# Paddock north of Spring Acres, West End Lane, Henfield (PIP, up to 9 self-build homes) - **Decision:** dismissed, 23 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: E Everitt - **Authority:** Horsham (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6006961 - **Application reference:** DC/26/0041 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Permission in principle for up to 9 self-build dwellings on the road frontage of an open paddock outside the built-up area boundary - **Homes:** 9 - **Site context:** open-countryside, rural-lane - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S5(4), S5(1)(e), DP3 - **Development plan policies:** Horsham District Planning Framework 2015 Policies 2, 3, 4, 25, 26, 32, 33, Henfield Neighbourhood Plan 2017-2031 (2021) Policies 1, 10 - **Main issues:** development plan policies on the location of development, character and appearance - **Tags:** PIP, self-build, s5-4-exceptional, s5-1-e-infill, infill-rejected, landscape-harm, housing-shortfall, small-scheme, plan-policy-consistent-full-weight, s6-neighbourhood-plan, plan-making-policies-not-for-decisions, rural-lane-no-footway, plan-led, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary Permission in principle for up to nine self-build homes on an open paddock on West End Lane, outside Henfield, was dismissed. The site was in open countryside, not within a group of houses, and the appellant did not argue any other S5(1) category. Under S5(4) the benefits, cut to moderate weight for their small scale, did not substantially outweigh the harm of urbanising an open gap. The 2015 local plan's location and character policies were held consistent with the Framework and kept their weight. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "The main parties were provided with the opportunity to comment on the relevance of the Framework to the appeal, and I have taken account of the comments received, and the Framework, in making my decision" (DL ¶5). - **Location: plan conflict.** "the appeal site is undisputably located within the open countryside. It does not adjoin an existing settlement edge" (DL ¶9). - **Character, DP3: CONFLICT.** "I am not satisfied that any built form on the site could be accommodated without harm to the open, verdant character of the site" (DL ¶17). The proposal would "conflict with Policy DP3 of the Framework which seeks development proposals which respond to their context so that they integrate with and enhance their surroundings. Therefore, the efficiency of the use of the land is not determinative" (DL ¶19). - **Plan weight (Annex A).** "the Framework makes clear in Annex A that policies should not be given reduced weight simply because they were adopted prior to the publication of the Framework" (DL ¶30). - **S5(1)(e): FAIL.** "I do not consider that the site is located within a group of houses, with Policy S5 part 1.e. therefore not applicable" (DL ¶32). - **Plan-making policy.** "Policy L1 is identified as a plan-making policy, which paragraph 8 of the Framework specifies should not be used when making decisions on development proposals" (DL ¶27). - **Housing weight.** "These benefits attract substantial weight in favour of the development. However, given the scale of the proposed development, the benefits would be small in scale. Consequently, I attach moderate weight to them" (DL ¶34). - **S6.** "even though the provisions of Policy S6 (previously paragraph 14) of the Framework are no longer applicable as of June 2026, 5 years after the adoption of the HNP, in this case, the application of the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not indicate that permission should be granted" (DL ¶36). ## Planning balance S5(4): benefits must substantially outweigh the adverse effects. Benefits: self-build homes (moderate) and economic benefits (moderate). Harm: character and appearance, with conflict with DP3 and local plan Policies 25, 32 and 33. "While these benefits weigh in favour of the proposal, they would not substantially outweigh the harm I have identified above in respect of the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area" (DL ¶35). The decision is then made in accordance with the development plan (DL ¶37). ## What made the difference The site's role as an open gap on the undeveloped side of the lane, and the route the appellant chose. Infill under S5(1)(e) failed because houses stand on one side only. The unmet-need category, S5(1)(j), was not argued, and the site does not adjoin the settlement in any case, so the appeal fell to the reverse S5(4) test. The inspector found that no number of homes could avoid the harm, which closed off a smaller scheme. ## Transferable points - A frontage plot facing houses across a lane, with only sporadic development on its own side, is not "within a group of houses" for S5(1)(e) (DL ¶32). - An inspector will not test S5(1) categories the appellant has not argued; here S5(1)(j) was not run despite a supply shortfall (DL ¶32). - Up to nine self-build homes at permission-in-principle stage: substantial weight in principle, reduced to moderate for scale (DL ¶34). - Plan-making policies such as L1 are not applied in decisions (Framework paragraph 8) (DL ¶27). - Location, accessibility and character policies in a 2015 plan were held not materially inconsistent with the Framework and kept "due weight" under Annex A (DL ¶30). - S6 falls away five years after the neighbourhood plan was adopted, but that does not by itself tip the presumption (DL ¶36). ## Policy findings - **S5(1)(e): fail.** built development on the south side of the lane only; the north side is predominantly open with sporadic, screened development; the site is not within a group of houses (DL 14, 32) - **S5(1)(j): not-engaged.** not argued; "It has not been put to me that the proposal would accord with any of the other criteria" in S5(1), despite a housing land supply shortfall; the site does not adjoin a settlement edge (DL 9, 12, 32) - **S5(4): fail.** benefits would not substantially outweigh the harm to character and appearance, even taking a pragmatic view of access to sustainable transport (DL 33-35) - **DP3: conflict.** any built form would urbanise an open, verdant gap and erode views to the countryside, whatever the number of dwellings; DP3(3) not cited (DL 15-19) - **Transitional(2): accord.** 2015 plan policies on location and accessibility, and on character, are not materially inconsistent with the Framework and are given "due weight"; Annex A cited (DL 30) - **S6: not-engaged.** Henfield Neighbourhood Plan passed five years in June 2026, so S6 no longer applies (DL 36) - **HO7: benefit (moderate weight).** self-build housing on a small site said to attract substantial weight, but reduced to moderate because of the small scale (DL 34) - **E2: benefit (moderate weight).** mapped: E2 not cited; economic benefits during construction and after occupation (DL 34) - **TR3: neutral.** mapped: TR3 not cited; highway authority did not object but called the location not sustainable in transport terms (very limited public transport, no footways); the inspector left accessibility undecided and assumed it in the appellant's favour (DL 11-12, 35) - **L3: not-engaged.** L3 on making best use of a site outside settlements not determinative because of the DP3 conflict; L3(2)(c) station density does not apply as the site is not within reasonable walking distance of a station (DL 19, 26) - **L1: not-engaged.** plan-making policy; paragraph 8 of the Framework says such policies are not for decisions; not considered (DL 27) - **N6(1)(a): not-engaged.** mapped: N6 not cited; Sussex North Water Supply Zone and the Arun Valley habitats sites; no appropriate assessment needed because the appeal was dismissed (DL 22) ## Key facts - Site is in open countryside, does not adjoin a settlement edge and is not allocated in the district or neighbourhood plan (DL 9) - The inspector was not satisfied that any built form could be accommodated without harm; the site is too small for effective screening (DL 17) - The appellant was willing to accept fewer dwellings; this did not change the conclusion (DL 18) - A natural burial ground had previously been proposed on the land (APP/Z3825/W/25/3375037) (DL 17) - Conditions on boundary treatment and materials were offered, but cannot be attached to a permission in principle (DL 20) - The appellant argued for countryside outside the Green Belt as sequentially preferable, and that part of the site is previously developed; neither was determinative (DL 23) - No costs application was made; the inspector declined to initiate an award (DL 6) - Housing land supply shortfall referred to; no figure given (DL 12) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6006961 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6006961.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. Source and data: https://github.com/planningdistilled/research.