Link to printer friendly version of this page (PDF)
Warning this is a large file which
will take some time to download even on broadband)
Section A: Introduction
1.Do you support or object to the overall vision for the borough?
| Support | |
| No Opinion | |
| Object | X |
2. Any other Comments?
| It is difficult to deal with these broad-brush questions many of which are leading questions leaving little scope for independent views. Some seem to be SEERA induced Hobson’s choice with no room for variation. The drive to meet housing targets to increase economic growth has led to the inclusion of some unrealistic proposals in inappropriate areas.The number of houses and their locations were not made known to the Emsworth Residents Association during the last consultation stage and we complained then about being asked to make decisions and give our representations in the absence of important information which would have influenced our views.The reliance on economy led growth will not necessarily create a sustainable community in the borough. Matching skills to jobs has been a national problem for many years, more so in some areas of deprivation. This vision relies upon all areas actually using the opportunities it hopes will arise from new developments. If certain areas do not take advantage of any opportunities that do arise inward migration will be the inevitable result thus adding to the need for even more housing and infrastructure, not necessarily to meet the local needs. Your report acknowledges that there will be inward migration in the early years of the plan period and relies upon local residents acquiring better skills, but the council cannot guarantee this will happen. We are concerned that the Strategy will not meet the vision paragraph 1.3, “Sustainable development is central to the Core Strategy. This means that all the policies in the plan should meet Havant Borough’s current needs and safeguard the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” This is especially true in the light of the details set out in paragraph 1.12 of the Core Strategy Preferred Options.Although it states in paragraph 1.17 that the housing growth is a Government requirement and cannot be avoided, it is unclear how and by whom the decision was made to allocate 6301 dwellings to Havant. When was this consulted upon? Where are the minutes of the committee setting out the reasons? In any event the Government have not approved the South East Plan yetThe Emsworth Residents Association did not support the distribution strategy at the workshop we attended and cannot support the up to 1038 houses now shown in suggested plans in and around Emsworth. Even if half of these are constructed in the SG3 and LG2 gaps it will spoil the area and lose valuable informal recreation areas.If adopted the concentration of up to1038 additional dwellings into the Emsworth/Havant and Emsworth/Westbourne strategic gaps is bound to have a negative environmental impact on the lives of the existing community and overwhelm its services. The road traffic impact will have an adverse effect given other proposals already approved for industry on important link roads. Even if we did agree that the “dispersal” option was acceptable a maximum of 70% of the urban extension sites in Emsworth Gaps is hardly dispersal.Successive government inspectors considered the strategic gaps worthy of protection from development particularly as these green lungs cannot be replaced. These proposals are counter to your strategy objective “to ensure development protects and enhances the environment including the sense of place valued by the local community” |
Section B: Core Strategy Objectives
The Core Strategy document (www.havant.gov.uk/havant-9345) contains objectives for the way in which different aspects of the plan will be delivered. These are shown on page 6 and 7 of the document.
? 3. Do you support or object to the overall objectives for the borough?
| Support | No Opinion | Object | X |
? 4. Any other Comments? (Please continue on a separate sheet if necessary)
| We consider that the conclusion the Borough Council has drawn from the last public consultation process to be unsafe. The reason why the dispersal option became the Council’s preferred option is not borne out by the statistics and their reasons for this are not transparent. Details and an analysis of these statistics are set out under the Section on Homes.The natural environment in and around Emsworth is intrinsic to the sense of place valued by its residents. The erosion of the green fields surrounding this community is likely to provide justification for future incremental development as is now being proposed adjacent to the former Locks Farm site. The suggested UE3b site was understood to have been within the Southleigh Estate which formed part of an area protected by a Section 106 agreement to be left for open use in perpetuity (999 years) but could be used as farmland until 2017. “The location of development where it makes the most effective use of land” ought not to be at the expense of the loss of more of the natural environment.Where infrastructure and accessibility must be improved it should be negotiated before planning decisions are made. Adequate road capacity, regular bus services, cycle lanes, adequate parking facilities, drainage together with local play spaces, schools, medical and other local services should be negotiated in advance with Hampshire County Council, water companies, bus companies and the NHS. The feasibility of providing adequate services must be demonstrated to any Committee/Council before the consideration of applications for planning permission. This would determine whether developers can make the required Section 106 contributions to the local authority and that the proposed development will be viable after such payments. |
Section C: Preferred Options and Policies
Environment
|
|
The preferred option(s) for the Environment is explained in more detail on pages 7 to 19 of the Core Strategy (www.havant.gov.uk/havant-9345). |
? 5. Do you support or object to the preferred option(s) for the Environment?
| Support | No Opinion | Object | X |
? 6. Any other Comments? (Please continue on a separate sheet if necessary)
The development of a large number of dwellings in and around Emsworth will not lead to convenient means of travel. It will lead to unhealthy unnecessary journeys and be environmentally damaging. Neither will it meet the councils policy CS1 of “protecting and enhancing the gaps” According to page7-8 of the Core Strategy, Nature Conservation Areas such as AONBs, SSSIs, SACs, Ramsar sites and SINCs are excluded from the Gaps. The reason given is because they are protected elsewhere under PPS9. As stated in PPS9, the list given above should also include the following:
As stated elsewhere, we do not want these various areas excluded from the Strategic Gaps. The areas have different levels of protection and we believe that they should be included within the well known Gap areas.
