Land at Manydown, shaping a place, creating a community Basingstoke MSD5A: Statement of Community Involvement

Addendum July 2018

Note: This document is an addendum to the version submitted March 2017 and should be read alongside the original.

shaping a place, creating a community MSD5A: Statement of Community Involvement

■■ addition of an area of ‘Strategic Multi-Functional Green Space: Green corridors Summary of changes to application material and Buffers’ south of A339 where the potential location of allotments is Since the original submission in March 2017, there have been a number of changes identified; to the planning application in response to comments from Statutory Consultees, ■■ addition of ‘Strategic Multi-Functional Green Space: Green Corridors and members of the public and the Local Planning Authority. In summary, these changes Buffers’ to the south of the B3400 and ‘Strategic Multi-Functional Green are as follows: Space: Biodiversity and Landscape Features’ to the north of the B3400; ■■ confirmation that the Proposed Development will be for approximately 3,200 ■■ extension of the 25 metre noise and vibration buffer adjacent to the railway on homes (up to a maximum of 3,520 homes). Within the ES submitted as part of the Open Space and Landscape Parameter Plan so that this extends to the full the planning application in February 2017, assessments had adopted up to 3,520 developable frontage with the railway; residential dwellings as a sensitivity test; ■■ the key on the Open Space and Landscape Parameter Plan has been updated ■■ changes have been made to the building heights for each of the areas on the to note that the areas of ‘Strategic Multi-Functional Green Space: Visual Building Heights and Density Parameter Plan. The building height for buildings Buffers’ also include biodiversity features; of up to 2 storeys and up to 3 storeys have been reduced by 1m to 10m and 13m ■■ respectively. The maximum building height for buildings up to 4 storeys and up the locations of some of the primary sustainable drainage (SuDS) features have to 5 storeys have been reduced by 2m to 15m and 18m respectively; been amended to take account of the amendments to other elements of the Proposed Development. These primary SuDS features are however all retained ■■ the key on the Building Heights and Density Parameter Plan has been amended within the strategic areas of the Site required for the proposed surface water to state they are ‘up to’ a maximum number of storeys; drainage strategy; ■■ reduction in maximum building heights on Worting Road (reduced to a ■■ amendment of proposed green corridors, buffers and strategic green space maximum of up 2 and up to 3 storeys) and the western boundary of the Worting to accommodate the amended principal access junction designs and revised Conservation Area, which has been reduced to up to 3 storeys maximum; alignment of Worting Road; ■■ reduction in the maximum proposed overall height of buildings around Worting ■■ change in the design and layout of the primary access junction into the Site Wood Cottage to up to 4 storeys maximum; from the A339. This junction previously comprised improvements to the existing A339 / Roman Road roundabout, closure of the Roman Road arm ■■ reduction in the maximum proposed height of buildings fronting the Central of the roundabout and construction of a new arm to the roundabout that Neighbourhood park and existing lane to up to 4 storeys maximum; would link to Main Street. The amended junction layout has been designed in ■■ reduction in the area of higher density development in the vicinity of Church Lane, consultation with HCC Highways to improve the through flow of traffic along with the frontage of this area of development moved further east, away from the the A339. It still proposes closure of the Roman Road arm of the existing Lane; roundabout but introduces a new roundabout on the A339 to the west of the existing, which provides the northern junction with Main Street. The updated ■■ reduction in the building height for small scale ancillary buildings outside built layout also introduces a new highway layout for the section of the A339 development zones, so that these are limited to up to a maximum of 2 storeys between the two roundabouts; and up to 10m maximum; ■■ change in the design and layout of the primary access junction into the Site ■■ an overlap has been introduced between the development areas and the from the B3400 Worting Road; from a single crossroads junction to a layout neighbourhood parks to reflect the fact that the exact outline shape of the park with two junctions: a roundabout and a crossroads. This amended junction will be determined through reserved matters. Development of these overlapping layout includes amendments to the alignment of Worting Road and a new areas will generally relate to the proposed building heights and densities in the section of Main Street and will reduce traffic flows through the southern adjacent development areas; neighbourhood centre; ■■ changes have been made to the proposed residential density ranges shown on ■■ change in the design and layout of the northern and southern sections of Main the Building Heights and Density Parameter Plan. These were 15 to 30, 25 to Street through the Site; and 45 and 40 to 60 in the original submission and these have been amended to 15 to 30, 30 to 40, 40 to 60 and up to 60 dwellings per hectare for the mixed-use ■■ updates to pedestrian and cycle routes between the Site and the wider centres within the revised submission; Basingstoke area. ■■ a note has been added to the Building Heights and Density Parameter Plan noting that where density ranges are stated with a lower limit (ie. 15-30, 30-40 & 40-60 dph) there is an allowance for some parcels to come forward below (only) A note regarding changes to application material the lower range, where the masterplanning phase ahead of reserved matters demonstrates improved design outcomes; In the light of the changes to the application some of the application material has been revised and other additional material is supplemented by an addendum, in ■■ realignment of the residential parcel closest to the A339 to take account of the response to requests for further information or clarification. revised junction design and alignment; This is arranged so that where a document has been fully updated and replaces ■■ realignment of residential parcels to accommodate changes in layout; the original it is identified with an ‘R’ after its reference number e.g. MSD2R. In this ■■ confirmation that five permanent Gypsy and Traveller pitches will be provided at a case the original document is no longer a relevant consideration in relation to the single location; application. In general throughout these documents the changes are highlighted in blue so that they can be clearly identified. ■■ reduction in the number of potential secondary school sites, from three to one. The preferred location for the secondary school site has been advised by HCC Where additional material is provided as an addendum that is to be read alongside subsequent to the planning application being submitted; the originally submitted document it is identified with an ‘A’ after its reference number e.g. MSD5A which is to be read alongside MSD5. ■■ introduction of icons to show the approximate location for the primary school(s) and the secondary school, with their likely size being shown at the same scale in For a full list of application documents please refer to the covering letter dated July the key; 2018. ■■ amended the annotation of the mixed-use areas on the Land Use Parameter Plan to clarify that these show the approximate location and extent of the mixed-uses, with the exact boundaries to be determined through reserved matters; ■■ the northern neighbourhood park has been amended so that the main street no longer cuts through the middle of it, and it has been located further from the A339 than in the original planning application. The park measures 3.5 hectares in area; ■■ it has been clarified in the key to the Open Space and Landscape Parameter Plan that each of the neighbourhood parks will meet the adopted Green Space Standards (July 2013) minimum size requirement of being 2ha;

July 2018

Addendum to: Statement of Community Involvement for Manydown, Basingstoke

Created for Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council and Hampshire County Council

Document reference: MSD5A

Contents Page Contents Page ...... 1 1. Post-Application Consultation ...... 2 2. Appendices ...... 11

| Statement of Community Involvement 1 1. Post-Application Consultation

1.1 Submission communication

As outlined at Section 5 of the Statement of Community Involvement submitted with the Outline Planning Application in March 2017, ongoing communication has been maintained with the community and key stakeholders, following submission.

A submission newsletter was issued to the same recipients as those who received the invitation newsletters to the consultation events, as well as a database of approximately 500 individuals and groups likely to take an interest in the Proposed Development.

The submission newsletter provided an overview of the Proposed Development as submitted to Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council in its capacity as local planning authority ("LPA"), details of where to find more information and how to make comments on the Outline Planning Application, and the next steps and timescales.

A series of ‘explainer’ factsheets were produced, providing information on all of the key areas of the Outline Planning Application. The explainers covered the following areas:

• Design concept • Local centres • Housing mix • Car parking • Schools • Highways • The country park • Open space and green links • Sewerage and drainage • Energy and sustainability • Archaeology and heritage

An email notification advising that the Outline Planning Application had been submitted and the factsheets produced was sent to the database of approximately 500 individuals and groups who are likely to take an interest in the proposed development. An email was also sent to all local ward councillors, parish councils and MPs.

The project website was fully updated with details of the Outline Planning Application, including with all of the factsheets. The Freephone information line also remained available.

| Statement of Community Involvement 2 Those who requested further information by telephone, letter or email were responded to in the most appropriate manner.

1.2 Public feedback from the statutory consultation on the Outline Planning Application

Public feedback received as part of the initial statutory consultation on the Outline Planning Application has been reviewed and analysed by the project team.

Approximately 121 responses were received from members of the public in response to the Outline Planning Application. This is based on an analysis of the comments received on the online planning portal up to the 26 June 2018. Duplicate submissions from the same respondent were combined in to one response for the purposes of the analysis. Responses submitted on behalf of community stakeholders have been considered separately under paragraph 1.3 below.

The majority of responses were received from residents of Winklebury (66) and Rooksdown (26). Eleven responses were received from residents in other areas of the borough and the location of 18 respondents was unknown. The feedback was analysed qualitatively and quantitatively and collated to provide a summary of the most frequently cited issues and concerns.

The key points from the public feedback included:

• Gypsy and Traveller site – Approximately 86 of the public comments received raised concerns regarding the inclusion of Gypsy and Traveller site as part of the Proposed Development. Comments received related to the lack of consultation on the Gypsy and Traveller site, the lack of detail regarding the location of site, the proximity of site to existing communities and concerns regarding the potential for anti-social behaviour.

• General highways concerns – Approximately 43 of the public comments received raised concerns regarding increased traffic and congestion resulting from the Proposed Development and concerns that the road network could not cope with the increased levels of traffic.

• A339 Roundabout design – Approximately 27 of the responses received referenced concerns regarding the design of the proposed A339 roundabout. This was in regards to the proposal for one enlarged roundabout and the potential for the proposed configuration to lead to rat running through Rooksdown. Concerns were also raised regarding the loss of woodland at ‘The Spinney’ which is covered under a separate heading below.

• Loss of Spinney woodland – Approximately 26 of the responses received referenced concerns regarding the loss of woodland as a result of the proposed

| Statement of Community Involvement 3 A339 roundabout design. Concerns were raised on the basis that the woodland is an important amenity for local residents.

• Sewerage treatment plant – Approximately 27 of the responses received referenced concerns regarding the potential for a sewerage treatment plant to support the Proposed Development.

• Rat running through existing communities – Approximately 25 of the responses received referenced concerns regarding the Proposed Development leading to rat running through existing communities. This included concerns regarding rat running through Winklebury (Elmwood, Firs, Hawthorn, and the Clark Estate) and Rooksdown.

• Noise and pollution – Approximately 23 of the responses received referenced concerns regarding the potential for an increase in noise and air pollution as a result of the Proposed Development.

• Loss of green fields, wildlife and habitats – Approximately 19 of the responses received referenced concerns regarding the loss of green fields, wildlife and habitats as a result of the Proposed Development.

• Fort Hill / secondary school related – Approximately 14 of the responses received referenced concerns regarding the need for a secondary school as part of the Proposed Development, in light of the proposed closure of Fort Hill Secondary School.

• Lorry Park – Approximately 12 of the responses received referenced concerns regarding a lorry park which was believed to be provided as part of the Proposed Development.

• T-junction over roundabout – Approximately 11 of the responses received referenced a preference for a T-junction at the A339 junction which was one of the options previously considered at the early stages of the consultation.

• Loss of amenity for walking – Approximately 10 of the responses received referenced concerns regarding the loss of local routes for walking and dog walking as a result of the Proposed Development.

• Closure of the top of Roman Road – Approximately 7 of the responses received referenced concerns regarding the closure of the top end of Roman Road as part of the Proposed Development.

• Environmental concerns – Approximately 7 of the responses received referenced concerns regarding the overall environmental impacts of the Proposed Development.

| Statement of Community Involvement 4

• Not enough detail – Approximately 7 of the responses received referenced concerns regarding the level of detail provided within the Outline Planning Application and suggested more information was required about matters such as the proposed building heights adjacent to existing communities and exactly what buildings would look like.

A spreadsheet which collates the overall feedback received from the public in response to the initial statutory consultation by the LPA is available at Appendix 1 for further information.

1.3 Feedback from community stakeholders on the Outline Planning Application

Feedback received as part of the initial statutory consultation on the Outline Planning Application from community representatives such as parish councils, ward councillors and community organisations has been analysed and considered by the project team.

Comments were received from ward members for Winklebury and Rooksdown in response to the initial statutory consultation. The comments received re-affirmed the concerns raised by residents of Rooksdown and Winklebury and focused on issues such as Gypsy and Traveller provision, the impacts of the proposed A339 junction and general highways concerns. Separate comments were also made regarding education provision for Winklebury and steps to ensure build quality in new developments.

The local electoral division member of Hampshire County Council also submitted comments in response to the application including concerns regarding the proposed A339 junction, the function of the main street, building heights and density, secondary school provision, affordable housing, public transport, sewerage and drainage and Gypsy and Traveller provision.

Comments were also received from local parish councils and community organisations including Rooksdown Parish Council, Wotton St Lawrence Parish Council, Oakley Parish Council, Overton Parish Council, Kempshott Community Planning Group and the Wotton St Lawrence Neighbourhood Plan Group. Comments generally focused on the same issues highlighted above within the public feedback with a particular focus on the specific traffic implications for each local community as a result of the Proposed Development.

Feedback was also received from several local community interest groups including Natural Basingstoke, The South West Action Group, Cycle Basingstoke and the Hatch Warren Nature Group. Comments generally focused on the environmental impacts and proposed mitigation, walking and cycling measures, the sustainability of the Proposed Development and flooding and drainage measures.

| Statement of Community Involvement 5

A spreadsheet which collates the overall feedback received from the community stakeholders in response to the initial statutory consultation by the LPA is available at Appendix 1 for further information.

1.4 Feedback from statutory consultees on the Outline Planning Application

Feedback received as part of the initial statutory consultation on the Outline Planning Application from statutory consultees has been reviewed and analysed by the project team.

A spreadsheet which collates the overall feedback received from the statutory consultees in response to the initial statutory consultation by the LPA is available at Appendix 1 for further information. The spreadsheet includes responses from the Applicant in regards to the comments raised by the LPA and statutory consultees and references relevant updates to the Outline Planning Application.

1.5 Additional meetings with statutory consultees

In the period following the initial statutory consultation the project team has assessed the responses received in conjunction with the LPA and held further discussions with relevant statutory consultees. This included a series of statutory consultee workshops facilitated by the LPA and a series of meetings with the Highways Authority at Hampshire County Council to resolve its objection.

1.6 Frequently asked questions

Following initial analysis of the feedback from the public and community stakeholders a series of responses to frequently asked questions were prepared by the project team and published on the project website in August 2017.

The answers aimed to give more information or explanation in response to questions raised in the public responses to the statutory consultation on the Outline Planning Application. They were not intended to provide a response to all the concerns raised, to justify the proposals or to address every objection raised.

An email notification advising that answers to frequently asked questions had been published was sent to the database of approximately 500 individuals and groups who are likely to take an interest in the Proposed Development. An email was also sent to all local ward councillors, parish councils and MPs advising them that answers to frequently asked questions had been published on the project website.

| Statement of Community Involvement 6 1.7 Response to public and community representative comments

In preparation for the submission of updated information to the LPA the Applicant has prepared a summary which responds to the key issues raised by members of the public and local community representatives in response to the initial statutory consultation on the Outline Planning Application. The summary is available at Appendix 2 for further information.

The document aims to build on the answers to frequently asked questions published in August 2017 by providing a response to the key issues raised and providing further information on how these concerns have been addressed within the updates to the Outline Planning Application.

The document focuses on the top ten issues raised within the public and community representative feedback. The document also provides an update on the elements of the Outline Planning Application which have been updated based on feedback from the statutory consultees and the LPA which may be of particular interest to the public.

1.8 Update meetings with Members of Parliament

Update meetings were held with Members of Parliament whose constituencies are impacted by the proposals on the following dates:

• 14 June 2017 – Maria Miller MP (Basingstoke) and Ranil Jayawardena MP (North East Hampshire)

• 2 August 2017 – Kit Malthouse MP (North West Hampshire)

• 10 November 2017 – Maria Miller MP (Basingstoke)

• 26 January 2018 – Ranil Jayawardena MP (North East Hampshire)

• 06 July 2018 - Maria Miller MP (Basingstoke)

All meetings have been attended by members of the project team who provided an overview of the proposals and timeline and answered questions.

1.9 Schools engagement

In order to provide younger people living in the borough with an opportunity to discuss the proposals for Manydown, a series of workshops have been held with children from primary and secondary schools in Basingstoke. The range of ages and schools were selected to give a representative view of young people and provide a ‘youth voice’ as part of the ongoing consultation process.

| Statement of Community Involvement 7

The initial engagement in January 2016 led to an ongoing series of workshops including sessions on play, the country park and web design and branding which enabled students to create their own ‘Young Opinions’ page on the project website: www.manydownbasingstoke.co.uk/young-opinions/.

A four-day Manydown summer workshop for 13 to 21 year olds took place in Basingstoke town centre from Monday 7 August to Thursday 10 August 2017 providing young people interested in architecture, buildings, art and green spaces a chance to have a say in the development of new communities at Manydown. The workshops offered the chance for young people to work alongside experts in urban design and planning with the aim of creating potential designs for new public street furniture at Manydown. Participants from the workshops presented to members of the Manydown Overview Committee at their meeting in November 2017. Due to the success of the event last year a further opportunity is being offered for students to attend the workshops in August this year. The workshops will be held in Basingstoke from Monday 20 to Thursday 23 August 2018. Further details are available via the project website at http://manydownbasingstoke.co.uk/young- opinions/activities/.

1.10 Drop-in information session on proposed updates

As part of the preparation of the updates to the application a drop-in information event was held in January this year in The Malls in Basingstoke providing residents with a chance to hear more about the changes and ask any other questions. A newsletter providing an overview of the proposed updates and details of the drop- in session was distributed to approximately 49,000 properties in Basingstoke.

An email notification advertising the event was sent to the database of approximately 500 individuals and groups who are likely to take an interest in the proposed development. An email was also sent to all local ward councillors, parish councils and MPs.

Over 600 people attended the briefing which included updates on the revised junctions proposals and Gypsy and Traveller provision.

The most frequent issues raised included:

• the location of the Gypsy and Traveller site; • traffic impact through Winklebury and Roman Road; • construction traffic routing; • the role and function of the main street; • secondary school provision; • utilities and drainage issues;

| Statement of Community Involvement 8 Many of the attendees also asked questions regarding the delivery timescales for scheme in order to understand when they could start to benefit from access to new facilities in the local centres and Country Park. The newsletter publicising the event and the exhibition boards displayed at the drop in event can be found on the project website at http://manydownbasingstoke.co.uk/documents-downloads/ .

1.11 Update presentations to Parish Councils and community groups

In order to provide an update to the Parish Councils and community groups (in unparished areas) representing areas affected by the Proposed Development, update presentations were offered to those groups who had been previously engaged with.

The following update presentations were subsequently arranged:

• Wootton St Lawrence and Ramsdell Parish Council • Rooksdown Parish Council • Winklebury Community Action Group • Oakley and Deane Parish Council

The presentations took place between January 2018 and February 2018. The presentations were led by Andrew Reynolds (Project Director at Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council)

Key points raised in response to the presentations included:

Wootton St Lawrence and Ramsdell Parish Council

• Rat running through Ramsdell and the Closure of Rooksdown Lane • Views to the North and the AONB • Country Park management proposals and specifically concerns over access, parking provision and areas defined as arable farmland on the illustrative plan • Clarity regarding the Garden Town approach • Agreement for project team to provide electronic version of exhibition boards to be sent by email • Project team to include Ramsdell in future distribution of newsletter • Project team engagement with the neighbourhood plan group

Rooksdown Parish Council

• Rooksdown Lane and Wotton St Lawrence access to A339 to the north of the junction. Necessary to confirm approach regarding right turns on to the A339 and whether there will be islands • Pedestrian and cycle access from Rooksdown • Clarity regarding where the Gypsy and Traveller pitches would go • A339 junction proposals and the number of lanes leading to Rooksdown • Function of the main street and speed limits • Buckskin flood alleviation scheme

| Statement of Community Involvement 9 Winklebury Community Action Group

• Connecting facilities at Manydown to local communities • Provision of health facilities • Closure of Fort Hill • Transport concerns including rat running and Roman Road proposals • Gypsy and Traveller sites • Sewerage treatment proposals • Green spaces

Oakley and Deane Parish Council

• Traffic flow on the main street and increased journey times • HGV traffic • Newly proposed roundabout and visual impact • Pedestrian and cycle links along B3400

1.12 Ongoing communication

Ongoing communication will be maintained with the community and key stakeholders, leading up to and following the submission of the updated information to the LPA in support of the Outline Planning Application.

This will include a further newsletter to be distributed to approximately 51,000 properties in Basingstoke. The newsletter will provide an overview of the proposed updates to the Outline Planning Application and sign post members of the public to the LPA and Manydown Project website.

A further series of ‘explainer’ factsheets have been produced based on the summary document at Appendix 2, providing information on all of the updates to the Outline Planning Application.

The project website will also be fully updated with details of the updated Outline Planning Application, including with all of the factsheets. The Freephone information line will also remain available. In addition the newsletter and factsheets will be emailed to the database of approximately 500 individuals and groups likely to take an interest in the Proposed Development and to local ward and parish councillors.

Those who request further information by telephone, letter or email will also be responded to in the most appropriate manner.

As part of the Applicant’s commitment to engagement, ongoing communication will be maintained with the community and key stakeholders, following the re- consultation on the updated Outline Planning Application. This will include future consultation on detailed reserved matters applications providing the opportunity for local people to continue to help shape the Proposed Development.

| Statement of Community Involvement 10 2. Appendices

• Appendix one: summary of responses from Outline Planning Application • Appendix two: response to feedback from Outline Planning Application

| Statement of Community Involvement 11 APPENDIX 1 - Outline Planning Application Summary of responses

Statutory consultation responses *Note those in yellow have not provided a response to the consultation

1. BDBC Planning Policy (Forward Planning Team)- Pages 5-7 30. Monk Sherbourne Parish Council 2. BDBC Design Envmnt. And Infrastructure Team Leader - Urban Design 31. Rooksdown Parish Council - pages 20-21 3. BDBC Sport And Recreation - Page 7 32. Oakley Parish Council - Page 21 4. BDBC Drainage - Page 7 33. Wooton St Lawrence Parish Council - Pages 21-2 5. BDBC Community Development - Page 7 34. Overton Parish Council - Page 22 6. BDBC Property Services 35. Network Rail - Page 22 7. BDBC Traffic Officer (Highways) - Page 7 36. South West Trains 8. BDBC Transport Strategy Team Leader 37. Thames Water Utilities 9. BDBC Residents Services - Transport And S106 Officer 38. South East Water (Engineering Department) 10. BDBC Housing Services 39. Geonetworks Ltd - Government Pipelines - Page 22 11. BDBC Health and Wellbeing Partnership - Page 8 40. Southern Gas Networks - Plans Location - Page 22 12. BDBC Neighbourhood Partnership Team 41. Scottish And Southern Energy 13. BDBC Environmental Health - Pollution - Page 6 42. Hart District Council - Joint Waste Client Team - Page 22 14. BDBC Environmental Health - Noise - Page 8-10 43. NHS North Hampshire Clinical Commissioning Group - page 22 15. BDBC Landscape - Pages 10-11 44. Care Quality Commission - National Correspondence Centre- 16. BDBC Trees - Page 11-12 45. Crime Prevention Design Advisor 17. BDBC Parks And Open Spaces - Page 12 46. DCLG - Page 23 18. BDBC Biodiversity/Ecology Officer - Pages 12-16 47. Natural England Consultation Service - Page 23 19. BDBC Conservation - Page 16 48. Historic England - Pages 23-24 20. HCC Archaeology - Pages 16-17 49. Environment Agency South East - Page 24 21 HCC Public Health Authority - Page 17 50. Hampshire & Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust Strategy Lead for Planning & Development - Page 24 22. HCC Library Authority - Page 17 51. Open Spaces Society 23. HCC Minerals Planning Authority - Page 17 52. Forestry Commission - page 24 24. HCC Local Lead Flood Authority - Page 17 53. Byways And Bridleways Trust 25. HCC Waste and Resource Management - Pages 17-18 54. Ramblers' Association - Rights Of Way Team 26. HCC Highways -Page 18 55. North Wessex Downs AONB 27. HCC Planning & Development. Environment Department - Pages 18-19 56. BHS County Access And Bridleways Officer - Page 25 28. HCC Rights Of Way/Countryside Service - Page 19 57. British Driving Society - Page 25 29. HCC - Children's Services Department - Page 19-20 58. Cyclists' Touring Club - Right To Ride Representative

Neighbour consultation responses Multiple responses - Pages 26 - 31

Councillor consultation responses Cllr Stephen Reid - Page 32 Cllr Simon Bound - Page 33 Cllr Laura Edwards - Page 33

Other organisation responses 59. Natural Basingstoke - Pages 34-35 60-61. Kempshott Community Plan Group - Pages 35 62. Woodlands Trust- Page 36 63. Hatch Warren Nature Group - Pages 36 64. South West Action Group - Pages 36-37 65. Manydown Company Ltd - Page 37 66. Soutrope Developments Ltd (Worting) - Page 37 67. Wotton St Lawrence Neighbourhood Plan - Page 37-38 68. West Berkshire District Council - Page 38 69. Save Oakley Action Group -pg 38 70. Cycle Basingstoke -page 38 Consultation Response Consultee Date provided Objection? Key issues raised Initial Applicant response STATUTORY CONSULTEES 1.0 BDBC Planning 10/03/2017 24/04/2017 No - further 1.01 The number of homes will need to be conditioned to limit the scale of the development The maximum number of homes has been confirmed in the description of development as being up to 3,520 Policy (Forward information and homes. Planning Team) clarification 1.02 It is noted that C2 units are proposed as part of the description of development. It should be clarified whether these are included within the 3200/3520 (+10%) or additional This would be included and limited to no more than 200 homes, or an equivalent floorspace. This will be required controlled by a planning condition. 1.03 The RIA is being reviewed by BDBC independent consultants and their conclusions will be reported by the case officer The revised Economic Statement (MSD9R) has been updated to incorporate the comments of the independent consultant in November and December 2017. 1.04 It is important to ensure that the proposal does not have an adverse impact on other local facilities such as local shops in Winklebury and Buckskin. This is briefly addressed on pg 20 of the RIA The Applicant has undertaken further assessment and submitted a revised Economic Statement. but this seems an inadequate explanation for a matter given such importance within the policy framework. Additionally, there will be further assessment undertaken during the detailed masterplan/design codes stage following determination of this outline planning application. This further assessment can be secured through planning determination/s106 discussions. 1.05 It is recommended that the type and amount of retail floor space is limited in accordance with the findings of the RIA and the units sizes and offer controlled to ensure the provision is compatible Accepted. with the retail character of the centre. 1.06 It is recommended that phasing information and development briefs be required for each of the centres to ensure there is control over what uses are introduced and when it is going to be Accepted - these documents are included in 'Securing Design Quality and Delivery through Planning' process. delivered See Planning Statement Section 4.17 and 4.20 for further details. 1.07 Case officer needs to be satisfied that the amount of employment floor space can be accommodated in the centres alongside the other uses proposed. Confusion between Parameter Plans The illustrative masterplan alongside the Economic Statement assess and model the maximum provision of which indicate zones for mixed use and with DAS which says employment floor space would be near centres, along main street or new southern/northern access points. Unclear whether commercial floorspace, demonstrating that these proposed uses can be accommodated. This inconsistency consent would provide sufficient flexibility to achieve these different locations and whether centre is best place for an 'innovation centre' has been amended in the Design and Access Statement to clarify these uses would be in the neighbourhood centres, as set out in the Parameter Plans. 1.08 The council is currently undertaking an Economic Needs Assessment, the findings from which should be factored into the decision making process for this application Noted. The findings of this assessment have not been forthcoming and are not incorporated in the application at this stage. These can be incorporated at future stages of design. 1.09 It is considered that the indicative housing mix should be agreed prior to submission of the first RMs to provide an appropriate starting point. There needs to be a mechanism to understand the It is suggested that the approach in defining the detail of the Affordable Housing Scheme (explained at para overarching housing mix in different parts of the site so that the LPA could approve larger units in the more suburban areas with the comfort that smaller units would be provided elsewhere on 3.8 and below) is at reserved matters stage, similar to the arrangements recently approved within the the site, thus delivering an appropriate mix overall Section 106 at Hounsome Fields. The Affordable Housing Scheme would confirm the amount, tenure, type and mix of affordable housing to be delivered in the parcel/ phase. This mechanism would be enshrined in the Section 106 Agreement. 1.10 Further information is required about the type and extent of need to justify the provision or absence of specialist accommodation. Should there be a requirement for such accommodation, this The Applicant will review this with the LPA and secure through the legal agreement if required. should be secured through the legal agreement. 1.11 15% of market and affordable homes to be Part M4(2) compliant - should be secured as part of the planning consent. Agreed - this will be secured through planning determination/s106 discussions. 1.12 Planning statement commits to 5% provision for self-build - should be secured as part of the legal agreement. Agreed - this will be secured through planning determination/s106 discussions. 1.13 The legal agreement should also include a mechanism for self-build plots to be marketed to people on the Council's self-build register as a priority Agreed - this will be secured through planning determination/s106 discussions. 1.14 It will be necessary to include an overarching mechanism to masterplan the location of the self-build units. A delivery strategy should be identified prior to submission of the first RM application. Agreed - this will form part of the Site Wide Framework Development Specification.

