A HOUSING boom has forced changes to Burgess Hill's bulging boundaries.
And town councillors have now issued a hands-off warning to developers as they fear local services may crack under the strain.
New parish borders have had to be drawn up because of the thousands of extra homes built in the last 20 years.
Most of the homes have been built on the outskirts of the town, in some cases pushing into local rural parishes such as Hurstpierpoint.
New polling wards have been drawn up, creating seats for two new councillors to represent the growing Burgess Hill electorate. The changes take effect from April 1.
Pressure is being brought by the Government for councillors to find space for thousands of new homes in Mid Sussex. But councillors want any new developments to be well outside Burgess Hill.
Town council planning committee chairman Tony Balsdon said: "Burgess Hill needs a period of consolidation.
"We have set a very good platform for a town and Burgess Hill must be allowed to mature in the 21st Century."
Town council chairman Heather Ross said: "Several times we have said in the council chamber that we have enough development. We have to say now that it now has to be kept intact."
Voters will be informed of their new areas before any elections, the first of which is May 4 and concerns five wards.
One of the larger areas being considered is the Hammonds Farm estate, the last major development in the town.
The new boundary line will run down the centre of Jane Murray Way, a distributor road running on the southwestern outskirts of the town.
The changes mean that the old North ward in the Maple Drive area will be abolished.
Voters will become part of two new wards, Burgess Hill Dunstall, around Dunstall Avenue, and Burgess Hill Leylands, around Leylands Park.
The northern boundary of the existing ward of Chanctonbury will move to the centre of Queen Elizabeth Avenue, which runs from London Road to Civic Way. Also the existing ward of Burgess Hill West will be known as Victoria Ward.
Due to the changes the annual town council meeting will be on May 8, not May 2.
Converted for the new archive on 30 June 2000. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article