Which parishes have seen most development Hart District?

Elvetham Heath near Fleet, Hampshire

Elvetham Heath near Fleet, Hampshire

There has been much controversy about how much development there has been in Hart District over the past few years, so inspired by a post on the Winchfield Action Group site, we thought we’d take a closer look at the data.

We have compiled a list by parish and ward of the number of dwellings in each area in 2001 and 2011, according to the census and the results are shown in the table below:

ParishWard2001 Census (Dwellings)2011 Census (Dwellings)% Increase
Blackwater & Hawley177218675.4
Church Crookham330933280.6
Crookham Village156316304.3
FleetNorth (inc Elvetham Heath)13602947116.7
Fleet Total91601131623.5
Hartley Wintney212622224.5
Odiham & Long Sutton271228806.2
South Warnborough21326223

It should be noted that the data only runs up to 2011 and so misses out most or all of certain developments such as QEB in Church Crookham, Dilly Lane and Rifle Range Farm in Hartley Wintney, Edenbrook and the planned new developments at Hawley Park Farm, new development to the North East of Hook and at Watery Lane.

It does show that the area with the largest increase is what was known as Fleet North, which has now been split after incorporating Elvetham Heath.

It is not really for us to point fingers at different areas of the district.  We will let readers make up their own mind and draw their own conclusions from the data.

If anyone finds an error in any of the data, then please do get in touch and we will make any corrections that are needed.


I was asked to provide updated data of the permissions and completions since 2011.  There is no easy way to get this data.  This is a copy of what I received:

The majority of the information (with details of location and parish) on housing completions and permissions for the next few years can be found in the following two published documents :

Appendix 2&3

And http://www.hart.gov.uk/sites/default/files/4_The_Council/Policies_and_published_documents/Planning_policy/Final%20Dwelling%20Completion%20Figures%202014-15_for%20website.xlsx

It’s regrettable  that you only used figures from the superseded five year land supply (2001-2011) calculation in the Interim Housing Delivery Strategy which was superseded by the Five Year Land Supply Position Statement:
Five Year Housing Land Supply Position Statement, 1st October 2015
2014-15, and the Completions list from Hampshire County Council (1st April 2015) both of which were linked on the  council website “Current planning policy and guidance” referring to the local plan consultation, and also discussed at a council meeting.

I’m glad got said you’d incorporate the latest numbers, and look forward to seeing this. I believe you’ll find disproportionate housing allocation to the North and East of the region whilst minimal development in the centre, West or south.

I can confirm that I used neither of the Housing Land Supply documents to produce the table above.  As the original post says, the source for the above is the census.

The link to the pdf just gives a long list of sites in a form that it is impossible to analyse in any meaningful way, least of all by parish.  The spreadsheet contains a list of starts, completions and losses for 2014-2015, a summary of which by Parish is shown below.

Dwellings started completed and lost in Hart District 2014-15


Posted in Hampshire, Hart District Council, Hart Housing Options Consultation, Hart Local Plan, We ♥ Hart Campaign, We Heart Hart Campaign, We Love Hart Campaign and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , .


  1. And the reason I can’t present a breakdown of the 600K spare floor space by district is that the ELR doesn’t break down the data for each element of the calculation by district.

    I guess you could ask whoever wrote it to supply you the data.

  2. David, once again you’re presenting selective facts and intentionally misrepresenting them – or drawing incorrect conclusions. Can you confirm that the Hart space includes Hartland Park (formerly called Pyestock) and that although this is defined as ‘flexible’ it’s intended for warehousing, or a distribution depot, not offices – but potentially would create over 1,500 new jobs in Hart which is great. There us a need to retain and refurbish some of the other offices.

    • Yes, Pyestock is great. How many times did the residents say they didn’t want it? Much like the residents don’t want thousands of new houses ruining even more of ‘the nicest place in England to live’. That is the view that should be represented, we do not want, or need, or have the infrastructure to support any such developments.

  3. It’s rather like the final scenes of Wizard of Oz. Much huffing and puffing behind the curtain, but when the veil is drawn back, nothing of any substance is revealed.

