Personalisation Examples
--- Your links to the villages --- I have lived in [village] for 12 years, raised 2 kids, watch them play football on Finches Field, walk dogs on Pease Field & The Hyde Estate, run a business... --- Relevance to you --- We walk to Handcross Primary... I drive my kids to Warden Park... I commute to London via Three Bridges... --- Why this matters to you --- In this time I've witnessed... ...major water outages, ... road closures made it impossible to get out of my road, ... had to fight to get my kids into the same school, ... waited 4 weeks for a GP appointment and referral, --- Personal statements --- We have already contributed Mid Sussex housing... We compromised before with Woodgate +/or Hoadlands which were supposed to be the first and last major developments... We think the Crawley unmet need argument is false, it is already being met with Crabbet Park and Forge Wood... We strongly believe in protecting the High Weald AONB until it can be proven there are no more suitable brownfield sites available...
Using this template
The template below captures all the main issues so that you can:
-
add / amend / remove sections as appropriate,
-
personalise it so the council can't label is as spam or a duplication,
-
send a response separately for every adult in your home.
When complete:
-
Email: policyconsultation@midsussex.gov.uk
(we'd love it if you could send a copy to protectpph@gmail.com so we can send our thanks)
-
Send Postal Responses To:
Planning Policy, Mid Sussex District Council, Oaklands, Oakland Road, Haywards Heath West Sussex, RH16 1SS
The deadline for responses is Monday 7th September, 23:59.
Copy & paste everything below this line.
Remember to edit areas in red
I am writing to object to the proposed inclusion of the following sites into the Mid Sussex District Plan both individually and cumulatively. Please log my objection against each modification.
MM88 - SHELAA 181 - Land west of Truggers
MM89 - SHELAA 1188 - Land at Pease Field
MM90 - SHELAA 603 - Land to the West of Woodhurst Farm
MM91 - SHELAA 818 - Land north of the Former Golf House
Name: [FULL NAME]
Address: [FULL POSTAL ADDRESS]
Email Address: [NAME@EMAIL.COM]
[PERSONLISATION - WHAT THESE SITES MEAN TO ME]
Objection to Main Modifications MM88-MM91
I object to MM88, MM89, MM90 and MM91 both individually and cumulatively.
While I recognise the need for new housing and support sustainable development in principle, I do not believe Mid Sussex District Council has demonstrated that these allocations are justified, effective, consistent with national policy, or supported by the infrastructure required to accommodate them.
Taken together, these four allocations would add approximately 1,044 homes to Slaugham Parish, including 939 homes around Pease Pottage alone. This represents approximately 26% of all additional housing proposed through the Main Modifications, despite the Parish already accommodating substantial growth through previous developments such as Woodgate.
The cumulative impacts of these allocations have not been adequately assessed or mitigated.
1. Disproportionate Concentration of Development in Slaugham Parish
The proposed allocation of 1,044 homes within Slaugham Parish appears excessive, disproportionate and insufficiently justified.
Key concerns include:
-
Approximately 26% of the 4,040 additional homes introduced through the Main Modifications are concentrated within a single rural parish.
-
Pease Pottage and Handcross are classified as medium villages rather than major growth settlements.
-
The rationale appears largely based upon accommodating Crawley's unmet housing need, yet substantial development is already occurring or approved at Forge Wood, Crabbet Park, West of Ifield, Kilnwood Vale and additional sites around Crawley and Horsham district boundaries.
-
The Council has not clearly demonstrated why such a significant proportion of additional growth should be concentrated at the northern boundary of Mid Sussex rather than distributed more evenly across the district.
The numbers have been poorly presented.
MSDC’s own ENV22 assessment describes substantial adverse effects on the High Weald National Landscape and identifies potential effects on ancient woodland, historic field patterns, historic routeways, settlement character and open countryside.
For example, MSDC’s percentage calculation says MM90 is equivalent to a 197.71% increase in built-up area and a 139.44% increase in dwellings when measured against the current adopted built-up-area boundary. There is an important problem with that comparison. The adopted boundary does not include the recent 600-home Woodgate development, despite Woodgate now physically forming part of Pease Pottage. Woodgate’s primary school and other facilities are nevertheless relied upon when considering how further development might be served.
The Council should not be able to exclude Woodgate when measuring the existing size of Pease Pottage but include Woodgate when identifying the facilities that further development can use. I therefore ask that the scale of MM89-MM91 be assessed against both the adopted policy boundary and the actual Pease Pottage settlement that exists today, including Woodgate.
SHLAA 603 – MM90 is clearly major development. The site is approximately 38.93 hectares and would provide 700 dwellings. The Council states that it lies outside the existing built-up area boundary and would represent a significant extension of Pease Pottage southwards into open countryside. MSDC itself describes the development as a significant extension to the settlement. I do not believe that a development which increases the built-up area by approximately 198% can reasonably be characterised as a proportionate extension of a medium-sized village.
