Stop Elvetham Chase go Completely Concrete

Stop Elvetham Chase go full completely concrete Hart

Hypocritical Stop Elvetham Chase go Completely Concrete

The Stop Elvetham Chase group have decided to put up a candidate in the Local Elections standing for Community Campaign Completely Concrete Hart.

This smacks to us of hypocrisy as they are rightly vehemently opposed to the Elvetham Chase (Pale Lane) development. However, they now strongly support a new town in Winchfield, part of which is very close to the area where they oppose development. This is shown in the graphic above.

Their candidate, Angela Delaney is fighting the Fleet West ward. Richard Woods, who defected from the Tories in late 2016, currently holds this seat. It appears that Richard is standing down because he isn’t mentioned as a candidate on CCH’s website.

Stop Elvetham Chase’s statement has been placed on their Facebook page. Interestingly, comments have been disabled, so it is clear they are only interested in one-way communication. Not a good start for a budding politician. It is reproduced below with our comments in red.

This group was set up to fight the Elvetham Chase development. Hart council’s strong endorsement of the local plan on the 4th January and subsequent refusal of Wates’ proposal has, for now, protected Pale Lane. We thank all the members of this group for supporting the campaign and objecting so strongly to the development. Stop Elvetham Chase did start with laudable intentions.

However this is only a stay of execution. We know Wates have every intention of appealing the decision. The local plan, in its current state, with the new settlement option, gives Hart Council a strong chance of successfully refusing the appeal.  This is because approval of Pale Lane would jeopardise the new settlement – which would ultimately deliver more affordable housing for Hart. The presence or otherwise of the new town in the draft Local Plan will have no bearing on the Pale Lane Appeal. This is because even the council have said the new town is unnecessary, without Pale Lane. The Conservatives will tell you that we don’t need the higher housing targets – they support a local plan with the new settlement removed. We believe this is naive in the extreme, given the housing crisis this country is facing. It’s not just the Conservatives that say this. It was in the Council’s own communication to members (see below) and stated at the January 4th meeting by Councillor Cockarill. The housing numbers in the Local Plan will deliver ~1,500 more houses than the Government mandated figure. The Government figure already includes an affordability uplift.

Pale Lane aside, we believe it is absolutely right to plan for a new settlement that will deliver the infrastructure that Hart desperately needs. CCH were asked at council before Christmas to show their workings on the infrastructure funding gap. They didn’t even allow the question to be asked, let alone answer it. The reason is that they know, the new settlement will increase the funding gap and starve Fleet and Church Crookham of much needed investmentWithout a new settlement we will soon return to a ‘planning by appeal’ situation which has been so disastrous for Hart (ref: Grove Farm and Watery Lane). A sound Local Plan, without a new town and without Pale Lane, will stop this situation. With no long term plan for secondary school places (to meet demand from the 2000 houses at Hartland and Grove Farm), surgery waiting times lengthening and our roads more congested than ever we think this is unacceptable for Hart.  Hampshire County Council have not said we need a new school. The Local Plan contains no proposals for a new school, doesn’t address healthcare and does nothing for roads. A new town will only make things worse. A local plan with the new settlement option removed will also pave the way for Wates to successfully appeal Pale Lane. No it won’t. The Local Plan will be sound without the new town. Indeed, it may even be unsound with the new town.

So, after much consideration we have decided to support Community Campaign Hart (CCH), who we can trust to safeguard the local plan (which is already progressing well and is due for submission to a Govt inspector this month) and by extension, Pale Lane. CCH are committed to taking the politics out of local matters, focusing on putting residents’ needs first. Cough…only if you live in Church Crookham, and even then, the extra traffic from a new town will impact both Fleet and Church Crookham.

We are absolutely delighted to announce that Angela Delaney, one of our group and one of the original four who spearheaded the Stop Elvetham Chase Development campaign, is standing as CCH candidate for Fleet West. Angela has worked tirelessly over the last year to fight Pale Lane and protect Fleet West from the impact this development would have caused. But apparently she doesn’t care at all about the impact that a new town at Winchfield would cause. She’s passionate about supporting a local plan with a new settlement to protect our schools, health service and roads. In fact the Local Plan doesn’t promote a new school, doesn’t address healthcare and won’t fix the roads. In fact it will make matters worse for Fleet, because it will starve it of infrastructure, increase commuter traffic and probably reduce retail traffic. We hope her track record speaks for itself. Cough…not quite in the way she wants us to believe, but let’s wish that she is more successful than CCH have been with Edenbrook, Grove Farm and Watery Lane.

We hope you’ll support Angela but ultimately everyone must make their own decision at the ballot box. Well done for standing for election, which is more than Councillor Woods did when he defected. If you don’t support our position then we thank you for your support so far and understand if you wish to leave our group at this point. I will stay if you don’t mind, just to see what you are up to. You have lost a lot of support from Winchfield residents who also oppose Pale Lane. If you support Angela, we can guarantee that she will work with the same energy she fought Pale Lane, to represent local residents’ interests. Cough.

