Guest Post: What is wrong with Shapley Heath

Posted on July 1, 2021July 2, 2021

What is Wrong with Shapley Heath

Today, we have a guest post from Tristram Cary, chairman of the Rural Hart Association. In this post, he sets out his reasons why the Shapley Heath Garden Community is a bad idea.

Having read the rest of this article, you might like to respond to the Shapley Heath survey. This is your chance to make known your concerns about the proposals. We have produced a handy guide with suggestions as to how you might choose to answer the freeform questions. The guide can be found on the download below. The full survey can be found here. The survey closes on 5 July.

Shapley Heath Survey with Suggested Responses

Download Now!663 Downloads

Introduction

“Hart District Council is exploring the potential to build a new community in the district of up to 5,000 new homes, with associated community facilities, to meet its long-term housing requirements.” This statement, from the introduction to SHGV Community Survey, sums up HDC’s motivation for embarking on a major publicly-funded project which includes a SHGV website, a sophisticated Communications and Engagement Strategy, a SHGV Stakeholder’s Forum with five Thematic Groups and the commissioning of 13 Baseline Surveys on things like Transport, Heritage, Landscape, Flooding and Utilities.

This article makes the case that:

Hart District Council (HDC) has no business undertaking the SHGV project because:
- It is a blatant attempt to pre-determine Hart’s future development by promoting its preferred strategy over viable alternatives
- It is not in synchronisation with the Local Plan which should guide all HDC’s planning activities
By failing to consider the trade-offs involved in developing SHGV over alternative development strategies, the results of the SHGV Project in general, and the Community Survey in particular, will be largely invalid.
The SHGV Project is not merely an expensive and misguided attempt at pre-determination. It is also damaging the prospects for regenerating Fleet (and Hart’s other urban centres), which is an Objective of the Local Plan (unlike SHGV)
SHGV is objectively a bad development strategy for Hart (when compared to the alternatives) in terms of sustainability, climate/carbon footprint, and green spaces.

Predetermination

The SHGV Project team explains that the SHGV project is not an attempt at pre-determination because it is subordinate to the Local Plan. The Project team explains that the SHGV conclusions and recommendations will only carry weight if and when the Local Plan is updated to include SHGV, at that therefore the SHGV project is neutral and unbiased.

This argument is wrong for the following reasons:

SHGV is in fact the chosen strategy of HDC. HDC is dominated by Community Campaign Hart (CCH) whose primary objective is to save Fleet/Church Crookham from over-development by building a new Settlement in the Winchfield area. This is made clear in many of CCH’s newsletters (available on the CCH website). Here is an extract from the Spring 2012 CCH Newsletter:

“We either continue to grow Fleet & Church Crookham outwards (in which case what, realistically, do you do with the traffic?) or we look at a new settlement. Winchfield is about the only sustainable location for such a new settlement in Hart District.”

The Communication and Engagement Strategy for SHGV is heavily biased in favour of SHGV and makes no attempt to present a balanced view of SHGV in comparison to the alternatives. To illustrate this here are some quotes (with my comments in blue):

Use Shapley Heath in communications where possible [to get the public used to the idea that it is going to happen];

Create awareness of what the alternatives might be (sequential development, developments on appeal) [these are bad alternatives – no mention has been made of good alternatives including regeneration of Fleet to make it more attractive and commercially successful];

We want our audience to know… why we think it’s the right location to explore [a clear bias in favour of SHGV and against alternative locations such as Rye Common];

Highlight key benefits – a new community with a unique character, green spaces, employment opportunities, retail space, leisure facilities, economic development, new schools, and other critical infrastructure [no mention of Key Disadvantages such as loss of green space, coalescence of towns, lack of growth potential, damage to prospects of Fleet regeneration, increasing housing capacity which would be taken up by Rushmoor and Surrey Heath under the Duty to Cooperate etc];

Be clear about the limited brownfield opportunities in the district [biased in favour of SHGV and ignores the alternative strategies];

Use subject matter experts (like Lord Taylor of Goss Moor) to highlight the benefits of garden communities from experience elsewhere [stressing benefits without acknowledging the downsides].

Failure to Consider Trade-Offs as a part of the SHGV Project

The SHGV project’s stated aim is to conduct an assessment of the potential of SHGV as a means of satisfying Hart’s long-term housing needs. The SHGV project team insists that the project is unbiased and that all alternatives will be properly explored as required by the Local Plan Inspector. However, if that is true, why would the SHGV project not be open about the pros and cons of SHGV when compared to alternative strategies such as alternative sites for a Garden Village and re-generation of Hart’s urban centres? Every alternative strategy will have advantages and disadvantages, and to hide the disadvantages is clearly biased.

Failure to present SHGV in the context of the alternative strategies will invalidate the results of the Community Survey.

SHGV Project is already Damaging the Prospects for the Regeneration of Fleet and Hart’s other urban centres

The Local Plan identifies that Hart does not provide adequate retail and leisure outlets for its residents. As a result, “The outflow of retail expenditure from the District…is relatively high and is likely to remain high in the future”: [Local Plan para 65.]

