11/1/2019 Mail - Woodgate, Jenny - Outlook Objections to the proposed Four Marks South Large Development Site Sun 13/10/2019 07:31 To: EHDC - Local Plan <[email protected]> 1 attachments (249 KB) 0 OBJECTION to Four Marks South Large Development Site.docx; Dear Sir or Madam, Please find aached, as Word file <0 OBJECTION to Four Marks South Large Development Site.docx>, my submission of objecons to the Four Marks South Large Development Site proposal. Kind regards, ___________________________ https://outlook.office365.com/mail/none/id/AAMkADIxNjE3NWJlLTMxYmEtNDEwZC1iOGM4LTYxOTllYjNmN2MzZQBGAAAAAABrEkrzGtHSSpsf… 1/1 Objections to the proposed Four Marks South Large Development Site Objections concerning Large Development Sites (Regulation 18) Consultation Questionnaire (3 September – 15 October 2019) Objection submitted by: Name: Email: Address Line 1: Post Town: Post Code: Objections submitted by email to: [email protected] And also, by post to: Planning Policy, East Hampshire District Council, Penns Place, Petersfield, Hampshire GU31 4EX 1 Proposed Four Marks South Large Development - Comments & Objections A Brief Summary of objections to the proposed Four Marks South Large Development Site, with greater detail, fuller argumentation and source references shown below: A) General Comments and Objections based on relevant local, Council and UK Government documentation Local, East Hampshire District Council and UK Government documentation all confirm that the proposed Four Marks South Large Development Site is inappropriate and contravenes, conflicts with or violates local, Council and UK Government policies (see more detailed argumentation in the proposed Four Marks South Large Development Site ‘Objections in Greater Detail’ section below this ‘Brief Summary’): • The Four Marks settlement boundary does not include the land designated for the proposed Four Marks South Large Development Site. • Countryside is defined as any area outside a Settlement Policy Boundary and development will be largely restricted in the countryside to protect its character and attractiveness. • Policies will be put in place to help retain the rural character of the parishes as this is seen to be central to the character of both the Four Marks and Medstead settlements and something to be cherished and protected. • The individual identity of settlements and the integrity of predominantly open and undeveloped land between settlements will not be undermined, furthermore, development proposals in the countryside will only be granted planning permission in exceptional circumstances where there is a genuine and proven need for a countryside location and they are in compliance with other policies in the Development Plan. • It is not appropriate to further widen the settlement ribbon by absorbing a swathe of the rural farmland that bounds the Four Marks settlement along its southern boundary. • The housing requirement for Four Marks/South Medstead has already been exceeded • Once ‘made’, neighbourhood plan policies form part of the development plan used when determining planning applications and where a planning application conflicts with an up-to-date development plan (including any neighbourhood plans that form part of the development plan), permission should not usually be granted. • The Telegraph Lane area of Four Marks, which includes a part of the proposed Four Marks South Large Development Site, is considered to be an area with low levels of service provision and infrastructure but in a tranquil environment with good dark night skies. These latter qualities are considered to be under threat to creeping suburbanisation and plot intensification resulting in, amongst others things, some insensitive infill and this requires: that areas should be protected from further intensification of development or change of use; that development will only be permitted if it maintains the overall character of the area and does not have a detrimental impact on it; and that infilling development will not be permitted. • The proposed Four Marks South Large Development Site is inappropriate and will provide an enclave that may be more closely associated with a city suburban estate and this is considered to be out of keeping with the interests of the Four Marks village. • A rapid increase in development affects some areas, for example, Four Marks, with sites becoming built up over a short space of time but without clear integration with the surroundings; there is a corresponding loss of tranquillity as areas become busier and also a loss of views and connection with countryside where development has been extended. Furthermore, intensification of land for development within and around areas is putting pressure on existing facilities and affecting the quality of the rights of way network. 