Hart edges towards Murrell Green development
Last week’s Cabinet meeting led us to believe Hart is edging towards favouring the Murrell Green development as a new settlement option. Minutes here.
The meeting received the note of the meeting (as reported on here) that took place in August to discuss the new settlement options. These were Murrell Green, Winchfield and Rye Common. The backers of Rye Common did not leave any materials that could be published. This indicates that this proposal is not well developed and so it very unlikely to be adopted. We heard a couple of anecdotes that the Winchfield presentation did not go well. This leaves the Murrell Green development as the remaining option for a new settlement.
It was clear the councillors did not want to talk about the content of the presentations. Instead, they focused on process matters, satisfying themselves that the presentations and the note of the meeting covered all of the points raised in the meeting.
James Turner of Lightwood Strategic who are the backers of Murrell Green was at the Cabinet Meeting. He explained they have a plan to deal with the gas main issue. They plan to run a stronger gas pipe, encased in concrete along the route of the spine road. They think this will cost around £2m, and the developer will fund it.
Alternatives to Murrell Green Development
We did put to the Cabinet that the only reason they ‘need’ a new settlement is because they are pursuing the ridiculous 10,000+ housing target. Even the 8,000 figure in the Strategic Housing Market Assessment is too high. We are not confident that the council will reduce the housing target to a more sensible figure.
The results of the recent Local Plan consultation will not be published until later this month.
We do hope they take on board our representations to:
- Reduce the housing target to a more sensible figure
- Focus on brownfield development
- Take the opportunity redevelop our town centres, like Rushmoor is doing
We can live in hope.
On the plus side, the Government has made an announcement today about housing need methodology. It’s good news for Hart. Article tomorrow.
I was really naive when I moved into the area. I thought the conservation area was for the benefit of residents and visitors, but now I realise it is to provide a nice view for the HGV drivers. ?
Look at the impact of St Mary’s park alone. Not a huge development but it has had a significant impact on traffic travelling both ways on the A30 because a single junction now has traffic lights. Add in a large development (assuming the residents are happy living on and sending their kids to school on top of a highly flammable gas line, good one Councillor Brain Dead) and it is going to make this just another over developed area.
As the current idiotic diversion demonstrates, the A30 can’t handle any large increase. Hampshire county council should be held accountable for the dramatic increase in pollution in HW and surrounding area. Waiting for a serious incident as people are getting impatient and annoyed.
They won’t be happy until they have turned our villages into little popleys…
Also as per elvethem chase proposal the solution to traffic problems will be to make the roundabouts in HW bigger. HW will just be a road junction.
Yep. There no consideration to residents of HW or hook. Council seed no value in the areas apart from the a30 and a323. The gap is also a joke their own photos and plans show it already has buildings and houses in it.
Totally agree with Bob. The traffic is bad now, another 2000 cars is gonna make things a whole lot better….not!
This is the A30 now in the mornings. It’s the same every evenings. So let’s plonk a huge development on the A30 that’s not even needed!