Decisions

Use the below search options at the bottom of the page to find information regarding recent decisions that have been taken by the council’s decision making bodies.

Alternatively you can visit the officer decisions page for information on officer delegated decisions that have been taken by council officers.

Please visit the previous decisions page to view Cabinet Member and Senior Officer decisions prior to 2018.

Decisions published

12/11/2020 - DM/20/1647 - East Grinstead Sports Club, Saint Hill Road, East Grinstead, West Sussex, RH19 4JU ref: 347    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Planning Committee

Made at meeting: 12/11/2020 - Planning Committee

Decision published: 25/11/2020

Effective from: 12/11/2020

Decision:

Steven King, Planning Applications Team Leader, introduced the application which sought planning permission for a change of use of an agricultural field to a sports field and the erection of a yurt at East Grinstead Sports Club, Saint Hill Road, East Grinstead.

 

Cllr Rex Whittaker, East Grinstead Town Council, spoke in favour of the application.

 

Martin Donaghy, local resident, spoke in objection to the application.

 

Clemency Scarfe Beckett, local resident, spoke in objection to the application.

 

Simon Curtis, local resident, spoke in objection to the application.

 

Bob Shelley, East Grinstead Sports Club, spoke in favour of the application.

 

Richard Leman, Trustee of East Grinstead Sports Club, spoke in favour of the application.

 

Steve Phillips, Chairman of East Grinstead Meads Football Club, spoke in favour of the application.

 

Cllr Adam Peacock, Ward Member, spoke in objection to the application. He expressed his support for the District Council’s aspirations for improving sports pitches in the District however he raised concerns on the harm caused to the neighbouring amenity and the formalisation of the irreversible change from agricultural land, of which sits within the High Wield Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, to a sports field.

 

The Planning Applications Team Leader provided an explanation of the historical and current use of the site. He noted the proposal would not make significant physical changes to the site but highlighted that the main concern of officers is the formalisation of the change of use of the site. He outlined what was proposed in the application and highlighted the main issues to consider and summarised how they had been assessed in the committee report. He outlined that the Committee would have to assess the application against the relevant  development plan policies and material considerations, some of which weighed in favour of the scheme and some which weighed against the scheme, to come to a view on the application.

 

In response to a query from the Chairman the Planning Applications Team Leader highlighted how the site is used currently under permitted development rights. He went through the photographs that showed what was on and around the site at present time.

 

The Chairman and Vice-Chairman stated that they sat on the Planning Committee which refused the previous application in 2011 however they came to the meeting with an open mind to hear the consideration of the committee, officers and public speakers.

 

The Chairman drew attention to the Prime Minister’s promotion of young people engaging more with sporting activities.

 

A Member also drew attention to the Prime Minister’s comments and noted that there is an increasing amount of young people in the town. He mentioned that the field is already being used by the Sports club and Treehoppers so he believed that, with the right mitigations, the change of use would not cause substantial harm. He supported the aim of providing young people with better facilities for outdoor sport. He did not consider it would cause significant harm to neighbouring properties. He believed that the application should instead be approved and proposed a motion to approve the application.

 

The Vice-Chairman noted that the neighbouring properties are newly built and supported the encouragement to get more young people engaging with sports. He did not consider the proposal would harm the amenities of neighbouring properties.

 

A Member expressed his support for the District Council Playing Pitch Strategy and recognised the need for more football pitches within the town. He also expressed the need to be consistent in deliberating planning matters and could not see any difference to the previous application brought before the Committee in 2011. He noted that no noise survey was carried out to see how the noise from the club affects local residents and that the East Grinstead Society recommended refusal to the application. He sought clarification on the final bullet point on P.212 of the Report which refers to other sports being played on the pitch during quieter times.

 

The Planning Applications Team Leader confirmed that the final bullet point on P.212 states that the field will be used at a time when the other sports facilities at the East Grinstead Sports Club are quieter. He added that he had been in discussion with the Environmental Protection Officer officers who haven’t had any complaints with the field under its temporary permitted development rights; the complaints that had been received by the Environmental Protection Officer related to noise at the main facilities during events and musical performances. The Planning Applications Team Leader advised that whilst there had not been a noise survey supplied with the planning application, the site has been used for 28 days a year for sporting activities under permitted development rights. Therefore, the Environmental Protection Officer had the benefit of this existing use to draw upon when making his comments on the planning application.

