this
scale in this location would not be in the public interest.
120. The Framework paragraph 11 sets out that where the application of policies
within the Framework that protect areas of particular importance provide a
clear reason for refusing development then the so called ‘tilted balance’ in
favour of granting planning permission does not apply. Therefore, in light of
footnote 7, given my conclusion in respect of AONB this case falls to be
determined on the ordinary unweighted planning balance, to which I now turn.
121. Support for some aspects of the development, including the provision of a
policy compliant housing mix, affordable housing, design quality,
environmental protection, the provision of green infrastructure, energy use
and climate change can be gained from development plan policies which carry
substantial weight. The proposal would also be policy compliant in relation to
other matters including sustainable transport, energy use, climate change and
flooding. I have also found policy compliance in terms of highway safety.
122. Whilst the proposal would not support the spatial strategy for the District as
set out in Policies 2, 4 and 26, these policies are not fully Framework
compliant. Furthermore, the issues associated with the supply of housing land
means that conflict with these policies may be afforded modest weight only.
123. Nonetheless, those policies relating to the conservation and enhancement of
protected AONB landscapes are fully consistent with the Framework. The
conflict identified is significant and is determinative in this case. I therefore
conclude that the benefits of the appeal proposal do not outweigh the conflict
with the development plan taken as a whole. There are no material
considerations that suggest the decision should be taken other than in
accordance with the development plan.
Conclusion
124. For these reasons the appeal is dismissed.
A J Mageean
INSPECTOR
APPEARANCES
FOR THE APPELLANT:
Christopher Young QC instructed by FCP Land 4 Limited
Assisted by Sioned Davies
They called:
James Donagh BA (Hons) MCD MIED on housing need
Ben Pycroft BA (Hons) DiP TP MRTPI on housing land supply
James Stacey BA (Hons) DiP TP MRTPI on affordable housing
Andrew Moger BA (Hons) MA MRTPI on self build and custom housebuilding
Andrew Smith BsC (Hons) MSc CMLI on landscape, visual and character
matters
Elizabeth Alexander BA (Hons) MPhil MRTPI on planning matters
Michael Kitching BSc MSc CILT on transport
FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY:
Clare Parry of Counsel instructed by legal services Horsham Council.
She called:
Mark McLaughlin BA (Hons), MTPL, MRTPI
on five year housing land supply
Anne Westover BA Dip LA CMLI
on landscape
James Hutchinson BA MA MRTPI
Planning consultant on planning policy and planning balance
INTERESTED PARTIES:
Ms Lydia Playfoot
Keep Our Green Spaces
Cllr David Searle
Horsham Town Community Partnership
Cllr Alan Britten
North Horsham Parish Council
Mr Paul Kornycky
Mrs Sally Sanderson
Horsham Green Spaces Forum
Dr Peter Simpson
Horsham Green Spaces Forum
Mr Andrew Caulfield
Mr Howard Wilder
Dr Roger Smith
CPRE Sussex
Mr Simon Neesam
The Landscape Partnership
Mrs Heather Playfoot
Keep Our Green Spaces
Mrs Elizabeth Rice
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED AT THE INQUIRY
1. Council Windfall Sites update (INQ 1)
2. Draft planning conditions (INQ 2)
3. Appellant opening statement (INQ 3)
4. Council opening statement (INQ 4)
5. Statement from KOGS Horsham
6. Statement from David Searle
7. Statement from North Horsham Town Council
8. Statement from Paul Kornycky
9. Statement from Horsham Green Spaces
10. Statement from CPRE Sussex
11. Statement from the residents of Roffeyhurst properties
12. Shelter report (INQ 5)
13. Landscape errata to Ms Westover Proof of Evidence (INQ 6)
14. High Weald AONB Map (INQ 7)
15. Further Extracts from the 2020 Horsham Landscape Capacity Study (INQ 8)
16. Joint Policy Position Statement (INQ 9)
17. Broadway appeal decision (APP/H1840/A/14/2224292) (INQ 10)
18. Holsworthy Appeal decision (APP/W1145/A/09/2117379) (INQ 11)
19. Major development in AONB comparison table (INQ 12)
20. Map of Wychavon AONB (INQ 13)
21. Table of responses to Reg 18 Horsham Local Plan (INQ 14)
22. Timeline for Reg 18 Horsham Local Plan (INQ 15)
23. Statement from KOGS
24. Council Closing Statement
25. Appellant Closing Statement
DOCUMENTS ACCEPTED AFTER THE INQUIRY
1. The appellants signed and dated legal agreement under Section 106 of the
Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
2. SoCG and Council’s Statement of Case in relation to the Appeal Ref
APP/Z3825/W/3261401.
3. Appeal decisions APP/B1930/W/20/3265925 & 3265926
4. Appeal decision APP/Q3115/W/20/3265861
5. Council response to Appellant correspondence of 30 June 2021
6. Appeal decision APP/V3120/W/20/3261691
7. Appeal decision APP/K1128/W/17/3185418
8. Appellants reply to the Council’s post-Inquiry Submissions
9. Appellants response to the Revised National Planning Policy Framework
10. Press release of 28 July 2021 relating to progress with the Draft Horsham
District Local Plan


Select any text to copy with citation

Appeal Details

LPA:
Horsham District Council
Date:
30 July 2021
Inspector:
Mageean A
Decision:
Dismissed
Type:
Planning Appeal
Procedure:
Inquiry

Development

Address:
Land south of Newhouse Farm, Old Crawley Road, Horsham, RH12 4HL
Type:
Major dwellings
Site Area:
26 hectares
LPA Ref:
DC/20/0470
Case Reference: 3266503
Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0.

Disclaimer

AppealBase™ provides access to planning appeal decisions from 1 January 2020 for informational purposes only.
Only appeals where the full text of the decision notice can be retrieved are included. Linked cases are not included.
Data is updated daily and cross-checked quarterly with the PINS Casework Database.
Your use of this website is subject to our Terms of Use and Privacy Statement.

© 2025 Re-Focus Associates Ltd. All rights reserved.
Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0, with personal data redacted before republication.