Summary of Responses
(Regulation 20)
June 2015
Summary of Responses
To Proposed Submission East Hampshire District Local Plan:
Housing and Employment Allocations
June 2015
FOLDER
REFERENCE
21
POLICY/PARAGRAPH OF SITE ALLOCATIONS PLAN
Appendix 1 - Current Planning Status of Sites
RESPONDENT
NAME
Giles Stogdon
ORGANISATION
Giles Stogdon
[1832]
AGENT
NAME
Southern
Planning
Practice
(Ian
Donohue)
[2296]
SUPPORT/ PERSON
OBJECT
ID
COMMENT
ID
IS THE PLAN
LEGALLY
COMPLIANT
IS THE
PLAN
SOUND
WHICH TESTS
OF DOES THE
PLAN FAIL TO
MEET
REPRESENTATION SUMMARY
REPRESENTATION SUGGESTED CHANGE TO
PLAN
DOES THE
RESPONDENT
WANT TO
APPEAR AT
EXAMINATION
Update Appendix 1 to give the correct land supply
situation as at 1st April 2015. The base date for
the information should also be clearly stated in the
Plan.
Object
1832
23588
Unknown
No
i, ii, iii
Consider Appendix 1 is out of date and does not give the latest position on
houisng land supply in the District.
Amend the information about site VL11 to give the
correct planning application reference and the
correct number of houses proposed for the site.
These should be:
No
Application number 55826
Number of dwellings 15.
14
15
21
Southcott Homes
Limited [1655]
Appendix 2 - Housing Land Supply (1st October 2014)
Pegasus
Group (Mr
Hurlock
David
Investments [2422]
Hutchison)
[2424]
Appendix 2 - Housing Land Supply (1st October 2014)
Appendix 2 - Housing Land Supply (1st October 2014)
Neame
Sutton Ltd
(David
Neame)
[1339]
Southern
Planning
Practice
(Ian
Donohue)
[2296]
Object
1655
23599
Yes
No
i, iv
Appendix 2 does not comprise the Council's latest stated position. This is
most probably because the Council's latest stated position as at 1.1.2015 is
flawed and has been the subject of challenge through a number of S.78
Planning Appeals. The document seeks to disaggregate the requirement
set out in the JCS which has no basis or support from national policy in the
form of the Framework or the NPPG and Selborne appeal case. The
Council does not accurately record its record of delivery and presents a
misleading interpretation that it does not have a record of persistent under
delivery.
The information included in Appendix 2 needs to
be validated in order to check that there is no
double counting and that it is consistent with what
is being proposed.
Appear
Update to give the correct land supply situation as
at 1st April 2015. The base date for the
information should aslo be clearly stated in the
Plan.
No
Object
2422
23566
Yes
Yes
None
175 identified in JCS for Four Marks/Medstead. Appx 2 identifies 119
dwellings were complete from 2011 to 2014 and a further 141 have planning
permission. No assessment of deliverability of these permitted sites has
been undertaken. The Plan seeks to allocate a further 3 sites with a
capacity of 237 dwellings (107+79+51). These are incorrectly summed to
242 dwellings in Appx 2. This mistake has been carried forward to Table A
of the Medstead and Four Marks Neighbourhood Plan. Concern also some
of the allocations may be double counted with the larger site planning
permissions, given all 3 have permission.
Object
1832
23589
Unknown
No
i, ii, iii
Appendix 2 is out of date and does not give the latest position on housing
land supply in the District.
Giles Stogdon
Giles Stogdon
[1832]
Object
1118
23526
No
No
i, ii, iii
Total number of completions, commitments and windfalls now 122,
unexplained increase.
Keyline site initally 'windfall' now 'large site', needs clarified and justified.
279 target need considered in light of SA - adverse effects on biodiversity,
rural location, impact on SPA.
Traffic levels and road safety must be considered.
Support
1545
23333
Yes
Yes
None
Welcomes criterion in Policy CF1 regarding archaeological remains.
91
Appendix 2 - Housing Land Supply (1st October 2014)
Lisa Walker
Rowlands Castle
Parish Council (
Lisa Walker) [1118]
50
CF1 - Land at Down Farm, Green Lane
Mr Martin Small
Historic England
(Southern Region)
(Mr Martin Small)
[1545]
Appear
Appear
No
New criterion - Identify any extreme and high
vulnerability zones within the site before the
development layout is finalised.
Added words:
90
CF1 - Land at Down Farm, Green Lane
Tracey Viney
Portsmouth Water
plc (Tracey Viney)
[2340]
Object
2340
23553
Unknown
No
ii
No objection subject to inclusion of the additional text to protect driniking
water quality.
make provision of a detailed Flood Risk
Assessment, which should include a Surface
Water Disposal Strategy, to address any
measures required to mitigate any potential
impacts on groundwater and surface water.
Potential measures ......
No
- ensure adequate infrastructure is provided for
sewerage (on and off site). The layout and
construction of the sewage infrastructure should
minimise the risk to groundwater.
98
CF1 - Land at Down Farm, Green Lane
Heidi Clarke
Sport England (SE
Region) (Heidi
Clarke) [972]
Support
972
23359
Unknown
Yes
None
Sport England supported the Down Farm allocation because it requires the
provision of sports facilities on site to support the 207 dwellings.
No
50
CF2 - Drift Road
Mr Martin Small
Historic England
(Southern Region)
(Mr Martin Small)
[1545]
Support
1545
23334
Yes
Yes
None
Considers Policy CF2 to be sound but would wish to see an addition added
to the site specific criterion on programming of archaeological work etc.
Addition to CF2 site specific criterion requiring the
implementation of a programme of archaeological
work to establish a record of potential
archaeological significance of the site (and, if that
programme results in the discovery of nationally
signficiant remains, provision to be made for the
retention and careful management of those
important archaeological remains, within and
adjacent to the site, in a manner appropriate to
their significance, in accordance with paragraph
139 of the NPPF).
98
CF2 - Drift Road
Heidi Clarke
Sport England (SE
Region) (Heidi
Clarke) [972]
Object
972
23363
Unknown
No
i
The NPPF requires local authorities to plan positively for sport. It is difficult
to see how sport has been considered in this allocation.
It is essential that the Council understand and
make it clear what is needed in terms of playing
field and built sports facilities to provide for the
additional population.
Page 1 of 29
No
No
FOLDER
REFERENCE
POLICY/PARAGRAPH OF SITE ALLOCATIONS PLAN
RESPONDENT
NAME
ORGANISATION
AGENT
NAME
SUPPORT/ PERSON
OBJECT
ID
COMMENT
ID
IS THE PLAN
LEGALLY
COMPLIANT
IS THE
PLAN
SOUND
50
CF3 - Trafalgar Rise
Mr Martin Small
Historic England
(Southern Region)
(Mr Martin Small)
[1545]
Support
1545
23335
Yes
Yes
None
98
CF3 - Trafalgar Rise
Heidi Clarke
Sport England (SE
Region) (Heidi
Clarke) [972]
Object
972
23364
Unknown
No
i
14
14
14
14
14
14
29
REPRESENTATION SUGGESTED CHANGE TO
PLAN
DOES THE
RESPONDENT
WANT TO
APPEAR AT
EXAMINATION
Consider Policy CF3 to be sound subject to an addition to the site specific
criterion regarding programming of archaeological work etc.
Addition to CF3 site specific criterion requiring the
implementation of a programme of archaeological
work to establish a record of potential
archaeological significance of the site (and, if that
programme results in the discovery of nationally
signficiant remains, provision to be made for the
retention and careful management of those
important archaeological remains, within and
adjacent to the site, in a manner appropriate to
their significance, in accordance with paragraph
139 of the NPPF).
No
The NPPF requires local authorities to plan positively for sport. It is difficult
to see how sport has been considered in this allocation.
It is essential that the Council understand and
make it clear what is needed in terms of playing
field and built sports facilities to provide for the
additional population.
No
WHICH TESTS
OF DOES THE
PLAN FAIL TO
MEET
REPRESENTATION SUMMARY
Para 1.9 object
The SPBs, gaps, special character areas and the review of the Local Plan
saved policies should form part of the Allocation document to form a clear
basis for the future. This will bring forward a disjointed approach.
Neame
Sutton Ltd
(David
Neame)
[1339]
Object
Chapter 1 - Introduction
Southcott Homes
Limited [1655]
Neame
Sutton Ltd
(David
Neame)
[1339]
Object
1655
23591
Yes
No
i, iv
Para 1.1 and para 1.11 - object
The Plan needs to be in accordance with the JCS or if it intends to deviate to Provide evidence to justify its disaggregated
a desegregated approach and supply evidence on why this approach is now approach.
being taken contrary to the JCS.
Appear
Chapter 1 - Introduction
Southcott Homes
Limited [1655]
Neame
Sutton Ltd
(David
Neame)
[1339]
Object
1655
23590
Yes
No
i, iv
Object to Para 1.2
Appear
Southcott Homes
Limited [1655]
Neame
Sutton Ltd
(David
Neame)
[1339]
Para 1.39, para 2.4 and Appendix 1 object
The delivery timings within the Plan are unrealistic. The Council has cited a
number of permissions that have been granted and seeking to include these
as allocations. These sites were progressed to address a shortall in
housing land supply so the Council should not be seeking to rely upon such
sites to meet a future need. Also concerned that if current permission are
not implemented they will remain allocations.
Appear
i, iv
Para 1.34 object.
The Inspector settled on a minimum level of 592 dpa but did not identify a
ceiling level. Furthermore the evidence base that underpins the JCS
housing requirement figure is now out of date. The NPPG and the
Framework requires Council's to maintain an up to date evidence base to
ensure that development plan policies remain up to date and relevant to
meeting the needs of the District. Re. affordable housing the Council is
actively planning to deliver significantly lower levels than its own evidence
base identifies a need for.
Appear
i, iv
Para 1.3 object.
Objects to the Local Interim Planning Statement (LIPS) and the lack of
consultation. The LIPS had no formal 6 week consultation which is required
by Regulation 18. The LIPS is limited in scope and only involved local
residents. The statement continues to also look to take on board the
community engagement of Neighbourhood Plans with no timeframe to allow
for these to be included. The Local Plan should guide and take the lead on
allocating the minimum housing allocation set out in the JCS.
i, ii, iii, iv
Whilst we welcome the intention to provide flexibility within the Plan, it is not
sufficiently far reaching in the context of Government objectives to boost
signficiantly the supply of housing or meet objectively assessed needs.
Table 1 indicates the total housing provision will exceed approx. 15.38% of
the mimimum target. However, if individual settlements are to be aligned
with the increased housing requirement there is still a shortfall of at least
1,966 dwellings if the Plan is to meet all needs including affordable needs.
Chapter 1 - Introduction
Chapter 1 - Introduction
Southcott Homes
Limited [1655]
Southcott Homes
Limited [1655]
Neame
Sutton Ltd
(David
Neame)
[1339]
Chapter 1 - Introduction
Southcott Homes
Limited [1655]
Neame
Sutton Ltd
(David
Neame)
[1339]
Chapter 1 - Introduction
Turley
Associate
Bloor Homes [1893] s (Ms
Jade Ellis)
[1800]
Chapter 1 - Introduction
1655
23593
Yes
No
i
Appear
The proposed allocation of Hazelton Farm, Horndean is a direct
contradiction with the objectives the Council is seeking.
Object
Object
Object
Object
1655
1655
1655
1893
23596
23594
23592
23558
Yes
Yes
Unknown
Yes
Page 2 of 29
No
No
No
No
i, iii, iv
No
Additional sites should be allocated in order to
provide the necessary flexibility and certainty that
the residual housing requirement will be met over
the course of the JCS plan period.
Appear
FOLDER
REFERENCE
30
POLICY/PARAGRAPH OF SITE ALLOCATIONS PLAN
RESPONDENT
NAME
ORGANISATION
Sixten & Cassey
[1681]
Chapter 1 - Introduction
AGENT
NAME
Turley
Associate
s (Ms
Jade Ellis)
[1800]
SUPPORT/ PERSON
OBJECT
ID
COMMENT
ID
IS THE PLAN
LEGALLY
COMPLIANT
IS THE
PLAN
SOUND
WHICH TESTS
OF DOES THE
PLAN FAIL TO
MEET
REPRESENTATION SUMMARY
REPRESENTATION SUGGESTED CHANGE TO
PLAN
DOES THE
RESPONDENT
WANT TO
APPEAR AT
EXAMINATION
Expedited ,adverse impact on public consultation ,limited weight to HEA.
Unresolved objections. Limited examination of evidence, compromised
consideration and assessment of reasonable alternatives. SA does not test
any housing requirement than minimum 10,060. Concern that 10,370 would
meet OAN - effect on affordable housing. Lacking flexibility.
Object
1681
23457
Yes
No
i, ii, iii, iv
No logical approach to contingencies. Commitments from April 2013 should Settlement boundary is amended to include land at
not contribute. Concern allocations do not provide contingency for nonCrookley Park, Blendworth Lane.
implementation. Requirement should be 12,580. Sites with PP not most
appropriate, should be tested through SA. Should review settlement
boundaries and gaps.
Appear
Land at Crookley Park should be included. Previously developed land. No
landscape impact.
31
32
Chapter 1 - Introduction
Chapter 1 - Introduction
35
Chapter 1 - Introduction
36
Chapter 1 - Introduction
39
Chapter 1 - Introduction
Taylor Wimpey UK
[1801]
Turley
Associate
s (Ms
Jade Ellis)
[1800]
Fastnet Properties
Ltd [2327]
White
Young
Green (Mr
Jeremy
Heppell)
[1722]
Taylor Wimpey UK
[1801]
Mr Edward Rehill
David Joel
Basingstoke &
Deane Borough
Council (Mr Edward
Rehill) [2193]
Business East
Hants (David Joel)
[1486]
Woolf
Bond LLP
(Mr
Steven
Brown)
[1678]
Object
1801
23455
Yes
No
i, ii, iii, iv
Expedited - adverse impact on public consultation - limited weight to HEA.
Unresolved objections. Limited examination of evidence, compromised
consideration and assessment of all reasonable alternatives through the SA,
does not test any housing requirement than minimum of 10,060. Concern
that 10,370 would meet OAN - effect on affordable housing. Lack of
flexibility.
Appear
No logical approach to identification of contingencies. Commitments from
1st April 2013 should not contribute. Concern allocations do not provide
contingency for non-implementation. Requirement should be 12,580
dwellings. Sites with planning permission not the most appropriate- should
be tested through SA. Should review settlement boundaries and gaps.
Object
2327
23560
Yes
No
i, ii, iii, iv
The Plan should allow for additional site allocations
in order to meet any shortfall. This approach is
further supported on the basis that the housing
requirement to be met during the plan period is a
The Plan should provide for flexibility in the event that the identified sites fail minimum and represents a floor not a ceiling. We
to come forward at the rate and/or date envisaged.
suggest the inclusion of a 'reserve site' policy that
identifies suitable sites for development that could
be released in the event of a shortfall in housing
delivery. This is particularly the case at Alton and
Horndean.
Object
1801
23562
Yes
No
i, ii, iii, iv
Support
2193
23513
Unknown
Yes
None
Object
1486
23330
Yes
No
- Increase the overall housing number in the Plan
by 518, in order to deliver the shortfall of 207 in
affordable housing resulting from recent changes
to government policy.
- Consider reasonable alternative strategies in
terms of overall housing numbers
The Plan is unsound for the following reasons:
- A failure to meet identified affordable housing need in full;
- A failure to consider reasonable alternatives;
- A failure to provide adequate buffers against possible non-delivery;and
- A failure to comply with the requirements of the NPPF.
ii, iii, iv
No comments
Sites allocated for employment and listed in the 2013 Employment land
review have been developed for residential (OSU and Buckmore Farm).
Reduction of employment land in Whitehill & Bordon to 9.5ha. Unclear if this
has been considered in the allocation of sites. Also changes to permitted
development impact windfall allowance. Impact on the supply position of the
2013 ELR as evidence base.
Appear
Appear
No
The council needs to account for all the changes to
the Employment Land Supply notably the 2006
Local Plan Allocations. The Council should
consider allocating additional land for employment
instead of relying on windfall sites. Windfall sites
carry a degree of uncertainty. Reliance on such
site would impact on business growth, enterprise,
job creation and the ability to support housing
growth in the area.
No
There have been significant changes to the proposed employment land
supply without any revised evidence base. It is difficult to determine how the
council can meet current and future need for employment land.
Para 6.18 - remove "about" 2ha Horndean
Allocations
Concern that HEA does not include a strategic approach to mitigation or
recreational impacts on the Wealden Heaths Phase II SPA.
46
Chapter 1 - Introduction
Dr Pauline
Holmes MIEEM
Hampshire and Isle
of Wight Wildlife
Trust (Dr Pauline
Holmes MIEEM)
[718]
Object
718
23460
Unknown
No
ii
HRA only assesses two allocated sites of LIP004 and HERA007 and not
windfall applications of up to 521 dwellings. HRA recognises windfall sites
but has not take the in-combination impacts arising from these into account
when reaching its conclusion. EHDC should seek mitigation from small scale
developments.
No
HEA would not lead to sustainable development and not protect SPA
HEA should include Ecological Network Maps.
47
Chapter 1 - Introduction
Mr Pete
Errington
Hampshire County
Council (Mr Pete
Errington) [971]
Object
971
23576
Yes
Page 3 of 29
No
iii, iv
There are a number of allocated sites within Table 1 which lie either within
the Mineral Consultation Areas or the Mineral Safeguarding Area as set out
in the Hampshire Minerals & Waste Plan policies map. Allocated sites
which conflict with these may have potential to encroach, prejudice,
jeopardise or unnecessarily sterilise safeguarded strategic infrastructure.
These sites being: EMP1, EMP2, HN1, HN2, RC1, RC2, VL5 and VL6.
Request that an additional site specific criterion is
added to each policy which relates to the
'investigation of mineral potential'.
No
FOLDER
REFERENCE
POLICY/PARAGRAPH OF SITE ALLOCATIONS PLAN
RESPONDENT
NAME
ORGANISATION
Hart District Council
(Mr Ray Bryant)
[2376]
Havant Borough
Council (Gavin
Stonham) [2271]
48
Chapter 1 - Introduction
Mr Ray Bryant
49
Chapter 1 - Introduction
Gavin Stonham
Chapter 1 - Introduction
Natural England
Francesca Barker (Francesca Barker)
[2406]
88
91
93
96
Chapter 1 - Introduction
Chapter 1 - Introduction
Chapter 1 - Introduction
Lisa Walker
Ms Carrie
Temple
Helen Chapman
AGENT
NAME
SUPPORT/ PERSON
OBJECT
ID
COMMENT
ID
IS THE PLAN
LEGALLY
COMPLIANT
IS THE
PLAN
SOUND
WHICH TESTS
OF DOES THE
PLAN FAIL TO
MEET
REPRESENTATION SUMMARY
REPRESENTATION SUGGESTED CHANGE TO
PLAN
DOES THE
RESPONDENT
WANT TO
APPEAR AT
EXAMINATION
Support
2376
23358
Yes
Yes
None
There would not appear to be anything substantive within the Plan to cause
Hart District Council any specific reason for concern.
No
Support
2271
23325
Unknown
Yes
None
No comments to make.
No
Thank you for consulting Natural England on the above.
Support
Rowlands Castle
Parish Council (
Lisa Walker) [1118]
Object
RSPB (Ms Carrie
Temple) [747]
Object
South East Water
Ltd (Helen
Chapman) [2392]
Support
2406
1118
747
2392
23461
23524
23575
23444
Unknown
No
No
Unknown
Yes
No
No
Yes
None
i, ii, iii
iii
None
We note that our comments from our previous responses have been
incorporated into the Local Plan, in line with the Statement of Common
Ground. Natural England therefore has no further comments to make
No
Consultation process was of limited value - no parish boundaries, gaps
identified. Supply driven process does not reflect demand.
SDNP is taking a small proportion of areas target (16%), undue burden on
Southern Parishes. Will not be acceptable to compensate further for
Whitehill & Bordon shortages.
Concern that approach ignores brownfield sites just going to redraw SPB
around new greenfield sites.
Flexibility in the 10,370 target should apply too all parishes.
The accompanying HRA does not undertake an in-combination effects
assessment in respect of recreational pressures from new housing around
the Wealden Heaths SPA. As a direct consequence, policies LP1(e),
VL3(f), VL4(f), VL5(h) and VL6(e) which refer to recreational disturbance
mitigation but without a consistent basis for application, are not sound. This
is on the grounds that clear policy requirements for applicants have not been
set out in these individual policies.
Appear
An updated in-combination assessment should be
undertaken for the Plan. This should include a full
assessment of the allocation sites within 5km of
the SPA (including predicted additional windfall
housing within the area), existing uncompleted
permissions and other unallocated developments
currently under consideration. The assessment
must also include housing both within the National
Park area and (as far as it is currently possible to
determine) within Waverley BC.
East Hants lies within SW Water's resource zone 4 and 5. SE Water's
WRMP indicates these zones will remain in surplus for average demands.
For peak demand a deficit is forecast from 2020 onwards. Additional
schemes are scheduled which will satisfy demand. The allocation of 2,596
dwellings is broadly in line with WRMP assumptions. Our published planned
programme will be fully able to satisfy the growth in demands.
Appear
No
New mains will be required for Whitehill & Bordon. Some mains
reinforcement will be required for some settlements.
97
35
14
17
17
3
Chapter 1 - Introduction
Support
1786
23469
Unknown
Yes
None
Taylor Wimpey UK
[1801]
Woolf
Bond LLP
(Mr
Steven
Brown)
[1678]
Object
1801
23565
Yes
No
i, ii, iii, iv
Chapter 2 - Proposal for Settlements
Southcott Homes
Limited [1655]
Neame
Sutton Ltd
(David
Neame)
[1339]
Object
Chapter 2 - Proposal for Settlements
ProVision
Planning &
Bargate Homes Ltd Design
[2324]
(Richard
Osborn)
[1165]
Object
2324
23507
Yes
No
Chapter 2 - Proposal for Settlements
ProVision
Planning &
Bargate Homes Ltd Design
[2324]
(Richard
Osborn)
[1165]
Object
2324
23501
Yes
No
Chapter 10 - Implemention and Monitoring
Chapter 3 - Alton
Clare Gibbons
Southern Water
Services (Clare
Gibbons) [1786]
Hallam Land
Management Ltd
[1368]
Barton
Willmore
(Robin
Shepherd)
[2396]
Object
1655
1368
23595
23447
Yes
Unknown
Page 4 of 29
No
No
i, iv
Southern Water only provides wastewater services to Petersfield, Liss,
Horndean, Clanfield and Rowlands Castle and does not supply water to the
area covered by East Hampshire District Council. We note that the
submission document contains amendments which seek to address our
previous representations. We wish to submit no further representations at
this stage.
The suggestion at para. 10.6 that problems with housing delivery may
trigger a review of plans or delivery mechanisms does not result in a
responsive or flexible plan.
No
The inclusion of a reserve site policy. The subject
site represents a sustainable opportunity as either
a baseline or reserve site allocation - land at Chalk
Hill Road, Horndean.
Para 2.4 and para 3.1 object.
This para is not in line with the Localism Act, it is clear that if a
Neighbourhood Plan (NP) fails the referendum or is not carried forward it
should not form part of the emerging Local Plan. The Local Plan should
allocate at least the minimum housing target figure to guide any NP, if a NP
is adopted under the development plan then it will take precedence over the
allocations plan. Ignoring the allocation of these areas in reliance of a NP is
untenable.
Appear
Appear
i, ii, iii, iv
- Overall strategy is inflexible with limited options in the event of large sites
not delivering or Neighbourhood Plans being delayed.
- 20% applied to five year land supply
- Fail to meet housing need
- evidence base used to determine sites is flawed
Include provision of more deliverable housing sites
Appear
i, ii, iii, iv
- Allocations plan inflexible incase large sites dont deliver or neighbourhood
plans are delayed
- fails to meet housing need
- Evidence base is flawed
Make further provision for additional deliverable
sites
Appear
i, ii
Land to the East of Will Hall Farm, Alton is suitable for development for up
to 180 dwellings. It should be for EHDC, within the HEA to allocate sites
initially to ensure its preparation is not delayed by the preparation of
Neighbourhood Plans and to enable the latter to be prepared in conformity
with the development plan. Request that the HEA allocates sites in and
around Alton. HEA should be aligned to the Alton Neighbourhood Plan. Site
should be included in the HEA.
