Community Campaign Hart set our their position on Pyestock and Winchfield New Town

Community Campaign Hart (CCH) logo

Community Campaign Hart (CCH) have responded to our request for clarification on their current position on the Winchfield New Town and the redevelopment of Pyestock for housing as part of the Hart Local Plan, an important issue for the Hart Local Elections 2016.  Their answers to our questions and our response is shown below:

Do you support the new town proposed at Winchfield?

Even with the emerging opportunity at Pyestock there will be a need for many more houses to be built both in this plan period and realistically also in the future. A new town option gives the opportunity for a community to be built with sufficient road capacity and local school places such that the development can be sustainable. Forever extending existing communities does not lead to sustainable development.

Our response:

The Pyestock (Hartland Park) development has the capacity to deliver around 1,500 homes.  The density proposed is only around 28dph.  The capacity could be increased by moving to higher density.  Even without that, we have calculated that there is capacity for around 4,000 homes on brownfield sites, whereas we only need to grant permission for a further 2,500 homes up to the end of the plan period.  Nobody has set out any figures to demonstrate that the infrastructure requirements of a new town can be funded, indeed it looks as though the costs will be over £300m and the developer contributions only around £50m. Winchfield Parish Council’s submission to the recent consultation has demonstrated that:

  1. There is a lack of evidence to justify the need for a new settlement
  2. Winchfield is not a suitable location for a new settlement
  3. A new settlement is not a viable approach
  4. There should be more of a focus on alternatives such as brownfield development and dispersal

Do you support the recently announced redevelopment of Pyestock for housing?

We welcome any opportunity to redevelop this derelict site (Pyestock) and believe that housing would have less impact than lorries running through the night. However, as with all major developments, Hart must ensure that the development will provide the necessary school places (especially at a secondary level), delivers any necessary traffic mitigation and that there is no adverse impact on local SSSIs and SPA. At 1,000 to 1,500 new homes, Pyestock does not unfortunately negate the need for a new town.

Our response:

Of course we agree that the required number of school places should be provided, but that also Hampshire County COuncil needs to do a proper long range plan to set out the real need for school places over the rest of the plan period.  We also support traffic mitigation measures and the need to ensure there is no adverse impact on the local SSSI’s and SPA.  However, we do think that this new development at Pyestock negates the need for a new town, and we do not accept that a new town is necessary, viable or deliverable.

So, we have some agreement with CCH on Pyestock, but not on the Winchfield new town. We have updated their position on our summary page, here.

 

 

Local Labour Party set out their position on Pyestock

North East Hampshire Labour Party set out their position on Pyestock

The North East Hampshire Labour Party have responded to our request for them to set out their position on developing a new sustainable village at the Pyestock (aka Hartland Park) site. This is an important issue for the Hart Local Elections 2016.

Their response can be found here. They say they support the redevelopment of Pyestock, but still support the idea of a new town at Winchfield.

There are a number of points in their post that We Heart Hart disagrees with and a number of inaccuracies that are addressed below:

Not building enough to meet housing targets

First, it is true that taken as a whole, the country is not building enough to meet its overall housing targets. However, not all of the blame can be pinned on Local Authorities or Government. A recent report form the Communities and Local Government select committee, chaired by Labour MP Clive Betts has said:

The real problem isn’t local authorities failing to give planning permission but developers getting planning permission and then, possibly as a way to maximise profits, taking a long to time to fully develop sites. We are calling on the government to review these proposals, and to identify the powers local authorities need in order to require or encourage developers to build out sites in their areas.

We support the development of brownfield sites for housing where it contributes to meeting local housing needs.

This chimes with our research and that of Alan Wenban-Smith. There is also evidence that housing targets across our area are over-stating the real need, being on average 41.9% higher than the official population projections would suggest.