  4. Thank you for finally providing a response to the infrastructure question, Cllr.

    Presumably for a development of this magnitude Hart DC has run the figures to know exactly how much, say, Hampshire County Council will provide for the schools, exactly how much Network Rail will provide for platform extensions/a new station, exactly how much can be expected from central government for the new road, roundabout and carriageway improvements needed to support a new settlement? The deficit will then, presumably, be allocated to the developers in the form of s106 or CIL payments?

    If you haven’t run the figures for what this will cost I’m pretty sure WHH has a spreadsheet somewhere that can help.

  5. Quite right Lesley Parish. Funding sources for new schools are somewhat opaque.

    And of course even that on its own exceeds a realistic estimate of developer contributions.

  6. And, as I said before, get back to central government and insist they change the rules! I’m also confused as to who will pay for any of the proposed schools, since Mr Osborne has announced that government would like all state schools to become academies by 2020. Does that not mean that central government will be responsible for the funding of schools and that local authorities will have no financial power to build or run schools in their areas? Or are the government hoping that, magically, people will get together to build their own ‘Free Schools’? I do believe planners are living in fairly land if they believe funding for all the necessary infrastructure in any so-called ‘village community’ of upwards of 4,000 homes is going to be part-funded by central government. In fact, I think it is disgraceful that, in these times of austerity, any government should be giving money to ruini our precious countryside.

  7. Infrastructure funding comes from central government, county council, and developers primarily. Much of this is not available or applicable to urban extensions, small developments, or brownfield which at best attract much lesser amounts.

  8. i asked Steve the same question when he came canvassing down our road a couple of weeks ago, Gary. I am genuinely curious as to where funding comes from for infrastructure such as schools, doctors etc if it doesn’t come from developers. I didn’t get a coherent answer – if I’m honest, I’m not sure I got an answer at all other than ‘we don’t want to increase taxes, do we?’ Sometimes, we do…

    • So if I understand correctly: it was implied by a councillor that any shortfall in infrastructure funding from a new settlement would be funded by an increase in council tax?

      I’m not sure I saw that in the local plan consultation documentation .

    • to be truthful, due to the opacity of the answer, I’m not sure if it would be council tax, income tax or other tax. I’m not entirely convinced that Steve knew where such funding would come from.

  9. looking at the maps (again, sorry for any repeat of arguments) the proposed new town does exactly what you say is a very bad idea Steve — namely join all of our towns and villages (Hook, Fleet, HW, Winchfield and Winchfield Hurst) together, and comes very close to Odiham.

  10. Gary Comerford is right. The only development that doesn’t attract s106/CIL is office conversion. Other brownfield development attracts contributions.

    40% of the new town would attract no funding if it followed Hart’s current view of that proportion being affordable.

    And of course because there is already significant infrastructure in our towns, the cost of improving infrastructure for brownfield ought to be lower than building so much from scratch on green fields.

  11. What part is wrong? That Hart can force the developer to pay for infrastructure in a new settlement? If that’s the case I agree and offer my apologies. If it related to brownfield then I believe it was mentioned earlier in this thread that conversions don’t attract CIL/s106 but proper brownfield development will.

    I notice you STILL haven’t managed to provide a satisfactory answer for ‘who pays for the infrastructure’ in a new settlement, though.

  12. And who pays for it? We would all like new schools, smaller class numbers, more doctors surgeries, dentists, better roads etc.. But these things don’t magically appear. They need to be paid for.

    Which brings us back to the thorny old question of paying for the infrastructure. I have asked for details of who will pay for it (surely something Hart must have thought about if they are promoting a new settlement as their preferred option?) but so far have received nothing other than ‘The developer will be forced to pay for it’. I don’t, for one minute, think that is a) viable or b) the basis for trying to fund a huge infrastructure deficit.

    If Hart Council could ‘force the developer to pay for it’ then they could also force them to pay for infrastructure to regenerate Fleet town centre through the use of brownfield development (which, I will remind you is the government’s preferred approach), and the other options you are suggesting in the consultation..

  13. No its not. There is no planning beyond 2018. And the population projections show only a modest increase in the number of school age children. But again HDC have refused to do the proper work.