Land to the East of Will Hall Farm, Alton should be
included in the HEA for development of up to 180
dwellings.
No
FOLDER
REFERENCE
13
17
35
94
95
1
17
POLICY/PARAGRAPH OF SITE ALLOCATIONS PLAN
RESPONDENT
NAME
ORGANISATION
AGENT
NAME
Mr
Richard
Goodall
[2401]
Chapter 3 - Alton
Elstream
Development Ltd
[2402]
Chapter 3 - Alton
ProVision
Planning &
Bargate Homes Ltd Design
[2324]
(Richard
Osborn)
[1165]
Taylor Wimpey UK
[1801]
Chapter 3 - Alton
Chapter 3 - Alton
Woolf
Bond LLP
(Mr
Steven
Brown)
[1678]
Savills (Rebecca
Rebecca Altman
Altman) [1904]
SUPPORT/ PERSON
OBJECT
ID
Object
Object
Object
Object
2402
2324
1801
1904
COMMENT
ID
23492
23511
23563
23413
IS THE PLAN
LEGALLY
COMPLIANT
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
IS THE
PLAN
SOUND
No
No
No
No
WHICH TESTS
OF DOES THE
PLAN FAIL TO
MEET
REPRESENTATION SUMMARY
REPRESENTATION SUGGESTED CHANGE TO
PLAN
i, ii, iii, iv
Please see attached document
Employment allocations should be more
comprehensive and other wider areas and more
uses, including a hotel allocation for Alton. A full
and fair assessment of the two competing Alton
hotel sites can then be made
i, ii, iii, iv
- Sites AL035 and AL036 should not have been excluded from the SHLAA
and should be allocated
- Overall strategy is inflexible with limited options in the event of large sites
not delivering or Neighbourhood Plans being delayed.
- 20% applied to five yea
Include land at Windmill Hill, Alton
Appear
There is an over reliance on delivery from strategic sites and the lack of
flexibile strategy to respond to meeting needs in the event that the sites fail
to come forward.
The Plan should allow for additional site allocations
in order to meet any shortfall. This approach is
further supported on the basis that the housing
requirement to be met during the plan period is a
minimum and represents a floor not a ceiling. We
suggest the inclusion of a 'reserve site' policy that
identifies suitable sites for development that could
be released in the event of a shortfall in housing
delivery. This is particularly the case at Alton and
Horndean.
Appear
Holybourne is a separate village and little recognition has been given to
Holybourne as a separate settlement and no proposals have been made to
allocate sites for housing within the settlement. The draft Alton NP
continues to propose no allocation for open market or affordable housing
within Holybourne. My clients own four suitable sites which have the
potential for housing development. It is accepted that the correct
mechanism for assessing allocation sites within Holybourne is currently
through the Alton NP process but there is no acknowledgement of this within
the EHDC Draft Allocations Plan.
Section 3 of the EHDC Allocations Plan needs to
be updated to acknowledge Holybourne as a
separate village and to clarify that the housing
needs of this village are required to be considered
through the Alton NP process.
No
i, ii, iii, iv
ii, iv
SGN Gas Infrastructure at the allocated locations would not be significantly
impacted by the level of future developments projected. However, SGN
would wish to reinforce that should alterations to existing assets be required
to allow development to proceed these should be funded by the developer.
Should major alterations or diversions be required the Council must highlight
that the developer should liaise with SGN. If a developer is proposing to
include renewable technologies related to production of biomethane, early
discussions between developer and SGN is required.
SGN Gas
Infrastructure
(Viginus Emeka
Okpara) [2263]
Support
2263
23384
Unknown
Yes
None
Chapter 4 - Horndean
Adams
Hendry
Trustees of the
Consulting
English Province of
Ltd (Mrs
Our Lady of Charity
Debra
[1619]
Ivory)
[1422]
Support
1619
23517
Yes
Yes
None
We support the amendment to the settlement policy boundary of Lovedean
to include the allocated housing site north of James Copse Road and west
of Lovedean Lane, Lovedean.
It would have been helpful to show the proposed
change to the settlement boundary within the main
Local Plan Policy document and include the
change on the plan on page 23.
Chapter 4 - Horndean
ProVision
Planning &
Bargate Homes Ltd Design
[2324]
(Richard
Osborn)
[1165]
- SHLAA ref HD003 should be allocated
- Overall strategy is inflexible with limited options in the event of large sites
not delivering or Neighbourhood Plans being delayed.
- 20% applied to five year land supply
- Fail to meet housing need
- evidence
Site (SHLAA HD003) should be allocated
Chapter 3 - Alton
Viginus Emeka
Okpara
26
Chapter 4 - Horndean
Mr Andrew Hull
Mr Andrew Hull
[1242]
26
Chapter 4 - Horndean
Mr Andrew Hull
Mr Andrew Hull
[1242]
26
Chapter 4 - Horndean
Mr Andrew Hull
Mr Andrew Hull
[1242]
Southern
Planning
Practice
(Mrs
Alison
Wood)
[738]
Southern
Planning
Practice
(Mrs
Alison
Wood)
[738]
Southern
Planning
Practice
(Mrs
Alison
Wood)
[738]
DOES THE
RESPONDENT
WANT TO
APPEAR AT
EXAMINATION
Written reps
No
No
Object
2324
23509
Yes
No
i, ii, iii, iv
Object
1242
23533
Unknown
No
i, ii, iii
There is a continuing high need for more affordable housing in Horndean.
The Plan does not allocate enough housing sites to meet the existing known
Allocate additional housing sites in Horndean.
need for affordable rented and intermediate housing, let alone meeting the
need which will emerge throughout the plan period.
Appear
Object
1242
23532
Unknown
No
i, ii, iii
Lack of flexibility in the proposals for new housing, employment and open
Allocate additional smaller and medium sized sites
space in Horndean should development of site HN1 be delayed or prevented
at other locations in the parish.
from taking place.
Appear
Object
1242
23531
Unknown
No
i, ii, iii
Object to all of the new housing in Horndean being allocated on one site.
The council is giving people insufficient choice in the location of new homes
within the parish.
Appear
Page 5 of 29
Allocate additional smaller sites for housing
elsewhere in Horndean.
Appear
FOLDER
REFERENCE
26
26
POLICY/PARAGRAPH OF SITE ALLOCATIONS PLAN
Chapter 4 - Horndean
Chapter 4 - Horndean
RESPONDENT
NAME
Mr Andrew Hull
Mr Andrew Hull
ORGANISATION
AGENT
NAME
Mr Andrew Hull
[1242]
Southern
Planning
Practice
(Mrs
Alison
Wood)
[738]
Mr Andrew Hull
[1242]
Southern
Planning
Practice
(Mrs
Alison
Wood)
[738]
Mr Andrew Hull
[1242]
26
Chapter 4 - Horndean
Mr Andrew Hull
28
Chapter 4 - Horndean
Southern Planning
Mrs Alison Wood Practice (Mrs Alison
Wood) [738]
28
Chapter 4 - Horndean
Southern Planning
Mrs Alison Wood Practice (Mrs Alison
Wood) [738]
28
Chapter 4 - Horndean
Southern Planning
Mrs Alison Wood Practice (Mrs Alison
Wood) [738]
28
Chapter 4 - Horndean
Southern Planning
Mrs Alison Wood Practice (Mrs Alison
Wood) [738]
28
Chapter 4 - Horndean
Southern Planning
Mrs Alison Wood Practice (Mrs Alison
Wood) [738]
28
Chapter 4 - Horndean
Southern Planning
Mrs Alison Wood Practice (Mrs Alison
Wood) [738]
28
Chapter 4 - Horndean
Southern Planning
Mrs Alison Wood Practice (Mrs Alison
Wood) [738]
28
Chapter 4 - Horndean
Southern Planning
Mrs Alison Wood Practice (Mrs Alison
Wood) [738]
28
Chapter 4 - Horndean
Southern Planning
Mrs Alison Wood Practice (Mrs Alison
Wood) [738]
Southern
Planning
Practice
(Mrs
Alison
Wood)
[738]
Southern
Planning
Practice
(Mrs
Alison
Wood)
[738]
Southern
Planning
Practice
(Mrs
Alison
Wood)
[738]
Southern
Planning
Practice
(Mrs
Alison
Wood)
[738]
Southern
Planning
Practice
(Mrs
Alison
Wood)
[738]
Southern
Planning
Practice
(Mrs
Alison
Wood)
[738]
Southern
Planning
Practice
(Mrs
Alison
Wood)
[738]
Southern
Planning
Practice
(Mrs
Alison
Wood)
[738]
Southern
Planning
Practice
(Mrs
Alison
Wood)
[738]
Southern
Planning
Practice
(Mrs
Alison
Wood)
[738]
SUPPORT/ PERSON
OBJECT
ID
Object
1242
REPRESENTATION SUGGESTED CHANGE TO
PLAN
DOES THE
RESPONDENT
WANT TO
APPEAR AT
EXAMINATION
The settlement policy boundary of Horndean
should be extended to include all the properties on
Lovedean Lane on Day Lane, and the two sites the
client is proposing for development.
Appear
COMMENT
ID
IS THE PLAN
LEGALLY
COMPLIANT
IS THE
PLAN
SOUND
WHICH TESTS
OF DOES THE
PLAN FAIL TO
MEET
23535
Unknown
No
i, ii, iii
Object to the failure of the Council to review the settlement policy boundary
of Horndean as part of the work on this Plan.
Appear
REPRESENTATION SUMMARY
Object
1242
23534
Unknown
No
i, ii, iii
Feel there is a need for the Plan to provide a range of smaller and medium
sized sites in Horndean in order to give flexibility and choice. The client
proposes that their sites off Lovedean Lane, Horndean should be allocated
for development in the Plan. Although both sites have been considered in
Allocate the sites off Lovdean Lane, Horndean.
the 2014 and earlier SHLAA (HD009 and HD027), our clients believe that all
of the concerns raised by the Council can be overcome in the design and
layout of the sites.
Object
1242
23529
Unknown
No
i, ii, iii
The allocations for 740 homes on two sites which already have permission is Additional site allocations should be made in the
effectively a cap on development. This does not meet the JCS requirement Plan to meet the housing needs of the area
of a minimum target of 700 homes in Horndean.
throughout the plan period.
Appear
Object
738
23549
Unknown
No
i, ii, iii
Lack of smaller housing allocations in Horndean parish to provide sufficient
housing land throughout the plan period. Land on the south and east of
Blendworth Lane should be allocated for housing in the Plan.
Appear
Object
738
23548
Unknown
No
i, ii, iii
There is a continuing high need for more affordable housing in Horndean.
The Plan does not allocate enough housing sites to meet the existing known
Allocate additional housing sites in Horndean.
need for affordable rented and intermediate housing, let alone meeting the
need which will emerge throughout the plan period.
Appear
Object
738
23546
Unknown
No
i, ii, iii
Object to all of the new housing in Horndean being allocated on one site.
The council is giving people insufficient choice in the location of new homes
within the parish.
Appear
Object
738
23544
Unknown
No
i, ii, iii
The allocations for 740 homes on two sites which already have permission is Additional site allocations should be made in the
effectively a cap on development. This does not meet the JCS requirement Plan to meet the housing needs of the area
of a minimum target of 700 homes in Horndean.
throughout the plan period.
Appear
Object
738
23543
Unknown
No
i, ii, iii
Lack of smaller housing and employment allocations in Horndean parish.
Land on the south side of Blendworth Lane between the Church Centre and
Cadlington House should be allocated for development in the Plan.
Appear
Object
738
23542
Unknown
No
i, ii, iii
There is a continuing high need for more affordable housing in Horndean.
The Plan does not allocate enough housing sites to meet the existing known
Allocate additional housing sites in Horndean.
need for affordable rented and intermediate housing, let alone meeting the
need which will emerge throughout the plan period.
Appear
Object
738
23547
Unknown
No
i, ii, iii
Lack of flexibility in the proposals for new housing, employment and open
Allocate additional smaller and medium sized sites
space in Horndean should development of site HN1 be delayed or prevented
at other locations in the parish.
from taking place.
Appear
Object
738
23540
Unknown
No
i, ii, iii
Lack of flexibility in the proposals for new housing, employment and open
Allocate additional smaller and medium sized sites
space in Horndean should development of site HN1 be delayed or prevented
at other locations in the parish.
from taking place.
Appear
Object
738
23539
Unknown
No
i, ii, iii
Object to all of the new housing in Horndean being allocated on one site.
The council is giving people insufficient choice in the location of new homes
within the parish.
Appear
Page 6 of 29
Allocate the land to the south and east of
Blendworth Lane, Horndean, for housing.
Allocate additional smaller sites for housing
elsewhere in Horndean.
Allocate the land between the Church Centre and
Cadlington House, Horndean, for up to 40 houses.
Allocate additional smaller sites for housing
elsewhere in Horndean.
FOLDER
REFERENCE
28
31
35
91
95
29
95
14
POLICY/PARAGRAPH OF SITE ALLOCATIONS PLAN
Chapter 4 - Horndean
RESPONDENT
NAME
ORGANISATION
Southern
Planning
Southern Planning Practice
Mrs Alison Wood Practice (Mrs Alison (Mrs
Alison
Wood) [738]
Wood)
[738]
Taylor Wimpey UK
[1801]
Chapter 4 - Horndean
Chapter 4 - Horndean
Taylor Wimpey UK
[1801]
Chapter 4 - Horndean
Rowlands Castle
Parish Council (
Lisa Walker) [1118]
Chapter 4 - Horndean
Lisa Walker
Viginus Emeka
Okpara
Turley
Associate
s (Ms
Jade Ellis)
[1800]
Woolf
Bond LLP
(Mr
Steven
Brown)
[1678]
Viginus Emeka
Okpara
SGN Gas
Infrastructure
(Viginus Emeka
Okpara) [2263]
Object
Object
Object
Object
Support
Neame
Sutton Ltd
(David
Neame)
[1339]
738
COMMENT
ID
IS THE PLAN
LEGALLY
COMPLIANT
IS THE
PLAN
SOUND
WHICH TESTS
OF DOES THE
PLAN FAIL TO
MEET
23536
Unknown
No
i, ii, iii
REPRESENTATION SUMMARY
REPRESENTATION SUGGESTED CHANGE TO
PLAN
The allocations for 740 homes on two sites which already have permission is Additional site allocations should be made in the
effectively a cap on development. This does not meet the JCS requirement Plan to meet the housing needs of the area
of a minimum target of 700 homes in Horndean.
throughout the plan period.
DOES THE
RESPONDENT
WANT TO
APPEAR AT
EXAMINATION
Appear
Requirement is minimum of 700 dwellings. 95% reliant on one site. Dwelling
capacity may be reduced below 700 due to constraints. 740 dwellings does
not provide sufficient flexibility or contingency. Horndean is a sustainable
settlement - can accommodate additional growth to meet OAN. Allocations
may not meet OAN.
Support
SGN Gas
Infrastructure
(Viginus Emeka
Okpara) [2263]
Southcott Homes
Limited [1655]
Chapter 6 - Clanfield
SUPPORT/ PERSON
OBJECT
ID
Object
Turley
Associate
Bloor Homes [1893] s (Ms
Jade Ellis)
[1800]
Chapter 5 - Liphook
Chapter 5 - Liphook
AGENT
NAME
Object
1801
1801
1118
2263
1893
2263
1655
23454
23564
23527
23385
23557
23386
23598
Yes
Yes
No
Unknown
Yes
Unknown
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
i, ii, iii, iv
Only moderate weight can be given to HEA. Significant objection to draft
allocations. Shortcomings of community engagement over LIPS and
methodology of identifying sites. Sites west of Horndean sustainable. Should
contribute towards Horndean and not Clanfield. Inadequate assessment of
reasonable alternatives. Limited assessment in SA. Land off Southdown
Road should be allocated.
Land off Southdown Road should be allocated.
Appear
The Plan should allow for additional site allocations
in order to meet any shortfall. Land at Chalk Hill
Road, Horndean, should be allocated to provide for
approximately 50 dwellings. This approach is
further supported on the basis that the housing
Omission of land at Chalk Hill Road, Horndean as a housing allocation to
provide for approximately 50 dwellings. There is a lack of flexiblity, including requirement to be met during the plan period is a
minimum and represents a floor not a ceiling. We
a lack of a reserve site strategy, in seeking to ensure a robust mechanism
suggest the inclusion of a 'reserve site' policy that
for the delivery of sufficient housing numbers during the plan period.
identifies suitable sites for development that could
be released in the event of a shortfall in housing
delivery. This is particularly the case at Alton and
Horndean.
Appear
i, ii, iii
Concern over 740 allocated dwellings for Horndean. Significant adverse
effect on Rowlands Castle from Horndean generated traffic.
30% of allocated sites in Horndean within Rowlands Castle parish - unjust
and conflicts with Bartons Road approach.
JCS Policy CP10 states priority to sites within SPBs, other sites in Horndean
should be given priority over Land east of Horndean.
Appear
None
SGN Gas Infrastructure at the allocated locations would not be significantly
impacted by the level of future developments projected. However, SGN
would wish to reinforce that should alterations to existing assets be required
to allow development to proceed these should be funded by the developer.
Should major alterations or diversions be required the Council must highlight
that the developer should liaise with SGN. If a developer is proposing to
include renewable technologies related to production of biomethane, early
discussions between developer and SGN is required.
No
i, ii, iii, iv
Paras 5.1 - 5.4 - The JCS sets a minimum of 175 dwellings. The current
Plan identifies only a single site for allocation in Liphook. In its current form
Liphook does not benefit from any contingency for non-implementation.
There is no reason that the additional buffer/contingency cannot be applied
to Liphook. Chiltley Farm offers a suitable housing site to accommodate
additional growth due to the lack of insurmountable constraints.
None
SGN Gas Infrastructure at the allocated locations would not be significantly
impacted by the level of future developments projected. However, SGN
would wish to reinforce that should alterations to existing assets be required
to allow development to proceed these should be funded by the developer.
Should major alterations or diversions be required the Council must highlight
that the developer should liaise with SGN. If a developer is proposing to
include renewable technologies related to production of biomethane, early
discussions between developer and SGN is required.
i, ii, iii, iv
i, iv
The Council's approach in respect to Clanfield has arbitrarily imposed an
allocation on the settlement as a result of the resolution to grant consent.
The Council has taken the view on the basis this scheme will deliver a
minimum of 200 dwellings and has not assessed the options. The Council
ignores the clear need for both open market and affordable housing within
Clanfield together with the availability of suitable and sustainable
development locations such as land at 102-120 Downhouse Road.
Chiltley Farm is allocated for housing in the Plan
as an apporpriate and available development site.
Appear
No
Land at 102-120 Downhouse Road, Clanfield,
should be allocated for housing.
Appear
CL012 Land at South Lane, rear of Trafalgar Rise, Clanfield
47
Chapter 6 - Clanfield
Mr Pete
Errington
Hampshire County
Council (Mr Pete
Errington) [971]
Object
971
23577
Yes
Yes
None
89
Chapter 6 - Clanfield
Mr Christopher
Southwood
Persimmon Homes
South Coast (Mr
Christopher
Southwood) [2404]
Object
2404
23467
Yes
No
iii
Page 7 of 29
Should additional housing sites within Clanfield or
The site is owned by Hampshire County Council. The site is contained in the
surrounding areas be required during the Plan
SHLAA and performs well within the SA. Should additional housing sites
period, the site remains suitable for development,
within Clanfield or surrounding areas be required during the Plan period, the
subject to County Council Member approval.
site remains suitable for development, subject to County Council Member
approval.
Please see attached letter and plan
New Policy: CF4
To allocate an area of land at South Lane,
Clanfield, for residential development and then
further land as green or open Gap Space.
No
Appear
FOLDER
REFERENCE
95
8
91
95
2
POLICY/PARAGRAPH OF SITE ALLOCATIONS PLAN
Chapter 6 - Clanfield
Chapter 7 - Rowlands Castle
Chapter 7 - Rowlands Castle
Chapter 7 - Rowlands Castle
Chapter 8 - Four Marks and South Medstead
RESPONDENT
NAME
Viginus Emeka
Okpara
#NAME?
Lisa Walker
Viginus Emeka
Okpara
Mr B Hobbs and
Ms A Griffin
ORGANISATION
AGENT
NAME
SGN Gas
Infrastructure
(Viginus Emeka
Okpara) [2263]
- - Strange [2420]
SUPPORT/ PERSON
OBJECT
ID
Support
Bryan
Jezeph
Consultan
cy (Bryan
Jezeph)
[1336]
Rowlands Castle
Parish Council (
Lisa Walker) [1118]
Object
Object
SGN Gas
Infrastructure
(Viginus Emeka
Okpara) [2263]
Support
Barker
Parry
Town
Mr B Hobbs and Ms Planning
A Griffin [2303]
Ltd (Mr
Steven
Barker)
[2252]
Object
2263
2420
1118
2263
2303
COMMENT
ID
23387
23561
23525
23388
23487
IS THE PLAN
LEGALLY
COMPLIANT
Unknown
No
No
Unknown
Yes
IS THE
PLAN
SOUND
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
WHICH TESTS
OF DOES THE
PLAN FAIL TO
MEET
REPRESENTATION SUMMARY
None
SGN Gas Infrastructure at the allocated locations would not be significantly
impacted by the level of future developments projected. However, SGN
would wish to reinforce that should alterations to existing assets be required
to allow development to proceed these should be funded by the developer.
Should major alterations or diversions be required the Council must highlight
that the developer should liaise with SGN. If a developer is proposing to
include renewable technologies related to production of biomethane, early
discussions between developer and SGN is required.
i, ii, iii, iv
The Plan has not been based upon objectively assessed development and
infrastructure requirements. The Plan should await the publication of the
South Hampshire Strategy. Furthermore, the Plan has over estimated the
level of windfalls.
REPRESENTATION SUGGESTED CHANGE TO
PLAN
DOES THE
RESPONDENT
WANT TO
APPEAR AT
EXAMINATION
No
This representation relates to land at Whichers
Gate Road for approximately 160 dwellings. This
site could make good the shortall in the Allocations
Plan. The Plan should be modified, page 35, to
show the revised settlement boundary.
Appear
i, ii, iii
All new sites shown now have planning permission. No action is being taken
to reduce traffic impact on adjoining residential areas.
Keyline site should count as a 'new allocation'.
Allocations do not address need for retirement accomodation specifically
acknowledged in LIPS and SA. Does not satisfy JCS Policy CP11.
Appear
None
SGN Gas Infrastructure at the allocated locations would not be significantly
impacted by the level of future developments projected. However, SGN
would wish to reinforce that should alterations to existing assets be required
to allow development to proceed these should be funded by the developer.
Should major alterations or diversions be required the Council must highlight
that the developer should liaise with SGN. If a developer is proposing to
include renewable technologies related to production of biomethane, early
discussions between developer and SGN is required.
No
i, ii, iv
In order to be sound the plan should allocate new
sites to accommodate a minimum of 175
dwellings. One such site which stands on its own
merit as a true potential allocation, or in addition to
the proposed "allocations" (and thereby still
compliant with the 175 minimum), is land at 32
Telegraph Lane/5 Blackberry Lane, Four Marks.
This 1.9h site was refused planning permission
(54976/001) recently, substantively owing to a
similar misinterpretation of the policy but for no
other technical or practical reasons. The site
should be included in the site allocations
document.
With regard to Section 8 (Four Marks and South Medstead), moving existing
permissions into the allocations column is false accounting and as with the
Finally, this site identified as "reasonable" in the
draft plan is not compliant with the provisions of the JCS (CP10) and
companion Sustainability Approval (SA) - FM 024 consequently this document cannot be sound. The SA summary for site
is still misdescribed therein. We made comments
FM024 remains inaccurate. This site should be allocated.
in respect of the Interim SA (December 2014) and
for the record as the SA is a part of the evidence
base repeat them now:
Written reps
"It is not clear whether the author visited the site
but, for the avoidance of doubt, and as confirmed
by the owners in respect of the most recent
application, which was in outline, with access and
layout not reserved:
3
10
10
Chapter 8 - Four Marks and South Medstead
Chapter 8 - Four Marks and South Medstead
Chapter 8 - Four Marks and South Medstead
Hallam Land
Management Ltd
[1368]
Shanly Homes Ltd
[2342]
Shanly Homes Ltd
[2342]
Barton
Willmore
(Robin
Shepherd)
[2396]
Kevin
Scott
Consultan
cy (Kay
Collins)
[2320]
Kevin
Scott
Consultan
cy (Kay
Collins)
[2320]
Object
Object
Object
1368
2342
2342
23556
23574
23573
Unknown
Yes
Yes
Page 8 of 29
No
No
No
* The access (approved by highways and not a
reason for refusal) was adjacent to 1 TP0d tree.
