Objection Points – Interbridges Site EMP 1.15 HBC DWLP

1. Access to the site is unsatisfactory.

1.1.   Traffic lights all ready planned for the east side of the interbridges gap will produce even greater restriction on traffic in and out of North Street if they have to cope with 2 side roads. The Council should provide statistics as to the expected increase in car and truck movements in Horndean Road and the expected timing of these movements. I suspect that they will coincide with existing peak traffic flows.
1.2.   The low bridges are likely to be hit yet again, particularly the rail bridge because more business vehicles will be turning into North Street. Last time the bridge was hit extensive additional support was required to strengthen it and make it safe.
1.3.   Access to the site may be possible from the rail station but in practice employees are likely to come by car and go into Emsworth for shopping by car, not on foot or other means.
1.4.   The road into the site will cross the path which currently runs from the southerly corner of Horndean Road Recreation Ground to Washington Road. This route is used by children and dog walkers on their way to the Recreation Ground and by children going to the Emsworth Middle School. It is part of the planned walking route to the school and a planned cycle route. To cut this path with a road to an industrial site is going to introduce a safety hazard and obstacle to the planned cycle route.

2. Employment is not needed in Emsworth on this site.

2.1. Employment is not an advantage to Emsworth and locating it here is not an advantage to the unemployed elsewhere in the Borough. In November 2004 (the latest figures available to me), the unemployed numbers for Emsworth were 1.1% or 54 people. Only one ward in the Borough has a lower unemployment percentage. The highest unemployment levels are in Battins and Bondfields wards with 123 (3.3%) and 122 (3.0%) respectively. Neither of these wards has ready access to the Havant rail station for easy non road transport to Emsworth.
2.2. What talents is the employment created likely to need? It seems to me that this employment is unlikely to be used by the unemployed of Emsworth and if, as it is justified, it is used by modern industries it is unlikely to use the unemployed from elsewhere in the Borough. The result will be to attract new people into the area increasing housing pressure and/or traffic. This is not producing a sustainable community.

3. Environmental Issues affect the area badly.

3.1.   Although the Inspector states in his report that the Borough reports that flora and fauna contains nothing significant, inquiries suggest that the site was surveyed in 1995 and although they did not find anything at the time it was recorded that the site had potential if it was managed properly. In my opinion, a further survey should be undertaken by the HCC biodiversity unit and reported on before any further approval is considered for development. The nearby SINC was only recently discovered and designated.
3.2.   Local residents have indicated in the preparation for the Emsworth Design Statement that they wish to see Emsworth continue to have a rural atmosphere. In this respect, the view of the town first seen by many visitors is from the A27 (T) or the railway. If the view is now to consist of industrial estates on both sides of the railway station, then the “rural atmosphere” will be seriously damaged.
3.3.   The site is well known for having a high groundwater level. At present the run off is into the West Brook. The inspector indicates that a Flood Risk Assessment will be required to avoid flooding down stream or upstream. I would want to see all the evidence that such an assessment had taken account of all the dangers. If the development is forced ahead then there must be some agreement from the developers that if their flood prevention system is unsatisfactory that they would put right any subsequent problems without limitation of time or cost.
3.4.   The area concerned was once part of the Forest of Bere. Plans to increase the importance of this area and perhaps take opportunities to reinstate some of it at some future date are not helped by covering more of the area concerned in concrete.

4. Rounding –off the existing development is no justification

4.1. I do not accept the HBC glib phrase, repeated by the Inspector, that the Gap which this land has been part of is expendable because it involves “rounding-off” of the development. This phrase may make the plan to build in the Gap sound more acceptable but in practice has no sensible meaning unless we are being told that all towns should be circular in plan.

5. Increase the planting and make it viable if the work goes ahead.

5.1. The Inspector suggests that the north side of the site should be planted to reinforce the edge of the Gap. If the site is eventually built on, I suggest that the planting should be done at the proper time of year and that if for any reason the trees or shrubs die, then they are replaced by the developer until such time as they are viable.
5.2. In view of the unsightly appearance that the site is likely to have from the houses in Selangor Avenue and the railway line, the planting of trees and landscaping in depth should occur on the south side of the site as well as the north.