1.15 A mechanism will need to be included to identify a more precise location for G&T sites as part of the master planning to take place prior to the submission of reserved matters. The timescale for Agreed - this will be secured through planning determination/s106 discussions alongside the delivery of other the provision of pitches should be secured through the S106, and this should be as early as possible in order to help the LPA meet the requirement in Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (PPTS) to housing, requiring the submission of details of their location and agreeing timeframes for delivery. demonstrate a 5 year supply of specific deliverable sites. 1.16 Any deviation from pitch provision on the Manydown site should only be allowed on the basis that suitable alternative provision is made elsewhere at a location and in a manner which meets the Agreed - this will be secured through planning determination/s106 discussions. requirement of Policy CN5 and the PPTS 1.17 The IDS signposts the need for a fully costed Infrastructure Schedule and a Council resolution to commit the LPA to secure contributions towards that schedule from future development in the It is the intention that the Applicant and the LPA will agree a robust approach to equalisation between the allocation. It is unclear whether the applicant is suggesting they will prepare the Schedule or not, and this should be clarified. owners of land within the Manydown site allocation area. This is to ensure that the cost of providing allocation-wide infrastructure is shared proportionately between the relevant landowners. The Applicant's proposed mechanism for equalisation is set out in detail in section 4 of MSD8R (Infrastructure Delivery Strategy). 1.18 The IDS includes a reliance upon third parties to deliver infrastructure, with no certainty that they will do so (for example, the third community centre). As it has not been demonstrated that In so far as it is within the Applicant's control, it has been demonstrated that there is a comprehensive there is agreement between BDBC/HCC and the other landowners with interests around Worting, the applicant has not demonstrated that there is a comprehensive infrastructure strategy for strategy for infrastructure in place across the Local Plan Allocation as a whole. The Applicant will continue the whole site. working with the other landowners and the LPA to ensure there is a comprehensive infrastructure strategy for the whole site. 1.19 Consideration should be given to the Council's CIL draft Regulation 123 list Noted and the Applicant will review this through planning determination/s106 discussions. 1.20 The parameter plans potentially limit the height of the school buildings. The LEA should confirm that these would not unduly restrict future provision. The Applicant has reviewed the building height parameters with statutory consultees, including the Local Education Authority, and these have not been considered to restrict future provision. 1.21 The suitability of the sites for the primary schools should be agreed with the LEA taking into account their size, characteristics (levels), and location to ensure they are capable of accommodating The LEA has confirmed preferred locations for the schools. The Applicant will review this with the LEA the necessary facilities. The provision and timing of the primary schools should be secured through the s106 through on-going consultation and the planning determination/s106 discussions will secure the provision and agree timescales. 1.22 The application also specifies 'land for one secondary school'. This is slightly confusing as the applicant is not seeking consent for that use (and has not tested it through the EIA) and is merely The Applicant is seeking to establish agreement on the principle of this use through the outline planning offering to safeguard the land for that use application. The ES has tested the proposals as set out in Chapter 4 Proposed Development, including a secondary school in the approximate location shown in the parameter plans and according to the maximum parameters set out in the application. 1.23 It will be necessary to liaise with the LEA to confirm the specific requirement for early years provision and secure adequate provision through the s106 Noted, the Applicant will review this in s106 discussions. 1.24 It would be necessary for the IDS to provide certainty that the full requirements for community buildings will be met across the allocation As Applicant, the landowner cannot compel other land owners to deliver community buildings as part of their schemes but would expect this to be secured in line with the IDS through any future planning application on that land. 1.25 A temporary community space and community development worker will need to be secured through the s106 It is proposed that either a temporary facility will be built initially and then subsequently established on a permanent basis, or a permanent community building will be established from the outset. A community development worker will be secured in the s106 agreement. 1.26 It will be necessary for the stage between outline and RMs to demonstrate the relationship between phasing of the development parcels and the community facilities to show they would be A Phasing Plan and Delivery Strategy will be submitted for approval between the Outline application and safely and easily accessible to all residents at all stages of the development Reserved Matters. 1.27 There are concerns about the suggestion that one of the community buildings might be provided in the Country Park - in such a location it would be unlikely to meet the requirements of the SPD. As noted in the Planning Statement (MSD2R) the broad locations are for a community building in the western There is also an in principle policy concern about the facility being located beyond the allocation's development boundary, as ALP Policy SS1 directs such development to within Settlement Policy centre, and one in the eastern centre. The Site Wide Framework will further refine the detail, prior to boundaries. submission of Reserved Matters applications. This work will assess the proposal against relevant planning policy, and be discussed with the LPA. 1.28 Ideally a location for the healthcare facility would be identified through the s106, however the case officer should consider whether this is capable of being agreed through the intermediate The CCG has indicated a preferred locaton for the healthcare facility in the south of the development master planning stage, including discussions with operators to agree the scale of the facility (western centre) and the Applicant will continue to liaise with the CCG in future stages of detailed design.

1.29 It is necessary to understand how much of the ANGS would be within the Country Park (and precisely where it would be) and the implications for POS across the site. It would be helpful if each of The policy requirement for ANGS is based on an accessibility threshold and not a quantity standard. The the green spaces on the Open Space and Landscape Parameter Plan were identified to inform the assessment. A full explanation should be provided to justify deviating from the policy approach, Proposed Development has included ANGS to meet this accessibility threshold and does not specify a quantity and this should be agreed with the Open Space officer. because this is not needed. Natural England guidance suggests it would be a minimum of 0.25ha. The Applicant proposes that further detail on the location and quantity of all POS will be agreed during detailed masterplanning/design code stage, prior to the submission of Reserved Matters applications. It was the intention that the Parameter Plans at this stage only show strategic POS rather than a detailed breakdown. The breakdown provided in MSD3R Landscape Strategy will form the basis for this future masterplan and is provided to demonstrate that the policy can be met within the application site area.

1.30 It would be helpful to understand for the upper level of dwellings in the ES (3520) what this means for the balance of POS inside/outside the site The provision of public open space appropriate for 3,520 has been agreed with the LPA, and is detailed in MSD3R Landscape Strategy. 1.0 BDBC Planning 10/03/2017 24/04/2017 No - further Policy (Forward information and Planning Team) clarification required

1.31 It Is not clear how the recreational infrastructure within the country park will be delivered, who will deliver it and when. It is not clear whether the recreational infrastructure can be delivered The Applicant proposes that a delivery and management plan for the Country Park will be conditioned as separately or in isolation from the ecological mitigation. part of the Outline Planning permission and form part of further discussions with the LPA. A Country Park Development Brief will be prepared in between the Outline application and submission of Reserved Matters.

1.32 The submission provides inadequate information to demonstrate that appropriate land has been safeguarded for the railway crossing and whether this satisfies the operational needs of The Applicant has provided additional information to Network Rail in response to their comments. Network Rail. Triangular safeguarded land for the railway crossing does not match that shown on the inset map in the Loal Plan - this is in itself not a problem if the area can be shown to be fit for purpose. It is not clear how the options in the DAS have been selected, how achievable they are likely to be, or whether they have been informed by the matters set out in the SPD. `The Case Officer and LHA will need to take a view as to whether the Phasing Strategy safeguarding the crossing provides sufficient long term protection for the link. 1.33 In the TA there is very little detail about the precise nature of walking and cycling improvements to demonstrate that the could work or identify their costs. It is unclear how the LPA could The Applicant has reviewed the provision of walking, cycling, vehicular and public transport improvements secure timely delivery of the necessary infrastructure if triggers are not identified, agreed and secured at outline stage. with HCC Highways. These have been set out in the Transport Assessment (MSD12aR). Triggers and securing delivery will be agreed through planning determination/s106 discussions. 1.34 The Movement and Access Parameter Plan shows the proposed pedestrian and cycle routes - the provision of connections in these general locations should be secured as part of the planning This will be secured through planning determination/s106 discussions. application. 1.35 Very little information is provided on public transport services and there is no detail about issues such as phasing or viability. Given the scale of this development and the potential to provide a The Applicant has reviewed the details of provision of public transport improvements with HCC Highways genuine alternative to the car from the outset, further consideration is required on this point. through meetings and submission of revised and additional information. 1.36 Vehicular access should not prohibit development elsewhere in the allocation. It is not clear to what extent the secondary access onto the B3400 is indicative and whether this issue has been The B3400 Worting Road access junction was submitted with the planning application. The pre-application addressed. This could best be demonstrated through dialogue with the other landowners. submission was shared with the other landowners in advance of the final submission of the planning application and consultation responses are being received from them. The Applicant will continue dialogue with the other landowners to ensure development is not prohibited elsewhere. 1.37 Details of levels will be controlled through condition It would be helpful if the proposed and existing levels are shown alongside each other to enable easy comparison and to understand whether Further information will be confirmed through design development into reserved matters applications. any major earthworks are being proposed. 1.38 Information should be provided at the more detailed design stage to demonstrate how it has responded to sustainability requirements. Further information will be confirmed through design development into reserved matters applications. 1.39 Sustainability should be embedded into the Design Codes, Development Briefs etc. And the information submitted prior to RMs This will be secured through planning determination/s106 discussions. 1.4 It is important that phasing is controlled through condition and that it is considered through the more detailed strategies being brought forward. Agreed - an indicative Phasing Strategy has been submitted (MSD6R) and a Phasing Plan and Delivery Strategy will be submitted as part of the Site Wide Framework. 1.41 It will be necessary to have a clear idea of the site-wide information that should be provided prior to the first RMs information to avoid development coming forward in an uncoordinated and This is set out in the Design and Access Statement (Appendix 1) as well as in the Planning Statement (Section piecemeal fashion 4.17 and 4.20). 2.0 BDBC Design 10/03/2017 2.01 No response received. Environment. And Infrastructure Team Leader - Urban Design 3.0 BDBC Sport And 10/03/2017 06/04/2017 No - further 3.01 See coordinated response from 5. BDBC Community Development Recreation discussion required 4.0 BDBC Drainage 10/03/2017 06/04/2017 No - further 4.01 See coordinated response from 5. BDBC Community Development discussion required 5.0 BDBC Community 10/03/2017 06/04/2017 No - further 5.01 We believe the Community Development Officer should be located within the community development team to benefit from peer support, expertise and links with other community officers to Noted and the detailed arrangments will be agreed with the LPA and the relevant team within BDBC. Development discussion maximize the effectiveness of the role, especially in the integration of communities. required 5.02 Further discussion will be required particularly about the location of the sports hall in relation to school provision or community centre facilities. To be discussed with the LPA in terms of how and when this is agreed. Approximate locations for the sports hall, the schools and local centres are set out on the Land Use Parameter Plan. 5.03 The location of a health centre should reflect accessibility in terms of catchment for the new development and existing communities, and ease of transport. Some health clinics may be The CCG has indicated a preferred locaton for the healthcare facility in the south of the development deliverable from other community locations and the CCG should be encouraged to specify these types of opportunity as soon as possible to ensure community facilities are designed to be flexible (western centre), meeting accessibility requirments for new and existing communities. The Applicant will enough to accommodate such services. continue to liaise with the CCG in future stages of detailed design. 5.04 The principles of Secure by Design must be considered at every stage to ensure neighbourhoods are safe and welcoming. We reiterate a previous invitation to officers from the LPA to visit some The Applicant will continue to liaise with BDBC as LPA on this matter. recent developments where poor design has led to anti-social behaviour issues and where lessons can be learned. 5.05 Risks associated with terrorism must also be considered and advice sought from the Counter-Terrorism team at Hampshire Constabulary. The Applicant will seek advice from the Counter-terrorism team. 5.06 We welcome the prospect of park and stride facilities - these routes must be provided and signposted from the outset so that it directs behaviour when schools first open. The detailed design for the park and stride will be considered in future detailed masterplanning/design code stage and subsequent Reserved Matters applications. 5.07 Parking restrictions should be used as a tool to influence positive behaviours from the outset, and action taken where restrictions are ignored. Inconsiderate parking is a risk to safety where The detailed design for parking will be considered in future detailed masterplanning/design code stage and access for emergency services is obstructed, and is the most frequent cause of neighbour and community disputes. These issues should be designed out through sensible provision and strong subsequent Reserved Matters applications. enforcement as soon as dwellings are occupied. 5.08 We note that traveller sites are proposed but as yet there is no indication of location. It is essential that potential residents and businesses are informed at the earliest opportunity where the The mechanism for agreeing the location will form part of on-going discussions with BDBC as LPA and in s106 sites will be and how they will be accessed. discussions. 5.09 We would welcome the opportunity to engage in discussions about the options for governance arrangements to serve the Manydown development, particularly in light of the forthcoming The Applicant will continue to liaise with the LPA and Community Development Officer on this matter as the Boundary reviews. There is an exciting opportunity to develop a model of local community governance and determination from the first phase of completion. design develops. 6.0 BDBC Property 10/03/2017 6.01 No response received. Services 7.0 BDBC Traffic 10/03/2017 22/08/2017 7.01 The HDMT notes that the application description states that: “All matters are reserved except the primary means of vehicular access onto the A339, B3400 and Roman Road. Noted. Officer (Highways) 7.02 Under the terms of the BDBC/HCC Highways Development Control Agreement, a development of this scale is classified as being a Strategic Application. Agreed. 7.03 Therefore, the potential impacts of the development traffic upon the operation of the surrounding public highway network (including the proposed highway improvements), the proposed access Noted and the Applicant has discussed the Proposed Development extensively with HCC Highways. arrangements, etc., are all matters for consideration by HCC. Improvements are set out in the Transport Assessment (MSD12aR). 7.04 Given the above, the HDMT does not wish to make any highway observations at this at stage. However, the HDMT reserves the right to comment further if requested by the Local Planning Noted. Authority. 8.0 BDBC Transport 10/03/2017 8.01 No response received. Strategy Team Leader 9.0 BDBC Residents 10/03/2017 9.01 No response received. Services - Transport And S106 Officer 10.0 BDBC Housing 10/03/2017 10.01 No response received. Services 11.0 BDBC Health and 10/03/2017 28/04/2017 No - further 11.01 We would advocate the inclusion of a pharmacy within the facility which will support residents to self-manage their health conditions. The Applicant will consider this in future detailed masterplanning/design code stage and subsequent Wellbeing discussion Reserved Matters applications. This is also a matter to discuss with the CCG and the Applicant will involve the Partnership required Health and Wellbeing Partnership in these discussions. 11.02 The health centre must be easily accessible on foot, by bicycle and by public transport and the services must be accessible for as wide a range of residents as possible in terms of opening times. The CCG has indicated a preferred locaton for the healthcare facility in the south of the development (western centre) and the Applicant will continue to liaise with the CCG in future stages of detailed design, ensuring it is highly accessible. The Applicant is reviewing walking, cycling, vehicular and public transport improvements which will also address this comment. 11.03 It is recognised that some health provision may be also be deliverable from other community locations or retailers such as coffee shops, opportunities which could form part of wider The Applicant will consider this through discussions with the CCG and will involve the Health and Wellbeing deliberations by the health sector about different models of care. Partnership in these discussions either pre-determination or as part of the detailed masterplanning/design code stage. 11.0 BDBC Health and 10/03/2017 28/04/2017 No - further Wellbeing discussion Partnership required

11.04 The Partnership is aware that lessons need to be learned from new developments where residents have not been well served in terms of health care. Rooksdown is one such community and we The Partnership will be involved in discussions with the CCG to ensure that these lessons are incorporated into feel there would be merit in having a greater understanding from residents who occupied the early stages of that development about their experiences and the improvements that could be the design. made. Some members of the Partnership would be happy to be involved in facilitating such discussions with the LPA. 11.05 We wish to emphasise the need for accommodation as well as services that support Manydown to be a good place to grow old in and to meet the needs of those with dementia and other The Applicant is reviewing the provision of specialist accommodation with the LPA and will secure the sensory or mobility impairments. provision of wheelchair accessible housing through planning determination/s106 discussions. 12.0 BDBC 10/03/2017 12.01 No response received. Neighbourhood Partnership Team 13.0 BDBC 10/03/2017 13.01 No response received. Environmental Health - Pollution 14.0 BDBC - 10/03/2017 25/04/2017 No - clarification 14.01 Likely noise mitigation measures at those residential properties most exposed to noise and vibration impacts. Agreed. Environmental and/or The predictive noise and vibration work is based on an indicative layout plan and as such will need to be revised and re-modelled at reserved matters stage for each development phase where Health - Noise amendment noise and/or vibration impacts are anticipated. requested 14.02 Baseline conditions Noted. The baseline noise and vibration study provides a robust assessment of the existing noise and vibration climate across the development site. It identifies that the primary sources of noise across the site are transportation sources, the A339 to the north of the site, B3400 which runs across the middle of the site and the south west main line railway

14.03 Vibration assessment on proposed dwellings Agreed. Levels are likely to exceed the required criteria and as such ACCON recommend a buffer of 25m between the railway line and the nearest sensitive dwellings. Any dwellings positioned closer than this would require vibration isolation measures to ensure vibration levels remain satisfactory 14.04 Post-development road traffic noise impact on existing receptors Noted. The impact of road traffic noise generated by the development post-construction has indicated a ‘minor adverse’ impact at one existing receptor location, at Wootton St. Lawrence. This is due to an increase in traffic flow of 134%, which equates to a noise increase of 3.7dB. To put this figure into context, it is generally accepted that a noise level of 3dB is just perceptible to the human ear. At other locations, for example in the vicinity of the B3400 Worting Road, traffic flows are anticipated to reduce by up to 44% due to changes to vehicular routes resulting in a 2.3dB reduction in noise levels at this location. 14.05 Post-development road and rail traffic noise impact on proposed dwellings Agreed.

Internal noise levels - Road traffic noise The worse-case scenario with respect to elevated noise levels will be with respect to residential properties along Main Street, which will have the greatest traffic flows with residential facades overlooking the road. Tables 13.22 and 13.24 demonstrate that with a partially open window, for ventilation purposes, the required noise criterion will not be met for the majority of properties facing onto Main Street. To a lesser degree properties located behind the main street will be similarly affected by elevated noise levels and whilst there will be screening, in the form of up to five storey buildings, this will be reduced by gaps between buildings. Such gaps have not been included in the predictive work, however ACCON acknowledge this and confirm that future prediction work would be required at detailed design stage to support future reserved matters applications. It should be noted that ACCON have taken a conservative approach to the assessment, having utilised a 12dB(A) reduction for a partially open window. BDBC typically accept a level of 15dB(A) for façade insulation assessments.

Noise levels across the remaining development are likely to be subject to lower road traffic noise levels and the ‘as built’ development will introduce additional screening to further reduce noise levels at receptor locations.

Internal noise levels - Rail traffic noise Based on measured noise levels as part of the baseline study work, predicted levels are likely to exceed the assessment criteria at properties close to the railway line. A combination of a 25m buffer zone, acoustic screening (only effective at receptors at ground floor) and façade insulation is recommended to ensure satisfactory internal conditions due to rail traffic Due to the variability of the topography on site a combination of barrier heights is likely to be required 14.07 External noise levels Agreed. The assessment of external noise levels due to road and rail traffic at proposed residential and school locations has established that it is likely that the upper limit of 55dB (LAeq, 16hr) will be exceeded at certain distances from the existing dominant sources of road and rail traffic. Where external amenity and teaching areas are to be located within such locations ACCON’s advice is to ensure a good acoustic design process is followed by utilising a combination of acoustic screening, use of buildings as barrier blocks, linked garages etc to provide the necessary mass to effectively reduce external noise as far as reasonably practicable. Where such a design process has been followed and all methods of mitigation exhausted, it is likely that external noise levels up to 60dB would be acceptable, however it is our expectation that such exceedances would only amount to a small proportion of the development site. 14.08 Mixed-Use development Agreed. For any mixed-use development as part of the proposals there is potential for noise from any commercial activity to impact on residential use, which will be sited in close proximity. Such sources include fixed plant and machinery and delivery noise for example. At outline stage where site layout has not been determined and end users of commercial units unknown it is not possible to fully assess such impacts. ACCON have made reference to the relevant assessment methodology to be adopted and the design criteria to be achieved, which would ensure that any such impacts are addressed at detailed design stage. Mitigation is likely to comprise standard methods of noise control such as acoustic enclosures, screening of noise sources and restrictions on operating hours in order to protect residential amenity. Such issues can be addressed through future reserved matters applications and through the imposition of planning conditions. 14.09 Construction noise impact Agreed. The construction noise assessment can only present a very broad stroke approach to likely impacts at this stage. ACCON have however presented a construction noise impact assessment in accordance with BS5228 – based on assumptions on typical construction phases and plant and machinery used. This is indicative of a negligible impact on existing receptors. It is probable however, that in the later phases of the development when earlier phases are complete and occupied, that some construction noise impacts may arise. To minimise any such impact any future reserved matters applications can be conditioned to include the submission of a Construction and Environmental Management Plans (CEMP) to address noise (and other amenity issues such dust, lighting etc.). 14.10 Commentary on proposed mitigation Agreed and a robust demonstration of good acoustic design process will be provided if required during The mitigation of noise and vibration impacts is discussed at numerous points in the noise chapter of the ES with ‘primary’ mitigation incorporated into the layout plans by way of buffer zones detailed design stage. between the main transportation noise sources. Ideally, in terms of future detailed design layout proposals, the Main Street or specifically the main traffic flow should be routed away from noise sensitive receptors to minimise properties exposed to high noise levels. However if this is not possible, principles of good acoustic design should be adopted and implemented in any future reserved matters applications. We would advocate the applicant engage with us as early as possible on design and layout discussions for each of the phases. The overall site design and layout will have a significant bearing on exposure to the resulting environmental noise. This is an important part of demonstrating good acoustic design.

The number of properties requiring mitigation to achieve the target internal and external noise levels will be driven by further work on the site layout for each phase which will provide opportunities to reduce the number of properties requiring noise mitigation measures. ACCON acknowledge this and indicate the importance of good acoustic design by utilising buildings as barrier blocks, acoustic screening and the use of buffer zones separating sources of noise and noise sensitive dwellings. With respect to internal noise and external noise levels, ACCON suggest that the council may consider relaxing internal noise levels by 5dB, as suggested in BS8233 and in our own noise guidance. To clarify our position in this respect, this relaxation would be considered where it has been robustly demonstrated that a good acoustic design process has been followed, and then consideration may be given to allowing up to 5dB relaxation.

However this should be a last resort when all other means of mitigation have been exhausted, and not the starting point of any design process. It our expectation that this would typically only apply to a small proportion of the overall development site and its respective phases. It is likely a significant number of properties will require noise mitigation measures and will rely on alternative ventilation because openable windows will negate any acoustic benefit of façade insulation. Where this is the case, it should be assumed that future occupants will expect to be able to open windows without detriment to the internal noise climate. Residents will want to open windows for a variety of reasons linked to comfort and preference and not just for summer cooling purposes. It is not expected that any method of providing alternative ventilation meets ‘purge’ rates as referred to in Approved Document F i.e 4 air changes per hour. 14.0 BDBC - 10/03/2017 25/04/2017 No - clarification Environmental and/or Health - Noise amendment requested

14.11 Conclusion Agreed and the Applicant will discuss the specific wording of the conditions with the LPA prior to Whilst the noise assessment is constrained by only indicative layout plans, in principle it has been demonstrated that any noise and/or vibration impacts on existing or proposed receptors can be determination. reduced to within acceptable levels, subject to detailed design and further assessment work for each phase, where noise and/or vibration impacts are anticipated. As such it has been satisfactorily demonstrated that with respect to noise and vibration the development accords with Policy EM10 and EM12 of the BDBC Local Plan 2011 – 2029.

