Pre-school and associated works at The Platt, Crawley Down, Crawley

What was proposed

The application proposed a pre-school and associated works within the southern end of the garden of an existing house.

“Proposal: Erection of pre-school and associated works (Amended Travel Plan received 14.07.2025)”

“Purpose of Report 1.1 To consider the recommendation of the Assistant Director for Planning and Sustainable Economy on the application for planning permission as detailed above. Executive Summary 2.1 Planning permission is sought for the erection of pre-school and associated works within the southern end of the garden of the existing residential property, The Platt.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site is in countryside beside Turners Hill Road, with mature hedging and trees and nearby Grade II listed buildings.

“Site and Surroundings 9.1 The site is located on the western side of Turners Hill Road, within the countryside. The site forms the southern end triangular portion of the residential curtilage of The Platt, a large, detached dwelling to the north.”

“To south, on the opposite side of the road is a The Wallage, a Grade II listed 17 th century cottage with a 19 th century wing. Given the proximity of the site to these heritage assets the site is considered to be within their setting, which has been established under previous applications at the property.”

Officer report

Earlier applications

Earlier permissions covered a swimming pool, music studio and tennis court, plus temporary access and a haul road for construction.

“Relevant Planning History 8.1 DM/22/2375 - New swimming pool, music studio building and tennis court. Withdrawn 8.2 DM/22/3735 - Proposed new swimming pool building and tennis court within the curtilage of the current property. Arboricultural Method Statement and Tree Protection Plan received 07.02.2023. Description amended 17.03.2023 and amended location and block plan received to include change of use of adjoining land to private garden area.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended refusal because the proposal would harm rural character, rely on private vehicles and harm nearby listed buildings without sufficient public benefit.

“It is considered the proposal would cause harm to the setting of nearby listed buildings. The harm to the setting of the listed buildings would fall into the ‘less than substantial’ category as defined in the NPPF, which requires a balance between the harm to the listed buildings and the public benefits of the proposal.”

“The proposal by virtue of its design, form and scale, would detract from the rural character of the area and the positive contribution it makes to the settings of the nearby listed buildings. This harm is considered to fall into the less than substantial category as defined in the NPPF. It is considered that the less than substantial harm to the setting of the heritage assets would not be outweighed by the public benefits of the proposal.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Most consultees raised no objection subject to conditions, while the Conservation Officer objected and the parish council supported the proposal.

“Summary of Consultees WSCC Highways Authority – No objection, require S.106 and condition Ecological Consultant – No objection, recommend conditions MSDC Tree Officer – No objection, recommend condition MSDC Flood Risk and Drainage – No objection, recommend condition Nature Space – No objection, recommend condition WSCC Fire and Rescue – No objection, recommend conditions MSDC Conservation Officer – objection Southern Water - No objection, recommend condition MSDC…”

Officer report

What people said

Supporters cited childcare need and community benefits; objectors raised concerns about access, traffic, parking, noise, rural character, heritage and ecology.

“- Increased number of dwellings in the locality, increased presume on existing services - Location on main road and good commuter routes - Provide needed early years educational space, forest style pre-school - High quality design - Incorporates biodiversity and sustainability measures, such as solar panels, rainwater harvesting and EV parking - Contribution to the local community - Road is not unsafe and would not cause congestion - Existing industrial and commercial…”

“- Reliance on cars, not safe to walk or cycle to the site with young children - Infrequent local buses - Road has no parking or resting areas for cars waiting to enter the proposed access - Insufficient parking proposed, 6 spaces for staff and 6 spaces for parents, children are likely to be dropped of individual and during peak commuter times - unclear if access is wide enough to allow 2 cars to pass each other - Increased noise and disturbance from traffic and proposed use,…”

Officer report

Who spoke

Two speakers spoke against the application, two spoke for it, and a ward member addressed the committee.

The committee vote

The refusal motion was agreed with nine votes in favour, one against and one abstention; one councillor was absent from the vote.

“As there were no further questions, the Chairman took Members to a vote on the recommendations contained in the report (to refuse the planning application). The motion was proposed by Councillor Sweatman and seconded by Councillor Bashar. This was agreed with 9 favour, 1 against and 1 abstention. Cllr Hitchcock was not in the room and did not vote.”

Minutes

The decision

Planning permission was refused for the reasons concerning rural character, unsustainable transport and harm to nearby listed buildings.

“Planning Permission was refused for the reasons as outlined at Appendix A.”

Minutes