Policy S5: Parish Housing Requirements 2016-2035

The sites indicated as "achievable" for development in Birdham - HB10022 - are two agricultural fields that contribute a lot to the landscape character of the area. They are a considerable distance from the heart of the village, and most importantly are the wrong side of the A286, requiring people needing to cross a busy road. Although the area is not within the AONB it is adjacent and contributes to the general rural environment with distant views across open farmland.
Surely there should be more to planning than just deciding whether the odd field should have housing on it or not? There is a neighbourhood plan and settlement area for Birdham that has been created after a lot of work which should be respected and followed, otherwise what is the point?

I have some comments on the Chichester Local Plan I wish to submit:

1) S28 and DM24 Pollution
This policy as it is not detailed enough. I would like to see more monitoring and more measures to be included in this policy to ensure actions are taken. These should include Clean Air Zones introduced, cleaner buses, car free day, workplace parking levy, anti-idling zones, increased pedestrianised areas in our villages and towns, better joined up cycle network

2) Policy AL6 - Land South-West of Chichester
I am opposed to the Stockbridge Relief Road and the allocation of houses to Apuldram and Donnington as it is too close to the AONB, on a floodplain and destroys prime agricultural land.

3) DM 16 Sustainable Design and Construction
The plan should acknowledge the need for the area to become carbon neutral in order to prevent climate change.
Manchester has committed that all new buildings will be net-zero carbon. This should be included in the Chichester Plan.

4) DM17 Stand-alone Renewable Energy
The plan should put aside space for renewable energy as a priority. We need space for wind turbines, battery storage and more solar panels on the roofs. Provision may be required on the coast for enabling the connection of an off-shore wind farm.

5) SA5 Southern Gateway
This policy needs to deliver better plans for people walking and cycling.
The green space should be preserved and an additional pocket park added to the area

The city needs a welcoming bus and train station, a proper public transport hub with toilets, tourist information, waiting area in the dry, warm and shade and proper information with RTPI screens (not just bus stops). The current bus and stations are hideous and unwelcoming and are not in keeping with the rest of the city.

6) S23 Transport and Accessibility
A coordinated package of improvements to junctions within the city is missing from this policy.

The roundabouts on Westhampnett Road near Sainsbury's, New Park Road near the new Coop, Eastgate, Northgate, Westgate and Southgate need redesigning to allocate more space to people on bikes and on foot.

More bus lanes and a linked up and continuous network of proper, protected cycle lanes need to be introduced.

St Paul's Road and Bognor Road need to have less private car parking to enable sustainable means to be prioritised - bus and bike lanes.

Transport measures need to ensure that we reduce our carbon footprint as emissions in this sector are still on the rise.

7) Policy S5 - Parish Housing Requirements
A Second home policy should be introduced to prevent an over dominance of new homes being sold to non-residents.

8) Policy S30
Wildlife Corridors need support but the wording needs to be made stronger so that development within this corridor is not permitted. The plan needs a stronger commitment to the preservation of wildlife within the area, in its current form it is lacking.

All proposals should demonstrate that they will have a net zero impact on climate change in line with the government's commitment in 2008 Climate Change Act as a signatory to COP21 Paris Agreement and the IPCC's report published in the autumn of 2018.

I understand that you are considering an additional 125 houses in Loxwood, which is additional to the 75 houses built and planned in the passed few years.
I have recently moved to Loxwood and this may seem hypocritical for me to be objecting to additional houses, when I have just purchased one.
BUT one of my main concerns when searches were made prior to purchase was the risk of possible flooding which resulted in holding tanks being installed.
I understand that Southern Water have no plans in the next 5 years at least to increase capacity, so how can you be proposing increased usage of the sewerage system which cannot cope even now.
Further more why are the people of Loxwood being the subjected to additional housing when places such as Ifold, Kirdford and Wisborough Green have had little or nil development.

