Hart Council starts to identify brownfield opportunities

Posted on January 12, 2016January 12, 2016

Hart District Council (HDC) starts the process of identifying brownfield opportunities

Hart Council starts the process of identifying brownfield opportunities

In a welcome development, it appears as though Hart Council has started the process of identifying brownfield opportunity areas.

These include Pyestock (aka Hartland Park), Ancells Farm and part of Redfields Business Park. This is an important development as Hart had previously ruled out Pyestock as a location.

They also identify a wide range of other brownfield sites, from the SHLAA that were deemed to have a capacity of 592 units, at an average density of 32.5 dwellings per hectare.

Parish/Ref	Sum of Site Assessment Capacity (Low)	Sum of Site Assessment Capacity (High)	Sum of Size (Ha.)	Average of Low Density (dpa)
Blackwater and Hawley	320	320	12.00	26.7
SHL100	320	320	12.00	26.7
Church Crookham	6	6	0.42	14.3
SHL28	6	6	0.42	14.3
Elvetham Heath	45	45	2.25	20.0
SHL104	45	45	2.25	20.0
Fleet	221	221	3.56	62.1
SHL113	12	12	0.68	17.6
SHL245	8	8	0.18	44.4
SHL320	150	150	1.80	83.3
SHL322	37	37	0.61	60.7
SHL41	6	6	0.05	120.0
SHL42	8	8	0.24	33.3
Grand Total	592	592	18.23	32.5

Whilst this is a welcome development, it is clear that work is yet to start on the rest of the district outside the environs of Fleet and Church Crookham.

We do call into question the assertions in the consultation that there is only capacity for 450 units on brownfield sites and the timing of the consultation, as it seems clear that brownfield capacity is going to rise significantly, so we will not need a new town, nor urban extensions.

If you would like to ask Hart to redouble its efforts to build the case for 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 and two guides to responding to the consultation that 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

Download Now!329 Downloads

2 Minute version:

Respond to Local Plan Consultation in 2 minutes

Download Now!318 Downloads

Hart Local Plan Consultation descends into omnishambles

Posted on January 11, 2016January 11, 2016

Omnishambles

Following our post this morning pointing out material discrepancies between two different versions of the Hart Local Plan consultation response form, Hart Council have issued a statement saying they have corrected the issues and published version 6 of the consultation form and:

“The administrative error occurred when the Response Form was corrected on 6 January 2016 to include the villages of Crookham Village, Dogmersfield and Eversley in the list at Question 4 (Approach 1). This reflects the main consultation document itself (Refined Options for Delivering New Homes) which is correct. Unfortunately an earlier, incorrect, version of the Response Form (which was never published) was used as the basis for this correction, which is where the error lies. To be absolutely clear, there was no conscious attempt by anyone to change the text in the Response Form that precedes Question 1.”

However, this statement suggests the latest response form is now in line with the main Refined Options paper and the summary booklet, but it is not.

1) The text of Q4 in V6 says:

Response Form V6 Question 4

Clearly Dogmersfield and Crookham Village are now included. But V4 did not include them.

2) The summary booklet does not include reference to Dogmersfield and Crookham Village:

Summary Booklet Question 4

3) The text of the refined options paper does not include references to those parishes either.

Refined Options Paper Question 4

This begs a number of questions:

What are HDC going to do about the people who answered the V4 document?
Has the on-line version changed?
If so, when, and what about the people who answered under the old wording?
What are they going to do about hte discrepancies between all of the documents?

It seems to me that those who relied on the main refined options paper and the booklet distributed to every home, may well have been misled by those documents as the actual questions in the actual response forms are different to the main source documents.

All in all, the only word I can find to describe this is “omnishambles”

Hart Council changes the rules of the Local Plan consultation as it goes along

Posted on January 11, 2016August 15, 2023

In a quite astonishing development, we have been alerted to the fact that Hart District Council has changed the rules of the consultation part way through the process. This is in addition to the inexplicable decision to postpone how the way answers will be weighted until after the consultation has closed.

