Backgrounder - July 2026
Background, Context and our Key Concerns
To download this backgrounder as a PDF, please click here.
INTRODUCTION
For the second time, Don’t Urbanise the Downs (DUTD) and its 5,500-plus supporters is fighting plans by Eton College and its partners for a major new settlement on farmland at North Barnes Farm, East Chiltington, East Sussex.
It would involve the construction of approximately 3,000–3,250 homes on around 184 hectares (450 acres) of undeveloped Sussex countryside. If built, the new ‘market town’ proposed by Eton would become one of the largest housing schemes ever proposed in this part of Sussex.
We believe it would fundamentally change the character of this highly sensitive rural landscape lying immediately adjacent to the South Downs National Park and place significant pressure on local infrastructure, wildlife habitats, farmland and water resources.
ROUND ONE : 2021 - 2023
We launched a campaign in early 2021 to oppose plans by Eton College to build 3,250 houses on around 450 acres of countryside at East Chiltington, East Sussex.
The isolated country parish has just over 400 residents, no infrastructure to speak of and forms part of a distinctive rural setting between the South Downs National Park (SDNP) and the Low Weald. It contains working farmland, mature hedgerows, ancient woodland, veteran trees, streams, ponds and an extensive network of narrow lanes, footpaths and bridleways. No street lights, pavements or even mains sewage.
At that time, Lewes District Council (LDC), was struggling to meet government demands for new housing with its limited land availability - the SDNP occupies 56% of its total land area. The sea on one side and the River Ouse - which severely flooded Lewes in October 2000 - also limit development options.
In autumn 2023, LDC excluded Eton’s new town proposal from its emerging Local Plan. It recognised East Chiltington’s unique character as one of the few remaining undeveloped areas of East Sussex - supporting wildlife, contributing to local food production, carbon storage, water management and providing recreation and wellbeing for thousands of walkers, cyclists and horse riders from near and far.
Lewes MP James MacCleary said then and repeats now, that: “Any development would urbanise a unique part of the South Downs. It’s a totally inappropriate site, completely lacking in the necessary infrastructure. The environmental impact is also very worrying - on animal life and biodiversity. But the most frightening thing about it is the traffic generation and carbon impact of all those additional vehicles.”
ROUND TWO : 2026
Since then, the government has imposed even more housing numbers on LDC and lowered the bar on environmental and wildlife considerations. With LDC desperate for a solution, Eton College is trying its hand once again.
In 2025, Eton set up Rownsmoss Wessex Limited, its new land development division, to manage a re-packaged project in East Chiltington for a 3,000-house ‘market’ town. In May 2026, together with land promoters Welbeck Land and other partners, it submitted an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) scoping document to LDC (Planning Application ref: LW/26/0191) as a first step in the process. Their stated aim is to submit a formal planning application by the end of this year.
DUTD’S RESPONSE
We formally responded to Eton’s EIA scoping submission, highlighting its fundamental flaws, errors and omissions (see Appendix 1 for a summary).
The EIA is the formal process used to assess the likely environmental effects of a major development and at this ‘scoping’ stage, defines what will be assessed, what may be excluded, the study areas used and how impacts will be measured.
We believe that Eton’s EIA is not a neutral or independent assessment. It is a developer-led document which Eton hopes will shape a future planning application and as such, it excludes or downgrades important impacts which should be independently assessed - especially for a project of this scale in such a sensitive area.
WHAT WE STAND TO LOSE
The scheme would obliterate unspoilt countryside and its protected wildlife, ancient trees and hedgerows and the Bevern chalk stream which is a spawning ground for rare sea trout - and of course, the farmland which helps to reduce the country’s dependence on imported food.
With its well-used network of footpaths, bridleways and easy accessibility to the adjacent SDNP, East Chiltington attracts thousands of walkers, horse riders, cyclists and nature lovers each year - giving town and city dwellers in Sussex and beyond, the opportunity to unwind and enjoy the peace and beauty of this unspoilt area. It would destroy the breathtaking views enjoyed by some 500,000 people every year from the South Downs Way at Black Cap and Ditchling Beacon across the Eton land to the countryside beyond.
East Chiltington has no mains drainage, no mains gas, no A-roads - just narrow lanes, lined with high hedgerows and ancient oaks - much of which would be bulldozed and tarmacked over for access to the new town. The addition of town street lights, would undermine the SDNP’s dark skies status (one of only 25 in the world) and impact on the bats, owls and other nocturnal creatures that call this special place home.
