230 homes and care home at Turners Hill Road, Crawley Down

What was proposed

The outline scheme proposed demolishing existing buildings and delivering up to 230 homes, a 70-bed care home, community facilities and infrastructure.

“Site: Land West Of Turners Hill Road And North Of Huntsland Including Hurst Farm Turners Hill Road Crawley Down West Sussex…”

“Proposal: Outline application (appearance, landscaping, layout and scale reserved), for the demolition of existing buildings and erection of up to 230 dwellings, a care home (use class c2) up to 70 beds, and community facility, and associated infrastructure including new access points off of Turners Hill Road, with associated spine road and car and cycle parking, together with provision of open space, play facilities, utilities infrastructure, surface water drainage…”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site is countryside outside Crawley Down, with two fields, public footpaths, woodland, existing buildings and a listed farmhouse nearby.

“Planning permission was granted on 5th September 2025 under reference DM/25/0014 for the following development: Outline planning application (appearance, landscaping, layout and scale reserved) for the erection of up to 200 dwellings, and associated infrastructure including new access points off of Turners Hill Road with associated spine roads and car and cycle parking; the provision of open space and associated play facilities; utilities infrastructure, surface water…”

“The northern part of the site contains several substantial redundant former agricultural buildings. There is an existing dwelling at the northeastern corner of the site, called Hurst Farm. The land to the east of the application site is predominantly residential in nature with properties comprising a variety of different house types, ages, and styles, but predominantly two and two and a half stories. To the west there is woodland.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Highways, flood, environment and other consultees raised no objection subject to conditions, contributions or mitigation, while the parish council deferred to officers.

“Summary of Consultees WSCC Planning (Infrastructure) No objection subject to securing s106 Infrastructure contributions WSCC Local Lead Flood Authority No objection subject to conditions WSCC Highway Authority No objection subject to conditions and a legal agreement. WSCC Public Rights of Way Officer It is pleasing to see much consideration has been given to Public Rights of Way (PRoW) and the Worth Way within and in the immediate vicinity of the site.”

“Active Travel England Refers to standing advice. NATS Safeguarding No objection. Aerodrome Safeguarding Officer No objection. Sussex Police Crime Prevention To be reported. Sussex Police Infrastructure Require an infrastructure contribution. West Sussex Clinical Commissioning Group To be reported Natural England No objection subject to Ashdown Forest mitigation being secured. Environment Agency No objection subject to conditions.”

Officer report

What residents said

Two objections raised concerns about transport, schools, local services, sustainability, infrastructure and wildlife, while 29 letters supported the revised access.

“Recommendation B 3.2 If a satisfactory planning obligation has not been completed by 20 th August 2026 it is recommended that the application be refused at the discretion of the Assistant Director for Planning and Sustainable Economy for the following reason: ‘The proposal fails to provide the required affordable housing, the infrastructure contributions and the biodiversity net gain requirements.”

“- Site is too far from local amenities so journeys will be made by car - Not a sustainable development - Infrastructure inadequate to serve the development, schools and doctor’s surgeries are full - adverse impact on wildlife in the area 29 letters of support - Supporting as the new plan has the entrance to the estate via the current Hurst farm entrance rather than through the main Wychwood estate which would be unable to cope with the level of traffic.”

Officer report

Who addressed the committee

The case officer introduced the application and drew Members’ attention to amendments in the agenda update.

The committee vote

Members unanimously approved the recommendations as amended, with 12 votes in favour.

“The Chairman took Members to a vote on the recommendations contained in the report and as amended in the Agenda Update Sheet, proposed by Councillor Peacock and seconded by Councillor Avery. These were approved unanimously with 12 in favour.”

Minutes

The decision

Permission was granted after the publicity period, subject to no new substantive issues, conditions and a legal agreement securing contributions, travel measures, biodiversity gain and affordable housing.

“It is recommended that after the publicity period of 12 th June has expired, subject to officers being satisfied that no new substantive issues have been raised, that planning permission is granted subject to the conditions listed in Appendix A and the completion of a section 106 legal agreement to secure the required infrastructure contributions, Travel Plan, the biodiversity net gain requirements and the necessary affordable housing.”

“The proposal fails to provide the required affordable housing, the infrastructure contributions and the biodiversity net gain requirements. The application therefore conflicts with Policies DP17, DP20, DP31 and DP38 of the Mid Sussex District Plan and the Mid Sussex Supplementary Planning Documents ‘Affordable Housing’ and ‘Development Infrastructure and Contributions’.”

Minutes