It is a detailed map outlining various access and movement networks for the proposed development.

The key elements shown in the plan include:

• Site Boundary: The outer limits of the development area.
• Vehicular Access: Points where vehicles can enter and exit the development.
• Pedestrian Access: Entry points and pathways specifically for pedestrians.
• Cycle Access: Designated entry points and routes for cyclists.
• Primary Street: The main roads within the development.
• Secondary Street: Smaller roads branching from the primary streets.
• Shared Surface Street: Streets designed to be shared by vehicles, pedestrians, and cyclists.
• Private Drive: Access routes meant for individual properties.
• Pedestrian Link: Paths connecting different parts of the development for pedestrian use.
• Cycle Link: Paths designated for cyclist use to connect various areas.

WHAT ASPECTS SHOULD BE EVALUATED IN RELATION TO THIS DOCUMENT?…

Establishes:

Energy Efficiency: The checklist outlines proposed measures for achieving energy efficiency in the development, such as aiming for a minimum of 31% carbon reduction and integrating renewable energy technologies like air source heat pumps and photovoltaic panels.

Biodiversity: Commitment to achieving a minimum of 10% biodiversity net gain, with plans to incorporate water butts, sustainable drainage systems (SuDS), and maintain green infrastructure.

Construction Practices: Plans to consider sustainable sourcing of materials, waste management, and the potential reuse of building materials.

Weak Points:

Deferred Details: Many critical details, including specific energy efficiency measures and SuDS, are deferred to the Reserved Matters (RM) stage, which means there’s no immediate commitment to these measures.

Lack of Specific Commitments: While the document outlines intentions, it lacks specific, immediate commitments, creating uncertainty about the actual implementation and effectiveness of the proposed measures.

Potential Implementation Gaps: The success of the sustainability measures depends on detailed plans and execution at the RM stage, which might differ from the initial proposals.

WHAT ASPECTS SHOULD BE EVALUATED IN RELATION TO THIS DOCUMENT?…

Establishes:

Basic Application Information: Provides essential details about the application, including the site location, description of the proposed development (up to 70 dwellings with vehicular and pedestrian accesses, public open space, landscaping, and drainage), and the developer’s details.

Document References: Confirms the submission of various supporting documents, such as the Design and Access Statement, Services Plan, and Flood Risk Assessment.

Residential Units: Specifies the types and numbers of proposed residential units, including market and affordable housing.

Weak Points:

General Information: The application form itself does not provide detailed justifications or assessments but references other documents for comprehensive details.

Potential Gaps in Application Package: If referenced documents do not fully address key concerns, there may be gaps in the application package.

Lack of Immediate Detail: The form defers many specifics to the supporting documents, requiring thorough review of all referenced materials to get a complete understanding of the proposal (over 1k pages).

Material Consideration Explanation:

Local and National Planning Policies: The application form confirms compliance with planning policies, which is crucial for obtaining approval.

Infrastructure and Services: The details about vehicular and pedestrian accesses, public open space, and drainage impact local infrastructure and services, ensuring the development meets community needs.

Residential Amenity: Information about residential units impacts the assessment of the development’s fit within the community, considering factors like housing type, density, and mix.

WHAT ASPECTS SHOULD BE EVALUATED IN RELATION TO THIS DOCUMENT?…

Establishes:

• Procedures for monitoring tree protection, including pre-commencement meetings, site visits, and regular checks.
• Importance of involving a supervising arboriculturist to oversee protection measures.

Weak Points:

• The reliance on regular monitoring and supervision might be compromised if not strictly enforced.
• Any lapses in monitoring could lead to unauthorised damage to protected trees.

WHAT ASPECTS SHOULD BE EVALUATED IN RELATION TO THIS DOCUMENT?…

Establishes:

• Guidelines for installing new structures in RPAs while minimising root damage and soil disturbance.
• Recommends using pile, pad, or post supports for substantial structures to minimize soil excavation.
• Advises keeping existing below-ground structures to support new ones, reducing the need for new excavations.
• Provides methods to ensure water and air input under substantial structures.

Weak Points:

• Ensuring proper hand-digging techniques to avoid significant roots is essential.
• The risk of compaction and chemical contamination must be managed carefully during installation.
• The effectiveness of these methods depends on careful planning and adherence to guidelines to prevent root damage and soil compaction.

WHAT ASPECTS SHOULD BE EVALUATED IN RELATION TO THIS DOCUMENT?…

Establishes:

• Guidelines for installing or upgrading services (e.g., utilities) within RPAs to avoid damage to tree roots.
• Recommends trenchless installation methods (e.g., thrust boring) to prevent soil and root disturbance.
• Advises hand-dug trenches as a fallback when trenchless methods are not feasible, with precautions to avoid significant root damage.
• Provides methods to protect exposed roots during installation, such as using hessian for temporary protection.

