HEAVYWEIGHT opposition to the plan to build 200 homes on the Causeway Farm site in Petersfield came from Christopher Napier OBE.

The day after being presented with his Queen’s Award for his services to the countryside, Christopher gave a case against the development on behalf of The Petersfield Society and the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England.

He told the committee: “In terms of landscape, Causeway Farm is, by some margin, the most sensitive of all the sites allocated for housing in the Petersfield Neighbourhood Plan. This has been cleared acknowledged in the many reports over the years by inspectors, on Local Plans and appeals. These have all recognised the special nature of the views from the town and from footpath 37 towards the countryside and the distant hills of the South Downs, along the Criddell stream. And also how high quality countryside sweeps almost into the town centre. The importance of these features is confirmed in the Petersfield Neighbourhood Plan.

“So, it is critical that the layout and design of any development of this site pays full respect to this sensitive, much loved and much used area of countryside, on the edge of the town. We are looking for something more than just an ‘acceptable’ design, but rather the high quality design which is called for in the Neighbourhood Plan.

“As proposed, the design creates an abrupt settlement edge between the proposed built up area and the countryside, along its eastern and south eastern boundary. This would adversely impact on footpath 37 and the Criddell Stream area. It is said that the Block Plan in the Neighbourhood Plan shows the extent of the area to be developed, but this says nothing about what design would be appropriate. The proposed housing along this edge is of the same type and design as within the development itself, when what is needed is a bespoke housing design in order to mitigate the impact of this edge of the settlement.

“Our other landscape concern is the SUDS provision. SUDS requires a large man made water feature, which here is proposed as an isolated extension into the wider and open countryside, extending south from the development. We consider that however carefully this is planted up, or otherwise disguised, it could not avoid being an alien feature in the very natural views out from footpath 37.

“We say it needs to be provided within the development area, perhaps within the red-lined field which is excluded from the development, where it would be hidden from the wider countryside by a mature field boundary.

“We note that the National Park landscape officer has raised objection in both these respects. We consider they are too fundamental to be dealt with by way of condition, which could not provide satisfactory mitigation.

“Accordingly the proposed design does not reach the quality required in this sensitive location, and should be refused pending a revised design.”