Floren Farm, Hophurst Hill, Crawley Down, CRAWLEY, RH10 4LP

Floren Farm, Hophurst Hill, Crawley Down, CRAWLEY, RH10 4LP — Mid Sussex District Council — Appeal Decision Hearing Held on 14 September 2021 Site visit made on 23 September 2021 by D.R McCreery MA BA (Hons) MRTPI An Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 13 October 2021. Appeal Ref: APP/D3830/W/20/3264243 Floran Farm, Hophurst Hill, Crawley Down RH10 4LP • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant outline planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr Nigel Greenhalgh against the decision of Mid Sussex District Council. • The application Ref DM/19/2938, dated 8 July 2019, was refused by notice dated 20 March 2020. • The development proposed is up to 30 self custom build plots with all matters reserved apart from access. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matters 2. The planning application was submitted in outline form with all matters reserved except for access. I am treating the details that relate to the reserved matters as illustrative only. 3. The Hearing sat for 1 day. I subsequently undertook an accompanied site visit on a separate day. 4. Following the Hearing a certified and duly executed legal agreement was submitted under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (s106).

Floren Farm, Hophurst Hill, Crawley Down, CRAWLEY, RH10 4LP — Mid Sussex District Council — Appeal Decision The s106 makes obligations relating to affordable housing, self build and custom housebuilding provision, mitigating potential effects on the Ashdown Forest Special Protection Area and Special Area of Conservation (SPA/SAC), pedestrian footpath provision, and contributions to local infrastructure. 5. I have considered each obligation in light of the relevant tests in Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations 2010 and paragraph 57 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). 6. Affordable housing: meets the 30% requirement of Policy DP31 of the Mid Sussex District Plan (the District Plan). I have sufficient evidence to conclude that the obligation would satisfy the relevant tests. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Floren Farm, Hophurst Hill, Crawley Down, CRAWLEY, RH10 4LP — Mid Sussex District Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/D3830/W/20/3264243 7. Self build and custom housebuilding: secures provision of self and custom build and places a requirement for separate reserved matters applications for each plot. I have sufficient evidence to conclude that the obligation would satisfy the relevant tests. 8. SPA/SAC: makes financial contribution towards Strategic Access Management (SAMM) and Monitoring and Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANG). On the basis of the evidence provided, including the Council’s habitats assessment and the correspondence with Natural England, the contribution is justified and the obligation would satisfy the relevant tests. 9. Pedestrian footpath: makes provision to connect the proposed site access to the nearby bus stop. This is directly related to providing connection to public transport. I have sufficient evidence to conclude that the obligation would satisfy the relevant tests. 10.

Floren Farm, Hophurst Hill, Crawley Down, CRAWLEY, RH10 4LP — Mid Sussex District Council — Appeal Decision Contributions to local infrastructure: the financial contributions relating to leisure, community buildings, community infrastructure, education and library provision are consistent with the aims of DP20 and the Development Infrastructure and Contributions Supplementary Planning Document and are appropriately evidenced in terms of having a clear use fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development. I have sufficient evidence to conclude that these obligations would satisfy the relevant tests. 11. The Total Access Demand payment is said to be for use on bus infrastructure improvements. As the s106 makes alternative specific provision for linking the site to nearby bus infrastructure and I do not have more specific evidence on how the money would be used, I am not satisfied that this contribution would be necessary. 12. With the exception of the Total Access Demand payment, I am satisfied that the obligations meet the tests in the Framework and can be taken into account in reaching my decision. Given my overall conclusions on this appeal, it has not necessary for me to consider the effects on the SPA/SAC further. 13.

