Crest Nicholson has submitted planning application DM/26/1315 to Mid Sussex District Council for 49 new homes on the open fields off Old Wickham Lane, Haywards Heath. The public consultation closes on Tuesday 23 June 2026. The single most powerful thing you can do is file a formal objection on the council's planning portal — it takes about five minutes.
The council's planning case officer summarises every comment received during the consultation window. Objections submitted before 23 June 2026 form part of the formal planning record and are reported to the planning committee. Two steps:
Open the application's comment form on Mid Sussex District Council's planning portal in a new tab. On the form, set Stance to Object and Commenter Type to Neighbour or general public (unless you are commenting in another capacity). Use the prompts below to write a comment in your own words — please do not copy-paste a boilerplate template. The case officer summarises objections by theme; objections written in residents' own words carry far more weight than identical pastes.
Heads up: from August 2021 the council publishes the address (but not the name) of everyone who comments. The MSDC form can also time out — write your comment in Notes or Word first, then paste.
Once you've submitted your objection on the MSDC portal, come back to this page and click the green "✓ I've objected" button below. No signup, no personal information — it lets us track the strength of opposition and brief councillors and the press on the real numbers.
The lead ground of objection on this application is the unresolved status of DMMO 3/22 — a Definitive Map Modification Order application affecting the site. Because the DMMO is unfamiliar to most people, here is what it is and why it matters.
The legal status of the alleged public right of way over or adjacent to the site is unresolved. Mid Sussex District Council cannot properly determine a planning application that affects a contested right of way until that legal status has been established. The continuing delay by West Sussex County Council is not the applicants' fault — they filed the application over four-and-a-half years ago. But it means that any decision on DM/26/1315 made before DMMO 3/22 is determined would prejudice both the planning decision itself and any future enforcement of the right of way. This is a material planning consideration the case officer and the planning committee must take into account.
We have asked the joint applicant councils — Haywards Heath Town Council and Lindfield Rural Parish Council — to consider formal escalation routes, including a Schedule 14 direction request to the Secretary of State (via the Planning Inspectorate) under section 53 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, and a Stage 1 complaint to West Sussex County Council under its corporate complaints procedure. Those routes are theirs to take. In the meantime, the campaign is making the unresolved legal status of DMMO 3/22 a lead ground of objection on every comment submitted to MSDC.
We accept that, where the position of a public right of way is known and settled in law, a development can sometimes be designed around it. The issue with DM/26/1315 is different. Because DMMO 3/22 has not yet been determined, the legal status, position, alignment and width of the alleged right of way are not yet established. There is nothing yet for the planning application to be designed around. Where rights-of-way have been successfully integrated into developments elsewhere, the position of the route was already resolved in law before the planning decision was made. That is the procedural step that has not yet happened here, and the campaign considers it should happen before — not after — DM/26/1315 is determined.
Each ground below is a planning consideration that carries weight on this application. For each one we have given you (a) a short summary of the ground and (b) a few questions to think about. Write each section in your own words. The case officer summarises objections by theme — five well-argued personal paragraphs carry far more weight than one boilerplate paste.
How to use this page: open the MSDC comment form in a new tab, then write a comment that covers as many of the five grounds below as apply to you. You don't have to cover all five. You don't have to use any of our wording. Write what you know.
A Definitive Map Modification Order application affecting this site has been undetermined by West Sussex County Council since 15 November 2021 — over four-and-a-half years. Until DMMO 3/22 is determined, the legal status of the alleged public right of way over or adjacent to the site is unresolved, and MSDC cannot properly determine a planning application that may prejudice that route.
Think about / write about:
Approximately 11 acres of open grassland would be destroyed. Residents have recorded protected species on the site: black redstart (Schedule 1 protected, fewer than 100 UK breeding pairs), slow worm (also protected), alongside green and great spotted woodpeckers, buzzards, sparrowhawks and red kites. The applicant's submitted ecology evidence should be tested against an independent survey.
Think about / write about:
All vehicular access to the proposed development is via Gatesmead, a quiet residential street not built for the traffic generated by 49 new homes. Highway safety, junction visibility, construction traffic, refuse vehicle access and the school run have not been adequately addressed.
Think about / write about:
Wickham Farmhouse (late-16th-century, c. 1580) and Sunte House (Queen Anne, c. 1700s) are both Grade II* listed — a designation applied to only around 5.8% of listed buildings in England. The remnant countryside setting of both buildings forms part of why they are listed. The NPPF requires great weight to be given to the conservation of designated heritage assets and clear and convincing justification for any harm. The applicant's own consultants have admitted that development of this site "may affect the significance of these designated built heritage assets".
Think about / write about:
Local schools, GP services and drainage infrastructure are already under pressure. The application does not adequately demonstrate that the additional demand from 49 new homes can be accommodated without further degradation of services for existing residents.
Think about / write about:
How to finish your comment: close with a single sentence saying you object to DM/26/1315 and ask that the application be refused — and that, if it is to be determined, you ask for it to be considered by the Planning Committee rather than under delegated powers, given the significance of the site, the unresolved legal status of DMMO 3/22 and the impact on two Grade II* listed buildings.
The case officer must give weight to material planning considerations. Comments that don't fall within these are usually disregarded. This is the single most common reason resident objections get dismissed.
Help us track the strength of opposition. One click — no signup, no personal information.
The petition runs alongside the planning process and gives us a public headline number to brief councillors and the press. It is not a formal objection — but every signature adds weight. Please do both.
These are the people closest to the decision. Each one has shown engagement or support to the campaign, which we are very grateful for and we welcome their continued openness. Write briefly, in your own words, mentioning DM/26/1315 and the 23 June consultation deadline.
Detail behind each ground of objection. Open whichever you want to read more on.
Two Grade II* listed buildings sit immediately adjacent to the site: Wickham Farmhouse (a late-16th-century lobby-entrance house, c. 1580) and Sunte House (Queen Anne, c. 1700s). Grade II* status applies to only around 5.8% of listed buildings in England and signals exceptional historic interest. The remnant countryside setting of both buildings is part of why they are listed; Crest Nicholson's own consultants admit that development "may affect the significance of these designated built heritage assets". The NPPF requires great weight to be given to the conservation of designated heritage assets and clear and convincing justification for any harm.
Residents have documented the following species on or immediately adjacent to the site:
The presence of multiple birds of prey indicates a functioning, undisturbed habitat. Independent ecological survey work should be required before any determination of DM/26/1315.
The site was assessed by Mid Sussex District Council during preparation of the District Plan 2021–2039 and was not allocated. On 24 March 2026 the District Plan Inspector wrote to MSDC ordering it to identify additional housing sites to absorb unmet need from Brighton and Crawley. On 15 May 2026 MSDC published a long-list of 35 additional sites; the Wickham Fields site is on that long-list. The site is now under in-combination testing (May–July 2026), with a shortlist decision expected end July 2026 and a six-week public consultation later in 2026. Nothing on the ground has changed since MSDC's original decision not to allocate the site.
Five other candidate sites sit within walking distance of Wickham Fields — Lyoth Lane, Snowdrop Lane, two parcels at North Colwell, and Lunce's Hill — together adding around 230 homes before Wickham Fields itself is counted. The combined impact on roads, schools, GP capacity and landscape character has not been adequately assessed.