Policy S5: Parish Housing Requirements 2016-2035

I strongly object to the proposal to build an additional 125 in and around Loxwood village.
I base my objections as follows:


* What employment prospects are there here in Loxwood for these proposed new residents?
* Bearing in mind the sewage system is at capacity, how can these extra residences be accommodated?
* Loxwood has a unique character and to impose these extra houses will alter that unique character and be detrimental to its character.
* There are many other locations within the local area which could accommodate these extra houses and be closer to amenities.
* The transport system would not be capable of coping with the extra amount demanded.
* Access onto the road network would produce congestion and pollution.
* There is no employment in or near Loxwood therefore car movements in and out of the village will increase dramatically.
* Increase in car movements and the lack of a decent road network may cause accidents
* If the sewage system cannot cope then sewage tankers will have to empty sewage tanks thus causing extra disturbance and pollution
* The local authority should be trying to cut back on potential pollution instead of imposing it on Loxwood village
* New homes should be built closer to main town communities which have facilities and good transport links.
* Loxwood does not have good transport links
* Road safety will become a major issue

I am writing to object to the proposed plans for development in Loxwood. A small village with limited infrastructure 125 homes is clearly an unreasonable amount to be built in the area and many other sites in surrounding areas are far more appropriate.

The NPPF requirements are clearly not met by this development plan. Based upon this the following are primarily my reasons for objection:

1. Road noise. A small road running through the main centre of the village is already busy enough. It is dangerous, no speed carming measures are in place and it will inevitably continue to cause accidents. The additional traffic this development would bring is unacceptable.

2. The pre school, school and doctors are already at capacity and can not cope with additional residents.

3. There is no need for additional homes in the area. People do not move to Loxwood in great numbers, it is a small unique village with no commuter benefits or job prospects where people chose to locate for the quiet village life style. The development already done here is struggling to sell and the demand for such housing in such a location is clearly not there.

4. There are no available sites in the village which would not impact on current residents and or destroy green belt.

5. Loxwood is prone to flooding and the sewage system is already at capacity with no plans by the council to replace or expand this. The village simply can't take the strain of additional housing.

6. There are limited transport links, no train, and a single bus per day.

I invite you to reconsider your decision and register my formal objection to this over-site of the national planning policy.

OBJECTION TO LOXWOOD DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL - NEW DRAFT LOCAL PLAN (NLP)

In response to local and national housing need, Loxwood Village put forward a Local Development Plan, after much consultation, which allowed for 60 houses to be built within the village and these are already underway.

A New (Draft) Local Draft Plan is now under consultation and it is to this new NLP that I object. With regard to the soundness of the Plan, there are a number of issues to comment on. Firstly, the collection of sewage is already an issue, Southern Water having stated that Loxwood has no more capacity within its infrastructure for more disposal. Indeed, the new site at Loxwood Green has had to have sewage collection/holding tanks installed and these have to be emptied, so to have a proposal of some 125 extra dwellings seems to be wrong in terms of sustainable development.

Secondly, the public transport service in Loxwood is very poor, leaving residents with little choice but to use cars for shopping, commuting and recreation. There is little chance of employment within Loxwood, and residents have to commute by car to their place of work. Adding extra traffic caused by the NLP to an already busy and dangerous thoroughfare (the only road through the village) is counter to the sustainability of the Plan.

The fairness of this Plan is also unsafe. Neighbouring villages have not been allocated any development, and Wisborough Green has been allocated only 25. The huge number of houses proposed in Loxwood has been driven by developers proposing sites, with no parish consultation taking place about site allocations and it seems unfair that villages are not taking their share of the burden of new development. National planning guidance states that consultation should have taken place, and it would seem that Chichester District Council has not followed these guidelines.

I understand that new housing is needed but would like to state that Loxwood does not have the resources of roadways, public transport, employment opportunities, shops etc and it is for these reasons that I object strongly to this new proposal. Efforts should be made to find alternative sites for development outside Loxwood

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.

I wish to object to the proposed plan of an additional 125 houses in Loxwood for the following reasons:-

1. Residents put forward their Neighbourhood Plan, which was approved in 2014, in accordance with the Government's recommendations. A lot of time and effort went into this procedure which now seems a complete waste of time if this is being over-ruled to accommodate more housing in a small village.
2. There have been sewage problems on the new Loxwood Green estate so more housing would just exacerbate this problem. Parts of the village are already prone to flooding.
3. Has adequate research been carried out that additional housing is required in Loxwood as opposed to similar villages in the area which have not been earmarked for such an increased development i.e. Wisborough Green, Kirdford, & Plaistow. Could it be the developers are controlling the planning of our villages?
4. Loxwood doesn't have adequate public transport and therefore there will be much more traffic to contend with in the area. During the rush hour the volume of traffic through the centre of the village has increased tremendously, and indeed also during the day.
5. The local school is already at more than full capacity. Surely the next generation should be our priority.
6. The surgery is at present a very good service but this could deteriorate considerably with the amount of people this proposed housing would generate.

I want to object to Draft CDC Local Plan and its proposal to allocate 125 houses to Loxwood village. I am extremely disappointed that CDC has not drafted a plan that is sound and sustainable and secondly that it hasn't followed national planning guidelines.

