Policy S5: Parish Housing Requirements 2016-2035

I write to you to strongly object on viewing the draft local-plan proposal for new housing in loxwood which outlines a further allocation of a staggering 125 more homes in the village for the period 2019-2035 in addition to the 60 already included in the current local plan.

I believe this proposal to be unfair in its scale and impact on Loxwood. lt also further floored from both a lack of regard to due process and the sustainability which I've always believed to be a core component of strategic planning.

Looking at the process side the draft plan firstly fails in that it is being driven by developers and interested land owners and is in breach of national planning guidance policy in that the district council should lead this with provisional desk top studies of potential plots and then consult. Furthermore, the neighbouring villages of Kirdford, Plaistow and lfold have not been allocated any new housing and Wisborough Green only 25 homes. Local demand for open market housing is not there, most houses are being brought by people moving into the area for a variety of reasons with many commuting daily long distances to and from workplaces.

On the vital issue of sustainability, no regard has been given for the lack of employment opportunities in the immediate area and cars will be needed for the long commute to workplaces. The lack of natural gas supplies leave the only form of heating to be either polluting oil or electricity. The villages infrastructure capacity and constraints will not cope with the increase in demand, especially relating to wastewater treatment and with no prospect of upgrading according to southern water for many years. The roads are already creaking and public transport woefully inadequate with a single bus service to Guildford. The village school and Medical services are at maximum utilisation already.

In December 2013 the villages vulnerability to flooding was put to the test once more resulting in many homes flooding, this situation to my knowledge has not been rectified.

I would ask you to please take another look at your proposals and insure these points are factored in to any decision you make.

I note that you have put a requirement on Loxwood to provide 125 more houses in addition to the 60 or so accounted for in our Neighbourhood Plan. Furthermore, I understand that there is no comparable onus placed on surrounding villages to share the burden of this massive increase in the local population.

Surely you are aware of the hopeless situation in Loxwood regarding our sewage system. It is the central issue of a long-running saga which has been causing distress to many residents for a number of years. I refer to raw sewage rising through lavatory pans and garden man­ holes! I understand that Southern Water has finally accepted that the system is far from fit for purpose but an upgrade is not likely to happen in the foreseeable future because it has not been catered for in the current spending plans. Worse, the ongoing development at Nursery Green has been allowed to proceed in spite of non-compliance with the planning consent, which called for a large attenuation tank to be installed under the B2133. Instead,
a low-cost alternative has been hastily cobbled together which relies on periodic emptying, of a much smaller tank, by road-going tankers triggered by a radio signal from a monitoring point downstream of Nursery Green.

Business in Loxwood is confined to retail and some home based work so there are little or no job opportunities and there is only one bus a day going to Guildford. Hardly a sustainable situation with regard to employment.

In short, I cannot see how this proposal is sustainable by any stretch of the imagination.

Our own Neighbourhood Plan, developed, passed by referendum and legalised by due process at District, County and National level accepted a responsibility for 60 houses. My understanding is that this formed an integral part of a District Plan which also called for 60 houses in each of Kirdford and Wisborough Green. The new proposal has added 125 houses to the Loxwood plan, rendering it obsolete at the stroke of a pen, but no further requirement from Kirdford or Wisborough Green. Judging from the number and extent of applications we are now seeing from developers I suspect that the inflation of the number of houses wanted in Loxwood has much to do with the wishes of the developers and very little to do with a considered assessment of local needs. There has been no further consultation, with residents, of any updated plan put forward by the District.

I frankly don't see how this conforms to the national planning guidance on developing a Local Plan.

I must protest, in the strongest possible terms, to this requirement for 125 additional houses in Loxwood and look forward to a re-assessment of the proposal.

I write to you to strongly object on viewing the draft local-plan proposal for new housing in Loxwood which outlines a further allocation of a staggering 125 more homes in the village for the period 2019-2035 in addition to the 60 already included in the current local plan.

I believe this proposal to be unfair in its scale and impact on Loxwood. It also further floored from both a lack of regard to due process and the sustainability which I've always believed to be a core component of strategic planning.

Looking at the process side the draft plan firstly fails in that it is being driven by developers and interested land owners and is in breach of national planning guidance policy in that the district council should lead this with provisional desk top studies of potential plots and then consult. Furthermore, the neighbouring villages of Kirdford, Plaistow and lfold have not been allocated any new housing and Wisborough Green only 25 homes. Local demand for open market housing is not there, most houses are being brought by people moving into the area for a variety of reasons with many commuting daily long distances to and from workplaces.

On the vital issue of sustainability, no regard has been given for the lack of employment opportunities in the immediate area and cars will be needed for the long commute to workplaces. The lack of natural gas supplies leave the only form of heating to be either polluting oil or electricity. The villages infrastructure capacity and constraints will not cope with the increase in demand, especially relating to wastewater treatment and with no prospect of upgrading according to southern water for many years. The roads are already creaking and public transport woefully inadequate with a single bus service to Guildford. The village school and Medical services are at maximum utilisation already.

In December 2013 the villages vulnerability to flooding was put to the test once more resulting in many homes flooding, this situation to my knowledge has not been rectified.