* The existing woodland remained.
i, ii
Consider that their site - land to the south of Winchester Road, Four Marks should be included as a residential allocation within the draft Site Allocations
and the extended Settlement Policy Boundary for Four Marks/South
Medstead. Whilst FM1, FM2 and FM3 benefit from extant planning
permissions, there is no guarantee of their delivery and other sustainable
sites, which help to meet an identified housing need and contribute towards
the delivery of sustainable development, should not be discounted as a
result.
i, iii
JCS CP10 makes provision for a minimum of 175 dwellings in Four Marks
and Medstead. The Council include three allocated sites for this area
comprising 237 dwellings. The Council's approach allows no flexibility
should any of these identified sites not be delivered or the number of
dwellings on the identified sites is under delivered.
A more appropriate approach would be a review of
the position in Four Marks and Medstead after
2019 or the identification of 'reserve sites' should
these not come forward.
Appear
i, iii
Site at Land to the rear of 97-103 Blackberry Lane, Four Marks. The
location of this site and lack of constraints means it is better placed to fulfil
future housing requirements in the District. We do not consider that the
Council's approach to the requirement for housing in the longer term is
robust nor does it provide flexibility or potect them from under delivery in
later stages in the plan.
This site should be added to the plan to enable
flexibility in the context of housing deliverability and
the Council's five year housing land supply.
Appear
Consider that their site - land to the south of
Winchester Road, Four Marks - should be included
as a residential allocation within the draft Site
Allocations and the extended Settlement Policy
Boundary for Four Marks/South Medstead.
No
FOLDER
REFERENCE
12
15
15
40
53
95
20
37
POLICY/PARAGRAPH OF SITE ALLOCATIONS PLAN
Chapter 8 - Four Marks and South Medstead
RESPONDENT
NAME
Messrs I Foden
ORGANISATION
Messrs I Foden
[2411]
AGENT
NAME
Matthew
Utting
(Matthew
Utting)
[796]
Chapter 8 - Four Marks and South Medstead
Pegasus
Group (Mr
Hurlock
David
Investments [2422]
Hutchison)
[2424]
Chapter 8 - Four Marks and South Medstead
Pegasus
Group (Mr
Hurlock
David
Investments [2422]
Hutchison)
[2424]
Chapter 8 - Four Marks and South Medstead
Cala Homes
(Thames) (Mr Alan
Ward) [2426]
Chapter 8 - Four Marks and South Medstead
Mr Alan Ward
Miss Katie
Knowles
Medstead Parish
Council (Miss Katie
Knowles) [1793]
SGN Gas
Infrastructure
(Viginus Emeka
Okpara) [2263]
Chapter 9 - Bentley
Chapter 9 - Villages North of the South Downs National Park
13
Chapter 9 - Villages North of the South Downs National Park
David Evans
Object
Object
Smiths
Gore
Westella (Mr Simon
Mr Simon Bladon
(Joanne
Bladon) [1137]
Unsworth)
[1745]
9
Object
2411
2422
2422
2426
COMMENT
ID
23582
23568
23567
23500
IS THE PLAN
LEGALLY
COMPLIANT
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
IS THE
PLAN
SOUND
No
No
No
No
WHICH TESTS
OF DOES THE
PLAN FAIL TO
MEET
i, ii, iii, iv
REPRESENTATION SUMMARY
Support
Bentley Parish
Council (Clerk to
Bentley Parish
Council) [1214]
Object
Object
1793
2263
1137
1214
23327
23389
23523
23428
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Lindford Land
Limited (David
Evans) [2308]
DHA
Planning &
Developm
ent (Sati
Panesar)
[2306]
Object
2308
23572
Yes
No
Elstream
Development Ltd
[2402]
Mr
Richard
Goodall
[2401]
Object
2402
23494
Yes
No
Page 9 of 29
REPRESENTATION SUGGESTED CHANGE TO
PLAN
The Plans Policies Map 6 and the Policies Map in Appendix A of the presubmission Four Marks & Medstead Neighbourhood Plan each propose a
different Settlement Policy Boundary. The Plan does not include a mixture
The Policy Map 6 and Policies Map in the Four
of domestic curtilages and open paddock land associated with other
Marks & Medstead NP should accordingly revised
properties on Boyneswood Road within the SPB; and neither does the NP
their SPB.
include the land at Woodview Place and Timbers within the SBP. If not
rectified, this will give rise to an illogical SPB which would not follow any firm,
recognisable or defensible feature on the ground.
DOES THE
RESPONDENT
WANT TO
APPEAR AT
EXAMINATION
No
i
There are more sustainable sites which should be identified for Four Marks
and Medstead, including the land at the r/o 131 Winchester Road, Four
Marks. The SPB should be revised to include the land at the rear of 131
Winchester Road, which provides for sustainable development in
accordance with the NPPF.
Additional allocations should be included that
would provide for sustainable development
including one at the rear of 131 Winchester Road,
Four Marks.
Appear
i, ii, iii, iv
The Plan includes a partial review of the Settlement Policy Boundaries
through the inclusion of the proposed allocations and existing permissions.
Given the existing boundaries are time expired and were not designed to
provide for the current plan period, it is considered that a full review of these
boundaries is required now. The proposed revision to reflect Bislands Lane
has implications for not just this site but also for the land to the north. An
alternative SPB for Four Marks is being proposed within the Four Marks and
Medstead Neighbourhood Plan.
The SPB should be fully reviewed in accordance
with the role which they play. There should not be
any excluded areas in the SPB as this does not
provide for positive planning, is not justified or
effective and is inconsisitent with the NPPF.
Appear
- Plan does not provide flexibility
- Allocations application led not through objectively assessed evidence
- Four Marks/S medstead has limited constraints
- Neighbourhood Plan promotes railway hub, site would provide footfall
- No five year housing l
Land at east of 20-38 Lymington Bottom Road,
Land rear of Stretfield, Stoney Lane, and rear of
Belmont, Five Ash Road, all in Medstead should
be included in allocations plan
Appear
Amend section 8 to be consistent with section 3
and 9 (Alton and Bentley)
No
i, ii, iii
Letter accompanying Proposed submission states that Alton and Bentley are
preparing a Neighbourhood Plan but fails to mention Medstead and Four
Marks are preparing a Neighbourhood Plan.
Viginus Emeka
Okpara
Clerk to Bentley
Parish Council
Object
Object
Chapter 8 - Four Marks and South Medstead
Chapter 9 - Bentley
SUPPORT/ PERSON
OBJECT
ID
ii
The Allocations Plan should be consistent. Sites are not allocated for Alton
and Bentley but are being allocated for Medstead and Four Marks. The
Allocations Plan should take the same approach to both areas as they both
have emerging neighbourhood Plans.
None
SGN Gas Infrastructure at the allocated locations would not be significantly
impacted by the level of future developments projected. However, SGN
would wish to reinforce that should alterations to existing assets be required
to allow development to proceed these should be funded by the developer.
Should major alterations or diversions be required the Council must highlight
that the developer should liaise with SGN. If a developer is proposing to
include renewable technologies related to production of biomethane, early
discussions between developer and SGN is required.
i, ii, iii, iv
The distribution of dwellings within the villages does not reflect the evidence
base of the Sustainability Appraisal, which identifies Bentley as having the
best access of all the northern villages to facilities etc. It is also not
appropriate for the Plan to leave all considerations of future housing
allocations in Bentley to the Neighbourhood Plan. The evidence base that
supports the Allocations Plan does not include the Bentley LIPS event.
Finally, the Allocations Plan does not identify any contingency in the event
that the Neighbourhood Plan for Bentley does not proceed further.
None
No
The Plan should provide guidance on the timing
and nature of any intervention by the District, in
terms of allocating sites, if the Bentley
Neighbourhood Plan is not made as in this event
there would be no provision for Bentley to deliver
its share of the housing requirement set out in the
JCS.
These words should be added to the end of
paragraph 9.4; "The following site has been
allocated for housing development in the
This section should include the site allocation made in the Submission
Submission version of the Bentley Neighbourhood
version of the Bentley Neighbourhood Plan. This should be set out in a table Plan". A table should then be inserted showing the
in the same way as the other villages north of the SDNP.
site allocated in the Submission version of the
Bentley Neighbourhood Plan containing the
relevant details in the same way that the table has
been included in clause 9.2..
i, ii, iii, iv
Object to the failure of the Council to plan for any future development in
Lindford during the plan period. Land to the East of Hatch House Farm has
been robustly assessed through the recent planning application for a
development of 33 dwellings. SA flawed in its assessment of the site. The
review of local gaps has not been done as part of the preparation of this
Local Plan. We consider this to be a major failing of this Plan.
Allocate the Land East of Hatch House Farm,
Headley Road, Lindford for residential
development of about 33 dwellings.
Amend the SPB for Lindford to include the Land
East of Hatch House Farm.
Amend the Lindford/Headley Local Gap to exclude
Land East of Hatch House Farm.
i, ii, iii, iv
see attached
Chawton should include a housing allocation and
full and fair consideration be given to the Wolfs
lane site, which has enabling development
potential for much needed visitor facilities
Appear
Written reps
No
Written reps
FOLDER
REFERENCE
POLICY/PARAGRAPH OF SITE ALLOCATIONS PLAN
RESPONDENT
NAME
ORGANISATION
AGENT
NAME
SUPPORT/ PERSON
OBJECT
ID
COMMENT
ID
IS THE PLAN
LEGALLY
COMPLIANT
IS THE
PLAN
SOUND
WHICH TESTS
OF DOES THE
PLAN FAIL TO
MEET
REPRESENTATION SUMMARY
REPRESENTATION SUGGESTED CHANGE TO
PLAN
SHLAA (2014) site ROP006, Land south of Church
Cottages Ropley (0.3ha) should be allocated for
housing development for about 8 dwellings and
identified as a "VL" Policy/site in the
table at paragraph 9.2 of the Plan (see attached
location plan).
DOES THE
RESPONDENT
WANT TO
APPEAR AT
EXAMINATION
The site has been the subject of technical
investigations which demonstrate its
deliverability.
16
21
21
22
22
Chapter 9 - Villages North of the South Downs National Park
Chapter 9 - Villages North of the South Downs National Park
Chapter 9 - Villages North of the South Downs National Park
Chapter 9 - Villages North of the South Downs National Park
Chapter 9 - Villages North of the South Downs National Park
Mr O Hombersley
Giles Stogdon
Giles Stogdon
T Kingsland
T Kingsland
Mr O Hombersley
[2275]
Planning
Works Ltd
(Mr Gary
Thomas)
[2274]
Giles Stogdon
[1832]
Southern
Planning
Practice
(Ian
Donohue)
[2296]
Giles Stogdon
[1832]
Southern
Planning
Practice
(Ian
Donohue)
[2296]
T Kingsland [2297]
Southern
Planning
Practice
(Ian
Donohue)
[2296]
T Kingsland [2297]
Southern
Planning
Practice
(Ian
Donohue)
[2296]
Southern
Planning
Practice
(Ian
Donohue)
[2296]
Southern
Planning
Practice
(Ian Ellis)
[1168]
22
Chapter 9 - Villages North of the South Downs National Park
T Kingsland
T Kingsland [2297]
23
Chapter 9 - Villages North of the South Downs National Park
Cllr Chris
Graham
Cllr Chris Graham
[2335]
Chapter 9 - Villages North of the South Downs National Park
Cllr Chris
Graham
Cllr Chris Graham
[2335]
Southern
Planning
Practice
(Ian Ellis)
[1168]
Welbeck Land
[2329]
Southern
Planning
Practice
(Ian Ellis)
[1168]
23
24
Chapter 9 - Villages North of the South Downs National Park
Object
Object
Object
Object
Object
2275
1832
1832
2297
2297
23453
23587
23586
23475
23458
Yes
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
No
No
No
No
No
i, ii, iii, iv
i, ii, iii
The contribution from identified housing sites in the Plan should be
increased so that there is sufficient flexibility to ensure that the minimum
"target" provision of 150 dwellings can be successfully achieved.
The Plan should therefore seek to provide for all the housing requirements
of Policy CP10 through the identification of specific sites. This will provide for
more certainty and flexibility in the supply of dwellings to meet identified
requirements and reduce the likelihood of having to identify additional sites
through a separate Development Plan Document.
A proposed indicative layout (attached)
demonstrates one way that the site could be
sensitively developed for 8 dwellings with no
adverse impact on the adjacent Conservation Area
or its setting (see land usage plan).
1. Allocate land between the Telephone Exchange
Support the housing allocations proposed for the village of Ropley but object
and Carpenters in Ropley as a housing site for 5
to the Plan as consider that the village of Ropley requires more sites to be
dwellings.
allocated to it in order to meet housing needs later in the plan period (2019
2. Amend the settlement policy boundary for
onwards). Propose that land between the Telephone Exchange and
Ropley to include the land between the Telephone
Carpenters in Gilbert Street is allocated for development.
Exchange and Carpenters.
i, ii, iii
Supports the allocation of sites in Ropley. Additional SPB areas required.
HEA fails to allocate enough housing to meet the needs of the village.
Amend the settlement policy boundary for Ropley
Proposes that an additional SPB area is identified at the western end of
to include the land at the western end of
Petersfield Road, Ropley. Provides the opportunity for a small scale housing
Petersfield Road as shown on Map B1
development of 5-7 houses. Ropley is a sustainable settlement. Need for
smaller dwellings and affordable housing.
i, ii, iii
Support allocation of sites in Ropley. Additional site between Homeview and
Wykeham House required for 5-7 homes to meet shortfall. Ropley has good
range of facilities. Need for smaller dwellings in village and need for
affordable housing. Further sites required to meet need for affordable and
market housing. Site is sustainable location and well screened.
23473
Unknown
No
i, ii, iii
Object
2335
23470
Yes
No
i, ii, iii
Object
2335
23472
Yes
No
i, ii, iii
23570
Unknown
Page 10 of 29
No
i, ii, iii
1. Amend the settlement policy boundary for
Ropley to include the land at the western end of
Petersfield Road as shown on Map B1.
2. Allocate land between Homeview and Wykeham
House, Petersfield Road, Ropley as a housing site
for 5 - 7 dwellings as shown on Map C1.
Supports the allocation of sites in Ropley.HEA fails to allocate enough
housing to meet the needs of the villages north of the SDNPA, particularly in
the village of Ropley. Strategy for meeting need of sufficient market and
Affordable Housing is not justified. Additional allocations needed. Scope
within SPB limited. Need for further sites 2019 onwards. Review of SPB
offers limited scope.
- supports allocations in Ropley
- fails to allocate enough housing to meet the needs of villages north of the More housing should be allocated in the villages
SDNP, particularly Ropley
north of the SDNP to meet housing need,
- Only small element of flexibility added, Council will not meet high need for especially post 2019/20.
affordable and market homes, therefor
- Fails to allocate enough housing sites to meet the needs of Ropley
throughout the plan period
- Land at Vicarage Lane should be allocated for development
#NAME?
- One of largest villages in East hampshire, with good facilities and
services
- High need for a
Grayshott is classified as a Small Local Service Centre in the JCS but it is
the only Service Centre not to have a housing allocation proposed for it.
2329
More housing sites should be allocated in the
villages north of the National Park to ensure that
there is sufficient land available to meet the need
for more affordable and market homes throughout
the plan period. At the present time, the sites
allocated in these villages are likely to be
completed by about 2019. Additional sites are
needed for development from 2019/20 onwards.
i, ii, iii
2297
Land is available at Applegarth Farm for housing, employment, leisure,
recreation and open space and should be allocated for development in the
Plan.
Appear
The Sustainability Appraisal also surmises that the
site may have some biodiversity value but neither
is this correct as the ecological survey confirms
that the site is ecologically poor and presents no
bar to development.
Clients support the housing allocations proposed for the village of Ropley but
consider the Plan fails to allocate enough housing to meet the needs of the
villages north of the National Park, particularly in the village of Ropley. The
strategy for providing sufficient market and affordable housing in the villages
north of the National Park to meet local needs is not justified.
Object
Object
The Sustainability Appraisal of the Plan (page 253)
incorrectly identifies that the site has inadequate
access. A junction design has been produced
which provides safe and appropriate visibility (see
attached plan) which is based on actual vehicular
speeds along Church Lane following an automatic
traffic count.
Appear
Appear
Appear
Appear
Appear
Appear
Appear
Grayshott is classified as a Small Local Service
Centre in the JCS but it is the only Service Centre
not to have a housing allocation proposed for it.
Land is available at Applegarth Farm for housing,
employment, leisure, recreation and open space
and should be allocated for development in the
Plan.
Appear
FOLDER
REFERENCE
27
27
34
POLICY/PARAGRAPH OF SITE ALLOCATIONS PLAN
RESPONDENT
NAME
ORGANISATION
Mr Peter Charles
[1315]
Chapter 9 - Villages North of the South Downs National Park
Mr Peter Charles
Chapter 9 - Villages North of the South Downs National Park
Mr Peter Charles
Mr Peter Charles
[1315]
Sentinel Housing
Association [2328]
Chapter 9 - Villages North of the South Downs National Park
Viginus Emeka
Okpara
Chapter 9 - Villages North of the South Downs National Park
19
EMP1 - Land at Lynch Hill
Tanvale Holdings
Ltd [1506]
19
EMP1 - Land at Lynch Hill
Tanvale Holdings
Ltd [1506]
43
EMP1 - Land at Lynch Hill
50
EMP1 - Land at Lynch Hill
5
EMP2 - Land at Wilsom Road
43
EMP2 - Land at Wilsom Road
50
84
EMP2 - Land at Wilsom Road
EMP2 - Land at Wilsom Road
Mr Martin Small
Laura Lax
Mr Martin Small
Mrs Rachel
Palmer
Southern
Planning
Practice
(Mrs
Alison
Wood)
[738]
Southern
Planning
Practice
(Mrs
Alison
Wood)
[738]
White
Young
Green
(Paul
Thomas)
[1805]
SGN Gas
Infrastructure
(Viginus Emeka
Okpara) [2263]
95
Laura Lax
AGENT
NAME
Environment
Agency (Laura Lax)
[326]
Savills (Mr
Peter
Warren)
[1505]
Savills (Mr
Peter
Warren)
[1505]
SUPPORT/ PERSON
OBJECT
ID
Object
Object
Object
1315
1315
2328
COMMENT
ID
23581
23580
23569
IS THE PLAN
LEGALLY
COMPLIANT
Unknown
Unknown
Yes
IS THE
PLAN
SOUND
No
No
No
WHICH TESTS
OF DOES THE
PLAN FAIL TO
MEET
REPRESENTATION SUMMARY
i, ii, iii
The need for more housing in the villages north of the National Park. The
Council has not looked at how it will meet the continuing high need for both
affordable and market homes in the villages north of the National Park.
Additional site allocations are needed.
i, ii, iii
Although supports the decision to allocate housing sites in Medstead village.
Objecting to the Plan as the village requires more sites to be allocated to it
in order to meet houisng needs later in the plan period (2019 onwards).
Land at Trinity Hill should be allocated for development in the Plan to provide
more housing and open space.
i, ii, iii
We do not consider that the Site Allocations within the villages that the
council has chosen are appropriate having regard to reasonable
alternatives. The numbers should be increased to ensure appropriate and
timely delivery of housing and to reduce the Council's reliance on windfalls.
Concerned that the SA does not test a higher level of growth. Less
affordable housing will be delivered due to recent government changes. The
council needs to take a proactive approach to housing delivery and allocate
sites which are greater than 10 dwellings.
SGN Gas Infrastructure at the allocated locations would not be significantly
impacted by the level of future developments projected. However, SGN
would wish to reinforce that should alterations to existing assets be required
to allow development to proceed these should be funded by the developer.
Should major alterations or diversions be required the Council must highlight
that the developer should liaise with SGN. If a developer is proposing to
include renewable technologies related to production of biomethane, early
discussions between developer and SGN is required.
Support
2263
23390
Unknown
Yes
None
Object
1506
23499
Yes
No
iii
Support
1506
23498
Unknown
Yes
None
Supports allocation of Land at Lynch Hill for about 7ha of employment land
Support
326
23479
Unknown
Yes
None
We support the inclusion of development criteria in this policy specifically
relating to provision of a buffer zone and the requirement for a detailed flood
risk assessment.
REPRESENTATION SUGGESTED CHANGE TO
PLAN
DOES THE
RESPONDENT
WANT TO
APPEAR AT
EXAMINATION
More housing sites should be allocated in the
villages north of the National Park. At the present
time, the sites allocated in these villages are likely
to be completed by about 2019. Additional sites
are needed for development from 2019/20
onwards.
Appear
Allocate land at Trinity Hill for housing and open
space.
Amend the settlement policy boundary for
Medstead village to include the land at Trinity Hill.
Land at Spring Stables, Beech is available for
development and can make a valuable contribution
to affordable housing needs whilst delivering a high
quality scheme which respects the local character
of the area. Beech is a sustainable settlement in
which to accommodate development; has
excellent links to Alton, and therefore it is
requested that the site is allocated for
development of approximately 30 dwellings.
Appear
Appear
No
- Whole site should be included within allocation site area as access may be
considered to the north. Would also allow for more employment land to be
- Include whole site area
delivered if required.
- Revise wording regarding access
- Object to wording on access location as it restricts flexibility.
N/A
Written reps
No
No
Historic England
(Southern Region)
(Mr Martin Small)
[1545]
Support
1545
23336
Yes
Yes
None
Consider Policy EMP1 sound but would wish to see an addition to the site
specific criterion regarding programming of archaeological work etc.
Addition to EMP1 site specific criterion requiring
the implementation of a programme of
archaeological work to establish a record of
potential archaeological significance of the site
(and, if that programme results in the discovery of
nationally signficiant remains, provision to be made
for the retention and careful management of those
important archaeological remains, within and
adjacent to the site, in a manner appropriate to
their significance, in accordance with paragraph
139 of the NPPF).
Bell
Cornwell
Lamron Estates Ltd Partnershi
[2421]
p (Mr Ian
Sowerby)
[1543]
Support
2421
23514
Yes
Yes
None
Support inclusion of Land at Wilsom Road as an employment site.
Criteria set out in Policy EMP2 provides a suitable basis for the site's
development.
Development proposals for the site are well advanced.
Criterion (e) should have been attached to EMP1
(Lynch Hill) rather than EMP2 (Wilsom Road)
Environment
Agency (Laura Lax)
[326]
Support
326
23477
Unknown
Yes
None
We specifically support the development criteria in this policy relating to the
required buffer zone and the flood risk assessment requirement.
No
None
Addition to EMP2 site specific criterion requiring
the implementation of a programme of
archaeological work to establish a record of
potential archaeological significance of the site
(and, if that programme results in the discovery of
Considers Policy EMP2 to be sound but would welcome a further addition to
nationally signficiant remains, provision to be made
the site specific criterion on programming of archaeological works etc.
for the retention and careful management of those
important archaeological remains, within and
adjacent to the site, in a manner appropriate to
their significance, in accordance with paragraph
139 of the NPPF).
No
There is other office space available in Alton than Wilsom Road for
employment purposes. The site is questionable as it is outside the town
boundary and Alton NP boundary, rife with wildlife, floods, impacts on the
landscape, access hazardous with new link road onto the A31 and Alton NP
stresses that the reuse of previously developed employment land should be
encouraged.