Floren Farm, Hophurst Hill, Crawley Down, CRAWLEY, RH10 4LP — Mid Sussex District Council — Appeal Decision The Council have indicated that the completed s106 meets the concerns expressed in reasons for refusal numbers 4 and 5. As such, the main issues in this appeal focus on reasons 1 to 3. Main Issues 14. The main issues in the appeal are: • Whether the proposal would accord with planning policy regarding the location of housing development. • The effect on the character and appearance of the surroundings. • Whether the proposal would meet sustainable transport objectives by encouraging movement by means other than driving a car. • Whether there are any other material considerations which would justify the development being determined other than in accordance with the development plan. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

Floren Farm, Hophurst Hill, Crawley Down, CRAWLEY, RH10 4LP — Mid Sussex District Council — Appeal Decision The Council have indicated that the completed s106 meets the concerns expressed in reasons for refusal numbers 4 and 5. As such, the main issues in this appeal focus on reasons 1 to 3. Main Issues 14. The main issues in the appeal are: • Whether the proposal would accord with planning policy regarding the location of housing development. • The effect on the character and appearance of the surroundings. • Whether the proposal would meet sustainable transport objectives by encouraging movement by means other than driving a car. • Whether there are any other material considerations which would justify the development being determined other than in accordance with the development plan. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

Floren Farm, Hophurst Hill, Crawley Down, CRAWLEY, RH10 4LP — Mid Sussex District Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/D3830/W/20/3264243 Reasons Planning policy – location 15. It is common ground between the Appellant and the Council that the site falls outside of a built up area boundary as defined in the District Plan. The proposal does not fall within the exceptions specified in Policies DP12 and DP15. As such, the site is regarded as being in the countryside for the purposes of planning policy. 16. As a result, the proposal would not accord with planning policy regarding the location of housing development. Consequently, there is conflict with Policies DP12 and DP15 of the District Plan which permits development in the countryside in specified circumstances. Character and appearance 17. Consistent with the countryside designation, the site and immediate surroundings are rural in character. They generally comprise a mix of fields and areas of grassland with boundaries of mostly natural appearance. Built forms, including the farmhouse at the immediate boundary, and other structures visible from the site are intermittent and reinforce the countryside environment. 18.

Floren Farm, Hophurst Hill, Crawley Down, CRAWLEY, RH10 4LP — Mid Sussex District Council — Appeal Decision The main field of the site benefits from a good level of natural screening with a line of trees located along the east boundary and woodland to the north and south. The separation provided by intervening fields serves to visually isolate the main part of the site from residential properties on Hophurst Hill/Lane and further contributes to the countryside setting of the site. The houses on Hophurst Hill/Lane are mostly of individual appearance, sit in relatively generous plots, and are scattered along the road between fields and tree cover in a linear fashion. 19. The site is not the subject of a particular landscape designation. The Council accept that the proposal would not be extensively visible in more distant views, which I agree with. There are close public views into the site from the adjacent public right of way, which are filtered by boundary planting, and private views from properties to the west which appear to be limited to upper floor windows. As such, the extent of public views into and across the site is limited. 20.

Floren Farm, Hophurst Hill, Crawley Down, CRAWLEY, RH10 4LP — Mid Sussex District Council — Appeal Decision Notwithstanding the outline nature of the application and acceptability of the access from Hophurst Hill, the introduction of up to 30 dwellings on the main part of the site would fundamentally change its character to one that would be more urban. Although I have treated the submitted layout details as indicative, the evidence does not show with a reasonable likelihood that the proposal could be developed in a way that would give anything but the appearance of a suburban streetscape, with formalised spaces such as gardens, roads, and driveways. The effect would be compounded further by the presence of domestic paraphernalia associated with the dwellings. 21. The effects described above would be inconsistent with the countryside location and would introduce a scale and pattern of built development seen more readily in the nearby settlements of Crawley Down and Felbridge. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3

Floren Farm, Hophurst Hill, Crawley Down, CRAWLEY, RH10 4LP — Mid Sussex District Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/D3830/W/20/3264243 22. The proposal would not in itself result in the coalescence of settlements. However, it would diminish the contribution the site makes to the largely open countryside setting beyond the built form of the settlements in a location where there is a lack of visual reference points for such development in the immediate locality of the site. In this regard the proposal would appear incongruous. 23. Measures designed to retain and reinforce the level of boundary and other planting outlined by the Appellant would go some way towards screening the development. However, given the factors discussed above, relying on screening alone in perpetuity would not go far enough to mitigate the effects on the countryside location and complete concealment would be unrealistic. 24. I acknowledge that some built forms stand around the site and therefore form part of the context. However, as discussed above, these structures mostly reinforce the countryside location in terms of their scale and appearance. They do not justify a pattern of residential development of the nature proposed.

