Mayfields is at it Again!

Mayfield Market Towns’ team of experts is in Sussex again this week (17th March) in yet another attempt to derail one of the county’s local plans.

At it again, Mayfields planning team are setting out to interfere with the Crawley plan.
At it again, Mayfields planning team are setting out to interfere with the Crawley plan.

The latest plan under attack is the one prepared by Crawley Borough Council which goes before Government Inspector, Martin Pike on Tuesday.

Mayfield is claiming that Crawley needs another 3,000 homes outside its borough boundaries to house its growing population, and is promoting a new market town as the solution. However, the Borough Council has already disputed Mayfield calculations and says that those who desperately need housing in Crawley are unlikely to benefit from a new town nearly 20 miles away.

NOT CONVINCED: Peter Lamb said the new town will not benefit many. (Crawley News)
NOT CONVINCED: Peter Lamb said the new town will not benefit many. (Crawley News)

Speaking to the Crawley News in November 2014, leader of Crawley Borough Council, Peter Lamb, said that Mayfields had overestimated the number of homes that are needed and that the new town wouldn’t be the answer anyway.
“In real life it won’t solve our problems,” said Mr Lamb. “The sort of housing they are aiming to build is unlikely to be within the reach of many people’s pay packets.”

LAMBS’ Planning Consultant, Martin Carpenter of Enplan explains what the property company is trying to achieve in Crawley;
“The Mayfield proposals do not fall within Crawley,” he says. “However Mayfield are objecting to the Plan as they say it does not provide for enough housing to meet the needs of the Borough. Mayfield are arguing that their scheme can assist Crawley to meet this need.”
“This is an attempt by Mayfield to gain some traction from the Crawley plan making process, notwithstanding the examination Inspector’s rejection of the proposal in December last year.”

In December, Government Inspector, Geoff Salter who examined the Horsham Plan ruled out Mayfields’ proposals saying;
“At present, to my mind significant concerns have been raised about the sustainability of the location of the MMT site, in particular its distance from railway services and the strategic road network and the potential usage and viability of the ‘park and ride’ proposals.
“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.”

[box type=”info” style=”rounded” border=”full”]Links to the Crawley Plan: HEARING SESSIONS Outline Programme and the  Crawley 2030 Local Plan Examination.[/box]


1 Comment

Join the discussion and tell us your opinion.

  1. Kenneth McIntosh when read gives one, me, a sense that our three local authorities – Horsham – Midsussex – Crawley – and its officers and consultants have been very thorough in their assessments of Housing need. Their work which I can see has been a mammoth one and which is fully co-ordinated greatly gives credence that Crawley’s strategic plan on Housing Need is the best that one can achieve. I would not expect that an independent developer can achieve such a well constructed strategic vision which is transparent for all to see and has no other agenda than doing what is best for the communities it serves. Well done LPA’s

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *