Murrell Green Development Objections

As a resident of Murrell Green I strongly object to the proposal of developing the fields surrounding our home in Totters Lane. I feel that it is not the responsible thing to do for the community, for the land and for future generations. I completely agree with the CPRE’s District Group comments:

CPRE’s District Group for North East are concerned that the Local Plan has no coherent strategy but is instead a series of tactics to deliver a housing and development supply without any recognition of the role of countryside and the value of the natural environment.

My objections are based on the following.  Based on inflated housing numbers  Siting  Access  Landscape  Amenities  Design  Archaeology and Natural impact  Gas Pipeline  DMRBS criteria  Environmental Impact-Cumulative Assessment and ‘In Combination’ Assessment  Brownfield Sites  Fleet is a dying town  Social responsibility-

Starting Point The starting point of the whole Murrell Green Plan would appear to result from the inflated SHMA of 8000+ houses. Then on top of this inflated figure, Hart DC has added a further 2000+ to that, resulting in a false requirement of over 10000 houses in the . If sanity prevails, then the figures should be reassessed and neither should we be including other districts’ overflow. Why should we as a district take on other areas housing needs? Use it or lose it.

Siting If the more rational figures were being used the Murrell Green site would not even be required, but as this is on the table, why this site? It appears to be an easy target for developers as there is a low population in Murrell Green itself, unlike Winchfield that has a larger density of homes and therefore more people to fight the objections. There are fewer landowners, and the majority of whom are being tempted by large sums of money for their land. One particular landowner does not even live here anymore so will not have to live amongst the devastation of the land that she will be party to. However, putting that aside, the site of Murrell Green is not a great position for such a development and schools because of its geographical position. It is essentially landlocked by roads that simply cannot cope with the projected volume of traffic. I will discuss this more in a later section, but to get the flavour of the impact on the A30, you only have to be present when the M3 is shut and traffic is sent off at Junctions 4, 4a, 5 and 6. The traffic on the A30 is nose to tail and the function of the villages around us is catastrophic. These events are currently few and far between, but if a development of 1800 houses is passed, you are looking at 2500 additional cars per day on the A30 and the Road trying to go about their daily lives and the roads just cannot cope.

Access As I said above, access to the Murrell Green site will have to be via Odiham Road, A30 and logically, Totters Lane. These roads are inadequate to cope with the projected volume of traffic from the Murrell Green site alone, not to mention the already approved site in Hook for 550 house (another 750-1000 cars). As this is also the proposed site of the new schools, access for these is also from the A30. The schools will be large with many students arriving by bus and car, which will create more pressure on these roads. The only students who can walk to school will be those who live on the development, but many will probably be driven as the site will be large and parents want to ensure their child arrives safely and will drive them. If the development wasn’t there, the need for new schools would also disappear or be greatly decreased. Meaning that investment in the established local schools would be more able to cope with the natural increase of the local population.

Landscape This is an aspect that should be viewed in two ways. Firstly, the impact on the local landscape, but also the landscape within the development itself. Obviously, the local landscape would change irrevocably. Where we have green rolling countryside, there will be redbrick and tarmac. This devastation can never be undone. The wildlife will not just conveniently move to the ‘nature reserve’, some will be eradicated from the local area.

Has an independent assessment of local wildlife been undertaken? Both of our neighbours have large ponds, one of which is natural. Has the wildlife been assessed?

The land is currently rolling countryside and has dips and troughs as would be expected in a natural landscape. Once the natural lay of the land is developed the houses on the hills would dominate the horizon, where trees, sheep and cattle currently stand. This is a rural community and should not be developed to the point where we lose this quality for our community of today and for future generations.

Murrell Green, which lies close to , Winchfield and Hook, is a potential greenfield settlement for 1,800 houses and a secondary school. The site contains endangered woodland, ancient lanes and hedgerows, and lakes and ponds. The proposals show no regard for these natural features and there are concerns about water supply for the high level of proposed housing.

CPRE’s District Group for North East Hampshire

Amenities We know that new schools are planned within this development, which will be needed if the development is built. The requirement for these will be greatly reduced if 1800 houses are not built. The ‘necessity’ of school places is being bumped up by the creation of a new community.

With this new settlement, people need to get to work via trains, cars and buses. I have already touched on the impact of the cars. The three local train stations of Winchfield, Hook and Fleet, in order of geographical proximity cannot cope with the current demand, let alone the massive increase that will come from such a settlement.

Winchfield is a small country station with no more available land on which to develop more parking. Hook is in a similar position and Fleet has recently had its parking increased and already is too small to cope with demand.