Floren Farm, Hophurst Hill, Crawley Down, CRAWLEY, RH10 4LP — Mid Sussex District Council — Appeal Decision To the extent that they are drawn to my attention and evidenced, other new build developments in the area do not appear to replicate the circumstances of the appeal site and differ in scale and relationship to other built forms. 25. I have considered the potential effect of a context change resulting from the future adoption of the Mid Sussex Site Allocations Development Plan Document. This plan is currently at examination and is therefore subject to change. As such, the level of weight it attracts is limited. Nevertheless, whilst the potential allocations that have been drawn to my attention are within the general vicinity of the site, the evidence provided does not demonstrate that they would influence the setting to such a degree as to justify the proposal. 26. In conclusion on this issue, the proposal would be harmful to the character and appearance of the surroundings. Consequently, there is further conflict with Policies DP12 and DP15 of the District Plan and EG2 and EG5 of the East Grinstead Neighbourhood Plan in terms of protecting the countryside in recognition of its intrinsic character and beauty. Sustainable transport 27.

Floren Farm, Hophurst Hill, Crawley Down, CRAWLEY, RH10 4LP — Mid Sussex District Council — Appeal Decision The Appellant’s transport evidence identities a range of local amenities that are within 2 kilometres of the site, concentrated in the settlements of Felbridge and Crawley Down. They make a good level of provision for many day to day needs. Access on foot to these services from the site would be either on road via Hophurst Hill or utilising the footpath network to the rear. 28. The road link between the site and Felbridge and Crawley Down makes only intermittent provision for pedestrian footways and is mostly unlit as it moves away from the settlements. It is also subject to faster moving traffic passing between built up areas. Taking these factors together, the road does not provide safe and convenient access to local amenities on foot. 29. The footpath network to the rear of the site would also provide access to local amenities, and includes a link to the Worth Way and wider connections. It would be more safe and convenient than the road for some users of the proposal. However, this option would be limited in poor weather, outside daylight hours due to the lack of lighting, and where uneven ground and natural surfacing makes widespread access more impractical. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 4

Floren Farm, Hophurst Hill, Crawley Down, CRAWLEY, RH10 4LP — Mid Sussex District Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/D3830/W/20/3264243 30. Overall, although use of the footpath network to the rear of the site would make good provision for leisure use but would be more limited in its ability to serve as a primary way of accessing local facilities on foot on a day to day basis. 31. Cycling options would by via the road network, with Felbridge and Crawley Down reachable for many moderately confident cyclists. It is also noted that the settlements of East Grinstead, Copthorne, New Chapel, and Felcourt are within 5 kilometres of the site. I have limited evidence about the services available in each of these settlements or the road conditions that lead to them. Notwithstanding this, I am satisfied on the basis of the information provided that there is a good degree of viable access to the wider local area using a bicycle. 32. In relation to public transport, the s106 makes provision for a nearby bus stop to be connected with the site via a footway. From the evidence provided I am satisfied that the bus network would make a satisfactory level of provision for access to both local services and larger settlements further afield, including Crawley, Tunbridge Wells, and the nearest train station at East Grinstead. 33.