 

A Member recognised the need to all ages to get active and engage with sports however he believed that the need does not overcome the clear policy directive of Paragraph 172 of the NPPF which states that great weight should be given to the protection of National Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

 

A Member stated that in his view the proposal would not detract from the character of the AONB. He stated that the need for the facility outweighed any harm to the AONB.

A Member referenced the additional housing East Grinstead has received and highlighted the need to develop more leisure facilities to cope with the increasing demand.

 

The Chairman noted the proposed motion to approve the application and so asked the Planning Applications Team Leader to provide advice to the Committee should it be minded to do so.

 

A Member sought clarification if the motion to approve the scheme was to approve it on a permanent basis or a temporary planning permission.

 

A Member proposed that the motion to approve the application should be for a permanent and not a temporary planning permission.

 

The Planning Applications Team Leader explained that the only construction on the site is the yurt. He explained that as set out in the committee report planning applications must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material planning considerations indicate otherwise. He explained that when assessing whether a scheme was in compliance with the development plan, this means the development plan when read as a whole. He explained that it is not the case that a planning application must comply with each and every policy in the development plan.

 

The Planning Applications Team Leader advised that great weight should be given to conserving the natural beauty of the AONB as required by planning policy and the NPPF. He outlined that there was support in policies DP24 and DP25 of the District Plan for improved leisure facilities. He also advised that the need for additional pitch provision was a material planning consideration that weighed in favour of the application. He advised that on balance officers did not support the application for the reasons that were set out in the committee report. He advised that the Committee would have to balance any adverse impact on the appearance of the AONB, if they considered there was harm to the AONB, against the positives of the improved facilities. He added that the Committee could condition that there couldn’t be any physical works to the site.

 

Cllr John Dabell proposed to move to approve the application and  Cllr Emma Coe-Gunnell White seconded the proposal.

 

The Planning Applications Team Leader confirmed the conditions regarding the times, dates and hours of use of the site as well the ecological condition proposed by the Ecology Adviser. He added that the Committee could include a condition that if the site ceases to be used for sporting activities then the yurt would be removed, and the use of the field would revert back to agricultural. He referred to P.212 of the Report as the conditions there would form the basis of conditions regarding the times of use for the approval.

 

The Chairman explained to Members that the vote was for a permanent planning permission to be granted subject to appropriate conditions on the basis that the committee did not consider that there was an adverse impact on the AONB by permanently formalising what was already taking place on the site. The Chairman took Members to the recorded vote to approve the application, carried out by the Legal Officer and the application was approved with nine votes in favour and two against.

 

Councillor

For

Against

Abstain

G Allen

Y

 

 

R Cartwright

Y

 

 

E Coe-Gunnell White

Y

 

 

P Coote

Y

 

 

J. Dabell

Y

 

 

R Eggleston

 

Y

 

A. MacNaughton

Y

 

 

G. Marsh

Y

 

 

C. Phillips

Y

 

 

M. Pulfer

Y

 

 

D. Sweatman

Y

 

 

RESOLVED

 

That planning permission be approved subject to conditions regarding the times of use of the field, ecology, floodlighting any other such condition that the officers feel appropriate, wording of which to be approved by the Chairman and Vice-Chairman.

 


12/11/2020 - DM/20/2976 - The Heath Recreation Ground, Perrymount Road, Haywards Heath, West Sussex ref: 348    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Planning Committee

Made at meeting: 12/11/2020 - Planning Committee

Decision published: 25/11/2020

Effective from: 12/11/2020

Decision:

Katherine Williams, Planning Officer, introduced the application which sought permission for the erection of a 40-metre long and 8-metre-high ball stop fence which would be positioned along the northern boundary of the Haywards Heath Cricket Club pitch within the Heath Recreation Ground. She noted that the application was brought before the Committee as the site is located on land owned by Mid Sussex District Council.

