Leeuwenveld, Amsterdam Netherlands – LEVS architects
Local architecture graduate, Gareth Price, has published an updated version of his work showing what could be done with brownfield sites in the district. His work shows that there could be capacity for 6,500 homes on brownfield land across the district. These would include, for some sites, basement car-parks, ground floor commercial and upper floor residential, following a successful trend from the Continent. This is in-line with what we have been suggesting for months and could create capacity for sufficient housing for decades to come.
The style of development he as put forward would mean that S106/CIL contributions would be required from developers. It is likely that some of these homes could be affordable units that would generate a larger “new homes bonus” for the district from the Government. Of course, this money could be used to improve infrastructure in existing settlements where we are facing a £78m funding deficit. Schemes such as this are much more likely to meet our actual housing need of 60-70% 1 or 2-bed homes and over 2,000 specialist units for the elderly rather than building £750K detached houses in the country for Londoners who want to move here. We understand the densities proposed are similar to some schemes already granted permission by Hart Council.
Whilst we welcome this work to demonstrate what could be done with a little creativity and ingenuity, we do not necessarily support the density put forward on each site by Gareth. For instance, we do not believe that such high densities would be appropriate for the former Police College at Bramshill, even though we support the principle of some redevelopment of that site to prevent the Grade I listed building going to rack and ruin.
One has to ask why Hart Council has not taken up our 5-point plan that included inviting teams of architects to paint a vision of the art of the possible with our brownfield sites, as Gareth has shown it can be done. This certainly supports the case for a brownfield solution to our housing needs.
His full report can be downloaded from the link below:
We have created a dedicated consultation page and two guides to responding to the consultation that are available on the downloads below. The comments are designed to be cut and pasted into the boxes provided. It will be very powerful if you could edit the comments into your own words. Please do find time to respond to the consultation and play your part in saving our countryside.
Full version:
2 Minute version:
By 2018 it is predicted there will be a 16% and 11% over capacity in primary and secondary schools in Hart. Add to this the fact that Hart schools take 10% of their students from outside the district, and you will see that a new school is not required. It is just more propaganda from some cllrs trying to foist a new town on the district. Vote for dispersal in the consultation.
And no mention ofa new school being required here either:
https://wehearthart.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Hart-DC-Draft-CIL-Regulation-R123-list-October-2014.pdf
lets spend the little money we have on people not new buildings
Own facilities in Winchfield with no doctors to run them. If local existing GP get more money from serving more people they can employ more doctors or fill existing positions making it better for existing settlements
Nope. The Winchfield Consortium proposal shows a pathetic infrastructure contribution. The whole proposal is nonsense:
https://wehearthart.co.uk/2015/12/secret-winchfield-new-town-plan-emerges/
I have asked HDC to help answer the question. They have refused. The published data does not allow an accurate estimate to be produced. However, when I saw that there was a forecase surplus in 2018, and only a modest increase in sschool kids upto 2031, then I thought it worth asking the question. It is abasurd to argue there is no funding available for something that we don’t actually need.
Of course I am aware of the shortages at doctors surgeries. However, I cannot see how a new settlement will help the situation in Fleet, HW or Hook.
Yet you’re proposing to make it worse. Whilst a new settlement would have its own facilities, therefore avouding making other towns worse.
Own facilities in Winchfield with no doctors to run them. If local existing GP get more money from serving more people they can employ more doctors or fill existing positions making it better for existing settlements
lets spend the little money we have on people not new buildings
You have been given the facts time and time again. Read the previous posts. But you won’t listen. It’s pointless.
Glib comments. What are your estimates and calculations – or haven’t you thought it through. Aren’t you aware of the existing shortages at doctors. Or of the fact that there’s not enough money for new secondary schools unless a new settlement is built. Answer the questions properly rather than proposing solutions that are outrageous and just assume we?Winchfield can stuff more people in to all other existing towns and villages and ‘magic up’ monies and land.
Same again.
Dear God you can tell Christmas is over. Brownfield and urban much better. You already have what you need just adding a bit on. All this stuff about no school places and doctors is scaremongering tactics. Plus not that many houses 7500 houses would be built. You suggestion means destroying beautiful countryside that we can all enjoy. Then what do we have an urban sprawl.
1) The important facts to establish is how many children will be in the district at the end of the plan period and therefore how many school places will we need. There is no answer to that question. I have asked HDC, and they refused to answer. The SHMA shows only a modest increase in school age children up to 2031.
2) The children we have can go to school either in existing schools or new schools. If we need new schools, allocate the land and build them.
3) People can go to the doctors wherever they go to doctors today. Or expand the facilities. The bigger question is where do they go to hospital.
So answer three questions then: you propose over 2500 homes on brownfield. How many children is that likely to be(or are you proposing that noone who moves in has or will have children in the period to 2032 as a minimum). Where will they go to school – allowing for the fact that current development for the period to 2020 will use all the new and available school spaces? And where will they go to the doctors? Let alone houses built on the edges of current towns and villages, which is the outrageous ‘solution’ you propose – and which would only cause even more problems.
And if this is such a pressing issue, why doesn’t the infrastructure delivery schedule (which mysteriously seems to have vanished from the Hart website) not include a new school in its schedule?
https://wehearthart.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Hart-DC-Infrastructure-Delivery-Schedule-October-2014-Part-A-v2.pdf
The latest school place forecast shows a surplus of both primary and secondary school places:
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwj6rs75noHKAhXFtRoKHUVUDs0QFggcMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdocuments.hants.gov.uk%2F2014-03-26EMEHampshireSchoolPlacePlanningFrameworkAppendix1.docx&usg=AFQjCNFJnlyrQwBQpL3KPSzp48Vh8e4QvQ&bvm=bv.110151844,d.d2s p23.
The SHMA shows only a modest increase in school age children from 2011-2031. Most of the population growth is in older people.
And even if it were shown that a new secondary school were actually required, it is preposterous to argue that the only way to find the 10Ha or so required for a secondary school is to allocate 400Ha for a new town.
There are many more current ones too. The number of places hasn’t changed. 30 now and 30 later. Thats all To cope with QEB, Edenbrook, And the past 10 years as children were being based out of the area. A new school will be needed as the current schools don’t have capacity for my mire growth – certainly not the 2500 plus flats you want to build on brownfield much in the centre of town. Let alone any more on the edge of Fleet or CC or Hook. This just shows how ridiculous We?Hart are. Where would you send them to school. Or doctors?. A new settlement is the only viable solution.
That post about schools is well out of date.
To get a complete answer I’d recommend you ask officers at Hart DC as I wasn’t involved in QEB as I wasn’t a councillor at the time so don’t have the info to hand. I’m also on holiday Thankyou. Have a good New Year.
