Plan allocating new homes and employment sites across Mid Sussex adopted

The Site Allocations Development Plan Document (DPD) was found to be ‘sound’ by a government planning inspector in early June – and was accepted by councillors on Wednesday (June 29).

The DPD was developed after the council was told more housing and employment sites were needed in its District Plan 2014-2031 to ensure the district’s needs were met in full.

As well as the new homes, it includes a science and technology park to the west of Burgess Hill, and seven employment sites.

Two of the more controversial inclusions in the DPD were for a total of 340 homes on land south of Folders Lane, Burgess Hill.

On the morning of the debate, Mims Davies MP wrote to Secretary of State Michael Gove asking him to ‘urgently relook’ at those sites.

Her letter prompted Robert Eggleston (Lib Dem, Burgess Hill – Meeds) to call on the council to defer any decision in order to give Mr Gove time to do just that.

Gary Marsh (Con, Ardingly & Balcombe) pointed out that the allocation of the new sites ‘wasn’t something we wanted to do’ but to refuse the DPD would bring ‘economic mayhem in our district’.

The main fear shared by those in favour of the DPD was that, without it, the council would soon not have the required five-year supply of housing land.

Colin Trumble (Con, Hurstpierpoint & Downs) described how Mid Sussex had been in that situation almost a decade ago and had been ‘planning by appeal’.

Essentially, many planning applications turned down at the time were allowed on appeal because of the lack of a five-year supply.

Leader Jonathan Ash-Edwards agreed, warning of a ‘developer-led free-for-all across the whole district’.

Everyone recognised the importance of having a five-year housing supply.

But many were equally concerned about the environmental and ecological impact of the DPD, particularly of the Folders Lane developments.

Supporting the call to defer, Janice Henwood (Lib Dem, Burgess Hill – Franklands) said: “We don’t have to be rigid, we should be flexible and resilient – we are told this all the time.”

Burgess Hill will bear the brunt of the new developments, with more than one-third of the homes allocated to the town.

As well as concerns about the environment, congestion on the area’s roads was among the issues raised by the town’s councillors, with Anne Eves (Green, Burgess Hill – Leylands) predicting ‘gridlock’.

Matthew Cornish (Green, Burgess Hill – St Andrews) added: “Where delicate green space and biodiversity are at risk, we are left in the precarious position of considering to vote on several areas to be developed that will have a profoundly detrimental affect on the wellbeing of people and the environment in Burgess Hill.”

The call for a deferral was lost by 25 votes to 18.

The DPD was adopted by 24 votes to 18 with one abstention.

This does not mean the developments will definitely go ahead – though it is likely – they will still have to go through the process of obtaining planning permission.

John Belsey (Con, Ashurst Wood) said: “We must look to planning applications as they come forward and subject them to the most robust scrutiny.”