MEDSTEAD & FOUR MARKS NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2015 – 2028

MEDSTEAD & FOUR MARKS
NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN
2015 – 2028
Draft Plan Comments
April 2015
1
Draft Plan Consultation
The Draft Neighbourhood Plan was put out for public Consultation on 12th March 2015. The period finished
on 31st March 2015.
We asked the respondees to comment on the Draft Plan how much do they agreed with the policies for:
Subject
The Station
Hub
The creation of a Wild
Flower Meadow
Maintaining and developing
our green infrastructure
Total
104
102
100
Strongly Agree
40
56
72
Agree
40
34
22
Neutral
9
10
3
Disagree
5
0
1
Strongly Disagree
11
3
3
76.92%
88.24%
94.00%
Agree & Strongly agree
There were 117 responses. Unfortunately one letter was misplaced between in transit between the Parish
Council offices and the NP Secretary.
Of these 14 made no comment, 55 made comments and 45 made observations.
None
Vision
Policy
1
Policy
2
Policy
3
Policy
4
Policy
5
Policy
6
Policy
7
Policy
8
Policy
9
Policy
10
Policy
11
Policy
12
Bio
Total
36
5
36
1
5
12
14
34
23
12
10
1
15
2
2
208
The comments were reviewed:
Draft Plan Comments
Comment
From
See Pegusus Letter Green Spaces/ SPB
Pegasus
Group
2
Strongly agree with the approach of maintaining green areas within the SPB but some of these,
for instance the SINC next to Gloucester Close contain protected species and their viability
depends upon having a green corridor to connect these areas with surrounding countryside and
provide protection from predation or disturbance by domestic animals. While understanding
that it is not possible to reverse previous planning approvals I think the the NP should commit
the LA to energetically enforcing developer commitments to enhance hedgerows etc - which for
recent developments have been promised but never delivered. Any future developments
should be considered in terms of their impact on the local green infrastructure and not just on
the piece of land within the planning application. The document talks about drawing the new
SPB to stop "backbuilding" but this protection should be extended to green corridors - ancient
hedgerows etc. to protect their viability. The cumulative impact of many planning decisions will
destroy our natural habitat.
Martin Evans
Dear Sirs
I refer to the proposed amendments to the SPB which were displayed during the
consultation on the Medstead and Four Marks neighbourhood plan.
While I welcome the
narrowing of the SPB in general I would like to understand better why there is such a marked
inconsistency in its application to Blackberry Lane, in particular between Telegraph Lane and No
39A Blackberry Lane. Firstly there remains a substantial area of Wild Wood on its eastern
boundary which appears to afford space for further development. Secondly, while the
boundary between No21 and No27/29 remains untouched, between No27/29 and No39a it has
been narrowed more than the remainder of Blackberry Lane westwards from No45.
It has
previously been established by the Inspector of the Local Plan (Second Review) that, ‘Generally,
long gardens have been excluded especially those whose scale and character give them a closer
affinity with the countryside and where development would intrude into it. That is the correct
approach. These gardens can be regarded as previously- developed land where they form the
curtilages of the dwellings concerned, but that does not make such land suitable for
development where it would damage the rural setting of the village. With that ruling in mind it
is difficult to comprehend why a similar restriction has not been applied to the remainder of
Blackberry Lane, as it has in Telegraph Lane for example.
Although the diagrams of these
proposals do not appear to be on line for comment by midnight tonight, nevertheless I would
be most grateful if the Steering Committee could explain to me the basis and justification for
this proposal.
Finlegh
Gordon
There is a need for large community venue cgf finchamoton Baptist Church
Howard
Wright
Dear Sirs, I recently attended the consultation on the Medstead and Four Marks
neighbourhood plan. As I said to the organisers on the day I found the event informative and
helpful. I commented then that I generally welcomed the tightening of the SPB, to protect the
transition from the established settlement and the community to the countryside. Following
a conversation with Cllr Steve Sensier I submitted a written question at the event enquiring as
to why the proposed amendment to the SPB adjacent to the black arrow on the extract map
below, does not extend up the Lane toward Telegraph Lane, as shown by the solid blue line that
I have added (and indeed why it does not extend even further as shown by the dashed blue
line).
The treatment I propose would also be more consistent with the bolder approach
adopted in Telegraph Lane. I am concerned that, whilst of itself welcome, the limited extent
of the revision as presently tabled within the Neighbourhood Plan ‘facilitates’ development to
the South side of Blackberry Lane in the region bounded by the proposed SPB and my blue
lines. This is at odds with the general nature of the tightening of the SPB and may facilitate an
expansion of Wild Wood and/or similar development in the adjacent area. If that is the
intention I should like to understand why the Steering Committee is in favour of further
development in this area.
In both my general support of the proposals to tighten the SPB
and in raising the matter above, I recall comments made by the Inspector as part of the Local
Plan (Second Review) when considering the general issue of whether “the SPB is too generous
Richard Paul
3
in its inclusion of buildings and other land that would be better regarded as part of the
countryside”, the Inspector commented as follows (2.1720): “Generally, long gardens have
been excluded especially those whose scale and character give them a closer affinity with the
countryside and where development would intrude into it. That is the correct approach. These
long gardens can be regarded as previously-developed land where they form the curtilages of
the dwellings concerned, but that does not make such land suitable for development where it
would damage the rural setting of the village”. Whilst the context within which planning now
takes place has changed somewhat the underlying sentiment expressed above seems to me to
be as valid today as it did at the time of the Inspector’s report. Regarding the area described
above, I should be grateful if the Medstead and Four Marks Neighbourhood Plan Steering
committee would please clarify the basis for the treatment proposed and consider the alternate
alignment of the SPB that I have suggested. I look forward to hearing from you. By Email
Initial Comments on the Medstead and Four Marks Neighbourhood Plan Consultation DraftMarch 2015 EHDC thanks Medstead and Four Marks Parish Councils for the opportunity to
comment on the Draft Neighbourhood Plan, which it sees as a major step forward in delivering
local choice in the planning of the area. The delivery of the plan, in such a short space of time, is
also to be commended. By the nature of the response, it will identify a number of areas where
the District Council has issues with the Neighbourhood Plan, rather than those areas where
there is agreement. That the District Council has raised concerns should not, therefore, be
taken as an objection to the wider areas of agreement. The comments set out below relate to
the paragraph number of the Neighbourhood Plan. These comments follow up on those
expressed in a meeting with the NP and their consultant on 23 March 2015. Para. No.
Comment 1.5 It will be helpful to see the plan that details the SPB when it is available. 1.13
Colleagues in the EHDC Economic Development team have been asked to comment on the
potential for the hub, these comments will be passed to the NP team when available. 1.20 It is
unlikely that CIL will be adopted by EHDC before July 2015, in the interim S106 agreements will
still need to be utilised to achieve important infrastructure. 4.6 Policy 1 The actual SPB for both
Medstead and Four Marks/ South Medstead shown in plan form would be very helpful, EHDC
may have specific comments on the boundaries and will be happy to comment when these are
available. Policy 1 Bullet 3 The JCS allows in exceptional circumstances the development of
affordable housing outside the SPB, is the intention of this policy to preclude exceptions
housing? Policy 2 4.10 The requirement for this policy is understood, it is suggested that there
be further narrative to justify the requirement and the boundaries for this gap. Policy 3 It is
important to note that occasionally business uses develop in predominantly residential areas,
when expanded they may impact on the amenities and quiet enjoyment of homes by local
people, it may be worth noting this issue within the policy or text? Policy 4 The village centres
should be shown on a map with definable boundaries if at all possible. It would be more easily
“policed” if the shops could be referred to by address as well as name, it may prove difficult to
trace a change of use if the proprietor has changed but the address is more easily monitored.
Policy 6 The policy intent is supported from a planning point of view, consideration of the hub
from the Economic Development team has been sought. Plan D would benefit from a key so
that the important green “breathing space” can be identified. Policy 7 The policy intent is
understood, terminology could benefit from review. The first sentence could read: “The
following areas are designated as Local Green Spaces …” The second sentence could read:
“Proposals for development on any of the following open aces, shown on the Proposals Map,
will be resisted unless the development…” The green spaces should be shown in detail on the
4
Simon
JenkinsNeighbourho
od Plan and
CIL
Coordinator
proposals map of sufficient scale to be able to denote boundaries. Policy 10 The third bullet
should say after…the provisions of the M & FM Village Design Statement in that …and then list
the main points or al least pin point where they are in the Design Statement. Policy 11 The
comments of the HCC Transport team will be essential to the understanding of this policy.
