- Decision
- allowed, 24 September 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: R Lawrence
- Authority
- Horsham (South East)
- Appeal reference
- 6007772
- Application reference
- DC/25/0657
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Detached coach house containing two residential units on part of the car park of a former public house (itself being converted to six flats)
- Homes
- 2
- Site context
- open countryside, PDL, rural lane
- Green Belt
- No
- Housing land supply
- 1.7 years
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- S5(1)(d), HO7, S5
- Development plan policies
- Horsham District Planning Framework 2015 Policies 3, 4, 25, 26, 32, 33, 38, Horsham Shaping Development Planning Advice Note 2025
- Main issues
- spatial strategy and access to services; character and appearance; drainage
Summary
Two homes in a coach-house building on the car park of the former Lamb Inn at Lambs Green, a hamlet outside Horsham's settlement hierarchy. The site is car-dependent, on lanes with no footways or lighting. The inspector found the scheme fell within S5(1)(d) (previously developed land), gave substantial weight to housing against a 1.7-year supply, and reduced the weight of the local countryside restrictions. The "limited adverse effects" (DL ¶38) did not substantially outweigh the benefits. Allowed against the development plan.
Issues and findings
- Transition. "Comments have been sought from the parties on any implications for this case" (DL ¶2).
- Accessibility. "The local highway environment lacks footways and street lighting, and the public right of way alongside the site is narrow, uneven in places and unlit. Future occupiers would therefore be likely to rely heavily on private cars for everyday needs" (DL ¶12). TR3 is not cited; the finding only "reinforces the conflict with the locational strategy of the development plan" (DL ¶12).
- S5(1)(d): PASS. "it falls within Policy S5(d) of the Framework, which identifies the redevelopment of previously developed land as a form of development that should be approved outside settlements" (DL ¶35). The letter says "S5(d)" (DL ¶35); the limb is S5(1)(d).
- Plan weight. The locational policies "were prepared in a different policy context and, insofar as they restrict housing development outside settlement boundaries, I find that they attract reduced weight" (DL ¶36). Annex A(2) is not named.
- Character: no harm. "the building would visually read as a logical infilling of the space between existing buildings within the developed site" (DL ¶15).
Planning balance
S5 with the S5(1)(d) category met: housing (substantial) and PDL redevelopment (significant) against the location conflict. "the limited adverse effects arising from the proposal do not substantially outweigh its benefits" (DL ¶38), so material considerations outweigh the development plan conflict.
What made the difference
The site was previously developed land, which S5(1)(d) supports outside settlements, and Horsham's supply was only 1.7 years. The car dependence was acknowledged but weighed only as local-plan conflict. For the next reviewer: TR3 was not applied, so this letter is weak authority on location.
Transferable points
- S5(1)(d) PDL support attached to part of a former pub car park (DL ¶11, ¶35).
- Local boundary restrictions lose weight "insofar as they restrict housing development outside settlement boundaries" where S5(1)(d) supports the scheme (DL ¶36).
- Not good TR3 authority: heavy car reliance was found (DL ¶12) but not tested against TR3.
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| S5(1)(d) | pass | significant | letter says S5(d); redevelopment of PDL hardstanding outside a settlement, modest and not isolated (DL 11, 13, 35) |
| HO7 | benefit | substantial | two homes against a 1.7-year supply (DL 33-34) |
| LP HDPF 3, 4, 26 (local) | conflict | outside any built-up area boundary and Lambs Green not in the hierarchy; given reduced weight insofar as they restrict housing outside boundaries, given the Framework's approach to PDL; Annex A(2) not named (DL 7, 36) | |
| TR3 | harm | mapped - TR3 not cited; limited accessibility, no footways or lighting, narrow unlit right of way, heavy car reliance; counted only as reinforcing the local-plan conflict (DL 12-13, 36) | |
| DP3(1) | pass | mapped - reads as logical infilling between existing buildings; no wider countryside harm (DL 14-17) | |
| F8 | pass | mapped - drainage strategy (FZ1, 2.8 l/s against 17.7 l/s existing) acceptable (DL 20-23) |
Key facts
- Horsham supply about 1.7 years with a 20% buffer (DL 33)
- Railway station about 2 miles away; Lambs Green has few if any day-to-day services; no footways or street lighting (DL 12)
- Previous Royal Oak, Rusper appeal (3361573) dismissed on location under the 2024 Framework distinguished because of footnote 7 heritage harm and the new PDL policy (DL 24-25)
- Parties' comments sought on the 17 Aug 2026 Framework (DL 2)
Sources
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.