The Local Plan goes on to identify the cause of this problem: “The main centres in Hart have not kept pace with other centres in the wider area. Other centres have strengthened and improved their offering through investment and development. Failure to invest in the centres will see them continue to fall in the rankings”: [Retail, Leisure and Town Centre Study Part 1 para 2.15].

To provide Hart with adequate retail and leisure outlets the Local Plan states that “The challenge for Fleet specifically will be to secure investment so that it can compete with the comparable towns in neighbouring districts. All the neighbouring towns are subject to regeneration or expansion projects”: Local Plan Para 66

To attract major investment into Fleet an essential first step is to invest in a Masterplan for Fleet which would identify how the residential, employment, leisure, education, transport, and infrastructure needs could be developed in a coordinated way so that Fleet would become a better, greener, more prosperous and more commercially successful town. It is quite extraordinary that HDC has failed in its clear duty to invest in a Masterplan for Fleet (and note that HDC’s investigation into regeneration of the Civic Quarter is not sufficient)

But to make matters worse, by investing solely in the SHGV project, HDC is sending a further clear signal to developers that Fleet is not a priority. So HDC’s claim that the SHGV project is ‘neutral’ and can run in parallel with the Local Plan without damaging the Local Plan objectives is false. HDC has clearly nailed its colours to the SHGV mast, and by doing so it is already significantly damaging Fleet’s future prospects.

SHGV is Objectively a Poor Strategy

SHGV is objectively a poor strategy compared to the alternatives for the following reasons:

It is a well-established fact that larger settlements are more sustainable than smaller ones (because larger settlements have more residential, employment, health and leisure facilities within easy reach of the residents than smaller ones). SHGV is therefore going to generate a larger carbon footprint than a strategy based on re-generating Hart’s existing towns and villages. This should be a critical issue now that HDC has declared a Climate Emergency and has undertaken to ‘put the reduction of CO2 at the front and centre of all policies and formal decision-making.’
SHGV scores badly against several of the Guiding Principles of Garden Villages. In particular:
- Green Space – Garden Communities should be surrounded by countryside. SHGV will not be
- Sustainable Scale – This principle includes the ‘capacity for future growth to meet the evolving housing and economic needs of the local area’. SHGV will have very limited geographical scope for future growth
- Future Proofed – This principle also includes the ‘capacity for future growth’ which SHGV will not have

Coalescence and Conurbation

What's wrong with Shapley Heath - Coalesence

What is wrong with Shapley Heath – Coalesence

This map shows the density of residential housing in the district (based on March 2017 residential address data in 1km squares). Areas which are not coloured in green are countryside (having less than one home per hectare).

Points to note are:

The green areas of urban development clearly show how coalescence has already caused towns like Yateley, Camberley, Farnborough and Aldershot to be merged into a single conurbation
This conurbation already spreads in a continuous thread from the centre of London westwards to the westerly edge of Fleet
At present Fleet, Hartley Wintney, Hook and Odiham are all surrounded by countryside which adds significantly to their character and provides an important leisure amenity. This is what gives the district its rural character
SHGV would merge Fleet, Hartley Wintney, Hook and Odiham a continuous conurbation, in defiance of the Garden Village principles and the Local Plan vision to maintain the rural character of the district

What is Wrong with Shapley Heath: Conclusions

The SHGV Project is not an unbiased exploration of the potential of SHGV. It is an attempt at pre-determination.
SHGV is causing real damage to the Local Plan aim of attracting investment for the re-regeneration of Fleet and other urban centres
The results of the Community Survey will not be valid because no balanced context has been provided on the advantages/disadvantages of SHGV and alternative strategies
SHGV is objectively a poor strategy which does not align with HDC’s Climate Emergency commitment to put the reduction of CO2 at the front and centre of all polices and decision-making
SHGV will cause coalescence between Fleet, Harley Wintney, Hook and Odiham which will significantly damage their character as well as the rural nature of Hart District.

Recommendations

HDC should abandon the SHGV Project and invest instead in a comprehensive Masterplan for Fleet which is an essential first step towards meeting the Local Plan objective to secure funding for Fleet regeneration
Failing a), the SHGV project should provide clear information about the pros and cons of SHGV when compared to the alternative development strategies
Respondents should be encouraged to object to the clear bias of the SHGV Community Survey

Shapley Heath Endangers Red List Birds

Posted on June 23, 2021August 16, 2023

This article builds on our earlier post setting out the green case against Shapley Heath. We have been inspired by new research that shows the red list species that are found in Winchfield. New analysis shows that 26 of the 67 bird species on the RSPB Red List have been spotted in Winchfield parish.

Clearly building 5-10,000 houses in the Shapley Heath area will endanger these important species. Hart Council’s survey about Shapley Heath focuses on biodiversity as a key issue. It is mentioned in questions 19, 20 and 21. However, they fail to mention the damage that a new community will do to the existing ecosystems and the threatened species found there.