Recommendation Conditions will be required to accompany any permission that may be granted. These conditions are likely to include the following, where noise and/or vibration impacts are anticipated; a) Noise and/or vibration assessments for each development phase with detailed acoustic design layout; b) Internal and external noise levels to be achieved; c) Noise mitigation scheme (to include ventilation strategy, where appropriate); d)Construction noise assessment; e)Construction and Environmental Management Plan (to address all potential amenity issues, noise, dust, lighting etc). f) Post-completion noise survey (to demonstrate compliance with assessment criteria); However, due to the complex phasing and structuring of this application, we would welcome your advice on how these should be phrased so that they can be applied to each phase of the development, and discharged as completion progresses. We would anticipate that the applicant would want to discharge the conditions with the completion of each phase, and as such, overarching conditions which cover the entirety of the development would not appear practical. We would welcome your guidance on this. 15.0 BDBC Landscape 10/03/2017 25/04/2017 No - clarification 15.01 Whilst the proposed linkage routes and access points will go some way to providing a connection between new development and existing residential areas, further clarification is required as to The Applicant has set out the principle links and routes, and discussed pedestrian and cycle improvements and/or how it is intended for the new development to relate and connect to existing adjacent neighbourhoods. with Highways. Further detail will be provided as the design develops into future masterplanning and design amendment coding work and reserved matters applications. requested 15.02 There are some parts of the proposal where built form extends close to the edge of the site, with limited space for any significant sized structural landscape buffer, which is of concern at this Green edges and buffers are proposed at a width of between 10-30m, depending on location. This will allow stage. It is advised that this is given attention in order to provide clarification as to how landscape and visual impacts from built form will be successfully mitigated in these locations. a sufficient depth of planting to create a structured and effective green edge or visual screen, as appropriate.

15.03 The proposed development wraps around the northern, western and southern edges of the Conservation Area, large parts of which are proposed to be up to 3 storeys in height. This proposal The Applicant has reduced building heights on the western edge of the Conservation Area, as well as the removes its rural landscape setting and significantly increases the amount and scale of built form around it, obscuring its legibility. Having reviewed the proposals I would advise that this is building heights on the southern and northern side of the B3400 on the approach to Worting Village. The unacceptable, and subject to the view of the Conservation Officer suggest that the development requires amendment to significantly increase the amount of space between the edge of the built Applicant has also confirmed that no buildings will be within the minimum 20m set back to the northern edge part of the development and the Conservation Area boundary of Worting Conservation area, with a non-continuous frontage (detached and semi-detached houses).

15.04 It is considered that two of the neighbourhood parks need to be reconsidered, their locations moved so that the main access roads don’t dissect them, and their designs adapted to increase their All the neighbourhood parks are sized above the minimum policy requirement and the northern overall sizes to comfortably allow all the uses they are to contain, both SUDs and recreation. neighbourhood park has been reviewed and is no longer dissected by the Main Street. The Northern Neighbourhood Park is no longer dissected by a road, and its size has been increased to over 3ha. 15.05 It is considered important that the green corridor along Roman Road is designed in a way that regular clear views are allowed through it to the built form beyond, which should be aligned to Noted and the proposed design achieves this, as detailed in MSD3R Landscape Strategy. face outwards towards Roman Road. 15.06 The greenways and green lanes which are shown on the illustrative masterplan are a positive feature of the development, however in places they seem very narrow for the function they should The corridors and buffers are at least 20m wide and in many cases they are substantially wider, as described be providing, and this is of concern. These require further work in order to be successful and acceptable in more detail in MSD3R. This is considered an appropriate minimum width to provide a robust offset to sensitive features whilst also allowing informal recreation for people. 15.07 A block of residential development extends in to the northernmost corner of the site where some of the highest landform levels are, which whilst at 2 storeys is of concern in this location. The LVIA (Chapter 12 Views in the ES and addendum chapter submitted in Jan 2018) has assessed 2 storey Further clarification is required with regard to what is intended for this part of the development, so assessment can be made about its impacts on the approach to Basingstoke along the A339, as buildings in this area and found there to be minor adverse visual effects from the road (linear receptor R2) well as the Country Park. and moderately significant effects from the PRoW in the CP (receptor F1b), reducing to minor adverse after 15 years (full establishment of mitigation planting). 15.08 The centre of the site is proposed to locate high density mixed use development going up to 5 storeys in height, however this is immediately adjacent to the Country Park, which is considered to The height of the buildings in the vicinity of Worting Wood Farm, immediately adjacent to the Country Park be an issue, as the high density and tall buildings will have an urbanising impact on the edge of the country park, which would be adverse. This aspect of the proposal requires amendment to have been reduced from 5 storeys to up to 4 storeys. The Country Park is mostly adjoined with development ensure that a lower height, lower density edge to the built development is provided all around the woodland park. up to 2 storeys, and now only up to 4 storeys in the local centre. 15.09 Proposal for 4 storeys at the access point with Worting Road. At this point it still has a rural and transitional character, moving between open countryside towards Worting and then into The height of the buildings that front onto the green wedge to the north of Worting Road at the western Basingstoke. 4 storeys at this point would be highly visible on the approach along Worting Road, and as such considered harmful to both landscape character and visual amenity at this point of access point, as well as to the south of Worting Road towards Scrapp’s Hill Farm, have been reduced from 3 the development. Amendments are required to reduce the significance and dominance of the built form at this junction. storeys to up to 2 storeys, softening the transition between open countryside and the settlement edge.

15.10 In order to be able to assess clearly what is intended I would advise that we require a series of more detailed levels drawings which show sectional details across the site, their existing levels and The Applicant prepared wireframe photomontages using proposed site levels. Further detailed drawings will the proposed levels, as it is assumed that there will be significant amounts of cut and fill, remodelling and levelling to create all the elements of the development proposed. be provided during future masterplanning, design code and reserved matters applications. 15.11 It is not clear at this stage in either the DAS or Indicative SUDs Concept Drainage Strategy how the management of the SUDs scheme is intended to be dealt with, and this requires clarification. The Applicant has discussed the SUDs strategy with the LLFA and BDBC Planning officers and this is detailed in the submitted Flood Risk Assessment (MSD12gR). 15.12 I am aware that the Facilities Provision Officer has advised that a floodlit all weather pitch is required. Therefore, at this point the indicative location proposed for the all weather pitch is A floodlit 3G artificial grass pitch is proposed which could be a shared facility with the secondary school. If the unacceptable as it cannot accommodate the floodlighting required by the council, and as such this part of the proposal will require amendment. secondary school does not come forward, then a flood lit artificial grass pitch is expected be provided elsewhere within the development area. This will be agreed at the reserved matters stage of design. 15.13 We will need further detail about Planting Strategy - covering how this will present itself on site, the species, and detailed design of the various spaces and landscape elements. This will be secured through planning determination/s106 discussions, requiring additional detail at detailed masterplanning/design code stage and subsequent Reserved Matters applications. 15.14 Limited information has been provided about the intentions for hard landscaping across the site, and it is advised that a hard landscape strategy is developed that shows how the different This will be secured through planning determination/s106 discussions, requiring additional detail at detailed character areas will be treated within the overall context of an edge of town extension, adjacent to open countryside. masterplanning and Reserved Matters stage. 16.0 BDBC Trees 10/03/2017 21/04/2017 No - subject to 16.01 (1.6) A minimum buffer of 20m should be provided between the edge of all woodland (from the edge of the canopy) and the development (including gardens) unless it can be demonstrated, in a The Woodlands receive a minimum of 20m buffer within the current Masterplan. conditions particular case, that the above issues can be satisfactorily addressed if a lesser distance is applied. Buffer zones should incorporate other uses such as informal recreation and or SUDS where it is compatible with the buffer function. 16.02 (1.7) more detailed landscape and visual appraisal must be undertaken as part of the development of the illustrative masterplan in order to keep landscape proposals to filter, screen and frame This will be secured through planning determination/s106 discussions, requiring further assessment at views from existing settlements, the AONB and wider area. detailed masterplanning/design code stage and subsequent Reserved Matters applications. 16.03 (2.1 - 2.15) Assessment of key features The Applicant agrees with the key features listed and they accurately describe the existing baseline. All important features listed are included in the assessments. 16.04 (3.2) It is strongly recommended a robust and 'visionary' urban tree planting strategy is drawn up and established as part of the overall Landscape Masterplan. Strategy should set optimal The Applicant will consider this level of detail at future detailed masterplanning/design code stage and density target, criteria for consultation, design, sourcing, installation and post-planting management. subsequent Reserved Matters applications. 16.05 (4.0) Any application for reserved matters will be supported by an Arboricultural Impact Assessment (AIA) prepared in accordance with BS5837:2012 “Trees in relation to design, demolition and The Applicant has submitted an Arboricultural Impact Assessment with the application, and this will be construction - Recommendations". The AIA shall be based upon a comprehensive survey of all the trees on and adjacent to the site and shall demonstrate which trees can be retained and which updated in future reserved matters applications. The wording of the proposed condition is considered trees are to be removed. (The AIA shall inform a tree protection plan.) satisfactory but the Applicant requests that all proposed conditions are reviewed before being finalised by the REASON: To ensure that reasonable measures are taken to safeguard trees in the interests of local amenity and the enhancement of the development itself in accordance with the National LPA to ensure that as many issues as possible can be resolved prior to determination. Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) and policy EM1 of the adopted Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 2011- 2029. 16.06 (4.0) No commencement of development shall take place upon the site unless and until a Woodland Management Plan, relating to the woodland areas identified as W1-W5 inclusive in the The Applicant commits to the production of management plans within the Environmental Statement. The impact assessment (MSD12n-Arboriculture ES Appendix 9.3) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Development Manager. The Woodland Management Plan shall cover Applicant suggests a rewording of the condition in respect of the woodlands to be included within a minimum period of 20 years and shall: management plan coverage as follows: W1, W3, W4, W5 and the Jubilee Woods. The reason for the a) Set out the short term management aims to be completed prior to occupation of the development. recommended change is that W2 is Cow Down Copse, which is a Community Woodland and currently under b) Set out the long term management aims with a view to maximising the recreational, ecological and landscape value of the woodland. specific management and we would not propose to alter or supersede this management. We would c) Set out the management operations to be carried out, including details of how those operations are to be carried out and their frequency. recommend including Jubilee Woods within the management planning coverage to encourage a health and d) Set out details of a scheme of review to ensure that the management will always be appropriate to secure the continual cover and management of the woodland. diverse woodland community to develop as the plantation establishes, including woodland ground flora. e) Be presented in a format to be integrated into the council’s own tree database and that would meet Forestry Commission requirements for grant application. Otherwise the wording of the condition suggested considered satisfactory at this stage. All operations identified by the Woodland Management Plan, including the scheme of review, shall be implemented in full to the satisfaction of the council until such time that the woodland ownership is transferred to the council. REASON: To ensure that reasonable measures are taken to safeguard woodland in the interests of local amenity and the enhancement of the development itself, in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) and policy EM1 of the adopted Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 2011- 2029. 17.0 BDBC Parks And 10/03/2017 26/04/2017 No - further 17.01 The current Outline Application does not show how the full quantity of MFGS required to meet the Green Space Standards will be provided. The detail of MFGS has been broken down within the Landscape Strategy (MSD3R) and demonstrate Open Spaces information and provision appropriate for 3,520 homes as agreed with the LPA. amendments requested 17.0 BDBC Parks And 10/03/2017 26/04/2017 No - further Open Spaces information and amendments 17.02 Northern neighbourhood park is not acceptable as it is bisected by a road All the neighbourhood parks are sized above the minimum policy requirement and the northern requested 17.03 Central neighbourhood park is not acceptable as it is bisected by a road and should be around 10Ha to accommodate the full range of activities required neighbourhood park has been reviewed and is no longer dissected by the Main Street. Updated details are provided in MSD1R and MSD3R. 17.04 Likely to be problems with ANGS being provided in southern part of Country Park due to ancient woodland - need to seek confirmation from Biodiversity Officer ANGS are characterised by natural landscape features, managed for public access. Given the proximity and character of the Country Park, it is considered appropriate to provide some ANGS within the Country Park. The Country Park can deliver quality ANGS with high biodiversity and nature conservation value, without compromising the existing Ancient Woodland. BDBC Green Space standards do not specify a minimum size requirement for ANGS but Natural England guidance recommends a minimum size threshold of 0.25Ha. It is intended therefore that an area not less than 0.25Ha ANGS be provided within the Country Park. 17.05 Boundary with Winklebury along Roman Road needs to be more permeable and loosely planted to allow better integration and accessibility The Applicant considers that the 'Roman Road Linear Park' as detailed in MSD3R Landscape Strategy achieves this. 17.06 Not all Strategic Green Space is included in Table 1: Indicative Schedule of Development (MSD 6 Phasing Plan and Schedule of Development) This table has been updated, as detailed in MSD3R Landscape Strategy. 17.07 The quantity of Equipped play is additional to MFGS Noted, the quantity of equipped play has been considered in addition to the provision of MFGS, as detailed in 17.08 Further details required to demonstrate that the total quantity of equipped play can be med and design in accordance with Council's Play Area Specification MSD3R Landscape Strategy. 18.0 BDBC 10/03/2017 24/04/2017 No - further 18.01 Could one large scale plan be provided showing all the current bat and dormouse hedgerows/commuter/foraging routes. On this could the following be shown? A plan was included with Chapter 9 of the ES which illustrates anticipated hedgerow loss across the site. The Biodiversity/Ecolog information and - those hedgerows/routes to be lost clearly highlighted Applicant has produced the requested plan highlighting impacts on species connectivity, based on the y Officer amendments - those to be created to maintain the same habitat connectivity. hedgerow loss & severance/lighting impacts. This is included in the information submitted in January 2018 as requested part of the Draft Protected Species Habitat Mitigation and Connectivity Framework. 18.02 Maps clearly showing how the dormouse populations at Worting Manor and the population to the east of the development (as described in Sections 7.9 and 7.10 of ES Appendix 9.6) won’t be The Applicant does not have the data for Worting Manor, this would be at the discretion of the landowner. left isolated by the proposed development are required. Similarly can the map show all the hedgerows to be translocated? The Environmental Statement does state that 'important' hedgerows would be prioritised for translocation. The Applicant proposes that the Translocation Plan is secured through the planning determination/s106 discussions. Details of the important hedgerows could be combined with the plan requested in the comment above to produce a consolidated "species connectivity plan". A draft Protected Species Habitat Mitigation and Connectivity Framework has been submitted in January 2018.

18.03 Is the wording for the key on figure 9.3 correct for the ‘Habitat loss’ for the Habitat Areas? The key is correct; the habitat areas lost are distinguished according to the end use. Permanent physical and functional loss results from existing habitats lost to the hard development and infrastructure areas. Existing habitats are also lost to the creation of POS, mitigation planting etc. These 'losses' of the existing habitats have been further clarified as to whether the new habitat will have lower, equal or better functionality/value than the existing. 18.04 Information on how the Country Park will be managed and funded long term as part of the ecological mitigation/enhancements for the site is required. Can a s106 agreement be drawn up to The Applicant proposes that a delivery and management plan for the Country Park will be conditioned as ensure the grasslands will be managed to sustain a species rich grassland which will be screened from light spillage etc. part of the Outline Planning permission and form part of further discussions with the LPA. Stakeholder work is currently being undertaken to establish options for delivery and management. A preliminary Ecological Management Framework has been submitted in January 2018, which outlines management prescriptions for Country the Park and Type 1, Type 2 and Type 3 ecological mitigation areas and a framework for sensitive lighting strategy (i.e. an outline for a LEMP). 18.05 Could the applicant give examples of the type of measures that will be used to manage public pressures on ancient woodland SINCS and how these have been successfully used within other The selected management controls would need to be guided by subsequent VAS and would be finalised in the ancient woodlands of similar sizes to manage/limited adverse impacts from recreation and dog walking? Access Management Strategy. A preliminary Ecological Management Framework has been submitted in 18.06 Section 9.9.11 of the ES states existing and former rides will be used for public access through the ancient woodland SINCs on site. Further information is required to confirm that these access January 2018. routes will still be able to be used for access to manage the woodlands once the country park has been developed? 18.07 How much more information can be provided at this stage on the likelihood that there will be a ‘dogs on leads’ policy within sensitive areas of the country park in order to protect the badgers Chapter 9 of the Environmental Statement recommends a dogs on leads policy throughout the Country Park, and brown hares as well as other notable species/habitats on site? with special provision to be made (within the more amenity focussed zone closer to the hub) for an area where dogs can be let off the lead to run. The less preferred option is that dogs must be put on leads within specified areas. This is less preferred as it is more difficult to police and has other knock on implications for issues such as dog fouling. The Applicant proposes this issue is dealt with via condition requiring a dogs-on- lead policy to be agreed with the LPA and built into the CP management plan. 18.08 To have better reassurance can further information be provided on the type of techniques that will be employed to limit public access to Level 1 primary mitigation areas, and an assessment of A preliminary Ecological Management Framework has been submitted in January 2018. providing examples their likely proven success elsewhere when these techniques have been employed. of management/control techniques. 18.09 On all the maps/figures supplied no information is given on what will happen to the parcel of land immediately to the east of Cow Down Copse. Will this area remain in arable production? If so Apart from the mitigation areas, no change is proposed to this parcel. If the land use is to continue in how will access be maintained via some sort of gateway/break in the scrub/woodland planting shown on Figure 9.4? agricultural use (arable or pasture), gated access as per existing would likely be preferred option; discussion would be needed as to clearance requirements and angle & location of entry for machinery to ensure the break is minimised. 18.10 Section 9.9.34 of the ES states the northeast margin of Severalls field will be retained in situ as this was identified as one of the best areas within the study area for rare arable flora (in addition Management prescriptions could be provided a this stage, however, future management of the retained strip to retaining Wotton Copse field as arable habitat). Arable flora relies on the disturbance and turning over of soil to germinate. Further information is required on how this area will continue to is a concern. To account for any perceived conflict for future management of the in situ margin, receive the necessary cultivation post construction? contingencies have been included in the proposed mitigation strategy - the margin would be included in seed collection measures, so that the seed resource/genetic diversity would still be preserved. Additionally the overall net gain with offsite mitigation would still ensure net gain, even in the event this margin retained in situ were ultimately loss. A draft Farmland Wildlife Mitigation Package has been submitted in January 2018.

18.11 Can information be provided on how future management of field margins under an appropriate stewardship option might differ from current management? Also further information is sought on A draft Farmland Wildlife Mitigation Package has been submitted in January 2018. The Applicant will review when the uptake of a suitable stewardship scheme to benefit the retained/remaining arable margins might likely to be put in place? timescales for implementation of off-site farmland mitigation measures and discuss with the Biodiversity /Ecology Officer and Planning Officers. 18.12 (re section 9.9.111 of ES) Further information is sought on what the population of rare arable plants in the SINCs to the south of the site are and what, if any, additional/new measures will be A draft Farmland Wildlife Mitigation Package has been submitted in January 2018. introduced to improve/expand the population further? Are these areas currently in an appropriate agri-environment scheme? Can measures to improve the rare arable flora across the wider Manydown Estate be secured via some sort of legal obligation? 18.13 In section 6.33 of Appendix 9.2 it states offsite compensatory measures will be required ‘in surrounding retained fields’. Can further information be provided on how many/what extent other This information is provided within the ES; Figure 9.4 annotates the offsite (and onsite) fields and field retained fields within the Estate will make up these compensatory measures and will these fields contain suitable conditions for rare arable flora if they are not present there currently due to margins to be enhanced for farmland wildlife. The arable flora report confirms current locations of notable current farming practice? arable flora species/assemblage and details recommended future measures, which are also summarised in the mitigation section of the ES chapter. A table quantifying the net change estimated in the areas of important arable flora is also included in the ES chapter (Table 9.15). A draft Farmland Wildlife Mitigation Package has been submitted in January 2018. 18.14 On figure 9.4 it shows additional arable fields within the study area that will be retained and managed as arable, could further information be provided on why it might or might not be As per comment above; the fields identified in figure 9.4 are selected for offsite enhancement for arable appropriate to sow seed within these areas too if it means retaining/expanding the population of rare arable flora within the site? flora. The mitigation strategy includes seed collection from across the Study Area from notable species/assemblages and subsequent sowing of that seed across the target fields, once appropriate marginal conditions have been restored through management improvements. The primary objective of the mitigation strategy for arable flora is to preserve and improve the existing arable flora assemblage within the Manydown Estate - maintaining at least those species present (ideally restoring species previously but not currently recorded) and increasing the number and range of those species). A draft Farmland Wildlife Mitigation Package has been submitted in January 2018. 18.0 BDBC 10/03/2017 24/04/2017 No - further Biodiversity/Ecolog information and y Officer amendments requested

18.15 Re Appendix 9.2 and list of field margins as potential site to grow plants from the seed collection, the areas do not include Wootton Copse field nursery site. Can further information be provided The Wootton Copse field margin was identified by the arable flora survey as a notable margin (e.g. Fig 3 in by the surveyor that this field would be a suitable site to retain the arable flora based on its likely soil, geology type etc. the arable flora report, annexed to Appendix 9.2 and also highlighted and annotated in the Phase 1 Habitat Survey Map included with Appendix 9.2). This field was therefore selected as a consequence of its existing value (along with the northeast margin of Severalls) for in situ retention and enhancement as the other three suggested by the arable flora survey (Great Woods, Great Woods East and Farm Close, all north of Worting) will be lost from arable production as a consequence of the CP design (there may still be some scope for retaining arable flora interest within the existing southern margins of these fields, but like the Severalls margin would be entirely subject to bespoke management which may not be in keeping with the amenity use proposed in these locations of the CP, hence why retention of these margins has not been indicated in the current strategy). The existing occurrence of notable arable flora in Wootton Copse field provides sufficient confidence that suitable conditions are present to utilise this field for one of the proposed nursery sites. A draft Farmland Wildlife Mitigation Package has been submitted in January 2018.

18.16 Can more information be provided on who will be responsible for establishing a monitoring and seed collection strategy (as referred to in Table 9.16) and who has been responsible for any seed A draft Farmland Wildlife Mitigation Package has been submitted in January 2018. collection currently undertaken within the southern area of the Manydown Estate? 18.17 Further information/evidence is sought on how successful the proposed sowing of seedbank from the areas to be lost will be? 18.18 In section 9.10.39 of the ES it discusses alternative options for mitigating the effects on the rare arable flora assemblage. Can further information be provided on what reasons there might be for the proposals not being delivered so that an assessment on the likely chance of success can be made? If one of the alternative options neds to be taken, can further information on the likely timescales? 18.19 Can it be confirmed the further surveys of specific areas as described on page 9 of Appendix E in Appendix 9.2 of the ES will be undertaken and that the seed collection and cultivation work will continue during development dependent on the phasing? 18.20 Further information is required on whether other land in the applicant’s ownership could be used/improved to ensure there will be no net loss in the breeding skylark population within the area. The Applicant will consider the suitability of using/improving other land in its ownership. Could these measures be secured by a planning obligation despite being outside the application boundary? These measures will be secured through planning determination/s106 discussions. A draft Farmland Wildlife Package has been submitted in January 2018. 18.21 Can it be confirmed that none of the suggested mitigation/enhancement measures for Skylarks will be detrimental to the mitigation/enhancement measures for the rare arable flora on site or A holistic approach to enhancement for farmland wildlife is proposed, to ensure viable and sustainable vice versa? Similarly can it be confirmed that switching to spring sown crops across the arable land to be retained to the west and south west of the site will be possible? farmland ecosystems are restored. The focus for skylark enhancement is largely infield, while the focus for arable flora is on the restoration/enhancement of margins and the seedbeds contained therein. The two objectives will be compatible; improving arable flora would be a cornerstone for all subsequent farmland wildlife enhancements. A draft Farmland Wildlife Package has been submitted in January 2018. 18.22 I am unsure if red kites are site faithful but any mitigation would need to retain the use of the woods by red kites. Further information is sought on the likelihood seasonal restrictions of public Red kites are reasonably faithful to old nest sites. The existing nest site is within reasonable proximity to the access could be given to avoid disturbing this W&C Act Schedule 1 bird while it nests each year given the length of time the birds are on the nest and given the nest was recorded on the north existing public path and current levels of access and land use do not appear to be disruptive to successful side of Worting Wood? nesting; however, disturbance factors are predicted to increase when the CP is in use. The access management options, including provision for seasonal restrictions will be built into the CP management plan and will be adaptive, subject to monitoring of the nest (this may introduce excellent educational opportunities). Mitigation also includes the provision of a new platform to encourage a new nest site located further away from the existing path. A preliminary Ecological Management Framework has been submitted in January 2018, which outlines management prescriptions for Country the Park and Type 1, Type 2 and Type 3 ecological mitigation areas and a framework for sensitive lighting strategy (i.e. an outline for a LEMP).

18.23 Given the widespread presence of dormice in the form of a series of meta-populations and the high level of impact the development poses information should be sought from Natural England on Agreed, the Applicant will review with Natural England. A draft Protected Species Habitat Mitigation and their opinion on the recommendations and general principals given in order to maintain the favourable conservation status for the dormouse populations within the area. Connectivity Framework has been submitted in January 2018. 18.24 At this stage, with the two mitigation measures outlined, i.e. persuading the dormice to move out of an area to be impacted or translocated dormice, I am still not clear on whether the idea is Options for dormouse mitigation are purposefully kept open at this outline stage as the final strategy will be to clear all dormice from the areas to be developed? If not are there studies/evidence on how well dormouse populations survive/are retained within such areas with the effects of pet dependant upon final design and, importantly, build programmes. The Applicant did not want to specify one predation? Consideration needs to also focus on retaining the populations in the short-term while new planted habitats take time to mature and while pet predation effects will have an option over another at this stage as it may not be the most appropriate when the time comes for immediate impact from the moment of occupation. implementation - the least disturbing option (or combination of options) should be adopted. The mitigation strategy includes significant improvements to linkages of existing dormouse habitats (e.g. Cow Down and Mother's Copse, north-south connectivity with Wootton/Marvel Row etc.) which will be implemented prior to development so as to buffer these existing offsite populations and, ideally, allow expansion in populations size and range prior to impacts affecting population within the site. This will account for short to medium term disturbance factors upon the population during and immediately post-mitigation. A draft Protected Species Habitat Mitigation and Connectivity Framework has been submitted in January 2018.

18.25 In section 8.23 of Appendix 9.6 it states appropriate habitat availability for dormice in the remaining areas beyond the development in the long-term must be provided. Which areas in particular Para 8.23 of Appendix 9.6 is in specific reference to the option of displacement and is confirming that in order will be important and how will the management of these areas to benefit dormice be secured in the long-term? Similarly whereabouts is it likely that the suitable receptor habitats referred to in to displace dormice from the development footprint, there must be suitable habitat available for the dormice section 8.24 will be located and how will these be habitats be safeguarded in the long-term? to be displaced into and also linkages along which they can travel to reach these alternative offsite habitats. The mitigation strategy includes planting both on and offsite in order to facilitate this option, as well to ensure medium-long term gains in overall net habitat provision and connectivity (as required to ensure long- term FCS for the population). A draft Protected Species Habitat Mitigation and Connectivity Framework has been submitted in January 2018. 18.26 Where exactly is the railway plantation referred to in Section 8.26 of Appendix 9.6? This is along the railway line on the south boundary of the site; it is illustrated in the ES Figures and is annotated on Figure 9.4 (mainly on sheet 3 of 4). 18.27 In section 6.21 of Appendix 9.5 it states that an ‘uninterrupted dark corridor orientated north-south along the west boundary of the site’ will be established. From looking at the Illustrative A preliminary lighting strategy is included in MSD1R Design and Access Statement. The applicant proposes a Masterplan this corridor will skirt round the edge of the development, including playing fields. Can they provide assurance that this created corridor will be able to be dark/undisturbed enough Lighting Strategy is secured through condition. The Lighting Strategy will adhere to the requirements of the for the rarer species such as Barbastelle to use? ecological mitigation strategy and in particular the three tiered sensitivity. The lighting plan will include lux modelling so that we can be assured the combined approach of lighting and planting will achieve the dark corridors required for species mitigation (including bats, dormice, badgers, invertebrates and certain bird species). A preliminary Ecological Management Framework has been submitted in January 2018, which outlines management prescriptions for Country the Park and Type 1, Type 2 and Type 3 ecological mitigation areas and a framework for sensitive lighting strategy (i.e. an outline for a LEMP).

