Planning Policy Team
Planning and Development Team
The Environment Department
Hampshire County Council
The Castle, Winchester, SO23 8UD.

Dear Sirs
I am writing with reference to the Hampshire Minerals Plan, "Downton, Downton pPA13" and am not using the response form on page 18 of the Plan as it is long, complex and difficult to understand.
I consider that the need for Downton or Ashley preferred sites to be exploited for sand and gravel extraction has not been proven and that the Plan is biased.
My answer to question 2 of the response form is: No - the provisions in the current plan would lead to over supply.
My answer to question 7 the response form is: Neither - the preferred option should be Roeshot Hill, which is all in Hampshire. It has in excess of 7 million tonnes of good quality sand and gravel, (not 3m tonnes as in the Plan) has better transport access, and will have considerably less impact on local residents with more prudent use of resources.
In your document Hampshire Minerals Plan, on pages 130 and 131 referring to Downton Farm, Lea Green Farm and Yeatton Farm, you repeatedly make references to "within the Green Belt", "Site of Important Nature Conservation", "archaeological potential", "listed buildings within the vicinity", "residential properties adjacent to the site", "contains ancient woodland" - therefore how can this area possibly be seen as an area fit for being suitable for many years of digging huge gravel pits?
I understand from your document Hampshire Minerals Plan, that you want me to choose between Ashley and Downton as potential gravel sites. I wish to place on record my objection to Hampshire County Council requesting me to make a controversial choice like this.  Quite apart from the fact that you have provided insufficient information on which to base a choice it is extremely bad for community relations and unworthy of a County Council to do this. If you must ask this type of question, why have you not included Roeshot Hill site in the choice? Roeshot Hill site contains much better quality of mineral material, can yield at least as much material as Greater Downton (contrary to the figures in your document Hampshire Minerals Plan - I believe expert evidence exists to substantiate this fact) and there are very few residents in the near vicinity, unlike the Greater Downton site.
My other objections to your document Hampshire Minerals Plan are based on the following:
Safety
All the local roads are narrow and of a country nature. Many do not have pedestrian walkways and would be completely unsuitable for regular use by large lorries moving material in and out of the area. The roads are used by schoolchildren and elderly people who would be severely put at risk by an increase in traffic resulting from development of an extractive nature.


Health
The prevailing wind direction in this area is from the south west and blows across the proposed gravel extraction area. Dust from gravel extraction, traffic fumes, and noise will all be detrimental to the health and welfare of people living in the area. The northern edge of the proposed gravel quarry is very near to Hordle Primary School where of course young children congregate every term weekday.
Conservation
An extractive industry will destroy the countryside and wild life habitat which is in abundance in this area, particularly the variety of wild birds. In addition your Plan repeatedly mentions "Site of Importance Nature Conservation", "The area has archaeological potential", "There are listed buildings within the vicinity", "The area is within the Green Belt", "There are adjacent listed buildings"  How can these facts be allied to the proposal to dig up large areas of this countryside? In addition, this part of Hampshire contains considerable areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
Local Business
Although principally residential, the area supports small businesses relating to the Tourist industry. These will undoubtedly be adversely affected as visitors to the area come to enjoy the peaceful atmosphere and natural beauty of the area.
Landfill
The void created by extraction of material will come under pressure to be used for waste disposal. This would create further traffic movement, smell, windblown litter, increased vermin population and attendant health hazards.
Coastal defenses
It seems to be extremely dangerous to excavate large areas so close to the coast. The large holes will fill up with water which will be exacerbated when the River Avon floods. This, combined with the unpredictability of the sea, could sometime in the not too distant future have a catastrophic effect on the area caused by widespread flooding.
In summary, I consider the area is totally unsuitable for consideration of such a development and request that "Greater" Downton, comprising 326 acres of Downton Manor, Yeatton and Leagreen Farms be removed from the plan. I do not believe there is an overriding need for gravel to be extracted from such a sensitive area to support the building development needs of the local community. I consider that the extracted material, and no doubt subsequent landfill, would both be used by interested parties from outside this area. Financial gain would accrue to the Extractive Industry and the few individuals owning the affected land at a considerable cost to the wider community at large. This blight would not only be measured in financial terms but also in terms of safety, health, loss of amenity, pollution, visual impact, local business and natural habitat.
Yours faithfully,

Page 1 of 2