Southcott Homes

EHDC-25-0864-RES
Land Rear Of, 191 - 211 Lovedean Lane

This application is seeking consent for layout and extent of development 28 units of which 11 are affordable units, landscaping.

Southcott have been denied this application (and subsequent appeals) many times before, principally on the grounds of it being outside the adopted Local Plan.

They have tweaked the details of the layout yet again, but have not addressed residents' main concerns of the dangerous access, loss of light and privacy, increase in flood risk for existing properties, loss of areas of natural space, and the increasing pressure on our local doctors surgeries, dentists and schools.

We do not need or want more houses in Lovedean. The village is expanding at an unprecedented rate. If we want to have influence on our community space, we must make a stand!

Please consider writing a representation and submitting it on the Planning Portal. Remember, anyone can submit a representation and there can be more than one from each concerned household.

It may feel almost inevitable that something will be built on this site. But remember that if we can't stop it, any influence our community can have on the design, will improve the outcome for all of us.

This is the new layout plan. In the main area, the aspects have been shifted so that the houses look outwards rather than in towards a communal space (see previous application layout further down this page for the contrast).

There appears to be a footpath running from Lovedean Lane into the development - through what is effectively a car park/shared drive, which is dangerous and unnecessary.

The road repositioned to the exterior of the development brings it right next to the areas which are reserved for the natural environment/habitat - undermining that protection considerably.

We also have deer, bats, many birds, a good number and diversity of insects, frogs, rabbits and hare living in and around the field. Many of these will leave as their habitat is destroyed, and those that remain will have fewer avenues to move around for breeding, etc. Is a deliberate path along the edge of the protected natural areas an appropriate inclusion? Encouraging humans even further into the habitat doesn't seem a sensible conservation effort. Is it really sensible to trap these creatures by means of a road?

Slow Worm and Grass Snake: Protected in the UK under the Wildlife and Countryside Act, 1981. Priority Species under the UK Post-2010 Biodiversity Framework.

Badgers (an established sett has been on this land for at least 40 years): Protected in the UK under the Protection of Badgers Act, 1992, and the Wildlife and Countryside Act, 1981.

We have a number of Priority Species under the UK Post-2010 Biodiversity Framework, including: Slow Worm, Grass Snake, Hedgehog, Brown Hare, House Sparrow, Wren, Starling, Song Thrush, Bullfinch and Reed Bunting. And many more classified as Red or Amber under the Birds of Conservation Concern 5: the Red List for Birds (2021): Dunnock, Whitethroat, Rook, Sparrowhawk, Reed Bunting, Swift, Stock Dove, Wood Pigeon, Greenfinch and Kestrel.

Points to Consider

General comments of "I don't like the proposal" or "protect the wildlife" will, sadly, be ignored. Instead, opt for specific notes on such things as "Right to Light" and identified protected species. More importantly, anything which contravenes planning law or guidance - with references.

We have included the LVRA submission as guidance below, but also please take a look at the existing submissions as some are particularly thorough and well written. Thank you to those who have already contributed your comments.

Use these as a jumping off point, as it is very much not an exhaustive list. Also see points below on the Taylor Wimpey plans for more general ideas relating to Lovedean as a whole.

Screenshot 2025-08-16 at 14.31_edited.jp

Access in Contention

The access granted in 2024 is still in contention with New Road residents who are very much opposed and shocked that it was agreed.

New Road is already difficult and dangerous to access, especially in Winter. Refuse vehicles and HGVs must enter the road in reverse, causing dangers at the already-hazardous junction with Lovedean Lane. This will inevitably be exacerbated by the addition of a new access for a further 28 dwellings.

The steep slope of the road itself is hazardous as it stands, and the access is right by the blind peak. We have quite a few newer residents with children, who fear that the road will be made extremely unsafe by the addition of a junction and (at the most conservative estimate) an additional 28 vehicles using it.

