Land adjacent to Cedar Cottage, Furners Lane, Henfield

Decision

allowed, 24 August 2026

Decided by

Planning Inspector: Claire Coles

Authority

Horsham (South East)

Appeal reference

6007104

Application reference

DC/24/0535

Procedure

written representations

Development

5 open-market dwellings (2 pairs of semis and 1 detached) with upgraded access onto Furners Lane

Homes

5

Site context

settlement edge, open countryside, TPO

Green Belt

No

Housing land supply

1.7 years

Framework applied

August 2026 NPPF

Determinative policies

S5(1)(j), S6, HO3, AnnexA

Development plan policies

Horsham District Planning Framework 2015 Policies 2, 3, 4, 15, 26, Henfield Neighbourhood Plan 2021 Policies 1, 2, Shaping Development in Horsham District Planning Advice Note 2025

Main issues

suitability of location having regard to the local development strategy

Summary

Five market houses on two fields just outside Henfield's built-up area boundary, next to a site where 191 homes were allowed on appeal. Allowed. The scheme conflicts with the local plan and the Henfield NP. But Horsham has 1.7 years' supply, and S5(j) supports the development. S6 NP protection did not apply because the NP was made on 23 June 2021, more than five years before the decision, and its housing requirement was no longer credible. The Council's own 2025 advice note, which drops the allocation requirement, also weighed "heavily" in favour.

Issues and findings

• Transition. Not addressed expressly. The letter cites S6 as "formerly paragraph 14 of the 2024 Framework" (DL ¶13). There is no mention of seeking the parties' comments.
• Location — development plan: CONFLICT. "It has not been demonstrated that the proposed development has an essential need for a countryside location" (DL ¶11). "the proposed development would not be in a suitable location" (DL ¶14).
• Accessibility. "The site is in an accessible location, close to High Street services, the primary school, and bus stops" (DL ¶10).
• S5(j): PASS. "The proposal would comply with the national decision-making policies in the Framework and policy S5(j) of the Framework provides support for the proposal" (DL ¶23).
• Annex A. The conflict with HDPF 2, 4 and 26 "carries only limited weight", given consistency with the Framework and the Council's PAN (DL ¶¶24, 27).
• S6: NOT ENGAGED. "Since the HNP became part of the development plan more than five years from the date of my decision, the test at Framework policy S6(a) is not met" (DL ¶29). S6(b) was met (DL ¶30). But "I cannot consider the HNP's housing requirement to remain a credible indicator of current housing need" (DL ¶32).

Planning balance

The development plan conflict had diminished weight: limited for the HDPF, and diminished for the HNP. Five dwellings got "significant weight" at a significant shortfall (DL ¶35). Conclusion: the adverse impacts "would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits ... As a result, the presumption in favour of sustainable development would apply" (DL ¶48). This is the 2024 tilted-balance wording, not S5's "substantially outweighed".

What made the difference

There were three drivers. First, timing: the NP turned five years old on 23 June 2026, so S6 protection had fallen away by 24 August 2026. Second, the adjacent 191-home permission, which changed the site's context and mitigated its encroachment. Third, the Council's own advice note inviting unallocated edge-of-settlement sites. Had the NP been under five years old, S6 would have made the benefits "likely" to be substantially outweighed.

Transferable points

• S6(a) is a hard five-year cut-off from the date the NP was made. Once it passes, S6 protection is lost even if the NP allocates enough to meet its requirement (DL ¶¶29-30).
• Even when S6(b) is met, a NP housing requirement derived from an out-of-date local plan figure may not be "a credible indicator of current housing need", which reduces the weight of NP conflict (DL ¶¶31-34).
• An LPA's own interim advice note allowing unallocated sites outside settlement boundaries is a material consideration that "weighs heavily" for compliant schemes (DL ¶¶25-26).
• Settlement-boundary conflict carries only limited weight where S5(j) applies and a 1.7-year supply persists (DL ¶¶24, 27).
• Drafting slips: the 2024 "significantly and demonstrably outweigh" wording is used as the conclusion (DL ¶48), and housing was given "significant" rather than HO7's "substantial" weight (DL ¶35).

Policy findings

Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.

Key facts

• Council AMR Dec 2025 shows 1.7 years supply including a 20% buffer (DL 20)
• An appeal for up to 191 dwellings directly north (APP/Z3825/W/25/3376143) was allowed, applying S6 and HNP conflict (DL 3, 13)
• Henfield NP made 23 June 2021, so just over 5 years old at the decision (DL 29)
• Scheme complies with all criteria at para 5.12 of the Council's Shaping Development PAN 2025 (DL 26)
• No reference to consulting the parties on the 2026 Framework; the conclusion uses the old "significantly and demonstrably outweigh" wording (DL 48)

Sources

• Appeal on the Planning Inspectorate appeals service
• Decision letter (Planning Inspectorate)

This note is one of the decisions behind the NPPF 2026 Navigator, which shows how each Framework test has been applied across all the decisions in the database. Also available as Markdown.