Sinah Field: Save Our Island
As the invited speakers at this forum today, it is our intention to demonstrate:
a) that this proposal in its current form does not:
encompass current Government advice to developers
recognise the Borough’s demographics, or
reflect the local infrastructure constraints or housing needs.
b) that Barratt, through this proposal and their Oysters project have not earned the residents’ trust, nor displayed the commitment or integrity expected from a developer on Hayling Island.
In its thrust to speed up their house-building programme, Central Government has repeatedly advised Developers to:
Build houses close to places of work
Recognise local constraints and housing needs in their proposals
Sadly this is not the case here, and we are presented with the standard ‘cookie cutter’ project similar to hundreds of others.
Hayling is a small residential community with no industry to speak of, with a large and growing retired population.
The highly stressed single road access is subject to a number of detailed studies by Borough and County experts as part of the Hayling infrastructure plan. We expect the studies to conclude that this road will become an increasingly serious constraint. This, together with all other infrastructure components, forms the base against which all development proposals will be evaluated moving forward.
Inappropriate housing selection adds an unwarranted traffic load as occupants of 160 houses will have to commute daily to their jobs. Using the limited and precious road capacity on unnecessary car journeys is irresponsible.
The local demographics clearly point to the primary housing needs: 2
Retirement homes (some serviced)
Retirement houses for downsizing
Single storey houses It seems that no builders today will produce bungalows. How about changing your model designs so that they include a downstairs cupboard which, for a £10k investment, could be transformed into a small lift to the 1st floor?
Rental starter homes for local young people and families (Hayling East is the poorest ward in the Borough). There is a dire need to house our residents who cannot afford your definition of ‘affordable’ homes
A small number of medium/large family homes
Government advice and the local needs are not afforded one word in this proposal.
There are many other difficulties with this proposal, and we will be drilling down on two key areas with Anne Skennerton and Rosie Law.
There are a number of statements that opinion that this site is of little value.
These statements are inaccurate.
The field owned by Hayling Builders Ltd is Grade 2 “best and most versatile farmland”* and is adjacent to a field owned by the RSPB. The area is also of significant wildlife interest (as you will see later.)
The west coast of the Island is classified ‘managed retreat’ and is retreating at up to half a metre a year.
This proposal is larger than in the Local Plan submission and pushes deep into the area of wildlife concern. The total field is larger still and we need to know the developer’s plans for the rest of the land.
* SHLAA 8th Edition (July 2016) page 18
National Planning Policy Framework 112
Access between the proposal site and Island schools is via Station Road and St Mary’s.
Station Road has very poor sightlines and a serious choke point.
St Mary’s Road, due to very heavy road parking on both sides, cannot support two-way traffic flows. 3
There are no sustainable walking, disabled or cycle routes to either Elm Grove or the schools. Footpaths peter out on both roads and there is insufficient space to widen them and still leave effective 2-way traffic use.
The SWOT Analysis is not fit for purpose.
The weaknesses and threats should recognise:
A3023 flood and congestion risk (access denial and unpredictable journey times)
Encroachment into wildlife preserve
Local road network issues
Risks from complex SuDS and foul drain systems
The ‘Opportunities’ section in a SWOT analysis should point to the future, therefore the three items listed in the proposal …
Potential vehicular access point from adjacent main road
Potential new pedestrian entrances into the site
Potential new SuDS pond should relate to additional plans envisaged by the developer. These plans need to be available for review.
The developer needs to understand that the residents are offended by their draft proposal, and would advise a complete rethink of their profit-driven process which currently has no relevance to Hayling Island’s unique environment (as recognised by the Inspectorate in 2013.)
“I concur that growth on Hayling Island should be limited/restricted, to take account of flood risk, the need to minimise impacts on the natural environment, and access difficulties on the local road network at peak hours.” Extract from paragraph 9 of the Inspector’s report.