Residents believe that the Highways Agency reviewed the application on the plans alone, without visiting the site to understand the topography, sight lines and parking issues. This is inappropriate and should be rectified before a decision is reached.

Right to Amenity

Some of the proposed properties have a direct adverse effect on the neighbouring existing properties, as they have proposed to build excessively close to the boundaries. It remains to be seen if these absolutely contravene the letter of the law, but it demonstrates a lack of care for existing residents. We have successfully argued the issue of overlooking before, so it is worth doing so again. Key words here: overlooking and light.

EHDC's JCS states: "Development will not be permitted if it would have an unacceptable effect on the amenity of the occupiers of neighbouring properties through loss of privacy or through excessive overshadowing."

All residents have the right to a peaceful life. This peace will be particularly disturbed during the building period, which should be taken into account, but the ongoing disturbance of increased traffic may be given greater weight.

On this point, one might also consider the lack of infrastructure in Lovedean. Transport, medical care, education, and so on. These are all concerns which the developer's contributions will not mitigate for the Lovedean community, as there is not, nor has there never been, any suggestion of solving them. As a single development, this might not seem to be a significant problem, however taken in the wider context of continued development of the area it becomes clear just how much of a difficulty it could cause.

Non-compliance - JCS

Firstly note that the site falls outside the settlement boundary and is not included in the Adopted Local Plan as outlined in the Joint Core Strategy (JCS).. This puts it at odds with the core strategy outlined in CP10: "Housing should be accommodated through development and redevelopment

opportunities within existing settlement policy boundaries in the first instance." and "in accordance with Policies CP14 and CP19, housing and other small

scale development outside settlement policy boundaries will only be permitted where it:

meets a community need or realises local community aspirations;
reinforces a settlement’s role and function;
cannot be accommodated within the built up area; and
has been identified in an adopted Neighbourhood Plan or has clear community support as demonstrated through a process which has been agreed by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Parish or Town Council.

CP19 states: "The only development allowed in the countryside will be that with a genuine and proven need for a countryside location, such as that necessary for farming, forestry, or other rural enterprises"

EHDC have fallen behind with their Local Plan, leaving them open to these speculative planning applications on unallocated sites. However, this does not mean developers can simply build wherever they like. The settlement boundary remains a key consideration.

Southcott's application goes against the key themes of the EHDC's JCS.

The land is home to numerous species. Some of these carry particular protections. While the layout avoids the copse to the West of the site, the wider impact on diversity has not been considered. Note particularly that two species of woodpecker use the large tree that can be seen from Lovedean Lane as a feeding centre and it is the roosting place for many of our local birds. Watching the bird population, it is very clear that this tree, the smaller trees and in particular the Buddleia and Elder trees make up a significant means of safely moving through the landscape. Southcott plan to remove this important, long established part of the scenery and habitat.

LVRA Submission

The Lovedean Village Residents Association wishes to object to this proposal on the following grounds:

DEVELOPER COMMUNITY COMMUNICATIONS – there has been no communication with the Lovedean community; Recently Taylor Wimpey held a public meeting in the Lovedean village hall to explain their upcoming proposal, but, sadly, Southcott have done nothing. The first that the community knew of the current submission was when it appeared on the EHDC website! The Planning Statement contends that the Southcott agent has been in discussions with Lovedean Parish Council – no such organisation exists. This would appear to be disrespectful to the people of Lovedean and shows that there is little care or consideration for the local community. Surely this does not represent best practice or complies with any requirement for community engagement?

INFRASTRUCTURE – The Planning Statement contends that there is a bus service in Lovedean Lane; there is none, and hasn’t been for many years. Whilst the planning statement talks about local shops, in fact the nearest shops and bus stop is a kilometre away from this development, meaning most residents would be using motor vehicles, increasing the levels of traffic on an already heavily trafficked lane. How putting more cars on the road squares with achieving the stated net-zero policy of EHDC is a mystery to us. It should also be noted that doctors and schools in this area have very little capacity to cope with further loadings.

