Hart District and Rushmoor can meet their housing needs from brownfield sites for 50 years or more

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

Brownfield site: Hartland Park (Pyestock) near Fleet, Hart District, Hampshire

A new paper by young architecture graduate, Gareth Price shows that Hart District and Rushmoor Borough could build 49,000 homes on brownfield sites by shedding the old models of the past and adopting a more modern approach of building higher density developments in existing urban areas.  This would avoid urban sprawl and protect our green fields to act as amenity space for the enjoyment of all.

Gareth’s document goes through many of the brownfield sites in both Hart and Rushmoor and applies modern techniques to demonstrate how more can be made of existing land to build more affordable homes on brownfield sites in urban areas to meet the needs of younger people who are struggling to get on the housing ladder and the elderly who will more, smaller more manageable homes closer existing amenities and infrastructure.

The paper illustrates also illustrates where these techniques have been applied in London and on the continent to create vibrant, cohesive communities.

This paper is exactly the sort of thing that We Heart Hart had in mind when we put forward our 5-point plan for improving Hart’s approach to the Local Plan where we called for a competition to be held amongst architects to illustrate the art of the possible on our brownfield sites and provide a vision to guide the regeneration of our urban town centres as an alternative to endless urban sprawl across our green fields.

No doubt there will be some who will disagree with the level of development intensity Gareth proposes for some areas in Hart, where he concludes we could build 25,000 homes on them.  However, it is clear that the capacity of the brownfield sites he has studied is very much greater than the 700 dwellings Hart has said we could deliver over the period up to 2032.  Indeed, according to our brownfield monitor the capacity is already up to 2,360 units in just 6 months.  We must challenge Rushmoor to make more of their brownfield sites.

The paper can be downloaded below:

 

A sustainable approach to building on brownfield sites in Hart District and Rushmoor

 

Link

Hart Council rolls over and starts to plan for an extra 1,600 houses from Rushmoor

Is this what we want Hart to turn into?

Do we want Hart District to turn into an urban sprawl?

We Heart Hart understands that at the Local Plan Steering Group last week councillors were told that they will have to start planning for an extra 1,600 houses from Rushmoor.  We have previously warned that by planning for a new town, Hart was creating capacity that would force it to take the unmet needs of Surrey Heath and Rushmoor. Indeed the advice from Peter Village QC was that Hart should pursue the duty to cooperate discussions in a “robust and inquisitive manner”.

This would take Hart’s target to 2032 up to 9,134, up from the current (in our view overblown) target of 7,534.  This is simply wasting the good work that has identified additional brownfield capacity in the district.

However, Hart Council’s actions are going much further than the advice they received from the Planning Inspector as recently as March 2015:

“Tactically, Hart should show to an inspector that it acknowledges the housing problem, and accept that it is likely to have to take an element of unmet need now. This would show an inspector that Hart is being reasonable in the circumstances. In practice this could mean taking an element of Rushmoor’s need now, but dealing with further shortfalls in Rushmoor and Surrey Heath through an early review once there is more certainty over what those authorities can deliver. Hart would need to quantify the amount of unmet need it is agreeing to take in its plan. It would also need to justify why it’s not taking all the unmet need.”

So, far from taking “an element” of Rushmoor’s need now, they are proposing to plan to take the whole lot.  Of course there are no reports yet of how they are going to close the existing £78m funding gap, let alone how to fund the extra infrastructure required to support the extra 1,600 houses we have to build for Rushmoor.

The whole reason why we are being put in this position is that the combined housing market area of Hart and Rushmoor and Surrey Heath Boroughs is being asked to build too many houses because the Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) is based on some dodgy forecasts.  If the SHMA was brought down to more realistic levels, then neither Rushmoor nor Surrey Heath would have a shortfall.