Note ref the Leisure centre http://www.gethampshire.co.uk/news/local-news/fleets-23m-leisure-centre-given-9635181
Also ref the school http://faceit-group.org/resources/schools/
The school will be able to cope with 30 more pupils initially, and another 30 when phase 2 is completed. This will make it one of the largest schools in the area, creating mire traffic issues. It required £4.5m of county funding Iver developer contributions I believe, so is a classic example of developer contributions not even providing the basic finding for the school places they require, let alone any related infrastructure like doctors, roads, community facilities, etc. Also Court Moor school can’t be expanded, and Calthorpe can’t be expanded any further without house issues, so a new school will be required in Hart for any new development, whether brownfield or a new settlement or other. And I understand that would only be posdible by new land being provided and funding provided to build a whole new school which is only applicable a new settlement being selected.
Lastly this was new building on a former MOD site – not office conversions which come without any developer funding for schools, or ANY other infrastructure. And with the army relocating troops back to Aldershot, it appears no other major sites will become available.
Steve Forster please could you answer Gary Comerford’s question about the monies given by developer TW for school places when they built on the Brownfield development in Church Crookham
Please don’t build 3-4 bedroom houses in Hart no-one can afford them! What is needed is 1-2 bed houses and flats that young couples can afford? This is exactly why turning old offices into flats is a better option. (note sentinel pipers court on a30 as a wonderful example of this).
Well I must congratulate Mr Forster for having the backbone to join the debate in public. But that’s as far as my support for his views goes. I am a lay person, who finds it hard to keep track of all the numbers, but it is pretty clear to me that our towns are falling apart and desperately need rejuvenating. Surely simple logic shows that developing run down brownfield sites first and investing the builder levies on existing roads, cycle routes, schools and other infrastructure makes the most sense. If not, we’ll ultimately end up with a shiny new town, and a lot of old run down ones! We may end up with a new town eventually anyway, but we must fix the decaying ones FIRST. It is also astonishing and frightening that members of the public seem to know more about the topic of “planning” than those “experts” employed to oversee the future of our land.
Well I must congratulate Mr Forster for having the backbone to join the debate in public. But that’s as far as my support for his views goes. I am a lay person, who finds it hard to keep track of all the numbers, but it is pretty clear to me that our towns are falling apart and desperately need rejuvenating. Surely simple logic shows that developing run down brownfield sites first and investing the builder levies on existing roads, cycle routes, schools and other infrastructure makes the most sense. If not, we’ll ultimately end up with a shiny new town, and a lot of old run down ones! We may end up with a new town eventually anyway, but we must fix the decaying ones FIRST. It is also astonishing and frightening that members of the public seem to know more about the topic of “planning” than those “experts” employed to oversee the future of our land.
Add it all up, ad read the conclusion above.
Add it all up, ad read the conclusion above.
So 70% of affordable homes should 1-2 bedroom. Thats 28% of all houses. Far from the majority. For the whole area. And I believe Hart has a need for more larger homes as I said. I urge people to read the SHMA and draw their own conclusions.
But don’t we also need to add the percentage of market homes that are 1 or 2 bedrooms to that figure of 28%?
Hang on a second while I count that total up.
28% affordable 1/2 bedroom
24% market 2 bedrooms
6% market 1 bedroom
By my count that makes 58%.
Now I’m no mathematician, but I think that constitutes a majority.
So 70% of affordable homes should 1-2 bedroom. Thats 28% of all houses. Far from the majority. For the whole area. And I believe Hart has a need for more larger homes as I said. I urge people to read the SHMA and draw their own conclusions.
But don’t we also need to add the percentage of market homes that are 1 or 2 bedrooms to that figure of 28%?
Hang on a second while I count that total up.
28% affordable 1/2 bedroom
24% market 2 bedrooms
6% market 1 bedroom
By my count that makes 58%.
Now I’m no mathematician, but I think that constitutes a majority.
Hang on. Wait, wait, wait!
If I didn’t know better I would say it looks like Cllr Foster has chosen selected bits of data to bolster his position and provide misinformation: something he obviously frowns on as he seems to accuse you of doing that regularly.
I must be mistaken, though. Surely?
Hang on. Wait, wait, wait!
If I didn’t know better I would say it looks like Cllr Foster has chosen selected bits of data to bolster his position and provide misinformation: something he obviously frowns on as he seems to accuse you of doing that regularly.
I must be mistaken, though. Surely?
You evidently missed the point (conveniently) where I advised “All the info is in the SHMA and I encourage anyone really interested to read it…and make up their own mind”.
You evidently missed the point (conveniently) where I advised “All the info is in the SHMA and I encourage anyone really interested to read it…and make up their own mind”.
Here is the full quote:
There are a range of other factors relevant in considering policies for the mix of affordable housing sought
through development schemes. At the housing market level, the analysis would support policies for:
one bed properties to make up around 30% of new homes: reflecting continued need for smaller
properties but that re-lets within the existing stock are biased towards smaller accommodation so these
needs can be met more easily.
two bed properties to make up around 30-40% of new homes: broadly consistent with the proportion of
households in need who require two beds and these properties provide more flexible accommodation,
being able to meet the needs of a wider range of households including couples and small families.
three bed or larger properties to make up around 30% of new homes: there are relatively substantial
numbers of households needing larger properties and they often wait longer to be housed because of
limited supply.
And the affordable chart
No. No. No. The table you showed is for market housing only.
You are wilfully misrepresenting the facts.
The report does not give a split of need by district. Rushmoor want to build more larger properties in Wellesley.
As I said…I urge people to read the SHMA to gather the full facts.
No. No. No. The table you showed is for market housing only.
You are wilfully misrepresenting the facts.
The report does not give a split of need by district. Rushmoor want to build more larger properties in Wellesley.
As I said…I urge people to read the SHMA to gather the full facts.
40% of housing should be affordable or starter homes.
The overall mix is as stated. I personally actually question your analysis applying that the SHMA applies at the same rate throughout the area or specifically to Hart – my impression is that there’s more requirement for flats in Farnborough and Aldershot in Rushmoor, and also in Surrey Heath – and that Hart has a proportionally higher requirement for 3-4 bedroom homes. Seems logical to me, borne out by Harts population demographics. There again that’s purely my opinion.
All the info is in the SHMA and I encourage anyone really interested to read it (light bedtime reading…not) and make up their own mind, not just rely on the drip feeding of selective ‘facts’ from We?Hart supporters (or me!).
40% of housing should be affordable or starter homes.
