10/10/2019 Mail - Woodgate, Jenny - Outlook
Large sites - Chawton Park Farm - Objection
Sun 06/10/2019 13:52 To: EHDC - Local Plan
Objec on to Large Site development at Chawton Park Farm The plans for this site fall short in many areas and go against EHDCs own guidelines regarding the choice of site. This is why the site was rejected as unsuitable in the original Land Assessment, which has since been changed. These are the key objec ons:
1) There are significant issues with access. Vehicle access is clearly unsuitable at this loca on, in part due to the 280 homes to be developed on Lord Mayor Trealor’s land 200m to the east. Chawton Park Rd will see hugely increase traffic, especially as the development proposes no shopping and has few other ameni es and the development is over 1.5km from Alton town centre. This Road will be prone to significant traffic at peak mes alongside an increase in accident risk. Perhaps more significant is the access to the south through the railway arch onto the A31. This will be the main access route for the 1200 homes and, with the average vehicles per home in 2018 being 1.4 (Department for Transport), this means an es mated 1680 vehicles or probably more in reality due to poor and expensive public transport (the 64 bus is the most expensive route in the en re UK) and the very rural loca on. There are proper es either side of the road north of the bridge with 4m between them. This means that a single lane will be needed right up to the arch and will not be able to have mi ga on for increased traffic. Also, the site exits onto a notorious roundabout which sees weekly accidents, mostly small bangs which are not reported to the Police. Even with mi ga on of two exit lanes on the exit to the A31 there s ll will be significant queuing traffic and traffic pulling out slowly leading to a high risk of accidents – just see the current chaos at rush hour with the Bu ’s bridge diversion in place and temporary traffic lights. Vehicles using the A31 do not slow down for the roundabout and frequently speed around it at close to 90mph (please do send your traffic team here as they will confirm this). Moreover, the modelling used by Redrow as present is based upon outdated data and is hopelessly underrepresen ng the scale of traffic seen there. Redrow suggests that approximately only 300 extra vehicles will be seen per hour at peak hour – clearly with 1200 homes and 1700 plus vehicles common sense alone dictates that between the hours of 7-8am more than 300 addi onal cars will pass this pinchpoint. EHDC must surely realise the reality here. Furthermore, addi onal factors exacerbate this:
There are also 529 additional homes being built within 1km and approx. 1000 homes within 1.5km of the site. This will clearly hugely increase the volume of traffic– especially the homes at Lord Mayor Treloars, who will use this road as the main access to the A31. There is a planned employment site on Northfield Lane which will mean the probability of queuing traffic into this site. This has not been modelled by the developers and the entrance to this site will be very close to the proposed traffic lights making a confused and even busier layout. The arch is on the brow of a relatively steep hill. This restricts sight lines. Even with traffic lights this issue cannot be mitigated due to the reality of people running lights and entering the road at speed from the A31. The road runs at a 10 degree angle to the arch. This makes the visibility slightly less clear and increases the chance of heavy or tall vehicles hitting the arch. The arch is likely to be unsafe if heavy construction traffic and an increased number of vehicles use the road through it. The Butts’ Bridge arch was the same age and materials and found to have structural issues of serious historic cracks meaning the requirement for the installation of steel bars encased in grout to make them watertight. The Northfield Lane Bridge looks like it has already had metal ties holding it together and it is highly likely to have the same issues as Butt’s Bridge. Twelve years of heavy construction traffic together with increased traffic volumes generally would clearly make the arch unsafe and may lead to a serious and clearly foreseen incident. https://outlook.office.com/mail/none/id/AAMkADIxNjE3NWJlLTMxYmEtNDEwZC1iOGM4LTYxOTllYjNmN2MzZQBGAAAAAABrEkrzGtHSSpsf0nN… 1/6 10/10/2019 Mail - Woodgate, Jenny - Outlook Moreover, there will be insufficient scope for pedestrians and horses to safely cross this juncture due to the width, unless the railway arch is redeveloped. The railway arch is too narrow to safely accommodate pedestrians (the plans will reproduce the dangerous situa on at the former Bu ’s Bridge in Alton – already recognised as a formerly dangerous road crossing by EHDC). The Council, together with Knight’s Brown found that:
The narrow, 5m wide carriageway leads to queues. The brick archway runs a higher risk of being struck by high sided vehicles (eg HGVs) than other arrangements. There is no footway provision underneath the bridge, which results in pedestrians either having to walk in the carriageway or face a detour around the bridge. A general lack of pedestrian and cyclist facilities at the junction makes the junction unattractive and forms a barrier to pedestrian and cyclist movement. The Northfield Lane bridge is narrower (4m) and on the brow of a hill. There will not be scope for suitable or safe mi ga on for access to the proposed site and so the proposal should be dismissed for this issue alone. If residents of the planned 1200 homes wish to walk, jog or visit Chawton, as many of Alton’s residents do, then they would also need to cross the A31/A32 junc on on foot. This is a most perilous ac vity and certainly would lead to accidents of the worst possible kind. Furthermore, the recent presenta on by Redrow to Chawton Village was shambolic as regard to answering how this traffic would be mi gated. The sugges on that 3 sharp bends around exis ng proper es north of the juncture (to replace the current sharp bend from Chawton Park Rd onto Northfield Lane) is unrealis c and will even further exacerbate queuing traffic and possible danger as well as having a huge impact on residents living there. In terms of traffic, the construc on of 1200 homes will also mean Chawton Village itself will be subject to increase traffic accessing the Selborne Rd and local ameni es here. This proposed development will adversely affect traffic and parking issues in Chawton Village which already has severe parking and traffic issues due to the fact it is a well-known interna onal tourist des na on. This may lead to traffic disorder in the Village, considering the already extremely high number of cars due to tourism. At present there has not been sufficient scru ny given to traffic modelling at this loca on and the developers seem short on answers regarding traffic issues. The issues regarding access traffic are unmi gable and therefore Chawton Park Farm cannot be considered a serious site for development.
2) The impact on Chawton Village means that the se lement character will suffer significant adverse impacts which cannot be mi gated. Currently approximately 200 homes exist in Chawton Parish. Adding 1200 would equate to a 600% increase in homes. Notwithstanding the impact on the ‘rural’ Parish, this means that the interna onally recognised and well-visited village of Chawton will change in mul ple ways. There will be visible and notably increased urbanisa on due to the noise, traffic, light and increased foo all from the new development. This is compounded by the 529 new homes already granted permission and being built within 1km of Chawton Village. It doesn’t take much to realise that the impact will be enormous if (at the na onal average of 2.4 people per home) we see an addi onal 4222 people se led within 1km of Chawton Village. Related to this, the cultural and historic impacts will also be highly nega ve and must be considered. The Village core is an interna onally important historic and cultural conserva on area and the impact of broad development on this hasn’t been considered. Tourism and the Village, local and regional economy will be adversely affected if this development were to occur. Chawton is a key loca on (flagship loca on perhaps) for the South Downs Na onal Park and regional tourism strategy, notable for the home of Jane Austen and Chawton House. The development of the proposed site will harm and damage the natural beauty of the village and cultural heritage in the area through ruining the landscape and character of the village (as men oned above). This will harm businesses in the village and may have a wider impact on both house prices and the general economic value of the village. This has seemingly been ignored or not considered yet is a real risk as Chawton is a valuable and poten ally highly strategic economic windfall worth protec ng. Chawton is a special village within East Hampshire and this site will have a significantly detrimental effect on the surrounding area. The official tourism website for South East England refers to Chawton as a deligh ul village and Chawton played a major role in shaping the south east's and indeed UKs recent tourism strategy (Jane Austen 200 Gives Hampshire a £21 Million Boost; janeausten200.co.uk). It is in the South Down's Na onal Park (SDNP) and is noted as a gem of a village, chosen to be an official gateway loca on to the SDNP, with associated infrastructure and signage being placed. It is really is unlike many other villages in Hampshire and certainly worthy of special protec on on environmental, cultural and economic grounds. The local community will be adversely affected. Apart from the core of Chawton Village, villagers living adjacent to Northfield Lane will be hugely and unfairly affected by the scale of such a development in such a rural area: https://outlook.office.com/mail/none/id/AAMkADIxNjE3NWJlLTMxYmEtNDEwZC1iOGM4LTYxOTllYjNmN2MzZQBGAAAAAABrEkrzGtHSSpsf0nN… 2/6 10/10/2019 Mail - Woodgate, Jenny - Outlook Five homes will become the middle section of a road and cycle roundabout (with queuing and braking traffic all around them). Clearly this current plan is wholly unacceptable. Two homes abutting Northfield Lane will see increase and queuing traffic next to traffic lights – they are right next to the road. There had been no community involvement apart from a disastrous presenta on given to Chawton Villagers on 04/10/19 which answered almost no ques ons and was both haphazard, insul ng and confused. The Parish Council, Local GP surgery, Headmistress at our school and so forth have not been consulted in any way on this development prior to the calamitous presenta on.