Version 4 of the consultation paperwork, dated 3 December 2015, stated clearly that questions 4 and 5 of the consultation must be answered:

Hart Consultation V4 must answer Q4 and Q5

But Version 5 of the consultation paperwork, dated 6 January 2016, says there is no requirement to answer questions 4 and 5:

Hart Consultation V5 no requirement to answer Q4 and Q5

As of 09:30 on Monday 11 January 2016, Questions 4 and 5 were mandatory in the on-line version of the consultation. This is a fundamental change to the rules in the middle of the consultation and one is left wondering quite how the results can be considered valid and surely it can’t be right that the rules for paper submission are different to those for online submission.

In addition, Hart Council announced at a meeting of the Hart District Association of Town and Parish Councils that they would not decide how to weight the answers to the questions until the consultation was complete. This is confirmed by a question to the December Council meeting:

Hart determining scoring criteria after the consultation is complete

[Update]

It gets worse. The paper copies of the form have no comments box for Q4 of the consultation, but the on-line form does:

Page 3 of the Consultation form

Page 4 of the Hart District Council Local Plan Consultation form

Page 4 of the Consultation form

[/Update]

[Update 2]

I have been alerted to even more differences between the two versions of the document:

V5 now seems to include Crookham Village, Dogmersfield & Eversley in Q4. V4 doesn’t include those parishes. The online version now includes them, but I don’t know if it has been changed.

Neither version has a comments box for q4, but there is a q4 comment box online, even though Q6 directs you to a comments box for q4.

In V4, the question directs you to Table 2 on page 7, in V5 it directs you to the same table on page 9. In the version of the booklet I have, Table 2 starts on page 8.

And perhaps most significantly:

Q6 has been changed, with V4 allowing comments on rejected sites and V5 not including the following in the question:

“You may also comment on any ‘rejected ‘sites (in blue and listed on the tables on each map)”

Has someone been taking inspiration from The Thick of It?

[/Update 2]

This is a very worrying development and resembles how one might expect countries to operate that do not have as mature democracies as we enjoy in this country.

If you would like to try your luck in responding to the consultation and objecting to the new town idea, 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 and two guides to responding to the consultation that 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

Download Now!329 Downloads

2 Minute version:

Respond to Local Plan Consultation in 2 minutes

Download Now!318 Downloads

Hartley Wintney residents turn out to oppose Winchfield new town

Posted on January 10, 2016January 10, 2016

Hartley Wintney residents turn out to oppose Winchfield new town

About 150 concerned Hartley Wintney residents came out to hear about Hart Council’s Local Plan consultation this morning at Victoria Hall. It was very pleasing to see such a large number of people opposing the plans for a new town at Winchfield.

We Heart Hart is very grateful to Hartley Wintney Parish Council for organising the event, and for letting us speak. We had many messages of support and encouragement, before. during and after the meeting. We only ask that these messages of support are converted into actual votes in the consultation.

We reiterated our main points that:

Hart is being asked to build too many houses. Hart councillors should be thorough in their analysis of the revised Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA), and be robust in challenging the housing numbers and in asking Rushmoor and Surrey Heath to meet their own needs.

Second, there is a brownfield solution to our housing needs, even if we accept the current housing numbers. We showed how a combination of the brownfield SHLAA sites and the disused offices identified by Stonegate, can be used to meet our remaining housing need in full.

Third, there is a lot of misinformation being spread about the supposed infrastructure benefits of a new town. We currently have a £78m infrastructure funding deficit which a new town will do nothing to address, and of course, Hart Council have not been able to explain how they will fund the £300m costs of a new town.

Finally, a new town won’t meet the needs of the elderly and won’t deliver starter homes for the young.

Councillor Steve Forster did turn up to speak as well, but was politely asked to sit down again after alienating most of the people in the room. Some interesting insight and support for We Heart Hart ideas was also given by COunty Councillor David Simpson and district councillor Andrew Renshaw. Tristram Cary of Winchfield Action Group also spoke, setting out four key reasons to oppose the new town, in line with our thinking.