We need to challenge Rushmoor’s plan now.  We have created a template letter, together with an up to date distribution list of all of the Hart District Councillors and it is available for download below.  Please download it, and all you need to do is cut and past the contents into an email; choose your local councillor email adresses;  add your name and address; alter the contents as you see fit and send it off.  We have also created a template document for challenging Rushmoor’s plan.

Letter to Hart Councillors rejecting proposal to take 1,600 houses from Rushmoor
Rushmoor Local Plan Response Form

 

Please sign and share our petition and support our 5-point plan to change course:

 

Go to Petition

 

This story has been covered in Get Hampshire.

 

Link

Hart District is being asked to build too many houses

Housing Market Area Migration and housing capacity

Figure 1: Housing Market Area Migration and housing capacity

Hart District is being asked to build 7,534 houses in the planning period up to 2032 (now 9,134 as Hart is starting to plan for an additional 1,600 houses from Rushmoor).  This target is based on the Objectively Assessed Housing Need (OAHN) contained in the Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) carried out by Hart District and Rushmoor and Surrey Heath Boroughs. We believe this target is too high because the SHMA is based on a number of flawed assumptions:

  • Inward migration assumptions unrealistic
  • Average household size unreasonable
  • Jobs growth forecasts not credible
  • Overall adjustments lead to building rate higher than national requirement

These are set out in more detail below and in the submission to the Owens Farm (Hop Garden Road), Hook appeal. The overall impact of correcting these errors would be to reduce Hart District’s overall housing target to around 6,100 units and crucially reduce Rushmoor and Surrey Heath’s target so they don’t need to ask Hart to build 3,100 houses for them.  This will mean that Hart will be able to satisfy the rest of its target from brownfield development alone and won’t need a new town at Winchfield or anywhere else.

Inward Migration Assumptions Unrealistic

Inward migration to this or any other district represents a “want” of people living elsewhere to live in Hart and not a “need”.  Many people may desire to live in Hart because it is one of the best places to live in the country, but no-one “needs” to move to live here in the strict sense of the word.  Indeed inward migration to Hart represents the unmet needs of other districts.  If Government policy is followed, then the housing, employment, education and other “needs” of the people “wanting” to move to Hart should be met by the local authorities where they currently live and thus the apparent need for housing in Hart arising from inward migration should substantially reduce.  There is no evidence presented in the SHMA to evaluate the impact of reduced inward migration to Hart from other districts as a result of those districts now being forced to meet their own needs, nor the impact of the implementation of the Northern Powerhouse.  Indeed London has now agreed to meet its own housing need in full, which should reduce the scale of inward migration to the HMA.

Notwithstanding the above, the SHMA makes a subjective judgement to cherry pick inward migration data from 2005-2010 as being the “most realistic” approach to take to future demographic modelling.  Moreover, it uses spurious statistical analysis to try to infer causation from a weak correlation (R2=~0.65) between housing completions and inward migration.  This is inherently flawed for a number of reasons outlined below.

First, of course it is self-evident that the period during which the HMA delivered most housing was when inward migration was highest.  However, as was argued above, this scale of inward migration represents unmet needs of other districts rather than the unmet needs of Hart.

Second, the period when we were building most and attracting most inward migration was during one of the longest uninterrupted periods of economic growth in history, supported by a large structural deficit in the national accounts and the biggest credit binge of all time.  Of course it ended in a spectacular bust and can in no way be described as a “normal” or “sustainable” set of economic conditions.  The economic conditions we are seeing now with more moderate growth linked to the need for the Government, companies and people to live within their means and reduce debt will be the situation for the foreseeable future and thus represent a more “normal” situation.

The period 2007-2012 includes the final year of the boom, the recession and the now more moderate pace of economic growth that surely more closely represents future conditions.  Indeed, as Figure 1 shows (data taken from Fig. 7.4 of the SHMA on p71) taking the period 2007-2012, the HMA delivered 2,942 new dwellings which at an average of 2.5 people per dwelling created capacity for an extra 7,355 people to live in the area.  Despite that, the HMA experienced an overall outward migration of 1,824 people.  It surely cannot be considered sound to base the future housing “need” on increasing inward migration projections when recent data shows that in fact the HMA is undergoing net outward migration despite creating significant capacity for more people to live here.