There was talk about creating another station at Totters Lane Bridge. Is it really sensible to add another station between Hook and Winchfield, as they are so close, let alone the land that would need to be set aside to accommodate the number of cars that would use it? Again, access would be a huge issue as well as the pressure on the developers to increase the density of the new houses as they would lose many acres if they had to set aside space for the train station.

We also have to consider that even if the station sizes are increased to accommodate the demand, there is no guarantee that the train companies would increase the number of trains or add more rolling stock to the already overcrowded services.

Doctors Surgeries, Shops, Buses, dentists are all areas that would be needed to service the new settlement and I haven’t seen any evidence that these have been addressed.

Design The design within the development itself will also not be conducive or fit with the environment. We are being led to believe that the site will have a more sympathetic design and that the footprint of each home will be able to accommodate the house as well as the cars. I doubt this will be the case. The developers will wish to squeeze every last drop of space out of the site and if they have to leave a swathe of land undeveloped through the site to accommodate the stand-off distance dictated by the M.O.P. for the mains gas line, then they will develop the other areas far more densely to maximise the return on their investment.

The pressures on increasing the housing density within the settlement are 1. Gas Pipeline-stand-off distance 2. Potential new train station 3. Return on investment for the developers. 4. Acreage set aside for local amenities. 5. Scale of nature reserve 6. Scale of schools By the time all these areas have been addressed the developers will have to create far more densely populated houses to ensure a reasonable return on investment. So, instead of the spacious considered design we are being led to believe will happen, I expect that the houses will be squeezed in tightly with small garden plots, minimal parking and three storey town houses. There will not be the ‘affordable housing’ that should be there as it is not cost effective for them. The site will be strewn with cars that have no proper place to park.

Archaeology and Natural impact Winchfield and the surrounding villages are historical sites going back centuries with Winchfield being a Doomsday village. Has an Archaeological report been done? Do we know whether there are any historical treasures lurking that would benefit the country?

To me the impact on our green and pleasant land is heartbreaking. Once the landscape has been developed and destroyed we cannot take it back. What is more devastating is that we have a choice and that the morally wrong choice is being favoured due to laziness and greed.

I was at the planning meeting in which the possibility of developing brownfield sites was addressed. We were told that the reason the brownfield sites are not being considered is “ because they have not been made available to us”. I’m sure that the local landowners would not have made their land available either if they hadn’t been offered a large amount of money for their land. There should be some social responsibility for owners of vacant brownfield sites to have those sites prioritised for being made available so that our countryside is not devastated.

The impact of this development will have a ripple effect across our district and decisions are being based on inconsistencies and greed rather than facts and moral responsibility.

Gas Pipeline As we already know, there is a mains gasline running under this site. Putting aside how irresponsible it would be to build Schools and Homes in close proximity to this as the stand-off zone dictated by the maximum operating pressure of the gas pipe (M.O.P.) will create a no-build zone around it, I question the viability of a building project with such a large no-build zone. If the stand-off zone cuts a swathe through the entire site, there will be immense pressure to increase the density of the houses that they can build. This is not what has been promised.

DMRB Assessment (Design Manual for Roads and Bridges) I have already mentioned the massive impact that the increase of traffic will have on the local roads. We also need to look at the other DMRB criteria.  Noise-undeniably the increase in traffic will massively increase the traffic noise though both Hook and Hartley Wintney and for those residents who live directly on the A30.  Pollution/Air quality-equally, as the noise and volume of traffic increases, so will the local pollution level will increase and the air quality will suffer.  Cultural Heritage  Landscape  Nature Conservation  Geology and Soils  Effects on All Travellers  Community and Private Assets  Road Drainage and the Water Environment Has an independent assessment been undertaken for the DMRB impact?

The wear and tear on the roads will rise significantly, therefore costs for local councils on road repairs will increase.

The Totters Lane Bridge is already subject to weight restrictions. If this development goes ahead the developers will need to replace and/or strengthen it to accommodate the increase of traffic. This will not only impact their profit but the train line will need to be closed whilst the work is done.