If you would like to join these Hartley Wintney residents in objecting to the new town idea, 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 and two guides to responding to the consultation that 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

Download Now!329 Downloads

2 Minute version:

Respond to Local Plan Consultation in 2 minutes

Download Now!318 Downloads

Fleet resident describes Winchfield new town as “monstrous”

Posted on January 8, 2016January 8, 2016

Development proposals around M3 J4a and Bramshott Farm

A resident of Fleet has written to We Heart Hart and described the proposals for a new town at Winchfield as “monstrous” and proposed a number of brownfield sites around the district as alternatives to meet our housing needs. He also points out that “our MP, Mr Ranil Jayawardena, is against coalescence in the Winchfield area as it will introduce hideous and wanton destruction of a large chunk of rural Hampshire by HDC civic vandals and philistines”.

His full report that has been sent to Hart District Council can be downloaded on the link below.

The alternative brownfield sites he proposes for development include Bramshott Farm, Minley and Guillemont Park, shown in the image above.

He goes on to propose a number of other sites including land near Runabout and Iveley Road (see below),

Development proposals Norris Bridge Gyratory

Additional brownfield land near Pyestock (see below),

Development proposals around Kennels Lane near Pyestock

and the worked out gravel pits near Bramshill and Blackbushe airport (see below).

Development proposals on brownfield gravel pit sites at Bramshill

Development proposals on brownfield gravel pit sites near Blackbushe

We welcome these ideas from a Fleet resident, as it shows that opposition to a new town comes from many people, not just those living in or near Winchfield. If you would like to make your voice heard and object to the new town idea, 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 and two guides to responding to the consultation that 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

Download Now!329 Downloads

2 Minute version:

Respond to Local Plan Consultation in 2 minutes

Download Now!318 Downloads

Full report from the Fleet resident:

Fleet resident brownfield site ideas

Download Now!200 Downloads

Link

Winchfield floods again

Posted on January 7, 2016January 16, 2020

Winchfield flooded again Taplins Farm Lane

Bravehart was out and about again this afternoon and shot a video of another flood on Taplins Farm Lane in Winchfield again, for the second time in a week.

How long will it take for the message to get through a new town of 5,000 houses is simply not viable on these sites and these roads?

If you would like to make your voice heard and object to the new town idea, 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 and two guides to responding to the consultation that 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

Download Now!329 Downloads

2 Minute version:

Respond to Local Plan Consultation in 2 minutes

Download Now!318 Downloads

Whitewater Valley Preservation Society Oppose Winchfield/Hook new town

Posted on January 7, 2016January 6, 2016

River Whitewater

The Whitewater Valley Preservation Society (WVPS) have struck a blow for common sense and advised their members to vote against the proposed Hartley Winchook new settlement in Winchfield and Hook parishes.

Their full advice can be found here. The key quotes from their document are:

“The potential impact of 5,000 houses said to be at Winchfield, but especially those either side of the A30 at Murrell Green, upon the river and its valley will be significant. One other site which will have a significant impact on the river and valley is in Odiham parish at North Warnborough / Greywell”…

…”If, on looking at the table above, you are not convinced of the benefits of a new town, then in question 4 you
should rank Approach 3 last; and in question 5 you should rank Approach 4 first (this being the only one which
excludes the Winchfield new town)”…

…”The Hook sites at Murrell Green listed in the table above are all in the proposed Winchfield new settlement, and the Odiham site “COM004” would see the open fields between Greywell and North Warnborough developed with houses and sports pitches”…

…”And the second pair of questions asks to what extent you agree with the draft vision and whether you have any comments on the Vision. You may wish to point out, in response to either of these two pairs of questions that the level and location of the developments proposed will clearly make it very difficult to realise the vision.”

If you agree with WVPS and would like to make your voice heard and object to the new town idea, we urge you to respond to the Hart District Council consultation about the Local Plan and ask Hart to think again. We have created a dedicated consultation page and two guides to responding to the consultation that 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 and our rivers.

Full version:

Responses to Local Plan Consultation

Download Now!329 Downloads

2 Minute version:

Respond to Local Plan Consultation in 2 minutes

Download Now!318 Downloads

Fleet Town Council seeks to mislead the public

Posted on January 6, 2016January 6, 2016

Fleet Town Council Leaflet

Fleet Town Council have distributed a leaflet that, in our view, seeks to mislead the public. The leaflet suggests that a new settlement in Hart would be a “long term sustainable solution to the housing and infrastructure needs” of the district as an “official recommendation”.