Accordingly, the additional 1,210 houses postulated in the SHMA arising from inward migration should be removed from the housing “need”.

Average Household Size Forecasts Unreasonable

Average Houshold Size projections for Housing Market Area

Figure 2: Average Household Size projections for Housing Market Area

 

Figure 7.7 of the SHMA (reproduced as Figure 2 above) shows that the trend in household size as measured by the census is slightly upward for the period from 2001 to 2011. This is in direct contradiction to both the 2008-based and 2011-based CLG projections.  Yet the forward projections used in the SHMA reverse the trend shown in actual data in the census and persist with the inaccurate forecasts of a continuing fall in the average household size.

Part of the justification for this is given as “at the time of the 2011 Census, the British economy was still in recession”.  This is factually incorrect as a cursory examination of the GDP numbers on the BBC website shows that the economy came out of recession in mid-2009.  It seems the forecasting “experts” are at a loss to properly explain this reversal of trend.

Moreover, given that the starting point for the SHMA projections is DCLG sourced figures, it would be somewhat odd for the DCLG forward projections not to include its own forecasts for household size.  There is therefore a significant risk that this part of the SHMA has double counted erroneous household size projections.

It is therefore inappropriate continue to assume a continuing downward trend in household size.  Surely a more prudent assumption would be to assume that the current household size is maintained and update that assumption and the SHMA as more real data comes to light.

Accordingly, the 1,500 additional houses in the SHMA related to the flawed household size assumption should be removed.

Jobs Growth Forecasts not Credible

The SHMA uses a set of jobs growth assumptions that are based on forecasts that are vastly in excess of what has been achieved in the most recent economic cycle.

The SHMA contains data on the historic rates of job growth for the HMA.  This shows two sets of data that are derived from different sources and cover different time periods (Figures 4.3 & 4.4 of the SHMA).

First, there is the period 1998-2008, covered by ABI data.  This shows overall job growth in the period of 7,200, or 720 per annum for the 10 year period with a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 0.6%.  Second there are different BRES sourced data for the periods of 2009-2012. The BRES data from 2009-2012 shows total jobs growth of 200, or 67 per annum for the 3 years in question or a CAGR of 0.05%.

Discontinuity between ABI and BRES jobs data for Housing Market Area

Figure 3: Discontinuity between ABI and BRES jobs data for Housing Market Area

Figure 3 shows a comparison of the BRES data and the ABI data that demonstrates the discontinuity between 2008 and 2009, with a jobs increase of nearly 10,000 when we know the economy was in the teeth of a deep recession. Note that the report states that the ABI and BRES data cannot be directly compared because they are compiled using different methods. It is therefore clear that each period (and dataset) should be treated separately and independently rather than splicing them together.

Treating the datasets separately would indicate total jobs growth over the economic cycle of 7,400, or 529 per annum or a CAGR of 0.41%, based on backward extrapolation of the BRES data.

Taking this 0.41% rate of growth as a future projection would mean we would add 11,332 overall jobs over the period of 2012-2032 at an average rate of 567 total jobs per annum.

However, the SHMA uses as its central assumption that future jobs growth of 1,130 per annum will be achieved, equating to a CAGR of ~0.79%, nearly double what was achieved over the most recent economic cycle and far higher than that achieved during the unsustainable boom of 1998-2008.  Given the constraints on Government spending and tighter credit conditions that are likely to persist for some time due to tighter bank regulation, it is inconceivable that we will achieve an economic growth rate nearly twice that achieved during the last economic cycle. Figure 4 shows the comparison of these growth rates.