Weak Points:

• Ensuring proper installation techniques to prevent root damage is critical.
• The effectiveness of trenchless and hand-dug methods relies on careful execution and supervision by an arboriculturist.
• Backfilled material around excavated services must be managed to maintain permeability and avoid compaction.

WHAT ASPECTS SHOULD BE EVALUATED IN RELATION TO THIS DOCUMENT?…

Establishes:

• Guidelines for conducting landscaping activities within RPAs without causing harm to trees.
• Emphasis on minimising soil disturbance and protecting root systems.

Weak Points:

• Landscaping activities have a high potential for causing unintended damage if not carefully managed.
• Ensuring all landscaping works are supervised and comply with arboricultural guidelines.

WHAT ASPECTS SHOULD BE EVALUATED IN RELATION TO THIS DOCUMENT?…

Establishes:

• Specifications for installing temporary protective fencing around tree root protection areas (RPAs).
• Importance of keeping fencing in place throughout construction activities.

Weak Points:

• Potential for unauthorised removal or alteration of fencing without proper supervision.
• Regular maintenance and checks are crucial to ensure the fencing remains effective.

WHAT ASPECTS SHOULD BE EVALUATED IN RELATION TO THIS DOCUMENT?…

Establishes:

• Methods for protecting the ground and tree root systems from compaction and damage during construction.
• Use of various materials and techniques to maintain soil integrity and support tree health.

Weak Points:

• Effectiveness depends on proper installation and maintenance of ground protection measures.
• Risk of soil compaction if ground protection is not adequately implemented.

WHAT ASPECTS SHOULD BE EVALUATED IN RELATION TO THIS DOCUMENT?…

Establishes:

• Measures to prevent contamination of RPAs from pollutants such as cement, chemicals, and vehicle washings.
• Importance of implementing pollution control measures to avoid root damage and soil contamination.

Weak Points:

• Risk of pollution control measures being insufficient or not properly maintained.
• Any spills or contamination incidents could have significant long-term impacts on tree health.

WHAT ASPECTS SHOULD BE EVALUATED IN RELATION TO THIS DOCUMENT?…

Establishes:

• Precautions to prevent damage to tree branches and trunks from cranes and piling rigs.
• Use of banksmen and facilitation pruning to avoid contact with trees.

Weak Points:

• Potential for human error or inadequate supervision leading to accidental damage.
• Ensuring all operatives are properly trained and briefed on tree protection protocols.

WHAT ASPECTS SHOULD BE EVALUATED IN RELATION TO THIS DOCUMENT?…

Establishes:

• Height restrictions for vehicles and equipment to prevent damage to low tree branches.
• Use of height restriction bars and careful planning of access routes.

Weak Points:

• Risk of vehicles exceeding height restrictions and causing damage.
• Proper enforcement and monitoring are crucial to prevent accidental impacts.

WHAT ASPECTS SHOULD BE EVALUATED IN RELATION TO THIS DOCUMENT?…

Establishes:

• Guidelines for conducting excavation within RPAs to minimize damage to tree roots.
• Recommends the use of hand tools or compressed air soil displacement to avoid mechanical excavation.
• Specifies that roots over 2.5 cm in diameter should only be cut with the approval of the supervising arboriculturist.
• Protects exposed roots from drying out and temperature extremes using dampened hessian or similar coverings.

Weak Points:

• The success of these measures heavily relies on strict adherence to guidelines and supervision.
• Unauthorised or improper excavation practices could lead to significant damage to tree roots and compromise tree health.

WHAT ASPECTS SHOULD BE EVALUATED IN RELATION TO THIS DOCUMENT?…

Establishes:

• Procedures for safely removing surfacing and structures within RPAs without causing damage to roots.
• Emphasises the importance of manual removal using appropriate tools and the use of machinery only from outside the RPAs.
• Highlights the potential need to leave below-ground structures in place to avoid excessive disturbance.

Weak Points:

• Risks associated with unauthorized removal or improper handling, leading to potential root damage.
• Effective monitoring and compliance are critical to ensure the protection of roots during these activities.

WHAT ASPECTS SHOULD BE EVALUATED IN RELATION TO THIS DOCUMENT?…

Establishes:

• Guidelines for installing new surfacing or upgrading existing surfacing in RPAs while minimising root damage.
• Recommends the use of three-dimensional cellular confinement systems filled with washed stone to distribute loads and avoid soil compaction.
• Advises against conventional surfacing installation methods that require excavation and compacting a supporting sub-base.
• Provides options for edge retention that do not involve significant soil disturbance.

Weak Points:

• Ensuring proper installation techniques and avoiding conventional methods that could damage roots is essential.
• The effectiveness of proposed solutions depends on careful planning and execution to prevent compaction and maintain permeability.

