11/20/2019 Mail - Woodgate, Jenny - Outlook
South Medstead Development Site - OBJECTION
Tue 15/10/2019 11:03 To: EHDC - Local Plan
Firstly, it risks changing the character of the area from Rural to Urban. Secondly, it is developing into a ‘dormitory population’. As there has been no commensurate increase in employment within these parishes, the majority of the new residents commute to work in neighbouring towns. This not only increases traffic congestion at peak times, it also undermines the sense of belonging. Thirdly, investment in the infrastructure has failed to keep pace with the increase in the population. This has put an increased level of pressure on all the local services and is most concerning in terms of the lack of facilities for the young people in our community. As a result of their location on the top of the ‘Hampshire Alps’, the settlements of Medstead and Four Marks have always had a rural character to them and this has largely been preserved until today. The Neighbourhood Plan sought to put in place policies to help retain the rural character of the parishes as this is seen to be central to the character of both settlements and something to be cherished and protected. However, this plan seems to be being undermined and the residents of Four Marks and Medstead will not have a sustainable social infrastructure in terms of the sense of community, the feeling of belonging and the nurturing of civic pride.
The main site at South Medstead is not actually large enough for 600 houses, so the ‘pig farm’ has been put forward in this development site as well as ‘Land West of Lymington Bottom Road’.
Site Reference: LAA/MED-016 Beverley Farm, Five Ash Road, Medstead, GU34 5EJ / Paddock View, Stoney Lane, Medstead, GU34 5EL /Land at Lymington Bottom Road, Medstead an Site Reference: LAA/MED-009 Land at Five Ash Crossroads, Lymington Bottom Road (pig farm). Previously given a status of Un-developable. The Land on both of these applications is included within the South Medstead Development Site Plan. However, it has previously been rejected for many of the reasons noted above. Nothing has changed that should alter this previous decision. The planning rejection notice for the Pig Farm site said that "it maintains a rural character and appearance compatible with its surroundings. The site is sensitively located at the edge of the settlement and forms part of the transition between the settlement boundary and other dispersed developments in the countryside close by”. I agree with this. Land West of Lymington Bottom Road has also been included in a Separate Large Development Plan that I have also objected to for similar reasons as it will still affect the rural hamlets and infrastructure.
Furthermore:
Four Marks & Medstead have already over-delivered so much new housing. There is no justification for large-scale development in the area during the Local Plan period to 2036
https://outlook.office.com/mail/none/id/AAMkADIxNjE3NWJlLTMxYmEtNDEwZC1iOGM4LTYxOTllYjNmN2MzZQBGAAAAAABrEkrzGtHSSpsf0nN… 1/2 11/20/2019 Mail - Woodgate, Jenny - Outlook It is a “bolt-on” enough to overload a village and dimishes the undeveloped “local gap” which exists between Medstead and South-Medstead-Four-Marks the preservation of which is a priority addressed in Policy 2 of M+FM neighbourhood plan.
The soft rural introduction to Four Marks from the West gives villagers a much valued sense of place. This is also true of the adjoining small rural hamlet, Soldridge (~100 houses and ~300 residents).
Lack of employment in Four Marks would inevitably generate a large amount of commuter traffic that will travel along single carriage lanes out of the village towards the A31 in either direction. Traffic through the remote villages of Soldridge, Medstead and Bentworth to A339 will increase on rural roads with blind bends, single track roads and railway bridge. The A31 is a high-capacity trunk road which is dual-carriageway for much of its length. However, Four Marks is a bottle-neck in the road. At this point, the road is single carriageway, there are many junctions accessing various parts of Four Marks, there are three (soon to be four) traffic-light- controlled pedestrian crossings and there is a rigorously- enforced 30 MPH limit. Even a small obstruction on the A31 e.g. a refuse-collection truck causes a long tail-back. To load yet more car traffic onto the A31 at the Four Marks bottleneck is illogical and highly undesirable. The additional car traffic and, importantly, construction traffic will have to pass through two obstructions to reach the A31. There is a single-lane restriction on Lymington Bottom Road under the railway bridge which is, at present controlled by “give way to on-coming traffic” signs. There is a second restriction at the junction of Lymington Bottom Road with the A31 which can only allow one vehicle at a time to turn right. The installation of a pedestrian crossing which is proposed by EHDC may further restrict the capacity of the junction.
There is no secondary school provision and Alton schools are at capacity.
This plan doesn’t appear to have the support and investment to make this project sustainable in the future. Not recommended by EHDC.
Kind regards,
https://outlook.office.com/mail/none/id/AAMkADIxNjE3NWJlLTMxYmEtNDEwZC1iOGM4LTYxOTllYjNmN2MzZQBGAAAAAABrEkrzGtHSSpsf0nN… 2/2