Policy 12. The Government announced on 18 December 2014 that Sustainable Drainage
Systems would be dealt with under the planning system. However, in the short term at least,
this would only apply to schemes of 10 dwellings or more or over 1,000m2 of non-residential
floorspace. Any local variation for this, ie to smaller schemes, will need to be justified by
particular local circumstances. The policy and/or justification needs to be re-drafted in light of
this. The policy could be read as allowing surface water to be discharged into the foul water
network, which is not appropriate. In addition, sustainable drainage schemes will need to be
maintained; consequently the last line of the policy should state: “… necessary mitigation is
access, delivered and maintained for the lifetime of the development.” General In preparing
the District Council for its Part 2 Plan Sustainability Consultants URS were clear that there
needed to be an appropriate narrative and Sustainability Appraisal to support the site selection
process. Whilst the NP is not required to produce an SA of the same complexity as the Part 2
Plan we believe it would be good practice to have a narrative to explain the development
strategy formulated to advise the NP allocation. East Hampshire would be happy to make
available the work undertaken within the SA for the Part 2 plan in relation to Bentley to support
that narrative.
5
Four Marks and Medstead Neighbourhood Plan
Comments on the Draft Plan
Summary The Draft Plan answers many of the points asked in the questionnaire submitted
earlier. The comments are intended to be ‘constructive’ with view points to be considered
before Pre Submission stage. • Houses • Shop area • Light Industrial area • Senior resident
housing Houses Whilst the Plan discusses to some length the number of houses permitted,
general areas where developers have targeted and last but not least the ‘windfalls’. As the
population ages there doesn’t appear to be enough suitable housing in planning for the aging
community or for those who might want to settle in the Neighbourhood The developments to
date consist of are two and three storey units. It well known that an aging community do better
with single storey units suitably designed to maximise staying at home without ending in a Care
Institution. Stairs are a hazard even with stair lifts, bathing and washing need to be carefully
considered, doorways often too narrow and not suitable when using walking frames and
wheelchairs. For future planning, Consideration for a retirement complex either as an entity or
merged together with affordable, executive and social housing could be considered. Shop area.
The proposal to develop the Railway Station Hub needs to be carefully thought out. Businesses
only thrive if there are people using them. Has enough ground work been done to establish
who would use such a facility. The heart of the Community is, the Four Marks shops and green
and likewise, Medstead village. Work and development on these two areas needs to come first.
Four Marks The village is losing its charm and some re-development should be considered. The
‘small industrial area off Hazel Road, once a supporting and useful set of facilities. However
with the development of the housing complex leading from Hazel Road, Pine Road and Badger
Close, these facilities are in the wrong place. Vincent Plant is so busy it commands Hazel Road
what with low loaders , light plant etc,it’s a mine field for pedestrians and housing traffic. This
heavy traffic has contributed to the severe damage to Hazel Road. It has a gas bottle park along
the side of the building. Has any assessment been made as to what would happen to the
surrounding area if these bottles exploded? Alton Pumps, not really contributing to Four
Marks. Its market is County wide. What started off as a sign on the door has developed into
multi container storage, crates etc. This is a housing area and not an industrial area-its time to
relocate to a purpose built industrial area. Discussion has been made as to where to relocate
such an area. There are two ready made parks, Woodlea Park and Mansfield Business Park.
Both on Station approach. Both parks have empty facilities, a number of them for many years.
This is where the re-development of industrial business of the village should go. Both Medstead
and Four Marks would be better served. Should this move occur the vacant buildings in Hazel
Road Four Marks, to be redeveloped as an extension to the existing precinct. This is where we
need the craft shops, tea room, dentist and even a charity shop. The ground area developed
into gardens and parking-the result will harmonise with the local housing and the rest of the
village. The front facades of the Four Marks village shops is just about bearable. The rear side
of these premises is reminiscent of a war zone. Is there nothing that can be done to give an
uplift to this area? Pathways and cycle ways. General improvement and also provision is
always a good thing. We should look to encourage physical activity in walking, bike riding (on
and off road), horse riding. Coupled with the excellent facilities on both Four Marks and
Medstead sports facilities will help to retain the country side feeling and encourage the
residents to appreciate our wonderful surrounds. Infrastructure and services. This is a long
standing issue where the population grows followed by infrastructure and services
improvements. We have two medical practices and one non- NHS dentist and one optician.
Encouragement to bring on a NHS dentist, perhaps into the re-designed Four Marks precinct
would be of benefit. The Local Green Spaces and Open Spaces. The Plan is excellent and
combining with footpaths, cycle ways, bridle ways will help retain the beauty and accessibility
of our surrounding areas.
6
David and
Angela
Roberts
Medstead and Four Marks Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group Our Ref: EH/247/1/AW Your
Ref: Email: [email protected] Date: 30th March, 2015 Status: Dear Sir /
Madam, Draft Medstead and Four Marks Neighbourhood Plan consultation March 2015 –
comments submitted on behalf of Mr Peter Charles Please find attached the comments that
we are submitting on the draft Neighbourhood Plan on behalf of our client, Mr Peter Charles,
who owns land at Cedar Stables, Medstead. An online comments form was filled in simply to
register Mr Charles’ wish to comment on the Neighbourhood Plan. This letter sets out his
overall comments on the Plan. If you have any queries about the comments or wish to discuss
them further, please contact me or Andy Partridge. Yours sincerely,
Alison Wood Policy
Planner Enclosure cc
COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT MEDSTEAD AND FOUR MARKS
NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF MR PETER CHARLES General comments
Mr Charles welcomes the publication of the draft Neighbourhood Plan and acknowledges the
amount of work that has gone in to its production. The main areas of comment are: - Vision
and Objectives - Wild Flower Meadow Walk - Local Green Spaces - Approach to further
housing development in Medstead Village - Settlement policy boundary - Maps - Monitoring
and Reviewing the Plan. A. Vision and Objectives i) Point 8 of the Vision Mr Charles
supports point 8 of the Vision – namely, to retain the rural character and setting of Medstead
village whilst accommodating a modest growth in housing numbers to meet the needs of its
residents, and to provide a balance of dwellings types to serve the community over the long
term. However, much of the Plan gives the impression that very little, if any, new
development will be allowed in and around the village. No extensions are proposed to the
settlement policy boundary and the policies for development within the existing boundary are
quite restrictive. The wording of the policies and the extent of the settlement policy boundary
should be reviewed to make them less restrictive before the Pre-Submission Plan is published
for comment. ii) Point 2 of the Vision Mr Charles finds it somewhat surprising that the
Vision for the Neighbourhood Plan does not include meeting the housing needs of the two
parishes. As currently written, the Plan restricts development almost exclusively to land
within the existing settlement policy boundaries (with the exception of some small reductions
in the boundary in parts of Four Marks) or on sites which now have planning permission for
development. The Neighbourhood Plan lasts until 2028. Although the current planning
permissions for housing development exceed the minimum requirement set down in the Joint
Core Strategy for Four Marks and South Medstead, these are all likely to be completed within
the next 5 years. There will be a need to find additional land for housing from about 2020. The
Neighbourhood Plan should be taking a more positive approach to meeting future housing
needs. Medstead village is included within the list if villages to the north of the national Park
in the Joint Core Strategy where a minimum of 150 homes will be provided on greenfield sites.
As a Level 4 settlement in the Joint Core Strategy, development will be limited to ‘minor infilling
and redevelopment, or that which is necessary to meet specific local needs’. Current planning
permissions on greenfield sites in the village will provide 14 new homes. These homes are likely
to be built within the next 2 years. The Neighbourhood Plan, as currently written, does not
make any provision for meeting housing needs in the village once these sites are developed.
The Plan should be amended to enable further development to take place in Medstead village
in order to meet local needs.