Why a new settlement debunked predetermination

Hart Housing Numbers

 

Hart Local Plan: No plans for infrastructure

Hart Local Plan Regulation 19 consultation: no proper plans for infrastructure

Hart Local Plan Regulation 19 consultation: no proper plans for infrastructure

This is the fifth part of our submission to the Hart Local Plan Regulation 19 consultation. This article explains how Hart haven’t properly planned for infrastructure. In addition, the plans they do have will starve the places that really need it of investment. Policy I1 needs to be changed and policy SS3 needs to be removed. The process for making a submission is as follows:

  1. Go to the Hart Local Plan Regulation 19 Consultation page of the Council website
  2. From the Hart website, download and complete Response Form Part A (Personal Details). A copy can be downloaded here.
  3. Also download and complete the Response Form Part B (Your Representations), a separate Part B is required for each representation you wish to make. A copy can be downloaded here.
  4. Make sure you include words of this form in each representation. Policy [X] is not sound because it is not [positively prepared, justified, effective or consistent with national policy] (delete as appropriate).
  5. Once you have filled in Part A and Part B, please email them to planningpolicy@hart.gov.uk or post them to Planning Policy Team, Hart District Council, Harlington Way, Fleet, Hampshire, GU51 4AE. 
Submissions have to be made before 4pm on 26 March 2018. If you are keen to get your submission completed, you can use the summary guide we have pulled together, or for the more adventurous, you can use our full submission. Please edit the text into your own words.
WHH Local Plan Reg 19 Guide
WHH Local Plan Reg 19 Entry

How the Hart Local Plan Regulation 19 consultation needs to be changed to deal with infrastructure

One leading councillor has gone on the record, calling for an ‘infrastructure led’ Local Plan. Yet, they have not allowed questions to be put to them about infrastructure, let alone answer them.

Back in October 2014, Hart Council produced an infrastructure delivery schedule that set out the current deficit, split by type and area.  This shows a deficit of £78m not including healthcare facilities. The breakdown is shown by type and area in the images below:

Hart Local Plan Regulation 19 consultation: Hart District Estimated Infrastructure costs by type March 2013.

Hart District Estimated Infrastructure costs by type March 2013.

The breakdown of the costs by area showed the Fleet/Church Crookham and Hook areas had by far the largest deficits.

Hart Local Plan Regulation 19 consultation: Estimated Infrastructure costs by area March 2013

Hart District Estimated Infrastructure costs by area March 2013

Key quotes from the document include:

“It is therefore reasonable to conclude that it is unlikely that there will be sufficient future funds, from both capital programmes and developer contributions, within the plan period, to deliver all of the projects listed in the HCC Transport Statement”

“Although developer contributions will continue to play an important role in helping to bridge the funding gap, it is also clear that the funds raised through developer contributions will only contribute a modest proportion of the total identified funding gap”

 “The South West Main Line (SWML) outer trains, which serve Hart, has significant forecasted future peak crowding, with a capacity shortfall of over 6,100 passengers in the high-peak hour, even if every main line train is at maximum length”

It should be noted also that SWR has recently put forward proposals to reduce services at Winchfield and Hook, exacerbating the rail capacity problem. The Local Plan doesn’t even mention improvements to the rail network in infrastructure policies.

A more recent estimate from Hampshire County Council has estimated the infrastructure funding gap for Hart as £72m.

Hart Local Plan Regulation 19 consultation: Hart infrastructure funding gap £72m

Hart infrastructure funding gap £72m

Hart’s share of the gap is made up of:

  • Transport, £34m
  • Education: £38m.
  • Countryside: To be Determined.
  • Extra Care places: To be Determined.

No estimate has been made of the requirements or costs of additional healthcare provision.

The infrastructure policies in the Local Plan are insipid and fail to address the funding gap:

  • Policy I1: Infrastructure – weak policy simply requiring developers to deliver adequate infrastructure as part of their developments, when the studies above show that developer contributions won’t be adequate to bridge the gap
  • Policy I2: Green Infrastructure – feeble policy to supposedly protect green infrastructure. Yet they are proposing to build a new town that will destroy the best of our green infrastructure
  • Policy I3: Transport – inadequate policy simply to provide ‘maximum flexibility in the choice of travel modes’, nothing specific to improve road network or put pressure on SWR to improve rail
  • Policy I4: Open space, sport and recreation – policy to support development that improves sporting facilities, but no tangible plans for anything new
  • Policy I5: Community Facilities – a very vague policy to improve childcare facilities, healthcare, police stations, youth provision, libraries, community halls, local shops, meeting places, cultural buildings, public houses, places of worship, and public toilets. But crucially, no specific projects or proposals.

Yet, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is clear that infrastructure must be planned alongside new housing. Failure to adequately plan for infrastructure requirements and costs could lead to the Local Plan being found unsound. See references to paras 17 and 177 of the NPPF below.

plan to avoid infrastructure funding gap

NPPF Para 17: Avoid infrastructure funding gap

NPPF Para 17: Avoid infrastructure funding gap

It is clear from this post, that the proposals to build a new town will probably exacerbate the existing funding gap and not deliver any infrastructure in Fleet, Church Crookham and Hook, the very places where funding is most required.

