Policy S5: Parish Housing Requirements 2016-2035

OBJECT

- Needs to be fair an equitable, planning-led NOT DEVELOPER-LED allocation. Loxwood must not shoulder all the housing

- Sustainability of Loxwood as a location for more housing should be looked at again. Very limited bus routes 92 a day). Speeding cars on B2133 and sheer volume has increased massively.

- Don't forget Loxwood will have to deal with Dunsfold Aerodrome fall out as well in terms of traffic and congestion.

- Ovur sewers cannot even cope with the houses we have now - it floods people's gardens and drain lids have had to be bolted down. Hardly sustaianable.

I am writing to voice concern re the possible plan to build a further 125 homes in Loxwood on top of the 60 homes already planned.

There is nothing sound about this plan, the roads in the area are massively busy already so to add another 200 odd cars to roads that are very congested and so adding to more air pollution and congestion makes no sense. There is no useful transport system in Loxwood only one bus a day going out, so people living in the area will need to use their cars to go to work.

There is a flood risk in the village already so any more building would exacerbate this and lead to worse flooding in the future.

It seems that the CDC has not adhered to national planning guidance re the existing Local Plan for this and surrounding villages.

All in all this cannot be allowed to proceed as this many houses does not meet the sustainability tests in so many ways, so this in no way is a sound plan.

Objection to addition of 125 more houses in Loxwood
I am writing to object to the addition of a further 125 houses proposed for Loxwood over and above the 60 already allocated under the current Local Plan. I am detailing my objections on the following grounds.
The Soundness of the Plan
According to The National Planning Policy Framework Local Plans and/or developments are required to deliver sustainable development. If a plan does not deliver sustainability it is not sound. The suggested development of 125 additional houses in Loxwood is not, with the current infrastructure, sustainable particularly in relation to wastewater treatment, roads, transport, schools and healthcare facilities which are all at full capacity.
With regard to wastewater treatment, I understand that Southern Water have no plans to update the sewage system in their current budget (2020 to 2025) even though the system is already running at full capacity. The new Loxwood Green estate has had to install holding tanks for excess sewage, these tanks will require emptying by tankers.
Loxwood is only served by one bus per day to Guildford, resulting in additional cars on the roads for those people wishing to commute for work.
In conclusion I would say that 125 new houses in Loxwood does not meet the required sustainability outlined in the draft Local Plan and therefore the Plan cannot be considered Sound as set out in The National Planning Policy Framework.
The Process of the Planners
My understanding is that under National planning guidelines district councils are required to carry out "desktop" studies of potential housing sites and then consult.
However, the 125 new houses assigned to Loxwood have been suggested by developers proposing sites when CDC issued a call for sites. Under the existing Local Plan, Loxwood, Kirdford and Wisborough Green were each allocated 60 houses, under the new allocation Kirdford and Plaistow have no new houses allocated and Wisborough Green only 25. No consultation regarding the allocation has taken place with the parish and the distribution of housing has not been shared across the three parishes.
Having looked at all the facts my conclusion is that CDC has not followed national planning guidance in developing its draft Local Plan.

These comments relate to the additional allocation of 125 houses to Loxwood.


I do not feel that the Local Plan in its current format meets the requirements for sustainability with regard to the proposed development of 125 additional homes in Loxwood. I understand that Southern Water has no plans to upgrade the sewage infrastructure in Loxwood and that there is no more capacity in the system locally to accommodate further developments. Indeed, the recent development in the centre of the village has to rely on holding tanks which are then emptied by tanker. This is of particular concern as parts of the village are prone to both fluvial and surface water flooding.

There is no opportunity for employment in the village and without the availability of a viable public transport system the only option for villagers is to commute to work by road.

I would question whether the addition of 125 further houses in Loxwood meet the requirements of your own tests for sustainability and therefore would suggest that the plan cannot be considered as sound as defined in the NPPF.

I am not aware that any consultation took place regarding the allocation of 125 additional houses to Loxwood when developing the draft local plan which is contrary to national planning guidance. Other villages in the parish have received no additional allocation and it appears that the allocation to Loxwood may have been driven by developers proposing sites rather than an equitable distribution of the additional developments throughout the parish.