1. The Draft CDC plan is not sound and sustainable.
125 additional houses for Loxwood will overwhelm this small village community and it's difficult to see how this allocation meets the National Planning Policy Framework on sustainable development you are required to follow.
* Loxwood has limited demand for incremental housing for its existing community. New houses in the village are generally bought by people moving into the village from elsewhere. As there is no employment locally, this just increases the dormitory status of the village and increases vehicle movements. I do understand that CDC has a huge target for incremental housing, but it should be focusing on building it in areas that have local demand for more housing and local employment opportunities.
* Loxwood Sewage infrastructure is at full capacity. This has been confirmed by Southern Water. They have no plans to update or increase this capacity. The present development area in Loxwood , the Nursery site has had to have sewage holding tanks installed and if capacity is unavailable at the sewage works these will have to be emptied by tanker. A far from satisfactory solution with the risk of the system overfilling and spilling into the environment if something goes wrong.
* Loxwood has no public transport infrastructure. People can only commute to and from work by car and the feeder roads around the village are already very busy at peak periods.
* Loxwood has areas that are prone to fluvial flooding and surface water flooding. This has been a significant issue in recent years and we are concerned that incremental development in this area will reduce soakaway capacity and concentrate more water in the flood prone areas.
* 125 incremental homes will increase the size of the village by around 40%. This is a significant change and will change the character of the village turning Loxwood from the small intimate village we love into a large dormitory community.

2. CDC has not followed national planning guidance in developing its draft Local Plan.
* CDC is required to carry out studies of potential housing sites across the entire district and then consult. This hasn't happened. Instead you have just taken note of any developers already proposing building sites and based your draft on this. No local studies on alternatives across all the northern villages have been completed. This is not right. Just because developers have targeted Loxwood for potential development doesn't make this the right solution! We should look at other options.
* In the present Local Plan each village was allocated the same number of houses - 60 each. Not this time. No effort has been made to share the extra housing across all the service villages - Loxwood, Kirdford, Plaistow/Ifold and Wisborough Green. This seems extremely unfair and unsound.

Objection to the Chichester District Council (CDC) Draft Local Plan
I am writing in objection to the new draft Chichester District Council (CDC) Local Plan, in particular the proposed additional allocation of 125 houses in Loxwood for the period 2019 to 2035. This, with the 60 already allocated in the current Local Plan will result in more than 200 new houses in the village in less than 20 years given there'll be further houses built on small windfall sites.

My objection to the draft Local Plan is based on two main points: sustainability and the process by which it was developed as described below.

Firstly, both the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) part 2 requires Local Plans to deliver 'sustainable development' while para 4 of the draft Local Plan also seeks to deliver said 'sustainable development' through the following:

* the pattern of need and demand for housing and employment across the area;
* infrastructure capacity and constraints, in particular relating to wastewater treatment, roads and transport;
* environmental constraints - avoiding flood risk areas, protecting the environment designations, landscape quality, the historic environment and settlement character; and
* the availability of potential housing sites, their deliverability and phasing.

However, CDC is failing to meet those elements at all by allocating a further 125 new house to Loxwood considering that:

* Southern Water has stated that the Loxwood Sewage infrastructure has no more capacity and has no plans to update the infrastructure before 2025;
* Loxwood lacks a viable public transport system; just one bus a day each way between Cranleigh and Guildford;
* residents have to commute by road to work as there's no employment in Loxwood;
* parts of Loxwood are prone to both fluvial and surface water flooding;
* Loxwood has little local demand for new housing.

Secondly, national planning guidance is quite specific that district councils should carry out "desktop" studies of potential housing sites and then consult with the parishes. However, CDC did not followed this guidance and instead issued a call for sites for developers to respond to. Thus developers have driven the allocation of another 125 houses to Loxwood while Kirdford and Plaistow/Ifold have not been allocated any and Wisborough Green gets just 25 houses. No parish consultations took place about site allocations and no effort has been made to share the housing burden across the three parishes defined by CDC as "Service Villages".

So in conclusion I believe CDC has failed the sustainability requirements of both the NPPF and its own draft Local Plan while it has also ignored planning guidance regarding potential housing sites. Consequently, I am objecting to CDC's new draft Local Plan.

I wish to formally OBJECT to the proposed Policy S5 of Chichester Local Plan Review 2035 preferred approach, allocating an additional 125 houses to Loxwood, in addition to the 60 already allocated in the made Neighbourhood Plan, for the following reasons;

1 Soundness of the plan

* Southern Water have advised that the Loxwood sewage infrastructure has no more capacity and furthermore has no plans to upgrade it, in its 2020 to 2025 spending plans. The Nursery site which is still under construction, has holding tanks that have to be emptied by tanker.

* Loxwood has no viable public transportation system. One bus a day is the risible provision.

* Loxwood has no employment opportunities. Residents need cars to commute to work outside the parish.

* Parts of the village are subject to fluvial and surface water flooding.

* There is little local demand for open market housing from the village.

125 new homes does not meet the sustainability tests, as defined by the draft local plan and therefore can not be considered to be sound, as defined by the NPPF.