Remedy: We therefore think the remedy to this issue should be that policy SS3 is removed in its entirety (with consequent changes to policy SS1 already outlined elsewhere). The infrastructure policies should be reworked to include as a minimum:

  • Acknowledgement of the existing £72m infrastructure funding gap
  • Quantification of the items missing from the Hampshire County Council assessment such as healthcare, extra-care housing for the elderly and green infrastructure
  • A set of prioritised, costed projects that are required to alleviate the worst of our infrastructure problems in Fleet/Church Crookham and Hook. This should include road improvements, particularly near Fleet station and the bridge over the railway near the end of Elvetham Heath Road. It should also include significant improvements to the cultural facilities, particularly in Fleet.
  • Plans to tackle Network Rail/SWR over rail capacity and services
  • Proposals for raising the necessary funds for delivering the required projects
  • Some external validation that the infrastructure plans in the draft Local Plan are ‘sound’ and will pass inspection

We believe that in preparation for the next review of the plan, a new policy should be created to regenerate our urban centres including attracting private capital so that we create a better place to live and address the existing infrastructure problems before even considering a new town that will only make matters worse.

CCH reveal plan to Completely Concrete Hart

Community Campaign Hart (CCH) reveal plans to Completely Concrete Hart

CCH reveal plans to Completely Concrete Hart

Community Campaign Hart (CCH) have revealed their plan to Completely Concrete Hart by sticking to the ridiculous 10,185 housing target in the draft Local Plan. This comes despite the new Government method for calculating housing need results in a much lower housing target for Hart, Rushmoor and Surrey Heath.

It is time to up the pressure on CCH to come up with a strategy to take account of this new information. They should build a Local Plan that is good for the whole of Hart that everybody can live with. It is time to drop their plan to Completely Concrete Hart.

To be clear, in our view, Hart’s housing target should be reduced to around 6,500, to take account of the new Government approach, plus a few hundred for Surrey Heath. Using the figures in the draft Local Plan consultation (para 104), this would leave 906 new houses left to plan for. This could be made up from

  • Sun Park (320), from Local Plan para 109
  • Grove Farm (423), sadly
  • The forthcoming Rawlings depot site in Hook (123)
  • The remaining 40 can come from any number of brownfield sites for instance:
    • Hartley Wintney (Nero Brewery – 10)
    • Winchfield (Winchfield Court extension – 17)
    • The derelict eyesores on Fleet Road – up to 200.

We can save Hartland Village (Pyestock) for the 2030’s.

The revelations came in a reply to an email sent to CCH by a concerned correspondent on Facebook. We reproduce the question, James Radley’s answer and our commentary in red below.

Question to Community Campaign Hart (CCH)

I write to you ask a question about your party’s policy towards supporting (or not) a reduced housing total for Hart District. Specifically, in regard of this statement on the We Heart Hart (WHH) Facebook page:

If Hart followed the latest Government approach to calculating housing need, even Hartland Park wouldn’t be needed. The remaining housing need could be met from Sun Park and any number of other small brownfield sites.

Answer from CCH revealing commitment to Completely Concrete Hart

I am probably the best placed to explain the CCH position on housing numbers. It is true that as a rule we do not engage in social media debates, mainly due to a lack of time. As well as trying to fit in my day job I also expect to spend over 6 hours in total in the council offices today and similarly tomorrow.

One has to ask why the council Deputy Leader and portfolio holder for Services is spending quite so much time in council offices working on the Local Plan. One would hope this time would be put in by the portfolio holder for planning, Lib Dem councillor Graham Cockarill. It obviously takes a lot of effort to Completely Concrete Hart.

Social media debates are very time consuming in order to stay on top of all the posts and then the debate tends to descend to the lowest common denominator. I for one would certainly rather put the time and effort in where it matters and unless one is going to invest all that precious time in the social media arena, better not to engage at all.

This sounds like CCH want to stay in their own bunker and not actually engage with anyone who disagrees with them. They are afraid to engage because they don’t have any facts or arguments to back up their new town ideology.

Unfortunately WHH are wrong in their assessment of housing numbers.

No, we are not wrong in our numbers. Here is the relevant section of the Government consultation document.

Para 15 of Planning for the right homes in the right places - baseline plus maket signals

Para 15 of Planning for the right homes in the right places

Working through this. The demographic baseline is the latest DCLG household projections (Table 406) that can be found here. These show that over the period 2011-2032, Hart requires 218 dwellings per annum, or 4,536 in total. In the reference period of 2016-2026 used by the Government, Hart requires 209 dwellings per annum. This 209 dpa is then modified to account for market signals and results in a new Government figure for Hart of 292 dpa. Scaling up to the full planning period results in 6,132 new houses for Hart. And that’s it. No more further adjustments for changes in household size. No more houses for people we have to import who then go and work in London. This compares to the 8,022 in the SHMA and 10,185 in the draft Local Plan.