No
Historic England
(Southern Region)
(Mr Martin Small)
[1545]
Mrs Rachel Palmer
[2360]
Support
Object
1545
2360
23339
23329
Yes
Unknown
Page 11 of 29
Yes
No
i, ii
No
No
FOLDER
REFERENCE
POLICY/PARAGRAPH OF SITE ALLOCATIONS PLAN
RESPONDENT
NAME
2
FM1 - Lymington Farm
Mr B Hobbs and
Ms A Griffin
43
FM1 - Lymington Farm
Laura Lax
ORGANISATION
AGENT
NAME
Barker
Parry
Town
Mr B Hobbs and Ms Planning
Ltd (Mr
A Griffin [2303]
Steven
Barker)
[2252]
Environment
Agency (Laura Lax)
[326]
SUPPORT/ PERSON
OBJECT
ID
COMMENT
ID
IS THE PLAN
LEGALLY
COMPLIANT
IS THE
PLAN
SOUND
WHICH TESTS
OF DOES THE
PLAN FAIL TO
MEET
REPRESENTATION SUMMARY
REPRESENTATION SUGGESTED CHANGE TO
PLAN
Object
2303
23488
Yes
No
i, ii, iv
This site has outline planning permission and was (amongst others) relied
upon for not needing to make allocations in the draft plan. It does not qualify
As in Chapter 8 above
as an allocation and the plan should make appropriate allocations to comply
with the JCS.
Support
326
23483
Unknown
Yes
None
We support the inclusion of development criteria regarding foul drainage for
this site but request clarity in where and/or how this is included within the
policy.
DOES THE
RESPONDENT
WANT TO
APPEAR AT
EXAMINATION
Written reps
No
Welcomes the criterion in Policy FM1 regarding programming of
archaeological work but wishes further criterion to be added.
With regard to the programming of archaeological
work, if that programme results in the discovery of
nationally significant remains, provision should be
made for the retention and careful management of
any important archaeological remains, within and
adjacent to the site, in a manner appropriate to
their significance, in accordance with paragraph
139 of the NPPF.
No
The NPPF requires local authorities to plan positively for sport. It is difficult
to see how sport has been considered in this allocation.
It is essential that the Council understand and
make it clear what is needed in terms of playing
field and built sports facilities to provide for the
additional population.
No
50
FM1 - Lymington Farm
Mr Martin Small
Historic England
(Southern Region)
(Mr Martin Small)
[1545]
Support
1545
23337
Yes
Yes
None
98
FM1 - Lymington Farm
Heidi Clarke
Sport England (SE
Region) (Heidi
Clarke) [972]
Object
972
23368
Unknown
No
i
99
FM1 - Lymington Farm
Mark Mathews
Thames Water
Property (Mark
Mathews) [791]
Object
791
23400
Yes
No
iii, iv
Concerns regarding Wastewater Services in relation to the site. The
The developer should provide a detailed drainage
wastewater network capacity in the area is unlikely to be able to support the strategy informing what infrastructure is required,
demand anticipated from this development.
where, when and how it will be delivered.
Object
2303
23489
Yes
No
i, ii, iv
This site has outline planning permission and was (amongst others) relied
upon for not needing to make allocations in the draft plan. It does not qualify
As per our representations in Chapter 8 above
as an allocation and the plan should make appropriate allocations to comply
with the JCS.
Support
326
23484
Unknown
Yes
None
We support the inclusion of development criteria regarding foul drainage for
this site but request clarity in where and/or how this is included within the
policy.
No
None
Addition to FM2 site specific criterion requiring the
implementation of a programme of archaeological
work to establish a record of potential
archaeological significance of the site (and, if that
programme results in the discovery of nationally
Considers Policy FM2 to be sound but would welcome an addition to the site
signficiant remains, provision to be made for the
specific criterion on programming of archaeological work etc.
retention and careful management of those
important archaeological remains, within and
adjacent to the site, in a manner appropriate to
their significance, in accordance with paragraph
139 of the NPPF).
No
2
FM2 - Land at Friars Oak Farm, Boyneswood Road
Mr B Hobbs and
Ms A Griffin
43
FM2 - Land at Friars Oak Farm, Boyneswood Road
Laura Lax
50
FM2 - Land at Friars Oak Farm, Boyneswood Road
Mr Martin Small
Barker
Parry
Town
Mr B Hobbs and Ms Planning
A Griffin [2303]
Ltd (Mr
Steven
Barker)
[2252]
Environment
Agency (Laura Lax)
[326]
Historic England
(Southern Region)
(Mr Martin Small)
[1545]
Support
1545
23338
Yes
Yes
Object
2373
23451
Yes
No
i, ii, iii, iv
We would like to see a modification of the proposed SPB to incorporate the
land to the East of our houses, Woodview View and Timbers, currently a
mixture of domestic land and paddocks. This land is bounded by the
Watercress Line, Chawton Woods and the FM2 site. It abuts directly onto
FM2 with which it forms a single block of land. It would be illogical to exclude
our land from the SPB, leaving it as a small isolated patch of land. Our
proposal gives the new SPB clear natural boundaries - ie the Watercress
Line and Chawton Woods.
The NPPF requires local authorities to plan positively for sport. It is difficult
to see how sport has been considered in this allocation.
To extend the proposed SPB around Housing
Allocation FM2 to include the land to the East of
Woodview Place and Timbers, Boyneswood Road,
as bounded by the houses, the Watercress Line
and Chawton Woods
It is essential that the Council understand and
make it clear what is needed in terms of playing
field and built sports facilities to provide for the
additional population.
No
Written reps
59
FM2 - Land at Friars Oak Farm, Boyneswood Road
Mr Hugh Bethell
Mr Hugh Bethell
[2373]
98
FM2 - Land at Friars Oak Farm, Boyneswood Road
Heidi Clarke
Sport England (SE
Region) (Heidi
Clarke) [972]
Object
972
23369
Unknown
No
i
99
FM2 - Land at Friars Oak Farm, Boyneswood Road
Mark Mathews
Thames Water
Property (Mark
Mathews) [791]
Object
791
23401
Yes
No
iii, iv
We do not envisage infrastructure concerns regarding wastewater
infrastructure capability in relation to this site.
Barker
Parry
Town
Mr B Hobbs and Ms Planning
Ltd (Mr
A Griffin [2303]
Steven
Barker)
[2252]
Object
2303
23490
Yes
No
i, ii, iv
The site was granted outline approval at appeal in December 2014. It does
not qualify as an allocation and the plan should make appropriate allocations As per our representations in Chapter 8 above.
to comply with the JCS.
ProVision
Planning &
Bargate Homes Ltd Design
[2324]
(Richard
Osborn)
[1165]
Support
2324
23504
Unknown
Yes
None
Support allocation of FM3
No
Environment
Agency (Laura Lax)
[326]
Support
326
23485
Unknown
Yes
None
We support the inclusion of development criteria regarding foul drainage for
this site but request clarity in where and/or how this is included within the
policy.
No
2
FM3 - Land north of Boyneswood Lane
17
FM3 - Land north of Boyneswood Lane
43
FM3 - Land north of Boyneswood Lane
Mr B Hobbs and
Ms A Griffin
Laura Lax
Page 12 of 29
Written reps
No
No
Written reps
FOLDER
REFERENCE
POLICY/PARAGRAPH OF SITE ALLOCATIONS PLAN
RESPONDENT
NAME
ORGANISATION
AGENT
NAME
SUPPORT/ PERSON
OBJECT
ID
COMMENT
ID
IS THE PLAN
LEGALLY
COMPLIANT
IS THE
PLAN
SOUND
WHICH TESTS
OF DOES THE
PLAN FAIL TO
MEET
50
FM3 - Land north of Boyneswood Lane
Mr Martin Small
Historic England
(Southern Region)
(Mr Martin Small)
[1545]
98
FM3 - Land north of Boyneswood Lane
Heidi Clarke
Sport England (SE
Region) (Heidi
Clarke) [972]
Object
972
23370
Unknown
No
i
99
FM3 - Land north of Boyneswood Lane
Mark Mathews
Thames Water
Property (Mark
Mathews) [791]
Object
791
23402
Yes
No
iii, iv
14
Southcott Homes
Limited [1655]
HN1 - Land East of Horndean
26
HN1 - Land East of Horndean
28
HN1 - Land East of Horndean
28
HN1 - Land East of Horndean
Neame
Sutton Ltd
(David
Neame)
[1339]
Southern
Planning
Practice
Mr Andrew Hull
(Mrs
Mr Andrew Hull
[1242]
Alison
Wood)
[738]
Southern
Planning
Southern Planning Practice
Mrs Alison Wood Practice (Mrs Alison (Mrs
Wood) [738]
Alison
Wood)
[738]
Southern
Planning
Southern Planning Practice
Mrs Alison Wood Practice (Mrs Alison (Mrs
Wood) [738]
Alison
Wood)
[738]
Support
1545
23340
Yes
Yes
None
REPRESENTATION SUMMARY
REPRESENTATION SUGGESTED CHANGE TO
PLAN
Add further criterion - If that programme results in
the discovery of nationally significant remains,
provision should be made for the retention and
Welcomes criterion on Policy FM3 regarding programming of archaeological
careful management of any important
work. However further criterion to be added.
archaeolocial remains, within and adjacent to the
site, in a manner appropriate to their significance,
in accordance with paragraph 139 of the NPPF.
DOES THE
RESPONDENT
WANT TO
APPEAR AT
EXAMINATION
No
It is essential that the Council understand and
make it clear what is needed in terms of playing
field and built sports facilities to provide for the
additional population.
No
Where capacity is constrained the developer is
Concerns regarding Wastewater Services in relation to the site. The
required to provide a detailed drainage strategy
wastewater network capacity in the area is unlikely to be able to support the
informing what infrastructure is reuqired, where,
demand anticipated from this development.
when and how it will be delivered.
No
The NPPF requires local authorities to plan positively for sport. It is difficult
to see how sport has been considered in this allocation.
HN1 has uncertainty on its delivery as there are substantial objections. Also
the Council should not count the 40 towards the target for Horndean at
Lovedean Lane as the consent was granted to meet a current housing land
supply shortfall and not an allocation for some future point in time. The
Council proposes HN1 for employment purposes too and this must be
clearly identified. The Council's approach to Horndean is lack of
understanding of the clear evidence of housing need in the locality etc. This
approach must be reviewed and follow the evidence in the SA, which
supports a more disbursed distribution.
Object
1655
23597
Yes
No
i, ii, iii, iv
Appear
Object
1242
23530
Unknown
No
i, ii, iii
HN1 includes land in Rowlands Castle parish. Object to the proposed
housing allocation HN1 being counted as 700 homes when some 210
homes lie with Rowlands Castle parish.
Allocate sites for an additional 210 homes within
Horndean parish.
Appear
Object
738
23545
Unknown
No
i, ii, iii
HN1 includes land in Rowlands Castle parish. Object to the proposed
housing allocation HN1 being counted as 700 homes when some 210
homes lie with Rowlands Castle parish.
Allocate sites for an additional 210 homes within
Horndean parish.
Appear
Object
738
23537
Unknown
No
i, ii, iii
HN1 includes land in Rowlands Castle parish. Object to the proposed
housing allocation HN1 being counted as 700 homes when some 210
homes lie with Rowlands Castle parish.
Allocate sites for an additional 210 homes within
Horndean parish.
Appear
Land off Southdown Road should be included as
an additional allocation.
Appear
Expedited - limited weight to HEA. Unresolved objections. Compromised
assessment of alternatives. Concern 10,370 would meet OAN (effect on
affordable housing). Lacking flexibility.
31
Taylor Wimpey UK
[1801]
HN1 - Land East of Horndean
Turley
Associate
s (Ms
Jade Ellis)
[1800]
Object
1801
23456
Yes
No
i, ii, iii, iv
No logical approach to contingencies. Commitments from April 2013 should
not contribute. Requirement should be 12,580. Sites with pp not most
appropriate. Should review settlement boundaries and gaps.
Requirement is minimum. Reliant on one site. Capacity may be reduced by
constraints. Insufficient flexibility or contingency. Horndean is sustainable
settlement accommodate additional growth to meet OAN.
Objections to draft allocations. Shortcomings of community engagement.
Sites west of Horndean sustainable. Contribute towards Horndean not
Clanfield. Inadequate assessment of alternatives.
33
39
White
Young
Cala Homes (South) Green
(Patrick
Ltd [1905]
Barry)
[1843]
HN1 - Land East of Horndean
HN1 - Land East of Horndean
David Joel
Business East
Hants (David Joel)
[1486]
Object
Object
1905
1486
23521
23331
Yes
Unknown
Page 13 of 29
Yes
No
None
ii, iii, iv
Supportive of HN1 but the allocation itself requires refinement in respect of
the description of the site and the education requirements of the allocation
and should not prejudice discussion with HCC.
The text of the JCS and Allocations plan refers to 2ha at Horndean. Policy
HN1 refers to about 2ha. Failure to provide clarity on the exact amount of
land allocated for the area means that Horndean could effectively end up
with insufficient employment land to meet future needs.
HN1 (4th bullet point) " a new 2FE primary school".
A development of 700 dwellings will generate a
requirement for a One-form entry (1FE) primary
school but discussions are ongoing with HCC
regarding potential to accommodate a 2.0ha site
for a Two-form entry (2FE) and the policy should
not prejudice these discussions.
Remove the word "about" from the employment
land allocation. This should explicitly state 2ha.
Revise the allocation of Land East of Horndean to
reflect the planning approval.
Recent planning permission of 1.7ha of land at Horndean would result in a
Allocate another site to cover the shortfall in supply
shortfall of employment land in Horndean. No explanation has been provided of 0.3ha
by the council.
No
No
FOLDER
REFERENCE
POLICY/PARAGRAPH OF SITE ALLOCATIONS PLAN
RESPONDENT
NAME
46
HN1 - Land East of Horndean
Dr Pauline
Holmes MIEEM
50
HN1 - Land East of Horndean
Mr Martin Small
81
HN1 - Land East of Horndean
Mrs Janice Smith
ORGANISATION
AGENT
NAME
Hampshire and Isle
of Wight Wildlife
Trust (Dr Pauline
Holmes MIEEM)
[718]
Historic England
(Southern Region)
(Mr Martin Small)
[1545]
Mrs Janice Smith
[2350]
SUPPORT/ PERSON
OBJECT
ID
COMMENT
ID
IS THE PLAN
LEGALLY
COMPLIANT
IS THE
PLAN
SOUND
WHICH TESTS
OF DOES THE
PLAN FAIL TO
MEET
REPRESENTATION SUMMARY
HN1 - Add criteria requiring protection of woodland foraging corridor for
bats.
REPRESENTATION SUGGESTED CHANGE TO
PLAN
DOES THE
RESPONDENT
WANT TO
APPEAR AT
EXAMINATION
HN1 - Add criteria requiring protection of woodland
foraging corridor for bats.
No
Object
718
23459
Unknown
No
ii
Support
1545
23342
Yes
Yes
None
Policy HN1 is sound in respect of the historic environment.
No
None
I support this site as the least worst option to build 700 homes in Horndean.
I welcome the provision of accommodation for the elderly, the school and
community facilities and understand that these are key to the development
obtaining planning permission. My only concern with the plan is any form of
traffic signals on the adjacent A3(M) junction which would halt traffic flow.
The junction is already congested at peak times and approach roads would
gridlock if traffic signals were introduced. Roundabouts keep traffic moving.
No
Support
2350
23318
Unknown
Yes
New criterions - Identify any extreme and high
vulnerability zones within the site before the
development layout is finalised.
investigation of the extent and type of
contamination on site to identify any necessary
mitigation measures required.
Added words:
90
HN1 - Land East of Horndean
Tracey Viney
Portsmouth Water
plc (Tracey Viney)
[2340]
Object
2340
23555
Unknown
No
ii
No objection subject to inclusion of the additional text to protect drinking
water quality.
ensure provision of a detailed Flood Risk
Assessment, which should include a Surface
Water Disposal Strategy to address any measures
required to mitigate any potential impacts on
groundwater and surface water. Potential
measures ......
No
- demonstrate that any development will not result
in contamination (including turbidity) of
groundwater .................
- ensure adequate infrastructure is provided for
sewerage (on and off site). The layout and
construction of the sewage infrastructure should
minimise the risk to groundwater.
98
17
50
HN1 - Land East of Horndean
Heidi Clarke
HN2 - Land Rear of 185-189A Lovedean Lane
HN2 - Land Rear of 185-189A Lovedean Lane
Mr Martin Small
The additional increase in population will put an
increase demand on existing swimming pools
which may not have spare capacity. It may be
Allocation is seeking to create a minimum of 700 dwellings and a new
useful to consider how the new school could
school. There is no requirement in this allocation to provide for sport. Sport
provide for community sport. The Council must
England are aware of an unmet demand for Swimming Pools in Horndean.
understand and make it clear what is needed in
terms of playing field and built sports facilities to
provide for the additional population in Horndean.
No
Sport England (SE
Region) (Heidi
Clarke) [972]
Object
972
23360
Unknown
No
i, ii, iii, iv
ProVision
Planning &
Bargate Homes Ltd Design
[2324]
(Richard
Osborn)
[1165]
Support
2324
23502
Unknown
Yes
None
Support allocation of site
No
None
Addition to HN2 site specific criterion requiring the
implementation of a programme of archaeological
work to establish a record of potential
archaeological significance of the site (and, if that
programme results in the discovery of nationally
Considers Policy HN2 to be sound but would welcome an addition to the site
signficiant remains, provision to be made for the
specific criterion on programming of archaeological work etc.
retention and careful management of those
important archaeological remains, within and
adjacent to the site, in a manner appropriate to
their significance, in accordance with paragraph
139 of the NPPF).
No
Historic England
(Southern Region)
(Mr Martin Small)
[1545]
Support
1545
23341
Yes
Page 14 of 29
Yes
FOLDER
REFERENCE
POLICY/PARAGRAPH OF SITE ALLOCATIONS PLAN
RESPONDENT
NAME
ORGANISATION
AGENT
NAME
SUPPORT/ PERSON
OBJECT
ID
COMMENT
ID
IS THE PLAN
LEGALLY
COMPLIANT
IS THE
PLAN
SOUND
WHICH TESTS
OF DOES THE
PLAN FAIL TO
MEET
REPRESENTATION SUMMARY
REPRESENTATION SUGGESTED CHANGE TO
PLAN
DOES THE
RESPONDENT
WANT TO
APPEAR AT
EXAMINATION
New criterions - Identify any extreme and high
vulnerability zones within the site before the
development layout is finalised.
The layout and construction of the sewage
infrastructure must be carefully designed to
minimise the risk to groundwater.
Added words:
90
HN2 - Land Rear of 185-189A Lovedean Lane
Tracey Viney
Portsmouth Water
plc (Tracey Viney)
[2340]
Object
2340
23554
Unknown
No
ii
No objection subject to inclusion of the additional text to protect drinking
water quality.
make provision of a detailed Flood Risk
Assessment, which should include a Surface
Water Disposal Strategy, to address any
measures required to mitigate any potential
impacts on groundwater and surface water.
Potential measures ......
highway. The site should be attenuated ....
No
demonstrate that any development will not result in
contamination (including turbidity) of groundwater
as the site ...........
98
4
6
11
18
Heidi Clarke
Sport England (SE
Region) (Heidi
Clarke) [972]
Tim Vincent
Barton
Reside
Willmore
Developments Ltd (Sophie
(Tim Vincent) [1828] Jamieson)
[1903]
Object
1828
23446
Unknown
No
i, ii
LP1 - Land at Lowsley Farm
Boyer
Planning
Easterton Ltd [1252] (Ms Donna
Palmer)
[2332]
Support
1252
23519
Yes
Yes
None
LP1 - Land at Lowsley Farm
Kiely
Planning
Mr T Connor [2427] (Mr Colin
Kiely)
[2429]
HN2 - Land Rear of 185-189A Lovedean Lane
LP1 - Land at Lowsley Farm
LP1 - Land at Lowsley Farm
Mr T Connor
Mr Bill Mills
Mr Bill Mills [2337]
Object
Savills
(Katherine
Munro)
[2295]
Object
Object
972
2427
2337
23361
23518
23538
Unknown
Unknown
Yes
No
No
No
i, ii, iii, iv
ii
i, ii, iii, iv
The Council must understand and make it clear
what is needed in terms of playing field and built
sports facilities to provide for the additional
population in Horndean.
No
Land West of Headley Road, Liphook is suitable for development for up to
40 dwellings. Requirement for 175 dwellings in Liphook as a minimum.
Liphook is a highly sustainable service village. Site is available and suitable
Land West of Headley Road, Liphook should be
for residential development. Currently a lack of a 5 year housing land supply
included as a draft allocation for up to 40
within the district. Further land needs to be identified within the HEA to
dwellings.
ensure the OAN of the district can be met. Additional sites are required in
Liphook. This site is the most appropriate location for the required additional
development in Liphook and should be included as a draft allocation.
No
The additional population in Horndean will put an increase demand on
existing swimming pools which may not have spare capacity in Horndean.
It is considered that the policy for LP1 is shound, justified, effective and
positively prepared. However, whilst we consider the allocation to be sound, See comments made in JDi for LP1 under the
Sustainability Appraisal.
there should be some amendments made to the supporting Sustainability
Appraisal.
More holistic approach to meet Liphook housing target needed.
Consideration should be given to smaller sites as well as Lowsley Farm and
LIP027 - Land at Church Road, Bramshott should
reserve site west of Church Centre, Silent Garden.
be included in the Allocations document.
Smaller scale development would contribute to meeting housing needs and
would have a lesser impact on landscape.
- Overal 10,060 is a minimum target as is 175 dwellings in Liphook
- Liphook is large service centre, housing will create support for services
and facilities
- Liphooks score in settlement hierarchy equvalent to Alton and Petersfield
- Allocating one s
Add site at Old Shepherds Farm
Addition to LP1 site specific criterion requiring the
implementation of a programme of archaeological
work to establish a record of potential
archaeological significance of the site (and, if that
programme results in the discovery of nationally
Considers Policy LP1 to be sound but would welcome an addition to the site
signficiant remains, provision to be made for the
specific criterion regarding programming of archaeological works etc.
retention and careful management of those
important archaeological remains, within and
adjacent to the site, in a manner appropriate to
their significance, in accordance with paragraph
139 of the NPPF).
Appear
No
Appear
50
LP1 - Land at Lowsley Farm
Mr Martin Small
Historic England
(Southern Region)
(Mr Martin Small)
[1545]
Support
1545
23343
Yes
Yes
None
98
LP1 - Land at Lowsley Farm
Heidi Clarke
Sport England (SE
Region) (Heidi
Clarke) [972]
Object
972
23362
Unknown
No
i
99
LP1 - Land at Lowsley Farm
Mark Mathews
Thames Water
Property (Mark
Mathews) [791]
Object
791
23403
Yes
No
iii, iv
Where there is a capacity constraint the developer
Concerns regarding Wastewater Services in relation to the site. The
is required to provide a detailed drainage strategy
wastewater network capacity in the area is unlikely to be able to support the
informing what infrastructure is required, where,
demand anticipated from this development.
when and how it will be delivered.
No
50
RC1 - Land at former Rowlands Castle Brickworks
Mr Martin Small
Historic England
(Southern Region)
(Mr Martin Small)
[1545]
Support
1545
23611
Yes
Yes
None
Welcomes criterion in Policy RC1 regarding provision of a heritage
statement.
No
Page 15 of 29
The NPPF requires local authorities to plan positively for sport. It is difficult
to see how sport has been considered in this allocation.
It is essential that the Council understand and
make it clear what is needed in terms of playing
field and built sports facilities to provide for the
additional population.
Policy RC1 (e) 'English Heritage' should not be
'Historic England'.
No
No
FOLDER
REFERENCE
POLICY/PARAGRAPH OF SITE ALLOCATIONS PLAN
RESPONDENT
NAME
ORGANISATION
AGENT
NAME
SUPPORT/ PERSON
OBJECT
ID
COMMENT
ID
IS THE PLAN
LEGALLY
COMPLIANT
IS THE
PLAN
SOUND
WHICH TESTS
OF DOES THE
PLAN FAIL TO
MEET
REPRESENTATION SUMMARY
REPRESENTATION SUGGESTED CHANGE TO
PLAN
DOES THE
RESPONDENT
WANT TO
APPEAR AT
EXAMINATION
New criterions - Identify any extreme and high
vulnerability zones within the site before the
development layout is finalised.
investigation of the extent and type of
contamination on site to identify any ncessary
mitigation measures required.
90
RC1 - Land at former Rowlands Castle Brickworks
Tracey Viney
Portsmouth Water
plc (Tracey Viney)
[2340]
Object
2340
23551
Unknown
No
ii
98
RC1 - Land at former Rowlands Castle Brickworks
Heidi Clarke
Sport England (SE
Region) (Heidi
Clarke) [972]
Object
972
23365
Unknown
No
i
50
RC2 - Land south of Oaklands
Mr Martin Small
Historic England
(Southern Region)
(Mr Martin Small)
[1545]
Support
1545
23344
Yes
Yes
None
No objection provided the inclusion of the amended text in the site criterion
addressing drinking water quality.