WHAT ASPECTS SHOULD BE EVALUATED IN RELATION TO THIS DOCUMENT?…

Establishes:

• The necessity of protecting trees during construction to comply with environmental standards and regulations.
• The potential impacts on trees and mitigation strategies to ensure minimal damage to the existing landscape.

Weak Points:

• The effectiveness of mitigation measures might be questioned, especially if past attempts have shown inadequate results.
• Implementation and adherence to these measures need thorough monitoring to ensure compliance.

WHAT ASPECTS SHOULD BE EVALUATED IN RELATION TO THIS DOCUMENT?…

Key Points:

• The site has archaeological potential due to its proximity to Romano-British and prehistoric remains.
• Baseline research indicates low potential for significant archaeological remains.
• Four Grade II listed buildings within 1km of the site, no scheduled monuments within the study area.
• Field observations revealed no significant archaeological features.
• Previous fieldwork in the vicinity found limited archaeological features, primarily of prehistoric and post-medieval periods.

Summary:

The archaeological assessment suggests that while there is some potential for archaeological remains, the significance is likely low. The proposed development includes measures for archaeological mitigation to assess and record any deposits found during construction.

Weak Points:

• Limited archaeological fieldwork on-site could mean unexpected finds during construction, potentially causing delays.
• The presence of nearby listed buildings necessitates careful consideration to avoid impact on their settings.

WHAT ASPECTS SHOULD BE EVALUATED IN RELATION TO THIS DOCUMENT?…

This plan serves as a comprehensive guide for planners, developers, and stakeholders, ensuring that the development respects existing natural features and infrastructure while capitalising on opportunities to enhance the site’s environmental and social value.

Weak Points:

1. Potential Overlook of Smaller Ecological Features:

• The focus may primarily be on major ecological features (e.g., Category A and B trees), potentially overlooking smaller but still significant ecological components.

2. Risk of Inadequate Buffer Zones:

• The suggested buffer zones might not be sufficient in all areas to protect sensitive ecological zones from construction impact.

3. Limited Detail on Soil and Water Management:

• The plan might lack comprehensive details on managing soil erosion and water runoff, especially in areas marked as low surface water flood risk zones.

4. Potential Public Access Challenges:

• While public rights of way and footpaths are indicated, there may be challenges in ensuring these are adequately accessible during all phases of development.

5. Integration of Proposed and Existing Infrastructure:

• The plan may not fully address how new infrastructure will integrate with existing systems, particularly concerning utilities and roadways.

WHAT ASPECTS SHOULD BE EVALUATED IN RELATION TO THIS DOCUMENT?…

Establishes:

Outline Application Submission: Provides a summary of the outline planning application for up to 70 dwellings, including details about vehicular and pedestrian accesses, public open space, landscaping, and drainage.

Referenced Documents: Lists the documents and plans submitted as part of the application package, including transport assessment, ecological impact assessment, flood risk assessment, and more…

Weak Points:

General Information: The letter primarily provides an overview without detailed justifications or specific data. It refers to other documents for comprehensive details.

Potential for Overlooked Concerns: If the referenced documents do not fully address key concerns, there may be gaps in the application package.

WHAT ASPECTS SHOULD BE EVALUATED IN RELATION TO THIS DOCUMENT?…

Establishes:

Describes the proposed development, including design principles, access, and landscaping.
Provides a framework for sustainable high-quality development.
Incorporates pedestrian and vehicular access, emphasizing connectivity and sustainability.

Weak Points:

The proposed development includes two-storey houses, which may not align with the existing bungalow-style houses on Beechlands Road, potentially impacting local character.
Claims of sustainability and design quality may not fully address practical issues such as drainage and traffic impact.

WHAT ASPECTS SHOULD BE EVALUATED IN RELATION TO THIS DOCUMENT?…

Key Features:

• Boundaries: The red outline indicates the site boundary.
• Parcels: Different areas within the site boundary, indicating various uses.
• Infrastructure: Roads, paths, and other infrastructure elements within the development area.

WHAT ASPECTS SHOULD BE EVALUATED IN RELATION TO THIS DOCUMENT?…

Key Points:

Surveys conducted between 2018 and 2024, including habitat and species-specific surveys. Identified 25 Important Ecological Features (IEFs), including habitats and species of local and regional importance. Recommendations include habitat protection, creation of wildlife corridors, and mitigation measures for light and noise pollution.

Summary:

The ecological impact assessment highlights the need for careful planning to protect local wildlife. Recommendations focus on minimising disturbance to habitats and implementing strategies to enhance biodiversity.

Weak Points:

• Some data, including tube tests, are from 2018, raising concerns about their current relevance and accuracy.
• Potential biases in survey methods and interpretations to favour the developer’s outcomes.
• Mitigation measures may be optimistic and require thorough verification.