 

The Vice-Chairman proposed to move straight to the recommendation to approve the application. The proposal was seconded by Cllr MacNaughton.

 

The Chairman took Members to the recorded vote, which was carried out by the Legal Officer, and the application was unanimously approved.

 

Councillor

For

Against

Abstain

G Allen

Y

 

 

R Cartwright

Y

 

 

E Coe-Gunnell White

Y

 

 

P Coote

Y

 

 

J. Dabell

Y

 

 

R Eggleston

Y

 

 

A. MacNaughton

Y

 

 

G. Marsh

Y

 

 

C. Phillips

Y

 

 

M. Pulfer

Y

 

 

D. Sweatman

Y

 

 

 

RESOLVED

 

That planning permission be approved subject to the conditions outlined at Appendix A.


12/11/2020 - DM/20/2937 - Kingsland Laines, Reeds Lane, Sayers Common, Hassocks, West Sussex, BN6 9JG ref: 346    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Planning Committee

Made at meeting: 12/11/2020 - Planning Committee

Decision published: 25/11/2020

Effective from: 12/11/2020

Decision:

Steven King, Planning Applications Team Leader, introduced the report which sought planning permission to amend the provision of dwellings on an approved housing site at Steven King,Planning Applications Team Leader, introduced the report which sought planning permission to amend the provision of dwellings on an approved housing site at Kingsland Laines in Sayers Common to deliver a greater number of two and three bedroom properties and a reduction in the number of four and five bedroom properties. The proposal would increase the number of dwellings that would be provided in this redesigned part of the site from 27 to 40, resulting in a net increase of 13 dwellings.

 

Cllr Bob Sampson, Hurstpierpoint and Sayers Common Parish Council, spoke in objection of the application.

 

Sam Sykes, agent of the applicant, spoke in favour of the application.

 

A Member stated that it was good to have more two- and three-bedroom houses in the area which young people can afford.

 

A Member said he was assured that electric vehicle charging points will be put in for the development and the issue with the storage of the properties’ waste bins have been addressed. He expressed a serious concern with the sewage of the site as was aware of shortcomings within his own ward from Southern Water.

 

The Chairman noted the original application which stated that there would be an upgrade to the pump station and hoped that this would be carried out before the houses are constructed.

 

A Member also expressed concerns about Southern Water and requested concrete commitments that they can cope with the additional sewage as he was aware of shortcomings from Southern Water in Crawley Down.

 

The Planning Applications Team Leader confirmed that there are 33 proposed electric vehicle charging points. He outlined that regarding surface water, the developer has reassessed drainage calculations for the application. He drew Members attention to the fact that the amount of built form and hardstanding in the replanned area was very similar to the previously approved scheme. He stated that the Councils drainage engineers have looked carefully at the replanned area and are satisfied that the scheme can be properly drained. Regarding foul water, he explained that Southern Water are the statutory body responsible for providing foul drainage and they have stated that they can take the additional demand and the Committee would have to take their commitment at face value. He stated that the Supreme Court has confirmed that developers have an absolute right to connect to the foul drainage system and that if further works are required then this can be dealt with by a planning condition.

 

The Member requested that a condition be added to the application to ensure that the improved pumping station be operational before any houses are occupied to prevent sewerage backing-up into people’s homes as what occurred in his own ward.

 

The Planning Applications Team Leader directed Members’ attention to P.172 which covers the drainage details. He added that drainage details for the site have already been approved under the existing scheme and the drainage condition requires details of the effect of this proposal.

 

A Member felt that it was good to see developers providing more realistic houses in their developments.

 

The Chairman took Members to the vote to approve the application, which was proposed by Cllr Coe-Gunnell White and seconded by Cllr MacNaughton.