  14. 3000 new homes would need new school places. 5000 would too. Thats obvious. Families need new houses – in a new settlement is ideal. We need a mix of housing. Thats obvious. The evidence is there, its obvious. Hart doesn’t just want 1-2 bedroom flat built for elderly or single people, or couples – it needs a decent mix. Brownfield wouldn’t deliver what people need, or want.

  15. But you have no evidence to support your assertion.

    Where’s the work to compare infrastructure costs and benefits. Where’s the evidence we need a new secondary school. How will detached houses in the countryside meet the needs of the young and the elderly? How can a mish mash of uncontiguous sites split by the motorway and railway form a coherent settlement?

  16. Barrie, If I thought there was another viable option I’d follow it, but brownfield won’t fulfil the whole need so we have to lose some fields. The question is where is least bad, and delivers most benefit and I believe the answer is a new settlement at Winchfield as that delivers a solution that prevents unplanned development elsewhere with our infrastructure. I say that as its my personal opinion, and that of most residents I speak with. I don’t want to lose fields either, but a new settlement is the only option that is truly viable and causes least damage to Hart.

  17. Whatever the problem and whatever the solution, there has to be an alternative to losing forever a large part of the countryside that makes Hart such an attractive place to live. Councillor Forster, in the words of Oliver Cromwell, I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken.

  18. David, your consultant seems to have ignored salient information on Hook & Odiham, when he suggests the vitality of a new settlement would only be viable if much larger. I wonder why he thinks that a new settlement needs to grow to 10,000 to be viable when Hook has done pretty well for so long at around at 5-6k and Historic Odiham at a lot less than that. Also as regards proper redevelopment suggested by David that is contrary to your previous comments about office conversions. The finances around complete redevelopment mean that you’d need to build huge complexes like the high rise flats in Basingstoke – which would totally rip the heart out of Fleet, Hook etc.

    • Show me where I have favoured conversion over redevelopment.

      And no. No one is advocating we become like Basingstoke.

      If McCarthy and Stone can make money redeveloping brownfield sites for the infirm, then other developers can make money on open market developments of 3 or 4 stoereys.

  19. More misinformation from Steve Forster. Yes “conversions” do not deliver S106/CIL. But we are not advocating simple conversions, we are advocating proper redevelopment, which will attract CIL/S106, and the affordable portion will generate additional new homes bonus from the Government too – but only if (according to the latest Government consultation), Hart get on and actually produce a Local Plan.

    • Nope, those are potential for a new retail store with limited housing above. You singled out the council offices, adjacent two office buildings, with their staff should all be knocked down and replaced by flats. Losing employment opportunity for years.

    • Nope, those are potential for a new retail store with limited housing above. You singled out the council offices, adjacent two office buildings, with their staff should all be knocked down and replaced by flats. Losing employment opportunity for years.

    • No, suggested, like Fleet Future did that those buildings could be replaced with mixed use development. ANd whilst we are about it, we could redevelop the Harlington too. I seem to recall you were pushing that a few months ago.

    • Pedantic and semantics. You’re whole argument is a ‘suggestion’ then. But it appears you’ve put it forward as a direct argument and recommendation. You also stated the housing on it was included in in your analysis of brownfield ‘available’ in your assessment that all Hart’s housing could be on brownfield, however misguided that might be considered to be. Are you now suggesting it should be excluded? Please make up your mind, you cannot have it both ways.

      You’re quite correct re the Harlington. I support replacement with a new state of the art theatre and library which would be a replacement for the existing building (which is not in good condition) it would be refurbishment of brownfield, which I think is needed for some buildings. Not stuffing in hundreds of flats. Without any net loss of employment, green parking or amenity space, and whilst maintaining use of the current site without interruption.

      I (and just one other councillor) did not vote in favour of the final recommendation however, due to a number of remaining concerns.

    • Pedantic and semantics. You’re whole argument is a ‘suggestion’ then. But it appears you’ve put it forward as a direct argument and recommendation. You also stated the housing on it was included in in your analysis of brownfield ‘available’ in your assessment that all Hart’s housing could be on brownfield, however misguided that might be considered to be. Are you now suggesting it should be excluded? Please make up your mind, you cannot have it both ways.