This seems odd given that Hart has its own Biodiversity Action Plan. But it seems they haven’t kept up to date with their promised monitoring reports. The Council even has a page dedicated to biodiversity that promises to

[Set] targets for biodiversity achievement in planning, site management and monitoring and education and awareness

Shapley Heath Survey with Suggested Responses

Download Now!663 Downloads

Winchfield Notable and Protected Bird Species

The current Winchfield Neighbourhood Plan (WNP) shows on p47 the notable and protected species identified by the Hampshire Biodiversity Information Centre (HBIC).

Winchfield Notable and Protected Bird Species

This shows a total of 64 different species.

RSPB Red List

The RSPB helpfully produce a red list of UK birds. This contains 67 separate species. To place a bird species on the Red List, the RSPB apply a set of strict criteria:

RSPB Red List Criteria

The criteria include population decline and contraction in breeding range. Clearly, building all over the Area of Search will contract the available space and may well kill-off the local population of these birds. The red list contains 67 different species.

Shapley Heath Endangers Red List Birds

By cross-referencing these lists, you can see the red list birds that make their home in Winchfield.

Red List Bird Species in Winchfield Neighbourhood Plan

This list contains 26 different species. So, nearly 39% of the species on the red list have been found in Winchfield parish. It would be an act of pure malice to destroy the habitat of these important birds.

Mammals Need Protecting Too

The WNP (p44) also says that Winchfield is home to five species of bats. All species of bats are protected in the UK.

Pipistrelle Bat found in Winchfield

Winchfield is also home to brown hares.

Brown Hare Found in Winchfield

Hares are protected in the UK under the Wildlife and Countryside Act, 1981. They are also a Priority Species under the UK Post-2010 Biodiversity Framework. Surely a council committed to biodiversity wold not put these important creatures at risk.

Shapley Heath Mapgate: Council map hides the reality

Posted on June 15, 2021June 16, 2021

Shapley Heath Mapgate – Coalescence

They say a picture paints a thousand words. However, sometimes, what’s missing from a picture can tell you more than what’s in it. As you may know, Hart has published a survey about the proposed Shapley Heath Garden Community. There is a map associated with the survey that is published on the dedicated Garden Community website.

Shapley Heath #Mapgate – Heart Shaped Love It

Note the soft boundaries, the warm orange dots and the attempt to make the boundary heart shaped, so you will subliminally love it. Of course the OS map on which it is based doesn’t include the Edenbrook development on the western Fleet boundary.

To combat this propaganda, Winchfield Parish Council has published some maps of its own, showing the impact of Shapley Heath should it ever go ahead. The first, at the top of this post, shows the potential coalescence with surrounding towns and villages. If they build in the NE zone, it will effectively join Fleet to Hartley Wintney. On the other hand, if they build in the NW, around Murrell Green, then it will coalesce Harley Wintney and Hook. If they build both sides, then effectively, Fleet, Hartley Wintney, Hook and the new town will become a single, large conurbation. We have previously termed this Hartley Winchook.

Shapley Heath Mapgate: Central Land Not Available

Shapley Heath Mapgate – Central Land Not Available

The next map shows land ownership in the area of search. The areas in green are under the control of the developers. Land that is potentially available to the developers – presumably not yet under option – is shown in blue. The red zone is land that is not and never will be under the control of the developers. Areas of ancient woodland, shown in brown, cannot be developed either.

As can be seen, there’s vast swathes of land in the area of search that cannot be developed. This means they have to build either in the NW area, the NE area or both. But none of those options allows for a single coherent settlement. All three options lead to coalescence.

Shapley Heath Mapgate: Additional Constraints

Shapley Heath #Mapgate - Physical Constraints

Shapley Heath Mapgate – Additional Constraints

However, the constraints don’t stop there. When you add on the additional environmental items such as the Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINCs) and Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs), then the area becomes even more constrained. The physical constraints of the high-voltage electricity pylons, the high pressure gas main, the M3, railway line and the former landfill all add further restrictions on what is safe or sensible to develop.

Conclusion

If you display an anodyne map to the general population, they will form one view of the site under consideration. When faced with maps that actually convey real information, then perceptions can change markedly. We wonder why Hart Council aren’t taking more heed of the Inspector’s words when he examined plans for a new town in the same area as part of the Local Plan (our emphasis):

I have a number of fundamental concerns with regard to the soundness of Policy SS3.

There is little evidence to demonstrate that a site can actually be delivered in terms of infrastructure, viability and landownership within the identified AoS.

Policy SS3 is not required for the Plan to be sound and, in light of my comments above, I consider that the most appropriate course of action would be to remove it (along with any other necessary subsequent changes) from the Plan.

I am also mindful that following further work, there can be no guarantee that the evidence would support it as the most appropriate long-term growth strategy or that Policy SS3 would be found sound.

All of these issues are known, yet the Council is pressing on spending money they don’t have, on a project we don’t need and probably won’t work anyway.

Having read this article, you might like to respond to the Shapley Heath survey. This is your chance to make known your concerns about the proposals. We have produced a handy guide with suggestions as to how you might choose to answer the freeform questions. The guide can be found on the download below. The full survey can be found here.