Hart housing targets under alternative scenarios

Hart housing targets under alternative scenarios

They are citing a baseline figure in a government consultation paper which is not part of the planning policy framework in effect at this point in time and is a figure which even if it was policy is taken as a starting point on top of which other factors will add to the housing numbers needed.

We have answered the point about the baseline above. The baseline is the demographic projection. The Government then already made the upwards adjustment for market signals in the 292 dpa figure. It is true that these figures are so far only part of a consultation paper, but the feedback we have received is that the Government is committed to pushing these through. It would seem prudent to us for Hart to take these figures into account now and prepare a Local Plan with two scenarios:

  • The first scenario should be based upon the 6,132 outlined above. Plus a few hundred to give some flexibility to build some new houses for Surrey Heath. They may still have a problem meeting their new, lower housing target. This would give a total of around 6,500.
  • The second scenario should be based solely on the SHMA figure of 8,022.

To be clear, the daft 10,185 target in the draft Local Plan should be dropped forthwith. Even James Radley admits the extra 2,000+ houses on top of the SHMA won’t affect house prices. As the Government position becomes clear, Hart can make the decision on which scenario can be submitted to the inspector. There is no need to Completely Concrete Hart.

We lost the fight against Grove Farm because we don’t have a local plan in place. We don’t have a local plan because the Conservatives have allowed it to drift for years in a sea of procrastination driven by their internal in fighting.

True, Grove Farm was lost because we don’t have a Local Plan. It was also lost because our policies are out of date and because the application was not determined on time. Yes, the Tories missed all their own deadlines. But CCH have also played their part by forcing a delay in the Local Plan last December.

The main reason for taking control was to get the local plan out and to do so by a total focus and not letting the intentional disruptions from WHH to deflect us from that.

At no time have we sought to delay the Local Plan. We Heart Hart first highlighted the project management and governance problems back in April 2015 and again in January 2016 after the consultation omnishambles.

It is quite clear that if we don’t get a local plan out that is based on realistic and future proof housing numbers, then Fleet & Church Crookham will continue to be blighted by bolt on developments such as Grove Farm, Pale Lane and whatever is next.

Yes, we need a Local Plan. And quickly. The realistic numbers to use are the Government’s new numbers. These are already future proofed by the extra houses to take account of market signals. We have suggested a modest further uplift to help out Surrey Heath.

It is interesting that the Deputy Leader for the whole of Hart is only concerned about Fleet and Church Crookham. We are also concerned about Owens Farm to the west of Hook. We are also concerned about the long term impact of adopting a ridiculously high housing target. This will then be compounded for decades to come, putting even more of our green fields under threat, including Pale Lane and Crookham Village.

WHH know this and are trying to undermine the new settlement option in the full knowledge that they are condemning us to yet more incremental developments which do not produce any retrospective infrastructure.

We are opposed to the new settlement because we don’t believe it is needed. And we certainly don’t believe it will solve the infrastructure problems facing the district. And we don’t want to Completely Concrete Hart. If we adopt the new Government housing numbers, it will be better for everyone.

I hope that my brief explanation helps.

It does, but not in the way he thinks. It confirms CCH is in the driving seat, dragging the Lib Dems along with disastrous policies to Completely Concrete Hart. The explanation confirms CCH is in a bunker, unwilling and unable to debate the real issues. CCH is locked into its new town ideology and is trying to justify it by sticking to a ridiculous housing target.

Fleet and Crookham groups fail to oppose ridiculous housing target

The Scream - Hart Rushmoor and Surrey Heath SHMA

Fleet and Crookham groups fail to oppose ridiculous housing target

The responses to the draft Local Plan consultation have finally been published and it is clear that groups from Fleet and Church Crookham groups have failed to oppose the ridiculous housing target.

We have looked at the responses from the following groups and can find no mention of their objection to the housing target:

  • Face IT
  • Fleet and Church Crookham Society
  • Church Crookham Parish Council
  • Fleet Town Council

Many of these groups strongly oppose the now withdrawn Cross Farm proposal that was included as a strategic site in the draft Local Plan. Their message seems to be: go ahead and build thousands of houses we don’t need, but don’t put them in Fleet or Church Crookham.

Councillors fail to challenge the ridiculous housing target

Completely Concrete Hart CCH fail to challenge the ridiculous housing target

Community Campaign Hart CCH councillors fail to challenge the ridiculous housing target

Moreover, three Community Campaign Hart councillors have responded to the consultation without opposing the ridiculous housing target of 10,185 in the draft Local Plan:

Between them, these councillors argued for:

  • Fewer homes at the brownfield site Hartland Village (Pyestock), which would add to pressure for green field development
  • Dropping Murrell Green in favour of Winchfield East, even though the Murrell Green sites were in the area of search in the 2015 consultation (see image below)  and the Winchfield East sites fared less well in testing.
  • Removing Cross Farm from the Local Plan. This application for this site has now been withdrawn.