B. Wild Flower Meadow Walk Mr Charles supports the
proposal to create a ‘Wild Flower Walk’ around part of Medstead parish, including land at the
proposed meadow at Cedar Stables. However, the walk includes a significant amount of land
which is currently in private ownership. If the Parish Council wishes to create a permanent
public right of way for the entire length of the Walk then some enabling development will be
required in order to help create and maintain it. The draft Neighbourhood Plan, as currently
written, does not allow for any development outside the settlement policy boundary. A more
positive approach to new development needs to be taken if the Council wants to achieve its
ambitions for the Wild Flower Walk. The land owned by Mr Charles on the east side of Trinity
Hill should be included within the settlement policy boundary.
7
Southern
Planning
Practice on
behalf of Mr
Peter Charles
The map of the Wild Flower Meadow Walk shown at the public exhibition showed land
encompassed by the Walk in brown shading. This gave the impression that all of the land within
the Walk was to become a wild flower meadow. This may have been an unintentional result of
shading the land. However, if this was the intention, then Mr Charles strongly objects to his
land on the E side of Trinity Hill being designated as a wild flower meadow. The draft Plan
does not include a detailed map showing the route of the walk and the land required for the
footpath. A detailed map of the Walk must be included in the Pre-Submission version of the
Plan. Policy 8 (Medstead Village Wild Flower Walk) includes a requirement that ‘development
proposals on land within the broad location of the walk will be required to align their public
open space and other amenity requirements with its objective, so that they may contribute to
its successful formation and maintenance.’ Mr Charles has no objection to this, provided that
the policy is not used to prevent development on land near to the Walk. C. Local Green
Spaces The Neighbourhood Plan does not include detailed site plans of the areas proposed to
be designated as Local Green Spaces. In the absence of these, Mr Charles objects to the
designation of land in his ownership at Cedar Stables or the east of Trinity Hill as Local Green
Spaces. However, if the land at Cedar Stables proposed to be allocated as Local Green Space is
the meadow recently approved at Cedar Stables as part of planning application 55010/003 then
Mr Charles does not object to this proposal as it will be provided as part of that development.
Similarly, if the land to be designated as Local Green Spaces at Marls Row and the earthworks
east of Trinity Hill excludes land owned by Mr Charles then he does not object to these Local
Green Spaces. D. Approach to further housing development in Medstead village As
mentioned in the comments on the Vision and Objectives, Mr Charles objects to the very
restrictive nature of the Neighbourhood Plan in relation to meeting future housing needs,
especially once the sites currently granted planning permission have been developed. As
currently drafted, the Plan restricts new development to sites within the existing settlement
policy boundary of the village, provided that it does not result in: - the sub-division of
residential gardens, - the loss of open land that contributes to the form and character of the
village and its rural setting, - a negative impact on local landmarks or local views. The
current settlement policy boundary is very tightly drawn and offers few opportunities for
development. There will be a need for further site allocations to help meet local housing needs
once the two greenfield sites granted planning permission have been built. As these sites are
likely to have been developed by about 2017/18 there is a need for the Neighbourhood Plan to
take a more proactive approach to meeting future housing needs in the village. The land
owned by Mr Charles to the east of Trinity Hill is a highly suitable site for a limited amount of
development, being close to the village centre and the wide range of local facilities there. The
site is well-screened by mature hedgerows. It adjoins the earthworks at Trinity Hill and could
provide a pedestrian access to it, potentially with some additional open space. The site should
be included in the Neighbourhood Plan as a site suitable for a limited amount of residential
development. Mr Charles also owns land to the west of Cedar Stables which abuts the
settlement boundary and adjoins the land at Barn End which is being recommended for
planning permission at the Planning Committee on 2nd April (see application 25979/004). This
land is also available for development and should be included within the settlement policy
boundary as a small housing allocation. E. Settlement Policy Boundary As mentioned
above, Mr Charles considers that the settlement policy boundary of Medstead village should
have been extended to enable some small housing sites to be developed to help meet local
needs for both housing and other community facilities such as the Wild Flower Walk. He
proposes that the settlement boundary should be extended to include land that he owns: - to
the east of Trinity Hill adjoining Marls Row and the earthworks, and - to the west of Cedar
Stables and adjoining Barn End. Detailed maps of these sites can be provided if required. F.
Maps a) Need for more detailed maps
8
As mentioned above, the Neighbourhood Plan needs to include much more detailed maps
which clearly identify: The Medstead Village Wild Flower Walk The proposed Local green
Spaces and open Spaces The settlement policy boundaries of Medstead village, South
Medstead and Four Marks. b) Vision Diagram The purpose of the Vision Diagram is unclear.
It includes references to ‘threads’, ‘garden edge’, ‘rural setting’, fields and semi-rural setting’
but there is no explanation of what these mean or how they will be used to guide / control
development.
G. Monitoring and reviewing the Plan As mentioned above, the
Neighbourhood Plan lasts until 2028. The Plan needs to include a section explaining how the
policies will be monitored and when the Plan will be reviewed. The Joint Core Strategy will need
to be updated and rolled forward within the next year or so to take account of new housing and
employment projections. The neighbourhood Plan will then need to be reviewed and updated
in order to be in line with the Joint Core Strategy.
In addition to the various dos and don'ts relating to planning applications I'd like to see a
stronger statement about the linear nature of development around the edges of Medstead.
The key additional point is that in many locations the development is on one side of the road
only, the other being open agricultural or equestrian land, and that's one of the defining
features of the rural nature of the village in my view. I'd like to see a statement opposing
proposals to develop the open sides of these roads and lanes. Otherwise the document looks
balanced and sensible.
Nick Mason
Dear Sir/ Madam, After attending local presentations on the MFM plans I have the following
comments: - the new centre near the station is an excellent idea especially if there is a licensed
restaurant/pub. I am hoping that it would be a pub similar to the English Partridge in Bighton
or The Ropley. No large chains. Also we would need paths created/used to access local walks
and facilities so that visitors can make use of the facilities. Similar to Alresford. - I support the
push for more green spaces and paths. - In policy 10 need less dense housing. Too many
houses forced into small areas to profit developers. -Too many housing areas sit right on the
A31 causing traffic. In general I support the plan. By Email
Mrs Shirley
Leader
Unfortunaetly due to work pressures I have not been able to attend any of the presentations
nor been able to consider all the points raised. In addition to the comments I sent in yesterday.
Q33 states 20% of respondants wanted additional shopping facilities. 40% said no and 30% said
maybe. Despite 40% saying no to additional shopping facilities, the key item in the plan is
additional shopping facilities around the station. Please can you tell me how this survey is
influencing the development of the plan given that the survey results appear to have been
completely ignored. The survey also indicates that the respondants would possibility be
interested in a clothing shop, restaurant, cafe, bank, household goods, food and beverage, yet
the draft plan proposes craft shops. There are no details what the indoor market would be. As
previously stated, I am very concerned that Stoney Lane will be used as a thorough fare for
people to get this location despite it just being a bridal path. The entrance into the carpark is
narrow and will get blocked up - it isn't designed for what is being proposed in this document.
This will also encourage traffic to pass through the railway bridge arches, single track, adding to
the traffic infrastructure issues that people are concerned about and none of the infrastructure
concerns are being addressed at all!! I have also spoken to a family member of the the land
that is being proposed to be used for these additional faciltiies and it's NEWS to them. The
people drawing up this plan haven't even bothered to consult them - this is not right . This
strikes me as a plan that has been drawn up by specific individuals who want to make money
and the survey is pure window dressing.
Barbara
Gibson
9
I applaud the energy and effort that has been devoted to making this plan happen and thank all
those involved for all their hard work. The Station Hub and wildflower meadow ideas are a
great way to bring this community together. I am pleased that the housing planning is providing
opportunities to support self build and smaller projects and feel it is important to enable small
scale development on existing properties to enable extended families to stay in the area
especially the young and the elderly. The need for affordable housing means we should try to
accommodate more of this within our community although this can be probmematic. Thank
you all again.
