1. If houses have to be built on Greenfield Land in the northern part of Mid Sussex, where should they go? As we suggested in Topic Brief number 5, any Greenfield development should be as close as possible to the main sources of employment, minimise commuting, and delivered without undue delay. It should minimise the additional traffic burden on the East area, and retain its separate identity as the District's foremost historic town.

2. On planning principles, any such location should of course be close enough to Crawley/Gatwick, to offer sustainable access to employment there. Several such locations have been suggested along the eastern side of the M23 : -

* One is a large location at Pease Pottage, where proposals have been put forward for 5,000 dwellings;

* Another is at Crabbett Park, where proposals have been put forward for 3,000-3,500 energy-saving dwellings with a commercial park, and with no added burden on M23 J10;

* A third is the site extending north and south of M23 Junction 10; where proposals have been put forward for a mixed-use development including 1,500-2,000 dwellings, some of them on Previously Developed Land.

The Council Leadership now admits that such locations are being considered, but only later. (Reference 1) Yet of course evidence-based planning means making sustainable locations the first priority.

3. Quite simply, these locations are more policy-conforming than East Grinstead on almost every relevant aspect of planning policy. They make it possible : -

* To build close to where the jobs are, as the Structure Plan requires. Building at East Grinstead instead would gratuitously separate homes from jobs by many miles;

* To minimise commuting, as the Structure Plan again requires. Transforming East Grinstead into a commuter satellite of Crawley would double commuting between them; and generate many millions of unnecessary and polluting car-miles each year;

* To respect the environment; without the necessity of violating residential suburbs or nationally designated landscape (AONB; SNCI; Ancient Woodland);

* For the District's foremost historic town to retain its character and separate identity;

* To deliver on time and at affordable cost; without requiring (as in the East Grinstead case) either a costly, time-consuming and futile "relief" road; or foregoing necessary community infrastructure; or fighting endless and uncertain court battles to get the land.

Councillors may therefore agree with the PRC that one or more of these locations close to Crawley/Gatwick should be considered as a contingency for development before 2016.

4. Why were these obvious locations overlooked? Apparently in hope that development at East Grinstead would open the way to the long-desired traffic relief there. It has now been proved that it will do the opposite. The area east of Crawley should now be reinstated as the correct place for building homes which have always been intended for Crawley workers.

Reference 1

Nevertheless the administration also argues against development East of Crawley on traffic grounds. This however is on the assumption that development takes place BOTH East of Crawley AND at East Grinstead. It is certainly true that the East Grinstead scheme is exceptionally traffic generating, but Councillors may think the solution to this seems obvious ...

For more information click on www.eghouses.org/ PRC Sustainable Alternative