11/12/2019 Mail - Woodgate, Jenny - Outlook EHDC Large Development Site Consultation - Objection Mon 14/10/2019 11:21 To: EHDC - Local Plan <[email protected]>; "victoria.potts\""@easthants.gov.uk <"victoria.potts\""@easthants.gov.uk> Cc: 2 attachments (3 MB) M&FMNP Support documentation.pdf; M&FMNP Submission to EHDC Large Development Site Consultation.pdf; Dear Sirs, Please find the attached submission to the EHDC Large Development Site Consultation from the Medstead & Four Marks Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group. The Steering Group objects to the sites: Four Marks South Land West of Lymington Bottom Road Land South of Winchester Road South Medstead Our reasons are contained in our Submission document and amplified in the supporting documentation. Regards, Secretary, Medstead and Four Marks Neighbourhood Plan https://outlook.office365.com/mail/none/id/AAMkADIxNjE3NWJlLTMxYmEtNDEwZC1iOGM4LTYxOTllYjNmN2MzZQBGAAAAAABrEkrzGtHSSpsf… 1/1 MEDSTEAD AND FOUR MARKS NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN Core Documents To Support Representations from the Steering Group Medstead and Four Marks Neighbourhood Plan October 2019 i This sheet has been intentionally left blank ii Core Documents to Support Representations from the Steering Group Medstead and Four Marks Neighbourhood Plan Contents Page CD 1. Submission from the NPSG to the appeal in the case of Land at Friars Oak Farm, 1 Boyneswood Road, Medstead, Alton. (East Hampshire District Council Reference Number: 25256/045) CD 2. Housing Review. 9 1 Summary. 11 2 Housing in Four Marks and Medstead Ward 11 Appendices 13 Appendix 1 EHDC Housing Strategy 14 Appendix 2 EHDC Level 3 Settlement – Four Marks /’South Medstead’ 19 Appendix 3 EHDC Housing Completion Data 20 Appendix 4 EHDC Housing Supply Data 23 Appendix 4.1 EHDC Housing Completions 2013 24 Appendix 4.2 EHDC 5 Year Land Supply Housing Completions 2014 26 Appendix 4.3 EHDC 5 Year Land Supply Housing Completions 2015 28 Appendix 4.4 EHDC 5 Year Land Supply Housing Completions 2016 29 Appendix 4.5 EHDC 5 Year Land Supply Housing Completions 2017 31 Appendix 4.6 EHDC 5 Year Land Supply Housing Completions 2018 33 Appendix 4.7 EHDC 5 Year Land Supply Outstanding Permissions 2018 34 CD 3. Land Availability Assessment – summary 35 1 Introduction 37 2 Land in Medstead and Four Marks 38 3 Possible Sites 39 4 Commentary on LAA Outcome 40 5 Conclusion 40 Appendix Extract of Four Marks and Medstead LAA Results 42 iii CD 4. Employment Review 47 1 Summary 49 2 Medstead And Four Marks 49 3 Employment Data 49 4 Employment in the Villages 50 5 Conclusion 52 Appendices 53 Appendix 1 Unemployment 53 Appendix 2 Data from ONS Employment Survey 2017 54 Appendix 2.1 Number of Employees in the Villages 55 Appendix 2.2 Number of Full Time Employees in the Villages 57 Appendix 2.3 Number of Part Time Employees in the Villages 59 CD 5. Transport Review 61 1 Summary 63 2 Modes of Transport in the villages 63 3 Voluntary Organisations 64 4 Commuting 65 5 Conclusions 65 Appendices 67 Appendix 1 Commuting 67 Appendix 2 Timetable information from Stagecoach and South West Trains 68 August 2019 CD 6. Education Review 71 1 Summary 73 2 Schools 73 3 Catchment Areas 73 4 Pupil Numbers and local Primary schools 73 5 Pupil numbers in Secondary schools 75 6 HCC Note 75 Appendices 76 Appendix 1 HCC LEA email 76 iv Appendix 2 School Catchment Areas 77 CD 7. Medical Facilities Review 83 1 Summary 85 2 Services 85 3 Other Services 86 4 Access to Services 86 5 Changes To NHS Service 87 CD 8. Utilities Review 89 1 Introduction 91 2 Summary 91 3 Potable Water 91 4 Electricity 92 5 Private Drainage 92 6 Natural Gas 92 7 Liquid Petroleum Gas 93 8 Oil 93 9 Mains Drainage 93 10 Communications 95 11 The Effect of Development works on the Community 95 12 Conclusions 98 CD 9. Review of the impact of the Large Site proposals on the local traffic 99 1 Introduction 101 2 Summary 101 3 Public Transport 101 4 Current ‘pinch points’ for traffic flow 102 5 The Large Site proposals 102 6 The view of the NPSG 104 7 Air Pollution 107 8 Conclusion 108 Appendices Appendix 1 Site Access 109 Appendix 2 Emissions 110 v This sheet has been intentionally left blank vi Core Document 1 Submission from the NPSG to the appeal in the case of Land at Friars Oak Farm, Boyneswood Road, Medstead, Alton. (East Hampshire District Council Reference Number: 25256/045) The Planning Inspectorate, Room 3D, Temple Quay House, 2 The Square, Temple Quay, Bristol, BS1 6PN 9 May, 2019 Dear Madam, Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Planning Inspectorate Reference: APP/M1710/ W/19/3225766 Appeal by: William Lacey Group Location: Land at Friars Oak Farm, Boyneswood Road, Medstead, Alton East Hampshire District Council Reference Number: 25256/045 On the 12 May 2016 the Medstead and Four Marks Neighbourhood