Inaccurate assessment of the remaining housing need and infrastructure funding

Second, the local Labour party say:

Due to this national under-development, Central Government has given Hart a fairly high building target to reach by 2032 of around 7,500 homes. Somewhere in the region of 3,500 homes have had [sic] been granted planning permission, some of which being on brownfield sites. These developments are simply extensions to our existing towns and villages, but crucially don’t come with any money to pay for improvement to our infrastructure, be it our schools or surgeries.

We agree the target is 7,534 new homes are said to be our ‘need’ in the planning period up to 2032. But, they are inaccurate in their inference that 4,000 homes are yet to be granted planning permission for Hart’s Local Plan. Hart Council’s own figures in the recent consultation stated that only 2,500 still needed to be permitted (see here, para 21). Their claim about infrastructure funding is also untrue in that all developments (with the narrow exception of office conversions) attract S106 or CIL payments.

Due to their insistence that 4,000 more homes need to be granted permission, they say it is inevitable we have to build more housing in the countryside. However, as we have shown above, their claim is inaccurate, but even if it were true, our analysis has shown that there is capacity for around 4,000 homes on brownfield sites. It seems rather perverse to on the one hand support brownfield development, but at the same time be in favour of more green field development.

We have done our own analysis to show that the infrastructure costs of a new town will far exceed developer contributions and Winchfield Parish Council commissioned a report from professional planners, John Boyd Associates, into the new town idea and they concluded that:

  1. There is a lack of evidence to justify the need for a new settlement
  2. Winchfield is not a suitable location for a new settlement
  3. A new settlement is not a viable approach
  4. There should be more of a focus on alternatives such as brownfield development and dispersal

All in all it appears as though the local Labour Party has come to the wrong conclusions based on some dodgy data and inaccurate assumptions.  So, We Heart Hart does not support their position. A summary of all of the local candidates’ positions on this can be found here.

 

Local Elections 2016: Where do Hart candidates stand on new town and Pyestock redevelopment?

We Love Hart Ballot Box

The Local elections will be held on Thursday 5th May, and we thought it would be a good idea to compile a database of local candidates and ask where they stand on two key planning issues facing the district:

  1. Do they still support a new town at Winchfield and,
  2. Do they support the redevelopment of Pyestock (aka Hartland Park) as housing

Community Campaign Hart have launched their election page and have now answered our questions making clear they support the development of Pyestock, but want to ensure safeguards on school places and roads as well as ensuring the SSSI’s and SPA are protected.  However, they still also support a new town in Winchfield.  Their detailed answers and our responses can be found here.

The North East Hampshire Conservatives have always been split on the issue, with many councillors voting in favour of the new town in November 2014, but notably all of the opposition to the new town came from local Conservatives. Of course, our local MP Ranil Jayawardena has opposed the new town idea too. We have had responses from many of the Tory candidates now and it is clear support for the Winchfield new town is weakening, with strong support for the proposed Pyestock development. The detailed answers we have received can be be found here.

The local Greens have now said that all of their candidates oppose the Winchfield New Town and support the redevelopment of Pyestock (aka Hartland Park).  They have also set out some interesting ideas on broader housing policy. The detailed answers we have received can be found here.

North East Hampshire Labour have recently published an article in favour of the new town at Winchfield, stating it is the settled position of all of their candidates. They have also published an article supporting redeveloping Pyestock for housing, but make clear they also support a new town at Winchfield. Our response to that can be found here.

All of the sitting Liberal Democrats on Hart Council all voted in favour of the new town in November 2014.  The Lib Dem County Councillor (David Simpson) opposes the new town, and some local candidates stood on a platform opposing the new town in May 2015. The local Lib Dems have published a newsletter in Hartley Wintney and Eversley opposing the new town idea. They later published a leaflet supporting the redevelopment of Pyestock. We do not yet know if this represents the views of Lib Dems across the district. The posts related to their leaflets are here and here.

We only know the position of the local UKIP candidate for Hook. He opposes the Winchfield new town and supports a brownfield first policy, but has made no definitive statement about Pyestock. However, UKIP have made a statement on their website, supporting a brownfield first strategy, which is recorded in this post.