No wonder they are being nicknamed Completely Concrete Hart

Winchfield and Hook New Town proposal

Area of search for Winchfield new settlement opportunity

Brian Blewett of the Liberal Democrats has also responded, supporting the position of Blackwater and Hawley Town Council and Neighbourhood Plan group. Neither of these groups opposed the housing target. As far as we can tell, Hook and Crondall Parish Councils did not oppose the housing target either.

We struggle to understand the logic of this position. We can’t understand why members who purport to stand for the good of the whole of Hart support the ridiculous uplift from the SHMA total of 8,022. The Government consultation is clear, Hart’ new housing need is going to be 6.132 units. The remaining target can be met from brownfield sites alone.

Some councillors and local groups oppose the ridiculous housing target

In better news, Andrew Renshaw, member for Hartley Wintney argued for a lower overall housing target. As did the following groups:

  • Crookham Village Parish Council
  • Dogmersfield Parish Council
  • Eversley Parish Council
  • Hartley Wintney Preservation Society
  • Odiham Society
  • Rotherwick Parish Council
  • Rural Hart Association
  • Whitewater Valley Preservation Society
  • Winchfield Action Group
  • Winchfield Parish Council

Alastair Clarke, chair of the Hart District Association of Parish and Town Councils (HDAPTC), also opposed the housing target in his personal response.

It’s great that such a diverse set of groups has seen the logic of opposing the ridiculous 10,185 housing target.

Conclusion

It is time all parishes and groups within Hart united behind the opportunity that the new Government consultation brings. This will benefit the whole of Hart and help stop the needless playing off of one parish against another.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hart SANG plan to obstruct brownfield development

James Radley of CCH pulling the string of Graham Cockarill in Hart SANG plan to obstruct brownfield development

CCH calling the shots on Hart SANG plan to obstruct brownfield development

Hart Council has published a new report recommending that its own SANG land should not be used to enable brownfield development. This effectively renders the council’s SANG useless and calls into question the council’s ability to fund the repayments on the loan it has taken out to buy the SANG.

The document is sponsored by Community Campaign Hart (CCH) Deputy Leader, James Radley and not the portfolio holder for Planning, Lib Dem Graham Cockarill. This indicates that CCH is pulling the strings on important planning matters. The Hart SANG plan will be discussed at Cabinet tomorrow.

Hart SANG plan

Hart has bought its own SANG land at Bramshot Farm which lies between Ancells Farm and the link road between Hartland Village and the M3. The site has capacity to support 1,745 new houses. The new report proposes that no SANG land is allocated to the sites set out below unless signed off by both the Services Portfolio Holder (James Radley) and the chair of the Planning Committee (Graham Cockarill).

Brownfield sites affected

The following brownfield sites will effectively be blocked from development by the Hart SANG plan:

  • Bartley Wood, Hook, RG27, 9UP
  • Bartley Point, Hook, RG27 9EX
  • Cody Park, Farnborough, GU14 0LX
  • Meadows Business Park, Blackwater, GU17 9AB
  • Osborne Way, Hook, RG27 9HY
  • Waterfront Business Park, Fleet, GU51 3OT
  • Ancells Business Park, Fleet, GU51 2UJ (right next door to Bramshot Farm)
  • Blackbushe Business Park, GU46 6GA
  • Eversley Haulage Yard, RG27 0PZ
  • Eversley Storage, RG27 0PY
  • Finn’s Business Park, Crondall, GU10 5HP
  • Fleet Business Park, Church Crookham, GU52 8BF
  • Grove Farm Barn, Crookham Village, GU51 5RX
  • Lodge Farm, North Warnborough, RG29 1HA
  • Murrell Green Business Park, RG27 9GR
  • Potters Industrial Park, Church Crookham, GU52 6EU
  • Rawlings Depot, Hook, RG27 9HU
  • Redfields Business Park, Church Crookham, GU52 0RD
  • Optrex Business Park, Rotherwick, RG27 9AY

Essentially, development on every significant potential brownfield site other than Hartland Park and Sun Park (which already have SANG earmarked), will be hindered by this new proposal.

This new proposal runs contrary to the Vision outlined in the draft Local Plan which says:

The priority will have been given to the effective use of previously developed land (‘brownfield land’) so that ‘greenfield’ development will have been limited,

It also runs contrary to paras 105 and 107:

Our preference is still to deliver as much of our New Homes Left to Plan as possible on previously developed land.

many new homes will be built on brownfield sites (where possible and if they are viable)

Their new approach also goes against policy MG2 that says:

Policy MG2: Previously Developed Land

The Council will encourage the effective use of land by reusing land that has been previously developed (brownfield land), provided that it is not of high environmental value.

Of course, this plan also goes against stated Government policy to encourage brownfield development. See here and here.

Financial impact of Hart SANG plan

However, all the large, controversial green field developments are being proposed with their own SANG. This includes Murrell Green, Winchfield, Pale Lane (Elvetham Chase), Rye Common and Grove Farm (Netherhouse Copse). Most of these sites are probably outside the 5km catchment area of this SANG anyway or closer to Crookham Park SANG. Of course, the new Government consultation has reduced Hart’s housing target by ~4,000 houses compared to the draft Local Plan. If this new target (plus a few extra to help out Surrey Heath) was adopted, our remaining housing target could be more than met by Sun Park and Hartland Park alone.