EHDC 5-YEAR LOCAL PLAN – the LVRA understands that EHDC do not have an up-to-date plan, nor, we also understand, will it have one until later in 2026. However, we are aware that all adopted policies within EHDC’s JCS are still applicable to this development. Regarding developments within the District, it is clear that there are a number of sites, like this one, being developed currently, including Land East of Horndean. When the LEOH work has already commenced, which is on a substantially larger and better served scale, we wonder what the urgency is on getting this development, on a marginal and difficult site, approved achieves? According to the programme of works, it will be 2028 before anything is really completed regarding this proposal.

On the subject of site history, the fact is (although broadly overlooked in the Planning Statement) that the site history is not good – an application in 2014/15 refused and the subsequent appeal dismissed, with a repeat in 2017, of an application refused and the appeal dismissed. These should not be overlooked when considering the current proposal. And speaking of being overlooked, this was the principal reason, in respect of adjoining properties, for the 2014 application and appeal to be refused.

EHDC JCS Policy compliance (EXPLANATORY NOTE FOR THIS SECTION – all text in Bold italics is directly lifted from the relevant EHDC CPs. The texts highlighted in yellow are the CP’s words the LVRA believe are relevant to the respective CP non-compliances)

Turning now to EHDC JCS policy compliance, it is hard to see how this proposal complies with CP19 DEVELOPMENT IN THE COUNTRYSIDE.

The approach to sustainable development in the countryside, defined as the area outside settlement policy boundaries, (a reminder is relevant that the proposed site sits outside the Settlement Policy Boundary of the current EHDC plan) is to operate a policy of general restraint in order to protect the countryside for its own sake. The only development allowed in the countryside will be that with a genuine and proven need for a countryside location, such as that necessary for farming, forestry, or other rural enterprises (see Policy CP6). Within the South Downs National Park the pursuit of National Park purposes will be paramount.

7.4 The countryside (the area outside of settlement policy boundaries as defined on the Proposals Map) needs to be protected for the sake of its intrinsic character and beauty, the diversity and qualities of its landscapes, heritage and wildlife, the wealth of its natural resources and to ensure it may be enjoyed by all.

7.5 At the same time, the countryside is under great pressure to meet a range of demands. Farming has a key influence on the landscape. Farm diversification and the reasonable expansion of existing rural businesses needs to be supported to help sustain agricultural enterprise and to maximise opportunities to strengthen the rural economy (see also Policy CP6).

7.6 It is therefore recognised that some development can take place which is beneficial to the countryside and the people that live and work there. The emphasis in the Local Plan: Joint Core Strategy is therefore to allow development in the countryside where it can be demonstrated that a countryside location is both necessary and justified. Such an approach will preclude development for which a rural location is not essential. Inappropriate types and scales of development will not be permitted in order to maintain the landscape character and quality of the countryside. The countryside will continue to be protected for its intrinsic value. Even so, it is possible to maximise opportunities to strengthen the rural economy by encouraging uses related to the land, including appropriate forms of agriculture, forestry and green tourism.

When considering the above information, there are clear areas of non-compliance, highlighted.

With regard to CP20 LANDSCAPE, we believe the key phrase is:

7.11 Development will not be permitted if it is unsustainable and fails to protect the special character of the landscape; we fail to see how putting 28 houses in a steeply sloping, (10m/50ft west to east; Geotechnical Engineering Ltd site report), back land, difficult site, with no amenities complies with this clear statement.

There is a clear non-compliance with CP27 POLLUTION, which states:

Development must not result in pollution which prejudices the health and safety of communities and their environments.

Development will not be permitted if it would have an unacceptable effect on the amenity of the occupiers of neighbouring properties through loss of privacy or through excessive overshadowing.

It is quite clear that the design as presented with cause significant overlooking of the adjacent, existing properties, due to the height of the proposed buildings, their location in the development and the steepness of the site’s topography (see quantum, above).