Plan (M&FMNP) was “made" by East Hampshire District Council (EHDC). This Neighbourhood Plan now forms part of the Development Plan and its policies hold full weight for the decision maker. The Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group (NPSG) who were responsible for the development of the M&FMNP recommend that this appeal be rejected. The reasons for this are as follows: 1. THE DEVELOPMENT WOULD CONFLICT WITH POLICY 1 OF THE ‘MADE’ NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN Policy 1 of the Neighbourhood Plan is shown below: “Policy 1: A Spatial Plan for the Parishes The Neighbourhood Plan designates a Medstead Village Settlement Policy Boundary (MVSPB), a South Medstead Settlement Policy Boundary (SMSPB) and a Four Marks Settlement Policy Boundary (FMSPB) as shown on the Policies Maps. Development Proposals on land within the Settlement Policy Boundaries will be supported, subject to accordance with relevant policies. The inappropriate development of residential gardens, for example, where such development would harm local character, will be refused.” The NPSG understand that EHDC can demonstrate a robust 5 year land supply and therefore the Local Plan is not out of date. The Neighbourhood Plan therefore remains an integral part of the Statutory Development Plan. 1 2. THE M&FMNP MEETS THE CRITERIA LAID OUT IN THE NPPF PARA 11D The appellant claims that the NP did not allocate sites. This is not the case. The NP did allocate sites by explicitly recognising the sites that were included in the EHDC Housing and Employment Allocations: April 2015.This is clearly stated in para 1.31 of the NP. To confirm that there was no confusion over this point, the Inspector in his report at the Examination stated that: “I am especially mindful that East Hampshire District Council does not dissent from the Neighbourhood Plan being in general conformity with adopted strategic policies. Given the above, there is no need for the Neighbourhood Plan to go on allocating additional land over and above that required. There is no need for the NP to allocate new housing sites.” 3. THE CURRENT LEVEL OF DEVELOPMENT IN THE SETTLEMENT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED TO BE ‘SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT’ AS IT DOES NOT MEET THE CRITERIA LAID OUT IN THE NPPF. The level of new housing within the settlement that has been delivered and approved over the 5 years to 31st March 2018 is substantially greater than that planned in the JCS adopted by EHDC in June 2014. Scale: it exceeds the absolute number by 3 times (626* vs. 175) Speed: It exceeds the Plan’s annual rate by 10 times (125 dpa vs. 11dpa) The NPSG are of the view that the extent to which the actual delivery of new housing has exceeded the Plan means that the development in this settlement is not currently sustainable as it does not meet the criteria for ‘sustainability’ as laid out in the NPPF. The three criteria for ‘sustainable development’ in the NPPF are covered below: a) An Economic Objective The NPPF expects development ‘to build a strong, responsive and competitive economy’ The building of 58 new houses is unlikely to contribute to this objective. This statement is based on the fact that the application contains no proposals for new employment sites. This is consistent with the situation that the settlement has already experienced with the 626* new dwellings already approved. In this settlement no new sites have been made available for employment (employing > 5 people). Indeed, the evidence shows that there have been three sites that have had the designation changed from industrial/employment to residential. We accept that there is a short term economic benefit from the building of new houses. However, in a recent planning application the applicant stated that there would be a workforce of 71 people working on their site. This would bring * Letter sent prior to publication of EHDC 5 Year Land Supply Data 2018 2 additional custom to the shops. But, the application also noted that less than 10% would be local residents. This is a good example of the fact that any benefit that does accrue to the local settlement is small scale and temporary. The NNPF directs that ‘sufficient land of the right types is available in the right places and at the right time to support growth, innovation and improved productivity.’ This appeal is for a development that is neither the right type of development nor in the right place. The right type of housing would be market housing at a price that reflects the financial constraints of local people on a median salary. In this area the median house price is a very large multiple of the median salary. With a median salary of around £30,000 a house costing more than £200,000 looks unattainable to those trying to get onto the housing ladder.