/ehdc/planning.nsf/webpages/Planning+development
/ehdc/planning.nsf/webpages/Planning+development Netscape /ehdc/planning.nsf/
Image for EHDC
   
Services:  | A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z|

Planning » Application Comments

Help with this page (opens in a new window)

53305/003 | OUTLINE - RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OF UP TO 69 DWELLINGS | Land to the West of Lymington Farm Industrial Estate, Lymington Bottom Road, Four Marks, Alton

The public consultation period for this application has ended. We are no longer accepting comments from the public on this application.

Search Filters

Collapse All|Expand All|Showing 1-10 of 72|1|2|3|4|5|6|7|8|

(Objects)

Comment submitted Tue 15 Oct 2013

I am aware that under The National Planning Policy Framework that there is"--a presumption in favour of Sustainable development--unless its against the Local Communities Collective Interest". The proposed areas of development lie within the Medstead Village area NOT Four Marks or any other area. Medstead is defined as a Category 4 Village under the E.H.D.C. Joint Core Strategy(One of 18 that fall within the remit of the E.H.D.C until 2028) Therefore it should remain a Village & not suffer Urban Overdevelopment. I was on the Village Planning Committee in 2007 and well over 95% of the Community supported this conclusion. I also support the other Objectors in that the Village Infrastucture ie Roads/Traffic/Schools & Medical Surgeries et all(We recently took over Ropleys' patients) could not possibly support this proposed Urban overdevelopment. It is in breach of the three Guiding principles namely Economic Social & Environmental issues. I ask that these applications be refused. J.Michael Paton --Medstead

(Objects)

Comment submitted Wed 02 Oct 2013

For the attention of Nigel Jarvis Dear Sirs Objection to Planning Application 53305/003 Land to the West of Lymington Farm Industrial Estate, Lymington Bottom Road, Four Marks, Alton Proposal: Outline ? Residential Development of up to 69 Dwellings I have examined the documents available on your website and wish to bring to your attention my strong objection to the use of this land for housing. My objections in short are these: 1. Incorrect Address. The site is in Medstead not in Four Marks. It might be South Medstead but that's still Medstead. Giving the wrong address is misleading to all interested parties. 2. Greenfield Site. The site is open countryside and indeed at present has another site between it and Lymington Farm Industrial Estate. Is LFIE actually properly described as being an industrial estate for nowadays it seems to be more of a retail / business park / doctors surgery area. 3. Housing Density. The proposal shows what can best be described as a high density urban estate totally out of keeping with other housing in that area of Medstead. 4. Road Access. A tortuous route is shown between Lymington Bottom Road and the Site. No clearly defined road seems to exist and there is a very big chicane south of the flats that are totally inappropriately named 'Primrose Hill. The occupiers of the flats on Primrose Hill will have the quiet enjoyment of their dwellings and their personal safety compromised by the proposed access / egress road that would pass right in front of and alongside their properties. 69 dwellings for the proposed site and 38 dwellings for the adjacent consented scheme (outline approval) will have only access and egress past the Flats. 5. Road Access. As currently shown there is only one point of access to the proposed estate. 6. Adoptable Estate Roads. . The access route south of Primrose Hill is unlikely to been constructed to adoptable standards and it is most unlikely that the roads on the proposed estate would be adopted thus leading to potential problems for the longer term future. 7. Settlement Policy Boundary. The site is way outside the SPB as was the 'consented site' to its immediate east. I had understood that the 'consented site' gained its outline approval only because it was a rural exception site. Please let me know whether that was or wasn't the case. 8. Premature Development. With the recent construction of the Baseline Site in nearby Four Marks providing 174 dwellings, the recent planning approval having been given for the construction of 110 dwellings on the nearby Reserve Site, and the exceptional number of 'windfall' houses in the general area I cannot believe that there is a requirement for 69 more dwellings. Remember that the 'consented scheme', should that proceed, is likely to provide a further 38 dwellings in that vicinity. Please dismiss this application for Outline Approval. Yours sincerely Malcolm Seal Eversfield, 61 Telegraph Lane, Four Marks, Alton, Hampshire GU34 5AX T: 01420 563834 M: 07836 269632 E: malcolm.seal@tiscali.co.uk

(Objects)

Comment submitted Tue 01 Oct 2013

I object to this planning application. As a resident in the local area, I feel it is completely inappropriate to allow this development. It is a rural village, there isn't a place for a mass development of housing. It will change the village; It will be out of place and cause problems for people already living here. The number of people who strongly object to this is high. I strongly believe this should not be approved.