We have contacted all of the local parties and asked them to clarify their views on the new town and Pyestock.  We will update the table below when we receive answers from the parties or individual candidates.  If any of the candidates want to get in touch to clarify their current position, we will happily make any corrections requested. Our contact email address can be found here.

WardNamePartyPosition on Winchfield new townPosition on Pyestock
Blackwater and HawleyBLEWETT, Brian Frederick Liberal Democrat Voted in favour Nov 2014?
Blackwater and HawleyCULLEN, Amy LouiseThe Labour Party Candidate All Labour candidates in favour of new townSome support Pyestock, but prefer Winchfield
Blackwater and HawleyDICKENS, Jane ElizabethThe Conservative Party Candidate Keeping her views to herselfKeeping her views to herself
Blackwater and HawleyFRANCIS, Steven JohnGreen Party OpposeSupport
Blackwater and HawleyGASCOIGNE, MikeUK Independence Party (UKIP) ?Brownfield sites as a priority, but no definitive position on Pyestock
Crookham EastBUTLER, Helen Rosalind The Conservative Party Candidate Not the right way forwardSupports redevelopment for housing
Crookham EastRADLEY, Edward JamesCommunity Campaign (Hart) Still support new townSupport, but want safeguards on school places, traffic and environment
Crookham EastWILLIAMS, Ruth AnnThe Labour Party Candidate All Labour candidates in favour of new townSome support Pyestock, but prefer Winchfield
Crookham West and EwshotAMBLER, Simon RoryCommunity Campaign (Hart) Still support new townSupport, but want safeguards on school places, traffic and environment
Crookham West and EwshotMOORS, DawnUK Independence Party (UKIP) ?Brownfield sites as a priority, but no definitive position on Pyestock
Crookham West and EwshotSIMMONS, ChrisThe Conservative Party Candidate Does not supportDoes not support
Crookham West and EwshotSMYTH, MoiraThe Labour Party Candidate All Labour candidates in favour of new townSome support Pyestock, but prefer Winchfield
Crookham West and EwshotSPRADBERY, Charles JohnGreen Party OpposeSupport
Fleet CentralBOBETSKY, MaxThe Conservative Party Candidate Opposed when stood for General Election 2015?
Fleet CentralGAWTHORPE, John GrantThe Labour Party Candidate All Labour candidates in favour of new townSome support Pyestock, but prefer Winchfield
Fleet CentralHOPE, Howling LaudThe Official Monster Raving Loony Party ??
Fleet CentralMAKEPEACE-BROWNE, Wendy LouiseCommunity Campaign (Hart) Still support new townSupport, but want safeguards on school places, traffic and environment
Fleet CentralOWENS, Major DavidUK Independence Party (UKIP) ?Brownfield sites as a priority, but no definitive position on Pyestock
Fleet EastBUTLER, SamThe Labour Party Candidate All Labour candidates in favour of new townSome support Pyestock, but prefer Winchfield
Fleet EastDEVONSHIRE, Peter WilliamUK Independence Party (UKIP) ?Brownfield sites as a priority, but no definitive position on Pyestock
Fleet EastWALTON, Neil ChristopherLiberal Democrat ??
Fleet EastWRIGHT, Jonathan BruceThe Conservative Party Candidate YesYes
Fleet WestBENNISON, JohnCommunity Campaign (Hart) Still support new townSupport, but want safeguards on school places, traffic and environment
Fleet WestBUCKLAND, Lesley RuthThe Labour Party Candidate All Labour candidates in favour of new townSome support Pyestock, but prefer Winchfield
Fleet WestEINCHCOMB, Paul Stephen WalterLiberal Democrat ??
Fleet WestFORSTER, SteveThe Conservative Party Candidate Voted in favour Nov 2014. Still supports if not enough brownfield available, but only if it comes with proper infrastructureSupports redevelopment for housing, provided it comes with improvements to roads, busses and new schools
Fleet WestRUTTER, KarinUK Independence Party (UKIP) ?Brownfield sites as a priority, but no definitive position on Pyestock
Hartley WintneyCRAMPTON, AnneThe Conservative Party Candidate Voted against Nov 2014In favour
Hartley WintneyHAMILTON, Ruth StellaUK Independence Party (UKIP) ?Brownfield sites as a priority, but no definitive position on Pyestock
Hartley WintneyJARMAN, Ruth ElizabethGreen Party OpposeSupport
Hartley WintneyWILLIAMS, Ieuan MonThe Labour Party Candidate All Labour candidates in favour of new townSome support Pyestock, but prefer Winchfield
Hartley WintneyWOOLFORD, Alan MauriceLiberal Democrat Opposed to new townIn favour
HookIVE, ColinLiberal Democrat Voted in favour Nov 2014. No specific comment in this election.?
HookMORRIS, MikeThe Conservative Party Candidate Voted in favour Nov 2014. Still in favourSupports
HookNABBS, VerdThe Labour Party Candidate All Labour candidates in favour of new townSome support Pyestock, but prefer Winchfield
HookREES, DaiUK Independence Party (UKIP) No new town in WinchfieldBrownfield sites as a priority, but no definitive position on Pyestock
OdihamAFFLECK-CRUISE, Amanda JaneThe Labour Party Candidate All Labour candidates in favour of new townSome support Pyestock, but prefer Winchfield
OdihamGORDON, Rosalyn JaneLiberal Democrat ??
OdihamKENNETT, John RichardThe Conservative Party Candidate Voted in favour Nov 2014. Now not convinced it is necessaryRedevelopment of Pyestock is very welcome
OdihamOLIVER, KevinUK Independence Party (UKIP) ?Brownfield sites as a priority, but no definitive position on Pyestock
Yateley EastBURTON, John Peter SimonThe Conservative Party Candidate ??
Yateley EastCOCKARILL, GrahamLiberal Democrat Voted in favour Nov 2014?
Yateley EastGANTLEY, FrankGreen Party OpposeSupport
Yateley EastSTILL, Joyce EdnaThe Labour Party Candidate All Labour candidates in favour of new townSome support Pyestock, but prefer Winchfield
Yateley WestCRISP, GerryLiberal Democrat Voted in favour Nov 2014?
Yateley WestHALL, PeterThe Conservative Party Candidate ??
Yateley WestHOWE, John WilliamUK Independence Party (UKIP) ?Brownfield sites as a priority, but no definitive position on Pyestock
Yateley WestSUTHERLAND, Alistair WilliamThe Labour Party Candidate All Labour candidates in favour of new townSome support Pyestock, but prefer Winchfield