I am writing to register my objection to the above Draft Plan, more specifically to the allocation of an additional 125 new build houses to Loxwood as called for in the plan.

My objection is based on the following.

1. Sewerage already created cannot be handled by the present sewerage system as evidenced by the need to install sewerage holding tanks to serve the Loxwood Green development. Clearly the system will not be able to handle sewerage created by the addition of a further 125 houses.

There is little or no local demand for more housing in Loxwood. The Medical Centre site is yet to commence construction and the sale of houses at the Loxwood Green site is yet to be completed.There are no major employers in Loxwood and none are likely to locate here. Hence demand for housing would need to be generated from outside the village. New residents in employment would need to commute yet public transport is almost non existent, meaning greater road conjestion, polution etc.

For the above reasons the New Draft Local Plan is UNSUSTAINABLE and fails.

2. The CDC has not consulted in the formulation of the Draft Plan prior to allocating 125 new builds to Loxwood. The allocation of new builds has not been spread and shared with other service villages in the vicinity but has been driven by the proposals of developers. One of the sites proposed only recently had planning permission refused.

In developing its New Draft Local Plan the CDC has not followed the required process.

I was horrified to hear that the small village of Loxwood should absorb 125 houses when those being built at the moment cannot be served be the existing foul and surface drainage and another plot in the village plan have not even started because of the sewage problems.
Some house s still flood and Southern water have said they have no immediate plans to solve these problems.
The local roads within the village are dangerous at times particularly when children are being delivered and collected from school. The nearest main road to the village is the A281 which is totally inadequate to take more traffic and with no bus service and with no major employers within the village everyone has to use their cars to go anywhere.
The Council must think outside the box and if no land is offered by other equivalent villages then compulsory purchase should be considered.
I have lived in Loxwood since 1974, first on Plaistow Road towards Ifold and have now down sized to Spy Lane.

The proposed housing allocation for Loxwood is excessive and not in line with the requirement to deliver sustainable development, nor with the Council's own criteria for sustainability. 125 new houses are proposed, in addition to the 60 allocated in the current Neighbourhood Plan. This equates to an increase of 45% over a 20 year period, based on the current number of houses (450).
An increase in housing of this magnitude is not sustainable for Loxwood. The biggest issue in my view is the lack of adequate infrastructure, particularly in relation to waste water; the system in the village is already at capacity and Southern Water does not intend to increase its provision in its 2020-2025 plan. The village is in a flood risk area, which would only be exacerbated by extensive development such as that proposed in the Draft Plan. There is no significant employment in the village which means that new inhabitants would join the many commuters already travelling along the poorly maintained B2133 every day, increasing congestion and air pollution in the village; there is almost no public transport provision (one badly timed bus a day). Facilities in the village are minimal: a small shop/post office and a butcher, so that more car journeys would need to be made for shopping purposes. For all these reasons, the Draft Plan can not be considered Sound within the meaning of the National Planning Policy Framework.
In drafting its plan, CDC has allowed its proposals to be driven by submissions of potential sites by developers, without allocating houses fairly across neighbouring parishes. For example the much larger and better serviced settlement of Wisborough Green has been allocated just 25 houses, 100 fewer than Loxwood. This approach by CDC is not in line with national planning guidance which requires district councils to carry out "desktop" studies of potential housing sites.

There need to be small scale developments in each parish, not just the ones listed here.
There is no mention of a second home policy to prevent these houses being bought for use as holiday or second homes.

There is already a high proportion of second /holiday homes in CDC. They contribute little to the area in terms of life, jobs, local schools etc.

Our valuable agricultural land is being built on partly so people with enough money can enjoy a second home which they will occupy for a few weeks of the year only.

This is not sustainable development.