The Landscape Character Assessment Sensitivity Report 2007 seem to suggest that features of the Character Areas 21 and 22 are incompatible with developments proposed for Emsworth either in the Core Strategy preferred site option or the Allocations Development Plan sites. We hope that this consultation will result in the elimination of the sites concerned from the plans going forward. CS16 item 11 - The retention of residential gardens as a preference over the loss of green fields seems counter to that of the Planning Inspectorate’s remit. The Inspectorate has overruled the Borough Council by allowing appeals for new development in residential gardens. There is little point in the local authority clinging to a policy whose outcome it cannot control, particularly if that policy is being used to justify more development of greenfield sites. The policy should be strengthened. We would suggest that the use of residential gardens for changing the character of an area from primarily houses with gardens to multiply occupancy dwellings should be specifically excluded. At present one such development in an area of houses with gardens is the trigger for all the adjacent houses and gardens to be converted, creating a complete change of character. Suitable wording should seek to eliminate this effect. The Sustainability Appraisal points out “the provision of housing land on greenfield sites could lead to a significant negative effect on the biodiversity of the borough especially if development is proposed in strategic gaps and in areas close to or at least partially ecologically connected to protected areas” “The natural landscape is likely to be compromised by the development on greenfield land”. “The loss of green gaps would be an effect which is naturally associated with growth into these areas and is unlikely to be mitigated”. In view of the above it is disturbing that the Borough Council is already stating “that part of the Strategic Gaps will have to be built on”. This implies that their mind is already made up and that we may be wasting our time by taking part in this consultation exercise. Many people who speak to us on this subject share this view. It also confirms that there are no more developable sites in Emsworth |
There are policies for the Environment on pages 9 to 18 of the Core Strategy, which will put this preferred option(s) into practice (www.havant.gov.uk/havant-9345).
? 7. Do you support or object to the policies for the Environment?
| Policy | Support | No Opinion | Object |
| CS1 - Protection and Enhancement of the Environment | X | ||
| CS2 - Efficient Use of Resources | X | ||
| CS3 - Effective Use of Land and Infrastructure | X | ||
| CS4 - Flood Risk | X |
? 8. Do you have any comments to make about the policies? (Please make it clear which policy you are referring to in your answer and continue on a separate sheet if necessary
| Policy CS1 -Item 3 about strategic gaps should have an additional item added to the list which is; “and Emsworth/Chichester.”The existing Local Plan lists 15 Roads of Special Character. We would request that this listing is retained and the trees within those areas should be protected automatically.We would like to see more action on the proposed planting of trees in the Emsworth area, especially as this can be incorporated into your objective of enhancing the former Forest of Bere.Policy CS2 -Again we are being asked to comment on a policy without knowing where recycling facilities are likely to be sited or what type of facilities are envisaged. There is no indication of details likely to be included in the Supplementary Planning document on this subject.It is unclear what the requirements will be locally in respect of renewable energy sites. If it means that new homes and employment sites will have unobtrusive forms of energy generation such as solar panels then we would have no problem with such policies. If the proposal were for wind turbines or batteries of photo-voltaic cells on every street corner then this would not be acceptable. Policy CS3 - The choice of option 2 for the provision to match the dispersal of development through the Borough and therefore the dispersal of infrastructure, presupposes that the developments are to be dispersed. We do not support this conclusion, as you will see in detail in our answer to question 20.It is unclear whether or not the principals set out in your table in paragraph 2.20 are being changed by the comment in paragraph 2.21 that, “at stage one in the consultation there was a majority in favour of maintaining lower housing densities.” If the table is part of your preferred option 2, then we would like to see the definitions changed. The proposals may well be suitable for Town centre environments but for a centre like Emsworth we believe that the definitions should be more steeply graded so that the outskirts of a small community are not used to provide high density homes where other resources are thin. The first column should be “Train Station - 5 mins walk (400m) and the second Bus Stop 5 min walk to a bus stop with 4 or more buses scheduled at peak periods and a service available from 07.00 to 22.00.”We do not agree with the policies that are leading to the suggestion that as few as 50% of new dwellings are likely to be built on previously developed land. The target of 60% is a minimum that should be achievable.No information has been provided as to the capacity of accessible infrastructure in other districts. Eg have Chichester District and West Sussex County Council been asked whether adequate schools, libraries, community buildings and emergency services can be made available to the 280 households proposed at Hampshire Farm. Health services in that area are already inadequate as is the infrequent bus service. We are aware of continued building around Westbourne, but Havant borough council’s documents make no mention of this. Neither do they suggest allowance for the combined impact of 280 houses nor a further 500 proposed in a relatively small area fed by few shops and narrow roads.