18.28 Sufficiently mature trees will need to be planted to continue the connection across Worting Road and Pack Lane to maintain/create connectivity. The Applicant agrees with this comment, and it applies to the hop over on the Green Lane also. 18.29 It is noted that an EPS licence will be required with respect to the Brown Long-eared maternity roost on site. Can the consultant ecologist confirm she is of the opinion that with all the necessary Currently proposals and mitigation (including landscaping and lighting) will ensure FCS for the bat assemblage mitigation measures in place the proposed development will not ‘disturb’ the assemblage of other bats using the site as defined by the Hab Regs 2010, i.e. the development will not affect each is maintained across the site. As details emerge for the CP proposals - specifically new access (and any species of bats currently using the site ability to forage, commute, breed and roost on site so that the favourable conservation status of these species is maintained? implications arising from ensuring maintenance access as well as new public access) - a review of potential impacts for tree roosting bats within the SINC woodlands will be required as per the ES recommendations. Design of the CP would hopefully avoid any potential implications for tree roosting bats, but further mitigation would be achievable that would not impair the integrity of the ecological mitigation framework as currently proposed and that would ensure FCS of the bat species affected and the bat assemblage generally. A preliminary Ecological Management Framework has been submitted in January 2018, which outlines management prescriptions for Country the Park and Type 1, Type 2 and Type 3 ecological mitigation areas and a framework for sensitive lighting strategy (i.e. an outline for a LEMP). 18.0 BDBC 10/03/2017 24/04/2017 No - further Biodiversity/Ecolog information and y Officer amendments requested

18.30 What measures will be taken to ensure the integrity of Green Lane will be retained as an important ecological corridor, i.e. what measures will be taken to prevent unofficial cut through? This will be achieved partly through site layout and provision of logical public pathways through the site that reduce the desire for cut through to be established in combination with the proposed buffer planting (which includes parallel hedges that will delineate the buffers either side of the Green Lane). Finally, landscape maintenance will also detect any unofficial cut through forming and deliver remedial measures to protect the integrity of the landscape features. A preliminary Ecological Management Framework has been submitted in January 2018, which outlines management prescriptions for Country the Park and Type 1, Type 2 and Type 3 ecological mitigation areas and a framework for sensitive lighting strategy (i.e. an outline for a LEMP).

18.31 Consideration of the impacts of pet predation on the birds using the site does not appear to have been given within Appendix 9.4 of the ES. Predicted impacts from pet predation and the Predation is included in consideration of potential occupational impacts upon birds in Appendix 9.4. This issue necessary mitigation measures need to be considered and documented. is picked up in greater detail in the ES at e.g. Table 9.13, paras 9.9.116-121 (in respect of birds; cat predation is also considered in respect of dormice and reptiles and increased predation is also considered for invertebrates, although not from pets); mitigation is recommended in the form of sensitive planting and lighting in addition to the provision of an appropriate suite of nest boxes (details for which could be a matter for condition). A preliminary Ecological Management Framework has been submitted in January 2018, which outlines management prescriptions for Country the Park and Type 1, Type 2 and Type 3 ecological mitigation areas and a framework for sensitive lighting strategy (i.e. an outline for a LEMP). 18.32 A timetable will be required to show how any hedgerow translocation/planting plus other habitat creation will fit in with the phases of development so we can be sure these will be in place This will be secured through planning determination/s106 discussions. A preliminary Ecological Management ahead of any works that will remove/destroy important habitats used to sustain a population or used as an important commuting/foraging route before these are removed. Framework has been submitted in January 2018, which outlines management prescriptions for Country the Park and Type 1, Type 2 and Type 3 ecological mitigation areas and a framework for sensitive lighting strategy (i.e. an outline for a LEMP). 18.33 Pre-commencement update surveys will be required where relevant for each phase of development or to inform detailed designs/licence applications where current ecological survey would be This will be secured through planning determination/s106 discussions. Further detail will be provided in a considered out of date or further detail is required. These will need to be used to inform any reserve matters applications but not used to reduce the amount of ecological mitigation outlined detailed Construction Environmental Management Plan. within this outline application. 18.34 Monitoring for all key habitats and specifies affected by the works will be needed so that baseline conditions can be assessed ahead of construction and occupation. This will be secured through planning determination/s106 discussions. Further detail will be provided in a detailed Construction Environmental Management Plan. 18.35 All buffers, woodlands and important hedgerows will need to remain within the public realm so that they can be retained and managed appropriately to ensure their long-term viability via A preliminary Ecological Management Framework has been submitted in January 2018, which outlines appropriate management secured through S106. management prescriptions for Country the Park and Type 1, Type 2 and Type 3 ecological mitigation areas and a framework for sensitive lighting strategy (i.e. an outline for a LEMP). This has taken this into consideration - all landscape features within the Site (buffers, woods, hedgerows and other habitat features/linkages) that are integral to the Preliminary Ecological Framework are sited within public realm within the Masterplan. 18.36 An Ecological Clerk of Works will be required for each stage of development to oversee and ensure the development is carried out in accordance with all ecological avoidance, mitigation and This will be secured through planning determination/s106 discussions. Further detail will be provided in a enhancement measures approved and ensure the works are carried out in line with an approved ecological watching brief. detailed Construction Environmental Management Plan. 18.37 A Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) will be required which will include a Dust Management Plan to ensure receptors sensitive to dust deposition will not be significantly This will be secured through planning determination/s106 discussions. Further detail will be provided in a affected during construction activities. detailed Construction Environmental Management Plan. 18.38 The Landscape and Environmental Management Plan (LEMP) outlined in section 9.10.11 of the ES will need to support any future Reserves Matters application should outline planning This will be secured through planning determination/s106 discussions. A preliminary Ecological Management permission be given, including a specific Education and Access Management Strategy as well as any necessary biodiversity management and monitoring plans (BMMPs) such as those outlined in Framework has been submitted in January 2018, which outlines management prescriptions for Country the sections 9.10.24-9.10.26 of the ES. Park and Type 1, Type 2 and Type 3 ecological mitigation areas and a framework for sensitive lighting strategy (i.e. an outline for a LEMP). 18.39 A lighting scheme will be required that will avoid lighting/light spillage within particularly sensitive ecological areas/corridors. This will be secured through planning determination/s106 discussions. A preliminary Ecological Management Framework has been submitted in January 2018, which outlines management prescriptions for Country the Park and Type 1, Type 2 and Type 3 ecological mitigation areas and a framework for sensitive lighting strategy (i.e. an outline for a LEMP). 18.40 A Wildlife Farming Package will be required specifically aimed at managing the remaining farmland within the applicant’s ownership to benefit the species to be displaced/adversely affected by This will be secured through planning determination/s106 discussions. A draft Farmland Wildlife Package has the proposed development including farmland birds (breeding Skylarks, grey partridge, linnet, yellowhammer) and rare arable flora via appropriate agri-environment schemes and the been submitted in January 2018. recommendations given in Appendix E of ES Appendix 9.2 18.41 As highlighted in Appendix 9.9 Section 5.5 some of the current field margins around the site are a source of nectar for invertebrates. Current mowing management of these areas has not been This will be secured through planning determination/s106 discussions. A draft Farmland Wildlife Package has conducive for insects and so a relevant Biodiversity Mitigation and Management Plan will need to address this. been submitted in January 2018. 19.0 BDBC 10/03/2017 12/04/2017 19.01 Detailed response submitted - not copied in full in this schedule. See actual consultation response. In summary, could be acceptable subject to significant revisions (some requested prior to this Since the submission of the planning application in February 2017 a number of revisions have been made to Conservation application but not made) including: the building heights, densities, and clarity provided on the nature of buffers to the Conservation Area. For - Increasing the buffer zone between Worting Conservation Area’s (WCA) northern boundary and the development to at least 25 metres in depth and at various points greater depth, to be further details of the amended designs, please the Design and Access Statement (MSD1R). The Heritage calculated and justified with the CAs rural setting in mind; Statement (MSD12dR) has been revised to reflect these amendments, as well as the new design for the - Relocating the proposed Urban Centre to the west of the hamlet, further north into the site to reduce its impact on the western approach to the Conservation Area. principal means of access, and provides further details. 20.0 HCC Archaeology 10/03/2017 13/03/2017 No - subject to 20.01 I recommend that an archaeological condition is attached to secure the next stages of archaeological evaluation of the development area, beyond the existing targeted trenching (DBA para The wording of the proposed condition is considered satisfactory but the Applicant requests that all proposed conditions and 6.5) which will include field walking and wider scale trial trenching. conditions are reviewed before being finalised by the LPA to ensure that as many issues as possible can be further 20.02 I recommend that an archaeological condition is attached to any planning permission to secure the archaeological mitigation by excavation and recording of the impacts of development on the resolved prior to determination. information known archaeological sites and those additional archaeological sites revealed by the proposed archaeological evaluation (para 6.4 and 6.5). 20.03 I recommend that an archaeological condition be attached to any planning permission to secure the full reporting and publication of the archaeological results to inform the present and future community of the heritage associated with the site. 20.04 I am concerned at the absence within what has been submitted of a positive heritage agenda with regard to how the archaeological value in this landscape might be accommodated within the The Applicant has submitted an Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment (MSD12cR) which considers the development accommodation of archaeological value in the Proposed Development. 20.05 Another example might be whether the archaeological publication of results will manifest themselves in a way that can be accessed with by the local community and the future community of The wording of the proposed condition is considered satisfactory but the Applicant requests that all proposed the Manydown area. I would recommend that an archaeological condition be attached to any planning permission to secure a positive programme of community engagement with heritage conditions are reviewed before being finalised by the LPA to ensure that as many issues as possible can be opportunities during and development and within the green infrastructure of the site. resolved prior to determination. 20.06 The applicant might find it useful to place these provisions within the context of an Archaeological Management Plan or possible an over arching written scheme of investigation, that will set out how the roll out of evaluation , mitigation , excavation, community engagement, publication and green infrastructure in relation to phases and to the significant known archaeological assets impacted, in order to bring clarity to the next steps should planning permission be issued. 21.0 HCC Public Health 10/03/2017 28/04/2017 No - further 21.01 (12.1) It is noted that the higher density housing is to be located more centrally to the development and we would request consideration is given to a more diverse distribution of the housing The proposed density is related to the defining the neighbourhood centres and being sensitive to Authority discussion types in order to achieve a more balanced community. conservation and countryside relationships, and provides a suitable distribution across the development. required 21.02 (12.2) Consideration should be given to the proportion of homes that are developed that can be adapted to meet the needs of an older population (i.e. Lifetime Homes) The Applicant will review the provision of Specialist accommodation in future design development. At this stage it is proposed that up to 200 homes, or an equivalent floorspace, is for C2 use, which can meet specialist needs. The specific detail of individual home design will be reviewed in future reserved matters applications for specific phases. 21.03 (12.3) Greater ambition in the modal split for active travel would be welcomed The Applicant has discussed this with HCC Highways, including reviewing details of walking, cycling, vehicular 21.04 (12.4) There is little evidence that the actions detailed in the Travel Plan will change behaviour - a more considered approach to behaviour change needs to be employed. and public transport provision. A revised Transport Assessment (MSD12aR) has been submitted to address 21.05 (12.5) Consideration should be given to how the pedestrian crossing on Roman Road is designed at the point where the current right of way from the proposed country park terminates. these comments. 21.06 (12.6) If projected traffic flows are sufficient the crossing at Winklebury Way and Roman Road should be a Toucan. 21.07 (12.7) Consideration should be given implementing a 20mph in some sections of the main street 21.08 (12.10) The mix of retail units should not lead to a concentration of hot food takeaways. At this stage the assessment is based on overall floorspaces within particular use classes and further detail on particular types of commercial units can be agreed with the LPA during reserved matters applications to ensure this meets wider place-making objectives. 21.09 (12.10) The County Council is keen that the provision of allotments is maximised so that home grown food is possible for residents without a garden. The proposals could be enhanced by The consideration of gardens will be a detailed matter at a later date through detailed provision of community gardens and green roofs masterplanning/design code stage and subsequent Reserved Matters applications 21.10 (12.12) Whilst out of the application area, connections to Manydown need to be explored. The Applicant has discussed this with HCC Highways, including reviewing details of walking, cycling, vehicular and public transport provision. 21.0 HCC Public Health 10/03/2017 28/04/2017 No - further Authority discussion required

21.11 (12.14) Energise Me would ask that the Manydown team continues to engage residents and partners in the development of the site in order to design a healthy community and to find The Applicant will ensure that consultation continues. innovative solutions that facilitate the behaviour change needed to 'beat inactivity'. 22.0 HCC Library 10/03/2017 28/04/2017 No - subject to 22.01 (6.4) In order to mitigate the impact that the development will have on South Ham library, improvements will be required to the existing infrastructure and resources as follows: As stated in MSD2R Planning Statement, the Applicant will discuss financial contributions towards off-site Authority legal agreement - Physical resources including books library provision with HCC Library Authority and secure this through planning determination/s106 discussions. - Increased demand for IT hardware and infrastructure - Need to ensure that the library aligns with National Universal Offer to provide Health and Wellbeing services, South Ham will require flexible spaces which can accommodate a range of different needs 22.02 (6.5) The average cost per library member is £75.22. A financial contribution of £11,400 (760 members, based on 3200 units, x £15) is therefore requested in order to mitigate the anticipated Contributions will be agreed through on-going s106 discussions. demand increase. 23.0 HCC Minerals 10/03/2017 28/04/2017 No 23.01 No response received. Planning Authority 24.0 HCC Local Lead 10/03/2017 28/04/2017 Yes - 24.01 (4.3) The general principles are accepted however there is concern in relation to the impact of groundwater that the applicant is required to investigate. There are concerns that the increased The the project team met the LLFA on 24 May to provide further clarity on the proposed drainage strategy Flood Authority amendments infiltration at the northern portion of the development site may lead to an increased groundwater emergence and subsequently flooding at Winklebury and Basingstoke Golf Centre. The FRA and the neutral impact on the Buckskin catchment. A revised Flood Risk Assessment (MSD12gR) has been requested to does not include an assessment of this in relation to the potential to increase flood risk. submitted to reflect discussion since February 2017. make acceptable 24.02 (4.5) Although figures have been presented in the FRA, the actual increase of infiltration due to the proposed development cannot be certainly determined. The figures that have been calculated use an empirical method and as long as its results have not been validated, they cannot be used with certainty for determining the likely impact of the proposed development on infiltration. There is a consensus that the increased infiltration would lead to increased groundwater emergence. 24.03 (4.6) A storm drainage strategy is required to demonstrate nil detriment. Any change of land use within the Bucksin groundwater contributing catchment that may increase groundwater emergence, and as a result ground water flooding, is not acceptable. 24.04 (4.7) Where proposals include any works to an ordinary watercourse, a prior consent of the LLFA is required. This consent is required as a separate permission to planning. 24.05 (4.8) The mechanism for securing long-term maintenance will need to be considered and agreed. 25.0 HCC Waste and 10/03/2017 28/04/2017 No - subject to 25.01 (3.11) In view of increasing waste growth and funding pressures on the Council, going forward, the County Council will be looking to draw down developer funding to provide additional capacity To be discussed with the LPA and if appropriate to be secured through planning determination/s106 Resource legal agreement in waste collection and disposal in line with existing contributions towards other key infrastructure such as transport and education. discussions. Management 25.02 (3.12-3.17) It is unclear how waste services provision will be factored into the implementation of the development - circular document references This level of detail would be confirmed in future detailed masterplanning/design code stage and subsequent Reserved Matters applications. 25.03 (3.18) The County Council would like to see a waste disposal site incorporated into the development, through the provision of a minimum 1.5ha site to be reserved for a household waste There is no policy basis for requiring Manydown to provide a new Household Waste Recycling Centre, from recycling centre (HWRC). The section 106 will need to secure provision of land and a proportionate contribution towards capital costs for providing the HWRC facility. the Manydown SPD, the Local Plan Policy SS3.10 or in the Infrastructure Delivery Plan and there is additional concern that a residential-led scheme is not compatible with a large scale HWRC. Hampshire's Assessment of Areas for Waste Management Facilities (2012) also did not identify Manydown as a strategic site for a new facility. 26.0 HCC Highways 10/03/2017 12/05/2017 Comprehensive 26.01 (1.6) The analysis of accidents only reviews a single slight casualty whereas it is states that there are 97 slight accidents. A review of potential clusters is required as part of the analysis. The Applicant has engaged in-going consultation with HCC Highways to review the comments provided. A response not 26.02 (1.6) The extent of data evaluated does not cover some key routes from the site, such as the route via Fiveways junction. Further analysis is required and it is deemed that the analysis presented revised Transport Assessment (MSD12aR) has been submitted in response to consultation comments, as well provided - further is incomplete. as assessing the revised design since February 2017. discussion, 26.03 (1.8) The highways authority disagree with the methodology for measuring queue lengths as it would under record queueing conditions. The highway authority's view is that stop/start information and conditions at less than 10mph constitute a queue. amendments 26.04 (1.10) The 55% vehicle mode share is not being analysed as the TA does not include sufficient sustainable transport options to achieve the 15% modal shift away from car. requested 26.05 (1.12) Further requested information from the output of the North Hampshire Transport Model is required. 26.06 (1.14) The highway authority considers the access to the A339 to be inadequate and it requires a redesign to overcome capacity, safety and design issues. 26.07 (1.16) The access junction on the B3400 also requires extensive redesign to overcome capacity and safety concerns. Both site access roads should be staged to eliminate any collisions on these approaches. See response for more detailed comments on redesign. 26.08 (1.19) The Roman Road/Winklebury Way access needs operational changes to improve safety 26.09 (1.20) The highway authority disagrees with the approach to not assessing the impact of increased traffic to external routes as they are less than 5%. In some cases the development has up to 200 additional vehicles going through the junction and an assessment will be required. 26.10 (1.21) No consideration seems to have been given to the SPD requirement to consider a western bypass and future growth proposal as part of section 4.2.3 Future Proofing. 26.11 (1.23) The highways authority recommends that the principle of improvements and providing suitable pedestrian links both on and off-site are agreed and secured now. 26.12 (1.24) There is insufficient information to assess the deliverability of a number of walking and cycling improvements. Drawings of these proposed works should be provided. These works should also be secured through the s278 process and not the s106 process. 26.13 (1.25) A full walking and cycling audit between the site, town centre and key facilities should be undertaken. This should look at existing routes and facilities and identify where improvements can be made and make them attractive walking and cycling routes accommodating significant flows. 26.14 (1.28) Further substantial information will be required detailing the viability of proposed bus services that would serve the development. Full costed details of the proposed service will be required with viability and 'buy in' from the bus operator. Details of likely frequency of services and time to reach key destinations will be required. A commitment will be required that will ensure that bus services would be made available within a convenient distance from all proposed dwellings. 26.15 (1.29) Details of levels of infrastructure to be provided within the development will be required along with details of any safeguarded land for future developments. 26.16 (1.30) There are several areas that need attention if this travel plan is to be approved for the proposed new residential units. Detailed comments will be passed to the applicant for their consideration. 27.0 HCC Planning & 10/03/2017 28/04/2017 No - further 27.01 (5.2, 5.3) It is noted that the application includes no specific reference to the amount of extra care and retirement housing to be provided. The County Council has identified the need for at least The Applicant will review the provision of Specialist accommodation in future design development. At this Development. discussion and 80 extra care housing flats for older persons as part of the proposed mix These 80- units would be best provided as a range of affordable and market tenure units. The County Council would wish stage it is proposed that up to 200 homes, or an equivalent floorspace, is for C2 use, which can meet specialist Environment information to have the option to take transfer of the site for extra care in order to facilitate its delivery. This should be included within the s106 agreement and the County Council can provide suitable needs. The specific detail of individual home design will be reviewed in future reserved matters applications Department required wording. for specific phases. 27.02 (7.2) It is questioned whether the extent of additional lanes and four dedicated slip roads and associated expanses of white lining for roundabout at northern entrance to Manydown are The Applicant has engaged in-going consultation with HCC Highways to review the comments provided. A completely justified. Could a smaller footprint, with better provision for other transport modes be accommodated? revised Transport Assessment (MSD12aR) has been submitted in response to consultation comments, as well 27.03 (7.3) The proposals do very little to provide a suitable and attractive Northern Gateway. There is a missed opportunity to provide something more distinctive and in keeping with either the as assessing the revised design since February 2017. attractive and distinctive rural hinterland, or the northern entrance to Basingstoke. 27.04 (7.4) There is an opportunity to provide better pedestrian and cycle links between the new development and existing neighbourhoods of Rooksdown and Park Prewett. The existing narrow The Applicant has discussed this with HCC Highways, including reviewing details of walking, cycling, vehicular pedestrian. Cycle bridge seems insufficient provision and the size of the roundabout and feeder roads will produce an environment that is hostile to pedestrian and cycle use. and public transport provision. A revised Transport Assessment (MSD12aR) has been submitted to address these comments. 27.05 (7.5) Measures should be taken to reduce the necessity to remove the vegetation. or provide suitable replacement, to accommodate the junction expansion such as the existing trees in the The removal of vegetation has been minimised and new planting proposed as part of mitigation, as detailed central reservation of Rooksdown Avenue and the belt of tree and shrub vegetation in the location of the proposed new access road in Chapter 9 of the Environmental Statement. 27.06 (7.7) Consideration needs to be given to an appropriate and sensitive traffic calming/access restriction on the lanes that lead to Wootton St Lawrence, which retains and promotes the attractive The Applicant has engaged in-going consultation with HCC Highways to review the comments provided. A rural characteristic of these lanes. revised Transport Assessment (MSD12aR) has been submitted in response to consultation comments, as well 27.07 (7.8) The extent of highway adoption should be discussed and agreed at an early stage of the Full planning permission as assessing the revised design since February 2017. 27.08 (7.10) If this masterplan is to be achieved it would be advisable to agree at an early stage the exact extent of Highway Boundary 27.09 (11.3) The wider Manydown site offers the longer term potential for further development of new employment space. The County Council would stress that a broader range of employment uses The Applicant has met with the LPA and their independent advisors to discuss the provision of commercial be considered in order to meet demand and to ensure that Basingstoke and the wider Hampshire area continues to grow as a competitive location for inward investment. floorspace, which is detailed in the Economic Statement (MSD9R).

28.0 HCC Rights Of 10/03/2017 28/04/2017 No - further 28.01 (9.8) With the change of use from rural to urban fringe, the County Council would expect a different usage of the rights of way. Therefore, to support sustainable travel and recreation, we Taking into consideration ecological sensitivities, many of the existing Public Rights of Way (PRoW) within the Way/Countryside discussion request that all existing on-site rights of way be upgraded to multi-user recreational standards. Works will need to be carried out to upgrade the surface and in some cases, the width, of Manydown site will be preserved and upgraded with a durable and suitable surface. The Applicant has met Service required footpaths. with the LPA and HCC Countryside Services to review upgrades, and improvements will be secured through the s106 agreement. The Landscape Statement (MSD3R) has been updated to reflect discussions with HCC, 28.02 (9.9) Due to increased pressure on the rights of way network that this development will generate, the Countryside Service seeks enhancement of the surrounding network. and it is important to note that improvements need to be balanced against consideration of the ecological sensitivity of existing margins to paths. 28.03 (9.10) If there is likely to be an effect on the footpath in terms of dust, noise or other obstruction during construction then it is suggested a health and Safety Risk Assessment be carried out and if An outline Construction Environmental Management Plan has been submitted establishing the principles for there is deemed to be a risk to users, the applicant should contact the County Council directly to discuss temporary closure. managing health and safety risks. This will be developed through the submission of further details at detailed masterplanning/design code stage and subsequent Reserved Matters applications. 28.0 HCC Rights Of 10/03/2017 28/04/2017 No - further Way/Countryside discussion Service required

28.04 (9.12) There must be no surface alterations to the right of way, nor any works carried out which affect its surface, without first seeking the permission of Hampshire County Council, as Highway Noted. Authority. For the purposes of this proposal that permission would be required from this department of the County Council. To carry out any such works without this permission would constitute an offence under S131 Highways Act 1980, and we would therefore encourage the applicant to contact us as soon as possible to discuss any works of this nature.

28.05 (9.12) Nothing connected with the development or its future use should have an adverse effect on the right of way, which must remain available for public use at all times. 28.06 (9.12) No builders or contractors vehicles, machinery, equipment, materials, scaffolding or anything associated with the works should be left on or near the footpath so as to obstruct, hinder or provide a hazard to walkers. 28.07 (9.12) All vehicles, including those of contractors and deliveries, would be accessing the site via a public footpath and should give way to public users at all times. Any damage caused to the surface of the public right of way by construction traffic will be required to be restored to the satisfaction of the Rights of Way Officer, to not less than its minimum width, on the completion of the build.

