Town Planner Pro
Search appeal decisions

Planning appeal decision

Dismissed16 May 20223288442

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

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

Authority
Horsham District Council
Appeal type
minor · Planning Appeal
Procedure
Written Representations
Development
residential · Minor traveller and caravan pitches
Inspector
Gilbert J

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.

Framework references: 2, 11, 12, 47, 48, 78, 79, 80, 111, 179, 180

Plan policies cited: HDPF Policy 1, HDPF Policy 2, HDPF Policy 3, HDPF Policy 4, HDPF Policy 16, HDPF Policy 18, HDPF Policy 19, HDPF Policy 24, HDPF Policy 25(1), HDPF Policy 26, HDPF Policy 31, HDPF Policy 32, HDPF Policy 33, HDPF Policy 40, BPNP Policy BILL 1, HDLP Policy 20, West Sussex Joint Minerals Local Plan Policy M9, Planning Obligations and Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document (2017)

Judgments cited: 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

The main issues and the deciding factor are read from the published letter by Town Planner Pro; 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 other appeal around it, with the full reasoning summary, the letter held on file, and the case law it applies.