 

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

 

Councillor

For

Against

Abstain

G Allen

Y

 

 

R Cartwright

Y

 

 

E Coe-Gunnell White

Y

 

 

J. Dabell

Y

 

 

A. MacNaughton

Y

 

 

G. Marsh

Y

 

 

C. Phillips

Y

 

 

M. Pulfer

Y

 

 

D. Sweatman

Y

 

 

 

RESOLVED

 

 A

 

That permission be granted, subject to the completion of a section 106 planning agreement to secure the necessary affordable housing and infrastructure contributions and the conditions listed at Appendix A and the additional conditions listed in the Agenda Update Sheet;

 

and

 

 B

 

That if the applicants have not submitted a satisfactory signed S106 Legal Agreement/or legal undertaking securing the necessary infrastructure payments by the 4th February 2021, then permission be refused at the discretion of the Divisional Lead for Planning and Economy, for the following reason:

 

1. The application fails to comply with policies DP20 and DP31 of the Mid Sussex District Plan in respect of the infrastructure and affordable housing required to serve the development.


12/11/2020 - DM/20/2899 - Land To The West Of Freeks Lane, Freeks Lane, Burgess Hill, West Sussex ref: 345    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Planning Committee

Made at meeting: 12/11/2020 - Planning Committee

Decision published: 25/11/2020

Effective from: 12/11/2020

Decision:

Stuart Malcolm, Senior Planning Officer, introduced the application which sought planning permission for the installation of a surface water drainage pipe to support SUDS features approved under the Freeks Farm development (DM/19/3845).

 

The Chairman noted that no Member wished to speak so moved to the recommendation to approve the application, which was proposed by Cllr Coe-Gunnell White and seconded by Cllr Cartwright.

 

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

 

Councillor

For

Against

Abstain

G Allen

Y

 

 

R Cartwright

Y

 

 

E Coe-Gunnell White

Y

 

 

 

 

 

 

J. Dabell

Y

 

 

A. MacNaughton

Y

 

 

G. Marsh

Y

 

 

C. Phillips

Y

 

 

M. Pulfer

Y

 

 

D. Sweatman

Y

 

 

 

RESOLVED

 

That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out in Appendix A.


12/11/2020 - DM/20/2381 - The Weald Inn, Royal George Road, Burgess Hill, West Sussex, RH15 9SJ ref: 344    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Planning Committee

Made at meeting: 12/11/2020 - Planning Committee

Decision published: 25/11/2020

Effective from: 12/11/2020

Decision:

[Cllr Coote left the meeting at 5:30pm]

 

Joanne Fisher, Senior Planning Officer, introduced the application which sought planning permission for the demolition of the existing public house and redevelopment of the site to provide 10 dwellings with associated access, parking, and landscaping at The Weald Inn, Royal George Road, Burgess Hill. She directed Members’ attention to the Agenda Update Sheet which noted that the Mid Sussex Design Guide has now been approved by the Council and now forms a material planning consideration.

 

Billy Clements, agent of the applicant, spoke in favour of the application.

 

A Member said it was regrettable to see the closure of another pub in the town however he complimented the application for an attractive scheme. He expressed concerns with the access to the site as the road leads to Southway Primary School which can get very busy during peak times. He expressed his disagreement with the approach taken with the allocation of Section 106 contributions as it ignores the Town Council’s Bee Hive project.

 

Jennifer Bale, Solicitor, confirmed that the collection of monies needs to meet the three tests in the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations, the most relevant relating to the allocation of funding within the proximity of development and the nearest being the play space at Fairfield Recreation Ground.

 

The Senior Planning Officer confirmed that whilst the Town Council can request where funding is allocated it is for the District Council to decide where the monies are spent, which for this application is the Fairfield Community Centre and Place and Connectivity Programme.

 

A Member noted that the Bee Hive scheme is not ready and therefore the contributions could not be put in reserves where it could stay there indefinitely. He expressed that he did not want to keep money for specific schemes when there are other schemes that are ready.

 

A Member believed the scheme was very well designed and whilst he supported the Bee Hive project he felt that there were very worthy activities at Fairfield Community Centre which should receive the contributions.

 

 A Member also mentioned that the closure of the pub was regrettable and that it was an excellent use of a brownfield site. He felt surprised that the scheme had been designed to allow car parking at the back of the development as he was aware that planners have insisted that parking areas can be seen from the road so that the area does not become susceptible to crime. He also felt that the parking spaces does not take into account the visitors to the properties.

