Plans for new town with 3,250 houses to ‘wipe out’ village that’s stood unchanged for 1,000 years
Eton College has unveiled plans for a 3,250-home development on 450 acres of greenbelt land near East Chiltington, East Sussex, that residents say would "wipe out" a village that has remained largely unchanged for 1,000 years. Modelled on King Charles's Poundbury development in Dorset, the North Barnes Farm scheme sits beside the South Downs National Park and has reignited a planning battle after a similar proposal was rejected in 2021. Campaigners argue the project threatens protected countryside, wildlife habitats and local infrastructure, while Eton is reportedly banking on new government planning reforms to improve its chances this time.
The development would increase East Chiltington's population roughly fifteen-fold, from around 400 to 6,000, and could ultimately absorb the neighbouring villages of Plumpton Green and South Chailey, creating a town of more than 10,000 people. Opponents, including protest group Don't Urbanise the Downs and local Liberal Democrat MP James MacCleary, warn of increased traffic, congestion, carbon emissions and strain on water supplies. The scheme follows the Government's announcement of relaxed planning rules granting a "default yes" to housing near well-connected train stations, with East Chiltington lying close to Plumpton station.
- Eton College plans 3,250 homes on greenbelt near East Chiltington, East Sussex.
- Scheme could turn village of 400 into a town of 10,000-plus.
- Residents and local MP oppose it over traffic, wildlife and infrastructure concerns.
New here? Start with this
Eton College, which owns land near East Chiltington in East Sussex, has proposed building 3,250 new homes on 450 acres of countryside beside the South Downs National Park. The site, known as North Barnes Farm, would be designed in a style similar to the Poundbury development King Charles created in Dorset. A similar plan was turned down in 2021, but Eton is trying again, reportedly hoping that recent changes to national planning rules will make approval more likely this time.
East Chiltington is currently a small village of around 400 people, and the scale of the proposal has alarmed residents and campaigners, who have formed a group called Don't Urbanise the Downs. They argue the development would permanently change the character of the area, increase traffic and put pressure on local services, water supplies and wildlife habitats protected within the national park. Local Liberal Democrat MP James MacCleary has also raised objections on residents' behalf.
The dispute matters beyond one village because it touches on a wider national debate over how England builds the homes it needs. The Government has recently relaxed planning rules to favour housing near well-connected railway stations, and East Chiltington sits close to Plumpton station, which is why developers see the site as viable. The outcome could set a precedent for how greenbelt and national park land is treated under the new rules.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Supporters of the North Barnes Farm scheme argue that Britain faces an acute, decades-long housing shortage that has priced younger and lower-income families out of the market, and that sites close to existing rail infrastructure, such as Plumpton station, are precisely where sustainable, well-connected growth should happen rather than sprawling into car-dependent locations. They contend that a carefully designed, Poundbury-style settlement can provide good architecture, local employment, shops and amenities rather than an anonymous estate, and that the new planning reforms exist specifically to overcome the kind of local objections that have stalled housebuilding nationally for years. From this perspective, some disruption to a small village is a reasonable trade-off for meeting a pressing national need in a location judged to be genuinely sustainable.
The case against
Opponents argue that a fifteen-fold increase in population would fundamentally destroy the character, community and rural setting of a village that has existed for a thousand years, and that greenbelt and land beside a National Park deserves particularly strong protection from large-scale development. They point to the site's rejection in 2021 as evidence that local infrastructure, including roads, water supply and schools, cannot support such growth, and worry that relying on newly relaxed national planning rules to override local judgement undermines meaningful community consultation. For them, protecting irreplaceable countryside, wildlife habitats and a settled way of life takes precedence over building on this particular site, even if new housing is needed elsewhere.