I would like to Object to certain sections of the new local plan. My particular concern is the large increase in housing numbers allocated to Loxwood compared to that required from the other 3 service villages in the North of Plan area of the district.
My understanding of the NPPF guidance on determining the distribution of houses is that local councils should consult with the communities to provide an understanding of the impact and sustainability of the proposed developments. This did not happen in this instance and the Local Council planners simply relied on developers coming forward with suitable land. There was no attempt to spread the houses over the other local service villages as was the case in the previous plan. Hence the Planners had delegated their duties to the developers.
Not only were the planners at fault for now working within the NPPF guidance but seemed to completely to ignore some of the sustainability issues.
For a start the sewage system is already at capacity and apparently Southern Water has no plan to update the system in its 2020 to 2025 spending plan. Remedial action has had to be introduced to prevent the sewage from the Nursery Green site overpowering the system.
Then there are the flooding issues where from time to time properties become inundated from heavy rain and when that water gets into the sewage system as well, raw sewage will appear in resident's gardens.
Travel without a car is near impossible in Loxwood. There are two bus services, No 42 to Guildford once per day Monday to Saturday and No 64 to Horsham one per day on Monday and Thursday. In both services passengers have less than 2 hours before having to return.
There are few employment opportunities in Loxwood and most people will have to use cars to get to their place of work.
The primary school is effectively at capacity and already has had to use its library as a classroom. With more than 60 houses from the current Neighbourhood Plan gradually coming on line and a further 125+ yet to appear the school will be unable to cope.
None of the above suggests that adding a further 125 houses to the village can be considered sustainable when judged against the definitions in the NPPF and CDC's draft Local Plan 2035.
I believe the decision to build most of the houses required in the North of Plan area in Loxwood should be reviewed again and spread them more evenly across all the service villages. It is difficult to believe that in these other villages that land is not available for development.

I would like to express my concern about the allocation of houses in Loxwood indicated in your CDC Local Plan Review, Policy S5 which has been issued for consultation.

Bearing in mind that we are in the far North of the area, we also have to contend with a possible 2500 house on Dunsfold Airfield, two large housing developments in Alfold, plus proposed development in Bucks Green and the ever increasing size of Billingshurst, which are all within a few miles of Loxwood. The extra number of cars that these developments will bring to area is enormous.

My concern is that the present infrastructure will not be able to cope with another additional 125 houses. There are problems with the sewage system in the village now and it appears that there are no immediate plans to remedy this. There is no reasonable bus service so people are reliant on using their cars. There are no employment opportunities in the immediate area which means people have to use their cars to commute further afield to Horsham, Guildford or even further. An added problem is the flooding of local roads when we have heavy rain.

Also the number of houses seems to be disproportionate compared with those allocated to other villages such as Wisborough and Kirdford.

To summarise : I consider the number of houses allocated to Loxwood is disproportionate and that neighboring villages should take their share, bearing in mind the inadequate sewage system here in Loxwood.

Small scale housing has huge benefits. It can be absorbed within village settings and dose put too much of a burden on the infrastructure already in place . But houses must not be 5 bedroom 'yuppie' homes for londoners who want to live the country dream. They should be 2/3 bedroom family homes for people who live and work in the immediate area.

The proposed distribution of housing has been made without any consideration to the issues that affect the delivery of some of the proposed strategic allocations. In particular Westbourne should be allocated more housing. This is required not only to sustain village facilities, such as schools, shops etc but also that it will meet a need a housing in this part of the District.

A further 125 dwellings at Birdham is considered to be excessive on traffic grounds because of congestion along the A286 into Chichester at morning and evening peak times.

I wish to OBJECT to the proposed Policy S5 of Chichester Local Plan Review 2035 preferred approach, which seeks to allocate an additional 125 houses for development within Loxwood - a parish that already had a neighbourhood plan with a large proportion of houses allocated actually already being built. I object on the following grounds:

The number of houses allocated to Loxwood is vastly disproportionate - almost all is allocated to Loxwood. That is inequitable and unfair.