29.0 HCC - Children's 10/03/2017 28/04/2017 No - further 29.01 (2.43) The developer will be required to make provision for 400 early year places for children aged 2,3 and 4., This could be through 4x70 place full day care provision (nursery) and 4x30 place This requested number of places is greater than what is generated using the child yield in HCC's guidance. Services discussion sessional care provision (pre-schools). Discussions will be need to identify the timing for provision and how facilities are to be provided. HCC Children’s Services have previously advised that this estimate was based on higher dwelling numbers and Department required does not take in to account recent Government proposals for 30 hours of free pre-school childcare, which may alter the required mix of provision. The level of provision will, therefore, need to be agreed and be on a pro rata basis for delivery of appropriate facilities proportionate to provide for the needs of the Proposed Development. This mechanism is set out in the Infrastructure Delivery Strategy (MSD8R). 29.02 (2.23 and 2.44) The developer will be required to transfer the land for one 3 form primary school (2.8ha, 630 places) and one 2 form primary school (2.08ha, 420 places) on site. For the The details of how schools are to be secured and delivered is subject to further discussions with the LPA and secondary school, a site for a 12 form entry secondary school (circa 12ha, 1800 places) will be needed. HCC as LEA. 29.03 (2.24) It will be useful to clarify the phasing how the housebuilding and the numbers of dwellings per parcel of land so that indicative school catchment areas for the new schools can be drawn. This level of detail would be confirmed in detailed masterplanning/design code stage and subsequent Reserved Matters applications. 29.04 (2.45) Whilst the broad locations of the school sites are acceptable, the siting of the buildings, playing fields etc. has yet to be established and will depend on a number of factors. It should be Noted. assumed that the buildings will be located as indicated. 29.05 (2.10) A financial contribution will be required for the production of school travel plans relating to all new schools. Noted. 29.06 (2.12) The principles with regards to Parking and Servicing are welcome but analysis of need for parking associated with drop-off and pick-up for the schools needs to be made urgently to ensure This level of detail would be confirmed in future detailed masterplanning/design code stage and subsequent these aspects are considered as part of the detailed design of the development. Reserved Matters applications. 29.07 (2.13) The management of the artificial pitch (provided as part of the secondary school) will need to be established as will a financial strategy for day to day maintenance and carpet renewal. Noted. The timing for secondary school provision will also influence whether this proposal is achievable. 29.08 (2.14) The suggestion regarding the Sothern Neighbourhood Park that the changing rooms could possibly be shared with the new Primary School needs explanation. The Applicant will clarify this with LEA through consultation discussions. 29.09 (2.17) Regarding the school square, the potential number of pupils are very high and consideration needs to be given to whether this is the right approach. A number of entry points will be Sufficient flexibility has been allowed for in the Proposed Development, to support a range of approaches. needed to the new schools, rather than channel all pupils into the school through one entry point. The detailed design will be considered in future detailed masterplanning/design code stage and subsequent Reserved Matters applications. 29.10 (2.19) The proposal for a drop-off loop should be avoided at all costs. The Applicant will discuss this with LEA through consultation discussions and the precise approaches will be agreed through the detailed masterplanning/design code stage and subsequent Reserved Matters applications. 29.11 (2.46) Financial contributions will be sought to deliver the primary and secondary education facility requirements of the site For Primary £8,077,504 will be sought for the 2FE School and Contributions will be secured through planning determination/s106 discussions. £11,262,893 towards the 3FE School A contribution of £23,844,750 will also be sought towards the provision of 5FE Secondary School. Contribution schedules will need to be agreed as part of the s106 agreement. 29.12 (2.47) A contribution of £66,000 will be sought to enable the production, monitoring and resourcing of school travel plans. Contributions will be secured through planning determination/s106 discussions. 30.0 Monk Sherbourne 10/03/2017 30.01 No response received. Parish Council 31.0 Rooksdown Parish 10/03/2017 02/08/2017 31.01 Roundabout / Tree Line Path - The additional lane out of the estate as unnecessary, In combination with the loss of tree line this would have a strong negative impact on the aesthetic of the The design for the principal access from the A339 has been provided by HCC Highways in order to make the Council estate both from an external appearance aspect and the effect on nearby dwellings - as well as the loss of an attractive separated pathway for pedestrians. Rooksdown Parish Council feel the Proposed Development acceptable from a highways perspective. Mitigation measures are outlined in the lane provision in and out of the estate is sufficient in combination with the Roundabout/traffic light schemes proposed and strongly urge that the 2 lanes in and out remain as they are. Environmental Statement, particularly chapter 9, 11 and 12 on ecology, landscape and views.

31.02 Timing of Facilities / Services - Rooksdown Parish Council urges that the provision of additional traffic throughput at the new Rooksdown junction be considered a top priority within the At this stage phasing is illustrative only and will be discussed with the LPA in the preparation of site-wide programme of works, delivered early to accommodate increased traffic from the outset - and not delivered after increased traffic throughput is generated. phasing plan and phase-specific design. Construction phasing is considered in further detail n the Transport Assessment (MSD12aR). 31.03 Travellers site - Rooksdown Parish Council believe that the plans have misled the residents and have not been fully communicated in the consultation period and drop in sessions with no visibility The Applicant has included provision of 5 permanent Gypsy and Traveller pitches. The location for provision as to the location of the traveller and gypsy site. If residents were made aware of this at the earliest opportunity, an understanding of this would have been forthwith. of pitches will be agreed through the Site Wide Development Specification and Masterplan document and approved by the LPA as a Reserved Matters application. 31.04 Country Park - Access to the country park for local residents is not clear and specifically to the residents of parts of Rooksdown. There is nothing in the plans for access across the A339, be it a Pedestrian crossing over the A339 will be retained, in broadly the same location as currently, which will allow bridge or pedestrian crossing. The A339 is a very busy and fast route from Basingstoke to Newbury. No consideration has been given to the safety of people looking to access the country park. residents to safely access the Country Park.

31.05 Traffic calming - It would appear no consideration has been given to the traffic congestion that is going to be significantly increased around the A339 / Rooksdown area. The plan for a link road The Applicant has engaged in-going consultation with HCC Highways to review the comments provided. A through the new development to the A339, where most of the vehicles will come to, as this will be the most direct route to junction 6 of the M3, Chineham, Reading etc, will increase the traffic revised Transport Assessment (MSD12aR) has been submitted in response to consultation comments, as well congestion, pollution due to additional as assessing the revised design since February 2017. 31.06 Road size/ widths The detailed road layout is not being applied for in this Outline Planning Application and the Applicant will Rooksdown Parish Council would like the Manydown project team to consider making the majority of the roads within Manydown wide enough to accommodate parking on at least one side of discuss the requirements for parking in future masterplanning, design coding and reserved matters the road while maintaining traffic flow in both directions. This will be especially important on the spine road leading through Manydown. Within Rooksdown we have experienced this being an applications. issue, especially around Rooksdown's main access road, Park Prewett. The Manydown project team should also consider implementing double yellow lines from day one to ensure traffic flow is maintained. 31.07 Construction Traffic An outline Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) has been submitted establishing the Rooksdown Parish Council would urge the Manydown team to plan appropriate construction traffic routes to minimise the impact of construction traffic during the development. Construction principles for managing the construction impact. This will be developed and a fully CEMP secured as part of traffic can cause significant issues for residents especially early in the morning, late and night and during the weekend. Rooksdown Parish Council would like to see construction traffic kept away the planning permission. from all occupied residences and routes planned in detail well in advance of the occupation of the dwellings. 31.08 The number of homes The description of development now includes a maximum of 3,520 homes. The guidance figure for the number of homes is within the plan is given as approximately 3,400 although a figure of approximately 3,200 are under direct control, and the remainder are third party. An upper limit should be stated (e.g. not more than ...) which should not be exceeded, as the allowed variance is not otherwise explicit. 31.09 Urban Centres Local Plan Policy SS3.10 includes the provision of three local centres across the allocation. Further detail of of The provision of two urban centres is thought to be excessive. Rooksdown has a centre and with a similar population can support one convenience food shop but we understand the other the centres will be discussed with the LPA and the community in the preparation of development briefs (as businesses have some difficulty in maintaining viability. This has led to the additional units being adopted for community use rather than commercial use. Very careful consideration of the mix of set out in fg 1.1 of MSD1R Design and Access Statement). provision must be given to ensure that any commercial premises are sustainable. The local community should be polled as to what they would like and the appropriate businesses encouraged.

31.10 Sewerage / Drainage Consultation with Thames Water has confirmed that there is capacity for wastewater from the Proposed Rooksdown Parish Council understands that the plan for foul sewerage will increase the load on the pipes under the town centre which are at near capacity. There is no evidence within the plan Development at the Whitmarsh Lane Wastewater Treatment Works at Chineham. An assessment of the risk that the town centre will be able to handle the extra load. If pipework upgrades through the town centre, there is likely to be significant and long term disruption to Basingstoke’s town centre of groundwater flooding is provided in the Flood Risk Assessment (MSD12gR) traffic flows Rooksdown Parish Council would like assurance in the plans against the risk of groundwater flooding (as seen in Buckskin in 2014). 31.11 Manydown Farm The Applicant assumes that this is a reference to Scrapp's Hill Farm, and the Proposed Development does not Rooksdown Parish Council would like to ensure that Manydown Farm is maintained as a visitor resource. affect this visitor resource. 32.0 Oakley Parish 10/03/2017 11/04/2017 Yes - further 32.01 The closure of Roman Road will be a huge mistake. The safety issues at Wellington Terrace are undoubtedly important but to close the access to the A339 will make the Main Street slow and The Applicant has engaged in-going consultation with HCC Highways to review the comments provided. A Council discussion and congested, and add time to journeys from Oakley , Overton and Whitchurch to the hospital, to Chineham and Reading etc. revised Transport Assessment (MSD12aR) has been submitted in response to consultation comments, as well information 32.02 It is not clear how the traffic control from the closed off Roman Road to Main Street will be managed. as assessing the revised design since February 2017. requested 32.03 Traffic flows from Oakley, Overton and Whitchurch do not take into account all the new developments agreed in the Local Plan (a total of 870 new homes). The projected Main Street traffic flows seem to ignore all traffic from Oakley and Overton 32.0 Oakley Parish 10/03/2017 11/04/2017 Yes - further The Applicant has engaged in-going consultation with HCC Highways to review the comments provided. A Council discussion and revised Transport Assessment (MSD12aR) has been submitted in response to consultation comments, as well information as assessing the revised design since February 2017. requested

32.04 If Roman Road is closed, Main Street itself will be a barrier across the development and there is no realistic chance that people will walk or cycle along a road that will have to take all the HGVs (who are following the recommended route from the M3 to the B3400 ) that cannot come under the Worting Road bridge due to height restrictions, plus all the traffic from Oakley and Overton and other points west. 32.05 The proposed closure of Roman Road will make drivers use the rat run through Wootton St Lawrence to avoid using Main Street. This will create safety issues, because the Wootton Road has poor visibility, is very winding, and has no lighting. 32.06 Drainage/sewage is a reserved matter according to the application, it cannot be left until building starts. This is a major infrastructure project and Thames Water have said they can The OPA sets out a drainage strategy to mitigate the impacts of Proposed Development and this will be accommodate only the first phase of building into existing facilities. resolved in more detail as part of detailed masterplanning/design coding. 33.0 Wooton St 10/03/2017 05/05/2017 No - further 33.01 Access roads carefully planned to avoid adding extra strain on the village lanes of Wootton St Lawrence and Ramsdell, already overloaded rat runs following the closure of Rooksdown Lane. The Applicant has engaged in-going consultation with HCC Highways to review the comments provided. A Lawrence Parish discussion and revised Transport Assessment (MSD12aR) has been submitted in response to consultation comments, as well Council information 33.02 Support is given for the redesign of the Roman Road/A339 roundabout with easy access from the A339/ring road into the development as assessing the revised design since February 2017. required 33.03 strongly recommend the reopening of Rooksdown Lane to help move north/south traffic connecting the A34, A339 and B3400 (using 'Main Street'). 33.04 Strategy to maximize the flow of traffic on the developments 'Main Street', with no on-street parking, minimal traffic lights/crossings, constant speed limit (40mph, same as current Roman Road speed limit). 33.05 Public Transport routes are welcomed, along with good access to bus stops and an increase in bus frequency. 33.06 Public transport arrangements should be in place early to accommodate new residents 33.07 Supportive of reduction in dependency on motor cars for access to railway stations, hospitals and travel to work in Basingstoke, Aldermaston and Newbury as a minimum. 33.08 Consideration should be given to a new train station to replace the one closed in Oakley. 33.09 Supportive of affordable housing within the development. It should not be restricted to 1 or 2 bedroom flats/houses and measures should be put in place to ensure it remains affordable into the There will be a range for overall housing mix, providing 1-4 bed flats and houses. future. 33.10 Building within the development should be restricted in height – particularly on the perimeters of the development area – to be sympathetic to the neighbouring environs. Ideally building See parameter plan 5556/OPA/003 for building height proposals, which sets the maximum building heights should be no higher than 3 storeys above ground level. across the masterplan. 33.11 Light pollution should be minimised, either by layout design and or screen planting. The Applicant has submitted an outline lighting strategy as part of MSD1R Design and Access Statement and expects further detail to be secured through legal/s106 discussions. 33.12 A walkable neighbourhood is supported if the access is safe and well-integrated. Further detail on location and access will be included in future detailed masterplanning/design code stage The general locations of Schools, Local Centres are supported, with good access and parking away from main roads. and subsequent Reserved Matters applications. The principles of walkability are supported and the Proposed 33.13 Existing access routes should be integrated and improved where necessary. Development intends to provide highly accessible new public services and open spaces. 33.14 The Local Centres should provide buildings for community use and health facilities. 33.15 Traveller Pitches should be located away from the Country Park. Areas around the Railway line were identified. 33.16 Access to the Country Park should be planned so that traffic and parking is kept away from the existing villages. Access should only be possible from the development and not from Wootton St Lawrence village. 33.17 Access through the Country Park should be planned with emphasis on protecting the environment and existing ecology. The Applicant has reviewed ecological/biodiversity concerns and suitable long term management mitigation 33.18 Planning to maintain that ecology should be in place before occupation of the new housing/sales areas. measures required to support the Proposed Development will be secured. Details are set out in Chapter 9 of 33.19 Adequate mature screening between the development and the village of Wootton St Lawrence is essential and should be wholly sympathetic with existing British species and the ecology of the the Environmental Statement, along with a Draft Protected Species Habitat Mitigation and Connectivity open spaces, ancient woodlands and natural habitats nearby. Framework, Preliminary Ecological Management Framework and a Draft Farmland Wildlife Mitigation Package. 33.20 Open space/parkland within the Country Park should be managed - possibly with the re-introduction of grazing rights – and measures put in place to discourage public ‘straying’ and to The Applicant will provide a management proposal for the Country Park for the LPA to consider during the encourage dog walkers to keep their animals on leads. This would also assist in the protection of wildlife habitats. determination period. The delivery of the Country Park and its relationship with the phasing of the scheme will be agreed as part of the planning determination/s106 discussions. 33.21 The villages of Wootton St Lawrence and Ramsdell, together with their outlying hamlets, should receive some benefit in kind for the detrimental impact that they will suffer as a result of 3400 The Proposed Development provides numerous public benefits including new housing, public services and new new homes being planned and developed within their Parish Council area. open spaces including the Country park. 34.0 Overton Parish 10/03/2017 07/04/2017 No - further 34.01 Concerns centred on the management of traffic coming from the west and how it was to be routed from the B3400 to the A339, A340 and hospital, A33 and M3. The routing of the buses also The Applicant has engaged in-going consultation with HCC Highways to review the comments provided. A Council clarification needed to be clarified. There seemed to be no comment from NHS England about how it would deal with the large increase in residents. revised Transport Assessment (MSD12aR) has been submitted in response to consultation comments, as well requested as assessing the revised design since February 2017. 35.0 Network Rail 10/03/2017 03/04/2017 No - further 35.01 Could the applicant please provide a Technical Note which summarises the impact and potential safety issues which may arise as a result of the development on the level crossings in the area. The Applicant has provided additional information to Network Rail in response to their comments. information requested 35.02 We would also appreciate it if the “potential future railway crossing” quoted in the TA could be explained, there is no information to accompany this proposed designation i.e. why has it been The Applicant has provided additional information to Network Rail in response to their comments. proposed, what type of crossing is proposed, when and who will deliver it etc. 36.0 South West Trains 10/03/2017 36.01 No response received. 37.0 Thames Water 10/03/2017 37.01 No response received. Utilities 38.0 South East Water 10/03/2017 38.01 No response received. (Engineering Department) 39.0 Geonetworks Ltd - 10/03/2017 31/03/2017 No 39.01 Zayo's assets will not be affected by the scheme. Noted. Government Pipelines 40.0 Southern Gas 10/03/2017 22/03/2017 No - subject to 40.01 SGN provided plan of pipes owned by SGN in their role as Licensed Gas Transporter. The Applicant has received the plans from SGN and these will inform future design development. Networks - Plans technical 40.02 There should be no mechanical excavations taking place above or within 0.5m of a low/medium pressure system or above or within 3.0m of an intermediate pressure system. You should, where This will be secured through planning determination/s106 discussions. Location considerations required confirm the position using hand dug trial holes. 40.03 Safe digging practices, in accordance with HSE publication HSG47 “Avoiding Danger from Underground Services” must be used to verify and establish the actual position of mains, pipes, services This will be secured through planning determination/s106 discussions. and other apparatus on site before any mechanical plant is used. It is your responsibility to ensure that this information is provided to all relevant people (direct labour or contractors) working for you on or near gas plant. 40.04 A colour copy of these plans and the gas safety advice booklet enclosed should be passed to the senior person on site in order to prevent damage to our plant and potential direct or This will be secured through planning determination/s106 discussions. consequential costs to your organisation. 41.0 Scottish And 10/03/2017 41.01 No response received. Southern Energy 42.0 Hart District 10/03/2017 28/03/2017 No 42.01 No comments at this stage Council - Joint Waste Client Team

43.0 NHS North 10/03/2017 23/05/2018 No 43.01 The Govern Body: "agreed to advise the council of its preferred site as being in the south part of the Manydown development as indicated on the attached map (marked in yellow); it was Noted and the Applicant will continue to liaise with the CCG going forward. Hampshire Clinical recognised that this is not in the first phase of the Manydown development. The Governing Body also confirmed that the CCG is committed to working with the public, NHS England, our partner Commissioning local authorities and our providers to establish the scope and scale of health and wellbeing services to be provided across the area and specifically to Manydown residents." Group 44.0 Care Quality 10/03/2017 23/03/2017 No 44.01 CQC does not comment on planning applications, consultations or consents. Noted. Commission - National Correspondence Centre 45.0 Crime Prevention 10/03/2017 45.01 No response received. Design Advisor 46.0 DCLG 10/03/2017 05/05/2017 No 46.01 No comment to make on Environmental Statement Noted.

47.0 Natural England 10/03/2017 11/05/2017 No - subject to 47.01 No objection subject to condition requiring a LEMP and BMMP. These documents were recommended in the Environmental Statement and the Applicant anticipates they Consultation conditions These plans should include: will be secured through planning determination/s106 discussions. A Draft Ecological Management Service - details of access management measures where relevant to ensure that the sensitive habitats do no not have a detrimental impact from recreational pressures on these areas. Framework has been submitted in January 2018, providing an outline for the LEMP. - details of who will manage these habitats 47.0 Natural England 10/03/2017 11/05/2017 No - subject to No objection subject to condition requiring a LEMP and BMMP. These documents were recommended in the Environmental Statement and the Applicant anticipates they Consultation conditions 47.02 These plans should include: will be secured through planning determination/s106 discussions. A Draft Ecological Management Service - details of access management measures where relevant to ensure that the sensitive habitats do no not have a detrimental impact from recreational pressures on these areas. Framework has been submitted in January 2018, providing an outline for the LEMP. - details of who will manage these habitats 47.03 We agree with the Biodiversity officer that there is a need to have an overall plan showing the bats and dormice and hedgerows all on one plan to enable a clear overview of the foraging These documents were recommended in the Environmental Statement and the Applicant anticipates they corridors so that they do not become isolated. will be secured through planning determination/s106 discussions. A draft Protected Species Habitat Mitigation and Connectivity Framework has been submitted in January 2018. 47.04 We also agree that further information on how the arable plant mitigation areas will be managed in the future is required to ensure that the disturbance needed will be maintained. The Applicant has forwarded (from Dr. Phil Wilson) a seed collection/arable flora mitigation proposal to BDBC officers for consideration. A draft Farmland Wildlife Mitigation Package has been submitted in January 2018 (specifically including the draft arable flora mitigation and management strategy - based on Phil Wilson's proposal) 48.0 Historic England 10/03/2017 28/03/2017 No objection in 48.01 Historic England has no objection to the principle of developing the Manydown site but these outline proposals do not adequately respect the character of the conservation area and would Since the submission of the application in February 2017 a number of amendments have been made to the principle - further cause harm to this heritage asset. We believe that the layout of the Manydown development could be amended to reduce the harm to the Worting Conservation Area while still allowing for the building heights and densities of the masterplan in response to conservation and landscape concerns. For discussion, development and therefore the harm is not justified. further details of the amended designs, please the Design and Access Statement (MSD1R). The Applicant information and 48.02 We consider that the application does not meet the requirements of the NPPF, in particular paragraph numbers 8,9,17,58, 128 and 132. believes that the public benefits delivered by the Proposed Development outweigh the less than substantial amendments 48.03 By not respecting the rural and discrete character of the Worting Conservation Area this outline proposal fails to comply with Policy SS3.10 h and i. harm to the heritage assets. Further detail of the assessment is provided in MSD12dR Heritage Statement. requested 48.04 This outline proposal does not preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Worting Conservation area and therefore fails to comply with your conservation policies (Policy EM11- The Historic Environment). 48.05 Through proposing development too close to the boundaries of the conservation area the current outline proposals do not comply with the principles set out within the SPD (Development Principle 4i quoted) 48.06 The proposed development has potential to completely envelope Worting Village and to destroy any sense of it being a separate settlement in a rural setting. We do believe that the current layout does not respect the special architectural or historic interest of the Worting conservation area and that the form of development could be improved in the following ways which should be secured at this outline stage: - Northern boundary: 20m buffer not considered wide enough and does not create the desired sense of space or setting around the WCA. - Northern boundary: School playing fields would create a sense of openness and space. - Western approach: we previously advised that the western centre should be moved north and the junction moved as far west to reduce the erosion of the rural setting of the WCA. 48.07 I have concerns about the increased traffic and general activity in and around Worting which would give rise to additional traffic noise and movements and the resultant loss of tranquillity (which can still be experienced away from the main road). Is there scope, therefore, to direct through traffic through the new settlement to link to the A339, thereby reducing the traffic through Worting to only that which wishes to access the centre of Basingstoke? This could be coupled with traffic calming, a speed reduction to 20 MPH, and a less urban treatment of the highway and lighting which could be a benefit to the conservation area 48.08 Iron Age settlement 400m SE of Battle Down Farm (1001835) - development will cause less than substantial harm, and at the lower end of that range, but that the ‘negligible’ magnitude of The Archaeological Desk Based Assessment (MSD12cR) has been updated in response to comments from impact given in the environmental statement for the development is too low. This discussion would have benefited from reference to Chapter 12 of the ES, on views, where although scheduled Historic England and the Archaeological Officer. monuments were unfortunately not studied as key viewpoints, the nearest representative viewpoint (VP10) is south of the scheduled monument and looks towards the development site. Historic England agree with the assessed impact from this view. 48.09 White Barrow (1001834) - the significance of the monument as contributed to by its setting has been undervalued in the Environmental Statement, leading to an assessment of harm which is too low. The harm will be less than substantial, but in the middle of that range. Mitigation measures proposed (tree planting) are in themselves harmful as they will educe the open feel of the setting. Mitigation would be better achieved by adjusting the locations of built up areas of the development and with screening within the main body of the development site, at a greater distance front he scheduled monument. The planning authority should not grant planning consent until a revised assessment of the significance of the White Barrow scheduled monument has been submitted for approval, together with revised landscaping (mitigation) proposals. 48.10 The setting of the listed barn at Scrapps Hill Farm must also be considered and this too would be adversely affected by the development of the western centre. This has been assessed in MSD12dR Heritage Statement. The conclusion as follows: The lack of indivisibility between the Site and the Barn, the change of usage of the Barn and the complex within which it sits and the fact that there will mitigation in respect of the secondary junction, as outlined above, rends a conclusion of less than substantial harm caused by the western urban development and the secondary junction. Paragraph 134 of the NPPF should therefore be taken into account and the significant public benefits of the Proposed Development weighed against any harm caused to the setting of Scrapps Hill Barn.

