John Raymond For Parish Meeting

25th July, 2018

Ms Lucy Page, Case Officer, and Deane Borough Council.

Dear Lucy,

Ref: 17/03487/FUL - Construction of new Motorway Service Area - Land Adjacent to Junction 6 M3

I write on behalf of Winslade Parish Meeting which includes the residents of Hackwood and Home Farm south of the Road (Dickens Lane).

We objected to this application last November 2018 and we do so again having studied the new support documents from Moto’s consultants and the many new objections submitted to you. Our reasons for objecting last November still stand.

The new documents submitted by Moto raise more questions than they answer. They have been presented in a haphazard fashion and appear to make little attempt to answer clearly and coherently the very many major concerns and objections expressed by so many during the consultation period late last year, from both consultees and the more than 150 local residents who took the trouble to submit formal objections. There was only one letter of support.

We have studied the new documentation posted on your website by Moto this year and have the following comments:

1. JUNCTION J6 AND QUEUES ON M3 SLIP ROADS.

The new technical note from Moto’s consultant PFA shows a new traffic study as requested by Highways following the last round of consultation. The study concludes that, with their suggested modifications to the J6 roundabout, queues on the slip roads will be the same or significantly better in 2021 and 2029 than they are today. Can this theoretical model be believed? Its modelling basis is unclear. Will the MSA entrance be moved to the middle of the roundabout as requested last year by Highways England? How will traffic arriving from Black Dam be controlled. It currently joins the roundabout as virtually free flow? With the new MSA built, this free flow will be interrupted by northbound traffic wishing to reach the MSA. Will there be new traffic lights at this north east corner of the roundabout? None of this is explained.

The PFA report says queues on the slip roads will remain, even with their suggested improvements to the J6 roundabout. Queues will just be no worse than today which is all they have to prove under planning regulations. However, the purpose of this MSA is to serve the M3 motorist. At peak times seeing the queues motorists will drive on to Fleet or Winchester. So, at these times, the MSA cannot serve the need for which it is being built.

SAFETY A major concern today is safety at J6. There are daily queues out on the M3 at peak times. Some years ago a lady was killed when her car was hit by a lorry. If by redesigning the J6 roundabout extra capacity can be created, this possible capacity should be used to reduce queues and improve safety, not used up in this needless manner.

NEW RETAIL PARK It is not clear from the PFA study if the considerable traffic that will be generated by the planned new retail park at the Leisure Centre to the west of Basingstoke is included in their model. Basingstoke is expanding, many new houses are being built, if extra capacity on this vital link to the M3 can be achieved then the capacity should be kept in reserve to meet the future needs of Basingstoke, not the possible needs of the M3 motorist.

2. BATS:

The new June 2018 biodiversity report from Greengage on behalf on Moto – ‘Dormouse and Reptile Mitigation Strategy’ shows there are dormice, slow-worms and protected plants such as hound’s tongue on the site. They explain the mitigation precautions to be taken. These species must be protected. This study mentions the building of a new access road along the south edge of the M3 towards the A339. It does not consider the disruption and damage to habitat that will be caused by laying the new foul water sewer from the MSA to meet the main sewer on the A339.

The study mentions in passing the Bat Survey carried out by Corylus on behalf of Moto in 2016. It is attached at the end of the October 2017 Greengage ‘Ecology Mitigation Report’. This bat survey has far reaching implications as it found nine species of bat around the MSA Site, some rare. In its conclusions the survey lists ‘Sensitive lighting strategy suggestions’ which include: - using a minimum amount of light, i.e. that needed only for safety; - elimination of any bare bulbs and any upward pointing light; - limiting the times that lights are on to provide some dark periods; and - avoiding using reflective surfaces under lights.

It is difficult to see how an MSA could operate meeting just these requirements, and there are other requirements mentioned in this report.

The study ends by recommending the design of ‘a detailed sensitive lighting strategy’ to include these recommendations. This strategy has not been seen.

A further study was recently conducted within neighbouring Hackwood Park and ancient Spring Wood by a respected ecologist on behalf of the owners of the Park. The report ends by saying “I suspect you also have brown long eared, some other myotis species (possibly some rare ones like Bechsteins)” The Corylus survey shows the presence over the MSA Site of long-eared bats and the Myotis species without specifically mentioning Bechsteins, but neither in large numbers. Bat experts inform us that a study such as that conducted by Corylus would be unlikely to spot these quieter more timid species above the open ground of the Red Line MSA Site. They live up in the surrounding tree canopy and woodland. To test for their presence in numbers a new different study in required. We are also told these rare species will be particularly affected by the light spill from the new MSA.