Libby
Brayshaw
I was surprised by the proposal of the land around the railway station. The proposed additional
car parking and buildings on page 29 covers privately owned land. I have heard of a legal
wrangle that is in place regarding vechicle access to this land from the station carpark and is
wanting to buy the land. It is now clear to me, why this is happening. The station car-park
owner wants the land, to extend the carpark and put up these additional properties. This also
makes me wonder how much influence the person who owns part of the station carpark and
the road leading up to the station has on the proposed plan and he doesn't even live in the
area.How can a plan detail the use of private land, someone's garden? The person who owns
part of the station carpark, I have heard, cut down trees on Stoney Lane a couple of years ago,
making a complete mess, to widen the entrance to the property, to justify additional traffic
entering at the top of Stoney Lane and enable him to build more properties behind the old
railway shed - fortunately the planning department did not accept it. I have no issue with
adding a restaurant for the station, however, I am very concerned about the proposal to include
additional buildings for arts and craft and car-parking. I do not want traffic going up and down
Stoney Lane. It is an unmaintained stoney bridal way, that currently gets water logged in some
places. I have rights to drive over it as I own a house along the lane, but other vechicles must
NOT be allowed access to the lane.
Barbara
Gibson
Just a couple of (hopefully useful) comments: P 27 - Policy 5 Under Community Assets,
Medstead School is listed, but not Four Marks School. The other asset I would list for Four
Marks is the Veterinary Surgery. P 18 and 36 I note that the Parish Councils are considering
updates of the Village Design Statements. As the former chairman of the Four Marks Village
Design Statement committee, I still hold an electronic copy of both the Design Statement itself
and all the supporting data and documentation. I will be quite happy to supply copies if it is of
any help - there may of course already be copies on the PC computer. By Email
Chris Lake
This is a totally wasted opportunity. I thought the entire point of this plan was to work out
Mary Bantick
where new housing was to go. I appreciate that Four Marks and Medstead have exceeded their
“allocations” of 175 houses and about 10 houses, but as has already been pointed out by
planning inspectors this is not a maximum allocation, it is a minimum figure so, in theory
thousands of new houses could be built in the area. This plan should be saying where any future
new houses will be acceptable and also where they will be unacceptable. As the current plan
extends until 2028 it is unreasonable to expect absolutely no house building in the area in that
time. This plan should also state that any new house building should be dependent upon
certain infrastructure improvements and list what Four Marks needs, like a new pub, post
office, bank etc. Some of this might be outside the remit of the plan, but I think it is worth
including anyway as the feelings and views of local people will be totally overruled unless this is
written down somewhere.
Were any other sites considered other than the 'Station Hub' site for future development to
include an eatery and small retail outlets?
10
Mr A & Mrs
D Hargraves
The questionnaire is strangely selective, singling out, as it does, Policies 6, 7 and 9. It is not
clear why these, as opposed to the other nine policies, warrant isolating in this fashion. If
nothing else, it is guaranteed to skew any response if respondents only voice an opinion on
these three policies. On behalf of our clients, the intent of these policies is laudable. They
own what appears to be, one of the identified “Local Green Spaces and Open Spaces” listed in
Policy 7, namely FOUR MARKS xxiv “Copse of Noah’s Ark, behind Telegraph Lane”. The land is
not in public ownership and there is no public access, although there are some public views
from an adjacent footpath. In this regard, land at both 5 Blackberry Lane and 2 Telegraph Lane
has been the subject of recent planning applications and these proposals specifically excluded
the Copse from the development area; indeed, it was excluded from the application site, but
would be a feature and a backdrop for a PROPOSED public open space and ‘LAP’ play area. As
such, were this realised, it would be consistent with the proposed policy and would afford
greater public benefit from the Copse. Leaving aside the policies expressly highlighted for
comment, our principal reason for responding to the plan is that it is fundamentally flawed. Its
synopsis of East Hampshire District Council (EHDC) policy is incorrect, particularly insofar as it
interprets the JCS Policy CP10. In this regard, this draft Plan may be forgiven, in that it follows
the lead taken by EHDC in its own recently published draft Allocations document (Para 1.6
refers), in respect of which we commented recently as follows: “The failure to allocate any
sites in this settlement (Four Marks) is justified by saying that the JCS (CP10) states that
“beyond existing commitments, new sites will be identified for a minimum of 175 dwellings……
sites for a total of 191* dwellings have already been granted planning permission and no
further allocations are required”. * (now 242) The text does acknowledge the word
minimum. It is an important word, deliberately added to the adopted JCS upon the Inspector’s
recommendation as one change, and a crucial change, to make it sound. There is nothing
ambiguous about the word, it means the least possible amount or quantity and with regard to
JCS housing policy, it is applied both to the district wide figure and each of the itemised “most
sustainable” settlements in the hierarchy. This includes Four Marks/South Medstead. Clearly,
therefore, the policy allows for more than 175 dwellings to be allocated in the settlement and
the fact that 191 are approved (16 more), neither satisfies nor breaches the minimum
allocation policy. Furthermore, CP10 does not state that “new sites” will be allocated “beyond
existing commitments”. It clearly states that provision of a district wide minimum will be made
up by means of; completing existing permissions and allocations, development within existing
settlement boundaries and, amongst others, the allocation of sites to provide a minimum of
175 dwellings at Four Marks/South Medstead. It does not say that the allocations can be
waived if completions of existing allocations and approvals exceed the minimum figure. In the
case of Four Marks/South Medstead, the 175 minimum is clearly intended to be additional to
any dwellings realised under Clauses 1 and 2 of CP10. The draft document must, therefore,
identify sites which will provide a minimum of 175 dwellings in the Plan period, in which
respect, the LIPS, SHLAA and various recent planning proposal provide a variety of options. One
such site identified as reasonable in the companion Sustainability Appraisal (SA) is FM024: Land
at 32 Telegraph Lane/5 Blackberry Lane, Four Marks. This 1.9h site was refused planning
permission (54976/001) recently substantively owing to a similar misinterpretation of the policy
but for no other technical or practical reasons. The site should be included in the site
allocations document. Mindful of this suggestion, we also comment separately on the SA.”
Consequently, this draft Plan rests upon and perpetuates a false assumption about housing and
consequently its Vision and Objectives and Land Use Planning Policies are also misconceived
and incomplete. The comments hold equally good for this Neighbourhood Plan which
effectively is (or should be) the Allocations document for Four Marks.
11
Mr Steven
Barker on
behalf of Mr
B Hobbs and
Mrs A Griffin
Continuation:
Consequently, Policy 1: A Spatial Plan for the Parishes should include the need to allocate a site
or sites for a minimum of 175 dwellings and there should be a corresponding dedicated
“Housing Policy”, possibly Policy 3 with the remaining policies renumbered up to Policy 13.
Amongst the sites should be: * Land at and rear of 5 Blackberry Lane and land at and rear of
32 Telegraph Lane, Four Marks – 17 dwellings. As it stands, the draft Plan is misleading and
incomplete. Neither it, nor the EHDC draft Allocations Plan, from which it takes its lead, reflects
properly the provisions of the recently adopted JCS. The draft Plan must, therefore, be
amended substantially in order to reflect properly the provisions of the JCS.
Mr Steven
Barker on
behalf of Mr
B Hobbs and
Mrs A Griffin
Gentelmen,
Firstly congratulations on all the hours and energy you have expended thus far to produce the
draft plan. My feedback on the draft plan as presented at the church in Four Marks, and also
from studying the full plan online:
Wildflower Walk - I applaud the concept, but must confess to confusion when reading of a walk
"from one end of Medstead Village to the other " but a map presentation and description which
seem to be trying to present not a walk but an area, with mention of acres rather than distance.
This is a presentational criticism!
Page 7 - Railway Station Hub - and Page 23 (Objectives - Vision - Retail, Services and
Community Facilities) : it seems to me that there is a natural hub of sorts already in the
Lymington Barns complex. Is your proposal intended to bridge the distance between Oak Green
and Lymington Barns by establishing a midway hub-link? If so, there arise two implications from
this concept : firstly regarding Station Approach, which would have to become a more major
road in the village, and secondly access from the Oak Green side would be limited to a
footbridge across the railway line....? So not exactly straightforward or a natural focus/heart for
the community!
Background and Purpose - Page 11, paragraphs 2.33 and 2.34 - you mention "Level 3" and
"Level 4 Settlements", and offer more detail on the Settlement Heirarchy via your website, yet
on page 15 you mention both these categories with a simple descriptive extension to include
"Small Local Service Centres" and "Other Settlements with a settlement policy boundary"
respectively - a simple improvement in presentation which avoids the frustration reaction of
not immeditely understanding the differentiation?