This will constitute a significant loss of amenity for those properties. This is clearly apparent when the Landscape Section, drg No.C9 23 10 PL120 is studied closely. It should be noted that this drawing is incorrect in its representation of the slope of the land beyond the eastern site boundary. Whereas the drawing shows a continuous slope to Lovedean Lane, in reality the rear areas of the adjacent properties drop between 1.4m and 1.8m to their respective floor levels. This fact indicates initial poor site survey work (communication with residents?) and will exacerbate the overlooking problem.

It is interesting to note that the Planning Statement, whilst claiming compliance with many JCS Policies, is completely silent on compliance with CP 27 indicating that the developer is not confident on this one.

CP29 DESIGN – it is hard to see how what has been presented complies with the following wording from this Policy:

d) ensure that the layout and design of development contributes to local distinctiveness and sense of place, and is appropriate and sympathetic to its setting in terms of its scale, height, massing and density, and its relationship to adjoining buildings, spaces around buildings and landscape features;

h) take account of local town and village design statements, (backland filling up the valley side was prohibited in Horndean Parish design statement for Lovedean Lane) neighbourhood plans that identify local character and distinctiveness and the design elements of parish and town plans and conservation area appraisals;

7.76 Local input in any development is, of course, crucial and that is why town and village design statements are so important. Putting up new buildings alongside something much older can sometimes be contentious, so it is important to be aware of any local special features of particular merit and to relate any proposals to the context of the site. The design of new buildings should be woven into the fabric of the living and working community.

CP30 HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT – compliance with this Policy is also very questionable:

All new development will be required to:

conserve and enhance the cultural heritage of the South Downs National Park if in the National Park and take account of this cultural heritage where the National Park’s setting is affected;
reflect national policies in respect of design, landscape, townscape and historic heritage;
conserve, enhance, maintain and manage the district’s heritage assets and their setting including listed buildings, conservation areas, Scheduled Ancient Monuments, archaeological sites and Historic Parks and Gardens;
ensure that the development makes a positive contribution to the overall appearance of the local area including the use of good quality materials of appropriate scale, profile, finish, colour and proven weathering ability;
take account of local conservation area appraisals and town and village design

Regarding heritage assets, the Planning Statement mentions two listed Grade 2 properties, 203,Lovedean lane and The Old Thatched Cottage. These ‘two’ are actually one and the same property! It is interesting to note that there is no mention in the Planning Statement of the other Grade II listed properties which will, inevitably, be impacted if this proposal goes ahead.

CP31 TRANSPORT

Through implementation of the Hampshire Local Transport Plan (2011 – 2031), the fullest possible use of sustainable modes of transport (including cycling, walking and public and community transport) and reduced dependence on the private car will be encouraged.

Development proposals will include a range of mitigating measures and, where appropriate, will be required to:

enhance the quality, viability, availability, accessibility and frequency of public transport and alternative community transport provision, especially in rural areas, to ensure that those without access to a private car have access to services and facilities necessary for their well-being;

It is hard to see how, in the Southcott proposal, compliance with this Policy requirement is being met.

DRAINAGE

Other than the drainage consultants brief, high-level comments, including this key paragraph:

‘The proposals will result in increased run-off which must be attenuated on site and not increase flood risk elsewhere. The drainage systems, including parking and access areas must be designed to cater for the 1:100 year + 45% climate change event.’, the Southcott proposal includes no easily-found detailed proposal for the drainage approach for the site. As the site currently stands it is a natural ‘soak’.

The consultant clearly states the proposal will result in increased run-off, and a detailed design needs to be considered and approved, and compliant with the requirements of CP 25, before any further consideration of granting planning permission can be made. This is particularly important in light of recognised climate change and the future higher and heavier levels of rainfall that can be expected.

ACCESS

The residents of Lovedean, and particularly of New Road, are still astounded that access to this site from New Road is considered appropriate and safe. HCC Highways lack of objection and the access permission granted by EHDC seems unfathomable.