The overall mix is as stated. I personally actually question your analysis applying that the SHMA applies at the same rate throughout the area or specifically to Hart – my impression is that there’s more requirement for flats in Farnborough and Aldershot in Rushmoor, and also in Surrey Heath – and that Hart has a proportionally higher requirement for 3-4 bedroom homes. Seems logical to me, borne out by Harts population demographics. There again that’s purely my opinion.
All the info is in the SHMA and I encourage anyone really interested to read it (light bedtime reading…not) and make up their own mind, not just rely on the drip feeding of selective ‘facts’ from We?Hart supporters (or me!).
And Steve Forster why haven’t you posted the chart of affordable housing need?
This shows need of 74% 1 & 2 bed dwellings. Again wilful misrepresentation of the facts to support your NIMBY position.
And guess what you also have not quoted the summary of the housing need which states :
” At the housing market level, the analysis would support policies for:
one bed properties to make up around 30% of new homes: reflecting continued need for smaller properties but that re-lets within the existing stock are biased towards smaller accommodation so these needs can be met more easily.
two bed properties to make up around 30-40% of new homes: broadly consistent with the proportion of households in need who require two beds and these properties provide more flexible accommodation, being able to meet the needs of a wider range of households including couples and small families.
three bed or larger properties to make up around 30% of new homes: there are relatively substantial numbers of households needing larger properties and they often wait longer to be housed because of limited supply.
These proportions reco
And Steve Forster why haven’t you posted the chart of affordable housing need?
This shows need of 74% 1 & 2 bed dwellings. Again wilful misrepresentation of the facts to support your NIMBY position.
And guess what you also have not quoted the summary of the housing need which states :
” At the housing market level, the analysis would support policies for:
one bed properties to make up around 30% of new homes: reflecting continued need for smaller properties but that re-lets within the existing stock are biased towards smaller accommodation so these needs can be met more easily.
two bed properties to make up around 30-40% of new homes: broadly consistent with the proportion of households in need who require two beds and these properties provide more flexible accommodation, being able to meet the needs of a wider range of households including couples and small families.
three bed or larger properties to make up around 30% of new homes: there are relatively substantial numbers of households needing larger properties and they often wait longer to be housed because of limited supply.
These proportions reco
You can have 3-4-5 bedroom apartments over multiple floors. Anything is possible if you have an open mind.
You can have 3-4-5 bedroom apartments over multiple floors. Anything is possible if you have an open mind.
I am sorry but this is wilful ignorance of the expressed need in the SHMA.
The SHMA states clearly that 60-70% of the housing need should be 1 & 2 bed units.
Most of what has been built or permitted since 2011 on sites like Watery Lane, Rifle Range Farm, Edenbrook, Urnfield and so on is traditional housing estates in the countryside delivering 3 and 4 bed houses that are out of reach of ordinary families in Hart.
The council is duty bound to meet the needs of the district not the whim of a councillor who is woefully out of touch with the real world.
On the one hand he says brownfield is the preferred choice of the developers but then says the developers won’t be interested.
This is like the Wizard of Oz. Much huffing and puffing behind the curtain but when the veil is drawn back little of substance is revealed.
I am sorry but this is wilful ignorance of the expressed need in the SHMA.
The SHMA states clearly that 60-70% of the housing need should be 1 & 2 bed units.
Most of what has been built or permitted since 2011 on sites like Watery Lane, Rifle Range Farm, Edenbrook, Urnfield and so on is traditional housing estates in the countryside delivering 3 and 4 bed houses that are out of reach of ordinary families in Hart.
The council is duty bound to meet the needs of the district not the whim of a councillor who is woefully out of touch with the real world.
On the one hand he says brownfield is the preferred choice of the developers but then says the developers won’t be interested.
This is like the Wizard of Oz. Much huffing and puffing behind the curtain but when the veil is drawn back little of substance is revealed.
Mmm I can’t see any problem with developers not being interested. Maybe we should make Hart uninteresting for developers. I’ll tell you what Steve are you looking for a new job as a lobbyist for developers because I think I’ve found the perfect career for you. ?
Mmm I can’t see any problem with developers not being interested. Maybe we should make Hart uninteresting for developers. I’ll tell you what Steve are you looking for a new job as a lobbyist for developers because I think I’ve found the perfect career for you. ?
Here’s one fact of many. WHH assert that the majority of housing that is required can be met by blocks of 1-2 bedroom flats on brownfield. But the very data referred to says otherwise:
There’s a need for a decent mix of housing and 65% is 3or more bedrooms.
WHH lack credibility by imagining development at 150 dwellings per hectare in the middle of urban areas, for example Bowenhurst Road in Church Crookham, is sensible or practical. Or that 1&2 bedrooms is sufficient. or that it doesn’t overload local facilities.
The thinking also seems to be based very much on what goes on in continental Europe. I have no problem with that, it can be well organised and comfortable. However, sadly for Winchfield, the sort of housing that the majority of local people in Hart want, and others across the south-east of England elsewhere, is a semi or detached house with a garden. Long-term, the government is going to have to wean people off that. In the meantime I don’t think Hart’s local plan would be approved, or developers be interested, if that was the outcome. Residents would be dissatisfied and move away. It’s not viable to do what WHH suggest, and would almost certainly cause the local plan to be rejected – opening the area to huge problems.
Here’s one fact of many. WHH assert that the majority of housing that is required can be met by blocks of 1-2 bedroom flats on brownfield. But the very data referred to says otherwise:
There’s a need for a decent mix of housing and 65% is 3or more bedrooms.
WHH lack credibility by imagining development at 150 dwellings per hectare in the middle of urban areas, for example Bowenhurst Road in Church Crookham, is sensible or practical. Or that 1&2 bedrooms is sufficient. or that it doesn’t overload local facilities.
The thinking also seems to be based very much on what goes on in continental Europe. I have no problem with that, it can be well organised and comfortable. However, sadly for Winchfield, the sort of housing that the majority of local people in Hart want, and others across the south-east of England elsewhere, is a semi or detached house with a garden. Long-term, the government is going to have to wean people off that. In the meantime I don’t think Hart’s local plan would be approved, or developers be interested, if that was the outcome. Residents would be dissatisfied and move away. It’s not viable to do what WHH suggest, and would almost certainly cause the local plan to be rejected – opening the area to huge problems.
Debate is exactly what we are trying to encourage, Cllr. I’m disappointed you can’t see that. I have asked numerous questions designed to broaden the discussion, both in this thread and in previous threads. All the ‘debate’ I get from you is a variation of “Everybody wants to build on Winchfield and WAG/WHH are just spreading disinformation to stifle discussion”
I am completely fine with you expressing an opinion – something you have done several times – but in order to debate you need to at least address facts and figures that are presented. You have done none of this, merely misinterpreted or misunderstood statements that have been made previously, repeated your opinion as fact, and ignored any attempt to move the discussion forward.