Modifying Strengthening or Upgrading an Existing Bridge 2.29 If a structure is to be modified or a noncompliance is to be addressed, then the modification, strengthening or upgrading must be designed in accordance with Current Design Standards, except that substructure strengthening for impact should be designed to BD 48 (DMRB Volume 3.4.7). 2.30 In general, the existing elements of a Modified or Strengthened or Upgraded Structure need only comply with Current Assessment Standards. Further information is given in paragraphs 3.6-3.8. 2.31 The designer of a modified bridge should normally certify the whole structure, although with the agreement of the Overseeing Organisation isolated strengthening or upgrade works can be dealt with by partial certification. 2.32 Some requirements for new works, such as multispan structures to be continuous over intermediate supports, can be waived with a Departure from Standards. Further advice is given on this issue in Annex B.1. 2.33 Further advice on the process for the design of extended/modified bridges is provided in paragraph 5.2. 2.34 If different requirements are applied to the new and existing parts of a bridge, there is potential for it to have varying capacity. In some cases the capacity of the whole bridge will be limited by the existing elements. In other cases, heavier loads can be permitted but may need to be restricted to particular lanes. These restrictions should be identified in the assessment report and certificate. The Overseeing Organisation should be consulted to agree how the capacity is to be recorded in order to ensure compatibility with any asset databases which may be in use. Future Inspection and Maintenance 2.35 In developing a cost effective widening scheme, there will often be advantages in minimising clearances and other facilities which are utilised for inspection and maintenance. The effects on future maintenance and inspection must be considered in the development of the proposals. This consideration must be recorded in the Structure Options Reports (SORs), see Annex A and later in the Structure Review Process Documents. It is also required for inclusion on relevant applications for Departures from Standards. 2.36 The Maintaining Authority must be consulted at the earliest opportunity and invited to comment on proposals which affect future inspection and maintenance. Environmental Impact-Cumulative Assessment and ‘In Combination’ Assessment So much of this is inextricably linked, it is hard to separate.

We know that many housing developments around Hartley Wintney and Hook have appeared over the last few years. Holt Park in Hook, Dilly Lane in Hartley Wintney, Rifle Range in Hartley Wintney, the new development in Hook for 550 houses has already been approved and is awaiting ‘breaking ground’.

With all these new houses already completed and already approved the local area is already suffering the detrimental effects of increased population, and this will only get worse with 1800 new dwellings and an estimated 2500 more vehicles from the Murrell Green site and 550 houses and 700 more cars from Hook.

1. Increased traffic, leading to noise, pollution and reduction of air quality, the ripple effect of the traffic onto the wider road network. 2. Trains and buses. 3. Schools and feeder schools 4. Sewerage 5. Water capacity. 6. Electrical network capacity

Individually these impacts are bad but cumulatively they will have a devastating effect on this community.

Brownfield Sites There has been a lot of talk about developing brownfield sites rather than taking green field sites. I broached the subject above that they are not being considered ‘because they have not been made available to us’. This is such a cop out. Brownfield sites are more expensive to develop because the site the pre-existing development needs to be negated before it is then developed and this affects the ROI for the developers. However, my argument is two-fold. Old business sites are usually perfectly placed for access to roads for good logistics which is a positive for property and schools. Empty brownfield sites are detrimental to any community as it is not creating a vibrant up and coming community and developing in to new homes or schools is beneficial to that community. Which leads me on to the fact that brownfield sites should be prioritised for development and conditions should be made more favourable to building owners so they are prepared to ‘make the sites available’. This leads me to my penultimate point-

Fleet is a dying town This is a sad fact. Over the past few years the number of businesses in Fleet that have closed down or moved out of the town has increased and the number of vacant shops has also increased. Whether this is due to overpriced rents or the backlash of the rise of internet shopping, who is to know? However, whatever the reason Fleet is a town that is ideally placed for development and some TLC. If shops are on the decline as people move to shopping online, we still need homes and places to meet and be entertained. Why not take these sites and create new homes and a centre for meeting friends? Those towns that have embraced this changing social climate are now thriving. This would solve both the housing issue, the financial impact on developing brownfield sites and urban regeneration of a dying town. Surely this is preferable to cutting in to our countryside.

Social Responsibility Murrell Green, Hook, Hartley Wintney, and Winchfield and the neighbouring villages are classed as rural communities. If the ‘new settlement’ at Murrell Green is built the ripple effect on all these communities will be devastating. Everyone’s lives will be adversely affected by this, the countryside will be destroyed by 100s of acres, wildlife will be affected as well as what we pass on to future generations.

The rural areas seem to have been completely missed in that there is no recognition of the role or function of the countryside and rural communities in this part of the county. Hart’s Vision ignores landscape value, the value of historic or heritage assets, as well as the social and health value the countryside provides for recreation.

CPRE’s District Group for North East Hampshire

There is an alternative way to solve the housing issue in this area. The only ones to benefit from this will be the developers and they won’t have to live with the 1000s of people whose life style they have destroyed. Please base your decisions on a moral compass and not on financial gain.

Karen Briggs