Whilst I am generally in support of much of the principles contained in the document, I wish to object on the following grounds to the addition of 125 houses that it lists on top of what is already allocated for Loxwood.

1) Loxwood has very limited employment opportunities and the plan overstates the potential for additional employment in the village and surrounding area. The vast majority of the people in the village travel outside the area for employment. This will not change under this plan and people moving to these new houses will need to commute for work.

2) Public transport is very limited and is not viable for commuting to work, therefore all those who work outside the village are dependent on cars. Even with the additional developments such as Dunsfold, this is not going to change, therefore the traffic levels in the village will significantly increase, leading to more pollution and a deterioration in the lives of the villagers.

3) Southern Water have already stated the foul waste capacity of the network in the village is at capacity and they do not have plans to upgrade the network with their current plans that cover the period of the document. This was before the recent development on the old conifer nursery site. Therefore any new development must not be allowed until the network is upgraded. This must be a pre-requisite. We have already had a pollution incident with the new houses even though they are not all currently built and occupied. This led to the village smelling of TCP for days due to the disinfecting required of roads etc.

4) Surface water runoff in the village is already a problem and we have experienced numerous flooding incidents, the addition of all these new houses is only going to make things worse. It must be a pre-requisite to sort these issues before any new housing is permitted.

5) You talk about dispersing the houses across the villages, it seems to me the other villages have got off lightly or even with zero new houses and you have decided to push them all into two specific villages, Loxwood and Birdham. Therefore you have not fulfilled this statement. It is grossly unfair to expect Loxwood to bear the brunt when it has already taken more than its fair share of new houses. It seems Loxwood is to be sacrificed to save other villages.

6) The capacity of the Doctors surgery and the Village School are not going to meet the needs of the additional houses. In particular the current school site has no room for further expansion.

I urge you to re-consider and reduce the number of new houses allocated to Loxwood to a sustainable level that can be supported.