PEOPLE & TRAFFIC PRESSURE
Urban-scale development like this would also substantially negatively impact the setting of nearby villages and the erosion of green countryside separating the Eton ‘market’ town from:
Plumpton Green
Chailey
Cooksbridge
and surrounding villages and hamlets, like Ditchling, Wivelsfield Green and Hamsey
3,000+ new houses equates to 6,000+ more people and some 4,000+ more cars. This puts around 3.5million extra car journeys into the area each year - especially with few jobs available in or around the new town. This doesn’t include the service and delivery vehicles that will inevitably be coming and going as well. Add in planned developments in and around the nearby villages and these figures increase to around 8,000 more people and 6,000 cars.
The local road network was simply not designed to accommodate a settlement of this scale
Road safety is a real and major concern
t would take some 30 years to build the Eton new town, blighting the area for decades with construction sites, roadworks and heavy lorry movements
Move the circle to include the wider A-road network leading to and through the nearby towns of Lewes, Haywards Heath, Burgess Hill and Uckfield - all straining under the weight of new development - and it’s not rocket science to realise that the road system will simply stop working.
There are no motorways in East Sussex, so roads are already gridlocked as residents fight to get through to the M23 to Brighton or towards Gatwick airport and the M25, or to the A27/M27 towards Portsmouth and beyond or Eastbourne. Notorious bottlenecks like Cooksbridge level crossing, Lewes prison traffic lights, Ditchling village and North Chailey crossroads would be chaotic.
At Cooksbridge just 200 metres from the East Chiltington parish boundary, work will start soon on building 1100 houses adjacent to the busy A275 Lewes to East Grinstead road. At peak times, the Cooksbridge railway crossing gates halt the traffic up to 4 times in an hour. The queues are already severe - resulting in many drivers using the narrow lanes of East Chiltington as a cut through to avoid delays of up to 20 minutes. There are no plans to upgrade this crossing to cope with a larger volume.
The Eton knock-on effect will impact exponentially on the daily gridlock at:
the notoriously jammed ‘prison’ crossroads approaching the county town of Lewes
at the North Chailey A275/A272 double roundabouts to reach East Grinstead and Uckfield
through nearby Wivelsfield Green to reach Burgess Hill or Haywards Heath
the crossroads in the tiny village of Ditchling - already straining under the weight of traffic trying to navigate its traffic calming humps and single car passing points
It is vital that the wider picture for a new town - and its cumulative effect on both existing constraints and future growth - is considered
Transport planners GTA Civil’s 2024 study said: “There is a fundamental lack of sustainable transport in the area… Safe and suitable access will be difficult to achieve and … the impact to the local highway network would be significant and would require very extensive mitigation (which even then may still not be sufficient).”
WATER, DRAINAGE AND FLOOD RISK
The site lies within a landscape characterised by heavy clay soils and watercourses including the Bevern Stream. Our concerns include:
increased surface water runoff
flood risk
pressure on sewage infrastructure and its resultant pollution
impacts on local water quality
and the long-term resilience of drainage systems under changing climate conditions
The Bevern catchment is also environmentally sensitive and supports important wildlife including the ‘Sussex Tiger’ a rare sea trout which only spawns in Ouse tributaries and is already on the brink of extinction. The Bevern is also home to other rare fish and substantial mayfly and caddis fly populations which are also very sensitive to pollution.
Flooding is a real concern. The Bevern stream, a tributary of the River Ouse, which caused huge destruction regularly floods across the lanes and nearby fields whenever there’s heavy rainfall. A low-lying area prone to flooding is clearly unsuitable for a new town. “Building 3,000+ houses at this location is geologically stupid and irresponsible…” - Professor Julian Murton, University of Sussex.
It suffers from pollution caused by road run-off and by spill from nearby sewage works. In 2025 the nearby Ditchling sewer storm alone discharged raw sewage into the Bevern stream 85 times for a total of over 1,140 hours (https://theriverstrust.org/sewage-map).
Our water supply is at risk too. Abstraction is already depleting the underground aquifers we depend on and reservoirs now routinely run dry in the south east - causing hosepipe bans and a reliance on bottled water - as early as May this year in some areas. With global warming now a reality, adding this many more people into this fragile area would be madness.