The local waste waster/foul sewer cannot take the additional housing as it is - look at the Nursery Site and the need to install above gorund storage of waste as proof. And Southern Water do not plan do to anything about it.

No consultation with residents who did the right thing and made a neighbourhood plan falsely believing that development within the village was within the village's control.

CDC has been led by the developer and not by good planning and development practice. Shameful!

These developments are not sustainable - there is no public transport in the village except the odd bus that only runs partially during the week.

Please register my strong objection to the Chichester Local Plan Review 2035 to allocate an additional 125 homes in Loxwood Parish. This objection is because of the following:

Additional housing must be distributed fairly. It is against the principle of fairness and natural justice if Loxwood gets all the housing when there are two other villages very nearby that are almost identical in services and size that have either only got a small number of additional houses or none!

The local water and sewer system cannot take the houses that we have now let along more! Friends in Burley Close have had to have their drain covers welded shut because the system cannot cope and covers their gardens in raw sewage!
Just because a developer wants to make a buck does not mean that the community should be ignored - we are already building 60 houses more!

Loxwood cannot accommodate another 125 houses sustainably. We are a small village with literally no public transport.

We have learned with some alarm about the new draft CDC Local Plan and its likely effect on Loxwood, which is in consultation phase until 7th February,
and in which a further 125 houses are allocated to Loxwood for the period 2019 to 2035 (over the next 15 years).
This we understand will be in addition to the 60 new houses already allocated in the current Local Plan.
In total therefore this could mean more than 200 new houses in the village over the same time frame.

We wish to lodge an Objection on the following grounds:

1) Loxwood is not a well-situated village for further development. For the new houses already built in the centre of the village there seems little demand.
There are almost no employment opportunities in the locality. Loxwood has no meaningful public transport with 1 bus per day to and from Guildford, and
Billingshurst and Horsham railway stations are 15-20 minutes away by car. Most meaningful shopping needs to be done in Billingshurst or Cranleigh.

2) The Sewerage system in Loxwood is already at capacity and there are no plans we know of to upgrade or improve the system. Parts of the village flood regularly both with surface and with drainage water.
On the new Nursery housing site additional sewerage holding tanks have needed to be installed.

3) The roads around and through Loxwood, especially the B2133, are already overloaded and beset with speeding traffic which pay absolutely no attention to the 30mph speed limit.
Living on the "High Street" we have personal experience of this - incessant noise, big trucks and vans as well as cars going well over the speed limit (on occasion 60-70mph). The noise pollution
this causes is a major concern to many residents. More houses will mean yet more traffic, increased pollution and increased risks of accident in the village especially in the High Street.

4) In the draft Plan there seems to have been no effort made to share the housing burden across other neighbouring villages such as Kirdford, Ifold/Plaistow and Wisborough
Green, although 2 of these are defined as "service villages" as well as Loxwood. It appears that the proposed development in the new Plan has been driven largely by developers proposing sites
when CDC called for proposals, rather than by a more careful analysis by CDC on what is a rational and sustainable approach to meeting the national need for increased housing.

Having considered all these factors therefore, we would respectfully ask CDC Planners to review their proposals re Loxwood, on the grounds that they do not meet the criteria for sustainable development
and are therefore unsound.

I wish to object for the following reasons.
!.The provision of 125 houses in Loxwood does not meet the tests of sustainability as defined in the draft local plan.
2.Loxwood suffers major infrastructure problems as regards waste water and sewage. Southern water has stated that there is no more capacity in Loxwood, but has no plans to update the system. The nursery site has had to install holding tanks for sewage which then have to be emptied by tankers. Will Loxwood become a tanker village??
3. There are areas of Loxwood prone to major flooding. More housing will greatly exacerbate this problem.
4.There are no employment opportunities in Loxwood and no viable transport links forcing anyone living in Loxwood to commute using a car. This will overload an over burdened road system.
5. There is little demand for large open market houses as most homes are bought by people moving from cities or as second homes. The majority of new houses are unaffordable for young families and the elderly.
6. It is unreasonable for a village like Loxwood to have to accommodate 125 houses when Kirdford has no allocation and Wisborough Green has only 25.
7.It seems that CDC is accommodating the developers rather than the residents and council tax payers. This was all done without any consultation with the parish. This is despite the fact that National Planning Guidance clearly states that district councils should carry out studies of potential housing sites and THEN CONSULT!!
Therefore, CDC have not followed national planning guidance in developing their draft local plan.