As the infrastructure provision here is largely outside the control of Havant Borough Council more research is needed to identify the scope for increased infrastructure provision in this area including the cost of the potential ground quality issues already identified in the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment. This document makes no mention of the flooding which local residents say occurs regularly off the Hampshire Farm land. Where will the water flow if this land is developed? Agricultural land is soaring in price which together with Section 106 contributions and additional infrastructure costs could render these sites unviable. In addition the expected increased traffic from the above site is likely to have an adverse impact on the Emsworth community. Other proposals already in the pipeline to place traffic lights between the A27 road bridge and the railway bridge are expected to cause traffic to “back-up” into Horndean Road, New Brighton Road and Southleigh Road. The need for these traffic lights is to accommodate the employment/skills centres to the west and employment site traffic from the east of these two bridges. An additional 280 dwellings will exacerbate traffic pinch points at these traffic lights, the roundabout on the A259 and Southleigh Road junction with West Street Havant which both suffer congestion already. We disagree with your statement on this policy paragraph 2.31. The choice of Greenfield sites ought not to be determined by surplus capacity in certain schools or lower water costs. These fields cannot be replaced and many schools are closed for financial reasons as the population varies. In response to paragraph 2.34, we reinforce the views already presented to you in your consultations, that infrastructure must be in place prior to the development work being started. The eventual plans should be shown in conjunction with a timeline of infrastructure and facility development co-ordinated with housing and employment provision. |
Jobs
|
|
The preferred option(s) for Jobs is explained in more detail on pages 19 to 24 of the Core Strategy (www.havant.gov.uk/havant-9345). |
? 9. Do you support or object to the preferred option(s) for Jobs?
| Support | No Opinion | Object | X |
? 10. Any other Comments? (Please continue on a separate sheet if necessary)
| 3.1 The plan to grow the economy of the Borough by 3.5% may well prove to only have the effect of increasing housing and importing skills without raising local skills and employment. If we started with the aim of developing the local skills and industry organic growth would in our opinion be more likely to succeed than GVA led targets.As a general rule we believe that the jobs should be located as close to areas of high unemployment as is possible. |
There are policies for Jobs on pages 22 to 23 of the Core Strategy which will put this preferred option(s) into practice (www.havant.gov.uk/havant-9345).
? 11. Do you support or object to the policies for Jobs?
| Policy | Support | No Opinion | Object |
| CS5 - Skills |
X |
||
| CS6 - Employment Land | X |
? 12. Do you have any comments to make about the policies? (Please make it clear which policy you are referring to in your answer and continue on a separate sheet if necessary)
| SK2 is not considered appropriate. It will create traffic congestion as workers commute twice a day from outlying districts to Emsworth and is located well away from the main area of unemployment. |
Tourism
|
|
The preferred option(s) for Tourism is explained in more detail on pages 24 to 26 of the Core Strategy (www.havant.gov.uk/havant-9345). |
? 13. Do you support or object to the preferred option(s) for Tourism?
| Support | X | No opinion | Object |
? 14. Any other Comments? (Please continue on a separate sheet if necessary)
| We are supportive of options for Tourism which sustain and grow existing local small hotel and guesthouses. There is concern in this business community that future new hotels will threaten their trade, and be a detriment to tourists and business travellers who currently have a wide choice of local accommodation.Also, South Street, Emsworth could be considered as an option to site an Interpretation/Education Centre for both education and tourist groups interested in the conservation of natural life and history centred on the Harbour. This would be a natural extension to the existing facilities offered by Emsworth, and would help encourage tourism to the Town. With modification and improvements, the car park in South Street would be well placed to support an enterprise of this kind. |
There is a policy for Tourism on page 26 of the Core Strategy which will put this preferred option(s) into practice (www.havant.gov.uk/havant-9345).