      You’re quite correct re the Harlington. I support replacement with a new state of the art theatre and library which would be a replacement for the existing building (which is not in good condition) it would be refurbishment of brownfield, which I think is needed for some buildings. Not stuffing in hundreds of flats. Without any net loss of employment, green parking or amenity space, and whilst maintaining use of the current site without interruption.

      I (and just one other councillor) did not vote in favour of the final recommendation however, due to a number of remaining concerns.

    • Actually it wasn’t a recommendation. It calls for an ‘investigation’ into the options for redeveloping the land centred on the civic offices, The Harlington, library and Gurkha Square to provide improved community facilities at the heart of the town.

    • You’re right. I’m sorry, I missed that, but it’s probably because I’ve been spending too much time this weekend with reading and responding to your daily propaganda and the Winchfield residents and supporters numerous Facebook posts. I’ll make a point of being even more thorough – thanks.

      There again the retailers (and many local residents ) dismissed the last plan to build on the site including Victoria Road car park.

    • There is a need for offices as employment rises, and there’s a move back to using offices rather than home workers (as for HP locally). Also to give places for new and growing businesses to move or start from.

      As for income that is, and should be, the owners choice. For instance the Pyestock site owners are not interested in building houses, and the site is one of just a few strategic employment sites in the area.

    • It might not be formal policy but it’s certainly happening. It’s been written about a lot Greg, and confirmed in many articles – and by HP execs at HP Discover London, and the global partner conference in Vegas earlier this year.


    • Oh i see – Yahoo and Treehugger set HP policy… Well i always go on what is written into my HP contract of employment and there is no recent legal change to demand me to work from an office – what you refer to is a request from CEO to spend more time at the office which is certainly not a policy/legal requirement. This is being reported by journalists looking for a story to help sell advertising rather than report the real truth. Again your argument to justify a destruction of Hart’s greenspace is based on flimsy heresay rather than fact. If you would like i can show you my HP contract of employemnt and then you can see what real hard evidence looks like…

    • Gary (would I be correct to assume you’re Sue Smith’s partner as I just received – and politely declined- a friend request from you on FB?)

      You’re mistaken thinking I said a policy. I clearly said there was a move back to using offices rather than home workers. Thats evidenced by the studies (and actual figures) which show demand increasing and rents rising. And by recent lettings in the area. Not just offices, but workshop/warehouse too.

      I cited HP as an example. Ref HP, it was confirmed by some of the most senior UK and US execs at HP, when I have personally spoken with them. Note many other companies are doing the same, although some take a different view, like Virgin.

      Note as we move towards more or even full employment, and with population growth, more employment sites are needed. It would be good to have some locally, not convert all sites to houses and becoming an area of dormitory towns.

    • The evidence base shows that even taking into account the ridiculously optimistic jobs forecasts in the SHMA there will be 600K square metres of vacant employment land across the HMA at the end of the plan period.

      Employers are making more use of technology to support hot desking and home working to reduce their overheads.

    • There’s minimal employment land in Hart and some/much of that needs to be retained.

      You seem to be conveniently citing the HMA including Hart with the overall area including Rushmoor and Surrey Heath. Thats typical of the way you’re campaign positioned selective facts without providing the total picture to produce propaganda.

      Specifically it’s some of the good offices in and near Fleet you ‘suggested’ demolishing and replacing. There are some that are derelict and there is already potential for these to be developed. Thats laudable.

      Many of the others have potential to be refurbished as high tech offices for startups and growing businesses, which should be encouraged.

      Turning them all into blocks of flats (like your recommendation, or suggestion) would ruin the town.

    • People want to protect the towns from over development. And stop the towns becoming dormitory towns with no employment – WHH recommend knocking down most of the offices, including those currently used, and building thousands of flats.

      Some brownfield development is right to convert, but not too much. Certainly not all I’d it.

      Some of the derelict offices should be refurbished for employment to encourage local business to grow and thrive – as recommended by Ken Crookes.

