Burgess Hill Town Centre Redevelopment

Letter to Residents of Station Road & Queens Crescent

2006-09-20T11:25:00.000Z

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

Revised Plans (Sep)

2006-09-17T21:34:00.000Z

Has anyone see the revised plans for the town centre? Any comments?

In my opionion they appear much better, though I am still concerned over the height of the proposed buildings closed to the Station Road area. It appears that Thornfields had learnt from there last mistake(!) and have not drawn up a 3D artists impression of their plans. The problem is, without such a drawing how can we agree on buldings 15,16 and 17?

Until we get that clarification, I am against the reloaction of Station Road. I understand they wish to maximise the land they wish to build on, but is it wise to have a main road going right up to the entrance of the school? Having some buffer space room is surely wise - as it is now.

So what happens next?
As I understand it, that is the end of the consultantation process. These are the revised plans and that's it. We have no further input. Its just up to the council to approve in Nov. Any thoughts from other concerned people?

Brian

Letter from MSDC

2006-07-27T09:10:00.001Z

Dear All

You may be aware, having received a letter
from MSDC or from the press,that Urban Initiatives
have recommended to MSDC and Thornfield Properties

"to amend the masterplan so that the residential
properties in Station Road and Queens Crescent
are no longer shown to be within an area where
redevelopment is to be encouraged".

This, of course is good news for those of us who
were against the scale of the proposed development,
especially where it may have directly impacted
our properties and amenities. We are grateful to
Urban Initiatives for having taken note of the
responses received during the consultation process
and applaud them for making this recommendation.

However, we feel it wise to remain aware that, at
this stage, it is only a recommendation. MSDC, and
their partner, Thornfield Properties, have, to our
knowledge, yet to make a decision and amend the
proposed masterplan(s).

Our response to the news should be one of cautious
optimism. We need to have confirmation from MSDC
that the recommended changes have actually been
applied before celebrating. We are endeavouring
to have this confirmed as soon as possible, but may
need to wait until revised plans are drawn up for an
exhibition that we are told will be presented by
the Council and Thornfield in September.

Although the recommendation is to remove the
residential properties from the scope of the
development plans, we have no information as yet
about possible changes to other aspects of the
scheme, if any. We have not been informed of any
recommendations relating to the northern side of
Station Road or for the station area, specifically
for Queens Crescent Park, one of the few remaining
areas of natural green space in the town.

Our position continues to be that, while we agree
that the town centre needs to be re-generated and
that the station needs to be re-developed to become
a transport hub for the town, these objectives can
be achieved without impacting the visual amenities
of properties on Station Road and within the
footprint of land currently available in the station
area.

Thank you for your support to date; we would
ask that you make local councillors aware of the
need to implement Urban Initiatives' recommendations
and of the desire to reduce the impact of the amended
masterplans upon visual amenities and natural
green spaces.

We will continue to keep you informed.
Burgess Hill Blog Team

Dear Burgess Hill resident.

2006-05-30T11:12:00.000Z

In a few days the consultation over the Burgess Hill town centre
redevelopment plans will be over, and if approved it will be
too late to change.
The town centre redevelopment project was presented to us
sugar coated with new station, New town square and many many
more attractions, while hiding the real cost to the residents.

If you object to hundreds of low cost, high density flats (Without
parking) in 6 story buildings within town centre.
If you object to replacing the current parking areas in town
centre with buildings and creating for the town instead under
ground parking facilities.
If you object to tearing down of the row of houses across from
Waitrose and replacing them with six story flats buildings.
If you object to replacing Queens Crescent greens with a hotel.
If you object to developers taking over the town centre blocking
it for the next fifteen years.

If you would like Burgess Hill to remain a small town with low
crime rate.

PLEASE HELP BY WRITING OR EMAILING YOUR
OBJECTION TO YOUR LOCAL COUNCILLOR.

Let them know how you feel.

Residents of Station Road

I don't have a problem...

2006-05-14T22:47:00.000Z

I don't have a problem with the areas proposed for redevelopment - except Station Road of course as I live there and our house is not on the new map! However I am trying to be impartial here... What I do mind is the height of the proposed buildings.

If the proposal was to the same high standard AND HEIGHT as the current Waitrose building (2 story), I think most people would agree with the development plans. But Thornfields want 4 story properties which as they are commercial units means the equivalent of 5 residential stories. I just think it is inappropriate to have this for our market town.

