Major development at former Burgess Hill sewage treatment works approved

Photo of the works at the former sewage treatment works in Burgess Hill
Photo of the works at the former sewage treatment works in Burgess Hill

Plans for 325 new homes at the former sewage treatment works north of Burgess Hill have been approved by Mid Sussex District Council.

Outline permission for the site in Fairbridge Way was granted in 2014 but, because the process was not completed within the five years required, Fairbridge Developments and Glenbeigh Developments had to resubmit the application.

It was given the nod again at a meeting of the district planning committee on Thursday.

A report put to the committee said the developers had managed to complete some of the infrastructure work needed, including the decontamination of the site, highways work associated with the realignment of Fairbridge Way, and the provision of a gypsy site.

There was an objection from Southern Water, which said there was ‘limited opportunity to divert existing drainage apparatus’ and added that the layout of the site should be changed because ‘building over the public sewer cannot be permitted’.

The report said: “The comments of Southern Water are noted, however, it needs to be remembered that the layout of the scheme is not for consideration at this stage and will form the subject of future reserved matter submissions.”

The committee also approved plans for more than 40,000sqm of employment development on land south of the A2300, Gatehouse Lane, in Goddards Green.

It refused plans to demolish buildings at EDF Energy, in Lewes Road, Ashurst Wood, and build 54 homes on the site.

A similar application for 71 homes was refused earlier this year because members felt it was a ‘significant overdevelopment’, it offered too little parking and too few affordable homes.

While the latest application included fewer homes, planning officers felt there was still a ‘significant shortfall’ of parking and were not happy that no affordable housing had been included.

Planning officers reported that the developer felt the scheme would not be financially viable if it included affordable housing, and did not agree with figures from an independent consultant, which said nine such homes were possible.