49.0 Environment 10/03/2017 30/03/2017 No - subject to 49.01 We do not require as many control measures as we may have done in other circumstances. We request the following conditions: The Applicant supports the conditions in principle but requests that prior to the planning conditions being Agency South East conditions Condition 1 - Piling or any other foundation designs using penetrative methods shall not be permitted other than with the express written consent of the Local Planning Authority, which may be finalised that they can be reviewed to ensure that as many concerns can be resolved as possible prior to given for those parts of the site where it has been demonstrated that there is no resultant unacceptable risk to groundwater. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the determination of the application. approved details. 49.02 Condition 2 - If, during development, contamination not previously identified is found to be present at the site then no further development (unless otherwise agreed in writing with the local planning authority) shall be carried out until the developer has submitted a remediation strategy to the local planning authority detailing how this unsuspected contamination shall be dealt with and obtained written approval from the local planning authority. The remediation strategy shall be implemented as approved. 49.03 Condition 3 - The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until such time as a scheme to dispose of surface water has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The scheme shall be implemented as approved. 50.0 Hampshire & Isle 10/03/2017 26/04/2017 No - further 50.01 We are particularly concerned with the use of the country park as both the primary recreation resource on the site as well as the primary area for mitigation for protected species and habitats. The Applicant proposes that a delivery and management plan for the Country Park will be conditioned as of Wight Wildlife discussion and To ease recreational pressure, we consider that more space should be made available for recreation within the main development area and be designed in such a way so as not to conflict with part of the Outline Planning permission and form part of further discussions with the LPA. Stakeholder work is Trust Strategy information proposed ecological corridors. currently being undertaken to establish options for delivery and management. A preliminary Ecological Lead for Planning required Management Framework has been submitted in January 2018, which outlines management prescriptions for & Development Country the Park and Type 1, Type 2 and Type 3 ecological mitigation areas and a framework for sensitive lighting strategy (i.e. an outline for a LEMP). 50.02 In our previous response we welcomed the inclusion of a minimum of 20 metre buffers to the tree belts, woodlands and hedgerows. However, we do consider that these buffers should be a SPD requires a buffer of 20m for woodland and 5m for hedgerow and this has been applied within the minimum of 20 metres and where they are adjacent to areas of ancient woodland or important hedgerows they should be wider Masterplan as a minimum. 50.03 The continued decline in species diversity is evidence that by aiming to provide only a ‘no-net loss’ is not sufficient to prevent this decline. The site has been shown to be an ecologically rich area With the exception of skylark, the scheme as a whole, including Primary and Secondary mitigation will deliver with a diverse assemblage of rare and protected species. If these species are not to be lost from the site it is important that mitigation measures are robust and sufficient funding is available for net benefit for biodiversity; new habitats will be created within the site (with the objective ideally of these monitoring and management, in perpetuity. complying with BAP habitat criteria) and habitat measures are designed that will not only strengthen the population range and size for a range of species currently vulnerable within the site (e.g. dormice), but also restore certain species (e.g. grey partridge, arable flora). Even considering the net loss predicted for a single species (breeding skylark), an overall net benefit for biodiversity (including species diversity) would be delivered, providing mitigation, compensation and management are implemented as per the ES recommendations. 50.04 As we have previously stated, the site currently supports a suite of rare and protected species, including plants, birds, bats and dormice. If mitigation measures are to be shown to be effective it Monitoring pre-, during and post-construction has been recommended throughout the Environmental will be crucial that detailed and measurable monitoring of important species is carried out. Statement. The Applicant intends to collate this into the CEMP and LEMP/BMMPs as appropriate to the feature being monitored and stage of works/establishment. 50.05 We again previously questioned how the ‘off-site’ mitigation, which as we understand is located outside of the application boundary, can be delivered and secured with any certainty. The Applicant owns the land for the off-site mitigation measures and intends that mitigation measures will be secured through planning determination/s106 discussions. 50.06 It is important that the primary mitigation for bats, and other species, is designed in conjunction with the lighting strategy. Noted. 51.0 Open Spaces 10/03/2017 51.01 No response received. Society 52.0 Forestry 10/03/2017 21/03/2017 No 52.01 No detailed comments - reference made to Forestry Commission and Natural England Standing Advice for Ancient Woodland and Veteran Trees (7th April 2014) The Applicant notes the advice provided and has addressed this in the submitted material. Commission 53.0 Byways And 10/03/2017 53.01 No response received. Bridleways Trust 54.0 Ramblers' 10/03/2017 54.01 No response received. Association - Rights Of Way Team 55.0 North Wessex 10/03/2017 55.01 No response received. Downs AONB 56.0 BHS County Access 10/03/2017 12/05/2017 No - further 56.01 The BHS and BDS is concerned that little - if any - consideration has been given to the needs of local equestrians. We seek assurance that 'Access for all' includes the local equestrian community. Upgrades and improvements to public rights of way, and bridleways has been discussed and will be secured And Bridleways discussion and through on-going s106 discussions. Officer information 56.02 We ask whether a survey has been undertaken to better understand the routes used by local horse riders and carriage drivers to ensure this development does not marginalise these people. A Visitor Access Survey is proposed to inform future access management for the Country Park and this will requested address the requirements for all users of the site 56.03 Opportunities to develop inclusive environment through: Upgrades and improvements to public rights of way, and bridleways has been discussed and will be secured - Making new paths into multi-user routes to include equestrians through on-going s106 discussions. - Using s106 money to upgrade footpaths to bridleways so these can be used by horse riders - Provide access to the country park by including bridleways - Consult with equestrian community - Undertake research to ensure historic routes are not lost - the inclusion of horse crossings where appropriate 57.0 British Driving 10/03/2017 12/05/2017 No 57.01 See combined response from British Horse Society (56.0) See comments above under British Horse Society (56.0) Society 58.0 Cyclists' Touring 10/03/2017 58.01 No response received. Club - Right To Ride Representative Summary of responses received as of July 2018 Provision & Traveller Gypsy to Objection objection widening A339 RAB Road closure of Roman to Objection woodland Loss of Spinney over RAB junction T - etc) Rooksdown Hawthorn, (Elmwood, Firs, winklebury through running Rat concerns traffic General objection plant treatment Sewerage Park Lorry related school secondary Hill/ Fort wildlife, space, Loss of open for walking Loss of amenity provision Helathcare/NHS Polution and Noise pressure Infrastructure Parking impact Visual heights Building & Density concerns Archaelogical cocnerns Enviornmental traffic Construction detailNot enough Support for Additional comments

Address Key issues raised Winklebury Fort Hill closure Closure of Roman Road and concerns regarding traffic re-routing Concerns regarding Sewerage treatment works Concerns regarding impact on A & E provision 1 1 1 1 1 Buckskin Loss of green space, Loss of visual amenity, increased noise, traffic, impact on infrastructure, parking 1 1 1 1 1 Roman Road Loss of value in property Increased noise and traffic 1 1 Winklebury Fort Hill closure General traffic concerns Loss of Roman villa Noise from the railway 1 1 1 1 Worting Objection to Gypsy & Traveller Provision General safety concerns 1 Wotton Pressure on healthcare facilities St Lawrence 1 General traffic and pollution concerns Worting 1 1 Address Loss of trees bordering the A339 and TPO. unknown Increased noise, air and light pollution removal of trees will entail. Slip road at Rooksdown uncessary Objection to Gypsy & Traveller Provision 1 1 1 1 Winklebury Concerns regarding vehicle access and construction traffic. Preference for T-junction at A339 Questions the Environmental Statement and Traffic Assessment assumptions 1 1 1 1 1 Oakley Support for main street principles, Disagreement that main street can accommodate the traffic required. Sewerage – no solution Need for connected cycle routes and Traffic – no solution to connecting to M3 1 1 Main street principles places of worship Kempshott Positive comments regarding consultation Cycling connections to town and other areas needed. More required regarding places of worship. Positive feedback regarding consultation Pipeline near to primary school – safeguarding zone required Oakley Loss of visual amenity - storey height effect on Wotton St Lawrence and Scrapps Hill Further queries regarding the pipeline and HSE requirements Need to consider pipeline location 1 1 near secondary school Winklebury Objection to vehicular link from Roman Road to main street and potential for rat running through WInklebury Support for Roman Road linear park and pedestrain and cycle links, this should be planted in advance to provide visual screening Support for Roman Road Spinney woodland path to be a formal public footpath linear park and pedestrain Support for signallised T junction option rather than RAB- refers back to assessments for the purposes of and cycle links the local plan Proposed this should be planted in advance to 1 1 1 provide visual screening Roman Road Objection to Gypsy & Traveller Provision 1 Oakley Closure of northern end of Roman Road will be disruptive and is fundamentally flawed. 1 Rooksdown Objection to A339 RAB and loss of woodland 1 1 Rats Roman Road No mention of gypsy and travellers at consultations Potential for rats 1 Rooksdown Objection to Gypsy & Traveller Provision Lorry Park objection Not discussed at consultation Safety concerns 1 1 Roman Road Traffic on roman road, noise and pollution Fort Hill could be utilised for other purposes Objection to Gypsy & Traveller Provision Positive about the Country Park Positive about the Concerns regarding drainage, loss of open space, rats and mice 1 1 1 1 1 Country Park Rats and mice Winklebury Foul water and drainage concerns Winklebury Way/Roman Road junction won’t work unless hedgerows are removed and will disrupt gas main Loss of amenity Winklebury Way/Roman Road junction won’t Changes to consultation work, Construction traffic 1 1 1 1 need to remove hedgerow and disrupt gas main Rooksdown Loss of tree line Effect on privacy Loss of amenity - wooded area

1 1 Effect on privacy Rooksdown A339 RAB objection Loss of wooded area – concerns regarding noise and pollution No need for filter lane at Rooksdown 1 1 1 Rooksdown Objection to Gypsy & Traveller Provision T junction preferred over RAB Concerns regarding rat running through winklebury 1 1 1 Winklebury Objection to RAB option preference for T junction Objection to truck park Objection to location of secondary school –prefers next to country park Objection to G & T and lack of consultation on this point Winklebury will not cope with traffic Need for upgrades of roads and pavement Need for upgrades of roads and pavement resurfacing in Winklebury 1 1 1 1 1 1 resurfacing in Winklebury Winklebury Objection to Gypsy & Traveller Provision Lack of information in consultation 1 Winklebury Objection to Gypsy & Traveller Provision

1 Rooksdown Objection to Gypsy & Traveller Provision Need to provide secondary school not just safeguard land No need to widen A339 RAB - Loss of trees and soundproofing - noise and pollution Is the footbridge still proposed crossing the A339? Is the footbridge still proposed crossing the A339? 1 1 1 1 1 Loss of sound proofing Address unknown Objection to Gypsy & Traveller Provision Concerns regaridng waste management 1 1 Waste management Address unknown Objection to Gypsy & Traveller Provision 1 Objection to Gypsy & Traveller Provision & Lorry Park Winklebury 1 1 Winklebury Objection to Gypsy & Traveller Provision A339 Roman Road traffic, rat running , loss of trees, effect on winklebury businesses, Fort Hill 1 1 1 1 1 effect on winklebury businesses Winklebury Loss of countryside Objection to Gypsy & Traveller Provision Residential roads used as cut-through 1 1 1 Objection to Gypsy & Traveller Provision & Lorry Park Rooksdown 1 Rooksdown Objection to Gypsy & Traveller Provision & Lorry Park 1 1 Objection to Gypsy & Traveller Provision Winklebury Concerns regarding rat running Concerns regarding Slip road at rooksdown 1 1 Winklebury Objection to Gypsy & Traveller Provision 1 1 1 Winklebury Support for closure of Roman Road and prevention of wellington terrace safety issue Support for closure of Roman Objection to Gypsy & Traveller Provision Road, prevention of Fort Hill closure concerns wellington terrace safety 1 1 issue Rooksdown Objection to A339 RAB, loss of protected trees and amenity and impact on wildlife Separate reponse submitting outlining objection to Gypsy & Traveller Provision 1 1 1 1 Rooksdown Objection to Gypsy & Traveller Provision

Winklebury Objection to G & T and traffic generation 1 1 Winklebury Loss of countryside 1 Winklebury Objection to Gypsy & Traveller Provision, security concerns, loss of wildlife, smell of sewerage 1 1 1 Address unknown Objection to Gypsy & Traveller Provision, lack of consultation, Sewerage works, Fort Hill, GP access 1 1 1 1 Rooksdown A339 RAB objection including loss of trees, loss of sound barrier, noise and pollution 1 1 Winklebury Objection to Gypsy & Traveller Provision 1 1 Loss of sound barrier Address unknown Lack of consultation Objection to Roman Road closure, Traffic concerns including potential for rat running overshadowing, and lack of design detail 1 1 1 1 1 Lack of detail Winklebury Lorry Park Gypsy and traveller objection -can this not be off-site. G & T not mentioned at consultation. Re-open Peak Copse Concern over traffic impact at Firs Way, Elmwood way. Could we not block off the end of First Way by Roman Rd or Oakland Way. Supoort for blocking off Roman Road Pollution and noise from A339 RAB Balance of property values needed Not to many high rise. Can we block off Roman Road with trees Not enough detail on design of buildings and No location for sewerage treatment layout Not enough detail on design of buildings and layout Link road higher up A339 Link road higher up A339 Supoort for blocking off Could we not block off the end of First Way by Preference for T-junction, not necessary to widen A339, loss of trees 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Roman Road Roman Rd or Oakland Way. Winklebury Objection to Gypsy & Traveller Provision Objection to possibility of sewerage treatement works Heavt traffic leading to residential routes being used as cut throughs Enviornmental impact Building heights and density Loss of woodland at A339 Country Park should be more central Plans arent detailed enough 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Country Park should be more central Winklebury Objection to Gypsy & Traveller Provision Possibility of sewerage treatement works Residential streets being used as cut throughs. Cant cope with traffic Loss of value in property 1 1 1 1 Winklebury Objection to Gypsy & Traveller Provision Not in consultation A339 RAB plans were not fully explained 1 1 Rooksdown A339 RAB Layout doesn’t make sense- leads to loss of trees Concerns regarding volume of traffic Objection to link road from Roman Rd to main street. Objection to inclusion of Gypsy & Traveller Provision Need for a secondary school when Fort Hill is being closed Objection to link road from Roman Rd 1 1 1 1 to main street. Rooksdown A339 RAB Layout doesn’t make sense- leads to loss of trees Concerns regarding volume of traffic Objection to link road from Roman Rd to main street. Objection to inclusion of Gypsy & Traveller Provision Need for a secondary school when Fort Hill is being closed Objection to link road from Roman Rd 1 1 1 1 to main street. Address unknown Loss of Countryside Loss of amenity for walking Objection to G & T Increased traffic and congestion Safety concerns 1 1 1 1 Winkebury Objection to closure of top of roman road, will cause delays and simpler measures could solve the safety issues at wellington terrace Objection to Gypsy & Traveller Provision Simpler measures could solve the safety issues at 1 1 1 wellington terrace Address unknown Objection to close proximity of Gypsy and traveller site 1 Address unknown Loss of countryside and local amenity Environmental impact

1 1 Winklebury Concerns over increase in traffic through Wellington terrace Questions why gypsy and traveller sites are relevant 1 1 Address unknown Loss of woodland at Rooksdown no need to widen road Destroying wildlife and creating air pollution- there must be another option No consultation regaridng G & T and objection to inclusion 1 1 1 1 Objection to lorry park Winklebury Objection to Gypsy & Traveller Provision - safety concerns 1 1 Winklebury More info needed on Gypsy and traveller location, no mention in previous consultations Safeguarding of secondary school land is no appropriate in light of Fort Hill situation Sewerage strategy not clear Blocking of Roman Roman will lead to rat running and increased traffic on Elmwood way, Hawthron Road, Firs Way and safety concerns on this basis

1 1 1 1 Buckskin Additional pressure on roads, schools, hospitals and infrastructure General objection to new housing development 1 1 1 Winklebury Concerns about surface water and flood risk due to gradient of site Asks whether low rise building will be built close to Roman Road Asks whether low rise building No mention of G & T at previous consultations 1 1 1 will be built close to Roman Road Winklebury Objection to proposed traffic lights outside house Noise and traffic concerns Objection to proposed traffic lights Loss of value in property 1 1 outside house Objection to Gypsy & Traveller Provision Winklebury Objection to Gypsy & Traveller Provision Winklebury Concerns regarding sewerage treatment Heavy traffic on residential roads Enivornmental impact Loss of woodland 1 1 1 1 1 Winklebury Objection to Gypsy & Traveller Provision Objection to widening of A339 RAB Objection to loss of woodland close to Rooksdown Impact on wildlife and eco-system- health benefits lost Enivornmental impact Loss of woodland 1 1 1 1 Rooksdown Objection to A339 RAB widening Will bring highway close to property Three lanes not needed Preference for T-junction Loss of woodland at Rooksdown Noise and pollution will impact quality of life Potential for accidents and safety concerns with highway close to property. Potential for accidents and safety Objection to Gypsy & Traveller Provision 1 1 1 1 concerns with highway close to property. Rooksdown Objection to A339 RAB widening Will bring highway close to property Three lanes not needed Preference for T-junction Loss of woodland at Rooksdown Noise and pollution will impact quality of life Potential for accidents and safety concerns with highway close to property. Potential for accidents and safety Objection to Gypsy & Traveller Provision 1 1 1 1 concerns with highway close to property. Rooksdown Objection to A339 RAB widening Will bring highway close to property No need for slip road Preference for T-junction Loss of woodland at Rooksdown Noise and pollution will impact quality of life Potential for accidents and safety concerns Gypsy & Traveller Provision should go at Peak Copse 1 1 1 1 Winklebury Objection to Gypsy & Traveller Provision Objection to Lorry Park Safety concerns 1 1 Objection to Gypsy & Traveller Provision, should be re-located to Peak Copse Winklebury 1 Rooksdown Objection to closure of top of roman road, loss of woodland in front of house Noise and traffic nuisance 1 1 1 Winklebury Objection to Gypsy & Traveller Provision No mention at consultation Objection to potential sewerage works Crime and disorder 1 1 Winklebury Further information on the location of Gypsy & Traveller Provision Further information on sewerage treatment plant Enivormental impact on residents 1 1 1 Winklebury Objection to Gypsy & Traveller Provision Increased crime and disorder Cars will use Hawthorn, Elmwood and Firs Way as a cut through- rat running Already an issue with speeding in the area Increased traffic and noise Loss of amenity - green space for dog walking Sewerage treatment plant 1 1 1 1 1 1 Winklebury Objection to Gypsy & Traveller Provision Lorry Park Impact of homes on infrastructure Sewerage plant Loss of Spinney Woods Clark estate used as a rat-run 1 1 1 1 1 1 Winklebury Environmental and social impact Loss of habitat, species, sites of archaelogical importance Concerns regarding failure of previous developments Crime and anti-social behaviour Concerns regarding failure of previous 1 1 1 developments Winklebury Objection to Gypsy & Traveller Provision Objection to sewerage treatement works Objection to widening of A339 RABS Loss of woodland at Spinney Traffic to cut through Firs Way, Elmwood Way, Hawthorn Way 1 1 1 1 1 Winklebury Objection to Gypsy & Traveller Provision inclusion and lack of consultation Objection to loss of Spinney woodland 1 1 Winklebury Objection to Gypsy & Traveller Provision and question regarding the timing of delivery of the site Objection to safeguarding of land for a secondary school, this should be assured sooner rather than later in light of Fort Hill 1 1 Winklebury Traffic concerns Objection to Gypsy & Traveller Provision Loss of open space and countryside 1 1 1 Winklebury Objection to Gypsy & Traveller Provision and lack of consultation Objection to sewerage treatment plant Traffic using local streets as a cut through- rat running Loss of woodland Enivornmental impact of building heights and density 1 1 1 1 1 1 Rooksdown Objection to Gypsy & Traveller Provision and lack of consultation Concerns over safety and crime and disorder Preference for T junction over RAB Current issues with rat running through Rooksdown 1 1 1 Winklebury Objection to Gypsy & Traveller Provision and lack of consultation Need for Manydown farm Maise Maze Loss of wildlife 1 1 Need for Manydown farm Maise Maze Winklebury Objection to Gypsy & Traveller Provisionand lack of consultation 1 Winklebury Concerns regarding traffic congestion on Roman Road and loss of privacy Noise and pollution Loss of visual amenity Need for considered design on buildings Concerns regarding wildlife- loss of habitats How will archealogical interest be preserved Drainage and surface water concerns 1 1 1 1 1 1 Loss of privacy Winklebury Objection to Gypsy & Traveller Provision Traffic and congestion 1 1 Address unknown Objection to Gypsy & Traveller Provision Clarke estate will be used as cut through Traffic concerns 1 1 1 Address unknown Objection to Gypsy & Traveller Provision Loss of woodland at A339 Widening of roads necessary Extra traffic Noise and safety concerns 1 1 1 1 Address unknown Objection to Gypsy & Traveller Provision Clarke estate used as cut through Concerns regarding sewerage treatment works 1 1 1 Objection to Gypsy & Traveller Provision Winklebury residential streets used as cut throughs Concerns regarding sewerage treatment works Enviornmental impact and destruction of woodland 1 1 1 1 Address unknown Objection to Gypsy & Traveller Provision- no mention in consultation Traffic concerns Loss of open space/wildlife Noise and pollution Lorry park 1 1 1 1 1 Winklebury Objection to Gypsy & Traveller Provision residential streets used as cut through Concerns regarding sewerage treatment works widening of roads Loss of woodlands at A339 1 1 1 1 1 Winklebury Objection to Gypsy & Traveller Provision 1 Winklebury Objection to Gypsy & Traveller Provision residential streets used as cut through Concerns regarding sewerage treatment works widening of roads Loss of woodlands at A339 1 1 1 1 1 Winklebury Objection to Gypsy & Traveller Provision Sewerage treatment plant objection 1 1 Rooksdown Objection to Gypsy & Traveller Provision 1 Rooksdown Objection to A339 RAB Reduced screening Loss of amenity Loss of woodland Noise and pollution General traffic concerns Lack of detail Objection to Gypsy & Traveller Provision Lack of consultation Conflict of interests 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Address unknown A339 RAB objection Loss of wooded area Loss of public amenity Noise and pollution T-junction over RAB Objection to Gypsy & Traveller Provision 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Rooksdown A339 RAB objection Loss of wooded area Loss of public amenity/screening Concerns regarding traffic Noise and pollution T-junction over RAB 1 1 1 1 1 1 Address unknown Objection to Gypsy & Traveller Provision No adequate provision for sewerage and surface water More detail on where affordable homes will be Rat running through winklebury Need for sympathetic approach to density Concerns regarding pollution References to local plan 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Rooksdown A339 RAB objection Loss of wooded area Loss of public amenity/screening Concerns regarding traffic Noise and pollution T-junction over RAB Objection to Gypsy & Traveller Provision Lack of consultation Conflict of interests More detailed required 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Address unknown Closure of Roman Road leading to rat running Objection to Gypsy & Traveller Provision Fort Hill Impact on Health facilities Effect on woodland 1 1 1 1 1 Rooksdown Objection to Gypsy & Traveller Provision 1 Winklebury Objection to Gypsy & Traveller Provision 1 Address unknown Traffic on Roman Road Objection to Gypsy & Traveller Provision 1 1 Rooksdown Concerns regarding consultation process Objection to Gypsy & Traveller Provision NHS contractors using Rooksdown as a cut through Not enough detail Conflict of interest Objection to A339 RAB Loss of woodland Loss of amenity Noise and pollution loss of screening 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 BDBC/HCC Conflict of interest Winklebury Objection to Gypsy & Traveller Provision Traffic concerns Rat running through Winklebury Objection to A339 junction Safety concerns Infrastructure pressures 1 1 1 1 1 Address unknown Construction traffic on Roman Road Objection to Gypsy & Traveller Provision Drainage capacity Inadequate buffer to Worting Woods 1 1 1 Inadequate buffer to Worting Woods Rooksdown A339 RAB objection Loss of wooded area Loss of public amenity Noise and pollution T-junction over RAB Loss of screening 1 1 1 1 1 1 Rooksdown Objection to Gypsy & Traveller Provision 1 Winklebury Loss of greenfields, impact on Jubilee woodland 1 Winklebury Objection to Gypsy & Traveller Provision & Truck stop 1 1 Winklebury Objection to Gypsy & Traveller Provision 1 Winklebury Objection to Gypsy & Traveller Provision & Rat running through Winklebury 1 1 Winklebury Objection to need for housing and the benefit of CIL receipts. Infrastructure shortfall. Lack of sewerage infrastructure. Traffic concerns related to spine road and A339 capacity. 1 1 1 Winklebury Objection to Gypsy & Traveller Provision 1 Town centre Request for solar panels Request for solar panels Winklebury Concerns regarding sewerage treatment plant 1 Winklebury Objection to Gypsy & Traveller Provision 1 Ramsdell Objection regarding traffic and impact on A339 and surronding villages 1 objection &T G objection widening RAB A339 ofRoman Road Objection to closure woodland Spinney of Loss overRAB junction - T etc) Rooksdown Hawthorn, Firs, (Elmwood, winklebury through running Rat concerns Generaltraffic plant objection treatment Sewerage Park Lorry related school secondary Hill/ Fort wildlife,habitats space, open of Loss walking for amenity of Loss provision Helathcare/NHS and Polution Noise pressure Infrastructure Parking impact Visual heights Density& Building concerns Archaelogical cocnerns Enviornmental Constructiontraffic detail enough Not Total responses 121

Winklebury 66 86 27 7 26 11 25 43 27 12 14 19 10 5 23 5 0 5 5 3 7 2 7 Rooksdown 26 Other 11 Unknown 18 Councillors Ward Date received Objection Key issues raised Councillor Stephen Reid 05/04/2017 Objects to Access- I oppose the 'elongated roundabout' solution for access from the A339. It isheavy on land take and takes traffic some elements unneceesarily close to existing homes to the north of Winklebury. I favour the 'double T-junction solution'. This was the majority position at the consultation events I attended and is also the solution preferred by Rooksdown Parish Council. At the councillors briefing I attended I was told there is little to choose between the two solutions in terms of traffic efficiency. Factors that suggest the double T- solution is preferable include: a. It would be possible to construct the solution to be traffic light controlled , almost as a staggered cross-roads, without detriment to traffic flows on the A339. b. The T junction into Manydown could serve as an access for deceloper traffic, therby removing the risk of HGV traffic on Roman Road. c. The access into Rooksdown could be made to appear 'for residential access only' thereby reducing the risk of rat running through Rooksdown. It is important that Manydown is seen as 'neighbour friendly'. d. The double T solution will require lesser land take and the loss of fewer trees. I therefore object to the plan on the grounds that the access solution chosen is not the one favoured by local communities and can be replaced by one that is acceptable, at no detriment to the overall solution.

Movement - A weakness in the Manydown planning is that no view has been formed on whether there should be a western by-pass. If future projections for traffic indicate that there should be, an at least approximate indication should be given as to the route it might take and the way it would access the reserved crossing of the railway line. In the absence of a commitment to a western by-pass, it is possible (or indeed likely) that the load would have to be borne by the spine road through Manydown. If this is the case, the design of the spine road, passing through the shopping centre as it does, is likely to be inadequate for the load it will have to take. I refer also to MSD12y and refer to the Fievways junction. The report concludes: 'It was acknowledged at the Basingstoke Local Plan examination that the Fiveways junction was a constraint on the highway network to the west of Basingstoke... additional improvements have been identified which alter the staging sequence as the favourable solution to further junction perforamce. By making these suggested signal changes and minor alterations to the alignment, the junction would perform better with the Proposed development than the existing morning and evening baseline modelling'. In other words, Fiveways can be marginally improved but it is likely to be a long-term constraint, a constraint that can only be removed by have a policy about a western by-pass. I therefore ask that the future road requirements be reconsidered. If the argument is that '2029 is the horizon' I contend that the spine road has inadequate capacity for the longer term and the whole long-term planning premise for Manydown is therefore flawed. I object to the plan on the grounds that the road system to the West of Basingstoke has not been adequately planned and that the Manydown spine road as designed will prove inadequate for the loads that will be placed on it.

Building height and density- I am please to see that graduated approach to housing height if being taken. However, I ask that the plans for screening be reviewed, with particular regard to the views down onto Manydown from homes in the Kenilworth road area. The environment statement refers to the issue but I find no attempt to mitigate it. Where residents currently look down onto a gren field, they will in future look down onto rooflines. The use of tall trees may be beneficial. I therefore object to the plan on the grounds that inadeqaute consideration has been gievn to protecting existing residents from the visual detriment that Manydown will cause. Councillor Stephen Reid

Buffer zones- I note that there is a mention of 'no buildings within 20 metres of the northern edge of the Worting conservation area. Such wording has been shown in other applications to be insufficiently precise. Does it mean 'no home within 20 metres' or doesit mean 'there will be a 20 metre buffer between the edge of the garden and the start of the conservation area? I hope it means that latter: if it does, the wording should be amended to show that precision. If it doesnt, I object to the plans on the basis that the conservation area will be unduly threatened and the buffer zone should be increased. I therefore object to the plan on the grounds of the imprecision of the wording in this regard.

Schools - There is a strong case to made for a 4-16 through school. The land for the secondary school should therefore be contigious with the land for one of the primary schools. Given recent developments regarding the future of Fort Hill School, it would be desirable for the new secondary school to be easily accessible from Winklebury, the reference to school positioning in the planning document is now out of date and should be amended. I object to the plan of the grounds that it has been rendered out of date in this regard.

Gypsy and Traveller pitches - The plans appear indistinct regarding the location of the proposed travller pitches. This is unacceptable as they are likely to be a major source of public interest, discussion and comment. By not stating where the pitches are likley to be located , the plans deny the public the ability to comment on the proposal, which is counter to the objectives of the process. The plans should therefore be udpated with a proposed location, and republished so that public comment can be obtained. I therefore object to the plan on the grounds that is is incomplete, and that incompleteness is in an area likely to arouse great public interest. Preventing residents from commenting on this aspect of teh plan could lay the council open to legal challenge.

