# Oakland Stud (formerly Tanglewood), Forest Grange, Horsham

- **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
- **Tags:** national-landscape, substantially-outweighed, s5-1-g-travellers, travellers-unmet-need, landscape-harm, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, small-scheme

## 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
- **N4: fail (substantial weight).** 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 weight).** 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
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009237
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/6bb92b2c-4e03-49e9-afab-2bf45565a3b9

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009237.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.