Shapley Heath Survey with Suggested Responses

Download Now!663 Downloads

The Green Case Against Shapley Heath: Regeneration is the Solution

Posted on June 12, 2021June 12, 2021

The Green Case Against Shapley Heath: Regeneration is the Solution

The purpose of this post is to illustrate the green case against Shapley Heath. We will:

Examine Hart’s environmental and climate change commitments.
Show how Shapley Heath will deliver excess housing and up to 1m tonnes of excess CO2 emissions just from building it.
Demonstrate how concreting over 505 acres to deliver 5,300 houses will destroy habitat and damage biodiversity.
Look at how the talk of “renewable energy” might put our forests at risk and produce more CO2 and particulates then burning coal.
Show how urban regeneration would produce lower CO2 per capita and keep our vital green spaces.

If Hart Council want to save the planet, they should cancel Shapley Heath and focus on urban regeneration.

Having read the article, you might like to respond to the Shapley Heath survey and make known your concerns about the environment. We have produced a handy guide with suggestions as to how you might choose to answer the freeform questions. The guide can be found on the download below. The full survey can be found here.

Shapley Heath Survey with Suggested Responses

Download Now!663 Downloads

Hart Council’s environmental and climate change commitments

In April 2021, Hart Council joined many other public bodies in declaring a Climate Emergency. They unanimously agreed (our emphasis):

“Following the successful adoption of Hart’s Climate Change Action Plan, this Council now wishes to declare a climate emergency, which commits us to putting the reduction of CO2 in the atmosphere at the front and centre of all policies and formal decision making, particularly Planning.

They even proclaimed that climate change is their top priority on the front page of the latest edition of Hart News.

Hart News Climate Change Top Priority June 2021

However, on the same page they talk about the new Shapley Heath survey, cunningly avoiding any discussion about the environmental impact.

Excess House Building Leads to Excess CO2 Emissions

The Local Plan was agreed at a build rate of 423 dwellings per annum (dpa). However, the latest Government target is 286dpa. The 286 represents Hart’s share of the Government’s overall 300,000 dpa target. According to ONS figures, this national target is far in excess of what is required to meet demographic changes.

Hart refuse to conduct an early review of the Local Plan to take advantage of this reduction. Moreover, their original bid for Shapley Heath funding committed to deliver the new town in addition to the Local Plan requirements.

Shapley Heath in addition to Local Plan

So, Hart are proposing to continue building at a rate far higher than the Government target, which in itself is far more than required and to deliver Shapley Heath on top. We can pretty safely say that any houses delivered by Shapley Heath will be far in excess of requirements. So any CO2 emissions arising from construction will also be entirely unnecessary.

We calculated that a new town of 10,000 houses would emit around 1m tonnes of CO2. A new town of 5,000 would be half that amount.

The Green Case Against Shapley Heath: Up to 1m tonnes of CO2

We find it difficult to understand how building more houses than we need and emitting more CO2 than we need to is consistent with putting the reduction of CO2 in the atmosphere at the front and centre of all policies.

Green Case Against Shapley Heath: Biodiversity Impact

There’s plenty of academic evidence that urbanisation causes irreparable damage to biodiversity and habitat loss.

For example here,

The Green Case Against Shapley Heath: Urbanisation Habitat Loss and Biodiversity Decline

and here:

The Green Case Against Shapley Heath: Impacts of Urbanisation on Biodiversity

The issues include replacement of species, habitat loss and biodiversity decline. The Shapley Heath survey emphasises the importance of green spaces, wildlife habitat and woodland. Yet, they somehow fail to mention that the Viability Study accompanying their bid for Government funding proposed concreting over 505 acres of the 1,047 acres of land under consideration.

Shapley Heath Development Acreage

The damage to the local eco-systems will be incalculable. And all for a development that isn’t required and is in addition to the Local Plan requirement.

The Renewable Energy Trap

The new Shapley Heath survey does ask for opinion about renewable energy. Initially, this sounds quite green and cuddly. Until you look at what they meant by renewable energy in prior studies into the Winchfield new town. The Sustainability Appraisal (p74) said:

It is fair to assume that a scheme of this scale (c.3,000 homes) [Ed: How times have changed, now 5-10,000] could enable combined heat and power generation (potentially even fuelled by biomass, which might even be locally sourced).

What they mean by biomass is explained in the North Hampshire Renewable Energy Opportunities Plan.

North Hampshire Biomass from Forest Management

What they mean is chopping down trees in Bramshill Forest to fuel a wood-burning power plant. Burning wood produces more CO2 per unit of electricity produced than coal. And if Drax is anything to go by, more than twice the amount of noxious particulates.

In summary, they are considering building a wood-fired power station, using locally sourced timber that will produce more CO2 and more particulates than burning coal. This will destroy our local forest in addition to concreting over 505 acres of land, all in the name of environmentalism.

