Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Cllr Kenney and Cllr Sweatman.

No declarations were made.

The minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 03 August 2023 were agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

None.

Steven King, Planning Team Leader, introduced the application which sought permission for a replacement clubhouse and new storage facility, following the demolition of the existing premises. Along with amendments to vehicular access via Whitemans Green and additional car parking and servicing arrangements. He drew Members attention to the Agenda Update sheet and the Landscape Consultant summary of comments. The recent update to the NPPF in relation to onshore windfarms does not affect any of the applications on the agenda.

The Planning Team Leader reminded Members the application was before the Committee as Mid Sussex District Council are the landowner and although planning permission was approved in 2019 this had now expired, as detailed at section 10 of the report. He noted the main difference of this current application were the external building materials. He outlined that in officers view the design of the building was satisfactory and would preserve the setting of the Conservation area. The conditions proposed are identical to those of the previous planning application. In terms of the 12 trees being removed, these are not protected by a preservation order and there will be additional planting on the site to compensate for these.

Phil Herbert, Commercial Director of Haywards Heath Rugby Club, spoke in favour of the application.

The Chairman spoke in support of the application, as the site is situated next to his Ward, recommending it for approval.

A Member highlighted the need for renewable energy schemes to be adapted as part of the building works. The Chairman advised this was covered in the application. A Member asked about the proposed external materials for the building and the Planning Team Leader advised that materials were covered at condition 2.

As there were no further comments, the Chairman took Members to a vote on the recommendation, proposed by the Chairman and seconded by the Vice Chairman, Councillor Kennedy. This was approved unanimously with 10 in favour.

RESOLVED

The planning permission was approved subject to the suggested conditions in Appendix A.

Rachel Richardson, Senior Planning officer, introduced the application which sought planning permission for a single storey side and rear (wrap around) extension with internal alterations. She drew Members attention to the Agenda Update sheet and subsequent letters of objection received after the application was published. The Planning officer took Members through the details of the application and in particular the street scene and surrounding properties, many of which have already had extensions of a similar nature installed, including Dormer windows. She flagged the main planning issue was whether the proposed design is in keeping with the current street scene and locality.

Geraldine Miller, resident, spoke on behalf of Jane Ballantyne, resident, against the application.

Councillor Anne Eves, spoke as Ward Member for Burgess Hill Leylands, against the application.

In response to Member concerns regarding the Party Wall Act, the Planning Team Leader, advised this was a separate piece of legislation that sat outside of both Planning Law and the Building Regulations and was not a material planning consideration for this application, which should be assessed against the policies and guidance set out in the officer's report.

The Chairman asked for clarity on the garage structure and loss of sunlight and overshadowing. The Planning officer confirmed that the garage had been removed and the separate garden annex referred to does not form part of this application. Regarding overshadowing, there are two tests under BRE standards which assess overshadowing. The proposed extension does meet the criteria set out in these tests, which therefore indicates that there should not be a significant impact in respect of over shadowing.

The Members discussed the application in detail. Members expressed concerns regarding the size and height of the extension. Clarification was sought in relation to design principle DG49. The Planning officer drew Members attention to the design proposals and reiterated the extension is in keeping with the size of the property. A Member expressed concerns regarding planning designs and a mechanism to regulate them to protect street scenes and neighbourhoods. The Chairman advised further applications would need to be submitted as this would fall outside of permitted development.

In response to a Member query, the Planning officer advised separate applications for the rear Dormer and rear extension could be submitted under permitted development (prior approval application for large extensions).

As there were no further questions, the Chairman took Members to a vote on the recommendation, proposed by Councillor Hitchcock and seconded by Councillor Casella. This was approved with 5 in favour, 2 against and 3 abstentions.

RESOLVED

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

Anna Tidey, Planning officer, introduced the application which sought planning permission for a ground floor extension to the south of the existing build with a wrap around terrace. She drew Members attention to the MSDC Estates comments on the Agenda Update sheet, specifically, it was not confirmed whether the extension would be hired or leased and no EV charges had been allowed for in the scheme or any rainwater harvesting. She also noted the Environmental Protection comments and recommended additional condition 8 in relation to a Noise Nuisance Management Plan. There were no transport grounds from West Sussex County Council (WSCC) to refuse the application.

The Planning officer took Members through the details of the application, including the design and layout of the extension and alterations to doorways to make the extension more accessible to users. She noted the application was recommended for approval subject to the additional condition 8.

The Chairman advised the Committee that the EV charging point was the responsibility of WSCC and not MSDC and that it was unfortunate there was no rainwater harvesting, however he advised it was open to the ruling party to contact the Executive to see if such measures could be brought forward and it was not part of the planning application that was before the Planning Committee. The Chairman noted the application was before the Committee as MSDC is the landowner.

A Member reiterated it would be helpful if the Committee supported renewable schemes in the building materials used. In response, Paula Slinn, Legal officer advised this could be included as an informative to the permission.

A Member sought clarity on the process for upgrading buildings and maintaining them to accord with the aims of DP Policy DP39 Sustainable Design and Construction. The Chairman on the advice of the Legal officer, advised this could also be included as an informative to the permission in relation to the extension and not the existing building.

As there were no further comments, the Chairman took Members to a vote on the recommendation as amended to include the two informatives, proposed by Councillors Henwood and Brown and seconded by Councillor Bashar. This was approved unanimously with 10 in favour.

RESOLVED

That planning permission was granted subject to the conditions listed at appendix A and as amended to include the additional informatives above. 

None.