Proposed PC response to development of Rec

Here's the Parish Council's proposed response in full. The council asked me to put it on this blog - so here you are. What do you think?


Informal Consultation : Delivering Development Opportunities

Lynchmere Parish Council Response

Reference is made to two documents; the Initial Sustainability Appraisal (ISA) and the Downs and North of District Informal Consultation Delivering Development Opportunities (DDO).

QUESTION 1.

Site Ref CAH 100 Land at Sturt Avenue.

Environmental Quality

Ÿ This site is subject to similar environmental problems to those present in the neighbouring Crest Nicholson development which was completed last year ( 2006).

The Parish Council would wish to be assured that any further development in this area did not exacerbate the existing drainage and flooding problems caused by proximity of the river Wey which would be subject to even more building run-off, sewage overflow and subsidence problems connected with the low ground levels.


Ÿ Should Waverley decide to develop immediately opposite on its side of the river then the cumulative effects of both developments will increase the environmental impact. This would be difficult to mitigate because there would be no overall responsible authority to take appropriate measures to minimise such damage. The Parish Council would like some assurance from Chichester that appropriate steps would be taken in partnership with Waverley should this situation arise.


Site Exposure

Ÿ Looking at the table on p. 89 of the ISA it is hard to see why, in comparison “against sites within the same settlement” ( ISA p. 8) the opportunities for solar gain are neutral, since the site is fairly level and not unduly visible from public spaces or other housing. We think therefore that the table should show a 3 for this feature.

Accessibility

Ÿ Development on this site will exacerbate the existing traffic problems on the Camelsdale Road and has the potential to turn Moorfields and Sturt Avenue into a rat run at busy times. The junction of the Crest Nicholson development with Camelsdale Road has increased further the heavy traffic experienced there. The Parish Council would wish to be assured that better measures were put in place to restrict the speed of traffic, including the possibility of a 20 MPH limit, along the Camelsdale Road in addition to any crossing facilities which may be put in place in the near future. Should a large development go ahead on the Waverley side this will further exacerbate these problems. We think that the score here should therefore be -6.

Landscape

Ÿ We do not consider that there is any potential here to improve the townscape because such development would further erode the green corridor between Chichester District and Waverley which the River Wey currently provides. This is an essential division in settlements and communities. We think that the score here should be -3

QUESTION 2.

There are no other options proposed by the DDO.

QUESTION 3.

Site Ref CAH 125 Camelsdale Recreation Ground

Any development on this site whether now or after 2018 would be inappropriate and greatly damaging to the community. The Parish Council will oppose any development on it for the following reasons.

1. Environmental Quality

Ÿ The area immediately around the river Wey - the riverside walk - is a Local Nature Reserve. As well as being important in its own right, the stability and well being of this habitat (both the river itself and the land to either side) directly impacts the quality of the continuing habitat around the ponds immediately to the west which are managed by the National Trust. In terms of natural habitat and species populations it is one of the most important sites in the Parish. It is within the existing AONB. Comparing this site “against sites within the same settlement” such as sites CAH 127 or CAH 128, in our view the table shown on p. 89 of the I S A should therefore show -6, -6, -6 giving a total of -18 in this category.

2. Site Exposure
Ÿ Opportunity for Solar Gain; we agree the score.
Ÿ Slope; apart from the immediate river banks, the only part of this site which is level is the two football pitches. The remainder of the site slopes south to north towards the river and slightly east to west at the south end of the site. We think that CAH125 should therefore be 0 or -3 on this element.

3. Land Condition
Ÿ The history of this recreation ground is that it was first rented and then bought by Fernhurst and Lynchmere Parish Councils jointly from Haslemere Urban District Council (Waverley ) , and Fernhurst has since given Lynchmere its share when the Parish boundary moved. When the ground was purchased from Haslemere, much effort and money was expended to create a good playing surface on the pitches. During the last 10 years the Parish Council has spent significant amounts of its precept in sand slitting and drainage to keep the surfaces in good condition. It is hard to see therefore to what aspect the two entries of 3 refer to under this heading; that is, we do not see the potential for improvement except in terms of a playing field, and we think therefore that this should be amended to 0 in both categories.


4. Accessibility
Ÿ Transport modes; the Camelsdale Road has a regular bus service. The Recreation Ground also has its own car park. However, it is hard to see how a housing development on this site would not have some adverse consequence in terms of accessibility as the movement of vehicles from a residential site is so much greater than from a recreation ground. Access would have to be from New Road which already has parking and accessibility problems, or from Camelsdale Road, a main road with many existing traffic problems as described above, so we think the score here should be -3.

Ÿ Services / Facilities; this recreation ground is essential to the sustainability and health of the community for the following reasons. First, it is geographically at the hub of the community. It can be accessed easily by the greatest number of residents in the community without the use of motor transport. It forms part of the core of the community, as represented by the school, village shop, church and church hall, garage, Shottermill ponds, the Mill Tavern and the bus connections to Fernhurst/ Midhurst, Liphook and Haslemere. Secondly, it provides facilities for the following; football, stoolball, boules, BMX biking, nature walking, dog walking, children and toddler playground, and it has a Pavillion to support many of those activities. Many of the facilities such as the childrens’ play equipment have been supported by community fund raising. Furthermore, many of the houses in the area have small gardens and the recreation ground is an essential facility for childrens’ activities and as a sport and recreation area for all age groups. An alternative site within the community with all, or even most of these attributes simply does not exist. In view of the current efforts to encourage a healthy lifestyle it is not acceptable to remove the main sporting facility available to a community. The score here therefore should be -6.

5. Local Character
Ÿ The score of 3 here is incomprehensible. The Recreation Ground represents an extremely attractive open space which is valued by the whole community. How could housing have the potential to “conserve and enhance” ( ISA p.7) this open space? However attractively landscaped a development might be, it could not replace the open aspect of the playing fields with the wildlife interest of the river banks of the Recreation Ground. The score here for landscape should be -6. It is difficult to imagine how there could be any potential to improve the Townscape; many of the houses in the neighbouring streets have small gardens, which does not matter because there is an attractive open space immediately nearby which includes outdoor facilities for all age ranges. Building on this site not only ruins those opportunities for the existing community but places the new households into an impoverished situation.

“The impact on recreational facilities and whether these can be located to an alternative location should be addressed before this site can be considered further.” p. 11 DDO

It will be immediately apparent from an examination of the Parish that there are no available sites within the central, residential areas of the community on to which to relocate the recreational facilities. Those areas, whether private or not, which are currently open spaces are considered in the DDO and below for the possibility of housing development. There are very few, and for all the reasons that housing would create difficulty as discussed above, it is also the case that those sites are not suitable for the relocation of the Recreation Ground because they are not level, are environmentally unsuitable or cannot be accessed easily. It would be absurd to suggest relocation to the outlying parts of the Parish; the whole issue of sustainability depends on community facilities being within easy reach of the largest possible number of residents without recourse to motor transport.

The answer to the above question in the DDO is therefore, no such relocation is possible and therefore this site should be taken out of consideration.

In conclusion, the recreation ground forms an integral part of the main core of the community facilities; it is in the right place and cannot be replaced elsewhere.

It would be difficult to overstate the local opposition which this proposal has generated; more than 200 people attended the District organised exhibition and approximately 30 residents attended the monthly Parish Council meeting the following week to voice their opposition. The Parish Council would like to see Camelsdale Recreation Ground definitively discounted as even a contingency site. Both the Parish Council and residents generally accept the need for more houses in the community, in particular affordable and starter homes. To build on the Recreation Ground however would have the effect of destroying an important part of the very sustainability for which the community was chosen for development.