The number of dwellings identified for Birdham parish is too high for the current infrastructure and road network and well beyond the current requirement of 50 dwellings. This figure has been met and/or is in the process of being built. Some mitigation is required given that half the parish lies within the AONB.

The wish of the South Downs National Park for 41 dwellings to be provided within the Chichester plan must be refused. Building within the National Park, given the number of towns and villages within, need to be undertaken to maintain the viability and prosperity of the Park.

It is noted that an allocation of 50 homes is proposed for North Mundham, and Policy AL11 will allocate a minimum of 200 homes for Hunston parish.

The B2166 and Pagham Road are the primary route for traffic travelling from Pagham to Chichester and the A27. The road network between Pagham and North Mundham and Hunston is already congested for much of the day. Traffic from these three villages meets at a small roundabout for the B2166 and B2145 via which access is gained to the A27 and wider strategic road network. There are already delays due to the recent opening of Chichester Free School, mitigation measures for which have not been implemented. To increase the number of homes in this area will exacerbate the problems already encountered by local traffic, which are already at an unacceptable level. The B2166 and Pagham Road are narrow, rural roads which are unsuitable for the current traffic load and it is dangerous to increase this further.

The Adopted Local Plan 2014-2029 states in Para. 4.9 "More limited new development is proposed for the Manhood Peninsula, in recognition of the significant transport and environmental constraints (including flood risk) affecting the area. Policies for the peninsula follow the principles of Integrated Coastal Zone Management, which seeks to protect the area's sensitive environment and adapt to climate change." For these reasons, the total number of houses for the Western Manhood was set at 330 by 2029, a target that has already been greatly exceeded. Now, another 600 houses (Donnington 100, Birdham 125, West Wittering 25, Bracklesham 350) are proposed, and the transport and environmental constraints, which have not changed in the slightest from the adopted plan, are simply ignored.

As a resident of Loxwood Parish, I have been made aware of the proposal to allocate a further 125 houses in Loxwood within the existing Neighbourhood Plan.
I do have genuine concerns about this proposal and would like the council to consider the following.
My understanding is that the National Planning Policy Framework (part 2) requires Local Plans to deliver sustainable development and if this cannot be proven then the plan will not be considered to be sound.
I am concerned that the criteria drawn up by the council to ascertain sustainability cannot be met by the proposal to allocate 125 more houses to Loxwood in the period 2019 to 2035.
I have been made aware that Southern Water has confirmed the current sewerage system in Loxwood has no more capacity and yet they do not have any plans to update any infrastructure in their 2010 to 2015 spending plans. This means the new development on the Old Nursery, being constructed right now, has had to have holding tanks installed to cope with everyday sewerage. Surely this, alone, is not a sustainable way forward in terms of cost and the effect on the environment.
In addition, I am aware that parts of the village are already prone to both fluvial and surface water flooding.
There is no viable public transport available in the village, there are virtually no employment opportunities and the village primary school is close to full capacity so any new housing will force all residents to commute to work, travel to school and make everyday journeys by road, in private cars.
Local estate agents will confirm that most houses that are sold in the parish are bought by people from outside the area and not people moving within the village.
These points, in my view, prove that Loxwood does not meet the council's own test of sustainability and therefore the Local Plan cannot be considered to be sound.
Finally, I have been made aware that the number of houses proposed has been driven by developers proposing sites that are being promoted by local land owners and yet no consultations have taken place at parish council level and no effort has been made to share the burden of housing across the neighbouring parishes. I believe this is contrary to national planning guidance that Chichester District Council is bound to follow when drafting a Local Plan, and which requires all district councils to carry out studies of potential housing sites and then consult with the parish council and residents.
I therefore object to the proposal to allocate any further housing to Loxwood within the period 2019 to 2035.