Settlement Boundaries - Page 15 para 2.34 :"Medstead Village, South Medstead and Four
Marks all have their own settlement policy boundaries. These will be reviewed by the
Neighbourhood Plan. " I don't understand what the last sentence means. What does "review"
mean - will you/do you propose changing them?
Groundwater Flooding - Page 37 para 4.4.2 : "Lymington Bottom, Four Marks, particularly at the
end of Vectis Close (almost constant in winter months),the Brisland Lane / Blackberry Lane
crossroads and Five Ways before continuing east south east along Hawthorne Road with
additional water from Willis Lane and Hawthorne Lane." All very fair observations, but worth
noting that the substantial new storm drain installed down Brislands Lane (as part of the S278
works prior to the start of the "Medstead Farm" development ) does actually appear to have
finally addressed the crossroads problem. However the Lymington Bottom flooding outside the
"Flints" house (opposite the church) and Vectis Close continues to be as bad as ever....
Pedestrianisation/Cycleways - as a general observation you champion this concept wherever
possible and I am 100% in favour. However there is a danger that the Health+Safety/Highways
Department/EHDC reaction is to insist on tarmac or formal gravel footpaths with kerbs,
minimum widths etc.(witness what has happened down Brislands Lane in front of our
property..), all of which works against the overall declared objective of protecting the rural
character of the area - proper pavements, streetlighting etc.etc. just accelerates the giving-in to
inevitable urbanisation of our village. Speaking personally we do not want bitmac footpaths and
street lighting - I understand it is proposed to install such a pavement along Lymington Bottom
Road from the railway bridge up beyond WKL? This is slippery slope stuff, encouraging the
David
Craigen
12
urbanisation of Medstead and Four Marks. Please receive this feedback as constructive
criticism!
The document is a great start on the long road to achieving something with some legal weight
behind it for the planners to respect.
Congratulations on producing a very comprehensive plan that will hopefully ensure the
retention of the best parts of Four Marks and improve the facilities. Living at the boundary of
the Parish we will be unlikely to walk to the proposed Station Hub and so will need facilities
either to secure bicycles securely or parking nearby, just a thought, We think that traffic
calming measures could be introduced on Lymington Bottom (North side) and Telegraph Lane
and favour breaking up the straight sight line with chicanes that could be planted with small
trees and bushes and require vehicles to weave in and out as they pass down the road, This will
become even more important on Lymington Bottom North if pedestrians are remove from the
carriage way leaving only cyclists as soft targets for vehicles. It is encouraging to think that
further development in Four Marks will be on a very minor scale for the immediate future, but
fear that with the population increasing by 300,000 a year pressure from above will continue to
exploit soft options. Le'ts hope that mfmplan will be able to fight off such an attack,
Nick Giles
I think it is important that if more things are by the station in four marks, there are improved
transport links to the village. There was meant to be a railway link up to the mainline a few
years ago but this has never happened.
Heather
Armitage
Green infrastructure network (footpath) there is a safe way from the footbridge over the
railway by taking the twiiten through to Windmill Fields and then out exactly by the pelican
crossing opposite the shops rather than using the narrow pavement along Station Approach
and the busy Winchester Road. There is also a good green space viewpoint over the Railway.
Pam
Maloney
13
The information on the draft Neighbourhood Plan did say that you wanted comments on the
draft, for what they are worth these are the main issues that came to mind. I have great respect
for those who give up their time to aid community projects, so my hat is doffed to you. My
thoughts on the draft Neighbourhood plan are below and for easy reference I have put the
paragraph numbers with my comments regarding those of most concern. 1.10 i. ‘The Green
Infrastructure Network: we have been looking to find ways to both protect and enhance the
many green spaces in and around the built up areas’. The area bordered by Boyneswood
Road, Five Ash Road and Lymington Bottom Road, until the last few years have had plenty of
green open fields , trees and hedges to easily support abundant wildlife. New developments
and residents are removing hedges and trees. You are unable to protect this environment as its
demise is due to development over which you have no control. I am aware of the reasons for
re drawing the settlement policy lines, I discussed it at great length at the time with various
planning officers who assured me that it was just academic, ‘promising’ that any development
on Medstead side of railway line would be in keeping with that of Medstead and NOT that of
Four Marks (I wish I laid a bet against that at the Bookies). Footpaths across fields are in
character, footpaths along road edges are URBAN in character and detrimental to rural
ambience. ‘The Local Gap’ denoting the change from one village to the other is denoted by the
railway bridges. The signs say Medstead NOT South Medstead. iii. The Railway Station Hub:
If Four Marks is missing a ‘heart’ for its community it is exceedingly odd that it should chose to
create one in the neighbouring village of Medstead. Medstead already has a village hall and a
church hall, even a public house. Four Marks has a Community centre/village hall. The area
around Medstead station appears from the plan to be the area suggested for this idea. The
station is a popular attraction, yes, but it is a seasonal attraction. How is it in the heart of the
community? It is not in the centre of Four Marks, it is not in the centre of Medstead. So what if
it is within walking distance of retail facilities in Four Marks, how has that a bearing on what is
being proposed as a way of bringing together communities? Close to a number of thriving
businesses? Not retail businesses for the general public though (although there is a dentist) the
retail units nearest would be the Oak Green Parade or the retail units in Lymington Bottom
Road. Positioning, very little parking facilities, to extend will cause more infringement on
existing green areas , footway access from Four Marks is reasonably easy (if you do not mind
the climb over the pedestrian railway bridge when trains are in operation), however foot way
access from for those in Medstead is, in the case of the private road for access to warehouses
and offices, which (every time I have walked it) means negotiating the dog faeces that litters
both the road and footpath, or the ‘lane’, which again is littered with dog faeces, and in wet
weather is thick with mud, - a wonderfully charming ‘green breathing space’. The walk to and
from the licensed eatery would therefore likely be quite ‘fragrant’. Medstead has eateries, as
does Four Marks; how does giving the proposed eatery a liquor licence make it more family
friendly? (I would think that the opposite would be more likely) It seems to me that Four Marks
has no pub and wants one but no one in Four Marks wants it near to them, so, hey let’s put a
‘licensed eatery’ in Medstead, that we can walk to. Half a dozen small booth style ‘craft’
outlets? The Retail business’ in Four Marks Oak Parade and Medstead High Street survive
because of the through traffic that passes their doors. All these ‘benefits’ would be in an area
which would lend itself wonderfully to break-ins, being nice and secluded, if stock was kept at
the ‘craft’ outlets then their stock will likely be fast moving, just not the way intended. Indoor
markets. With a little planning these could be held in village halls (ask the local Women’s
Institute for advice.) The idea of ‘craft’ outlet/ booths is good, an eatery if you must, but why
licenced? I think this location would definitely not be good for such an enterprise (see above),
costs for rental of booth, electricity, water, toilet facilities, insurance and security (it would
need this) would amount to more than the average week’s takings for most of the year from
customers who if from Medstead have the choice of muddy lane or private road to access, both
routes will require careful positioning of feet to avoid unpleasant things.
14
Amanda
Hudson
Continuation:
1.18 The Neighbourhood Plan is primarily about ‘spatial policy’ or land use. Few of the issues
that were reviewed related to land use. If you are saying that the issues that most concern
residents are ‘not within the purview’ of the Neighbourhood plan, but that once it is in place
there will be money available to the parish councils? In which case the question needs to be
asked (and answered) which one gets the money, and who will decide what it is used for (the
’needs’ that will be addressed’) especially in the case of poor benighted “South Medstead” as
you call it?
Amanda
Hudson
• CP 9: Tourism – Promoting the existing visitor attraction through improving the facility and or
surrounding area to benefit the local community and supporting the local economyBoyneswood
Road and Lymington Bottom Road both have severe pinch points that have horrendously fast
traffic and plenty of it in peak times, with little car parking availability. I fail to see how
increased tourist activity in this immediate area is to be beneficial to the community of this
immediate area other than Oak Green Parade which will get customers from increased passing
traffic (when parking allows)?
• CP 13: Affordable housing on residential development sites – Reinforcing the affordable
housing provision set in the JCSApparently the need for affordable housing can be bypassed by
huge contributions to the Alton Sports Centre, and/or the ‘move the bridge fund’ Or by some
other ‘method’.