We think this is misleading and wrong on many levels:

Concreting over the equivalent of 25 football pitches a year is not in any way sustainable, and this approach would lead to another new town being required every 10-15 years and destroy the green spaces that make Hart such a great place to live.
The type of housing in a new town estate is exactly the wrong type of housing to meet the needs of our growing elderly population and the needs of our young people struggling to get on the housing ladder
A new town will require over £300m of infrastructure funding, with only £50m of developer contributions, and of course will do nothing to address the £78m infrastructure funding deficit across the district.

Surely, it would be much better to follow Ranil’s advice and redevelop our ageing and vacant office blocks in a brownfield solution that will meet the needs of Hart residents as opposed to those wishing to move here from London and deliver infrastructure funding for our existing communities. Of course, Fleet Town Council offer no evidence at all to support their assertions.

We are of course flattered that they have chosen to make their leaflet in the style of the leaflet we distributed at the end of last year.

Housing Options consultation leaflet

Download Now!269 Downloads

Full version:

Responses to Local Plan Consultation

Download Now!329 Downloads

2 Minute version:

Respond to Local Plan Consultation in 2 minutes

Download Now!318 Downloads

Floods in Winchfield, Hartley Wintney, Hook and Crookham Village cast doubt on new town plan

Posted on January 4, 2016January 16, 2020

Flood Taplins Farm Road Winchfield 3 January 2016.

Bravehart donned his waders and took to his canoe yesterday to take pictures of the widespread floods across the country roads in Winchfield and the roads in and out of the proposed new town in Hartley Wintney, Hook and Crookham Village.

As you can see from the carousel below the floods were severe and widespread, and that is without all the surrounding green fields being concreted over. Imagine what it would be like if the capacity of the soil to absorb water was reduced by building 5,000 houses.

Bravehart found floods in the following areas:

Winchfield, Hook, Crookham Village Floods 3 January 2016

Church Lane, Hartley Wintney near St Mary’s Church
Taplins Farm Lane, near the farm and near the bridge over the M3
Taplins Farm Lane, just below the Internet car showroom, along the road through the railway tunnel up to near Hurst Farm
The Hurst and Pale Lane in Winchfield
Extensive flooding along Station Road from the Hurst to Bagwell Lane and again through the railway tunnel
The bottom of Bagwell Lane, Winchfield and at many places along the lane towards Odiham Common
Totters Lane under the M3, near the bridge over the railway and near the A30 in Hook parish
On the A30 between Murrell Green and Phoenix Green
On the B3016 Odiham Road near the junction with the A30 and under the M3
On Pilcot Road near the junction with Hitches Lane in Crookham Village