 

The Senior Planning Officer replied that there are 20 parking spaces for the site with some houses  provided with parking to the side of the houses; the rear parking court is unallocated. She noted that the Design Principle DG9 in the Mid Sussex Design Guide SPD supports parking courts in high density areas and the layout has been designed to negate the need for a number of vehicle access routes into the site.

 

The Chairman took Members to the vote to approve the application, which was proposed by Cllr Emma Coe-Gunnell White and seconded by Cllr Eggleston.

 

A recorded vote was carried out by the Legal Officer and the application was approved with nine votes in favour and one against.

 

Councillor

For

Against

Abstain

G Allen

Y

 

 

R Cartwright

Y

 

 

E Coe-Gunnell White

Y

 

 

J. Dabell

Y

 

 

R Eggleston

Y

 

 

A. MacNaughton

Y

 

 

G. Marsh

Y

 

 

C. Phillips

Y

 

 

M. Pulfer

 

Y

 

D. Sweatman

Y

 

 

 

RESOLVED

 

A

 

That planning permission be approved subject to the completion of a satisfactory S106 Legal Agreement to secure infrastructure contributions and the conditions set in Appendix A;

 

and

 

B

 

That if the applicants have not submitted a satisfactory signed S106 Legal Agreement securing the necessary infrastructure contributions by the 12th February 2021, then permission be refused at the discretion of the Divisional Lead for Planning and Economy, for the following reasons:

 

1. 'The application fails to comply with policy DP20 of the Mid Sussex District Plan in

respect of the infrastructure required to serve the development.'

 


12/11/2020 - DM/20/0979 - Buxshalls, Ardingly Road, Lindfield, West Sussex ref: 343    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Planning Committee

Made at meeting: 12/11/2020 - Planning Committee

Decision published: 25/11/2020

Effective from: 12/11/2020

Decision:

Stuart Malcolm, Senior Planning Officer, introduced the application which sought planning permission for a change of use, adjustment and refurbishment of 19 dwellings for the over 55's to provide 15 dwellings; change of use, adjustment and refurbishment of Buxshalls House from a 21 bed nursing home to provide 11 dwellings; construction of 9 new dwellings; associated adjustments to landscaping and car parking with no age restrictions on any new or refurbished dwellings.

 

Brendan Tracey, architect of the application, spoke in favour of the application.

 

A Member noted the improvements to the site and felt that the retention of the existing building as well as the good use of space and fair number of dwellings on the site is positive.

 

The Chairman outlined that the application is much better than what has been previously proposed at the site and would bring a magnificent building back into use.

 

A Member concurred with the Chairman and welcomed the provision of electrical vehicle charging points. He expressed concern that some of drainage arrives at a local pond which then feeds into the River Ouse thereby allowing oil and other potentially harmful substances to pollute the River. He also expressed concern that the parking is short for the number of dwellings on the site.

 

The Senior Planning Officer highlighted that there are to be soakaways on the site that should address the issue raised  whilst the drainage engineers will review the condition submissions  to ensure that there is an acceptable  approach to addressing any issues. He outlined the dwelling mix, including a number of smaller units, and noted that the 70 spaces for the 35 dwellings was deemed sufficient. However, there is sufficient space within the application site to explore additional parking on the site should it be needed in the future.

 

The Chairman took Members to the vote to approve the application, which was proposed by Cllr MacNaughton and seconded by the Chairman.

 

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

 

Councillor

For

Against

Abstain

G Allen

Y

 

 

R Cartwright

Y

 

 

E Coe-Gunnell White

Y

 

 

J. Dabell

Y

 

 

R Eggleston

Y

 

 

A. MacNaughton

Y

 

 

G. Marsh

Y

 

 

C. Phillips

Y

 

 

M. Pulfer

Y

 

 

D. Sweatman

Y

 

 

 

RESOLVED

 

 A: . That, subject to the completion of a satisfactory S106 planning obligation securing the necessary financial contributions towards SAMM and SANG mitigation as set out in the Assessment section of the Officer report, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out in Appendix A;

 

and

 

 B: That if the applicants have not completed a satisfactory signed planning obligation securing the necessary SAMM and SANG mitigation by the 12th

February 2021, then it is recommended that permission be refused, at the discretion

of the Divisional Leader for Planning and Economy, for the following reason:

'In the absence of a signed legal agreement the application fails to deliver the

necessary SAMM and SANG mitigation and as such conflicts with Policy DP17 of the Mid Sussex District Plan.'