Objection comments to local plan.
1. The area doesn't support the required local jobs for the quantity of proposed new homes.
2. Loxwood sewer system cannot support additional housing.
3. Houses on the Nursery site have holding tanks which means more larger vehicles coming through the small village which struggles at present. Additional houses will also require holding tanks which will mean more larger vehicles collecting which our roads can't sustain.
4. Deliverability - The nursery site development still not complete and plot near doctors surgery postponed after site clearance. If two small developments can't be completed within a satisfactory time limit how will they cope with a development of 125 house.
5. Flood risk potential - The site map highlighted between the high street and canal is in a floor risk area. Houses at the top of the high street already face issues with home insurance due to the area been categorised as a flood risk. New site proposal is on lower ground, will this cause any increased potential for our area in terms of flood risk - i.e not in the interests of protection the existing houses could be detrimental. And how will new houses get home insurance.
6. New development site opposite period properties, new houses without similar character will be determental to the nature of the small village.
7. 125 additional homes will put the local primary school and doctors surgery under extremely tight constraints and wont be able to support the local area.
8. Limited employment opportunists therefore, increased traffic and number of cars on small country roads - traffic volume and speed is already an issue.
9. 125 new houses have not been fairly distributed between other local villages and no parish consultations took place prior to allocating.

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

I believe that the decision on which of the designated "Service Villages" was chosen and the allocation of number of houses in these villages was not adequate and without proper consultation.

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

Of the 17 service villages only 8 have been selected for housing development. Loxwood has been a disproportionately allocated an excessive number, 125 of 500 houses. It has been singled out for development whilst, neighboring Parishes of similar size and facilities (Wisborough Green and Kirfdford), have been allocated little or no development.

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 shared amongst the other service villages and Loxwood been singled out for this proposed, unsustainable allocation? There been no prior consultation with our Parish Council and no engagement with the parish community.

Loxwood differs very little from its neighboring service villages in terms of facilities and transport, all are very limited but development should have been spread to lessen the impact on the rural communities and provide a more sustainable result.

Schooling - Loxwood has only a small Primary School, with the capacity accommodate only 200 pupils, at present it is close to this capacity. Pupils are already transported into school by car or coach from outside the village. The school will not be able to service the needs of the increase in pupil numbers that would result from the proposed high level of development.

Employment opportunities in Loxwood are extremely limited, the parish will not be able to sustain the employment needs created by the proposed development. Significant increases in housing and population will result in further congestion on the already inadequate roads as virtually all in employment will have no choice but to commute by road. There are also no provisions for alternative transport such as dedicated cycle routes.

Public transport is not an option, there are no suitable buses and no stations accessible other than by car.
Route No.42; this service runs once a day from Monday to Friday only excluding Public Holidays. The journey to Guildford takes one hour (approx.) the one return service of leaves two hours later taking the same time.
Two other bus routes pass through the Loxwood, No. 64 to Horsham and No.69 to Shoreham both run one service twice per week, excluding Public Holidays. Journey times are one hour and one hour forty-five mins respectively, return services leave after two hours. All three bus routes serve Wisborough Green and Kirdford, none are at school or commuting times.



Waste Water, the water authority for Loxwood is Southern Water who have repeatedly stated that the waste water and sewage system in Loxwood is over capacity. The sewage system is old inadequate for current needs 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 have stated they currently have no plans, proposals or funding to upgrade the sewer system in Loxwood before 2025, and no commitment to include plans to do so in the five year period beyond 2025

The Loxwood sewer system is also fed into from other areas, such as Alfold, Surrey, which is served by a different water authority. There is currently a large development under construction at Alfold, which will detrimentally impact on the already over capacity sewage system. It is clear that the Loxwood sewage system is unable to support further development of the scale in the new plan and this would be contrary to NPPF policy.