Drainage- I seek assurance in the plans that the risk of ground water flooding in the Buckskin area (described as 'miderate' risk) will not be exacerbated by the drainage solution for Manydown. The Buckskin area flooded in February 2014 as referenced. a. the consideration must include controlled flow into the water table. b. the Bucskin flood alleviation project must be entirely seperated from the Manydown solution. This should be stated in the plans. Whilst not objecting to the plan for the above reason I do urge that the plan be modified to give my constituents the comfort that they will need.

Public transport - I am an advocate of a public transport hub withing the development where 'circular' routes round the periphery of the town can meet direct services into the town. I spoke at the public enquiry and at consultation events but see no evidence of take up. The Enviornmental statement references 'Early discussions' with Stagecoach. This is inadequate. By now the planning process should have included discussions on how services might best be redesigned and what facilities should be built into the planning solution to cater for those redesigned services. The report JMP consultants (MSD12b) states: 'The Site is located within reasonable proximity to Basingstoke Town Centre, and it is expected that bus operators will route bus services via the proposed development to provide a sustainable route into the town centre and reduce vehicular trips from the Proposed Development'. 'It is expected' is not a plan, its a hope. Much more detail is required here, so I object to the plan on the grounds that the pubic transport solution is insufficiently detailed. I further object to the plan on the grounds that the public transport requirements have been inadequately considered and no consideration has been given to (for example) the provision of a transport hub. Councillor Stephen Reid

Transport assessment- Para 16.2.10 of the EIA volume 1 Enviornmental Statement states that HCC did not require the Transport assessment to consider two cumulative assessment sites to the south of the Manydown. One of these is the Golf Course development of 1,000 homes. This is an unwise decision: the golf course site is in the local plan for development and regardless whether a plan has yet been submitted, it is confidently predicted that development will occure within the local plan period. I therefore request that the TA is reworked to include the impact of this site and I object to the plan on teh grounds that essential information is absent.

Foul Sewerage- I note that the plan for foul sewerage increases the load on the pipes under the town centre. My understanding is that these are already operating at near peak capacity. If pipework upgrades through the town centre are needed, this is likely to cause significant and long term disruption to Basingstoke's town centre traffic flows and the economy of the town centre. However, I see no commentary on whether this will be needed or the impact if it is. Without such commentary I regard the planning documentation as incomplete. It is one thing to say 'upgrades are needed' and another to say the 'necessary upgrades are possible without undue impact on the local economy. I request inclusion of such a commentary or a statement to that effect that the foul sewerage pipework under the town centre will be able to handle its extra load or can be upgraded without disrupting the economy of the town centre. I object to the plan on the grounds that there is no evidence of such consideration having taken place.

Affrodable housing - I note that the target for 40% affordable housing on the site remains and is referenced in MSD4. It is my belief that Manydown will prove such an expensive site to open up that it will not be possible to squeeze out of it every aspiration for policies seen as socially advantageous. Notwithstanding the fact that 'affordable housing' can include shared ownership and affordable purchase options, I believe that an inevitable conflict is coming between achieving all the stated objectives and delivering a high quality development. People will have to live in the Manydown homes for many generations. Quality must not be sacrificed. I therefore object to the grounds of deliverability: that evidence is lacking that all the social advantageous expectations from the site can actually be achieved. The plan is not shown to be complete in this regard and as such is at risk of misleading the publi on what they can realistically expect from the Manydown development.

Counciilor Simon Bound Rooksdown 05/04/2017 Objection In response to the planning application I am very concerned to find that the extended roundabout option has been chosen over the double “T” junction which appeared to be preferred during the consultation process and in the meetings with Rooksdown Parish council. When questioned the project team confirmed, during the consultation, that there was little difference between the two options in terms of cost of implementation and future capacity. It is therefore difficult to understand why the roundabout option has been selected that requires significant land take on the corner of Rooksdown Avenue and large parts of hedging and trees to be removed. With some of the trees included for removal being part of the valuable amenity woodland known local as The Spinney. This is the major access route into Rooksdown and these proposed changes will fundamentally change the sense of place that has been established since Rooksdown was created. Building a sense of place appears to be high on the agenda for Manydown but clearly not for neighbouring communities. Much talk was given in previous consultation events around Manydown being a good neighbour but I see little of this in these proposals. I also fear that the selection of the roundabout options means many years of construction traffic causing significant disturbance to the residents of Roman Road. Implementing the “T” junction option would have meant the opportunity for construction traffic impact to be managed to a minimum from the A339 from the very beginning of the project.

I am also disturbed to find that of the eleven key elements that only one that has no detailed associated with it is around the location of the traveller and gypsy site. Submitting an outline planning permission with detail in some areas and not others suggests that the application has been submitted prematurely. To allow for full and transparent consultation with all it would have been much more satisfactory if all the work had been carried out before the application had been submitted. Then and only then would all residents be able to comment after full consideration of the facts. Counciilor Simon Bound

The last point I would like to make is important to understand what extra measures will be implemented to ensure satisfactory build quality in the new properties in Manydown. As a councillor representing an area with significant areas of new build housing one of the most essential steps would be to implement a process to add a level of quality assurance which does not appear to exist in the current system. As Manydown is publicly owned land surely there is an opportunity for the Borough and County Council to take extra steps to ensure problems that have been experienced in the past are not repeated on land that we are going to develop. Councillor Laura Edwards Winklebury 21/04/2017 Comments Access - Roman Road and Wellington Terrace During the consultation process the proposed ‘T-junction’ was the favoured option over a roundabout at the junction to the A339. The roundabout option will be too close to properties in Winklebury and there should be no increase of noise pollution to existing homes. Due to the increase of traffic with the Manydown and other developments in the town, a roundabout will slow traffic and create congestion. A ‘T-junction’ will allow further opportunities to manage additional traffic such as traffic lights. If there is a ‘T-junction’ it raises the question as to whether it will be opened up as a temporary entrance to Manydown through Winklebury. This should not be the case and a clear construction route should be consulted on with local residents.

Schools I request the location of the new secondary school is moved to close proximity to Winklebury. As Fort Hill is at risk of closing it would make sense to make the school a clear link between the two communities with each having a sense of ownership.

Gypsy and Traveller site There is no clear site in the plans for a gypsies and traveller site. How can local resident’s comments on the plans if there is no clear guidance on what is where? A full briefing needs to be offered to residents so they have are able to voice their views and concerns regarding this issue.

Residents in the ward of Winklebury (and Clarke Estate) need be kept updated on all plans to allow them to comment. Manydown will be a close neighbour and we must ensure existing communities are not overlooked. Response Consultee provided Objection Key issues raised Initial Applicant response OTHER ORGANISATION RESPONSES

59) Natural Basingstoke 07/04/2017 No - further discussion and 59.01 (1.1) Mitigation highly dependent on areas that are multi-functional and that (except the Country Park) not enough land is being set A Visitor Access Survey is proposed to inform future access management. Detailed information requested aside, managed and its future guaranteed as mostly undisturbed land for wildlife, including for restoring habitat species that have landscape design will deliver suitable buffers to key ecological features and corridors either declined or been lost. within the development and will contribute towards controlling both public and pet access, considering impacts of dog walking and cat predation. The lighting strategy will also be designed to ensure darkened corridors and other key areas, considering 59.02 (1.2) The MFGS will not deliver the ecological benefit envisaged, especially for protected species, unless there is an analysis of usage functionality for both wildlife movement and reducing impacts of cat predation. and from that criteria, speficic measures and appropriate management are defined and implemented for managing sites, people and pets, including measures for reducing disturbance from other pet impacts.

59.03 (1.3) Certainty that all findings and recommendations are taken forward to full planning permission is requested. The Applicant proposes that the production of a CEMP, LEMP and relevant BMMPs for key habitats/areas within the Country Park, development and offsite mitigation land are secured through planning determination period/s106 discussions. These plans 59.04 (1.3) A clear process for detailed analysis, design, implementation, deliver and on-going management and skills requirements for would be drawn up in consultation with stakeholders. mitigation and new ecological areas.

59.05 (1.3) Certainty that the plans and on-going management of mitigation and new ecological areas are resorced wth relevant skills and funded and how this will be done.

59.06 (1.3) Certainty that land set aside for ecological purposes will not just mitigate but increase relevant priority habitats and associated priority species in decline or lost.

59.07 (1.3) Certainty that land set aside for ecological purposes will be secured and protected in perpetuity or long into the future.

59.08 (2.4) Off-site mitigation measures should be introduced as soon as possible and that the terms of the present Agricultural Tenancy Agreement revised accordingly to require their introduction and continuing application.

59.09 (3.1) The green corridors are welcomed however they are a constant width which is unnatural, they should be organic and of varying The corridors as shown are currently illustrative. Detailed design will consider both width and shape. ecological and amenity function and will seek to maximise biodiversity benefit through creating varied composition, structure and aspect.

59.10 (4.1) The firmly expressed public wish for a 'woodland network' or 'wide green links' along the west edge of the Proposed The ecological framework incorporates a 20m woodland corridor along the west Development has not been fully incorporated. boundary, supplemented by hedgerow gap planting and planting, which in turn will be buffered within the development by an additional landscape corridor which will create a naturalistic transition into the development and adjacent open spaces. A further 9ha woodland, scrub and hedge planting will be delivered, primarily on the west of the development south of Worting Road. The new woodland planting will deliver 59.11 (4.3-4.4) Hedgerows near Cow Down Copse, along Pack Lane, along St Johns Road in Oakley, and beside two railway lines are continous linkages between the existing woodlands of Marvel Row, the Jubilee woods, welcomed but unlikely to be effective in providing wildlife connectivity over the two railway lines. This north-south linkage is not Wootton Copse, Worting Wood, Mothers Copse and Cow Down copse and will substantial enough. The Woodlands in the proposed Country Park should be extended southwards to St John's Copse and to Well's strengthen connectivity with the landscape west and south, and also land east Copse. Marvel Row Copse should be extended to the B3400 and the new woodland along the north side of Pack Lane should be including Worting Manor and Worting Farm. extended south of Pack Lane and over the railway line to St John's Copse and to Well's Copse. The principle of a continuous tree The woodland planting as proposed is considered to delivered an appropriate balance canopy along the B3400 anda single-point tree canopy across Pack Lane are both welcome, however the extent is insufficient along between providing functional woodland and landscape linkages while reducing the Pack Lane (see two plans provided for proposal to extend the woodland). resulting impact of woodland planting upon the existing arable landscape, which supports important assemblages of flora and fauna and forms another focus of the mitigation strategy.

59.12 (4.5) Consider a longer term solution of replacing the two railway level crossings on public footpath 731 by two multi-user The Applicant will review this with the LPA, HCC and Network Rail as part of pedestrian, cycle and partially 'green' bridges over the railway lines to connect Oakley to Kempshott multi-user pathway to the discussions about the future railway crossing. proposed Country Park.

59.13 (5.1) Whichever bridge option is built for the future railway crossing, we urge that this is partially green to connect the green corridors along the northern and southern sides of the railway lines.

59.14 (6.1) Several 'permissive' footpaths and 'permissive' cycle ways have been put in place by the landowners of Manydown land. Natural Basingstoke suggests the landowners give up their right to abolish these 'permissive' paths and cycle ways and make these public rights of way.

60)Kempshott Community Plan Group 21/04/2017 Yes 60.01 1) The proposals rely on existing inadequate road infrastructure (namely Fiveways) to provide connections to destinations in the The Applicant has engaged in-going consultation with HCC Highways to review the (Transport) southwest of the town and beyond for which the ringway provides an indirect and inconvenient route. comments provided. A revised Transport Assessment (MSD12aR) has been submitted in response to consultation comments, as well as assessing the revised design since February 2017. 60)Kempshott Community Plan Group 21/04/2017 Yes The Applicant has engaged in-going consultation with HCC Highways to review the (Transport) comments provided. A revised Transport Assessment (MSD12aR) has been submitted 60.02 2) Five local roads are of particular concern to local households in Kempshott for traffic management - Kempshott Lane, Pack Lane, in response to consultation comments, as well as assessing the revised design since Heather Way, Homesteads Road and Coniston Road. February 2017.

60.03 3) The development at Manydown will place significant additional demands on the local road network at Kempshott. It is essential that adequate measures are put in place to mitigate its impact. 60.04 4) The TA does not take into account the largest of the Local Plan housing sites (Basingstoke Golf Course). Nor has the impact of further development at Begarwood Lane and the large Critical Treatment Hospital. The in-combination impact has been underestimated. 60.05 6) We question the deliverability of the proposed reconfiguration of the Fiveways junction. The drawing in Appendix 1 of the TA does not show how the existing footways are to be realigned nor does it show any provision for the embankment of the widened carriageways. 61) Kempshott Community Plan Group 21/04/2017 Yes 61.01 1) We seek clarification as to whether the whole of Giddings Field (parcel 6a) will not be developed. The the project team met the LLFA on 24 May to provide further clarity on the proposed (Drainage) drainage strategy. The Applicant has submitted a revised Flood Risk Assessment in January 2018 (MSD12gR). 61.02 2) The proposed HCC flood risk mitigation cannot be relied upon when considering this planning application as the planning is only taking place in Summer 2017, this planning application is being made before this in April 2017. 61.03 2) There is no reference to regular flooding where the railway crosses Pack Lane nor the ankle deep flooding at the bottom of Kite Hill whenever there is significant rainfall nor any reference to the increased flow through the culverts under the town centre which are in poor condition. 61.04 3) A wide variance in estimates of groudnwater emergence are provided in Thames Water and Atkin's modelling, therefore it is difficult to state definitively the potential impact of the Proposed Development on a potential future unmitigated Buckskin event/ Until there is an agreed baseline groundwater and floor model in place, it can only be stated that the impact appears likely to be minimal. 61.05 4) Change wording of 'likely to be implemented' to 'will be acted upon' in reference to HCC's Ground water Management Plan recommendation to control groundwater levels. 61.06 5) The assessment of the Buckskin event being 1 in 30 year event is optimistic. 61.07 6) We welcome the proposal for a long term storage solution for south of Wortin Road but would prefer to see an option of semi-dry ponds/lanes providing additional habitat rather than underground storage solutions. 61.08 7) South East Water admits water supply would not be sufficient by 2020 without major resource development and even with that it will be insufficient by 2030 with a likely problem by 2020 if we have low rainfall. 61.09 7) The planning application contradicts the Phase 2 water cycle study as it states that infiltration will increase 61.10 7) We suggest rainwater harvesting and green roofs are removed from the plan as impractical unless there is firm evidence of their sucessful use elsewhere is provided. 61.11 8) Many of the statements relating to off-site flood risk contradict each other. 61.12 9) The phosphate levels at Basingstoke STW should be more closely monitored by the council whilst planning permissions are still being granted. 62) Woodland Trust Yes 62.01 The trust is concerned about the proposed 20m buffer between the development and ancient woodland - the buffer is not big The recommended stand-off in the application is 20m from the existing canopy edge. enough to significantly reduce impacts of the development on the ancient woodland to prevent degredation. This distance is 5m more than the distance of 15m that is based upon on a planning - Example given of 50m being more appropriate case cited in the Standing Advice for Ancient Woodland and Veteran Trees (published - Planting scheme associated with developments close to ancient woodland should consist of native species to prevent escapes of by Natural England and the Forestry Commission (NEFC) and supported by the non-native species into the woodland Secretary of State) and therefore provides an immediate benchmark from which to - To counter 'edge effects' the planting of new woodland to connect Wooton Copse and Worting Wood is proposed. work from. Due to the current size and age of trees on the woodland edge, a 20m - Development adjacent to woodland can cause indirect effects such as changes to drainage, increase in pollution risk, impacts on buffer will ensure there is no adverse impacts on tree roots and canopy especially tree roots and changes to noise and lighting which can have a deleterious effect on the woodland ecosystem. considering the northern, eastern and western edges of the ancients woodlands are surrounded by the proposed Country Park. The production of the CEMP will allow us to demonstrate that no ‘deterioration’ of ancient woodland due to the effects of these indirect impacts (light and noise pollution, human disturbance, pet predation etc.) will occur during construction (including landscaping in adjacent areas). Furthermore, as detailed in the ES and the PEMF, only native species will be utilised within the 20m buffers adjacent to the ancient woodlands. Light spillage will be avoided in these areas. Habitats adjacent to the buffers will maximise the use the native species and will avoid/reduce light spillage as far as possible. The existing Jubilee woodland planting will connect Wootton Copse and Worting Wood (and Marvel Row) and the PEMF builds on this with additional planting and hedgerow translocation. The ES also confirms that a specific BMMP will be produced for the SINC woodlands. The BMMP will also refer to/incorporate the recommended access control operations recommended following the Visitor Study. 63) Hatch Warren Nature Group 04/04/2017 No - further discussion and 63.01 Mitigation highly dependent on areas that are multi-functional and it is not clear that there is enough land being set aside, managed A Visitor Access Survey is proposed to inform future access management. Detailed information requested and its future guaranteed as mostly undisturbed land for wildlife, including for restoring habitat species that have either declined or landscape design will deliver suitable buffers to key ecological features and corridors been lost. within the development and will contribute towards controlling both public and pet access, considering impacts of dog walking and cat predation. The lighting strategy 63.02 The MFGS will do little in the way of mitigating impact on wildlife unless there is an analysis of projected usage and types of usage will also be designed to ensure darkened corridors and other key areas, considering conducted assessing the likely consequences of usage on species and habitats relevant to the proposed mitigation. functionality for both wildlife movement and reducing impacts of cat predation. 63.03 Certainty that all findings and recommendations are taken forward to full planning permission is requested. This will be securd through planning determination/s106 discussions. 63.04 A clear process for detailed analysis, design, implementation, deliver and on-going management and skills requirements for The Applicant proposes that the production of a CEMP, LEMP and relevant BMMPs for mitigation and new ecological areas. key habitats/areas within the Country Park, development and offsite mitigation land 63.05 The project should assess the likely level of mitigation success in multi-functional areas, especially for protected species. are secured through planning determination period/s106 discussions. These plans 63.06 Certainty that the plans and on-going management of mitigation and new ecological areas are resorced wth relevant skills and would be drawn up in consultation with stakeholders. funded and how this will be done. 63) Hatch Warren Nature Group 04/04/2017 No - further discussion and information requested

63.07 Evidence that land set aside for ecological purposes will not just mitigate but increase relevant priority habitats and associated A holistic approach to enhancement for farmland wildlife is proposed, to ensure viable priority species in decline or lost. and sustainable farmland ecosystems are restored. This includes enhancements which aim to restore species populations which appear to have been in decline across the Manydown estate, such as grey partridge. 63.08 Certainty that land set aside for ecological purposes will be secured and protected in perpetuity or long into the future. The Applicant proposes that the production of a CEMP, LEMP and relevant BMMPs for key habitats/areas within the Country Park, development and offsite mitigation land are secured through planning determination period/s106 discussions. These plans would be drawn up in consultation with stakeholders. 63.09 Whilst perhaps not a major consideration at this stage, it is requested that consideration for grazing and ancient woodland Noted. management using working horses is included now. 64) South West Action Group 27/04/2017 Yes 64.01 The evaluation and mitigation proposed for the visual impact of the development on residential areas to the southwest is The Applicant will review this with the LPA and relevant BDBC officers. inadequate. No consideration is given to the visual impact on the residents on the western edges of Kempshott and the new developments at Kennel Farm and Hounsome Fields. The most sensitive area will be the 4 storey buildings on the south side of Worting Road opposite Scrapps Hill farm. Visual Assessment should be undertaken of views towards the Wessex AONB from Old Down, the local community space which will have uninterrupted views of this part of the development. 64.02 The secondary school provision is inadequate in the early years of development, which is especially important in habitualising modal The provision of secondary school places is considered appropriate to local need and shift in journeys to and from such schools. The nearest schools don't have capacity so pupils will need to travel to Cranbourne, has been devised in relation to local policy requirements for the Manydown Allocation Everest Community Academy or Brighton Hill, adding more cars to the overloaded cross-suburb road system. and through subsequent detailed consultation with the Local Education Authority.

64.03 The planning of foul drainage infrastructure and mitigation of the risks of flooding is inadequate. The documents and plans are The project team met the LLFA on 24 May to provide further clarity on the proposed vague and wishful. There appears to be no account of the work that will be necessary to accommodate the discharges from drainage strategy. The Applicant has submitted a revised Flood Risk Assessment in Hounsome Fields and the Golf Course. SWAG recommends no approval is given until the following actions have been taken: January 2018 (MSD12gR). 1. Option 4 should be evaluated and costs. This would remove the risk to Basingstoke Town Centre. 2. The Buckskin flood-mitigation measures should be agreed and scheduled for implementation, with appropriate funding allocated. 3. A comprehensive SUDS maintenance plan should be provided as part of the application, showing monitoring and reporting frequences. 4. If option 1 is pursued then a proper plan including sewer enlargement for the development in the south west and the Critical Treatment Hospital should be included.

64.04 The Transport Assessment and Travel Plans are inadequate, especially in addressing cycling infrastructure, plans for real and The Applicant has engaged in-going consultation with HCC Highways to review the substantial modal shift, flawed traffic analysis, residual severe congestion at key junctions and lack of any examination of potential comments provided. A revised Transport Assessment (MSD12aR) has been submitted for rat-running as a result of congestion. in response to consultation comments, as well as assessing the revised design since February 2017. 65) Manydown Company 07/04/2017 No 65.01 More time requested to prepare a response. 66) Pro-vision on behalf 18/05/2017 In prinicple support for 66.01 In principle support for proposals. The Applicant has engaged in conversations with the landowners of the Allocation in of Southrope Developments Ltd proposals but some issues order to develop a comprehensive plan as far as is practically possible. The Applicant (Worting) raised Worting and Equalisation welcomes further dialogue and discussion on this matter, as well as to agree an a) Do not accept assumption that SDL will only deliver 200 dwellings, more likely to contribute 300-500. equalisation mechanism. A proposed mechanism is set out in the Infrastructure b) Principle concern is the failure to deliver a comprehensive plan for the allocation. Delivery Strategy (MSD6). d) Open space network - will not connect to Worting. e) Southern part of the masterplan fails to demonstrate connections with Worting village and buckskin. An Economic Statement has been submitted (MSD9R) and further discussions will be h)Equalisation agreement needed however Terms of agreement require further consideration. Needs to acknowledge the valua of had with the LPA about the employment links with surrounding areas in future design infrastructure at Worting. Equalisation agreement needs to include an open and transparent mechanism. Object to country park development. forming part of contributions and question approach to school provision within OPA. The Applicant has engaged in-going consultation with HCC Highways to review the Employment comments provided. A revised Transport Assessment (MSD12aR) has been submitted c)Missed opportunities in regards to Employment and links with Worting. Comprehensive economic strategy is needed. in response to consultation comments, as well as assessing the revised design since February 2017. Transport f) General support for TA principles- need to demonstrate connection to the north at B3400 junction.

Heritage g)Supports outcomes of Heritage assessment in that the development will not lead to signifcant impact on the conservation area and any harm is outweighed by the public benifit. 67) Wotton St Lawrence 19/05/2017 No - but issues raised for 67.01 Traffic The Applicant has been meeting with HCC Highways and will address Neighbourhood Plan consideration relevant concerns through discussions. a) Access roads to and around The Development should be carefully planned to avoid adding extra strain to the village lanes of Wootton St Lawrence and Ramsdell that are already suffering from overload as they are used as rat runs following the closure of Rooksdown Lane. Our research show that already this is overwhelmingly a Key Issue of concern to the residents of the Neighbourhood Plan Area. b) Consideration should be given to the reopening of Rooksdown Lane to encourage drivers to use the A340 rather than Ramsdell’s Basingstoke and Baughurst Roads.also the Wootton lanes crossing from the B3400, Worting Road to the A339 * please note: this is already happening as a result of the roadworks at the Worting end of Roman Road through Wootton St Lawrence. The recent works by the Hospital on the A 340 also led increased through traffic in Ramsdell. c) Public transport arrangements should be put in place early in the phasing of The Development to accommodate new residents’ needs, establish the use its use early on as the preferred mode for new residents and reducing dependency on the motor car. This would help to alleviate the pressures outlined in Items 1&2 above. d) Vehicular access to the Country Park should be planned such that traffic and parking is kept away from the existing village and is only possible from the Development and not from Wootton St Lawrence village. 67) Wotton St Lawrence 19/05/2017 No - but issues raised for Neighbourhood Plan consideration

67.02 Minimising the landscape and environmental impacts of the Development Potential building heights have been considered in relation to neighbouring environments within the parameter plans which support the application. The general e) New building within The Development should be restricted in height – particularly on the perimeters of building areas – to be approach is for building heights above 3 storeys to be located within the higher density sympathetic to neighbouring environs. Ideally these should not be more than 3 storeys above ground level. local centres with density reducing towards the countryside edge. f) Access through the Country Park should be planned with the emphasis on protection of the environment and existing ecology and planning to maintain that ecology should be in The Applicant proposes that the production of a Country Park Management plan is place before occupation of the new housing areas. secured through planning determination period/s106 discussions. These plans would g) Adequate mature screening between the new development and the village of Wootton St Lawrence is essential and should be include matters such as access, lighting and management of wildlife habitats be drawn wholly sympathetic to existing British species and up in consultation with stakeholders. the ecology of the Open Spaces and natural habitats. h)Open Space/Parkland within the Country Park should be well managed - possibly with the re-introduction of grazing rights – and measures put in place to discourage public ‘straying’ and encourage dog walkers to keep their animals on leads. This would also assist in the protection of wildlife habitats. i) Lighting within the country park should be very limited and, throughout the development street and other lighting 68) West Berkshire 22/05/2017 Holding objection 68.0 Local highway Authority is concerned that additional traffic to and from Manydown will worsen congestion and air quality for the Meeting has been held with officer from West Berkshire District Council to District Council people of Newbury and West Berkshire. To be able to comment further, West Berkshire Council Transport and Countryside requires understand concerns and provide relevant information. The Applicant has details on the number of additional vehicles that can be expected along the A339 to the south and through Newbury from the submitted a revised Transport Assessment (MSD12aR) and Framework Travel development as it progresses. Plan (MSD12bR) in response to all comments and revised design since February 2017. The Council will also request assistance and cooperation to divert traffic via the B4640 to the A34 /B4640 Tothill junction away from Newbury town centre.