SHELAA 181 - MM88 - Land west of Truggers extends the village of Handcross to the West and in doing so, would increase the number of homes from approx. 830 to 935, a 12.5% increase. This also cannot be considered anything less than major development in an incredibly nature-rich, period village setting.
The Council’s assessment of SHLAA 1188 - MM89 is equally significant. The site comprises approximately 11.4 hectares and would provide 196 dwellings. The Council calculates that this represents: a 57.90% increase in the built-up area of Pease Pottage; and a 39.04% increase in the number of dwellings within the existing built-up area boundary. MSDC expressly concludes that the scale of 196 dwellings in a settlement of this size constitutes major development.
The full housing numbers have not been demonstrated
The allocation figures also appear to assume that virtually everything can be fitted onto the sites simultaneously. But these sites need much more than houses.
They require roads, access, parking, drainage and SuDS, open space, play areas, community facilities, woodland buffers, watercourse buffers, ecological corridors, Biodiversity Net Gain, landscape planting and other mitigation.
MM90 must also protect and strengthen ecological connections through the Weald to Waves corridor.
MM89 must provide strong ecological corridors so that Pease Pottage Shaw is not isolated.
MM88 must address ancient woodland, priority habitats, water features and an appropriate separation from the Southern Water wastewater treatment works.
MM91 must accommodate housing, access, environmental safeguards and employment provision within only 1.70 hectares while integrating with MM89.
We have not seen a simple combined land budget demonstrating how all those requirements fit while still achieving every one of the promoted housing numbers.
If the environmental evidence ultimately requires wider buffers, more drainage land, stronger ecological corridors, additional open space or lower densities, the housing numbers must reduce.
The environment and infrastructure should determine the capacity.
The promoted housing number should not determine how much environmental protection is allowed.
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) requires housing allocations to be justified, proportionate and supported by reasonable alternatives. I do not believe that test has been met.
Cumulative Impact
MM89 - MM91 cannot properly be considered in isolation. The Council’s assessment of SHLAA 818 - MM91 in particular is more favourable when considered in isolation. However, this is precisely why the cumulative assessment is important. The Council considers the site itself not to constitute “major development” in the NPPF sense.
However, the same assessment expressly concludes that there is potential for significant cumulative impact on Pease Pottage when MM91 is considered alongside SHLAA 1188 - MM89 and SHLAA 603 - MM90.
That distinction is important. A site which may be acceptable when viewed in isolation does not automatically become acceptable when it forms part of a much larger development strategy. The Inspector should therefore consider the three sites as a single cumulative development strategy for Pease Pottage.
Housing demand does not automatically justify these sites
I recognise the importance of meeting housing need, including affordable housing and unmet need from neighbouring authorities. However, the existence of a housing requirement does not establish that every available site is appropriate for allocation. MSDC's own evidence acknowledges that housing could theoretically be accommodated elsewhere in the district, including outside the High Weald National Landscape. The key question for the examination is therefore not whether additional housing is required, but whether these particular sites are the appropriate and sustainable locations for that housing. I do not believe the evidence demonstrates that they are.
Main Modification MM28 – DPH1 Housing
I also object to the interaction between the proposed allocations and MM28, which modifies the supporting text to DPH1 – Housing. MM28 changes the Local Housing Need figure to 19,243 dwellings and introduces the additional housing requirement associated with unmet need. The additional site allocations MM88–MM91 are being introduced specifically in the context of this increased housing requirement.
I consider it inappropriate to regard MM88–MM91 as sound independently of MM28 and the overall housing strategy. If the Inspector concludes that the increased housing requirement is not justified at the level being tested, or that alternative sites can meet the requirement with less environmental harm, there would be no sound justification for retaining these four allocations.
2. High Weald National Landscape and Countryside Protection
MM88, MM89 and MM90 are identified by the Council's own evidence as major development within the High Weald National Landscape that would result in a substantial adverse impact. The NPPF requires that major development within National Landscapes should only occur in exceptional circumstances and where it can be demonstrated to be in the public interest.
I do not believe:
-
Exceptional circumstances have been demonstrated.
-
Less harmful alternatives have been fully assessed.
-
The cumulative impacts of all four sites have been properly considered.
The proposals would result in:
-
Significant urbanisation of rural landscapes.
-
Loss of countryside character.
-
Further erosion of the separation between Crawley and Pease Pottage.
-
Harm to tranquillity and dark skies.
-
Harm to the distinctive landscape character of the High Weald.
The Council's own evidence acknowledges significant cumulative impacts arising from the size and scale of the Pease Pottage allocations.
