- Decision
- dismissed, 27 August 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: A Wright
- Authority
- Horsham (South East)
- Appeal reference
- 6009237
- Application reference
- DC/25/1428
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Two-pitch settled Gypsy accommodation site and retention of cess pit on a sand school
- Homes
- 2
- Site context
- open countryside, national landscape
- Green Belt
- No
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- N4, S5(1)(g), HO12
- Development plan policies
- Horsham District Planning Framework 2015 Policies 23, 25, 30, 33, emerging Horsham Local Plan Policy 43 (limited weight)
- Main issues
- High Weald National Landscape; traveller pitch need; personal circumstances; temporary permission
Summary
Two Gypsy pitches on a sand school in the High Weald National Landscape near Horsham. The scheme fell within S5(1)(g), since there was a 2.9-year pitch supply and an evidenced unmet need. Even so, "limited" erosion of the field pattern in the NL substantially outweighed the considerable combined benefits, and the appeal was dismissed. A temporary permission was also refused.
Issues and findings
- Transition. The new Framework also replaces the Planning Policy for Traveller Sites. The parties were invited to comment (DL ¶3).
- N4: FAIL. The site was well screened, but "the high protection afforded to NLs does not exist only in visually prominent locations … Although this erosion would be limited, the proposed scheme would not conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the HWNL" (DL ¶15).
- S5(1)(g) / HO12. The 2.9-year supply "is a significant shortfall. In these circumstances, Policy S5 … states that development which would address an evidenced unmet need should be approved provided it meets the criteria in Policy HO12, unless … substantially outweighed" (DL ¶17). Pitch provision was given "significant weight" (DL ¶21). The best interests of the child were also given significant weight (DL ¶28).
- S5(1)(d): not engaged. "As the site mainly comprises a sand school, the proposal would not involve the redevelopment of previously developed land" (DL ¶29).
Planning balance
S5(1). NL harm had substantial weight (DL ¶32). Against it, the other considerations "together add considerable weight … However, the benefits of the proposal would be substantially outweighed by its adverse effects on the HWNL … The introduction of the proposed development into the HWNL is sufficient for me to conclude that the scheme is unacceptable" (DL ¶33). A temporary permission was refused because "the harm to the HWNL, even for a temporary period, would be unacceptable" (DL ¶36).
What made the difference
The National Landscape. Even "limited" landscape harm in an NL, given N4's substantial weight, cleared the "substantially outweighed" bar against a significant pitch shortfall, a child's interests and PSED considerations. The same harm-finding in the previous enforcement appeal was followed.
Transferable points
- S5(1)(g) is engaged where there is no five-year pitch supply. The "substantially outweighed" balance still applies (DL ¶17, 33).
- N4 harm need not be visible. Erosion of field pattern suffices (DL ¶15).
- Limited NL harm with substantial weight can substantially outweigh combined significant benefits (DL ¶32-33).
- A sand school or equestrian arena is not PDL for S5(1)(d) (DL ¶29).
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| N4 | fail | substantial | two mobile homes, domestic paraphernalia and subdividing hedges erode the field pattern of the High Weald NL; harm limited but NL not conserved/enhanced (DL 12-16, 32) |
| S5(1)(g) | fail | in category (g) - 2.9-year pitch supply and unmet need (79 pitches, 50 in five years) - but benefits substantially outweighed by NL harm (DL 17-21, 33) | |
| HO12 | benefit | significant | pitch supply shortfall significant weight; best interests of the child significant; PSED weighs notably (DL 21-28) |
| S5(1)(d) | not-engaged | sand school is not previously developed land (DL 29) |
Key facts
- Council pitch supply 2.9 years; GTAA need 79 pitches, 50 in first five years; emerging LP at examination since July 2024
- Existing mobile home on site subject to an enforcement notice upheld on appeal (APP/Z3825/C/25/3360097)
- Temporary permission also refused because NL harm unacceptable even temporarily (DL 34-37)
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.