So, if the main brownfield sites are excluded from using the council SANG, the other brownfield sites have their own SANG and the major greenfield sites are not needed, or have their own SANG,  we have to ask what it will be used for.

Apparently, the council is about to sign an agreement with Rushmoor to use the SANG to support the delivery of approximately 1,500 new homes in Rushmoor. However, the latest Government housing target consultation has reduced Rushmoor’s allocation by ~3,000 dwellings and Surrey Heath’s by 630 houses. This calls into question whether Rushmoor will need this SANG at all.

The council is strapped for cash, and has borrowed £5.3m to fund the purchase of this SANG. It must payback this loan in instalments up to 2023/24:

Financial implications of Hart SANG plan

These new developments call into question the immediate demand for this SANG, and of course, Hart’s ability to repay the loan.

Conclusion

It is a scandal that Hart is using its powers to obstruct brownfield development. The major greenfield developments come with their own SANG, and probably aren’t required anyway. Rushmoor and Surrey Heath’s housing targets will probably be reduced. This calls into question the financial sustainability of the council’s purchase of this SANG land.

image

Hart fails to decide Cross Farm application on time

Sad clown at Hart council fails to decide Cross Farm Appeal document 16/03400/OUT

Hart Council clowns fail to decide Cross Farm application

Hart Council has failed to decide the Cross Farm in Crookham Village planning application on time. This has led the developers to submit an appeal on the grounds of non-determination. This comes on the heels of the failure to determine the Grove Farm (Netherhouse Copse) application back in December 2016.  This is Jedi-level incompetence that makes the Council look like clowns.

The original application was made in January this year and should have been decided by 7 April. The application doesn’t seem to have been considered at all by the Planning Committee. Details of the original application for the Cross Farm development can be found here, and searching for 16/03400/OUT. The appeal documents can be found by searching for 17/00078/NONDET.

The proposed Cross Farm development in Crookham Village was one of the recommended sites in the recent Local Plan consultation. This indicates that the proposal was supported by officers.

We can only guess at why it wasn’t determined on time. Clearly,  the council is dysfunctional. The Conservatives were in charge of the council when the application should have been decided. However, Community Campaign Hart (CCH) held the chair of the Planning Committee at that time. Now the Planning Committee is chaired by Graham Cockarill of the Liberal Democrats, and the administration is jointly run by CCH and Lib Dems. Therefore, it seems none of the parties are able to get a grip on the planning process and take decisions on time.

One explanation might be that despite Cross Farm being in the draft Local Plan, CCH councillors felt unable to support the proposals. Therefore, they abdicated responsibility, so they could blame any decision on the Inspector. Of course, the appeal will be at council taxpayer expense.

[Update] Another explanation might be that it wasn’t in the interests of the Tory administration or the officers to bring this to the Committee on time. Cross Farm in Crookham Village was a preferred site in the draft Local Plan. If Cross Farm had been rejected at Committee, it would have effectively scuppered the Local Plan. [/Update]

Cost of Cross Farm, Crookham Village appeal

It is likely that this public enquiry style appeal will cost the council over £100,000 to defend. We find it difficult to understand how they expect to win the appeal given that the site is in the draft Local Plan. Therefore, we think it likely the inspector will award costs to the developer should they win. This would bring the total costs of the appeal to over £200,000.

The overall council budget is ~£10m. Surely, this appeal money could be better spent on local services, infrastructure or social housing?

 

Gallagher propose schools under power lines

Gallagher propose schools under power lines

Gallagher propose schools under power lines

In a desperate attempt to influence the Local Plan Consultation, a ‘newsletter’ has been issued in which Gallagher propose new schools under power lines. This is a last minute attempt to try and shoehorn a new settlement at Winchfield into the draft Local Plan. Apparently, the newsletter has only been issued to residents of Fleet and Church Crookham.

We have seen the newsletter and compared the schematic to the local OS map. As far as we can tell, the high voltage power line goes directly over the school grounds. Moreover, there is a pylon directly on top of the sports pitches. Our best attempt at showing the location of the school, and powerline is shown in the graphic above. Aside from the obvious electrocution risk, overhead power lines have been linked to increased risk of childhood cancers such as leukaemia. The secondary school is also right next to the mainline railway line.

The document has been issued by Curtin & Co on behalf of Gallagher. They apparently specialise in the ‘Politics of Planning’. The contact given is David Scane, who can be reached at davids@curtinandco.com. We deplore this crony corporatism. We recommend that WeHeartHart supporters email this man. We should let him know that we don’t approve of these shabby tactics and how ridiculous it is to propose schools in such an unsafe location.

Of course, no evidence has been produced in the Local Plan to show a new school is required. Even if such evidence is produced, it isn’t clear why we can’t simply allocate land for a school without the hundreds of acres for housing.

We have updated our guidance with this new information in our suggested response to the consultation that can be found on the download link below. Please do make amendments into your own words and submit it to planningpolicy@hart.gov.uk before the deadline of 5pm on 9th June 2017. All of the Council’s consultation documents can be found here.