We ask that this application is refused until a more detailed bat study of the surrounding ancient woodland has been conducted. Such breeding populations, particularly of Bechsteins, are strongly protected by law.

URBAN DESIGN: John Dawson from the B&D Planning commenting on the ‘Urban Design’ of the MSA in his document dated 2 February 2018 and posted on B&D’s web-site on 16 July 2018 states in Paragraph 1.2:

“Some of the more detailed aspects of the layout are welcomed including: b) The outdoor seating area near the entrance of the amenity building and the outdoor picnic area and open space to its immediate west provide a welcome opportunity for visitors to spend time outdoors if they wish thereby enhancing the enjoyment and amenity of the facility. c) The hotel has some outdoor space to its rear which visitors can use and there is a dog walking area to the north west of the hotel.”

A LOCAL DESTINATION Surely to avoid disturbance of the neighbouring wildlife and bat habitat this is exactly what is not required. On late warm evenings, locals will be encouraged to leave urban dwelling of an evening to enjoy this location with their dogs bringing noise and disturbance as it becomes a local destination.

Mr Dawson’s report goes on to say concerning the design of the buildings:

“2. The appearance of the buildings: 2.2 A number of aspects of the form and elevational appearance of the amenity building are welcomed: b) The large, glazed frontages lend the building a light appearance. The facetted glazed façade ensures visual interest to the key public frontage of the building from several directions. The large expanse of glazing has a welcoming quality showing visitors the activity inside the building; it provides broad, open views outside for those using the building. The linear L-shaped plan maximises visual interest on approach and also offers extensive daylight and views out from its interior.

As stated in the Corylus bat survey the ‘glazed surfaces’ welcomed by Mr Dawson from an urban design standpoint are exactly the surfaces they say should be avoided in this rural bat habitat. It is clear Moto has paid little attention to these recommendations when preparing their urban design. The glazed surfaces will reflect external lighting and confuse wildlife. Also, the glazed surfaces Mr Dawson welcomes that allow daylight in during the day will allow internal lighting to escape at night time damaging the bat habit.

3. LIGHT POLLUTION:

The June 2018 Greengage report states “The band of proposed woodland will prevent light spill into existing adjacent habitats”. This band of woodland Moto proposes to plant around the edge of the MSA site. The trees planted will take some ten years to grow to a size where they make any difference, by when the bats’ habitat may have been destroyed. The Oaken Planation and New Park beyond consists mostly of deciduous trees and so in the winter they are fully susceptible to light pollution from any bordering property.

Even when trees are in full leaf Oaken Planation is quite open and so the MSA Site can be seen from well within the Grade 1 New Park woodland.

The new May 2018 Lighting Impact Assessment by Hydrock points out that at night the MSA site and Oaken Plantation are dark quoting the light level at E2. Moto’s planning consultant, Collins & Coward this week wrote to B&DBC (letter dated 18 th July) concerning lighting. They refer to a submission by a Mr Mark Susans, a local resident who says he believes the light levels around the Site are closer to the E1 level, which is very dark. He states opinions of the Basingstoke Astronomical Society who use this area for their studies due to its darkness. The C&C letter misleadingly refers to a light pollution study by CPRE and they include a map. This CPRE study is based on radiation levels captured by satellite, not on-the-ground light levels. The CPRE study is most likely capturing the light from the J6 and the M3 which is in a dip.

We are pleased Moto and their consultants take the concerns about light pollution so seriously, but the arguments contained in this C&C letter appear incorrect and do not agree with even the Hydrock findings. Even Historic England states on lighting impact in their 12 th July submission that “Your Council will need to satisfy itself that these impacts have been minimised in accordance with paragraph 129 of the NPPF”

In Historic England’s October 2017 pre-ap letter to Orion Heritage that has just been published they state: “Within the New Park, it is not possible to obtain many very direct views of the proposed development site from the southern section of the former wooded drive, not least because of the later screening plantation. ” I personally know New Park and from it, looking through Oaken Plantation, there are many direct views of the MSA site. Oaken Plantation, the narrow ‘screening plantation’ they refer to is not a light barrier. It is a strip of spaced out deciduous trees under which there is little ground cover. With the landlord’s permission I would be pleased to show Councillors around this woodland so they may have confirmation.

