Docstoc

CORE STRATEGY ISSUES AND OPTIONS CONSULTATION

Document Sample
CORE STRATEGY ISSUES AND OPTIONS CONSULTATION Powered By Docstoc
					                              CORE STRATEGY ISSUES AND OPTIONS CONSULTATION

                              Additional comments made not included in SNAP analysis


        Respondent                                                     Summary of Issues
Bovis Homes (001)                Welcome acknowledgement made in ‘Housing’ section that SE plan housing figures have not
                                 been finalised and may be increased. In this case reserve and/or additional sites should be
                                 identified.
                                 Reserve or additional sites should be identified if the South East Plan if housing figures increase.
                                 AONB boundaries drawn unduly close to boundary of Liss. Should be reviewed.
South Downs Joint Committee      2.7: Support this in principle but all new developments need to be defined (may be
(004)                            inappropriate/challenging to apply this to some very small buildings).
                                 2.8: Agree but by how much and how ill this be done?
                                 2.9: Yes but not in a protected landscape. Location and size must be appropriate, in particular
                                 wind farms and some isolated turbines are unlikely to be appropriate within AONB/proposed
                                 South Downs National Park.
                                 2.11: Subject to 2nd bullet point – replace ‘protect’ with ‘conserve’; and 7th bullet point – replace
                                 ‘minimise’ with seek to reduce’.
                                 Housing 3.1 Option A4 – on what judgement is statement that compulsory purchase is an
                                 ‘expensive and lengthy process’ based on? Option A5 – if overcrowding and impact on character
                                 are concerns, why can terraced housing not be considered – this can be attractive and
                                 compatible.
                                 3.3: Option B1 – yes as long as % is not at a level that compromises the viability of developing
                                 appropriate sites. B2 – yes as long as does not compromise viability of developing appropriate
                                 sites.
                                 3.4: B3 would be better if it incorporated a contribution (perhaps financial) on sites of less than 5
                                 homes.
                                 3.5: Support principle but concerned that practicalities of administrating policy may be too
                                 complex which may compromise development of appropriate sites.
                                 3.6: Whichever option is taken forward, a rural exceptions sites policy (as per Option C1) must
                                 be retained to allow for windfall sites.
                                 Economy 4.3: Support conclusions of retail study.
                                 4.4 Agree ‘sustainable’ tourism should be supported.
                                 Transport 5.1: Do comments about uneconomic rural bus services and other access issues take
                                 account of future rises in fuel prices?
                           CORE STRATEGY ISSUES AND OPTIONS CONSULTATION

                           Additional comments made not included in SNAP analysis

Theatres Trust (007)          Expect to see policies dealing with cultural facilities, both the protection and promotion of existing
                              facilities as well as provision of new.
                              Economy: Maintaining and improving local centres: Alton and Petersfield should provide range of
                              functions (recreation, leisure & culture). Balance can play active role in creating vibrant town
                              centres and stimulating night economy.
                              Healthy Living: Access to community facilities: Need to promote and protect existing facilities. If
                              do not have this then could be difficult to retain essential community assets as land values rise
                              and there is pressure from other uses. Policy should state that loss will be resisted unless facility
                              is no longer needed, can be served I alternative location or where it is equally accessible.
                              Define community facilities in glossary – facilities that provide for the health, welfare, social and
                              educational needs of the community.
                              Healthy Living: Open space, sport and recreation: For clarity should be named Leisure and
                              Recreation, this would include cultural facilities. Interpretation of wording needs to be robust as
                              to what is included. Need to ensure continued theatre use in district, especially need to protect
                              buildings for performance arts which may not be listed or have conservation status. Atr, sport
                              and play can be vehicles for health promotion; libraries, museums, arts and sports can contribute
                              to education, parks, sports, arts and tourism can play role in urban regeneration. All help with
                              developing local centres and healthy communities. Participation enhances health and speeds
                              recovery.
                              Whitehill/Bordon: Health, recreation and community facilities: New developments should include
                              plans for local cultural venues. Combine space/resources for range of cultural, commercial &
                              community activities.
                              Planning Obligations: Developers’ contributions to be a core strategy policy, expanded in SPD.
Environment Agency (008)      Water Quality: Limited consideration of impacts on water quality of options. Water Framework
                              Directive requires prevention of water quality, where a water body fails the objectives of the
                              Directive there will be a requirement to improve water quality.
                              Need to consider sewerage infrastructure for each development, whether there is capacity to
                              accept wastewater within limitations.
                              Flood Risk: Support EHDC’s SFRA work, include reference to PUSH SFRA work. Wish to see
                              climate change and flood risk section strengthened (PPS25 and Policy NRM3 in the SEP). This
                              work should inform location of development
                              Chapter 2 – Environment:
                              ‘Planning Guidance’ section should include advice that we should ‘adapt and mitigate the effects
CORE STRATEGY ISSUES AND OPTIONS CONSULTATION

Additional comments made not included in SNAP analysis

   of climate change…’
   ‘Protecting Important Countryside Resources’ Suggest addition of advice that flood risk in district
   is devoted its own section, not incorporate in climate change chapter. Should include general
   steer for district, advice from PPS25 and Policy NRM3 of the SE Plan. Main risks in district are
   localised instances of river, groundwater and surface water/sewer flooding. Any new
   development should include sustainable drainage techniques to ensure no detriment or increase
   in flooding in downstream catchment SFRA will form key basis for this wording.
   ‘Suggested Core Strategy Objectives’ should include own objective for flood risk management.,
   avoiding flood risk areas, ensuring no inappropriate development in areas of risk from flooding.
   Also include objective of avoiding and adapting to effects of climate change.
   2.1: List should also make reference to local BAP species/habitats to be defined in local BAP.
   2.2:Creation of inter-connected areas for wildlife is very important.
   Should include list of legislation influencing document (eg PPS9 etc)
   Local policies should strengthen protection and enhancement of local conservation interests (eg
   SINC and BAP species) and restoration and enhancement of degraded habitats and creation of
   additional sites.
   Suggest extend section on biodiversity to include information on how locally important areas for
   wildlife are to be protected/enhanced and how linkages of sites can be achieved through
   planning system.
   2.4:’make most effective use of resources ….’ Should be a number 1 essential.
   2.5; This is very important. Climate change will have negative impact on water quality, leading to
   pressure on new development to limit pollution and impact.
   2.6: Yes Council should expect developers to achieve higher levels of building performance.
   PUSH sustainability policy framework should be reflected in document.
   2.10: Consideration should be given to wastewater and surface water disposal options of each
   development area (sewage treatment works, storm water overflows, surface water run off). This
   should also be included in development options in ‘Housing’ and @where should new
   development go?’
   Chapter 7: Where should new development go?
   Important to use SPRA to inform site allocation process. Important that areas with localised
   flooding issues are avoided in terms of future development; growth to be steered to sustainable
   and safe locations. SFRA should be used to select locations in sequential manner as set out in
   PPS25.
   Smaller Villages: May be localised groundwater flooding issues in these areas.
                             CORE STRATEGY ISSUES AND OPTIONS CONSULTATION

                             Additional comments made not included in SNAP analysis

                                 Horndean/Rowlands Castle: May be localised groundwater flooding issues in these areas.
                                 Horndean also lies in Groundwater Source Protection Zones 1 and 4 for Bedhampton and
                                 Havant public water supply springs. Pollution reaching SPZ1 can be at public water supply in 50
                                 days; SPZ4 is designated where there are swallow holes or fast flow paths that can also cause
                                 pollution to reach public water supplies. Activities that have a high pollution potential should not
                                 be located in this area. Env Agency ‘Groundwater Protection: Policy and Practice (GP3)’ gives
                                 guidelines on suitable types of development.
                                 5.2: EH area is dominated by Chalk aquifer and groundwater quality is generally very good.
                                 There is widespread nitrate pollution and some localised issues with pesticides and solvents in
                                 particular.

Hampshire County Council (009)   1.1: Vision: Do not agree with vision for Core Strategy. Would like to see issue of enhancing and
                                 improving public service delivery positively expressed as set out in suggested policy wording and
                                 reasoned justification. Include Public Service Core Policy (CPSP) to ensure this encourages
                                 public services to adapt to ensure improved delivery for existing and future local community
                                 needs.
                                 HCC asset reviews can lead to identification of surplus sites for redevelopment by reinvestment
                                 into localised improvements and or wider services. If EHDC is actively engaged in this process
                                 then it will be in a good position to effectively use surplus for alternative forms of development
                                 and to raise funds for future public service provision in district as well as County.
                                 CPSP would acknowledge programmes and strategies implemented by public service providers
                                 (eg HCC). This would assist district by ensuring necessary infrastructure to accommodate
                                 growth. HCC will identify any potential sites and advise EHDC.
                                 2. Environment:
                                 Countryside assets and resources: Satisfactory but include that EH is composed of wide variety
                                 of landscapes which is an asset. Also include areas of BAP priority habitats that may exist
                                 outside designated sites and interconnecting habitat essential for wildlife particularly in light of
                                 climate change.
                                 2.2: Creation of large interconnected areas for wildlife - very important
                                 2.3:Strategic and local gap – gaps must perform purpose of preventing settlement coalescence,
                                 strategic gaps have potential to increase biodiversity, landscape quality and other environmental
                                 and health benefits (SE Plan Policies C1-C4).
                                 2.4: Design issues need to be carefully worded and balanced to achieve high quality
CORE STRATEGY ISSUES AND OPTIONS CONSULTATION

Additional comments made not included in SNAP analysis

   environments (PPS1).Recommend local design panel to advise on good design as
   recommended by CABE. Use also to be made of Design Guides, Village Designs Statements
   and site design briefs where appropriate.
   PPS3 , para 51: ‘Local planning authorities should, with stakeholders and communities, develop
   residential parking policies for their areas, taking account of expected levels of car ownership,
   importance of promoting good design and the need to use land efficiently. ’HCC has withdrawn
   guidance on parking standards (at 11.3.08). PPS3 now replaces PPG3. Little evidence that
   restricting car parking at home end of journey has any real effect on car trips on the network.
   Restricting parking at destination can have more effect on car trips.
   2.5: Climate change: HCC expect reference to be made to importance of spatial development
   strategies on reducing impact of transport on climate change (ie permitting development that
   reduces the need to travel and/or is located in areas of good accessibility thus promoting
   alternatives to the car.
   2.6: Building performance: Yes EHDC should require developers to achieve higher levels of
   building performance. Support current Building Regs, such an approach should be aligned with
   PUSH Sustainability Policy. What is meant in document by ‘higher standards’. Reference should
   be made to PUSH Sustainability Framework, Code for Sustainable Homes, BREAM.
   Unsure how higher levels of building performance could be determined and sought on some
   development sites. Need to be mindful of financial implications and effect may have on viability
   and deliverability of development, particularly for brownfield land.
   2.7 HCC support principle of incorporating renewable/sustainable energy sources into new
   developments in accordance with guidance. Question feasibility of requiring every development
   to incorporate renewable/sustainable energy sources. Financial implications and effect on
   viability/deliverability especially, for example, in conservation areas. Potential to secure this will
   depend on site and proposal. More flexible approach may help facilitate incorporation of such
   measures.
   2.8 10% requirement: Not always enough to aim for the minimum but to set higher aspirations.
   Recognise benefits of encouraging higher %. Need to temper 10% requirement for all
   developments with nationally/internationally recognised targets, nature of the site and proposed
   development. Smaller developments likely to have less potential for range of
   renewable/sustainable sources, energy contributions to facilitate, where locally applicable,
   should be considered.
   2.9: Emerging PUSH Energy Study would help here. May give indication of most appropriate
   types and scales of renewable energy provision and energy reduction measures.
CORE STRATEGY ISSUES AND OPTIONS CONSULTATION

Additional comments made not included in SNAP analysis

   2.10: Additional issues to cover: Large scale wind farm unlikely to be acceptable in EH
   considering high quality of landscape. Would be pertinent to undertake a landscape tolerance to
   change study from wind energy facilities of various scales and impacts. Overall landscape
   sensitivity using Landscape Character assessment framework should also be done. Extend such
   studies to other renewable energy areas (biofuels, biomass). Importance of transport in tackling
   environmental issues should be referenced here to make clear linkages between transport and
   environment.
   2.11: Objectives weak in the following:
   - public enjoyment and countryside access resource;
   - links between environment and quality of life. Document should ensure perpetuation of most
   tranquil areas and arrest erosion in more vulnerable areas.
   - recognise links between development location and transport – significant environmental issue
   - all sites to be afforded appropriate level of consideration and protection.
   3. Housing:
   3.1 Delivering new homes: HCC particularly support A1 (allocate more land is needed) and A3
   (policy to replace allocated sites that have not been built). A1 – need to address SE Plan Panel
   report. Whitehill/Bordon is chance to develop necessary housing with much needed
   infrastructure. A3 – need to review allocations that fail to deliver and replace with other sites. A5
   – Can reduce need to travel and alleviate issues related to social exclusion by removing
   transport as barrier to participating in society.
   3.3: Would welcome flexibility of B2. Would also support an off site contribution provided that the
   level of the contribution is viable or has been negotiated in a transparent way.
   3.4: Key to setting thresholds etc is financial viability of the levels set. If these are too onerous
   will constrain developments. Recommended an open book approach to ensure optimal level of
   affordable housing is achieved on case by case basis, and residential development is not
   stopped from coming forward purely on grounds of no-viability through LDF process.
   3.5: Option B4: Support this, ensure well targeted at local communities in most need, ensures
   where levels of affordable housing are high, policies provide provision of market housing to
   create more mixed/balanced communities. Respects local character.
   3.6: Option C1 – 4 (not good); C2 – 3 (neutral); C3 – 1 (very good); C4 – 1 (very good).
   Support C3 – by allocating mix of housing on sites it would provide incentive to bring forward
   sites which would ordinarily be regarded as exceptions sites. Support C4 - Benefits can be
   achieved such as enabling viability and retention of schools, shops etc. Allowing for partial/whole
   residential development of surplus sites or amalgamation/expansion of existing school sites,
CORE STRATEGY ISSUES AND OPTIONS CONSULTATION