Hart Surrey Heath and Rushmoor Jobs Growth rates 1998 to 2013 compared to SHMA

Figure 4: Hart Surrey Heath and Rushmoor Jobs Growth rates 1998 to 2013 compared to SHMA

Little justification for this is given other than it is based on Experian forecasts. The recent job creation history (2009-2012) showed jobs growth of 67 per annum as we came out of the recession.  67 jobs per annum equates to less than 6% of the jobs that the SHMA assumes we will create. Revised figures for 2013 demonstrate a CAGR of jobs growth from 2009-2013 at 0.52%, still well below the SHMA projections at a time the UK as a whole is creating more jobs than the rest of the EU put together.  This demonstrates that the Experian forecasts are pie in the sky and it beggars belief that such unproven Experian forecasts should take precedence over the actual real world achievement.

A further illustration of the outlandish nature of the Experian forecasts is given in para 7.70 of the SHMA.  In its forecast published in 2013, Experian assumes there were 145,000 jobs in the HMA in 2011.  Whereas the 2011 Census says there were only 122,300 and the BRES data says 125,000.  How can we trust Experian to forecast the future when it can’t even get the the past right?

Even the Employment Land Review produced by Rushmoor Borough Council described the Experian forecasts as:

“Experian-derived forecasts which are considered unreliably high in that they make too many assumptions around unconstrained economic growth”

The SHMA also says at para 7.85:

“…there are many ways labour markets can adjust to an increase in demand for labour that do not require an increase in the resident workforce. In summary these are:

  • A reduction in unemployment
  • A rise in economic activity rates
  • A shift away from part time working to full time working
  • An increase in double jobbing
  • A reduction in out-commuting
  • An increase in in-commuting

None of these changes require an increase in resident population, and all of them will be stimulated if
wage and salary levels increase.

In the modelling, allowance has been made for only one of these effects…”

No explanation is given for not taking into account the other ways in which the labour market can adjust.

In addition, if one compares the jobs forecasts to the population forecasts, the overall forecasts imply a massive, unrealistic increase in the percentage of people of working age in employment as can be seen in the table below:

 

Data Point2011 (Census)2011 (BRES)2031 (PROJ 2)2031 (PROJ 5)
SHMA Population (a) 272,394 272,394 307,578 322,278
People in employment (b) 122,300 125,000 162,233 170,223
Overall % in employment (b/a)44.9%45.9%52.7%52.8%
People over 70 (c) 28,559 28,559 51,164 51,164
People 5-19 (d) 67,375 67,375 73,206 73,206
People of working age (a-c-d)=e 176,460 176,460 183,208 197,908
% working age in employment (b/e)69.3%70.8%88.6%86.0%

This shows an increase from around 70% of working age people in employment to 86-88%.  No justification for this increase is given anywhere.

From the above, it is clear that the employment forecasts are outlandishly large and the SHMA does not even take into account most of the ways in which jobs can increase without leading to a need for more housing.  It is clear we should not be basing our housing requirement on such forecasts.

Figure 4.1 of the SHMA demonstrates that Hart in particular and the whole HMA enjoy high levels of employment and unemployment levels that are below the regional and national averages.

Therefore, the number of jobs to be created in the future should at least partially be a matter of “want” rather than “need”.  The future employment targets should be based on a realistic assessment of the capacity of the economy to create jobs in the private sector as it is these jobs that will support the largely state sector jobs in education and health that will be required to support the increased population.

As noted above para 7 of the NPPG states that local communities should be involved

“from the earliest stages of plan preparation, which includes the preparation of the evidence base in relation to development needs”.

Moreover, a recent legal opinion from Peter Village QC has said:

“There has been no regulation 18 consultation at all on issues such as employment, retail, transport, infrastructure (or, indeed, anything other than housing distribution). It is inconceivable that a coherent and sound local plan could emerge without addressing most (at least) of these issues.”

It therefore follows that the local community should be consulted upon the employment targets it wishes to set and the related scale of development required to meet that target.  No such consultation has taken place, nor is it planned which represents a significant flaw in the Local Plan process. The evidence from the petition indicates that local people are more likely to express a preference for a lower level of development.