Hook Herald covers Pyestock and brownfield study stories

Hook Herald 8 April 2016 Housing Reprieve

Hook Herald has covered the Pyestock (aka Hartland Park) redevelopment story, that we covered here and Fleet News and Mail covered yesterday.  They also quote We Heart Hart as signalling that this new development effectively kills off the plan for a new town at Winchfield.

It is also encouraging to see that Hook Herald have covered the other significant story of Hart District Council (HDC) launching a new project to find out how to make the most of the brownfield sites in the district. We understand that HDC will now make a full announcement about this next week.

Full size image of the story here.

 

Fleet News covers Pyestock village story

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

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

Fleet News and Mail has covered the story that we broke last Thursday about St Edward (part of the Berkeley Group) entering into a joint venture agreement with M&G (part of Prudential) to redevelop the Pyestock site for housing.

We Heart Hart is quoted in the story, but they cast doubt on our estimate of 1,500 homes being built on the site. However, we stand by our numbers, because they are drawn from the statement made by council leader Stephen Parker at council last week, where he gave the estimate of 1,500 homes.

The site is 135 acres (according to Hart), which is equivalent to ~54 hectares.  1,500 homes would amount to a density of 27.8 dwellings per hectare (dph).  We would hope that density can be pushed up somewhat, especially to build more of the 1 and 2-bed homes that we need and that space can also be found for one or more schools should they be required.

