Sussex Topiary, Naldretts Lane, Rudgwick

Decision

dismissed, 18 September 2026

Decided by

Planning Inspector: Stewart Glassar

Authority

Horsham (South East)

Appeal reference

6009474

Application reference

DC/26/0271

Procedure

written representations

Development

Permission in principle for 3-9 self-build park homes (non-determination)

Homes

9

Site context

open countryside, rural lane

Green Belt

No

Housing land supply

2.9 years

Framework applied

August 2026 NPPF

Determinative policies

S5(1)(e), S5(1)(h), S5(4), TR3, CC2, DP2, N2

Development plan policies

Horsham District Planning Framework 2015 Policies 2, 19, 25, 26, 32, 33, Shaping Development in Horsham PAN 2025

Main issues

location; land use and amount of development

Summary

Permission in principle for 3 to 9 self-build park homes on a field in open countryside near Rudgwick was refused on appeal. The site was not "limited infilling within groups of houses" (S5(1)(e)), was not near a station (S5(1)(h)) and fitted no other S5(1) category. Under S5(4) the housing benefits (substantial weight, 2.9-year supply) did not substantially outweigh car dependence and harm to the countryside. The council's boundaries were held out of date, but that was not enough to change the outcome.

Issues and findings

• S5(1)(e): FAIL. "as the site is an undeveloped parcel of land with sporadic development in the vicinity it would not represent limited infilling within a group of houses" (DL ¶16).
• S5(1)(h): FAIL. No well-connected station within reasonable walking distance (DL ¶17).
• TR3 / CC2 / DP2: FAIL. "The Framework considers a reasonable walking distance to be 800m … There is no indication that the site would be within these thresholds" (DL ¶21). "Access to Rudgewick would be via unlit roads. Not all of Naldretts Lane benefits from a dedicated footpath" (DL ¶22). The "Hail and Ride" bus was unexplained (DL ¶23). "No information from the Connectivity Tool has been provided in support of the proposal" (DL ¶24).
• Countryside character (N2): HARM, even at three units (DL ¶31).
• Supply and HO7. 2.9 years was uncontested. "Even though there is no indication as to any local need for park homes specifically, the delivery of up to nine new residential units will clearly go some way to meet the needs of the community and in accordance with Framework Policy HO7 this attracts substantial weight" (DL ¶34).
• Self-build: limited weight. No s106, and a condition "is unlikely to pass the test of enforceability" (DL ¶36).
• Plan-making policies. L1 is plan-making and not for decisions (Framework ¶8) (DL ¶51).

Planning balance

The boundary conflict carried "very limited weight" because "local policies are not meeting the expectations of national policy … the current boundaries are out of date" (DL ¶52). But the non-essential countryside location, car reliance, character harm and unsustainable growth "collectively carries substantial weight" (DL ¶53). "Where proposals are contrary to Policy S5 they should only be approved in exceptional circumstances, where the benefits would substantially outweigh the adverse effects" (DL ¶55). The benefits did not do so (DL ¶57).

What made the difference

The site fell into no S5(1) category, so the reverse S5(4) test applied. Out-of-date boundaries and a 2.9-year supply do not turn an isolated field into infill. The absence of Connectivity Tool evidence, and of any offer to improve connectivity under TR3(1)(e), was noted against the appellant.

Transferable points

• Out-of-date settlement boundaries reduce the weight of the boundary conflict to very limited, but the S5 categories still apply (DL ¶52-55).
• S5(1)(e) needs an existing group of houses around the gap. An open field with sporadic development nearby is not infill (DL ¶16).
• Under S5(4) the benefits must substantially outweigh the harms, the reverse of S5(1) (DL ¶55).
• TR3(2) Connectivity Tool evidence is expected from the promoter; its absence counts (DL ¶24).
• HO7 substantial weight does not depend on evidence of need for the specific housing type (DL ¶34). Compare PINS-6009276 and PINS-6009409.
• DL ¶50 refers to "the site's inherent conflict with Policy P5", apparently a slip for S5.

Policy findings

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

Key facts

• Undeveloped field, not within or adjacent to a settlement; sporadic houses nearby
• Supply 2.9 years (appellant's Dec 2023 AMR figure, uncontested); settlement boundaries out of date - boundary conflict very limited weight
• Self-build unsecured (no s106; condition would not be enforceable) - limited weight
• No Connectivity Tool output submitted

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.