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

Revised Plans (Sep)

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

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.

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...

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

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

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