Hart Council calls for Pyestock to be released for housing

Hartland Park (Pyestock) near Fleet, Hart District, Hampshire, warehouse development not started

Brownfield site: Hartland Park (Pyestock) near Fleet, Hart District, Hampshire could be released for housing.

Joint-CEO of Hart District Council, Daryl Phillips has called for Hartland Park (Pyestock) to be released for housing in an article in Fleet News and Mail. The article claims the site is on the market, and this appears to be confirmed by its presence on the Jones Lang Lasalle website here and here.

Hart Council believes that the 119-acre (48 Hectare) site could yield over 1,000 dwellings.  That would equate to an undemanding density of around 20 dwellings per hectare.  We think that opportunities for increasing density should be explored, taking account of the environmental sensitivity.  Who knows, there might even be sufficient space for new schools if it were shown that a new secondary school was required.  The old Bramshott Farm site across the road may well be earmarked as SANG.

The advantage of Pyestock as a site is that it is close to Fleet railway station and could be reached by bicycle or on foot and it is close to existing employment sites in Fleet and around Farnborough airport.  The site is very close to the M3 and the road system has already been improved in anticipation of thousands of lorry movements.

If the owners could be persuaded to release this site for housing, then it is certain that we would have sufficient brownfield capacity to meet or housing needs up to 2031 and beyond, as it would take our capacity up to over 3,500, when our remaining need to be permitted is 2,500. We definitely would not need a new town, nor would we need an urban extension.

If you would like to give Hart Council more encouragement to persist in getting Pyestock released and create a brownfield solution to our housing needs, we urge you to respond to the Hart District Council consultation about the Local Plan and ask them to think again. We have created a dedicated consultation page, updated our two guides to responding to the consultation and they are available on the downloads below. The comments are designed to be cut and pasted into the boxes provided. It will be very powerful if you could edit the comments into your own words. Please do find time to respond to the consultation and play your part in saving our countryside.

Full version:

Responses to Local Plan Consultation

2 Minute version:

Respond to Local Plan Consultation in 2 minutes

 

 

 

Posted in Brownfield Sites, Hampshire, Hart District Council, Hart Local Plan, We Heart Hart Campaign, We Love Hart Campaign and tagged , , , , , , .

25 Comments

  1. Pingback: Response to Face IT article in Fleet News and Mail | We Heart Hart

  2. Pingback: Please respond to the Hart District Council (HDC) Local Plan consultation by 18 March 2016

  3. Pingback: Hart District Council (HDC) joins pilot scheme to create national brownfield register

  4. Wherever development happens we need to get people out of their cars and on public transport. This is the problem with building in the middle of nowhere such as Winchfield it becomes impossible to justify public transport and it forces people into cars. Low density also forces people into cars as bus stops and new routes do not make economic sense. The only way you solve infrastructure problems is reducing travel times to prevent people using cars in the first place. Pyestock is perhaps not in the perfect place in terms of existing amenities therefore the density is key to justifying it’s own shops, GP’s, school, community centre etc. As that will reduce its impact on the surrounding area. If enough people lived there a shuttle bus in the morning and evening could happen preventing the need for more car parking at Fleet station and creates a job or two.

  5. Thanks, and I was just misquoting a comment on this forum from a few months about concreting over. I shouldn’t have done that – I do recognise concrete would not be the material of choice. There are many existing tracks across Fleet pond, but they are primarily designed for walking and to maintain the natural beauty of the azure reserve. A new cycle path with street lights across the pond would not be in keeping. As for a mile, yes, I know – but a mile in the winter, in the rain, in my suit, carrying laptop top bag (and handbags for some), with a perhaps a change of clothes etc, is not my idea of fun.

  6. Amended slightly. I don’t think it needs concrete. There’s a new cycle path from HW to the Odiham Road and that is a sort of compressed gravel that works very well. I can’t remember the technical term for it. There are already paths through that area, and it’s about a mile from Pyestock to Fleet Station (according to Google Maps)

  7. David Turver – a cycle path is an answer for some perhaps but not all. Fleet is primarily a commuter station. For most, turning up hot, wet and smelly to our office jobs is not really an option. Also, the route of a cycle path would either have to lead to a concrete corridor across the fields, woods or reserve which would also need street lights, or push cyclist on to over crowded roads. In terms of you comment about explored, sorry I missed the subtlety. Perhaps it would good to amend the article to highlight the issue?

