10/17/2019 Mail - Woodgate, Jenny - Outlook

Objection to development of land South of Road, Four Marks and

Mon 07/10/2019 12:21 To: EHDC - Local Plan

1 attachments (30 KB) Objection letter.docx;

Dear Sirs

Please find aached wrien objecon to the proposed development of the above site.

Yours faithfully,

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/none/id/AAMkADIxNjE3NWJlLTMxYmEtNDEwZC1iOGM4LTYxOTllYjNmN2MzZQBGAAAAAABrEkrzGtHSSpsf… 1/1

Planning Policy East District Council Penns Place Hampshire GU31 4EX

7TH October 2019

Draft Local Plan Large Development Sites Consultation OBJECTION: Land South of Winchester Road, Four Marks and Ropley

Dear Sir / Madam,

I write in response to the ongoing Local Plan Large Development Sites Consultation, to object strongly to the proposed ‘Land South of Winchester Road, Four Marks and Ropley’ development site (EHDC Draft Local Plan 2017-2036). I have examined the plans and I know the area and the site well.

I provide the following points as the reasons for my objection:

Infrastructure • Four Marks, Ropley and have recently over delivered on multiple sites of new housing. • The proposed site is in conflict with the previous EHDC recommendation agreed March 2019 that Northbrook Park and Whitehill and sites are more suitable • Government inspectors and EHDC have stated Four Marks, Ropley and Medstead have an infrastructure deficit in the villages from 10 years of over development. There is a need to enhance the current infrastructure to meet the needs of the village and catch up with the development that has already taken place, before initiating further developments • GP surgery waiting times are already excessive • The two class entry primary school in Four Marks will not be able to meet the needs of the village. There is no secondary school in the local vicinity. The bus routes to Alton or Alresford, several miles away, for secondary education are already overcrowded • Community buildings and leisure/recreation areas are minimal and have received little council financial support in recent history • The available corner shops and single petrol station are insufficient to supply food and fuel to the villages, often creating traffic queues on the already busy A31 whilst consumers wait for parking • The proposed site is in close proximity to the existing newly developed settlements which will cause another 10 years of construction chaos and disruption to the village residents • In addition to the large slope and difficult hillside location proposed for the development, there are no mains gas or drainage services currently in situ, all would require inclusion and add dramatically to the development completion timelines. Likewise there is no fibre broadband available, and very little mobile phone network coverage • Employment opportunities in the local area are minimal and the proposal will not generate enough job vacancies to support the new influx of people • The complete absence of evidence from the developer regarding the infrastructure plans means that it is not a deliverable proposal, failing to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of the area and the way it functions

Highways • The A31 and nearby junctions are already over capacity with resulting daily traffic jams • There are single lane roads and restricted railway bridges with limited traffic capacity adjoining the proposed site on all sides, these will not be able to sustain the increased traffic levels • Pedestrian access on all surrounding roads is minimal, there are no footpaths on the single country lanes or the A31 dual carriageway • Access to the proposed site will undoubtedly cause further delays on an already busy and overused stretch of the A31 with the only alternative routes being via single track country lanes • Planned industrial units will lead to increased heavy vehicle traffic directly onto already busy dual carriageway • Public transport will not be able to cope with the increased footfall and there is only a single bus stop within reach of the proposed site

Landscape and Biodiversity • Planned site is on a difficult to develop considerable slope. The resulting development would be prominent and visible for many miles, and from most angles, diminishing the desirability of the area for locals and tourists • The multiple footpaths and walking routes currently used by many villagers and tourists for recreation and dog walking would be rendered unattractive and unwelcoming • The proposed hillside site will disturb the water table leading to an increased run off to an area that already regularly floods. Further exacerbating the current nitrate issue. • The site is currently home to protected nesting Red Kites and multiple bat species

Heritage • The industrial area and traveller / showman sites in close proximity to the heritage railway would be severely detrimental to the views and its natural beauty • The social cohesion of our villages would be lost, as the estate development would overwhelm them. The ‘sense of place’ being very strongly felt currently. Four Marks and Ropley are both villages, not towns • The proposed development would blur the lines between Four Marks and Ropley which currently are villages with two separate independent identities

The proposal is un-sustainable, un-deliverable, un-necessary and unsuitable. Based on the above I believe that permission should be refused for the proposed Land South of Winchester Road, Four Marks and Ropley development.

Yours faithfully,