The changes add 1,220 homes on new sites at Hurstpierpoint, Sayers Common and Albourne, and lift Reed's Lane to 2,000. Comments close 11.59pm on 7 September.
Residents have until 11.59pm on Monday 7 September to comment on changes to the Mid Sussex District Plan that would allocate 1,220 homes on sites that were not in the plan when the council submitted it.
The new sites are at Hurstpierpoint, Sayers Common and Albourne. On top of those, the largest allocation in the district, the land south of Reed’s Lane at Sayers Common, goes up from 1,850 homes to 2,000 within the plan period.
The council is running the consultation on behalf of the government-appointed planning inspector, and it is the only chance to comment before he decides whether to hold more hearings. Comments arriving after the deadline will not be accepted, and comments about any other part of the plan will not be accepted either.
What the changes add
The Schedule of Main Modifications, published in July, lists every proposed change. These are the new housing sites in the three places:
Hurstpierpoint, 419 homes on five new sites
- Land north of Willow Way and Talbot Mead, Cuckfield Road: 150
- Land northeast of Hurstpierpoint: 150
- Land east of College Lane: 75
- Land south of Hurst Wickham Barn, College Lane: 35
- South of Hurst Wickham Barn, College Lane, listed separately in the schedule: 9
Sayers Common, 475 homes on three new sites
- West House Farm, Henfield Road: 325
- Land east of Avtrade, Reed’s Lane: 75
- Land at Kingsland Lodge, London Road: 75
Albourne, 326 homes on four new sites
- Land east of London Road: 250
- Phase 1 Swallows Yard, London Road: 46
- Land north of Henfield Road: 20
- Grange View House, London Road: 10
Three of the existing Sayers Common allocations are also being adjusted: Chesapeke and Meadow View drops from 33 homes to 26, the land west of Kings Business Centre drops from 100 to 80, and the LVS Hassocks site rises from 200 to 210.
Put together, this is what the schedule now allocates across the three places, against what the submitted plan allocated:
| Place | Submitted plan | With the changes |
|---|---|---|
| Hurstpierpoint (including the broad location west of Burgess Hill and north of Hurstpierpoint) | 1,440 | 1,859 |
| Sayers Common | 2,393 | 3,001 |
| Albourne | 0 | 326 |
| Total | 3,833 | 5,186 |
Two things are worth saying about that total. It includes the 90 homes at Land west of Kemps, Hurstpierpoint, which the council has left out of its own supply figures because the site has no active promoter. And it includes all 1,350 homes in the broad location west of Burgess Hill and north of Hurstpierpoint, which straddles the two.
The campaign group Keep Hurst A Village puts the figure at over 5,900 homes across the parish and Albourne. The count above is ours, taken from the site list in the council’s own schedule.
Why the numbers went up
The plan was submitted for examination in July 2024. After three weeks of hearings in February and March this year, the inspector, Jonathan Bore, told the council its housing figure was not high enough.
His reasoning is set out in his post-hearing letter. Provision for neighbouring areas that cannot meet their own housing need should be counted and added to the Mid Sussex figure, he wrote, rather than left to come out of a supply surplus. He asked the council to test an overall target of 1,200 to 1,300 homes a year and to aim for the upper end of it.
The result is a housing requirement of 24,071 homes over the plan period, now running to 2040. That is made up of Mid Sussex’s own local housing need of 19,243, plus 3,753 homes for Crawley’s unmet need and 1,075 for Brighton and Hove’s.
The schedule’s own totals show the effect. The list of housing allocations goes from 1,444 homes to 5,172. The separate list of sustainable communities sites goes from 5,243 to 6,301.
The traffic modelling for Hurstpierpoint High Street
The council has published its assessment of what the allocations mean for the B2116 through the village.
Its note, Impact on Hurstpierpoint High Street, models flows at the end of the period, in 2039, and compares them with a reference case in which none of the allocations happen. Even in the scenario that includes the full mitigation package, it finds:
- 160 more vehicles in the morning peak, a 28% increase, from 577 to 736
- 192 more vehicles in the evening peak, a 34% increase, from 569 to 762
The council says West Sussex County Council has confirmed the extra flows do not push the High Street junction with Cuckfield Road and Brighton Road over capacity, and that increases in delay should be a few seconds. It also accepts that the High Street already suffers from congestion, that it sits in a conservation area containing 30 listed buildings, and that more traffic could make it a less attractive place to visit.
