Category: Objection

The continuous expansion of the village raises significant safety concerns due to the lack of proper pedestrian infrastructure

The continuous expansion of the village raises significant safety concerns due to the lack of proper pedestrian infrastructure. The existing roads are not equipped to handle increased traffic while ensuring the safety of pedestrians, particularly older people and children. This issue is critical as it directly affects the daily lives and safety of the community.

Previous developments that rely on Beechlands Road have highlighted its limitations, which were well known to the developer. Due to insufficient supervision, the alleged compensation for the strain on this part of the infrastructure has not been adequately addressed. The developers were supposed to repair Beechlands Road to fix post-construction issues and ensure it remained functional for the increased traffic. Yet, the junction with Red Hill and Five Ash Road is regularly flooded, rendering it impassable for pedestrians.

The Beechlands Road sidewalk is comparable to those found in some impoverished areas of Romania. It is a patchwork due to the addition and maintenance of various utility networks, making it unsafe for people with impaired vision. Additionally, it is a form of visual pollution.

Proposed Development Impact: Noise Pollution

The proposal for a new development on a rural cul-de-sac road raises significant concerns regarding noise pollution during both the construction and operational phases. Rural areas typically enjoy lower ambient noise levels, contributing to a peaceful living environment. Introducing a new development threatens to disrupt this tranquillity, leading to adverse effects on the local community’s quality of life.

High Noise Levels: Construction activities, including the operation of heavy machinery, drilling, and hammering, produce high noise levels. These noises can exceed safe levels, causing disturbance and potential health risks to nearby residents.

Duration of Construction: Construction projects often extend over long periods, subjecting residents to prolonged exposure to noise pollution. This constant noise can lead to increased stress, sleep disturbances, and a decline in overall well-being.

Impact on Wildlife: Rural areas often serve as habitats for various wildlife species. Construction noise can disrupt these habitats, causing animals to flee and potentially leading to a decline in local biodiversity.

Increased Traffic: A new development will lead to increased traffic on the rural cul-de-sac road. This increase in vehicle noise can significantly alter the acoustic environment, disturbing residents who are accustomed to a quieter setting.

Community Noise: The daily activities associated with a new residential estate, such as the operation of heating and cooling systems, waste collection, and general residential noise, can contribute to a higher noise level, impacting the local community’s quality of life.

Health and Quality of Life Impacts

Mental Health: Noise pollution can contribute to anxiety, depression, and other mental health issues.

Sleep Disturbance: Noise pollution is a well-known cause of sleep disturbances, leading to fatigue, impaired cognitive function, and reduced overall quality of life.


Social Disruption: Increased noise can disrupt social interactions and outdoor activities, diminishing the sense of community and personal enjoyment of one’s property.

Rural areas are valued for their tranquillity and natural beauty. Introducing noise pollution from a new development undermines these characteristics, reducing the area’s appeal and potentially lowering property values.

Residents of rural areas often choose these locations for their quiet, serene environment. The introduction of a noisy development goes against the community’s expectations and desires, leading to potential opposition and discontent among local residents.

References

Proposed Development Impact: Environmental Degradation Concerns – Conversion of Natural Land to Residential Use

The continuous development in the village has raised significant concerns about the inadequate control over biodiversity. Despite numerous developments, the cumulative significance of these projects has not triggered a single full Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). This absence of comprehensive evaluation undermines the efforts to protect and enhance local biodiversity.

Biodiversity assessments provided by companies hired by the applicants are prone to bias. There is a conflict of interest, as these companies might downplay negative impacts to favour the development.

Independent experts, without any financial ties to the applicants, should conduct biodiversity assessments to ensure impartiality and reliability of the findings.

The residents disagree with the effectiveness of the alleged 10% net gain in biodiversity EHDC process. There is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the proposed measures will result in a genuine net gain.

There is a lack of robust monitoring and accountability mechanisms to ensure that the biodiversity net gain is achieved and maintained over time.

The cumulative impact of multiple developments on local biodiversity has not been adequately assessed. Each individual project might not meet the threshold for a full EIA, but their combined effects could be significant. According to the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017, projects that are likely to have significant effects on the environment by virtue of their nature, size, or location should undergo an EIA. The failure to conduct a comprehensive EIA for the cumulative impact of all developments is a regulatory oversight.