3) The proximity to South Downs Na onal Park means this proposal should be rejected The development will have a sizeable landscape impact as it works its way up the north slope. It is on a major footpath, the Pilgrim’s Way and is well used by locals and tourists. Indeed, the Council’s own Landscape Capacity Study advises that the local area should remain generally undeveloped due to this. Development would bring noise to a quiet rural area, light to a designated dark skies area, pollu on in many forms, requirements for a whole village worth of infrastructure in a completely rural area, roads and traffic let alone increased foo all. This will clearly have an adverse impact on the SDNP and will no doubt be commented upon in turn by the SNDP who realise that Chawton Village is under siege from encircling developments. The site will be visible from the SDNP as a congested urbanised eyesore (35 homes planned per hectare according to the developers!) in the middle of ancient woodland and therefore the alloca on of the site should be rejected.
4) Flooding has been well-known on Chawton Park Road This is not reflected correctly in the EHDC assessment as many residents will a end to. Flooding occurs in this dry chalk and clay bo omed valley on a decadal pa ern and the addi on of 1200 homes and associated impermeable infrastructure and surfaces will seriously exacerbate the issue leading to significant issue at the corner of Northfield Lane/ Chawton Park Rd. A Zone 1 floodplain may flood much more in certain decades. More data is need regarding this risk and the risk has been largely ignored.
5) The nearby much-loved ancient woodland will also be at high risk. The site adjoins Bushy Leaze Wood SINC and includes a part of the Ackender Wood and Chawton Park Wood SINCs which are loved by local people across Alton and are a valued community asset worth a massive intangible sum. The loca on is also a na onally recognised area for deer, both Roe and Fallow (Bri sh Deer Society). Developing a large housing site here would lead to significant ecosystem damage, scaring wildlife away from vitally important woodland and sever the access deer have between the two woodland habitats. These areas should be being protected by East Hants not developed in an area already undergoing significantly excessive development well above the na onal requirement and neighbouring areas. New builds will lie within 15m of ancient woodland. Residents will no doubt look to have the overshadowing ancient trees removed. In fact, damage has already been done to part of the woodland accessing the site (exactly where the proposed road entrance would go) with the felling of mature Field Maple, Oak and a few undiseased Ash trees alongside a hedgerow. The developers suggest that this felling was to deal with Ash dieback, although no Ash trees here have the disease and beggars the ques on of exactly why mature Oak and Maple were also felled as they do not spread the vector? This was done in March 2019 and was a criminal act regarding the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and 1997 Hedgerows Regula ons. This damage to prepare the way for the site access road shows that there is already a disregard for woodland and any planned mi ga on by the developers and landowner should equally be disregarded as this was a decei ul act.