Additional comments made not included in SNAP analysis

   outside settlement boundaries, can help retain provision of rural community schools.
   3.7: ‘Extra care affordable housing’: Draw attention to HCC commitment to work closely with
   local authorities in Hampshire, as well as RSLs, to develop such schemes with appropriate
   affordable tenure mix. Would act as enabling partner. Wish to seek planning contributions, in
   conjunction with local authority, to enable delivery. Minimal critical mass for viability is 50 extra
   care units. On site and developer’s contributions should be sought as appropriate to site.
   Further information in ‘Providing a context and setting priorities in accommodation and care for
   older people in Hampshire (Nov 2007)
   Key worker affordable housing: Aware of problem and is looking to contribute ideas and actions.
   Aim to provide 500 affordable and key worker dwellings on Council land 2009/10. Looking to
   develop strategy of provision. Sees wider definition as ‘ key workers are defined as those
   employees who provide the essential services necessary for continued economic growth and to
   sustain the quality of life in Hampshire and who are unable to secure suitable accommodation in
   the local private housing market without assistance.’ Would welcome further discussion with
   local authority on delivery.
   3.8: Support D1 – continuing policy of adopted plan for mix of housing. Should reflect housing
   need of district through up to date study. This approach would be most logical and allow
   flexibility. Need clear, robust, transparent framework to monitor requirements on annual basis.
   Without this system would not be workable.
   3.9: None of options supported as support Option D1 (see above).
   3.11: Option D6 generally thought to be best mechanism for obtaining best split between social
   rented, intermediate and other forms of affordable housing (eg keyworker). Nature of provision
   should reflect needs. Seems most logical approach and allows flexibility. Need clear, robust,
   transparent framework to monitor requirements on annual basis. Without this system would not
   be workable.
   3.12: Support Option E1 as clear consistent way of measuring density. Allows assessment in
   terms of character, right housing mix, impact on infrastructure. Could be supplemented with trial
   of Options E3 and E4 as may help to see if quality of provision and diversity of house type or
   occupation improves as result. Options E4 and E5 are not considered viable.
   4. Economy:
   4.1: Opportunity for employment should be encouraged to enhance ability to be self contained,
   especially when take account of high out-communting.
   4.3: Exisitng shops and services in centres should be maintained.
   4.5: Conversion to employment may lead to more car-based journeys and longer journey
CORE STRATEGY ISSUES AND OPTIONS CONSULTATION

Additional comments made not included in SNAP analysis

   lengths. But would provide local employment opportunities which should be encouraged.
   Conversions along existing public transport routes should be considered more favourably.
   5. Transport:
   No mention of emerging policy stance of DfT ‘Towards a Sustainable Transport System’.
   Objectives include maximising competitiveness and productivity of national economy; reduce
   transport CO2 emissions and other greenhouse gases; contribute to better health and longer life
   expectancy; improve quality of life for transport and non-transport users; promote greater
   equality of transport opportunity for all.
   5.1: Those with access to car are likely not to experience any difficulties with accessing services,
   those who now rely on public transport will continue to do so. Challenge is to encourage car
   users to switch to public transport. Need cross referencing to be clear how successful an option
   supporting public transport will be.
   5.2: Different responses as with 5.1.
   5.3: Would like to see further option relating to location of new developments relative to services
   and public transport routes, restrictions on parking at destinations, bus transport enhancements.
   5.4: Would like to have seen Travel Plans included. Particularly important for large employers ,
   but would be welcomed as matter of course for new business developments. Availability of travel
   packs to new home owners as part of plan for a new housing development would be expected.
   5.5: Would like to see spatial development policies making a contribution to climate change and
   safety.
   5.6: Support 4 objectives highlighted. Also suggest inclusion of role that transport can play in
   enhancing productivity of district and South East more generally, and role that transport must
   play in tackling climate change.
   6. Healthy Living:
   Access to local health services, areas of green space and natural areas, local schools and
   protection of countryside all seen as essential. Welcome attention given to access to facilities
   and services. Facilities close to where people live allows for sustainable trips and enhanced
   healthy living. Reduction in service will lead to increased car based trips. HCC would welcome
   seeing results of questions 6.3-6.7 and 7.1-7.3.
   6.8: Would also kike to see reference to encouraging access by sustainable modes.
   7. Spatial Strategy:
   7.1: Availability of public transport is detailed as a strength and welcomed. Nothing on capacity
   of settlement to absorb more development in existing ‘footprint’, nor any comment on quality and
   intactness of historic environment, or sensitivity of land on settlement edge to accommodate
CORE STRATEGY ISSUES AND OPTIONS CONSULTATION

Additional comments made not included in SNAP analysis

   expansion.
   7.4: A good range of shops, employment, schools and other facilities and services already exists
   is considered to be essential.. HCC would be keen to learn from feedback on issues and options.
   Also implies that opportunities for sustainable travel will exist.
   7.5: Other factors that should be considered include surplus land as an important consideration.
   It is in public interest that services are rationalised for modern day community needs. As
   consequence some public land may be surplus and HCC is then charged with maximising capital
   receipt for reinvestment in public service delivery. HCC will ensure that EHDC has sufficient
   information to consider any such surpluses.
   Transformation Agenda – Strategic view of County Council’s land and property is being
   developed as role of HCC is evolving to support transformational agenda to move towards
   business efficiencies and improve sustainability. Review will include office accommodation and it
   is anticipated that there will be a significant amount that will be surplus. May be considered for
   other town centre uses if appropriate. Wish to move towards flexible practices reducing total
   level of office floorspace required. Propose a number of HCC hubs around the County. There
   will be implication for districts and HCC will seek early dialogue on this.
   Landscape Sensitivity – Essential part of assessment process for scoping new sites and impact
   on landscape and townscape. Will ensure landscape issues and effects are taken into account.
   7.6: See comments on 7.5 above.
   7.8: Prefer CH2 as would provide opportunities to reduce need to travel and availability of
   services and goods locally. Have good access to public transport. Small scale development in
   lower order settlements may enhance viability of local services without undue impact on
   settlements. Also allows flexibility; settlement edge sensitivity to development would be
   important evidence base to compile.
   7.9: Other options see comments in 7.5 above.
   7.10: Prefer SH2 as are most sustainable and appropriate locations for anticipated levels of
   growth.
   7.11: Yes there are other options see comments in 7.5 above.
   8. Whitehill/Bordon Opportunity:
   No other issues are of concern. Significant deposits of sand underlying Bordon area. National
   guidance and policies n adopted Minerals and waste Core Strategy set out requirement for
   extraction prior to any development beginning (to avoid sterilisation of mineral deposit) providing
   it does not prejudice delivery of development. Minerals Plan Preferred Options (Reg 6) identifies
   area as a Proposed Alternative Preferred.
                             CORE STRATEGY ISSUES AND OPTIONS CONSULTATION

                             Additional comments made not included in SNAP analysis

                                Key issues listed under ‘Infrastructure’ and ‘Environment’ should include Green Infrastructure to
                                link through urban areas to surrounding areas; green grid needs to be defined.
                                HCC would be keen to learn from feedback especially questions 8.1-8.3
                                8.2: 3 issues of importance:
                                i) development supports opportunities to travel by sustaianable modes
                                ii) Protection of natural environment
                                iii) Green infrastructure.
                                8.3: Suggest add ‘To create attractive built environment and appropriate mix of well connected,
                                designed and distribution of open spaces’; with reference to ‘Encourage innovative
                                environmentally friendly design and building methods’ – make it pre-requisite for planning
                                permission to set minimum standards for new development; ‘Avoid effects on integrity of all
                                habitats and natural environment areas nearby (not just European designated sites).
                                8.4: Agree Option 1 is not viable.
                                8.5: No consideration also needs to be given to use of Greenfield land; assessment is needed of
                                ability of habitats to absorb pressure of recreation. Would require mitigation/compensation for
                                environmental impacts.
                                8.6: Agree these considerations are most appropriate for WB3.
                                8.7: Agree WB4 would bring more services but at expense of environment.
                                8.8: Prefer WB3. Will lead to successful regeneration, has potential to regenerate town to
                                improve community and leisure facilities that town now lacks. Will create comprehensive,
                                sustainable community in line with PPS1. HCC owns land identified as Standfor Grange, this
                                could assist with development.
                                HCC land has enabled other developments at Chineham and North Popley. Land has only been
                                released for development following provision of up-front service infrastructure. Also high quality
                                sustainable development with infrastructure to deliver real benefits. (eh Merton Rise
                                neighbourhood development, north edge of Basingstoke). Keen to continue this in other parts of
                                Hampshire.

Member of the public (012)      Housing Document Option A2 refers to windfall sites. Under impression that EHDC was relying
                                too heavily on windfalls (eg back garden development) and that to do so would damage
                                communities and character of local environments), and stretch resources such as schools,
                                surgeries.
                                Part of Medstead is built up area that lies north of railway, A31 cuts it off from all the amenities of
                       CORE STRATEGY ISSUES AND OPTIONS CONSULTATION

                       Additional comments made not included in SNAP analysis

                          Four Marks, physical and psychological barrier means that even taking children to school, getting
                          pint of milk etc will more often than not be undertaken by car.
                          Concern that to continue development in area just because it lies in the settlement policy
                          boundary, disregarding problems, will cause problems for residents in future. Issue of drainage
                          along Lymington Bottom Road has often been raised. Heavy and prolonged rainfall can lead to
                          road being cut off fro Four marks and Medstead by huge areas of surface water running off from
                          fields and pavements. This can be caused 9as stated in Sir Michael’s Pitt’ preliminary report on
                          flooding of 2007) by huge amounts of surface water that had nowhere to drain from fields, hard
                          standings, roads and paved drives. One of his recommendations to prevent this (IC17) is that
                          local authorities should lead on the management of surface water flooding and drainage at local
                          level.
                          We have no mains drainage and water drains away slowly because of make up of soil. If this part
                          of Lymington Bottom Road is just treated as part of Four Marks then there could be major
                          surface water problems. To say that any householder has a responsibility with regard to the
                          declaration they make on selling a property to notify of any flooding is not good enough, they
                          can say there is no history if they are on a raised area however those below them on the incline
                          of the road will have more problems than they already experience. Do not want to have to wait
                          until take action against EHDC for negligence in considering displacement of surface water
                          before problems are taken seriously.

Southern Water (013)      Feel that infrastructure should be addressed as part of overarching policy, not limited to 1
                          document covering one particular development area.
                          Promote policies covering provision of new infrastructure: New waste water infrastructure may
                          be required to meet increased demand from new/existing development, and to meet stricter
                          Environmental standards set by Env Agency. Core Strategy needs to contain policies which
                          support utility infrastructure.
                          Policies for infrastructure delivery: Need to be supported by development plan policies, planning
                          consents, effluent discharge consents from Env Agency. Can cause delays beyond control of
                          Southern Water. Need policies to ensure development is co-ordinated with utilities infrastructure.
                          Policies for developer contributions: Review of process carried out by Ofwat every 5 years. This
                          price determination funds investment required over these periods for (a) environmental
                          improvements set by Env Agency, (b) maintaining the existing infrastructure, and (c) meeting
                          additional demands from growth and new development.
                              CORE STRATEGY ISSUES AND OPTIONS CONSULTATION

