Estimated reading time: 7 minutes
Key Takeaways
- The Planning Inspectorate judged Horsham’s Local Plan 2023-2040 legally non-compliant and unsound.
- Core failings centred on the duty to cooperate and weak environmental safeguards.
- Water neutrality, especially under the Sussex North Offsetting Water Strategy, became a decisive stumbling block.
- Horsham District Council has submitted a formal complaint and is pressing for a fresh examination.
- Local housing, infrastructure, and investment decisions remain in limbo until a compliant plan is agreed.
Table of contents
Background of the Local Plan
The rejected Local Plan was Horsham District Council’s roadmap for growth up to 2040, aiming to deliver *affordable housing*, upgraded infrastructure, and robust environmental protections. It promised to meet government-mandated housing targets while safeguarding the district’s rural character.
Key objectives included:
- Strategically planned new development sites
- Investment in transport, schools, and health facilities
- Robust biodiversity net-gain policies
“We sought a balanced plan that nurtures growth yet preserves Horsham’s unique sense of place,” said council leader Roger Noel during an earlier consultation.
Reasons for Rejection
The Planning Inspectorate halted further hearings after identifying two critical failings.
1. Duty to Cooperate
- Statutory obligation to “actively and constructively” work with neighbouring councils
- Evidence showed limited engagement on cross-boundary housing numbers
2. Legal Compliance & Housing Delivery
- Unclear trajectory for meeting five-year housing supply
- Insufficient integration of emerging environmental requirements
*As a result, the Inspectorate advised withdrawal rather than modification, a move the council decried as “disproportionate.”*
Water Neutrality and Environmental Considerations
Water supply in Sussex North is already under stress. The plan’s reliance on the Sussex North Offsetting Water Strategy (SNOWS) was deemed too flimsy to guarantee *water neutrality*.
- No binding mechanism to offset extra demand from 18,700 proposed homes
- Risk of breaching Habitats Regulations protecting Arun Valley wetlands
In the Inspector’s words, “absence of a credible strategy exposes the plan to legal challenge.”
Impact of Government Policy Changes
Shifting national guidance on housing targets and environmental tests intensified scrutiny. New *biodiversity net gain* rules and draft revisions to the National Planning Policy Framework arrived mid-examination, raising the bar for compliance.
Local plan timetables remain tight while expectations continually evolve, a tension echoed by councils nationwide.
Plan Withdrawal & Next Steps
Refusing to concede defeat, Horsham District Council has:
- Filed a formal complaint and requested a fresh examination
- Commissioned rapid reviews of housing numbers and water strategy
- Hinted at potential judicial review “if procedural fairness is found wanting”
Council leader Martin Boffey argued, “With county devolution on the horizon, forcing withdrawal now is unrealistic.”
Implications for Local Planning Decisions
Until a compliant plan is adopted, planning decisions default to national policy, creating *uncertainty* for residents and developers alike.
- Potential delays to major housing schemes such as Kilnwood Vale extensions
- Risk of speculative applications exploiting policy vacuum
- Infrastructure funding gaps if Section 106 contributions slip
Conclusion
Horsham’s experience underscores the *fragile dance* between local ambition and national regulation. Addressing water neutrality, strengthening inter-authority collaboration, and adapting to ever-shifting policy will be pivotal. As the council seeks renewed scrutiny, the district’s development horizon hangs in the balance—offering a cautionary tale for planners across England.
FAQs
Why was the Local Plan declared unsound?
Primarily because Horsham failed the statutory duty to cooperate and lacked legally robust solutions for housing delivery and environmental safeguards.
What is water neutrality and why does it matter?
Water neutrality ensures new development does not increase overall water demand. In Sussex North, constrained supplies and protected wetlands make neutrality a legal hurdle under the Habitats Regulations.
Will housing applications now be refused?
Not automatically. Applications will be judged against national policy, but schemes relying on the rejected plan’s allocations face extra scrutiny.
How long could a revised plan take?
Council officers estimate 18-24 months to rewrite key evidence and resubmit, assuming no judicial review delays.
Could Horsham challenge the Inspectorate in court?
Yes. A judicial review could test whether the Inspectorate’s process was fair, though success rates are typically low and costs high.