343 HOUSES ON FIELDS SOUTH OF FOLDERS LANE?
REGISTER YOUR OBJECTION NOW OR REGRET LATER…
Mid Sussex District Council want to destroy our local area by paving over the last significant green space to the south of Folders Lane with 343 houses. We believe this proposal would be the final nail in the coffin for our area.
THE OFFICIAL CONSULTATION HAS OPENED – PLEASE REGISTER YOUR OBJECTION NOW.
SOFLAG has fought for 12 years to prevent inappropriate development in this area. This could be our final battle. Lose it and the greenfield land we have tried to protect will be lost forever. We will do all we can to prevent this, but we will not succeed without your help.
It is vital you object. If you don’t, it will be assumed that you approve
ACT NOW, HERE’S HOW:
It will only take a few minutes of your time.
We are asking you to object to the council’s Site Allocations DPD. To object, you must state the reasons why the fields (called Sites SA12 and SA13) should not be allocated for housing. You must quote the relevant paragraph from the consultation document (they don’t want it to be easy!)
You can object online by following this link https://www.midsussex.gov.uk/forms/?form=28943&w=1
EXPLANATION OF ONLINE PROCESS
We think the form is unhelpful, so here are a couple of pointers:
The form asks you “Which document are you commenting on?”
Select Site Allocations DPD .
Then it asks “Which part of the document are you commenting on?”
In the “Policy” box – put SA12 & SA13
leave the “Paragraph” box blank
In the “Page” box – put 34-37
Or you can object by email by sending an email to: LDFconsultation@midsussex.gov.uk – state that you are objecting to the Site Allocations DPD
Use any or all of the following points – in your own words if possible:
“I am objecting to site allocations SA12 and SA13 (pages 34 – 37), the fields south of Folders Lane, Burgess Hill, because:
- No relevant traffic study has been carried out to support this development despite this being a requirement imposed by MSDC in their three previous assessments of the area when they consistently rejected the idea of development (in 2007, 2013 and 2016)
- The site is full of many protected wildlife species for which adequate protection would be impossible including bats, adders, slow worms, great crested newts, cuckoos, barn owls
- It would seriously erode the already fragile strategic gap between Burgess Hill and the villages to the south
- It would cause irreparable harm to the setting of the South Downs National Park
- There are other more suitable sites which are available and deliverable which provide an equivalent or higher number of units and do not have any of the above constraints.”