Debate is exactly what we are trying to encourage, Cllr. I’m disappointed you can’t see that. I have asked numerous questions designed to broaden the discussion, both in this thread and in previous threads. All the ‘debate’ I get from you is a variation of “Everybody wants to build on Winchfield and WAG/WHH are just spreading disinformation to stifle discussion”
I am completely fine with you expressing an opinion – something you have done several times – but in order to debate you need to at least address facts and figures that are presented. You have done none of this, merely misinterpreted or misunderstood statements that have been made previously, repeated your opinion as fact, and ignored any attempt to move the discussion forward.
Actually the residents of Fleet I talk to are not so sure a new settlement at Winchfield is the best option? They question the need for 5000 houses
WHH, Turver and many Winchfield residents show utter disdain for the green fields and countryside to the south of Fleet & CC or elsewhere. Let alone the protecting the towns community from overdevelopment.
They don’t seem to be concerned that the almost certain consequence of not choosing to build a new settlement at Winchfield, would mean building on the edges of Fleet&CC -creating a single conurbation that starts at the M3, West of Elvetham Heath, and continues South as far as the A287, including Pale Lane, Grove Farm and Watery Lane, and east almost joining Fleet Pondtail and Ancells to Farnborough. Also causibg Hook to spread West towards Basingstoke. With most spaces in town filled with flats.
We ? Winchfield=We’ll Harm Hart.
Steve because you are a councillor representing Hart residents you have a greater responsibility than the ordinary Joe to make sure what you are saying is backed up by reliable evidence and data and opinion not presented as facts Much of what you say is opinion yet you present it as facts. As a councillor you have the responsibility to deal in facts and evidence because of your position on the council. I feel that your starting to mislead not deliberately but you don’t give both sides of the argument equal weight. If I was in your ward I’d want to know from you what the disadvantages are of this new settlement. A lot of what you say are unknowns and you can’t present them as facts. Indeed Hart won’t supply the information. By the way I own no property in Winchfield so it’s of no financial loss for me one way or other.
I make clear it’s my personal opinion. I present facts where I feel they are needed – and I question the WHH campaigns ‘facts’ as some appear to me to be misconstrued, misinterpreted, or misrepresented , as I just pointed out with the WHH ‘fact’ that a large proportion (the majority?) of required homes in Hart were 1-2 bed flats. Roughly 2/3 of new housing is shown (from the same table referred to) as being 3-4 bedroom required, not the 1-2 bed flats that the WHH which campaign – that you defend – presented.
I base my opinions on actual data and information that is all publicly available. I’m glad to say I live in a democracy and am entitled to voice my opinion, and free speech – even if my opinion differs from some Winchfield residents (not all!) and a few others. This is my personal FB profile and makes it clear it’s my personal opinions.
I do agree I have a duty to represent, as a councillor, the residents and I do that professionally and with integrity.
If you disagree with my opinions I’m happy to continue to have that discussion here. Or at a coffee shop in Fleet. Or at the HW meeting I intend to attend.
For any data you require I’d refer you to Hart officers who can provide the same data I have read.
Nb Where I make an error or mistake I admit it – I am human. I try to avoid making errors. I’m open to reasoned argument and discussion.
Have a good evening.
Watery Lane has already been approved by the government planners, and I suspect that Grove Farm will also be approved as well – despite vehement opposition from local campaign groups. Winchfield town would join Fleet (Elvetham) to HW and nearly Hook, and with other developments already approved , join with the A287. Maps are your friend, Cllr Forster. Look at them.
There’s a large area separating a potential new settlement at Winchfield from Fleet. The only way to prevent in the longer term Grove Farm being approved (Im pleased that Hart District Council refused it planning permission) and other urban extensions, in my opinion, is to have a decent defence – the best one being to have the option of Winchfield. With a reasibable gap around it. There wouldn’t be any gap I’d we?Hart had their way and stuffed houses into and around Fleet, CC, HW and the rest of Hart as they want to do.
Why are you not questioning the need for 7500 houses?
Why are you not questioning the need for 7500 houses?
I pretty sure the maps I’ve seen show Hook, Winchfield, Hartley Wintney and Dogmersfield coalescing as the result of a new settlement. In fact the biggest area of open land in that morass is land owned by Cllr Renshaw who has committed to not selling to developers. The gap on the eastern edge between a settlement and Edenbrook or EH is also remarkably small – certainly smaller than the current gap between Hook and Phoenix Green. Or Winchfield and Odiham .
I pretty sure the maps I’ve seen show Hook, Winchfield, Hartley Wintney and Dogmersfield coalescing as the result of a new settlement. In fact the biggest area of open land in that morass is land owned by Cllr Renshaw who has committed to not selling to developers. The gap on the eastern edge between a settlement and Edenbrook or EH is also remarkably small – certainly smaller than the current gap between Hook and Phoenix Green. Or Winchfield and Odiham .
That’s funny. There’s a gap there. All around it.
And that’s before any SANGS land or park or play area or school fields etc. A big gap in the middle too. A gap in the North too.
Bigger than the fact that there’s no gap at all between Fleet and Pale Lane which would be most likely to be used if Winchfield didn’t go ahead. Or Grove Farm. Or between Hook and land to the West of Hook that would be next in line. No gap at all there either.
Bigger than the gap between Fleet and Pyestock. Bugger the. The gap between Fleet & CC.
And bigger than the gap between Pyestock and Farnborough too.
In fact there are many gaps around Winchfield. Even if every field was built on, shown on that map. Over 20 years or so. Instead We?Hart would rather see all the land in and around Fleet, Church Crookham, HW, Hook, and other areas around Hart built on. Densely. Anywhere but Winchfield.
No wonder the majority of parishes in Hart are recommending a new settlement as the best option to avoid decimation the rest of Hart and it’s communities.
That’s funny. There’s a gap there. All around it.
And that’s before any SANGS land or park or play area or school fields etc. A big gap in the middle too. A gap in the North too.
Bigger than the fact that there’s no gap at all between Fleet and Pale Lane which would be most likely to be used if Winchfield didn’t go ahead. Or Grove Farm. Or between Hook and land to the West of Hook that would be next in line. No gap at all there either.
Bigger than the gap between Fleet and Pyestock. Bugger the. The gap between Fleet & CC.
And bigger than the gap between Pyestock and Farnborough too.