Unless very careful traffic management of the junction occurs, this will be a constant source of concern for residents in this area.

This concern is already evident by the objections/comments received from Lovedean residents on the issue.

On a final, and possibly lighter note, what is putting a pathway in to Cold Hill lane about? There seems to be a collective head-scratching over this proposal and what it is trying to achieve. After serving a few houses, the eastern part of Cold Hill lane is an unmade farm track, generally quite overgrown in the summer, and sometimes completely flooded during times of wet weather, leading to……. nowhere in particular……strange.

With respect to the comments above, the LVRA would request that this proposal is not approved in its current state. We would suggest that significant attention is given to the non-compliance with CP27 issue of overlooking and loss of amenity to the adjacent Lovedean Lane properties prior to any further redesign submissions being made.

Download the above submission as a pdf here, or see it on the Planning Portal.

Taylor Wimpey
Land west of Lovedean Lane
Access via Blackthorn Avenue

Note: TW have submitted an Environmental Impact Assessment for this site. This indicates a full planning application is coming. Please submit your comments on the Planning Portal.

Some of the above points hold true for this development also, however this one is inside the settlement boundary. We will try to put forward some pointers ASAP.

Taylor Wimpey are proposing to build 20 dwellings on this site west of Lovedean Lane, with access from the newly developed Blackthorn Avenue (opposite Yoells Lane).

They are holding a public consultation event TODAY 17th July 2025.

2.30pm-8pm Jubilee Hall, Horndean.

We recommend as many people as possible go along and have your say on their plans before they submit their application. This is one of the best times to communicate directly with Taylor Wimpey and have them hear local voices, before it gets adversarial.

Developers have been known to fight back objections with claims of 'lack of interest in the consultation stage' meaning that the local community is in agreement with their plans - of course, we know this is a barefaced lie. Still, the more of us that have our say now, the better.

In an ideal world, we would stop this development in its tracks. However, the location seems to have been adopted into the Local Plan, so it is unlikely we will achieve that in full.

BUT we can have our say on the layout, design and infrastructure. 120 is a large number of dwellings - one might argue too many. As I write this, I have not seen the layout plan. There may well be specific arguments, which we will come to down the line.

Below are some talking points. No doubt everyone will have their own personal take, and that is important to the discussion - but if many of us mention the same points, they may have more cause to stop and look at what we are saying.

Environmental impact

How will this affect the natural environment? The allocated site in the Local Plan seems to include one of the local copses and wooded gaps between fields and developed land. These pockets of woodland may seem insignificant on paper, but they are rich and diverse natural environments that provide important connection with other natural sites. We know how important they are in the fight against climate change and habitat destruction. We need these nature highways. How will Taylor Wimpey ensure its protection?

Local services

Local services (healthcare, education, transport, etc) are already difficult for residents of Lovedean. With no public transport to speak of, the number of cars seems to be growing exponentially. We could reasonably expect 240 new vehicles from this development. There are no existing local healthcare services, bus routes, and so on. Using the train from Rowlands Castle is a joke. The catchment primary school is poorly thought of, and the catchment secondary is oversubscribed. How will Taylor Wimpey tackle these issues?

Landscape

Recent development has already changed Lovedean beyond recognition - have you walked west on Yoells Lane recently? The view is no longer of green fields and trees, but has been replaced by bleak, featureless brick walls and rooftops. Lovedean Lane is home to various beautiful historic buildings. The currently favoured building style is not in keeping with the local area at all.

Lovedean Lane already has some flood risk, and covering more of the green space will not help. Green space is important for physical and mental health. How are Taylor Wimpey going to protect the local area?

Click here for Taylor Wimpey's website with what little information they have published so far.

55406/005 | 30 dwellings, rear of 191-211 Lovedean Lane

55406/005 | Outline application for 30 dwellings comprising 18 open market and 12 affordable dwellings, landscaping, and associated works (Access only to be considered) | Land Rear of, 191-211 Lovedean Lane, Horndean, Waterlooville

Southcott have been denied this application (and appeals) before, principally on the grounds of it being outside the current local plan.

