This document argues that the proposed development does not meet sustainability criteria required by Paragraph 11 of the NPPF. It urges the council to reject the application unless substantial revisions are made to address critical concerns comprehensively. Issues raised include procedural errors, potential procedural errors, and impacts on traffic and access.

Highlights inadequate and biased community consultation, lack of transparency, and superficial responses to community concerns. Emphasises that the public’s trust has been eroded due to manipulated feedback and fear of voicing opinions, urging the council to reject the application.

Addresses outdated traffic data, insufficient survey methods, and inadequate mitigation measures. Raises concerns about existing flooding problems, exacerbation of flood risks, and lack of detailed flood risk mitigation plans. Also discusses the strain on local infrastructure and risks to safety and accessibility.

Focuses on the negative impacts on residential amenity, including mental health and well-being, noise pollution, and air quality. Highlights the community disruption caused by continuous construction and the lack of transparency in public consultation processes.

Cites significant biodiversity net loss, insufficient mitigation measures, and potential adverse effects on local wildlife. Emphasises the cumulative impact with previous developments and inadequate consideration of in-combination effects, urging the council to address these issues before proceeding.

Questions the deliverability and sustainability of the project due to outdated data, insufficient flood risk measures, and inaccurate housing supply figures. Raises concerns about the strain on infrastructure and services, and the lack of community trust and engagement. Urges a thorough review and potential independent audit of the planning application procedures.

To strengthen my objection to the outline planning application, I emphasise that this application, presented as a Paragraph 11 application based on the Pegasus documentation, requires the level of detail provided by a full planning application. The developers appear to be pushing for approval based on Paragraph 11, but without the necessary details to ensure compliance with sustainability requirements, this application should not proceed in its current outline form.

I urge the planning authority to consider these points and require a full planning application that provides comprehensive details and assessments. This approach will ensure that all potential impacts are thoroughly evaluated and that the development aligns with the principles of sustainable rural growth.

This objection focuses on the inadequacies of the consultation process and the developer’s attempt to control the narrative, which undermine the transparency and effectiveness of the planning application process.

The objection document raises several concerns regarding the proposed development:

1. Environmental and Ecological Impact: Potential harm to existing trees and biodiversity.
2. Archaeological Significance: Risk to Neolithic remains.
3. Flood Risk and Drainage: Need for robust drainage systems to manage runoff.
4. Community and Social Impact: Insufficient affordable housing and lack of comprehensive EIA.
5. Public Services and Infrastructure: Impact on local footpaths and healthcare infrastructure.
6. Health and Safety: Fire safety, radon protection, and land contamination management.

The objection document focuses on traffic and access concerns related to the proposed development. Key points include:

1. Increased Traffic Congestion: The proposed solutions are insufficient, leading to potential congestion and safety hazards.
2. Parking and Cycle Strategy: Insufficient parking spaces and lack of secure cycle storage, leading to on-street parking and safety issues.
3. Infrastructure Deficiencies: Narrow footways and lack of street lighting pose risks for pedestrians and cyclists.
4. Historical Context and Recommendations: References past concerns and the need for comprehensive traffic impact assessments.

The objection document argues that the proposed development does not meet the sustainability criteria outlined in Paragraph 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Key points include:

1. Procedural Concerns: Incomplete disclosure and lack of public awareness.
2. Impact on Traffic and Access: Increased congestion and potential delays to emergency services.
3. Potential Procedural Error: Failure to disclose all material considerations and omission of a comprehensive Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA).
4. Conclusion: Urges rejection of the application unless substantial revisions are made.

This publication explores the urgent need for reform in Section 106 agreements by introducing a profit cap mechanism. Aimed at ensuring sustainable development and equitable distribution of resources, the proposal highlights how such a mechanism can prevent developers from exploiting regulatory loopholes for excessive profit, thus promoting fairer and more community-focused growth.

This letter to Damian Hinds MP calls for urgent support in implementing a profit cap mechanism in Section 106 agreements. Highlighting the critical need for sustainable development and protection of local communities, the letter emphasises the importance of addressing the concerns of Four Marks and Medstead Ward residents. It seeks to ensure that development benefits are maximised for the community while preventing exploitation by developers.