In fact there are many gaps around Winchfield. Even if every field was built on, shown on that map. Over 20 years or so. Instead We?Hart would rather see all the land in and around Fleet, Church Crookham, HW, Hook, and other areas around Hart built on. Densely. Anywhere but Winchfield.
No wonder the majority of parishes in Hart are recommending a new settlement as the best option to avoid decimation the rest of Hart and it’s communities.
Ok. I understand now. I thought we were having a serious discussion but obviously I was mistaken.
I apologise.
Ok. I understand now. I thought we were having a serious discussion but obviously I was mistaken.
I apologise.
SHL124 joins directly on to St Mary’s Park. The Murrell Green sites come within a few metres of the new SHL1&2 sites granted permission in Hook. The eastern end is very close to Edenbrook.
SHL124 joins directly on to St Mary’s Park. The Murrell Green sites come within a few metres of the new SHL1&2 sites granted permission in Hook. The eastern end is very close to Edenbrook.
How do you know the majority of Parishes are supporting a new settlement? If you say something like that can you provide the source of that statement?
How do you know the majority of Parishes are supporting a new settlement? If you say something like that can you provide the source of that statement?
Also whose behind you in your campaign? You’re clearly not working on your own?
Also whose behind you in your campaign? You’re clearly not working on your own?
You say there’s a ‘large area’ can you be precise? Large means nothing? What size are we talking about in metres? Large is very subjective.
How big are the gaps?
How big are the gaps?
You’ve got the map so you can measure it as easily as I can Kate. There is no gap with almost all the urban extensions and brownfield overcrowding which We?Hart’s proposes would be better. I repeat: no gap. Zero. Except Pyestock, but that’s not available.
You’ve got the map so you can measure it as easily as I can Kate. There is no gap with almost all the urban extensions and brownfield overcrowding which We?Hart’s proposes would be better. I repeat: no gap. Zero. Except Pyestock, but that’s not available.
That’s not answering the question. As a local councillor I’m asking you how big are the gaps that you say are big enough? How big are the gaps? If you say they are large you must know how big they are otherwise how can you know they are large?
That’s not answering the question. As a local councillor I’m asking you how big are the gaps that you say are big enough? How big are the gaps? If you say they are large you must know how big they are otherwise how can you know they are large?
What does that even mean? Of course there would be gaps between the different settlements and it would ensure 7500 houses wouldn’t be built because the developers wouldn’t be interested in building that many houses. They want a new settlement.
What does that even mean? Of course there would be gaps between the different settlements and it would ensure 7500 houses wouldn’t be built because the developers wouldn’t be interested in building that many houses. They want a new settlement.
Kate. As one example of many, please explain the green gap that you think there would be between Elvetham and Pale Lane. Or How why you think developers want a new settlement in preference to the faster and cheaper option of building on brownfield or urban extensions.
Hart published the maps showing all locations. It clearly shows all the sites adjoining current towns and villages, with no green gap. It also shows on one of the maps that a new settlement at Winchfield would still retain green gaps to nearby settlements. I’m concerned that you seem unable or unwilling to see or acknowledge this.
Kate. As one example of many, please explain the green gap that you think there would be between Elvetham and Pale Lane. Or How why you think developers want a new settlement in preference to the faster and cheaper option of building on brownfield or urban extensions.
Hart published the maps showing all locations. It clearly shows all the sites adjoining current towns and villages, with no green gap. It also shows on one of the maps that a new settlement at Winchfield would still retain green gaps to nearby settlements. I’m concerned that you seem unable or unwilling to see or acknowledge this.
Steve Forster I think that by definition an urban extension is development added on to existing urban development. Hence it would have no gap at all. That’s kind of the idea of an urban extension. Saying it has no gap is similar to saying ‘My wireless mouse has no lead connecting it to my computer”. It’s how it is designed. I’m not sure what point you are making with that statement.
Steve Forster I think that by definition an urban extension is development added on to existing urban development. Hence it would have no gap at all. That’s kind of the idea of an urban extension. Saying it has no gap is similar to saying ‘My wireless mouse has no lead connecting it to my computer”. It’s how it is designed. I’m not sure what point you are making with that statement.
You answered my question by asking me a question. Gosh that’s what they do Question Time when they don’t want to answer the question. Why won’t you answer the question posed. Answer mine then I’ll answer yours.
Thank you Gary Comerford my point exactly but you put it better than I could. ?
Thank you Gary Comerford my point exactly but you put it better than I could. ?
Gary Thankyou for those clear words. Perhaps you can help Kate who seems to think urban extensions would still have a gap. She thinks they’d still be different settlements and appears not to appreciate that urban extensions are expansion of existing towns and villages into adjoining countryside b. They would still use up the same amount of greenfield as a new settlement.
Yet you and she and We?Hart prefer them despite the fact that they are cheaper for developers, worse for the community, worse for roads, rail, schools, doctors, etc.
I’m not intending to comment any more today as my point has been made and it’s my birthday, so I fancy a day and from your propaganda. Have a good day.
Gary Thankyou for those clear words. Perhaps you can help Kate who seems to think urban extensions would still have a gap. She thinks they’d still be different settlements and appears not to appreciate that urban extensions are expansion of existing towns and villages into adjoining countryside b. They would still use up the same amount of greenfield as a new settlement.
Yet you and she and We?Hart prefer them despite the fact that they are cheaper for developers, worse for the community, worse for roads, rail, schools, doctors, etc.
I’m not intending to comment any more today as my point has been made and it’s my birthday, so I fancy a day and from your propaganda. Have a good day.
I don’t that’s the whole point!!!! I was just thinking why would they have a gap!! Yet you were sure they would. I’m thinking that makes no sense. Of course they wouldn’t use up all the green space. That would mean they were a new settlement!! Doh
I don’t that’s the whole point!!!! I was just thinking why would they have a gap!! Yet you were sure they would. I’m thinking that makes no sense. Of course they wouldn’t use up all the green space. That would mean they were a new settlement!! Doh
I hope you enjoy your birthday, Cllr. Perhaps when you come back after the break you could address the SHMA figures that were discussed last evening and how 2- and 3- bed houses clearly represent a majority of the need. Might be nice also to get your thoughts on the £13m education contribution Taylor Wimpey provided from brownfield development in Crookham Park and where that has gone to.
Have a good Christmas.
I hope you enjoy your birthday, Cllr. Perhaps when you come back after the break you could address the SHMA figures that were discussed last evening and how 2- and 3- bed houses clearly represent a majority of the need. Might be nice also to get your thoughts on the £13m education contribution Taylor Wimpey provided from brownfield development in Crookham Park and where that has gone to.
Have a good Christmas.