References

Proposed Development Impact: Traffic Infrastructure Concerns

In 2014, Hampshire County Council (HCC) Highways indicated that due to the number of SHLAA sites and the combined effects these developments might have on the A31 and the junctions of Boyneswood Road and Lymington Bottom Road, an EIA should be requested. Despite this recommendation, no EIA has been conducted in the village to date.

Bottle Neck Roads


Railway Crossings: The primary access routes from Medstead to the A31 include two bottleneck roads, one under and one over the railway track. These bottlenecks only allow one direction of traffic at a time, significantly restricting traffic flow and creating congestion.

Traffic Flow: The restricted traffic flow at these bottlenecks will be exacerbated by additional development, leading to increased delays and potential safety hazards.

A31 Traffic Volume

Busy Road: The A31 is already a very busy road, handling substantial traffic volumes daily. Adding more vehicles from new developments without proper infrastructure improvements will worsen traffic conditions.

Safety Concerns: Increased traffic congestion can lead to higher risks of accidents, posing a danger to both local residents and commuters.

Infrastructure Modernisation

Cost Inefficiency: Modernising the bottleneck junctions to support further development would not be cost-effective. The financial burden of such extensive upgrades would likely outweigh the benefits, considering the scale and impact required.

Village Impact: The execution of modernisation efforts would significantly disrupt the village. Construction activities would lead to increased noise, dust, and temporary road closures, negatively affecting the quality of life for residents.

In conclusion, I strongly urge the planning authorities to reject the current application. The significant unresolved traffic issues and the lack of a comprehensive EIA highlight the unfeasibility of further development in Medstead at this time. Ensuring that the infrastructure can support additional traffic without compromising safety and quality of life for residents is paramount. The historical context provided by HCC Highways’ 2014 indication underscores the necessity of this assessment.

Permitting this development without addressing these critical issues would not only be imprudent but also potentially harmful to the community. Therefore, I request that this planning application be denied until a thorough and comprehensive EIA is conducted and adequate infrastructure improvements are planned and implemented.

References

Settlement formats such as villages in South East England hold significant heritage value

Settlement formats such as villages in South East England hold significant heritage value, especially in the context of increasing pressure for urbanisation. These villages often have deep historical roots, with their layout, architecture, and cultural practices reflecting centuries of tradition and community development.


As urbanisation pressures intensify, preserving these village settlements becomes crucial for maintaining the region’s cultural identity and heritage. They serve as tangible links to the past, showcasing the evolution of society, economy, and architecture over time.


Furthermore, villages often offer a more sustainable and harmonious way of living, with close-knit communities, green spaces, and a slower pace of life. As urban areas expand, preserving these village settlements becomes not only a matter of heritage conservation but also a means of promoting alternative and more balanced forms of development.


Therefore, recognising village settlements as heritage in the face of urbanization pressures is essential for safeguarding their unique character, fostering community cohesion, and promoting sustainable development practices.

References

Prioritising new settlements and town extensions over significant extensions to villages promotes long-term sustainability by planning for future growth in a strategic and proactive manner

Rural villages in Southeast England represent an important aspect of the region’s cultural heritage, embodying a rich tapestry of history, architecture, traditions, and natural beauty. Protecting and preserving these villages is essential for safeguarding their cultural significance and ensuring that future generations can continue to appreciate and enjoy their unique charm and character.

Urbanising villages without adequately addressing infrastructure needs can exacerbate existing strains on legacy infrastructure and does not represent effective or sustainable approach to addressing housing shortages. Legacy infrastructure in rural areas is not designed to accommodate the increased population density. Upgrading or expanding infrastructure to meet the needs of a larger population can be costly and time-consuming.

Therefore, prioritising new settlements and town extensions over significant extensions to villages is a key strategy for achieving sustainable development. By concentrating development in designated areas, we can promote efficient land use, protect the environment, enhance quality of life, and create thriving, resilient communities for the future. It is because:

New settlements and town extensions allow for more efficient land use by consolidating development in designated areas. This helps to minimise urban sprawl and preserve valuable agricultural land, natural habitats, and green spaces surrounding existing communities.

Developing new settlements and town extensions provides an opportunity to plan and design infrastructure in a coordinated and sustainable manner. This includes transportation networks, utilities, schools, healthcare facilities, and community amenities, ensuring that they are strategically located and efficiently serve residents’ needs.

Concentrating development in new settlements and town extensions helps to protect and conserve environmentally sensitive areas, such as wildlife habitats, water resources, and natural landscapes. By avoiding significant extensions to villages, we can mitigate habitat fragmentation, reduce pollution, and safeguard biodiversity.