I would ask you to please take another look at your propos.als and insure these points are factored in to any decision you make.

I write to register my overwhelming strong objection to the proposal of yet
more development of housing in the village of Loxwood .

Firstly, the National Planning Policy is determining Loxwood for development, on a massive scale in a short space of time, and yet no surrounding villages have any proposal for development. The proposal for an extortionate, additional 125 properties is not in the least part sound, based on the process applied, county fairness or local sustainability.

The proposed development is not sustainable. The proposed development is Developer lead.

Loxwood has consented to housing development in recent years, but the village is tantamount to being 'raped by developers' with a continual stream of further applications for even more development.

Loxwood would appear to be an easy target in terms of the local authority not exercising its due diligence and responsibility to existing residents, based on current amenities and services.

The village cannot sustain additional residents. The local vicinity services are at their peak in terms of the medical centre and school. Neither is there any scope for- employment, thus making the village roads busy and dangerous with even more vehicles commuting.

The character of the award winning village is changing at a fast pace, thus losing its charm, and the village runs the risk of becoming unrecognisable .

We already regularly experience flooding.

Many existing properties are not on mains water waste. There is no gas supply to the village.
There is no public transport service.

Existing properties sit on the open market for a very long time for sale.

Heavy haulage vehicles pass through regularly.

Vehicles do not observe the speed limit.

The roads will be liable to increased used of potentially 200 more cars, (linked to the residents of the additional homes,) let alone the increase in commercial vehicles servicing the additional residents with services as in cesspit emptying, waste collections and home deliveries etc.

Not to mention the onslaught of the build; transportation of heavy machinery
and materials in and out of the village during the erection of such housing.

Developers appear to be controlling the Council in respect of build proposals, and the Council appear to be taking a back seat and allowing the Developers a free reign.

Chichester District Council is not engaging in the local plan, or seeing a fair
allocation across the County.

Loxwood has already undertaken development of residential sites, with a further 60 already allocated. To suggest a further 125 is completely unacceptable and unsustainable.

The speed at which Loxwood has transformed in recent years is quite astonishing.

I therefore urge the Council to step up to its responsibility and take control of developer lead proposals, and act in a way that protects the village and ensures fairness across the County, thus safeguarding the already stretched local services and amenities.

I wish to express my objection to the proposal of further development of housing in the village of Loxwood.

The plans for yet another, additional 125 properties is not sound. The planned development is not sustainable.
The planned development is entirely Developer lead.

Loxwood has agreed to a series of developments of housing in recent years, but the village is proving a continual target for developers, and the Council appear to be idle in addressing the unfairness, with other villages remaining untouched for years.

Loxwood does not have the infrastructure to accommodate more housing
developments.

The village cannot sustain additional residents.

The local vicinity services are not in a position to take on increased numbers of patients at the practice, nor educate additional children at the primary school.

Neither is there any scope for employment opportunities.

The traffic passing through is already beyond capacity at peak times.

The village is on the verge of becoming unrecognisable to long term existing residents, and the village is privleleged to have an abundance of caring, passionate residents, who take enormous pride in their local vicinity.

Severe flooding is a re-occurring issue, with homes frequently flooding.

Many existing properties are not on mains water waste.

There is no gas supply to the village.

There is no public transport service.

Existing properties sit on the open market for a very long time for sale
with little interest/movement.

No transport links for commuting.

Heavy haulage vehicles pass through regularly.

The all encompassing requirements to sustain any development will be an issuefor the local area, with materials, building equipment and construction workers and their vehicles will impact significantly.

If the homes are then erected, they will need servicing in terms of tank
emptying as the waste water in the area is an on-going issue.

The electric supply is frequently dipping based on demand, so that too will
be an even greater issue.

Vehicles do not observe the speed limit.

Potentially, a significant increase in family vehicles is likely to increase to in excess of 200, if you anticipate most households are two car, (linked to the residents of the additional homes,) and with the servicing/ delivery and waste vehicles servicing the additional builds, the list goes on ..........

Why are the developers leading on sabotaging Loxwood?


What is the Council doing to address the continual planning applications on a solitary village with little amenities? CDC appear to be sat on their laurels and leaving it to local residents to fight to protect their surroundings.

Chichester District Council is not engaging in the local plan, or seeing a fair allocation across the County.

Loxwood has already undertaken development of residential sites, with a further 60 already allocated. To suggest a further 125 is completely unacceptable and unsustainable.

Iurge the Council to redress this imbalance.

Loxwood has significantly transformed in recent years due to new housing developments.

I would expect the Council to be active and respect the views of the local residents and ensure a fair, due diligent process to such planning applications.

Protect the local area and uphold the uniqueness of the vicinity and recognise that there is little to offer additional new builds in terms of services and amenities and transport links. Otherwise, the local people, who have made contributions to the ongoing success of the village, over many, many years, will be moving on and asking the last resident to turn the lights out. Loxwood, as we know it, the village we all pride ourselves with, and nurture will be long gone.

See attachment

See attachment

I am writing to register my strong objection to the proposed allocation of an additional 125 houses in loxwood. The allocation of 125 houses is unsound, unfair and unsustainable.