2 Process

* The allocation of 125 homes to Loxwood has been driven by developers proposing new sites, in response to a call from CDC. The neighbouring parishes of Kirdford and Plaistow/Ifold, have not been allocated any new homes. In the existing local plan all were allocated the same number of 60, appropriate to the existing settlement sizes.

* No parish consultation has taken place and no effort has been made to share the new housing burden across the parishes, all of whom are defined as "service villages" by CDC.

CDC has not followed national planning guidance in developing its draft local plan. A desktop exercise to establish the potential of suitable sites should have been undertaken prior to allocating 125 homes to Loxwood. Furthermore, it is contrary to its own Local Plan Review 2035 preferred approach document which advocates community engagement.

Objection to the Chichester District Council (CDC) Draft Local Plan
I am writing to object to the new draft Chichester District Council (CDC) Local Plan which proposes to allocate a further 125 houses in Loxwood for the period 2019 to 2035. This is in addition to the 60 already allocated in the current Local Plan and, allowing for some further housing on small windfall sites, will result in more than 200 new houses in the village in less than 20 years.

My objection to the draft Local Plan is based on sustainability and the process by which it was developed as described below.

Firstly, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) part 2 requires that Local Plans and planning applications deliver sustainable development while para 4 of the draft Local Plan also seeks to deliver sustainable development through the following elements:

* the pattern of need and demand for housing and employment across the area;
* infrastructure capacity and constraints, in particular relating to wastewater treatment, roads and transport;
* environmental constraints - avoiding flood risk areas, protecting the environment designations, landscape quality, the historic environment and settlement character; and
* the availability of potential housing sites, their deliverability and phasing.

However, by allocating a further 125 new house to Loxwood CDC is failing to meet those elements at all given that:

* Southern Water has stated that the Loxwood Sewage infrastructure has no more capacity while there are no plans to update the infrastructure in its 2020 to 2025 spending plans;
* Loxwood does not have any viable public transport system; just one bus a day each way between Cranleigh and Guildford;
* residents have to commute by road to work as there's no employment in Loxwood;
* parts of Loxwood are prone to both fluvial and surface water flooding;
* Loxwood has little local demand for open market housing.

Secondly, national planning guidance makes it quite clear that district councils should carry out "desktop" studies of potential housing sites and then consult with the parishes. However, CDC has not followed this guidance and instead issued a call for sites for developers to respond to. Thus the allocation of another 125 houses to Loxwood has been driven by developers yet Kirdford and Plaistow/ Ifold have not been allocated any and Wisborough Green just 25 houses. No parish consultations took place about site allocations and no effort has been made to share the housing burden across the three parishes defined by CDC as "Service Villages".

In conclusion, I am objecting to CDC's new draft Local Plan as in developing it CDC has failed the sustainability requirements of both the NPPF and its own plan while also ignoring planning guidance regarding potential housing sites.

Proposal to allocate 125 additional houses in the parish of Loxwood.

I wish to lodge a formal objection to the proposed allocation of 125 new houses in Loxwood Village.

I believe that the way the decision on which of the designated "Service Villages" and the allocation of number of houses in these villages was not adequate.

Only 8 of the identified "Service Villages" have been selected for housing development and of a total allocation of 500 houses, Loxwood has been a disproportionately allocated an excessive number of 125. Loxwood has been arbitrarily singled out for development, whilst villages in the neighboring Parishes of similar size and facilities (Wisborough Green and Kirfdford), have been allocated little or no allocation. This is contrary to the Chichester Local Plan Policy; to seek to disperse development across the plan area and support rural communities. Why has development not been dispersed amongst the other service villages and Loxwood been selected for an unsustainable allocation? Why also has there been no prior consultation with our Parish Council or the wider parish community?

The National Planning Policy Framework refers to sustainability of infrastructure capacity:
Transport, roads waste water (sewage) and
Environmental constraints, avoidance of flood risk areas.

Loxwood differs very little from its neighboring service villages in terms of its facilities and transport links, both of which are very limited.

With regard to Transport:
There is no sustainable public transport to or from Loxwood.
Loxwood currently is served by Compass Bus No.42, this service runs once a day from Monday to Friday only (but not on Public Holidays). It takes a circuitous route to Guildford of one hour+ and allows only two hours before the one return service of similar route and time.
Two other routes pass through the village (Nos, 64 to Horsham & 69 to Shoreham) each run one service, on only two days in the week (except public holidays). The journey times are one hour and one hour forty-five mins respectively, each has a two hour return time. All three routes also serve Wisborough Green and Kirdford.

Employment:
There is extremely limited employment in Loxwood Parish, which will not be able to sustain the need created by the proposed development. A significant increase in housing will only lead to further congestion on the roads as all in employment will have no choice but to commute by road.

Education:
Loxwood has only one small Primary School, capacity is limited to approximately 200 pupils and is at present at or near to capacity. Pupils are already brought in by car and coach from outside the village. The school will not be able to service the needs of the increase in pupil numbers resulting from the proposed level of development.

