Neighbourhood plan makes approval of 43 more homes unethical

Local readers may also have noticed that two beautiful mature oak trees were recently felled by the entrance to their development. MSDC approved this, despite them being covered by preservation orders because, under Jones’ original plans, safe access couldn’t be provided.

Their latest application is full of more “inaccuracies”, including the claim that their proposal should be approved because MSDC has no District Plan in place when in fact it was adopted on 28th March 2018.

The very much in place adopted District Plan contains unambiguous policies which should, if they are followed, result in this application being refused.

For instance, Policy DP6 states that for approval: The site is allocated in the District Plan, a Neighbourhood Plan or subsequent Development Plan Document or where the proposed development is for fewer than 10 dwellings.

This site is not, and never has been, allocated for development.

Under Policy DP12 the site in question is protected countryside.

Since the District Plan is approved by central government, and supported by neighbourhood consultations, the Burgess Hill Town Council and Mid Sussex District Council, it is unethical for elected representatives to dismiss the plan and allow development on DP12 land, but more importantly when making refusal it should be refused on as many strong grounds as possible because Jones may appeal and the construct of the appeal hearing is determined by the reasons for refusal.

Conor Patterson

Fragbarrow Lane

Ditchling