Flood Risk, areas of Loxwood are already designated by the Environment Agency as at high risk of flooding, from both fluvial flooding of the Loxwood Stream and surface water flooding. Various levels of flooding are common, particularly in winter months. Unusually, in May 2018 Loxwood experienced a surface water flash flood which inundated the sewer system affecting Guildford Road, Station Road and Burley Close. The months preceding this saw the construction on Guildford Road in the centre of the village a housing development of 43 houses.

The Environment Agency issued two flood warnings in December 2018, for the Loxwood Stream, which due the high levels of rainfall and surface water caused the level of the stream to rise dangerously high.

The proposed large scale of development, if allowed, given the known flood risks and the known inability of the sewage system to cope in its present state would be irresponsible and could have catastrophic repercussions particularly given the knowledge that there are no foreseeable plans to update the infrastructure. This could pose a real risk to life and property of more frequent and more dangerous flooding.





The excessive proposed development in Loxwood and the loss of countryside will destroy the rural nature of our village and community. It 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 and has been driven purely by developers.

The decision has been taken without adequate consultation with or involvement of the community. CDC could and should have looked to all their service villages and required them to identify sustainable development sites within their own parishes (as previously required for the parish Plans and in line with stated policy. Development of smaller sites across the services villages would be more sustainable, will have been achieved through involvement of the communities and will have less impact on them.

I request that my comments be taken into consideration when CDC submit their Plan Review to the next stage of consultation.

I wish to object to this plan, for the following reasons:
1. There has been no attempt to justify the increase in annual housing numbers from 435 in the Adopted Plan to 650. The Adopted Plan cited environmental and infrastructural constraints as a reason for using 435 as the annual figure. None of these constraints have changed, yet the housing figure has increased by nearly 50% without a word of justification. No houses should be accepted from the SDNP, and the housing figure should be reduced to reflect the 2016 ONS household projections. Chichester does not need 609 houses every year until 2035, and is under too much environmental pressure to accept houses from a vast National Park.
2. Using the figure of 650 houses per year, the plan calculates that 4400 houses are needed from strategic locations. It then lists the strategic locations, which adds up to a total 7985 houses. Considering that the total figure should be more like 550 houses pa, the figure of 4400 is itself too high, and should be more like 2900. This means an excess of 5000 houses has been allocated. I may be reading these figures incorrectly, but it seems to me that a large number (I would suggest at least 2500) be removed from the proposed sites. A large number of the houses proposed are more or less immediately adjacent to the Chichester Harbour AONB. I suggest removing those doing most harm to the AONB.
3. Far too much building has been proposed that damages the Chichester Harbour AONB. Especially Policy AL6 (Land South-West of Chichester, Apuldram and Donnington Parishes) which proposes a new link road which cuts the harbour off from the city, and a major commercial development within a few hundred metres of the AONB. Any plans for a link road should be abandoned, and the commercial site should be moved to the East of the city. Airfields usually provide a good hub for commercial sites, so close to Goodwood airfield would be a suitable place. The houses proposed for this site are not needed.
4. Environmental, and particularly infrastructural constraints were recognised when allocating housing on the Manhood Peninsula in the adopted Plan. Additionally, building on the Manhood Peninsula was front loaded because of capacity limitations at the Tangmere Water Works. The Manhood's requirement until 2029 has already been exceeded by a large margin. The environmental, and particularly infrastructural constraints remain completely unchanged, with the A27 improvements seemingly further than ever from resolution. The A286 is becoming busier and noisier, with complete gridlock on holiday weekends. As there is a huge oversupply of development sites, no housing should be allocated to Birdham, Bracklesham or West Wittering in this plan cycle, or until infrastructure improvements are complete.

The purpose of this mail is to object to the Local plan for Loxwood. The plan proposes an additional 125 houses, this is on top of 60 houses already in the plan.

