Document Section Local Plan Part 2: Site Allocations and Development Management Policies Chapter 4: Housing: Delivering New Housing Delivering New Housing in Haslemere [View all comments on this section]
Comment ID /364
Respondent Nicola Barton [View all comments by this respondent]
Response Date 09 Jul 2018
Current Status Accepted
Comment

Objection to Waverley Local Plan Part 2 (LPP2) and Development Plan DS18

I am writing to you as a Haslemere resident and object to the adoption by Waverley Borough Council of LPP2 as currently drafted.  I object to the inclusion of DS18 as a development site. 

I object because LPP2 (and DS18 in particular) would have a severe adverse impact on Haslemere, its countryside and my enjoyment of the amenities it affords as described below, and therefore is highly unsuitable for development.  I also object because WBC has not conducted appropriate consultation steps and assessments as required.

Natural environment

I object to development sites within LPP2 that destroy natural habitats.  For example, if development took place in DS18, the woodland would be cut down and with it the habitats of many wild animals.  There is no evidence that WBC has conducted appropriate assessments of the impact on these habitats.  I note that the LPP 2 Site Allocations and Development Management policies section 4.32 confirms that mature trees and other landscape features will be retained and enhanced wherever possible. This habitat is the home for owls, bats, nightingales, deer, migratory woodlark, among others.  Therefore it is most unsuitable for development.

Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and Area of Great Landscape Value (AGLV)

I object to DS18 being included in LPP2 on the basis that it is unsuitable land given its designation as AGLV and bordering AONB.  In paragraph 4.22 of LPP2 it says that Waverley is seeking to direct development outside areas of AONB where “limited development can be accommodated without significant landscape impact”.  The proposed development of DS18 is contradictory with this and therefore totally unsuitable.  LPP2 paragraph 4.22 states that the Green Belt Review did not identify any Green Belt zone as suitable for declassification in Haslemere and accordingly DS18 should not be included in LPP2.  

I strongly object to DS18 being included in LPP2 because it would not ensure the conservation of the landscape and scenic beauty of the AONB through consideration of the individual and cumulative impact of development in the layout, landscaping, and design of proposals, informed by a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment; it would not retain and enhance mature trees and other landscape features, even though it would be possible to do so through seeking development sites in other areas.  These are reasons that are specifically supported by the policy in LPP2 - 4.32 in respect of land allocated within or adjacent to an AONB.  It is clearly the case – and one that WBC should acknowledge by applying its own policies – that DS18 is unsuitable as an area allocated to development. 

I object to the diminution in the visual amenity that I enjoy as a resident of Scotland Lane, Haslemere and as a user of the South Downs National Park area that overlooks the proposed DS18 from the south.

Access and road safety

I object to the inclusion of DS18 within LPP2 on the grounds it is wholly unsuitable because of the access and road safety consequences from increasing the volume of road traffic in the vicinity of the War Memorial Recreation Ground as well  as the length of Scotland Lane together with the connecting lanes and roads.  Many many pedestrians, including young families and old people, use these lanes, which do not have pavements, and would therefore be at increased risk from the extra traffic. 

Proper consultation and decision-making

I object to the apparent absence of adequate consultation with the public and with relevant organisations impacted by LPP2 and DS18 (such as Surrey Hills, South Downs National Park and Haslemere Vision) as well as appropriate and required carrying-out of Environmental Impact Assessments and Landscape and Visual Impact Assessments.  I therefore challenge the decision-making process that led to the inclusion of DS18 within LPP2.  Although the land within DS18 has been made available for development by the current landowner, it is not the case that its availability has been properly considered in the light of alternative sites potentially available as well, or the availability of this land from the standpoint of DS18 falling into the category of protected land described in section 4.22 of LPP2 where it is noted that “limited development can be accommodated without significant landscape impact” in an AONB, bearing in mind that such impact cannot be excluded within the immediate border zone, which itself is AGLV.

Consideration of other development sites

I object to DS18 because WBC needs to consider other possible sites that are both more achievable and suitable for development.  I am aware of the ability for WBC to factor in so-called “windfall” sites that are projected to be available during the lifetime of LPP2.  These  will provide additional development for at least a number of houses similar to those proposed in DS18. Other sites in and around Haslemere, (for example nearer to the A3) should be prioritised above DS18 for the reasons given above. 

For the reasons above I object to the proposed LPP2 and the inclusion of DS18 within it.

Attachments