I want to object to the Draft CDC Local Plan and the proposal to allocate 125 incremental houses to Loxwood village. I am concerned that CDC has not followed established national planning guidelines in producing its updated Local Plan and has created an outcome that is not sound or sustainable for Loxwood.

1. CDC has not followed established national planning guidance in developing its updated draft Local Plan.
* National planning guidelines require local authorities to carry out studies of potential housing sites across its entire district and then consult with local Parishes and people on the options. This hasn't happened; instead CDC has shortcut the process and simply taken the existing speculative proposals that have been submitted by developers and based their allocations on this. I understand that CDC is under time pressure, and I understand that you have a huge allocation of new homes to find sites for. The service villages are taking a tiny percentage of the total district allocation. But remember these are very small communities and a big allocation will have a profound impact on the character and way of life. You should not short cut this process! You should be taking a balanced view across all 4 service villages in this area to find the best sites and best compromise for where the new development will go.
* In the existing CDC Local Plan each village in our area was allocated 60 incremental houses each. This seemed fair and proportionate. This time, as in the point above you have been influenced by where existing speculative development proposals have been developed and ended up with an inequitable and unsustainable solution for our 4 service villages.

2. The Draft CDC plan is neither "sound" or "sustainable".
125 incremental houses will increase Loxwood's size by over 40% and risks overwhelming this small village community. National Planning Policy Framework on sustainable development requires you to ensure that new schemes are sound and sustainable - and not just shoehorned into existing infrastructure with no regard to how they can be properly integrated.
* Loxwood Sewage infrastructure is beyond full capacity. Southern Water recognise this but have no plans to increase the capacity. The latest development in Loxwood at the Nursery site has had to have sewage holding tanks installed to create buffer capacity. If capacity is remains unavailable at the sewage works these will have to be emptied by tanker. Bearing in mind all the issues we have had in Loxwood with sewage overflows, spills, and flooding, building another 125 houses without direct mains sewage is not a sustainable option.
* Loxwood has no public transport infrastructure; the only buses we have are during the day for shoppers. People have to commute to and from work by car and the roads that service the village are already very busy at peak periods.
* Loxwood has limited demand for incremental housing from its existing community. New homes are generally bought by people moving into the village from elsewhere. As we have no local employment, this just reinforces the dormitory status of the village and increases the vehicle movements. Surely new development should be targeted in areas that have existing local demand for more homes and local employment opportunities?
* Loxwood is prone to surface water flooding. This has been a significant issue in recent years and we are concerned that incremental development will make things worse. Building on significant areas around the village will reduce the capacity for the land to absorb water in peak times and concentrate more water in the flood prone areas.
* 125 incremental houses will make a significant change to the character of the village. It will be a challenge to maintain the quality of the local environment. I conclude that the current Draft Local Plan does not meet the tests of sustainability and cannot be considered sound as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework.
* I ask you to reconsider the draft and engage in a proper process to develop and consider all options.