Also covered in Get Hampshire April 7 2016: ‘Much-needed homes’ could be created on former Pyestock site for new sustainable village

Breaking News: Berkeley Homes enters into joint venture agreement to develop Pyestock

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

In a very exciting development, We Heart Hart understands that Hart Council announced tonight that St Edward (part of Berkeley Homes) has signed a joint venture agreement with M&G (part of the Prudential Group) today to redevelop Pyestock (aka Hartland Park) and build around 1,500 new homes on the site.

This is testament to the hard work from Daryl Phillips and the council team in trying to get the land released for housing.

We believe this effectively kills off the flawed plan for a new town at Winchfield and should also mean that we don’t need any urban extensions and can meet our housing needs on brownfield sites alone for decades to come. We now think that the brownfield capacity in the district is around 4,000 homes, well above our residual requirement of around 2,500.

This is exceptionally good news.

More to follow when we hear more…..

[Update 1]

The agreement commits to build subject to planning permission. We understand that contamination is a major concern. For commercial use, the cost of decontaminating the land was expected to be £8m. For residential use the cost is likely to be much more.

There is also a traffic limit imposed through the previous commercial permission which is a source of concern. There are also some worries that Rushmoor will seek to object to the development and some residents may also object because the traffic levels will be perceived to be higher.

However, if everyone works positively, and are realistic about viability, then this project should happen.

[Update 2]

We Heart Hart understands that the new development will require significant SANG, by our calculations around 28-30 Ha.

[Update 3]

Hart Council publishes press release regarding Hartland Park redevelopment.

Hart Council Press Release regarding Hartland Park (Pyestock)

[Update 4]

BBC news report here and Eagle Radio report here

Please respond to the Hart Local Plan consultation by 18 March 2016

Hurry up, time is running out to respond to the Hart Council consultation about the Local Plan.

The consultation has now closed

The deadline for submissions to Hart Council’s Local Plan consultation is tomorrow, Friday 18th March.  So, please do respond.

Here is a quick reminder of the key arguments to help you make up your mind on how to respond:

First, there is a brownfield solution to meet our remaining housing needs that will not require either a new town or new urban extensions. The proposed densities in the brownfield option are not at all demanding, with an average density on the SHLAA sites of around 25 dwellings per hectare.  The proposed densities on the vacant office blocks are no different to some developments that Hart has already permitted on Fleet Road, such as the new McCarthy and Stone development.  Our proposals do not include Pyestock (aka Hartland Park), which could deliver even more houses on brownfield sites into the future if Hart Council is successful in reallocating that site for housing.

Remember that Hart Council themselves said back in September that brownfield capacity was 1,800 units and now they have miraculously lost 75% of them.  Since then, more sites have been identified and Hart has started to work with Government to build a brownfield register.

Second, we need to take a strategic view of the future and recognise that continuing to concrete over green fields equivalent to 25 football pitches each year is not at all sustainable and our children and grandchildren would not thank us for doing that.

The advantages of a brownfield solution are:

  • It preserves the very countryside that makes Hart such a great place to live,
  • Produces a greener solution, making better use of existing infrastructure and more efficient housing,
  • Delivers more of the smaller, more affordable housing of the types that we need to meet the needs of our young people aspiring to gain a foothold on the housing ladder,
  • Delivers more specialist accommodation for the elderly in the right places for them as well as freeing up larger properties for growing families,
  • Delivers infrastructure funding to existing communities where there is currently a £78m funding deficit
  • Lower risk of delivery because it is spread across a large number of sites with multiple developers

Of course, the new town proposal that is in the consultation has been undergoing testing for over a year now, and has identified a number of significant barriers including education, transport and foul water drainage.  The evidence to date shows the new town is simply not viable because the costs of the infrastructure required for a new town are astronomical and would never be met by developer contributions. One of the main arguments used in favour of a settlement at Winchfield, the presence of a railway station, is undermined by the suggestion that the station would have to be relocated to support the new town. If Hart were to choose the new town option, it runs the risk of not passing inspection because infrastructure delivery could not be guaranteed.

