11/27/2019 Mail - Woodgate, Jenny - Outlook

FW: Large Development Sites - , , Soldridge

Tue 15/10/2019 22:00 To: EHDC - Local Plan

To whom it may concern,

TITLE : Large Scale Site Development Comment

I wish to comment on the EHDC’s Large Development Site proposals.

I would like to SUPPORT the development at Whitehill & for the following reasons:

The area is a New Town, including shops, offices, restaurants, makers market, town square and parking. The additional housing will drive economic growth and employment. Mains sewage and water infrastructure will link well with existing facilities. Plans drive the Suitable Alternative Natural Green Space (SANGS) and recreational green space. EHDC has a call to plant 120,000 trees in the district, the environmental planning of this site will go a long way to helping to meet this. Transport design that makes it easy to walk and cycle round. Cycle links are planned between green space/SANGS. The location has New sports pavilion/facilities (opened 2018) and a new Leisure Centre is planned. Plans support schooling. The Secondary school is being rebuilt and has the potential to expand to 1200 pupils (initial capacity is 900 pupils). Plans include needs for a Primary School.

At the end of the current development period, Whitehill & Bordon will have a population of ~23,000, given its sustainability, its ability to ‘seamlessly’ absorb an additional 1284 dwellings (~3000 people) is better than any other site put forward in this consultation. A significant part of the proposed houses would be in the new town center giving people accessibility to services and facilities and a sense of place.

EHDC recommended.

I would like to SUPPORT the development at Northbrook Park for the following reasons:

A truly self-contained development that is able to more than meet the minimum housing demands without overly impacting existing neighbours due to the Woodland that will be maintained North and South of the site. A development that will provide its own infrastructure consequently not dependent on existing infrastructure. Plans include a good amount of Suitable Alternative Natural Green Space (SANGS) and recreational green space. It appears to provide a good blueprint for future garden village development. https://outlook.office365.com/mail/none/id/AAMkADIxNjE3NWJlLTMxYmEtNDEwZC1iOGM4LTYxOTllYjNmN2MzZQBGAAAAAABrEkrzGtHSSpsf… 1/3 11/27/2019 Mail - Woodgate, Jenny - Outlook An already planned and extensive program of infrastructure developments, critical aspects of which to be in place before any housing is occupied. Vehicle access to the A31 to be provided at a point where the A31 is dual carriageway and is not normally subject to traffic congestion. Plans include to bring employment to the site once completed. There is a Village Trust that has an interest in long term support and investment in the future making the project sustainable. Reduces development in areas that lend themselves less well to infrastructure changes of this magnitude. EHDC recommended.

I would like to OBJECT the developments at Land South of Winchester Road, Land West of Lymington Bottom Road and South Medstead, for the following reasons:

Firstly, it risks changing the character of the area from Rural to Urban.

Secondly, it is developing into a ‘dormitory population’. As there has been no commensurate increase in employment within these parishes, the majority of the new residents commute to work in neighbouring towns. This not only increases traffic congestion at peak times, it also undermines the sense of belonging.

Thirdly, investment in the infrastructure has failed to keep pace with the increase in the population. This has put an increased level of pressure on all the local services and is most concerning in terms of the lack of facilities for the young people in our community.

As a result of their location on the top of the ‘ Alps’, the settlements of Medstead and Four Marks have always had a rural character to them and this has largely been preserved until today. The Neighbourhood Plan sought to put in place policies to help retain the rural character of the parishes as this is seen to be central to the character of both settlements and something to be cherished and protected. However, this plan seems to be being undermined and the residents of Four Marks and Medstead will not have a sustainable social infrastructure in terms of the sense of community, the feeling of belonging and the nurturing of civic pride.

The main site at South Medstead is not actually large enough for 600 houses, so the ‘pig farm’ has been put forward in this development site as well as ‘Land West of Lymington Bottom Road’.

Site Reference: LAA/MED-016 Beverley Farm, Five Ash Road, Medstead, GU34 5EJ / Paddock View, Stoney Lane, Medstead, GU34 5EL /Land at Lymington Bottom Road, Medstead an Site Reference: LAA/MED-009 Land at Five Ash Crossroads, Lymington Bottom Road (pig farm). Previously given a status of Un-developable. The Land on both of these applications is included within the South Medstead Development Site Plan. However, it has previously been rejected for many of the reasons noted above. Nothing has changed that should alter this previous decision. The planning rejection notice for the Pig Farm site said that "it maintains a rural character and appearance compatible with its surroundings. The site is sensitively located at the edge of the settlement and forms part of the transition between the https://outlook.office365.com/mail/none/id/AAMkADIxNjE3NWJlLTMxYmEtNDEwZC1iOGM4LTYxOTllYjNmN2MzZQBGAAAAAABrEkrzGtHSSpsf… 2/3 11/27/2019 Mail - Woodgate, Jenny - Outlook settlement boundary and other dispersed developments in the countryside close by”. I agree with this. Land West of Lymington Bottom Road has also been included in a Separate Large Development Plan that I have also objected to for similar reasons as it will still affect the rural hamlets and infrastructure.

The land opposite Gravel Lane (employment area) and Land between Barn Lane and A31 (housing) have previously been given the status of ‘Undevelopable' in Land Availability Assessment. Site Reference: LAA/ROP-016 Land between Barn Lane and A31, : The area has a rural character, with low density sporadic development near the site. Development would be out of character with the area and would have an adverse impact on the intrinsic character of the countryside. Safe access would need to be established (Site slopes steeply up from the A31). Given the rural location, this is an unsustainable location for residential development. Site Reference: LAA/ROP-015 Land south of Gravel Lane, Ropley. Whilst identified potential constraints could be overcome, the area has a rural character, with low density sporadic development opposite. Development would have an adverse impact on the intrinsic character of the countryside.

Furthermore the development is not recommended by EHDC.

Regards

https://outlook.office365.com/mail/none/id/AAMkADIxNjE3NWJlLTMxYmEtNDEwZC1iOGM4LTYxOTllYjNmN2MzZQBGAAAAAABrEkrzGtHSSpsf… 3/3