LETTER: Vicious cycle of rising demand

Can I please voice my objection to this development. I work for a consulting engineer as a technical director and am well versed in the pros and cons of housing development, especially nowadays in these times of increased pressure for housing.

Whilst I am a resident of Mid Sussex and live in Hurst the development is not exactly on my doorstep or immediately beyond my back yard and so I may not be directly affected by it, however, I feel this proposal is unreasonable on many grounds for example:

1. There is a conflict of interest in that one of the main proponents for the recent planning regulation changes is a director of Mayfield whilst remaining in the House of Lords. Is it right that this politician will greatly benefit from his own legislation if Mayfield’s is built? Any layman and non-Westminster person will say no.

2. Our MPs, parish and district councils oppose this development as they consider their housing allocations for the next 15 years’ development are already fair and reasonable as presented in various local plans, draft or otherwise. I am far more likely to agree with the conclusions of my elected officials rather than developers and politicians who have a clear self-interest in promoting the doubling of the housing numbers.

3. This development will do nothing to stem the so-called London effect. More jobs and people are being sucked into the London and the SE thus creating a vicious cycle of ever increasing housing demand in and around London. Rebalancing by relocating jobs and new housing stock away from London is the only way to remedy this problem.

4. Much greenfield and natural habitat will be lost. Farm land will become a more and more precious resource as time moves on and population increases.

5. The development will act as another dormitory town to London with a significant portion of people needing to commute to London and Brighton via the already stretched train and road networks. Mayfield’s proposals for park and ride etc are comical and take not account of real world conditions.

6. Many existing communities will be destroyed.

7. The local community is against the scheme. This is despite a Mayfield’s phone survey, which I was part of, which offered skewed and obviously flawed questions.

8. Flooding, wastewater and water resources will all be an issue which can be overcome by heavy engineering but at what cost to the local area?

The list of reasons why this development is unreasonable, unsustainable and unwanted goes on and on, but in summary I feel that the 20,000 houses already earmarked for our area (and remembering the numerous already completed developments) should be adequate to meet our local populace’s need.

CHRIS O’GRADY

High Street, Hurstpierpoint