Agenda and minutes

Planning Committee - Thursday, 13th August, 2020 4.00 pm

New regulations came into effect on 4 April 2020 to allow Councils to hold meetings remotely via electronic means. As such, Council and Committee meetings will occur with appropriate Councillors participating via a remote video link. Public access to the meetings is via a live stream video through the Council’s official YouTube channel

Venue: Via Remote Video Link

Contact: Email: 


No. Item


Roll call and Virtual Meetings explanation.


The Chairman introduced the meeting and took a roll call of Members in attendance. The Legal Representative explained the virtual meeting procedure.



To receive apologies for absence.


Apologies were received from Councillor Coote and Councillor Walker.



To receive Declarations of Interest from Members in respect of any matter on the Agenda.



To confirm the Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 11 June 2020 pdf icon PDF 254 KB



To consider any items that the Chairman agrees to take as urgent business.


The Chairman had no urgent business.



DM/19/0260 - Tavistock and Summerhill School, Summerhill Lane, Lindfield, RH16 1RP. pdf icon PDF 807 KB

Additional documents:


Steve King, Planning Applications Team Leader highlighted the agenda update sheet which had been circulated to the Committee members and noted that it detailed the receipt of a further 8 letters of objection.  The Officer introduced the application which sought planning permission for the erection of 38 residential dwellings comprising of 4 houses and 34 flats with associated internal access, surface-level car parking, landscaping with other infrastructure on land formally occupied by Tavistock and Summerhill School, Summer Hill Lane, Lindfield. Amended plans reduced the proposed car parking spaces to 77 and showed revisions to Block A and B.


He noted the Electric Vehicle Charging points (ECVs) and provision for installing more charging points in the future, protected trees with the removal of 13 trees and landscaping to provide an additional 74 trees. He highlighted the design of the balconies which prevents them directly overlooking adjoining properties.  The committee were advised that as the site is within the builtup area of Lindfield the application accords with the District Plan and national policy. He advised that a key issue is the design of the scheme.  Due to the various site constraints, including the levels of the site, the shape of the site and the protected trees within the site, officers consider that a flatted development is suitable. The Officer is supportive of the application but noted that the scheme would be very different to the surrounding houses. The design optimises the potential of the site and the Team Leader advised Members that they must decide on whether this design was acceptable for this location.  He confirmed that no objections had been received from the Ecology Officer, Drainage Officer or the Highway Authority. It was considered that the scheme would not cause significant harm to the amenities of existing nearby neighbours. It was noted that issues have been raised relating to private covenants which the Officer explained were private legal matters and not a relevant planning consideration.  He confirmed Planning Condition 8 for the access to be constructed prior to development of the site.  The scheme is policy compliant on affordable housing, providing 10 units of affordable housing in Block C and a contribution for off-site provision.


The Chairman outlined the public speaking procedure and invited the public speakers to the meeting.


Jonathan Allen,local resident spoke against the application through an audio submission. 


Louise King,local resident spoke against the application through an audio submission. 


David Quickfall, local resident spoke against the application through a video submission.


James Waterhouse, agent spoke in favour of the application through a video submission.


Matthew Richardson,architect spoke against the application through a video submission.


Kate Inglis, agent spoke in favour of the application.


Councillor Andrew Lea,Ward Member spoke against the application.  He highlighted the scale and strength of objections to the application which included Lindfield Parish and Haywards Heath Town Councils.  He commented that the scheme was against District Planning Policy DP26, in that the design should create a sense of place  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.


DM/20/1760 - Oak Tree Farm, Burgess Hill Road, Ansty, RH17 5AH. pdf icon PDF 451 KB


Steve Ashdown, Major Development & Investigations Team Leader introduced the application which follows an application under DM/16/1515 for a prior approval for the change of use of the existing agricultural buildings on the site to form two new residential dwellings, and a subsequent application under DM/18/5130 for Outline approval for the demolition of the existing dwelling and barn and replacement with three new dwellings. The current application seeks full permission for the redevelopment of the site, with all the agricultural buildings and an existing bungalow being demolished to allow for the construction of three new barn style dwellings with a reconfigured site access road and parking/turning provision. The proposed dwellings would be sited in part over the footprint of the disused barns on the site, over the footprint of the existing bungalow and within the garden curtilage at Oaktree Farm, off Burgess Hill Road to the south of Ansty, in Ansty and Staplefield Parish. The scheme is similar in detail to the submission under the outline application, which was granted approval by the MSDC Planning Committee on 30th May 2020.


The Officer highlighted the Grade 2 Listed Building which was noted in the report, and great weight should be attached to the need to protect its setting. The Officer noted the scheme is in the countryside an area of restraint. He noted the differences to previous schemes  in terms of layout and scale, the access is by the approved extant permission, the traditional design of  the buildings which were similar to previous approved applications.  He advised that the public benefits of the scheme out-weigh the less than substantial harm to the Listed Building. 


Peter Rainer, agent spoke in support of the application.


Councillor Bradbury, Ward Member advised he had received emails supporting the scheme and the local councils were also in favour of the development.


The Vice-chairman commented that the scheme complies with policies and was similar to the previously approved outline scheme.  The recommendation was proposed by Councillor Sweatman and seconded Councillor Eggleston. 

A recorded vote was carried out by the Legal Officer and the application was approved unanimously.






G. Allen




R. Cartwright




J. Dabell




R. Eggleston




A.   MacNaughton




G. Marsh




C. Phillips




M. Pulfer




D. Sweatman







That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions listed at Appendix A.



Questions pursuant to Council Procedure Rule 10.2 due notice of which has been given.