Another turn as Cuck-Stye decision rests in hands of Angela Raynor after new PM Burnham’s cabinet shake-up

Angela Raynor will make the final decision on whether to give the go-ahead to the building of 1,450 homes on the edge of Cuckfield.

Steve Reed was sacked as Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government in new Prime Minister Andy Burnham’s cabinet shake-up. Rayner is back in a post she held before controversy over unpaid stamp duty on a property she bought in Hove, forced her resignation. Now she again holds the key planning brief. That matters because the controversial Ansty Farm proposal, – nicknamed Cuck-Stye by opponents — sits before a minister closely associated with Labour’s drive to build more homes.

The Ansty Farm proposal would place a large residential development on farmland between Ansty and Cuckfield. Local residents argue it would erode the rural gap between the two settlements and fundamentally change the character of the area. Campaigners have said the scheme is not a natural extension of either village but a separate estate imposed on open countryside.

“During her previous spell in the department, she backed reforms intended to increase housing supply and make it harder for local objections alone to block needed homes.”

Opposition has been organised and persistent, with parish councils, countryside groups and residents all raising concerns about traffic, landscape harm and sustainability. The ‘Cuck-Stye’ label has stuck because many locals see the project as a symbol of overdevelopment rather than simply another housing application. Developer Fairax Acquisitions orignally had their proposal rejected by Mid Sussex District Counci in October 2025 before launching an appeal.

In planning appeal documents, the Council published the core material for a formal inquiry into the scheme which was completed during a hearing in Haywards Heath last month. Then Secreatry of State, Reed, made a dramatic intervention on day three, instructing that he would make the final decision and Government appointed planning inspector for the hearing, would only make a recommendation .

The Council justifies its housing numbers by pointing to the Government’s standard method for assessing local housing need and then adding its share of unmet need from the wider housing market area. In its latest housing topic paper, the Council says the district’s local housing need figure was recalculated using updated data and that the plan period requirement is then increased further to reflect unmet need elsewhere. The result is a total requirement of 20,667 homes over the plan period, or around 1,088 a year.

The Council’s position is that this is an evidence-led figure, not a political preference. It argues that the standard method provides the baseline and that the district must make a realistic contribution to regional housing pressure if its plan is to be sound. That is the context in which sites such as Ansty Farm are being considered.

Rayner’s return to the housing brief changes the tone of the debate because she has a reputation for being pro-development and willing to challenge planning inertia. During her previous spell in the department, she backed reforms intended to increase housing supply and make it harder for local objections alone to block needed homes. For supporters of Ansty Farm, that could make the appeal feel more favourable than it might have under a more cautious minister.

But her record cuts both ways. Rayner is also a politician who has shown she is prepared to take planning reform seriously and push decisions through a more interventionist framework, which means the case may be judged on hard planning evidence rather than on local pressure alone. That does not guarantee approval, especially where residents can point to traffic, landscape and settlement-pattern concerns.

The appeal is likely to hinge on a balancing exercise familiar across England: whether the housing benefits outweigh the local harm. On one side are the Council’s housing-need figures, the wider pressure to build, and the promise of new infrastructure. On the other are objections that the site is unsustainable, would damage the countryside, and would push development into the wrong place.

That is why Cuck-Stye has become bigger than a single planning application. It reflects the wider national argument about where homes should go, how much weight should be given to local resistance, and how far ministers are prepared to go to deliver new housing.

Reed’s sacking and Rayner’s return have made an already controversial appeal even more politically charged.