AGRICULTURAL LAND, FOOD SECURITY, SOIL & CLIMATE CHANGE
Eton’s EIA scoping document refers to much of the site as Grade 4 agricultural land. While Grade 4 land is not considered “Best and Most Versatile” farmland, it remains capable of supporting agricultural production and delivers wider environmental benefits - some fields on the Eton land are currently growing thriving cereal crops despite the vagaries of the weather.
What Eton’s document suggests is ‘bad’ about the soil could also be considered ‘bad’ for development - having the potential to initiate run off, building subsidence and flood risk. The site also contains soils identified as slowly permeable, seasonally wet, slightly acidic but base-rich loamy and clayey soils. These soils can:
support grazing and food production;
store carbon;
retain water;
and contribute to landscape resilience.
We believe agricultural land should not be viewed solely through its productivity rating but also through its contribution to food security, biodiversity, climate resilience and natural flood management.
The Eton proposal raises broader questions regarding:
loss of carbon-storing soils
embodied carbon from construction
increased transport emissions
loss of undeveloped countryside
and resilience to future climate pressures
These issues form part of a wider national debate about how housing need should be balanced against environmental objectives.
DUTD’S POSITION
We are not opposed to all housing development. Our central concern is that development should occur in appropriate locations, supported by adequate infrastructure, while protecting landscapes, habitats and communities that cannot be replaced once lost.
We believe substantial questions remain regarding the environmental, infrastructure and cumulative impacts of the North Barnes Farm proposal and that these issues require rigorous scrutiny before any planning decision is made.
Concreting over productive farmland, obliterating the wildlife that lives on it, adding to existing problems with water and sewage - all to solve a housing problem that in reality could be easily sorted out without such wholesale destruction - would be unforgiveable.
THE WIDER PICTURE
BUILD IN THE SOUTH EAST?
Recent Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government figures show that the South-East has a disproportionate target of over 70,600 new houses to be built (with 35,000-plus already delivered), while the North-East has just under 11,000 to build, with just over 8,700 completed. (source: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy4qejvqv4no).
Why is this? Simply because house prices, including so-called ‘affordable’ homes, deliver bigger profits around here, so the developers - who make substantial donations to the government - make more money.
There are few truly affordable homes built around here; the overwhelming majority of new houses are ‘executive’ homes. People may be attracted by the idea of moving to the Sussex countryside at the moment, but the reality is that there soon won’t be any countryside left here to enjoy - and our wildlife, flora and fauna will be even more depleted.
DO WE REALLY NEED MORE HOMES?
Recent figures from the Office of National Statistics reveal that due to a decline in birth rates and net migration projections for the UK, the projected population figure for 2040 has fallen from around 80 million to an expected 71 million. (See the report on National Population Projections from the Office for National Statistics)
That’s a drop of 9 million people. Building on our countryside now - with the shortsighted ‘don’t bother about the environment’ approach being imposed by the government - will seriously backfire in the years ahead if instead of green fields and woodland we have derelict housing estates crumbling on sterile land where food was once produced and wildlife once flourished.
Many of the local housing estates recently built in Sussex still have empty houses for sale and others with existing planning permission have not been built because the developers stand to lose more money than they will make.
ONCE GONE, GONE FOREVER - THE ENVIRONMENT The site contains irreplaceable and protected wildlife habitats including ancient hedgerows, woodlands and veteran oak trees. It provides essential nature corridors for rare and endangered animals and birds, plus over 530 species of flowering plants, fungi, lichens, liverworts, mosses and ferns. Official records show 28 species of mammals including eight species of bats, some of them very rare; 121 bird species including endangered birds like skylarks, nightingales and corncrakes; huge numbers of butterflies, bees and other insects; plus numerous reptiles and amphibians all live on the site of the new town.
All this contributes towards genetic diversity, soil, water and air quality, carbon storage … and brings other benefits to us all. The carbon footprint of a 3,000-home new town in an isolated area, plus all its new infrastructure would be significant.
Don't Urbanise the Downs and its still-growing army of supporters will continue to fight to protect this beautiful area so that the natural world can thrive here and be enjoyed by future generations.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Appendix 1
DON’T URBANISE THE DOWNS RESPONSE TO THE ETON NEW TOWN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT (EIA) SCOPING DOCUMENTS
WHAT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO LEWES DISTRICT COUNCIL?