? 15. Do you support or object to the policies for Tourism?
| Policy | Support | No Opinion | Object |
| CS7 - Tourism | X |
? 16. Do you have any comments to make about this policy?
| Parking is already an issue in Emsworth. The car parks and street parking is always at a premium, with illegal parking by shoppers a regular occurrence. This blocks the free flow of traffic through the centre of the Village, so any tourism initiatives must be preceded by improvement to the car parking infrastructure.The public toilets in Emsworth are outdated and are a dis-service to the Town. They urgently need to be replaced and resited such that the South Street Car Park can be reconfigured to gain more spaces.The parking and toilets could be considered as part of the Education Centre project in South Street.Safe pathways are an equal priority in Emsworth Town, and along the Wayfarers Way. Without losing the country and rural identity, all pathways must be maintained to a high standard to enable safe passage on foot and buggy, for young and old. |
Homes
|
|
The preferred option(s) for Homes is explained in more detail on pages 27 to 33 of the Core Strategy (www.havant.gov.uk/havant-9345). |
? 17. Do you support or object to the preferred option(s) for Homes?
| Support | No Opinion | Object | X |
? 18. Any other Comments? (Please continue on a separate sheet if necessary)
| The impact of the suggested areas of development on greenfield sites around Emsworth will be huge. Households in this small community currently comprise a little over 5000. If an additional 1038 dwellings are imposed on this area under this plan or in future plans it cannot fail to change the nature of the community and is likely to overwhelm shops, parking and other services in the village. Even if the preferred options only are built in the gaps around the town the 688 dwellings will impact the town significantly. If this is “dispersal” around the Borough, it hardly looks like it to residents. In our last response to Core Strategy we pointed out that it gave no indication of a time line for anything except house building. An indication of needs in terms of infrastructure, services, changing coastlines etc., were mentioned these still do not appear to be tied into housing plans. Proposals for so much house building should be contingent on other plans particularly those over which the Borough Council has little control and those of neighbouring authorities.This emphasises the points mentioned earlier “where infrastructure and accessibility must be improved it should be negotiated before planning decisions are made.” So far as we are aware the NHS capacity plans do not include provision for the 80,000 new dwellings proposed in southern Hampshire. This directly affects Havant where one community hospital in Emsworth has been closed and another in Havant is due for closure. Although another is proposed at Oak Park half of the 50 beds are earmarked for elderly/mentally ill patients only. This document makes no mention of any negotiations with the NHS or local primary health care trust.The Borough Council acknowledge that the gap between Emsworth and Havant is narrow and say there is scope for extending the urban areas into them without undermining the distinction between settlements. They have not demonstrated how it will prevent the coalescence of settlements. We are doubtful whether the gap between sites UE4, UE3b or UE13 is 2 miles or more as referred to in the SE Plan and the Draft Core Strategy. Although it never could have been, there is no reason to make it even less. The Hobson’s choice of high density or lose more green space ought to be offset by the Council using its existing powers to bring empty properties into use and include all expected windfall sites in its projections.The Map booklet effectively changes the designation of the Westbourne/Emsworth Gap from a strategic to a local gap even though Emsworth has a population of more than 10,000. Although Westbourne population is less than 10,000 there has been additional housing development in recent years. Has the Borough Council had regard to Chichester District’s housing projections in its allocation development plan document?Chichester Harbour AONB, Hollybank Woods, Brook Meadow and Nore Barn Woods have all been excluded from the Strategic Gaps as are local SINCs These were clearly placed in the existing Local Plan and the SINCs are not necessarily protected under other legislation. |
There are policies for Homes on pages 31 to 32 of the Core Strategy which will put this preferred option(s) into practice (www.havant.gov.uk/havant-9345).
? 19. Do you support or object to the policies for Homes?
| Policy | Support | No Opinion | Object |
| CS8 - Housing Provision | X | ||
| CS9 - Housing Mix | X | ||
| CS10 - Gypsies and Travelling Showpeople | X |
? 20. Do you have any comments to make about the policies? (Please make it clear which policy you are referring to in your answer and continue on a separate sheet if necessary).
