25th February 2024
Steventon PC
PROPOSED STEVENTON PC REPRESENTATION TO SPS5.5 POPHAM GARDEN VILLAGE WITHIN BCDC’S DRAFT REGULATION 18 LOCAL PLAN UPDATE – DRAFT
Headlines
The proposed development of Popham Garden Village will undeniably sacrifice our natural environment for the built environment, exploiting and spoiling our countryside, while failing to protect and enhance it for the long-term benefits of our wider communities. It is no surprise that the Government’s Living with Beauty report recognised that new development should be regenerative, enhancing the environment and adding to health, sustainability and biodiversity. Popham fails to achieve the intended stewardship that BCDC are discharged to deliver by central government. Steventon PC and residents strongly object to the proposed development of Popham airfield into Popham Garden Village.
Furthermore, it is the strong view of Steventon PC and the 40 plus residents that have contributed to this representation that the option of development of Popham has been given insufficient assessment beyond a ‘big hand small map’ view. Even within the limited timeline for the Regulation 18 consultation, it is obvious that the proposed scale and location of development will create grossly disproportionate impact on Jane Austen’s rural landscape and therefore this proposed policy option is unviable. An alternative approach to meeting the real housing demand must be explored, one that takes the opportunity to regenerate our existing brownfield sites, prioritises social, economic and environmental sustainability, while preserving our rural communities’ unique identity.
Insufficient justification for the proposed scale within a rural environment
Given the changes made to the NPPF immediately prior to Christmas, there is now insufficient justification to create such a large development within the rural countryside; it is questionable whether such a scale will actually achieve the intended rural character, despite the name. Similarly, it is debatable whether the lower density of housing required to achieve the intended character was the basis on the site’s economic viability has been based; will this site truly be economically viable without simply being ‘greenwashing’? Our view is that this is a planning tactic, and much higher densities will be required, further diminishing any of the attempted mitigations detailed within this site policy and ‘playing’ the planning system to the detriment of local communities.
While the presumption in favour of large developments to enable economies of scale and suitability for wider sustainability initiatives is supported, it is questionable whether a revised needs assessment that deviates from the Standard Method justifies this development on anything like this scale. At double the size of Overton, with only half of the estimated capacity being delivered within the plan’s period up to 2040, it’s argued that our real needs must also be achievable through natural and sustainable regeneration of existing urban and sub-urban areas of Basingstoke. Development of this scale will permanently change the rural landscape and Steventon PC fully support the CPRE’s need for BDBC to explicitly state a presumption of brownfield development before greenfield within this draft Local Plan. Sites nearer to Basingstoke and Winchester that are not so rural in character (and not immediately adjacent to such a major road) and have better proximity to existing conurbations and transport infrastructure would be far more appropriate for creating commercially viable and sustainable housing supply.
Specifically for the proposed development, a large noise buffer to the A303 would be required, reducing the land available for core housing demand within the development. Existing evergreens are unable to provide this and new non-indigenous species would be required to provide all year-round leaf cover. As proposed, the existing buffer zone is insufficiently scaled. These factors further exacerbate the likelihood that higher density housing will end up being required.
Given the changes to para 61 of the NPPF immediately prior to Christmas, the planning assumptions driving the spatial strategy are no longer valid. BDBC are invited to note the prevalent view that this freedom is being fundamentally ignored in order to achieve a tight timeline for adoption by winter 2025. This must be addressed ahead of Regulation 19 consultation.
Failure to protect the Basingstoke/Winchester Green Belt (NPPF)
The proposed Popham Garden Village development risks compromising the green belt between Basingstoke and Winchester.Situated on the district boundary, this sets a clear precedent for subsequent urban sprawl across this green belt, while increasing pressure for a new town at Micheldever Station.This draft update provides is no evidence of formal engagement with Winchester City Council as BDBC’s neighbouring district council. Further creep onto greenfield sites is subsequently inevitable not matter how well intended the controls and arguably the economic benefits of development within the SW of Basingstoke would require much greater development to enable long-term return on investment within the period of this next Local Plan.
Loss of natural capital
The justification for such a loss of our beautiful countryside and natural habitat is weak. The proposed development will build over countryside that has remained untouched since the days of Jane Austen, leading to loss of valuable woodland belts and agricultural land. No amount of offsetting biodiversity net gain will compensate for the damage done. This policy (SPS5.5) demonstrates insufficient consideration for the likely environmental impact from development at the scale proposed, giving no obvious consideration to local genetics of fauna and flora. Unlike other site policies, SPS5.5 makes no reference to consideration of the Steventon Conservation Area or the need to preserve our local cultural heritage and character which is fundamentally connected to Jane Austen.
