Delete anything you do not agree with and add a personal example if you can.

​

Name: [YOUR NAME]

Address: [YOUR ADDRESS]

Email: [YOURNAME@EMAIL.COM]

I have already objected to MM88, MM89, MM90 and MM91. I also wish my comments to
be recorded against the following six Main Modifications because they directly affect how
those developments would be controlled if they remain in the District Plan.

 

MM7 – Nature Recovery
I object to MM7 because it removes the existing clear safeguard for areas identified as
priorities or opportunities for nature recovery.
This seems completely at odds with proposing major new greenfield development around
Pease Pottage and Handcross, including development affecting the Weald to Waves
corridor, ancient woodland, shaws, hedgerows, ponds and other connected habitats.
If anything, protection for nature-recovery areas should be strengthened, not weakened.

 

MM8 – Biodiversity Net Gain
I support the stronger requirements for proper habitat evidence and biodiversity
calculations, but I object to weakening the expectation that Biodiversity Net Gain should
support the Local Nature Recovery Strategy and to removing the clear preference for BNG
to be delivered on-site first.
If local habitat is damaged, I want the first priority to be avoiding that damage and
strengthening the ecological network affected locally.
A biodiversity gain somewhere else does not necessarily repair a wildlife corridor lost in
Pease Pottage or Handcross.

​

MM17 – Transport and Connectivity
I support better transport assessments and monitoring, but monitoring a problem is not
the same as solving it.

My own experience of local transport is [ADD YOUR EXAMPLE: congestion, school
run, Junction 11, buses, commuting, Three Bridges/Gatwick, shift work etc.].
The Plan should set clear traffic and public-transport targets, intervention points, funding
and maximum levels of occupation so that improvements happen before unacceptable
congestion or pressure develops, not afterwards.

MM28 – Housing Requirement and Distribution
I recognise the need for new housing, including affordable housing, but I object to the
concentration of 1,044 additional homes in one rural parish without a convincing
cumulative capacity case.
The question is not simply whether Mid Sussex needs houses. It is whether this particular
concentration of development can realistically be accommodated after landscape, ecology,
roads, water, wastewater, schools, healthcare and other infrastructure are taken into
account.
Housing numbers should reflect the capacity of the places expected to accommodate them
— not the other way round.

 

MM95 – Infrastructure
I support the principle that major developments should be planned with a single
Infrastructure Delivery Strategy.
But the same principle should apply to MM89, MM90 and MM91.
Together those three sites would add 939 homes around Pease Pottage and would rely
on many of the same roads, buses, schools, healthcare services, utilities and community
facilities.

I cannot see why residents should experience the combined impact while the
developments are allowed to be planned separately.
If these sites remain, they should have one infrastructure strategy before the first
planning permission is granted, showing what is needed, who pays for it and when it will
be delivered.

 

MM99 – Water and Wastewater
I support the principle that homes should not be occupied before the necessary
wastewater infrastructure is ready.
But the same principle should apply to the supply of clean water.
Where the relevant water company identifies capacity, resilience or reinforcement issues,
the necessary infrastructure should be identified and secured before the homes that
depend on it are occupied.

Existing residents should not be expected to accept poorer water pressure, reduced
resilience or overloaded infrastructure while improvements catch up afterwards.

 

My own experience is [ADD WATER / PRESSURE / OUTAGE / DRAINAGE / SEWER
EXAMPLE IF RELEVANT].

 

What I am asking the Inspector and MSDC to do
Please:

 

• retain strong protection for nature-recovery areas under MM7;

• ensure MM8 keeps Biodiversity Net Gain connected to local nature recovery and gives priority to avoiding harm and delivering gains locally;

• strengthen MM17 so transport monitoring has clear triggers, funded interventions and occupation limits;

• reconsider the concentration and assumed capacity of development under MM28;

• amend MM95 so functionally linked sites such as MM89-MM91 must have one strategic Infrastructure Delivery Strategy; and

• strengthen MM99 so both potable-water and wastewater capacity are demonstrated and necessary infrastructure is operational before the relevant homes are occupied.

​

I am not asking for unreasonable guarantees.

 

I am asking the Plan to make sure that the environment and infrastructure are capable
of supporting the development before the development is committed, rather than
relying on promises that the problems can be dealt with later.