Infrastructure & Environmental Constraints:
Waste Water management - The waste water and sewage system in Loxwood has been repeatedly stated as being over capacity by the water authority (Southern Water). The system is old and in a bad state of repair. At times of heavy rainfall both surface water and ground water inundate the system leading to flooding. Southern Water currently have no plans or proposals for funding to upgrade the sewer system in Loxwood before 2025, and no commitment to include such plans in the five year period beyond 2025
Waste water is also fed into the Loxwood sewer system from other areas, such as Alfold, Surrey where there is currently a large development under construction, which will clearly impact on the already over capacity sewage system. It is plainly obvious that the Loxwood system is unable to support further development of the scale in the new plan and to would be contrary to NPPF policy.

Flood Risk - Parts of Loxwood are already designated as high risk areas of flooding by the Environment Agency, in respect of both fluvial flooding of the Loxwood Stream and also of surface water flooding. In the last year, which by coincidence (?) saw the construction in the village centre of a housing development (43 houses) on the Guildford Road. Loxwood experienced a surface water flash flood (May 2018), which inundated the sewer system effecting Guildford Road, Station Road and Burley Close.
In December 2018, the Environment Agency issued two flood warnings for the Loxwood Stream due the high levels of rainfall, surface water caused the level of the stream to rise dangerously high. The proposed scale of development if allowed would be an irresponsible decision given the known flood risks, the known inability of the sewage system to cope in its present state and the knowledge that there are no foreseeable plans to update them. This would pose a real risk to people and property of more frequent and more dangerous flooding including risk to life.

In conclusion this excessive proposed development and the loss of countryside will destroy the rural nature of our village and is not sustainable or in line with stated policy of the draft Chichester Local Plan or NPPF. It is not proportionate has no consideration of fairness, has been driven purely by developers. It is the easy option, taken without adequate consultation or involvement with the community. CDC should have looked to all their service villages and required them to identify sustainable development sites within their own parishes, in line with stated policy. Development of smaller sites across the services villages are likely to be more sustainable, will have been achieved through involvement of the communities and have less impact on them.

I request that my objections and comments be considered when CDC submit their Plan review to the next stage of consultation.

I am resident in Loxwood, we have a Local Neighbourhood Plan in place which accommodated the original 60 houses fairly allocated to the local villages. The new allocation of 125 new houses is a huge amount for our rural village and is disproportionate when considering allocations to other local villages.

I object to the way this allocation was made, without consultation through our Parish Council to village residents.

I object to the site allocations which are the the easy option of accepting developers plans without village consultations. This is against National Planning Guidance and will place great burden on our local facilities.

Developers do not consider the wellbeing and structure of the community they are affecting, development plans should be approved by local Parish Councils in consultation with local residents.

I believe strongly that the allocation of new houses should be shared equally across the villages in the area, as were the first tranche of new houses. This would allow planning applications to be made through the respective Parish Councils and assimilated carefully into the villages.

To prevent new homesbeing sold to non-residents a policy should be introduced to prevent this happening.

I wish to object strongly to the new draft Chichester District Council Local Plan.

I am a resident in Loxwood. I understand that the new draft Local Plan includes an additional 125 houses for the Parish of Loxwood in addition to the 60 already added in the current Local Plan.

Other neighbouring parishes which were also allocated 60 houses each, namely Wisborough Green and Kirdford and Plaistow/Ifold, have been allocated 25 houses and zero houses respectively in the new draft Local Plan. The is patently unfair and will have a huge impact on the landscape quality, the historic environment and the settlement character of Loxwood.

I understand that the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) requires that Local Plans and planning applications deliver sustainable development. Loxwood does not meet the tests of sustainability for the following reasons:

1. Sewage Infrastructure. Southern Water has no plans to upgrade the infrastructure in its 2020-2025 budget. They state that Loxwood sewage is running at capacity and, in fact, the current new development known as the Nursery Site already has had to have sewage tanks installed which will have to be emptied by tanker.
2. There is virtually no public transport system. There is only one bus a day that goes to Guildford.
3. Loxwood does not have any local businesses that would offer employment opportunities to new residents, thus new residents would have to commute to work by car (no public transport to speak of see above). Additional cars would have an impact on the local environment and add to the burden of the A281. Guildford/Horsham Road, which is already running at capacity.
4. There are areas in Loxwood which are prone to both fluvial and surface water flooding.
5. Loxwood does not have a demand from existing residents for open market housing, most houses that come on the market are bought by people moving from elsewhere.

The obvious conclusion of the above points is that 125 new houses in Loxwood in addition to the 60 already allocated cannot meet the tests of sustainability and therefore cannot be considered to be Sound as defined in the NPPF.


/2.......contd
Furthermore, I understand that it is contained within National Planning Guidance that district councils should carry out desktop studies of potential new housing sites and then consult with local councils.

Chichester District Council, however, after calling for sites, allocated Loxwood 125 new houses on sites In Loxwood that have been proposed by developers. No parish consultations took place and no action has been taken to share the housing burden across the three parishes of Kirdford, Wisborough Green and Loxwood defined as "service villages" by Chichester District Council.

Surely Chichester District Council should have followed National Planning Guideline during the process of the development of its new draft Local Plan.