I wish to comment on the draft Local Plan in so far as it concerns the allocation of 125 houses in Loxwood to 2035.

I refer to the NPPF part 2 para 4. as follows:
* Sustainable development defined as 'need and demand for housing and employment in the area'.
* Infrastructure capacity, including water treatment, roads and transport, including public transport.
* Flood risk and settlement character.
* Availability and deliverability of potential sites.
* These criteria define a 'Service Village', which Loxwood is deemed to be. I want to take issue with this conclusion on these grounds:
1. Need and demand for housing in the area.
i) I accept that Loxwood is a popular and thriving village and a level of new development is indicated. However, it is unacceptable that by opting out of the process of identifying potential development sites our neighbouring villages have entirely escaped the allocation. Loxwood PC has been diligent and co-operative in this exercise and it's difficult to understand why Loxwood has therefore been burdened with an unduly high, whole area allocation.
ii) Loxwood does not 'need employment' in the area. As a satellite to Cranleigh, Guildford and Horsham among others options for local employment are many.
2. Infrastructure.
i) Southern Water have stated that any required enlargement of the main sewerage system could not take place for several years.
ii) Local transport is of necessity by private vehicle as just one bus a day travels out of and back to the village. How does this conceivably comply with the criteria for a 'Service Village'. There is no other form of public transport.
3. Flood Risk and settlement character.
i) The present flood risk in Loxwood is under control but is a continuing risk for any site near a waterway. There are many of these in the local area.
ii) Loxwood is a village. It does not have the infrastructure, employment, transport or facilities to be anything else. The expansion proposed will fundamentally alter this and the rural nature of the settlement.

In summary, whilst I accept that Loxwood must play its part in providing appropriate new housing, the numbers proposed are excessive and unwarranted and fail to take into account the potential for other local villages to contribute to the plan. Loxwood does not meet the sustainability test for 125 properties as defined in the NPPF, nor is CDC complying here with National Planning guidance.

The Western Manhood's requirement for affordable housing is fully met, we understand.
In the first 4 years of the adopted Local Plan Birdham has provided 94 (79 in Neighbourhood Plan, 15 windfall) houses built, under construction, or with planning permission, 88% more than our requirement of 50. If we are required to build another 125, we would have a total increase of 220, which is an increase of about 33% on our pre Adopted Plan housing total. The total district requirement, using the proposed figures, seems to us to be about 20% for the whole district. It seems to us as unreasonable that Birdham should accept more than its share of the District burden, especially as these houses would have to be built within a few hundred metres of the Chichester Harbour AONB, a very small AONB already under enormous pressure. It seems to us that a reasonable number of houses for Birdham to be allocated in the review period would be 50, as that would keep our village's growth in line with the district as a whole.

I would like to express my concern at the number of additional houses that have been allocated to Loxwood. 125 additional houses in a small rural Parish with some 600 houses and 1200 residents is excessive. In addition the sewage system is already running at capacity and these houses plus those already under construction will take it well over capacity and there are no plans to upgrade the sewer.
I believe the allocation is unfair given that the neighbouring Parishes of Kirdford and Wisborough Green have been allocated 0 and 25 houses respectively.
The allocation appears to have been dictated solely by land owners or developers offering sites rather than any assessment of housing need.
Peter Wilding - District Councillor for the Plaistow Ward

Loxwood doesn't have the infrastructure for 125 additional houses, particularly in terms of sewerage capacity and waste water treatment. There were terrible floods a few years ago due to blocked drains and culverts.
There is no public transport in Loxwood and roads are generally very poorly maintained. There are also no employment opportunities, so residents have to commute by road.
There is little local demand for open market and affordable housing, most people move from outside the locality.
125 houses are clearly developer led, contradict Loxwood's current Neighbourhood Plan and are not needed or sustainable as defined by NPPF.