Even Historic England go onto say in this pre-ap letter : “The potential for most impact in the longer term arises from the need to light the site to enable safe and secure 24 hour operation, . . .” So they accept the potential problem of light pollution from the MSA. They then say: “. . . although this again has to be considered in the context of the close proximity of Basingstoke itself and the light pollution that already exists”. This opinion was clearly written after the day time visit they report and so should be discounted. It seems HE had not conduced a night time light study before writing this pre-ap letter. As proven by Moto’s own lighting impact assessment by Hydrock the light at the MSA site and Oaken Planation is dark with light level E2. It is worrying that HE makes assumptions like this without it seems firm proof.

In the first part of Collins & Coward’s 18 th July letter they quote statements by Orion, Moto’s Heritage Consultant where they say : “As for the park itself, the above conclusion also relates to the park to the south of Dickens Lane [Tunworth Road] and in relation to the area between Dickens Lane and the M3, it is separated by a recent plantation and so there is no direct intervisibility despite the close proximity.” As stated above I know from first hand knowledge this is not correct. From quite far back into New Park even when trees are in full leaf you can clearly see through the Oaken Plantation to the Site. All Moto’s consultants and even Historic England try to describe the ‘recent plantation’, Oaken Plantation, as a dense strip of forestry. It is not. It consists of deciduous trees not that tightly spaced. This ‘recent plantation’ was also planted over sixty years ago. In itself it is now an established peaceful wildlife habitat. I urge planning officers to visit this site to satisfy themselves and see how visible the MSA site will be from deep in this historic woodland.

When this MSA brings no benefit and there is such danger of doing harm for ever to an established important wildlife habitat why build it at this sensitive site. This application is not sustainable development under any meaning of this phrase and should be refused

4. NOISE POLLUTION:

In the HE pre-ap letter concerning noise its says: “Because of the alignment of the M3, which passes very close to the current entrance to the park at the junction with London Road, traffic noise is already very noticeable.” This statement is again misleading. The Front Gates of Hackwood are at the point in the park, closest to the motorway. The Gates are at the junction of Tunworth Road (Dickens Lane) and the A339 and within a few yards of the bridge that takes the M3 over the A339. So, of course, traffic noise at this point is bad amplified by the elevated road bridge. The noise at this corner of the Park has little to do with noise levels at the MSA Site. All locals know sadly the M3 makes noise and is worst at that corner. This statement is irrelevant to the consideration of the suitability of the proposed MSA site.

The MSA site is a mile to the north east of the Hackwood Gates over the brow of a hill and across a valley. Adjacent to the MSA Site J6 and the M3 are mostly down in a cutting. In New Park and the Oaken Plantation, I know at first hand, the traffic noise is surprisingly low, more like the hiss of a seashore than the rumble of speeding traffic.

Why does Historic England in their submissions make these statements which appear to attempt to paint the bleakest picture about the tranquillity of most of Grade 1 Hackwood Park? We again ask that Councillors visit the site themselves and that they do not rely on these overstated reports.

New Park and the Oaken Plantation is a proven bat habitat. The MSA Site is within a few yards from this Historic Grade 1 habitat. The long construction phase will be horrific for this natural habitat both from noise and light pollution. Noise from and movement of major construction and earth moving vehicles and construction workers constantly on the move. The sound of human voices calling out to each.

Before this application is approved a study should be undertaken to understand how long this construction period will last, the hours of working required and how disturbance of the habitat could possibly be alleviated. Given the Site’s proximity to Oaken Plantation and New Park it would seem impossible to alleviate this disturbance to a meaningful degree to avoid seriously disturbing the habitat.

5. SITE ACCESS, LOCAL CONSULTATION, MAJOR TRAFFIC DISRUPTION

NEW ACCESS ROAD The June 2018 biodiversity report from Greengage referred to above under Section 2. BATS, states in Paragraph 2.9 under the heading ‘Proposed Development’:

“2.9 Works that have potential to impact potentially suitable dormouse and reptile habitat are the following:  - Creation of the site access from the M3 including widening of the existing slip road. This will cut through an existing hedgerow (suitable for dormouse) and pass close to field edge habitat (suitable reptile habitat).  - A temporary access road will also be created with the indicative route for this shown at Figure 1. It is understood the road will be around 8m wide.”