The fact that the Council believes mitigation could reduce some of these effects does not remove the underlying harm caused by allocating a development of this scale in the first place.
3. Ecology, Biodiversity and Environmental Protection
The proposed sites affect a landscape containing:
-
Ancient woodland.
-
Woodland shaws.
-
Priority habitats.
-
Ecological corridors.
-
Ponds and watercourses.
-
Important wildlife movement routes.
Particular concern exists regarding:
-
Pease Pottage Shaw.
-
The Weald to Waves wildlife corridor.
-
Ancient woodland adjacent to development areas.
-
Habitat fragmentation caused by multiple developments progressing simultaneously.
-
Land West of Truggers Handcross, for its extensive wildlife habit and migratory corridor.
I do not believe the Council has demonstrated how the proposed housing yields can be achieved while fully complying with:
-
The Environment Act 2021.
-
Biodiversity Net Gain requirements.
-
Local Nature Recovery objectives.
-
NPPF protections for ancient woodland and irreplaceable habitats.
-
The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 duty to conserve and enhance National Landscapes.
The burden of proving environmental protection should not be deferred to later planning applications.
DP17 – Habitat Regulations Assessment – Main Modifications Report.
Given the scale of additional development and the proximity of these sites to the A23/M23, Crawley and sensitive landscapes and habitats, I ask the Inspector to ensure that the Habitats Regulations assessment and associated environmental evidence adequately captures the combined rather than merely individual effects of the allocations.
The same principle should apply to air quality, transport emissions, water resources, drainage and ecological connectivity.
4. Water Supply and Water Resilience Concerns
The most significant concern expressed by many local residents is water security. The Council's Infrastructure Delivery Plan identifies the area as being within a region that is already classified as seriously water stressed.
Residents have direct experience of:
-
Water pressure reductions.
-
Intermittent supply issues.
-
Water quality concerns.
-
Difficulty reporting service issues to South East Water.
-
Limited confidence in resilience during periods of high demand.
Particular concern remains following the devastating December 2022 water outage, when thousands of customers across Sussex and Kent experienced supply failures lasting several days, with many residents reporting difficulties obtaining bottled water and support during the crisis.
Given these real-world experiences, it is difficult to understand how the Council can confidently allocate more than 1,000 additional dwellings in this area before demonstrating:
-
Available water supply capacity.
-
Network resilience.
-
Source capacity.
-
Reinforcement plans.
-
Funding arrangements.
-
Delivery timescales.
Infrastructure must be proven before growth is allocated, not afterwards.
5. Wastewater, Sewerage and Drainage
The proposed allocations would place substantial pressure on wastewater infrastructure.
The evidence currently indicates:
-
Capacity uncertainties.
-
Ongoing modelling requirements.
-
Future infrastructure upgrades that remain undefined.
-
Reliance on future investment by utility providers.
Residents should not be expected to accept large-scale development where essential wastewater infrastructure remains unresolved.
The precautionary principle should apply.
6. Roads, Traffic and Sustainable Transport
All four sites would generate additional vehicle movements onto roads that already experience congestion and delays.
Impacted routes include:
-
A23 corridor.
-
M23 Junction 11.
-
Old Brighton Road South.
-
Horsham Road.
-
Handcross High Street and village routes.
-
Pease Pottage local roads.
Although the Council proposes a "monitor and manage" approach, there is insufficient certainty concerning:
-
Funding.
-
Trigger points.
-
Delivery dates.
-
Highway interventions.
-
Public transport improvements.
Many proposed transport measures are still listed as "TBC". This is not a sound basis for allocating major development. Infrastructure should be delivered first, not promised later.
Examples
When the A264 was closed by flooding in January 2026, it's entire load shifted to going through Pease Pottage. The result was massive congestion, rat-run speeding and residents being unable to exit from side roads due to the sheer volume of traffic.
When the A23/M23 is closed for works or by accidents, as seen repeatedly in 2026, dual carriageway traffic is diverted through the villages. The narrow streets are flooded with vehicles of all size squeezing through Handcross High Street.
Witness parents understandably driving children to nearby schools rather than walking significant journeys down narrow footpaths beside extremely busy, narrow roads.
The provision of a bus stop is a implausible and unrealistic for rail commuters. To reach Three Bridges by bus takes on average 38-50 mins vs a car journey of 10-14 mins, where is the evidence that local transport is favourable to these developments?
7. Healthcare, Education and Community Services
The proposed growth will place significant pressure on:
-
GP services.
-
Dentists.
-
Pharmacies.
-
Schools.
-
Community facilities.
Specific concerns include:
-
Ouse Valley Practice already having capacity pressures.
-
Pease Pottage having no GP surgery of its own.
-
Reduced local dental provision.
