Site CFS023 (Land north and east of Malvern Road) should be protected from development as developing on this piece of land will have detrimental and irreversible effects to the adjacent ancient woodland; your own site survey scores it at a 1 (worst performing site) in regards to ancient woodland. Your vision statement for Hockley / Hawkwell is about “making the most of its access to ancient woodland”, clearly recognising the importance of protecting our ancient woodland, including Beckney woods.
The government’s own gov.uk website (https://www.gov.uk/guidance/ancient-woodland-and-veteran-trees-protection-surveys-licences#assess-the-impacts) states that developments nearby ancient woodland can have the following affects:
• reducing the amount of semi-natural habitats next to ancient woodland
• increasing the amount of pollution, including dust
• increasing disturbance to wildlife from additional traffic and visitors
• increasing light or air pollution
• increasing damaging activities like fly-tipping and the impact of domestic pets
• changing the landscape character of the area
All of the above would affect the ancient woodlands of Beckney woods, and the vast range of ancient trees and other flora and fauna that inhabit it. Any increased pollution to the area would damage the wonderful bluebells and wood anemones in Beckney woods.

In the Hockley/Hawlkwell area Beckney woods is one of only 2 ancient woodlands; therefore it is not unreasonable to protect Beckney woods by choosing other sites for housing developments which are not adjacent to ancient woodlands, therefore ancient woodland ecosystems would not destroyed.

The Woodlands Trust is actively working to save ancient woodlands and ensure appropriate buffering land is in place, therefore we have informed them of your proposal, as the site is one of the last remaining greenbelt strips connecting Beckney Woods to the surrounding areas.

The proposed site is an important animal and insect habitat in its own right. Many different birds of prey use the green belt as a hunting ground, meaning there is numerous small prey animals that call the site home. Snakes are known to live on the site, while bats can be seen most evenings, so they must roost nearby. Foxes and badgers have also been sighted on the proposed site, as have both Spotted and Green Woodpeckers. We would be able to provide photographical evidence of these, if required.

Furthermore, there are other reasons in addition to the site being adjacent to ancient woodland that make Site CFS023 inappropriate for development.

This is green belt land, and should not be built on. Why make policy changes on protected sites, when others are suitable instead. Your own survey ranks development on the site as the most damaging to green belt land. There is a lot of trees on the site itself, which would have to be felled; again this is indicated on your survey as having a big impact on protected trees.

The proposed access to this site (Harrogate Drive) is currently single lane track and is not suitable for the additional traffic 139 houses will bring. It is unclear what land would be used to widen this road to make it suitable as there are already houses either side of this unmade track/road. Additionally, your site survey highlights that the development is no where near any parts of the strategic road network, and while reasonable access to Greensward Lane for a bus stop, it has very poor access to bus services.

While the proposed site may have a low flood risk itself (as it is on the crest of a hill, with pretty steep terrain), if it was to be developed there is a real risk that the extra water that will no longer soak into the ground (due to a large amount of new pavements, roads, driveways and the houses themselves) will cause surface flooding issues to those houses beneath in Malvern Road. Many of the houses in Malvern Road already have issues with such flooding. The site itself also scores poorly for critical drainage risk.

Malvern Road already suffers with weak water pressure, which will only be exacerbated by further housing development.
I would also like to question how the proposed site has received a 5 for topography, as it is literally on the crest of a hill, with a steep West to East gradient. I would like any planning officer / councillor to walk the length of the site and not comment on the height change.

Access to local primary and secondary schools maybe good, as they are physically within walking distance, but from their Ofsted reports, they do not have the capacity to support the additional housing you are suggesting on the area. Surely picking a larger site, where developers would have to provide facilities, such as schools and doctors, would be a smarter choice by the council. Leading on from this, the road infrastructure in the local area is already struggling to meet demand, in particular on Greensward Lane under the railway line where a large bottleneck forms as there are no alternative routes through.