I am writing to voice my objection of yet more houses being built in the village of Loxwood. We have lived in the village for nearly 14 years and in this time we have seen two new development sites being built. I completely understand the requirement for more housing to be built around the country, however I feel that Loxwood has reached its limit. There are many other small villages nearby such as Kirdford, Plaistow and Ifold. I have not seen or heard of more houses being added to these villages. I know that Wisborough Green has a small development being built, but it is small in comparison to the developments in Loxwood.
We live directly opposite the Nursery Green site and having spoken to some of the new residents I know that they have had to have sewage tanks put in as the local sewage system is already at capacity. Over the years Loxwood has been prone to flooding, and I can only imagine that building more houses will only increase problems in the future.
Having teenage children I am aware of the lack of public transport so any new residents will have to travel by car. The Guildford Road is already very busy and it can easily become congested at peak times.
I feel that Chichester District Council needs to look more widely at the area and consider the implications on the residents and the environment of Loxwood.

I am staggered and alarmed to learn of the proposal to build a FURTHER 125 houses in Loxwood for the following reasons:
a) having already built more than our fair share of new houses in Loxwood compared with neighbouring villages, a further 125 brings into sharp focus the sustainability of this proposal as the sewage system cannot even cope with the new development at Loxwood Green.
b) the village school is already full
c) the A281 road is already a nightmare and the addition of even more commuters will only exacerbate the situation
d) the Loxwood doctors' surgery is already suffering from overload
e) the village infrastructure is already creaking with all the extra houses built in recent years.

We have a very proactive and resourceful Parish Council who have always produced a realistic development plan. I was led to believe that a proper development plan should prevent excessive building - how come Loxwood is constantly being asked to build more and more houses when our neighbouring villages are not subjected to similar pressures ?
We cannot sustain any further building in this small village and this proposal is not sound.

I wish Chichester District Council to note and record my objection to the proposed building of a further 125 houses in Loxwood, which is in addition to the 60 houses already allocated in the current Local Plan.
My reasons for objecting are:
1 There are no opportunities for employment in Loxwood. Residents therefore have to commute to work.
2 There is only one bus daily to Guildford, and no other public transport, so residents must commute by car. Extra housing will lead to further congestion on already congested local roads to Guildford and Horsham/Crawley.
3 The sewage system in Loxwood is already at capacity, and holding tanks have had to be installed at the recently constructed Nursery site, to deal with periodic over-capacity. Southern Water has no plans to update the waste water infrastructure in Loxwood, and the village is already prone to surface water flooding, and flooding from streams within the village.

In summary, building an extra 125 houses in Loxwood is not sustainable, and therefore the draft Chichester District Council Local Plan is unsound.

I further contend that Chichester District Council has not consulted with Loxwood parish regarding site allocation prior to publishing its draft Local Plan. This is in contravention of national planning guidance, which states that district councils should consult with local parishes on site allocation. Additionally, the draft plan places an inequitable burden on Loxwood in the allocation of houses relative to the other two "service villages" in the area. Kirdford and Plaistow/Ifold have no houses allocated, and Wisborough Green has only 25 houses allocated.

Chichester District Council should amend its draft Local Plan, as in its current form it is unsound and due process has not been followed. If these extra houses are required, then sites should be found where development is sustainable.

I write to express my strong objection to the allocation of 125 extra houses in Loxwood for the period 2019/2035 as proposed in the draft Chichester District Council (CDC) Local Plan.
Under the terms of the Loxwood Neighbourhood Plan 2013/2029, the village has already accepted the addition of 60 houses on two sites within the village in accordance with the earlier requirements from CDC and many of the villagers understood that this arrangement was made in good faith in accordance with those requirements. Some 43 of those houses are currently being built out and the additional 17 are the subject of continued delay on an already identified site.
From information provided to me, I understand that this latest allocation of a further 125 homes has arisen from CDC reassessing the District's requirements. Whilst understanding that requirements change, I find it concerning that such an increase can be imposed so soon after procedures had been followed to establish the Village's planning needs for a fifteen year period.
I understand that Loxwood has been identified as one of a number of "Service" Villages within the District and as such has to bear a share of this new requirement but the manner of allocation of such a significant number appears totally arbitrary and capricious, given the number of such villages between which the allocated increase could be shared.
In view of the above I feel that a much lower number of houses should be allocated to Loxwood and that such a lower number should be set at a level to be sustainable. In this context Loxwood already has significant challenges particularly relating to its infrastructure needs in the already established lack of proposals by Southern Water to improve capacity for Sewage disposal before 2025 (already providing a challenge for existing development). Further, a daily bus to Guildford does not provide a viable public transport system (no practicable return) and there are very limited, if any, opportunities to expand the local labour force to provide further employment opportunities of any significant scale.
Whilst accepting the need for a nationwide increase in housing stock, I must protest that your current draft plan is inequitable in the numbers allocated to Loxwood and in the light of my points above should be amended to reflect a reduction of the proposed 125 houses to a manageable number reflecting the capacity of the village to absorb the same.

We support the approach to produce a site allocations DPD in the event that a Neighbourhood Plan allocating at least the minimum housing requirement for each parish is not submitted for examination within 6 months of the Local Plan being adopted. However, we are concerned that the timescales for the preparation of such a DPD will delay the delivery of homes that are required now. We would request that the policy be amended to allow for the consideration of sites in suitable locations where a Neighbourhood Plan has not been submitted for examination.

