Legality of decision allocating 1,700 Mid Sussex homes questioned

The Site Allocations Development Plan Document includes 22 sites and was found to be ‘sound’ by a government planning inspector in early June.

It was accepted by councillors later that month.

But campaign group SOFLAG – South of Folders Lane Action Group – have announced that a pre-action letter of claim – also known as a letter before action – has been issued to the council.

The group’s concerns centred around the presentation of an environmental report, saying the council did not ‘meet its legal obligation to properly present the report and the responses to it for consideration before the vote’.

SOFLAG has been opposing two allocations totalling more than 300 homes south of Burgess Hill.

A council spokesman said: “The council has received a letter asking for clarification on a technical procedural matter relating to the Site Allocation DPD.

“The council is confident that we have followed all due process and will respond to the letter in due course.”

Robert Eggleston issued the letter as a private citizen rather than as a councillor or leader of Burgess Hill Town Council.

He said he brought the challenge following advice from the barrister acting for SOFLAG and the town council.

Mr Eggleston added: “He provided a legal review of the steps followed by [the council] at its council meeting on June 29 when the plan was adopted – and his clear advice was that key legal steps were not followed and that not all of the environmental documents were presented at the meeting to enable an informed decision to be made.

“The barrister, who has expertise in planning enquiries, is adamant that the decision-making process was flawed and he set out for me, in the pre-action letter where the errors in law occurred.

“I could, of course, have ignored his review and advice but I decided not to because if the decision taken by [the council] is unlawful then it is only right and proper that members are given the opportunity to revisit the plan with all the environmental evidence presented and make a decision in the light of this evidence.”

The council has until July 29 to respond to the letter.