11/19/2019 Mail - Woodgate, Jenny - Outlook

Land South of Winchester Road () OBJECT Abbie Carter 14th October 2019

> Mon 14/10/2019 22:36 To: EHDC - Local Plan

1 attachments (97 KB) Land South of Winchester Road Large Development Site OBJECT 141019.pdf;

To whom it may concern,

Please find attached my letter in OBJECTION to the proposed development on the Land South of Winchester Road (Four Marks) which has been made under the EHDC “Large Development Sites”.

If any of the points need further explanation then please contact me.

Best Regards

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/none/id/AAMkADIxNjE3NWJlLTMxYmEtNDEwZC1iOGM4LTYxOTllYjNmN2MzZQBGAAAAAABrEkrzGtHSSpsf… 1/1 Planning Policy, East District Council

Penns Place, , Hampshire, GU31 4EX

14th October 2019

Land South of Winchester Road Large Development Site - OBJECT

To whom it may concern,

I wish to object to the development proposed on the Land South of Winchester Road which has been made under the EHDC “Large Development Sites” because it is:

Unsuitable for large scale development with:

 Major road infrastructure development required for safe access/exit to sites either side of A31, due to blind bends, single track lanes coming off the dual carriage, surface water flooding (where Grosvenor Road joins the A31 is regularly under at least 20cm of water) and steep slopes, which will require levelling for all forms of dwelling and employment.  Waste water and sewage disposal network in an area which has no mains drainage.  A heritage site (the ) above and adjacent to site. The housing, dwelling pitches and employment area will destroy one of the finest views from the railway and the attractive approach into Four Marks and climb up Soke Hill. As the site is elevated it would be highly visually over a wide area and in contravention of Policy RNP3 of the neighbourhood plan.  The proposed development being in direct contravention of several aspects of the EHDC Core Strategy. Section CP19 (development in the countryside) is especially relevant. The site is located across the boundary between Four Marks and Ropley and is outside the settlement policy boundaries of both ‘ and Four Marks (M+FM)’ and ‘Ropley’ Neighbourhood Plans.  The land opposite Gravel Lane and land between Barn Lane and A31 have previously been given the status of 'Undevelopable' in the EHDC Land Availability Assessment.  The planned development of 175 units by 2028 (M+FM neighbourhood plan) having so far resulted in over 600 new houses with granted planning permission to date, an increase of 350%. Given the infrastructure has not kept pace with this development any further homes is unsustainable. The planned development for Ropley is 68 dwellings (Ropley neighbourhood plan), this major site would increase the Ropley planned development by 950% and double the size of Ropley.  Proposal is to build 40% of affordable homes. It has been made clear by the planning inspector (Friars Oak Farm, Medstead. EHDC reference 25256/045 – section 68) that no more affordable housing is required in Medstead-Four Marks. If the proposed affordable housing is not built then the size of the development drops to 390 units and consequently would not meet EHDC requirement for a Large Development Site. Does the developer need the affordable homes to take advantage of the ‘Help to Buy’ scheme that is due to end in 2023?  A rural area with few street lights. Light pollution will affect existing rural residents and wildlife.  The developer’s proposal is very brief; does not identify a building contractor and is lacking in the detail appropriate for such a large housing estate and may therefore be considered speculative.  The residents of Four Marks, Soldridge and Ropley have bought homes in this area and live here because of its rural qualities (views, peaceful, no light pollution, nature, space). If they wanted to live next to or in a housing estate they would have done so and bought in a town. An estate of this size is completely out of character for this area and with all of the development in Four Marks and South Medstead in the last 5 years plus the addition of one large site means an almost doubling of the Four Marks and South Medstead population since 2014, changing village life and social cohesion.

Unsustainable for large scale development:

 Given the majority of traffic flow on the A31 is East bound in the morning, why put a major site where traffic has to go through a 30 mph village, when it could be located further East closer to the larger towns of Farnborough, Guildford that provide more employment opportunities?  Although the proposal mentions the development of employment and a local centre there is no clear commitment of employment numbers to this compared to other sites in this proposal.  Road layout changes (roundabouts, traffic lights) will, whilst making the A31 safer for pedestrians, reduce the traffic flow as will additional traffic joining the A31.  The shortest route from the proposed development to the A339 for access to the larger towns of Basingstoke and Reading is through Soldridge, Medstead and , increasing traffic on unsuitable rural roads with blind bends, no pavements, pinch points, single tracks and a single railway bridge (Grosvenor road), with a bridle way coming out next to it on a blind bend frequently used by dog walkers and horse riders. Traffic increase would compromise their safety and the risk of allowing my children to cycle to school will become unacceptably high. These roads are completely unsuitable for larger vehicles and an increased amount of traffic as indicated by the Atkins report on traffic for Four Marks and South Medstead.  The proposed size of the employment park, housing and dwelling pitches (30) will have a negative impact on sense of place and character of the adjoining small rural hamlet (Soldridge; ~100 houses and ~300 residents) reducing the social cohesion, increasing noise and light pollution.  Existing surface water flooding increased by development and water has to be nitrate neutral going into Solent basin (site flows into the Itchen, which joins the Solent), potentially endangering protected species (White-Clawed Crayfish).  Steep slope with raised railway track; regardless of planned planting site will be highly visible.  Urban sprawl, ribbon development to Ropley and distance from main existing shopping areas at Lymington Barn and Oak Green Parade. For the size of the village is a third centre required? Would it not be better to develop the two existing areas and increase the likelihood of the current businesses being profitable?  Primary school mentioned but no clear commitment. Local primary schools in a high birth rate year are over capacity. No secondary school provision, local secondary schools are at capacity.  Although there are green areas of communal space, there is no new significantly large area of green space the community can all access, such as the SANG's areas at other proposed sites.

Many of these factors combined make the site undeliverable as the proposed development compared to other sites in the proposal is difficult and expensive to deliver with a very real risk of developers failing to provide promised facilities due to escalating costs because of topography, drainage, road safety and more at risk when the Help to Buy scheme ends in 2023, reducing the returns.

Thank you for taking the time to read my objection letter. I trust the points made will be fully considered and if any need further explanation please contact me.

Yours Faithfully