WHAT ASPECTS SHOULD BE EVALUATED IN RELATION TO THIS DOCUMENT?…

NA

Establishes:

Detailed existing layout of the site, including topography and vegetation.

Weak Points:

• Potential impact on existing natural features and vegetation.
• The layout may not account for the existing drainage and flood risks adequately.

WHAT ASPECTS SHOULD BE EVALUATED IN RELATION TO THIS DOCUMENT?…

Key Points:

• The site is within Flood Zone 1, indicating low flood risk.
• Surface water runoff and drainage are critical considerations.
• Recommendations for detailed drainage plans and site-specific infiltration tests.

Summary:

The flood risk assessment indicates low overall flood risk but emphasises the importance of managing surface water runoff through comprehensive drainage solutions.

Weak Points:

1. Scope of the Flood Risk Assessment

• Insufficient Coverage: The current assessment may not fully address the broader hydrological impacts on lower-lying areas such as Beechlands Road and Red Hill, and Lymington Bottom.
• Lack of Cumulative Impact Analysis: The study may not adequately consider the cumulative impact of both the existing and proposed developments on downstream locations.

2. Historical Context and Previous Developments

• Lack of Full Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA): Previous developments in the rural area did not undergo a comprehensive EIA, leading to unaddressed flood risks and environmental impacts.
• Omissions in Historical Data Review: The assessment may not thoroughly incorporate historical flood data and local knowledge, which are crucial for understanding the current flood risks.

3. Detailed Drainage Plans and Testing

• Lack of Detailed Drainage Plans and Infiltration Tests: The absence of detailed drainage plans and infiltration tests at this stage could delay the project if required later.

4. Effectiveness of Drainage Solutions

• Ensuring Effective Drainage Solutions: The effectiveness of the proposed drainage solutions in preventing any increase in flood risk to surrounding areas must be ensured.

5. Existing Flooding Issues

• Exacerbation of Existing Flooding Issues: The development may exacerbate existing flooding issues at the Beechlands Road and Red Hill junction, potentially making the situation worse for residents.
• Previous Mitigation Efforts: The Beechlands Road and Red Hill junction, which is lower than the already delivered estate and the proposed one, often floods. Previous road fixes by the developer have not resolved the issue.

WHAT ASPECTS SHOULD BE EVALUATED IN RELATION TO THIS DOCUMENT?…

Disclaimer

Disclaimer

Disclaimer

Disclaimer

Disclaimer

Disclaimer

The document uses Paragraph 11 to argue for the approval of new housing developments unless adverse impacts significantly outweigh the benefits.

Disclaimer

The plan includes:

1. Proposed Site Boundary:

   • Delineates the boundaries of the development site.

2. Existing Vegetation:

   • Shows existing trees and hedgerows that will be enhanced as part of the development.

3. Proposed Plantings:

   • Native Hedgerows: New hedgerows using native species.
   • Native Hedgerow Trees: Planting of trees within the hedgerows.
   • Native Shrubs: Planting of various native shrubs.
   • Street Trees: Trees planted along the streets within the development.
   • Ornamental Shrub Planting: Decorative shrubs planted throughout the development.

4. Grassland Areas:

   • Amenity Grassland: Grassy areas for general use and recreation.
   • Species Rich Grassland: Grassland areas with a variety of plant species to enhance biodiversity.

5. Amenities and Pathways:

   • Benches: Placement of benches throughout the development for seating.
   • Play Area: Designated areas for children’s play.
   • Hoggin Path: Paths made from a compacted mixture of gravel, sand, and clay.

Weak Points:

Ratio of Natural to Developed Land:

• The ratio of natural to developed land may not be sufficient to achieve the intended mitigation measures. The proposed landscape features may not adequately compensate for the loss of natural land, leading to a net negative impact on local biodiversity and ecosystem services.

Effectiveness of Mitigation Measures:

• The proposed mitigation measures, such as planting native species and creating grasslands, might not be sufficient to offset the environmental impact of the development. Detailed impact assessments and more robust mitigation strategies may be required to truly compensate for the loss of natural habitats.

Impact on Local Hydrology:

• The introduction of new planting areas and changes in land use could alter local hydrology. The plan does not detail how these changes might affect water runoff, drainage, or local water bodies.

WHAT ASPECTS SHOULD BE EVALUATED IN RELATION TO THIS DOCUMENT?…

Disclaimer

Disclaimer

Disclaimer

Disclaimer

Disclaimer

Disclaimer

Disclaimer

Disclaimer

Disclaimer

Disclaimer

Disclaimer

Disclaimer

Disclaimer

Disclaimer

Disclaimer

Disclaimer

Disclaimer

Disclaimer

Disclaimer

Disclaimer

Disclaimer

• Relevance: Focuses on healthcare infrastructure capacity.
• Sufficiency: Adequate for initial assessment but highlights the need for reassessment if additional developments impact capacity.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.