Letter to Residents of Station Road & Queens Crescent

To : Residents of Station Road & Queens Crescent
From: Sandra Thomas, Kevin Newton & Bob Draper
Date: 12th September, 2006

Dear neighbour,

Firstly, apologies for the length of this update, but we feel it necessary to provide you with as much information as we have available at this important point in our drive to protect our properties from development outside our control. As you will now probably be aware, the Masterplan for the future development of Burgess Hill Town Centre has been revised and is being put to Mid Sussex District Council for adoption, probably in November. The revised proposals are outlined in a Masterplan Newsletter, available from the Council’s help point in Church Walk or from the exhibition in the library that will run until 25th September.
It must be noted that these plans are the final version; this is not a second consultation period.

Sandra, Kevin and Bob were invited to, and attended, a “stakeholders” meeting on Monday, 11th September that was intended to provide information about the changes to the Masterplan that will form the basis for planning in the town centre over the next twenty years. Other groups represented at the meeting included traders, Scouts & Guides, community facilities and disabled access. The following notes summarise the main points arising from the meeting.
We have reviewed the plan revisions and attended the meeting with the same policy that has been the basis of the group’s objections from the time when the original proposals were made known to us:

- that we recognise that the town centre needs re-generation, and
- that the railway station needs re-development,
- but not at the cost of the residential properties in Station Road and Queens Crescent and the open space

We believe that the residents’ primary objectives have been achieved. However, there is still work to be done, as the proposed developments will have an impact upon our properties, and we need to remain vigilant to ensure that these impacts are minimised.

Points presented at the meeting :

The consultation indicated that Burgess Hill residents (not just from our immediate area) had major concerns about :
- potential loss of residential properties in Station Road and Queens Crescent and open space
- the scope of the station redevelopment
- the character and identity of the town
- the height and mass of the proposed development
- the retention of community facilities, such as Cyprus Hall
- the unrealistic nature of the proposals
- the changes to Church Walk

The revisions arising from review of responses were presented as :
- retention of the residential properties in Station Road and Queens Crescent and open space
- retention of buildings in Cyprus Road (e.g Cyprus Hall)
- revised proposals for the redevelopment of the station and associated parking / retail
- revision of the town square layout
- retention of the Waitrose unit
- revision of maximum building heights
- revision of the Crescent Way and Church Walk proposals
- revision of the proposed new residential elements (more houses, fewer apartment blocks)
- addition of a proposed unit on the corner of Victoria Way / London Road (current store is re-locating to the industrial estate)

The text content of the planning document (SPD) is being revised to make it clearer, with more explanation / justification for the proposed plan. The graphics in the plan document are also being revised to provide more information. The artist impressions that caused so much confusion will be removed.
It was stressed that the plan document being proposed for adoption by the Council is not about architectural detail; it provides planning guidelines regarding the overall “footprint” of development. Each development will be the subject of individual planning applications that will need to be fully approved by the Council. This will give the opportunity to raise “material objections” to detail issues in each application (height of a building / impact on residential amenities, such as increased traffic noise, privacy, etc.). It was also stressed that the Masterplan document cannot dictate the actual use for an individual unit shown on the plans (e.g. cinema); the document can only indicate potential usage. The actual use will be proposed when planning applications are submitted, and this will provide opportunities for material objections, if applicable.
The discussions in the meeting raised a number of material points that MSDC committed to review before the final version of the Masterplan document is submitted to the Council for approval. These included identification of basic errors in the plans, as presented to the meeting, and points that must be given consideration, if not answers, in the document when presented to the Council for adoption. The major points noted were (in the order they were raised) :
- local traders were assured that planning applications must ensure that ample parking spaces are provided, so that there is no loss of facilities in the town.
- there appear to be minor inconsistencies in the plans contained in the document.

e.g.Station Road : Osborne House (ex Halo) shown as not being in the development zone on one plan, but included in the phasing scheme on another.
Rail station : development south of the station shown on Masterplan document (as presented), but not included on the Masterplan Newsletter published to co-incide with the exhibition (see above).
- Station Road : concerns about the safety of pupils leaving Oakmeeds Community College. In the revised plan, they will exit the school approach road directly onto the main thoroughfare carrying the bulk of “through town” traffic. The proposed closure of the lower end of Station Road raises concerns about school traffic and probable serious congestion.
- Station Road : the lack of traffic calming measures, such as roundabouts. It was noted that the current roundabout, outside MacDonald’s, serves as such a measure. It was stated that this would be a prime consideration in the road planning.
- wind effect in the proposed town square
- building heights shown in the Masterplan are indicative maximum heights. There must be confirmation that these include such things as plant rooms on commercial units.
- the phasing shown in the Masterplan (as presented) is unclear. It was stated that it is “unlikely” that actual work will start on any site for at least three years from the point of the plan’s adoption. The current plan legend indicates completion of the first phase within five years; this is improbable. The phasing on the plans in the Masterplan document should either be clear that it refers to the start of planning activities, or be changed to reflect probable actual end dates.
- the future width of Station Road. The measurements on the graphic presented at the meeting were challenged.
- the Guides’ property in Station Road, although stated as being out of the development zone (they already have separate planning consent to re-develop their facility), will be severely impacted by the proposed changes to Queen Elizabeth Avenue.

It has been made clear to the planners that we still have concerns about :
- the nature of the proposed developments on the north side of Station Road and on the current MacDonald’s / car park site, and the potential impacts upon residential properties to the south. Each and every planning application will be reviewed on the merits of the scheme.
- the access to Oakmeeds and the drop-off points; any changes to the road layout will be challenged to ensure that safety and residents’ quality of life is maintained.

The Council is also being requested to remove the Station Road and Queens Crescent residential properties from the Masterplan Study Area following the adoption of the proposals. This will help to ensure that we do not have to endure the experience of the past nine months again in the not too distant future.
The removal of the residential properties from the Masterplan does not stop any owner, or developer, making an arrangement and submitting a planning application to re-develop a property. Planning applications for sites within the Masterplan zone, and complying with the standards in the adopted plan, will not be rejected unless appropriate material objections are raised and agreed. Development applications for properties outside the zone will be processed as they would be today.
We need to thank all who have supported the action to remove our properties from the proposed development and would ask that you pass this on to your families, friends, work colleagues and others who may have helped in any way.

Thank you for the input and mutual support over the past nine months. As one neighbour has told us, “we can now get back to living in homes again”!

Best Wishes,
Sandra, Kevin & Bob