The Local Plan Inspector's 30 October letter backs Land West of Ifield, says the golf course would not be retained and raises its homes by 2040 from 1,600 to 2,500.

The planning Inspector examining Horsham district’s Local Plan has backed the allocation of Land West of Ifield for housing. In a letter dated 30 October he says the plan “strikes the right balance” there, and that the golf course on the site “would not be retained”.

Updated 10 November: the final consultation on the further changes is due to run from 17 November 2026 to 5 January 2027, if Cabinet agrees on 16 November. The changes include one primary school at West of Ifield instead of two and a smaller secondary school. Our report on the changes.

Land West of Ifield is on the western edge of Crawley, about six miles north-east of Horsham town centre, but it sits inside Horsham district. Its homes count towards Horsham’s housing requirement.

The letter, from Inspector Jonathan Bore to the council, sets out his conclusions after three weeks of hearings. It was published on the examination’s Latest News page on 30 October as document IDJB14 (Inspector’s post-hearing letter, PDF).

When the hearings closed on 22 October, the council reported that his preliminary view was that the plan is sound (our report). The letter puts that in writing for the first time, and says what he thinks of the biggest sites.

What the Inspector says about West of Ifield

He accepts that the development “would change the character of this area, which is largely green and is used for golf and informal recreation”. He weighs that against “a large amount of much-needed housing and affordable housing” in “a highly sustainable location next to Crawley”. His conclusions on the site:

  • The golf course goes. “The golf course would not be retained, but the site is large enough to provide for significant amounts of open space and recreation.”
  • More homes before 2040. Main modification MM191 raises the homes expected in the plan period from at least 1,600 to 2,500, “to reflect the most recent information from the site promoter”. The overall size of the allocation does not change.
  • Only part of the relief road. It would be “unrealistic” for one development to deliver the whole western multi-modal relief road, but the allocation would deliver the central portion.
  • Crawley’s junctions. Several are congested, but the transport assessment shows that “for the most part” the allocation would not make a significant difference to them.
  • Heritage and green space. Concerns are “capable of being addressed adequately through masterplanning and planning applications”.

The other big sites

The letter also covers the rest of the strategic sites:

  • Adversane (Kingswood): the new freestanding settlement near Billingshurst would be large enough for primary schools, a secondary school and better buses. Delivering all of it “would require significant investment in bridge infrastructure”. The Inspector says precise costs cannot be pinned down at this stage, and the evidence does not show it “cannot be delivered”.
  • Land East of Billingshurst and Land North West of Southwater: both are in “highly sustainable locations”. The Billingshurst site would be “very close to a railway station”.
  • Kilnwood Vale: a “logical extension” of existing development near Crawley.

On the villages, he accepts that in some lower tier towns and larger villages the new building “would be relatively large in proportion to the existing built up area”. Some allocations “would go beyond or contradict the provisions of neighbourhood plans”. His answer is that “circumstances have changed since the neighbourhood plans were made”, and that well designed schemes need not harm a village’s character.

Housing numbers and the rest of the plan

The Inspector finds the raised housing requirement sound. Main modification MM147 sets it at 18,712 homes to 2040, on a stepped trajectory that starts low and rises over time. He also finds sound the policies on affordable housing, housing for different groups, business land and development management.

He accepts that the allocated sites are “almost all on greenfield land”. He says there is “very limited scope” to use brownfield land in the district.

On roads, he writes that “road congestion at peak times including school traffic is a fact of life”. He is satisfied the network would cope, subject to the junction works and walking and cycling schemes in the plan.

He says MPs John Milne and Andrew Griffith made statements at two of the hearing sessions.

What happens next

  • A short consultation on the changes. The Inspector says “relatively few changes” to the draft main modifications are needed. They will be published for consultation, and representations “will be strictly limited to those changes”. No dates have been published.
  • The Inspector’s report by January 2027. He expects to send it “no later than January 2027”. The examination stays open until then.
  • No letters about this one. The examination page says the Inspector “is not inviting or accepting any correspondence” about the letter.

The West of Ifield planning application is a separate process. Homes England’s hybrid application for the site, DC/25/1312, is still marked “Awaiting decision” on the council’s planning register, with an agreed decision date of 31 December 2026 (DC/25/1312 on Public Access).

What it means for you

  • If you live near one of the big sites, the principle of building there is now very likely to be settled by the Local Plan. The detail, from layout to schools and roads, is decided application by application, each with its own consultation. Watch the council’s planning register.
  • If you want to comment, your next chance is the consultation on the changed main modifications, and only on those changes. We will publish the dates when the council does.
  • Nothing changes in the meantime. Applications are still decided under the 2015 Horsham District Planning Framework until the new plan is adopted.

Sources