I want to strongly object to the provisional allocation of 125 ADDITIONAL houses within Loxwood:

- We have already built/in process of building the 60 houses CDC wanted us to build - an additional 125 is extremely unfair.

- We are a very small village with limited facilities. What we do have is already at capacity - such as the school.

- The sewerage system is already beyond capacity with the houses we have now - raw waste floods people's gardens when it rains and the new development is not even allowed to connect directly to the network without over ground storage tanks. To then say you must have an additional 125 is not good.

- CDC Appear to have put houses where developers have put their land up - this is not the right approach. Sound planning principles and equitable distribution is absolutely necessary so impact is spread fairly in the area.

- Loxwood is not a sustainable area for public transport, with severely limited buses. No nearby train station etc.

Thanks,

Dan

I attended the public meeting on 9 December 2018 in this regard and wish to make my strong objections known. I do not believe Chichester District Council's (CDC) Local Plan (LP) to allocate a further 125 houses, plus small 'windfall' sites on top of the 60 houses already allocated in the Local Plan, are delivering sustainable development. This is because:

- Loxwood has little local demand for open market housing. Most houses are bought by folk moving from other places for different reasons.

- There are hardly any job opportunities within Loxwood and residents therefore need to drive elsewhere for work.

- In regards to infrastructure capacity and constraints, Loxwood does not have any viable public transport system. It's workers are therefore required to commute elsewhere for work. Also, Loxwood is seen as a rat run to Guildford, used by HGVs. Given the high volume of traffic passing through Loxwood, any developers should at least be required to fund a bypass to avoid the village.

- Given the significant development of housing nearby in Alfold Bars, Billingshurst, Rudgwick and Horsham, the roads in Loxwood would not cope with the increased traffic caused by the development of housing in these neighbouring parish councils. Our beautiful countryside will rapidly diminish.

- The sewage infrastructure for Loxwood cannot cope with an increase in usage. It is not sustainable to expect future developments to install holding tanks for sewage which need to be regularly emptied by tankers.

- Loxwood is susceptible in places, to water flooding and therefore should be avoided for development as a flood risk area, especially given that sewage holding tanks will need to be used in any new housing development.

- In the current Local Plan, Loxwood, Kirdford and Wisborough Green we're each allocated 60 new houses. In CDC's LP, 125 new houses are proposed in Loxwood; none in Kirdford, Plaistow or Ifold and only 25 in Wisborough Green. This is an unfair distribution and seems wholly driven by developers.

Based on the above, I conclude that the 125 proposed new houses in Loxwood, do not meet the sustainability tests defined in the draft Local Plan. Furthermore, CDC has not followed national planning guidance in developing its draft Local Plan.

I beg you to reconsider this proposal.

Please consider this letter my formal objection to the plans for the proposed development of 125 homes in Loxwood Village. Having considered the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework I find the proposition for Loxwood to be completely unacceptable and furthermore failing to deliver sustainable development.

My main reasons for objection are as follows:
1. Loxwood is a small village with beautiful surrounding countryside, any development would ruin the feel of the village and consequently the value of the village and its houses.
2. The additional residents would put additional strain on the limited resources of the village, specifically the school and doctors.
3. Loxwood suffers from issues surround surface water and sewage. With the sewage system acknowledging by the council as no longer fit for purpose. Any further strain would surely break the system.
4. The road is in poor condition and already too busy. No crossing for children to walk to school is even available let alone anyone speed calming measures! Further traffic from this development would literally present a greater risk to life.
5. Limited infrastructure in Loxwood means no job prospects for future residents in the village. Travel for work would be required and no public transport links exist bar one daily bus!
6. Loxwood housing struggles to sell and a specific demographic resides here. There is simply no supply for open market housing of this proposed type and volume.

