Hart major planning site: Hartland Park (Pyestock) Master Plan
This post will provide a Hart major planning sites update. We will cover:
- Hartland Park (Pyestock)
- Pale Lane (Elvetham Chase)
- Grove Farm (Netherhouse Copse), Fleet
- Cross Farm
Hart Major Planning Site: Hartland Park (Pyestock)
The first Hart major planning site is Hartland Park. This is the site of former Pyestock National Gas Turbine Establishment. Hart Council’s planning committee has agreed to the principle of building up to 1,500 new homes on this brownfield site.
Hart Major Planning Site: Hartland Village
The decision is subject to a number of conditions:
- Hampshire County Council withdrawing its highway objection.
- Confirmation of viability issues associated with affordable housing.
- Securing appropriate SANG land.
- Further consideration by the Major Sites Sub-Committee.
Our views on Hartland Park
We agree with this decision in principle, but echo the council’s concern about a number of items:
- The developer is proposing only 20% Affordable Housing. We would like to see more affordable housing and especially some social housing for those who can’t rent and can’t buy.
- We are concerned about the road network and therefore think Kennels Lane should be upgraded to provide a relief road around the site
- There should be a proper cycle/walking route installed to provide easy access to Fleet station.
We will continue to monitor this development.
Full documents on Hart’s planning site can be found here.
Hart Major Planning Site: Pale Lane (Elvetham Chase)
Pale Lane (Elvetham Chase) planning application dates
Second up is Pale Lane aka Elvetham Chase. This is an application for 700 new houses near Pale Lane, between Elvetham Heath, the railway and the M3. The controversial planning application was submitted for this site back in November 2016. The deadline for determination passed months ago, but it seems as though the agreed date for determination was changed to September 15 2017 by agreement with the developer. Sadly, no decision has been forthcoming because the site wasn’t even considered at the planning meeting held on 13 September.
There is therefore a risk that the developer will launch a “Non-Determination” appeal just like those that were launched for Grove Farm (Netherhouse Copse) and Cross Farm.
Consequently, we are concerned that the council seems to be missing the deadlines for these major applications.
Full documents on Hart’s planning site can be found here.
Hart Major Planning Site: Grove Farm (Netherhouse Copse)
[Update] This site has been approved for development by the planning inspector [/Update] The third Hart major planning site is Grove Farm (Netherhouse Copse). This is an application for 423 new houses on the site off Hitches Lane in Fleet. The appeal for this site was heard back in July. The Planning Inspectorate had published a document on its website saying the appeal decision would be made public on September 15 2017.
Grove Farm (Netherhouse Copse) Appeal Dates
Sadly, this deadline has not been met. We Heart Hart understands the decision will now be made on or before October 6 2017, although the website is now ambiguous.
Full documents on Hart’s planning site can be found here.
Grove Farm (Netherhouse Copse) Appeal
We can live in hope that the Government’s announcement on the new housing need methodology will influence the decision in a positive way.
Hart Major Planning Site: Cross Farm
[Update] The appeal and planning application have been withdrawn] Finally, we have Cross Farm. This is an application for a 160-unit care village in Crookham Village. This was supposed to be determined a few months ago. The council failed to make a decision on time and the developer launched an appeal. The council did say it would fight the appeal, going against it’s own draft local plan.
Cross Farm Appeal withdrawn
However, it now appears as though the appeal has been withdrawn, so it isn’t clear whether the site will be in the next version of the Local Plan or not.
Full documents on Hart’s planning site can be found here.
Conclusion
All in all this is mixed news for the Hart major planning sites. First of all, we are pleased Hartland Village has passed one of the planning hurdles. Yet, we are concerned about the lack of decision on Pale Lane (Elvetham Chase). It is frustrating that no decision has been made in the Grove Farm (Netherhouse Copse) appeal. Finally, the Cross Farm application seems to be in limbo, with no formal decision by the Council and the withdrawn appeal.
We do hope that the three green field sites are dropped as a result of Hart’s housing ‘need’ being reduced due to the new Government methodology.
The council has always said it would prioritise brownfield development over green field.
True, but that’s not my point – The people the council represent rejected this type of development. So the council are not listening to their electorate.
No they didn’t. Brownfield was always top priority. I don’t recall many (if any) people arguing against that either in Council or elsewhere.
In the previous consultation (one before last) the voting by people across Hart was overwhelmingly against urban extensions like Pyestock. I’ve shared the link to the council’s page on this before on this group, but happy to look for it again if that helps.
Chris Blake but the consultation made it clear brownfield was first. Anyway what it democratic about a highly populated urban area (fleet) voting to urbanise a low populated rural area (winchfield)?
In reality, both Winchfield and Murrell Green are urban extensions. As far as i can tell, the only extra resource that MG offers is a site for a secondary school, and with the current push for free schools, finding a site or suitable building elsewhere won’t be as problematic as in the past.
Pyestock is not an urban extension. It isn’t extending anything. It is a new village on a brownfield site.
James Renwick – sadly, this is a consequence of democracy.
Chris Blake no, it depends on the defined areas, e.g. We could have central panning, or planning at parish level.
David Turver – Certainly I agree that the marketing department of the developer, who want to get permission and sell houses for maximum profit for them, want to call it a village, not an urban extension. I’d suggest that we do not allow ourselves to be mislead by self-interested misleading marketing. It is an urban extension to Fleet, or Cove if you view from that direction. Whether of not you feel it is relevant, the council also agree that is it is a urban extension. Also, once again in contradiction to their local plan, it fills in the gap between Fleet and Cove, joining the Fleet area to the Farnborough/Camberley area and creating a single urban area that measures approx 14km in length. I attach the map I shared with the council.
James Renwick – true, sorry, my comment was about the way things are now. Personally I don’t believe we have a truly functional democracy at local or national level, but that’s another story.
Very disappointed to see that creating a 1500-home urban extension to Fleet, with the massive negative environment, infrastructure and people impact this will have on the area is considered an acceptable size. Let alone that fact that it flies in the face of local democracy when the people of Hart firmly rejected this type of development.