Finally, despite enjoying high levels of employment, it is clear that we need to change the way we forecast jobs growth in the area as past methods have resulted in vast amounts of unused employment land and vacant retail outlets with examples illustrated here and here.

It is clear that past employment forecasts have been erroneous; that the future employment forecasts in the SHMA are spurious and do not represent a realistic assessment of future economic or employment growth rates; and the local communities have not been consulted upon this key issue.  Nevertheless, we can achieve enviable growth and employment rates in line with the requirement to “plan positively” without having to resort to such over-development.

Accordingly, the 5,100 additional houses in the SHMA related to the flawed employment forecasts should be removed.

Overall adjustments lead to building rate higher than national requirement

Hart Surrey Heath and Rushmoor SHMA adjustments applied at national level

Figure 5: Hart Surrey Heath and Rushmoor SHMA adjustments applied at national level

Evidence presented at the examination of the Vale of the White Horse Local Plan has demonstrated that if the adjustments made to the baseline DCLG housing projections were applied on a national basis, they would increase the national output of housing to double the DCLG estimate of what is needed and triple the recent output of housing.

Applying a similar approach to the Hart, Rushmoor and Surrey Heath SHMA shows that on a national basis, we would be delivering 54% more housing than we need on a national basis, see Figure 5 above.  Surely it cannot be right that we are being asked to build at a rate that would lead to a surplus of housing.

England housing delivery actuals and projected 1946-2031

Figure 6: England housing delivery actuals and projected 1946-2031

The baseline DCLG projections for the combination of Hart, Surrey Heath and Rushmoor call for 790 houses per annum (SHMA Figure 7.3).  This equates to the DCLG projection of 220,000 houses per annum nationally (see figure 6 above).  This compares to recent performance of around 150,000 houses per annum.

The final SHMA, after taking into account past under-delivery, amount to a total of 24,413 houses (see table below), or an increase of 54.6% over the DCLG baseline figures.  The duty to cooperate might mean that Hart District has to build more houses than either Surrey Heath or Rushmoor as part of our Local Plan.

 Hart DistrictSurrey Heath BoroughRushmoor BoroughTotal Housing Market Area
Original SHMA7,5347,0579,82224,413
Proposed Transfers3,022(1,400)(1,622)0
New Total10,5565,6578,20024,413

If the same 54.6% uplift were applied to the DCLG projection, we would be building over 340,000 houses per annum nationally, more than double recent performance.

In recent years Hart has built more houses than it has been required to do and built at a rate above regional and national averages (SHMA Table 5.11).  It is beginning to look like the total of the local SHMAs are much larger than the overall requirement as defined by the DCLG. Surely it cannot be right that we are being asked to build at rate more than 50% higher than the DCLG suggests we need to meet overall demand.

Conclusions

The overall impact of removing these errors would be to reduce the overall housing target for the combined area by around 7,800 units.  This would reduce Hart’s overall housing target to around 6,100 units and crucially reduce Rushmoor and Surrey Heath’s target so they don’t need to ask Hart to build 3,100 houses for them.  This will mean that Hart will be able to satisfy the rest of its target from brownfield development alone.

The brownfield development tracker

Brownfield Development thermometer for Hart District

Given the recent success in quantifying the brownfield development potential in Hart District, we thought it would be good to set up a monitor to see how close we are to identifying all of the dwellings we need to meet the residual requirement of 4,000 units for the Hart Local Plan.

This of course assumes that we have to deliver the Objectively Assessed Housing Need (OAHN) in the Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA).  There is a chance we might have to deliver an extra 3,100 houses for Surrey Heath and Rushmoor.  But equally there is also the potential for us to challenge the SHMA and end up with a lower housing target.

We will try and keep track of this as the process develops.