    • A dormitory town is what you are creating at Winchfield, and you can have mixed use developments in Fleet or any town in Hart which still have employment space at lower levels.

    • Why not do the same in a new settlement where you don’t have to demolish perfectly good buildings. And which also has ready access to local employment both rural, light industrial, and nearby at Basingstoke and via close train links to Farnborough.

    • Nicer townscape? Blocks like Basingstoke?

      Better amenities? Office conversions come with NO funding for amenities. Brownfield comes with hardly anything. It just adds more cars, more people, more congestion, more load on surgeries, transport etc. Minimal benefit.

    • I never said blocks like Basingstoke, like everything in life there is good and bad. If we take the example of the office block in the picture above and it is demolished and rebuild it would generate the same revenue through S106 or CIL than a development in a field in the middle of no where. The only difference would less cars as people will not need 2-3 cars per family as you are close to a town centre and more people to help shops in the centre.

  20. See the challenge to the viability on the link below. We have been told by a planning consultant that a new settlement should have room to grow to 10,000 dwellings to be viable. Even the land there is will struggle to hit 5,000.

    That may be why some Winchfield residents are still getting letters asking them to take the developer’s shilling to “improve viability”. Even the developers know its a pig in a poke.


  21. Many of the sites are empty employment sites. Part of the 600,000 sq m of vacant employment land forecast for 2031 across the HMA, even assuming the ridiculous jobs forecast fantasies come true.

  22. The WHH brownfield option completely ignores any impact on the residents – either social or economic. It even ignores the fact that much us currently used for employment, and not available for development. Thats why it’s not viable.

    As for Winchfield, there is enough land for a new settlement of the size suggested with all the infrastructure. If built at the dort if density WHH proposed for other areas of brownfield or urban extension it could accommodate 2-3 times more – but that would a.be wrong, and b. Be poor planning g and finally c,. Be prevented by defining it properly in the planning and lical plan process so that a good definition of housing type, density and necessary infrastructure was included, prohibiting poor development.

  23. Gary, the best place to build is where there is capability of building with infrastructure, and of designating through a local plan and support that the infrastructure mist be built.

    You’ve hit the nail on the head – if we don’t select a new settlement at Winchfield then Hart will have hardly any defense against urban extensions lije you just mentioned. Thats what would likely happen at Pale Lane, Bramshot, Grove Farm, all around Zhook, lots more at Hartley Wintney and elsewhere. Even Winchfield. All without infrastructure. If the local plan selects Winchfield as a new settlement Hart can insist that infrastructure is built, and defend against poor urban extensions across the whole if the rest of Hart, including Odiham, Yateley, Crookham Village etc. Or brownfield. Hart cam also define exactly what is, and can not be permitted, within reason.

    Your point supports what I’m saying. Thankyou.

  24. The fact of the matter is, the assessment documents essentially show that the new town isn’t viable. It’s challenging to find a centre for it, there’s loads of environmental constraints, groundwater flood risk, the small matter of the M3 and railway bisecting the sites and so on. It will even struggle to get to the minimum viable number of 5,000 and leave no room for expansion.

    The assessments should also include social and economic aspects and they don’t.

  25. Steve Forster ‘Building on fields that the farmers who own them actively want to sell to developers.’ Isn’t that the same thing that happened in Rifle Range, Watery Lane, Edenbrook etc? All the places you are holding up as examples of excess development in your area. Yet you seem to think that if it happens in Winchfield it’s fine. “Anywhere but Fleet”, indeed.

    • No I’ve clearly said I personally don’t like or support the plans Barratt put forward. A local plan could define better where it could or should be. And encourage other developers to bid for it.

    • So, where would it go? On the areas susceptible to groundwater flooding? Or under the EHV cables? On former landfill, in one of the lakes? Or next to the M3? You have no detail. The official council evaluation documents for the Winchfield strategic site, still had it located there.

  26. An A30 upgrade would cause more congestion in HW and Hook, and would be about as much use as a chocolate teapot for the WInchfield part of the new settlement, because it is split from the A30 by the motorway and railway.

