Hampshire residents say protecting our towns and villages is a key election issue

Posted on April 1, 2015October 6, 2015

Election demands from Hampshire residents according to Get Hampshire

A survey of Hampshire residents by Get Hampshire has shown the protection of our green and pleasant land and historic towns and villages is a key election issue. This issue ranked third behind controlling immigration and helping our small businesses.

Looking at the questions and answers in more detail, a staggering 77.7% of people thought either that our green and pleasant land was of paramount importance or there were other legitimate sites available for development that councils should look at rather than using green space.

Get Hampshire Housing Crisis Questions and Answers

This shows an overwhelming majority in favour of protecting our historic towns and villages and protecting our green fields from over-development.

How to tackle the housing crisis from Get Hampshire

Only 12.3% of people wanted us to build thousands of houses in new towns and garden cities, whilst 36.4% of people wanted tax breaks to encourage building on brownfield sites.

Surely it is time for Hart District Council to think again about a new town at Winchfield, reject Option 4 and focus instead on creative use of the many brownfield sites in the district. Time also for Ranil Jayawardena and Gerald Howarth to take a message back to Conservative Central Office (and Parliament if they are elected) about changing the National Planning Policy Framework to reduce the pressure on local councils.

Focusing on brownfield and regeneration of our town centres will make better use of that land and build more critical mass to support the local retailers so would help with meeting two of the top 3 election issues.

If you would like to join our campaign to ask Hart Council to think again, please sign and share our petition:

Go to Petition

As an addendum, protection of greenbelt by building on brownfield sites is a key issue for Surrey residents too.

Surrey Election Demands from Get Surrey

We can win this campaign – County Durham SHMA rejected because of too many houses

Posted on March 31, 2015June 14, 2015

We Love Hart Campaign Logo

A recent highly critical interim report from the inspector of County Durham’s local plan demonstrates we can win the We Heart Hart campaign against Hart District Council’s Local Plan.

The Durham report has a number of interesting points:

The Objectively Assessed Need (OAHN) has been found too high because it was based on unrealistic jobs growth and inward migration assumptions. This finding is relevant to Hart District, Hampshire because our Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) relies upon inward migration numbers from the time we were building the most and on jobs growth assumptions that are nearly double those achieved in the boom times of 1998-2008.

County Durham carried out a very extensive consultation process, but they were criticised for demonstrating “little evidence of willingness to respond positively to contrary views or to simplify the process to encourage genuine public engagement”. It seems that despite having a wide ranging consultation process, the Local Plan failed. Given that Hart is carrying out less consultation than Durham, even less than it originally said it would, and seems impervious to suggestions of focusing more strongly on brownfield sites, then this would seem to be a significant risk to the current Hart District Local Plan.

Finally one consultee said “that a comparison should have been made with alternatives such as a ‘moderate growth’ alternative accommodated on brownfield sites….The Council has dismissed such an alternative which seems to me to have significantly diminished the credibility of the SA”. Again the significance for Hart is obvious in that Hart has refused to consider seriously an alternative solution of building higher density developments on the many vacant brownfield sites in the district.

If you would like to join our campaign to get Hart to think again, then please sign and share our petition:

Go to Petition

Hart District Council in disarray over infrastructure costs and funding

Posted on March 29, 2015July 11, 2015

Hart Existing Infrastructure Funding Gap

£78m Funding Gap

In a piece of bad news from last Thursday’s council meeting, Hart District Council admitted that it had no idea how much the infrastructure for the local plan would cost, nor how much it would raise from developers to pay for it, despite sitting on an existing funding gap of £78m. The detailed questions and answers can be found here. This comes alongside the revelation that Hampshire County Council has a £1.9bn infrastructure funding deficit, and Rushmoor Borough Council, £80m.