2 • An increase in development, particularly around key settlements such as Four Marks, has the potential to detract from landscape character if not managed properly. B) Infrastructure and Sustainability - Material Considerations and Objections • To date the infrastructure to support a sustainable community has failed to keep pace with housing developments and this will be further exacerbated by the proposed Four Marks South Large Development Site. • Already today there is congestion during peak times at the Telegraph Lane junction with the A31, and massive traffic congestion can be expected to occur when a considerable number of vehicles from the 800 or more new homes on the proposed Four Marks South Large Development Site wish to access the A31, in addition to those that already do so. • The proposed Four Marks South Large Development Site does not, in any satisfactory way, address the considerable extra vehicle usage that can be expected to descend upon the narrow village roadways and particularly the A31 junctions at Lymington Bottom and Telegraph Lane. C) Biodiversity and Conservation Objections • The published and widely distributed Four Marks South Large Development Site leaflet contains land biodiversity and ecological errors that lead one to suspect that there may well be a number of other proposed facts presented here that are either economical with the truth or just plain incorrect. The truth is that this land is not of “poor quality” and it harbours considerable bio-diversity. • The creation of the proposed Four Marks South Large Development Site will undoubtedly destroy wildlife and will certainly affect the red kite, a legally protected species. • Construction of the proposed Four Marks South Large Development Site will reduce or remove the existing farmland biodiversity and maybe a rare orchid species. D) Other Development Plans, Additional Comments and Objections • Why does the Railway Station Hub proposal outlined in the Neighbourhood Plan 2015-2028, not now appear as a reasonably Large Development Site for all the good reasons cited in the 2015-28 Neighbourhood plan? • The Four Marks South Large Development Site consists of a real hotchpotch of pieces of land that have been scrambled together to construct a large infilled site, the land for which is to be acquired from a variety of different landowners, by five different developers, and therefore the site has necessarily been brought together with a totally irregular formation. In fact, the proposed Four Marks South Large Development Site can be considered to be just one huge infill between Blackberry Lane and Alton Lane. Infill on this scale for the proposed Four Marks South Large Development Site is both inappropriate and not normally permitted. • 10 Large Development sites is a nice round number. Why not 3 or 5 or 15 or 20 or more? And of the 10 there are several which may be inappropriate including the Four Marks South Large Development Site, which is totally inappropriate. • Three, maybe four, of the 10 Large Development Sites would seem to be far more appropriate sites than that at Four Marks South and particularly since properties bought in Four Marks were bought with sure knowledge that the Four Marks Settlement Policy Boundary had been supported and confirmed on many occasions and which had been cited in several local and Council documents. 3 • In response to its own Frequently Asked Question (FAQs), the East Hampshire District Council has confirmed that the infrastructure for Four Marks had not kept pace with recent development and that the absorption of the proposed Four Marks South Large Development Site would indeed exacerbate this. • The East Hampshire District Council hoped or believed that consultation on the proposed Four Marks South Large Development Site would establish a robust evidence base – all this without disclosing to the public, that were to be involved in the consultation, 1) who it was that provided the so called detailed comments refuting the Council’s view, made in the point above concerning exacerbation of the infrastructure problems (was it one of the developers for the proposed Four Marks South Large Development Site or an interested party?), or even, and just as importantly, 2) what the so called comments were. • If the Council was so fully aware of local concern about infrastructure and services in Four Marks why was it not doing something about it, with or without approval of the Four Marks South Large Development Site? • The developers map does not show 800 homes but merely 427 homes, and squeezing 800 homes, or dwellings as the developers call them, into the area shown on the map would require there to be nearly twice as many dwellings shown on the map than the developers have actually indicated, at a density of 42 dwellings per hectare, which is quite a high figure for a newly developed site, in a rural area, and built on non-previously developed agricultural land. It would seem that maybe the developers have in mind to build pretty small dwellings and gardens on this land in order to cram in 800 dwellings alongside a suitable green infrastructure, so, is this yet another issue on which the developers have mislead us? Furthermore, we might expect that in order to meet the target of 800 or more dwellings, the developers will ‘unexpectedly’ need to reduce the strongly promoted and necessary green space and linkages.