The basis of my objections are:

Infrastructure:

* Southern Water have formally attested to the fact that the local sewage system is not fit for purpose, it is at capacity and is broken. The water system cannot cope with any additional volume. This have been proven by a recent significant development having to install emergency solution to waste - supposedly temporary but without any long term solution.
* Southern Water have attested to the fact that there is no plan to remediate the water system in the next 5 years.
* It is a fact that Loxwood is prone to flooding - more development will make Loxwood more vulnerable.
* Loxwood has only one bus per day to Guildford, there are no other public transport links. To this end any new residents require many cars - Loxwood already suffers from excess traffic and speeding through the village all hours of the day.
* Loxwood is a small village with no work. Anybody moving into the village will have to drive in order to perform their daily activities including commuting to work.
* To add more roads on/off Guildford road is dangerous. If the plan were to go ahead it would mean that within a few hundred meters there would be many new entrance/exit roads. This will destroy the feel of the village and increase the chance of road traffic accidents including putting children's safety at risk.
* The local amenities are already at full capacity, for example the local school is full and is struggling and serves many villages outside of Loxwood.

Availability of sites:

* Large sites are not readily accessible. This is because the main roads in Loxwood already have houses on either side. In order to access sites for large scale developments (ie green fields behind houses) - the developers are proposing to bulldoze historic, character houses. This will destroy the character of the village.
* The smaller sites mentioned - have proposals for around 10 houses - where currently there is only one. The village has a rural character - this will be destroyed with high density housing developments.
* There is little demand on the market for small urban style housing. Most residents move into Loxwood from larger conservations and cities in order to live in a genuine rural community - not congested housing estates with small gardens.

Environmental Constraints

* The only feasible way that an increase in housing would be feasible on this scale would be to knock down existing period properties (as one developer who has assumed the local plan will change to allow them to build).
* Knocking down period properties to make way for large developments only destroys the fabric, history and feel a village. Removing open green spaces that we as residents moved to the village to enjoy - will destroy the heart of Loxwood - and its integrity as a rural village.
* Fairness - other local villages such as Plaistow, Ifold and Kirdford appear not to have been allocated any housing developent. It is fundamentally not fair for one village to have to grow in double digit percentages and other, local villages to not be effected.

I feel I must voice my concerns and objections to the proposed building of a large number of houses in Lowood, I don't feel the national planning policy the soundness of the draft local plane has been followed.
1. Southern water have stated that the infrastructure for sewage has no more capacity, and will not be updated until the earliest 2025.
2. Loxwood has no public transport
3. Loxwood has no employment locally so all residents have to travel by car putting more traffic on an all ready over loaded A281 and surrounding roads.
4. As parts of Loxwood already are prone to flooding more houses would only increase the risk
5. There is no local call for more housing so new residents to the area would increase the pressure on nursery's, schools and doctors surgery's and other local services.

I believe the new houses proposed do not meet the test of sustainability as stated in the draft local plan there for can't be considered to be sound as defined in the NPPF. The CDC stated the burden of housing should be shared by kirdford, Plaistow, Ifold, wisbourugh green, there has been no effort to share the burden of housing across the three parishes as defined by the CDC as service villages.
The CDC has not followed the national planning guidance in developing its draft plan. There has been no parish consultation about site allocation, national planning guidance states clearly that district councils should carry out desktop studies of potential sites and then consult, this has not happened.

I have now reviewed the document Housing Background Paper - particularly appendix 1 and understand how the 12478 is arrived at. I not that the target CDC is expected to meet is 12350. Therefore, removing Birdham 125 from the plan will not put the target number at jeopardy.

Birdham Neighbourhood Plan makes much of the need to retain the open character of the area is we are to protect our greatest asset, Tourism. The site identified incidentally something that should have been left to Birdham to decide when it updates its NP, will remove the view a large significant area of open countryside and fostering a more urban landscape to the detriment of our flourishing tourist industry.

4.27
WGPC is concerned that 6 months to get an updated NP to examination could be punitive to communities. If CDC overtake community NP progress with imposed sites this would wholly undermine the good work of NPs. We don't think 6 months is realistic. Assuming all communities were able to synchronise updating their NPs simultaneously, we seriously doubt that CDC has considered its ability to engage with all at the same time. Surely this target is set up to fail? WGPC recommends this time limit is removed or extended as it is unrealistic and risks undermining principles of NPs.

4.30
Wisborough Green Parish Council is, in principle, supportive of the concept of creating a new settlement, with appropriate infrastructure, as alternative to continuous growth of existing villages.