If you would like to ask Hart to think again, please sign and share our petition:

Go to Petition

We have posted before our estimate of an £150m cost of infrastructure for a new town at Winchfield, which would lead to the existing £78m funding gap being extended to £188m. We asked questions about this at the council meeting on 26 March and received some staggeringly vague answers. New analysis from Hart indicates that infrastructure costs could escalate to £300m.

First we asked how much money would be raised from developers. Answer: we don’t know. And they also didn’t know how much the funding would vary according to the development strategy adopted.

Hart doesn’t know how much cash it will raise from developers

We also asked about how the infrastructure costs would vary according to the development strategy adopted. Answer: no idea.

Hart District Council does not know how much it will cost to deliver the infrastructure required

Hart doesn’t know how much it will cost to deliver the infrastructure

Finally, we asked if Hart understood the impact on our infrastructure of the massive development due to take place in neighbouring districts. Answer: We don’t know.

Hart District Council does not know the impact of development in neighbouring districts

Hart doesn’t not know the impact of development in neighbouring districts

We find it quite staggering that Hart as got as far as settling upon a preferred development strategy without understanding what infrastructure will be required, how much it will cost nor how it will be funded, especially as there is already a £78m funding gap.

It is fairly self evident that the infrastructure required for brownfield development will be very much less than that required for a new town.

It has now transpired that Hampshire as a whole has an infrastructure funding deficit of £1.9bn and Rushmoor has an £80m shortfall.

Hart District Council gets its facts wrong on the Local Plan

Posted on March 25, 2015September 12, 2015

Hart District Council Local Plan Update Spring-Summer 2015

Hart District Council has published an article in the latest copy of Hart News that gets its facts wrong on how many houses we have to build under the emerging Local Plan.

As can be seen from the above image, Hart Council is saying we only need to build 4,000 houses up to 2032. However, this is in direct contradiction to the strategic housing market assessment and the evidence presented to Cabinet back in November 2014 that clearly states we need to build 7,534 houses in the period up to 2032.

Hart District Council Housing Requirement from Cabinet Meeting November 2014 or Local Plan; SHMA

Hart District Housing Requirement from Cabinet Meeting Nov 2014

Even 7,534 houses is probably an understatement, because Rushmoor Borough Council and Surrey Heath Borough Council have told Hart that they cannot build all of their allocation on their own patches and want Hart to build a further 3,100 houses for them. This would give a total of 10,634 houses to be built in Hart up to 2032.

Hart District acts as sink for 3,100 houses from Surrey Heath and Rushmoor

Surrey Heath and Rushmoor Housing Shortfall

Hart’s strategy of building a new settlement (option 4) in Winchfield creates additional capacity that makes it much more likely that we will have to take these additional houses.

The article in Hart News also further illustrates that Hart is not serious about its brownfield strategy as they are continuing to ignore the large number of vacant office blocks and sites such as Sun Park and Hartland Park and are still assuming only 30 dwellings per hectare. Furthermore, they make no mention of the need to build specialist housing for our ageing population which a new town won’t deliver.

Finally, Hart Council were supposed to be consulting on the draft plan now, with a view to modifying it during the Summer before publication of the actual plan for a further round of consultation in the Autumn. But now they have skipped one of the consultations.

We can only speculate as to the motives behind this mistake and the skipping of one round of consultation. However, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that Hart District Council are hiding the truth, and trying to push through a disastrous strategy without proper consultation.

If you would like to oppose Hart’s approach to the Local Plan, please sign and share our petition:

Go to Petition

Questions for Hart District Council from We Heart Hart

Posted on March 19, 2015August 30, 2015

There’s another Hart District Council meeting next week on 26 March at 7pm. We Heart Hart has tabled some questions about the planned housing density, planning for an ageing population and infrastructure costs.

Deadline for submission of your own questions is tomorrow at noon.

Please feel free to use the download below as inspiration for your own questions.

Questions for Hart District Council Meeting Mar 26 2015

Download Now!192 Downloads

Answers to our previous questions have now been published on here and here on Hart District Council’s website.