Policy CS8The insistence that additional housing is essential to accommodate smaller household size flies in the face of a consistent decline in the local population over the last 20 years and projected figures suggest that this will continue. This argument fails to take into account the fact that many single, divorced and elderly now have to share homes for financial reasons. Many also re-marry or cohabit thus releasing one of their homes. This small household size justification seems to be used to legitimise the overriding theme in this process - 3.5% growth target.In our last response on the Issues and Options we supported higher densities in an effort to protect the Strategic Gap around our area, but that response was not supported by the Borough Council. Neither did we accept the option for dispersal.It is obviously easier to help developers build on Greenfield sites than carry out conversions or bring empty properties back into use. More effort should be made to explore these options to reduce the impact of the high proportion of new development now being suggested. Although the Housing Assessment document says these only equate to 1.80% of total homes in the borough that means nearly 17% of the additional new housing now required, and ought not to be dismissed.We did not support the Option for dispersal and are not sure how the preference for this has been measured. At a recent well-attended public meeting many people were in favour of centralised development rather than dispersal and queried how the latter option became the councils preferred choice.We consider that this Option may have been selected following a very small survey and a workshop arranged by the local authority. The consultants who ran the workshop presented local groups with a series of questions (without providing information about the days events in advance). People were then placed in groups and asked to stick pieces of paper on a matrix and make other comments on post-it notes which were placed on boards at the end of the day.The local authority has concluded that most people were in favour of the dispersal option. They have not however demonstrated how they arrived at this conclusion or submitted any figures. We consider the following notes may throw some light on the manner in which the Borough Council’s conclusions were arrived at. Notes on Statement of Consultation (Note 1) with further information from the Local Development Framework Consultation report (Note 2)Study was of questionnaire sent out to community pulse in April 2007 (page 85) plus individuals and stakeholders.The bar chart in the Core Strategy Statement of Consultation page 86 shows the responses from 500 community pulse participants and 51 individuals/stakeholders (Total sample 551).
Responses from 500 community pulse respondents only Note 2
as reported in Local Development Framework consultation questionnaire results.
AnalysisThe total number of ‘yes’ answers (505 with stakeholders/individual responses and 486 community pulse only) is only slightly less than the sample of 500. The number of ‘no’ answers (763 in both cases) indicates that just over half of the community pulse respondents ticked more than one ‘no’ box but that stakeholders and individual responses only ticked ‘yes’ boxes.. ‘Total’ differences are probably due to faulty questionnaire design. It is reasonable to assume that most respondents would have ticked only one ‘yes’ box for their preferred option. Some would have gone on to tick ‘no’ for all the other options and others for only their least favourite, others none at all. With these points in mind what credibility can be given to the final paragraphs in the following statement of consultation? It seems quite legitimate to suggest that the people who voted for something definitely wanted it. Voting against something may have been for a variety of reasons. We elect our Councillors based on the number of votes they get, not the number who do not vote for the other candidates. In the tables above more people voted for Option 1 than any other option.
“Greenfield Homes - There is a clear negative response to any suggestion of Greenfield housing development. The least negative response is for the Option 3, whilst the greatest is for the concentration option (Option 1). The variance between yes and no is the smallest in the dispersal option (Option 3) which could indicate the least strong feelings about this option. Greenfield housing attracted the largest number of individual comments, some from developer interests starting the process of promoting or maintaining the momentum at their sites, e.g. Hooks Lane and Hampshire Farm. The comment was made that land north of Leigh Park featured in all the Options, although that area is subject to environmental designations. Concentration was suggested to be more in accordance with government advice. Option 1 would not provide affordable housing across the area where a general need exists. However, it was also recognized that the greatest affordable housing needs are around Havant and that this should be the focus, even more so than Waterlooville, which has substantial outstanding development at the MDA. Option 2 attracted support from respondents by introducing land north of Emsworth where some potential exists. One developer felt that Option 3 was the most sustainable although others consider it to be the least as it wouldn’t make the best use of facilities at the main centres. The Highways Agency has concerns that whilst concentration is more likely to result in fewer trips, proximity to the Strategic Road Network could result in more trips. With dispersal it is important to take account of the cumulative trips from more sites on the Strategic Road Network.” The final statement “For greenfield housing the preference was more towards dispersal” thus in no way derives from the consultation process either in terms of numerical analysis or the above comments paragraph which is totally inconclusive and which indicates that the real reason for choosing option three ‘dispersal’ is not being made transparent. For example the developer attracted to land to the north of Emsworth is hardly impartial. It seems that far clearer and more transparent analysis of environmental considerations, infrastructure implications, and quality of life issues is needed before the core strategy preferred options can be accepted. Notes1. Core Strategy Statement of Consultation referred to in the preferred options document.
