Mid Sussex protesters fight plans for homes

Members of the South of Folders Lane Action Group spoke out after Mid Sussex District Council chose not to pause the adoption of its Site Allocations Development Plan Document (DPD), which includes 340 homes on two sites south of Folders Lane.

More than 2,600 people have signed a petition to save the 17-hectare rewilded ‘nature haven’, where creatures such as nightingales, woodpeckers, bats, crested newts and dormice have been seen and heard.

Despite councillors agreeing by 24 votes to 18 that the site allocation document should be adopted, the action group has pledged to continue its fight.

Michelle Parlett, from Keymer, said: “We’re really disappointed that, rather than having the courage to do something different and pausing the DPD, [council leader] Jonathan Ash-Edwards continued to stick by his party line that if we don’t adopt [it] we will lose control of our five-year housing land supply. 

Drone footage of the Folders Lane site. Image: South of Folders Lane Action Group

“A pause in the system would give some breathing space to allow legislation to come into place which could protect our site. 

“It would not simply lose control of the process.”

Legislation has been implemented in the Environment Act in anticipation of a Housing White Paper update, Levelling-Up Bill and new planning policy framework due to come in effect this summer.

The issue was picked up by Mims Davies MP, who wrote to Michael Gove, secretary of state for housing, asking whether the Folders Lane site could be looked at again and pointing out that they could be removed from the DPD without making the document unsound.

In a letter dated June 29, she said there were ‘much more suitable and efficient alternatives detailed within the DPD’.

The loss of its five-year housing land supply was the main fear shared by councillors in favour of adopting the DPD.

Colin Trumble (Con, Hurstpierpoint & Downs) described how Mid Sussex had been in that situation almost a decade ago and had been ‘planning by appeal’.

Essentially, many planning applications turned down at the time were allowed on appeal because of the lack of a five-year supply.

Mr Ash-Edwards agreed, warning of a ‘developer-led free-for-all across the whole district’.

Outline of the sites allocated for a total of 340 homes. Image: GoogleMaps/Thakeham and Charles Church

But the ecological value of the site was higher on the list of priorities for the campaigners.

Michelle said: “It’s criminal that they are going to turn this into housing.

“It’s just heartbreaking for a lot of the people who live round here.

“If you come in the evening you hear the birdsong in the place – it’s alive. It’s teeming with wildlife.”

As for the action group, she said: “We will continue to campaign. This is just the beginning. 

“Not enough people are aware of what the district is set to lose by destroying this wonderful site.”

Accusing the council of being ‘deaf when people from Burgess Hill appeal to them’, she added: “It seems we will just have to shout louder.”

READ MORE: 'New homes will destroy wildlife'