Existing public bridleway. Upgrade to improve access (amended proposals). The bridleway crossings are to be reduced in width to 3.5m and regraded at existing street levels with tarmac leaders, and with lighting on short columns 1.2m high at 30m spacing to meet police requirements. Access at Ashenground rail bridge to be resurfaced by Crest Nicholson with gates at each end of either metal or wood. We prefer the end access gates to be of wood. We are still concerned at the lack of adequate restrictions on motorcycle use in the bridleway.

Demolish single-storey lean-to structures, extend building to rear for lift installation, upgrade ground floor toilets, install lift and office extension at first floor level, new second floor extension, all to provide lift access and restaurant area with associated facilities including plant room and ventilation equipment at roof level.

An innovative scheme but the proposed second floor (restaurant) with plant room over will have an overbearing and un-neighbourly impact despite the applicant's comments in his design submission. We also note the fire hazard and risk due to apparent lack of an adequate emergency staircase.

Proposed residential development comprising a 6 flat extended building and two semi-detached bungalows.

An application in 2001 for 6 flats was later modified to 2 flats and a bungalow , and this was approved in 2002. The current application No.05/01302 will involve replacing the existing building by a new 2-storey residential block, with the semi-detached bungalows at the rear. Although the development will increase the residential dwellings in this road, the loss of rental units is to be regretted.
The drawing shows 7 car spaces between the two new buildings but one space seems to obstruct access to and from the others. The access route to these spaces, and to the bungalow, is very narrow, and there is little maneuvering space at the bungalow end. The 2- storey building may be obtrusive to the gardens of Nos. 52 and 54

The proposals appear to us an overdevelopment, and we therefore object.

N.B. We are also sure local residents and others who regularly use the wine store in this location will be very sad to lose this facility.

Demolish three bungalows and construct 14 flats with dormer windows to roof, a basement storey and car parking to rear.

The application does not mention the existence of three shed and a greenhouse at the far end of the rear garden.
The accommodation shown in the proposed flats appears miniscule
Some of the titling to plans in drawing No. 01 are incorrect
We object to the proposal on the basis of its being an overpowering and inappropriate development in an area of small houses.

Installation of rear condenser unit.

No mention is made in the application to the projecting and fascia signs shown on the drawing. We have no objection to the application subject to measures being taken to attenuate noise and to prevent air pollution in the flat above.

2-storey side extension, and demolition of car port.

The proposed extension will be very close to the plot boundary. There is no indication of a bathroom other than the new en-suite. The side upper window could affect the privacy of the neighbour. Te drawings do not identify the limits of the new works. We object on the basis of inadequate information.

Proposed sheltered housing.

We repeat that we have no objection to this proposal. It is important that due note is taken of the increased traffic in Bolnore Road likely to result from the current and future growth of Bolnore Village, and to consider the provision of light-controlled crossing at a suitable point to serve both Ashton House and the sheltered accommodation in the vicinity

Demolition of bungalow and construction of 9 apartments with access and parking.

We understand that the earlier application No HH/05/0551 has been withdrawn and replaced by this application HH/05/01505. Although the number of proposed apartments is now reduced, we continue to object on the same grounds as stated in our letter dated 31.03.05 commenting on the earlier applications: an over-development out of keeping with adjacent properties and overlooking properties in Bruce Close.

Outline application for erection of six 2-bedroom flats and two 2-bedroom bungalows.

We object on the same grounds as those stated in our letter dated 21.7.05 referring to Application HH/05/01302/OUT : the proposed is an over-development of the site, with deficient parking facilities.

Provision of floodlighting.

Whilst we understand the proposal, especially with the possible future use by other clubs, we are concerned at the likely impact on the surrounding land and views from the Relief Road, the downs, Southdown Park, also any new housing development nearby. We must object to the proposal until these issues have been fully explored.

Replace existing timber and crittal windows by black aluminium with no timber. 2 bays plus 2 windows.

We strongly object. The proposal is alien to the character and style of the building which helps to retain the traditional 'country town' ambience of Haywards Heath. It is essential that continuity of the facade's appearance be preserved.

Alter condition 1 of approved planning application HH/065/91 to allow extended opening hours: Monday to Thursday 12 noon to midnight, Friday and Saturday 12 noon to 1 am.

We object because of the potential late-night noise nuisance to flat dwellers nearby. It might also set a precedent for other similar outlets, both in Sussex Road and elsewhere.

Demolition of 19 America Lane and Nos. 1 to 42, but excluding No.13, Pilgrim Court. Erection of 35 houses and 6 flats together with associated highways and parking bays.

The reason for the exclusion of No.13 from the demolition list, and for the omission of any mention of No.43 (contiguous with 42), should be stated. We broadly support this new scheme subject to adequate protection/screening for No. 17 America Lane, and screening towards the site boundary with Bentswood Crescent houses.

Change of use of forecourt to outside seating area.

From precedents in The Broadway it is difficult to object to forecourt seating, but we would object to the use of the forecourt for parking because it could partly obscure side access. we reiterate our earlier objection to the development on the grounds of noise and traffic nuisance to nearby residents.

