Moonshine Meadow, Cuckfield Road, Ansty

Decision

dismissed, 10 September 2026

Decided by

Planning Inspector: A Wright

Authority

Mid Sussex (South East)

Appeal reference

6011079

Application reference

DM/25/3108

Procedure

written representations

Development

Five-pitch settled Gypsy site (mobile homes, utility buildings, driveway) on a paddock; resubmission after a 2025 appeal dismissal

Homes

5

Site context

open countryside, rural lane

Green Belt

No

Framework applied

August 2026 NPPF

Determinative policies

S5(1)(g), S5(4), HO12, F7, F4, TR4

Development plan policies

Mid Sussex District Plan 2014-2031 DP21, DP33, DP41

Main issues

access to services; flood risk

Summary

A five-pitch Gypsy site on a paddock in open countryside between Ansty and Hurstpierpoint. It was a resubmission after a 2025 appeal dismissal. The council accepted it could not show a five-year supply of pitches. The appeal was dismissed anyway. The site failed HO12 on access to services because the only route was an unlit, national-speed-limit road with no footway, so it fell outside S5(1)(g) and into S5(4). A new flood-risk failure (F4/F7: no assessment of safe access along a road with a history of flooding) was also decisive, and it ruled out a temporary permission.

Issues and findings

• Transition. The new Framework "replaces the previous version and the Planning Policy for Traveller Sites"; parties were invited to comment (DL ¶2). HO12 now carries the old PPTS locational criteria.
• Access to services — HO12 / TR4: FAIL. The inspector followed the previous inspector: "the route would be unappealing for most people and that the public highway does not therefore offer safe and suitable access for pedestrians and cyclists. Thus, future occupiers … would be heavily reliant on private vehicles" (DL ¶10). On HO12's lifestyle flexibility: "there is no evidence that the lifestyle of future occupants would contribute to sustainability" (DL ¶11).
• Flood risk — F4 / F7: FAIL. "the appellant's FRA fails to consider historic fluvial and surface water flooding" (DL ¶19); "I cannot be satisfied that safe access and escape routes would be available for occupants in a flood event or that the development would be safe for its lifetime. This would conflict with … Policy F7" (DL ¶20). Drainage could not be left to conditions "without further evidence on the detailed arrangements" (DL ¶23). The previous appeal had not raised flood risk; the inspector said the council's updated validation checklist justified the new objection (DL ¶24).
• Need and equality. Pitch shortfall is a benefit carrying HO7 substantial weight (DL ¶29). Under the PSED, "the equality implications of the proposal weigh notably in favour" (DL ¶30). Overall benefits "carry weight of a high order" (DL ¶32).

Planning balance

S5 route. With an unmet pitch need, S5 says development "should be approved provided it meets the criteria in Policy HO12" (DL ¶26). HO12 was failed, so S5(4) applied: "the benefits of the proposal would not substantially outweigh the adverse effects. Accordingly, the exceptional circumstances required by Policy S5(4) of the Framework do not exist" (DL ¶35). F7 was also treated as a should-be-refused policy (DL ¶34). Temporary permission: "the danger of flood risk is currently present and will not abate in the future" (DL ¶36). Material considerations did not clearly outweigh the harm (DL ¶37).

What made the difference

Two failures on the same road. First, Cuckfield Road's character (national speed limit, undulating, no footway or lighting) made the site fail HO12 access, so the S5(1)(g) route was closed even though need was accepted, and the reversed S5(4) test applied. Second, the appellant's FRA did not deal with the road's flooding history or safe escape. A mobile-home use is highly vulnerable, so F7 was failed. Flood risk is permanent, so it also defeated the usual temporary-permission fallback for traveller sites. A proper FRA would have removed the second failure, but the access finding would still have required benefits to substantially outweigh harm under S5(4).

Transferable points

• For traveller sites, S5(1)(g) needs both evidenced unmet need and compliance with HO12. If HO12 access fails, the case falls into S5(4), where benefits must substantially outweigh harm (DL ¶¶26, 35).
• HO12's lifestyle flexibility (sites "not well-related to existing settlements may be appropriate") needs evidence that the occupants' lifestyle contributes to sustainability (DL ¶11).
• A highway authority's "no objection" and "viable for confident cyclists" does not stop a finding that an unlit, footway-less national-speed-limit road is unsafe and unsuitable for most walkers and cyclists (DL ¶¶9–10).
• A Flood Zone 1 site can still fail F7 where the only access road floods; an FRA must address historic flooding and safe access and escape (DL ¶¶18–20).
• Missing drainage and foul details cannot be left to pre-commencement conditions where there is no evidence that a workable solution exists (DL ¶23).
• A permanent constraint such as flood risk rules out temporary permission even with an unmet pitch need and no alternatives (DL ¶¶36–37).
• Benefits "of a high order", including substantial HO7 weight and PSED, were still not enough to meet the S5(4) exceptional circumstances test (DL ¶¶32, 35).

Policy findings

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

Key facts

• Council cannot show a five-year supply of Gypsy sites (as at 1 April 2025); GTAA 2024 need 21 permanent pitches, at least 3 in 2024-2028; existing commitments come after year five
• Cuckfield Road is undulating, national speed limit, no footways, cycle paths or lighting; nearest bus stop about 1.2 km away
• Highway authority raised no objection and said cycling was viable for confident cyclists; inspector did not accept this
• Site in fluvial Flood Zone 1, but road and land beside it have historic fluvial and surface water flooding
• No surface water or foul drainage details; inspector refused to leave these to pre-commencement conditions (DL 23)
• Temporary permission considered and refused because flood risk will not go away (DL 36-37)

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.