The NPPF requires local authorities to plan positively for sport. It is difficult
to see how sport has been considered in this allocation.
Added words:
No
- demonstrate that any development will not result
in contamination (including turbidity) of
groundwater ...
- ensure adequate infrastructure is provided for
sewerage (on and off site). The layout and
construction of the sewage infrastructure should
minimise the risk to groundwater.
It is essential that the Council understand and
make it clear what is needed in terms of playing
field and built sports facilities to provide for the
additional population.
Policy RC2 is sound in respect of the historic environment.
No
No
New criterion - investigation of the extent and type
of contamination on site to identify any necessary
mitigation measures required.
Added words:
90
98
RC2 - Land south of Oaklands
RC2 - Land south of Oaklands
Tracey Viney
Heidi Clarke
Portsmouth Water
plc (Tracey Viney)
[2340]
Sport England (SE
Region) (Heidi
Clarke) [972]
Object
Object
2340
972
23552
23366
Unknown
Unknown
No
No
ii
i
No objection subject to the inclusion of additional text within the site criterion - demonstrate that any development will not result
in contamination (including turbidity) of
addressing drinking water quality.
groundwater ...
The NPPF requires local authorities to plan positively for sport. It is difficult
to see how sport has been considered in this allocation.
- ensure adequate infrastructure is provided for
sewerage (on and off site). The layout and
construction of the sewage infrastructure should
minimise the risk to groundwater.
It is essential that the Council understand and
make it clear what is needed in terms of playing
field and built sports facilities to provide for the
additional population.
No
No
50
RC3 - Land north of Bartons Road (Eastleigh House Cottages)
Mr Martin Small
Historic England
(Southern Region)
(Mr Martin Small)
[1545]
Support
1545
23345
Yes
Yes
None
Considers Policy RC3 to be sound but would wish an additional site specific
criterion to be added regarding programming of archaeological works etc.
Addition to RC3 site specific criterion requiring the
implementation of a programme of archaeological
work to establish a record of potential
archaeological significance of the site (and, if that
programme results in the discovery of nationally
signficiant remains, provision to be made for the
retention and careful management of those
important archaeological remains, within and
adjacent to the site, in a manner appropriate to
their significance, in accordance with paragraph
139 of the NPPF).
98
RC3 - Land north of Bartons Road (Eastleigh House Cottages)
Heidi Clarke
Sport England (SE
Region) (Heidi
Clarke) [972]
Object
972
23367
Unknown
No
i
The NPPF requires local authorities to plan positively for sport. It is difficult
to see how sport has been considered in this allocation.
It is essential that the Council understand and
make it clear what is needed in terms of playing
field and built sports facilities to provide for the
additional population.
Object
1808
23415
Yes
No
ii
Bentworth Parish Council initially supported the allocation of 6 houses. This
has now doubled to 12 to which the PC strongly objects. We feel the
following areas are problematic to sustain the doubled allocation: Access,
drainage, sewage, disruption during build in an extremely confined vehicle
access area and increased traffic. Please be advised that Bentworth has
started the process of developing a neighbourhood plan.
Bentworth PC supports six houses only
Written reps
Object
2385
23419
No
No
i, ii
It does not appear that EHDC have given adequate notice of the original
plan, or explained the soundness of double the number of dwellings
proposed from 6 to 12
Either revert to 6 units, or withdraw due to failure to
give propoer notice of the increase to 12 units
Written reps
38
VL1 - Land at corner of Church Street and Ashley Road, Bentworth
Allison Spyer
Bentworth Parish
Council (Allison
Spyer) [1808]
41
VL1 - Land at corner of Church Street and Ashley Road, Bentworth
Charles Bailey
Charles Bailey
[2385]
Page 16 of 29
No
No
FOLDER
REFERENCE
POLICY/PARAGRAPH OF SITE ALLOCATIONS PLAN
RESPONDENT
NAME
ORGANISATION
AGENT
NAME
SUPPORT/ PERSON
OBJECT
ID
COMMENT
ID
IS THE PLAN
LEGALLY
COMPLIANT
IS THE
PLAN
SOUND
WHICH TESTS
OF DOES THE
PLAN FAIL TO
MEET
REPRESENTATION SUMMARY
REPRESENTATION SUGGESTED CHANGE TO
PLAN
DOES THE
RESPONDENT
WANT TO
APPEAR AT
EXAMINATION
(e) ...nearby Bentworth Conservation Area and
demonstrate how any impact has been taken into
account and avoided or minimised within the
proposals.
50
VL1 - Land at corner of Church Street and Ashley Road, Bentworth
Mr Martin Small
Historic England
(Southern Region)
(Mr Martin Small)
[1545]
Support
1545
23612
Yes
Yes
None
Welcomes provision of a Heritage Statement but would wish additional text
to be added (e) and an additional site criterion regarding archaeological
significance.
new criterion: The implementation of a programme
of archaeological work to establish a record of
potential archaeological significance of the site
(and, if that programme results in the discovery of
nationally significant remains, provision to be made
for the retention and careful management of those
important archaeological remains, within and
adjacent to the site, in a manner appropriate to
their significance, in accordance with paragraph
139 of the NPPF.
No
Section 9.2 VL 1:
change Site Area from 1.27 ha. to 0.4 ha. and Net
Dwellings from 12 to 6
61
67
70
71
74
VL1 - Land at corner of Church Street and Ashley Road, Bentworth
Mr John
Stockdale
Mr John Stockdale
[2259]
VL1 - Land at corner of Church Street and Ashley Road, Bentworth
Mr Paul Davis
Mr Paul Davis
[2388]
VL1 - Land at corner of Church Street and Ashley Road, Bentworth
Mr Tim
Lipscombe
Mr Tim Lipscombe
[2387]
VL1 - Land at corner of Church Street and Ashley Road, Bentworth
VL1 - Land at corner of Church Street and Ashley Road, Bentworth
Mr Toby Stevens
Mr. Stuart James
Mr Toby Stevens
[2386]
Mr. Stuart James
[2414]
Object
Object
Object
Object
Object
2259
2388
2387
2386
2414
23332
23423
23422
23421
23481
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Page 17 of 29
No
No
No
No
No
ii, iii
i, iii
Bentworth - Housing Allocation - VL 1 Land at
corner of Church Street and Ashley Road,
Bentworth:
change
"Land at Ashley Road in Bentworth is allocated for
residential development for about 12 dwellings on
The draft plan proposed 6 houses on 0.4 ha "developed with linear frontage 1.27ha."
to
development in keeping with the characteristics of the village".
"Land at corner of Church Street and Ashley Road
Bentworth PC held a meeting. 40 parishioners and the council voted to
in Bentworth is allocated for residential
support the proposal.
development for 6 dwellings on 0.4ha."
EHDC have changed the allocation to 12 houses on 1.27 ha with provision
of vehicular access, no mention of "in keeping with the characteristics of the change
"The site will be developed in accordance with the
village"
This is very different from the supported proposal which I believe would have following site specific criteria:
a) provision of vehicular access from Church
been opposed, so the plan fails the test of soundness.
Street or Ashley Road and incorporate junction
I believe that 6 houses is reasonable but 12 is unreasonable.
radii;"
to
"The site will be developed in accordance with the
following site specific criteria:
a) linear frontage development along Church
Street in keeping with the characteristics of the
village"
Site map
change the site map so that the Proposed Housing
The proposed housing density is far too high and the layout could not
respect the characteristics of the village or reflect its character. To align
with the linear development pattern of the surrounding area you could
possibly establish four or five dwellings. It should also be borne in mind that Reduce the density of proposed housing to four
there are no public transport services any longer in the village and that there dwellings.
is no employment of any significance so all householders will be contributing
to the existing traffic overburden from the development of Medstead and
Four Marks.
Written reps
Written reps
i
Last-minute increase of number of houses (was 12, now 6) and area (was
0.4ha now 1.2ha) without sufficient consultation; lack of infrastructure for
Revert to original proposal, as supported by local
proposed development - no gas, mains drainage on site, local roads not
Parish Council, for just 6 houses on 0.4ha
suited to increased traffic, severely limited local bus service, local school
already at capacity, no local shops, development will spoil rural nature of site
i
I ovbject to the proposed development on the grounds that it represents an
unacceptably large single development for this rural village; that EHDC
failed to follow protocol in notifying the Parish Council of the consultation;
that the landowner was unaware of the SHLAA application on his own land;
that when the village was forced into a vote, the vote was taken for the 6
properties proposed by EHDC, not the 12 that were allocated; that
Bentworth needs time to prepare a local plan before a proper response can
be made that reflects local housing needs.
The proposed development should be reduced in
size to six houses or fewer, with road frontage
rather than a single entrance to an estate
development (as typifies the rest of the village).
EHDC should seek alternative sites in the parish to
distribute the houses to multiple sites. The Parish
Council needs time to prepare a fresh local plan so
that the nature of the proposed housing can be
determined prior to allocation.
Written reps
i, ii, iv
At our last PC meeting Nicky Branch informed us that Bentworth's allocation
for affordable housing had doubled from six to twelve "due to a
mathematical error". It was questionable as to whether the village's
infrastructure could sustain six extra houses, let alone twelve. There is little
or no employment in Bentworth meaning that any additional residents would
likely be driving, (due to very limited public transport,) to Alton, Winchester
or Basingstoke at peak hours on country roads that have already become
much busier due to excessive continued development in neighbouring Four
Marks.
The allocation of twelve house should be reduced
to six in order that Bentworth's infrastructure might
stand a chance of coping with the increased traffic
on it's narrow road's, (a safety issue.) Also to avoid
spoiling a delightful country village that would be
unable to sustain that much development.
Appear
Written reps
FOLDER
REFERENCE
76
POLICY/PARAGRAPH OF SITE ALLOCATIONS PLAN
VL1 - Land at corner of Church Street and Ashley Road, Bentworth
RESPONDENT
NAME
Mrs Alison
Tollemache
ORGANISATION
AGENT
NAME
Mrs Alison
Tollemache [2395]
SUPPORT/ PERSON
OBJECT
ID
Object
2395
COMMENT
ID
23442
IS THE PLAN
LEGALLY
COMPLIANT
Yes
IS THE
PLAN
SOUND
No
WHICH TESTS
OF DOES THE
PLAN FAIL TO
MEET
i, ii
REPRESENTATION SUMMARY
REPRESENTATION SUGGESTED CHANGE TO
PLAN
Addition of extra housing in the village will add to traffic through narrow lanes
already used as a cut through to A339. Church Lane becomes congested
during school pick up/ drop off, particularly as lay-by by post box on Holt End
Lalne has now been filled in, so extra traffic & congestion would pose a
To refuse this proposal.
danger to school children walking to and from school to cars or homes.
Plenty of new housing in Medstead already, causing pressure on school
places in area. Cluster of modern houses would be incompatible with the
historic and traditional appeal of the village.
DOES THE
RESPONDENT
WANT TO
APPEAR AT
EXAMINATION
Written reps
Church Street, Bentworth is unsuitable for housing because:1. Original plan 6 houses changed to 12 rumoured to be 24. Excessive
increase in a village that has approx. 220 houses.
2. No sewage, transport, shop
82
VL1 - Land at corner of Church Street and Ashley Road, Bentworth
Mrs Jenny Lewis
Mrs Jenny Lewis
[2383]
Object
2383
23420
Yes
No
i, ii, iii
3 an infant/junior school close to site heavy traffic each school day.
2. cars are parked along roadside - normal travel along Church St
dangerous
3. no pavements along this road children walking in the road
4. Access along Drury Lane is effectively single carriageway just grass
verge
5. Permanent pasture, containing traditional grasses forming unique habitat
Reduced to 6 houses max
Other sites considered within the Bentworth
Parish
New Village Statement being drawn up nothing
should be decided until this has been produced.
Consideration taken of new housing already built
over last 10 years in village
The number of houses in the original document was 6 and now it is 12.
There is no explanation for this increase Bentworth is a small village with no
mains drainage, mains gas or daily bus service. Bentworth also has very
Reduce the number of houses allocated to 5 or
little employment. The village already has a traffic problem which will be
less
exacerbated by more housing and the need for new residents to travel away
for work. Church street is very narrow. For all of the above reasons I believe
that the proposal in NOT sustainable and I object to it.
84
VL1 - Land at corner of Church Street and Ashley Road, Bentworth
mrs veronica
parker
mrs veronica parker
[2416]
Object
2416
23493
Yes
No
i, ii
98
VL1 - Land at corner of Church Street and Ashley Road, Bentworth
Heidi Clarke
Sport England (SE
Region) (Heidi
Clarke) [972]
Object
972
23371
Unknown
No
i
99
VL1 - Land at corner of Church Street and Ashley Road, Bentworth
Mark Mathews
Thames Water
Property (Mark
Mathews) [791]
Object
791
23404
Yes
No
iii, iv
The site is not served by public sewerage infrastructure. Developers will
either have to make on site network and treatment arrangements or transfer VL1 should make reference to the need for a
flows to a public sewerage network, the nearest of which is approximately
sewerage/foul & surface water disposal strategy.
2,500 metres away to the south east of Bentworth.
The NPPF requires local authorities to plan positively for sport. It is difficult
to see how sport has been considered in this allocation.
100
VL1 - Land at corner of Church Street and Ashley Road, Bentworth
Valerie James
Valerie James
[2413]
Object
2413
23480
Yes
No
i, ii, iv
'Positively prepared' Cllr Nicky Branch said at the Bentworth Parish Council
meeting (May 2015) that EHDC had got the 'arithmetic wrong' hence the
increase of property allocation from 6 to 12. This is not objective
assessment ! There's not employment in Bentworth for these new residents
and would mean more cars driving to Basingstoke and other places of
employment.
'Justified' The houses should be built where the people are likely to be
employed, e.g. Basingstoke.
Not 'Consistent with national policy' as the 'sustainable' alternative is
building homes close to where people are likely to work.
50
VL10 - Land adjacent to Bullfinches, Park Lane, Ropley
Mr Martin Small
Historic England
(Southern Region)
(Mr Martin Small)
[1545]
Support
1545
23354
Yes
Yes
None
Policy VL10 is sound in respect of the historic environment.
98
VL10 - Land adjacent to Bullfinches, Park Lane, Ropley
Heidi Clarke
Sport England (SE
Region) (Heidi
Clarke) [972]
Object
972
23380
Unknown
No
i
99
VL10 - Land adjacent to Bullfinches, Park Lane, Ropley
Mark Mathews
Thames Water
Property (Mark
Mathews) [791]
Object
791
23396
Yes
No
iii, iv
ProVision
Planning &
Bargate Homes Ltd Design
(Richard
[2324]
Osborn)
[1165]
Support
2324
23506
Unknown
Yes
None
17
25
VL11 - Land at the corner of Dunsells Lane and Gilbert Street, Ropley
VL11 - Land at the corner of Dunsells Lane and Gilbert Street, Ropley
Giles Stogdon
Giles Stogdon
[1832]
Southern
Planning
Practice
(Mrs
Alison
Wood)
[738]
Object
1832
23585
Unknown
Page 18 of 29
Yes
None
The NPPF requires local authorities to plan positively for sport. It is difficult
to see how sport has been considered in this allocation.
It is essential that the Council understand and
make it clear what is needed in terms of playing
field and built sports facilities to provide for the
additional population.
The housing allocation needs to be reduced from
12 to 6 (or less) due to lack of infrastructure.
Bentworth does not have mains drainage, nor
piped gas, the internet is extremely slow and the
lanes are narrow and pot-holed. There are many
wild animals living here - some of which are getting
maimed and killed due to the extra traffic running
through our tiny village. In time, this may also
happen to children and old people living in
Bentworth. Properties should be built close to
where people work in order to reduce the overall
carbon footprint of new developments.
Written reps
No
No
Written reps
No
It is essential that the Council understand and
make it clear what is needed in terms of playing
field and built sports facilities to provide for the
additional population.
The site is not served by public sewerage infrastrucure. Developers will
either have to make on site network and treatment arrangements or transfer VL10 should make reference to the need for a
flows to a public sewerage network, the nearest of which is approximately
sewerage/foul & surface water disposal strategy.
3,600 metres away to the north east of Ropley.
Support inclusion of allocation VL11
Although support the allocation at VL11, the Plan underestimates the scope
of the site to help meet the high need for housing in Ropley. Object to the
proposed number of homes on the site (10 units), the allocation should be
increased to 15 dwellings. The planning application covers a slightly larger
area of land and would wish to see the boundary of site VL1.9 is extended
slightly to include all of the land voered by planning application 55826 and
extend the settlement boundary of Ropley to include the site.
Written reps
No
No
No
1. Increase the number of homes to be built on site
VL1.9 (Dunsells Lane, Ropley) to 15 dwellings.
2. Amend the site boundary to include all of the
land proposed for development in planning
application 55826.
3. Amend the settlement policy boundary of Ropley
to include the Dunsells Lane site (VL1.9) within it.
Appear
FOLDER
REFERENCE
POLICY/PARAGRAPH OF SITE ALLOCATIONS PLAN
RESPONDENT
NAME
ORGANISATION
AGENT
NAME
SUPPORT/ PERSON
OBJECT
ID
COMMENT
ID
IS THE PLAN
LEGALLY
COMPLIANT
IS THE
PLAN
SOUND
WHICH TESTS
OF DOES THE
PLAN FAIL TO
MEET
50
VL11 - Land at the corner of Dunsells Lane and Gilbert Street, Ropley
Mr Martin Small
Historic England
(Southern Region)
(Mr Martin Small)
[1545]
Support
1545
23355
Yes
Yes
None
98
VL11 - Land at the corner of Dunsells Lane and Gilbert Street, Ropley
Heidi Clarke
Sport England (SE
Region) (Heidi
Clarke) [972]
Object
972
23381
Unknown
No
i
99
VL11 - Land at the corner of Dunsells Lane and Gilbert Street, Ropley
Mark Mathews
Thames Water
Property (Mark
Mathews) [791]
Object
791
23397
Yes
No
iii, iv
REPRESENTATION SUGGESTED CHANGE TO
PLAN
DOES THE
RESPONDENT
WANT TO
APPEAR AT
EXAMINATION
Consider Policy VL11 to be sound but would wish to see an additional site
specific criterion regarding programming of archaeological works etc.
Addition to VL11 site specific criterion requiring the
implementation of a programme of archaeological
work to establish a record of potential
archaeological significance of the site (and, if that
programme results in the discovery of nationally
signficiant remains, provision to be made for the
retention and careful management of those
important archaeological remains, within and
adjacent to the site, in a manner appropriate to
their significance, in accordance with paragraph
139 of the NPPF).
No
The NPPF requires local authorities to plan positively for sport. It is difficult
to see how sport has been considered in this allocation.
It is essential that the Council understand and
make it clear what is needed in terms of playing
field and built sports facilities to provide for the
additional population.
No
REPRESENTATION SUMMARY
The site is not served by public sewerage infrastrucure. Developers will
either have to make on site network and treatment arrangements or transfer VL11 should make reference to the need for a
flows to a public sewerage network, the nearest of which is approximately
sewerage/foul & surface water disposal strategy.
2,400 metres away to the north east of Ropley.
Consider Policy VL12 to be sound but would wish to see an additional site
specific criterion regarding programming of archaeological works etc.
Addition to VL12 site specific criterion requiring the
implementation of a programme of archaeological
work to establish a record of potential
archaeological significance of the site (and, if that
programme results in the discovery of nationally
signficiant remains, provision to be made for the
retention and careful management of those
important archaeological remains, within and
adjacent to the site, in a manner appropriate to
their significance, in accordance with paragraph
139 of the NPPF).
No
The NPPF requires local authorities to plan positively for sport. It is difficult
to see how sport has been considered in this allocation.
It is essential that the Council understand and
make it clear what is needed in terms of playing
field and built sports facilities to provide for the
additional population.
No
50
VL12 - Land off Hale Close, Ropley
Mr Martin Small
Historic England
(Southern Region)
(Mr Martin Small)
[1545]
Support
1545
23356
Yes
Yes
None
98
VL12 - Land off Hale Close, Ropley
Heidi Clarke
Sport England (SE
Region) (Heidi
Clarke) [972]
Object
972
23382
Unknown
No
i
99
VL12 - Land off Hale Close, Ropley
Mark Mathews
Thames Water
Property (Mark
Mathews) [791]
Object
791
23398
Yes
No
iii, iv
The site is not served by public sewerage infrastrucure. Developers will
either have to make on site network and treatment arrangements or transfer VL12 should make reference to the need for a
flows to a public sewerage network, the nearest of which is approximately
sewerage/foul & surface water disposal strategy.
2,700 metres away to the north east of Ropley.
23
VL13 - Land southwest of Dean Cottage, Bighton Hill, Rople Dean
Cllr Chris
Graham
Cllr Chris Graham
[2335]
Support
2335
23468
Yes
Yes
None
Support the site for 15 dwellings as outlined ingranted planning consent. Site
is available, viable and developable.
50
VL13 - Land southwest of Dean Cottage, Bighton Hill, Rople Dean
Mr Martin Small
Historic England
(Southern Region)
(Mr Martin Small)
[1545]
Support
1545
23357
Yes
Yes
None
Policy VL13 is sound in respect of the historic environment.
98
VL13 - Land southwest of Dean Cottage, Bighton Hill, Rople Dean
Heidi Clarke
Sport England (SE
Region) (Heidi
Clarke) [972]
Object
972
23383
Unknown
No
i
99
VL13 - Land southwest of Dean Cottage, Bighton Hill, Rople Dean
Mark Mathews
Thames Water
Property (Mark
Mathews) [791]
Object
791
23399
Yes
No
iii, iv
50
51
VL2 - Land at Crows Lane, Upper Farringdon
VL2 - Land at Crows Lane, Upper Farringdon
Mr Martin Small
David Bevan
Historic England
(Southern Region)
(Mr Martin Small)
[1545]
HLF Planning
(David Bevan)
[2391]
Southern
Planning
Practice
(Ian Ellis)
[1168]
Support
Object
1545
2391
23346
23435
Yes
Unknown
Page 19 of 29
Yes
Yes
No
The NPPF requires local authorities to plan positively for sport. It is difficult
to see how sport has been considered in this allocation.
Appear
No
It is essential that the Council understand and
make it clear what is needed in terms of playing
field and built sports facilities to provide for the
additional population.
The site is not served by public sewerage infrastrucure. Developers will
either have to make on site network and treatment arrangements or transfer VL13 should make reference to the need for a
flows to a public sewerage network, the nearest of which is approximately
sewerage/foul & surface water disposal strategy.
3,600 metres away to the north east of Ropley.
None
Welcomes the criterion in Policy VL2 regarding the heritage statement etc
but would wish to see added site specific criterion on programming of
archaeological works etc.
None
The intention for the delivery of this site is that it will be divided into self-build
plots. This will be facilitated by introducing an access road within the site
likely to be set to run along the identified sewerage pipe. This approach to
housing is supported by the government and we expect every
encouragement will be given to this approach from the council. The
requirement for a flood risk assessment for each plot would therefore be
onerous and the requirements of (g) should be amended.
No
Addition to VL2 site specific criterion requiring the
implementation of a programme of archaeological
work to establish a record of potential
archaeological significance of the site (and, if that
programme results in the discovery of nationally
signficiant remains, provision to be made for the
retention and careful management of those
important archaeological remains, within and
adjacent to the site, in a manner appropriate to
their significance, in accordance with paragraph
139 of the NPPF).
No
No
No
Parts of (g) should be deleted to read:
(g) The site should be attenuated to ensure that
the run-off rate is no greater than the run-off prior
to development taking place; and
No
FOLDER
REFERENCE
51
POLICY/PARAGRAPH OF SITE ALLOCATIONS PLAN
VL2 - Land at Crows Lane, Upper Farringdon
RESPONDENT
NAME
David Bevan
ORGANISATION
HLF Planning
(David Bevan)
[2391]
AGENT
NAME
SUPPORT/ PERSON
OBJECT
ID
Object
2391
COMMENT
ID
23434
IS THE PLAN
LEGALLY
COMPLIANT
Unknown
IS THE
PLAN
SOUND
Yes
WHICH TESTS
OF DOES THE
PLAN FAIL TO
MEET
None
REPRESENTATION SUMMARY
REPRESENTATION SUGGESTED CHANGE TO
PLAN
(b) There is support for internal walking and cycling
routes, but it is unclear where these can link to the
Support the allocation for residential dwellings at Crows Lane, Upper
existing rights-of-way network as the site is
Farringdon. But would wish to see some consideration given to criterions (b) surrounded by private property on three sides.
and (c).