This replaces application HH/04/02249/FUL, with minor alterations to the bridleway heights at the two road crossing points. We also note that the bus routes cross the bridleway at both these points on a permanent basis, in addition to their temporary use by construction traffic.

This application replaces HH/02964/FUL and includes an exhaustive review of options for construction traffic access/egress, the need for substantial stormwater and foul sewerage, plus reinforcement of gas, electricity and water supply facilities.
Further observations on the above Bolnore Village applications.

Following the MSDC Central Planning Committee's rejection at its meeting on February 9 of Applications HH/04/02249/FUL, HH/04/02676/OUT ad HH/04/02964/FUL, it is difficult to see how the new applications listed above resolve the fundamental issues affecting the development of Phase 4 and, later Phase 5; also the upgrading of the bridleway.

Regarding access to the Phase 4 sites including site 4c, we reiterate our view that real progress must be made on the completion of the Relief Road.

It is not the responsibility of the MSDC - particularly given its original assurances to residents of Bolnore Road - to provide a "bail-out" to Crest Nicholson in respect of Site 4C. Should the MSDC nevertheless be minded to accept some temporary use by construction traffic of Bolnore Road and Parkfield Way for access/egress to and from site 4c, we would strongly recommend conditions providing for "time-usage" periods and/or "one-way" road width restrictions such as those on the roads for Ditchling and Maresfield villages for example. Such a solution must be considered as a last resort and subject to review before the remaining parts of Phase 4 are allowed to be developed.

The proposed two main vehicle accesses across the bridleway must remain temporary and not allowed to persist indefinitely. The proposed loop bus route should not cross the bridleway but be replanned as two separate loops.

Further concerning the vehicle access from Bolnore Road included in Foxley Tagg's revised plans, we note on the drawings a second reversing/turning point well into Phase 4c for vehicles entering the site "in error". How would this be policed?

We think that the MSDC Planning Committee was justified to refuse the applications before it on 9 February, and judge that the new applications do not take the situation much further forward. We remain fully in support of the requirement for the Relief Road to be complete before any significant further development is allowed and the various environmental and ecological issues fully addressed.

As Ove Arup made clear in its report, the Relief Road is essential. No temporary solution using Sussex/Wivelsfield Roads, Colwell Road and Rocky Lane is tenable. It is a sobering thought that the Bolnore Village/Hospital Housing developments will in themselves generate some 1800 or more cars and with no assured provision of community healthcare, schooling and adequate shops, a considerably greater number of car movements daily can be envisaged.

In connection with the foregoing comments we note with interest the views of WSCC Highways Dept in respect of Application HH/05/02335/OUT )development of 89 dwellings in Colwell Road area), as set out on pp.56-59 of the Agenda for the MSDC Central Planning Committee on March 9 2006. We suggest that the Traffic Assessment as referred to on p.57 together with WSCC's comments form a contribution to the debate on traff9c flows affected by the completion (or not) of the Haywards Heath Relief Road.

Change of use from A1 to A3.

Although difficult to object on planning grounds, we are concerned at the loss of another non-food retailer. We think it important to retain an element of mixed use in The Broadway.

57 very-sheltered retirement apartments.

This large and effectively 4-storeyed building will not only dwarf the nearby Joan Nightingale House but also block completely the view towards the Downs and East Sussex from the publicly-owned Beech Hurst Gardens; which view it rightly claims as one of its attractions. It will also have a detrimental impact on the housing planned for Phase 4c. We therefore object strongly to the application as it stands and recommend that the MSDC Chief Executive lodges a formal objection on behalf of the Council. The environmental impact of the site needs reconsidering and the building redesigned with no more that 2 to 3 storeys, extending back into Phase 4b to help retain a sight line to the Downs and East Sussex.

Erect one detached dwelling.

We commented on the earlier application - for two dwellings - that a single house might be acceptable on this site, but the large scale of the building now proposed would have a considerable impact on neighbouring house No.58 to the rear. We think that the proposed dwelling should be reduced in size; otherwise we have no objection.

Proposed outdoor seating area.

The applicant is already placing furniture outside the shop, which is in a busy pedestrian area and close to the controlled road crossing. By restricting the pathway width at this point it would raise a pedestrian hazard. We accordingly object to the proposal and to the applicant's riding roughshod over planning procedures.

8m dummy lamp post with one ground level cabinet.

Given the objections to a previous Vodaphone proposal (HH/05/01107) it is surprising that Orange should now apply for a similar facility in the area. Our objections remain as to the earlier proposal.

Demolish bungalow and garage. Construct 5x1 bedroom flats in a 2.5 storey building fronting Sydney Road and a 2x1 bedroom flats in a single storey building to rear. Amended plans showing parking spaces and design alterations to front block.

In our letter dated 13 December we objected to the proposed building at the rear as unsuitable back-land development; and also to the lack of provision for parking. The current amendment now deals with the latter point, but we maintain our objection to the proposal in general.