Well-designed new settlements and town extensions can promote sustainable lifestyles by incorporating features such as pedestrian-friendly streets, cycling paths, public transit systems, and access to amenities within walking distance. This encourages active transportation, reduces reliance on cars, and promotes healthier, more sustainable communities.

Developing new settlements and town extensions provides an opportunity to foster social cohesion and community integration. By planning for diverse housing options, mixed-income neighbourhoods, and inclusive public spaces, we can create vibrant, inclusive communities where residents feel connected and supported.

New settlements and town extensions can stimulate economic growth and create opportunities for employment, entrepreneurship, and investment. By attracting businesses, industries, and services to designated growth areas, we can create sustainable economic hubs that support local prosperity and resilience.

Prioritising new settlements and town extensions over significant extensions to villages promotes long-term sustainability by planning for future growth in a strategic and proactive manner. By considering the environmental, social, and economic implications of development decisions, we can create resilient, adaptable communities that thrive for generations to come.

In the context of housing land supply, local authorities should prioritise the allocation of land that optimally supports sustainable development principles. Sacrificing the character and well-being of villages to meet EHDC targets in ways that result in unjustifiable waste is unacceptable.

References

It appears that the Four Marks & Medstead ward is a victim of a fatal error in decision-making

Ensuring sustainable development should be the primary goal when delivering housing targets. Sustainable development means ‘development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.

Granting permission to build on the basis that EHDC is failing to deliver within their target on proven housing land supply because EHDC has failed to complete work on the local development plan, without triggering a full EIA, can be considered a gross lapse in logic.

Such decisions undermine the principles of sustainable development and can lead to long-term negative consequences for the environment and the community. It is crucial that housing targets are met in a way that balances economic, social, and environmental considerations to foster resilient and thriving communities.

When a local development plan (LDP) fails to meet the land supply targets, and there is a need to grant planning permission for residential developments outside the existing LDP, especially in rural or village areas, such developments should be considered high risk.

  • Granting permission outside the LDP without thorough assessment undermines the strategic planning objectives set forth in local policies. It may also contravene national sustainability goals if the environmental impacts are not properly mitigated.
  • Developments that fall outside the structured LDP are at higher risk of being unsustainable due to the lack of integrated planning. Such developments might not align with broader sustainability goals, increasing the likelihood of significant negative impacts.
  • Developments outside the existing LDP can significantly alter the character and social fabric of village communities. These impacts need to be thoroughly evaluated to ensure that development does not detrimentally affect the quality of life of existing residents.
  • Villages and rural areas typically have less developed infrastructure compared to urban areas. This includes transportation networks, water and sanitation systems, healthcare, and educational facilities. New developments can strain these limited resources, leading to adverse environmental and social impacts.
  • Rural and village areas often possess unique environmental features, including biodiversity, landscapes, and ecosystems that are more vulnerable to development impacts. Developing outside the planned areas can lead to significant environmental degradation if not properly assessed.

Furthermore, the tilted balance is meant to ensure organisational continuity by allowing necessary development to proceed despite outdated policies. However, continuous reliance on this mechanism suggests a failure in the planning system, either due to local authorities’ incapability or unrealistic housing targets set without considering local circumstances.

Cllr Richard Millard, Leader of East Hampshire District Council, claims that “…the government’s brutal housing target which eclipses everything else in the Plan-making process. Forget the semantics that it is a ‘housing need’ figure; it is for all practical purposes a rigid target. We are not alone … It has been divisive, bruising and at times unpleasant. It has fractured communities and turned councillors against each other.”

If the East Hampshire District Council (EHDC) believes that the housing targets set for them are unreasonable or forcing them to deliver beyond their capacity, there are several avenues they can pursue to address and potentially challenge these targets.

The above statement by Cllr Richard Millard highlights a significant concern that the government’s rigid housing targets can create substantial pressures on local authorities.

It is most likely that this pressure led to inadequate care in ensuring that full Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) were conducted, resulting in significant expansions to villages without adequate consideration of sustainability and community impact.

Pressure to Meet Targets: The intense pressure to meet strict housing targets can lead local authorities to prioritise quantity over quality. This might mean rushing through planning applications and approvals without fully considering the environmental impacts.

Resource Constraints: Local planning departments might face resource constraints, especially when trying to balance numerous applications against tight deadlines. This can result in inadequate scrutiny of developments and a lack of comprehensive EIAs.

