DM/26/1315 — consultation reopened Closes 31 October
Object now →
⏰ New deadline — comments close Friday 31 October 2026

The plans have changed. Please object again by 31 October.

14 October 2026

Thank you — your objections made a difference. Because so many of us spoke up, both the Town Council and the Parish Council have formally objected, and even the council's own landscape advisers have raised serious concerns. No official body has recommended approving this.

But we need you one more time. Crest Nicholson has revised its plans for 49 houses on Wickham Fields, and the council has reopened the consultation. The changes are mostly cosmetic — new house designs and landscaping — and they don't fix the real problems.

Because the plans have changed, your earlier objection no longer counts on its own. Please object again — by 31 October 2026.

Open the comment form → See the case against

No link? Search DM/26/1315 at pa.midsussex.gov.uk and open the "Make a Comment" tab.

What Crest Nicholson wants to build

49 houses on 11 acres of open countryside

The developer's own layout for the fields off Gatesmead, on the edge of Haywards Heath. All traffic in and out would use Gatesmead — a quiet residential cul-de-sac — and the new estate road would cross a public footpath.

Crest Nicholson's planning layout for 49 houses on Land West of Gatesmead, Wickham Fields, on an aerial photograph — housing filling the open fields between the railway to the west and existing homes to the east, with all access from Gatesmead.
Crest's revised layout, Aug 2026 (drawing 25714/5000H). Tap to enlarge.
49
new houses
~11
acres of open countryside
130+
parking spaces
17
trees lost, incl. 2 oaks

No official body has recommended approval. Both councils have objected, the council's own landscape advisers have "substantial concerns", and the highways and flood authorities have not signed it off.

One thing matters: object before 31 October

It takes a few minutes. Write a few lines in your own words — the points below will help.

Open the comment form →

On the form, set Stance → Object. Please write in your own words — identical, copied objections carry less weight.

The case, side by side

What Crest claims — and what's actually true

The developer's revised reports put the best gloss on the scheme. Here is what the council's own experts and the objecting councils say in response.

🌳 Landscape & open countryside
Crest claims A well-designed, "landscape-led" scheme with open space and planting that sits comfortably on the countryside edge.
The reality It builds over ~11 acres of valued open countryside. The council's own landscape advisers call it "not landscape-led" and judge major harm to landscape character and the historic field pattern — where Crest's own assessment claimed only moderate harm. Backed by: Place Services, MSDC's landscape adviser
🚸 Access & road safety
Crest claims Safe and acceptable access for 49 homes from Gatesmead.
The reality West Sussex Highways has not approved it — it returned "more information". The Road Safety Audit flags unresolved pedestrian-safety defects (crossing visibility below the 1.5m minimum; no footway on the northern side), and Crest says it is "not willing" to provide the safer footpath the highway authority prefers. Backed by: WSCC Highways + Stage 1 Road Safety Audit
💧 Flooding & drainage
Crest claims Surface-water drainage designed to the required standard.
The reality Crest admits its original flood calculations used out-of-date rainfall data and had to be rebuilt — the climate-change allowance rose to 45%, with surcharging shown in 1-in-30 and 1-in-100 storms. The flood authority has not confirmed it is now satisfied. Backed by: Crest's own drainage submission to the flood authority
🦔 Wildlife & trees
Crest claims A biodiversity net gain, with new planting and habitat.
The reality The revised metric still shows a ~39% net loss of habitat on the site itself, relying on off-site credits that haven't been shown to be real or secured. 17 trees would be lost, including 2 protected oaks the Tree Officer asked them to keep. Backed by: Crest's own BNG metric + MSDC Tree Officer
⚖️ The footpath — decide it first
Crest claims The application is ready to be decided now.
The reality A public right-of-way claim over this land (DMMO 3/22) has been undetermined since November 2021. Both councils say the application shouldn't be decided until that's resolved — deciding now risks prejudicing the footpath and the people who use it. Backed by: Haywards Heath Town Council & Lindfield Parish Council

Who has objected

Haywards Heath Town CouncilObjects
Lindfield Parish CouncilObjects
Place Services (MSDC landscape)Substantial concerns
WSCC HighwaysNot approved
Lead Local Flood AuthorityDrainage objections
MSDC Tree OfficerObjects
Not a single statutory consultee has recommended approving this scheme.
Why the developer's case is weak

Nine reasons this application should be refused

Pick the ones that matter to you and put them in your own words when you object.

  1. Nobody official backs it. No statutory consultee recommends approval — both town and parish councils object, and the council's own advisers are against the design.
  2. The council's own expert contradicts the developer's expert. Crest's landscape assessment claimed only moderate harm; Place Services judges major adverse effects and calls the scheme "not landscape-led".
  3. Highways is unresolved — and Crest won't fix it. West Sussex Highways returned "more information", not approval. The Road Safety Audit flags crossing visibility below the 1.5m minimum and no footway on the northern side — and Crest says it is "not willing" to provide the safer footpath the authority wants. It's putting house numbers ahead of a safer design.
  4. The drainage case collapsed and had to be rebuilt. Crest admits its original calculations used out-of-date rainfall data; the climate-change allowance had to rise to 45%, and surcharging showed in 1-in-30 and 1-in-100 storms. The flood authority hasn't confirmed it's now satisfied.
  5. It loses wildlife habitat on a site it calls a biodiversity gain. The revised metric still shows a ~39% net loss of habitat on site, leaning on off-site credits that haven't been shown to be real, registered or secured for 30 years.
  6. They replaced their heritage expert mid-application. The August heritage statement wholly replaces the original — a sign the first heritage case didn't hold up.
  7. It sacrifices protected trees for houses. 17 trees would be lost, including 2 protected oaks; the Tree Officer asked Crest to drop two plots to save them, and they didn't.
  8. It's premature. The DMMO 3/22 right-of-way claim has been undetermined since November 2021. Deciding the application first risks prejudicing it — which is why both councils want it deferred.
  9. The revisions are only cosmetic. New elevations, materials and landscaping — none of which touches the in-principle harm of 49 houses on 11 acres of open countryside.
Open the comment form and object →
For context

Why you have to object again

Why doesn't my earlier objection still count?

Your earlier objection was about the original plans. Crest then revised the scheme (new reports in August, re-submitted October 2026), so the council reopened the consultation and will weigh comments on the revised plans. A previous objection doesn't automatically carry across. A fresh, short objection — even just confirming your objection still stands against the new plans — is what counts now.

The application in brief
  • Reference: DM/26/1315
  • Site: Land West of Gatesmead, Wickham Fields, Haywards Heath
  • Proposal: 49 new homes with open space and associated infrastructure
  • Applicant: Crest Nicholson
  • Case officer: Caroline Grist, Mid Sussex District Council
  • Comments close: 31 October 2026
  • Portal: application summary · comment form