Green Case Against Shapley Heath: Regeneration is the Solution

There is a simple alternative to Shapley Heath. It’s Urban Regeneration. The benefits of this approach would be:

Control the build rate to match the actual requirement
Reduce delivery risk by having a range of projects instead of relying on just one big development
Protect our green fields and ancient woodland to maintain habitats and biodiversity
Keep vital green infrastructure to enhance our quality of life, wellbeing and mental health
Maintain our agricultural capacity to produce food
Produce less CO2 per capita

There’s plenty of evidence that shows that gentle densification produces communities that are more sustainable from a CO2 emissions point of view.

CO2 emission per capita vs Population density

CO2 emissions per capita vs Population density

The reason for this is that more people can walk to work, walk to the station and walk to leisure facilities. They need fewer cars and do fewer journeys. And slightly denser building means that occupants need less heating.

So, if we want to save the planet, urban regeneration is the answer. Cancel Shapley Heath.

Shapley Heath survey launched by Hart Council

Posted on June 5, 2021June 5, 2021

Hart Council launch Shapley Heath Garden Community Survey

Hart Council launch Shapley Heath survey

We are sure readers will be as delighted as we are that Hart have launched another survey about the proposed Shapley Heath Garden Village. The survey is exploring the potential to build a new garden community in the Winchfield and Murrell Green area, with the working title Shapley Heath. The survey runs from 26 May through to 5 July and is supported by a new project website – hartgarden.community.

Readers may remember that Policy SS3, the policy that paved the way for a new town in the Winchfield/Murrell Green area was thrown out of the Local Plan by the Inspector. Yet, Hart Council have resurrected the plans, outside of the Local Plan process. They applied for funding support from Government and received a £150K grant in 2019. That bid was clearly for a new town of up to 10,000 houses.

Shapley Heath: Vision Document 10000 houses

The main bid document clearly stated that this development would be in addition to the requirements of the Local Plan.

Shapley Heath in addition to Local Plan

However, the Council is now insisting that they are testing a new community of “only” up to 5,000 houses.

They have couched the survey in terms of “exploring the opportunity”, so there aren’t many options to express the view that you do not want this development to go ahead. However, there are some freeform questions that allow you to express your actual opinion.

The survey is around 24 questions, so please allocate 20-30 minutes for your response. We have produced a handy guide with suggestions as to how you might choose to answer the freeform questions. It can be found on the link below. The full survey can be found here.

Shapley Heath Survey with Suggested Responses

Download Now!663 Downloads

Hart back in bed with developers of Shapley Heath

Posted on March 27, 2021August 16, 2023

Hart Council has entered into a new agreement with the proposed developers of Shapley Heath Garden Village. They have signed a collaboration agreement with L&Q Estates (Gallaghers) and Lightwood Land. The full document can be found as Appendix 1 to one of the papers considered by Shapley Heath Opportunity Board, here.

The Council has effectively handed control of the project to the developers. Hart has committed to maintaining the agreement until the Shapley Heath prospectus and master plan are “adopted” by the Council. The project has already slipped from the timeline in the agreement. In addition, the developers are already reneging on the commitments they made only last month. Not only that, public consultation on their plans is going to be kept to the bare minimum.

Shapley Heath Collaboration Agreement between Hart Council, L&Q Estates (Gallaghers) and Lightwood Land

Hart back in Bed with Developers: Shapley Heath Garden Village Agreement

The scope of the agreement is quite large. It covers the funding of a whole range of baseline studies and strategic reports over 14 areas. These are shown below:

Developer Funding of Shapley Heath Studies

Developer Funding of Shapley Heath Garden Community Studies

The cost of these baseline studies will undoubtedly far exceed the £25K that Hart Council has set aside for external consultants next year. So, progress will be reliant on funding from the developers. Hart Council have effectively handed control of the project to the developers.

The agreement will remain in place until the prospectus and master plan have been finalised and adopted by the Council.

Hart Back in Bed with Developers: Collaboration in force until Shapley Heath Garden Village Prospectus Adopted by Hart Council

There is a 21-day break clause for the Council. However, it looks like the Council are committing to adopt the Garden Village when they review the Local Plan. You may recall that the Inspector threw out the new town from the Local Plan. This was because of “fundamental concerns with regard to the soundness of Policy SS3″. In addition he said that:

a significant level of further supporting work would be required for Policy SS3 to be found sound in its current form, which would need to include appropriate and proportionate area/site assessments, infrastructure considerations, viability testing, evidence in support of deliverability and further SA work, which would need to be done in an impartial manner with sufficient evidence to support its findings and comparisons with alternative options.

None of this comparison work is being carried out, so they are destined to fail again.

Shapley Heath Project Slipping

In February, the agreement with the developers envisaged that Phase 1 would be complete in December 2021. Phase 2 would be complete in February 2023.

Shapley Heath Collaboration Agreement Timeline

But now in March, the completion of Phase 1 has slipped to February 2022. Phase 2 has slipped four months to June 2023.

Shapley Heath Garden Village Opportunity Board Timeline

Shapley Heath Garden Community Opportunity Board Timeline

It looks like more of our money is going to be wasted for even longer than before.