Failure to consult ... renders the allocation unsound. While understanding that housing and economic growth can be beneficial and allow communities to prosper, the Loxwood allocation process appears to have been driven principally by speculative property developers coming forward. Moreover, previous delivery of open market homes has exceeded local Loxwood demand and affordability.

Indeed, the high allocation is unfair. Kirdford and Plaistow/lfold have not been allocated any new houses and Wisborough Green just 25 houses. In the existing local Plan the "service villages" of loxwood, Kirdford and Wisborough Green were each allocated 60 houses but no effort has been made to share the burden across the three parishes.

The high allocation is unsustainable because such a large number of new homes would have a significant negative impact upon the capacity of the sewage and wastewater treatment infrastructure. However, no strategic infrastructure improvements are planned by Southern Water. The system is already over stretched and we currently have problems with the recent Nursery housing development with onsite sewage holding tanks which will have to be emptied by tanker. Indeed, the village generally suffers from high water tables and periodic surface water flooding due to the Lox stream and tributaries.

The village does not have any mains gas, employment opportunities nor any viable public transport options. The nearest railway station is six miles away at Billingshurst and the only bus service to Guildford is once a day. The local primary school is oversubscribed, under funded and is situated on a constrained site. In short, rather than delivering "what the community wants" the new housing allocation of 125 homes for loxwood will result in the wrong development in the wrong place with valued countryside destroyed for no good reason. I urge you to go back to the drawing board and reconsider the distribution and need for further housing in the north east villages and Loxwood in particular.

See attachment

I wish to object to the proposal in the above Draft Local Plan to impose 125 new houses on the village of Loxwood. Taking into account the 60 new houses currently either under construction or subject to planning review, this addition amounts to a total of 185 new houses in the village presently comprising some 450 houses. In the North of Plan Area the entire allocation (except for 25 houses at Wisborough Green) is concentrated on loxwood rather than being spread between all the service villages. Not only is this allocation disproportionate, it is also unfair and departs from the policy adopted in the previous Local Plan (2014-2029) in which 60 houses were also allocated to both Wisborough Green and Kirdford.

It appears that the allocation for Loxwood originates from a developer-led identification of potential development sites within the Plan Area, with no independent scrutiny from Chichester District Council. For instance, has the viability of the developers' assessments been examined and will their proposals deliver the types of housing needed?

The impact of the proposal on the existing village community and its environment, as well as the ability of the existing infrastructure and medical and schooling facilities to cope with the increased population, does not seem to have been assessed. For example, a critical issue relates to wastewater disposal. Southern Water have stated that the wastewater disposal system in Loxwood is already at full capacity and cannot accommodate any further input. Currently the Company has no plans to deal with this situation before at least 2025, no provision for improvement measures having been included in their next capital works programme (AMP7). This issue seems to have been ignored.

Moreover, I understand that Loxwood Parish Council were not consulted during the preparation of the Draft Plan and that their views have not been considered.

It thus appears that Chichester District Council have failed to fully comply with the guidance for producing a Draft Local Plan viz. sustainability, due process and fairness. In addition, more consideration needs to be given to the impact of these proposals on Loxwood.

I attended the Public Meeting on the 9th December 2018 held by the Loxwood Parish Council to hear about the new proposed Local Plan for the village.

I had supported the Loxwood Neighbourhood Plan when it was drawn up as the number of new houses envisaged made good use of space within the Parish bounds. My only slight reservations were the further increase in traffic, the lack of public transport and particularly with regard to the potential pressure on the wastewater
infrastructure.

These reservations will no longer be minor with the proposed addition of a further 125 plus houses in the village. The traffic flow has already increased significantly since the Neighbourhood Plan was first mooted, there has been no change to the availability of public transport and Southern Water has advised that there remains inadequate sewage capacity for the village. Furthermore it has been necessary to install sewage holding tanks to cope with the under capacity for the properties currently under construction on the old garden nursery site.

Many of us did not adopt a NIMBY approach to the preparation of the Neighbourhood Plan. However the approach of the CDC appears to be a diktat and in contravention of the NPPF requirements particularly with regard to local demand, transport and environmental infrastructure.

Therefore I wish to register my objection to the size of the proposed additional housing in the CDC Local Plan.

My concerns over the housing development is as follows The sewerage is at its capacity i.e. the latest development you have authorized has to have a truck (once a week ) to take away sewerage as the drains on the development cannot cope. This is with only very few houses that have been sold. So when all houses are sold they estimate 4 to 5 trucks a week.

The water supply is also at its capacity and southern water have no plans for the next few years to upgrade.

The stream that runs through the village cannot cope with the present water flow when it rains hard and there are no funds to widen it or do general repairs where needed . Also there are no plans to dig out the trenches in the village on a yearly basis unlike Alford where Surrey CC clear once a year. This is why 18 house the School and Pub were flooded.

See attachment

See attachment

See attachment

See attachment

See attachment

See attachment

See attachment

See attachment

See attachment

See attachment

See attachment

See attachment

See attachment

See attachment

See attachment

See attachment

See attachment

See attachment