Village Design Statements 2.40 Both Medstead and Four Mark have Village Design Statements
(VDS) which have been adopted as Supplementary Planning Documents (SPD) by EHDC. As such
the documents are material considerations, which mean that their guidance needs to be
considered in planning applications. This will be a good change as up till now they seem to be
trivialised and ignored by East Hants.Well, those are some of my thoughts regarding the draft
neighbourhood plan, I am not sure how useful they will be.
Having lived in Winchester for just under 40 years and seen the expansion and rapid growth in
recent years of housing development in and on the outskirts of that city it seemed that a move
to Four Marks would lead to a quieter more peaceful lifestyle. In the twelve months that I have
been resident here that has generally proved to be the case. Although I was aware that new
housing had been on the increase in Four Marks I did not appreciate the scale of the increase
and welcome what has been done to ensure that the infrastructure required to sustain future
growth is carefully planned. The work that the Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group has
obviously done in order to produce the Draft Plan is commendable and their proposals have my
full support. Thank you.
Keith Brown
Dear Mrs Goudie, I read the plan with interest and have a couple of initial questions. Are you
able to answer these? A. p. 30-31 The Neighbourhood Plan designates open spaces in the
following locations and will resist proposals for any development, unless ancillary to its use as
an open space. Could you qualify please whether the Parish owns these listed assets? I
should like to see included in the Four Marks list of assets to be preserved the green space
opposite my property at 6 Kingswood Rise and adjacent to 2 Kingswood Rise. Is there any
reason why this space should not also be included?
B. the report mentions 'houses' and 'dwellings' throughout as if they were interchangeable
words, however they have different meanings and, for instance, on pages 14 and 19, the
increase in building and applications to build is expressed as houses when quite a number of
apartments have also been built. Is there a need to distinguish between houses and dwellings,
do you think? Best regards, BY Email
Terry Barnes.
15
Am rather disappointed that butterflies wasn't included in the "providers for education"
section In the neighbourhood plan questionnaire. As butterflies has been in operation for the
last 7.5 years and are a major contributor to the revenue of four marks village hall. I appreciate
that nothing can be done to rectify this now however I would be grateful if It could be noted
on your records and we are included on any subsequent literature. I look forward to seeing
the draft plan when it becomes available. BY Email
Sarah Nisbit
Seems like a very good NP document and reads well. My comments as follows which may or
may not be appropriate. 3.1 The vision for Medstead and Four Marks in 2028 is: Housing
growth in Four Marks/South Medstead and Medstead Village will should it read Four Marks,
Four Marks/South Medstead and Medstead Village? Plan c looks odd that the picture has no
footpaths on the Four Marks side. Should those linking to the A31 going north into Medstead
be shown? policy 5 Four Marks Community Assets should Four Marks school be added?
open spaces section somewhere in Four Marks there is a small playground above Tawny
Grove in Penrose Way. Should that appear anywhere? Not sure if the shops at Oak Green
Parade and others in Winchester Road will be happy with the Hub at the railway which might
take business from them !!! By Email
Janet Foster
Hello, Having reviewed the draft plan, is it very disappointing there is no mention of the
problems that traffic on A31 create through our village. Trying to move the centre of the
village to the station is laudable, but not practical. The heart of the village is and always will be
'Winchester road', but not with the ever larger lorries and busy traffic, now much worse than 20
years ago. How will this road cope in the future, with more housing developments and cars?
Access to Winchester road, is already difficult. More traffic lights, may solve that and slow the
traffic, but will add to the noise and air pollution?
We, and my neighbours, believe the first
and real need for Four Marks is a by-pass, like Farnham, Bentley, and Arlesford. Are we not
as important? By Email
Peter
Beagles
Thank you very much for sight of the draft Plan, which I found very interesting. It reads very
well. I appreciate that I am not a resident but I hope you do not mind my mentioning three
points that struck me:
·
To the best of my knowledge, two of the main recreational
facilities in Medstead – the Tennis Club and the Bowls Club – are both on fairly short-term
leases. Kate used to be Treasurer of the former, and at that time the lease of the land from My
Cray was renewable every 7 years. These facilities are not mentioned as recreational facilities
(Community Assets) in the Plan and I wonder what would happen if Mr Cray decided to try to
sell off the land on which they are located for housing? ·
The draft Plan talks about
Medstead Station but does not make it clear that it is owned by the Mid-Hants Railway and is
therefore a tourist attraction rather than a means of travel for local people to work or
neighbouring towns. Someone not familiar with the area might gain the wrong impression. ·
It is very hard to visualise the green areas listed in Medstead and I wonder if a map to show
these more clearly might be useful. I was a bit confused that the cricket pitch did not seem to
be listed but am unclear whether this is common land.
David Quick
Dear Sirs,
I have looked at the draft neighbourhood plan but would like to point out the
fairly dramatic increase in electricity and water problems we have experienced in the last weeks
since responding to the plan questionnaire.
In Alton Lane we have experienced 4 power
outages in the last few weeks and have suffered a drop in water pressure. It is hard not to
conclude that these are related to the building works because they always happen early
morning (0800-1000 hrs). The power outages are short but can damage items like computers
and electrical goods. This morning the water pressure on cold water is little more than a
dribble !
I therefore feel the answers giving to questions related to interuptions in power
supply was an underestimate.
Steve
Morrison
16
On the Station Hub, I very muchagree with the concept but I do wonder whether the station
one is in the right place. It just seams a bit remote from the main part of the village and it
currently is not the most prepossessing of places.However, I understand that this maybe the
best or only site at which this could be bilt. Second thanks to all for taking this Plan on - it can
only do good!
Richard
Lacey
An excellent opportunity to see the NP to date and many thanks to all of youwho have put so
much effort into yhis. Wouldyou consider extending the settlement policy boundary to the
eastof Boyneswood Road to include the strip of land behind Timbers and Woodview?
Hugh Bethel
We need an All -encompasing overall plan for the local area that takes int account existing
services, employment, schools, etc., so that future expansion can happen on a suystainable
basis.
Steve Booker
Roberta
Burrows
Anna Moore
How would the hub be affected if the Kala homes application /appeal is upheld?
Dave Curtis
Strongly support the neighbourhood plan.
Ian
Hainsworth
I am in favour of street lighting in selected sites to improve & enhance safety. One such in
Lymington Bottom from St Faiths Close to Brislands Lane / Blackberry Lane crossroads. Within
this length there is the village hall and the church of the good shepherd, both used late into the
evening. In the absence of lighting cars tend to park on the pavements which hinders
movement by pedestrians & creates blind spots when crossing the road,
Chris KingSmith
Most helpful & informative.
R Roberts
Medstead Convent & its land should be identified in the plan as a major potential community
asset in the heart of the village - an excellent potential site for a social enterprise, box veg
scheme from the walled garden, rural picnic & wedding site, accomodation, and much much
more possible here!!! Excellent work by all the NP team. Thanks you.
Libby
Brayshaw
The footpaths planned from Roedowns Road & Lymington Bottom are excellent.
Rosemary
Paton
The group have obviously worked hard & are trying to include all views. I think they have
captured the 'feel' of the area - it should be kept 'semi-rural' as that is the reason for the high
demand for housing here. It is a good place to live!
J Ozwell
Too much concrete - more green please, after all Medstead & Four Marks are in the country
and should be rural.
Jenny Overy
I would like "localish" defined for public consumption together with any statutory powers and
funding by the "grant system", the role of those persons representing "localish" issues and their
legal rights and responsibilities.
J Michael
Paton
station hub - any changes to the station could spoil it - therefore a plan to develop this needs to
be thought about carefully. this area needs to provide affordable housing for the young people
otherwise the village will die. however this must not be at the expense of the environment,
which as it is, is beautiful. this must not be wrecked forever.
pat brough
lack of detail regarding proposals e.g. footpath alongside rowdowns road, pedestrian/cyclists needs both able to use it in all weathers, the station hub - not a firm enough requirement more
arthur
brough
17
like a bright idea
Four Marks and Medstead is reeling from the pace of recent development. It is not designated
as a major settlement and should be allowed to maintain its rural character. No more
developments than already planned should take place until 2028 and beyond.
Terri Hall
It is important to calm the traffic through the village lanes. ie 20 mph. The access onto the A31
is a car crash experience. More photos of village would be nice Thank you for all the hard work
putting the plan together
Julia Hidden
Thank you very much for all the hard work you have contributed to this excellent draft plan - we
are extremely fortunate to this team working on all our behalves.
