"Sustainable" is the term used to describe continued and robust support of current and future populations. Any sustainable development should have access to facilities, services and infrastructure which are easily reached by all without needing to use a car. Today, Bolney is lacking in decent public transport, safe roads, cycle routes and even safe pedestrian access. Residents rely on private vehicles, or at the extreme the occasional taxi, to reach health services, dentists, supermarkets, shops, work, trains, leisure centres, entertainment, even some of the 6th form colleges, etc.

Large developments can put a huge strain on services which are suddenly expected to cope with rapid population growth, such as education provision and stretched GP, hospital, social care, dentists and pharmacies. This is unsustainable.

Bolney's utilities are already stretched and unfit for purpose: we already have flooding, power cuts and water shortages. Increasing the number of houses will exacerbate these problems. This is unsustainable.

The number of solar panels and air source heat pumps that could be installed at Foxhole Farm would not make 200 houses self-sufficient in terms of electricity.

The developer's vision for Foxhole Farm is to have a zero-carbon housing estate, which means producing no carbon emissions. The use of electric vehicles will provide an escalating drain on capacity as adoption of this type of vehicle increases. The developers even suggest an EV car club, such as that launched last year in Henfield 8 miles away. This is supposed to reduce the prevalence of second car ownership through hiring at reasonable rates but would do nothing to reduce the reliance on cars and number of car journeys. It also requires a bigger, clustered population to make it feasible: Henfield's population is 4 times the size and has 4 times the density of Bolney.

mitigate the impact on sustainability and infrastructure, landowner agents or developers make a contribution according to a tariff towards the community or wider district to improve sustainability. They will often offer shiny community benefits such as a GP surgery, work hubs, a shop, a post office, allotments, country park etc. They actually have no idea of what Bolney needs as they have not engaged with the community at this stage. In reality they may offer land or some funding. Someone (not the developers!) would then need to find a commercial operator who believes the proposed enterprise will be viable in the long term. Bolney understands the unlikelihood of this: a failed part-time sub post office in the Rawson serves as a grim reminder.

Offers related to education (eg land donation) would need backing from West Sussex County Council and already be identified as part of its overall strategy. Land 'for educational use' would best be located near to the school.

We are a rural community in no need of a 'country park' which would give local people nothing they don't already have in terms of access to the fresh air and open aspect of the countryside. The only potential advantage of a country park is that it preserves a small percentage of the greenfield site and it might prevent development on high ground or land that overlooks the village or that would obstruct a cherished view, but this is in no way guaranteed and cannot be relied upon.

The Parish Council has not recorded any recent requests for allotments.

Any funding promised for improving public transport will be for a limited period. Unless well-used, the service will revert to previous, inadequate levels once the money runs out. It also supposes that there are enough drivers to man these extra bus services when in reality they are sometimes cut without warning due to lack of a driver.

It is highly unlikely that the sustainability of Bolney will be addressed by the developer's promises!