Two-caravan traveller site at Pickhurst Lane, Pulborough

What was proposed

The application sought two residential static caravans with day rooms, a stable building, hardstanding and landscape works, including removing an American barn.

“This application seeks retrospective planning permission for the use of land for the stationing of 2 static caravans for residential purposes and associated day rooms, the erection of a stables building, and associated hardstandings. The application also proposes new associated landscape works including the planting of native hedges and the replacement of a close boarded fence along the western boundary with post and rail fence.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site is outside a built-up area in the countryside, next to a lawful traveller site, woodland, ancient woodland, listed buildings and public rights of way.

“The site lies outside of a designated built-up area boundary within a countryside location, approximately 600m north of Codmore Hill. The site is accessed from Pickhurst Lane and is to the west of an existing lawful Gypsy and Traveller site (approved under DC/16/2388, DC/19/2105 and DC/24/0256).”

“The site is bound on two sides by woodland/old woodland shaw. To the south is designated Ancient Woodland (Gerrards Rough) subject of a woodland Tree Preservation Order (Ref: TPO/0706).”

Officer report

Earlier applications and enforcement

An earlier application was refused and an enforcement appeal was dismissed; the current proposal sought to retain the pitches, day rooms and stables with amendments.

“The site has been the subject of a Temporary Stop Notice and a dismissed appeal against an Enforcement Notice issued relating to the breach of planning control on the site (EN/25/0071). Prior to this a planning application (DC/25/0317) for two pitches on the site was refused on three grounds (water neutrality, landscape impact and insufficient information relating to ecology/ biodiversity). Further detail on this background is set out in Section 6 below.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Highways, drainage and ecology consultees raised no objection subject to matters being controlled, while landscape, water and utility details required conditions or further safeguards.

“21.10.25: More Information 3.17 Drainage Report still not provided- Further drainage details required. Details are required in relation to the proposed soakaway drainage field mentioned in the planning statement dated 16 August 2025 in order to assess whether this is practical on this site has still not been provided.”

“Existing Southern Water Assets – General within boundary but no tree, buildings, assets. The 125 mm diameter water main requires a clearance of 3 metres on either side of the water main to protect it from construction works and to allow for future maintenance access. No excavation, mounding or tree planting should be carried out within 3 metres of the external edge of the public water main without consent from Southern Water.”

Officer report

Objections and support

Eight letters objected on grounds including rural character, water, ecology, drainage, highways, lighting, noise and enforcement, while one outside-district letter supported ancillary accommodation.

“- Principle of Development - Harm to rural character and appearance - Water Neutrality - Ecology/ loss of biodiversity/ impact on protected habitats - Removal of street hedgerow - Surface water and foul drainage - Access and impact on highways safety - Retrospective nature and lack of enforcement - Impact of lighting - Amenity impact from noise and disturbance - Large gates out of keeping…”

“One letter of support was received from outside of the District commenting on the positive role ancillary accommodation can have in housing delivery. (Not directly related to the application) .”

Officer report

Who spoke

One member of the public spoke in support, while three members of the public and the parish council spoke against the application.

What members debated

Members discussed the planning history, unresolved issues, whether circumstances had materially changed, community impacts and the unmet need for traveller accommodation.

“Members noted the planning history of the application and highlighted that a number of issues previously identified remained, and questioned whether circumstances had materially changed since earlier applications. Further concerns were raised regarding the significant impact on the local community.”

“It was acknowledged that there is an unmet need for Gypsy and Traveller accommodation within the district, and that the Council is currently unable to demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable sites.”

Minutes

The vote and decision

The committee carried a motion to refuse, finding significant landscape harm that the proposed mitigation would not address near the South Downs National Park.

“An alternative motion was proposed and seconded to refuse the application on the grounds that the development would have an adverse visual and landscape impact, resulting in harm to the semi-rural setting and character of the site.”

“The proposed development has a significant adverse impact, and the proposed mitigation will not address the significant harm to the landscape in this location that is contiguous to the South Downs National Park, contrary to policies 23, 25, 30 and 33 of the Horsham District Planning Framework (2015).”

Minutes