Developers Reneging on Commitments

As can be seen in the image above, the developers are committed to funding 14 different areas of study. Hart is spending 90% of its budget on internal resources and overheads. So, the developers are expected to spend most of the money. Among these studies were a topographical survey and a water cycle/management report. According to the update presented at the Opportunity Board, the developers are trying to wriggle out of the topographical study altogether and are reviewing the scope of the water cycle report.

Developers reneging on commitments already

Hart Back in Bed with Developers: Limited Public Consultation

As part of the project, a survey of residents will take place in May, after the elections. However, the draft minutes of the Opportunity Board say that this survey will be “the main opportunity for residents across Hart to have their say on the project”. So, very little opportunity for further input. This comes on top of local community groups being side-lined in the Stakeholder Forum.

Putting all this together, it looks like there’s only going to be this high-level survey of residents. The Council will beaver away with the developers to produce a prospectus and masterplan. This will be adopted without any further significant involvement from the public.

Hart Council’s Mad Budget (Pt. 2 – Shapley Heath Edition)

Posted on March 3, 2021August 16, 2023

Yesterday’s post covered the overall madness of budgeting for a deficit, and claiming the budget is balanced. Today’s post will focus on the answers to the questions we posed about Shapley Heath.

If you want to stop this madness:

Please sign and share the petition you can access from the button below.

Stop Shapley Heath to Balance the Budget

Hart Council’s Mad Budget: Shapley Heath Costs Unknown

Our first question asked about the proportion of internal staff and external consultants that will be used to deliver the myriad of studies that they have planned for the Shapley Heath project. The second asked about the anticipated level of spend on external consultants to deliver all of the required studies.

The short answer to both is that is they don’t have a clue. Or if they do, they aren’t telling us. They also don’t know what level of support they might get from the developers. They have been going for nearly two years and applied for two rounds of funding. It’s astonishing that they don’t know how much it’s going to cost or where the resources to deliver it are going to come from.

Grant Funding Update

Our third question asked for an update on the status of the application for additional grant funding from the Government.

The answer was quite longwinded, but we eventually got to the point. They are hoping for the Government to tell them in March.

Hart Council’s Mad Budget: Bloated Cost Structure sets them up to fail

We then asked them to justify the very top heavy budget with £128K internal staff costs and £122K of overhead supervising a spend of £25K on external consultants.

The most interesting part of the answer was that the overheads are essentially fixed. Therefore, if Shapley Heath were cancelled, most of the overhead costs would be incurred anyway. They could answer why they thought it was a good idea to spend £250K of internal resources supervise £25K of external spend.

We then asked them to justify this level of spend when they are budgeting for a deficit.

The answer was extraordinary. They seem to treat the budget like some sort of elaborate shell game. Apparently, because they budgeted £500K for this project last year, spending on it this year somehow doesn’t count towards the deficit. You might just hear us laughing in the background as this answer was given. They’re like the Millwall of political parties; they can’t add up and they don’t care.

We made the point that as they don’t know what support they are getting from the Government or the developers; they have no idea how much the project is going to cost and only £25K to spend on productive deliverables, they are set up to fail.

Hart’s Mad Mad Mad Mad Budget (Pt. 1)

Posted on March 2, 2021August 16, 2023

Last Thursday, Hart Council passed the budget. We have two reports on the proceedings. This is Part 1 that focuses on the absurd claims made during the debate. Part 2, tomorrow, will look at the answers to our questions about Shapley Heath.

It’s sad that we first have to set out some basic definitions:

If Revenue exceeds Expenditure, there’s a surplus
When Revenue is equal to Expenditure, the budget is balanced
If Expenditure is more than Revenue, there’s a deficit.

When there’s a deficit, money maybe transferred from reserves to finance the deficit, but there’s still a deficit. If there’s a surplus, money maybe transferred to reserves to fund, for example, investment in social housing. We think these definitions are universally accepted by everyone, except Hart Cabinet.

Hart Council Officers say there’s a deficit

Now we have got everyone on the same page, it is important to show what the budget papers considered by Cabinet in January said:

Hart Council budget deficits 2021/22 and 2022/23

A combination of reduced income and cost pressures have left the Council with an anticipated budget deficit for 2021/22 of £381K and in 2022/23 a further deficit of £1,081K. The deficit is both structural and significant…

So, it seems the Council Officers agree with our definition of a deficit and are concerned that it is both structural and significant. These are their own words, not ours. This is why we are very concerned about what the Council just passed.

Hart Cabinet Members claim the budget is balanced

But it seems some very senior members of the Cabinet are completely deluded. Three of them claimed during the debate that the budget was balanced. See this short video of their words.

In it you can hear the following:

James Radley (Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance): “…today I am presenting to this Council a balanced budget”
Stuart Bailey (Community): “It is a balanced budget”
David Neighbour (Council Leader): “….it’s balanced and it’s not a deficit”

If this is the extent of their financial acumen, they need to consider whether they are fit to hold such positions of power. According to their definition, there wouldn’t be a deficit unless they spent all of the reserves.