I also think re-developing the station is a complete red herring. Yes, it has poor access for disabled, elderly and even fit people carring suit cases! But that can be solved by installing a couple of lifts as per Haywards Heath. There is no way Railtrack will develop that area without a significant return on their investment i.e. high rise, high density shops/flats around the town centre. So I don't think we should support that.

During the consultation period, a consultant from Thornfields stated Burgess Hill has huge problems with parking - but that is simply not true. Yes it does get crowded in front of Waitrose most days, but the multi story car park behind Lidel is hardly used as is the car park next to the station off Walstonbury Way.

Brian

2006-03-26T22:48:00.000Z

Over 200 people attended this photo shoot!

On Sat 25th March all those against the Master Plan attended a photo shoot at Queen Cresent park (more pictures to come). The strong support received showed the united opposition to the proposed high rise development of the town centre.

As a results of our efforts, MSDC have now extended the consultation period for a further two months - until the end of July 2006.

A big thank you and well done to all those that have contributed to our efforts both here and elsewhere.

Brian Clifton
77 Station Road

Phil Evans - Re-development Proposals

2006-03-24T13:11:00.000Z

11 Petworth Drive
Burgess Hill
West Sussex
RH15 8JT
22 March 2006

Burgess Hill Town Centre Re-development Proposals

As a resident in Burgess Hill since 1968, I offer the following observations on the proposed Town centre re-development:-

Anticipated Benefits – It is not clear to me what the aims of the re-development are, nor what the perceived benefits will be.

New Station Building – The proposal to construct a new station building at platform level on the west side will be highly inconvenient for those travelling to Brighton, particularly those living east of the railway. In my view the logical location for a new station building is just west of the existing on the area of scrub behind the brick wall. This would be at a slightly lower level serving a footbridge with fewer steps to both platforms and with access to back-of-platform ramps (or the existing east-side road) to provide disabled access to the present platform-level gateways. This would be convenient for passengers travelling in either direction and accessing from either side of the railway. It would face straight down Church Road allowing (with improved footpaths) easy pedestrian access to the town centre.

Station Access Road – An improved roadway could be provided from a roundabout on Station Road to serve the new station building, the platform level access, and the station car park. It could if desired ramp down across the top of the car park south of Wolstonbury Way (which could become a cul-de-sac) and lead straight into Queens Crescent and thence to a roundabout junction with Station Road.

Transport Interchange – Bus stops on both sides of the new Station Access Road (extended Queens Crescent) would provide all that is needed for all bus services to call at the railway station.

Pedestrian Route into Town Centre from Station – As well as the direct route from the new station building at the corner of the Station Access Road (the extended Queens Crescent) and Station Road, an alternative route could follow from Queens Crescent straight across Station Road and into the Market Place via the former indoor market area (now part of Wilkinsons).

Church Road – Further consideration should be given to pedestrianising the top part of Church Road. A new road would run from Mill Road behind the north-side properties to cross the existing Cyprus Road and link directly into Crescent Way with a short length of Cyprus Road reduced to a pedestrian-friendly service access. This proposal would entail the relocation of Hole’s cycle shop and the China Garden restaurant. Service access might need to be improved to the south-side properties but this appears readily practicable. Town Centre bus stops would be relocated to the new road / Crescent Way adjacent to the junction with Cyprus Road.

Car Parks – The proposals for multi-storey car parks are entirely inappropriate for a supermarket area, where trolley access on the flat is essential. We currently have over 1100 off-street public car parking spaces, a significant proportion of which are easily accessible for such trolleys. The available information gives no indication as to the numbers of available spaces in the new development – the only certain aspect is that they will be less convenient to users.

The Martletts – This, the first pedestrianised shopping area in Burgess Hill, could be dramatically improved by removal of the gloomy canopies and provision of a high-level glazed roof similar to the Market Place. There is scope for improving the appearance further with infill shops replacing the old public toilets, which would be replaced elsewhere (but at ground level, unlike those in the Market Place.

Small Shops – We have a good selection of smaller shops but, in my view, there is too high a proportion of Estate Agents and Charity shops.