                              Additional comments made not included in SNAP analysis

                                  Funding for investment in strategic infrastructure normally comes from periodic review of process
                                  subject to Ofwat approval. If investment is needed to local sewer networks Ofwat takes view that
                                  water and sewerage companies should seek finance through developer contributions. Formal
                                  requisition procedures set out in Water Industry Act 1991, this provides legal mechanism for
                                  developers to provide necessary infrastructure to service site. Where existing capacity is
                                  insufficient to accommodate flows from new development, developer should requisition
                                  connection under Section 98 of Act to nearest point of capacity. Would welcome policy to
                                  express Council’s intentions to secure funding and delivery of local waste water infrastructure.
                                  Policies for flood risk: In periods of flooding, surface water can inundate public sewerage system
                                  and exceed its capacity. Can lead to flows from main sewer surcharging up tributary sewers,
                                  leading to foul water flooding of properties. This risk needs to be minimised. Would want to see
                                  policy to ensure that development only permitted in areas at risk from flooding where locations at
                                  lower risk are not available and mitigation measures are provided. Policies should be included to
                                  ensure new development includes arrangements for surface water drainage so that risk of
                                  flooding is not increased within the site or elsewhere.
                                  Policies for protection of amenity: Operate waste water treatment works in accordance with best
                                  practice. However odours can occur. Sensitive development such as housing must be
                                  adequately separated from treatment works to safeguard amenity. This is recognised in PPS23,
                                  Appendix A. Need policy to protect amenity of residents. This should permit development
                                  adjacent to treatment works only where distance between works and development is sufficient to
                                  allow odour dispersion.
                                  Policies for efficient use of infrastructure: This will contribute to sustainable development and can
                                  be promoted through, for example, separating surface water from foul sewers in new
                                  development, construction of on-site and off-site sewers to adoptable standards, adopting whole-
                                  site approach to large and/or mixed ownership sites. Need policy promoting efficient use of
                                  infrastructure supported by detailed policies in subsequent development plan documents.
                                      -
National Trust (Thames & Solent   Engaged in protecting high quality natural environments as well as promoting access in EH.
Region) (014)                     Wider area contains complex semi-natural landscapes and series of relict heath lands (both
                                  historic and biodiversity significance.) Promotion of nature conservation is main interest. Own
                                  land in EH which includes Selborne Common and the Lythes; Ludshott Common, Waggoners
                                  Wells, Bramshott Chase, Passfield Common and Conford Moor. Large number of people use
                                  this land for recreation. Priority for management is to restore and maintain historic landscape on
CORE STRATEGY ISSUES AND OPTIONS CONSULTATION

Additional comments made not included in SNAP analysis

   these commons and to protect and conserve wildlife.
   Whitehill/Bordon Opportunity:
   NT owns nearby land at Passfield Common adjoining opportunity area. Appreciate3 that
   opportunity exists to regenerate and provide more choice for residents. Council must balance
   development of PDL with need for protection to nationally and internally recognised land of
   nature conservation importance.
   SE Plan Panel recommended allocation of 2,500 but did not see impediment to higher level due
   to brownfield opportunity that would be highlighted here. Area is surrounded by European SPA at
   Wealden Heaths SPA and Woolmer Forest Sac as well as local designations in Hogmoor
   Inclosure. Environmental Briefing Note by WSP (March 2008) states (para 1.4.2) that with regard
   to the Inclosure that these habitats are not easily re-creatable and it is unlikely that mitigation
   land would be available to replace them. Para 1.4.3 continues that if Hogmoor were used as
   SANG that this would cause major negative impacts to ecology unless strictly controlled.
   Due to high nature conservation value of surrounding area NTrust would advocate carefully
   crafted approach to future development. Accept principle of development of brownfield land. Key
   issues remain as extent to which land must be allocated beyond this; density of development
   and impact (externally) on traffic/nature conservation; what social/community benefits can be
   derived from development; what is agreed baseline of growth. Starting point for consideration of
   growth should be ‘what if population stayed the same?’
   Section 2.7: Recommend following method to take forward:
       (i)     Examine density/housing numbers and impact on community infrastructure. (eg
               London Borough of Merton’s background work for preferred options)
       (ii)    Examine comparable schemes (Eg DCLG’s work ‘Best Practice in Urban Extensions
               and New Settlements: a report on emerging good practice’. Also examine work into
               delivery of low carbon housing (Stamford Brook, Altringham) and provision of rural
               housing built to high environmental specification (eg Carhampton, Somerset) or using
               technological innovation (eg Friends of the Earth at Leighton Buzzard)
       (iii)   Examine nature conservation interest Assume appropriate assessment will be
               undertaken. Unlikely that Hogmoor Inclosure would be suitable for housing,; HCC
               land at Standford Farm is disconnected from settlement pattern and has own nature
               conservation importance. Establish a ‘re-wilding’ project based on remnants of
               extensive and interconnected heaths and wood-pasture landscapes.
       (iv)    Further density modelling of options is recommended, care needed to avoid overly
               high densities. Careful planning of existing brownfield and high design plus minimal
                               CORE STRATEGY ISSUES AND OPTIONS CONSULTATION

                               Additional comments made not included in SNAP analysis

                                               environmental impact will limit outward extension. Suggest green grid approach.
                                     (v)       Difficult to assess options for Whitehill as not all of evidence base has been
                                               examined. WB4 does appear out of context with level of growth required and Panel’s
                                               report into SE Plan.
                                  8.4, 8.5, 8.6 and 8.7:
                                  More work is needed on baseline evidence to examine impacts of nature conservation, density,
                                  sustainability, relationship between density and supporting local services. SE Plan panel set
                                  level of 2,500 and although accepted that might go higher it is difficult to comment without
                                  knowing full implications. Of particular relevance would be impact on water hydrology and on
                                  increased visitor pressure to SPA/SAC and other protected land. Principles established in
                                  Thames Basins Heath SPA should be followed here with general rule that development within
                                  400m to 5km of an SPA should deal with mitigation measures.
                                  Key Nature conservation Opportunity:
                                  Land surrounding and within opportunity area provides tract of semi-natural areas important for
                                  wildlife/cultural importance. Local commons include medieval Royal Forest (tract of land not
                                  necessarily wooded in this context) of Woolmer. Ecological qualities of Woolmer enhanced by
                                  adjoining ‘forest edge’ and satellite commons. Potential for major project of ‘rewilding’ exist here,
                                  but also effects of additional water abstraction on local aquifers is of major concern for local
                                  wetlands that contribute to historic and nature conservation importance of these places.

Highways Agency (016)             Provide advice in relation to A3 and A3 (M) including impact of the Hindhead Tunnel.
                                  Guidance in draft PPS12 to be carried forward into Core Strategy (infrastructure needs, costs,
                                  implementation etc) if approved.
                                  Need for transport evidence base early in process to aid decision making, may need to expand
                                  to major non-housing developments to establish cumulative impact.
Havant Borough Council (017)      Status of Havant/Rowlands Castle gap needs to be agreed between authorities.
                                  Mention should be made of Havant Thicket Reservoir, especially as possible intensive levels of
                                  recreation.
                                  Out-commuting into Havant may increase with expected economic dev. In Havant and West of
                                  Waterlooville MDA. Issues should be jointly addressed with HCC.
                                  Joint housing opportunities e.g. Woodcroft Farm should be recognised.
South East England Regional       Welcome strategic gaps that meet SEP definition.
Assembly (SEERA) (020)            Support options for % of energy to come from renewables and use of standards for energy
                                CORE STRATEGY ISSUES AND OPTIONS CONSULTATION

                                Additional comments made not included in SNAP analysis

                                   efficiency.
                                   Climate change should include resilience of buildings to storms, flood storage and SuDs.
                                   Support Site size thresholds and %s for affordable housing; see policies in SEP on split social
                                   rented and intermediate housing. Housing mix should meet specialist requirements (elderly and
                                   disabled). Guidance for location of sites for gypsies and travellers needed.
                                   Transport connectivity across the district should be addressed; show how role of regional spoke
                                   will be supported.
                                   Options need to show how transport system will be rebalanced in favour of non-car modes and
                                   mobility management.
                                   Key diagrams needed at next stage for housing, employment, tourism and retail.
                                   Detail how Whitehill/Bordon will be served with public transport to nearby centres.
                                   Infrastructure delivery needs to be in one section; policy on infrastructure contributions needed.
                                   Preferred options will need to address pockets of local deprivation, a cross cutting topic.
RPS on behalf of Fairview New      Specialise in providing housing on PDL and at affordable end of market. Also major provider of
Homes Ltd (022)                    affordable housing therefore its views should be taken into account.
                                   2.6: Initiatives relating to water efficiency, pollution, construction methods, waste should be
                                   negotiated on site by site basis. Should no be enforced through policy but assessed in terms of
                                   overall delivery. Viability of scheme must be a priority.
                                   2.7: Use of ‘blanket’ policy to provide renewable technology could stifle development. Rigid
                                   requirements may make scheme unviable. Other issues might be important. % reduction in
                                   carbon emissions should be assessed site by site. Will object to any requirement unless policy is
                                   clear that viability will be considered.
                                   3.1: Support A1 and A2. Object to policy (Options A4 and A4) that would replace allocated sites
                                   not built in 3 years of DPD being adopted, or option where allocated sites remain undeveloped
                                   and can be compulsory purchased. Would not take account of market considerations or other
                                   site specific issues. Option A5 –support maximising densities and suggest conform with PPS3
                                   (30 plus per hectare – para 47). Should seek to optimise development and develop land
                                   efficiently.
                                   3.3: Option B1 – object to % of affordable housing on individual sites being increased from 35%
                                   and recommended level in SE Plan. A borough wide target could have detrimental effect on
                                   viability of development. May also restrict ability to create mixed communities. Affordable hosing
                                   target should be indicative and set at maximum negotiable level at which point characteristics of
                                   sites can be taken into account. Option B2 – Object to specific thresholds for provision of
CORE STRATEGY ISSUES AND OPTIONS CONSULTATION

Additional comments made not included in SNAP analysis

   affordable housing on sites being set or lowered from current thresholds. Recommend do not
   specify threshold for provision to be made. Each case must be treated on its merits.
   3.4: Object to sliding scale. Recommend negotiate on site by site basis.
   3.5: Object to introduction of different affordable housing proportion and threshold levels being
   set depending on location of site. Will cause uncertainty but could also lead to increased
   development and land and house market values in locations with higher threshold levels and
   lower levels of provision.
   3.8: Option D1 – support continuing current approach.
   Object to D2. Must be sufficient flexibility for composition of development to be determined by
   developer when application is submitted. Would impose unacceptable level of control on house
   builders. Unreasonable for the following reasons:
   i) takes away ability of developer to respond to market demands. Need to more responsive set
   out in Barker Report (2006);
   ii) erodes ability of developer to assess market demand in area and respond with innovation;
   iii) Takes away ability of developer to assess viability of individual schemes and establish
   appropriate mix to make scheme viable.
   iv) if sizes/types of housing are defined by policy there is limited scope to react or respond
   quickly to changes in market.
   Option D3 – Adopt policy that seeks to maximise densities to maximise and efficiently develop
   use of land and meet government targets. Promote 30 dwellings or more as para 47 of PPS3.
   Option D4 – Object to any policy that would allocate range of types and size of housing for
   reasons above under D2.
   3.11: Object to policy specifying % split of social rented and intermediate housing to be provided.
   Mix should be agreed on site by site basis having regard to up to date Housing Needs survey.
   Policy should make it clear that range of house sizes and tenures should be negotiated site by
   site.
   3.12: Option E1 should be taken. Approach is in line with government policy.
   3.14 and 3.15: Object to increase in number of Policy H9 and H10 areas. Would be too
   restrictive; flexibility should be retained. Plans should provide guidance and flexibility not be
   prescriptive to enable merit of each site to be considered.
   4.1: Loss of employment – Residential or mixed uses should be promoted on sites that are
   rundown, vacant and/or poorly located. Para 38 of PPS3 states that re-use should be considered
   and under what circumstances. Para 44 goes on that LPAs should consider whether sites
   currently allocated for industrial/commercial use could be more appropriately re-allocated for
                         CORE STRATEGY ISSUES AND OPTIONS CONSULTATION

                         Additional comments made not included in SNAP analysis

                            housing. Para 21 of PPG4 states it is essential to get vacant/underused land back into beneficial
                            use. LPAs should identify these areas and indicate appropriate alternative uses. Recommend
                            review of all non-housing sites as some may be better used for housing or mixed use.