Response to Criticism

The Leader criticised We Heart Hart for pointing out that spending on Homelessness and Grants is budgeted to fall next year.

Budget reductions Grants and Homelessness

These spending reductions are clearly identifiable in the budget pack as can be seen in the image above. After their explanation, we acknowledge that these budget items represent money from the Government and are spent by Hart Council.

However, we would also note that if they chose not to spend on Shapley Heath and other areas such as the Leadership budget, they could choose not to cut these areas. They might even be able to properly balance the budget too.

Social Media Justification for Hart’s Mad Budget

After the meeting, the CCH councillors were active on social media, again claiming the budget was balanced:

CCH Balanced Budget Claim

The Lib Dem councillors couldn’t quite agree with their leaders and acknowledged they were transferring money from reserves.

Hart's Mad Budget: Lib Dems Using Reserves

Lib Dems Acknowledge Use of Reserves

However, their claim of using a “small proportion” of reserves is somewhat dubious. The forecast is for £500-600K to be used from reserves this year. We agree that it was appropriate to utilise reserves this year to help the Covid response. In addition, there’s the budgeted £381K deficit next year and a forecast of £1,018K the year after. That’s a total of nearly a third of reserves over three years. There’s no plan for corrective action. Indeed they made a virtue of sitting on their hands and doing nothing.

Hopefully, the difference in tone on social media reflects tension inside the coalition.

If you want to stop this madness:

Please sign and share the petition you can access from the button below.

Stop Shapley Heath to Balance the Budget

Hart Budget Letter to Councillors

Posted on February 25, 2021February 25, 2021

Hart Budget Letter to Councillors: Balance the Budget

Please find below the text of a letter sent to all councillors this morning. The letter points our various flaws in the budget and urges them to reject the proposed budget and ask for a balanced budget instead.

If you want to stop this budget shenanigans:

Please sign and share the petition you can access from the button below.

Stop Shapley Heath to Balance the Budget

You may wish to write to your own ward councillors. Their email addresses can be found from this link. The budget discussion will be livestreamed on YouTube at 7pm tonight from this link.

Hart Budget Letter to Councillors

You Must Not Knowingly Budget for a Deficit

Dear Councillor,

Tonight, you are being asked to sign off on a budget with a deficit. Not only that, the Council is forecasting an even bigger deficit the following year. They even admit there is a structural problem with the finances.

Hart Council budget deficits 2021/22 and 2022/23

The budget paper section 15.5 says that you “are under an obligation to produce a balanced budget and must not knowingly budget for a deficit”. This is reason enough to vote against it.

However, buried in the detail of the budget papers one can see that the budget for Homelessness is being cut from ~£166K this year, to £65K next, a cut of over £100K. Moreover, the Grants to voluntary organisations are being cut from £1,234K in FY19/20 to £628K next year. By contrast, the cost of the “Leadership” team is soaring.

In addition, the Council is proposing to spend £279K on the unnecessary Shapley Heath project. Of this, over £250K is internal resources supervising a spend of £25K on external consultants. Even if you think some spending on Shapley Heath is warranted, such a bloated cost structure is completely indefensible.

The timing of the release of this budget, conveniently the day after it could have been examined by Overview and Scrutiny, piqued my curiosity about what secrets might be buried in the detail. I have found two anomalies which the Council has refused to answer before tonight’s meeting, so I urge you to seek proper answers from the Officers.

The first relates to the mysterious disappearance of employment costs from open-space related service areas.

Mysterious disappearance of employment costs

These service areas also have substantial capital budgets associated with them. My suspicion is that either the Rangers are going to be made redundant (unlikely) or their employment costs are now going to be capitalised. In the past, as the budget clearly shows, they were expensed to the revenue account. You might ask officers to explain this to you. The Government certainly frowns upon such “creative” accounting.

“Capitalisation runs counter to the principles of prudent financial management. It can never permanently solve financial difficulties, but simply postpones the need to deal with them.”

You may recall that inappropriate capitalisation of expenses is what led to the downfall of Worldcom. If I am right, you might well ask why this change has been obscured and why you have not been asked to approve such a change to policy.

The second anomaly is that some elements of the budget do not add up.

For many of the GL Codes, the total in the summary page matches the sum of the detailed build-up of the costs in the service areas (e.g. 45010 – Purchase of Hardware). However, for other GL Codes (notably 10000 – Basic Salary and 44069 – Homelessness Costs), the summary total and the sum of the details do not match. For Basic Salary, the summary total is £4,591,233, yet the sum of the details is only £4,299,929, a difference of ~£291K. Similarly, the summary total of Homelessness is £65K, but the sum of the details is £0, a difference of the whole £65K. You might like to get to the bottom of this and ask that all of the GL Codes are checked for consistency.

It is controversial enough that councillors are being asked to sign off on a budget with a structural deficit. It would be completely untenable to sign off on a budget that did not even meet the most fundamental of acceptance criteria, namely that it was internally consistent and added up.

