“Speculative Developments” in the context of non-material planning considerations generally means that concerns or objections about potential future developments that are not part of the current planning application are not taken into account.

This does not imply that developers are allowed to withhold information about their plans. Instead, it means that each planning application is considered on its own merits, based on the details provided for that specific proposal.

However, planning regulations often require developers to provide comprehensive information about the phases of a large development project if it is intended to be built in stages. For phased developments, developers typically need to submit a master plan outlining the entire project, even if detailed applications for later phases will be submitted separately.

Here are a few key points regarding phased or large-scale developments:

1. Master Plans: For large, phased developments, a master plan might be required, outlining the overall vision and structure of the entire project, even if only one phase is being submitted for approval at a time.
2. Transparency and Disclosure: Developers are generally required to disclose enough information about their proposals to allow a proper assessment. This includes the broader context if the application is part of a larger scheme.
3. Conditions and Phasing Plans: Planning permissions can include conditions requiring developers to submit detailed phasing plans or additional details about future phases before they can proceed with those phases.
4. Public Consultation: Large-scale or phased developments often undergo extensive public consultation processes, during which developers are expected to disclose their overall plans to the community.

While concerns about speculative future developments that are not part of the current application cannot be considered, this does not absolve developers from the requirement to provide clear and comprehensive information about the specific proposal under consideration.

Planning authorities focus on the details of the submitted application, ensuring that each phase or part of the development is evaluated based on current, concrete plans rather than speculative future intentions.

Speculative developments are generally not considered when assessing risk for a screening Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). The screening process for an EIA focuses on the specific details of the proposed development as submitted in the application. Here’s an overview of how this works:

1. Specific Project Focus: The screening EIA assesses the environmental impacts based on the details provided in the current planning application. It does not consider potential future developments that have not been formally proposed or detailed in the application.
2. Material Considerations: The EIA process considers material factors such as the size and nature of the development, its potential environmental impacts (e.g., on air and water quality, biodiversity, noise levels), and compliance with relevant environmental regulations and guidelines.
3. Cumulative Effects: While speculative developments themselves are not considered, the EIA process may take into account the cumulative effects of the proposed development in conjunction with existing developments and any planned projects that have been formally proposed and are under consideration. This helps assess the overall impact on the environment more comprehensively.
4. Transparency and Disclosure: Developers are required to provide sufficient information about their proposed project to allow a thorough assessment of environmental risks. This includes disclosing all relevant aspects of the current project phase but does not necessitate disclosure of future phases unless they are part of the current application.

In summary, while speculative future developments are not included in the EIA screening process, the cumulative effects of known and planned projects may be considered to ensure a comprehensive environmental assessment.

The planning and EIA processes include several mechanisms to prevent piecemeal developments and avoid the avoidance of a full Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA):

1. Cumulative Impact Assessment: Planning authorities often require developers to assess the cumulative impact of their projects. This means evaluating not only the specific development being proposed but also its combined impact with other existing or reasonably foreseeable developments. This helps prevent the fragmentation of large projects into smaller ones to avoid a full EIA.
2. Screening and Scoping Procedures: During the EIA screening process, planning authorities assess whether a full EIA is needed based on the potential environmental impact of the project. If there are concerns that a project is being segmented to evade comprehensive review, the authority can consider the broader context and potential cumulative impacts.
3. Master Plans and Phasing Plans: For large or phased developments, developers are often required to submit a master plan or phasing plan. This outlines the overall vision and structure of the entire project, even if only part of it is being applied for initially. This ensures transparency and helps the planning authority assess the full impact of the development over time.
4. Planning Conditions: Planning authorities can impose conditions on approvals that require developers to provide additional information or conduct further environmental assessments as future phases of the project are proposed. This ensures ongoing scrutiny of the development’s impact.
5. Public Consultation and Transparency: Public consultation processes allow community members and stakeholders to raise concerns about potential piecemeal developments. Transparent disclosure of development plans ensures that any attempt to segment a project is visible and can be challenged.
6. Regulatory Oversight: Planning authorities and environmental regulators have the authority to enforce EIA regulations and can require a full EIA if there is evidence that a developer is attempting to circumvent the process through piecemeal applications.

By implementing these mechanisms, planning authorities work to ensure that the environmental impact of a development is fully assessed, preventing developers from avoiding comprehensive scrutiny through segmentation of their projects.

The continuous expansion of the village raises significant safety concerns due to the lack of proper pedestrian infrastructure. The existing roads are not equipped to handle increased traffic while ensuring the safety of pedestrians, particularly older people and children. This issue is critical as it directly affects the daily lives and safety of the community.

Previous developments that rely on Beechlands Road have highlighted its limitations, which were well known to the developer. Due to insufficient supervision, the alleged compensation for the strain on this part of the infrastructure has not been adequately addressed. The developers were supposed to repair Beechlands Road to fix post-construction issues and ensure it remained functional for the increased traffic. Yet, the junction with Red Hill and Five Ash Road is regularly flooded, rendering it impassable for pedestrians.

The Beechlands Road sidewalk is comparable to those found in some impoverished areas of Romania. It is a patchwork due to the addition and maintenance of various utility networks, making it unsafe for people with impaired vision. Additionally, it is a form of visual pollution.

The proposal for a new development on a rural cul-de-sac road raises significant concerns regarding noise pollution during both the construction and operational phases. Rural areas typically enjoy lower ambient noise levels, contributing to a peaceful living environment. Introducing a new development threatens to disrupt this tranquillity, leading to adverse effects on the local community’s quality of life.

High Noise Levels: Construction activities, including the operation of heavy machinery, drilling, and hammering, produce high noise levels. These noises can exceed safe levels, causing disturbance and potential health risks to nearby residents.