Floren Farm, Hophurst Hill, Crawley Down, CRAWLEY, RH10 4LP — Mid Sussex District Council — Appeal Decision In conclusion, the disconnection between the site and nearby settlements would make accessing local services on foot unrealistic for some users of the development and at some times of the day and year. There are viable options for cycling and accessing public transport, taking account also that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas. However, they would not go far enough reduce the likelihood that occupiers of the proposal would have a high dependence on the private car given the location. 34. For the reasons outlined, the proposal would not meet sustainable transport objectives by encouraging movement by means other than driving a car. Consequently, there is conflict with Policy DP21 of the District Plan which requires account to be taken of whether proposals would be located to minimise the need for travel. Other considerations - Self build and custom housebuilding 35. It is common ground between the Appellant and the Council that the proposal would deliver housing that falls within the definition self build and custom housebuilding (self build) in the Self Build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015 (2015 Act)1.

Floren Farm, Hophurst Hill, Crawley Down, CRAWLEY, RH10 4LP — Mid Sussex District Council — Appeal Decision This places a duty on authorities to give suitable development permission in respect of enough serviced plots of land to meet the demand for self build in the authority's area arising in each base period2. Demand is established by reference to the entries on an authority’s register. 36. Evidence in relation to the number of entries on the register and fuller details of permissions said by the Council to be granted for self build comes from the statements of the respective parties (including freedom of information requests) rather than information that is more readily available in the public domain. | Section 1 2015 Act | | --- | | Section 2A 2015 Act | https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 5

Floren Farm, Hophurst Hill, Crawley Down, CRAWLEY, RH10 4LP — Mid Sussex District Council — Appeal Decision https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 5 Appeal Decision APP/D3830/W/20/3264243 37. In relation to the number of entries on the register, the Council indicate that the figures have been subject to two reviews. The first was in 2018 in light of General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) legislation. The second was an operational review in 2020. 38. The outcome of both reviews led to a decrease in the numbers of entries on the register. The 2020 review included amongst its operational changes the need for those wishing to be on the register to re-register, pay an initial fee and a further annual fee, and provide evidence to confirm their local connection. 39. It is legitimate for a Council to review the operation of their register in the interests of ensuring that it paints a reasonably accurate picture of potential demand. However, such changes should not act as an unreasonable deterrent for people to be entered onto or remain on the register or give the perception of demand management. 40. The Council have provided limited evidence about how the 2020 review was carried out and reported upon.

Floren Farm, Hophurst Hill, Crawley Down, CRAWLEY, RH10 4LP — Mid Sussex District Council — Appeal Decision I am unable to judge one way or another that the review was conducted in an open and transparent manor and that, in particular, those who elected not to re-register did so out of reasonable and active choice and were aware of the implications of not doing so. I also have some sympathy with the Appellant’s view that the Council has done little beyond the minimum to incentivise joining or remaining on the register. 41. Turning to the supply of sites, I do not see significant deficiencies in the Council’s evidence regarding how they have counted the number of permissions given for self build or the sites identified. This includes in relation to how new and replacement dwellings have been counted. I have paid regard to the conclusions of the Inspector at Woodville3. However, to my mind only including permissions that are subject to express conditions or s106 obligations towards meeting the requirements of s2A of 2015 Act would be unduly onerous. Further, I see little at fault with the Council’s approach of counting those who have self identified as self builders on the planning application form towards the requirement. 42.

Floren Farm, Hophurst Hill, Crawley Down, CRAWLEY, RH10 4LP — Mid Sussex District Council — Appeal Decision Considering both demand and supply for self build, whilst I do not dismiss the information arising from the 2020 review out of hand, for the reasons discussed above relating to the lack of evidence on the process that was undertaken I am unable to fully accept the Council’s conclusions that the 2020 review points to lower levels of need for self build than that previously indicated. 43. As such, delivery of self build housing is a consideration that should attract weight in this decision which is discussed further below alongside other benefits of the proposal. Conclusions 44. The proposed development would not accord with planning policy regarding the location of housing development, it would result in harm to the character and appearance of the surroundings, and it would not meet sustainable transport objectives. 3 APP/G2435/W/18/3214451 https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 6