(As noted above this new study should also have included the laying of the MSA’s main sewer along the route of this construction access road. It does not)

The Temporary Construction Road shown in Figure 1 goes southwest along the south edge of the M3 to join the Tunworth Road (Dickens Lane) by the gates of Hackwood Park close to the A339. This new road has not been mentioned in any other documentation supplied for consultation by Moto. It is a strange document in which to introduce such an important change to the application.

LACK OF CONSULTATION In Moto’s Construction and Environment Management Plan posted 18 October 2017, it states that site access will be down the ‘farm track off Dickens Lane’. Last November in the submission from Winslade Parish we objected strongly about the unsuitable of this access for safety and other reasons. We also noted the lack of consultation with residents living opposite this access point.

From this new statement in the biodiversity report and the map in Figure 1 on Page 23 it is said a totally new road across agricultural land will be built with a new access onto the busy Tunworth Road. Locals residents and in particular and owners of Hackwood House have not been notified or consulted about this in anyway. It is understood Highways have also not been consulted about a new access onto a public highway.

Surely this is a breach of planning application procedure.

NEW ‘RED LINE’ Furthermore, the map in Figure 1 shows a totally new ‘Red Line’ defining the application site. It encloses all of the two fields between the M3 and the Tunworth Road, not just the proposed MSA Site in the north east corner of one field. Surely this new ‘Red Line’ requires an amendment to the basic planning application?

Later in Greengage’s June 2018 report it says:

“3.46 The use of exclusion fencing will be avoided where possible however, it will be required around the main construction area of the MSA and potentially along the route of the temporary construction road. It will also likely be required for the temporary construction access from Dickens Lane.”

Does this mean Moto will be using both their proposed new construction road and the existing farm track? Or will they use only the former? It is not clear.

LOCAL TRAFFIC CONGESTION When the recent major Black Dam roundabout alterations were taking place, it caused major congestion in the area. The Tunworth Road became ‘The Black Dam by-pass’, a rat run down this narrow lane, unsuitable for large numbers of cars which under this application will be mixing with heavy construction lorries. As stated last November the Tunworth Road is a lane much used by bicyclists and horse riders wishing to avoid the busy A339. It is a local amenity that should not be majorly disrupted in this way. Such disruption by a planning development runs contrary to the requirements of The Local Plan.

RIGHT OF WAY There is a footpath that runs from the Tunworth Road from a point some 300 yards up the road from the gates of Hackwood, across one of the same fields going north west towards the M3 where it stops as it predates the M3. Despite this dead end, the path is much used by local residents for dog walking as it is well away from livestock. The proposed construction road cuts across this path where the path meets the edge of the M3.

Special planning permission and local consultation is required to build this construction road across a public footpath. Moto have not even mentioned this footpath in consultation although it is clearly shown on all local maps and even on some of Moto’s own early site maps.

The lack of local consultation concerning the access roads and the whole area of Tunworth Lane, and the traffic disruption that will be caused on Huish Lane and back roads (and rat runs) is a strong point of objection. Moto have not complied with the proper planning process that requires consultation, a strong reason for refusal. Also, the new access road runs contrary to Policy CN9 – protecting rights-of-way.

6. POLLUTION OF THE LODDON

Throughout the 2016 adopted Basingstoke Local Plan the importance of the River Loddon to our town is highlighted.

In the Local Plan (6.41) It says: a high quality chalk river, therefore requiring special protection for both water quality and ecology. The Loddon contains many important wetland and floodplain habitats which have been designated as Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINCs) and in part is designated as a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). It is also subject to the European Union Freshwater Fish Directive, designated as an EU salmonid river that contains BAP habitat.

Policy EM6 from the Local Plan on Water Quality sates: The council will work in partnership to protect, manage and improve the water quality of the borough’s water environment particularly the quality of water bodies which are currently failing to meet the Water Framework Directive (WFD) requirements as set out in the associated River Basin Management Plan (RBMP) documents.

Moto’s consultants have submitted a number of new documents concerning flood, sewerage and groundwater. The documents appear to show Hampshire CC flood water team and the Environment Agency are ready to withdraw their objections concerning flooding and contamination of the groundwater.

In the “Groundwater Monitoring Programme” report by consultant Furness dated 20 June 2018, they find springs (Borehole SW08) 4m below the MSA site just a few yards from Black Dam Ponds. Because there are no licensed groundwater abstraction points within an approximate 1.5 km radius of these aquifers which feed the Black Dam ponds they ‘are considered to be relatively low sensitivity’.

