Application S/2011/1395/FULL Lime Yard, West Grimstead

I would like to express my continued opposition to this revised application, which still contains many inaccurate claims. Although a lengthy report from traffic consultants has been added, it is hard to take this seriously, when:

a) the bottom of each page refers to , not West Grimstead b) the location map (Appendix A) positions the site so far to the bottom right of the map that it does not even show Windwhistle Lane linking the village to the A36. This is the route that all vehicle Sat Navs will instruct their drivers to take when accessing the site from the A36, M27 or M3. Thus the proposals for directing the route of vehicles leaving the site, which are clearly unenforceable anyway, address at best half of the concerns about vehicle movements. c) the premises chosen for generating numbers of vehicle movements are bizarre in the extreme and the selection parameters highly questionable. For example, the selected locations were categorised under ‘Edge of Town’. For 1 out of 5 days per week, the population within 1 mile of the site was assumed to lie between 25,001 and 50,000 people. The correct category of under 1000 people was not used at all. A more appropriate comparative site might have been the container depot at Dinton, that has caused residents so much distress. Their Parish Plan includes this statement: ‘It is felt that the heavy traffic caused by the industrial sites far exceeds the predictions given when planning permission was granted’

d) the report asserts a current figure of 70 vehicle movements a day, with no evidence whatsoever! Since the business moved to Lyme Regis in April 2008, activity on the site and vehicle movements have been minimal. Precise figures could no doubt be obtained, but 10 movements a week would be nearer the mark, with weeks going by with no activity at all. Even when the business was fully functioning, 20 movements a day would have been the maximum, with 8 a more usual figure. (I can state this with some confidence, as my husband was employed as a driver)

Since the agent’s Design and Access statement refers to District Local Plan Policy E19, I would like to comment on certain points from this about criteria that need to be met if development is to be permitted:

iv) there is no suitable building in the immediate locality Empty units are available at Whaddon Business park, West Dean and elsewhere in the area iv) there is no adverse impact on the character of the surrounding landscape or biodiversity Much of the site designated for B8 use is at present derelict ground, surrounded by trees. Rough grassland and piles of rubble is a perfect site for reptiles (slow worms, common lizards) and amphibians (great crested newts are legally protected but the increasingly rare palmate newt also breeds in nearby ponds). Any development of this site would disturb all of these. It is worth noting that the original planning permission for the Lime Yard was given on condition that if the lime business ceased, the land should be returned to its original agricultural state. v) there is no unacceptable increase in vehicular traffic or additional reliance on the private car The increase of traffic has been dealt with above. vi) the environment of any nearby dwellings will not be adversely affected Despite the agent’s claim that the site is ’located some considerable distance from residential properties’, the south east edge of the site is only approximately 30 metres from our property. With no end user in mind, the possibilities are unknown, but it is hard to envisage a development of any sort that would not adversely affect us in some way.

In sum, I believe the proposed development would adversely affect residents of West Grimstead by greatly increasing traffic, noise and pollution and by destroying an area of ground, part of which has never been developed and that harbours protected species.

Lindy Paramor Hollyville, West Grimstead, Salisbury SP5 3RQ