Finally, whilst we hope that the new Strategic Housing Market Assessment, (SHMA) when it is eventually delivered in June will result in a lower housing target for Hart, Rushmoor and Surrey Heath. But until then, the threat of Hart having to build 3,000 for those districts is very real.  Support for a new town will create capacity to build these extra houses which will mean we will end up with the worst of all worlds, a new town, urban extensions and dispersal across the district.

So, we urge all residents of Hart to reject a new town, reject urban extensions and get behind a brownfield solution and give Hart Council further encouragement to step up their efforts in this regard by responding to the consultation and putting support for a brownfield solution in the comments.

If you responded to the previous consultation and gave your email address, you should have been contacted by the council asking you whether you want to re-submit your response to the new consultation.  If you have received that e-mail, we recommend you re-submit your prior submission.  This can be done here.

If either you did not respond to the last consultation, want to modify your submission or you did not give your email address before, then you will need to submit a brand new response here. Please make sure all of your friends and family respond too.

We have created a dedicated consultation page and updated our 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

2 Minute version:

Respond to Local Plan Consultation in 2 minutes

Response to Face IT article in Fleet News and Mail

 

Vacant Block at Ancells Farm, Fleet, Hampshire

FACE IT have been quoted in this week’s Fleet News & Mail, claiming that the “urban extension option may sound like a ‘brownfield’ solution but would actually mean an extra 2,173 homes being built on green fields in Fleet and Hook”.

It does appear that all of the efforts they have put into their campaign around the Hart Council’s Housing Option Consultation has exhausted them to such an extent that they now misunderstand the difference between types of development because nobody is arguing that urban extensions are somehow brownfield development in disguise.

They make spurious claims about school places, after making up their own estimate of how many extra school places might be required without doing a proper population projection.  Note that Hampshire County Council have not put in place any plans beyond 2018, are forecasting a surplus of secondary school places at that time and a reduction in the birth rate as well as admitting that Hart schools are educating many children from outside the district.

They also make some claims about the scale of development that has occurred in Fleet, Church Crookham and Hook and about how many houses would end up being built around Fleet and Hook under each of the options Hart has put forward. It is not clear where they get their numbers from, because they don’t tally with the figures we put together.

However, nobody would dispute that Hook in particular has seen a big rise in housing in both absolute and relative terms. But what we find difficult to understand is why Hook’s Neighbourhood Planning team and Parish Council are advocating the new town option as their first choice which would deliver more than 1,800 houses in Hook Parish and effectively coalesce Hartley Wintney, Winchfield and Hook into a giant conurbation that might be named Hartley Winchook. This is more houses than the urban extension they oppose (730 houses), more than the dispersal option put forward by Hart Council (204 houses) and more than the brownfield solution put forward by We Heart Hart (only 57 new dwellings to be permitted).

FACE IT rightly say that the combination of Fleet, Church Crookham, Elvetham Heath and Ewshot (greater Fleet) has seen a lot of new housing in absolute terms over recent years. However, this is only part of the story as all parts of the district have seen significant development. When you look at the amount of new housing in proportion to size, the percentage increase for greater Fleet over the planning period of 2011-2031 is forecast to be around 17% for the dispersal and urban extension options and 14% with the new town option. This is below the average for the whole district at 21%, 18% and 18% respectively for each option and well below the percentage increases for places like Hartley Wintney which is forecast to see 34%, 39% and 21% increases for each of the options put forward by Hart.

The brownfield option that We Heart Hart has put forward has the potential to meet all of the remaining housing need and results in a more balanced distribution across the district in proportion to the size of existing settlements.  Our solution would result in a 23% increase for the greater Fleet area, 22% for Hartley Wintney and 27% for the smaller parishes that include Winchfield.