The Parish Housing Requirement for 125 new dwellings within Birdham Parish is welcomed and will ensure that the village can grow appropriately. A managed increase in population will also help to support and sustain local shops, services and businesses.

Birdham is one of the most sustainable of the Service Villages and due to the services and facilities (para 4.12) it has the potential to accommodate a greater proportion of the 500 dwelling Parish Housing Allocation (the HELAA identifies 'achievable' sites to provide 262 new dwellings).

In the event that the Parish Housing Requirement increases beyond 500 units, the District Council is asked to review the proposed housing distribution set out in Policy S5 and to consider the potential for Birdham to contribute a greater number of dwellings accordingly.

I wish to lodge a strong personal objection to the draft Chichester District Council (CDC) Local Plan in which it is proposed that Loxwood is subjected to further development between 2019 and 2035 to, in total, an additional 125 homes.
My first objection to the proposed 125 new houses is on the grounds of failure to meet the sustainability criteria defined in the draft Local Plan. Fundamental village infrastructure is inadequate to support this scale of development, additional to the planned new housing already permitted. Specifically, Loxwood's sewage provision has been stated by Southern Water as inadequate for any further capacity and there is no plan to upgrade this area in Southern Water's 2020-2025 financial plans. The current additional housing being constructed in 2018/2019 is requiring sewage holding tanks which will involve regular emptying by tanker (additional heavy vehicle use of our village roads). Surely in the 21st Century it is not acceptable to commit to any substantial housing development that cannot be served by mains sewage.
Additionally, areas of our village are liable to flooding, both surface water and fluvial. This will be further compounded if greater surface land area that is currently vegetation and natural drainage into the water table is replaced by impervious building surfaces.
Loxwood has no public transport to serve the local community and, with proposed further cuts to rural bus services, the one bus a day to Guildford has a vulnerable future. Given we do not have any local employment opportunities, other than 2 shops, a hair salon and a health centre, all residents require cars to travel to work. There is already a need to relieve traffic volume and speed on Loxwood's minor country roads and lanes which, as a linear settlement, carry significant traffic through the village, additional to that created by the village population itself. It is highly relevant to note that Loxwood has narrow public roads along which period residential properties with no off-street parking require residents' cars to be parked on the roads, thus creating congestion at regular times through every day particularly at pinch points in the village, specifically the High Street outside the parade of shops and in Station Road, off which the village school and medical centre are located. At these locations the roads do not have the width for 2 lanes of traffic to flow uninterrupted. This is an issue today, without further housing in the village.
With increasing housing development around Loxwood, including the expansion of Horsham, several sites in the neighbouring village of Alfold, the significant Waverley Borough Council's scheme for in excess of 1,800 homes at the approved Dunsfold Park 'new village' and substantial new developments in Cranleigh and Billingshurst to name a few, the volume of passing traffic using Loxwood's minor roads is very relevant to any further development of this village. There is no option to widen the road due to the village settlement shape and we should not be put in the position where in future years there is the need to carve up our surrounding countryside to put in a village by-pass to re-route high volumes of traffic passing through the village; this is a recognized East-West cross country route to and from Gatwick Airport and it is a well used North-South route from Guildford to the south coast. Traffic is getting increasingly heavy on the parallel A281 and this will only increase as the sizeable developments referenced above are completed; with this more traffic will continually seek to use B2133 as a 'rat run'.
I am also objecting on the basis of the process followed by the planners, specifically, CDC's failure to follow national planning guidance in developing its draft Local Plan. It has become apparent that no desk top study of potential sites has been carried out by the district council, as specified in the national planning guidelines, and instead the Council allowed the allocation to be dictated by developers proposing sites when CDC requested sites. Further to this, there has been no parish consultations on the site allocations. It is very clear that the proposed additional housing is concentrated on Loxwood alone and not shared across our neighbouring villages of Kirdford, Plaistow, Ifold and Wisborough Green.
In conclusion, the proposed plan is ill-thought through and it is unrealistic to consider that the village of Loxwood, given its settlement make-up and the inevitable impact of significant surrounding development, is able to sustain development to the scale proposed.