Given there are no local ‘abstraction points’ and with the other SUDS mitigation measures explained in detail in their submissions, Moto under planning regulations is able to overturn the objections from the Environment Agency.

However, it is now becoming acknowledge that although SUDS mitigation enables developers to overcome planning objections, the success of SUDS mitigation cannot be guaranteed and certainly does not last for ever. Such mitigation measures require proper detailed and regular maintenance of all the drains and other measures FOR EVER. This rarely happens. (See comment concerning Moto’s operating record at the end of this letter.)

It is common sense that, however many precautions are taken, there will be accidental spillages, maintenance of drainage facilities can be poor or, with the now more frequent torrential rainstorms, even with the best flood-capture system, they may not be able to cope. Surface water from the MSA will inevitably from time to time be washed directly into the Black Dam ponds carrying with it pollution from the MSA site.

Over time the MSA’s daily life will slowly pollute the springs that feed the Black Dam Ponds. There is no way of stopping the drip drip of small oil spills and continual use of cleaning detergents and other chemicals on outdoor surfaces, maybe those used to defrost the roads and surfaces. They will soak into the sub-soil deeper and deeper.

Why build this unneeded facility at such an environmentally sensitive spot immediately on top of clear chalk springs that feed a unique rare and much loved chalk stream, a wonderful amenity for the residents of Basingstoke?

For these reasons it is impossible to say this is an application offering sustainable development. In the end the Loddon will suffer, it is just a question of time. This chosen site is clearly unsustainable for an MSA and must be refused.

Building an MSA on this site goes against Policy EM6 in the Local Plan and including EM1 which calls for the River Loddon’s protection.

7. FOUL WATER, SEWERS, ROAD WORKS, TRAFFIC DISRUPTION

The original plans for the MSA from 2017 show the main foul water sewer from the MSA running along the southern side of the M3 to the A339.

Last year concern was expressed by consultees about the unwanted extra burden the additional sewage would place on the facility that it is reported already suffers from lack of capacity. These concerns have not been addressed anywhere in the new documentation provided.

The new correspondence between Thames Water and Furness acting on behalf of Moto submitted on 26 th June deals purely with the local connection of MSA sewer to the main sewer running along the A339 to Grove Road. Thames Water states that to accommodate sewage from the MSA they will need to upsize approximately 325m of 225mm diameter pipe to 300mm diameter in Grove Road.

There is no mention of how this work will be carried out without making road transport in the area impossible. This will be on top of the extra traffic generated as Junction 6 is modified, also with the construction lorries using the Tunworth Lane access points and these same stretches of the A339 and Grove Road.

There is no planning document from the applicant showing how such traffic disruption can be avoided, no consultation with Hampshire Highways. Given these concerns the application runs contrary to the Local Plan Policy CN9 – Transport. Not just at the J6 roundabout, but also at the Tunworth Road / A339 / Grove Road intersection and roundabout.

The A339 is an important road artery for Basingstoke and is well known for the very long daily queues at peak times from the Grove Road Roundabout back towards Alton.

This considerable disruption although limited in period must be balanced against the overall need for this proposed new MSA, the benefits it may bring. The MSA is not needed, it brings little benefit even to the M3 motorist. Why therefore subject the local Basingstoke traveller and in particular the commuter and school run parent to the many months of travel disruption arriving on the A339.

8. HGV PARKING

One of the new documents recently posted on the B&D web-site is a study by Moto’s traffic consultant PFA dated 6 th June 2018 - NATIONAL SURVEY OF LORRY PARKING. As will be pointed out by Winslade Parish’s traffic consultant Simon Tucker in his submission, this report is seriously flawed. It tries to suggest there is a local HGV parking problem. The National Report to which it refers says the opposite. There is no such problem highlighted for the Basingstoke stretch of the M3.

This is another example of Moto submitting a misleading document to support this application. 9. HERITAGE AND HISTORIC ENGLAND’S POSITION:

In the letter from Collins & Coward Moto’s planning consultant to B&D Planning dated 18 th July 2018 and referred to above, HERITAGE is the first topic covered. C&C attempts to discount objections to this MSA Site being adjacent to the registered edge of one of only four Grade 1 Parks in the UK. We have already stated how Orion’s statements concerning ‘zero intervisibility’ between the Park and the MSA Site is simply wrong. Councillors must view this for themselves.

