Eight self-build homes at Land To The South Of Burleigh Lane, Crawley Down

What was proposed

An outline scheme proposed up to eight self-build or custom-build homes, with access fixed from Burleigh Lane and other details reserved.

“Proposal: Outline application with all matters reserved except for access from Burleigh Lane, for the erection of up to eight self-build/custom build dwellings, drainage and ancillary works.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The 1.77-hectare open field lies south of Burleigh Lane, beside housing, pastureland, trees, a public footpath and a listed cottage.

“Introduction 7.1 Outline planning permission is sought with all matters reserved except for access for the erection of up to eight self-build/custom build dwellings, drainage and ancillary works. Relevant Planning History 8.1 None.”

“Adjoining Burleigh Cottage to the east is the site for 48 houses (DM/25/1593) which has a resolution to grant planning permission pending completion of a S106 Agreement. Contextually, the local areas to the south, west and northeast of Burleigh Lane and Sandhill Lane are large individual / substantial plots with detached houses of various styles and ages.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended permission because housing, self-build, affordable housing and biodiversity benefits outweighed limited countryside and heritage harm.

“The Housing and Planning Act (2016) prescribes a statutory duty for the Council to give enough permissions in respect of serviced plots of land to meet the demand for self-build and custom housebuilding. A recent appeal for eight self and custom build plots on land north of Felbridge Road, Felbridge, was allowed at appeal (APP/D3830/W/25/3373757 – DM/24/2400).”

“It is recommended that planning permission is granted subject to the conditions listed in Appendix A and the completion of a section 106 legal agreement to secure affordable housing, the infrastructure, SAMM and SANG contributions and the biodiversity net gain requirements.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The Team Leader for Applications introduced the proposal, advised Members during the debate and explained potential refusal wording.

What members debated

Members debated countryside and heritage harm, the Sussex Border Path, site assessment, highways, access, traffic and demand for self-build housing.

“During the course of the debate, Members discussed the potential to refuse the application on the grounds that it will have adverse harm on the countryside and Burley Cottage and to the leisure pursuits of those using the Sussex Border Path. They also commented that the site is excluded from future development by the stage 2 Strategic Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (SHELAA).”

Minutes

The vote

The committee voted unanimously, with 11 votes in favour, to refuse the application.

“The Chairman took Members to a vote on the refusal This was approved unanimously with 11 votes in favour.”

Minutes

The decision and reasons

Permission was refused because Members considered cumulative countryside harm and adverse effects on the Sussex Border Path and its users outweighed the benefits.

“The Team Leader took Members through potential draft wording of the refusal should they wish to proceed. Based on discussions held, Members believed that the cumulative effect of the adverse harm to the countryside and adverse effect to the public right of way of the Sussex Border Path and users of it and the perceived safety of those users would outweigh the benefits and thereby be contrary to DP12 and DP22 of the district plan and policy CDNP10F of the neighbourhood plan.”

“It was resolved that planning permission be refused based on the concerns of Members in relation to the cumulative effect on the adverse harm to the countryside and the adverse effect on the public right of way of the Sussex Border Path. (The exact wording to be confirmed by the Team Leader and agreed with the Chairman and Vice Chairman.)”

Minutes