English Heritage (023)      Vision should refer to environment as a whole and include built, historic and natural environment.
                            Sustainability issues should be integrated, not balanced, to avoid losses. The wealth of locally
                            important heritage assets should be recognised; not all important archaeology is scheduled.
                            Enhancement of historic environment also important. Objectives should refer to built and historic
                            environment. Option CH1 should refer to dev being within environmental capacity of the towns.
Fight4Four Marks (024)      1. Introduction: Making all elements of vision fully integrated should be fundamental.
                            Objectives are laudable but young people can not afford to live her; public transport and
                            infrastructure is poor; village is under constant pressure to accept more houses as well as 174
                            dwellings at Winchester Road (allocated site), with high profit cul-de-sacs on large back gardens
                            being the speculators main target.
                            Some of 5,200 homes that have to be built between 2006 and 2026 have already been built or
                            allocated in local plan. Could be better, more transparent reporting /forecasting. Would prevent
                            speculative developers claiming that EHDC is under performing.
                            Four Marks has had significant new development in last 5 years, increase in applications on
                            windfall sites. Have secured many refusals and 6 appeal dismissals for out of character,
                            inappropriate and overdevelopment. Allocated site increased dwellings in village by 15% in one
                            year. Feel Four Marks has already done more than its fair share.
                            2. Housing: Accept population is increasing and more homes will be needed. EH and South east
                            is at saturation point, has limited resources to support expansion. District and County Councils
                            should push Government to change policy to more balanced regional economic development
                            and housing programme.
                            SE Plan figures will mean extra 4,000 homes for central Hampshire. SHLAA should be a more
                            open and debateable process, involve communities in making hard decisions. Agree windfall
                            sites are not ideal solution. ; can cause distress and disruption in community.
                            Option A1 – 2 major negatives are more housing can be built than is actually needed to meet SE
                            Plan and could create more pressure on infrastructure, and would send out message that EHDC
                            is happy to accept more housing than we are required to meet which is misleading.
                            Option A2 – Control is with EHDC and wherever practical existing settlement policy boundaries
                            should be retained. Nay proposed changes should be reviewed with Parish Councils and local
CORE STRATEGY ISSUES AND OPTIONS CONSULTATION

Additional comments made not included in SNAP analysis

   residents groups. Policy controls should be stated and enacted to ensure allocated sites are
   used first, before any consideration of reserves. Where allocated sites are not developed
   developers should not be able to leverage reserve or windfall sites instead.
   Option A3 – Offers developers too many opportunities for manipulation and build cost cutting.
   Option A4 – Potentially unworkable and expensive.
   Option A5 – PPS3 and Local Plan densities of 30-50ph are too high already, out of character of
   area, so reject this option.
   Issue B – Agree with concerns over price of houses in relation to salaries. Prevents creation of
   mixed communities. Affordable housing can be too expensive for local people. Support Option
   B3 as compromise. Suggest smaller settlements may have minimum level of 3 and not 5
   dwellings. Option B4 is theoretically fair but would be difficult to administer and open to
   developer manipulation.
   Issue C – Option C3 is practical, if controlled to ensure market share is not excessive and used
   to overcome controls on non SPB sites.
   Issue D – Option D1 has least complex issues to deal with. Markey changes are constantly
   changing, setting formal mix targets would cause developers greater constraint than agreement
   based process. Developers have to take risk and uncertainty should not be seen as
   disadvantage. Option D7 may be workable but Housing Market Assessment suggestion of no
   more than 25% of total new housing should be delivered as social rented housing, may change
   over time and need review.
   Issue E – Need to include PPS3 guidelines so Option E1 is only choice. Other options have
   some merit in combined scheme perhaps with Option E5 being a 2nd stage optimization of
   making sure the required type and mix of housing is delivered.
   Issue F – Policies H9 and H10 of Local Plan are crucial to protection of character and
   communities. Option F2 is essential to bring designations up to date and to protect existing
   communities.
   3. Where should new development go? Four Marks has seen unprecedented growth in last 2
   years. Concern that pace of growth can not be sustained by local infrastructure and facilities,
   period of consolidation now needed.
   Only 28% of 2,693 resident workforce work locally, bus service is not early enough in morning or
   late enough inn evening to connect to Alton-Aldershot- Woking-Waterloo commuter trains.
   Guildford bus service terminates to badly timed connection at Alton Station and leads to heavier
   traffic with up to 10 minute waits to get from side roads to A31. PO and village store closed plus
   empty shop unit for over a year. 2 primary schools full. All this before start to absorb
                             CORE STRATEGY ISSUES AND OPTIONS CONSULTATION

                                 Additional comments made not included in SNAP analysis

                                    development at Winchester Road. Already at breaking point for services and facilities.
                                    4. Sustainability Appraisal – see other comment sheet specifically on SA.

Home Builders Federation (025)      1.1 Vision: Rather bland and uninspiring; an ‘anyplace’ vision which could apply to half
                                    authorities across county. Using words ‘East Hampshire’ does not make it specific or unique to
                                    EH. Says nothing about place or what is special/important about it or what will change in district
                                    as result of vision. Thought needs to be given to bespoke vision with more detail, local context,
                                    inspiration and vision.
                                    2.1 Countryside Resources: Concern that by lumping all important countryside resources
                                    together they will be treated equally. Not equal in terms of importance or designation. Any policy
                                    should only seek to afford the individual categories of designation a degree of weight/protection
                                    in accordance with their true status. Will need to be separated out and set out in hierarchy with
                                    different policies applying to different levels in hierarchy.
                                    2.2 Biodiversity: Thames Basin Heaths should not be seen as automatic constraint to
                                    development. Core Strategy needs to address whether development can occur in this part of
                                    district without causing significant adverse effect to heathland habitat. Mitigation is important and
                                    there are mechanisms exist across number of SPA authorities which allow development and
                                    protect SPA. Should view SPA in broader light of ‘how can development enhance biodiversity?’
                                    2.3 Gaps: Council need to demonstrate that has complied with recommendations and
                                    conclusions of SE Plan Panel and reviewed need for gaps from first principles and reviewed
                                    boundaries so that contain no more land than stipulations made by Panel. For too long strategic
                                    and local gap designation has been used as tool of the NIMBY rather than reflecting intended
                                    purpose. Should not be allowed to continue.
                                    2.5 – 2.8 Climate Change: Serious issue facing mankind. Global issue which needs consistent
                                    co-ordinated global response. Do no consider that is one of main issues to be addressed through
                                    Core Strategy. Issue is not one locationally specific to EH nor is it one EHDC can do anything
                                    unilaterally through this core strategy to address. Many aspects are covered by Code for
                                    Sustainable Homes.
                                    Code imposes ever more stringent requirements through Building regulations (level 3 by 2010;
                                    level 4 by 2013; zero carbon level 6 by 2016.). New housing is already more energy efficient
                                    than existing stock. EHDC should focus attention on areas not being addressed through other
                                    legislation where energy efficiency and eco gains can be made. Should not seek to impose
                                    arbitrary targets which specify techniques/procedures as may be counter-productive. Targets
CORE STRATEGY ISSUES AND OPTIONS CONSULTATION

Additional comments made not included in SNAP analysis

   must be justified as to suitability and appropriateness, take account of implementation costs,
   impact on development viability and overall housing delivery.
   3.1 Housing:
   Requirements now expressed as minimum to be exceeded whenever possible. Core Strategy
   will need to demonstrate it can deliver at least housing target in SE Plan. Concept of
   overprovision is no longer valid. EH has long history of development rates below already low
   housing targets. Must improve on past performance. Option A1 is best way to achieve this.
   EHDC can control extent to which sites come forward by PPM policy. Can also ensure that
   infrastructure is provided. Core Strategy should focus on positive attributes of new development.
   3.3 and 3.4 Affordable Housing:
   The more overall housing is delivered the more affordable housing will be delivered therefore
   need to allow more market housing. Increasing target % only serves to further reduce supply of
   market housing leading to scarcity and forcing price up thereby increasing need for affordable
   housing. Any approach must be based on robust evidence (SHMA) to take account of viability
   impacts, take account of planning obligations etc. Have long expressed support for council’s
   sliding scale/cascade approach, would like to this developed.
   3.8 and 3.9 Housing Mix:
   Critical of local authority policies to date. Have been responsible for change in balance of
   development in SE in recent years to extent that balance is now drawing criticism. PPS£,
   regional assembly and draft SE Plan all make it clear that it is not acceptable /helpful for local
   authorities to dictate size/type of housing provided by private sector. May seek to influence it
   through negotiation; may prescribe mi where supported by evidence but should not restrict ability
   of developers to respond to market. Council should be guided by SHMA. Devise sensible
   policies with house builders. Simplest measurement is to measure number of units by number of
   bedrooms. Complex measures such as hab-rooms, floorspace will not aid delivery and be time
   consuming.
   7. Where should new development go?
   Prime concern is that development is delivered rather than where it is delivered. Delivery should
   be key determinant of distribution strategy. Barriers to delivery could be site specific, ownership,
   infrastructure requirements. Core Strategy will have to demonstrate that its strategy for providing
   housing can be delivered, particularly in regard to Whitehill/Bordon.
   9. Making things happen:
   Concern that this paper does not do what it says on the cover. Questions deal with checking
   things happen. Monitoring is not sufficient. Need to include processes and proagrammes of
                              CORE STRATEGY ISSUES AND OPTIONS CONSULTATION

                              Additional comments made not included in SNAP analysis

                                 actions should monitoring show targets not being met. Section also needs to deal with
                                 management and delivery.

Hampshire and Isle of Wight      Landscape – agree policy to protect sensitive landscape and biodiversity areas from cumulative
Wildlife Trusts (026)            changes.
                                 Biodiversity – enhanced protection of sites needed if affected by dev, including sites of local
                                 importance. Recreation pressures from single dwellings and larger sites on SPA must be
                                 mitigated through strong policy; use Local BAP and Tyldesley for model policies
                                 Water resources – strong policies needed, including on waste water, using PUSH study as
                                 example. Dev. not permitted if adverse pressure on water resources. Strong policies on flood risk
                                 needed. New flood defences affected wildlife and need to protect land that floods naturally.
                                 Large landscapes – agree with protecting wildlife networks and restoring/re-creating habitats and
                                 links to help wildlife adapt to climate change; can also connect settlements. Large landscape
                                 spatial planning should inform where dev goes.
                                 Green infrastructure – PUSH example should be applied to all of district; can help reduce impact
                                 on SPAs and used as flood storage.
                                 High quality environment – core policy on good design needed.
                                 Climate change – appropriate locations for renewable energy e.g. wind turbines should be
                                 identified rather than dealt with on case-by-case basis. New dev to include renewable energy.
                                 High standard of Code will help with water shortages.
                                 Safeguarding the environment – adequate infrastructure needs to be in place before dev. Need
                                 to look beyond East Hants to assess in combination impacts under Habitats regs. and ecological
                                 networks.
                                 Objectives - agree biodiversity objective, but water resources objective should relate to PPS25
                                 by AVOIDING flood risk to people and property here possible and manage elsewhere.
                                 Where dev should be built – avoid areas of high biodiversity importance and network links.
                                 Appropriate Assessment essential.
                                 Whitehill/Bordon Opportunity – local stakeholders should be involved in work, including Trust.
                                 Agree need to safeguard SPA; Appropriate Assessment essential to inform mitigation of
                                 recreation pressure and layout. Adequacy of water resources and potential for green grid, energy
                                 efficiency and best transport links need assessment.
English Courtyard (028)          Needs of districts elderly are not catered for. Inadequate housing choice means elderly are
                                 under-occupying dwellings leading to competition between elderly and young for housing
                                  CORE STRATEGY ISSUES AND OPTIONS CONSULTATION

                                  Additional comments made not included in SNAP analysis

Member of the public (030)           A greater social mix through new housing to achieve social facilities cannot be achieved with
                                     existing high level of low cost housing. Proposed mineral extractions will impact on proposals.
                                     Increased traffic, noise and upheaval in the area.
Chichester District Council (053)    Main issue is Whitehill/Bordon dev which could impact on districts’ residents and businesses.
                                     Better services and facilities but transport and environmental impacts. WB4 in particular would
                                     impact SPA and transport effects.
Hampshire Constabulary (054)         Set out suggested standard approach for the inclusion on community safety in LDF documents
                                     including the Core Strategy. Includes references that should be made.
Unnamed Response (055)               High house price to income ratio should be addressed by focusing on improving incomes not
                                     trying to contain house prices.
                                     Why should Council decide that mix of houses is needed? Let the market (individuals) decide.
                                     Council should not try and set up some mythical structure based on what it thinks is an ideal
                                     social structure of the local population.
                                     Put homes where people want/need them to be and where employment opportunities are.
                                     Stop cutting back on service locations (eg hospitals, libraries) and promote local shops rather
                                     than centralised superstores. This will reduce need for people to travel from where they live.

Liss Village Design Group (056)      2.22: Very important to maintain wildlife corridors including local non protected habitats which
                                     connect habitats. Focus should not just be on joining/creating nationally important habitats such
                                     as heathland. Biodiversity is very important.
                                     Important that any new development protects existing surrounding habitats and enhances
                                     surrounding habitats where possible.
                                     Conserve and protect landscapes.
                                     2.4: Core Strategy will also need to include historic field boundaries, hedgerows and sunken
                                     lanes.
                                     Policy needs to apply to commercial and residential development.
                                     2.5: Very important but Council does not have knowledge to do it; should follow national
                                     guidelines.
                                     Fast developing area of knowledge and cost effectiveness of technical solutions. EHDC should
                                     not encourage token gestures which are not value for money.
                                     2.6: Yes with qualifications. Important not to price out new affordable housing by imposing
                                     standards which have heavy costs.
                                     For market housing highest standards should be implied.
                                 CORE STRATEGY ISSUES AND OPTIONS CONSULTATION

                                 Additional comments made not included in SNAP analysis

                                    2.7: No not unless cost effective. Emphasis on energy conservation.
                                    Avoid token gestures (solar power or wind generation may be ineffective and not cost effective in
                                    some locations).
                                    2.8: No not at present because of danger of token gestures.
                                    2.9: No not convinced this is effective energy source for area.
                                    Other sources with less landscape implications should be investigated in preference.
                                    3.8: Option D1 – restrict developers’ ability to buy out their commitment to affordable housing.
                                    3.14: Want Policy H10 area extended to Farther Common.
                                    7.6: Employment for a specific type of business must be geared to local need.

Member of Medstead Parish           2.4: Urban design should be restricted to urban areas; stop treating villages as urban areas
Council (057)                       simply because have development policy boundary around them.
Holybourne Village Association      Although part of Alton, Holybourne is recognised as separate identity and needs.
(060)
Colin Moore (066)                   Environment and Greenfield land are precious. Use minimum to achieve maximum benefits.
                                    Option 1 – just delivers houses; Option 4 – too high a price to pay. More likely to support Options
                                    2 and 3.
                                    Need to minimise effects of disruption during development particularly in relation to A325.
                                    Highlights need for joined up government. Concern about HCC proposals for Walldown Triangle
                                    in relation to site for sand extraction and after that reinstatement as ‘housing’.