In summary I do not believe Chichester District Council has followed the national planing guidance in developing its draft plan for Loxwood and I formally object.

I'm writing to object strongly to the proposal to allocate a FURTHER 125 houses to our little village of Loxwood, In addition to the 60 already allocated in the current CDC Local Plan.

Our house was badly damaged by flooding six years ago because the sewage pipes were overwhelmed by heavy rain. The drains literally burst, blowing manhole covers out of the ground and swamping our house with thousands of litres of sewage and floodwater.

The damage bill was thousands of pounds. My garden had to be dug up with a digger to try to redirect the floodwaters away from the house.

At the time of this disaster, Southern Water's representatives who came here on site visits confirmed the problem was simple : Loxwood's sewage pipes were already overloaded. The entire system was running at beyond capacity.

Since then, many houses have already been built. Goodness knows what will happen during the next big rains.

Also since then, many houses have been added to our crowded little village....60 are on the plan....and your Council is talking about adding another 125! It's lunacy.

None of our neighbouring villages have been allocated additional housing. I fear this is simply because developers have managed to lay their hands on land which owners are happy to swap for quick cash.

As well, the south end of the village where we live has one of the most dangerous stretched of road...the B2133 at Vicarage Hill where cars ignore the 30 mph zone and fly up and down the hill at 60 mph and worse, using our road as a rat run. These cars screaming through the village, past buses, a pub, the Church are a critical danger, especially to locals just trying to drive slowly and carefully on their own local roads to the village shop or where ever. More housing will only worsen this ever present danger.

Loxwood can not and must not have this inflicted on it.

Proposed Further Development of 125 Houses in Loxwood
I am writing to object to the proposal to allocate 125 further houses in Loxwood on top of the 60 already agreed in the Local Plan. Our village community spent a considerable time consulting with residents to agree sites for the original 60 houses, it appears we have been given no choice regarding this further 125.
Loxwood has very little demand for more housing as there are no opportunities for employment in the neighbourhood, and nearby areas outside the CDC in Horsham and Waverley have large developments which will cater for their employment needs. In addition Loxwood has no viable public transport and any new residents will have to travel by car to find work. Traffic is already heavy and dangerous through the village.
A serious concern is that of waste water. Southern water has informed us that the sewage system has no more capacity and that they have no plans to expand it. The Nursery site has had to have sewage holding tanks installed, having to be emptied by tanker, which will add to traffic congestion. Tanks to contain sewage for another 125 houses will need to be very large, with correspondingly large tankers and frequent emptying. Parts of the village are also prone to flooding.
Loxwood school has reached capacity and plans to redevelop or extend have proved impossible to achieve.
Allocating a further 125 houses in Loxwood seems disproportionate when compared with other communities.

I wish to object to the new draft CDC Local plan which proposes to allocate a further 125 houses in Loxwood.

This number will add to the problems of the Loxwood Sewage infrastructure and risk of surface water flooding, tragic for some unlucky people.
The developers are driving plans to suit themselves, very few houses being built for older people who wish to stay in the village or downsize.
Also, no public transport ( only 1 bus a day) for those that need it ( elderly, children) who depend on volunteers or parents, even for dental appointments, hospitals etc.

I wish to object to the unfairness of the plan. No effort has been made to share the burden across the 3 parishes. I do understand the need for new housing but only at a sustainable level.

What I really object to is the lack of protecting the environment.
Loxwood was rich with wildlife when we first arrived 24 years ago but is sadly disappearing. The last few developments in Loxwood have threatened bats, glowworms and reptiles. Also the barn owl who I saw regularly flying over a wildflower meadow (next to Loxwood Surgery and still awaiting development because the developers want to add extra houses)