Railway bridge at Station Road Winchfield. Village 3 January 2016
Flood at Station Road Winchfield. 3 January 2016.
Flood Hitches Lane/Pilcot Road Crookham Village 3 January 2016.
Flood Hitches Lane/Pilcot Road Crookham Village 3 January 2016
Flood Totters Lane Hook 3 January 2016
Flood Totters Lane Hook 3 January 2016.
Flood Totters Lane Hook 3 January 2016.
Flood Totters Lane Hook 3 January 2016.
Flood Totters Lane Hook 3 January 2016.
Flood Totters Lane Hook 3 January 2016.
Flood A30 Hartley Wintney 3 January 2016
Flood B3016 Odiham Road Hartley Wintney 3 January 2016.
Flood B3016 Odiham Road Winchfield 3 January 2016.
Flood B3016 Odiham Road Winchfield 3 January 2016.
Flood Bagwell Lane Winchfield 3 January 2016.
Flood Bagwell Lane Winchfield 3 January 2016.
Flood Bagwell Lane Winchfield 3 January 2016.
Flood Bagwell Lane Winchfield 3 January 2016.
Flood Bagwell Lane Winchfield 3 January 2016.
Flood Bagwell Lane Winchfield 3 January 2016.
Flood Bagwell Lane Winchfield 3 January 2016.
Flood Bagwell Lane Winchfield 3 January 2016.
Flood Bagwell Lane Winchfield 3 January 2016.
Flood Potbridge Road Winchfield 3 January 2016
Flood Potbridge Road Winchfield 3 January 2016.
Flood Potbridge Road Winchfield 3 January 2016
Flood Totters Lane Hook 3 January 2016.
Flood Station Road Winchfield 3 January 2016
Flood Station Road Winchfield 3 January 2016.
Flood Station Road Winchfield 3 January 2016
Flood Station Road Winchfield 3 January 2016
Flood Station Road Winchfield 3 January 2016.
Flood Station Road Winchfield 3 January 2016.
Flood Bagwell Lane Winchfield 3 January 2016.
Flood Bagwell Lane Winchfield 3 January 2016.
Flood The Hurst Winchfield 3 January 2016
Flood The Hurst Winchfield 3 January 2016.
Flood Pale Lane Winchfield 3 January 2016
Flood Pale Lane Winchfield 3 January 2016
Flood Pale Lane Winchfield 3 January 2016
Flood Pale Lane Winchfield 3 January 2016
Flood Taplins Farm Road Winchfield 3 January 2016
Flood Taplins Farm Road Winchfield 3 January 2016.
Flood Taplins Farm Road Winchfield 3 January 2016
Flood Taplins Farm Road Winchfield 3 January 2016
Flood Taplins Farm Road Winchfield 3 January 2016
Flood Church Lane Hartley Wintney 3 January 2016
Flood Church Lane Hartley Wintney 3 January 2016
Flood Taplins Farm Road Winchfield 3 January 2016
Flood Taplins Farm Road Winchfield 3 January 2016.
Flood Taplins Farm Road Winchfield 3 January 2016
Flood Taplins Farm Road Winchfield 3 January 2016
Flood Taplins Farm Road Winchfield 3 January 2016
Flood Taplins Farm Road Winchfield 3 January 2016

Yesterday’s events demonstrate the evidence in the site assessment that the area is very susceptible to groundwater flooding.

Winchfield Flood Risk

We find it difficult to believe that anyone can conclude that these sites and these roads are a suitable location for a new town of 5,000 houses.

[Update]

This story covered in Get Hampshire January 4 2016: Floods will worsen if green fields are concreted over for new Winchfield town, campaigners warn

And covered in Fleet News and Mail January 6 2016: Flooding proves new town idea will not float says campaigner

[/Update]

Full version:

Responses to Local Plan Consultation

Download Now!329 Downloads

2 Minute version:

Respond to Local Plan Consultation in 2 minutes

Download Now!318 Downloads

Flood Church Lane Hartley Wintney 3 January 2016

Flood Taplins Farm Road Winchfield 3 January 2016

Flood Potbridge Road Winchfield 3 January 2016

Flood Totters Lane Hook 3 January 2016.

Flood Bagwell Lane Winchfield 3 January 2016.

Railway bridge at Station Road WInchfield. Floods at Winchfield, Hook and Crookham Village 3 January 2016

Railway bridge at Station Road Winchfield. Village 3 January 2016

Flood Hitches Lane/Pilcot Road Crookham Village 3 January 2016

Flood B3016 Odiham Road Winchfield 3 January 2016.

11% of pupils at Hart schools are from outside the district

Posted on January 3, 2016August 15, 2023

We have questioned before the need for a new secondary school in Hart District. Interestingly, an FOI request made by a Hart District resident has demonstrated that more than 11% of pupils at Hart Schools come from outside the district. The relevant questions and answers are shown below:

How many children are currently being educated in state schools within Hart District?

13436 pupils in primary and secondary schools

How many of these children live outside Hart District?

1533 pupils

How many children from Hart District are being educated outside the District in State schools?

264 pupils, of which 103 are in special schools, the remainder being in primary and secondary. These figures do not include pupils who may live in Hart but are enrolled in schools outside Hampshire LA.

These figures include 13.6% of Robert Mays and 5% of Calthorpe Park pupils coming from outside the district.

These pupils are in addition to the extra capacity forecast for secondary school pupils up to 2018 and the forecast reduction in birth rate.

Secondary School Capacity in Hart District

It is looking increasingly likely that Hart does not need a new secondary school.