They have changed the details of the plan again, but have not addressed residents' main concerns of the highway, loss of light and privacy, increase in flood risk for existing properties, loss of areas of natural space, and the increasing pressure on our local doctors surgeries, dentists and schools.

Please make comments here: https://planningpublicaccess.easthants.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=makeComment&keyVal=_EHANT_DCAPR_253980

NEW INFORMATION

EHDC Land Supply

Further to the recent couple of planning update notes sent out, some more information has come to light.

The LVRA were puzzled as to how the EHDC plan seemed to suddenly turn from robust, to one which is out of date.

Apparently, from our enquiries, this has happened because EHDC pulled 3 pieces of allocated land in the north of the District, including Neatham Down, Alton, out of its plan for various reasons without having any sufficient alternative, contingency land with which to replace them.

The consequence of this is that a shortfall has been created, causing an EHDC-wide problem. This is likely to be leaving all EHDC communities vulnerable to opportunistic, speculative planning applications such as Lovedean is seeing with Southcott.

It therefore seems that, fundamentally, EHDC have lost control of planning for the District, which is a very serious situation.

Our local District Councillor believes that there are 3 sites in Catherington that are currently being looked at by developers, with similar motivations as Southcott`s.

This does feel like a catastrophic failure of process on behalf of EHDC, to have allowed such a situation to have developed!

It can be understood that identified land areas could be moved into and out of developed plans, but there needs to be joined-up approach to such a process – such as one out and one in.

It is hard to believe that a proper process to protect the EHDC strategic plan doesn`t appear to have been followed, allowing their plan to become deemed to be out of date.

It seems that all of the hard work done within EHDC over the last 9 years to get a plan in place and create a robust set of planning strategies, policies and controls has been lost and they are finding themselves back in the vulnerable position they were in in 2014.

If this correct, it is very worrying and one that should be addressed at the highest levels in EHDC.

Key contacts.

Gill Kneller, CEO, EHDC – gill.kneller@easthants.gov.uk
Local MP – Flick Drummond - flick.drummond.mp@parliament.uk

How to Help

A number of points have been identified which may help Lovedean residents who wish to compose an objection to this proposal:

EHDC HOUSING NUMBERS – Whilst the proposal is entirely predicated on what is presented as a shortfall of housing numbers in the EHDC development plan, this is not entirely the case. In fact, in regard of EHDC`s 5 year plan they do, indeed, have sufficient numbers of 2593, against a requirement of 2585, a surplus of 8. The `shortfall` being in the plan buffer only.

It would appear that the Planning Proposal is somewhat disingenuous in the way it presents this.

SETTLEMENT POLICY BOUNDARY – Whilst the planning proposal makes their prime issue that the EHDC plan is out of date, due to the perception in point 1, above, the fact is that the proposed site is still outside of the settlement policy boundary and therefore the National Planning Policy Framework suggest that there is a presumption to refuse such development proposals. Indeed, this is the reason why Southcott`s last appeal failed.

WATER POLLUTION – In late 2021, EHDC refused planning permission for an additional property proposed in New Road, Lovedean. One of the key reasons for refusal was that foul water from the development would add to the nitrogen deposition in the Solent. This has only been addressed in a very high-level and unsatisfactory way in the planning proposal, (Section 3.34). If a refusal on these grounds for one property is correct, then a proposed further 30 properties pose a huge nitrogen deposition risk. The areas being the Solent Special Area of Conservation and the Solent and Southampton Water Special Protection area. This is particularly topical at the present time.

NO COMMUNITY SUPPORT – There is no evidence of community support for this proposal. In fact, there has been no community engagement with the people of Lovedean whatsoever. The first that anyone in Lovdean was aware was when the planning application appeared. Interestingly, the planning statement refers to engagement with `Lovedean Parish Council`. No such authority exists! The developers have not even had the decency to bring their proposal to the village, either a public exhibition and consultation, or even a brochure delivered locally. This does feel like an extremely dismissive and arrogant attitude to Lovedean residents.