In addition as the population forecast for the Havant Borough is 117997 the 551 responses used to justify the preferred option is entirely unrepresentative being less than one half a percent of the population. The Allocations Plan means there will be piecemeal development across the borough and as such the current infrastructure will have to cope with more and become further degraded. Concentrating development in fewer places makes infrastructure improvement in those areas easier to fund and carry out. The Major Development Area planned at Waterlooville may be able to take a larger proportion of new build because it already has much of the infrastructure required. This would be a more efficient approach, particularly as funding has already been used on transport links in that area. We have not seen any proposals to fund such transport links to Emsworth and Westbourne. If the MDA cannot take more homes then the nearest sites to the infrastructure investment areas should be chosen first. The Option 1 was for houses to be built on 40 hectares of land at Havant and Waterlooville. This had the highest number of Yes votes and it seems reasonable to concentrate investment in the one area for housing, employment and infrastructure. The highest levels of unemployment are in the central wards of Leigh Park. Policy CS9 As to housing mix we consider it would be better to have the higher density housing grouped together in areas of existing high density. We also note that in Emsworth there is reduced demand for social housing, as indicated in your analysis of Emsworth sites in the Havant Sustainability Appraisal Development Allocations document. We are, therefore, not convinced that automatically building a high percentage of social housing on all sites is desirable. In Emsworth the social housing is likely to be placed on the proposed sites in your plan such as Hampshire Farms and land off Oak Tree Drive which are long distances from services including shops, medical facilities and transport. This does not seem sensible even if a developer can have his arm twisted into accepting the proposal. A more flexible approach is required. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Regeneration and Town Centres
|
|
The preferred option(s) for Regeneration and Town Centres is explained in more detail on pages 33 to 39 of the Core Strategy (www.havant.gov.uk/havant-9345). |
? 21. Do you support or object to the preferred option(s) for Regeneration and Town Centres?
| Support | X | No Opinion | Object |
? 22. Any other Comments? (Please continue on a separate sheet if necessary)
There are policies for Regeneration and Town Centres on pages 36 and 38 of the Core Strategy which will put this preferred option(s) into practice (www.havant.gov.uk/havant-9345).
? 23. Do you support or object to the policies for Regeneration and Town Centres?
| Policy | Support | No Opinion | Object |
| CS11 - Regeneration | X | ||
| CS13 - Hierarchy of Centres | X |
? 24. Do you have any comments to make about the policies? (Please make it clear which policy you are referring to in your answer and continue on a separate sheet if necessary).
Shopping
|
|
The preferred option(s) for Shopping is explained in more detail on pages 36 to 39 of the Core Strategy (www.havant.gov.uk/havant-9345). |
? 25. Do you support to object to the preferred option(s) for Shopping?
| Support | x | No Opinion | Object |
? 26. Any other Comments? (Please continue on a separate sheet if necessary)
There is a policy for Shopping included on page 37 of the Core Strategy which will put this preferred option(s) into practice (www.havant.gov.uk/havant-9345).
? 27. Do you support or object to the policies for Shopping?
| Policy | Support | No Opinion | Object |
| CS12 - Location of Shopping Development | X |
? 28. Do you have any comments to make about this policy?
Suggest difficult to let shops in Leigh Park be converted into skill centres |
Accessibility
|
|
The preferred option(s) for Accessibility is explained in more detail on pages 39 to 42 of the Core Strategy (www.havant.gov.uk/havant-9345). |
? 29. Do you support or object to the preferred option(s) for Accessibility?
| Support | No Opinion | Object | X |
? 30. Any other Comments? (Please continue on a separate sheet if necessary)
| Additional parking at Railway Stations in the Borough is needed although modest improvements at Emsworth Station are planned. There is no road improvement plan for Emsworth in conjunction with the proposed new development. Already, drivers experience long delays in Sough Leigh Road, and queues at the Level Crossing.If the traffic lights are introduced between the bridges in New Brighton Road we expect that traffic will quickly back up in Horndean Road and New Brighton Road and resolution of the congestion problems must be sensitively handled. These roads entering Emsworth are of special character which must be preserved as such, together with the trees which line them. Possible housing sites considered in the Allocations Plan could seriously impact the key roads in the Emsworth area, not least the single north-south route.There is an urgent need to provide a safe cycle route to schools by linking the existing cycle route to Emsworth Primary and St James’ Primary. An option would be to go through Horndean Road Recreation Ground, Washington Road, the railway bridge and the road bridge. The proposed Interbridges must take the safety needs of cyclists into account, as the site cuts in half the cycle route. Also, we wish to emphasize the importance of the Washington Road link, not only as part of the Safe routes to School but also as the only other route linking the north and south of Emsworth together.These are crucial if we are to encourage parents to allow children to cycle and walk to and between our schools. It will also reduce the number of unnecessary car journeys at the beginning and end of the school day. However, many parents do not see cycling as a safe activity, eg, riding from Emsworth to Warblington School along the A259 - a Toucan crossing near the underpass is needed to allow cyclists to cross the busy road safely.Traffic Speed LimitsWe suggest linking this to efforts to reducing the speed of vehicles in and around schools- “20 is plenty” is a good start in encouraging drivers to drive at no more than 20MPH near schools and in residential streets.2. Cycle links across the BoroughCurrently these are inadequate. We need a cycle link to Leigh Park and Rowlands Castle along the northern stretch of the Horndean Road.3. Cycling for pleasureWe should be considering a cycle path along the coast between Langstone and Emsworth, linking this to parts of Chichester and Langstone harbours to the East and West. The Core Strategy mentions the importance of tourism/visitors to Emsworth and with our miles of wonderful coast we should be able to explore it - by bike. However, we do not wish this to occur at the expense of the rural appearance of these areas or the present use by walkers, with or without dogs. |
There is a policy for Accessibility included on page 41 of the Core Strategy which will put this preferred option(s) into practice (www.havant.gov.uk/havant-9345).
