Washington homes win permission in principle on appeal

Washington homes have been allowed in principle on paddock land at High Chaparral, off London Road in West Sussex, after an Inspector overturned Horsham District Council’s refusal. Claire Coles issued the decision on 12th October 2026, allowing appeal 6011680 for four two-storey dwellings.

The decision settles whether housing is acceptable at this location and in this amount. It does not give the applicant permission to start building the four homes. The detailed scheme still needs technical details consent, a second planning stage dealing with matters such as design, drainage and access.

I would pay particular attention to that distinction, and to the reason the appeal succeeded. The Inspector found conflict with local countryside policies and the national approach to development outside settlements, but decided that the housing benefits outweighed the adverse effects on the evidence before her.

What the Washington homes decision allows

The appeal concerned application DC/25/1300, made by Mr S Page. The proposal was permission in principle for four two-storey dwellings on paddock land to the south and east of the existing High Chaparral bungalow. The Inspector visited the site on 9th September 2026 before deciding the written appeal.

Permission in principle is a two-stage route for housing-led development. The first stage addresses location, land use and amount of development. Detailed proposals are considered later. That limited scope matters when reading a decision that discusses concerns about a future housing scheme.

For the Washington homes proposal, the Inspector attached no conditions. Her decision explains that conditions cannot be attached to permission in principle. She retained the default three-year duration, finding no reason to vary it. That does not remove the requirement to secure the second-stage consent.

A loose cluster outside recognised settlements

The site is reached by a single-vehicle-width private drive from Spring Gardens, part of which is a public footpath. Spring Gardens is a cul-de-sac of about 20 houses west of the A24. The decision also records further dwellings between the access and the main road, with large commercial premises to the north.

Ashington lies to the north and is identified as a medium-sized village in the council’s settlement hierarchy. Washington is about 1.5 kilometres south of the site. The appeal land lies outside a recognised built-up area boundary, among a loose cluster of development rather than directly adjoining a defined settlement.

That position created a policy problem for the Washington homes scheme. The Inspector found no compelling evidence that it met the countryside-location criteria in Policy 26 of the Horsham District Planning Framework. It also failed the settlement-expansion approach in Policy 4 because it was unallocated and distinctly detached from the nearest settlement.

Local policies did not support the proposal

The Storrington, Sullington and Washington Neighbourhood Plan also failed to provide support. The site was not previously developed land or an allocated site, and no evidence showed that it fell within the particular area identified by the neighbourhood policy. The Inspector recorded that the neighbourhood plan was more than five years old.

Horsham’s separate ‘Shaping development in Horsham District’ approach did not overcome the location difficulty either. That approach can support unallocated sites outside but adjoining settlement boundaries, subject to other criteria. This paddock had no direct relationship with such a boundary.

The Washington homes appeal therefore did not succeed because the Inspector decided the proposal complied with the local plan. She expressly found conflict with the council’s spatial strategy, several district policies, the neighbourhood policy and the development plan read as a whole. The eventual approval depended on the planning balance.

Housing shortfall was important, but not automatic

The decision records Horsham’s housing land supply as 1.7 years, a significant shortfall. I would treat that figure as the evidence recorded for this appeal, rather than assume it remains the council’s position indefinitely. Housing supply assessments can change, and another proposal needs the evidence relevant to its own determination.

The Inspector applied the National Planning Policy Framework revised on 17th August 2026. Both main parties had been given an opportunity to comment on its implications. She considered the national policies dealing with development outside settlements, including proposals addressing an evidenced unmet need.

The Washington homes scheme did not satisfy the relevant part of Policy S5 simply because there was a housing shortage. The Inspector explained that this route also required development to be physically well related to an existing settlement. The nearest places meeting the Framework’s settlement definition were some distance away.

There was another distinction. The proposed homes were not isolated because they would sit within a loose cluster of development. However, being part of that cluster did not make the land physically well related to a qualifying settlement. Those are separate questions, with different policy consequences.

Why the Inspector nevertheless allowed the appeal

Policy S5 also addresses exceptional circumstances where a proposal falls outside its listed categories. The decision describes a test in which the benefits must substantially outweigh the adverse effects, including effects on countryside character and sustainable patterns of movement. The Inspector considered the scheme against that approach.

She identified economic and social benefits from four additional homes, their construction and their future occupiers. The Framework gave substantial weight to housing that would contribute towards meeting the community’s evidenced accommodation needs. Against that, she did not find significant harm to countryside character or sustainable movement.

The Inspector concluded that ‘material considerations indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with it’. In context, ‘it’ means the development plan. For the Washington homes appeal, this was a reasoned departure from the plan after weighing the particular benefits and adverse effects.

I would be careful about turning that into a rule that any four homes in the countryside should be approved. This decision concerns this paddock, its surroundings and the evidence presented. It also preserves a later stage at which detailed matters must be assessed. A different site’s harms could produce a different balance.

Footpath, traffic and drainage concerns

The Inspector considered representations about the public footpath but found no substantive evidence that the proposed scale would significantly conflict with its users. She also acknowledged additional traffic, while finding no significant noise or disturbance effect on nearby homes in the context of the A24 and surrounding development.

No substantive evidence had been put forward to demonstrate drainage or highway safety problems. The decision says technical details consent would address drainage, emergency-service and refuse-collection access, and detailed design, including the number and position of windows.

For neighbours following the Washington homes proposal, that means the appeal has resolved the principle of four dwellings but leaves important detail to the next application. I would read the eventual drawings and supporting evidence alongside the appeal decision, rather than assume that every detail has already been approved.

Nearby decisions need careful comparison

The appellant pointed to a nearby allowed appeal, reference 6009593. The Inspector accepted locational similarities, but identified important differences: that other site was previously developed land, proposed one self-build dwelling and met the criteria for infill. Those differences prevented a simple like-for-like comparison.

Another permission-in-principle appeal dismissed in November 2025 had been decided under an older Framework, and the Inspector lacked the details needed for a comparative assessment. Our planning appeals guide explains the wider appeal routes, but the actual decision and evidence remain essential.

The Washington homes decision is useful because it shows both the policy obstacles and the balance that overcame them. Before investing in a similar proposal, I would establish the site’s policy position, housing evidence and likely technical constraints together. Winning the first stage is valuable, but it is only part of the route to building.

Read the complete decision

The complete five-page Inspector’s decision sets out the reasoning and formal result. This is an England planning appeal decision, not a court judgment, and it does not establish a binding legal precedent for other sites.