Political and Community Tensions: As noted by Cllr Millard, the housing targets can be divisive, creating political and community tensions. In such an environment, decision-makers might be more inclined to push through developments to show progress, even if it means overlooking thorough environmental assessments.

Fragmented Decision-Making: The fracturing of communities and division among councillors can lead to inconsistent decision-making. This fragmentation can result in a lack of a cohesive approach to sustainable development and environmental protection.

Incremental Development: Without proper oversight, there can be a trend toward piecemeal developments, which individually might not trigger full EIAs but cumulatively can have significant environmental impacts.

In conclusion, the need for sustainable development must remain at the forefront of planning and delivering housing targets. The continuous reliance on the tilted balance to compensate for failures in local development plans and housing supply targets is not only a gross lapse in logic but also a recipe for long-term environmental and community harm. The pressures faced by local authorities, as highlighted by Cllr Richard Millard, underscore the critical importance of thorough environmental assessments and integrated planning. Without these, the risk of unsustainable developments, especially in vulnerable rural and village areas, becomes alarmingly high. Therefore, it is imperative that planning authorities prioritise comprehensive Environmental Impact Assessments and adopt a balanced approach that safeguards our environment and communities for future generations. Sustainable development is not just a goal but a necessary foundation for fostering resilient, thriving communities that can withstand the pressures of growth and change.

References

The absence of a full Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) during a period of significant population increase reasonably leads to the conclusion that the current EDHC planning application process appears to be unfit for ensuring sustainable development

Between 2011 and 2021, Four Marks & Medstead ward has experienced an unprecedented 40% increase in population1. Despite this rapid growth, not a single full Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) has been conducted for any of the developments during this period. The combined impact of recent developments in the Four Marks & Medstead ward has been significant. Thus, EHDC failed our ward in terms of their duty to ensure that they only permit development that adheres to sustainable development principles.

Applying a one-size-fits-all approach is a procedural fallacy, particularly concerning the threshold for triggering a full Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). This threshold should be relative to the type of settlement, varying between villages and towns. Essentially, the criteria for defining a “large development” and/or “significance” should take into account the scale and impact relative to the specific characteristics of the settlement.

This could be measured in terms of the percentage increase in dwellings or population, adjusted to reflect the smaller scale and greater sensitivity of villages compared to larger towns or urban areas. A relatively modest increase in dwellings or population in a village can significantly affect its character, infrastructure, and environment. Thus, a development considered small in a larger town may be deemed large-scale in a village context, warranting a more thorough EIA process.

The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017, which transpose the EIA Directive into UK law, require that the EIA process considers the “indirect” and “cumulative” effects of a project. This encompasses the combined impact of the project with other existing, approved, and delivered developments in the area. Therefore, when evaluating the environmental impact of a proposed development, it’s essential to assess not only its individual effects but also how it interacts with other past, present, and future developments in the area.

The process currently lacks effectiveness in ensuring the full impartiality of experts’ opinions considered during the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) screening application. As long as these experts are hired by the applicant or developer, there is a risk of selective use of data (choosing data or studies that support the developer’s position while disregarding contradictory evidence), underreporting of findings (minimising or omitting findings that could raise concerns about the proposed development’s impact), and framing of recommendations (proposing mitigation measures that are insufficient or unlikely to be effective).

Therefore, it is an absolute must that before permitting any further development, even relatively small estates, in the Four Marks & Medstead ward, EHDC should:

1. Conduct a post-development environmental and social assessment to identify and address any unmitigated impacts. This will ensure that any negative effects on the environment and community well-being are recognised and remedied appropriately.

2. Effectively engage with the local community to understand their concerns and involve them in decision-making processes for future developments. This inclusive approach helps to ensure that development plans align with the community’s needs and values.

3. Implement corrective measures and mitigation strategies as needed. Based on the findings from the post-development assessment, take necessary actions to mitigate adverse impacts and enhance positive outcomes for the community and environment.

4. Review the EHDC processes to prevent uncontrolled expansion without full EIA, even if the developments are of a piecemeal nature. Ensure that these smaller developments are considered significant due to their combined impact on the community and environment.

5. Ensure complete impartiality of experts providing opinions for EIA screening applications. Review and improve the EHDC processes to guarantee that expert assessments are unbiased and based on rigorous, transparent criteria, thereby maintaining public trust and credibility in the decision-making process.

