horsham-banner-1

Damning Verdict for Mayfields

An emphatic rejection by a Government Planning Inspector states that Mayfields’ proposals are “not appropriate or lawful.” It also describes the rural location as unsustainable, unviable, undeliverable and “severely disadvantaged.”

Mayfields’ hopes of selling its scheme as a solution to housing shortages in Brighton were also dashed, with the document concluding that the “strong migratory pull of those wishing to live by the sea” could not be solved so far inland.

Inspector Geoff Salter

Government Planning Inspector, Geoff Salter.

Inspector, Geoff Salter released his final verdict on the Horsham Plan on Friday, clearing the way for its adoption and putting an end to Mayfields’ hopes of building in the Horsham District.

The property company now faces the embarrassing prospect of going forward to the Mid Sussex hearing with only half a town and no High Street!

Mr Salter dedicated nearly two pages of his report to the new town proposal, highlighting the unsuitability of the site and pointing out that some of the planning mechanisms suggested by Mayfields are  “not appropriate or lawful,” saying;
“Such a significant large development could not be decided through a non-statutory process outside the development plan legal framework.”

His concerns echoed those expressed by Horsham Council’s QC, Christopher Katowski who said at the Plan’s Examination last November;
“We need to understand what is it that you are actually being asked to do. If the promoters here stand by their submissions then frankly you will have no option… no option at all other than to rule them out on legal grounds because the proposition of having a Supplementary Planning Document simply wouldn’t work – it would literally be unlawful.”

Mr Salter also refuted Mayfields’ claims about the proposal’s sustainability, in particular “its distance from railway services and the strategic road network and the potential usage and viability of the ‘park and ride’ proposals.” Adding,

“To my mind the location of the site beyond reasonable walking and cycle distance from the rail services serving LGW and the main employment centres along the route remains a severe disadvantage.
Even if the MMT provided a significant amount of new employment, it is unrealistic to expect such a level of self-containment that a very significant proportion of travel to work by car would be avoided.”

LAMBS public meeting against Mayfields.

The Inspector referred to the overwhelming strength of local opposition to Mayfields. Pictured LAMBS meeting June 2014.

Mr Salter reviewed not only the geographic constraints of the site but also the overwhelming strength of local opposition. He rejected out of hand Mayfields’ suggestions that this could be overcome by imposing Compulsory Purchase Orders on unwilling residents, saying;

“The deliverability of the preferred 10,000 dwelling option, with employment development, within two local authority areas without their support, and in the face of strong opposition from two local MPs, parish councils and local people, including land owners, is also an issue of concern. While compulsory purchase order (CPO) powers could be used if an agreed scheme were to be approved through the development planning process, that outcome seems distant at present.”

Although Mr Salter didn’t rule out the possibility of a new settlement in the District in the future he said that this need NOT be built at the location put forward by Mayfields and stressed that “such an option would have to evolve through cooperation and consultation amongst the local planning authorities and all the local communities involved.”

Ecology and flooding were given scant treatment in Mr Salter’s report and were largely dismissed due to a lack of evidence. Since the hearing, LAMBS has commissioned full professional reports on both these important issues to ensure that the strongest possible evidence is put before the new Mid Sussex Inspector this winter.

Is Mayfields breaking the law?

What the experts have to say:
Christopher Katowski QC, speaking at the Examination of Horsham’s District Plan in November 2014:
“We need to understand what is it that you are actually being asked to do. If the promoters here stand by their submissions then frankly you will have no option… no option at all other than to rule them out on legal grounds because the proposition of having a Supplementary Planning Document simply wouldn’t work – it would literally be unlawful.”

Geoff Salter, Government Planning Inspector, Final Report on Horsham’s District Plan, October 2015:
“The planning mechanisms put forward by representors on behalf of Mayfield that an area of search should be identified in the HDPF followed by detailed planning through an SPD would not be appropriate or lawful; such a significant large development could not be decided through a non-statutory process outside the development plan legal framework.”

See full report ‘Report to Horsham District Council’ 8th August 2014.

Live recording from hearing:

(1) Horsham’s District Council’s QC, Christopher Katkowski claiming that Mayfield’s proposal that the new town is just added to the District Plan is unlawful.

2 Responses to Damning Verdict for Mayfields

  1. Paul Everest 12th October 2015 at 7:49 pm #

    At last! I hope this means that MMT won’t be interfering with the local planning process any more.

  2. Kenneth McIntosh 28th October 2015 at 11:28 pm #

    Alleluia- there IS a bright guiding light ahead!
    The support that landowners have given already is laudable.
    Well done LAMBS and Supporters.

© 2013 LAMBS
LAMBS does not accept any responsibility for any external links from this site.
Content is copyright to the respective owners.