117 homes at Land At Borde Hill Lane, Haywards Heath

What was proposed

Outline permission was sought for up to 117 homes, landscaping, open space and related works, with access from Balcombe Road.

“Proposal: Outline planning application for the erection of up to 117 dwellings, together with the provision of landscaping, open space, and associated development works, with access from Balcombe Road. All matters reserved except for access. (Amended plans and supporting statements received 15th April reducing the number of proposed dwellings to up 117 and reducing the size of the proposed roundabout). (Additional ecology information received 19/05/2026).”

Officer report

Planning history

No relevant planning history was identified, while the emerging plan proposes the site for housing.

“The details of the layout, scale, appearance and landscaping would be provided in a subsequent reserved matters application. Relevant Planning History 8.1 None relevant. Site and Surroundings 9.1 The site comprises an irregularly shaped parcel of land, some 9.4 hectares in area. It is to the northeast of the Borde Hill Lane/Balcombe Road/Hanlye Lane roundabout.”

Officer report

What people said

Objectors and parish councils cited overdevelopment, traffic, flooding, infrastructure, countryside, ecology and heritage harm; two letters supported the homes.

“Original Plans 200 letters of objection: Principle - overdevelopment of the site and twice us much development as proposed in the local plan allocation - site not in current District Plan - site is not allocated for development in current local plan and granting consent would undermine the plan led process - conflicts with current District Plan Landscape and Heritage - enlarged roundabout will be out of character in the area - will harm character of countryside and AONB -…”

“Specifically, it relies on a stopping sight distance of 70m which is below the recommended 90m distance in DMRB for the traffic speeds put forward by Fairfax - automated traffic count and speed surveys used by Fairfax in its submission are out of date and were likely recorded at an inappropriate distance from the roundabout to be credible in a robust safety assessment - and certainly inadequate to support any relaxation of forward visibility distances from those recommended…”

Officer report

Who spoke

The team leader introduced the application, the planning lawyer raised a legal issue, and senior officers addressed water-supply concerns.

Members’ concerns

Members raised concerns about water supply and connections, leading officers to propose an additional condition requiring adequate water supply to be demonstrated.

“Solomon Agutu, Planning Lawyer, requested officers and the Chairman and Vice Chairman adjourn to discuss a legal issue that had emerged during the course of the meeting.”

“The Interim Assistant Director, Planning and Sustainable Economy, advised due to the concerns raised by the Committee in relation to water supply and water connection, officers have suggested including an additional condition requiring a demonstration that there is adequate water supply to serve the development. He requested delegation be given via the Committee for him to draft a condition in consultation with the Chair and Vice Chairman.”

Minutes

The vote

Members approved the recommendations, amendments and additional water condition, with nine in favour, one against and two abstentions.

“The Chairman took Members to a vote on the recommendations contained in the report and as amended in the Agenda Update Sheet, and the additional condition, proposed by Councillor Peacock and seconded by Councillor Whittaker. These were approved with 9 in favour, 1 against and 2 abstentions.”

Minutes

The decision

Permission was granted subject to amended conditions, a water condition and a legal agreement securing infrastructure, travel, biodiversity and affordable housing measures.

“It is recommended that planning permission is granted subject to the conditions listed in Appendix A, as amended in the Update Sheet (and the new condition) relating to water and the completion of a section 106 legal agreement to secure the required infrastructure contributions, Travel Plan, and 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 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