Fury over council news propaganda
Councillors for Hartley Wintney ward, Anne Crampton, Andrew Renshaw and Tim Southern have expressed their fury to the Fleet News and Mail about the way Hart District Council expressed a preference for a new town in Winchfield in the latest edition of Hart News, even though the testing process is not yet complete.
Hart Council said in their article about the Local Plan:
[Winchfield] has an existing station, and it is relatively free of environmental contraints. It is also close to the motorway which could also possibly allow for a new junction onto the M3.
Clearly major infrastructure improvements would be needed and it would be a large scale project that would fundamentally change that part of Hart
The councillors think that edition of Hart News should be pulped because they think it inappropriate for the council to be putting out only one side of the story when they are preparing to engage the public in another round of consultation about housing options.
Not only that, Hart have done very little work to quantify the infrastructure costs of such a development, but our estimate of £300m, taken together with the existing funding deficit of £78m would mean a new town is simply undeliverable.
This comes hot on the heels of the article by Hampshire County Councillor David Simpson in the local Liberal Democrat newsletter where he says “Winchfield is the wrong place for major development”
Hart Council cabinet is due to debate their response to the We Heart Hart petition tomorrow night at Hart Offices at 7pm. Please do come along and support us. Facebook invitation here.
Large image of the article here.
UPDATE: Same story now covered in GetHampshire
Pingback: Is the ‘tin-man’ new town plan viable? | We Heart Hart
No one ‘below’ the council I.e all of us, can stop this. It will take action from ‘above’ the council to do that. How can all the extensive fact finding and information gathered by the action groups get to people who can influence the council? I’m ignorant of government departments and procedures but surely there is enough mal practice and evidence for someone to take interest.
We can influence by responding to the forthcoming consultation. Then there’s the examination in front of the inspector. And the ballot box.
The urban councillors think they are doing the right thing for their area. But there is a startling lack of imagination across the whole council.
Are they pursuing this so hard because they have blacked themselves into a corner and cannot back down. Is it sheer bloody mindlessness or do they genuinely think they are doing the best for this area?
It’s called money and greed Sue Smith? Just think how much money they get from developers it’s millions x
Yes, but not enough to fund the infrastructure requirements, let alone start to close the existing £78m gap
I agree, and yet again not thinking about brownfield sites makes me so mad!
Yes Sue Smith. Just back from cabinet. They listened and debated, but I don’t think there’s going to be substantial action on the key elements of the petition. I’ll do an article tomorrow. I’m really stunned that they should effectively ignore the views of 2,130 people.
This group of individuals are hell bent on this option. They ignore public opinion, action groups, their own test results, government advice, any cost and environmental implications. Even legal advice was tossed aside as irrelevant. To think such a tiny group can dictate the landscape and community for years and years to come is absolutely terrifying. Yet another good article in the Times yesterday about eating into green land. Is there anything that will stop them?
The government have quite categorically stated brownfield ahead of green. How can our council blatantly ignore that. Surely they would have to provide proof they have covered that option first. Would an inspector not ask for this before approving any huge development given the governments public announcements re brownfield.
To be fair, I didn’t accuse all of Hart council of being incompetent, there are some good people there. My disdain is aimed directly at the blinkered ones supporting this foolish idea. What that is in % terms, I don’t know, probably a lot.
Love Simon Bailey description of Hart Council “an incompetent collective who cannot grasp the consequence of their short sighted, Barratts funded vision”. Made my lunch hour!
Yet again it’s all down to money!
Brilliant Simon Bailey
Bailey editing applied. [Winchfield] has an existing station (but we can’t extend it), and it is relatively free of environmental constraint (apart from building over lots of green land, destroying habitat and ruining the lives of locals, whilst ignoring the blatant fact there is enough brown field to build on). It is also close to the motorway (a fantastic car park for commuters) which could also possibly (which means no) allow for a new junction onto the M3 (again, just to clarify, we mean no because it will cost too much so instead all the extra traffic will be going down your already congested road).
Clearly major infrastructure improvements would be needed (understatement of the bloody decade by an incompetent collective who cannot grasp the consequence of their short sighted, Barratts funded vision ) and it would be a large scale project that would fundamentally change that part of Hart (not for the better but at least I’m ok as its not near my house)