Actually the residents of Fleet I talk to are not so sure a new settlement at Winchfield is the best option? They question the need for 5000 houses
I admire your tenacity Steve. Don’t and won’t agree with you and I sincerely hope you and your Planners lose this one. But, as I say, you are a fighter and I hope you don’t win.
Thanks Lesley. It’s important to discuss it and I feel passionately I’m doing the right thing for our community. I’m glad you do too, even if we disagree – that’s democracy. ??
I admire your tenacity Steve. Don’t and won’t agree with you and I sincerely hope you and your Planners lose this one. But, as I say, you are a fighter and I hope you don’t win.
Thanks Lesley. It’s important to discuss it and I feel passionately I’m doing the right thing for our community. I’m glad you do too, even if we disagree – that’s democracy. ??
There is NOT enough to fund it based on history and reality if brownfield and urban extensions are built.
Office conversions come with NO funding for anything other than the flats they deliver.
New settlements do come with funding from County and government – and developers. Plans would not be approved unless conditions were met which satisfied this. Earlier comments attest to the significant funds.
Is it my opinion? Yes. Backed by evidence, policy – and history. Since we agree to disagree there’s no point in discussing further with you, but I present an alternative for rather than trying to drown out debate which you seem to (jointly) be doing. I’m sure residents realise that stuffing loads of flats onto the edges and into Fleet, CC, HW, Odiham, Yateley, Hook etc isn’t a good idea. I encourage them to read the info, listen to advice (like Hook Parish, Crookham Village Parish, Hook Parish and Fleet and CC society, and Elvetham Parish all of whom agree with two things based upon the fact that some greenfield will have to be used for housing as existing available brownfield will not meet the needs:
1. A new settlement at Winchfield is the preferred option as the best way to deliver necessary housing in the best interests of the majority if people across Hart.
2. It should be coupled with distributed mixed types of housing at sensible density across the region, but only with appropriate infrastructure funding. This should not be urban extensions.
There is NOT enough to fund it based on history and reality if brownfield and urban extensions are built.
Office conversions come with NO funding for anything other than the flats they deliver.
New settlements do come with funding from County and government – and developers. Plans would not be approved unless conditions were met which satisfied this. Earlier comments attest to the significant funds.
Is it my opinion? Yes. Backed by evidence, policy – and history. Since we agree to disagree there’s no point in discussing further with you, but I present an alternative for rather than trying to drown out debate which you seem to (jointly) be doing. I’m sure residents realise that stuffing loads of flats onto the edges and into Fleet, CC, HW, Odiham, Yateley, Hook etc isn’t a good idea. I encourage them to read the info, listen to advice (like Hook Parish, Crookham Village Parish, Hook Parish and Fleet and CC society, and Elvetham Parish all of whom agree with two things based upon the fact that some greenfield will have to be used for housing as existing available brownfield will not meet the needs:
1. A new settlement at Winchfield is the preferred option as the best way to deliver necessary housing in the best interests of the majority if people across Hart.
2. It should be coupled with distributed mixed types of housing at sensible density across the region, but only with appropriate infrastructure funding. This should not be urban extensions.
You say there IS enough money. Either that is your opinion or you have concrete data to support your statements. What do the Hart DC plans indicate is the financial requirement for the new settlement?
You say there IS enough money. Either that is your opinion or you have concrete data to support your statements. What do the Hart DC plans indicate is the financial requirement for the new settlement?
Kate, you say there isn’t enough money? That’s your opinion. I believe you’re incorrect. New settlements attract significant funding – which isn’t applicable to other types of building.
Let’s have HDC’s figures on the infrastructure costs then Steve. Or perhaps they have not even considered the infrastructure yet! Let’s just hand over our beautiful district to the developers and worry about the consequences later. Hopefully that is the last thing the sensible people of Hart will opt for
Kate, you say there isn’t enough money? That’s your opinion. I believe you’re incorrect. New settlements attract significant funding – which isn’t applicable to other types of building.
Steve there isn’t enough money for the infrastructure to make Winchfield work. You want to build more houses just to get money for infrastructure when that money won’t be enough anyway and that many houses is disputed. You’re heaping a whole load of trouble on Hart for generations to come. You must be a developers dream come true. Brownfield is the way to go. God what’s more cycle paths through a housing estate – grim and a little bit of green grass for a 5 minute walk. You paint it as something it can never be. It is not a New settlement surround by countryside. It is the countryside that separates the urban areas. You propose one urban sprawl.
Steve there isn’t enough money for the infrastructure to make Winchfield work. You want to build more houses just to get money for infrastructure when that money won’t be enough anyway and that many houses is disputed. You’re heaping a whole load of trouble on Hart for generations to come. You must be a developers dream come true. Brownfield is the way to go. God what’s more cycle paths through a housing estate – grim and a little bit of green grass for a 5 minute walk. You paint it as something it can never be. It is not a New settlement surround by countryside. It is the countryside that separates the urban areas. You propose one urban sprawl.
I would question your claim as to whether it generates less damage to other communities than any other option. Less development, possibly – although other sites will get development regardless so this is a zero sum argument.
With a claim that ‘funding is available’ this implies Hart DC have drawn up plans to identify the extent of what is needed. Have you seen those plans? Do you have an official indication of the infrastructure needed to support a new settlement?
I would question your claim as to whether it generates less damage to other communities than any other option. Less development, possibly – although other sites will get development regardless so this is a zero sum argument.
With a claim that ‘funding is available’ this implies Hart DC have drawn up plans to identify the extent of what is needed. Have you seen those plans? Do you have an official indication of the infrastructure needed to support a new settlement?
Some of your points show exactly why it’s needed. And that funding is available. As a community it would be nice – and generate less damage to other local communities than any other option.
The local plan would ensures it would be planned correctly and enforced.
So let’s assume a new settlement is designed from scratch. Let’s assume it gets the roads it needs, and the roundabouts; and the cycle routes; and the schools and doctor’s surgeries. Hell, we’ll even throw in a brand new supermarket to rival the Tesco at Sandhurst.
So what? You will end up with 5000 houses in their own little enclave. No infrastructure improvements will be added to Fleet, or Church Crookham, or Hook (other than the 1800 houses from a new settlement that will end up in that parish). The schools will be filled by the children in the new settlement – no benefit to the rest of Hart. The millions of extra road trips per year will foul up the roads of Fleet, Church Crookham and Hook – no benefit to the rest of Hart. The A30 will come to a standstill at peak hours – no benefit to the rest of Hart. The motorway junction will be similar to J3 at Lightwater as people struggle to get on and off. Traffic heading into the new settlement will be gridlocked as people run along the roads from Church Crookham to get to the new Tescoo.
