11/12/2019 Mail - Woodgate, Jenny - Outlook COMMENTS ON EHDC LOCAL PLAN FOR LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENTS Mon 14/10/2019 12:23 To: EHDC - Local Plan <[email protected]> 2 attachments (420 KB) COMMENTS ON EHDC LOCAL PLAN FOR LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENTS_131019 .pdf; COMMENTS ON EHDC LOCAL PLAN FOR LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENTS_111019.pdf; Dear Sir/Madam, Please find aached 2 copies of comment from my wife and I in respect of your public consultaon exercise on the dra Local Plan for large scale developments. Please would you kindly acknowledge safe receipt so that we know our comments have arrived at the correct EHDC Planning Department ? Yours sincerely, https://outlook.office365.com/mail/none/id/AAMkADIxNjE3NWJlLTMxYmEtNDEwZC1iOGM4LTYxOTllYjNmN2MzZQBGAAAAAABrEkrzGtHSSpsf… 1/1 > Planning Policy EHDC Penns Place Petersfield GU31 4EX 12 October 2019 Dear Sir/Madam, COMMENTS ON EHDC LOCAL PLAN FOR LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENTS You have requested comments on proposals for large scale developments in the east Hampshire area as part of a ‘Local Plan’ for large scale development. Currently you have proposed 2 sites in a draft plan issued earlier this year and now you are asking for public comments on these and a further 8 sites as part of a general consultation. The sites are as follows: 10 sites in total are being considered. 5 of which are local lying within Four Marks (including Chawton Park Farm), Medstead and Ropley. 3 further sites outside our area have been nominated at Horndean, Liphook and Neatham Down. 2 sites have been selected in the current EHDC draft Local Plan at Northbrook Park, Bentley and Whitehill & Borden. GENERAL COMMENTS ON THE 5 LOCAL SITES (Four Marks (including Chawton Park Farm), Medstead and Ropley): Four Marks have already exceeded the agreed target of 175 new build dwellings in the period 2013 to 2028 by more than 3 times with very few improvements to infrastructure and local services to match this rapid growth. The sewage system in particular would require a massive investment to increase capacity all the way to the Alton treatment station. At peak times all our road junctions (more than 20) with the A31 are over capacity resulting in frustration and risk taking in order to join the main A31 flow. There is very little local employment leading to increased commuting traffic with the majority heading east towards London. Local schools are already full to capacity and not conveniently located for the proposed sites. We already have unacceptable long waits for Doctors’ appointments and this proposal will increase the delay still further. All of the proposed sites abut existing housing and will cause untold construction misery. Since all of the proposed sites are green field and rich in wildlife, including protected species such as bats and dormice, further development will cause serious disruption, on top of that already inflicted since 2013. SPECIFIC COMMENTS ON THE 5 LOCAL SITES: Chawton Park Farm has already seen an increase in its wildlife due to the Treloars development of 280 dwellings. The loss of trees will be an ecological disaster along with the loss of recreational amenity for local residents. There is a single lane railway bridge in the A31 direction which will create a bottleneck for such a large housing estate. 1 The Four Marks South site proposal is a wildlife corridor connecting the South Downs National Park to the wider countryside between Ropley & Four Marks via Old Down Wood etc. The proposed site is made up of multiple owners who will employ multiple developers making this proposal unworkable. The proposed new school location is poorly located on the edge of the village at the extreme eastern end and furthest from the centre at Oak Green. It also means yet more green field land will be destroyed and unable to be used for agriculture. Land west of Lymington Bottom Road, South Medstead which is located on rising ground will increase the risk of flooding. One of the areas put forward is common to the South Medstead proposal and there is a single lane restricted railway bridge connecting to the main A31 which is already creating traffic bottlenecks at peak times. South Medstead is a site with multiple owners and associated developers making it unsustainable and with one area common to the above proposal for land west of Lymington Bottom Road, South Medstead. Also common is the single lane restricted railway bridge connecting to the main A31 which is already creating traffic bottlenecks at peak times. Land south of Winchester Road, Four Marks is prime agricultural land which will be lost to farm/food production as well as wildlife access/corridors via boundary hedgerows and field edges. Another area of prime green countryside will be lost to wildlife alongside the heritage railway. This site is a long way from the village centre and will create maximum traffic disruption at peak times going towards London. Such a development will considerably disrupt long distance views from the west and southwest including that from the South Downs National Park and the heritage railway. CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATION: For the reasons stated above I object most strongly to the 5 site proposals around Four Marks as being totally unacceptable and unsustainable in an area which is already overdeveloped with roads struggling to cope during peak traffic periods and with an infrastructure deficit. Whilst I remain unhappy about any large scale developments in this area the 2 sites already chosen by EHDC in their draft Local Plan, Northbrook Park and Whitehill and Bordon, would in my opinion be the lesser evil. Northbrook Park, which is already part industrialised, would become a self contained village and would not interfere with any other settlement, with good road and nearby rail connections. Whitehill and Bordon is an extension of an existing large development with roads and infrastructure improvements to match. The proposals at Horndean, Liphook and Neatham Down are not commented upon since they are not familiar to the undersigned. Yours sincerely 2 .