Crawley’s Infrastructure will be overwhelmed.

Henry Smith MP and Crawley Borough Council both oppose the development.

The impact of the development will be on Crawley and its infrastructure but under current planning rules Crawley will have no involvement in the decision making process.

Which key services cannot support this level of additional housing?

• Health & NHS: All surgeries are oversubscribed, Crawley Hospital has no A&E department and East Surrey Hospital is already at breaking point. Homes England cannot promise NHS services within the development. Indeed recent large developments (Forge Wood and Kilnwood Vale) tried and failed to attract GPs.

• Roads: Our country lanes are already dangerous rat-runs. The proposed link road is poorly thought-through as it will add huge amounts of traffic into Ifield, Charlwood and Rusper.

• Water & Sewage: We already suffer from water shortages in the region and an overwhelmed sewage processing system. There is no provision for improvements to this critical infrastructure in the plan.

• Public Transport: Ifield Station is already dangerous. It could not cope with an additional 10,000 users. There are no plans to improve the station.

Loss of Green Space and Destruction of Ancient Land & Sites

When Crawley New Town was set up the land to the west of Ifield Brook was designated as a rural buffer, and there is no reason why this should not continue to be the case.

The destruction of this rural site runs counter to much-vaunted government and HDC commitments to encourage tree planting and green initiatives. Given the current focus on climate change and global warming, building unnecessarily on green belt land is unnecessary and inexcusable.

• Destruction of wildlife corridors and habitats: Homes England's plans for the site commit to net gains of 10% in biodiversity. This is not a credible claim. The loss of ancient habitats would be irreplaceable with the consequent loss of trees, ancient woodland, hedgerows and much of the wildlife that is dependent on them. The area is rich in biodiversity and is a flood plain to boot!

• Obliteration of archeological sites: the proposed Development has the potential to impact a scheduled monument, conservation areas and several non-designated assets within and in close proximity of the site during construction

• Where has Crawley’s Green Space Gone???: Crawley was deliberately given constrained boundaries as a town in the countryside. Despite this, Crawley is now almost entirely encircled by concrete: Gatwick has grown in the north, the M23 cuts it off to the east and south east and the link road from the M23 to the A264 took care of the rest. Ifield, the old village and its surrounding countryside is Crawley’s last remaining rural link to Sussex. It must be protected.

• Say no to “Craw-Sham”: Horsham and Crawley will soon become one if we don’t think twice about ripping up our fields and ancient woodland.

Our beautiful, historic Golf course will be destroyed

Ifield Golf Course pre-dates Crawley New Town and has prestigious design credentials.

• Heritage Asset: The course was designed by a 5-times Open Championship winner in 1927. The same designer then went on to create Royal Birkdale and Aldebrugh’s golf courses (to name a couple). This level of design is very rare and should be protected.

• Community Asset: In comparison to most golf memberships, Ifield is affordable. It also has a very strong track record in nurturing young talent in addition to providing a key sporting amenity to those in their autumn years (who are a large part of our community).

• HE’s proposal could be in breach of national policy frameworks (NPF 97): These require that any sport amenity be either surplus to requirement or replaced by an equivalent/ better alternative sports provision, the benefits of which clearly outweigh the loss of the current or former use.

  Homes England's proposed replacement for the golf club is a football pitch in the floodplain, which in no way replaces the sporting activity and pleasure provided to a wide range of ages and abilities by ifield golf club.

• Save our trees!: 15 years ago The Forestry Comission planted c.7,500 trees on the golf course. Anyone who walked there during lockdown would have seen these beautiful, mature woodlands (a key element in our global fight against climate change). The huge majority of these majestic plants will be cut down to make way for concrete.

The site just won’t work (it is a flood plain!)

The entire site is a flood plain. Homes England’s proposal in no way mitigates the risk (and expense) of flooding.

Air (and noise) pollution is a risk: Gatwick (and its potential expansion) means that we already suffer from poor air quality and noise pollution. An enormous dual carriageway, 10,000 houses, a business park and a spike in traffic will only make the situation worse for all residents in the area. The destruction of 10,000+ mature trees (a key carbon capture resource) will only make matters much, much worse.

It is a flood plain: The site already floods at the slightest provocation. The mitigation strategies proposed by Homes England will not work. The impact of covering a natural flood plain with concrete is unpredictable but many listed and historic building in the area near Ifield Brook or the River Mole will be put at risk of flooding.

The site is a mineral safeguarding area: The entirety of the site is located in a mineral safeguarding area for brick clay (Weald Clay Formation), and part of the south of the site may be located in a mineral safeguarding area for building stone. Due to the size of the site in comparison to the total safeguarded areas, mineral safeguarding issues are not considered significant and have been scoped out of the potential development (Joint Minerals Local Plan for West Sussex County Council 2018 - attachment 3).