Notwithstanding this, the policy should confirm that the housing requirements are minimum requirements to ensure a flexible approach that accommodates needs not anticipated in the plan, as required by para 81 of the NPPF.

Regarding 125 More Homes in Loxwood

I am writing to make the following objections to your proposed plan.

1. The infrastructure is not suitable for more housing we already have problems with wastewater treatment. Transport is virtually non existent and there are already a lot of flood risk areas in the village and more housing will make this problem worse.

2. My understanding is that Southern Water have already said that there is no more capacity and that there plans to update the system in Loxwood is not in their plans that go up to 2025.

3. There is no employment in the area which would mean all commuting would be by roads that are struggling and with no transport other than this a large number of extra vehicles on roads that are already in a poor state of repair.

My understanding is that so called desktop studies should be used to find possible suitable sites and this will then lead to a consultation. It does however appear to me from information received and a flyer from a potential developer that this is not the case and is being lead by developers proposing sites themselves.

In this day and age it is sadly understood that more housing will be needed but there must surely be a better balance among the other local parishes and the down fall of facilities must and should be taken into account.

Also I do not believe that CDC are following the draft local plan on national planning guidance.

See attachment

With regard to Policy S31 of the CDC Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035, careful consideration should be given to strategic and non-strategic housing allocations being proposed for the catchment area serviced by the Brewhurst Mill foul water pumping station at Loxwood.

Foul water drainage for the Ifold settlement is already operating at full capacity as a result of incremental development of over 100 'Windfall' units since year 2000, causing occasional raw sewerage being deposited onto residents properties, generally due to hydraulic back pressure occurring at access manholes during heavy rainfall on numerous locations throughout the village.

These problems are exacerbated by the fact that foul water from Plaistow and Durfold Wood are channelled through the inferior Ifold sewerage system before progressing to the Loxwood pumping station forming a confluence with Loxwood waste water at Brewhurst Mill pumping station.

There is no surface water drainage system in place in this area, allowing significant inundation and infiltration to overwhelm the system.

Southern Water have consistently intimated that Ifold is at capacity and that no further development should take place until the foul water system is suitably upgraded.

Policy S5: Parish Housing Requirements 2016 - 2035

The Estate believes the Parish figures are conservative in their estimation even though indicative. The Estate would prefer to see the figures as guidelines rather than targets (which inevitably they will become), with greater encouragement given to the preparation of Neighbourhood Plans where the true capacity (environmental and social) and need of settlements can be established. Neighbourhood Plans should be set clear objectives to provide sustainable communities that make a positive contribution to the needs of the District as a whole and should not be supported where the objective is clearly to protect the limited interests of a minority.

The Estate welcomes the commitment of the Council to work with Parish Councils to identify development opportunities where no Neighbourhood Plan is to be produced. The Estate has brought to the council's attention, through the annual call for sites, land which is suitable for development to meet the District housing and employment needs. It's use will contribute to the sustainability of local communities and the Estate. Most of the Estate's available sites lie within the National Park, but there is available land at Westhampnett, Westerton and Boxgrove. The sites at Dairy Lane (Goodwood Site 16) and Stane Street (Goodwood Site 18) in the call for sites, are available immediately to meet housing need and should be included within the defined settlement boundary (Local Plan SB5).

Estate land at Broxgrove, lying alongside the northen boundary of the village and between it and the A285 is suitable for development. It can provide a suitable addition to the general expansion of Tangmere, providing housing to meet different market sectors. The land identified in the call for sites as (Goodwood Site 23) is readily available and could provide for a relocation or extension to the village playing field as part of a comprehensive design.

Chichester District Council (CDC) Local Plan for Loxwood, West Sussex.

I wish to object to the draft plan by CDC, proposing 125 new houses between 2019 - 2035.
My reasons for objection are as follows.
* Southern Water have stated that the Loxwood Sewerage infrastructure has no more capacity and does not have any plans to update the infrastructure in its 2020 to 2025 spending plans. This has been a serious problem for a long time.
* The public transport for Loxwood is inadequate. 2 buses a week to Horsham and a bus service to Cranleigh that is of no use. Residents are therefore dependant on cars. More cars are clogging up the already crowded roads.
* Parts of Loxwood are prone to flooding.
* Kirdford and Plaistow/ Ifold have not been allocated any new houses and Wisborough Green 25 houses. The addition of 125 in Loxwood is way out of proportion to nearby villages.
* Most new housing being built and pro[posed includes few if any housing suitable for down-sizing. This forces alder residents to remain in properties to big if they want to remain in Loxwood.

I understand that Chichester District Council has proposed the allocation of a further 125 houses to Loxwood for the period 2019 to 2035. This is in addition to the 60 already allocated in the current Local Plan.
The 185 houses will no doubt be 'topped up' by some additions here and there over this period, meaning an expected total of more than 200 extra houses in this small village.

As a resident of Loxwood for nearly 33 years, I believe this level of proposed development to be unsustainable.

Loxwood is and remains a small village not simply because people want to retain its character as such, but for other fundamental reasons which should ordinarily underpin the expansion of a local community.