Lesley
Bethem
I strongly support the draft policies presented here. With respect to the station hub I think this
is an excellent idea and should be used to create a characterful area that defines the
neighbourhood. To this end I think that better access from the south side is needed. The
existing bridge is old, small and and has steps that might deter some visitors. A new bridge
would be useful.
Mike Hall
Penny Pate
Keen to see provision a a bypass route (Blackberry and Alton lanes or Alton/Willis lane)
~Provision of bungalows of all sizes Provision of warden-assisted residential flats/bungalows
Embargo on development IF figue of 175 new properties till 2028 is actually suffered and
happen rather rather than be overridden. Provision of comfort stop area - public toilet
Provision for employment for new residents
Cyril
Cowland
Fast broadband is an important part of infrastructure and certain parts of the village are not
included in plans for fast broadband eg Alton lane. This is difficult for running small businesses
and also everyday activities eg streaming.
Maggie
Saunders
I Gillie
Siw Curtis
Certain areas would become more vulnerable than others should the SPB become relaxed or
overruled at some future stage. Steps sholud be taken to make unwanted development more
difficult should this happen. Preserving TPOs in rear gardens would provide some added
security. The south side of Blackberry lane is particularly vulnerable and longer gardens here
are currently heavily wooed and an extensive area of wildlife habitat.
John
Hammond 4
Whilst green areas are mentioned as amenity value I did not see any mention of key areas of
the village (indeed most of it where housing is less dense) as being particularly important wild
like habitat which has remained by virtue of the nature of the village. This is a very important
consideration worthy of inclusion. The importance of updating the village design statements is
made in the plan and should be actioned. More detail will be required on style of properties so
as to fit with longer standing housing ensuring dense urban styles are prevented and also
preventing 21/2 and 3 story building that extremely visible by virtue of our elevated position
and are alos out of keeping with the nature, style layout and heritage of the village.
John
Hammond 3
There appears to be no mention of the importance of maintaining trees and hedges. Hedges are
very much the character of the village and ere being removed from front gardens. They should
be maintained at all costs. Equally TPOs should be placed on key areas of trees and blanket
covers of TPOs considered for certain areas where amenity value is important or where wooded
gardens are character of an area. E.g. the gardens of the south side of Blackberry Lane are
heavily wooded but new residents are removing them changing the character of the area and
John
Hammond 2
18
removing wildlife.
Congratulations to all involved in crafting the plan. Well done and thank you. A very thorough
piece of work. I have added a number of feedback points for your consideration but am grateful
of your efforts in producing this important piece of work. The draft plan appears to make an
assumption that there will be no need for additional housing outside the SPB before 2028. With
population growth and housing need it seems unlikely that government policy will not change
abd that additional housing will be required.Therefore it seems sensible to state strong reasons
why any future building outside certain areas o the SPB should be totally unacceptable, so as to
have a policy in place in case and when government policy and required housing numbers
should change before 2028. Without such inclusion in the NP there will be no defence in place
should change happen.
John
Hammond
Station Hub - excellent idea but will busineses come and make it sustainable. It is also tucked
out of the way at the moment, if Station Approach - the narrow tunnel also throttles access.
How will people know it is there. Wildflower Meadow needs to be sensitive to the wildlife 9eg
badger setts)at the ancient monument - its beauty is that it is unspoilt and hard to get to and
access! Green infrastructure - great idea more footpaths, better maintained will enhance the
enjoyment of the local environment. What are the (....) for using the CIL eg upgrading village
Halls, youth facilitiesetc It would be useful to have an executive summary of these and other
keyy proposals from the plan- for newsletters/magazines, - What are the key takeaways that
you want the community to buy into
Andrew
Jackson
A public statement of planning gain should be made annually and audited. All new
development should be accompanied by a detailed, auditable, planning review.
David Harris
Totally agree with the proposal to stop larger scale developments. This is especially important
for the Boyneswood Road area, that you rightly describe as 'under siege'.
Tim Wettone
expand the play area in the park so there is more facilities for children any age
Katherine
Jackson
It is very important that a hollistic approach should be adopted to take into consideration
schools, retail outlets, employment opportunities and recreational spaces when new
developments are being considered.
Mrs E Harris
Martin Gillie
It is vital to retain the village character whilst acknowledging the need for more housing!
Stuart Slater
Thank you for all those involved in creating the much needed Neighbourhood Plan!
Mrs Marion
Suater
I am worried about the path be considered from the Medstead School to Four Marks. If this is
to be behind a hedge on to Roedowns Road and children are walking behind it, they cannot be
seen from the road???
Jennifer
McDowell
The plan is well thought out and presented. The only area that is not really touched (and I guess
it is a little outside the remit) is the road network, but in general - thank you everyone for your
hard work.
V Evans
Particularly concerned that the station goods yard should be preserved. Also on improving lane
surfaces this should be done so as not to encourage higher speed from motor cycles and cars.
Provision of litter and dog fowling bins
Robert
Cartwright
19
Very good presentation of the plan. A lot of very work has gone into this.
Mr & Mrs B
Thompson
I hope EHDC listen. Development / new houses acceptable but not enormous estates.
Consideration of the infrastructure of the village vital
Kay Joluse
I disagree with the proposal of a station hub. Access road are residential and themselves
developed and narrow. Access to a egress from houses is hazardous. The station is a tourist
attraction not a local meeting place. A village hub is a good idea but not in a place where there
is no local natural meeting place already. Natural places for a hub would be the shops - either
at Four Marks or Lymington Bottom by the surgery or by the church and village hall. The
junction of station approach and Winston Rise is already extremely hazardous as is speeding
along station approach
Mrs
Lawrence
Involve Forestry Commission and similar organisations to help preserve green spaces and
conserve wildlife inhabitants. Birdlife in Medstead and Four Marks is particularly rich because of
biodiversity here: altitude, woodland, meadows and hedges. Much of this is being bulldozed to
the detriment of our flowers(?) as well
Fabio Perseli
I am sceptical about the wild flower walk/field on the grounds that: a, it will take a lot of
volunteer hours to maintain b, it is artificial Re station hub - yes to a certain amount of
development but we already have hubs in Medstead + Reads + village hall/church in FM
Elizabeth
Graigh
A good informative display - well done!
Marlene Pink
Ruth
Monfort
The council should be responsible for the repair of pavements and grass verges damaged by
new developments (mostly windfalls). The Shrave is a prime example
Patrica
Brooks
Houses need to be built but more small houses for young people please
Annette Day
Need to stop the village from extending East and West. More facilities at 'ends' of village Need
pub and post office Safe road crossings
Mark Paton
All further development needs to in easy walking distance of amenities. A convenience store is
needed at the s/w end of the village - too far to walk from there to the shops
S Paton
Ann Fowler
Wright
The proposed hub by the station is an excellent idea
John Fowler
Wright
Interested to hear about wild flower walk proposal. I hadn't about this before today. Great idea.
V
Goodwright
Ian Bennett
The existing development of small sites seem to overlook the on-going repair to grass verges
and need some accountability to the council
G J Brooks
H Monfort
20
I should like to see an extension of the wild flower walk into Four Marks. I am pleased to see
the SPB proposed holding the line to reduce expansion of the village into countryside along
Blackberry lane
Richard Paul
Better infrastructure needed. PO would be great. More facilities for youth (14 yrs+)
Boardman
Still no mention os public house to replace the Windmill!!
A J SheltonSmith
Mrs H
Williamson
Very excited about the proposed wild flower meadow and the footpaths around the village - a
very nice experience. The station hub will be an addd experience for tourists and the
community as a whole.
Ann Salzman
What a great idea for a community centre at the station. Maybe the addition of a 'men's shed'
as per the Alton Shed?
Anthony
Salzman
The plan should take into account local housing need. i.e. those on housing list rather than
speculator development. I strongly support the SPB and the protection of open spaces and
rights of way (footpaths). We really do need a pub and a post office. Better sports/recreational
facilities would be good.