Rownsmoss Wessex Ltd/Eton College and their consultants (primarily Stantec and Bradley Murphy Design) have submitted a series of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Scoping documents and technical appendices to LDC. These documents relate to proposals for a new town of approximately 3,000–3,250 homes on land owned by Eton College at North Barnes Farm, East Chiltington. The proposal would urbanise approximately 184 hectares (c.450 acres) of open countryside immediately adjacent to the South Downs National Park.
The submitted documents include:
· Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Scoping Report
· Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) material
· Ecology and biodiversity reports
· Transport and access information
· Flood risk and drainage information
· Utilities and infrastructure information
· Early masterplanning and design material.
Don’t Urbanise the Downs and a number of statutory consultees and local Parish Councils have responded to these documents. All can be viewed on the LDC online planning portal (Ref: LW/26/0191)
WHAT IS AN EIA?
An Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is the formal process used to assess the likely environmental effects of a major development.
At this stage (“scoping”), the developer is defining:
· what will be assessed
· what may be excluded
· the study areas used
· and how impacts will be measured.
We believe the current documents are therefore not neutral or independent assessments, but developer-led documents which help shape the future planning application.
OUR MAIN CONCERNS WITH THEIR DOCUMENTS:
1. IMPORTANT ISSUES ARE BEING SCALED DOWN OR SCOPED OUT
The documents propose excluding or limiting assessment of:
lighting impacts
human health
soils and agricultural land
waste
accidents/disasters.
We feel that that important impacts may therefore not be fully assessed later.
2. LANDSCAPE IMPACTS ARE UNDERESTIMATED
The proposal would create a major urban settlement in open countryside adjoining the South Downs National Park.
Current visual studies appear limited and rely heavily on:
summer vegetation screening
standard viewpoint methods
and 1.6m eye-height visibility assumptions.
This may underestimate:
winter visibility
long-distance views
impacts from two and three-storey buildings
and night-time lighting impacts - which would compromise the SDNP Dark Skies status
The South Downs National Park is not consistently shown across all mapping.
3. ECOLOGICAL SURVEYS ARE OUTDATED OR INCOMPLETE
Many ecology surveys were carried out in 2021 and are now 4–5 years old.
These include:
bats
reptiles
birds
dormice
water voles
otters
great crested newts.
The documents confirm that updated surveys are still ongoing or incomplete. Despite this, some species have already been excluded (“scoped out”) from assessment.
The reports also acknowledge:
extensive bat activity
important bat commuting corridors
ancient woodland
veteran trees
habitat loss
and recreational pressures.
We believe significant ecological impacts are being downplayed or deferred to future mitigation.
4. FLOODING, DRAINAGE AND THE BEVERN STREAM
The site lies on heavy clay soils with poor drainage.
Concerns include:
increased runoff
flood risk - the Bevern already floods significantly after heavy/prolonged rain
pollution
sedimentation
impacts on the Bevern Stream - including the rare sea trout population which spawns here
and the practicality of SuDS systems at this scale.
We are concerned that future drainage solutions are being assumed rather than demonstrated.
5. WASTEWATER AND SEWAGE INFRASTRUCTURE
The current documents provide little detail regarding:
sewage capacity
storm overflows
wastewater treatment
and long-term infrastructure resilience.
A development of this size would generate substantial additional wastewater flows.
There is currently insufficient evidence demonstrating that existing or upgraded systems could cope without environmental impacts.
6. TRANSPORT CONCERNS
The surrounding road network includes:
narrow rural lanes - including Novington Lane which is single track with few passing points
constrained junctions
level crossings - Cooksbridge closes up to 4 times an hour now = long jams of up to 20 minutes already, causing impatient drivers to divert through East Chiltington
limited rail infrastructure.
Concerns raised include:
congestion
road safety
HGV movements
rail capacity
and likely long-term car dependency - 4,500-plus cars (plus thousands more from all other local developments!)
We are concerned that transport modelling may rely on unrealistic assumptions.
7. CLIMATE CHANGE, SOILS AND CARBON
The development would permanently urbanise approximately 184 hectares (c.450 acres) of agricultural land and pasture.
These clay pasture soils are likely to contain substantial long-term carbon stores.
Indicative estimates suggest the land may contain approximately:
20,000–30,000 tonnes of stored soil carbon
equivalent to around 75,000–110,000 tonnes CO2e.
Current documents do not appear to fully assess:
soil carbon loss
embedded construction carbon
or wider climate implications.
WHAT HAVE CONSULTEES SAID?
A number of consultees responded, including strong and detailed submissions from East Chiltington and Plumpton Parish Councils.