No mention of Lavant (not all of it is in the SDNP).

We believe some of the smaller village should take an allocation. Funtington as an example

I recognise the housing figures are dictated by central government.
Notwithstanding, the rise in figures for parishes (here and through strategic sites) which already have a neighbourhood plan may feel like an imposition. A NP is worthless if communities are not able to protect sites for which they have made compromises elsewhere to avoid building on.
Those parishes without neighbourhood plans stand to lose out on CIL funds if they do not complete plans in the necessary timeframe, and Boxgrove in particular has not had adequate support in the face of new legislative issues such as the EU habitat regulations.
Where a housing figures are particularly high to the west of the city, serious consideration needs to be given to estimates for parking and traffic congestion issues. Many households will have more than one car and mitigation is urgently needed on the A259 both sides of the city as some of the most consistently congested areas.
Consider more proactive support of Community Land Trust schemes to help bring communities on board. Cost of housing is a key issue - I am young professional and a 'potential' first time buyer. I know I will never be able to buy any of the 12,380 homes being built under this plan (supply does not lower cost in the South East) but I may rent for a long time.
Blocks of flats should be allowed in more areas to avoid eating up green space. It may not be keeping with the character of the area but we will lose all the really rural areas to development if we don't. Houses may be unsustainable for the sheer volume of homes required and the numbers will only ever increase. Flats could also provide an easier way onto (or out of) the property ladder.

Bosham Parish could take approx 100 additional houses through the Parish Housing Requirements alleviating stress elsewhere. I have re-submitted the French Gardens site for development if it s required.

The proposed housing requirement for the parish of Birdham can easily be achieved across sites that can be assimilated into the existing settlement.

The resultant increase in population over the plan period will be beneficial in supporting and sustaining the local shops, businesses and services throughout Birdham.

Without an increase in housing (of at least the 125 homes proposed) and resultant population increase there is a danger that some of Birdham's excellent facilities and services could cease to be viable and stop trading (as happened with The Bell Inn in 2014) which would be a terrible shame for the village.

Policy S5 is drafted to identify residual Parish requirements having regard for strategic allocations. If a strategic allocation were to fail to be delivered or would realise a lower yield, this mechanism would provide no opportunity to deliver those latent requirements in other sustainable locations within the Parish boundary.

This is a fatally flawed approach. The policy should be restructured to identify the Parish requirement (i.e. 1300 for Tangmere) and then say that this amount is proposed to be delivered on an allocation site. In the event that the allocation under-delivers, then consideration should be given to alternate locations.

Please could the Planning Policy team explain and justify to the inhabitants of Loxwood why they have allocated 125 new houses to the Loxwood, representing a 45% increase, when Wisborough Green has 25 and Plastow, Ifold and Kirdford have none.

Infrastructure
The 281 road, historically, has been unable to cope with the amount of traffic and now with all the building in Alfold, Broad Bridge Heath and all the new houses in Cranleigh it will become grid locked. From Loxwood there is one bus into Guildford and none back and there is no train service. Where are all these new villagers going to work and how are they going to get there? Where are the children going to go to school? Loxwood school is already overcrowded and the lanes into Cranleigh are not fit for more school buses.
Where are the medical/hospital facilities? Guildford Hospital cannot cope as it is and during peak admissions it becomes a danger to all. Also the sewage system that serves Loxwood is at capacity. I feel very strongly that this is a breach of legitimate expectation and that the planning team must answer these questions satisfactorily before any decisions can be made.

Finally, taking into consideration the uncertainties of Brexit, why is there such a push to build houses in the country where there is no industry? The foreign work force may be reduced, thousands of jobs lost to Europe as the big car firms, banks etc bail out. Without doubt there will be a recession even if it is short term. Is the Council confident that when it comes to it , the builders will be confident to invest in and be able to complete new projects; in turn will the builders then find buyers? The planning process cannot be faceless, some body has to take responsibility.