Response to the Hart Draft Local Plan Consultation

Local Plan: Brownfield sites protected from redevelopment

Brownfield site at Ancells Farm, Fleet, Hampshire. Hart Council protecting from redevelopment.

Brownfield sites protected from redevelopment

The draft Local Plan put forward by Hart Council includes proposals to make brownfield sites protected from redevelopment. We think this proposal is bonkers and should be challenged in the consultation.

There are two different types of protection proposed in the Local Plan. The first identifies “Strategic Employment Areas”:

  • Bartley Wood, Hook
  • Bartley Point, Hook
  • Cody Park, Farnborough
  • Meadows Business Park, Blackwater
  • Osborne Way, Hook
  • Waterfront Business Park, Fleet

These sites are “given the highest protection and safeguarding against loss to non-B-class employment uses by protecting them for B-class uses”. We would agree that some of these sites should be given some protection. But some of the sites, particularly in Hook suffer from high vacancy rates. Indeed, some of the sites have already been converted to domestic use.  Recently the owners of the Virgin Media offices at Bartley Wood have sought advice on whether planning permission would be required to convert some of those buildings to housing. This demonstrates that there is little demand for offices on even the sites of alleged ‘strategic’ importance.

The trouble with this policy is that it cannot stop conversion of offices to apartments. These types of development require no planing permission. Nor do they bring any S106 or CIL contributions to infrastructure. Moreover, they don’t provide an attractive sense of place. By preventing proper redevelopment Hart is cutting off vital infrastructure funding. This makes no sense whatsoever.

The second type of protection is to “Locally Important Employment Areas”:

  • Ancells Business Park, Fleet
  • Blackbushe Business Park
  • Eversley Haulage Yard
  • Eversley Storage
  • Finn’s Business Park, Crondall
  • Fleet Business Park, Church Crookham
  • Grove Farm Barn, Crookham Village
  • Lodge Farm, North Warnborough
  • Murrell Green Business Park
  • Potters Industrial Park, Church Crookham
  • Rawlings Depot, Hook
  • Redfields Business Park, Church Crookham
  • Optrex Business Park, Rotherwick

These sites are offered a lower level of protection, but nevertheless the council is putting in place barriers to redevelopment.

Poor brownfield sites should not be protected from redevelopment

The reason this is a bad policy is that the Local Plan itself, as well as the Employment Land Review (ELR), acknowledges that there is an over-supply of low grade office space (para 125). The ELR states that investment in this stock is unviable (para 6.17):

Commercial agents note that the costs of refurbishing such stock to a good standard attractive to the market typically costs between £50-£60 per sq ft; and that the current over-supply of office accommodation limits investment in refurbishing such stock as low rent levels made such investment unviable.

Owners of these sites have three choices. First they can keep the wasting asset and collect no rent, which is not an attractive commercial proposition. Second, they can convert the offices into flats. By and large, they need no planning permission for this. However, these types of development carry no obligation for S106 or CIL payments to councils. Nor do they deliver a good ‘sense of place’. Finally, they could apply for planning permission to properly redevelop these sites into attractive homes, with a particular focus on affordable homes for the young. These types of development will be high-density, but with a good sense of place, and will attract some funding for infrastructure.

The consequences of this policy will be to discourage redevelopment of sites and either lead to more sites being simply converted or worse, sitting idle as eyesores.

We believe this policy should be reversed, particularly as it is a direct contravention of a statement made by the council leader, who said there were no plans to restrict the development of brownfield sites at a council meeting in September 2016:

https://www.hart.gov.uk/sites/default/files/4_The_Council/Council_meetings/M_Archive/16%2009%20Council.pdf )

Please respond to the Local Plan Consultation

This is our chance to shape the draft Local Plan that is currently our for consultation. Our suggested comments can be found on the link below. Please do download and review them. Please do make amendments into your own words and submit it to planningpolicy@hart.gov.uk before the deadline of 5pm on 9th June 2017. All of the Council’s consultation documents can be found here.

Response to the Hart Draft Local Plan Consultation

Motion of No Confidence in Hart District Council submitted

Breaking News: Motion of No Confidence submitted in Hart District Council

Motion of No Confidence submitted in Hart District Council

A motion of no confidence in Hart District Council has been submitted by Community Campaign Hart (CCH), (or as some call them Completely Concrete Hart) and the Liberal Democrats.

Apparently, they are unhappy that a new settlement at Winchfield has not been included in the Local Plan. They plan to push for Winchfield to be re-included if they manage to take over.