    • Also, am I not correct in thinking the A30 was dual carriageway between Phoenix Green and Murrell Green? Didn’t they reduce it to one lane for safety reasons? Does that mean that if a new town is built they’ll upgrade it back to two lanes either direction and re-introduce the risk to the users that they tried to remove by reducing it to a single lane? Not sure I understand that.

  27. I don’t think anyone is arguing that WInchfield shouldn’t take a “decent share” of new housing. It wouldn’t surprise me if the NP calls for an 80% or so increase in the size of the village.

    But a decent share is not a 2,000% increase in size.

  28. Steve, The council documents say that an M3 junction may well be required. It’s even in the consultation document. WInchfield station is not under-utilised. Come and try and get a car park space at rush hour, come and see for yourself the short platforms. NR also say the actual line is full.

  29. The plans are all part of the lical plan document. An a30 upgrade would be a great asset to the whole area. A new primary and secondary school built as part of a new settlement at Winchfield would provide the capacity exactly where it would then be needed – letting children walk to school or cycle.

    How can you say the same about Brownfield. Where would the children go to school. In fact where would they live – if it’s just 1 or 2 bed flats. Where woukd they play. Or go to school. WHH has no plans for this – just wants to stuff houses into the towns, on brownfield that’s not even available. Anything to avoid building on fields that the farmers who own them actively want to sell to developers.

  30. Steve. But that is not what you have proposed, and it would still ruin Hart. It would still result in the duelling if the a30 as you have already said, and the plans include the poorly related position of a school. Better still go for brownfield sites and keep Harts character in tact. At the very least be upfront about what you are proposing and produce some updated plans to share?

  31. A new settlement at Winchfield could, and should, be separated from HW. Urban extensions wouldn’t be separate from Hook, Fleet or CC

    Fleet doesn’t want new council offices (hasn’t had any for years and years). The recreation centre is for all residents of the area – and there’s an upgrade for Grosmont coming through too. -the new Hart Leisure centre will be as close to Winchfield as it is to Pondtail.

    church Crookham doesn’t have M3 access or an underutilised railway station. And it’s already coping with 1100 houses at QEB and 300 more at Watery Lane, without extra infrastructure into the area, already at capacity. A new settlement at Winchfield would alkevuate some of the burden if it takes a decent share of housing over the next 15-20 years. How can you say otherwise with a clear conscience?

  32. So, theoretically, if the Hart council plan for a new settlement was relocated to, say, Crookham Village, for example, these people would still agree that it is a good idea? If not then the new settlement is not what they are aligning themselves with. They are aligning themselves with ‘anywhere but here’. It is important to understand the difference. WAG, WHH and myself are all of the opinion that a new settlement is not needed anywhere in Hart. Of course we need houses, but the housing figure needs to be challenged. Once a sensible figure is arrived at the existing developments you refer to (QEB, Watery Lane etc) along with brownfield development suffice. Plus using brownfield sites with sufficient density will ensure the starter and affordable homes you require are built.

  33. Hi Steve. If you were against urban extensions you would not support the Hartley Winchhook development which is an urban extension. As pointed out your only argument that stands up to the facts is “not Fleet”.

    It also seems a case at wanting your cake and eat it. You want the benefits of being the largest settlement in Hart, e.g. Council offices, new recreation centre, without the responsibilities.

  34. You might not need a new house but there is a shortage of homes in the area, including starter and affordable homes – which will become worse over the next 15-20 years.

    Your comment appears to demonstrate a lack of understanding of the issue. Even WHH say there is a need for more housing. The questions where we’re disagreed on the answers are:when, where, what type, & exactly how many. At least we’re agreed on the need to ensure Rushmoor and Surrey Heath build enough to cater for their own needs. Selecting a new settlement at Winchfield as the preferred option for our needs wouldn’t have any impact the Rushooor/SH discussions.

    But generally the majority of people I speak with say that the worst option is urban extensions, directly on the edge of existing towns, or excessive building in the town centres on brownfield. Most agree a new settlement with relevant infrastructure would be preferred, and Winchfield is the best place.