But the new settlement will have the infrastructure, right?
It also makes a LOT of assumptions about what developers can and will do in such a settlement. You only have to take a look at Ebbsfleet in Kent: 15,000 houses approved and only 350 completed in eight years – and they got £200m from the government for their infrastructure! (Not that Hart will get anywhere near that much, if any).
So let’s assume a new settlement is designed from scratch. Let’s assume it gets the roads it needs, and the roundabouts; and the cycle routes; and the schools and doctor’s surgeries. Hell, we’ll even throw in a brand new supermarket to rival the Tesco at Sandhurst.
So what? You will end up with 5000 houses in their own little enclave. No infrastructure improvements will be added to Fleet, or Church Crookham, or Hook (other than the 1800 houses from a new settlement that will end up in that parish). The schools will be filled by the children in the new settlement – no benefit to the rest of Hart. The millions of extra road trips per year will foul up the roads of Fleet, Church Crookham and Hook – no benefit to the rest of Hart. The A30 will come to a standstill at peak hours – no benefit to the rest of Hart. The motorway junction will be similar to J3 at Lightwater as people struggle to get on and off. Traffic heading into the new settlement will be gridlocked as people run along the roads from Church Crookham to get to the new Tescoo.
But the new settlement will have the infrastructure, right?
It also makes a LOT of assumptions about what developers can and will do in such a settlement. You only have to take a look at Ebbsfleet in Kent: 15,000 houses approved and only 350 completed in eight years – and they got £200m from the government for their infrastructure! (Not that Hart will get anywhere near that much, if any).
In previous posts cllr Steve Forster seems to suggest that people from the new town will leave the area via the Hook junction of the M3 like little robots without a mind of their own. It’s laughable
I notice that Church Crookham is advocating development in Crookham Village as an option when completing the consultation document.
By the way, what happened to the £7.9m that Taylor Wimpey were obliged to pay for secondary education facilities as a result of building at Crookham Park? According to Hants Council figures that would build 9 new teaching places in an existing secondary school.
Is this part of the ‘inability to get infrastructure from brownfield’ that you keep mentioning?
I notice that Church Crookham is advocating development in Crookham Village as an option when completing the consultation document.
By the way, what happened to the £7.9m that Taylor Wimpey were obliged to pay for secondary education facilities as a result of building at Crookham Park? According to Hants Council figures that would build 9 new teaching places in an existing secondary school.
Is this part of the ‘inability to get infrastructure from brownfield’ that you keep mentioning?
I thought Edenbrooke was designed from scratch …
Designed as an urban extension, so not from scratch. Far from it – but it pleased the developers. It uses the existing roads, doctors, schools, railway, community facilities – and stretches theres even more, with no contribution. Thats exactly the problem with urban extensions.
From scratch as an urb nextension
From scratch as an urb nextension
FYI: You say “Edenbrook doesn’t even have enough funding to pay for a cycle route and access at Hitches Lane”, but I seem to remember they could stump up enough money for a new leisure centre. £7m+, I believe. Couple that with the £7.9m secondary education contribution Crookham Park owes and this means a) Infrastructure money IS available from smaller developments for the benefit of the whole of Hart and b) Infrastructure money is available from brownfield development. If you want a link to the documents on the Hart.Gov web site which show this I will be happy to oblige.
I thought Edenbrooke was designed from scratch …
Designed as an urban extension, so not from scratch. Far from it – but it pleased the developers. It uses the existing roads, doctors, schools, railway, community facilities – and stretches theres even more, with no contribution. Thats exactly the problem with urban extensions.
A new settlement of the size proposed would be designed from scratch with good cycle routes, road junctions etc – it is more expensive to upgrade or build and then revise junctions than to design and build correctly in the first instance. A new settlement would attract county and government funding, which smaller urban extensions would not. Fleet town Centre is improving, with a number of recent new retailers – and the high street is doing rather well. Hart is working on regeneration of Fleet and Hook, as well as Blackwater, and things like car parking charges in Fleet are being revised with FTC and retailer input to encourage more trade.Hook is being looked at to regenerate its centre, already damaged by overdevelopment. I believe Hook, Fleet Town Council and Crookham Village parish have already indicated that they think a new settlement at Winchfield is the option they would recommend.
A new settlement of the size proposed would be designed from scratch with good cycle routes, road junctions etc – it is more expensive to upgrade or build and then revise junctions than to design and build correctly in the first instance. A new settlement would attract county and government funding, which smaller urban extensions would not. Fleet town Centre is improving, with a number of recent new retailers – and the high street is doing rather well. Hart is working on regeneration of Fleet and Hook, as well as Blackwater, and things like car parking charges in Fleet are being revised with FTC and retailer input to encourage more trade.Hook is being looked at to regenerate its centre, already damaged by overdevelopment. I believe Hook, Fleet Town Council and Crookham Village parish have already indicated that they think a new settlement at Winchfield is the option they would recommend.
Like eh? As a cyclist i can say with experience that the cycle routes are appalling in design and most people can’t get their kids into the school. If memory serves me right, that was a blank canvas -save lots of trees- so i am struggling to understand why winchfudge would be different.
That’s why more housing must come with a new primary and secondary school. To secure funding from County Council to build a new secondary school requires a major development (approaching 5000 houses), and that also ensures primary schools get built. It’s exactly the reason stuffing flats into towns, or building houses on the edges of towns, won’t work; they don’t get the funding that a new settlement would qualify for, and get.
Designed by scratch with a school next to a secure hospital? More like designed badly without the proper funding but you’ll blame the developers or someone else. You don’t actually care so long as you’re ok.
Steve there isn’t enough money for the infrastructure to make Winchfield work. You want to build more houses just to get money for infrastructure when that money won’t be enough anyway and that many houses is disputed. You’re heaping a whole load of trouble on Hart for generations to come. You must be a developers dream come true. Brownfield is the way to go. God what’s more cycle paths through a housing estate – grim and a little bit of green grass for a 5 minute walk. You paint it as something it can never be. It is not a New settlement surround by countryside. It is the countryside that separates the urban areas. You propose one urban sprawl.
As we’ve said before, school place planning has not been done beyond 2018. there’s no evidence a secondary school is even required. And HCC won’t build one unless there’s a need for 900 places.
And even then, it’s dubious because the Government is pushing free-schools, so who would fund it?
As we’ve said before, school place planning has not been done beyond 2018. there’s no evidence a secondary school is even required. And HCC won’t build one unless there’s a need for 900 places.
And even then, it’s dubious because the Government is pushing free-schools, so who would fund it?