This section of C&C’s letter concludes: The [B&D] Conservation Officer concludes “I note the considerable weight which should be attached to heritage issues in planning decisions under the 1990 Act and the NPPF, and the fact that an LPA must have clear and convincing reasons to go against the advice of statutory consultees.” The Officer is correct in relation to the 1990 Act but in this case, the statutory consultee, Historic England, does not have an objection so to grant permission is not contrary to the statutory consultee’s formal response.

Historic England is not the only formal consultee dealing with Heritage. There are strong objections from The Georgian Group, The Gardens Trust and The Hampshire Garden’s Trust, all similar Consultees. CPRE has also raised strong Heritage objections. Thirteen local Parishes have objected with most mentioning Heritage and protecting Hackwood Park for future generations.

The Gardens Trust in their original 25 th November 2017 submission states: “ . . Hackwood is one of the most important designed landscapes in the country. The Registered Park and Garden (RPG) is a highly selective designation, with only 145 of the 1658 designated parks and gardens in England being included at Grade I. This puts Hackwood on a par with places such as Blenheim and Stourhead . . “

When discussing the Heritage of Hackwood Park time and again Moto’s consultants mention Historic England’s conclusions which discount Heritage arguments. They do not mention these other highly influential consultees and pay no attention to the concerns of local residents they perhaps wish to serve.

Historic England ran a course in April of this year entitled “Understanding Setting within the Context of Heritage Assets” at which Dr Andy Brown and Catherine Dewar from Historic England spoke on the importance of ‘setting’ and ‘place’. It seems the author of the Historic England’s submissions to B&D in this application by Moto did not attend this course.

The field in which the MSA is set to be built is a part of the setting of Hackwood Park, being one side of a valley leading down to the Black Dam Ponds. From ancient times the ponds were an important source of water for the estate and the fields have always been a part of the Hackwood estate. They are an integral part of the setting for the Grade 1 Park and its place in our countryside.

Historic England’s incoherent stance concerns us. As stated above some of the reports in their correspondence are wrong or misleading. The last of the four documents submitted from Historic England is their pre-ap letter to Orion from October 2017 submitted to B&D on 18 th July 2018. This letter ends by saying: “The proposed development does not appear to prevent improved management of the New Park section of the registered landscape, which, south of the motorway, appears to be suffering from what can be described as benign neglect ”.

This unprofessional wording in such an important letter needs addressing. New Park consists of two well maintained strips of woodland going north from an area of woodland on the Tunworth Road. Between the two strips of woodland is the grass meadow of New Park. This meadow is used twice a year as a point-to-point course. It is beautifully maintained by one of the best local grass land experts. The border of Oaken Plantation has a new rabbit fence running all the edge of the field. By any standard the husbandry of this land is excellent.

I ask why Historic England seems in all its correspondence to be so dismissive even derogatory of Grade 1 Hackwood and its setting. Sustainable development means looking after the world we have and maintaining it for future generation, not ruining the wonderful views south west from Crabtree Planation across to Hackwood for EVERMORE with this eyesore urban Lego design development that is not needed in full view.

We have asked to visit the Site to check Moto’s questionable ‘Landscape and Visual Assessment’ and its montages. Permission to do so was refused by the owner of the development site. We again ask if, with Councillors present, we could conduct an inspection.

10. MOTO AS AN MSA OPERATOR

Many have read with interest the reports in the press yesterday concerning the survey of UK motorway service stations conducted by Transport Focus, a survey of 9,600 customers on key factors including staffing, food and toilet facilities. Of the 111 service stations in the survey four of the bottom five were operated by Moto. Comments quoted in The Times concerning Moto’s bottom site at Thurrock in Essex state: “It has disgusting toilets and is gloriously ugly”.

Does Basingstoke truly wish to have another such ugly Moto MSA built beside its prime Heritage asset, Hackwood Park, above the source of its precious chalk stream, The Loddon. If Moto cannot do basic housekeeping and keep its toilets clean what hope is there of it maintaining its SUDS facilities, that are hidden away so the general public will never see them. Pollution of the Loddon will be inevitable.

The way these documents have been presented by Moto in this latest round of consultation appears to show a disregarded for an ordered planning process and perhaps a degree of complacency in the way the company conducts its affairs. The report in The Times about the way Moto runs its service stations perhaps echoes the way it conducts its planning applications.

This application must be refused.

With kind regards

John Raymond For Winslade Parish Meeting