6) There has already been huge over development of housing on the western fringe of Alton. Furthermore, I object to this planned development due to the simple fact that not only the Alton area but especially the western edge of Alton has already seen heavy development in the last ten years, with more housing development already planned. For instance, using official ONS and Department for Transport data and currently taking the western edge of Alton and land into surrounding Parishes: Vehicles (at Distance to Distance to Persons (at 1.4 South Chawton Chawton Site Year Homes 2.4 nat. east Park Farm Village average) average) site centre Lord Mayor 2008 180 432 252 400m 500m Treloar’s 1
The above is notable although ten years old. For 2018-19: Site Year Homes Persons (at Vehicles (at Distance to Distance to https://outlook.office.com/mail/none/id/AAMkADIxNjE3NWJlLTMxYmEtNDEwZC1iOGM4LTYxOTllYjNmN2MzZQBGAAAAAABrEkrzGtHSSpsf0nN… 3/6 10/10/2019 Mail - Woodgate, Jenny - Outlook 2.4 nat. 1.4 South Chawton Chawton average) east Park Farm Village average) site centre Lord Mayor 2019-20 274 658 384 100m 400m Treloar’s 2 Borovere Farm 2019-20 255 612 357 1000m 600m Addi onal TOTAL (and 529 1270 from 741 550m 500m average) 2019 Addi onally, Land east of Will 2018 200 480 672 1300m 1500m Hall Farm Land West of 2019 Dra 255 612 357 1000m 1300m Will Hall Farm Plan Addi onal TOTAL (including 2362 people Will Hall Farm 1164 1770 within developments 1.5km
Therefore, excluding the ten-year-old Treloar’s development and the Will Hall Farm developments, we will already have planned from 2019:
1270 additional people within 600m of Chawton Village 741 additional vehicles within 600m of Chawton Village With the new development of an extra 1200 homes then this will become:
4150 additional people within 600m of Chawton Village 2421 additional vehicles within 600m of Chawton Village Chawton village currently has approx. 200 homes, 500 people and 280 vehicles. These figures are based on na onal and regional averages. The true impact will be likely be higher regarding the rural nature of the site and the impact from development underway and planned in Four Marks and Medstead Parish. Clearly this would be unsustainable for the area given the current number of homes being built. Quite simply the infrastructure, schools, ameni es and ecology of the area simply could not cope with such rampant building in such a concentrated area. Schooling has not been thought through adequately. In terms of schooling alone the addi on of 1200 homes mean 2880 people of which 16.2% would be secondary school (ONS na onal data) giving a need for approximately a need for 467 secondary school places. If we take into account the other developments planned or being built in western Alton from 2018 then this goes up to 849 addi onal secondary school places required for the western edge of Alton. This would mean the requirement for at least one new secondary school in west Alton as there would be far too many pupils for the currently oversubscribed 2 secondary schools to cope. Aton would genuinely be heading for a disaster in terms of secondary educa on with hundreds of pupils needing to be bussed out to Winchester and Basingstoke on a daily basis at huge cost. The Hampshire School paces Plan 2018-21 supports this trend. Hampshire County Council s ll uses outdated methodology to address school places and use 21 secondary places per 100 homes for new builds. This, itself, would give a (very conserva ve) requirement for 252 places and with the other new builds in 2019, will mean 363 places. Of course, this will be staggered (to an extent) across 10 years but will s ll mean a new secondary school will be essen al by 2025, especially using the more realis c methodology of ‘actual’ numbers in secondary school in the UK per head. It will also mean that by 2030 at the very latest a new large secondary school will need not just to be built but fully func oning with full pupils numbers. In terms of housing, the western Alton area has provided more than the fair share considering lack of required infrastructure accompanying developments. The East Hants Housing Requirement 2011-2028 is 8366 homes with 492 per year. Alton, and especially the western edge of Alton, has already seen over construc on of new homes with resultant impact on infrastructure, ecosystems and services. According to the East Hampshire Five Year Housing Land Supply (As of 1st April 2018) outstanding Permissions (Large Sites) shows significant discrepancy per head of exis ng popula on. This really does show how far too much housing has been concentrated into a few Wards and parishes. This has real nega ve impacts on infrastructure, ecosystems, services and employment, especially no ng the lack of investment which accompanies this construc on. Chawton, including the loca on for this development, is essen ally a part of Alton and relies on all services in Alton and therefore is combined (following the 2018 se lement hierarchy). https://outlook.office.com/mail/none/id/AAMkADIxNjE3NWJlLTMxYmEtNDEwZC1iOGM4LTYxOTllYjNmN2MzZQBGAAAAAABrEkrzGtHSSpsf0nN… 4/6 10/10/2019 Mail - Woodgate, Jenny - Outlook
