48-home housing development at Burleigh Lane, Crawley Down, Crawley

What was proposed

The application proposed demolishing existing buildings and erecting 48 homes with open space, landscaping, parking, roads and access from Woodlands Close.

“Proposal: The demolition of numbers 9-11 Woodlands Close together with the demolition of other existing buildings on site and erection of 48 dwellings (Use Class C3) with open space, landscaping, car parking and associated infrastructure including provision of internal access roads and access road onto Woodlands Close.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site contained vacant former commercial barns, surrounding trees and planting, nearby homes, countryside, a public footpath and a listed cottage.

“There are no previous planning applications of direct relevance to the determination of this application. Site and Surroundings 9.1 The site of the planning application is located to the north of Burleigh Lane within the built-up area boundary of Crawley Down. The site is allocated for development under policy SA22 of the Site Allocations Development Plan Document (SADPD), which was adopted in June 2022.”

“To the south-western corner of the site is Burleigh Cottage, a Grade II listed building which dates back to the 17th century. Burleigh Lane contains a public footpath with links to a footpath to the east of the site boundary that connects to Hornbeam Place to the north.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended permission because the proposal’s benefits outweighed its limited impacts, including heritage harm, and subject to conditions and a legal agreement.

“The proposal will have less than substantial harm on the setting of a heritage asset, and while this harm is considered to be outweighed by the public benefits that flow from the development, this harm nevertheless needs to be given ‘great weight’ in the determination of the application.”

“It is therefore recommended that planning permission be granted for this development subject to the conditions set out in Appendix A and to the completion of a satisfactory s106 Legal Agreement.”

Officer report

Who spoke

A parish councillor, three residents, a residents’ association chair and two application representatives spoke, alongside both ward members opposing the proposal.

What members debated

Members discussed four-bedroom homes, building heights, affordable housing location, access, badgers, bedroom sizes, travel measures and the site’s allocated housing numbers.

“A Member expressed concerns regarding the location of the affordable housing when this criteria had been used to refuse previous applications. The Senior Planning Officer explained this was due to the constraints of the site and to minimise service and maintenance cost of these units, however the units were ‘tenure blind’ and would provide 30% affordable housing.”

“A Member noted the development would be an improvement to the existing site of dilapidated out buildings and agreed with the concerns regarding the number of 4 bed units and access to the site. However, the site was allocated for development and the principle of development had been agreed. He noted the location of the affordable housing was a satisfactory alternative to locating the units at the back of the site.”

Minutes

The vote

Members approved the recommendations by nine votes to one, with one abstention.

“As there were no further comments, the Chairman took Members to a vote on the recommendations, these were proposed by Councillor Prescott and seconded by Councillor Sweatman. The application was approved with 9 in favour, 1 against and 1 abstention.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

Permission was granted subject to conditions and completion of a legal agreement securing infrastructure, nature mitigation, biodiversity gain and affordable housing.

“Planning permission was granted subject to the conditions listed in Appendix A and the completion of a section 106 legal agreement to secure the required infrastructure contributions, SAMM and SANG contributions, the biodiversity net gain requirements and the necessary affordable housing.”

“The proposal fails to provide the required affordable housing, the infrastructure and SAMM and SANG 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