2. They claim there is not enough brown land. The council leadership keep claiming that major development in the countryside is inescapable because there is not enough brownfield land for all the housebuilding needed. This week they are at it again, in their new MSDC TOPIC PAPER NUMBER 3a. But it is always the same; they never disclose how much brown land is actually available. So when they claim there is not enough, the claim is not evidence-based.

3. Other Council documents suggest that brown land is strangely abundant. Successive MSDC reports have revealed brownfield and small scale sites offering capacity for many thousands of new dwellings. These include :

* 'Urban Potential Study' (April 2005)

* Reports to the 'Better Environment' Sub-Committee (2005 - 2006)

* 'Small Scale Housing Allocations' - successive drafts (June 2005 - October 2006)

* 'Annual Monitoring Reports'

* Miscellaneous announcements about particular sites.

However prolific, these reports are too incoherent to provide a consolidated picture. A site will appear in one report but not in another, or as brown in one report and green in another, or with different assumptions about building densities, and always without explanation. The underlying master-list is never published. Councillors are never told these sites' combined potential for housebuilding as a single total. Great pains are taken never to reveal this. (See these documents by clicking on www.eghouses.org)

4. Telling the developers what they won't tell councillors. In secret discussions however, council officials have revealed that over a hundred small scale and brownfield sites, with combined potential for as many as 7,000 dwellings, are being held in reserve, in case of problems with the East Grinstead strategic location. (Meeting of January 2005 between Mid Sussex officials, GOSE and developers. Fortunately the minutes have been extracted by the PRC under the Freedom of Information Act so are available for councillors to see.)

Here at last is the missing single total - and it is enormous! Still undisclosed is how many of these 100+ sites are brown land, though it is made clear that many are. To keep brownfield sites "in reserve", and to promote major green-field development instead, is to reverse the priorities required by law.

5. Planning must be evidence based. We recommend that Councillors should demand a review to identify the capacity of all brownfield land in the District available for housebuilding. They should insist that such sites get the priority the law requires. The review should:

* Consolidate all published and unpublished small and previously-developed sites in a single consistent list, with a common format;

* Give the capacity of each site, distinguishing green & brown land;

* Reinstate the requirement not to invade greenfield land until available brownfield land has been absorbed.