11/15/2019 Mail - Woodgate, Jenny - Outlook Larger sites: Objection to Chawton Park Farm: Four Marks/Medstead Support for Bentley Northbrook Park: Whitehill/Bordon Mon 14/10/2019 16:50 To: EHDC - Local Plan <[email protected]> The larger sites already proposed for Whitehill/Bordon and Bentley/Northbrook Park remain the right sites for larger developments. I support both proposals. They allow sustainable infrastructure and limit impact on others. In particular each allows access in a workable way to major roads. The confluence or roads the Surrey side of the border is an issue for these 2 sites but funds from the development can be used substantially to ameliorate those problems. The Four Marks/ Medstead sites all need large further expenditure on the clogged and destructive impact of the A31 at Four Marks and I object to these sites. The need for a Four Marks bypass has been accepted for decades but no one has any current plans to address this. For Chawton Park Farm large highway expenditure is needed to make Northfield Lane and the A 31 /A32 junction roundabout safe and functionable. I object to this proposal. On all these sites if funding was provided that detracts from the funds needed to make any material contribution to the main problem the Surrey side of the border, principally on the Farnham bypass. There are 2 additional points since earlier consultation on the unsuitability of the Chawton Park Farm larger site. Firstly, Beech Neighbourhood Plan has been subject to Regulation 16 consultation ending in September. Section 5.1 specifies the need to prevent coalescence of Medstead, Wivelrod and Beech and ironically shows the wooded area Ackender Wood and Bush Leaze Wood, which run to the Parish Boundary with Chawton and the western boundary of the proposed larger site for Chawton Park Farm. The Beech Plan is a reminder of the need to enhance their ecology, additionally to Chawton’s ecology. These woods are a substantial part of the ring of SiNCs which protect Beech. It also makes specific reference to the farmland lying to the south of the proposed development as an environment to be conserved. Ecology and amenity cannot be severed at the parish boundary. It was clearly not considered possible that land within Chawton Parish would be developed as the Beech Neighbourhood Plan was prepared but the principle from the point of view of Beech is equally applicable to the proposed site as it would be to Medstead and Wivelrod. Secondly, the impact on the National Park has been underplayed. Chawton’s complex planning infrastructure, partly in the South Downs National Park with its specific planning objective of access and recreation and partly within the East Hampshire DC planning zone means both must be considered. This complexity is increased Ironically within Chawton as substantial areas of Open Access Land owned by the Forestry Commission are outside the Nation Park and wrap round Chawton Park Farm. It is vital that both Planning Authorities, East Hampshire and the National Park Authority co-ordinate achieving the best use of space for recreation, open air activities, nature and food production. The proposal shows that has not been progressed and is damaged as an objective. No attempt has been made to show safe, grade separated access across the A31 and A32 for pedestrians, equestrians and cyclists. This must also take account of parking and avoid any increase in parking in Chawton Village where lack of parking damages the Conservation Area, tourism and the amenity of residents. Residents on any new development will inevitably seek to drive to Chawton Village which cannot accept that burden. Parking in Chawton would need to be addressed and financed to prevent any increase in this problem. The current prosed Traffic Regulation Order East Hampshire is in process of making for Chawton Village is an absolute minimum for its existing problems as a tourist destination, residential community and a gateway village for the National Park. Any new, large scale, residential proposals must enhance and encourage access other than by car, not exacerbate the current problem. This interrelates with taking account of 7J of the South Downs Local Plan Policy SD45 which seeks to see Green Infrastructure links maintained and enhanced with that connectivity https://outlook.office365.com/mail/none/id/AAMkADIxNjE3NWJlLTMxYmEtNDEwZC1iOGM4LTYxOTllYjNmN2MzZQBGAAAAAABrEkrzGtHSSpsf… 1/2 11/15/2019 Mail - Woodgate, Jenny - Outlook being strengthened and ecological resilience enhanced. This is not an issue which can be allowed to hit a wall were the Park and East Hampshire Local Plans meet, all proposals should dovetail. SDNP Policy SD20 addresses Walking, Cycling and Equestrian Routes and seeks to see these developed. 6/16 of this policy specifically seeks to see this gaol addressed using disused railway lines and the former Meon Valley line severed by the A31/A32/ Northfield Lane roundabout provides an excellent site for such linkage. Any development of this scale should address this need. This is further emphasised as the need to address the difficulty in crossing major roads is a specific objective at 6.22 in the South Downs Local Plan. This cannot be ignored as the current proposals do. The roundabout is within 200 metres of the site entrance. 6.23 emphasizes the need for new development to provide new or enhanced connections. East Hampshire DC has to consider larger greenfield sites because of central government’s new National Planning Policy Framework which stifles East Hampshire in choosing the right sites for the District. It stifles Localism. Housing in those parts of East Hampshire outside the National Park are best met by smaller sites and the Council has consulted wisely and well on those smaller sites. This leaves no requirement in meeting housing targets to do more than meet the minimum obligation imposed by national policy and the Whitehill/Bordon and Bentley/Northwood are the 2 larger sites which do this, sustainably in a way which minimises adverse impact on other residential areas or the natural environment. I support the representations made by Chawton Parish Council. Email: Sent from Mail for Windows 10 https://outlook.office365.com/mail/none/id/AAMkADIxNjE3NWJlLTMxYmEtNDEwZC1iOGM4LTYxOTllYjNmN2MzZQBGAAAAAABrEkrzGtHSSpsf… 2/2.