Fell single poplar "due to being unsafe".

It is not clear to us why the tree is considered unsafe, but if the Trees and Landscape Officer is satisfied on this point then we defer to his opinion.

Loft Conversion and rear extension.

Another bungalow converted to a 4-bedroom house! It is difficult to object in view of previous approvals given in this road, but we repeat our contention that steps must be taken to protect the stock of bungalows in the town.

First floor rear extension, dormer extension to front and extend garage.

Yet another conversion of a 2-bedroom bungalow to a 4-bedroom house. We object on the grounds of complete over-development, out of keeping with adjacent properties.

Reduce laurel hedge and conifer.

The conifer will be difficult to regenerate in the way suggested by the applicant, which will ruin its appearance from Muster Green. We object on the grounds of unsuitable treatment in this conservation area.

External decking for outside seating, with balustrading.

We object. What is the purpose of the decking? This proposal creates yet another limitation of sightlines along the Broadway including that to the neighbouring chemist. We also think that the tree shown is not on the applicant's property, and fairy lights should therefore not be permitted. (We note that the decking and seating is already in position).

Alter and extend existing bungalow.

The proposals includes a major roof conversion, changing an existing bungalow to a 4/5 bedroom house, with formers. We object on the grounds of over-development that will be quite out of keeping with surrounding properties and will further reduce the town's bungalow stock.

Alterations and additions including new 5th floor.

No objection. We are however concerned that this is increasing the height of the buildings in Perrymount Road surreptitiously and thus rendering it the norm when the Town Plan comes into operation.

Alterations and 2-storey side extension for granny annexe.

No objection, subject to the provision of obscured glass in the first floor extension, and appropriate conditions limiting any sub-letting of the annexe.

Fascia and projecting signs.

The present signage seems quite adequate,. The signage proposed is too large and unnecessarily repetitive. At least three of the "Lloyds TSB" signs could be omitted. We object on the grounds of unnecessarily repetitive signage obtrusive to the street scene.

Conservatory.

We object. This is an overdevelopment with potential light pollution to neighbouring Nos. 4 and 8

Side extension for new retail outlet with single bedroom flat over. Amended plans showing proposed elevations.

No objection in principle but we note the absence of any bathroom or shower facility for the new flat.

New community building plus 28 x 1 bedroom apartments and 8x2 bedroom aprtments.

• The number of 2 bedroom apartments stated in the application conflicts with other information.  We have no objection in principle to the proposal but consider that the provision for 2-bedroom apartments should be increased, with a corresponding reduction in the number of 1-bedroom apartments.
• The development shoud include the provision of 30% afffordable unit and we think this duty should be retained despite the developer's request for an exemption.

We object because of the proposed building's domination of neighbouring houses No 26-30, and because of traffic hazards raised by the common inlet/exit, now proposed to Franklynn Road.  We suggest that consideration of this proposal be deferred until Council has evolved a development plan of this whole local area, including the present NCP car park, if Thornfield's proposal for an improved entry to the town from the east (Sussex Gateway) is to be achieved.

HH/03497/FUL 29 College Road. Convert dwelling into two flats

The application looks to be a commercial/profit making proposal. There is already an overabundance of small one or two person flats in Haywards Heath and in our view the present semi-detached house would be more suitable for older people wishing to "down-size" from larger homes and who would be unlikely to wish to relocate to such cramped conditions as those shown on the submitted plans, which follow the relatively recent loft conversion of the not unattrative Victorian dwellings in the road. We therefore object on the grounds of over-development.

HH/08/03019/FUL Savannah Cafe Bar, 44-46 The Broadway. Install awning and glass screens.

This proposal impinges on the pedestrian pavement area and the ncklosures would restrict sight lines to adjacent properties. The reasons given to support the proposals are in our view spurious and we object to the application which appears to be device to expand the seating area

HH/08/02948/FUL 31 Ashenground Road. Extend to provide 3 apartments.

This extension will completely overshadow the adjacent bungalow and will be out of character with the neighbouring semi-detached house. We object on the grounds of serious over-development

HH/08/00358/FUL 26 Lucastes Road. Part demolishing of existing rear extension and erection of 3-storey extension with raised terrace. Construct front porch

The proposed large glass screens to the south and north (adjacent to No.24 & 28), also the raised terrace, appear likely to impact on the privacy of the neighbours unless adequate screening is provided. We object on the grounds of potential loss of privacy to the neighbours and to the rear (west). No objection to the porch.

Sandrocks, Rocky Lane - 65 dwellings

Mid Sussex District Council offices and site, Oakland Road - 180 dwellings

Haywards Heath Football Club. Allen Road - 80 dwellings

Clair Hall and car park, Perrymount Road - New offices and new hall

We have real concerns about all of these options and will keep a close eye on them when they come forward. More information on them and others in Cuckfield and Lindfield can be obtained from MSDC office at Oaklands (email: planningpolicy@midsussex.gov.uk tel: 01444 477347), also from Haywards Heath Town Hall and the Public Library, Boltro Road, Haywards Heath