Two Southwater homes proposed beside a bungalow on Bonfire Hill have been refused on appeal after an Inspector rejected the case that a former paddock qualified as previously developed land. Claire Coles dismissed the appeal on 15th October 2026, finding unacceptable countryside development and harm to the area’s character.
The proposal concerned land beside The Fords, near Southwater in West Sussex. It sought two detached dwellings with garages, using an existing access and landscaping. Although Horsham District Council could not demonstrate a five-year housing land supply, that shortage did not outweigh the problems identified in this location.
The practical warning for landowners is about evidence as well as design. I would not assume that removing a fence and mowing a paddock as garden makes it lawful residential land. In this case, the Inspector found no substantive evidence establishing the claimed status, and the distinction affected the route to permission.
Why the Southwater homes were refused
The site was outside a settlement boundary, did not adjoin an existing settlement edge and was not allocated for housing. Its surroundings were characterised by sparse buildings, fields and paddocks. These were central findings, rather than a dispute about the detailed appearance of the proposed garages.
The Southwater homes decision applied the Horsham District Planning Framework, adopted in 2015, alongside the Southwater Neighbourhood Plan and the national policies in force when the appeal was decided. The local strategy directs development towards settlements with services, employment and public transport, while limiting development in the countryside.
For the Southwater homes, the Inspector found conflict with those location policies. The appellant argued that Southwater’s shops and services were close enough for future residents to walk or cycle, and the council did not pursue a highway reason for refusal. However, proximity to the village was not the same as adjoining its settlement edge under the policy test applied in the decision.
That distinction is easy to miss on a sales brochure or a quick map inspection. A site can be close to facilities and still fail the particular settlement relationship required by policy. The decision needs to be read on its own facts rather than reduced to a claim that all land within walking distance is suitable for housing.
The former paddock was not proved brownfield
The appellant had removed the fence between the bungalow’s residential area and the paddock and regarded the appeal land as part of the garden. The Inspector recorded that no formal change-of-use application had been submitted or granted and that the earlier planning history clearly showed a residential curtilage excluding the paddock.
The decision did not accept that the physical removal of the fence established a lawful residential change of use. Nor had substantive evidence been provided to show that the site met the definition of previously developed land. The Inspector therefore rejected the argument that the national policy supporting redevelopment of such land provided a route for this proposal.
For anyone assessing similar Southwater homes, I would separate three questions: what the land looks like today, what use is lawful, and whether it meets the relevant policy definition. They may overlap, but the answer to one does not automatically settle the others. The appeal illustrates the consequences of leaving that evidence unresolved.
Housing need did not erase landscape harm
The Inspector found that the buildings, domestic activity and associated features would suburbanise an undeveloped site. Boundary screening and the landscape officer’s lack of objection did not establish an absence of harm. The increased scale and mass of buildings would still change the rural pattern.
The Southwater homes were described by the appellant as self-build dwellings. The Inspector recognised the need for that type of housing and the support for it in national policy. The decision also considered economic benefits during construction and following occupation.
Nevertheless, she concluded that the benefits would not substantially outweigh the harm
to the area’s character and appearance. That short quotation is from the Planning Inspectorate’s decision, published as Crown copyright under the Open Government Licence. The appeal was dismissed following an assessment of both the policy conflict and the benefits, rather than because housing need was ignored.
The decision refers to other successful appeals relied on by the appellant, including Marlpost Meadows and a decision issued during this appeal. It explains why differences in land status, context, policy and the effects of development limited their value as comparisons. A nearby approval is useful evidence only when the points that made it acceptable genuinely carry across.
Issues left unresolved
The Inspector also identified matters she would have investigated further had the scheme otherwise been acceptable. These included effects on the setting of listed buildings, information about a protected habitat designation, and a mechanism securing self-build occupation. They were not additional matters conclusively approved by the dismissal.
The decision makes a further observation about biodiversity requirements for self-build schemes. Because the appeal failed on other grounds, it did not settle the biodiversity arrangements for this development. Applicants should check the current applicable rules and any need for evidence for their own proposal rather than treat an unsuccessful appeal as an exemption certificate.
This is especially relevant when reading Southwater homes decisions for development potential. An Inspector can stop short of resolving a secondary issue once decisive refusal grounds have been established. Silence or an express reservation is not confirmation that the missing issue would have been acceptable.
What the decision means for the land
Appeal 6012640, brought by Mrs P Rixon against refusal of application DC/25/1077, does not grant permission for the two homes. It also does not establish a lawful residential garden use for the former paddock. Any different proposal or claim about the land’s status would need its own supporting evidence and consideration.
Read the complete official decision for the full planning balance. Our guide to greenfield and brownfield land explains why these descriptions need care. No separate costs decision is listed on the official appeal record.
0 Comments