  35. I omitted to mention the 1100 additional at QEB, or the 300 at Watery Lane, or those at Edenbrook, or Kings Road, or Ancells. All built or being built. Thats enough.

    Enough is enough.

    These all come without any proper infrastructure. There’s no room for new roads in the towns. No doctors. No railway capacity.

    A new settlement would have to build the required infrastructure.

    Let’s stop building houses in Fleet, CC and Hook and build them where they’re needed. If a new settlement is selected at Winchfield then developers can be forced to build the infrastructure, and funds woukd be available for a new school – and more. A new motorway junction isn’t needed – just some junction improvements to Jn5. The existing railway station us underutilised at Winchfield

    Developers like building on brownfield and urban extensions – it’s probably the easiest and cheapest option. It makes me wonder why WHH are promoting the same thing that so many developers want.

    Whikst Gary, and WHH and others want even more developments that are the same as we’ve had. More flats in the centre. More houses directly in the edges. Without sufficient infrastructure. How utterly blinkered.

    A new settlement at Winchfield would permit houses and flats to be built that we need. Yet be well designed, with necessary infrastructure being built early on the plan. It’s the only viable option that delivers a sensible solution.

    • Where are they ‘needed’, Steve? Certainly not Winchfield.

      It would appear that ‘where they are needed’ is anywhere other then Fleet, CC and now, magically, Hook: despite the fact that a new town in Winchfield will add well over 1000 houses to the parish of Hook if Hart Council’s own figures are to be believed.

      Should be believe Hart’s figures? Or should we ignore them?

  36. There you go again, Steve, talking about this mythical infrastructure. 3200 plus houses built in this ten year period and – by your own admission – ‘No real corresponding Infrastructure’. What makes anyone in Hart Council (or Hart district itself) think that building more houses will bring that infrastructure funding in?

    S106 or CIL money should have been payable on all of those dwellings (other than those which were brownfield), and yet we now find ourselves in a position where you deem this contribution to be inadequate. Why will developing a new town bring in this infrastructure money? Where will it come from? History has proven that relying on the developers to pay for it doesn’t appear to satisfy you.

    Elvetham Heath was a prime example of something that should have worked but didn’t. Where was the infrastructure around there? A school that arrived late and inadequate for the need (and was originally built as prefabricated buildings), a railway station that didn’t pan out, and a community centre that consists of one building, a field, and a pub. Even the church had to fund itself.

    To think that the developers will fund this out of the goodness of their own pockets is laughable at best. Especially as it has been stated that there will ultimately be more than one developer. Who pays for what? Even if they do agree to contribute something over and above the minimum it will be taken back in the form of large, overpriced houses. These will do nothing to relieve the housing situation in the district. With a two bed flat in Monachus Lane, HW, going for hundreds of thousands of pounds I shudder to think what a developer will sell their five- bed houses for in Hartley Winchook.

  37. Lovely reading Thankyou David. Winchfield had 19 new houses in the 10 years.

    Fleet had well over 2150! Doesn’t seem fair. Far too many in Fleet, CC and Hook.

    If you add the past 4 years, and the planning permissions already granted, the figures are even more skewed. Vastly more so if you look at the past 20 years.

    Yet WHH want to stuff a other few thousand into Fleet, CC, Hartley Wintney and Hook. Choose the last 5 years, or last 20 and the picture is even more unfair.

    Fleet (and Church Crookham, Hook, and Hartley Wintney have had too much development. And no real corresponding infrastructure.

    Thanks for showing the facts. Even if you did select a period that presented them in the most favourable light.

    These facts show that Fleet and CC and Hook have had too many new properties – and so the time has come to look at better alternatives. Winchfield presents an ideal opportunity to build a new settlement with infrastructure. And the farmers want to sell their fields. Roads, doctors, schools, community facilities and so on could be funded and built.

  38. Wait, wait wait. Hang on. So the data indicate that Church Crookham and Crookham Village have actually had less development – in percentage terms – than Winchfield? And that most of the areas of Fleet have had less development – in percentage terms – than Winchfield, the main exception being Fleet North where the majority of that development was Elvetham Heath?

    Now that is surprising.

Comments are closed.