You might also note that, at the time of writing, over 850 people have signed a petition with the following demands:

The budget should not be approved until the following conditions are met:

- The overall budget is balanced and doesn’t require £381K from reserves.
- Spending on unnecessary projects is stopped immediately, including Shapley Heath, which will save at least £279K of the projected deficit.
- The budget for the “Leadership Team” is cut so that together with other savings, the budget at least balances.
- Further savings are identified in other non-core areas so that the planned cuts to the Homelessness (GL Code: 44069) and Grants (GL Code: 47010) budgets can at least in part be mitigated.
- A cross-party committee is established to examine the long-term structural financial deficit and recommend long term solutions. This should be established prior to the start of the new financial year and report by 30 June 2021.

I urge you to reject this budget and request that a balanced budget be produced that properly adds up. Either that or seek some independent advice on the sanctions that can be placed on councillors who knowingly approve a budget with a widening structural deficit with no recovery plan. This letter will be published on the We Heart Hart website.

Shapley Heath Burning Money as Vital Services Cut

Posted on February 20, 2021August 16, 2023

Next week the Council will debate the budget for the next financial year. The draft budget for FY2021-22 has been published. It shows that they plan to burn £279K on the Shapley Heath project. Yet at the same time, they are cutting budgets for vital services:

The budget for Homelessness will be cut by over £100K compared to the current year
They are proposing to cut £600K from the grants given to voluntary organisations compared to pre-Covid spending. In prior years, these grants have typically gone to The Blue Lamp Trust and the YOU Trust that focus on Domestic Abuse, as well as Hart Voluntary Action.
The budget for Fleet Pond will be cut from £53K this year to £21K next. This compares to a budget of over £130K in FY19/20.

Meanwhile, the cost of the Leadership team rises from £578K this year (and £720K last year) to £830K next. Overall, they are forecasting a budget deficit of £381K. Moreover, we can find no budget line to cover regeneration of Fleet or other urban centres. Not even the Civic Quarter regeneration is mentioned.

We need to put a stop to this madness at the ballot box.

Please sign and share the petition you can access from the button below.

Stop Shapley Heath to Balance the Budget

The detail is explained below, but you might be interested in this little 1 minute video.

Shapley Heath Burning Money 2021-22 Budget

The budget for Shapley Heath is buried on page 134 of the budget pack on the link above. It shows a total budget of £279,167.

Shapley Heath Burning Money: Budget 2021-22

This shows they plan to spend £128K on internal staff costs and a staggering £122K on internal recharges. These recharges include nearly £30K on IT, almost £26K on “Financial Services Recharges” and the best part of £24K on “Corporate Admin Support” charges. A further £18K will be spent on “Building Facilities”.

The Stakeholder Forum papers call for a myriad of studies and reports to be completed by October 2021. For instance, the Homes and Heritage Thematic Group needs to produce reports on Housing Type and Tenure, Urban Design, Heritage and Landscape/Gaps. The Sustainable Transport group has to commission reports on “Modal Shift” and “Transport Nodes”. However, less than 10% of the budget will be spent on external help to produce all of the reports and studies that will be required. When preparing the Local Plan, most of these types of reports were commissioned externally, as the Council can’t employ all of the specialist skills required. So, they are spending a massive £250K on internal resources to manage an external spend of £25K.

We have no idea how they managed to get consultants to pay them £68K this year, as they have already spent over £27K on PR.

Interestingly, they are assuming that they will receive no further Government support grants for the project. Surely, without Government support the project is dead in the water, because it was struck out of the Local Plan as not required.

Cuts to Vital Services

Despite the largesse on Shapley Heath, they are proposing to cut over £100K from the Homelessness Budget compared to this year and over £600K from the Grants Budget compared to pre-Covid times.

Hart Cuts Budget for Homelessness and Grants for Volunteers

This year, and in previous years, the money has been granted to organisations such as The You Trust and the Blue Lamp Trust that focus on Domestic abuse. In addition, Hart Voluntary Action has been the recipient of significant grants. How can they justify cutting vital services whilst splurging cash on Shapley Heath.

In addition, revenue spending on the much-loved Fleet Pond is being cut. However, there is a significant capital programme planned, funded from S106 payments.

Fleet Pond Budget Reduction

This marks a long term decline in spending from over £169K in 2018/19 to just £21K in 2021/22.

Massive Increase in Leadership Team Costs

Against this backdrop, it’s surprising to see the cost of the Leadership Team rocketing. They are proposing to increase the budget from £578K this year to over £830K next. It might be argued that some of lower costs this year might be down to Covid. However, the budget has still increased by more than £100K over the level in 2019/20.

Hart Leadership Team Increased Spending

What great leadership. Spending more on yourselves, lots more on a project we don’t need while cutting vital services. We must put an end to this madness at the ballot box.

https://www.etsy.com/uk/shop/WaterMelonSummer

https://www.etsy.com/uk/listing/963548054/organic-cotton-english-lavender-bags-in

https://www.etsy.com/uk/listing/970510651/handmade-english-lavender-bags-in-a

https://www.etsy.com/uk/listing/974442683/organic-cotton-bunting-in-pretty-floral