Roger
Coolfer
Uncertain if Station hub is best place for village centre but agree with basic idea
John Bennett
Good plan. Infrastructure concerns need to be addressed
Stuart
Robbins
Diana
Robbins
Congratulations on your effort These areas need defending against overdevelopment
D L Aston
I would like to see that character of the area maintained. A a resident of Boyneswood Lane I
would have concerns about the lane being made up to take traffic. The lane is a private road
and repair is the responsibility of the residents
Mr G
Cartwright
M lee
I cannot see the station ever becoming a successful 'village centre'. We do need a village centre
but in my opinion it needs to be located near to the shops where most people visit regularly
Charles Kyd
Leif Goodwin
Pleased with presentation and I go away with th feeling that at long last the tide of
development is being stemmed and controlled. I especially like the emphasis on trying to retain
local businesses.
21
Mrs
Margaret
Marsh
As someone who put their name forward for working groups but was never contacted I find this
plan severely lacking and flawed. It may not be a requirement to include future housing in the
plan, because of the fact we are already over allocation, but not doing so leaves the village
liable to be walked all over by EHDC and developers. These plans are supposed to provide part
of the framework for future planning decisions, having no housing details in the plan means
anything goes. It has already been established that being over quota is not a reason for denying
planning permission so this plan means open season continues. The Station hub appears to be
based on the views of just those who don't currently shop in the village, a minority. There is no
input on what is needed from those who shop occasionally or regularly. There is no , even basic,
financial viability study. Surely given the recent closure of Rumours this would be advisable. It
also seems to compete directly with initiatives at Garthowen. Has any discussion been held with
the Railway on mutual benefits or possible conflicts. I also seriously doubt people will walk from
the existing village centre, where parking is over subscribed, to the new hub. They will wanting
to drive there, via limited access to no parking. Green infrastructure could directly impact
certain households, what consultation with those on the routes. Wildflower verges on
BlackberryLane are not popular/ respected by households involved. Can't repeat this mistake.
Wild flower meadow is a nice idea but hardly a strategic issue for the future of the village. This
plan is trivial, flawed and not what the village needs. It is very disappointing and could be taken
as the work of limited self interest groups.
Chris Simons
• I am disappointed to lose our Pub • The Scout hut was built as a temporary structure many
years ago and is now far too small and not fit for purpose. It has been used by generations of
villagers and continues to operate beyond its capacity, with some groups having to meet
elsewhere due to lack of space. A much larger replacement is needed which may also have
other community uses.
Joly Lucas
• The station Hub appears to be remote and disconnected from existing shops . Also unlikely to
be on a bus route.
T Browning
• With expanding communities already here who is addressing the issue of infrastructure?
School Places Capacity of Health Centres Provision of Road Crossing places.
Paul Robins
• Water is a major issue – we could be out of it if there is a long dry summer. • A map in the
report showing the curtilage lines would be good.
Bill Davis
• Well done for all the hard work and good luck in negotiating with the establishment.
Vanessa
Parry
• Draft plan was well prepared – Well done. I think an executive summery would help those less
interested in the detail • Critically important to stress (as you do)that the road and drainage
infrastructure supports the community.
Bill Dawson
• The Station Hub – No mention in the Plan of bringing on board the vintage bus facility as a
Tourist Attraction.
John
Pettegree
• May be this will come later, but when asked ’how big is your town’, as population rather than
number of homes/business people. It would be good to know what we are at present and
predicted (2028) as demographics. • Again, it may come later but it would be useful to see a
map the proposals from walks, meadows and green space. • But the report and analysis is
excellent. As I noted in an email (forgotten to whom it was addressed) its’ good to know that
somebody/bodies! Locally care about where we live.
Grenville
Dawson
flower meadow excellent idea. • A worry that many elderly live in the current heart of
Medstead. If we loose the current convenience store, then they will find it difficult to walk to
the new Hub. Suggest that we always retain the convenience store (and Castle of Comfort)
where it currently is.
Lesley
Sheldon Browning
22
• Very Pleased to see new footpaths from Medstead to Four Marks.
Chester
Whapshare
Any extra shops car parks will reduce the rural environment to some extent, so what is best?
robert
vincent
Firstly, well done - I don't think you can underestimate the work that goes into a document like
this - so well done to the whole team of people who have laboured to put this together! I do
wonder if we have missed 'a trick' in the plan, in that in discussing the level of development
that has already occurred, and the places where windfalls may occur in the future, we don't
appear to have looked at the demographics and what type of housing might be needed into the
future? I have to admit being worried that we will have both younger members of our
community and older people in our community, who simply will not be able to find anything
small enough that they can either afford (if you're young) or want to have to look after (if your
old) because we have had many instances of development of relatively small bungalows into
huge houses recently (ignoring all the other development in South Medstead). Whilst I don't
want to create more work, in view of trying to create sustainable communities, I wonder if
some analysis around the ages of our community and their needs might highlight some
particular forms of housing shortages in the area (e.g. affordable rented 2 bed homes?) On
the identification of community assets, I wonder whether we should have included the Catholic
Church at St. Lucy's (as part of the wider covent facility), the Methodist Church in South Town
Road, reference is made to the Sports Pavilion (is this the Cricket Club?) - and should we not
also include the Tennis Club and the Bowls Club facilities? I don't know Four Marks as well but should the golf course not feature somewhere? Can I also suggest that in seeking to
protect the one and only pub that we have left to us in the area, that we seek to rescind the sui
generis option to change the pub to a shop (as happened to the Windmill) so enhancing the
protection?
Patricia
Hughes
I am impressed with the forethought evident in the plan, as well as the way it addresses a host
of wide-ranging concerns. Well done; I commend it.
Paul Duncan
Thank you for the hard work put into developing this plan. There is no place 'South Medstead'
as stated. The area in question is the SE part of Medstead; this area has heavy air polution from
traffic, car parking, and the steam engines which is injurious to health. This area also has very
heavy noise polution from the A31 and the noise echo on either side of the valley at Lymington
bottom Road. This noise polution was used to advantage during WWi when the searchlights
were able to pick up the alien bombers due to the intense noise echo here.Therefore, attention
should be given to the huge increase in the noise and atmospheric polution in the area of SE
Medstead to ensure the good health of the people. The fields here are essential in minimising
this polution..
E. Ewins
Very comprehensive and should cover most of the requirements to maintain the character of
the village . Most important is to add to the shopping facilities without damaging the current
structure and character. Most important is to provide a post office in the village centre. We love
the Medstead PO but it is too far away for those, like myself, who cannot reach Medstead or
Alton without great difficulty.
Dennis
Patrick
a) Building Density: Area restrictions will increase building pressures within the building
boundary. What are the options available to limit garden in-fills? Are the existing regulations
(applicable to town planning applications) appropriate to the Proposed Plan? b) Social
Amenity Funding: Paragraph 5.7 should specify that no less than fifty percent of S106 receipts
will be hypothecated to schemes envisaged under the Plan. It is simply unacceptable that funds
designed to answer local needs can be syphoned-off to finance off-plan projects elsewhere. The
definition of 'local' urgently needs re-defining to restore a just balance of interests.
Robert &
Pauline
Hughes
23
You lost my vote when you started to use the phase "South Medstead" - I find this term
derogatory - we live in the parish of Medstead, there is no mention of this phase on any map,
so stop using it. Or is this some underhand way to merge the area with Four Marks??
Eamonn
Kentell
Water supply is a real problem in what is laughably described as a low pressure area in the
response From South East water.. If the power fails (red hill has had 5 brief interruptions in the
last 10 days) the water supply fails completely within hours as the water tower is now rapidly
emptied by the excessive local demand. Talking to the engineers who attend the tower there is
now insufficient supply to the tower during the day to keep up with demand. This results in
variable low pressure during the day.At night the tower fills in order to fight another day. As a
customer I find it astonishing the my utility supply is so poor that I have had cause to to
understand this level of detail of how they are delivered. The current power supply
interruptions we are experiencing are unexplained. The electricity supply has always been
vulnerable to failure in high winds but now overloading and the combination of interrupting the
water supply is completely unacceptable. So to conclude South East Water simply mark where
I live as low water pressure but have no intention of dealing with situation.
Graham
Bennell
A very comprehensive high quality plan involving much effort and time. Thank you and well
done.
Barry Abel
Excellent idea to get safe walking path between medstead village and south medstead. The
station hub needs a bit more work to provide a real attraction for both the watercress visitors
and the local community.
andy taylor
24