Appreciating the LDF and associated documents have taken some years to draw up it is entirely unreasonable for the Council to give the residents of the borough a mere 6 weeks to read, review, research, discuss and comment on such important issues for our Borough for the next 18 years (until 2026). Although LDF is not a planning application, and will be revisited in November 2008 (some 7 months after we, the public, have the opportunity to comment), when reviewing the council website it states in the planning section: “in most cases we have a statutory 8 weeks to determine an application from the date the application is valid (accepted). In the instance of a major application this period is extended to 13 weeks.” We have had 6 weeks!
All businesses have a 5 year plan, and will have 10 and likely 15 year “visions for the future” and will review annually on how the plan and visions are proceeding, what has impacted the plan and what changes need to be made. Our community, environment and a whole lot more are constantly changing.
The urban area of Emsworth is already large enough; further extensions threaten its unique character. A large housing estate of the size proposed is not in keeping with the character of Long Copse Lane and Redlands Lane. The entire infrastructure, roads, bus transport, schools, sewage and so forth do not support such an expansion in the semi rural area of UE10, RE6 and OS3.
The argument that the site adjoins an existing urban area can be made for any expansion of an existing settlement into the countryside. The fact that the eastern side of Redlands Lane is not developed and forms the edge of the urban area is what creates the view. The view from Redlands Lane is important just because of the wide open space, with the spire of Westbourne Church in the distance. A closer view is not a valid replacement for the existing vista.
The extension to line of trees which has been planted through the more western side of Hampshire Farm, adjacent to the set-aside area, will not provide screening to the site from the settlement of Westbourne for a generation. The proposal would reduce the already narrow gap between Emsworth and Westbourne by a third and conflicts with the policy of the Emsworth/Chichester Gap playing an important role in helping to maintain the visual break and separate identities of Emsworth from Westbourne and an important green gap.
The location of the proposed open space, in the guise of formal and less formal play areas at the most easterly point in the Borough will not be of benefit to the majority of residents of Emsworth and Havant Borough, but rather to those in West Sussex. The road infrastructure does not support this.
Hampshire Farm provides valuable habitats to a wide variety of wildlife. As has been pointed out to the Council many times before, there is a colony of bats (protected species) in the area, whose location needs to be identified and safeguarded.
In addition, Roe Deer, Sparrow Hawks, Kestrels, Tawny Owls, Buzzards, Green and Spotted Woodpeckers, Jays and Pheasants are all regular visitors/reside on the site. As no habitat assessment has been made we do not know what other wildlife are in residence. A detailed ecological survey needs to be carried out and the wildlife value of the site independently assessed. Habitats Regulations Assessment must be applied to all Local Development documents in England and Wales.
No doubt the environment department at HBC appreciate **birds of prey have a significance that other groups do not. If you are to get a place right, or keep a place right, you must look after absolutely everything. You must start at the bottom of the food chain, and cherish every creature all the way up: because if you don’t there will be nothing at the top**. (**source RSPB Spring 08 + further data)
UE10/RE6/OS3 is a Greenfield site and a local gap, whatever the Council wants to call it. The proposal to site 46% on gaps in Emsworth is a significantly high percentage of the total urban extensions proposed and was not thought through properly, is neither right nor sustainable.
The proposal for UE10/RE6/OS3 would turn Redlands Lane, Wraysbury Park Drive, Long Copse Lane, New Brighton Road, the Westbourne Road and without doubt many other roads into ‘Rat runs’ to enter/exit the site(s).
Kirkham Landscape Planning Ltd document for HBC March 2008 clearly states that local gaps must preserve the separate identity of settlements and due to the smaller size of those in local gaps (Emsworth/Westbourne) they are at risk of being enveloped within larger settlements and losing the sense of identity. It was also recommended discussions should be undertaken with Chichester District Council - as there is no data in HBC documents available to me I must conclude no such courtesy or discussion have been afforded to our neighbours (stakeholders). The Westbourne Parish Councillors at meetings in Emsworth in March and April 2008 certainly had no knowledge.
The train station is approx. 1.3 kilometres from the centre of the proposed site. Car transport will therefore be necessary to use the train service and the station car parking is already overloaded.
The nearest primary school in the county, which is fully subscribed, is over 1 mile from the centre of the site and the closest source of secondary education is more than 2 miles away - more traffic movements The primary school in Westbourne has a meagre 5 places, where priority will be given to children and siblings from West Sussex before opening to children from other boroughs, and then only after agreement with the Council in West Sussex.
