An open space appeal in Horsham has been dismissed despite the severe local shortage of deliverable housing land. Inspector Claire Coles rejected a proposed single-storey self-build home on land beside Amberley Close Playing Fields, off Rowlands Road, in a decision issued on 30 October 2026. The existing green space’s community role outweighed the benefit of one additional home.
The site sits inside Horsham’s built-up area, with housing on three sides. It might initially look like a small infill opportunity, yet the Inspector considered the land part of the open space used for community recreation and visual relief. Her decision also addresses an unusual complication: the land’s legal status as publicly maintainable highway did not stop it functioning as a community facility.
This open space appeal matters well beyond one self-build plot. The Inspector considered the revised August 2026 National Planning Policy Framework, a claimed housing land supply of only one year, the local plan’s protection of community facilities and the practical limits of an apparent small infill opportunity. It shows how the location and use of land can matter more than its designation on a plan.
Why the open space appeal failed
The applicant sought permission for one detached, single-storey self-build or custom-build home with associated works. Horsham District Council refused application DC/25/1899, leading to appeal 6012699. Inspector Coles visited the site on 9 September and dismissed the appeal on 30 October. The reasons covered the loss of community open space, the suburban area’s appearance and the future occupier’s living conditions.
The council relied in particular on Policy 43 of the Horsham District Planning Framework. That policy resists the loss of community facilities, services and recreational premises unless acceptable alternatives or evidence about their future use are provided. The Inspector found no substantive evidence demonstrating that the land’s recreational function could appropriately be lost under that policy.
An ordinary green space can still be protected
The open space appeal illustrates a distinction that is easily overlooked. The site was not identified as a formally designated Local Green Space and was not specifically marked as protected open space in the development plan. Neither point resolved its actual use. The Inspector considered that the land’s physical relationship with the wider playing-field network and its value to local people were important planning facts.
In the decision she said The site clearly has a visual amenity value as open space
. That conclusion was supported by its recreational potential as part of a wider green network, even though the council had not identified an overall district-wide deficit against its open-space provision standard. A district-wide numerical surplus does not automatically make every individual neighbourhood green dispensable.
The implications of this finding are explored in Planning Geek’s guidance on open space, playing fields and sports land. Different forms of protection have different legal tests. An area can be relevant to a planning judgment without being a registered village green or a separately designated Local Green Space.
Why the highway status did not help
A particularly useful feature of this open space appeal is the site’s unusual legal status. The Inspector acknowledged that it was recorded as publicly maintainable highway, but distinguished that fact from the planning assessment of how it functioned on the ground. Land can have one legal status and still perform a different public amenity role that requires protection under planning policy.
She also recognised that a stopping-up process might be available under section 247 if permission were granted. That possible statutory route would not, however, establish that permission ought to be granted in the first place. Nor could the applicant rely on the absence of an Asset of Community Value registration to show that the green lacked a valuable community function.
Design and overlooking were separate obstacles
There was no fundamental objection to the proposed house design considered in isolation. The problem was introducing built development into land that currently helps form the open focal point of a surrounding housing estate. Neighbouring properties were arranged to face that open area, and a detached house with its domestic garden would alter the pattern of development and the sense of openness.
The Inspector also identified an unusual amenity concern for the proposed home itself. With existing houses facing towards the plot from three sides, its future residents could experience significant overlooking, including in the outdoor space. Screening high enough to address privacy would make the enclosed and domesticated appearance of the plot more prominent, worsening the design problem.
The one-year housing supply argument
The housing shortage did matter in this open space appeal. The appellant stated that Horsham had only one year of housing land supply, and no contradictory evidence was provided. The Inspector proceeded on that basis for the purpose of the decision. She also accepted the council’s need for self-build homes and considered the substantial policy weight generally given to additional housing.
The important distinction is between the weight given to a type of benefit and the practical scale of the benefit achieved. One home would make only a modest contribution to meeting the district’s overall shortfall. The Inspector applied national Policy S4 for proposals within settlements and found that the harm under Policies DP3 and HC7, including the loss of open space, substantially outweighed the limited net benefit.
This is why the result cannot be simplified to the claim that housing shortfalls no longer matter. They do, but they cannot guarantee consent for every plot. The self-build planning permission guide explains the separate questions of evidencing self-build status, finding a suitable site and complying with the relevant planning policies.
The Inspector’s comments on self-build controls
The council had queried whether the dwelling was truly self-build, in part because the appellant was not listed on its register. The Inspector rejected the idea that absence from the register was automatically determinative. Had the proposal been acceptable otherwise, she considered that a condition requiring first occupation by someone with primary input into its design could potentially have addressed that point.
Pre-application discussions were similarly no guarantee. The appellant argued that the scheme responded to earlier officer advice, but the Inspector noted that such discussions are informal and cannot bind the council’s later decision on a full application. A landscape officer’s lack of objection also did not mean the Inspector was obliged to find no visual harm.
What other applicants should take from it
Before treating a grassed corner of an estate as an available building plot, establish whether it is actually used or valued as part of the local recreational network. Check the adopted local policy, the wider streetscape and any protected designations, but do not assume the absence of a designation removes the planning issue. The Local Green Space guidance helps distinguish formal designation from more general open-space considerations.
A housing need statement and attractive building design are not substitutes for a robust assessment of land already serving a community purpose. The open space appeal also underlines the need to consider whether the proposed occupants would have acceptable privacy when a new home is inserted into a green directly overlooked by existing houses.
For Horsham, this case sits alongside other recent decisions applying the revised Framework, including a separate Horsham self-build appeal involving countryside policy. The outcomes differ because the site circumstances and the relevant policy tests differ. Inspectors are applying the Framework to the facts before them, not treating a shortfall as a universal permission.
Decision and sources
Inspector Claire Coles dismissed Planning Inspectorate appeal 6012699 on 30 October 2026, relating to Horsham District Council application DC/25/1899. The short quotation above is from the official decision and is reproduced under the Open Government Licence v3.0. The appeal decision is also available on AppealBase.
0 Comments