My family and I live at The Old Rectory, Bookers Lane, Earnley PO20 7JH. Since my daughter finished university last year, this includes myself, my 22 year old son, and my lodger in a self-contained flat. My mother lives in Manorfield, a care home adjacent to our property. Prior to this we were her primary carers in East Wittering.
I'm writing due to my concern over the lack of a development plan for Earnley parish. While we are part of East Wittering constituency and the village is our commercial hub, there are no plans for our village which is aging as young villagers move out. There is a need for affordable housing in our area. For example, my.lodger, a veteran whose family lives in Bracklesham, has been renting from us for seven years and my eldest son returned home after university but purchased a shared mortgage in Portsmouth due to lack of affordable local housing here.
Secondly, The closing of Earnley Concourse and subsequent fire has hit the social life of Earnley residents hard. It not only brought visitors to the village but provided a venue for parish council meetings, lectures, garden parties and events, as well as being a polling station. The only development suggested for it was as an adult refugee centre, which was withdrawn. This recent loss of social activities is damaging to young people and the elderly, lessening the connection they have to their neighbourhood. I can't see a way to fund replacement village facilities without development within Earnley, which is affected by the many developments at Bracklesham, on both sides of Clappers Lane.
I hope CDC will consider and mention Earnley in their deliberations for the plan. At the moment our lovely village is floating in limbo.

I write to express my objection to the proposed new Local Plan concerning Loxwood, W. Sussex. Last December I became the joint owner of a cottage in Loxwood and it was only recently that the proposed Local Plan came to my notice, in particular the proposed allocation of 125 new houses in Loxwood for the period 2019 - 2035 (in addition to the 60 already allocated in the current Local Plan).

I am objecting to the Plan because it would seem to me as unsustainable and that the CDC appears not to have followed national planning guidance in developing a draft Local Plan. The sewerage infrastructure in Loxwood seems to be inadequate to cope with further building and there is inadequate public transport in the village. Loxwood does not appear to have many local employment opportunities and the area around seems to be prone to flooding. Furthermore, it appears that no parish consultations have taken place about the allocations of new houses and I have not received any information about the proposed sites, which concerns me greatly. It appears that some of the neighbouring villages have not been allocated any new houses and I am surprised to learn that such a large number of houses has been allocated to Loxwood. Such an allocation would, in my opinion, change detrimentally and irrevocably the character of the village.

Re: The first consultation phase of the Chichester District Council Local Planed proposal to allocate a FURTHER 125 houses in Loxwood during 2019-2035.

I have genuine and considerable concerns about this proposal and would like to draw the following points to the the consideration of the council.

Sustainable development -
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.

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. Any local demand will be met by the current allocation of 60 houses within the current local plan.

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.

It would appear that the number of houses proposed has been driven by developers wishing to make a quick profit by proposing sites that are being promoted by local land owners, with disregard for the sustainability and suitability of development within our community.
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 object to the proposal to allocate any further housing to Loxwood within the period 2019 to 2035, our infrastructure is stretched beyond capacity and without very significant investment into providing sustainable public transport, drainage/sewerage facilities, road network, job opportunities, education and health facilities the addition of such a number of new homes in our community is not viable.

I am writing to object to CDC's proposals in its new Local Plan to allow developers to build at least another 125 houses in the village of Loxwood.

In the existing Local Plan I understood that Loxwood, Kirdford and Wisborough Green were each allocated 60 houses which seemed a more sustainable and fairer distribution economically, socially and environmentally between these three Service Villages.

I have lived in the area for 64 years and only moved to Loxwood less then four years ago. I know the area well and considered carefully the Loxwood Neighbourhood Plan before buying our current property. It is very worrying to think that this semi rural village may now be subjected to over development which if not controlled and managed properly could cause significant problems for the community in the future and effect the quality of residents lives.

My principal reasons for objecting are;

* The sewage system is already inadequate and causes problems for some residents with both fluvial and surface water flooding already occurring
* Southern Water currently currently have no plans to update the system.
* 2 new developments one in Alfold and one in Loxwood have recently added nearly 100 new houses to the system

* The B2133 and Station Road are extremely busy roads used by commuters as well as local people. The number of Lorries and cars driving through the village is continually increasing and more houses will aggravate the problem and the congestion at peak times

* Despite a 30 mile speed limit through the centre of the village Loxwood is becoming a more dangerous place for pedestrians to walk round.