Community Campaign Hart (CCH) screwing up Hart Planning since 2004

We think this is a bad idea for a number of reasons:

  1. This will add extra delay to the Local Plan process, adding to the risk that sites like Grove Farm (Netherhouse Copse) and Pale Lane (Elvetham Chase) will be given the go ahead at appeal before the Local Plan can be put in place
  2. Winchfield has failed testing. The main issues with the proposal are:
    • groundwater and surface water flooding,
    • Cost of new road infrastructure and the need to travel to Fleet for main services
    • requirement for new wastewater treatment works
    • too much delivery risk concentrated in one site
    • impact on landscape
    • impact on heritage assets and SSSIs
  3. CCH have completely failed to oppose the main issue: we are being asked to build too many houses. Hart Council have arbitrarily added an extra 2,000 houses to the already inflated SHMA figure of 8,000, giving a total over 10,000 houses. Tackling this would mean we don’t need a new settlement at Winchfield or Murrell Green, nor would we need Pale Lane or Grove Farm
  4. A new settlement at Winchfield will likely have a major impact on congestion in Church Crookham and the western edge of Fleet.

We predict a stormy council meeting on 25 May.

[Update  – Statement from Conservative Council Leader]

Conservative Council Leader Stephen Parker commented:

We have a clear track record of success in running Hart Council. Despite cuts to Hart’s government funding we used Conservative ministerial contacts to reduce the cuts, froze Council tax for 6 years and made minimum increases for the last two years. At the same time we made innovative partnerships to make sure that no cuts were made to our services or to our support to the voluntary sector. We delivered the new Hart Leisure Centre, a superb facility which pays for itself with no increases to Hart’s Council tax. We listened to residents in making our Local Plan which maximises use of brownfield sites and protects our towns and villages from unwanted expansion. At no time in the last eight years of Conservative leadership have they challenged any of these successes. Residents will no doubt look forward to reading their joint manifesto.

[/Update]

[Update 2 – statement from CCH]

Statement about motion to bring about a vote for Council Leader

Until fairly recently Hart District Council had a democratic process of electing the council Leader every year at the AGM. This right was taken away by the then Conservative administration, presumably because they realised that as is the case now there would be times when they did not have a majority on the council.

The Conservatives forced through the instigation of a 4 year term for the council Leader, the maximum period they could have gone for without falling foul of legislation.

Out of 33 councillors there are 14 Conservative, 10 Community Campaign, 8 Lib Dems and 1 Hook Independent. No one party have the 17 councillors required to hold a majority on the council.

The Community Campaign have asked the current Leader if he’d be willing to continue as Leader with a proportional Cabinet made up of 3 Conservatives, 2 Lib Dems and 2 Community Campaign members. Given the proportionality of such a Cabinet it does not seem to be an unreasonable request.

We await his response. However, should the Conservatives not wish to work with a cross party partnership then we believe that the Council should have the right to elect a new Leader.

The nature of the council’s constitution is such that in order to bring about the opportunity to elect a new Leader a motion to withdraw support for the current leadership needs to be lodged 7 clear working days before the council’s AGM.

The full motion moved by Cllr. James Radley of the Community Campaign reads;
The council wishes to use this AGM, as it represents the traditional point in the municipal year, to undertake a vote for the leader of council. To bring about such a vote the constitution requires that a vote to remove the current leader first be tabled. To this end this council retracts support for the current leader and does so as required by the constitution by voting to ‘remove from office the current Leader of the Council and agrees that a new Leader should be elected forthwith’.

[/Update 2]

[Update 3: Lib dems tweet to say they don’t support new settlement at Winchfield]

NE Hants Lib Dems statement about Winchfield

[/Update 3]

CPRE says most sites yet to be identified on Hart brownfield register

CPRE Hampshire Logo

The CPRE (Campaign for the Protection of Rural England) have been analysing Hart’s brownfield register. The have concluded that most of the brownfield sites without planning permission are not yet on the register.

CPRE Investigation

Spokespeople for CPRE North East Hampshire, Edward Dawson and Philip Todd said:

“Hart’s pilot Brownfield Register lists all the sites with planning permission that have yet to be built. However, some sites in Hart do not currently have planning permission.

These include a rural site in South Warnborough and the former Pyestock works called Hartland Village.

It suggests that most brownfield sites without planning permission; ones which should form the basis of a new Brownfield Register, are yet to be identified.

CPRE welcomes that Hart has identified sites that can accommodate nearly three times as many homes as it had forecast would come forward from brownfield sites.”

We Heart Hart Analysis

This concurs with our own analysis that showed:

  • All but two of the sites already have planning permission, indeed a number of them have already been built (e.g. Queen Elizabeth Barracks at Church Crookham, Landata House in Hook, and Monachus House in Hartley Wintney).
  • Some of the sites are not even brownfield sites, for example Rifle Range Farm in Hartley Wintney.
  • None of the sites that Hart Council itself identified as brownfield sites in the recent consultation are recorded in the register.
  • None of the other potential sites that have not yet been permitted on Ancells Farm or along Fleet Road have made it on to the register.
  • Very few, if any, of the brownfield sites in the SHLAA that we identified in our brownfield solution, most particularly sites like the former police college at Bramshill House have made it into the register.
  • Over 2,000 of the units in the register have already been granted planning permission, with 1,500 units at Hartland Village (aka Pyestock) and 16 at another site yet to be granted permission.

CPRE in North East Hampshire is encouraging the identification of more brownfield sites across Hart to protect our greenfield sites from unnecessary development.