-
Existing pressure on school places.
The Infrastructure Delivery Plan identifies future requirements but does not demonstrate that services will be operational before residents move into these developments.
The principle should be simple: Infrastructure first. Homes second.
8. Lack of a Comprehensive Infrastructure Delivery Strategy
While an Infrastructure Delivery Plan exists, there is no single integrated strategy demonstrating how these four allocations can be delivered together.
The three Pease Pottage sites are clearly interconnected and rely upon many of the same:
-
Roads.
-
Schools.
-
Healthcare services.
-
Utility networks.
-
Community facilities.
-
Environmental mitigation measures.
If these sites are to remain in the Plan, they should be treated as one strategic development area with:
-
A single masterplan.
-
A single infrastructure strategy.
-
Shared funding arrangements.
-
Clear phasing requirements.
-
Mandatory delivery triggers.
I am concerned that an infrastructure strategy which remains a “living document” and which identifies substantial infrastructure requirements does not yet provide sufficient certainty that the infrastructure necessary to support this scale of development can actually be delivered at the appropriate time.
Main Modification MM95 – infrastructure provision
The proposed allocations also need to be considered alongside MM95 – DPI1: Infrastructure Provision. MSDC's infrastructure evidence makes clear that infrastructure provision is fundamental to delivering sustainable communities and that the infrastructure requirements associated with the additional sites remain subject to further refinement. I therefore ask the Inspector to ensure that the infrastructure strategy provides sufficient certainty of:
-
capacity,
-
funding,
-
delivery responsibility,
-
timing and
-
delivery before or alongside occupation of the proposed housing.
A reliance on future planning obligations or infrastructure contributions should not be regarded as sufficient where the underlying capacity or deliverability has not been established.
9. Concerns Regarding Onward Expansion
I have particular concerns that by expanding the villages MSDC into open fields and countryside, it is expanding village boundaries off which future developments can connect and regarding setting new precedents for building on the High Weald AONB. This is evidenced by the site promoter stating that in relationship to MM90 (Land West of Woodhurst Farm), the site has further potential for development to the South and West. This expansion would fall into Horsham District Council land and potentially be beyond the control of MSDC.
This raises legitimate concerns that:
-
The current proposal may represent only the first phase of a much larger development.
-
Future pressure for additional expansion could follow.
-
Incremental growth would further erode countryside and landscape protection.
The Inspector should carefully consider the precedent created by allocating such a large site within the High Weald National Landscape.
10. Transparency and Procedural Concerns
I am concerned by the apparent lack of transparency surrounding the consultation process.
In particular:
-
Statutory consultation began before additional promoter evidence appeared in the public evidence library.
-
Residents were asked to comment without access to the full body of supporting material.
-
Evidence packages were inconsistent across the four sites.
-
The public has had limited opportunity to scrutinise cumulative impacts.
This raises serious concerns regarding procedural fairness.
11. Failure to Respect Previous Commitments Following Woodgate and Hoadlands
Residents were repeatedly left with the understanding that developments such as Woodgate represented the major strategic expansion expected of Pease Pottage.
Woodgate was an exceptional development:
-
It delivered more than 600 homes.
-
It involved substantial highway works and infrastructure investment.
-
It resulted in significant encroachment into the High Weald National Landscape.
-
It was subsequently described by national media as the largest development by land area approved within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty / National Landscape in Britain during the relevant period.
The community accepted this development as a major compromise.
It is therefore deeply concerning that before Woodgate has fully matured as a settlement, Pease Pottage is being asked to absorb what is effectively another development of comparable scale.
Many residents feel the village has already "done its bit".
Questions for Mid Sussex District Council and the Planning Inspector
I respectfully ask the Council and Inspector to answer the following:
-
Why are approximately 26% of all additional homes proposed through the Main Modifications being concentrated within Handcross and Pease Pottage?
-
Why is so much development being directed towards the northern boundary of Mid Sussex on the basis of Crawley's unmet need when substantial growth is already occurring through Forge Wood, Crabbet Park, West of Ifield, Kilnwood Vale and other major developments?
-
How can the Council demonstrate compliance with national policy governing major development in the High Weald National Landscape?
-
Why was statutory consultation commenced before all promoter evidence was available to the public?
-
What guarantees exist that water, wastewater, healthcare, education and transport infrastructure will be delivered before occupation?
-
How can residents be confident that MM90 will not become a stepping stone to further expansion south and west beyond the current allocation boundaries?
-
What objective justification exists for concentrating so much additional development within Slaugham Parish compared with other parts of Mid Sussex?
-
Given that Slaugham Parish is represented differently politically from the Liberal Democrat-led District Council, what safeguards can be provided to reassure residents that site selection decisions have been based purely on evidence, planning policy and sustainability considerations?