West Berkshire Council as a neighbouring Highway Authority would therefore like to take the view of a holding objection until these above matters are concluded. 69) Save Oakley Action Group 31/03/2017 Objection 69.0 Objection on the basis that brownfield sites should come forward first and that this should be recognised within the Local Plan. Objection is to the principle for development at Manydown as Request re-appraisal of the housing land supply and an assessment of current and future brownfield land opportunities. allocated within the Adopted Local Plan. As such the applicant as landowner can not comment further. 70) Cycle basingstoke 30/03/2017 Comments and 70.0 Main street requires segregated cycle provision. Current proposal is not satisfcatory and there are a variety of safety concerns. The Applicant has engaged in on-going consultation with HCC Highways to address alternative proposals Preference for cycle super highways. Reduced speeds required on main street. relevant concerns regarding cycling provision through discussions. Meeting has since Key junctions do not provide adequately for cyclists and are not designed to encourage modal shift. been held with Cycle basingstoke to understand concerns. The Applicant has submitted Clear cycle routes are required to connect to the Country Park, Wotton St Lawrence, Rooksdown, Oakley and Sherborne St John. a revised Transport Assessment (MSD12aR) and Framework Travel Plan (MSD12bR) in Off site cycle infrastructure/connectivity needs to be improved particularly along Winklebury Way to the leisure centre. response to all comments and revised design since February 2017. Permeability- small cut through routes need to be permitted for walking and cycling. Appendix two: response to feedback from Outline Planning Application

Objection category Response to public and community representative comments

Gypsy and • As part of the initial consultation members of the public raised Traveller provision concerns regarding Gypsy and Traveller provision at the Proposed Development.

• Since the submission of the initial outline planning application Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council as the local planning authority has carried out a review of the requirements for pitches across the borough to meet the identified need and the number of pitches required at the Proposed Development has now reduced down from nine to five pitches.

• The Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan states that some of the borough’s identified need for accommodation for Gypsies and Travellers, under national government policy, should be met through the provision of pitches on strategic development sites including Manydown.

• Therefore the outline planning application commits to providing one permanent residential plot for Gypsy and Traveller families. The residential plot would contain five ‘pitches’ and will not include temporary transit sites for Travellers passing through the area. The aim would be for the permanent plot to be well landscaped to create a residential feel and an attractive environment. The location of the site is being carefully considered to ensure it works for both the existing and new residents and the Gypsy and Traveller communities. It will form part of the new Manydown community, on a suitable plot of land, likely to be within the outline application area, to the west or south of it. The exact location depends on the final detailed layout and phases of building being agreed, as part of future more detailed planning applications. Residents will be kept informed and have a chance to have their say as these proposals are developed

• The detailed proposals will be developed in accordance with a number of key principles:

o Ongoing communication with the existing communities.

o Good quality site design with appropriate infrastructure and facilities.

o Effective communication and engagement with the Gypsy and Traveller communities.

o Good and effective management of this residential site.

| Statement of Community Involvement 1

General traffic • As part of the initial consultation members of the public and concerns community representatives raised concerns regarding increased traffic as a result of the Proposed Development.

• The design of the transport infrastructure for the Proposed Development is crucial to ensure that the new communities that are created are accessible and well connected with each other, the rest of Basingstoke town and within the borough.

• A strategic development such as the Proposed Development at Manydown requires an approach that covers all forms of transport, including public transport, cycling and walking, and seeks to provide flexibility to accommodate wider changes in travel patterns and mode shift which are expected to arise over the longer term due to changing household compositions and lifestyles.

Modelling work • Comprehensive traffic surveys undertaken as part of the application process have enabled the Applicant to understand how the Proposed Development can connect with the rest of Basingstoke town and borough.

• An ongoing process of testing using a traffic modelling system called the North Hampshire Transport Model has enabled the Applicant to agree with Hampshire County Council, as the local highways authority, which off-site junctions need to be improved because of the Proposed Development.

• The modelling work takes into account all forecast traffic to and from the Proposed Development, other development sites in the adopted Local Plan and background traffic growth, based on a future date in 2031.

• This includes proportionate financial contributions towards junction improvements including at Thorneycroft Roundabout, West Ham Roundabout, Winchester Roundabout, Fiveways, Rooksdown Lane/A339 and Old Kempshott Lane, subject to further negotiations with Hampshire County Council as local highways authority.

| Statement of Community Involvement 2

Updates to Transport • In its response to the information submitted with the Outline Assessment Planning Application, the local highways authority raised some concerns about the safety and capacity of the proposed junctions and asked for more information in respect of off-site impacts, walking, cycling and public transport.

• Over the last few months our team of engineers have updated the designs for the main junctions in consultation with the local highways authority. We have also supplied the requested information on walking, cycling and public transport. This is all contained within an updated Transport Assessment, which is available for further comment.

Walking and Cycling • As part of the initial consultation the local highways authority and some community organisations raised concerns that the transport proposals and junction designs did not adequately promote walking and cycling and encourage modal shift.

• A comprehensive improvement scheme has been developed in conjunction with the local highways authority which will deliver a complete and clearly signed route between the Proposed Development and Basingstoke Town Centre, suitable for pedestrians and cyclists and including new dedicated off-street provision where this is feasible. Additional improvements have also been designed for the routes into and through Winklebury, Rooksdown, and the Houndmills area, so that walking and cycling are fully supported as modes of choice for trips to these locations. These proposals build upon the principles set out in the original Transport Assessment and provide a significantly greater level of detail, with additional plans prepared to show the specific proposals at key locations.

Updated A339 • As part of the initial consultation the local highways authority Junction Design/ raised some concerns about the safety and capacity of the Rat running through proposed junctions. Rooksdown • Members of the public and community representatives also raised concerns that the proposed A339 roundabout design could lead to Rooksdown being used as a cut through for traffic.

• The updates to the Outline Planning Application respond to this and include a change from one large roundabout at the A339 to two medium-sized roundabouts, both with traffic lights. This is designed to improve capacity and the resilience of the junction to manage rush hour traffic and encourage through traffic to use the A339 rather than cut through Rooksdown.

• It also allows for the creation of a neighbourhood park as a gateway to the Proposed Development.

| Statement of Community Involvement 3

• The existing pedestrian bridge may need to be replaced in broadly the same location and would enable connections between Rooksdown and the new community at the Proposed Development and the Country Park.

• Concerns were raised as part of the initial consultation in relation to the large roundabout option potentially leading to the removal of hedges and trees at Rooksdown, which were felt to be an important local amenity.

• This has been considered as part of the revised design of the junction at Rooksdown which largely replicates the existing roundabout, with some changes to improve capacity and access. This will lead to the loss of some low quality trees and shrubs on the eastern corner of the roundabout but will allow more of the higher quality trees to the north of the A339 to be kept, in response to the comments received. The final design will be subject to a road safety audit. Any potential loss of trees once the final design is confirmed, would be considered as part of the Arboriculture Impact Assessment.

• The project team is aware that some residents have raised concerns regarding the impact of the proposals on the movements in and out of Rooksdown Lane on to the A339. Currently, the visibility at this junction is restricted, particularly for vehicles exiting from the road to Wootton St Lawrence. The highways authority has identified that the risks associated with these movements will increase over time and therefore the option to improve the future safety of this junction have been considered. With this information, plus a number of comments which were made at the various consultations, it has been necessary to consider proposals to restrict both minor arms of this junction to left-in, left-out movements only. This substantially reduces the risks to vehicles and responds to expected future traffic volumes. Further, information on the proposal and the implications for traffic movements at this junction can be found in the updated Transport Assessment.

Updated B3400 • In response to comments from the local highways authority the junction designs updates to the Outline Planning Application include a revised crossroads junction connecting the main street within the Proposed Development to the B3400 at the south of the development.

• It is proposed that the B3400 road alignment to the west of the crossroad junction is revised so that it connects into a newly proposed roundabout at the western edge of the Proposed Development.

| Statement of Community Involvement 4 • The revised proposal responds to capacity and safety concerns raised by the local highway authority and allows for the speed limit on the B3400 to be reduced to 40mph creating a safer transport corridor along the south of the Proposed Development.

• The design of the junctions allows for improved pedestrian and cycle connections from Worting and Oakley across the B3400 and into the Proposed Development.

• The new roundabout will connect back to the Main Street and offer a further access option for vehicles travelling to and from the A339. Traffic which currently travels through Worting Village and along Roman Road to reach the A339 will be diverted along the Main Street using this link, and as a result the flows on both this section of the main street and on Roman Road will be lower than those previously observed on Roman Road in 2016.

Visual Impact and • The new roundabout has been located as far east as possible Ecology implications in consideration of the potential landscape implications and to of B3400 junction reduce visual impacts. These impacts are being further design assessed as part of the updated Environmental Statement supporting the Outline Planning Application.

• The updated Environmental Statement which supports the application considers the impacts of the new B3400 road alignment in terms of landscape and ecology. Updated ecological mitigation will look at creation of new habitats and require lighting around the junction to be as limited as possible (i.e. not to spread along the road to the west but to illuminate the junction only). This will also help to prevent light pollution into the strategic gap and open countryside.

Rat running through • As part of the initial consultation members of the public raised Winklebury concerns that the transport proposals for the Proposed Development could lead to rat running through residential areas of Winklebury.

• Transport modelling has included an assessment of the likely impact on main residential roads in Winklebury. The local highways authority's own strategic transport model has been used to examine how traffic would re-route in response to the new infrastructure to be provided by the Proposed Development. The modelling indicates that the provision of the new northern access will improve journey times on the A339 by allowing more traffic to flow, and that the attractiveness of Winklebury as a cut-through for traffic seeking to avoid the A339 should be reduced.

| Statement of Community Involvement 5 • The package of transport improvements includes a commitment to monitor these issues and, if necessary, to investigate and subsequently fund measures to discourage rat-running through Winklebury – these may take the form of direct traffic calming (where this would not have a negative effect on actual local traffic) or improvements at other locations. As the project progresses the team will continue to work with residents to understand the concerns raised and identify appropriate measures.

Roman Road • As part of the initial consultation members of the public raised concerns regarding the transport proposals for Roman Road.

• It is proposed that Roman Road will have a link into the Main Street at the northern end of the Proposed Development and traffic will be diverted through the Site, rather than Roman Road directly accessing Kingsclere Road (A339).

• Although this would mean a slight detour for some residents, the modelling work carried out suggests that this would improve traffic flows as well as dealing with a pre-existing safety issue at Wellington Terrace.

• The modelling undertaken to support the Outline Planning Application suggests that around one third of the existing traffic on Roman Road could be diverted to the Main Street, which would be designed to have greater capacity to cope with the traffic, helping to ease the flow of traffic on Roman Road.

• The aspiration is that Roman Road is reduced to a 30mph speed limit, with additional walking and cycling provision alongside Roman Road within a linear park. This would support the integration of Winklebury and Manydown and improve safety. Design measures would be needed to support any reduction in the speed limit, and these would need to be compatible with the existing direct access for a number of residential properties along the frontage of Roman Road. We will continue to discuss how this could be achieved with the local highways authority.

• HGV traffic on Roman Road associated with the Proposed Development will primarily occur during the construction period, and these HGV flows will vary depending on the phasing strategy. As part of the development of the phasing strategy, the specific impacts of HGVs on Roman Road and the surrounding local road network will be considered and any required mitigation measures will be applied for the duration of the relevant construction periods.

• Further information on transport proposals has been provided as part of the second consultation on the Outline Planning Application. The project team will continue to work with residents

| Statement of Community Involvement 6 to understand the concerns raised and share relevant information.

Sewerage • As part of the initial consultation members of the public raised Treatment concerns regarding the potential requirement for a sewerage treatment plant at the Proposed Development.

• Given the location and size of the Proposed Development, the water infrastructure is an important issue, not only for the development itself but also for the surrounding communities. Therefore, our approach has been to undertake comprehensive modelling, looking at different scenarios and options, in conjunction with the various water companies and authorities to ensure that the Proposed Development is able to function in a manner that does not create problems for the surrounding communities.

• The Applicant has considered options both to provide a new sewerage plant within the Proposed Development or to connect into the existing sewerage plants in Basingstoke.

• Thames Water has confirmed that, with suitable reinforcements, it can accommodate the number of houses proposed within the Outline Planning Application through connections to its existing sewerage plant at Whitmarsh Lane. Therefore, the Outline Planning Application does not include proposals for a waste water treatment facility.

• Following discussion at the drop-in information session in January it is understood that some residents on Roman Road are concerned about a sewerage ‘pump’ station as shown in the Outline Planning Application documents.

• To clarify, the pumping station will be a small enclosed concrete slab (approx. 8m by 12m), with a secure electrical cabinet that houses the power supply and pump controls. The pumps and associated valves sit under the ground. Because the pump is located underground, the soil around them provide noise suppression, and they are designed to meet noise level limits set by the Environmental Protection Authority. The pumping station will also be designed so that it does not emit any odour. There may be some minor visual impact due to the fencing to the pumping station, however the aim would be to minimise this with planting. The pumping station would be carefully integrated into the design of the open space that has been identified in the area below the Primary School. This will be agreed with the sewerage undertaker with the view to reduce the visual impact.

| Statement of Community Involvement 7

Noise and air • Concerns were raised as part of the initial consultation regarding pollution the potential impacts of the Proposed Development in terms of noise and air pollution.

• The Environmental Statement submitted as part of the Outline Planning Application included detailed assessments of the predicted changes in air quality and noise associated with predicted road traffic movements.

• These assessments used best practice computer modelling. They were based on the predicted road traffic flows assuming the Proposed Development is built out in full, plus background traffic growth over time and the additional traffic flows on roads surrounding the Site from other known committed developments. This approach was agreed with the local highways authority.

• These assessments have been updated following the updates to the Outline Planning Application and they demonstrate that there would not be significant adverse effects on noise and air quality. No specific air quality mitigation is required and appropriate acoustic mitigation for different residential areas within the Proposed Development will be agreed with Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council through future reserved matters applications.

Landscape, • As part of the initial consultation members of the public and Ecology and Open community representatives raised concerns regarding the loss Space of natural habitats at Manydown and the overall environmental impacts.

• Landscape and open green spaces are an essential element in the vision for Manydown. Open green spaces for people to enjoy, as well as trees planted along streets and areas that can support a variety of natural habitats, are essential to creating a successful community where people want to live.

• The potential impact of the Proposed Development on biodiversity has been an important consideration in creating the landscape strategy. A network of landscape spaces and corridors will provide a safe haven for wildlife and plants. Some of this landscape and planting will be outside the main development area to the west of the site. These areas will retain existing habitats to the fullest extent possible, as well as including new planting to provide natural ecological habitats. Public access in these areas will be limited because the priority will be in creating and preserving species and habitats.

• Ecology and biodiversity is a major consideration and comprehensive technical surveys have been undertaken to

| Statement of Community Involvement 8 identify the potential risks and the opportunities for minimising impact. These ecological assessments have helped to shape the proposals and will continue to inform the detailed design.

• Following updates to the A339 junction design the open space proposals have been updated so that the Northern Neighbourhood Park is no longer dissected by the main street. This change responds to comments from the Open Space Officer and allows for the creation of a neighbourhood park as an attractive gateway to the site. The neighbourhood park is also set back from the A339 creating a more attractive environment for people to spend time in. The neighbourhood park will provide a recreation resource for residents of the Proposed Development and for Winklebury and Rooksdown residents as it is readily accessible to these existing communities. It will also be well connected to other green spaces including the country park which forms part of the Proposed Development. There will be space for large parkland trees to line the edge of the neighbourhood park separating it from the main street but allowing open views into and across large areas of grassland with space for kickabout and children’s play equipment.

• The requirements for open space have been recalculated based on the maximum number of homes that could be built, and an illustrative plan submitted to demonstrate that this could be accommodated on site, ensuring the proposals comply with local planning policy.

• Environmental and visual impacts have been further assessed as part of the updated Environmental Statement supporting the Outline Planning Application in response to the newly proposed roundabout on the B3400. The roundabout has been located as far east as possible in consideration of the potential landscape and visual impacts.

• The updates to the Environmental Statement which supports the Outline Planning Application also consider the impacts of the new B3400 road alignment in terms of landscape and ecology. Updated ecological mitigation will look at creation of new habitats and require lighting around the junction to be as limited as possible (i.e. not to spread along the road to the west but to illuminate the junction only). This will also help to prevent light pollution into the strategic gap and open countryside.

Level of detail • Given the size and scale of the Proposed Development, it is normal practice to submit an outline planning application rather than a detailed planning application. This allows the applicant, the local planning authority and statutory consultees to focus on the principles and parameters of the development, while the detailed matters of design and layout are dealt with through future, smaller reserved matters applications.

| Statement of Community Involvement 9

• As this is an Outline Planning Application matters of detail – except for vehicular access to the site – will be considered in more detailed planning applications, known as ‘reserved matters’. Therefore, the planning process does not require detailed information to be submitted at this stage.

• Outline planning permission only establishes the principle of developing the site, such as the type and size of development and the infrastructure to be provided. It does not provide a detailed layout of the development for the designs of buildings and spaces.

• The illustrative masterplan submitted as part of the Outline Planning Application is only provided to demonstrate how the principles established in the application could be interpreted and is, therefore, not considered to be the final layout.

• It is proposed that, following the granting of an outline planning permission, a Site Wide Framework would be approved to provide more detailed information on the Development Vision and Specification, Urban Design Framework, Phasing and Delivery Strategy and an Overall Management Plan. These documents would be approved before implementation. In addition, a Key Phase Framework, including phase specific Design Codes and Development Briefs would be submitted for approval by the LPA before approval of reserved matters applications (other than in relation to enabling works, advanced infrastructure and temporary community infrastructure). The basis of these documents is explained in Section 4.17 and 4.20 of the Planning Statement, and are part of the process for ‘Securing Design Quality and Delivery through planning’.

• Building work, with the exception of enabling works, advanced infrastructure and temporary community infrastructure, cannot start until approval of the ‘reserved matters’ planning applications. The community will have more opportunities to comment on the detailed proposals when the ‘reserved matters’ planning applications are considered.

Education • Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council’s Local Plan and Hampshire County Council, as education authority, require Manydown to provide two primary schools and a site for a secondary school. As such, the Applicant is required to include provision for a secondary school site on the site.

• The decision to close Fort Hill was made by Hampshire County Council as education authority, following a consultation in 2017. The decision notice records the reasons for that decision and is available on the Hampshire County Council website.

| Statement of Community Involvement 10 • As part of the updates to the Outline Planning Application two of the potential sites that had been included for the provision of a secondary school have been removed, leaving only one site which Hampshire County Council, as the education authority, has confirmed as its preference.

Children’s • Following the initial consultation a number of people have raised Cemetery concerns about the impact of the proposed development on the children’s cemetery.

• The project team appreciates the sensitivity in this part of the site and has sought to ensure the cemetery will not be adversely affected by the development. The proposals include the retention of an area of open space along the northern boundary of the site with the A339 and the north western boundary alongside the cemetery to respect the rural setting of the cemetery. The landscape buffer opposite the cemetery is 27 metres wide. For most of the area the buffer also lies adjacent to a larger open space, which includes the proposed allotments.

• The open space buffer will contain the existing hedgerows and additional tree planting to create a visual barrier between the cemetery and the development.

• As the project progresses the team will continue to work with local people to understand the concerns raised and identify appropriate measures to ensure the development is as respectful as possible to the setting of the children’s cemetery.

LPA or Statutory consultees – key updates since initial consultation

Quantum- Description of • The LPA has asked for the maximum number of homes that Development could be built on the site to be added to the description of development, to make clear the limit of residential development that the Outline Planning Application sought permission for.

• The description of development has therefore been changed to state that the Outline Planning Application is for 3,200 homes plus an allowance of 10% (up to a maximum of 3,520), as has been tested in the technical studies undertaken in support of the Outline Planning Application.

• This is a reasonable allowance to ensure that the project team is making the most efficient use of a greenfield site, and ensures that the infrastructure is being tested against and will be suitable for the maximum number of homes, irrespective of how many homes are ultimately developed within that allowance.

| Statement of Community Involvement 11 • The changes seek to demonstrate that the maximum number of homes can been comfortably accommodated within the site, whilst complying with all requirements for formal and informal public open space, sports pitches and play equipment.

Building Heights • A number of changes have been made to the application and Density drawings to take account of important relationships on site. These include:

• The building height for buildings of up to two storeys and up to three storeys have been reduced by one metre to 10 metres and 13 metres respectively. The building height for buildings up to four storeys and up to five storeys have been reduced by two metres to 15 metres and 18 metres respectively.

• In addition, the height and density of the proposals has been reduced in the following areas:

o to the north and south of Worting Road to take account of the surroundings being a conservation area and protect views from the west - maximum building heights reduced to up to two and three storeys o on the western boundary of the Worting Conservation Area maximum building heights reduced to up to three storeys o to the edge of the site next to Scrapps Hill, respecting the proximity of the edge of the conservation area, maximum building heights reduced to up to three storeys o buildings fronting the central neighbourhood park and existing lane – maximum building heights reduced to up to four storeys o north of Church Lane - reduction in higher density development nearby, with the frontage of this area of development moved further east away from Church Lane o around the Worting Wood Cottages – maximum building heights reduced to up to four storeys.

• It is important to recognise that application drawings are not a masterplan or set of instructions that control all aspects of the scheme. They set out the maximum envelope within which the detailed design of the Proposed Development can be approved through future reserved matters applications.

| Statement of Community Involvement 12 • The flexibility that the envelope allows is important to ensure that the detailed proposals include variety and character, creating a thriving new community.

• As such, whilst some changes have been made to the application drawings, notably in the areas of greatest sensitivity around the Conservation Area, the landowners have sought to retain flexibility to ensure sufficient height and volume is available for high quality buildings to be delivered.

• A detailed masterplan and design code would be agreed with the council should outline planning permission be granted, which would be developed by the Applicant in conjunction with the development partner. This would then be used as the basis for assessing any future reserved matters applications.

• The design code would guide the whole of the Proposed Development, to create a varied character across the site and ensure high quality. This would guide details such as how wide individual streets should be, how tall particular buildings should be and what materials should be used.

Open space and • The amendments to the access from the A339 has allowed the landscape northern neighbourhood park to be consolidated, with the main

street realigned so that it no longer splits the park. The area of the park has also been enlarged, and it is now one single area of open space of over 3 ha.

• The distribution of equipped play has also been improved, and an additional Local Equipped Area of Play has been added towards the centre of the Site. This is well placed in relation to the eastern neighbourhood centre and possibly a primary school, as well as the new housing.

• To soften the impact of the Proposed Development on the rural approach to Worting Village, additional areas of ‘Green buffers and corridors’ and ‘Biodiversity and landscape features’ have been introduced to the north and south of the realigned B3400 Worting Road. This ensures continuity of vegetation cover as far as possible alongside the road and creating a gradual transition between Basingstoke and the countryside.

• The Landscape Strategy has also been updated to consider improvements to the public rights of way, which will be secured

| Statement of Community Involvement 13 through the s106 agreement. Any improvements will need to be balanced against the ecological sensitivities.

Access junctions • The design and layout of the primary access junction into the Site from the A339 has been amended. This junction previously comprised improvements to the existing A339 / Roman Road roundabout, closure of the Roman Road arm of the roundabout and construction of a new arm to the roundabout that would link to Main Street. The amended junction layout has been designed in consultation with the highways authority to improve the through flow of traffic along the A339. It still proposes closure of the Roman Road arm of the existing roundabout but introduces a new roundabout on the A339 to the west of the existing, which provides the northern junction with Main Street. The updated layout also introduces a new highway layout for the section of the A339 between the two roundabouts.

• The design and layout of the primary access junction into the Site from the B3400 Worting Road has also been amended; from a single crossroads junction to a layout with two junctions: a roundabout and a crossroads. This amended junction layout includes amendments to the alignment of Worting Road and a new section of main street and will reduce traffic flows through the southern neighbourhood centre.

• The design and layout of the northern and southern sections of main street through the Site have been amended in response to the new access junction designs.

Heritage • The Outline Planning Application is supported by a heritage statement which demonstrates how the development aims to be sympathetic to the Worting Conservation Area and built heritage assets, ensuring that any harm in respect of heritage assets will be reduced and mitigated against.

• Following the initial consultation the scale of development has been amended in sensitive areas by reducing maximum building heights and bringing development in from the edges.

• Some changes have been made to the application drawings, notably in the areas of greatest sensitivity around the Worting Conservation Area. However the landowners have continued to retain flexibility to ensure sufficient height and volume is available for high quality buildings to be delivered.

| Statement of Community Involvement 14 • Mitigation measures to minimise the impact on the Worting Conservation Area are set out in an Addendum to the Environmental Statement (including an updated heritage statement) which supports the update to the Outline Planning Application.

Retail Impact • It is important to make sure the new local centre or centres within Assessment the Proposed Development are viable and vibrant in the long term. The local centre or centres need to be of the right size and be located in suitable locations so that they attract visitors and remain commercially successful. Commercial considerations affecting the long-term viability of shops include factors such as the visibility and accessibility from the Main Street and flexible building designs to enable them to be adapted. • Following the initial consultation the LPA have requested further information as an evidence base to the retail impact assessment which establishes the potential size of the new local centre or centres within the Proposed Development and the possible impact on shops in surrounding areas. • Further information has been provided to the LPA to confirm that the largest retail unit proposed would not exceed 1,250sqm (net). A further assessment has also taken place on this basis which concludes that that the proposals would be sustainable and would not have any significant impact on other local centres.

Flooding and • In response to the initial information submitted in support of the drainage Outline Planning Application, Hampshire County Council in its capacity as the lead flood authority, objected to the proposals. The objection was based on its view that insufficient information had been provided, particularly on the surface water run-off and impact on the area around Buckskin, where flooding has previously taken place. The flood authority did not feel it was able to properly assess this due to the level of information that had been provided.

• As set out in the submission material, the main approach to managing drainage at the Proposed Development is through sustainable urban drainage systems, known technically as SUDs.

• Following the submission of the Outline Planning Application, detailed discussions have taken place with the flood authority, which has now said that it accepts the principle of the strategy that the Applicant is pursuing. The flood authority has also said that it will impose a planning condition requiring further information at the reserved matters application stage, rather than further information being submitted now.

| Statement of Community Involvement 15 • The drainage strategy that has been adopted would ensure that there is no increase to the risk of flooding in the Buckskin area.

Health Facilities • The outline application proposed the eastern centre of the Manydown site as a potential location for a new health centre. The proposed location in the eastern centre aimed to provide a highly accessible location, served by public transport and which maximises the number of residents within walking or cycling distance.

• Further discussions have now taken place with the North Hampshire Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG), which is responsible for the planning and funding of health facilities in Basingstoke, about what form this might take. The CCG has now confirmed its preferred site for a health facility as being in the south part of the Manydown development in the western centre. It is acknowledged that this would mean the health facility may not be delivered in the early stages of the Manydown development. However, the decision has been made based on meeting the needs of the communities in the east of Manydown as part of the Winklebury regeneration project. The application has, therefore, been updated to reflect the preferred location for a health facility in the western centre.

• The project team will continue to work with the CCG to understand its position and the timescales for provision of health facilities as part of the Winklebury regeneration project. The option will be retained to provide health facilities at alternative locations on Manydown should this be necessary in the future to serve both the new and existing communities.

| Statement of Community Involvement 16