Large Shops – It has to be recognised that in a ‘country’ area major retail outlets are unlikely to see any benefit in providing any shop within 10 miles of the nearest similar shop. Thus Burgess Hill and Haywards Heath are in direct competition for any ‘big-name’ outlets, with Brighton, Uckfield, East Grinstead, and Crawley all probably being sufficiently distant.

Restaurants / Cafes / Bars – Recent years have seen the development of an excellent selection of restaurants, cafes and bars. There is probably insufficient demand to support significantly more.

Town Gateway & Town Visibility – An architect’s fantasy, if ever there was one! As a stranger to any town, the main visible items I would normally seek are the signs to town-centre car parks and public toilets. We should accept that the edge-of-town sign-posting is intended to direct through traffic away from London Road and either along the A 2300 or around the by-pass. Most people driving along London Road will be either local, or heading for the town centre or the Tesco supermarket, so I see no benefit in any special treatment in that area.

Queen Elizabeth Avenue – Is there really anything wrong with this?

Station Road (Lower) – Would it not be sensible to link this to the Civic Way roundabout, making access to Oakmeeds School easier and safer?

Conclusion - In my view, there is scope to improve the town centre in a gentle and considerate manner, with some limited larger-scale development, but with no need for wholesale demolition of mostly modern property or removal of the existing car parks.

Post-script – With all the proposed increase in residential accommodation in the area, where are water supplies to be sourced?

Phil Evans

Press Report of Residents Meeting on 19-Mar-06

2006-03-22T17:38:00.000Z

20th March 2006
Dear fellow resident,

This is a copy of the report which was sent to the Middy and the Leader following our meeting on Sunday.

Report of the Meeting held 3.30pm on Sunday 19th March at the Gateway Baptist Church for the residents of Queens Crescent, Station Road and representatives of other interested groups in Burgess Hill.

This was a very constructive meeting of approximately 50 people including representatives of other concerned groups in Burgess Hill. Three Councillors also attended the meeting as observers.

The purpose of the meeting was to update people on events to date and to advise on potential action to be taken up to and beyond the consultation period.

People agreed that all 54 Members should be made aware of concerns and e-mail addresses and template responses will be made available via www.kevanang@windyend.co.uk.

Councillors present heard some very constructive criticism regarding the process that is being followed however, grave concerns were raised about the validity of this process, with an agreement that legal advice will be sought in relation to the management of the process - namely, the responses being reviewed by the same people who wrote the Masterplan.

To mark the end of the consultation period all residents of Burgess Hill who have concerns about the Masterplans and would like to show solidarity are invited to the ‘Big Photo’ (a group photo) to be taken on Queens Crescent Park on Saturday 25th March at 1.00pm.

P.S. Some of you may have received a letter this morning from Anne Halligey at MSDC stating that the council has no plans to use Compulsory Purchase Order on properties in the “demolition zone”. We know this is stating the obvious, but residents shouldn’t take this as confirmation of safety. If our properties remain in the scheme’s development area, any planning application that adheres to the guidelines in the plan is likely to be approved. Our aim must still be to see that our properties are not included on an adopted plan.

However, this is an interesting development from the Council, as it seems to:

Ø directly contradict the arrogant statements made by Mr Jory in the press.
Ø support the statement made by Dick Lankester at our meeting.
Ø contradict the press comment made by MSDC after their meeting, that Dick Lankester’s statement was the opinion of an individual.

In this instance, it is encouraging that we have made them think about what they have been saying and how things have been presented.

Look forward to seeing you and your friends and family at the ‘Big Photo’ on Saturday at 1.00pm.

STAND AND BE COUNTED - THE 'BIG PHOTO'

2006-03-21T18:55:00.000Z

To mark the end of the consultation period all residents of Burgess Hill who have concerns about the Masterplans and would like to show solidarity are invited to the 'Big Photo' (a group photo) to be taken on Queens Crescent Park on Saturday 25th March at 1.00pm.

Please spread the word - don't let Burgess Hill residents be accused of apathy!

Regards.

Sandra

Redevelopment of Burgess Hill

2006-03-21T10:00:00.000Z

Dear Peter,

Thank you for an eloquent and well stated arguement against this madness. With intelligent and balanced people like you on our side we can win this campaign.