(c) Design that respects the character of the
village is supported.
51
VL2 - Land at Crows Lane, Upper Farringdon
David Bevan
HLF Planning
(David Bevan)
[2391]
Object
2391
23433
Unknown
Yes
None
Support the allocation for residential dwellings at Crows Lane, Upper
Farringdon. But would wish to see some consideration given to criterion (f).
To achieve sight-lines the access from Crows
Lane will have to be central to the site and
therefore inclusion within the policy for an internal
access road should be considered. This access
would require the repositioning of the existing
hedge for the policy to be deliverable and care
should be taken to ensure that requirement (f)
does not prejudice this.
98
VL2 - Land at Crows Lane, Upper Farringdon
Heidi Clarke
Sport England (SE
Region) (Heidi
Clarke) [972]
Object
972
23372
Unknown
No
i
The NPPF requires local authorities to plan positively for sport. It is difficult
to see how sport has been considered in this allocation.
99
VL2 - Land at Crows Lane, Upper Farringdon
Mark Mathews
Thames Water
Property (Mark
Mathews) [791]
It is essential that the Council understand and
make it clear what is needed in terms of playing
field and built sports facilities to provide for the
additional population.
Object
791
23405
Yes
No
iii, iv
On the information available to date we do not envisage infrastructure
concerns regarding wastewater infrastructure capability in relation to this
site.
DOES THE
RESPONDENT
WANT TO
APPEAR AT
EXAMINATION
No
No
No
No
OBJECT:
42
50
VL3 - Land at Headley Nurseries, Glayshers Hill, Headley Down
VL3 - Land at Headley Nurseries, Glayshers Hill, Headley Down
Dr Ryan
Edmonds
Mr Martin Small
Dr Ryan Edmonds
[2382]
Historic England
(Southern Region)
(Mr Martin Small)
[1545]
Object
Support
2382
1545
23418
23347
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
i, iv
None
Reasons for previous application 20772/006, HPC "REFUSAL" still apply.
Proposal outside SPB contrary to Policy C14, GS2, GS3.
Housing density twice that of other proposed sites outside NSNP.
Highways, REFUSAL: R12D, R12K, "Substandard Access". "an access that
cannot be deemed safe for this level of traffic".
Arboricultural Officer, "Strong in Principal" objection to previous application, There are no changes which could make the
"trees protected by TPOs".
proposal safer.
Environmental Health Officer, 'land lies on and/or adjacent to potentially
contaminated land".
Impact upon character of area.
Impact upon amenities of neighbours.
Access/parking issues.
Unsustainable due to lack of local amenities/services.
Unproven need in this village.
Considers Policy VL3 to be sound but would wish to see an addition to the
site specific criterion regarding programming of archaeological work etc.
Written reps
Addition to VL3 site specific criterion requiring the
implementation of a programme of archaeological
work to establish a record of potential
archaeological significance of the site (and, if that
programme results in the discovery of nationally
signficiant remains, provision to be made for the
retention and careful management of those
important archaeological remains, within and
adjacent to the site, in a manner appropriate to
their significance, in accordance with paragraph
139 of the NPPF).
No
VL3 should not be included in the Site Allocations
Plan as the assessment of the site is neither
legally compliant or sound
Appear
OBJECT:
DPD not sound. Assessment for SHLAA was incorrect. Objections have not
been properly addressed:
1. Traffic impact unavoidably detrimental and unacceptable.
2. Sustainability criteria not met, very poor public transport and facilities.
52
VL3 - Land at Headley Nurseries, Glayshers Hill, Headley Down
juliette halliday
juliette halliday
[2190]
Object
2190
23436
No
No
ii
3. Dangerous access unavoidable as too close to other junctions.
4. Proposed housing density too high to permit 'appropriate mitigation' of
impact on TPOs etc.
5. Sewage already known to have caused pollution due to spillage from
pumping station.See
Environmental Agency report WT20534.
7. Lack of clear evidence of housing need specifically in Headley Down after
construction of Whitehill/Bordon Eco-Town
Page 20 of 29
FOLDER
REFERENCE
POLICY/PARAGRAPH OF SITE ALLOCATIONS PLAN
RESPONDENT
NAME
ORGANISATION
AGENT
NAME
SUPPORT/ PERSON
OBJECT
ID
COMMENT
ID
IS THE PLAN
LEGALLY
COMPLIANT
IS THE
PLAN
SOUND
WHICH TESTS
OF DOES THE
PLAN FAIL TO
MEET
REPRESENTATION SUMMARY
REPRESENTATION SUGGESTED CHANGE TO
PLAN
I OBJECT to the inclusion of VL3 in the Site
Allocations Plan on the following grounds:
54
VL3 - Land at Headley Nurseries, Glayshers Hill, Headley Down
Miss Helen
Ephgrave
Miss Helen
Ephgrave [2224]
Object
2224
23431
No
No
i, ii, iii, iv
I OBJECT:
DPD not sound.
Objections have not been properly addressed:
1. Traffic impact unavoidably detrimental and unacceptable.
2. Dangerous access unavoidable as too close to other junctions.
3. Sustainability criteria not met, very poor public transport and facilities.
4. Proposed housing density too high to permit 'appropriate mitigation' of
impact on TPOs etc.
5. Sewage already known to have caused pollution due to spillage from
pumping station.
6. Housing density excessive and not in keeping with Glayshers Hill.
7. Lack of clear evidence of housing need specifically in Headley Down after
construction of Whitehill/Bordon Eco-Town.
DOES THE
RESPONDENT
WANT TO
APPEAR AT
EXAMINATION
The Development Plan Document is not legally
compliant as the Sustainability Appraisal is flawed
as regards this site. The plan is not sound as it has
not been 'positively prepared', nor is it 'justified'. In
the first instance, it should not have been included
in the SHLAA due to the incorrect assessment of
various green/amber/red requirements. In addition,
certain issues raised during the first consultation
period have not been adequately resolved in the
Statement of Consultation, these being:
1. In reality, it would be impossible to achieve the
proposal to 'implement appropriate measures' to
reduce the traffic impact on adjoining residential
roads. The fact that the number of houses
proposed for this site has now been increased
from 10 to 12 would only add to the problem.
Written reps
2. The entry point for an access road to and from
the proposed new houses on the Nurseries site
with Glayshers Hill would be inherently dangerous,
as recognised when planning permission was
refused for building just one new house on the
site.
3. The site does not fulfil sustainability criteria. The
bus service has recently been cut back even more
55
56
57
62
VL3 - Land at Headley Nurseries, Glayshers Hill, Headley Down
VL3 - Land at Headley Nurseries, Glayshers Hill, Headley Down
VL3 - Land at Headley Nurseries, Glayshers Hill, Headley Down
VL3 - Land at Headley Nurseries, Glayshers Hill, Headley Down
Miss Siobhan
McLeod
Miss Siobhan
McLeod [2237]
Mr Carl Tusler
Mr Carl Tusler
[2352]
Mr David Fry
Mr Kris Pittard
Mr David Fry [2205]
Mr Kris Pittard
[2381]
Object
Object
Object
Object
2237
2352
2205
2381
23486
23323
23432
23430
No
No
No
No
Page 21 of 29
No
No
No
No
i, ii
OBJECT:
DPD not sound. Assessment for SHLAA was incorrect. Objections have not
been properly addressed:
1. Traffic impact unavoidably detrimental and unacceptable.
2. Sustainability criteria not met, very poor public transport and facilities.
3. Dangerous access unavoidable as too close to other junctions.
VL3 should not be included in the Site Allocations
4. Proposed housing density too high to permit 'appropriate mitigation' of
Plan as the assessment of the site is neither
impact on TPOs etc.
legally compliant or sound.
5. Sewage already known to have caused pollution due to spillage from
pumping station.
6. Housing density excessive and not in keeping with Glayshers Hill.
7. Lack of clear evidence of housing need specifically in Headley Down after
construction of Whitehill/Bordon Eco-Town.
Written reps
ii, iii
The new housing will increase traffic in the area so it will not be possible to
reduce traffic impacts of the development on adjoining residential roads,
particularly Barley Mow Hill and Churt Road which are low capacity roads,
already treacherous to use as there are several sections which are
effectively single track. Site specific criterion b. cannot be met.
Plan should be abandoned as the new housing is
not needed given the many thousands of new
homes to be built at Bordon, where the roads are
more able to cope.
Written reps
i, ii
DPD not sound. Assessment for SHLAA was incorrect. Objections have not
been properly addressed:
1. Traffic impact unavoidably detrimental and unacceptable.
2. Sustainability criteria not met, very poor public transport and facilities.
3. Dangerous access unavoidable as too close to other junctions.
VL3 should not be included in the Site Allocations
4. Proposed housing density too high to permit 'appropriate mitigation' of
Plan as the assessment of the site is neither
impact on TPOs etc.
legally compliant or sound.
5. Sewage already known to have caused pollution due to spillage from
pumping station.
6. Housing density excessive and not in keeping with Glayshers Hill.
7. Lack of clear evidence of housing need specifically in Headley Down after
construction of Whitehill/Bordon Eco-Town.
Written reps
i, ii, iii, iv
OBJECT:
DPD not sound. Assessment for SHLAA was incorrect. Objections have not
been properly addressed:
1. Traffic impact unavoidably detrimental and unacceptable.
2. Sustainability criteria not met, very poor public transport and facilities.
3. Dangerous access unavoidable as too close to other junctions.
VL3 should not be included in the Site Allocations
4. Proposed housing density too high to permit 'appropriate mitigation' of
Plan as the assessment of the site is neither
impact on TPOs etc.
legally compliant or sound.
5. Sewage already known to have caused pollution due to spillage from
pumping station.
6. Housing density excessive and not in keeping with Glayshers Hill.
7. Lack of clear evidence of housing need specifically in Headley Down after
construction of Whitehill/Bordon Eco-Town.
Written reps
FOLDER
REFERENCE
62
63
POLICY/PARAGRAPH OF SITE ALLOCATIONS PLAN
VL3 - Land at Headley Nurseries, Glayshers Hill, Headley Down
VL3 - Land at Headley Nurseries, Glayshers Hill, Headley Down
RESPONDENT
NAME
Mr Kris Pittard
Mr Luke McBain
ORGANISATION
Mr Kris Pittard
[2381]
Mr Luke McBain
[2280]
AGENT
NAME
SUPPORT/ PERSON
OBJECT
ID
Object
Object
2381
2280
COMMENT
ID
23417
23462
IS THE PLAN
LEGALLY
COMPLIANT
Yes
No
IS THE
PLAN
SOUND
Yes
No
WHICH TESTS
OF DOES THE
PLAN FAIL TO
MEET
None
i, ii
REPRESENTATION SUMMARY
OBJECT
Failure of EHDC to adequately address objections of previous consultation,
ie:
1. Traffic impact from 12 houses unavoidably detrimental and
unacceptable.
2. Sustainability criteria not met, very poor public transport and facilities.
3. Dangerous access unavoidable as too close to other junctions.
4. Proposed housing density too high to permit 'appropriate mitigation' of
impact on TPOs etc.
5. Sewage already known to have caused pollution due to spillage from
pumping station.
6. Housing density excessive and not in keeping with Glayshers Hill.
7. Lack of documented evidence of housing need specifically in Headley
after construction of Whitehill/Bordon Eco-Town.
REPRESENTATION SUGGESTED CHANGE TO
PLAN
VL3 should not be included within the SHLAA.
OBJECT:
DPD not legally compliant due to faulty SA. Not sound as assessment for
SHLAA was incorrect and objections have not been addressed:
1. Traffic impact unavoidably detrimental and unacceptable.
2. Sustainability criteria not met, very poor public transport and facilities.
3. Dangerous access unavoidable as too close to other junctions.
VL3 should not be included in the Site Allocations
4. Proposed housing density too high to permit 'appropriate mitigation' of
Plan as the assessment of the site is neither
impact on TPOs etc.
legally compliant nor sound.
5. Sewage already known to have caused pollution due to spillage from
pumping station.
6. Housing density excessive and not in keeping with Glayshers Hill.
7. Lack of clear evidence of housing need specifically in Headley Down after
construction of Whitehill/Bordon Eco-Town.
DOES THE
RESPONDENT
WANT TO
APPEAR AT
EXAMINATION
Written reps
Written reps
Glayshers hill cannot cope with further traffic and traffic movements so close
to current junctions.
64
VL3 - Land at Headley Nurseries, Glayshers Hill, Headley Down
Mr Mark Stevens
Mr Mark Stevens
[2407]
Object
2407
23464
No
No
VL3 should not be included in the Site Allocations
Plan as the assessment of the site is neither
legally compliant or sound.
Written reps
i, ii
DPD not sound. Assessment for SHLAA was incorrect. Objections have not
been properly addressed:
1. Traffic impact unavoidably detrimental and unacceptable.
2. Sustainability criteria not met, very poor public transport and facilities.
3. Dangerous access unavoidable as too close to other junctions.
VL3 should not be included in the Site Allocations
4. Proposed housing density too high to permit 'appropriate mitigation' of
Plan as the assessment of the site is neither
impact on TPOs etc.
legally compliant or sound.
5. Sewage already known to have caused pollution due to spillage from
pumping station.
6. Housing density excessive and not in keeping with Glayshers Hill.
7. Lack of clear evidence of housing need specifically in Headley Down after
construction of Whitehill/Bordon Eco-Town.
Written reps
i, ii
OBJECT:
DPD not sound. Assessment for SHLAA was incorrect. Objections have not
been properly addressed:
1. Traffic impact unavoidably detrimental and unacceptable.
2. Sustainability criteria not met, very poor public transport and facilities.
3. Dangerous access unavoidable as too close to other junctions.
VL3 should not be included in the Site Allocations
4. Proposed housing density too high to permit 'appropriate mitigation' of
Plan as the assessment of the site is neither
legally compliant or sound
impact on TPOs etc.
5. Sewage already known to have caused pollution due to spillage from
pumping station.
6. Housing density excessive and not in keeping with Glayshers Hill.
7. Lack of clear evidence of housing need specifically in Headley Down after
construction of Whitehill/Bordon Eco-Town.
Written reps
i, iv
The site is adjacent to a deprived Heatherlands Estate; allocating high
density development upon such a small estate would add to the deprivation.
It was the Policy Planners who added 2 affordable dwellings to the original
allocation number. The proposed allocation is unsustainable and will have a
negative impact upon residents and road users. Previous site applications
for one dwelling have been refused due to access and egress of the site.
There are too many uncertainties in regard to this high density development
i, ii
No likelihood of improved public transport.
Extra housing is not required due to development in Bordon/Whitehill.
local infrastructure cannot cope without significant investment.
66
69
72
VL3 - Land at Headley Nurseries, Glayshers Hill, Headley Down
VL3 - Land at Headley Nurseries, Glayshers Hill, Headley Down
VL3 - Land at Headley Nurseries, Glayshers Hill, Headley Down
Mr Paul Bonner
Mr Roger
Jackson
Mr Trevor Burton
Mr Paul Bonner
[2418]
Mr Roger Jackson
[2204]
Mr Trevor Burton
[2201]
Object
Object
Object
2418
2204
2201
23497
23448
23610
No
No
Yes
Page 22 of 29
No
No
No
Appear
FOLDER
REFERENCE
77
78
79
79
POLICY/PARAGRAPH OF SITE ALLOCATIONS PLAN
VL3 - Land at Headley Nurseries, Glayshers Hill, Headley Down
VL3 - Land at Headley Nurseries, Glayshers Hill, Headley Down
VL3 - Land at Headley Nurseries, Glayshers Hill, Headley Down
VL3 - Land at Headley Nurseries, Glayshers Hill, Headley Down
RESPONDENT
NAME
Mrs Angela
Jackson
Mrs Angela
Thames
Mrs Carla Bonner
Mrs Carla Bonner
ORGANISATION
Mrs Angela Jackson
[2184]
Mrs Angela Thames
[2226]
Mrs Carla Bonner
[2417]
Mrs Carla Bonner
[2417]
AGENT
NAME
SUPPORT/ PERSON
OBJECT
ID
Object
Object
Object
Object
2184
2226
2417
2417
COMMENT
ID
23416
23463
23495
23496
IS THE PLAN
LEGALLY
COMPLIANT
No
No
No
No
IS THE
PLAN
SOUND
No
No
No
No
WHICH TESTS
OF DOES THE
PLAN FAIL TO
MEET
i, ii
i
REPRESENTATION SUMMARY
REPRESENTATION SUGGESTED CHANGE TO
PLAN
OBJECT:
DPD not sound. Assessment for SHLAA was incorrect. Objections have not
been properly addressed:
1. Traffic impact unavoidably detrimental and unacceptable.
2. Sustainability criteria not met, very poor public transport and facilities.
3. Dangerous access unavoidable as too close to other junctions.
VL3 should not be included in the Site Allocations
4. Proposed housing density too high to permit 'appropriate mitigation' of
Plan as the assessment of the site is neither
impact on TPOs etc.
legally compliant nor sound.
5. Sewage already known to have caused pollution due to spillage from
pumping station.
6. Housing density excessive and not in keeping with Glayshers Hill.
7. Lack of clear evidence of housing need specifically in Headley Down after
construction of Whitehill/Bordon Eco-Town.
The building of 12 houses will have a severe impact on the narrow country
roads of Barleymow Hill, Churt Road and Glayshers Hill. These roads
cannot support a minimum of another 24 cars. The environmental impact
would be devastating to this small corner of Headley Down. There is
insufficient roadway for pavements or a cycle track. There are no public
transport links or infrastructure to support another 12 families. Glayshers Hill
is hazardous in winter with many a road accident due to the steep hill
especially when ice and snow are present. Drainage system inadequate.
Remove the area for any potential planning
applications. Maintain the beech hedge that runs
alongside Glayshers Hill. Maintain the local gap
and rural landscape of Headley Down.
DOES THE
RESPONDENT
WANT TO
APPEAR AT
EXAMINATION
Appear
Written reps
i, ii
OBJECT:
DPD not sound. Assessment for SHLAA was incorrect. Objections have not
been properly addressed:
1. Traffic impact unavoidably detrimental and unacceptable.
2. Sustainability criteria not met, very poor public transport and facilities.
3. Dangerous access unavoidable as too close to other junctions.
VL3 should not be included in the site allocations
4. Proposed housing density too high to permit 'appropriate mitigation' of
plan as the assessment of the site is neither legally
impact on TPOs etc.
compliant or sound
5. Sewage already known to have caused pollution due to spillage from
pumping station.
6. Housing density excessive and not in keeping with Glayshers Hill.
7. Lack of clear evidence of housing need specifically in Headley Down after
construction of Whitehill/Bordon Eco-Town.
Written reps
i, ii
OBJECT:
DPD not sound. Assessment for SHLAA was incorrect. Objections have not
been properly addressed:
1. Traffic impact unavoidably detrimental and unacceptable.
2. Sustainability criteria not met, very poor public transport and facilities.
VL3 should not be included in the Site Allocations
3. Dangerous access unavoidable as too close to other junctions.
Plan as the assessment of the site is neither
4. Proposed housing density too high to permit 'appropriate mitigation' of
legally compliant or sound.
impact on TPOs etc.
5. Sewage already known to have caused pollution due to spillage from
pumping station.
6. Housing density excessive and not in keeping with Glayshers Hill.
7. Lack of clear evidence of housing need specifically in Headley Down after
construction of Whitehill/Bordon Eco-Town.
Written reps
OBJECT. DPD not sound. Assessment for SHLAA was incorrect.
Objections not properly addressed:
1. Traffic impact detrimental.
2. Sustainability criteria not met, very poor public transport and facilities.
3. Dangerous access unavoidable, too close to other junctions.
80
VL3 - Land at Headley Nurseries, Glayshers Hill, Headley Down
Mrs Corin Bowyer- Mrs Corin BowyerCrombie
Crombie [2241]
Object
2241
23443
No
No
ii
4. Proposed housing density too high to permit 'appropriate mitigation' of
impact on TPOs etc.
5. Sewage known to have caused pollution due to spillage from pumping
station.
6. Housing density excessive, not in keeping with Glayshers Hill.
7. Lack of clear evidence of housing need in Headley Down after
construction of Whitehill/Bordon eco-town.
Page 23 of 29
Changes: VL3 should not be included in the Site
Allocations Plan as the assessment of the site is
neither legally compliant or sound.
Appear
FOLDER
REFERENCE
86
POLICY/PARAGRAPH OF SITE ALLOCATIONS PLAN
VL3 - Land at Headley Nurseries, Glayshers Hill, Headley Down
RESPONDENT
NAME
Ms Freda
Jackson
ORGANISATION
Ms Freda Jackson
[2272]
AGENT
NAME
SUPPORT/ PERSON
OBJECT
ID
Object
2272
COMMENT
ID
23450
IS THE PLAN
LEGALLY
COMPLIANT
No
IS THE
PLAN
SOUND
No
WHICH TESTS
OF DOES THE
PLAN FAIL TO
MEET
i, ii
87
VL3 - Land at Headley Nurseries, Glayshers Hill, Headley Down
Ms Lindsay Burns
Ms Lindsay Burns
[2248]
Object
2248
23465
No
No
i, ii
98
VL3 - Land at Headley Nurseries, Glayshers Hill, Headley Down
Heidi Clarke
Sport England (SE
Region) (Heidi
Clarke) [972]
Object
972
23373
Unknown
No
i
99
VL3 - Land at Headley Nurseries, Glayshers Hill, Headley Down
Mark Mathews
Thames Water
Property (Mark
Mathews) [791]
Object
791
23406
Yes
No
iii, iv
50
VL4 - Land south of Headley Fields, Headley
Mr Martin Small
Historic England
(Southern Region)
(Mr Martin Small)
[1545]
Support
1545
23348
Yes
Yes
None
86
VL4 - Land south of Headley Fields, Headley
Ms Freda
Jackson
Ms Freda Jackson
[2272]
Object
2272
23449
No
No
i, ii
98
VL4 - Land south of Headley Fields, Headley
Heidi Clarke
Sport England (SE
Region) (Heidi
Clarke) [972]
Object
972
23374
Unknown
No
i
99
VL4 - Land south of Headley Fields, Headley
Mark Mathews
Thames Water
Property (Mark
Mathews) [791]
Object
791
23407
Yes
No
iii, iv
Page 24 of 29
REPRESENTATION SUMMARY
REPRESENTATION SUGGESTED CHANGE TO
PLAN
OBJECT:
DPD not sound or legally compliant due to faulty SA. Assessment for
SHLAA was incorrect. Objections have not been properly addressed:
1. Traffic impact unavoidably detrimental and unacceptable.
2. Sustainability criteria not met, very poor public transport and facilities.
3. Dangerous access unavoidable as too close to other junctions.
4. Proposed housing density too high to permit 'appropriate mitigation' of
VL3 should not be included in the Site Allocations
impact on TPOs etc.
Plan as the assessment of the site is neither
5. Sewage already known to have caused pollution due to spillage from
legally compliant nor sound.
pumping station.
6. Housing density excessive and not in keeping with Glayshers Hill.
7. Lack of clear evidence of housing need specifically in Headley Down after
construction of Whitehill/Bordon Eco-Town.
OBJECT:
DPD not sound. Assessment for SHLAA was incorrect. Objections have not
been properly addressed:
1. Traffic impact unavoidably detrimental and unacceptable.
2. Sustainability criteria not met, very poor public transport and facilities.
3. Dangerous access unavoidable as too close to other junctions.
VL3 should not be included in the Site Allocations
4. Proposed housing density too high for 'appropriate mitigation' of impact on
Plan as the assessment of the site is neither
TPOs and wildlife.
legally compliant or sound.
5. Sewage already known to have caused pollution due to spillage from
pumping station.
6. Housing density excessive and not in keeping with Glayshers Hill.
7. Lack of clear evidence of housing need specifically in Headley Down after
construction of Whitehill/Bordon Eco-Town.
The NPPF requires local authorities to plan positively for sport. It is difficult
to see how sport has been considered in this allocation.
On the information available to date we do not envisage infrastructure
concerns regarding wastewater infrastructure capability in relation to this
site.