It is for these reasons, rather than sentiment, that I make my objections as follows:

1. Sewerage Infrastructure:

Southern Water, the local provider, has made it clear that its system serving Loxwood has no more capacity and it does not have any plans for expanding/updating its network here in its 2020-2035 investment plans.

I have personally been witness to this recently because the developer of the 'Loxwood Green' Nursery site on Guildford Road, Antler Homes, asked my permission to install a sensor in a foul manhole on my property.
The purpose of this sensor is to determine the status of the flow in the foul drain running through my property, sending the signal back to the discharge valve on the sewage holding tanks which have been installed at the Loxwood Green/Nursery site.

When capacity in 'my' foul drain allows, the Loxwood Green tanks open and discharge into it. When capacity is not available, the valve at Loxwood Green closes and sewage is retained in the holding tanks to avoid surcharging the system.

This was the only way of managing the extra demand given Southern Water's planning policy for this village.

Clearly, if this is the way of dealing with the sewerage discharge from 43 new homes at Loxwood Green, there will be little or no extra capacity for dealing with 185-200 new homes in the period 2019 to 2035 unless Southern Water makes a substantial capital investment in capacity to deal with it.

2. Public Transport:

There is almost no public transport in this village.
While it is fine for people like me, with a car for each member of the family, it makes no provision for those of lower means, the elderly and the vulnerable. Effectively they become imprisoned in the village.

3. Employment:

There is virtually no employment in the village - it is a dormitory/commuter village. If you don't work elsewhere, then you pretty well don't work at all. Allied to my point 2 above, how will an increased number of young people in the village in coming years gain access to employment? Or will you just perpetuate the current situation but on a larger scale, with the offspring of those of limited means having to move in order to find work?
The same is true for those who are disabled, elderly or retired, but, who of necessity still have to work but do not have their own transport. There are almost no local employment opportunities and, combined with the lack of public transport, there will be no solution for this group of people.

4. Education:

My wife is a teaching assistant at Loxwood School. Plans have come and gone for the expansion of the school, including a proposal some years ago to locate it on the Nursery site where the Loxwood Green development has now been constructed, but have amounted to nothing.
The additional housing proposed under this plan, as well as the surrounding area which the it serves, will mean that Loxwood School will need its capacity significantly increased during this period as well.
The current location creates traffic problems and hazards on local roads such as Nicholsfield and Station Road in the mornings and afternoons as parents drop-off and collect their children. Expansion of the school on the current site will exacerbate that so a new site for Loxwood School should be re-considered if it is to cater for the increased level of housing envisaged under this Neighbourhood Plan.

I trust you will consider my objections to the Loxwood Neighbourhood Plan, along with those of other residents and Loxwood Parish Council and I look forward to hearing of the outcome in due course.

Although I am a member of the Loxwood Parish Council, I am writing as a resident of Loxwood to object to the draft local plan. Loxwood has a Neighbourhood Plan under which 60 new houses are to be constructed. These are currently being built or are going through the planning process. Under the CDC Revised Local Plan an additional 125 houses are proposed in Loxwood and whilst I acknowledge that some additional new houses could be accommodated I believe that an additional 125 would be unsustainable for the following reasons:
1. The process used to assess the housing numbers has been flawed with housing allocation developer and land owner led. There are a number of villages similar in size and amenities to Loxwood in the North of Plan area with development potential which have not been selected for additional housing. In particular these are Wisborough Green, Kirdford, Ifold and Plaistow where additional housing numbers are either zero or minimal. I strongly believe that additional housing requirements should be catered for evenly across all similar service villages.
2. The foul sewer system in Loxwood is inadequate for the current level of development within the village and without substantial upgrade will be unsuitable for any new development. I understand from LPC discussions with Southern Water there are currently no plans to upgrade the system within the next 5 - 10 years.
3. In addition expansion of Loxwood is unsustainable from an employment, public transport or educational perspective. There are no employment opportunities in the village, the Loxwood Primary School is near capacity and bus services through the village are virtually non-existent.
In summary I believe that the reasons given above make expansion of the village to the extent currently proposed unsustainable.

The allocation of 125 houses in Loxwood in not sustainable and Loxwood cannot be defined as a service village.

You need to look at the infrastructures of the village and understand their weaknesses.
- There is no credible transport system, the bus service is very poor and as a result residents will be relying totally on cars.
- There are no local employment opportunities so again residents will need to rely on cars to commute.
- You need to ask the surgery whether they can cope with increased capacity of residents from 125 extra houses.
- Southern Water have stated that the sewage system is at capacity now and is prone to flooding due to infiltration of ground water. The current development in Loxwood has already had to install overflow tanks for when the system cannot cope. There would seem to be no plans to upgrade the system in the near future.
- There is a butchers and hairdressers and no viable general store in the village.
- There is no demand for social housing in the area, examine the waiting list for affordable housing in Loxwood Parish.
- The primary school has a top capacity of just over 200 pupils and with 125 extra houses the likelihood is that they will need to shrink the catchment area which will put addition pressure on other local schools to find places.
- The fact that developers have been encouraged to submit plans for sites in Loxwood does not mean that they are viable and sustainable. This plan is therefore not sound.

