We disagree with the assessment of the HG18 countryside site as a location for development and the proposed HUR1 policy.

Current policy (DS4) clearly shows this site as outside of development boundaries and as countryside. Current policy requires there to be a demonstration that development on countryside is necessary - we do not believe that it is necessary to destroy the countryside at such scale, to build homes in and around Hurst Green, furthermore we do not believe that this proposal has offered any justification as why there is a need to build on the countryside.

The proposed HUR1 policy appears to be a Council supported retrospective planning permission - the proposed policy coincidentally matching up exactly to an existing, possibly illegitimate, and certainly highly speculative planning permission application made by Millwood Homes, who in 2016 in preparation for this policy change destroyed this area of countryside by cutting down trees, removing vegetation and hedgerow before an environmental impact assessment could take place. Policy HUR1 would effectively reward this irresponsible behaviour.

Should development take place, the number of dwellings as proposed is excessive and does not take into account the countryside location of Hurst Green or the quality of life for the residents of the new dwellings, which includes adequate parking and adequate outdoor garden space. These characteristics would, we believe be in line with any future Neighbourhood Plan, which we understand is currently in development and should be respected. Passing Policy HUR1 at this stage would diminish the value of any future Neighbourhood Plan.

The current speculative planning permission application for this site has been highly criticised by local people and the Parish Council as part of the public consultation. In summary, we feel the current proposal features a very small number of car parking spaces and without revision we feel would almost certainly see parking on pavements and gardens as seen in the recent similar developments elsewhere. There appears to be no provision for communal play facilities or other communal areas such as gardens, without these is the development likely to encourage the use of the roads and adjoining privately owned fields for recreational use. The proposal makes reference to a survey on traffic impact; we consider this to be somewhat disingenuous.

Finally, we do not believe that anywhere in the core plan, does it state that the entire allocation needs to be built in the first few years of a plan supposedly covering a period up to 2028. In summary, it would appear to us that further development of Hurst Green would be best undertaken in areas away from the A21 and over the period of the entire plan in smaller quantities (adding up to the same number) that would allow both the local infrastructure to scale and afford the community the opportunity to focus on the greater provision of quality of life for its new and existing residents, both during construction and for years to come.