Considers Policy VL4 to be sound but would wish to see an additional site
specific criterion regarding programming of archaeological works etc.
It is essential that the Council understand and
make it clear what is needed in terms of playing
field and built sports facilities to provide for the
additional population.
On the information available to date we do not envisage infrastructure
concerns regarding wastewater infrastructure capability in relation to this
site.
Written reps
Appear
No
No
Addition to VL4 site specific criterion requiring the
implementation of a programme of archaeological
work to establish a record of potential
archaeological significance of the site (and, if that
programme results in the discovery of nationally
signficiant remains, provision to be made for the
retention and careful management of those
important archaeological remains, within and
adjacent to the site, in a manner appropriate to
their significance, in accordance with paragraph
139 of the NPPF).
OBJECT:
DPD not sound or legally compliant due to faulty SA. Assessment for
SHLAA was incorrect. Objections have not been properly addressed:
1. Traffic impact unavoidably detrimental and unacceptable.
2. Sustainability criteria not met, very poor public transport and facilities.
3. Dangerous access unavoidable as too close to other junctions.
VL3 should not be included in the Site Allocations
4. Proposed housing density too high to permit 'appropriate mitigation' of
Plan as the assessment of the site is neither
impact on TPOs etc.
legally compliant nor sound.
5. Sewage already known to have caused pollution due to spillage from
pumping station.
6. Housing density excessive and not in keeping with Glayshers Hill.
7. Lack of clear evidence of housing need specifically in Headley Down after
construction of Whitehill/Bordon Eco-Town.
The NPPF requires local authorities to plan positively for sport. It is difficult
to see how sport has been considered in this allocation.
DOES THE
RESPONDENT
WANT TO
APPEAR AT
EXAMINATION
It is essential that the Council understand and
make it clear what is needed in terms of playing
field and built sports facilities to provide for the
additional population.
No
Written reps
No
No
FOLDER
REFERENCE
7
43
POLICY/PARAGRAPH OF SITE ALLOCATIONS PLAN
RESPONDENT
NAME
Bewley Homes Plc
[1340]
VL5 - Land adjacent to Linden, Fullers Road, Holt Pound
VL5 - Land adjacent to Linden, Fullers Road, Holt Pound
ORGANISATION
Laura Lax
Environment
Agency (Laura Lax)
[326]
AGENT
NAME
Boyer
Planning
(Ms Julia
Mountford)
[2316]
SUPPORT/ PERSON
OBJECT
ID
Object
Support
1340
326
COMMENT
ID
23550
23482
IS THE PLAN
LEGALLY
COMPLIANT
Unknown
Unknown
IS THE
PLAN
SOUND
No
Yes
WHICH TESTS
OF DOES THE
PLAN FAIL TO
MEET
i, ii, iv
None
REPRESENTATION SUMMARY
We continue to support the principle of the site being allocated for
development, the removal of the requirement to be 'linear' and the increase
in dwelling numbers. However, we do not consider that this increase has
gone far enough to enable the full capacity of the site to be achieved.
Additionally the policy wording incorrectly identifies the site as falling within
5km of the SPA. This is inconsistent with the Council's own HRA which
concludes that the site would have no mechanism for Likely Significant
Impacts, being 5.08km from the SPA.
REPRESENTATION SUGGESTED CHANGE TO
PLAN
DOES THE
RESPONDENT
WANT TO
APPEAR AT
EXAMINATION
Land adj. to Linden, Fullers Road in Holt Pound is
allocated for residential development for about 17
dwellings on 0.74ha rather than 12.
Delete criterion (d) relating to a pedestrian
crossing on the A325. There is no clear
justification and an evidence base to support this
requirement other than the IDP.
Appear
Delete criterion (h) relating to the need to carry out
a Screening Assessment as the site is within 5km
of the SPA as the site it actually 5.08km.
We note that there is a small patch of flood zone 3 to the north of this site.
We support the fact that the proposed allocation seems to avoid this area.
No
We are particularly pleased that the site development criteria, bullet (f),
specifically excludes built development within flood zone 3.
Your own planning committee made it clear that
development of the Fullers Road frontage might be
tolerated but no backfilling of the site would be.
This village is largely Linear development of wide
and deep plots.
44
VL5 - Land adjacent to Linden, Fullers Road, Holt Pound
Mr Jeremy Ward
Fullers Road
Residents Group
(Mr Jeremy Ward)
[2261]
Object
2261
23322
Yes
Yes
ii
Why have you removed reference to Linear development?
The previous figure of 8 houses could not possibly
have been squeezed in on that frontage while
maintaining the condition of Linear development so
the correct solution would surely be to reduce the
number and density of houses to match the
locality. That would be no more than 5 houses to
match the plots opposite.
Written reps
Please reinstate the condition for linear
development.
45
VL5 - Land adjacent to Linden, Fullers Road, Holt Pound
Gp Capt Michael Gp Capt Michael
Thom
Thom [2232]
50
VL5 - Land adjacent to Linden, Fullers Road, Holt Pound
Mr Martin Small
60
VL5 - Land adjacent to Linden, Fullers Road, Holt Pound
Mr James
Rodger
Historic England
(Southern Region)
(Mr Martin Small)
[1545]
Mr James Rodger
[1511]
Object
2232
23424
Unknown
No
ii, iv
Support
1545
23349
Yes
Yes
None
Object
1511
23393
Yes
Yes
None
Accept the principle of development but object to the proposed density.
Twelve properties in VL5 will not meet criterion (e). Also concerned
regarding traffic from Fullers Road and the A325, likely run-off of storm
water from the Linden site into the small stream that runs on the south side
of Fullers Road behind the houses and the effects of the additional number
of houses to the main sewer running beyond the houses may lead to
overload.
Policy VL5 is sound in respect of the historic environment.
Why have you increased from 7 dwellings to 12 this is gross over
development
The planning committee insisted that any development on Fullers Road
should follow a pattern of linear/ribbon development.
In the 1st draft, the proposed plot densities were too high to meet this
requirement.
65
VL5 - Land adjacent to Linden, Fullers Road, Holt Pound
Mr Martin
Robinson
Mr Martin Robinson
[1567]
Object
1567
23440
Yes
No
ii
The 2nd draft / Statement of Consultation proposes even HIGHER plot
densities.
The requirement for linear/ribbon development was raised as a key issue,
but these objections seem to have been completely ignored in the 2nd draft.
In fact, the issue has been addressed by completely removing it. It has
been replaced with "respecting the local character", which is clearly open to
abuse.
68
73
VL5 - Land adjacent to Linden, Fullers Road, Holt Pound
VL5 - Land adjacent to Linden, Fullers Road, Holt Pound
Mr Paul Noble
Mr Trevor
Williams
Mr Paul Noble
[2218]
Mr Trevor Williams
[2410]
Object
Object
2218
2410
23476
23515
No
Unknown
Page 25 of 29
No
No
ii
i, ii, iv
Examination of the plot size has shown that VL5 is
equivalent to 5. Regarding the traffic the solution
would be to install a roundabout or traffic lights at
the intersection. Perhaps a condition of approval
for the Linden site? I trust that criterion (i) will
address storm water run-off?
No
5 Maximum
The plot density should be lowered in the 2nd draft.
The site cannot realistically support more than 5-6
houses without detriment.
Written reps
Written reps
The planning committee's requirement for
linear/ribbon development must be re-instated.
I think this land is unsuitable for development as it is not a very sustainable
location. Adding new junctions close to the A325/ Fullers Road junction
makes no sense and the dangers this would create outweigh any benefit that
development would bring.
Reintroduce the requirement for linear
If this land is allocated for residential development then I think it must be in a development only.
linear form if it is to respect the local character. It would be impossible to
Reduce the number of dwellings to about 5.
achieve this with 12 dwellings (maximum of 5).
There are other, more sustainable locations, that would be much better
suited to accommodate residential development.
Site is an outlier of the village of Rowledge. Development will affect the
village and residents will depend on the village for facilities.
No indication that gas, electricity, water and sewage facilities will be
available.
Fullers Road is the principal connection of the village to the A325 which is
already busy in the mornings and evenings. Exit onto A325 from Fullers
Road is already problematic.
Site is outside the Settlement Policy Boundary.
No
Site is not practicable and should be abandoned.
Written reps
No
FOLDER
REFERENCE
75
83
85
POLICY/PARAGRAPH OF SITE ALLOCATIONS PLAN
VL5 - Land adjacent to Linden, Fullers Road, Holt Pound
VL5 - Land adjacent to Linden, Fullers Road, Holt Pound
VL5 - Land adjacent to Linden, Fullers Road, Holt Pound
RESPONDENT
NAME
Mrs A D Geering
Mrs Jill Davies
Ms Dorcas
Podger
ORGANISATION
Mrs A D Geering
[2225]
Mrs Jill Davies
[2258]
Ms Dorcas Podger
[1520]
AGENT
NAME
SUPPORT/ PERSON
OBJECT
ID
Object
Object
Object
2225
2258
1520
COMMENT
ID
23427
23438
23394
IS THE PLAN
LEGALLY
COMPLIANT
Yes
Yes
Yes
IS THE
PLAN
SOUND
No
No
No
WHICH TESTS
OF DOES THE
PLAN FAIL TO
MEET
REPRESENTATION SUMMARY
REPRESENTATION SUGGESTED CHANGE TO
PLAN
DOES THE
RESPONDENT
WANT TO
APPEAR AT
EXAMINATION
ii
It goes against the planning committee's clearly stated requirements
Planning committee last year specified plot should only have linear
development in keeping with existing housing, impossible for the 12 houses
proposed
Linear development could not have plot sizes in keeping with existing
housing
Development as a whole would not be in character with the locality and
existing varied linear housing
It would be out of keeping with the largely rural nature of Holt Pound
Village infrastructure and resources are already stretched;
It is very near the dangerous A325 junction and will cause significant traffic
problems there are through the village
Reduce number of houses
Have linear varied development as with existing
housing
Written reps
ii
In the first draft of the HEAA, the planning committee required linear
development, if any, in keeping with the character of existing housing in
Fullers Road, although the number of dwellings they suggested would have
to be far closer together than those already in existence. Concerns were
expressed about this overdevelopment as well as traffic safety, habitat and
infrastructure. It is astonishing therefore that the second draft shows the
committee abandoning its own requirement of linear development in favour
of the vague idea of houses being 'in character'. They have also
INCREASED the number of houses instead of lowering it.
Reinstatement of linear requirement. Lowering of
proposed house numbers on this site.
Written reps
i, iii
In the original document, the planning committee recognised that a linear
development was the only appropriate way to develop the site, in keeping
with existing houses along Fulllers Road. However, the proposal had too
many dwellings to be in keeping. In the latest plan, the requirement for linear Return to linear development with 5-6 properties at
development has been removed and the plan is now for up to 12 properties a maximum.
in a block. This is not suitable for the character of the locality and is far too
dense at the end of the existing building line. The plan should be 5-6
properties in a linear development.
Written reps
Written reps
Rowledge
Residents'
Association (Mr
Richard G Precious)
[2228]
Object
2228
23319
Yes
No
ii
Surprised reference to "linear development" has been removed (see
Statement of Consultation). Linear development is precisely the character of
Reduce number of properties on the site and
the existing settlement. and proposed number of dwellings on this site is not
respect the linear nature of development in Holt
consistent with linear approach and is out of character with the surrounding
Pound.
proper ties. Even where side roads are part of the settlement, density of
development is lower than that proposed for this site.
Include a requirement for a full traffic assessment
to be carried out by Hampshire Highways for the
The junction of Fullers Road and the A325 is very dangerous and needs a
junction of Fullers Road and the A325.
detailed assessment of the traffic flows and impact of additional traffic from
the two sites proposed in Holt Pond.
The NPPF requires local authorities to plan positively for sport. It is difficult
to see how sport has been considered in this allocation.
92
VL5 - Land adjacent to Linden, Fullers Road, Holt Pound
Mr Richard G
Precious
98
VL5 - Land adjacent to Linden, Fullers Road, Holt Pound
Heidi Clarke
Sport England (SE
Region) (Heidi
Clarke) [972]
Object
972
23375
Unknown
No
i
99
VL5 - Land adjacent to Linden, Fullers Road, Holt Pound
Mark Mathews
Thames Water
Property (Mark
Mathews) [791]
Object
791
23408
Yes
No
iii, iv
On the information available to date we do not envisage infrastructure
concerns regarding wastewater infrastructure capability in relation to this
site.
It is essential that the Council understand and
make it clear what is needed in terms of playing
field and built sports facilities to provide for the
additional population.
No
No
The previous concerns raised were that any
development that was NON-linear would be out of
character and that there is insufficient space on
this plot to accommodate that number of houses in
a linear fashion.
44
VL6 - Land adjacent Stream Cottage, Fullers Road, Holt Pound
Mr Jeremy Ward
Fullers Road
Residents Group
(Mr Jeremy Ward)
[2261]
This village is almost entirely linear, as highlighted
by your own planners when throwing out a previous
non-linear development proposal. And it has low
average densities and large plots.
Object
2261
23321
Yes
No
ii
You seem to have misunderstood previous objections and those of your own
planning committee. NON-LINEAR development on this site would be OUT But you have now inexplicably removed the linear
OF CHARACTER in this LINEAR village. 5 houses is too many for Linear
restriction. Whereas it is good that you have
development of the plot frontage so that number must be reduced.
included a reference to respect the existing
character of the village, you must please put back
the linear-development-only restriction or you will
encourage denser plans for the site that your own
planning committee have said were completely
inappropriate.
Written reps
If there is not enough linear room for the linear
development of c. 5 dwellings then the proposed
number must be reduced to preserve the plot
density and keep it in character with the village.
45
VL6 - Land adjacent Stream Cottage, Fullers Road, Holt Pound
Gp Capt Michael Gp Capt Michael
Thom
Thom [2232]
Object
2232
23425
Unknown
Page 26 of 29
No
i, ii, iv
Accept the principle of development but object to the proposed density.
Five properties in VL6 will not meet criterion (c). Also concerned regarding
traffic from Fullers Road and the A325, likely run-off of storm water from the
Linden site into the small stream that runs on the south side of Fullers Road
behind the houses and the effects of the additional number of houses to the
main sewer running beyond the houses may lead to overload.
Examination of the plot size has shown that VL6 is
equivalent to 3. Regarding the traffic the solution
would be to install a roundabout or traffic lights at
the intersection. Perhaps a condition of approval
for the Linden site?
No
FOLDER
REFERENCE
50
POLICY/PARAGRAPH OF SITE ALLOCATIONS PLAN
VL6 - Land adjacent Stream Cottage, Fullers Road, Holt Pound
RESPONDENT
NAME
Mr Martin Small
ORGANISATION
Historic England
(Southern Region)
(Mr Martin Small)
[1545]
AGENT
NAME
SUPPORT/ PERSON
OBJECT
ID
Support
1545
COMMENT
ID
23350
IS THE PLAN
LEGALLY
COMPLIANT
Yes
IS THE
PLAN
SOUND
Yes
WHICH TESTS
OF DOES THE
PLAN FAIL TO
MEET
None
60
VL6 - Land adjacent Stream Cottage, Fullers Road, Holt Pound
Mr James
Rodger
Mr James Rodger
[1511]
Object
1511
23392
Yes
Yes
None
65
VL6 - Land adjacent Stream Cottage, Fullers Road, Holt Pound
Mr Martin
Robinson
Mr Martin Robinson
[1567]
Object
1567
23441
Yes
No
ii
REPRESENTATION SUMMARY
REPRESENTATION SUGGESTED CHANGE TO
PLAN
Addition to VL6 site specific criterion requiring the
implementation of a programme of archaeological
work to establish a record of potential
archaeological significance of the site (and, if that
programme results in the discovery of nationally
Considers Policy VL6 to be sound but would wish to see an additional site
signficiant remains, provision to be made for the
specific criterion added regarding programming of archaeological works etc.
retention and careful management of those
important archaeological remains, within and
adjacent to the site, in a manner appropriate to
their significance, in accordance with paragraph
139 of the NPPF).
This site is the only green land separating Holt Pound to Rowledge why not
keep it.
If we have to have develop this site it should be limited to 3 dwellings and
kept within the housing line on Fullers Rd.
Your own planning authorities have stated they would not tolerate over
development in Holt Pound i consider 5 dwellings on this site over
development.
The planning committee insisted that any development on Fullers Road
should follow a pattern of linear/ribbon development.
The requirement for linear/ribbon development was raised as a key issue in
the Statement of Consultation, but these objections seem to have been
completely ignored in the 2nd draft.
DOES THE
RESPONDENT
WANT TO
APPEAR AT
EXAMINATION
No
Maximum 3 dwellings within the existing housing
line
Written reps
The planning committee's requirement for
linear/ribbon development must be re-instated.
Written reps
In fact, the issue has been addressed by completely removing it. It has
been replaced with "respecting the local character", which is clearly open to
abuse.
68
73
75
83
85
VL6 - Land adjacent Stream Cottage, Fullers Road, Holt Pound
VL6 - Land adjacent Stream Cottage, Fullers Road, Holt Pound
VL6 - Land adjacent Stream Cottage, Fullers Road, Holt Pound
VL6 - Land adjacent Stream Cottage, Fullers Road, Holt Pound
VL6 - Land adjacent Stream Cottage, Fullers Road, Holt Pound
Mr Paul Noble
Mr Trevor
Williams
Mrs A D Geering
Mrs Jill Davies
Ms Dorcas
Podger
Mr Paul Noble
[2218]
Mr Trevor Williams
[2410]
Mrs A D Geering
[2225]
Mrs Jill Davies
[2258]
Ms Dorcas Podger
[1520]
Object
Object
Object
Object
Object
2218
2410
2225
2258
1520
23478
23516
23426
23439
23395
No
Unknown
Yes
Yes
Yes
Page 27 of 29
No
No
No
No
No
ii
i, ii, iv
I think that this land should not be allocated for residential development as it
forms an important gap between Rowledge and Holt Pound. There are
Reintroduce the requirement for linear
other, more sustainable locations available.
development only.
If this land is allocated for residential development then I think it must be in a
linear form if it is to respect the local character.
Site is an outlier of the village. Proposed development will affect village and
new residents will depend on village facilities.
No indication that gas, electricity, water and sewage facilities will be
available.
Fullers Road is the principal connection of the village to the A325 which is
already busy in mornings and evenings, exit onto it from Fullers Road is
problematic.
Site is adjacent to difficult junction and not suitable. Pedestrian crossing on
A325 will obstruct traffic flow and cause issues.
Site is outside Settlement Policy Boundary.
Written reps
No
ii
It goes against the planning committee's clearly stated requirements.
IPlanning Committee specified last year this plot should only have linear
development in keeping with existing housing, impossible for proposed 5
houses.
Linear development could not have plot sizes in keeping with existing
housing.
It would not be in character with the locality or varied existing linear
housing.
No designated gap between Rowledge and Holt Pound altering essential
rural nature
Village resources and infrastructure are already stretched, eg school,
parking, doctors' surgeries
Any development will increase the traffic and exacerbate the dangerous
junction with the A325
ii
In the first draft of the Housing and Employment Allocations Plan, the
planning committee required linear development, if any, in keeping with the
character of existing housing in Fullers Road. It is absurd that, having
listened to a variety of local concerns about the numbers of new houses
Lower number of projected houses. Reinstatement
being proposed plus traffic safety, wildlife habitat and the pressure on
of linear requirement.
infrastructure, they are now abandoning that requirement and increasing the
number of houses that might be permitted. If any new housing is to be built
here it needs to be substantially less, not more, than outlined in this draft.
Written reps
i, iii
In the original document, the planning committee recognised that a linear
development was the only appropriate way to develop the site, in keeping
with existing houses along Fulllers Road. However, the proposal had too
many dwellings to be in keeping. In the latest plan, the requirement for linear Return to the requirement for a linear development
development has been removed and the plan is now for up to 5 properties, and reduce the density to a maximum of 3 houses.
possibly in a block. This is not suitable for the character of the locality and is
far too dense. The plan should be 3 properties, at most, in a linear
development.
Written reps
Reduce number of houses
Have varied linear development in keeping with
existing housing
Written reps
FOLDER
REFERENCE
POLICY/PARAGRAPH OF SITE ALLOCATIONS PLAN
RESPONDENT
NAME
ORGANISATION
AGENT
NAME
SUPPORT/ PERSON
OBJECT
ID
COMMENT
ID
IS THE PLAN
LEGALLY
COMPLIANT
IS THE
PLAN
SOUND
WHICH TESTS
OF DOES THE
PLAN FAIL TO
MEET
Rowledge
Residents'
Association (Mr
Richard G Precious)
[2228]
Object
2228
23320
Yes
No
ii
Surprised reference to "linear development" has been removed (see
Statement of Consultation). Linear development is precisely the character of
Reduce number of properties on the site and
the existing settlement. and proposed number of dwellings on this site is not
respect the linear nature of development in Holt
consistent with linear approach and is out of character with the surrounding
Pound.
properties. Even where side roads are part of the settlement, density of
development is lower than that proposed for this site.
Include a requirement for a full traffic assessment
to be carried out by Hampshire Highways for the
The junction of Fullers Road and the A325 is very dangerous and needs a
junction of Fullers Road and the A325.
detailed assessment of the traffic flows and impact of additional traffic from
the two sites proposed in Holt Pond.
The NPPF requires local authorities to plan positively for sport. It is difficult
to see how sport has been considered in this allocation.
92
VL6 - Land adjacent Stream Cottage, Fullers Road, Holt Pound
Mr Richard G
Precious
98
VL6 - Land adjacent Stream Cottage, Fullers Road, Holt Pound
Heidi Clarke
Sport England (SE
Region) (Heidi
Clarke) [972]
Object
972
23376
Unknown
No
i
99
VL6 - Land adjacent Stream Cottage, Fullers Road, Holt Pound
Mark Mathews
Thames Water
Property (Mark
Mathews) [791]
Object
791
23409
Yes
No
iii, iv
50
VL7 - Land rear of Junipers, South Town Road, Medstead
Mr Martin Small
REPRESENTATION SUMMARY
REPRESENTATION SUGGESTED CHANGE TO
PLAN
Historic England
(Southern Region)
(Mr Martin Small)
[1545]
Support
1545
23351
Unknown
Yes
None
On the information available to date we do not envisage infrastructure
concerns regarding wastewater infrastructure capability in relation to this
site.
It is essential that the Council understand and
make it clear what is needed in terms of playing
field and built sports facilities to provide for the
additional population.
Considers Policy VL7 to be sound but would wish to see an additional site
specific criterion regarding programming of archaeological works etc.
No
The draft allocation should be immediately
withdrawn and redrafted. The Medstead and FM
local plan was in consultation during the first draft
of the allocation. The inclusion of allocations in the
village is contrary to both the framework, localism
and is probably illegal.
Written reps
It is essential that the Council understand and
make it clear what is needed in terms of playing
field and built sports facilities to provide for the
additional population.
VL7 - Land rear of Junipers, South Town Road, Medstead
Mr Duncan Pate
Mr Duncan Pate
[2178]
Object
2178
23324
No
No
iv
98
VL7 - Land rear of Junipers, South Town Road, Medstead
Heidi Clarke
Sport England (SE
Region) (Heidi
Clarke) [972]
Object
972
23377
Unknown
No
i
The NPPF requires local authorities to plan positively for sport. It is difficult
to see how sport has been considered in this allocation.
99
VL7 - Land rear of Junipers, South Town Road, Medstead
Mark Mathews
Thames Water
Property (Mark
Mathews) [791]
Object
791
23410
Yes
No
iii, iv
The site is not served by public sewerage infrastrucure. Developers will
either have to make on site network and treatment arrangements or transfer VL7 should make reference to the need for a
flows to a public sewerage network, the nearest of which is approximately
sewerage/foul & surface water disposal strategy.
2,000 metres away to the south east of Medstead.
Support
1315
23578
Unknown
Yes
None
Our client strongly supports the allocation of VL8 for housing. The site
already has planning permission for development.
