LETTER: Plans do not stand up to real scrutiny

Indeed the principle director, Peter Freeman, in a recent submission of his to the Wolfson Commission, refers to local councillors when he says: ‘However, in the short term, councillors are unwilling to engage, given their interpretation of the Localism Act, as releasing them from an obligation to meet need’.

No doubt there then as to his utterly disdainful view of our local councillors! What he clearly chooses not to acknowledge is that they won’t engage due to the total lack of any redeeming features of the Mayfield plan.

The only thing that gives their plans any traction is the (purposely?) vaguely worded NPPF whereby any challenge to a council’s housing plans then results in a remote Government Planning Inspector being parachuted in to make a decision with absolutely no regard for local people.

Mayfield’s plans have no merit whatsoever, and do not stand up to any real scrutiny, so their case is built purely on rubbishing every aspect of Horsham District Council (HDC) and Mid-Sussex District Council (MSDC) plans, such as the ‘lack of a duty to co-operate’, the ‘lack of a credible environmental capacity study’ among many others. These opinions of theirs are entirely subjective in nature and are adopted to again rubbish the local council’s plans.

They grandly offer their plan as a New/Garden City with all the ‘green trimmings’. One of their legions of problems is the fact that it won’t be remotely green, given all the car journeys it will generate, in turn leading to gridlock on an already creaking transport system.

The flooding downstream from the new town, the total destruction of so much rare wildlife habitat - the list is endless.

The elephant in the room however (indeed there is a herd of elephants in the Mayfield’s room) the NPPF clearly states that these Garden Cities should be locally led, locally planned, and driven locally.

Mayfield qualifies under precisely none of these.

JOHN HOWIE

Twineham Lane, Twineham