✅You can submit more than one objection. If you have already submitted your objection but want to add more, this is ok, provided you are raising new concerns and not repeating your existing objection. 

✅Everyone in you household can submit an objection. The more objections we can submit, the better - but do not copy and paste the same objection. 4 Identical objections would be considered as only 1 objection. Ensure you personalise your objection in your own words to avoid this happening.

✅Read our attached summary list of recommended valid objections. This is a curated list of valid, evidence based objections, generated from the advice of a professional planning consultant, professional transport report, professional sustainability report & village flooding survey report.

✅Everton Against Development have submitted the full professional reports to NFDC as official objections against the planning application. You can reference these reports, or select points from the report to put in in your own objections.

❌Don’t waste your objection with invalid concerns! The council can only consider ‘material planning considerations’ when making their decision. 

comprehensive list of valid recommended objections

PLEASE ENSURE YOU PUT THESE OBJECTIONS INTO YOUR OWN WORDS.

NFDC WILL TREAT SIMILAR ‘COPYCAT’  OBJECTIONS AS ONE SINGLE OBJECTION.

✅Embellish the bullet points below as you see fit.  

✅Describe your own experiences to personalise your objection.  

✅You do not need to use all points nor use topics in the order written here, you can simply select the ones which feel important to you.

Summary – You should include your summary at the start or end of your objection

Points to put into your own words…

·       State that your objection relates to the “EAD Objection Summary” by Everton Against Development

·       The proposal constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt as it fails to establish the Very Special Circumstances required for Grey Belt.

·       The North of the site is Green Belt, but the inclusion of this for Public Open Space changes the character and appearance of this area.

·       The application relies on outdated policies and inaccurate sloppy administrative errors

·       Fails to address severe local surface water flood risk

·       Fails to address inadequate highway network, making the site unsafe and unsuitable

CLICK HERE TO VIEW THE FULL OBJECTION SUMMARY REPORT

Sustainability  - Points to put into your own words…

·       State that your objection relates to the “PEP Sustainability Report”

·       Note the fact this is a professional report, funded by the residents of Everton.

·       The report highlights that the development is unsustainable due to limited local infrastructure requiring every journey to be made by car

·       Directly violates National Planning Policy Framework’s (NPPF) sustainability mandates

·       As per the Government’s Connectivity website, Everton as a whole scores 36-41%, putting it in the lowest 10-20% nationally.

·       For education, the site has a connectivity score of 25-31% reducing to 13-21% when walking.

·       Since the report was created, Saturday Morebus 119 service now being rerouted and will not stop in Everton.  This was the only service to New Milton on a Saturday removing access to major supermarkets, Tesco, Aldi and Lidl.

CLICK HERE TO VIEW THE FULL SUSTAINABILITY REPORT

Flooding and Drainage - Points to put into your own words…

·       State that your objection relates to the “EAD Flooding Report” by Everton Against Development

·       Make note of the fact that this report was created from first-hand experience of flooding in Everton over many years

·       If you provided a survey response, make note of this and describe your experience

·       Refer to Dandara’s own “Drainage Impact Assessment” identifying the high-water table in the field and that Infiltration SuDS are therefore not possible

·       Identify that Dandara’s drainage proposals are fundamentally flawed as they are based on run-off to a non-existent surface water sewer on Wainsford Road.

·       Rooflines, Driveways, Pavements and Roads will cover approx. 35% of the southern section of the field, inevitably increasing pressure from run-off to an already saturated field.

CLICK HERE TO VIEW THE FULL FLOODING REPORT

Ecology - Points to put into your own words…

·       State that your objection relates to the “EAD Ecology Report” by Everton Against Development

·       Note the fact that the submission omits critical environmental impacts

·       The baseline area is adjacent to the New Forest SSSI, Solent SPA and key Sites of importance for Nature Conservation (SINCs) that form a crucial biological corridor

·       Surveys identified the rare Barbastelle bat which has a high conservation status. Its presence could justify Special Area of Conservation (SAC) designation.  This status demands specialist resurveys.

·       Increased light pollution, construction and traffic noise, threaten the local bat population

·       Trees identified for removal are home to the bat population

·       Great Crested Newts (GCN) assessments were capped at 250 metres, rather than 2km, ignoring connected bog networks. 

·       Highly mobile Otter populations just 600m away were dismissed.

·       Nitrate run-off threatens protected waters – Nitrate credits on the Isle of Wight will not mitigate.

CLICK HERE TO VIEW THE FULL ECOLOGY REPORT

Transport - Points to put into your own words…

·       State that your objection relates to the “PEP Transport Review”

·       Poor Non-Car Accessibility: The site lacks reasonable walking access (under 800m) to essential facilities like schools, healthcare, and food stores, forcing heavy reliance on cars

·       Substandard Pedestrian & Cycle Routes: Nearby paths are narrow, unlit, unsurfaced, and lack adequate crossing points, failing to meet DfT/Active Travel England safety standards for all user groups.

·       Flawed Vehicle Swept Path Analysis: Proposed widening on Wainsford Road fails to demonstrate that large cars can safely pass larger vehicles like refuse trucks or delivery vans.

·       Inadequate Speed & Visibility Assessments: Vehicle speed and forward visibility assumptions along Wainsford Road rely on limited speed surveys, leaving required visibility splays unconfirmed.

·       Flawed Traffic Calming & Modelling: Proposed single-carriageway shuttle-working sections lack appropriate microsimulation modelling (e.g., VISSIM) and incorrectly used PICADY for junction testing.

·       Unrealistic "Vision-Led" Trip Assumptions: The application overestimates non-car travel—predicting 23% of morning peak departures on foot despite no local schools or major employment options.  2011 Census for walking to work is 4.3%

·       Underestimated Motor Vehicle Impact: By artificially inflating walking/cycling rates, the applicant's assessment undercalculates actual car trip generation and local traffic impact.

·       Unaddressed Environmental & Physical Impacts: Required Road widenings would cause substantial tree and hedgerow removal, while unassessed shuttle-working delays could increase vehicle CO2 emissions.

·       Unsubstantiated Road Safety Claims: Increasing vehicular, cycle, and pedestrian traffic on unsuitable shared roads increases conflict risk, rendering claims of no adverse highway safety impact incomplete.

CLICK HERE TO VIEW THE FULL TRANSPORT REPORT

THREE WAYS TO OBJECT

professional reports