25/11/2020 - Release of S106 Formal Sports Contributions for installation of electronic access gate at John Pears Recreation Ground tennis courts ref: 352    Recommendations Approved

John Pears Recreation Ground in Ashurst Wood is a very popular recreation ground used by members of the public, Ashurst Wood Junior Football Club and Ashurst Wood Community Tennis Club.

 

Ashurst Wood Community Tennis Club uses the tennis courts on site and provides the opportunity for local residents and the neighboring community to play tennis. They offer coaching opportunities for both adults and juniors, as well as holding club tournaments.

 

Johns Pears is managed under a Rural Management Agreement (RMA) with Ashurst Wood Village Council (AWVC). They manage all the bookings and collection of income for the use of all the facilities on the site. For this they receive a payment equal to 20% of all the income received over the year.

 

Officers have been working with the Lawn Tennis Association (LTA) over the past two years to identify ways to increase tennis court usage at all the Council’s park facilities as part of a bigger project. Feedback from the Village Council, club members, members of the public and the LTA shows that availability and accessing the courts is not an easy process and that it is potentially putting a lot of people off booking the courts.

 

The ClubSpark booking system won the “Best Participation Technology” at the Sports Technology Awards last year and is used extensively by other Local Authorities and Private Clubs to manage their courts. This software allows members to create their own accounts (which our previous online system could not do) to speed up booking times, allows them to cancel bookings (which our previous system could not do) and also have it as an app on their mobile phone for quick and easy bookings. This system went live on 1 October 2020 across all the Council’s park tennis court sites and has been positively received by users.

 

The next stage of this project is to link ClubSpark to a new electronic gate system, so that once a booking has been made via ClubSpark the hirer is sent a unique code that they use to enter the courts for their specific hire period. Currently we have coded access gates which have to be manually changed every 2-3 weeks by officers. This is very time consuming and does not stop people accessing the courts multiple times once they have the code.

 

The Council has recently been successful in securing LTA funding to put in electronic access gates at tennis courts at Victoria Park in Haywards Heath and St Johns Park in Burgess Hill, which we hope to implement after John Pears is complete; and it is proposed to roll the technology out across all remaining sites as funding becomes available.

 

The system would have ongoing maintenance and data costs of £601 per year, which will be funded from increased income as a result of improved usage levels.

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Environment & Service Delivery

Decision published: 25/11/2020

Effective from: 03/12/2020

Decision:

Wards affected: Ashurst Wood;

Lead officer: Stuart Brown


25/11/2020 - Release of S106 funding for new playground equipment at Scaynes Hill Recreation Ground ref: 351    Recommendations Approved

Lindfield Rural Parish Council (LRPC) have approached Mid Sussex District Council (MSDC) about using the S106 money that is ring fenced for upgrading the play equipment at Scaynes Hill Recreation Ground.

 

This new equipment will greatly improve the play value for the users and significantly upgrade the play area. It will provide Mid Sussex District Council (MSDC) with an opportunity to upgrade the facilities which will significantly improve the standard and quality of play on offer. The facilities are well used by the community, and the improvements to this play area will help to continue and increase users’ enjoyment and interest for the foreseeable future and to encourage more people to use the facilities.

 

The Parish Council have sought three quotations from reputable suppliers and the Corporate Estates & Facilities Team have worked with the Parish Council to agree the preferred option to ensure it meets the Council’s standards.

 

MSDC will manage and order the equipment for this project following normal processes.

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Environment & Service Delivery

Decision published: 25/11/2020

Effective from: 03/12/2020

Decision:

The Cabinet Member for Environment and Service Delivery authorised release of £43,350 from S106 Play Space funds that is ring-fenced for upgrading the play equipment at Scaynes Hill Recreation Ground.

