Hart recommends Grove Farm and Bramshill planning proposals be accepted

Hart District Council recomend approval of Grove Farm Bramshill House planning applications

Hart District Council officers are recommending that the planning application for Netherhouse Copse (aka Grove Farm) and some of the applications to redevelop the former Police College at Bramshill House be granted. This has been revealed in papers recently published to go before the Planning Committee that meets on 14 December 2016. The relevant papers are available for download below.

Netherhouse Copse (Grove Farm)

The Nether House Copse (Grove Farm) application is for 423 dwellings on a green field site on Hitches Lane, Fleet in Hampshire. The controversial proposals have been opposed by a wide range of local community groups including Crookham Village and Dogmersfield Parish Councils and Fleet Town Council. But they have also been supported by various parts of Hampshire County Council and Thames Water amongst others. The planning officers have recommended that the application be granted, subject to certain conditions, and that it should go to full council for ratification. See p176 of the Agenda download below.

Bramshill House Police College

The proposals for the largely brownfield site at Bramshill House are more complex, in that there are a total of 7 applications covering various aspects of the proposed redevelopment.

Applications 2 and 3 (respectively 16/00722/FUL, 16/00724/FUL) cover the conversion of the main Bramshill House, the Stable Block and Nuffield Hall into both a single dwelling house (00722) and offices (00724).  Application 7 (16/01290/FUL) covers the provision of 14.4Ha of Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANG). The officers recommend that these three proposals be granted planning permission, subject to a number of conditions.

Applications 1 (16/00720/FUL), covers converting Bramshill House into 25 dwellings and publically accessible museum space. Application 4 (16/00726/FUL) covers the development of up to 235 dwellings in the grounds of Bramshill House. Application 5 (16/00727/FUL) covers the development of 14 dwellings in a different part of the grounds. Finally Application 6 (16/00728/FUL) is for 9 residential units in an area of the site known as Pinewood.

The officers have asked the Planning Committee for a ‘steer’ on these applications. The applicants have asked that Hart view the development of these additional dwellings as enabling development. This would fund the maintenance of the main Grade I listed building. The Officers have said that applications 1, 4 and 5 are opportunities to recommend the applications for approval, subject to agreeing to total volume of housing. They are not minded to recommend Application 6 for approval.


Overall we are opposed to the Netherhouse Copse proposal as this is green field development. We believe there is plenty of brownfield land available to meet our housing needs. We agree in principle that the Bramshill site should be redeveloped. However, we recognise the sensitivity of the site. We would suggest that suitable payments are made for the provision of infrastructure and affordable housing without increasing the number of houses that are built.

We predict fireworks at the Planning Committee, especially after the recent defection of two councillors from the Tories to CCH. The full council meeting on 15 December will be interesting to say the least. As the Kaiser Chiefs might say, “I predict a riot”.

It really is a shame that more councillors and more of the various groups across the district did not get properly behind a brownfield strategy. Plus they did not heed our warnings about the poor management of the Local Plan project. If they had, we might have a brownfield focused Local Plan by now and have a proper defence against the Grove Farm proposals.

Hart Planning Committee Agenda 14 December 2016
Hart Planning Committee Agenda 14 December 2016
Hart Planning Committee Paper about Bramshill House
Hart Planning Committee Paper about Bramshill House



Posted in Brownfield Sites, Hart District Council, Hart Local Plan, We Heart Hart Campaign, We Love Hart Campaign and tagged , , , , , , , , , , .


  1. Pingback: Community Campaign Hart incompetence could cost taxpayers millions | We Heart Hart

  2. Pingback: CCH force delay to the Hart Local Plan as housing numbers rise | We Heart Hart

  3. As a project manager myself those elements that have been visible from the outside – the disastrous and error riddled consultation paper, the flyers publicly paid for and completely lacking impartiality. That is of course to say nothing of the endless and lengthy delays and still no published viable plan that actually supports the view of the residents – debacle is not the word.

    That said, a project manager and team is only as good as their stakeholders – I suspect the rot is higher up than the project team!

  4. They need to get the Local Plan in place ASAP along with some up to date policies. Without them, they are sitting ducks for the developers. I first raised issues about the woeful project management 18 months ago. They told me I was wrong and everything was on track and have since delayed the publication of the plan by around 18 months. Unfortunately they are a bit of a shower.

    • Correct. However, I think it would be unusual to go against the officer recommendation. If, for instance, the council turned it down, then I would think it likely the developer would appeal. The appeal costs would ~£200K, and if there were no real planning reasons to turn it down, then the appeal would be lost and taxpayers money wasted.

    • Agreed, the plan will help with this. But, I think if the local plan follows the most popular (by votes) option for redevelopment, then Winchfield will get it’s new settlement, which I think this group is opposed to. So it wouldn’t be all upside.

  5. I guess we’ll know soon enough after the Planning Committee next week and then the full council in January. I would suspect most of the remaining Tories will vote for it and some Lib Dems, but I can’t be certain. I would think all CCH will oppose it.

Comments are closed.