Cuck-stye development of 1,600 homes 'pulled' from district plan

Such was the message from campaigners after the leader of Mid Sussex District Council said that plans for 1,600 homes between Cuckfield and Ansty had been pulled from the draft District Plan.

Conservative Jonathan Ash-Edwards made the announcement at a public meeting in Cuckfield on Friday.

There was an outcry in January when the draft District Plan for 2021-2038 included 7,000 homes across sites including Ansty, Burgess Hill and Sayers Common.

Such was the backlash that Mr Ash-Edwards ‘pressed the pause button’ on the process and wrote to the Secretary of State calling for housing targets ‘to be reset to a level more consistent with our environmental and infrastructure constraints’.

News of the withdrawal of the Ansty proposals went down well with organisers of the Say No to Cuck-stye campaign.

Simon Stokes, co-chair of the Stop Cuck-stye Action Group, said: “After a five-month community campaign which has rapidly gained momentum local politicians have stopped defending the indefensible.”

Andy Burton, chair of Cuckfield Parish Council, added: “Whilst it looks like Cuck-stye may have been put back on the shelf for now, [the parish council] will continue to fight and help build the evidence case for why this absurd proposal, and others nearby, cannot be the right approach.”

But Liberal Democrats accused Mr Ash-Edwards and the Conservatives of ‘throwing away the planning rule book’ and ‘running scared’ ahead of next May’s elections.

And they asked where the 1,600 homes would be placed if not at Ansty.

Group leader Alison Bennett said the withdrawal was ‘reckless’ and would leave the council open to legal challenge from developers.

She added: “He has squirmed out of a difficult public meeting by withdrawing Ansty Farm from the District Plan review.

“The price of this will be high for the people of Mid Sussex.

“Mr Ash Edwards has eroded public trust in the plan-making process by acting as a lone agent with no evidence to justify why the Ansty Farm site has been withdrawn.”

While Pete Bradbury (Con, Cuckfield) accused the Lib Dems of turning the situation into ‘a political event’, Mr Ash-Edwards said the objective was to ‘reduce the pressure on greenfield sites in our district’.

He added: “As I said when I proposed the pause in the District Plan review in January – which received cross-party support – we need to ensure we are taking account of the Government’s changes to the planning system now announced as part of the Levelling Up Bill.

“It was also agreed that we need to ensure the Plan review maximises the number of brownfield sites and scrutinise the amount Mid Sussex can reasonably contribute to the unmet need of other councils given the environmental and infrastructure constraints we have locally.

“It shouldn’t therefore be a surprise to anyone that the objective is to reduce the pressure on greenfield sites in our district wherever we can, while ensuring we have an up to date plan that meets legal requirements and protects our area from speculative development.

“Our goal is to keep Mid Sussex special by ensuring we balance the need for new homes with protecting the reasons why people want to live here in the first place.”