I look forward to re-reading your comments when they appear in the consultation document that is produced following this consultation period.

with best regards

JJ and Joe Beck
147 Station Road

Peter Lennard about Redevelopment of Burgess Hill

2006-03-21T09:44:00.000Z

Dear Brian and Nataly Clifton, and also your colleagues, Sandra Thomas and Kevin Newton,

As a resident in the area I was interested to see your own comments on the plans for Burgess Hill on your website, which I saw in the local paper, after we had by chance seen the "Public Exhibition". We were in fact lucky that as we were shopping and passing the Martlets Hall, the Town Crier was doing his useful rounds and was just announcing the exhibition as we passed., shouting out that visitors could come in and look at the plans and say if they liked the scheme or, aptly enough, if they thought "they were dreadful"!.

Having seen the build-up to this in the press and how the plans time-and-time again never seemed to be quite ready to show to the press or the citizens of Burgess Hill, we dropped the immediate shopping plans and went in, expecting like most other people to see a big display, and amazed to find just a few tables to one side, with a milling crowd trying to see the small sheets outlining the plans.

For an such an important Public Consultative Exhibition, we were very surprised to find that unlike other similar previous displays we have seen elsewhere for other major schemes, there were no large-scale scale colour coded Plans, nor a Model, nor an Aerial Perspective, nor any Elevations or Sections. In this computer age, there was no audio presentation showing the scheme and its development principles, main ideas, evolution of designs, or "Virtual Reality" 3-D walk-throughs, all easily done nowadays and to be expected if one really wants to involve the public in a democratic design process, if that was the intention really was.

Visitors did not appear to be pleased with the limited display, and even less so when they saw what it was actually showing, leading to some lively exchanges with the Council Members present.

When visitors had time to carefully take in what was proposed, and all this with just a week to make any representations, it could be seen that the proposals amazingly were actually showing the removal and wholesale demolition of the following:-

- 3 main supermarkets, Waitrose, Iceland and LIDL.

- One entire wing of the only just built covered shopping Mall, with numerous shops to go, plus the indoor market area, its popular café, and a major furniture store
- The town's main performance space and library including the new extension, other cafes, night-club, the present popular own square and its market, and the adjacent shops and pedestrian precinct.

- The town's double cinema, the Salvation Army Hall, and the premises of most of the town's dentists, plus a large office block.
- All the town's present reasonably generous car-parking areas which attract shoppers and visitors to the area.

It seemed to many visitors to be an irrational move to demolish so many new or fairly recent buildings and to lose in doing so most of the town key enterprises, commerce and functions, simply to build it all over again anew, and then simply propose to re-house the same functions in a different layout, losing many attractive and practical features of the present layout, such a covered shopping etc, to replace this by large windswept spaces. Many of those amenities once gone may not come back and may simply re-locate with better facilities elsewhere.

The new scheme shows no virtually no provision for safe landscaped user-friendly ground-level car-parking, as at present, but only some limited underground parking, inadequate and dangerous and a discredited form of parking, that most other towns are trying to rid of. Even on the basis of the designers' apparent aims, the underground car-parking would have to be a good three to four levels deep to accommodate anything like the existing amount of car-parking, which has proved attractive and preferable to the much more limited parking facilities of other nearby towns such as Lewes or Haywards Heath. Many people including ourselves choose to shop in Burgess Hill in preference to elsewhere for that very reason.

Shops will rapidly realise that, and be wary of the new limited shopping facilities being offered here. Far from attracting new big shops to come to Burgess Hill, there maybe difficulties even in retaining the existing level of shops, with shoppers preferring to go elsewhere. Certainly Tesco's will benefit, with generous free parking available, and where the expensive-to-build underground car parks will need high parking charges to cover their cost, another deterrent to shoppers. On top of the unpleasantness of using them.

The new "Town Square" has been oddly placed on the high level windy ridge on the existing Civic Way slip road, which traffic will then have a more tortuous route, bringing traffic pollution to St Wilfred's School. The Aerial View (not part of the exhibition, but usefully featured on your website), shows the sites as all being flat, whereas there is a substantial difference in level up from Queen Elizabeth Avenue and then even more steeply down to the St Johns roundabout. The roads shown replacing this area will not therefore be flat but quite steep. The 4 storey buildings around the new proposed square will be visually very high seen from behind as one climbs up to the square level, an effective six to seven floors high visually.

