Residents in homes along the south side of Folders Lane were given hope that the fields behind their homes will be safe from future developments after the Mid Sussex District Planning Committee rejected the first big application in this area.
It was on Thursday afternoon that the Jones Homes application for 73 new homes in fields south of folders lane - right by Ridgeview Wine Estate - was
unanimously rejected by the Committee.
Speaking in opposition to the plans were representives of Ridgeview, a residential neighbour of Ridgeview, Chris King - MSDC councillor for Franklands Ward, and Ian Simpson - speaking on behalf of the South of Folders Lane Action Group (That's a story for another day).
Here's what Cllr King and Ian Simpson had to say as they appealed to the committee to reject the application:
The reasons given for refusal were:
1. The site is considered to make a positive contribution to the landscape and the
setting of the South Downs National Park.
The proposal would form an incongruous
extension to the built up boundary which would detract from the visual quality and
essential characteristics of the area and fail to conserve and enhance the natural
beauty harming the setting of the National Park.
The need for housing does not on
its own outweigh the significant incursion into the countryside that would be made.
The proposal would fail to comply with policies C1 and C3 of the Mid Sussex Local
Plan, policies DP1, DP10, DP24 and DP16 of the Pre Submission Plan, the
Framework and the statutory duty.
2. The proposal fails to adequately address the impacts from the adjacent Ridgeview
Vineyard on the amenity of new residents. The adjacent successful commercial
enterprise has the potential to cause significant noise and nuisance to occupiers of
the new dwellings who are unlikely to tolerate such harm to their amenities. This
could result in the Vineyard having unreasonable restrictions put upon them with
resultant impacts on business viability and employment.
This would be inconsistent
with local policies to protect amenity (B3, B23 and G1 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan
and DP27 of the Pre Submission District Plan) and local and national policies to
encourage economic development (DP2 of the Pre Submission District Plan and the
3. In the absence of a completed S106 Agreement the proposal fails to meet Policies
G3, T4, R4 and H4 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan in respect of the infrastructure and
affordable housing required to serve the development.
It's expected that Jones Homes will appeal the decision. We'll keep you updated.
|Spread the word, greenfield land in Burgess Hill has been protected
Got an opinion on this story? Leave a comment below.....
Do you agree with the decision to reject the application for 73 new homes on greenfield land?