# 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 (years):** 2.9 - **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 - **Tags:** PIP, non-determination, sustainable-location-fail, rural-lane-no-footway, s5-1-e-infill, s5-4-exceptional, connectivity-tool, self-build-unsecured, housing-shortfall, landscape-harm, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## 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 The council's boundaries were held out of date, but that was not enough to change the outcome.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 - **S5(1)(e): fail.** undeveloped parcel with sporadic development nearby is not limited infilling within a group of houses (DL 16) - **S5(1)(h): fail.** not within reasonable walking distance of a well-connected station (DL 17) - **TR3: fail.** Rudgwick facilities limited and beyond 800 m; unlit roads, part of Naldretts Lane without footway; unexplained "hail and ride" bus; no Connectivity Tool evidence (TR3(2)); no connectivity improvements (TR3(1)(e)) (DL 18-26) - **N2: harm.** up to nine units would suburbanise an open field; harm even at the minimum three (DL 29-33) - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** 2.9-year supply (2023 AMR, not updated by council); no park-home-specific need needed for substantial weight (DL 34) - **S5(4): fail.** benefits do not substantially outweigh numerous adverse effects (DL 55-57) ## 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 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009474 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/2a06db19-8413-4c06-ba1f-51eef7bf797c --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009474.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.