That main office block is admittedly a fine feature in itself as a landscaped free-standing block, as at present, but does not seem to really lend itself as a façade to one side of a square. This building, fine as it is, was never conceived as being simply a façade onto a square

The Council obviously decided not to commission its own planning strategy document, but preferred to go to a developer, who has, true to their profession, naturally chosen to develop....to re-develop what is already there to the maximum, by wholesale demolition of the heart of the town, and a massive rebuilding programme to follow, with row upon row of housing blocks like a 1950's New Town scheme.

The developers naturally instructed another London-based firm, an architect's office, to draw up something to conform to their development needs, and where the designers, sited 100 kilometres away, could not ever be familiar with Burgess Hill, or even Sussex, and would not at that distance have any chance of getting to know the area, its history or evolution.

The new "gateway" feature stuck isolated at the far end of Queen Elizabeth Avenue appears rather like a left-over from 1960's eastern-european planning, where the roadway is turned into a grandious Avenue of Socialist Revolution, or similar. The only redeeming feature seems to be a fairly sensible new station and adjoining squares, although the plan does seem to feature the station platforms, bridge over etc.

In all, the plan seems to look like being a potential disaster, not just in turning Burgess Hill into another Crawley, but in practical financial terms could ruin the town in the cost of a building programme, which is in many instances unecessary anyway, and by the long-term effects of businesses and shops deserting the town due to lack of parking, and inevitably even higher commercial rates.

We have known Burgess Hill for many years. Our son lives there, in Church Road, ironically in one of the worst buildings which this plan intents to retain. We come in very frequently by choice, though in fact we live in Plumpton Green, and so are technically outside the Mid Sussex District Council area, and are not actual residents of Burgess Hill, though we had been considering moving there, but this does not stop us have active feelings about the changes being proposed. So, forgive us as outsiders for stating our views to you who actually live there, but it shows that the state of Burgess Hill does matter to an even wider group of people.

We know in fact of other people who by choice come to shop and spend time in Burgess Hill who live well outside, some coming even from Crawley, because they like the town, its facilities, and how refreshingly different it is at present from other bland shopping-centres based towns. They will certainly be disappointed by these proposals which would turn Burgess Hill into that same characterless mould.

We can only hope that the Burgess Hill residents who were so shocked by what they saw and your organisation will be able to get this current proposal withdrawn, so that a more user-friendly, evolutionary approach can be adopted for the long-term benefit of all. A different approach is possible. It is not as the Council seem to think, that "doing nothing is not an option", but a slower moving approach of gradual change, in the context of the historic evolution of Burgess Hill, and a "lighter hand on the tiller", controlled by the people of Burgess Hill rather than an outside developer, must be the right way forward so that the people of Burgess Hill can appreciate and enjoy the evolution even as necessary improvements and upgradings take place.

Peter Lennard

My point of view

2006-03-12T17:57:00.000Z

I agree the town centre needs re-developing but does it have to be so high rise?

As I understand it, the exact area to be redeveloped has not been finalised and the plans on display are more of a vision. That's what worries me - the vision is of another Crawley/Croydon. Even if our house was not directly effected, I would not wish to live in a town like that.

Regards
Nataly

Councillor contact details

2006-03-12T13:02:00.000Z

If you would like to express your views directly to a councillor there is now a doc under the Links menu: 'Councillors to write to'

Please be polite and not be personal. These councillors are elected and work on our behalf. We just need them to take our view/opinions into account. Feel free to write to several at a time so personalised letters/emails are much more effective than mailshots...

Brian

2006-03-08T15:32:00.000Z

Hi Everyone,

I suggest a big presence at the Library on Saturday if enough people turn up with enough questions i am sure we can be quite disruptive and maybe even get them to add a further date because all the enquiries can not be addressed on the day.

Does anyone know where the Developers have developed in the past? How and why were they selected for Burgess Hill. Can a legal challenge be mounted on the award of contract? Maybe there are some lessons learnt from other people that we could pick up on.

regards to all

JJ and Joe Beck , 147 Station Road

Proposed plan in 3D

2006-03-07T00:19:00.000Z

This the proposed plan for Burgess Hill - a Crawley/Croydon look alike. Click image to open up larger window. Note the height of the buildings. Almost all are 4/5 storey high - about the same as the current Amex building (Sussex House), consisting of business units on the ground floor and high density flats above.

Feel free to add your comments to this post.

Initial test

2006-03-05T23:54:00.000Z

Just trying this out...