Answers to the questions we put have now been published in draft minutes on the Hart Council website.

Impact of Housing Density on Hart Local Plan

Posted on March 16, 2015December 22, 2015

Impact of Housing Density on Hart District Local Plan

Impact of Housing Density on Land Required for Hart Local Plan

This diagram shows the impact of the area of land required to meet the housing need of 7,534 houses in the Hart Local Plan. Hart District Council use a rule of thumb of approximately 30 dwellings per hectare (dph) for new housing density. However, the study by Gareth Price showed that in urban areas it is quite possible to create vibrant communities with housing densities of 250 dph.

Using Hart’s metric of 30dph would mean we would have to find around 251 hectares (621 acres) of land to meet the housing need. Whereas if we were to build at a higher density of 250 dph on brownfield sites we would only need to find around 30 hectares of land (around 75 acres). These approximate areas are shown in the red squares on the map above.

Interestingly, Hartland Park (aka Pyestock), near Fleet is a brownfield site of 119 acres which is larger than we need to meet our total housing requirement.

We have already posted lots of other brownfield sites such as Sun Park near the M3, Ancell’s Farm and the derelict buildings at the end of Fleet Road in Fleet and Bartley Wood in Hook, Hampshire.

This shows that with vision, creativity, energy and political will, we can meet our housing needs for decades to come by properly utilising brownfield land and have no need to concrete over our beautiful green fields by building a new town.

If you would like to join the campaign to ask Hart District Council to think again, please sign our petition:

Go to Petition

NE Hants Greens find more potential brownfield sites in Hart

Posted on March 14, 2015June 14, 2015

Old Police Station in Fleet, Hart District, Hampshire

Old Police Station in Fleet, Hampshire

The Greens from North East Hampshire have been busy today taking pictures of a number of sites across the district. Like We Heart Hart, they think it is madness to be focusing the Hart Local Plan on building a new town on our beautiful green fields in Winchfield when there is so much under-utilised brownfield land.

However, some of the sites identified are quite probably not suitable as for example, Tweseldown and Hawley Lake are in or near the Thames Valley Basin SPA and the site near Basingstoke Canal is an SSSI.

If you would like to ask Hart District Council to think again, please sign our petition:

Go to Petition

Nevertheless it is important we stretch every sinew to find brownfield sites and make the most of them. Hart assume a meagre 30 dwelling per hectare on brownfield land, when studies have shown that it is possible to create thriving communities with densities nearly 10x that level.

Thank you to Andrew Johnston from the North East Hampshire Green Party for the images. He has posted them on his Twitter feed.

Brownfield Land at Pyestock, Hartland Village Hart District, Hampshire.
Development site near Tweseldown, near Fleet/ Church Crookham, Hart District, Hampshire
Brownfield site at Hartland Park, Hartland Village, Pyestock, Hart District, Hampshire
Brownfield site near Crondall, Hart District, Hampshire

What is your manifesto for North East Hampshire?

Posted on March 14, 2015June 14, 2015

The website of the Fleet News and Mail is running an on-line questionnaire to find out what is important to the people of North East Hampshire (and Hart District) at the forthcoming general and local elections. The questionnaire is open until tomorrow, Sunday 15 March 2015.

There are a number of questions in there about planning (including the Local Plan) and housing.

Please make your voice heard and ask our politicians to think again an focus on building fewer houses and building them on brownfield sites by signing our petition:

Go to Petition

We Heart Hart will be increasing its coverage as we run up to the election.

Hart set to fail on duty to cater for ageing population

Posted on March 8, 2015August 15, 2023

Hart District Council’s preferred housing strategy is running the risk of failing to meet the needs of the ageing population and so might be found unsound at inspection.

If you would like to ask the council to think again, please sign our petition.

At the Hart District Council cabinet meeting on Thursday 5 March, an interesting question was raise by councillor Adrian Collett. He asked if the council had enough powers to ensure that the Local Plan met the needs of the local people.