Duration of Construction: Construction projects often extend over long periods, subjecting residents to prolonged exposure to noise pollution. This constant noise can lead to increased stress, sleep disturbances, and a decline in overall well-being.

Impact on Wildlife: Rural areas often serve as habitats for various wildlife species. Construction noise can disrupt these habitats, causing animals to flee and potentially leading to a decline in local biodiversity.

Increased Traffic: A new development will lead to increased traffic on the rural cul-de-sac road. This increase in vehicle noise can significantly alter the acoustic environment, disturbing residents who are accustomed to a quieter setting.

Community Noise: The daily activities associated with a new residential estate, such as the operation of heating and cooling systems, waste collection, and general residential noise, can contribute to a higher noise level, impacting the local community’s quality of life.

Health and Quality of Life Impacts

Mental Health: Noise pollution can contribute to anxiety, depression, and other mental health issues.

Sleep Disturbance: Noise pollution is a well-known cause of sleep disturbances, leading to fatigue, impaired cognitive function, and reduced overall quality of life.

Social Disruption: Increased noise can disrupt social interactions and outdoor activities, diminishing the sense of community and personal enjoyment of one’s property.

Rural areas are valued for their tranquillity and natural beauty. Introducing noise pollution from a new development undermines these characteristics, reducing the area’s appeal and potentially lowering property values.

Residents of rural areas often choose these locations for their quiet, serene environment. The introduction of a noisy development goes against the community’s expectations and desires, leading to potential opposition and discontent among local residents.

References

The continuous development in the village has raised significant concerns about the inadequate control over biodiversity. Despite numerous developments, the cumulative significance of these projects has not triggered a single full Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). This absence of comprehensive evaluation undermines the efforts to protect and enhance local biodiversity.

Biodiversity assessments provided by companies hired by the applicants are prone to bias. There is a conflict of interest, as these companies might downplay negative impacts to favour the development.

Independent experts, without any financial ties to the applicants, should conduct biodiversity assessments to ensure impartiality and reliability of the findings.

The residents disagree with the effectiveness of the alleged 10% net gain in biodiversity EHDC process. There is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the proposed measures will result in a genuine net gain.

There is a lack of robust monitoring and accountability mechanisms to ensure that the biodiversity net gain is achieved and maintained over time.

The cumulative impact of multiple developments on local biodiversity has not been adequately assessed. Each individual project might not meet the threshold for a full EIA, but their combined effects could be significant. According to the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017, projects that are likely to have significant effects on the environment by virtue of their nature, size, or location should undergo an EIA. The failure to conduct a comprehensive EIA for the cumulative impact of all developments is a regulatory oversight.

References

In 2014, Hampshire County Council (HCC) Highways indicated that due to the number of SHLAA sites and the combined effects these developments might have on the A31 and the junctions of Boyneswood Road and Lymington Bottom Road, an EIA should be requested. Despite this recommendation, no EIA has been conducted in the village to date.

Bottle Neck Roads

Railway Crossings: The primary access routes from Medstead to the A31 include two bottleneck roads, one under and one over the railway track. These bottlenecks only allow one direction of traffic at a time, significantly restricting traffic flow and creating congestion.

Traffic Flow: The restricted traffic flow at these bottlenecks will be exacerbated by additional development, leading to increased delays and potential safety hazards.

A31 Traffic Volume

Busy Road: The A31 is already a very busy road, handling substantial traffic volumes daily. Adding more vehicles from new developments without proper infrastructure improvements will worsen traffic conditions.

Safety Concerns: Increased traffic congestion can lead to higher risks of accidents, posing a danger to both local residents and commuters.

Infrastructure Modernisation

Cost Inefficiency: Modernising the bottleneck junctions to support further development would not be cost-effective. The financial burden of such extensive upgrades would likely outweigh the benefits, considering the scale and impact required.

Village Impact: The execution of modernisation efforts would significantly disrupt the village. Construction activities would lead to increased noise, dust, and temporary road closures, negatively affecting the quality of life for residents.

In conclusion, I strongly urge the planning authorities to reject the current application. The significant unresolved traffic issues and the lack of a comprehensive EIA highlight the unfeasibility of further development in Medstead at this time. Ensuring that the infrastructure can support additional traffic without compromising safety and quality of life for residents is paramount. The historical context provided by HCC Highways’ 2014 indication underscores the necessity of this assessment.

Permitting this development without addressing these critical issues would not only be imprudent but also potentially harmful to the community. Therefore, I request that this planning application be denied until a thorough and comprehensive EIA is conducted and adequate infrastructure improvements are planned and implemented.

References

• EHDC – REQUEST FOR SCREENING OPINION – RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT COMPRISING 60 DWELLINGS – Land north of, Boyneswood Lane, Medstead, Alton – Officer Report

Sweden has a history of encouraging plain language use in government. As early as 1986, the Law of Administration (1986:223, article 7) required government authorities to express themselves in a comprehensible manner. Additionally, the Government Authorities and Agencies Ordinance (1995:1322, article 7) stipulated that director-generals ensure plain Swedish is used in official documents.

In 2024, Sweden introduced further measures to enforce the use of plain language across all public administration. This new law is part of ongoing efforts by the Plain Swedish Group, which has been active in promoting clear communication since its establishment by the government in 1993. The group provides guidelines, organizes conferences, and evaluates the comprehensibility of government texts to ensure they are user-friendly.

The main goal of this law is to enhance transparency and accessibility in government communications, making it easier for citizens to understand and engage with administrative processes. This is seen as a crucial step in ensuring democratic access and efficiency in public administration.

By ensuring clear communication, Sweden aims to eliminate barriers that complex administrative language can create, thereby promoting greater public participation and trust in government processes.

For more detailed information, you can refer to resources from the Plain Language website and related publications on the topic.