The History
Ten years ago a developer calling itself Mayfields Market Towns decided it wanted to build a new town of up to 10,500 houses on land near Wineham and Twineham. They toured around, offering local landowners money for options to buy their land in the event that they were able to force their scheme through. Some accepted the money, some didn’t. There was no logic to the ‘land bank’ the developer ended up with. Local people objected vigorously and formed a campaign group named LAMBS. Mid Sussex and Horsham didn’t support the idea either, and eventually Mayfields admitted defeat. But before they went away, they sold their options to Berkeley Homes.
Sayers Common Garden Village - the facts!
Mid Sussex consulted on a draft of their 2023-239 district plan in November and December 2022. One of their chosen ‘significant sites’ (DPSC2) which they described as ‘Land to the South of Reeds Lane, Sayers Common’, proposed that about 2,000 houses should be built on the fields between Sayers Common and Albourne, effectively joining up the two villages and extending west as far as the boundary with Horsham District Council. The developer, Berkeley Homes, refers to this as ‘Sayers Village and Hamlet (even though all of the land is in fact in Albourne).
Local residents were shocked and dismayed – they had had no involvement at all in the selection of this proposal. And they objected. Among the reasons they put forward were that the scheme would
● Concrete over the countryside, damaging the environment for people and wildlife;
● Add to the major problems of flooding and poor drainage which already exist;
● Produce an identikit mass of housing which would destroy the character of the two villages
● Build houses where people didn’t want them, on green fields, instead of where they do, in urban areas
● Add to traffic congestion and pollution
● Continue to attract massive local opposition.
Now Mid Sussex are preparing to go out to consultation on a revised version of their plan. Will they have listened to local people? We don’t think so, and this is why.
The Challenge
Now we need to talk about the Local Housing Needs number. A national formula sets each local authority a target for the number of houses it should build in the period covered by its district plan. The formula is quite complicated but the problem isthat
although the locally assessed need for houses in Mid Sussex is c.600-700 houses a year, the target which has been set is above 1,100 a year. The Council know this isn’t fair – for example, the formula takes no account of the fact that houses can’t be built in Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, or National Parks, which count for a big chunk of Mid Sussex. But if the number was lower – nearer where it ought to be – Sayers Village wouldn’t be needed.
And this is why we think that the scheme will remain in the plan: not because it was carefully chosen after engagement with local people, but just because it’s big enough! We will continue to make all the arguments against the scheme people have made before but we will be ignored, fobbed off with promises that will never be kept (look elsewhere: infrastructure promises are never kept!) and have to live, literally, with the consequences. But the Council are terrified of having their plan failed by the inspector.
What We Can Do
Have another look at the objections we listed above. Here they are again, in a slightly different format:
‘Rather than concreting over the countryside, the government will focus on prioritising building in inner-city areas where demand is highest and growth is being constrained’
- ‘We have set out a plan today to build the right homes in the right places where there is community support’
- ‘At the heart of this is making sure we build beautiful and empower communities to have a say in the development in their area’
- ‘Community support is vital in making these plans a success and the Housing Secretary has been clear any developments must be beautiful, come with the right infrastructure and designed with locals in mind’
- This is what the Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said on 24 July this year. And Michael Gove, the Housing Secretary, has gone further. Here’s what he said in December last year:
- “I do believe that the plan-making process has to start with a number. This number should, however, be an advisory starting point, a guide that is not mandatory. It will be up to local authorities, working with their communities, to determine how many homes can actually be built, taking into account what should be protected in each area – be that our precious Green Belt or national parks, the character of an area, or heritage assets.”
- “My changes will instruct the Planning Inspectorate that they should no longer override sensible local decision making, which is sensitive to and reflects local constraints and concerns. Overall this amounts to a rebalancing of the relationship between local councils and the Planning Inspectorate, and will give local communities a greater say in what is built in their neighbourhood”.
- He repeated this in a letter to local authorities on 8 September:
- “We also consulted on a proposal to make clearer that Local Housing Need is an advisory starting point for plan making, and that local authorities can take account of local circumstances when planning for the homes our communities need.”
So the solution to the problem is clear: Mid Sussex should be developing a plan which makes the case for a smaller housing number, and throwing out Sayers Village and Hamlet
What can you do to help?
- Join us! If you would like to get more involved and join the WILD team, let us know via our Contact page.
- Subscribe to WILD and never miss out on the latest information
- Tell us what you know or hear via our Contact page.
- Contact your local councillors (you’ll find their details on our Who’s Who page)
– Ask them if they are aware of how the planning rules are changing.
– Ask them to press the Council to start work now on the case for a lower planning number.
– Ask them to push for it to be reflected in the next version of the plan.
– And ask them for their support in throwing out the Sayers Common Garden Village scheme.