Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillors Coote and Dabell. 

In relation to item 6 DM/22/1539 Homelands, Oakwood Road, Burgess Hill, West Sussex, Councillor Eggleston declared that he knowns the applicant and that he has not predetermined the application.

In relation to item 6 DM/22/1539 Homelands, Oakwood Road, Burgess Hill, West Sussex, Councillor Eggleston declared that he knowns the applicant and that he has not predetermined the application.

The Chairman had no urgent business.

Katherine Williams, Planning Officer introduced the application which sought planning permission for the refurbishment of the groundsman store and new practice net enclosure.  She advised that the application was before the committee as the land is owned by Mid Sussex District Council and highlighted the distance of the store to adjacent buildings.   Members’ attention was drawn to the update sheet and were advised that the Environmental Protection Team had submitted comments regarding noise but did not object to the application.

David Mills, resident spoke for Karen Sedgewick-Smith against the application.

The Chairman reminded the Members that they could only consider the application that was before the Committee.

Members discussed the loss of open space due to the proposed location of the new cricket net, noting that this area had been selected for rewilding to support biodiversity and that covered storage facilities would extend the life of the machinery. They queried whether external lighting would be installed.

The Planning Officer advised no lighting was proposed for the cricket net. 

A Member advised that the footprint of the store was the same, and with no change to the use or sides of the building there would be no impact on the existing play area.  The proposed location would minimise visibility from the play area, and he supported the application.

Nick Rogers,  Head of Development Management clarified the extent of the proposed lean to the existing building and advised that  that District Plan Policy DP24 supports enhance to leisure facilities.  He further advised that DP16 of the District Plan contained the test of  ‘significant harm’ and that there was no robust evidence that significant harm would result from these proposals.

As there were no questions, the Chairman took Members to the vote that planning permission be approved subject to the conditions outlined at Appendix A. This was proposed by Cllr Eggleston and seconded by the Cllr Pulfer. The recommendation was approved with 9 in favour and 1 against.

RESOLVED

The planning permission was approved subject to the conditions outlined at Appendix A.

The Chairman introduced the application, which sought planning permission to re-pollard a horse chestnut tree back to previous pruning points was before the Committee as the applicant was Cllr Henwood.  

As a presentation was not required and there were no questions, the Chairman took Members to the vote that planning permission be approved subject to the conditions outlined at Appendix A. This was proposed by the Vice-Chairman and seconded by Cllr Forbes. The recommendation which was set out in the update sheet, was approved unanimously with 10 in favour.

None.