Above average on safety, with the published numbers to back it up. The recorded crime rate sits at about 49 incidents per thousand residents over the last 12 months. That's roughly 15% below the Horsham District average of around 57 per thousand. Total recorded crime ran to about 290 incidents over the year. It's the rural-village pattern doing what the rural-village pattern does, which is producing a quieter dataset than the wider local authority and not much else.
The headline is the comparison, not the absolute. About 49 crimes per thousand residents over the most recent 12 months reads as a sober figure on its own, and the right way to read it is against the Horsham District benchmark of around 57 per thousand, which puts the village roughly 15% below the area average. The total volume of about 290 recorded crimes is what a place of just under 6,000 residents produces when it's running below the local trend. The published rate-per-thousand uses a statistical-area population base that doesn't match the resident headcount exactly, so the rate and the count are two separate published numbers, and trying to divide one into the other yourself produces a third figure that isn't either of them. What the village-scale rate doesn't tell you is anything address-specific. Whether the half-dozen streets nearest the pubs have a different temperament from the half-dozen streets at the far end is a question the public police-data map will answer better than any summary, and any buyer making a decision should be spending five minutes on that map for the specific area before reading too much into an averaged number.
Above average on safety, in the published sense of the word. A village that sits comfortably on the lower-crime side of its local authority, and the kind of place where the safety question isn't the one that decides the purchase.