? 31. Do you support or object to the policies for Accessibility?
| Policy | Support | No Opinion | Object |
| CS14 - Transport and Access | X |
? 32. Do you have any comments to make about this policy?
| In general the statements are acceptable. We hope that transport needs of Emsworth will be met but little concrete is promised. Nevertheless we believe the infrastructure must precede developments of all kinds.See comments in Q30 regarding introduction of 20 mph speed limits near Schools and in residential areas. This will encourage cycling to reduce volume of traffic and increase safety to road users. |
Culture and Recreation
|
|
The preferred option(s) for Culture and Recreation is explained in more detail on pages 42 to 45 of the Core Strategy (www.havant.gov.uk/havant-9345). |
? 33. Do you support or object to the preferred option for Culture and Recreation?
| Support | X | No Opinion | Object |
? 34. Any other Comments? (Please continue on a separate sheet if necessary)
| The policy makes it clear that open spaces have been and will be reviewed in the light of quality and usage. Some will be upgraded, others released for other purposes such as development. This emphasises the importance of not creating new open spaces that will be of limited use to the public, costly to maintain or of poor quality. We must be particularly careful in creating new open spaces in areas which are currently greenfields, associated with Urban Extension sites. These will turn greenfields into part housing, part open space, only to discover that the open space is unused and later is built on. Thus we could loose a completely green area to become an unsustainable recreation area. In this respect it is desirable that proposed open space at Hampshire Farm in Emsworth should be carefully considered. We are opposed to the development and feel that the carrot of the open space being provided by the developer is driving the desire to build on the site. The recreation area will be quite large but located at the edge of the Borough accessible on foot by relatively few, many of whom will be residents of West Sussex anyway.There is a need for a new cycle route along the coast from Langstone to Emsworth so tourists can enjoy the wonderful coastline by bike. However, any such plan must avoid the use of paved cycle tracks conflicting with the rural area and the use by walkers with and without dogs. |
There is a policy for Culture and Recreation on page 45 of the Core Strategy which will put this into practice (www.havant.gov.uk/havant-9345).
? 35. Do you support or object to the policies for Culture and Recreation?
| Policy | Support | No Opinion | Object |
| CS15 - Culture and Recreation | X |
? 36. Do you have any comments to make about this policy?
| We support the CS15 policy in general. We would like to emphasise opening paragraph of the policy where it states that they should meet the identified needs of local communities. |
Section D: Planning Application Considerations
The Core Strategy policies will form the basis for determining planning applications. To complement these policies, there are two more detailed policies on pages 46 to 47 of the Core Strategy document (www.havant.gov.uk/havant-9345).
? 37. Do you support or object to the policies for planning applications?
| Policy | Support | No Opinion | Object |
| CS16 - Development Management | X | ||
| CS17 - Development Contributions | X |
? 38. Do you have any comments to make in respect of the policies? (Please make it clear which policy you are referring to in your answer and continue on a separate sheet if necessary).
| Under policy CS16 item 11, we would suggest that the use of residential gardens for changing the character of an area from primarily houses with gardens to multiply occupancy dwellings should be specifically excluded. At present one such development in an area of houses with gardens is the trigger for all the adjacent houses and gardens to be converted, creating a complete change of character. Suitable wording should seek to eliminate this effect.Under policy CS17, it should be clear that the contributions to the Borough by developers should be accrued for the Ward in which the development is occurring. It should also be clear that the primary purpose in assessing any application for planning permission is policy CS16 not CS17. |
Section E: Sustainability Appraisal
The Sustainability Appraisal is a detailed document which examines the performance of the Core Strategy against sustainability objectives. This can be found on the website at www.havant.gov.uk/havant-9346
? 39. Do you have any comments on the sustainability effects of the Core Strategy Preferred Options document which have been identified in the Sustainability Appraisal? (Please continue on a separate sheet if necessary).
