Plans to match up Burgess Hill's town and district council boundaries

The district council initiated a Community Governance Review after some 2,700 residents signed a petition asking for changes to be in place by the 2023 elections.

The changes became necessary after recommendations in a recent local government boundary review left a few ‘anomalies’ in a couple of district and parish wards.

One of those anomalies centred around the Northern Arc.

While the site for 3,500-homes was viewed as an extension to Burgess Hill, it is currently in the parish of Ansty & Staplefield.

During a scrutiny committee meeting, district council officers laid out their draft recommendations to change things around.

If approved later this year, Burgess Hill Town Council will have ten wards and 17 councillors from May 2023, rising to 19 councillors from 2027 once people start moving into the Northern Arc.

It currently has 18 councillors.

The current wards of Victoria East, Norman and Hammonds North will become part of Victoria ward, while Meeds and Hammonds will become one ward.

From May 2023, the ten wards will be: Leylands (two councillors), St Andrew’s (three), Franklands (three), Meeds & Hammonds (two), Victoria (two), Dunstall (one), Gatehouse (one), St John’s (one), Northern Arc East (one), and Northern Arc West (one).

In 2027, Leylands and Dunstall will receive one extra councillor each.

The recommendations for Ansty & Staplefield are for five wards made up of 12 councillors.

If approved, from 2023, the wards would be: Ansty (five councillors), Rocky Lane North (two), Rocky Lane South (one), Staplefield (three), Brook Street & Borde Hill (one).

The review was put out to a first public consultation earlier this year, with a second due to start in July.

The council received 382 responses, though 63 were rejected ‘for undue brevity and providing nothing for us to consider’.

While higher than the response rate to a similar consultation in East Grinstead, the figures only represent 1.3 per cent of the electorate.

Concerns were raised from some that the letter sent explaining how people could take part in the review had been ‘a bit confusing’ and ‘not clear enough’.

The second consultation results will be returned to committee in September before being put to the full council for final approval.