Member of the public (070)          Surprised at land being included that is non MOD. Unclear about how much land is going to be
                                    available. For example, is Hogmoor enclosure to be included and concern over constraints.
                                    Option 1 – supported as only involves brownfield land. Need larger detached houses. Do not
                                    support Options 1 and 2. Object to eco town designation because of constraints of town and
                                    infrastructure.
                                    Criteria for eco town is provision of 50%affordable houses; feel that this would exacerbate
                                    existing problems and employment opportunities would not be achieved. Many looking for
                                    employment will travel to neighbouring centres.
                                    A325 could not cope even with improvements. Would need major road improvements to include
                                    dual carriageway or ring road and/or link to Bentley station.
                                    CORE STRATEGY ISSUES AND OPTIONS CONSULTATION

                                    Additional comments made not included in SNAP analysis

Savills on behalf of Grainger plc      Housing: Support Option A1, A3 and A5
(077)                                  A1: RSS requirement should be seen as ceiling but a minimum. May rise through Proposed
                                       Modification to the South East Plan. Prudent to allocate more land then necessary.
                                       A3: Review of existing allocations where sites do not come forward is supported. Need to take
                                       account of lead in times for infrastructure.
                                       A5: Good modern design can provide for higher densities or a range within a site.
                                       Affordable housing: Delivery of more housing will lead to increased delivery of affordable
                                       housing.
                                       Option B1: Support some degree of flexibility. Would advocate negotiation with local authority on
                                       a site by site basis if 40% would render site non viable.
                                       Where should development go? Support Horndean as sustainable location.
Bentley Parish Council (086)           Housing: No information on allocated or reserve sites in Local Plan; few seem to have been built
                                       on. Extend policy of restricting extension on properties in countryside to 50% of footprint to
                                       include those within SPB. Surprised that this is not included.
                                       Transport: Increase prosecutions of motorists for speeding to discourage accidents and car
                                       travel. No mention is made of safety which is important to transport policy.
                                       Development: Do not accept that Bentley would benefit from further development except modest
                                       affordable housing. Bentley Station is long walk and located in Binsted Parish. Car park full; no
                                       public transport to station. School and surgery are full. Previous reserve sites rejected by
                                       Inspector due to lack of facilities.
                                       Disagree with definition of a good bus service.
                                       Making things happen: Nothing tangible or quantifiable.

Grayshot Parish Council (087)          Challenge definition of good bus service in terms of times of services, length of journey and
                                       realistic way of making transport choices. Implications on young because of lack of services in
                                       the evening.
Cluttons on behalf of The Adhurst      Housing: Affordable housing should be delivered through plan led approach. Needs to be met
Estate (088)                           across entire district with allocations in towns and rural communities, mixed market housing
                                       rather than entirely affordable, this increases certainty of delivery. Need innovative approach to
                                       rural areas. Need to ensure that settlements evolve. Strategy needs a strong rural focus to
                                       prevent loss of faculties.
                                       Where should development go? Petersfield is sustainable location (support for CH1). Recognise
                                       constraints (AONB, National Park) may restrict alternative locations. Need balance.
                               CORE STRATEGY ISSUES AND OPTIONS CONSULTATION

                               Additional comments made not included in SNAP analysis

Waverley Borough Council (098)    Where should new development go?: Strengths and weaknesses do not comment on
                                  accessibility from towns and villages to strategic services (hospitals with A & E) and higher
                                  education establishments (eg universities).
                                  Whitehill/Bordon strengths and weaknesses: Understand that there is little or no bus service to
                                  Petersfield – is this a possible weakness? Also should absence of rail link be acknowledged as
                                  weakness.
                                  Transport: Need to include location of new housing in areas that have good access to existing
                                  services/facilities, and, promotion of new/expanded services/Facilities where housing already
                                  exists in assessment matrix. Would reduce need to travel.
                                  Whitehill/Bordon: Cross boundary issues of concern:
                                  - Has Whitehill/Bordon Opportunity group considered cross boundary issues? Should they not
                                  consult adjacent authorities;
                                  - Has background work looked at impact and need for infrastructure within and beyond East
                                  Hampshire;
                                  - Out commuting from Whitehill/Bordon – what evidence is there of how many and where to
                                  within Waverley and beyond? Evidence of travel patterns to Waverley for facilities in Fanham?
                                  - Transport is key and what is meant by ‘wider’ highway network? Should included assessment
                                  of transport network in and around Farnham including A325 and A31. Also assessment through
                                  Wrecclesham and Farnham of capacity and environmental impact. (See Surrey Local Transport
                                  Plan)
                                  - Rail concerns in terms of capacity on London – Portsmouth line.
                                  - Difficult to comment on options for growth without cross boundary information. Would register
                                  concern over Options 2 and 3 in relation to cross boundary impacts. Also wish to see more
                                  information on potential negative impact that development could have on nearby centres.

Peacock & Smith ob behalf of      Renewable energy: Draw attention to para 8 of PPS22 re. 5 of energy used in new development
Wm Morrison Supermarkets plc      coming from on-site renewable energy development. This should contain flexibility and be
(099)                             subject to tests of viability and suitability.
                                  Whitehill/Bordon: Support Option3. Helps meet housing targets and provides new town centre
                                  with appropriate services and facilities.

Member of the public (103)        Whitehill/Bordon: Should be rejected as eco town because:
                                  - EHDC consultation as misleading, incomplete and inadequate. Text is not comprehensible to
                                  CORE STRATEGY ISSUES AND OPTIONS CONSULTATION

                                  Additional comments made not included in SNAP analysis

                                     the majority. Maps uninformative. Imply designating greenfield land in strategic gap. DCLG
                                     consultation document diverges from local authority version, will mislead and confuse. Not widely
                                     accessible to those who will be effected.
                                     - Fails requirements of eco town. Not a new settlement, no recognisable centre.
                                     - EHDC has continuously failed to implement measures to make a healthy country town.
                                     - EHDC acknowledges is characterised by low income, lack of open space/facilities, poor
                                     shopping, education etc.
                                     - Ancient village of Standford would disappear in expanded town boundary.
                                     - Rail link is not envisage or realistic.
                                     - Reliance on market forces for regeneration is unrealistic and unviable.
                                     - Unrealisable aims include unifying town (already divided by A325); highway improvements
                                     necessary but would destroy rural character;
                                     - ‘Gateway’ to National Park has no meaning.
                                     - No evidence provided for creation of new jobs.
                                     - Empty hope of redressing balance and attracting executive homes
                                     - ‘Vision’ threatens acknowledged contemporary values of what a town and community should
                                     be, borders on fantasy and arrogance.
                                     - Regeneration is not synonymous with large scale housing or commercial development. Need to
                                     establish what makes a thriving small town and make sure that Whitehill gets equal treatment.

Turley Associates on behalf of       Support Alton at top of settlement hierarchy but have some concerns over assumptions made in
Aldi stores Ltd (Swindon) (106)      papers.
                                     Economy: Employment land in sustainable locations should be retained. Concern about
                                     reference to ‘food superstores’ and suggestion that retail study shown there is no need for more
                                     stores at this time’. Suggest PPS6 definition of ‘superstore’ is inappropriate here in context of
                                     market towns and smaller retail centres. Reference should be made to ‘food stores’ which allows
                                     for all scales.
                                     Contest Council’s interpretation of Retail Study (2007) in relation to Alton. Table 14B (Appendix
                                     B) shows surplus convenience expenditure suggesting requirement for retail food floorspace.
                                     Suggest incorrect interpretation or have assumed that need is offset by modest over-provision in
                                     Liphook and Horndean. Results in inappropriate approach to Alton when take account of
                                     increase in need by 2026.
                                     Where should new development go?: Paper rightly emphasises strengths of Alton. Quality and
                        CORE STRATEGY ISSUES AND OPTIONS CONSULTATION

                        Additional comments made not included in SNAP analysis

                           range of services should be maintained and improved to maintain vitality and viability and meet
                           needs of 2026.

Natural England (107)      General Comments:
                           Believe Core Strategy should include:
                           - General criteria against which development proposals will be tested for compatibility with nature
                           conservation objectives and/or sustainable development principles including a nature
                           conservation criterion;
                           - Safeguard internationally, nationally and regionally/locally designated sites whilst making clear
                           relative weight to be attached to different designations;
                           - Protect irreplaceable semi-natural habitat (eg ancient woodlands and old orchards and tress of
                           conservation value);
                           Encourage conservation of and management of features of landscape of major importance for
                           wild flora and fauna;
                           - Protect species and their habitats, especially those with legal protection and those of principle
                           importance for biodiversity conservation;
                           - Apply precautionary principle where necessary.
                           - Core Strategy should also identify other DPDs that could be vehicle for nature conservation
                           policies.
                           Have a number of concerns relating to policies and integration of Habitats Regulations
                           Assessment (HRA). 2005 European ruling that UK had failed to ensure that land use plans are
                           subject to Appropriate assessment where might have significant effect on Natura 2000 sites
                           (SACs and SPAs).
                           For Core Strategy to be sound will need to be satisfied that the HRA has informed decision
                           making process therefore would have been easier to comment if issues and options paper had
                           the HRA. To comply with the European Court of Justice ruling ‘no options should be taken
                           forward as preferred that could have an adverse affect on site integrity’. Where there is a
                           significant affect then will need to demonstrate package of avoidance and mitigation. Hope that
                           work will be completed on HRA prior to Preferred Options and Submission of Core Strategy.
                           Would be happy to advise on HRA.
                           Overall issues and options document is well written and accessible for public to understand and
                           be involved in consultation. Pleased with structure of document.
CORE STRATEGY ISSUES AND OPTIONS CONSULTATION

Additional comments made not included in SNAP analysis

   Introduction:
   Support view that Whitehill/Bordon is unique opportunity to create sustainable settlement.
   Suggest importance of Green Infrastructure and PUSH work with measures to mitigate potential
   effects on designated sites should be included in PUSH section.
   Support vision but rephrase last sentence to include the need and EHDC to ‘enhance’
   biodiversity. Eg “They will live and work in a way that respects resources and protects and
   enhances the district’s natural environment, including features of nature conservation interest,
   biodiversity and landscape.”
   Environment:
   Generally supportive. Suggest changes to enhance as well as protect natural environment.
   PPS9 requires protection and enhancement of designated sites.
   2.1: Recommend that all protected species are listed.
   Landscape: Recommend that EHDC highlight need to ‘protect and enhance natural beauty of the
   AONB and local distinctiveness’.
   Biodiversity: Advise EHDC of duty to protect and enhance biodiversity and designated sites.
   Should have greater strength in chapter. Must ensure that Habitats Regulations are met, any
   adverse effects on internationally designated sites should be avoided or mitigated and this must
   be demonstrated. For Plan to be ‘sound’ Natural England will need to be satisfied that HRA has
   informed decision-making process, no options should be taken forward as preferred that could
   have an adverse effect on site integrity.
   Pleased that EHDC recognise vulnerability and current recreation pressure on Wealden Heaths
   Phase 2 SPA. In addition to SPA important features of SAC, SSSI and SINC are described as
   sites may be affected by policies and site allocations.
   Recommend that stronger references to BAP and support for actions are clearly demonstrated in
   Core Strategy.
   Endorse need and recommendation for networks, enhancement and expansion of habitat and
   diversity to address fragmentation and continued pressure from development, pollution and
   disturbance and to buffer and enable adaptation to effects of climate change.
   Pleased EHDC recognise benefits of biodiversity and enhancement of designated sites through
   development and infrastructure provision. Suggest Green Infrastructure and provision of multi
   functional networks of green space are also discussed.
   Recommend creation and expansion of pedestrian and cycle routes, integrated with green
   infrastructure and creation of wildlife habitats, tree planting, landscaping. Need to explore
   opportunities for sustainable and biodiversity design. Examples of best practice include MDA
CORE STRATEGY ISSUES AND OPTIONS CONSULTATION

Additional comments made not included in SNAP analysis

   West of Waterlooville, Woolston Riverside development (Southampton).
   2.2: Creation of large inter-connected areas of wildlife habitat is very important.
   Achieving high quality environment: Local character should be respected and enhanced.
   2.4: All factors (especially maintaining and creating green space, biodiversity, landscape design
   and sustainable design) are essential.
   Climate change: EHDC should ensure that options do not cause significant environmental effects
   on landscape, nature consideration interests including cumulative impacts. Reference should be
   made to avoid impacts of renewable energy on biodiversity and designated sites as well as
   landscape interests.
   2.5: Very important. EHDC should be proactive and seek to exceed Code for Sustainable
   Homes to achieve level 4 by 2010, level 6 by 2016. (Isle of Wight now aim for level 4).
   Recommend policy to reduce water use and incorporate sustainable design measures such as
   SUDs.
   2.6: Yes
   2.7: Yes
   2.8:Yes, 10% should be minimum level, EHDC should be proactive and require higher
   aspirational level.
   2.9: See comments on climate change
   2.10:No see comments above.
   2.11. No objectives are not sufficient. Second objective should be stronger, suggest should be
   split into 2, to protect and enhance landscape quality and character and landscape designations
   and to protect and enhance designated sites and wider biodiversity. Refer to ‘Guidance and
   Model Policies for Incorporating Biodiversity into Local Development Framework Documents in
   Hampshire’. (June 2007).
   Housing:
   Issue A: Disappointed that effects of biodiversity have not been discussed, and reiterate
   comments under biodiversity. Disappointed no reference to green infrastructure and need for
   development to contribute to sustainable and biodiversity design including provision of networks
   of multifunctional green space.
   Unable to comment on options until have HRA.
   Option A1: Concerned that EHDC may not be able to avoid or mitigate potential impacts from
   proposed level of development. If can not do this then natural England will not be able to deem
   Core Strategy sound. Suggest EHDC should not allocate greater housing allocation level unless
   have evidence it will not have adverse impact on European designated sites.
CORE STRATEGY ISSUES AND OPTIONS CONSULTATION