Floren Farm, Hophurst Hill, Crawley Down, CRAWLEY, RH10 4LP — Mid Sussex District Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/D3830/W/20/3264243 45. Flowing from this is conflict with policies in the development plan for the area and the Framework, specifically the environmental aims in relation to protecting and enhancing our natural environment, recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside, and promoting sustainable transport. 46. I acknowledge that there would be benefits. Whilst demonstration of a 5 year housing land supply is not at issue, the proposal would make a useful contribution towards the delivery of self build at a time when the Council is unable to conclusively demonstrate that they are meeting their duties under the 2015 Act. The register and the duties set out in the 2015 Act are matters that I have paid regard to. 47. I have also considered the Framework, and specifically the Government’s objectives to significantly boost the supply of homes and ensure that a sufficient number and range of homes can be provided to meet the needs of present and future generations.

Floren Farm, Hophurst Hill, Crawley Down, CRAWLEY, RH10 4LP — Mid Sussex District Council — Appeal Decision Meeting the needs of people wishing to commission or build their own homes are specifically referenced as part of paragraph 62 of the Framework and is a consistent area where the Government has encouraged action and has been the subject of independent review, which the Appellant has drawn my attention to. 48. As such, delivery of self build housing this is a consideration that attracts significant weight in this decision. This is enhanced further by the level of affordable housing provision. 49. I do not have sufficient evidence to conclude that the economic benefits put forward by the Appellant can be directly attributed enough to the proposal to give them anything other than more limited weight. Similarly, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that the environmental benefits go beyond mitigating the effects of development. As such, they also attract more limited weight. 50. Weighing these issues up, the location of the proposal is clearly at odds with the spatial strategy for the area, with consequent harm that flows from it.

Floren Farm, Hophurst Hill, Crawley Down, CRAWLEY, RH10 4LP — Mid Sussex District Council — Appeal Decision The degree of weight to be given to the material considerations is not at a level that outweighs the conflict, paying due regard to the clear priority that statute gives to the development plan. 51. In reaching my conclusions on this Appeal, I have considered the previous decisions that have been drawn to my attention4. The decisions include occasions where Inspectors have been asked to attribute weight to the provision of self build when faced with varying degrees of development plan conflict. 52. I have paid regard to these decisions, whilst also acknowledging that they relate different locations and have different issues at play with conclusions that were drawn based on the specifics of the evidence that was presented at that time. 4 Including APP/C1570/A/14/2223280, APP/G2435/W/18/3214451, APP/W0340/W/15/3051146, APP/R3325/W/16/3151168 https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 7

Floren Farm, Hophurst Hill, Crawley Down, CRAWLEY, RH10 4LP — Mid Sussex District Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/D3830/W/20/3264243 53. I have considered whether paragraph 11(d) of the Framework has any implications for this appeal. The Council have drawn Policy DP30 of the District Plan to my attention. The policy makes reference to meeting the current and future needs of those wishing to build their own homes, along with meeting the other housing needs of all sectors of the community. This, along with other locational housing policies in Local Plan referred to elsewhere in this decision provide a policy framework relevant to self build that can be used to judge acceptability of proposals. 54. As such, I do not agree with the Appellant’s view that there is a policy vacuum in relation to self build. The scale and nature of the issues discussed above relating to the Council’s evidence on meeting the duties in the 2015 Act is not such that it renders Policy DP30 out of date. This is particularly so in the context of a spatial strategy that is intended to cover the period up to 2031. As such, paragraph 11(d) of the Framework is not engaged. 55. For the above reasons and having regard to all other matters, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.

Floren Farm, Hophurst Hill, Crawley Down, CRAWLEY, RH10 4LP — Mid Sussex District Council — D.R. McCreery INSPECTOR https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 8 Appeal Decision APP/D3830/W/20/3264243 Appearances at the Hearing For the Appellant - Andrew Black (Andrew Black Consulting) - Nigel Greenhalgh (Portgreen Properties) For the Council - Joanne Fisher Other Interested Parties - Simon Gould https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 9