Two greenfield sites near Hurstpierpoint on which developers had hopes of building 200 houses have been turned down by the Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government (who decided to take over the process from the Planning Inspectorate). In both cases the key determining factor was that neither site was allocated for housing in the draft neighbourhood plan that the Hurstpierpoint & Sayers Common Parish Council has been promoting. The Secretary of State decided that the neighbourhood plan was sufficiently far advanced in its preparation that it should be given significant weight, even though the plan had not been publicly examined or put to a referendum of local residents. In one of the two cases, involving a site between Hurstpierpoint and Hassocks, a second important factor was the fact of the location's designation as a local gap in both the draft Neighbourhood Plan and in Mid Sussex's 2004 Local Plan.
Consistent with the principle that the contents of a consulted-on draft neighbourhood plan can now carry real weight in planning decision terms, the Secretary of State has allowed an appeal by would-be developers of a third nearby site which is allocated for housing in the draft neighbourhood plan.
These decisions highlight the value for local communities of progressing their own neighbourhood plans even though Mid Sussex's new District Plan remains in limbo (see below). It would appear that, for the purpose of planning decisions, the need to overcome the shortfall in the delivery of new homes in Mid Sussex against the arbitrary target that the District Council is required to meet may carry less weight in a parish with a neighbourhood plan that contains its own local development site allocations - or in one in an advanced stage of preparation.
There is a downside to this insofar as its effect is to reallocate and increase the pressure for needed new housing to other locations in the District. At present Mid Sussex has not finalised its updated assessment of the District's overall housing needs or what sites across the District are suitable and availability for development. Both assessments are needed, and their sustainability tested, before MSDC can re-rev the engine of its own new District Plan. MSDC has just announced a further delay in its timetable for a new plan which puts back public consultation from an always optimistic October 2014 to February/March 2015. Expect its proposals to be highly controversial and to be much argued over. Effective countryside protection via the new Plan is going to be real challenge in the face of pressures for a new town (Mayfields) and other well-funded developer lobbying.
Two other planning applications have been turned down since the May update. In the first, MSDC rejected an application to build 97 houses off London Road in Hassocks, an application opposed by CPRE As this site is on the other side of the same designated local gap as the one whose validity was upheld in one of the Secretary of State appeals mentioned above, it may be hoped that the developers might be deterred from appealing MSDC's decision. The second case involved a site north of Haywards Heath adjacent to a grade 2* listed listed building, Sunte House. The Planning Inspectorate rejected the developer's appeal on the ground that the proposed housing estate would unacceptably affect the listed building's setting.
An appeal is pending against MSDC's refusal of permission for a 200+ housing development at Penlands Farm, Haywards Heath to which CPRE has already objected - the site not designated for housing in the Town's neighbourhood plan and is within the vital local gap separating Haywards Heath and Cuckfield. In East Grinstead planning permission is being sought for another 200+ homes on farmland on the western edge of the town, and CPRE will be evaluating that proposal.
We are not opposing a major housing scheme planned off the A264 near the junction with the M23 motorway. Nor do we intend to intervene in the debate over the location of required new travellers' pitches within Mid Sussex.
Michael Brown