Additional comments made not included in SNAP analysis

   Option A2: See comments for Option A1.
   Option A3: See comments on Option A1. Generally support ‘plan, monitor, manage’ but EHDC
   has number of designated sites for landscape and nature conservation, some vulnerable to
   pressure of development, would not wish system to be put in that jeopardises assessment and
   mitigation of environmental effect because of time pressures.
   Option A5: Concerned that increasing density and use of PDL may have impacts on nature
   conservation as some brownfield sites can be biodiverse, on such sites avoidance and mitigation
   should be used. Should not be overlooked and suggest caveat stipulating this.
   Issue D:
   Option D3: Support design codes for new homes such as sustainable and biodiversity design.
   Eg.
   - surveys of environmental quality and condition of site.
   - providing multi-functional green infrastructure with wide range of environmental and quality of
   life benefits.
   - Achieve level 4 of Code for Sustainable Homes (at present).
   - Provide biodiversity benefits such as green roofs/ walls, wildlife ponds, bird/bat boxes, use
   native planting.
   - Incorporate SUDS, rainwater harvesting and recycling, renewable energy, energy efficient
   designs.
   - Use sustainable/recycled materials.
   - provide recycling points, waste and pollution should be minimised.
   - Community safety should be designed into development.
   - Development will protect and enhance landscape and biodiversity.
   Economy:
   Unable to comment in full until have HRA.
   Concern that development for employment/tourism may have significant effects upon designated
   sites, biodiversity and landscape. Would like to see Core Strategy objectives for housing in EH.
   Transport: Endorse EHDC providing more sustainable integrated transport networks including
   provision for cycling and walking. Objectives should include reference to benefits of
   cycling/walking to healthy living. Recommend provision pf networks for cycleways and
   pedestrians. Link provision of sustainable transport to green infrastructure.
   Healthy Living:
   Endorse this chapter in Core Strategy.
   Open space, sport and recreation: Include benefits in supporting text such as to both mental and
CORE STRATEGY ISSUES AND OPTIONS CONSULTATION

Additional comments made not included in SNAP analysis

   physical health, quality of life, economy, environment. Need to provide multifunctional networks
   of green space to protect and enhance green corridors, river valleys, networks and other linking
   features. Suggest policy wording as example.
   Suggest inclusion of Access to Green-space Standards (ANGST). State that local communities
   should have access to appropriate mix of green-spaces providing for range of recreational
   needs, of at least 2ha of accessible natural green space per 1,000 population. Can be broken
   down as:
   - no person should live more than 300m from their nearest area of natural green space of at least
   2ha in size;
   - there should be at least one accessible 20ha site within 2km form home;
   - one accessible 100ha site within 5 km;
   - one accessible 500ha site within 10km.
   - adjacent green spaces are interconnected; priority and extent determined by local decision
   making informed by stakeholder involvement.
   Objectives should make reference to green space or green infrastructure.
   Where should new development go?
   Unable to comment fully without HRA. How has analysis confirmed that Alton, Petersfield,
   Whitehill/Bordon, Horndean and Liphook are most sustainable places for new development.
   Question whether HRA has been considered.
   HRA should be undertaken as iterative approach to ensure decision making does not rule out
   options at early stage that are more suitable under HRA. No option should be taken forward as
   preferred that could have adverse effect on site’s integrity. May need to reappraise options
   initially ruled out to clearly demonstrate that HRA has influenced decision making.
   Strengths and weaknesses need to include factors such as impacts on designated sites ; does
   not identify issues regarding opportunity for provision of open/green space.
   If EHDC are not be able to avoid /mitigate effects of housing development then Natural England
   will not be able to deem it sound. May need to revise housing targets unless impacts can be
   avoided/mitigated.
   Whitehill/Bordon:
   Comments without prejudice to outcomes of HRA or Eco-town status. Wish to work with EHDC
   to provide biodiversity gain, enhance designated sites, enhance landscape character.
   Need HRA to comment in full. To be sound will need to be sure HRA has informed decision
   making. No options should be taken forward that could have an adverse effect on site’s integrity.
   Where any policy/plan option is taken forward that could have impact of European designated
CORE STRATEGY ISSUES AND OPTIONS CONSULTATION

Additional comments made not included in SNAP analysis

   sites then package of adequate avoidance and mitigation will need to be demonstrated. Green
   Town Vision does not set out need to create biodiversity net gain and to protect/enhance
   designated sites. Support other elements of vision.
   Housing: See comments under Environment, Housing, Healthy Living.
   Health, recreation and community facilities and services: Disappointed that provision of natural
   green space is not highlighted as key issue. Housing will need additional green space to mitigate
   recreational pressures on designated sites. This is in addition to any mitigation measures
   required for other impacts on designated sites.
   Education: Disappointed that have not used opportunity to provide environmental education and
   awareness raising initiatives (visitor centres, exhibitions, school visits, community event).
   Transport: Recommend that cycleways and pedestrian networks are developed/integrated with
   green infrastructure multifunctional networks such as tree lined cycleways.
   Infrastructure: Disappointed that key issues have not highlighted need for water
   recycling/rainwater harvesting to reduce water use and impacts that may affect water quality. In
   addition recommend onsite production of renewable energy and provision of multifunctional
   green infrastructure.
   Commercial Viability: New development must be of high sustainable and biodiversity design;
   pleased that EHD recognises that precedent must be set. Encourage EHDC to be more
   proactive/aspirational to design and exemplar development proposal using principles above and
   taking initiatives further used elsewhere in Hampshire.
   Environment: Endorse provision of ecological robust recreation areas and creation of wildlife
   networks with benefits for sustainable transport, recreation, healthy living, economy. Need to
   take opportunity to create green grid and go further and provide network and expand and
   improve quality of habitats. Need to enhance landscape, biodiversity and designated sites.
   Increase in tourism will need to be carefully managed to avoid impacts on designated sites of
   landscape and biodiversity interest.
   To be sound will need to be satisfied that HRA has informed decision making. No options should
   be taken forward as preferred that would have an adverse affect on site integrity. Will need to
   have package of avoidance/mitigation where any plan or policy option has significant effect on
   European site.
   Objectives: Public transport, cycleway and pedestrian networks should be expanded and
   invested in with integration of green infrastructure. EHDC should also enhance landscape
   setting, maintain and enhance designated sites in addition to avoiding effects on integrity of
   designated sites. Encourage sustainable and biodiversity design of new developments. Create
                              CORE STRATEGY ISSUES AND OPTIONS CONSULTATION

                              Additional comments made not included in SNAP analysis

                                 network of multifunctional natural green space.
                                 Best Way Forward? Will need to be satisfied that HRA has influenced decision making. No
                                 options should be taken forward as preferred that would have an adverse affect on site integrity.
                                 Will need to have package of avoidance/mitigation where any plan or policy option has
                                 significant effect on European site. Suggest Whitehill/Bordon should be exemplar development
                                 that provides biodiversity net gain particularly because of conservation assets. EHDC could use
                                 opportunity of these benefits and focus on green space and biodiversity as other area of
                                 environmental sustainability to excel.
                                 Should be proactive, aspirational, provide exemplar example of sustainable development.
                                 Substantial enhancement of environment could be achieved if EHDC seek opportunity to protect
                                 and enhance environment. Look forward tow working with EHDC on this. :

Boyer Planning on behalf of      Housing: Attention is drawn to the government advice in PPS3: Housing and the regional spatial
Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd (108)       strategy, the SE Plan, in terms of requirements and housing figures. Panel report considered
                                 (para 16.79) that 5 districts including East Hampshire would be required to provide new
                                 Greenfield sites to meet housing requirement.
                                 Issue A: Support A1 as would increase likelihood of Council meeting housing requirement.
                                 Would mean housing is provided in right place and would be consistent with PPS3 in that ‘at
                                 least’ enough sites should be identified. (para 57).
                                 Do not agree that over-allocation would send out wrong message. If sites are delivered with
                                 appropriate infrastructure then there should be no harmful impact.
                                 Generally support A2. Historically a risk associate with his process in which reserve sites have
                                 taken along time to be permitted. Need effective mechanism to bring reserve sites forward in
                                 timely manner.
                                 Do not support A3. Advantages over simplified. Replacing sites that have not come forward in
                                 specific time may overlook underlying causes, eg slow down in market conditions, and
                                 disadvantage district. Need to identify broad locations and sites that will allow continuous
                                 delivery for at least 15 years from adoption. Sites must be available, suitable and achievable.
                                 Government does not advocate 3 year cut off point which would replace a site which had not
                                 been started.
                                 Do not support A4. Not a ‘quick fix’ and could be costly and lengthy. Partly support A5 but can
                                 not be relied on alone. Higher density not always appropriate in relation to character of towns
                                 and villages. PPS3 suggests LPAs may set out a range of densities. A policy indicating only a
                               CORE STRATEGY ISSUES AND OPTIONS CONSULTATION

                               Additional comments made not included in SNAP analysis

                                  minimum density would be most appropriate method with developer demonstrating to the
                                  Council how higher densities can be achieved on their sites.
                                  Where should new development go?
                                  Generally agree with strengths, weaknesses and constraints. Wish to stress pre-eminence of
                                  Alton as largest and most sustainable settlement.
                                  7.5: Consideration should be given to SE Plan, Panel Report and Government Proposed
                                  Changes. Evidence of current/future levels of need/demand as well as availability of suitable,
                                  viable sites should be considered. Should be included in table at question 7.4. Table does not
                                  provide comprehensive list of factors or any physical or land ownership constraints. PPS3 lists
                                  existing land use, contamination, stability, flood risk and complex land ownership issues as
                                  constraints and these should be included.
                                  7.8: Aside from Whitehill/Bordon would support CH1. Need for modest development in other
                                  settlements. Do not support CH3 as would result in unsustainable unplanned development.
                                  7.10: Do not consider that any of options are appropriate. Spatial strategies should allow for
                                  development in range of settlements having regard to sustainability, environment etc. Strategy
                                  for a single settlement (as in SH1 would fail to recognise needs of other settlements in south of
                                  district and would be unsound. Do not support CH3 as need structured approach that identifies
                                  suitable settlements according to sustainability and other criteria.
                                  7.11: An approach should be put forward which supports development in settlements in south
                                  Hampshire area which display most sustainable characteristics. Rowlands Castle should be
                                  included as has a number of strengths. Offers a rail service (unlike the other 2 settlements) and
                                  has strong links with Havant to the southwest. Need degree of flexibility at this stage in process.
                                  Therefore support option which recognises Rowlands Castle for development alongside
                                  Horndean and Clanfield.

Whitehill Town Council (112)      Additional comments to website submission:
                                  8.4 – yes, it is considered the best option (WB1) to save wildlife in the area.
                                  8.5 – no (WB2) (see below)
                                  8.6 – no (WB3) (see below)
                                  8.7 – yes (WB4)
                                  8.8 – do not prefer either option (see below)
                                  8.9 – yes (see below)
                                  ‘Whitehill Town Council propose between 4,000 – 5,000 houses, to be built following Habitat
                             CORE STRATEGY ISSUES AND OPTIONS CONSULTATION

                             Additional comments made not included in SNAP analysis

                                Regulation Assessments, with consideration being given to the allocation an density of the
                                brownfield and Greenfield sites (Greenfield sites namely Hogmoor Inclosure and Standford
                                Grange).
                                Town Council would also have wished to have more time to respond in light of ec-town bid as
                                members feel the 2 issues are intertwined.
SEEDA (115)                     As part of district lies in Urban South Hampshire Diamond for Investment and Growth,
                                recognises valuable role that Core Strategy will play in ensuring that this is able to realise its
                                potential through sustainable prosperity. Remainder lies in rural south east where priority is to
                                invest in economic viability of towns and villages, new business and develop visitor economy.
                                Vision: Broadly support and is well aligned to Regional Economic Strategy.
                                Whitehill/Bordon: Recognise strategic importance of developing for 5,500 homes and 3,500 jobs;
                                regeneration will improve housing, jobs and facilities.
                                Housing: Agree sufficient land should be allocated to ensure delivery, 40% affordable to
                                recognise high cost of housing.
                                Employment: Although employment study shows little requirement for additional floorspace it is
                                important that existing sites are redeveloped where necessary to encourage Smart growth, meet
                                needs of workforce, encourage new investment and discourage communting. Sufficient
                                affordable employment space of right type and size to meet needs of region and support
                                competitiveness.