THE LEVELLING UP AND REGENERATION BILL:PLANNING AND LOCAL CONTROL IN ENGLAND – EHDC have a significant challenge with the area of the District which is in the South Downs National Park, extending to approximately 53%. The SDNP has a different set of planning rules regarding housing numbers and allocations, being at a much lower number. A consequence of this is that EHDC has to try a fit it`s Government target numbers into the remaining area left of approximately 47%. This has caused significant stress in the system and EHDC have been lobbying Government on this point. This is an issue for Local Authorities in a similar situation and now Michael Gove, MP, Minister for Levelling Up and Regeneration has brought forward a Bill called Planning and Local Control in England. This is a wide ranging piece of legislation but proposes that it will end the obligation on local authorities to provide a rolling 5 year supply of land. It also proposes that, where an authority`s plans are at an advanced stage of development, as we understand EHDC`s are, there will be transitional arrangements to make sure that such areas are less at risk from speculative development, such as this is, from Southcott. As we are in this transitional stage, this should be an important point EHDC should use to refuse this application.

TOTAL NUMBERS OF HOUSES BUILT IN LOVEDEAN IN THE LAST 10 YEARS AND CUMULATIVE SUSTAINABILITY – many new houses have been built in Lovedean over the last 10 years. If one considers the Millers Field development, the current Bargate development being built, and all of the Linden homes development which is being built behind the south western side of Lovedean Lane. These numbers, together with the infilling that has taken place in a windfall way for EHDC means that Lovedean has had development of well over what could be deemed to be a fair and reasonable amount of new housing, considering little or no investment in the area from any developers levies.

SITE LAYOUT – OVERLOOKING CONTRARY TO CP27 – due to the topography of the site, with a slope that exceeds 10 metre from the south east to the north west, there will be, self-evidently (and with the evidence on the ground from the new Bargate site on a similar slope) overlooking problems amounting to a `loss of amenity` with the layout proposed. This will be contrary to EHDC`s policy CP27 and should be a very important issue for EHDC planners. Loss of amenity is a serious reason to refuse permission, within CP27. There is also this issue that, one of the properties affected by this proposal is a Grade 2 Listed Heritage Property dating from the early 1500s. The rise of the proposed site from behind the existing buildings means an inevitable overwhelming visual effect, which would cause significant harm to the landscape setting of a Heritage Building. This should be strongly resisted by EHDC.

We hope these notes will be helpful with your thinking, together with any further grounds for objections that you will want to make.

A couple of points to consider:

1. Your comments and objections should be made in your own words; it will be easy for EHDC to dismiss objections if they receive multiple `copy and paste` type letters. And, objections are individual; multiple objections can come from one household.

2. If we are to resist this application we need many objections to be lodged with EHDC to apply sufficient pressure to EHDC planning to bring this application before the Planning Committee, where the people of Lovedean would have an opportunity to make a further representation. The risk is, if there are insufficient objections, EHDC could consider it a non-contentious application and `wave it through` by delegated authority.

And finally, while wondering why this application has come forward now, other than being a purely opportunistic exercise, it has been mentioned that this developers option is soon to run out on this site…… The LVRA have not been able to verify this, but as the first attempt to develop this site was 9 years ago and the usual option period on land is 10 years, this could be the case.

And a reminder - As always, time is our enemy and we only have until Wednesday, 24th May to make comments.

Key contacts:

LOVEDEAN VILLAGE RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION - http://www.lovedeanlvra.org.uk/ 02392 595391 (if you are not a member, please may we encourage you to join.)

EHDC Planning Officer – Ishita Sheth, email - Ishita.Sheth@easthants.gov.uk

Local MP – Flick Drummond - flick.drummond.mp@parliament.uk