Key concerns raised include:
· landscape impacts
· transport constraints
· hydrology and drainage
· cumulative impacts
· climate implications
· and weaknesses in the EIA methodology.
Parish Councils have also questioned:
· restricted study areas
· the treatment of the South Downs National Park
· and the downplaying of local impacts.
DUTD is concerned that some statutory consultee responses remain relatively general or procedural at this stage.
Our concerns include:
· limited challenge so far to outdated ecological surveys
· limited discussion of bat corridors and ancient woodland buffers
· limited scrutiny of sewage and wastewater issues
· insufficient focus on the practical realities of rural transport constraints.
Some responses appear to assume that future mitigation measures will resolve issues without yet demonstrating how this would be achieved.
At this stage:
· no consultee has confirmed that the proposal is environmentally acceptable
· substantial further technical work is still required
· many important issues remain unresolved.
The current documents raise serious concerns regarding:
· landscape impact
· ecology and biodiversity
· flooding and drainage
· wastewater infrastructure
· transport realism
· cumulative urbanization
· and climate impact
The plan to build a new ‘market’ town here represents a major and potentially irreversible change to a highly sensitive rural landscape adjoining the South Downs National Park.
We will continue to press for further scrutiny of both the developer’s documents and future consultee responses will therefore remain extremely important.
Appendix 2
DUTD SUMMARY OF HOMES FOR EVERYONE BY THE COMMUNITY PLANNING ALLIANCE (CPA) DATED FEBRUARY 2025
The report argues that the UK can solve the housing crisis without building on the Green Belt, countryside, or other green spaces. It says the government’s current strategy focuses too heavily on mass housebuilding by private developers, which risks worsening biodiversity loss and climate change while failing to meet the needs of people most in housing need.
Key Concerns
The report highlights three overlapping crises:
Housing insecurity and homelessness
Nature and biodiversity collapse
Climate change
It argues that large-scale greenfield development threatens wildlife habitats and could consume England’s remaining carbon budget by 2050.
Criticism of Government Policy
The document criticises the government’s plan to build 1.5 million homes and loosen protections on Green Belt land. Its main criticisms are:
Housing targets are unrealistic and poorly evidenced
Private developers prioritise profit, not affordability
Mass housebuilding does not necessarily reduce house prices
The real crisis is a shortage of social and genuinely affordable housing, not overall housing numbers
Developers already hold planning permission for around 1 million homes that remain unbuilt
The Proposed Alternative: “Greenfield Last”
Instead of building on undeveloped land first, the report proposes a six-point sequential test councils should follow before approving any greenfield housing.
1. Prioritise brownfield land
Use previously developed sites first.
The report says brownfield land could provide space for at least 1.2 million homes.
2. Bring empty homes back into use
It estimates there are over 1.5 million empty, derelict, or underused homes in England that could be renovated instead of building new ones.
3. Convert empty commercial buildings
Repurpose unused offices and commercial properties into housing.
The report cites around 165,000 empty commercial premises across Great Britain.
4. Encourage use of spare rooms
Promote lodger schemes and incentivise homeowners to rent unused rooms.
It notes there are around 26 million empty bedrooms in the UK.
5. Build at higher density
If new housing is needed, use land more efficiently through compact, walkable developments rather than low-density suburban sprawl.
6. Build homes already approved
Require developers to build homes that already have planning permission before approving more land release.
Conclusion
The report strongly supports protecting nature and reframes environmental concerns as compatible with housing reform. Chris Packham’s foreword argues this is not about “NIMBYism” but about creating housing solutions that also restore biodiversity and improve quality of life.
It also calls for a “smarter, joined-up” housing strategy focused on:
renovating and reusing existing buildings
expanding social housing
protecting nature and farmland
reducing carbon emissions
and treating greenfield development as a last resort rather than the default
DUTD would add three additional points to this list:
Incentivise developers/builders to:
· refurbish existing unused buildings by removing 20% VAT requirement on property refurbishments and adding VAT to houses built from scratch on greenfield sites - thus encouraging building re-use and reducing the profit margin for greenfield development
· build low rise apartments as part of the mix. Apartments to be VAT-free to encourage developers to include them - and to pass on some of the saving making them a more affordable option for those who may not want a private garden
· Re-purpose historic buildings - in a 2025 report, Historic England estimated that up to 670,000 new homes could be created by repairing or reusing existing historic properties.
To download this backgrounder as a PDF, please click here.
JULY 2026