Major shopping will involve additional car use, which is contrary to sustainability guidelines. Local shopping would no doubt be to Westbourne, where there is only a small Co-Op with minimal parking - further traffic movements
Council policy CS3 - Effective Use of Land and Infrastructure states that development will only be permitted where it meets ALL of the policies - UE10/RE6/OS3 most certainly does not meet them all.
The conclusion that Greenfield housing should be dispersed indicates the real reason is not being made transparent. The 2008 population forecast for Havant Borough is 117997, therefore the 551 responses used to justify preferred options for Greenfield Housing being dispersed is entirely unrepresentative of our population at less than ½ (half) of one percent and including developers attached to UE10/RE6/OS3 can hardly be considered as impartial.
The consultant/landowner/developer have been communicating with the Council for many years, from at least 2000 (letter from HBC 23 March 2000 to HGP following meeting 13 March) and the landowner has been pleading with the Council to develop the land since 10 Jan 1989. The developers provided the Council with a Master Plan, detailing the various types of housing, employment premises, community store, doctors, and road modifications etc along with a gift and a commuted sum to the Council for public recreational use of the balance of the land.
(Note, copies of correspondence sited above obtained through Customer Services Desk by thumbing through documents and paying the Council 30p a sheet for copies)
In the documents copied by the Council for me they identified the water meadow with a ‘balancing pool’ as flooding is clearly anticipated. In heavy rainfall, the site regularly floods and we see the consequences, eg the channels naturally etched in the bank along Westbourne Road, and the River Lane that Redlands Lane becomes, along with the pond Nursery Close frequently resembles - if developed the result would be catastrophic because concrete, tarmac and brick push water elsewhere. Hampshire Farm has serious drainage problems, despite the sustainability assessment stating it doesn’t. Those who live in the locale know for a fact there are issues with the site. The potential that existing residents would be penalised or indeed unable to secure insurance against flood damage insurance is unacceptable. Most certainly new home owners would be unlikely to obtain insurance in an area known to have problems and the Council will not indemnify existing residents of the area!
Sewage removal and treatment is of serious concern for major developments throughout the borough and even more in areas subject to drainage problems. UE10/RE6/OS3 already suffers serious problems. With a development as proposed at UE10/RE6 there would be no soak away once developed, and with water pouring off the site mixed with sewage it is not only a nightmare to consider but also a serious health issue.
The Council will already know, since they gave approval when the properties were built in the 1960s along the eastern side of Redlands Lane, that we have very shallow pressed fibre drains, repeatedly suffering from blockages (as confirmed by the frequent attendance from drainage engineers in our area). I am certain any infrastructure improvements, if they were made, would NOT include upgrading of ALL existing property and mains drainage systems.
It is laudable that major developments (above 250 dwellings) should include renewably energy sites, however, there is no clear policy on what that might be.
I submit UE10/RE6/OS3, i.e. the whole of Hampshire Farm, be put to effective use growing food crops. The DEFRA supported study by the World Food Organisation states we need to double the production of food to feed ourselves, following the crop failures throughout the world, because we don’t have enough now - what about the future.
Once farmland has disappeared to concrete and tarmac, agriculture, landscape and the capacity to grow food has gone!
Core Strategy Preferred Options section 4.0, reprinted 18th April shows total housing numbers table has increased to 1499 from prints I took from HBC site at the beginning of March and updated after HBC Extraordinary Exec Mtg on 5th March, showing total 1381. (Interestingly the 5th March doc is dated)
Having passed my originals to a friend our copies neither have a date nor revision and what status the document is in the header/footers, there are a page numbers, but not how many pages the documents comprise, i.e. 1 of 99 or 1 of 3.
It is impossible to see if anything else has changed unless we compare each line. Many of my neighbours printed the HBC docs several weeks ago and now we are trying to “spot the difference” as there is no table of changes made, e.g. page 10 para xxxxx, now reads yyyyyyyy.
We have no idea whether we are looking at revision A, B, or Z, or 1, 2 or 99 or what changes have been made from a version printed, read and notes made previously. Neither the Core Strategy Preferred Options nor the Allocations Development documents are dated.
The Council asks the community to comment on a ‘moving feast’. This is completely unacceptable and disenfranchises the whole Borough. All businesses, including local government, must have a document control procedure for publicly available material! (ISO standard) Where is it?
The questionnaire is difficult to complete, the HBC website confusing and time consuming to navigate. The population do not all want to spend hours reviewing a website, or indeed may not be able to download and print multiple page documents - a clear question and answer document would have been beneficial to the community as a whole, rather than dodging about from one document to another for review.
The questionnaires ask SUPPORT, OBJECT, NO OPINION, as the policies and objectives are multiple I have views of For and Against and cannot therefore select one.
P E L Salter MBE MIoD
