Horsham District Council appeal evidence
Refused over neighbour living conditions in Horsham?
See what the selected examples say about harm, noise and disturbance at nearby homes.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 10 of 47
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 3
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 7
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 4
- of 10 matched records
AI-assisted. Cited sources and wording were checked before publication. Based on 5 source-linked examples shown below. Review method and limits.
Planning Data area point: Horsham LPA (51.012507, −0.352452). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Horsham District Council appeal findings
Noise and disturbance at Horsham homes
The selected examples have a different outcome mix from the matched local set. Appeals 88498 and 61796 give conclusions only. In 61796, the Inspector found no living-condition harm despite dismissing the appeal.
Counted against appeals
New floors and nearby homes
Harm to two nearby homes
The Inspector concluded that the proposed first floor would harm the living conditions of two nearby homes.
Helped or needed
Noise from use and deliveries
Noise beyond the site was acceptable
Although the use would make more noise and sometimes be heard beyond the site, the Inspector found the effect acceptable for existing residents.
Out-of-hours deliveries caused no harm
The Inspector concluded that deliveries and dispatches outside the set hours would not harm existing residents through noise.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Which nearby homes does the refusal say would be harmed?
- Does it identify likely noise, disturbance, outlook or sleep effects?
- Does a first floor, deliveries or changed use alter those effects?
Appeal 90915 also covers rural landscape, so only its living-condition conclusion is used. These decisions do not predict another result.
Appeal evidence examples
Compare allowed and dismissed appeal reasoning
Each example separates the development, the Inspector-stated issue that selected it, and the reasoning from the decision. Compare the facts as well as the outcome: these examples do not predict how a different proposal would be decided.
Allowed appeal examples
2 examples
24 June 2026 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
described as the relocation of [name] with associated buildings and infrastructure.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are the effect of the proposed development upon: • The rural landscape character and appearance of the area; and • The living conditions of existing residential occupiers with particular reference to noise and disturbance.
Paragraph 6 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
To conclude on this main issue and based on the evidence before me, the proposed use is likely to generate more noise than the existing scenario. Additionally, noise may sometimes be heard beyond the site. However, the evidence shows that the effect of noise and disturbance associated with the proposed development and its impact upon the living conditions of the existing residential occupiers would be acceptable. As such, it would not conflict with the relevant provisions of Policy 33 of the HDPF which, amongst other things, seeks to ensure a satisfactory level of amenity for occupiers of nearby properties.
Paragraph 35 · Source page 6
9 January 2026 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
outline application for redevelopment of the site to provide flexible employment space ([name](g)(ii) and (iii), B2 and B8) totalling 4,627sqm, ancillary parking and circulation space with all matters reserved except access and layout.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect on the living conditions of existing residents of varying the condition to allow deliveries and dispatches outside the specified hours of operation to units 1-4 as well as units 5-9, having particular regard to noise.
Paragraph 5 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
I therefore conclude that varying the condition to allow deliveries and dispatches outside the specified hours of operation to all units would not harm the living conditions of existing residents, having particular regard to noise. The proposal would accord with Policy 33 of the HDPF, which requires developments to be designed to avoid unacceptable harm to the amenity of nearby occupiers, such as through noise.
Paragraph 14 · Source page 3
Dismissed appeal examples
3 examples
8 May 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
construction of a new first floor for residential use above the existing commercial premises.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of: • the occupiers of [address] and [address] with specific regard to outlook; and • the future occupiers of the development with specific regard to noise and disturbance.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The proposal would result in harm to the living conditions of [address] and [address]. The development would therefore conflict with Policy 33 of the Horsham District Planning Framework (2015) (HDPF). This policy, amongst other matters, seeks to ensure that development is designed to avoid unacceptable harm to the amenity of occupiers of nearby properties.
Paragraph 11 · Source page 2
16 December 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
replacement workshop building.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues are therefore the effect that varying the condition would have on: the Arun Valley SPA, SAC, and Ramsar sites; the availability of employment floorspace; and the living conditions of occupiers of surrounding dwellings.
Paragraph 5 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
Accordingly, I find that varying condition 9 of planning permission DC/23/1588 as proposed would not result in significant adverse harm to the living conditions of occupiers of surrounding dwellings. As such, it would comply with the aims of Policy 33 of the HDPF in this regard.
Paragraph 20 · Source page 4
21 November 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
an outline application for the development of up to 26,942 sq m (GIA) for B1c, B2 and B8 employment uses with ancillary offices, car parking and service yard areas with associated drainage works, site re-profiling and landscaping. All matters reserved for future determination except access.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is whether the conditions are reasonable and necessary having regard to the living conditions of nearby occupiers and on the character of the area.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
considers nighttime noise would be principally focussed on disturbance to sleep. Figure 2 of the SR statement predicted maximum nighttime noise levels at five modelled receptor points across the site would be up to approximately 52db. Figure 3 of the statement models predicted noise levels in zones 1 and 2 with the highest level shown as being approximately 55db at receiver R5. As these would be below the NNGEE level, they say amending the conditions would not be harmful to the living conditions of nearby occupiers and I agree.
Paragraph 2,024 · Source page 3