Separately, the promoters of the Reed’s Lane site are running their own transport assessment. Early findings quoted in the note suggest about 10% of the traffic from those 2,000 homes would route through Hurstpierpoint, which the council translates as 5 arrivals and 22 departures in the morning peak, and 29 arrivals and 10 departures in the evening.
The inspector was not satisfied with that note. Work on the High Street, he wrote, “will need to go beyond the scope of the Council’s paper MS-13 which is largely concerned with junction capacity”.
The sewer condition being deleted from nine sites
One modification has had almost no attention and reaches well beyond the villages.
Nine allocations currently carry a criterion tying the occupation of new homes to the delivery of sewerage infrastructure, in consultation with the water company. Modification MM39 deletes it from all nine:
- Land west of Burgess Hill (which also loses a requirement for an easement to Southern Water’s infrastructure crossing the site)
- Burgess Hill Station
- Orchards Shopping Centre, Haywards Heath
- Land at Coombe Farm, Sayers Common
- Land west of Kings Business Centre, Sayers Common
- Land at LVS Hassocks, Sayers Common
- The Paddocks, Lewes Road, Ashurst Wood
- Land at Foxhole Farm, Bolney
- Land west of North Cottages, Cuckfield Road, Ansty
At Ashurst Wood and Ansty the deleted wording is different: it required the site layout to take account of existing water and sewerage infrastructure so it could still be maintained and upgraded.
The schedule sets out what each modification does but does not give reasons for any of them, and the inspector’s post-hearing letter does not mention sewerage.
What Reed’s Lane is meant to come with
The largest site is not just houses. The schedule requires land on the Reed’s Lane allocation for an all-through school, with four forms of entry at secondary level, expandable to six, with or without a sixth form, plus a primary phase, early years provision and a special support centre.
The wider list of requirements for the site includes extra care housing, a self-service library, community buildings, leisure and outdoor sports provision, allotments, play areas, and financial contributions towards healthcare and the emergency services.
The inspector accepted the principle of the Sayers Common allocations as sound. What he asked for was a more holistic approach across all the sites there, covering how they link up, how community facilities and infrastructure get delivered, and how impacts on the lanes and on Hurstpierpoint High Street are handled.
The demonstration on Saturday
Keep Hurst A Village has called a demonstration for Saturday 29 August, 9am to 11am, on the village green on the High Street in Hurstpierpoint. The group says it wants to show numbers, and that media will be there.
On its own website it describes the consultation as the campaign’s best chance to object, and says comments from residents are the single most important thing individuals can do. It has produced a guide to writing objection letters, available by emailing the group, and has a phone line, 01273 831569, for anyone who is not online or is visually impaired and wants help with a letter.
What it means for you
If you want to comment, do it before 11.59pm on Monday 7 September. Late responses are not accepted, and this is the last scheduled point at which the public can put anything to the inspector before he decides whether more hearings are needed.
Your comment has to be about one of the main modifications, the sustainability appraisal or the habitats regulations assessment. Anything about another part of the plan will be rejected, so it is worth naming the modification reference or the site you are writing about.
There are three ways to respond:
- Online, through the council’s consultation portal
- By email to policyconsultation@midsussex.gov.uk
- By post to Planning Policy, Mid Sussex District Plan, Mid Sussex District Council, Oaklands, Oaklands Road, Haywards Heath, West Sussex, RH16 1SS
Paper copies of the documents are available to read at Burgess Hill, East Grinstead, Hassocks, Haywards Heath and Hurstpierpoint libraries.
After the deadline the council passes every valid response to the inspector. He then decides whether further hearings are needed before the plan can be adopted.
For what is already in the pipeline in the meantime, see our Mid Sussex planning news page, and for the roads affected by current works, our roadworks and travel page.
Have your say