So, how will this plan affect the residents of Mid Sussex?

Lou

In all sorts of ways. There’ll be an increase in demand for existing services, like doctors and dentists. There’ll be much more pressure on key services like hospitals and schools. There’ll be lots of green fields lost to housing development. There’ll be lots more traffic on our roads.

JJ and CT

Could you outline three of your objections for the building of the number of homes in the South East Plan?

Jennifer

1. Our existing infrastructure is stretched, (schools, roads, sewage, water supply and primary care health). Simply building 18,000 new homes will makes things worse.
2. The adverse impact on our beautiful countryside, towns and villages.
3. The Government’s proposed numbers are not justified and are way above what we need.

JJ and CT

Given the current economic issues, how likely is it that funding for these project will actually be found? Aside from a massive cash injection from the govt (us) theres just no money in the pot to build these houses.

Lewis Hamylton

We agree. Our economy is in a very difficult position at the moment and we don’t know how long the recession will last, so few houses will be built. The economy will eventually recover and then house builders will start to provide the homes. Land values are falling and so house builders will only want to provide the homes and not the schools, roads and health facilities needed for the new residents.

We don’t see any money coming from the Government to help us provide new homes or infrastructure.

JJ and CT

Hello chaps,

Just wondering, if you don't believe these houses should be built in your 'back yard', so to speak, then where should they go? England is full of beautiful places, so what makes your patch any more defensible than, say, the Norfolk Broads or Dartmoor.

I appreciate that's fairly flippant, but the point still stands: we need homes and people have to live somewhere...

Thanks

PJ

We know we need more homes in Mid Sussex. We think the number of homes provided should meet local need. We don’t think the number should be set arbitrarily by central government.

About two-thirds of Mid Sussex is designated as Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the South Downs is about to be designated as a national park. Our countryside is recognised as being of a higher quality than many other places in the country.

JJ and CT

Why did they up the numbers from 15,000 to 18,000 anyway? get their sums wrong?

Skunky

We don’t know. This is one of the reasons why we are objecting so strongly to the latest minimum numbers. We want the Secretary of State to rethink the numbers and reduce them. If she doesn’t we’ll consider taking legal action.

JJ and CT

Saying you are going to take a Secretary of State to court makes you sound like an incredulous lunatic. Maybe you should be a bit more realistic instead of going off the deep end. Discuss!

Giriraj

We think central government is trying to impose unreasonably high minimum housing levels. We have every right to use our judicial system to hold the Secretary of State to account.

We know there are other councils and bodies who share our concerns and are thinking about taking legal action. We believe we are acting in the best interests of our residents and are reflecting their huge concerns.

Are there any proposed building sites yet?

John Clare

Yes. We have published a draft strategy seeking to show how our communities might change over the next 20 years in terms of housing provision, employment, retail development and infrastructure needs, such as new roads and new schools. This plan shows how 15,000 homes could be provided. A copy of that strategy is available on our website (midsussex.gov.uk). We are in the process of attempting to revise the strategy to accommodate central government’s latest minimum housing requirements.

JJ and CT

The Government's housebuilding targets were a reaction to control the price of houses which were becoming unnaffordable for keyworkers and first-time buyers. Now the financial crisis has done caused house prices to fall, do you have any indication that the Govermnent will relax their house building targets?

Ian Hunt

No. We understand central government is determined to impose minimum housing targets irrespective of local need or the number of homes actually built. This is a blunt instrument. Central government should introduce ways of helping key workers and first-time buyers to purchase homes more easily; that would be a much more effective solution than setting housing targets.

JJ and CT

If we don't increase housing in the area we risk our children and grandchildren not being able to live with us in our communities. If we don't keep building houses prices just keep going up relative to people's incomes. Aren't you just being NIMBYs? However given that the housing industry is cutting back on construction at the moment due to the economic climate isn't this debate academic anyway?

Andrew

We think we should be providing housing for local needs, such as your children and grandchildren. House prices will go up irrespective of how many new homes are built. The current economic downturn does mean few homes will be built until the economy recovers. We want to develop a 20 year strategy to ensure our towns and villages change in a sustainable way where people can live near their work. Central government’s housing target of 18,000 homes may lead to lots more people living in Mid Sussex and commuting long distances to work.

JJ and CT

With that, there will be a demand for more jobs. How would you cater for this if it happened?

Ruth

We want to create job opportunities for people to work near where they live. We have embarked on three major town centre projects which will lead to lots of new jobs being created through £600 million of new investment. In our plans we will also identify other areas for businesses to open and expand. We don’t want to simply provide homes without jobs.

JJ and CT

If planning was granted on the basis that developers provide the infastructure needed to sustain this amount of homes (schools, Dr's, roads etc) would you be less inclined to disagree with the proposals?

Mitch

Yes, absolutely. We don’t, though, believe developers can fund the necessary infrastructure. Central government funding is also needed. Also, we don’t believe house builders can actually build and sell over a thousand homes a year.

18,000 homes, with the necessary infrastructure, are still too many. That number of homes would damage our cherished and attractive countryside.

JJ and CT

What solutions do you have then for housing a growing population? If you object to the plan, surely you should have an alternative strategy.

Amy

We recognise there is a need for housing to be provided in Mid Sussex to meet local demand. Our issue is that the Government requirement for us to provide 18,000 homes is way too high. We think we should take a much lower number and focus on enhancing the qualities of our existing towns and villages.

JJ and CT

Thanks very much for all your questions. We’re grateful to The Argus for giving us this opportunity and will answer and pass back to The Argus any outstanding questions for publication on this website.

JJ and CT

Why should we all lived piled up like battery hens in flats while most of the county lies fallow, owned not by farmers but a coterie of tax-evading hereditary landowners? No-one wants to see the countryside despoiled, but anyone who has been up in a plane knows that Britain is a patchwork of empty fields. Can you explain why we shouldn't nationalise the land and build on the estates of the super-rich aristos instead of being consigned to a dismal proletarian life of overcrowding?

Cheggers

The countryside in Mid Sussex is highly valued by residents in the towns and the villages, both for recreational purposes and for its wildlife habitat... Whilst some green fields will need to be lost if we are to take these ludicrously high housing numbers, we will also want to make best use of sites within towns and villages, which have good access to existing services and public transport. A mix of houses and flats will need to be provided to meet the needs (and pockets) of local people.

"The nationalisation of land is an interesting suggestion. I don't think central government has the appetite to do that. Even if it did, landowners would expect to be compensated on the basis of their land being used for residential purposes. I cannot envisage a situation where any Government would suggest landowners should only receive nominal sums for their land."

JJ and CT