Member of the public (119)      Whitehill/Bordon: Agree needs development but fell strongly that this should not be at expense of
                                Standford Farm or other greenfield areas. Building on brownfields should be kept under strict
                                planning controls.
Portsmouth Water (122)          Pleased to not e that climate change, increase in single person households and water resources
                                are highlighted.
                                Environment: Concern that developers will have difficulty in reaching level 4 of Code for
                                Sustainable Homes. Portsmouth Water have assumed in its draft Water Resources management
                                Plan that new homes will only meet level 1.
                                Remain sceptical about the economic and practical justification of proposals for using level 6 for
                                rain water harvesting.
                                Reservoir: No reference is made to Havant Thicket reservoir. This needs to be included and
                                highlight potential to deliver objectives relating to open space. Will then be consistent with
                                Havant Borough Council’s Preferred Options Core Strategy (March 2008). r
            CORE STRATEGY ISSUES AND OPTIONS CONSULTATION

            Additional comments made not included in SNAP analysis

KMA (123)      Whitehill/Bordon:
               Broadly support bid to be Eco-town status but any proposals need to be underpinned by
               Appropriate Assessment in accordance with the Habitats Regulations and SEA. Without
               environmental safeguards and SANGS any significant additional development will have far
               reaching negative impact. Therefore suggest caution with regard to policy for large scale
               development. Core Strategy should take flexible approach and plan for having to exclude
               Whitehill if necessary; there are other locations in district which collectively could accommodate
               such growth.
               Option 4 proposes more growth than settlement could reasonably accommodate given
               ecological constraints and should be discounted. WB1 is similar to the growth envisaged by SE
               Plan and WB3 relates to eco-town status. Deficiencies of infrastructure also constrain
               development.
               Do not feel there is merit in seeking to accommodate all district’s growth in one or few locations.
               Need for mix of housing and tenures is across district.
               Settlement should be identified in LDF for level of growth identified by SE Plan (2,500 dwellings)
               with other uses to improve services, facilities and transport. WB1 would offer significant
               development and community benefits; easier to absorb and mitigate against effects of
               development. Could expand further beyond 2026 to deliver growth shown in WB3.

KMA (124)      Housing:
               Issue A: Welcome EHDC’s undertaking to meet requirements of SE Plan, any changes that
               might be incorporated and the undertaking to use LDF to identify deliverable rolling 5 year
               supply.
               Support combination of A2 and variation of A5; combination of allocations for housing and
               reserve allocations linked to policy of permitting higher densities in town centres and places well
               served by public transport/facilities and capable of having higher densities because of their
               townscape character.
               Rigorous monitoring and management of supply would identify when reserve sites could be
               brought forward. Allow supply to be supplemented from reserve if needed.
               Issue B: Support B3 as reasonable and equitable and will not dissuade developers from
               developing sites with smaller dwelling yield. Wish to be reassured that dwelling yields set out in
               table are net figures, that maximum % of affordable housing sought would be 35%, and that
               policy would not apply to sites with net yield of less than 5 dwellings.
                        CORE STRATEGY ISSUES AND OPTIONS CONSULTATION

                        Additional comments made not included in SNAP analysis

                           Issue C: Welcome EHDC’s acknowledgement that exceptions sites are not yielding enough
                           dwellings quickly enough.C4 offers most prospect for securing increase in provision of affordable
                           housing. Has a precedent in another Hampshire authority and would encourage landowners to ut
                           land forward when might no otherwise do so. Key to increasing supply in rural areas.
                           C4 makes no mention of proportions; suggest affordable housing should be majority possibly
                           65:35 in favour of affordable housing.
                           Agree C4 would need a list of ‘qualifying’ settlements to be produced, should be straightforward
                           to quantify affordable housing for each. Consider that do not need to be concerned about
                           affordable housing adjacent to settlements that lack basic services/facilities as to provide
                           affordable hosing in such circumstances is unlikely to be sustainable. Could include policy based
                           on C1 where identified need in smallest settlements is so significant and overriding as to warrant
                           exception to policy.
                           Issue D: LDF need to be flexible to allow developers and Council to negotiate optimum mix of
                           each site. Support D1 linked to D6 to influence tenures of affordable housing. Would allow Core
                           Strategy to be flexible to changes in market conditions.
                           Issue E: Density is crude measure; important for housing to be assessed ‘in the round’ to include
                           siting, layout, access, parking, landscaping, relationship to surroundings etc. Do not see any
                           reason for Core Strategy to contain an specific policies relating to density of form of options E1-
                           E5. Simply need policy to maximise residential densities where possible consistent with
                           principles of good design, balanced communities and inclusive development. Skills base of
                           developers and Council should ensure that new hosing integrates satisfactorily with
                           surroundings, while making best use of available land.

Liphook Surgery (131)      Need for more space for surgery which has now outgrown its premises. Currently operates as 2
                           practices (Liss – Hillbrow Surgery and Liphook – Newtown Surgery). To cater for growth has
                           extended both and transferred admin function to Liphook.
                           Legislation now requires separate rooms for a number of procedures.
                           Patient numbers: Growth needs to be considered both in terms of increased patient numbers but
                           also in terms of increased through put of patients. To achieve government targets more nursing
                           staff and more GP consulting time is required.
                           Patient demographics lean towards the elderly who have higher incidence of chronic disease
                           and require more monitoring.
                           Rural dispensing: Now offered as service to registered patients living more than 1 mile from a
                              CORE STRATEGY ISSUES AND OPTIONS CONSULTATION

                              Additional comments made not included in SNAP analysis

                                 pharmacy. Currently being run from existing space but need additional space.
                                 Government Health/Local Policy: Dept of Health is looking to GPs to commission and develop
                                 services locally. To achieve higher number of patients seen in Primary Care rather than This will
                                 put more pressure on existing service. Government’s intention to deliver care closer to home in
                                 key specialities. Increasing incidence of dementia and chronic diseases needing to be managed
                                 locally. Establishment of polyclinics (multi discipline teams)
                                 Local housing/population demand: Development of existing sites in Liphook and sites in Local
                                 Plan will lead to increased numbers of patients.
                                 PCT Funding: GP premises currently capped; practices expected to fund expansion out of own
                                 resources.
                                 Way Forward: Space requirements in future will be greater than now to meet future needs. Any
                                 future facility would need to include GP surgery, dispensing to housebound/nursing homes,
                                 pharmacy, hospital consultants with surgical facility in adj building (for cross section of
                                 disciplines), treatment rooms for procedures previously undertaken in hospitals, diagnostics,
                                 compliance with new regulations for separate procedures, opportunity for other health
                                 professionals to be in same place (eg dentists, osteopaths etc), space for community teams
                                 (health visitors etc) and rehabilitation facilities.

Roger Hill Architects (132)      EHDC faces challenges of housing deliver to meet requirements of South East Plan and PPS3
                                 and PPS1. LDF seeks ‘dispersed’ approach, therefore appropriate that largest settlements (Alton
                                 and Petersfield) form focus of development. Modest allocations to ‘lower order’ settlements to
                                 meet outstanding housing needs. Approach is encouraging, allows for broad locations for
                                 development to be identified against range of sustainability criteria
                                 Need to ensure that smaller settlements with good access to local service centres are not
                                 overlooked.
                                 Support Core Strategy Option C2 – to include smaller scale allocations where good access to
                                 local centres is available. Could be achieved through examination of settlement policy
                                 boundaries (eg Griggs Green which looks to Liphook).
                                 Core Strategy needs to balance new sites and protecting environment. Dispersal would minimise
                                 adverse impact. Relevant to Griggs green which is within 400m protection zone of Wealden
                                 Heaths SPA. Landowner could provide SANGS to mitigate.
                            CORE STRATEGY ISSUES AND OPTIONS CONSULTATION

                            Additional comments made not included in SNAP analysis

Defence Estates (155)          4,000, 5,000 and 8,000 home options for growth include MOD greenfield land in particular
                               Hogmoor Enclosure. The Enclosure is currently used for tracked vehicle driver training for which
                               an alternative location is not yet identified under the Defence Training Review PPP. The PPP
                               contract is under negotiation with an anticipated signatory date in 2009. Clearly the future of the
                               site will need to be clarified by MPD before masterplanning commences on the preferred option.
Forestry Commission (156)      Draw attention to 2 documents : ‘A Strategy for England’s Trees, Woodlands and Forests and
                               the South east England Regional Forest Framework ‘Seeing the Wood from the Trees’. Also
                               need to refer to ‘Forestry Commissions Woodlands in South Hampshire’. Covers strategic spatial
                               and thematic delivery of sites in relation to PPG17. ‘A Green Strategy for Urban Southern
                               Hampshire’ (draft) covering delivery I the PUSH area.
                               Through ‘Public Forest Estate’ (PFE) own considerable amount of land in EH including alice Holt
                               Forest, Bushey Leaze, Chawton Park, Queen Elizabeth Forest.
                               Alice Holt would provide excellent green infrastructure for potential Whitehill/Bordon eco-town.
                               1 Introduction: Support vision.
                               2 Environment: Role of woodlands can strongly support approach to landscape, biodiversity,
                               achieving high quality environment, climate change and renewable energy. Would like to add to
                               list of objectives:
                                - Resilience to Changing Climate – role of countryside and natural environment in providing
                               local resilience the following incident that include dryer summers, flooding, drought and storms
                               and high winds.
                               3 Housing: Need to define opportunities for:
                               a) increased use of sustainable construction materials (ie timber)
                               b) use of renewables for energy and power (eg wood fuel)
                               c) opportunities provided by trees, woodlands. Forests in delivery of green infrastructure to meet
                               needs of sustainable delivery (social, economic, environmental)
                               Issue A – with all options there is a need to value link to external green infrastructure assets
                               (woodlands).
                               4 Economy: Woodlands and forests can play important role in delivery of attracting tourism and
                               rural employment.
                               5 Transport: Rural accessibility – need for more sustainable transport choices, enhance public
                               transport to unlock potential of woodlands.
                               6 Healthy Living: Trees, woodlands and forests can play important role in good quality of life,
                               access to community facilities, open space, sport and recreation. (eg Alice Holt’s close proximity
CORE STRATEGY ISSUES AND OPTIONS CONSULTATION

Additional comments made not included in SNAP analysis

   to Whitehill/Bordon eco-town development). Capital and revenue support through various
   projects can enhance delivery of objectives.
   7 Where should new development go?
   Strength of Whitehill/Bordon is close proximity of Alice Holt Forest for recreation etc. Weakness
   is lack of public transport.
   8 Whitehill/Bordon Opportunity:
   Housing: Would welcome statement that values an increases in use of sustainable materials
   (timber), innovative technologies and locally sourced wood fuel for heat and power in eco-town.
   Employment: Would welcome statement that values an increase in rurala sector jobs. Could be
   through provision of wood fuel, timber production, tourism, leisure and recreation. Aslo scope for
   voluntary work as ladder to employment.
   Health, recreation and community facilities and services: Would welcome statement that values
   the local facilities, public playing spaces and children and young people’s play spaces provided
   by Alice Holt to the eco-town. Better transport and funding at Alice Holt as partnership approach
   with Waverley BC to improve transport to Farnham.
   Would welcome statement that values leisure facilities provided by Alice Holt Forest. Integrated
   approach with Waverley would lead to better access and delivery.
   Education: Would welcome statement that values Forestry Commission’s Education service at
   Alice Holt. Opportunity to learn about sustainable development and communities in forest context
   linked to national curriculum. Integrated approach with Waverley would lead to better access and
   delivery.
   Transport: Would welcome ststatement to provide better public transport, walking and cycling
   opportunities as joint approach with Waverley.
   Infrastructure: Would welcome statement to value Alice Holt Forest’s and other woodland’s
   potential in ‘Energy concept Strategy’, especially in delivery of locally sourced wood fuel.
   Commercial Viability: Would welcome statement to value Alice Holt’s role in providing
   commercial viability to sustainable development desires of eco-town.
   Environment: Would welcome statement to value Alice Holt’s role in delivering key issues. Eco-
   town will have impact on Forest and needs to be considered. Assets of site (heritage, ecology,
   community) must be protected and enhanced. For example by better site design to increase
   capacity and delivery. Would lead to benefits for Wealden heaths Phase 1 SPA and Woolmer
   Forest SAC.
   Making things happen: Would like to be kept informed of developments through AMR.
                                  CORE STRATEGY ISSUES AND OPTIONS CONSULTATION