Hart District Council gets its facts wrong on the Local Plan

Hart District Council Local Plan Update Spring-Summer 2015

Hart District Council Local Plan Update Spring-Summer 2015

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

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

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

Hart District Housing Requirement from Cabinet Meeting Nov 2014

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

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

Surrey Heath and Rushmoor Housing Shortfall

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

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

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

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

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

 

Go to Petition

 

 

 

Rushmoor could take all of Hart’s allocation and more

Example High Density Brownfield Development - Arundel Square, London

Example High Density Brownfield Development – Arundel Square, London

 

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

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

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

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

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

Derelict Offices in Fleet

Derelict Offices in Fleet

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

Empty Shop in Hart Shopping Centre, Fleet

Empty Shop in Hart Shopping Centre, Fleet

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

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

A Sustainable Approach to Housing on Brownfield

We Heart Hart Questions for Hart Council

There is a Hart District Council meeting on 26 February at the Hart Council Offices in Fleet at 7pm.  There is an opportunity for members of the public to ask questions about any subject including the emerging Local Plan.  Great questions would be:

  1. If Hart keeps the new town in its plan, what is the risk it will have to build the new town and strategic urban extensions in Fleet and Church Crookham to accommodate the extra 3,100 houses that Surrey Heath Borough Council and Rushmoor Borough Council are trying to force on to Hart?
  2. What will be the additional traffic and congestion impact of the proposed new town on surrounding settlements of Church Crookham, Crookham Village, Fleet, Hook, Hartley Wintney and Odiham?
  3. What are the criteria, marking scheme and weighting factors Hart are using to evaluate the alternative housing development options?
  4. What is Hart’s vision for the future of the district?
  5. How will Hart evaluate the risk of coalescence of the existing settlements that will effectively happen if a new town is built?
  6. What is Hart DC’s strategy for identifying and analysing and maximising the development of brownfield sites to avoid concreting over our valuable green spaces?
  7. What will be the environmental impact of a new sewage works discharging into the River Hart?
  8. What will be the environmental impact of 5,000 new houses in the SPA zone of influence?
  9. What will be the environmental impact of 5,000 new houses on the SSSI’s at Odiham Common and Basingstoke Canal?
  10. What will be the environmental impact of concreting over the green gaps between the SSSI’s and SINCs in Winchfield?

We Heart Hart has asked a number of these questions already as shown in the download and is aware of others asking questions too.

Please take some time to ask your own questions of the council.  You can use the download below that already has the e-mail addresses in it you need.  Questions need to be submitted by noon on Friday 20 February.

We Love Hart Questions for Hart Council

And if you have not done so, please sign the petition: https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/we-hart

Fleet and Church Crookham to be devastated by congestion from new town

Estimated Extra Daily Journeys

Extra Daily Journeys

5,000 extra houses in a new town in Hart District will dramatically increase congestion all over the district, including Fleet and Church Crookham with 10’s of thousands of extra journeys per day.   It is clear that those councillors who think they are getting a free-ride from a new town in Winchfield need to think again and campaign for fewer houses to be built overall.

If you think the council should think again, please sign the petition: https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/we-hart

Hart District Council have been asked by Winchfield Action Group (WAG), as part of their Neighbourhood Planning process to provide some figures on the current road usage on roads in and around the proposed new town at Winchfield and for an assessment of the impact on neighbouring areas.  Astonishingly, it seems Hart doesn’t have any traffic monitoring data.

Helpfully, the appendices in the Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) give an analysis of the travel to work patterns of Hart residents and the Department of Transport has conducted a National Travel Survey (NTS) that has helped the We Heart Hart (aka We ♥ Hart and We Love Hart) campaign to calculate the impact of all of these extra houses and extra cars.

The SHMA says that we can expect around 2.5 people per household, the SHMA appendix gives a split of how Hart residents travel to work and the NTS says that work related travel accounts for only 18% of journeys.  Of course people need to go shopping, play sports, visit friends and relatives, go to clubs and societies and ferry around their children and so on.