(Objects)

Comment submitted Tue 01 Oct 2013

I wish to object to this application on the following grounds: 1) The proposed development is not within any Settlement Policy Boundary and is therefore a greenfield site. 2) The proposed development carries significant risks associated with the additional volumes of traffic that will be generated. There is already an issue with suatained speeding in excess of the 30 mph limit which is not enforced. Whilst the development itself will not exacerbate the speeding issue the additional volume of traffic and access requirements will increase the potential risks associated with the persistent excess speeding. I have been in discussion with Hampshire Constabulary concerning the possbility of setting up a speedwatch scheme to help address the issue, however I have serious concerns at the potential for increased safety risk particularly under the single carriageway bridge and the already congested access to the A31. Increased traffic volumes will also impact negatively on Medstead village which is already an access route through to Basingstoke. 3) The proposed development is in an area already prone to flooding from excess surface water and inadequate drainage. There is no plan to address this. 4) The application contains a proposal for a new mains drainage link with the smaller development for which permission has been obtained. Thames Water has expressed concerns with the adequacy of the existing mains sewerage system. The application proposes no solution to this and alternatives based on treatment and discharge on site must be regarded as potentially flawed in view of the existing system failure which causes foul smelling air polution. 5) The application contains no proposals to improve/expand local infrastructure in order to create a sustainable development and cope with the proposed increase in the size of the community. The immediate area offers no substantive employment and public transportation links are inadequate without access to private cars. no regard has been paid to the increased pollution from an increased car population.

(Objects)

Comment submitted Tue 01 Oct 2013

I object strongly to a housing development on this green field site in Medstead. I agree with the reasons already stated in the other objections particularly the increase in traffic and the insufficient infrastructure of our village. I do not want this to set a precedent and it surely would.

(Objects)

Comment submitted Mon 30 Sep 2013

I wish to register my objects to the proposed development of 69 houses ( application 53305/003). This development will present danger on the already narrow road with additional traffic pollution,narrow railway bridge single lane traffic which at busy times will back up to the A31. Both Four Marks and Medstead schools are full. The infrastructure is not in place for such a development. This a green field site. This not in anyone's settlement policy-boundary. Medstead remains unconnected to mains drainage. This is agricultural land not a brown fill site .

(Objects)

Comment submitted Fri 27 Sep 2013

Like the majority of other people who've commented, we also object to this proposed development. We live on Lymington Bottom Road and cannot see how this can have any other effect on existing residents other than a negative one. Firstly, this over development is unnecessary, given all the other recent developments and those imminently starting in this locality. The traffic volume at the A31 end of the road will be horrendous, as a constant stream of traffic will be exiting this development. It is true that both local primary schools are full to capacity now, so where do the extra spaces come from to accommodate the needs of new home owners on this scale. All the other points have been made well by others, the inadequate drains/sewers will be 'bought round' as an obstacle, by the proposed developer buying mains sewer connections. However, where does the developing stop? If this greenfield site is approved, there's plenty more 'sites' sat around it, which once this precedent is set, more greenfields will disappear under concrete and housing until it's one big town.

(Objects)

Comment submitted Thu 26 Sep 2013

I strongly object to this development for the following reasons: 1) The extra traffic generated would cause congestion at the junction of A31/Lymington Bottom Rd. 2)There is currently no footpath serving Lymington Bottom Rd. It is already hazardous to pedestrians, especially residents with young children, when walking to the local surgery/shops, and an increase in traffic flow would only add to this situation. 3) The sewage system serving the Lymington Farm Industrial Estate is already inadequate, with a very frequent overpowering stench polluting the air. 4) There is inadequate infrastructure in the village of Medstead to cope with the extra housing already agreed upon, another 69 dwellings, along with the extra traffic flow would alter the whole structure of the village.

(Objects)

Comment submitted Thu 26 Sep 2013

This site would add even more congestion to the traffic under the railway bridge and add to the risk to pedestrians who have no choice but to cross to the other side of the road to proceed to the A31. The infrastructure for Four Marks/South Medstead is already under extreme pressure because of additional housing eg lack of main sewerage, water run off, schooling, doctors and water pressure. Even more houses/occupants would add even more pressure and inconvenience to current residents of this area. Lymington Bottom Road is already too congested to handle more traffic especially at peak times. One of these days it will be proven with a fatality. Planners should observe the traffic situation in the mornings at the bridge and also north of the Soldridge Road crossroads. Regarding the sewerage issue, it is obvious to any person walking near the Medical Surgery and Lymington Barns area that the smell from the waste system is constant. In other words, it is already inadequate for the existing properties. This outline application needs to be rejected at the outset.

(Objects)

Comment submitted Thu 19 Sep 2013

Showing 1-10 of 72|1|2|3|4|5|6|7|8|

an idox solution (opens in a new window)