                                  Additional comments made not included in SNAP analysis

Barton Willmore on behalf of         Welcomes opportunity to identify proposals for additional and final phase of development at
Helical (Liphook) Limited (157)      retirement village on land at Bramshott Place. Consists of land at Pennelly Farm for 40-50
                                     retirement homes and 50 bed care home.
                                     Environment: Regard should be paid to environmental constraints in district. These need to be
                                     considered in any overall strategy for locating development.
                                     2.6-2.8: Developers should follow guidance in Building Regulations which is measurable and
                                     achievable, and based on technologies that are proven to work.
                                     Housing:
                                     Option A1: Broadly support A1. EHDC should have regard to step change in housing delivery
                                     which requires increase in delivery rates to2016 and 2020. Neither housing figures in SE Plan or
                                     Report of the Panel have been prepared to support or implement required increase. Real
                                     possibility that proposed changes to SE Plan will allocate greater levels of housing.
                                     Certain large settlements are constrained by environmental designations. Need to allocate
                                     ‘sufficient’ to meet targets and reflect this in Core Strategy. Option A1 would allow flexibility in
                                     market and increase likelihood of mix of different types and size of dwelling.
                                     Option A2: Appropriate to identify suitable deliverable sites within first 5 to 10 years of plan
                                     period as required by PPS3. Do not consider it appropriate to identify reserve sites.
                                     Option A3: No comment.
                                     Option A4: Compulsory purchase powers are unlikely to speed up delivery as complex and
                                     lengthy process. Need closer working with landowners.
                                     Options A5: Support higher density where it reflects surrounding areas and benefits from greater
                                     accessibility to public transport. LPA need to avoid increasing densities to extent that prevents
                                     developers form providing choice to market. Need to ensure range of house types available
                                     including within retirement villages. Higher density to be located near most accessible services
                                     and facilities.
                                     Affordable Housing:
                                     Option B1: Core Strategy should reflect requirements of SE Plan. Panel report endorses regional
                                     35% target. Also need to take account of PPS3 and up to date housing needs assessment and
                                     local site circumstances.
                                     Options B2-B4: Level of affordable housing should have regard to site characteristics and
                                     development proposed. Negotiation may be better way forward than rigid compliance with set
                                     requirements.
CORE STRATEGY ISSUES AND OPTIONS CONSULTATION

Additional comments made not included in SNAP analysis

   Affordable Housing in Rural Areas: Element of market housing should also be considered
   outside settlement boundaries where viability of small scale developments should be secured.
   Housing Mix:
   Options D1-D2: Core Strategy should seek to ensure range of housing type can be delivered.
   Need variety to meet different needs including housing for active retired people. Core Strategy
   should not set specific mix to which new development should accord (D2).Mix and type should
   reflect nature of area, characteristics of sites and market demand while striving for suitable mix
   including for active retired people.
   Option D3: Core Strategy should set out design targets.
   Option D4: Would support references to allocating range of different types and sizes of new
   homes. Welcome recognition that certain type/size of housing is best suited to certain type/size
   of sites. Allocate sites for a form of development that is suitable when considered in context of
   area.
   Option D6-D7: It is not appropriate to set specific % splits for level of affordable housing to be
   provided as social rented and intermediate housing. Take account of PPS3 and SE Plan which
   provide guide to tenure mix. Also need up to date assessment of housing needs and take
   account of local site circumstances.
   Measuring the Density:
   Options E1-E5: Should be in accordance with PPS3 and Local Plan. Therefore E1 most
   appropriate.
   Where should new development go?
   Central Hampshire options: Support CH2 as most suitable. Extension to retirement village at
   Bramshott Place would be sustainable form of development to meet acknowledged need for
   housing for elderly. Larger settlements could accommodate development but environmental
   considerations may limit these (eg Petersfield and AONB or National Park boundary).
   Welcome that development should be directed to settlement other than Alton and Petersfield and
   reference to Liphook. Can provide range of benefits. Support Liphook as sustainable location for
   development with access to rail services, good bus services, range of facilities, located A3/A3M
   corridor. CH3 – caution should be given to this approach as focus of development should be
   limited to those settlements identified in CH2.
   South Hampshire options: Question suitability of directing disproportionate amount of growth to
   Horndean and other settlements in this part of the district. Greater focus should be given to more
   sustainable settlements identified in CH2.
   Whitehill/Bordon: Development here should not be at expense of sustainable development
                            CORE STRATEGY ISSUES AND OPTIONS CONSULTATION

                             Additional comments made not included in SNAP analysis

                                 options in other locations in district aimed at meeting specific demands for particular types of
                                 housing.
                                 Transport: Bramshott Place has been considered as part of Local Plan process to be sustainable
                                 location.Extension to retirement home would represent sustainable completion of retirement
                                 village using same accepted junction on to Hewshott Lane.
                                 Healthy Living: LDF strategy needs to take account of growing elderly population. High level of
                                 demand for accommodation in Bramshott Place is evidence of this. Final phase would saitisfy
                                 demand and take advantage of facilites and services being provided at retirement village
                                 currently being built.
                                 Checking and making things happen: EHDC should engage with developers including through
                                 pre-application discussions to progress development.


Thames Water Property Services   Environment: Key sustainability objective should be for new development to be co-ordinated with
(158)                            the infrastructure it demands and to take account of capacity of existing infrastructure. ‘Provision
                                 of adequate water and sewerage infrastructure’ should be key issue in Core Strategy. Need to
                                 avoid unacceptable impacts on the environment.
                                 Importance of timing of provision and lead in times where infrastructure not available (can be up
                                 to 10 years)
                                 Water and sewerage undertakers rely on planning system to ensure infrastructure is provided
                                 ahead of development (by way of phasing or Grampian style conditions).
                                 Essential that developers demonstrate that adequate capacity exists both on and off site to serve
                                 development and that it would not lead to problems for existing users. If this is not the case then
                                 the developer will need to discuss what improvements are required and how they are to be
                                 funded.
                                 Propose text of policies and supporting text to be included in Core Strategy to meet these
                                 requirements.
                                 Development: Would need details of levels of housing and location of sites to comment on
                                 specific impacts. At this stage unable to determine infrastructure needs. Need to take account of
                                 neighbouring authorities as well. Led in times should not be underestimated.
                                 Whitehill: WB1 to WB4 would have significant impact on sewage capability at Bordon Sewage
                                 Treatment works. Higher levels of growth would need considerable extension (possibly
                                 doubling) to these Works. Detailed study would show if new works required. Alternatively
                           CORE STRATEGY ISSUES AND OPTIONS CONSULTATION

                           Additional comments made not included in SNAP analysis

                              relocation of existing Works to more suitable site. Timing and funding constraints would require
                              early warning to examine impact on network and plan for new infrastructure.
DPP on behalf of Cove         Options A1 – A5
Construction (159)            In survey ranked A1-A3 equally. Do not believe that any of these options on their own is capable
                              of ensuring delivery of sufficient housing or complies with PPS3. Need approach that combines
                              all 3, ie allocate more land than is necessary and of that supply some will be reserve sites that
                              can be released to replace baseline sites that are not delivered in timeframe.
                              Option A1: Disadvantages listed have led to mismatch between supply and demand/need for
                              housing which PPS3 is intended to override. To comply with PPS3 the Council is expected to
                              take a positive approach to housing land supply not concern itself with potential small
                              oversupply. SE Plan requirement is a minimum.
                              Option A2: This option in itself is unlikely to lead to release of greenfield land because it it is
                              likely to be needed over the plan period, if identified needs are to be met in most suitable
                              location/manner. PPS3 has downgraded sequential approach to site selection and is more
                              focused on identifying sufficient land of right type and location. Brown field sites by their nature
                              are often small and constrained. Greenfield sites will be needed for mix of housing types, sizes
                              and tenures to achieve mixed communities.
                              Option A3: Council should be concerning itself with sites that are truly deliverable so that
                              changing market will have less impact on supply. If life span of allocation is limited then should
                              focus minds and encourage developers to adopt timely approach to take advantage of pre-
                              application discussions.
                              Option A4 and A5 do not have merit. Bringing A4 into play could demonstrate identified site is
                              not deliverable; Option A5 - increasing densities is not a mechanism for ensuring delivery of
                              housing. Should be no need for this option as should be achieving highest densities possible
                              anyway.

Tourism South East (160)      Support inclusion of specific paragraphs on tourism; tourism makes significant contribution to
                              region’s economy and should be recognised.
                              Suggest reference to DCLG’s ‘Good Practice Guide on Planning for Tourism’ along with
                              suggested paragraphs for inclusion in Core Strategy to address objectives, policy, attractions,
                              accommodation, hotels, caravan/camping sites, transport, waterways, water based recreation,
                              sport facilities etc.
                                 CORE STRATEGY ISSUES AND OPTIONS CONSULTATION

                                 Additional comments made not included in SNAP analysis

Hampshire County Council            More appropriate to comment in detail once specific sites are know.
(Education) (162)                   However concern about situation at Liphook; availability of primary school places is tight and
                                    ability to extend existing schools is constrained. Aware that there have been discussions locally
                                    about new school site at Liphook Manor; unsure that this would be viable. Liphook would only be
                                    suitable location for additional housing if that was sufficiently large enough to justify some new
                                    school provision (say 600-800 houses) whereas a smaller number would create difficulties in
                                    securing appropriate provision.
Chawton Parish Council (163)        Applaud EHDC’s efforts to share government’s requirements and to seek consensus on
                                    implementation of plans. Research and ideas well though through.
                                    Have worked hard to develop VDS and urge EHDC to take account of this in Core Strategy.
                                    Difficult to understand how the parish will have input into implementation of plan under new
                                    system.
                                    ‘Gaps’ and ‘routes’ (eg Butts Bridge and Jubilee Fields) have been thought through but will now
                                    be revisited. Need to take account of these decisions which should be retained and maintained
                                    with changes being accommodated around them.
                                    Against developing reserve sites for Greenfield planning. Would give developers control.
                                    Against removing housing density restrictions; infrastructure is struggling now.
Petersfield Town Council (164)      Potential development over next 10 years includes the following:
                                    1) Sports provision: Town to be a centre of excellence for sport. Penns Farm – anticipate
                                    bringing field next to and behind 2 existing rugby fields into recreational use. Planned to build
                                    changing facilities for football pitches (in conjunction with EHDC’s plans for enhanced sports and
                                    tennis provision at rear of Taro Centre). Would potentially have 2nd floor with viewing gallery for
                                    football and indoor sports with café area. In medium term would consider bringing its ground
                                    maintenance ‘in house’. Will need equipment storage on Penns Farm site and/or Love Lane.
                                    Believe Petersfield Town Football Club is planning to redevelop clubhouse, stand and other
                                    buildings in next few years.
                                    2) Youth provision: With development of skatepark consideration is being given to expansion of
                                    Love Lane Pavilion. Possible development may be youth centre to link with sports facilities.
                                    Festival for Young People (FFYP) have been granted a lease by HCC to build youth facility in
                                    front of Community Centre. Should be progressed in next 12-24 months.
                                    3) Festival Hall: Side extension is a temporary arrangement (40 years ago). Intended to build
                                    permanent 2 story structure, 2nd storey would provide additional office accommodation for
                                    letting/housing increased staffing needed in next 10 years.
                        CORE STRATEGY ISSUES AND OPTIONS CONSULTATION

                        Additional comments made not included in SNAP analysis

                           4) Petersfield Heath: Project muted to for renovation or re-build of public toilets. Old Golf
                           Clubhouse has number of associated buildings which will need demolition or overhaul.

Dr J M Hamilton (165)      Involved as a GP in North East Hampshire with caring for increasing numbers of elderly people.
                           Government have launched ‘Public debate on the future of care and support’ (Times Article May
                           2008). From GP point of view best way to avoid increasing cost of ‘going into care’ is to keep
                           elderly happily living at home (Times Article February 2008). More carers will be needed in
                           homes and more expensive medicines for age related illness but this will be less than cost of
                           going into care, and also apart from emotional cost to individual.
                           Planning for old age should begin at around 65-70 with wishes and expectations set out in a plan
                           along with how this can best be achieved. This may encourage more effort to be made to looking
                           after their own health and also give them a sense of control over their destiny.

                           Reasons for having a planning policy that enables people stay in their own homes:
                           1) LPAs should allow house owners to extend their houses whenever possible to provide
                           attractive bed-sit-cum-bathroom accommodation on ground floor with wheelchair access to
                           kitchen Separate from other planning applications. Would avoid having to leave homes that are
                           ill adapted. Would extend independent living.
                           2) Those suffering from variety of mental disorders and memory problems are a special group
                           and may need institutional; care.
                           3) Many people would like to live in a suitable bed-sit-cum-bathroom part of the house and let the
                           rest to carers/relatives/friends etc to maintain their income. Perhaps local authorities could step
                           in to help with this when/if carers are needed.
                           4) When elderly are placed in care homes they lose skills, motivation, interests and individuality.
                           5) Independence for last 20-30 years of life warrants bricks and mortar added to our houses at a
                           time when we are capable of planning strategically.

Unknown return (170)       3.2: None of options are robust ‘stand alone policy’. Some good elements but more needs to be
                           done to have holistic approach to take account of supply and demand. Sites should only be
                           allocated when are available/suitable/achievable. In other instances assess on own merits.
                           Important as district contains variety of urban and rural areas with differing housing needs.
                           Greater flexibility needs to be introduced so where developments are suitable they are permitted,
                           this can include higher density development in urban areas.
CORE STRATEGY ISSUES AND OPTIONS CONSULTATION

Additional comments made not included in SNAP analysis

   3.14: Increase number of Policy H9 and H10 areas only if they genuinely exist. Need balance
   between preserving character and concentrating development in urban areas. Too much
   emphasis on existing character to stifle development making schemes unviable. Should only be
   the intention of conservation areas and special character areas. As advocate of CABE
   development should react to not reflect existing character. Better use can be made of locations
   that do not contribute to public amenity (eg carefully designed access roads and screening).

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:10
posted:10/29/2011
language:English
pages:47