Using the 2011 numbers it is possible come up with the extra journeys 5,000 extra houses will generate.  Of course, these numbers will need to be doubled if they go ahead with the new town and Hart has to act as a sink for the 3,100 extra houses that Surrey Heath and Rushmoor say they cannot build.  This is shown below.

Extra Journeys Arising from New Town in Hart

Extra Journeys Arising from New Town in Hart

Using this data, you can come up with an estimate of the impact of all these extra journeys will have in terms of increased traffic in Fleet, Church Crookham, Hartley Wintney and Hook because of the routes people will have to follow to get to those destinations.  Of course, there will be also extra train journeys, giving rise to 775 extra commuters going to London each day without even estimating the other non-work related journeys:

Impact on Fleet, Church Crookham, Hartley Wintney and Hook

Impact on Fleet, Church Crookham, Hartley Wintney and Hook

This is of course a very rough and ready estimate, and Hart will no doubt have to find a way of doing some better modelling.  But this gives an indication of the impact which is far from trivial.

Surely it is very important that the impact of building 5,000 houses in a new town, or more than 10,000 if Surrey Heath and Rushmoor get their way, is properly assessed by the council before they finalise the local plan.  Not only that there are going to be thousands of new houses in neighbouring areas like Basingstoke and Deane, Reading and Waverley.  All of these houses are bound to increase the traffic even further in Hart too.

Of course everyone has sympathy for the level of development Fleet, Church Crookham, Crookham Village  and Hook have had to endure over the past few years.  But it is clear that building a new town in Winchfield will only add to the problem of congestion for those areas and the councillors who think they are getting a free-ride from a new town need to think again and start campaigning for fewer houses to be built in Hart.

Download a poster: http://wehearthart.co.uk/home/get-involved/

Sign the petition: https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/we-hart

Like us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/groups/IHeartHart/

Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/WeHeartHart

3,100 Reasons to Oppose a New Town in Hart

Hart becomes Housing Sink for Surrey Heath and Rushmor

Hart becomes sink for 3,100 houses from Surrey Heath and Rushmoor

A new town in Hart District, whether in Winchfield or anywhere else, will open up Hart to be a sink for 3,100 overflow houses from Surrey Heath and Rushmoor Borough Councils. Yet Hart District Council’s strategy for the Local Plan has set us on the path for a new town which makes this inevitable and will destroy our green fields and wildlife habitats and clog up all of our infrastructure.

If you disagree with this strategy please sign the We Love Hart (We ♥ Hart) petition.

The Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA), calls for Hart to build a total of around 7,500 houses in the district up to 2031.  Our neighbouring districts, Surrey Heath and Rushmoor also have demanding targets and are saying that they cannot build all of their own allocation in their districts.  So, they want to pass over an extra 3,100 or so houses (1,700 from Rushmoor and 1,400 from Surrey Heath) to Hart that will push our target up to around 10,600 houses.  See answers to questions here, page 17.

In their housing options paper the council says that we would need to deliver 1,800-2,400 houses on a new settlement (Option 4). However, the Barratts New Town proposal document says that such a new settlement would have capacity for 5,000 houses, more than twice the size of Elvetham Heath,  and could start building as early as 2017.  This leaves a convenient surplus  of around 3,000 dwellings in the new settlement that could be used to fill the shortfall  from Surrey Heath and Rushmoor.

The We Heart Hart campaign believes this is a grave strategic error on the part of Hart Council because they are following a policy that means there is a real risk we will have to build even more houses in Hart and concrete over our green fields.

The impact of this could be enormous:

  • Massive increase in congestion throughout all of the district.
  • Increased stress on already creaking infrastructure
  • Overcrowding of trains already running over capacity
  • Massive environmental harm to the SSSI’s, SINCs and the Thames Valley Heath SPA
  • Coalescence of Fleet, Church Crookham, Crookham Village, Dogmersfield, Winchfield, Hartley Wintney, North Warnborough and Odiham into a giant conurbation.