Town Planner Pro
Search appeal decisions

Planning appeal decision

Dismissed16 May 20223288442

Land North of Tisserland Farm, Stane Street, Billingshurst, Horsham, RH14 9AE

Planning appeal 3288442 at Land North of Tisserland Farm, Stane Street, Billingshurst, Horsham, RH14 9AE (Horsham District Council) was dismissed on 16 May 2022 by Inspector Gilbert J, by written representations. The main issue, as the Inspector framed it: the appropriateness of the location for the proposed development in the countryside, having regard to access to local services and facilities.

outline planning application with all matters reserved for a change of use to provide a retirement community park development with associated tennis courts and facilities

Appeal type
minor · Planning Appeal
Procedure
Written Representations
Development
residential · Minor traveller and caravan pitches
Inspector
Gilbert J
Postcode
RH14 9AE

Main issues, as the Inspector framed them

  • the appropriateness of the location for the proposed development in the countryside, having regard to access to local services and facilities
  • the effect of the proposed development on the district wide need for housing, including affordable housing
  • the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area
  • the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of future occupiers, with particular regard to noise and disturbance
  • the effect of the proposed development on highway and pedestrian safety
  • the effect of the proposed development on biodiversity
  • the effect of the proposed development on flood risk
  • the effect of the proposed development on mineral resources
  • the effect of the proposed development on the Arun Valley Special Area of Conservation (SAC), Special Protection Area (SPA) and Ramsar site

What decided it

The proposed development would not have an acceptable effect on the Arun Valley SAC, SPA, and Ramsar site and would not adequately address flood risk, providing a clear reason for refusal under paragraph 11(d)(i) of the Framework, and the substantial harm from conflict with the development plan outweighed the benefits of housing supply.

Although the Council lacks a five-year housing land supply and paragraph 11(d) of the Framework is engaged, the clear conflict with policies protecting habitats sites and flood risk under footnote 7 to paragraph 11(d)(i) provides a clear reason for refusal, and the considerable concerns about nine main issues including location, housing need, character, living conditions, highway safety, biodiversity, drainage, minerals, and water neutrality substantially outweigh the possible benefits of boosting housing land supply and increasing housing choice and jobs locally.

What the Inspector cited

Development plan policies
HDPF Policy 1HDPF Policy 2HDPF Policy 3HDPF Policy 4HDPF Policy 16HDPF Policy 18HDPF Policy 19HDPF Policy 24HDPF Policy 25(1)HDPF Policy 26HDPF Policy 31HDPF Policy 32HDPF Policy 33HDPF Policy 40BPNP Policy BILL 1HDLP Policy 20West Sussex Joint Minerals Local Plan Policy M9Planning Obligations and Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document (2017)
National Planning Policy Framework
Paragraph 2Paragraph 11Paragraph 12Paragraph 47Paragraph 48Paragraph 78Paragraph 79Paragraph 80Paragraph 111Paragraph 179Paragraph 180
Judgments
City & Country Bramshill Limited v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government & Ors [2021] EWCA Civ 320; Barratt Homes Limited v Dwr Cymru Cyfyngedig (Welsh Water) [2009] UKSC 13

How the Inspector dealt with each one is set out in the app, in order: the development plan, national policy, housing land supply, other considerations and the planning balance, beside the letter.

See how each was applied

The decision letter

Town Planner Pro holds this letter. The Appeals plan opens it and every other letter we hold, all of them searchable, with the main issues and what decided each case picked out. We do not show letters on the free site because they carry people’s names and addresses.

With an account

What an account adds to this decision

25 other decided appeals within two kilometres of this site. In the app every dot opens its decision, and its letter wherever one was published, and you can draw your own site to see what has been decided around it.AllowedDismissedSplitThis decision
An appeal decision in the app, with the main issues, policies and judgments cited picked out beside the letter
Every letter, there to read. We pick out the main issues, the policies and the judgments cited, so you can work through the letter faster.
Searching the full text of appeal decision letters in the app
Search inside every letter. By words or by meaning, filtered by authority, outcome, appeal type and procedure, with every locatable decision on the map and the Inspector named on each.
Start your free trial

More decisions in Horsham District Council

The authority’s record since 2016 · every decision in 2022

  1. Allowed29 October 20266008830
    Staalcot Farm Stall House Lane, Stall House Lane, North Heath, RH20 2HR
  2. Dismissed19 October 20266007051
    Bentley House, North Heath Lane Industrial Estate, North Heath Lane, Horsham, RH12 5QE
  3. Allowed12 October 20266011680
    Land at High Chaparral, London Road, Washington, RH20 3BP
  4. Allowed25 September 20266010268
    Priory Field Barn, Monastery Lane, Storrington, RH20 4LN
  5. Allowed24 September 20266007772
    The Lamb Inn, Lambs Green, Rusper, RH12 4RG

The main issues, what decided it, the planning balance and the policies and judgments listed as cited are read from the published letter by Town Planner Pro and are our summary, not the Inspector’s words; the letter itself is the record. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Research, not advice.

In the app this decision sits on the map beside every appeal around it, with its letter to read and the main issues, policies and judgments cited picked out.