To say nothing of the damage to the environment, more concrete, more risk of flooding, fewer trees to freshen the air more risk of both global warming and nasty lung infections and asthma, which are already on the increase. More cars/vans/lorries more pollution, more light pollution from increased levels of street lighting, equls more fuel consumption equals yet more damage. With building comes the need to push for better public transport and encouraging people to use their cars less! So that’s not going to happen is it.
To say nothing of the damage to the environment, more concrete, more risk of flooding, fewer trees to freshen the air more risk of both global warming and nasty lung infections and asthma, which are already on the increase. More cars/vans/lorries more pollution, more light pollution from increased levels of street lighting, equls more fuel consumption equals yet more damage. With building comes the need to push for better public transport and encouraging people to use their cars less! So that’s not going to happen is it.
Hang on, Steve Forster, you’ve just said Edenbrook doesn’t have enough funding to pay for a cycle route … how is that going to ensure that developers provide essential infrastructure in any new Winchfield type development? I’m confused. However, I’m not confused enough to know that despoiling our beautiful countryside (as in the recently re-posted article from the Telegraph) in any part of England, is a travesty. And, yes, I suppose that makes me a NIMBY – for all the right reasons, I hope. Steve, and your colleagues, please just go and spend a few hours walking around Winchfield, Potbridge, Mapledurwell etc and just imagine the responsibility you will all have to bear when making your decisions. Also remember, you are elected members to represent your electorate and I reckon that Fleet and Church Crookham residents would love to see a thriving town centre with all the right amenities in their town, just as we would appreciate same from the villages. Fleet used to have busy shops and a bustling high street – it’s all a bit dreary now.
Hang on, Steve Forster, you’ve just said Edenbrook doesn’t have enough funding to pay for a cycle route … how is that going to ensure that developers provide essential infrastructure in any new Winchfield type development? I’m confused. However, I’m not confused enough to know that despoiling our beautiful countryside (as in the recently re-posted article from the Telegraph) in any part of England, is a travesty. And, yes, I suppose that makes me a NIMBY – for all the right reasons, I hope. Steve, and your colleagues, please just go and spend a few hours walking around Winchfield, Potbridge, Mapledurwell etc and just imagine the responsibility you will all have to bear when making your decisions. Also remember, you are elected members to represent your electorate and I reckon that Fleet and Church Crookham residents would love to see a thriving town centre with all the right amenities in their town, just as we would appreciate same from the villages. Fleet used to have busy shops and a bustling high street – it’s all a bit dreary now.
Local development does not come with enough funding to offset the harm it itself causes.
Look at all the recent examples to prove that. Edenbrook doesn’t even have enough funding to pay for a cycle route and access at Hitches Lane.
Local developments cause extra loading and have minimal contribution to lical facilities. Thats why developers want them. WHH proposals (We Harm Hart?) to ‘protect’ fields at Winchfield would just cause problems in all out existing communities.
A new settlement isn’t developers preferred option – it needs more investment from them than any other option. With lower profit. But it does ensure you get the facilities it needs.
WHH want to help developers by encouraging blocks of flats – the cheapest option. And the option that harms the communities in Hart most.
Local development does not come with enough funding to offset the harm it itself causes.
Look at all the recent examples to prove that. Edenbrook doesn’t even have enough funding to pay for a cycle route and access at Hitches Lane.
Local developments cause extra loading and have minimal contribution to lical facilities. Thats why developers want them. WHH proposals (We Harm Hart?) to ‘protect’ fields at Winchfield would just cause problems in all out existing communities.
A new settlement isn’t developers preferred option – it needs more investment from them than any other option. With lower profit. But it does ensure you get the facilities it needs.
WHH want to help developers by encouraging blocks of flats – the cheapest option. And the option that harms the communities in Hart most.
But that’s the point, local development will provide local funds for local infrastructure and help close the £78m funding deficit. A new town would starve existing settlements of investment.
Of course we need to keep car-parks, but there’s more to planning than the 1-dimensional thinking of the councillors. Some car-parking can go in the basement, with mixed use development on top.
My understanding is that the Winchfield Neighbourhood Plan will propose sensible development for the area, not a 20-fold increase.
But that’s the point, local development will provide local funds for local infrastructure and help close the £78m funding deficit. A new town would starve existing settlements of investment.
Of course we need to keep car-parks, but there’s more to planning than the 1-dimensional thinking of the councillors. Some car-parking can go in the basement, with mixed use development on top.
My understanding is that the Winchfield Neighbourhood Plan will propose sensible development for the area, not a 20-fold increase.
So now WHH propose around 13,000 more people live in the towns. Not very plausible and it shows just how out of touch the campaign is. Brownfield won’t help build doctors, schools, roads, community facilities, or anything else that’s needed. It will just stuff the areas like HW, Fleet, Hook etc full of flats. Flats flats and more flats.
They’ll come up with anything to protect Winchfield. Even if it’s ridiculous. Underground car parks? Doesn’t that just increase costs. And haven’t they said there’s less car use – but then said they need car parks. That seems to be a bit of a flip flop approach. Not thought through. They’ll come up with anything, however implausible, unrealistic or just plain ridiculous, to displace development so it happens anywhere (and everywhere) but Winchfield.
So now WHH propose around 13,000 more people live in the towns. Not very plausible and it shows just how out of touch the campaign is. Brownfield won’t help build doctors, schools, roads, community facilities, or anything else that’s needed. It will just stuff the areas like HW, Fleet, Hook etc full of flats. Flats flats and more flats.
They’ll come up with anything to protect Winchfield. Even if it’s ridiculous. Underground car parks? Doesn’t that just increase costs. And haven’t they said there’s less car use – but then said they need car parks. That seems to be a bit of a flip flop approach. Not thought through. They’ll come up with anything, however implausible, unrealistic or just plain ridiculous, to displace development so it happens anywhere (and everywhere) but Winchfield.
Well that is good to hear. So it is just convenience and tax then. Fleet must have the most under used business park in the m3/m4 corridor, hampshire tumbleweed central.
Well that is good to hear. So it is just convenience and tax then. Fleet must have the most under used business park in the m3/m4 corridor, hampshire tumbleweed central.
I think only if fewer than 5 dwellings. CIL is supposed to be levied on a per square metre basis so size of development shouldn’t matter
I think only if fewer than 5 dwellings. CIL is supposed to be levied on a per square metre basis so size of development shouldn’t matter
Is one of the big issues that building small developments allows developers to get away with avoiding any contribution to infrastructure and services? If so, it is a daft system and the blame sits with central government. It would explain the drive to dump in one mass development regardless of the environmental and social consequences…..easy way, not to mention more houses means more tax for cash strapped councils….again, lets look at central government for screwing that up as well.