Area (Parishes and Wards) 2011 Population % Homes % total of Differential population of East Hants outstanding or Homes /housing to (ONS) being built outstanding or population 2018 (large being built sites) 2018 (large sites) Alton (Combined Alton 18261 15.7 1137 19.1 +3.4 Parishes) and Chawton* Bentworth & Froyle Bentworth Wield Beech 2594 2.2 0 0 -2.2 Lasham Shalden Froyle Binsted, Bentley & Selborne Binsted* Bentley 5898 5.1 0 0 -5.1 Selborne* Worldham* Farrigndon* Kingsley* Bramshott & Liphook 8491 7.3 437 7.3 0 Clanfield 4637 4 6 0.1 -3.9 Four Marks & Medstead Four Marks 8437 7.3 209 3.5 -3.8 Medstead Ropley Grayshott 2413 2.1 80 1.3 -0.8 Headley 5613 4.9 0 0 -4.9 Horndean (combined 12942 11.2 851 14.2 +3 wards) Liss 6291 5.4 0 0 -5.4 Petersfield (combined 14974 12.9 0 0 -12.9 wards)* Rowlands Castle 2747 2.4 213 3.6 +1.2 White Hill and Bordon (combined wards incl 16754 14.5 3006 50.1 +35.6 Lindford and Greatham) Villages in north SDNP W Tisted* E Tisted* Colemore and P Dean* Hawkley* Buriton* 5644 4.9 27 0.5 -4.4 Froxfield* Steep* E Meon* Langrish* Stroud* 115,696 5966 *South Downs en re or part This is a crude measure (if accurate and one that EHDC follows). It doesn’t obviously recognise the SDNP’s more restric ve planning requirements. However, it does show that apart from Petersfield then Binsted/Bentley/Selborne and Bentowrth/Froyle have not seen enough construc on (yet they have some of the best infrastructure and access available). https://outlook.office.com/mail/none/id/AAMkADIxNjE3NWJlLTMxYmEtNDEwZC1iOGM4LTYxOTllYjNmN2MzZQBGAAAAAABrEkrzGtHSSpsf0nN… 5/6 10/10/2019 Mail - Woodgate, Jenny - Outlook Conclusion Western Alton has already accommodated more homes than required under EHDC guidance and so should not be considered for even more housing. More accessible and mi gable loca ons, such as at Northbrook Farm, Bentley, should be sought instead. This is clear from a quick glance at the loca on using a simple map. The cumula ve impact on infrastructure is huge and transport, schooling and health services cannot cope with a further influx of residents. Moreover, there are no plans for any employment areas on this site of any note (a pub). This would mean that the adults of the es mated 2880 people will need to commute to work and any development here would essen ally be crea ng a commuter village in centre of an area of ancient woodland in a formerly purely rural area. Notably, Chawton iden fies as a small rural village (and was possibly erroneously excluded from its place as a ‘small rural village’ in the Dec 2018 hierarchy background paper). Instead Chawton was put together with Alton and may have also been why Chawton was excluded from consulta on regarding the East Hampshire Dra local Plan. Therefore, as the proposed site is within Chawton Parish (and indeed marketed as a ‘garden Village’) then it must be seen as either:
A development on a greenfield site not within or adjoining an existing site boundary, and hence fails this basic criterion for large site development as if it was a stand-alone village then it would need stand alone employment, transport, access, schooling and so on. It doesn’t and so isn’t. Or an expansion of the conurbation of Alton which it clearly is and therefore will rely on Alton for all of the above. And therefore cannot be considered due to the already high housing already going in to Alton. Developing such a huge estate here and expanding the se lement of Alton would be a disaster for the environment, local residents, local services and even interna onal tourism. It will adversely affect the character of Chawton Village and South Downs Na onal Park. Access is problema c and best and will see enormous and costly transport issues. Traffic and accidents would see manifold increase and cannot be mi gated against. The development of Chawton Park Farm is clearly not a serious proposal, as the developers sloppy and opaque presenta on in the Village suggested. This Large site proposal should be rejected without any hesitancy.
Regards,
https://outlook.office.com/mail/none/id/AAMkADIxNjE3NWJlLTMxYmEtNDEwZC1iOGM4LTYxOTllYjNmN2MzZQBGAAAAAABrEkrzGtHSSpsf0nN… 6/6