* Parking outside the local shop/post office, butcher and hairdressers is very inadequate and dangerous. Parked vehicles frequently obstruct visibility at the junction of Station Road

I am writing to convey my dismay at the proposed addition of 65 new houses into the Loxwood local area.

Our roads are congested beyond belief and we already have an enormous amount of housing being built along the B2133 at Alfold and further on at Cranleigh. The roads won't take hundreds more cars without decaying even further. Anyone coming to live in this village of working age, has to have their own car. There is one bus a day - you couldn't possibly commute anywhere at all except by car.

There is also the problem with the sewers. They can't cope with the number of houses already built let alone proposed. The local water company have NO plans to repair/replace/renew the pipework in Loxwood until gone 2025 - we will be drowning in sewage.

These proposals seem to be coming from builders looking to make a profit, not planners trying to ease the housing shortage. Why put up houses that won't be used.

It is very clear from all the information available that planning for another 125 houses in Loxwood is a ridiculous suggestion. There are a huge number of developments happening in and around Loxwood and Cranleigh and with the infrastructure in its current state this is surely unsustainable and will cause huge problems with utilities, traffic, parking, congestion etc.

Cranleigh is the nearest village/shopping area to Loxwood and it is already overcrowded and there are at least 4 developments of a large number of houses currently in progress.

It seems that little thought has been given to the fact that there is a large number of developments in close proximity which will undoubtedly have a negative impact on the existing infrastructure and local communities.

I make plea that sensible consideration is given before any more developments are approved just to tick a box.

I am objecting to the allocation of 125 houses to Loxwood as firstly, it will not be sustainable as the infrastructure cannot support that level; and, secondly, national planning guidance has not been followed in the process so far.

I am most alarmed by CDC's proposal that Loxwood be allocated 125 new houses in this planning document. This number seems to have been drawn from a hat and is totally unsustainable.

Is nobody in your department aware that Loxwood already has a severe and recurring problem with waste water? Southern Water has stated more than once that there is not sufficient capacity in the sewage system to meet current needs at times of stress; it also claims to have no funding available for an upgrade in the next five years and possibly longer. To add the proposed number of extra dwellings to the village would create a very serious health and environmental hazard which would impact on residents of those dwellings as well as on those of us who already live in Loxwood.

I can't help feeling that your planners are taking the easy way out by allowing themselves to be led by landowners and developers seeking a 'quick buck'; rather than adhering to a balanced and fair distribution of new housing in the three main villages within the North of Plan area - namely Loxwood, Wisborough Green and Kirdford - whilst also overlooking Plaistow and Ifold.
Why should Loxwood be saddled with over 80% of the new housing planned for the North of Plan area?

This proposal runs contrary to National policy and runs roughshod through your own draft Local Plan Review declaration that development should be plan led and not developer led. It is unsustainable and should be revisited.

I write to object to the proposed new Local Plan concerning Loxwood, West Sussex. I became the joint owner of a cottage in Loxwood in December, 2018 and it is only recently that the proposed Local Plan came to my notice and in particular the proposed allocation of 125 new houses in Loxwood for the period 2019 - 2035 (in addition to the 60 already allocated in the current Local Plan).

I object to the Plan because:
(a) it appears to be unsustainable and
(b) it seems that the CDC has not followed national planning guidance in developing its draft local plan.

Concerning point (a), I have been informed that the local sewage infrastructure has no further capacity and there are no plans to update it in its 2020 -2025 expenditure plans. In addition, the local public transport system is inadequate and there appear to be few employment opportunities in the village. It seems that Loxwood is also prone to flooding.

Concerning point (b), I have been informed that no parish consultations have taken place about site allocations. I have not been informed about any proposed sites and this is of major concern to me. It also appears that neighbouring villages have not been allocated any new houses and I am unable to understand why it is proposed that such a large number of houses be allocated to Loxwood, which would alter irrevocably the character of the village.