 

Wards affected: High Weald;

Lead officer: Stuart Brown


19/11/2020 - Asset of Community Value - Royal Oak, Handcross ref: 350    Recommendations Approved

The Community Right to Bid was introduced by Part 5 of Chapter 2 of the Localism Act 2011, which requires the Council to maintain a list of land in its area that is of community value, which list is known as the Council’s List of Assets of Community Value and the Act, and the Assets of Community Value (England) Regulations 2012 establishes the regime for nominating and determining whether land and buildings should be entered onto the Council’s List of Assets of Community Value.

 

Authority under Recommendation 2.3 of the Cabinet Report dated 14th January 2013 (Assets of Community Value – Community Right to Bid) which authorises the Property and Assets Maintenance Manager “in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Planning & Regeneration or such other Cabinet Member as may be nominated by the Leader of the Council to determine any application under the Localism Act to list any building and/or land as an asset of community value”.

 

Decision Maker: Deputy Leader

Decision published: 25/11/2020

Effective from: 03/12/2020

Decision:

The Deputy Leader authorised the decision to list Royal Oak, Handcross on the list of Assets of Community Value held by Mid Sussex District Council.

 

Wards affected: Ardingly & Balcombe;

Lead officer: Joanne Johnston


20/11/2020 - Asset of Community Value - Fulking Village Hall ref: 349    Recommendations Approved

The Community Right to Bid was introduced by Part 5 of Chapter 2 of the Localism Act 2011, which requires the Council to maintain a list of land in its area that is of community value, which list is known as the Council’s List of Assets of Community Value and the Act, and the Assets of Community Value (England) Regulations 2012 establishes the regime for nominating and determining whether land and buildings should be entered onto the Council’s List of Assets of Community Value.

 

Authority under Recommendation 2.3 of the Cabinet Report dated 14th January 2013 (Assets of Community Value – Community Right to Bid) which authorises the Property and Assets Maintenance Manager “in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Planning & Regeneration or such other Cabinet Member as may be nominated by the Leader of the Council to determine any application under the Localism Act to list any building and/or land as an asset of community value”.

 

Decision Maker: Deputy Leader

Decision published: 25/11/2020

Effective from: 03/12/2020

Decision:

The Deputy Leader authorised the decision to list Fulking Village Hall, Fulking on the list of Assets of Community Value held by Mid Sussex District Council.

 

Wards affected: Bolney;

Lead officer: Joanne Johnston


18/11/2020 - Asset of Community Value - Clair Hall ref: 342    Recommendations Approved

The Community Right to Bid was introduced by Part 5 of Chapter 2 of the Localism Act 2011, which requires the Council to maintain a list of land in its area that is of community value, which list is known as the Council’s List of Assets of Community Value and the Act, and the Assets of Community Value (England) Regulations 2012 establishes the regime for nominating and determining whether land and buildings should be entered onto the Council’s List of Assets of Community Value.

 

Authority under Recommendation 2.3 of the Cabinet Report dated 14th January 2013 (Assets of Community Value – Community Right to Bid) which authorises the Property and Assets Maintenance Manager “in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Planning & Regeneration or such other Cabinet Member as may be nominated by the Leader of the Council to determine any application under the Localism Act to list any building and/or land as an asset of community value”.

 

Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Community

Decision published: 18/11/2020

Effective from: 26/11/2020

Decision:

The Cabinet Member for Community authorised the decision to list Clair Hall, Haywards Heath on the list of Assets of Community Value held by Mid Sussex District Council.

Wards affected: Haywards Heath - Heath;

Lead officer: Joanne Johnston


18/11/2020 - Approval of the Council's Additional Restrictions Discretionary Grant to Local Businesses Guidelines. ref: 341    Recommendations Approved

The Council has been given £3.020m to pay additional restrictions discretionary grants to businesses within Mid Sussex. These guidelines seek to provide guidance to staff and stakeholders on how Discretionary Grants are to be made and what factors are considered when making an award.

Decision Maker: Leader of the Council

Decision published: 18/11/2020

Effective from: 26/11/2020

Decision:

Wards affected: (All Wards);

Lead officer: Kevin Stewart