  8. James Renwick – not entirely sure about that. As far as I’m aware there is only one fleet pond nature reserve in hart. Also, there are specific issues with the roads in that area and fleet station. Some other parts of hart do not have these characteristics and I’m sure some do

  9. James Renwick – not entirely sure about that. As far as I’m aware there is only one fleet pond nature reserve in hart. Also, there are specific issues with the roads in that area and fleet station. Some other parts of hart do not have these characteristics and I’m sure some do

    • Every area has green open spaces that we don’t want to lose. Every area will have transport and infrastructure issues with more housing. None of this is specific to fleet. The only thing that will stop the issue is if no new houses are built – but that is not an option.

    • James Renwick – I agree, although the degrees will be different which is my point. Each part of Hart has pros and cons, but as this is group being We Heart Hart (not We Heart West Hart) I think the impact on the quality of life and the environment in east Hart should also be highlighted.

  10. I live practically next to this area, frankly I’d rather have houses there than the proposed massive warehouses and thousands of lorry movements per 24 hour period. It would be good if building houses here meant leaving Hartley Winchook alone, but sadly it won’t. However, the ‘road improvements’ are a joke, I sit here watching the cars/vans queue further than they ever did when the roundabout was there, so more cars will only make that ten times worse. At least it has put a stop to the boy racers though.

  11. I live practically next to this area, frankly I’d rather have houses there than the proposed massive warehouses and thousands of lorry movements per 24 hour period. It would be good if building houses here meant leaving Hartley Winchook alone, but sadly it won’t. However, the ‘road improvements’ are a joke, I sit here watching the cars/vans queue further than they ever did when the roundabout was there, so more cars will only make that ten times worse. At least it has put a stop to the boy racers though.

  12. As said in the post, It would be easy to put in a cycle path from Pyestock to Fleet Station. The road to the motorway has already been improved in anticipation of thousands of extra lorry movements. 20 dph is not demanding at all, in fact it is much lower than Hart’s rule of thumb of 30 dph. I said that higher density should be explored, because I recognise the sensitivity of the area. But it has already been accepted there could be some development there.

  13. As said in the post, It would be easy to put in a cycle path from Pyestock to Fleet Station. The road to the motorway has already been improved in anticipation of thousands of extra lorry movements. 20 dph is not demanding at all, in fact it is much lower than Hart’s rule of thumb of 30 dph. I said that higher density should be explored, because I recognise the sensitivity of the area. But it has already been accepted there could be some development there.

  14. David Turver – 3 reasons why using this for the increased density housing you call for: 1) It’s next to the nature reserve. Increased housing their will put more pressure on the limited natural space in Fleet. 2) Fleet station is already overcrowded. For example, even after its expansion, you can’t park there after 08:30 so putting more pressure on the station will just add more to the problems of the existing users. 3) Long queues are already a daily feature of the roads around there at peak times. More people will just make this situation even worse.

    • The objections pretty much well apply to any new housing, whether it be winchfield, pyestock, or urban extensions. So is not a specific reason not to use pyestock, which otherwise would have hundreds of large vehicle journeys anyway.

  15. David Turver – 3 reasons why using this for the increased density housing you call for: 1) It’s next to the nature reserve. Increased housing their will put more pressure on the limited natural space in Fleet. 2) Fleet station is already overcrowded. For example, even after its expansion, you can’t park there after 08:30 so putting more pressure on the station will just add more to the problems of the existing users. 3) Long queues are already a daily feature of the roads around there at peak times. More people will just make this situation even worse.

    • The objections pretty much well apply to any new housing, whether it be winchfield, pyestock, or urban extensions. So is not a specific reason not to use pyestock, which otherwise would have hundreds of large vehicle journeys anyway.

    • And i’d rather have cars than thundering lorries which park in the bus stop at unreasonable hours and wake my kids. Bit of a Hobson’s choice really, but lesser of two evils

    • A distribution depot 24/7 with all its lighting, vehicle noise extra road pressures etc. I’d much rather have the housing as long as the infrastructure is put in place correctly And it’s put in the most sympathetic way to the environment around it not just to a building company who backtracks on its environmental promises after its got the deal and started building . It’s shocking how they always seem to get away with that sort of thing.

    • A distribution depot 24/7 with all its lighting, vehicle noise extra road pressures etc. I’d much rather have the housing as long as the infrastructure is put in place correctly And it’s put in the most sympathetic way to the environment around it not just to a building company who backtracks on its environmental promises after its got the deal and started building . It’s shocking how they always seem to get away with that sort of thing.

Comments are closed.