The proposed densities in the brownfield option are not at all demanding, with an average density on the SHLAA sites of around 25 dwellings per hectare.  The proposed densities on the vacant office blocks are no different to some developments that Hart has already permitted on Fleet Road, such as the new McCarthy and Stone development.  Our proposals do not include Pyestock (aka Hartland Park), which could deliver even more houses on brownfield sites into the future if Hart Council is successful in reallocating that site for housing.

We do agree with FACE IT, that we need to take a strategic view of the future, but we disagree on what that strategic vision might be.  In our view, continuing to concrete over green fields equivalent to 25 football pitches each year is not at all sustainable and our children and grandchildren would not thank us for doing that.

The advantages of a brownfield solution are:

  • It preserves the very countryside that makes Hart such a great place to live,
  • Produces a greener solution, making better use of existing infrastructure and more efficient housing,
  • Delivers more of the smaller, more affordable housing of the types that we need to meet the needs of our young people aspiring to gain a foothold on the housing ladder,
  • Delivers more specialist accommodation for the elderly in the right places for them as well as freeing up larger properties for growing families,
  • Delivers infrastructure funding to existing communities where there is currently a £78m funding deficit
  • Lower risk of delivery because it is spread across a large number of sites with multiple developers

Of course, the new town proposal that is in the consultation has been undergoing testing for over a year now, and has identified a number of significant barriers including education, transport and foul water drainage.  The costs of the infrastructure required for a new town are astronomical and would never be met by developer contributions. If Hart were to choose the new town option, it runs the risk of not passing inspection because infrastructure delivery could not be guaranteed.

We hope that the new Strategic Housing Market Assessment, (SHMA) when it is eventually delivered in June will result in a lower housing target for Hart, Rushmoor and Surrey Heath. But until then, the threat of Hart having to build 3,000 for those districts is very real.  Support for a new town will create capacity to build these extra houses which will mean we will end up with the worst of all worlds, a new town, urban extensions and dispersal across the district.

So, we urge all residents of Hart to reject a new town, reject urban extensions and get behind a brownfield solution and give Hart Council further encouragement to step up their efforts in this regard by responding to the consultation and putting support for a brownfield solution in the comments.

We have created a dedicated consultation page and updated our 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

2 Minute version:

Respond to Local Plan Consultation in 2 minutes

Hart Council joins pilot scheme to create national brownfield register

Brownfield site: vacant offices at Ancells Farm Business Park, Fleet, Hart District, Hampshire.

Brownfield site: vacant offices at Ancells Farm Business Park, Fleet, Hart District, Hampshire.

In a very positive move, it has been announced that Hart District Council has joined a Government pilot to create a national register of brownfield sites.  This means that Hart will be at the forefront of this initiative, which marks a significant improvement in the level of commitment towards brownfield development. Of course, this comes on the back of last week’s call for Pyestock (aka Hartland Park) to be released for housing.

Only last year, the leader of Hart Council ruled out the creation of a register of brownfield sites, so this move is very significant.

The other interesting development is that both deliverable and developable sites will be included in the new brownfield register.  This is a big difference to the consultation currently going on where only deliverable brownfield sites are included, even though most of the green field sites offered for consultation are not even developable:

To be regarded as suitable for housing our proposed criteria are that sites must be:

Available. This means that sites should be either deliverable or developable. Sites that are deliverable should be available and offer a suitable location for development now and be achievable with a realistic prospect that housing will be delivered on the site within five years and in particular that development of the site is viable. To be considered developable, sites are likely to come forward later on (e.g. between six and ten years). They should be in a suitable location for housing development and there should be a reasonable prospect the site will be available and that it could be viably developed at the point envisaged.

It is envisaged that the first draft of the register will be produced by the end of June 2016.

We welcome this development and will report back on any further developments.

More details of the proposals can be found in the pilot scheme manual here, and in the Government proposals for changes to the planning system, here.

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

Full version:

Responses to Local Plan Consultation

2 Minute version:

Respond to Local Plan Consultation in 2 minutes

Hart Council calls for Pyestock to be released for housing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Full version:

Responses to Local Plan Consultation

2 Minute version:

Respond to Local Plan Consultation in 2 minutes