With reference to Policy S5 - Parish Housing Requirements 2016-2035) National Guidance is clear that Plans should plan for a minimum number of homes over the Plan period. In its current form the draft Plan fails to acknowledge that there may be other sites within the Parishes that could come forwards and make a valuable contribution to housing supply both within the District and to assist in addressing the national shortfall. My client's site at Clappers Lane is available, achievable and deliverable. Significant consideration has been given to the proposals for the site. In promoting the site for development, its opportunities and constraints have been carefully considered and an initial concept masterplan for the site has been prepared which is set out in more detail within the Vision Document included as Appendix B. The Vision Document provides detail on a range of considerations relating to the site including the Development Rationale, site connectivity, ecology, landscape character, local character and context, flood risk and drainage.

The site positioned to the south side of Clappers Lane which connects to Bracklesham Lane to the west of Earnley. Public rights of way run alongside the eastern and southern boundaries separate from the site by tree belts and dense scrub with an area of woodland in the south east corner of the site. The site slopes gently away to the east and south with the Earnley Rife beyond and the majority of the site lies in Flood Zone 1. The surrounding land uses comprise residential development and Medmerry Caravan Park to the south, residential development and Holdens Caravan Park beyond Clappers Lane to the north, two sites which have recently been granted planning permission for a total of 150 dwellings to the west and open countryside to the east. Earnley Conservation Area is located close to the north east corner of the site. Within 1km of the site, prospective residents would have access to a range of services including retail, food and drink outlets, leisure facilities, a school/nursery, health facilities, a church, a post office and other leisure facilities. There are also 6 bus stops within 1km of the site providing residents with access to higher order services further afield in Chichester and Selsey. The site is only c.3km from the A27 which is a major route providing vehicular access to a wider range of large settlements and rail services. Preliminary ecology, flood risk and drainage assessments have been carried out on the site which have informed the design solution. The Council's Landscape Character Assessment and the distinctiveness of existing local development has also influenced the design solution for the site.

The conceptual included in the Vision Document focuses on providing a pedestrian, mobility impaired, cycle and public transport over car travel whilst also securing a safe access strategy from the existing highway network and off site improvements to the existing footway network. The overall concept is landscape led with built form being concentrated in the north west corner of the site where it will have the closest synergy with existing development. Existing boundary vegetation will be retained to provide a soft appearance to the west boundary of the site. Of significance in terms of the layout 6ha of parkland is proposed to wrap around the north eastern corner, along the eastern side of the site and to extend over almost of the southern part of the site (see Appendix C - Parkland Plan). Within this area it is proposed to retain existing native trees and hedgerows, enhance the existing woodland around the southern boundary, wildlife buffer zones, a range of habitats including a pond and community orchard. Through this space a network of accessible routes would be provided linking with existing publicly accessible routes beyond the east, west and southern boundaries of the site thereby enhancing local connectivity and enhancing the open space offer for existing and prospective residents. This space would make a significant contribution to the Council's Green Infrastructure, would have the benefit of providing an enhanced ecological habitat and ensure the land is retained in perpetuity to the benefit of both the open space and green infrastructure objectives and ensuring a gap in built form is retained between the eastern edge of Bracklesham and East Wittering to the west, and Earnley to the east. Furthermore, the gap along the eastern edge of development would ensure the setting of the Earnley Conservation Area is preserved.

In addition, and to underpin the landscape led approach taken, it is proposed to integrate a community garden and a LEAP at the heart of the residential development. It is proposed that the garden would be managed by the Local Community, provide an 'edible landscape' and provide a space that residents would take ownership providing the development with a sense of place. The LEAP would be located adjacent with direct access to the communal garden and incorporate natural play facilities and sensory planting to encourage imaginative play and natural education.

The allowed development of 125 houses in Birdham does not seem to be that small scale for a very small community. Donnington has no provision indicating that the plan envisages larger scale developments on the 85Ha land already proposed.

Halnaker resident.
It is unjustified to increase the Boxgrove parish allocation from 25 to 75 plus another potential 65.
The area is already gridlocked with traffic without any concrete provision for alternative sustainable transport solutions. the parish will also be adversly affected by the massive proposed developments in Shopwyke Lakes and Tangmere. The SDNP needs to take a significant number of affordable houses into the area. Infrastructure improvements such as the A27 need to be in place before any further houses are allocated of planned.

The villages in this area in particular Loxwood are already struggling with increased housing. Since the building of the Antler development site only last year the traffic on the B2133 is already significantly increased, and this will increase even more once the development at Alfold is completed this year. There is now a significant traffic queue to access the A281 at Loxwood at peak times and there is now always traffic queues at the road outside Alfold Post Office as this is essentially one way due to on street parking.
Since the building of the Antler site at Loxwood there is much more surface water collecting on the main road, and we have all been subject to flooding of waste water and sewage as the infrastructure is now running at full capacity.
Internet speeds have now dropped since the new development because the BT control boxes are now oversubscribed.
There is a significant development being built at Dunsfold Park and already thousands of houses have been built in Cranleigh, all of this area uses the A281 with the B2133 being a main access road down to the south. There is no railway in this whole area, the closest being Billingshurst, and the bus service is minimal, one bus per day.
If more houses are built along the B2133 then the whole area will bring to a halt as there are no other escape routes.