| The Sustainability Appraisal provides a mainly positive outcome for areas proposed as suitable for housing development. Examining its assessments for the suggested sites around Emsworth it fails to deal with issues local people already experience.There are concerns about landscape and biodiversity at Hampshire Farm (UE10) The area is subject to flooding every year. The land provides habitats to a wide variety of wildlife. There is a colony of bats that use the area. Roe deer, tawny owls, buzzards, green and spotted woodpeckers, jays and pheasants are all regular visitors to the site.The limited health provision would need to be improved significantly to cope with a further 280 households. These and other services will depend to a significant extent on Chichester District and West Sussex County Councils. Any regeneration spin offs from this development would benefit those authorities, not Havant Borough.The bus service is infrequent and finishes at 18.30hrs. We are not sure if there is a bus service on Sundays.The nearest CofE primary school in Emsworth lacks surplus capacity. There are no facilities for teenagers. There are only 5 places in Westbourne primary school and priority is given to children in the West Sussex area and their siblings, then out of County.The Study is more realistic about land West of Emsworth (UE11) and acknowledges that this site is not a highly sustainable location. It is also in an ENCZ, AONB within 1Km of international designation. Part of this site may also be designated as a SINC. It is Landscape Character Area 26 classed as high sensitivity. It also requires significant improvements to the local sewer network.West of Horndean Road Emsworth (UE13) has similar concerns as UE10 above. It is not a highly sustainable location, the nearest convenience store over 650m from the site and approx 1.3Km to Emsworth centre and 2.7Km to Havant centre.There are no bus routes along Horndean Road except a limited bus service which finishes at 18.30hrs Bus stops are in Southleigh Road and New Brighton Road over 500 metres from the site.The site has a water course requiring a 20m buffer. Water main reinforcements are required and significant improvements to the local sewer network will be needed too.The site has been identified as a site for Brent Geese. The study says there is no recorded use by these geese, although local people have seen them.The Landscape Character Assessment Sensitivity Report 2007 with reference to LCA22, Southleigh agricultural plain, states as follows: Avoid building adjacent to the periphery which would have a degrading impact on the adjacent open land. We agree with this comment and are surprised that the houses on this site are even being proposed at the edge of this open land which will substantially obscure the view across the plain looking both south and west from Emsworth.Land East of Horndean Road Emsworth (UE32) raises the same issues over schools and bus access as site UE13. It is immediately adjacent to a SINC and is in landscape Character area 21. In your 2007 Sensitivity Report you state: 20.24% of the LCA is covered by SINC designation (the average for Hampshire is 8.7%), therefore any urban expansion could impact on locally important sites. We agree with this statement. This is not a place to put yet more houses.General Comment
In all the above cases the Study points out “that if a number of sites in the Emsworth area were “preferred” then potential cumulative impact to current school capacity”. Council Policy CS3 (Effective Use of Land and Infrastructure) states that development will only be permitted where it meets ALL of the policies. None of the above sites meets them all. This being the case we cannot understand why these sites have been included in the LDF.
|
Section F: Contact Details
Thank you for your comments. Please can you provide us with your contact details so we can tell you about future stages of the Local Development Framework and so we can process your comments.
| Title (Mr/Mrs/Miss etc) | Mr |
| Full name | Christopher John Curry |
| Organisation or Group you are representing(if applicable) | Chairman of Emsworth Residents’ Association |
| House name/number | White House, 33 |
| Street Name | Horndean Road |
| Town/City | Emsworth |
| Post code | PO10 7PU |
| ccurryems@aol.com | |
| Telephone number | 01243 372312 |
A Public Examination into the Core Strategy will take place before an independent Inspector who will decide whether the Core Strategy principles and policies are sound.
? 40. Would you like to be notified about further stages of the Local Development Framework process?
| Yes | X | No |
Section G: Equalities Monitoring
To help us monitor who our consultation is reaching, please could you provide some details about yourself.
? 41. Please can you tell us what you consider your ethnic origin to be (please tick one of the following)
| White-British | X | Black or Black British-African | |||
| White-Irish | Black or Black British-Caribbean | ||||
| Other White (please give details) | Other Black (please give details) | ||||
| Mixed-White and Black Caribbean | Chinese | ||||
| Mixed-White and Black African | Other Ethnic group (please state) | ||||
| Mixed-White and Asian | |||||
| Other Mixed (please give details) | |||||
| Asian or Asian British-Indian | |||||
| Asian or Asian British-Pakistani | |||||
| Asian or Asian British- Bangladeshi | |||||
| Other Asian (please give details) | |||||
? 42. Please can you tell us which age band you fall into?
| Under 25 | 25-34 | 35-44 | 45 - 54 | 55-65 | Over 65 | X |
? 43. Do you consider yourself to have a disability?
| Yes | No | X |
? 44. Please could you tell us your gender?
| Male | X | Female |
Data Protection Statement
Havant Borough Council has a duty to protect personal information and will process personal data in accordance with the Data Protection Act 1998 and any amendments to the Act. The personal data you provide on this form will be used exclusively for planning purposes, including contributing to the preparation of Havant Borough Council’s Local Development Framework. The data will be stored on computer and/or manual files
