The planning application for a proposed Homebase on part of the Triangle site is ill-founded and unjustified – there is no demonstrative need for this development, which is an overdevelopment of the location, and conflicts with the existing planning policies for the Triangle site and for the town.

The application is not just for a DIY store, but a superstore that would provide a range of household and gardening goods, and would provide floor space equivalent to a third of the size of the proposed town centre redevelopment, which Mid Sussex District Council is meant to be championing. If this development went ahead with the associated free parking it would be in direct competition with the town centre, but without the constraint of the increased parking charges that the town centre will have to bear under the Conservative administration’s policies.

Local residents are rightly concerned this overdevelopment of the Triangle site could lead to increased overspill parking and congestion problems in the surrounding residential area.

A Town Council commissioned report on the application lists a range of seventeen established planning policies that any application would overturn if it was approved by Mid Sussex District Council. It is disappointing that the District Council’s appointed representatives, Thornfields, have seen fit to put forward these proposals that would be detrimental to the town centre redevelopment plans they are proposing on behalf of the Council.

The full specially commissioned from Planning Consultant Richard Walker can be found as an appendix to the agenda for the 6th April Town Council Planning Committee – see http://www.burgesshill.gov.uk/sites/www.burgesshill.gov.uk/files/HOMEBASE_REPORT_6apr09.pdf. The report forms a key part of the Town Council’s objections to the plan.

The proposed store would be located on land earmarked for leisure, being built on some of the existing parking provision and landscaping, and therefore reducing the potential for expansion of the Triangle site, particularly given the plans for the future growth in the town’s population.

The scheme is an overdevelopment of the site and according to the Town Council’s report only provides two thirds of the amount of parking required under planning policies for a development of this size, this would in all likelihood lead to competition with users of the Triangle for parking and to congestion on site and in surrounding residential areas such as the Acorns.

The new store would create a flow of heavy goods vehicles requiring access to the store at the entrance to the Triangle which would conflict with other road users, and which this over development would put pressure on the Acorns/Triangle Way roundabout.

The scheme would conflict with existing policies of promoting a thriving range of shops in the town centre, no compelling need for the store has been established and there is in any case no need to build at this site as alternative locations exist, including on the Victoria Industrial Estate that would be more in keeping with planning policies.

The development would destroy the existing landscaping of the Triangle, the new building would dominate the main view of the Leisure Centre and could therefore have a detrimental effect on what is in effect the main gateway access route to Burgess Hill;

Currently the only pedestrian access to St Paul’s Catholic College is by an underpass which is accessed through a car park at the Triangle, which under the proposal would be via the Homebase car park itself, rather than what is really needed, via a dedicated access route. The development would impede the use of part of the parking area as an informal dropping off point for St Paul’s pupils.

The sustainability statement by the applicants makes no mention of the developments projected BREEM standard (a measure of the environmental impact of new commercial buildings) and it is disappointing that the building does not seem to seek to meet a High BREEM standard building standard. The scheme has no target for onsite renewable energy generation which should be a requirement for all large commercial buildings and the sustainability statement lacks any specific targets on energy efficiency or CO2 reduction.

It remains to be seen if the District Council will put aside their commercial interest in obtaining capital receipts from the sale of the Triangle site, and put the interests of Burgess Hill and a thriving town centre first – having pre-empted their own review of leisure facilities in the District by allowing the land to be used for this purpose by Thornfields.

The Town Council Planning Committee at its meeting on 6th April voted to strongly oppose the application and to write to Mid Sussex District Council’s Chief Planner protesting at the muddle that planning policies would be in if the plan was approved. The application goes to the District Planning Committee at a date yet to be confirmed in June.