VL8 - Land east of Cedar Stables, Castle Street, Medstead
Mr Peter Charles
Mr Peter Charles
[1315]
50
VL8 - Land east of Cedar Stables, Castle Street, Medstead
Mr Martin Small
Historic England
(Southern Region)
(Mr Martin Small)
[1545]
Support
1545
23352
Yes
Yes
None
98
VL8 - Land east of Cedar Stables, Castle Street, Medstead
Heidi Clarke
Sport England (SE
Region) (Heidi
Clarke) [972]
Object
972
23378
Unknown
No
i
99
VL8 - Land east of Cedar Stables, Castle Street, Medstead
Mark Mathews
Thames Water
Property (Mark
Mathews) [791]
Object
791
23411
Yes
No
iii, iv
Page 28 of 29
No
Addition to VL7 site specific criterion requiring the
implementation of a programme of archaeological
work to establish a record of potential
archaeological significance of the site (and, if that
programme results in the discovery of nationally
signficiant remains, provision to be made for the
retention and careful management of those
important archaeological remains, within and
adjacent to the site, in a manner appropriate to
their significance, in accordance with paragraph
139 of the NPPF).
58
27
Written reps
No
No allocation should be made. The draft allocation is contrary to EHDC's
own guidelines. This is likely to invalidate the whole submission.
Another Boyneswood Road? When will EHDC listen to residents?
Inappropriate back land development out of character with Medstead.
Adjacent to the protected village green likely to change the character of the
area. It is valuable agricultural land. Medstead has had more than its fair
share of development and other villages should accept their fair proportion.
With recent permissions Medstead has achieved its allocation. No justifiable
reason why agricultural land should be lost forever to significantly exceed
Medstead's quota
Southern
Planning
Practice
(Mrs
Alison
Wood)
[738]
DOES THE
RESPONDENT
WANT TO
APPEAR AT
EXAMINATION
No
No
Appear
Considers Policy VL8 to be sound but would wish to see an additional site
specific criterion regarding programming of archaeological works etc.
Addition to VL8 site specific criterion requiring the
implementation of a programme of archaeological
work to establish a record of potential
archaeological significance of the site (and, if that
programme results in the discovery of nationally
signficiant remains, provision to be made for the
retention and careful management of those
important archaeological remains, within and
adjacent to the site, in a manner appropriate to
their significance, in accordance with paragraph
139 of the NPPF).
No
The NPPF requires local authorities to plan positively for sport. It is difficult
to see how sport has been considered in this allocation.
It is essential that the Council understand and
make it clear what is needed in terms of playing
field and built sports facilities to provide for the
additional population.
No
The site is not served by public sewerage infrastrucure. Developers will
either have to make on site network and treatment arrangements or transfer VL8 should make reference to the need for a
flows to a public sewerage network, the nearest of which is approximately
sewerage/foul & surface water disposal strategy.
2,300 metres away to the north east of Medstead.
No
FOLDER
REFERENCE
POLICY/PARAGRAPH OF SITE ALLOCATIONS PLAN
RESPONDENT
NAME
ORGANISATION
AGENT
NAME
SUPPORT/ PERSON
OBJECT
ID
COMMENT
ID
IS THE PLAN
LEGALLY
COMPLIANT
IS THE
PLAN
SOUND
WHICH TESTS
OF DOES THE
PLAN FAIL TO
MEET
50
VL9 - Land north of Towngate Farm House, Wield Road, Medstead
Mr Martin Small
Historic England
(Southern Region)
(Mr Martin Small)
[1545]
Support
1545
23353
Yes
Yes
None
98
VL9 - Land north of Towngate Farm House, Wield Road, Medstead
Heidi Clarke
Sport England (SE
Region) (Heidi
Clarke) [972]
Object
972
23379
Unknown
No
i
99
VL9 - Land north of Towngate Farm House, Wield Road, Medstead
Mark Mathews
Thames Water
Property (Mark
Mathews) [791]
Object
791
23412
Yes
No
iii, iv
Page 29 of 29
REPRESENTATION SUGGESTED CHANGE TO
PLAN
DOES THE
RESPONDENT
WANT TO
APPEAR AT
EXAMINATION
Considers Policy VL9 to be sound but would wish to see an additional site
specific criterion regarding programming of archaeological works etc.
Addition to VL9 site specific criterion requiring the
implementation of a programme of archaeological
work to establish a record of potential
archaeological significance of the site (and, if that
programme results in the discovery of nationally
signficiant remains, provision to be made for the
retention and careful management of those
important archaeological remains, within and
adjacent to the site, in a manner appropriate to
their significance, in accordance with paragraph
139 of the NPPF).
No
The NPPF requires local authorities to plan positively for sport. It is difficult
to see how sport has been considered in this allocation.
It is essential that the Council understand and
make it clear what is needed in terms of playing
field and built sports facilities to provide for the
additional population.
No
REPRESENTATION SUMMARY
The site is not served by public sewerage infrastrucure. Developers will
either have to make on site network and treatment arrangements or transfer VL9 should make reference to the need for a
flows to a public sewerage network, the nearest of which is approximately
sewerage/foul & surface water disposal strategy.
2,600 metres away to the south east and north east of Medstead.
No
Summary of Responses to Proposed Submission
Sustainability Appraisal
June 2015
FOLDER
REFERENCE
6
9
14
14
DOCUMENT
RESPONDENT NAME
Proposed Submission Sustainability Appraisal
Proposed Submission Sustainability Appraisal
Proposed Submission Sustainability Appraisal
Proposed Submission Sustainability Appraisal
ORGANISATION
Easterton Ltd [1252]
David Evans
Lindford Land Limited (David Evans) [2308]
Southcott Homes Limited [1655]
Southcott Homes Limited [1655]
AGENT NAME
Boyer Planning (Ms Donna Palmer) [2332]
DHA Planning & Development (Sati Panesar) [2306]
Neame Sutton Ltd (David Neame) [1339]
Neame Sutton Ltd (David Neame) [1339]
SUPPORT/OBJECT
PERSON ID
Support
1252
Object
2308
Object
1655
Object
1655
COMMENT
ID
23520
23571
23605
23604
IS THE PLAN
LEGALLY
COMPLIANT
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
IS THE
PLAN
SOUND
Yes
No
No
No
WHICH TESTS
OF DOES THE
PLAN FAIL TO
MEET
REPRESENTATION SUMMARY
REPRESENTATION SUGGESTED CHANGE TO PLAN
DOES THE
RESPONDENT WANT
TO APPEAR AT
EXAMINATION
The SA (page 145) states Lowsley Farm includes an area of historic landfill.
However, there is no evidence to show it is contaminated therefore the SA
Although we consider LP1 allocation sound, it is considered that should note that the site "contains potentially contaminated land". Also the SA
some amendments should be made to the accompanying
says (page 146) that traffic generated could require improvements etc which
Sustainability Appraisal.
would involve removal of trees etc. EHDC and HCC have now agreed a scheme
for environmental improvements and the SA should be updated to reflect this
position.
No
i, ii, iii, iv
There are several inconsistencies and factual inaccuracies in the
evidence base. Object to the assessment of Land East of Hatch
House Farm (HEA014) in the SA. The Proforma states the site is
in the gap - this was a reason for refusal in the p/a but the
decision was made by members against the recom. of the
officers; site susceptible to surface water flooding - Another
reason for refusal decided by members despite the councils
own Drainage Engineer saying there is no evidence to support
this; and proximity to SPA - the site is 0.8km from SPA.
No
i, ii, iv
Para 12.4.1 Object
This para. places reliance upon the recent resolution to grant at
Down Farm alone. The SA does not place any reliance upon the
other two consents that are constructed, which in Southcott
Homes' view is the correct approach. This highlights the failing
of the Council wherein the Council has deliberately included
unit numbers from sites that have already been accounted for
as part of its housing land supply elsewhere.
To present a robust strategy for this settlement that complies with the
requirements of the JCS alone the Council must undertake a full and proper
options appraisal that would identify further land for allocation, such as land at
102-120 Downhouse Road.
Appear
Para 12.3.1 object
There are clear problems with the delivery of land East of
Horndean but there is increasing reliance in terms of unit
numbers from the site. There are many constraints which has
resulted in objectors to the outline planning application. As a
result the delivery rate and total quantum envisaged by the
Council from this site will not occur. The sites capacity will be
reduced leaving the minimum requirement short.
Land at 191 - 209 Lovedean Lane is ideally suited for delivering housing in the
short term.
Appear
None
i, ii, iii, iv
14
Proposed Submission Sustainability Appraisal
Southcott Homes Limited [1655]
Neame Sutton Ltd (David Neame) [1339]
Object
1655
23603
Yes
No
i, ii, iv
11.3 - Southcott Homes consider the Council's conclusions to be
fundamentally flawed. The option chosen by the council is not
the most appropriate and a new option 4 would perform
better. The council consistently has not had a 5 year housing
land supply and the JCS is out of date and fails to meet the full
need identified
14
Proposed Submission Sustainability Appraisal
Southcott Homes Limited [1655]
Neame Sutton Ltd (David Neame) [1339]
Object
1655
23602
Yes
No
i, ii, iv
11.4 object as the lack of any proper options appraisal goes to
the heart of the SA process and reflects the failings in the
Council's inclusion of two consented and constructed sites as
allocations, which effectively double counts in terms of their
respective contribution to the housing requirements in the JCS
This section along with accompanying appendices need to be completely
rewritten to address the failing.
Appear
i, ii, iv
Para 10.4.19 Object
The Council's flawed approach to the provision of housing in
Clanfield is clearly manifest in this section of the SA. The
reliance upon 2 sites that effectively double count in terms of
supply has resulted in the decision by the Council and URS to
present no options analysis in the SA. This cannot be right.
Had the SA undertaken a proper analysis it would have looked
at other suitable and sustainable development locations in
Clanfield, in particular land at 102-120 Downhouse Road.
The SA must undertake a full and proper options appraisal for the settlement of
Clanfield, which would rightly include land at 102-120 Downhouse Road.
Appear
i, ii, iv
Para 10.4.15 Object
The summary assessment for Horndean is not supported by the
evidence that was available to either the Council or URS at the
time of preparing this SA. The SA states that the sites in
Lovedean are constained by their landscape impacts and risk of
flooding. The statutory consultation responses relating to the
application confirm no material impact on the landscape setting
of Lovedean at this point and no harm in relation to flood risk
etc (191 - 209 Lovedean Lane).
i, ii, iv
Concluding comments: From viewing the Plan and SA the
Council has continued its hasty production of a document that
attempts to bring forward a part two Local Plan to help with
problems relating to housing land supply. In doing so it has
failed to properly consider and update its evidence base and
the fundamental flaws in the SA process.
i, ii, iv
Appendix XIII Object
The assessment table contains a number of key factual
inaccuracies with in turn affect the validity of the conclusions
drawn. In particular relating to HD034 and land East of
Horndean.
Appear
i, ii, iv
Appendix V Object
The Councils assessment of HD034 contains signficant
inaccuracies. Under the heading of character the Council
concludes the site has a rural character adj. to the barn etc. At
full detailed consent involved the demolition of the barn and
replacement 3 dwellings. This statement in the SA should not
have been made and demonstrates the poor quality of the
document and the assessment.
Appear
i, ii, iv
Appendix VII Object
The Councils assessment of HD023 contains signficant factual
inaccuracies. The conclusions fail to acknowledge the raft of
technical appraisal information that has been provided in
support of a full detailed planning application, which is
currently at appeal.
14
14
14
14
14
14
Proposed Submission Sustainability Appraisal
Proposed Submission Sustainability Appraisal
Proposed Submission Sustainability Appraisal
Proposed Submission Sustainability Appraisal
Proposed Submission Sustainability Appraisal
Proposed Submission Sustainability Appraisal
Southcott Homes Limited [1655]
Southcott Homes Limited [1655]
Southcott Homes Limited [1655]
Southcott Homes Limited [1655]
Southcott Homes Limited [1655]
Southcott Homes Limited [1655]
Neame Sutton Ltd (David Neame) [1339]
Neame Sutton Ltd (David Neame) [1339]
Neame Sutton Ltd (David Neame) [1339]
Neame Sutton Ltd (David Neame) [1339]
Neame Sutton Ltd (David Neame) [1339]
Neame Sutton Ltd (David Neame) [1339]
Object
1655
Object
1655
Object
1655
Object
1655
Object
1655
Object
1655
Page 1 of 3
23601
23600
23609
23608
23607
23606
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
Appear
Appear
The following 2 sites should be allocated for housing:
Land at 191-209 Lovedean Lane, and Land at 102-120 Downhouse Road.
There is a clear and present need for allocating these sites to meet both open
market and affordable housing requirements and to assist the Council in
significantly boosting the supply of new housing in accordance with the
requirements of the Framework and the NPPG.
The technical appraisal information was available and should be used.
Appear
Appear
FOLDER
REFERENCE
DOCUMENT
RESPONDENT NAME
ORGANISATION
AGENT NAME
SUPPORT/OBJECT
PERSON ID
COMMENT
ID
IS THE PLAN
LEGALLY
COMPLIANT
IS THE
PLAN
SOUND
WHICH TESTS
OF DOES THE
PLAN FAIL TO
MEET
REPRESENTATION SUMMARY
REPRESENTATION SUGGESTED CHANGE TO PLAN
DOES THE
RESPONDENT WANT
TO APPEAR AT
EXAMINATION
17
Proposed Submission Sustainability Appraisal
Bargate Homes Ltd [2324]
ProVision Planning & Design (Richard Osborn) [1165]
Object
2324
23508
Yes
No
i, ii, iii, iv
- SA is flawed
- Large number of homes on single sites has advantages but has
Methodology should be revised
environmental and infrastructural challenges and may not be
delivered in timely fashion. Methodology should be revised
Appear
17
Proposed Submission Sustainability Appraisal
Bargate Homes Ltd [2324]
ProVision Planning & Design (Richard Osborn) [1165]
Object
2324
23505
Yes
No
i, ii, iii, iv
- SA is flawed
- Large number of homes on single sites has advantages but has
Methodology of |SA should be revised
environmental and infrastructural challenges and may not be
delivered in timely fashion. Methodology should be revised
Appear
17
Proposed Submission Sustainability Appraisal
Bargate Homes Ltd [2324]
ProVision Planning & Design (Richard Osborn) [1165]
Object
2324
23512
Yes
No
i, ii, iii, iv
- SA is flawed
- Large number of homes on single sites has advantages but has
SA methodology should be revised
environmental and infrastructural challenges and may not be
delivered in timely fashion. Methodology should be revised
Appear
17
Proposed Submission Sustainability Appraisal
Bargate Homes Ltd [2324]
ProVision Planning & Design (Richard Osborn) [1165]
Object
2324
23510
Yes
No
i, ii, iii, iv
- SA is flawed
- Large number of homes on single sites has advantages but has SHLAA was flawed in its identification of constraints and SA document should
consider site HD003
environmental and infrastructural challenges and may not be
delivered in timely fashion. Methodology should be revised
17
Proposed Submission Sustainability Appraisal
Bargate Homes Ltd [2324]
ProVision Planning & Design (Richard Osborn) [1165]
Object
2324
23503
Yes
No
i, ii, iii, iv
Although provision of large sites with number of homes has its
advantages, but this could be set with environmental and
infrastructure challenges and delivery compromised.
Methodology for SA should be revised
18
Proposed Submission Sustainability Appraisal
Mr Bill Mills [2337]
Savills (Katherine Munro) [2295]
Object
2337
23541
Yes
No
i, ii, iii, iv
#NAME?
i, ii
The site east of Hole Lane, Bentley (BEN009) does not reflect
the evidence provided in the recent planning application. The
assessment refers to site access being achieved via Hole Lane,
however this land in the recent planning application was
proposed as public open space. Also the SA concludes that the
sensitivity would be required due to the ecological interests.
The recent planning application has shown how these can be
protected. However, contrary to the assertions in the SA the
Council have accepted that there are no site specific reasons
why residential development could not be accommodated on
this site.
20
23
25
25
Proposed Submission Sustainability Appraisal
Proposed Submission Sustainability Appraisal
Proposed Submission Sustainability Appraisal
Proposed Submission Sustainability Appraisal
Mr Bill Mills
Mr Simon Bladon
Cllr Chris Graham
Giles Stogdon
Giles Stogdon
Westella (Mr Simon Bladon) [1137]
Cllr Chris Graham [2335]
Giles Stogdon [1832]
Giles Stogdon [1832]
Smiths Gore (Joanne Unsworth) [1745]
Southern Planning Practice (Ian Ellis) [1168]
Southern Planning Practice (Mrs Alison Wood) [738]
Southern Planning Practice (Mrs Alison Wood) [738]
Object
1137
Object
2335
Object
1832
Object
1832
Page 2 of 3
23522
23474
23583
23584
Unknown
Yes
Unknown
Unknown
No
No
No
No
i, ii, iii
Page 257 is incorrect in places
- More community facilities in village besides school
- Not distant from centre
- deletion of first sentence (bullet 14)
- deletion of 2nd sentence (bullet 16)
- Deletion of last bullet point
Written reps
Methodology for SA should be revised
Appear
Consider Old Shepherds Farm as a reasonable alternative
Appear
Appear
Amend SA in regard to ROP013
No
i, ii, iii, iv
Amend as follows:
i) 3rd bullet point - delete sentence - There are no issues about access to the
site. (access is not via a 3rd party access the land is owned by my client).
ii) 8th bullet point - delete sentence - The land in the NE corner of the site is
susceptible to flooding. (Any concerns have been addressed through the p/a.)
iii) 11th bullet point - add new first sentence - The site is within walking distance
(500-600 metres) of all the community facilities in the village centre including
the primary school, shop, post office, recreation ground, village hall and church.
Although support VL11, consider the SA is incorrect in places
relating to ROP008 (SA). Any concerns the Council had with the Delete existing 1st sentence and replace with: One kilometre from the nearest
public service bus stop, 50 metres from the bus service to the local
site have been addressed in the recent planning permission
granted for 15 dwellings on the site. The SA concerns relate to comprehensive school. The nearest local employment sites are in Gilbert Street
and North Street, Ropley, both of which are within easy walking distance of the
access, surface water flooding, distance from facilities, rural
site. GP and dentist are some distance from the site in Four Marks.
character, character and surface water.
iv) 12th bullet point - Add at the start 'The site is adjacent to the SPB of Ropley
and directly opposite the Rowdell housing estate'.
v) 13th bullet point - delete 1st sentence and replace with: The site adjoins the
Ropley settlement boundary and lies opposite the Rowdell houisng estate.
Amend 2nd sentence to say: Although the site itself has a rural character, this
area of Ropley ....
vi) 14th bullet point - delete sentence.
No
i, ii, iii
i) 4th bullet point - Amend: The permitted access is on to Gilbert Street, not
Gascoigne Lane.
ii) 5th bullet point - Delete reference to lesser and intermediate surface water
flooding. (The site is not subject to this). Amend 2nd part of sentence to refer
to a small part of the site may potentially be contaminated as a result of the
woodyard on the site in the 1940s and 1950s.
iii) 6th bullet point - delete the site is not isolated.....
iv) 8th bullet point - add to end of sentence - residential to the east and south
In relation to ROP007 the SA proforma is incorrect in places. It west.
should also take account of the impact of the planning
v) 10th bullet point - delete - There are no long distance open ................
permission recently granted for 15 houses on site ROP008
vi) 12th bullet point - amend: There are employment sites in Gilbert Street and
immediately opposite site ROP007. The SA should be amended North Street which are both easy walking distance from the site.
regarding access, surface water flooding & potential
vii) 13th bullet point - delete first sentence and replace with: The site is adjacent
contamination, isolation, location, views and character.
to the SPB at Dunsells Lane and Gascoigne Lane.
Delete 2nd sentence - This describes nearby fields and not the site itself.
Amend 3rd sentence - not all the housing nearby is low density. The Rowdell
and Meadow View housing estates are at a higher density.
viii) last bullet point. Delete 1st sentence. The site is not isolated and the
pedestrian access to the village is not poor. Add in reference to the site being
adjacent to the existing SPB. Add in reference to the Plans housing allocation
immediately to the south of the site (proposal VL11) which, when developed,
will bring the built up area of the village even closer to the site.
No
FOLDER
REFERENCE
27
DOCUMENT
Proposed Submission Sustainability Appraisal
29
Proposed Submission Sustainability Appraisal
101
Proposed Submission Sustainability Appraisal
RESPONDENT NAME
Mr Peter Charles
ORGANISATION
Mr Peter Charles [1315]
Bloor Homes [1893]
Carla Baverstock-Jones
Horndean Parish Council (Carla Baverstock-Jones) [2361]
AGENT NAME
Southern Planning Practice (Mrs Alison Wood) [738]
Turley Associates (Ms Jade Ellis) [1800]
SUPPORT/OBJECT
PERSON ID
Object
1315
COMMENT
ID
23579
IS THE PLAN
LEGALLY
COMPLIANT
Unknown
IS THE
PLAN
SOUND
No
WHICH TESTS
OF DOES THE
PLAN FAIL TO
MEET
i, ii, iii
Object
1893
23559
Yes
No
i, ii, iii, iv
Object
2361
23429
Yes
Yes
None
Page 3 of 3
REPRESENTATION SUMMARY
REPRESENTATION SUGGESTED CHANGE TO PLAN
i) 2nd bullet point - The site is now in a 20 mph speed restriction. The site
access is not on a blind bend. Delete 2nd bullet point.
ii) 6th bullet point - The site opposite at Cedar Stables already now has planning
permission for 10 dwellings (VL8), and so the character of the area will become
more developed. Amend text to include a reference that 10 new dwellings will
be built on the Cedar Stables equestrian centre.
iii) 8th bullet point - Owner aware of the SAM. Add to end of the bullet point
'Any development will need to take account of the archaeological interest of the
The SA as set out on page 249 is incorrect in places. Comments
area'.
relating to speed limit and access, surrounding development,
iv) 10th bullet point - There is no proposal to develop the site indepth. Amend
archeaology, character should be amended for Site MED036.
2nd sentence by deleting existing text and adding a new sentence "Any
development here should be in keeping with the surrounding dwellings".
v) 11th bullet point. The majority of the bullet point is inaccurate and should be
deleted. Amend bullet point to read "The site is well contained by screening.
Development of this site should be constrained to the Trinity Hill frontage with
the remainder of the site being retained as open space to protect the setting of
the SAM. The houses should be in keeping with the character of the
surrounding houses'.
Paras 10.4.20 - 10.4.22, Appx VI - The only detailed assessment
is the SA. Our conclusions on the SA is that no site is without
constraints, and there is no obvious preferred site. Therefore
to confirm there are no other reasonably available alternatives Requested that Chiltley Farm is allocated for housing in the Plan as an
does not fully reflect the initial assessment. The elements
appropriate and available development site. (Section 4 attached to response
which have resulted in Chiltley Farm being rejected as an
sets out the sites development potential.)
allocation or a reasonable alternative are either not as
fundamental as suggested in the SA, or can be appropriately
mitigated.
The Parish Council are commenting on 2 sites referred to in the
Sustainability Appraisal - HD043 Land off Chalk Hill Road which
goes against a number of the Joint Core Strategy Policies and
HD045 Land off Five Heads Road which has the same access,
transport, countryside and GAP issues as HD043.
DOES THE
RESPONDENT WANT
TO APPEAR AT
EXAMINATION
No
Appear
No
Summary of Responses to Proposed Submission
Duty to Cooperate Statement – Regulation 22
June 2015
FOLDER REFERENCE
49
DOCUMENT
Duty to Cooperate
RESPONDENT NAME
Gavin Stonham
ORGANISATION
COMMENT ID
Havant Borough Council (Gavin Stonham) [2271]
Page 1 of 1
23326
REPRESENTATION SUMMARY
Welcome commitment of EHDC to work with adjoining authorities and fulfil duty to cooperate.
Summary of Responses to Proposed Submission
Policies Map
June 2015
FOLDER
REFERENCE
91
DOCUMENT NAME
Policies Maps
RESPONDENT NAME
Lisa Walker
ORGANISATION
Rowlands Castle Parish
Council ( Lisa Walker)
[1118]
PERSON ID
1118
COMMENT ID
23528
SUPPORT/OBJECT
Object
IS THE PLAN
LEGALLY
COMPLIANT
No
Page 1 of 1
IS THE
PLAN
SOUND
No
WHICH TESTS
OF DOES THE
PLAN FAIL TO
MEET
REPRESENTATION SUMMARY
i, ii, iii
Maps do not show existing or proposed gaps between
settlements.
Map 5 shows SPB around RC3 which is within Strategic
Gap- conflicts with JCS Policy CP23 which protects gaps.
REPRESENTATION SUGGESTED
CHANGE TO PLAN
DOES THE RESPONDENT
WANT TO APPEAR AT
EXAMINATION
Appear