Estimated reading time: 4 minutes
Key Takeaways
- Planning setback: Horsham District’s local plan was *unexpectedly rejected* by the Planning Inspectorate.
- The council has lodged a *formal complaint* and is pushing for a *transparent review* rather than a full restart.
- Key issues centre on the *duty to cooperate*, housing delivery, and an inadequate water strategy.
- Rejection risks **development chaos** and a surge in speculative planning applications.
- Next steps focus on rebuilding regional cooperation and tightening environmental safeguards.
Table of Contents
Council’s Response
“Hugely disappointing” was the phrase Horsham District Council used after the Planning Inspectorate rejected its local plan. Officials insist that expert advice guided every step, yet the plan still stumbled at the first hurdle. In a swift move, the council lodged a formal complaint, demanding that the inspectorate’s decision be re-examined *without forcing a complete restart*.
Why the urgency? A prolonged restart could delay housing and infrastructure projects for years, an outcome no stakeholder wants.
Reasons Behind the Rejection
- Failure to satisfy the statutory duty to cooperate with neighbouring authorities.
- Legal compliance issues, particularly around environmental obligations.
- Lack of a convincing housing and water strategy, raising soundness concerns.
The inspector’s interim letter dated 4 April 2025 asserted that Horsham’s engagement with adjacent councils was neither “constructive nor active,” contravening section 22 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
Housing Delivery Concerns
The plan’s housing trajectory was branded *insufficient*, risking a flood of speculative planning bids. Without an approved framework, developers may target greenfield sites, creating what local campaigners fear could be development chaos.
- Local targets remain unmet, undermining confidence in long-term supply.
- Critics warn of a “Wild West” scenario if speculative applications surge.
Water Strategy Shortfalls
The Sussex North Offsetting Water Strategy (SNOWS) failed to prove water neutrality for protected habitats such as Pulborough Brooks. The inspectorate concluded that *environmental credibility* was compromised, endangering projects like the contentious West of Ifield development.
“The evidence does not demonstrate a reliably neutral water position,” the inspector wrote.
Implications for Horsham
- Potential *regulatory vacuum* allowing uncontrolled development.
- Difficulty securing funding for Homes England initiatives.
- Heightened legal challenges and cross-boundary tension.
For residents, the immediate worry is uncertainty: Will vital infrastructure keep pace with new homes, or will services lag behind?
Council’s Future Steps
The council is weighing a formal withdrawal before submitting a fresh plan. Priorities include:
- Rebuilding cooperation frameworks with neighbouring districts.
- Overhauling the water strategy to meet neutrality tests.
- Accelerating evidence gathering amid looming local government re-organisation.
Speed is essential, but leaders admit that producing a sound plan in record time will be a “monumental challenge.”
Conclusion
The rejection of Horsham’s local plan is more than a bureaucratic hiccup; it is a pivotal moment that could reshape development across the district. A balanced approach—one that aligns housing ambition with environmental stewardship—is now imperative. For comprehensive details and ongoing updates, see Horsham District Local Plan Rejection.
FAQs
Why was the local plan rejected?
The Planning Inspectorate cited inadequate cooperation with neighbouring councils, unsound housing projections, and an insufficient water neutrality strategy.
Will Horsham have to start the plan from scratch?
Not necessarily. The council is pushing for a targeted review rather than a full restart, but the inspectorate’s response will determine the path forward.
What happens if no plan is in place?
Without an adopted plan, Horsham could face speculative development, limited control over site selection, and funding challenges for infrastructure projects.
How soon can a revised plan be submitted?
Council leaders aim for a rapid turnaround, but legal processes and evidence gathering mean a new submission could still take 12–18 months.