These steps aim to create a more sustainable, transparent, and community-focused approach to development in the Four Marks & Medstead ward.

The absence of a full Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) has wronged our community’s interests in the following ways:

1. Unidentified Impacts: Without an EIA, the potential environmental impacts of the development might not have been properly identified or mitigated. This includes impacts on local ecosystems, water resources, air quality, and biodiversity.

2. Uncontrolled Pollution: There could be increased pollution (air, water, noise) that has not been addressed or controlled adequately.

3. Unplanned Growth: The infrastructure may not have been upgraded to handle the increased population, leading to overburdened roads, water supply systems, sewage treatment, and public transport.

4. Service Overload: Public services like healthcare, education, and emergency services may be strained, affecting their quality and availability.

5. Missed Opportunities for Mitigation: An EIA would have identified measures to mitigate negative impacts, which are now potentially unaddressed.

6. Long-term Effects: Without an EIA, the long-term sustainability of the development is questionable. Environmental degradation and resource depletion could have lasting negative effects on the village.

7. Resilience: The village may be less resilient to future challenges such as climate change, resource scarcity, and further population growth.

8. Disruption: Existing residents may have experienced significant disruption without adequate measures to mitigate these effects.

9. Cultural Impact: The rapid increase in population could have altered the social fabric and culture of the village, potentially causing friction or loss of community identity.

References

  1. FOI – REF-191888-D3L9 – POPULATION ↩︎

Proposed Residential Development Outside Settlement Policy Boundaries

The proposed development site is located outside the designated SPBs for Medstead. The purpose of SPBs is to clearly demarcate areas suitable for development and to protect the surrounding countryside from urban sprawl. Allowing development beyond these boundaries undermines the integrity of local planning policies. Expanding the village outside the SPBs contradicts these principles by promoting unsustainable growth and risking long-term environmental and social consequences.

Continuous Engagement in Disengagement: A Failure of EHDC to Ensure Public Participation

Despite EHDC’s obligation to ensure active public participation in the planning permission process, the current flawed system results in continuous engagement in disengagement. This paradox highlights the failure of EHDC, as the system intended to foster public involvement instead causes widespread disengagement and a state of social helplessness among the community.

EHDC is required to facilitate meaningful public engagement in the planning process. However, the existing processes are overly complex, inconsistent, and difficult for the average resident to navigate.

1. Overwhelming Information: The sheer volume of information, presented in non-standardized formats with excessive use of acronyms, overwhelms residents, making it nearly impossible for them to stay informed or participate effectively.

2. Lack of Notifications: There is no efficient system to notify residents about multi-dwelling planning applications affecting their area (relevant to their location – zone of influence – development proposals). This leaves many unaware of developments that could significantly impact their community. For instance, the only reason many found out about the current planning application under standard consultation, the fact that EHDC is allowing developments not included in our Local Development Plan, and that EHDC is trying to further expand the already significant development of the village of Medstead, is because of SMASH.

3. Fragmented Documentation: Key documents are often disorganised and difficult to access.

For example:

1. The planning application portal’s limitations, such as allowing only ten documents to be downloaded at a time and lacking clear naming conventions, complicate the process.

2. The land availability assessment uses LAA references. However, they are not linked with Unique Property Reference Numbers (UPRN), property title numbers, or planning permission reference numbers, further complicating the process of tracking and understanding planning applications.

3. The version of the Draft Local Plan shared with me on 1st May 2024 feels like a poorly done secondary school assignment. It lacks consistency, the content does not flow well, and it contains errors. For example, land that is actually in Medstead (LAA Reference MED-022) is included under Four Marks development sites. Additionally, Page 422, titled ‘Four Marks,’ includes a map of the Four Marks & Medstead ward. The content that follows is vague and/or irrelevant to the purpose. Pages relevant to Medstead are 454 and 463-464, but the document does not maintain the same structure for each village. For some reason, it splits Medstead from Four Marks with Bentley. The illustrations, which clearly come from a good quality source—the EHDC interactive map—are included in the LDP in poor, difficult-to-read quality, with truncated pages and other issues. The submission of such a document for consultation undermines the entire system and erodes trust in the people in charge.

Until the status quo is changed, EHDC cannot expect full cooperation from the members of the public. The current system’s flaws alienate residents, making it difficult for them to engage meaningfully in the planning process. Therefore, the only way to properly identify the impact of multi-dwelling developments that are outside the current Local Development Plan of Medstead is to automatically trigger a full Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA).

References