I would like to put forward my objections to the above plan.

I have lived in Loxwood for six years, and took part in the consultations for the original village Neighbourhood Plan.
The village fought, and won, an appeal for extra houses not to be built, apart from the original acceptance for 17 (now 19) houses to be built on land south of Farm Close. (17/02370/FUL). These have yet to materialise.
Now residents have been told that we should accept another proposed 125 dwellings on areas within the village boundary. I would like to protest on the following grounds:
1. The village is already susceptible to flooding from surface water and sewerage. Last occasion May 2018. We are told that flooding is a once in a hundred years probability. How is it that the village has seen flooding at least three times in the last six years? Ever heard of global warming?
a) Some houses have their sewerage manhole covers welded shut to prevent the escape of noxious fluids escaping onto the property. The Loxwood stream is, in effect, a main drain for the community.
b) New areas targeted for housing are all uphill from the majority of the village housing. As water flows downhill this does not bode well.
c) Overflow tanks are built under land south of Farm Close in order to relieve pressure on the sewerage system as necessary.
d) More overflow tanks have recently had to be reinstalled beside the main road through the village to cope with sewerage from the new Loxwood Green housing site.
e) The diameter of the sewerage pipe under Spy Lane was designed for the amount of housing in the village many years ago. It urgently needs upgrading/replacing. However, Southern Water have no plans in the next ten plus years to do the work. With so many additional proposed properties it stands to simple logic that the present system will not be able to cope.
f) One of the problems holding up the new Farm Close site I believe is that the sewerage problem has so far been insurmountable in relation to costings.
2. The village school is already at full. No plans have been made to increase capacity.
3. Transport - the village is very poorly served by public transport. A major problem for residents without the ability to drive.
4. The Loxwood Medical Centre will be over subscribed. For anyone requiring medical attention elsewhere transport is a major issue.
5. The main road through the village is very busy, especially at peak periods, whilst safety, especially in the vicinity of the few shops and Loxwood Green is poor. There are no crossing points for pedestrians. This problem will be exacerbated with the building of further housing. Parking is already hazardous.
6. There is little employment in the village, thus most who work need to use private transport. Further housing would increase this.
7. The village has some social housing and with more planned within further developments and high transport costs, younger people will seek housing and employment nearer the towns or further away. With train fares ever increasing, together with the cost and lack of sufficient parking in Guildford, Billingshurst and Horsham, commuting is unattractive. Thus the community is most likely to only attract older people.
8. With so much new housing built and planned around the Alfold, Dunsfold and Cranleigh areas the B2133, already a nightmare to drive on to and from Guildford in the rush hour, traffic will slow to a crawl. (It already does through Bramley and Shalford at these periods.)
9. Whilst a new Co-op store was promised on Loxwood Green there is still no sight of a beginning.
10. The village hall is very well used. Capacity may be insufficient if the size of the village is increased.
For the above reasons I feel that to burden Loxwood with the proposed additional house numbers is disproportionate and unfair, especially when looked at in relation to the very small number of proposed dwellings in neighbouring villages.
The Draft Local Plan acknowledges that Loxwood has no sustainable public transport links.
The Draft Local Plan housing provision for Loxwood does not meet the test for sustainability and this has to be considered to be unsound.