The commensurate impact on the local biodiversity and increased pollution risk will be significant, even with strict adherence to the National Design Guide and National Model Design Code. Wildlife relying on the existing trees, fields and hedgerows for their habitat will be negatively and permanently affected, with loss of rare arable plants. Species isolation is also likely, potentially causing local extinction of species such as the hazel dormouse. The mental health contribution of our beautiful countryside for local residents and visitors must also be recognised.
Despite maximising SuDs within the proposed estates, there will be significant rainwater runoff into local water courses, especially the River Test. Likelihood of increased pollution from effluent is high given the scale of the development proposed, with the existing sewerage network already failing to meet demand. It is questionable whether the River Test can support the additional water abstraction required, without causing significant damage to existing supply and river wildlife.
The loss of agricultural land must also be recognised. Global geopolitics and epidemics like Covid19 and the Russian occupation of Ukraine demonstrate a need for resilience against globalised supply chains to avoid food scarcity. In parallel we must reduce pesticides, creating a demand for more, not less land for food production. The proposed loss of agricultural land also ignores the cultural identify of many residents in the area who are connected across generations through farming and forestry.
Transport
The assumption that most residents will commute on foot to Micheldever Station or use the main regional transport corridors of the A303 and M3 is flawed. The former places a dependency on Winchester City Council to support significant expansion of the station amenities, which there is limited space to do so and onsite parking capacity is negligible. Similarly, Overton Station lacks space to manage significantly more parking demand. While fast and frequent public transport can offset some of the pressures for residents to use private vehicles, the overall location dislocated from the town centre’s amenities will fail to enable sustainable transport solutions, risking future achievement of Net Zero through vehicular pollution. With two cars per household a likely requirement for the location, 6,000 extra cars will further increase damaging CO2e emissions.
With residents now forced to drive to either Basingstoke centre or to their intended destination, the resultant impact on rural roads and neighbouring villages will be considerable and presents a clear risk to life. The Micheldever to Overton road will require significant investment from Hampshire Country Council to cope with the volume of traffic arising. Situating one of the main access points to the development off this road fails to demonstrate how any impact on Steventon Warren lane will be mitigated. Steventon, like other local parishes, will become a rat run running north to south. Beyond levels of congestion in excess of what the rural sub-2 lane road network was designed to accommodate, even with maintaining speed limits at 30 mph, the risk to life of non-motoring users is considerably increased and arguably intolerable. Country lanes have no pavements, cycle lanes or suitable verges for pedestrian traffic, which must use the existing roads for access. The risk of collision to pedestrians, many of which are elderly or young, cyclists and horse riders is therefore significantly increased and deemed unacceptably high. There is no evidence that this risk to existing residents within rural villages has been assessed through a preliminary traffic assessment. Were the necessary development of the local road network to occur, this would fundamentally alter the rural feel of the area, something all residents are keen to avoid.
Affordable housing
Given the location and investment required from developers, including likely CIL and s106 Agreements, new dwellings are unlikely to be affordable in real terms, when compared to equivalent development within the existing urban areas. The location is unsuitable for younger worker and new families who need easy access to the existing commercial hubs, amenities, services and leisure facilities within Basingstoke. The development therefore will fail to contribute to resolution of the housing crises.
Lack of infrastructure
The draft plan provides little confidence that the necessary upscaling of infrastructure and support services has been sufficiently considered to meet the demands from the proposed scale of new housing and businesses. Existing infrastructure is already unable to keep pace as evidenced by lack of NHS capacity within Basingstoke hospital, GP surgeries, dentists and social care, with similar pressures within our schools and emergency services. While plans to build new schools within the proposed development are most welcomed, they appear under sized for the likely demand. The lack of clear detail on other services is also concerning and suggests an appetite to simply further overload them, eg doctors’ and dentist surgeries; will relocating professionals as these really choose to move to Basingstoke and work under such stretched conditions? Furthermore, given the existing aerodrome requires limited services to enable operation, wider infrastructure development must occur from a standing start, arguably causing a greater impact on the landscape than if existing services were already in place. This further supports brownfield urban regeneration.
Given these challenges, future housing development should be focussed where capacity for expansion already exists or can readily be created. This is within the existing urban areas, further supporting a need to ensure demographic appropriate development occurs where employment and wider economic needs can best be met. This approach using urban infill is more effective for use of sustainable heat networks, grid electrification and decarbonisation. There is also an excellent opportunity to regenerate existing tired urban areas, supporting the Government’s levelling up intent and making Basingstoke a beautiful place for the 21st Century.
Loss of amenity from Popham Airfield.
While not directly impacting negatively on most Steventon residents, the loss of yet another regional airfield causes a wider loss of amenity with the local area. Given its length of operation, the airfield is part of the holistic landscape of local villages like Steventon.