Sinah Field: Mitigation Presentation
Barratt Homes’ proposal should not be considered for housing development on site UE18
for the following reason:
The proposal is in breach of Barratt Homes’ own binding agreement with Havant Borough
Council, within the Discharge of Condition, which was essential before planning permission
could be granted for the very recent Oysters Development in West Town.
“Tyler Grange Discharge of Condition Brent Goose Mitigation Strategy, 11th Sept 2013
(APP 15 00919)”
In order to compensate for the loss of Brent Geese grazing land as a consequence of the
adjacent Oysters Development, the mitigation strategy states that the field in question,
H34C in which this proposal is located, should be continually used for crop rotation to
provide for the foraging and roosting of Brent Geese.
Development in any part of this field therefore, should not be contemplated.
This is a previously undeveloped, green field site of valuable, best and most versatile, good
grade 2* agricultural land. Therefore, Barratt Homes’ quotation from the National Planning
Policy Framework** about “brownfield land” on page 1 of their Planning Policy for Land at
Sinah Lane Hayling Island*** is irrelevant, misleading and diversionary.
*“Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) 8th Edition, July 2016” page 18
(.pdf page 22)
[The table states that UE18 is Grade 2 agricultural land]
** “National Planning Policy Framework, 2012”
*** “Land at Sinah Lane, Hayling Island – Planning Policy, page 1”
How can Barratt Homes also claim that ‘detailed ecological surveys confirmed the site has
little ecological interest’?
This site currently has the status of ‘uncertain for Brent Geese and Waders’ which, according
to Havant Borough Council, has greater importance than the SINC designation previously
considered for the site by the council.
“Havant Biodiversity Action Plan, 2011.”
The mitigation strategy requires 3 years of surveys for Brent Geese and Waders, one of
which is assigned to this coming winter. Current photographic evidence proves that the use
of H34C by Brent Geese is certain, not uncertain, and this evidence is being shared with
Hants and IOW Wild Fowl Trust and the RSPB. So far approximately 200 Brent Geese are
foraging and roosting in the field very close the end of North Shore Road and even within
the area where the proposed SUDS is situated.
There is no acknowledgement of the site being within very close proximity to important
Sites of Special Scientific Interest, also no mention of the Ramsar site around Langstone
Harbour. It is very unlikely development in this location will fulfil National Planning Policy
Framework guidelines that state that the benefits of development should “clearly outweigh”
the impact on these important sites.
“National Planning Policy Framework, 2012, page 27 (.pdf page 33)”
There is no mention that the Hayling Billy Coastal Path is in fact a designated nature reserve
in its own right and as such, surely should be protected from over development.
Not only is it a nature reserve, it is a leisure facility for the entire borough. It is therefore
inappropriate to propose this trail for sustainable travel to Havant.
Barratt Homes’ commitment is to repair and maintain the fence boundary between the
H34C and the Hayling Billy Trail in the mitigation for the Oysters. This work has not been
done. The aim of the mitigation is to make the field even more attractive to foraging birds
and prevent uncontrolled access of dog walkers. Dog walkers still use the gaps in the broken
fence boundary to get onto the field. Very recent video evidence of dog walkers unsettling
the Brent Geese is available. Old broken fences, large gaps, desire lines and an informal path
around the exact area where Brent Geese settle, are clear to see.
The SWOT analysis claims potential to create new pedestrian entrances onto the site from
the Billy Trail but they would cross and break down the exact same boundary that is
required by the mitigation to be securely maintained.
This proposal alone demonstrates that Barratt Homes already lack the commitment to
uphold binding agreements with the council.
Therefore we have no confidence that the developer will ever work in the best interests of
the local community.
[There is more local evidence of other protected species including slow worms, stag beetles
and bats. An expanding flock of starlings have returned to the UE18 site and sit on the
overhead power line between murmurations. This power line is apparently a ‘threat’ to the
Bees, butterflies, birds of prey, wood peckers and swallows catching the mosquitoes, which
are a problem in this unsprayed area, are just a few of the species have been listed by local
Judging by The Oysters, this will be a bland, inappropriate to South West Hayling, two storey
development. It will certainly impact on the sight lines for existing residents along Sinah
Lane and North Shore Road.]
Finally, it is important to emphasise that the sole route access to Hayling - the A3023 - the
life line that provides emergency services infrastructure and house-hold services, is already
greatly stressed without even considering the extra traffic generated from maintaining 162
more house-holds. As a member of the Borough’s Infrastructure Development Plan Group, I
am fully aware that Hayling is not a self-contained Island; its access to many vital
infrastructure services relies entirely on this single carriageway. Therefore, to ignore this
and place further reliance on the A3023 with building proposals such as these is
irresponsible and negligent.
I concur with the other 2 speakers.