I did make a comment that not only does it have the power to do so, it also has a duty to meet the needs of many groups in society. Para 50 of the NPPF states:

“local planning authorities should…plan for a mix of housing based on current and future demographic trends, market trends and the needs of different groups in the community (such as, but not limited to, families with children, older people, people with disabilities, service families and people wishing to build their own homes)”

Over the course of the plan period up to 2032, there will be an extra 10,000 people over 60, including more than 6,850 over 75, expected to be living in the district and an extra 3,620 people who will be suffering from dementia or have some sort of mobility problem.

Let’s work through some numbers.

First, how many more specialist dwellings might we need to house the extra older people we will have in the district? Well, let’s say on average there’s 1.5 older people per dwelling because so many live on their own. That would be 6,850/1.5 = 4,566 units. Not all of them will want to leave their existing homes and some may go and live with family. So, let’s say we need half that number of new dwellings. That’s in round numbers 2,280 units. This assumes that all of the extra people with a mobility problem are also aged over 75.

Now let’s look at supply. Of the 7,500 houses we need to build up to 2032, around 3,500 have already been given planning permission, which leaves a balance of around 4,000. Of the 3,500 some are specialist units for the elderly – I know of a Churchill and McCarthy and Stone development in Fleet which will total around 100 units. This leaves around 2,180 units to find for the elderly.

If we were to build a new town and deliver around 2,000 units (this is much lower than the Barratts vision document) in the plan period, then this would leave around 2,000 units still left to grant planning permission for elsewhere.

As can be seen, if we build the new town, we will not meet the needs of the ageing population unless all of the remaining units are specialist units for the elderly and there is no sign of the council taking this seriously.

This runs the risk of the Hart Local Plan being found unsound. Surely it is time for Hart District Council to think again.

Rushmoor could take all of Hart’s allocation and more

Posted on March 7, 2015August 15, 2023

If we used our brownfield land better we could meet our existing housing needs and more without concreting over our green fields. A study by trainee architect, Gareth Price shows that Rushmoor Borough Council is not making the most of its brownfield sites, and if it showed more vision, it could meet its own housing needs and those of Hart District using brownfield sites only.

If you would like to add to the pressure to Hart to change tack and take brownfield more seriously, then please sign our petition.

Typically, suburban developers and councils use a metric of around 30 dwelling per hectare (dph) as a rule of thumb for how many houses can be fit on to any particular space. However, a study of London has shown that in central areas, densities of between 160-405 dph can be achieved and deliver viable, vibrant social communities with amenity space incorporated into the design.

This study has been used by Gareth Price, a final year architecture student, to propose an alternative set of schemes for Rushmoor (see download below). His work shows that it is entirely possible for Rushmoor to not only build their own housing need, but could also take all of Hart’s requirement and more.

Of course, these concepts could equally be applied to Hart. Bravehart has already found loads of brownfield sites that don’t even appear on the land database of Hart council. These include derelict buildings in the heart of Fleet and Hook.

Derelict Offices in Fleet

Not only that, we know that Fleet town centre is dying with many vacant shops in the shopping centre and on the High Street. Surely the best way to rejuvenate our town centres is to build vibrant communities at their heart, rather than concreting over the countryside on their outskirts. Using the same metrics, it is probable, that all of Hart’s housing need could be met by using brownfield sites.

Empty Shop in Hart Shopping Centre, Fleet

Another advantage of the types of schemes that Gareth proposes is that on average, the dwellings are likely to be smaller and so more affordable for our young people. We could also build mixed use developments with some schemes dedicated to specialist homes for older people.

Surely it is time we ask our councillors in Rushmoor Borough Council, Surrey Heath Borough Council and Hart District to break from the past, think out of the box, get more creative and take brownfield much more seriously instead of proposing endless urban sprawl across our countryside.

A Sustainable Approach to Housing on Brownfield

Download Now!200 Downloads