Brownfield site: vacant offices at Ancells Farm Business Park, Fleet, Hart District, Hampshire.
Hart District Council has at last published its register of brownfield sites in the district. Sadly, the register has failed to live up to expectations. The full register can be downloaded on the link below.
The purpose of the brownfield register is to provide house builders with up-to-date and publicly available information on all brownfield sites available for housing locally. The register is supposed to help housebuilders identify suitable sites quickly, speeding up the construction of new homes. Hart Council was one of the pilot local authorities participating in the national brownfield register scheme as announced back in March 2016.
At first glance, the register identifies 3,542 potential units on brownfield sites, which might be considered good news. However, closer inspection of the register reveals:
- All but two of the sites already have planning permission, indeed a number of them have already been built (e.g. Queen Elizabeth Barracks at Church Crookham, Landata House in Hook, and Monachus House in Hartley Wintney).
- Some of the sites are not even brownfield sites, for example Rifle Range Farm in Hartley Wintney.
- None of the sites that Hart Council itself identified as brownfield sites in the recent consultation are recorded in the register.
- None of the other potential sites that have not yet been permitted on Ancells Farm or along Fleet Road have made it on to the register.
- Very few, if any, of the brownfield sites in the SHLAA that we identified in our brownfield solution, most particularly sites like the former police college at Bramshill have made it into the register.
- Over 2,000 of the units in the register have already been granted planning permission, with 1,500 units at Hartland Village (aka Pyestock) and 16 at another site yet to be granted permission.
We have contacted the council to find out the reasons why this important opportunity has been botched. We have been told this is a temporary blip due to lack of SANG capacity. We are far from convinced of this reason as the register itself has a column for constraints. The purpose of the register should be to identify all of the sites and not miss some out because SANG capacity is not yet available.
We do hope that Hart Council gets to grips with this, because a robust brownfield register will be a significant piece of evidence, as part of the Local Plan, to help fend off the proposals to build at Pale Lane (Elvetham Chase) and Grove Farm (Netherhouse Copse). The register of brownfield sites becomes a statutory obligation next year.
Design plays a big role in this as you could put 3000 dwellings 3-5 floors and have more green space within the site and it could seem less impacting than 1500 detached houses at 30 units a hectare.
Design plays a big role in this as you could put 3000 dwellings 3-5 floors and have more green space within the site and it could seem less impacting than 1500 detached houses at 30 units a hectare.
So, your answer to the pressure on our countryside is to build at a lower density so taking up more land per person housed, in more expensive properties that local people can’t afford? You are of course entitled to your opinion, but it isn’t one that I share.
The density proposed at Hartland VIllage is quite low at ~27 dwellings per hectare. They should be targeting more than double that imho.
The Wates proposal for Elvetham Chase is 59 hectares, but 14 hectares is for SANG, leaving 45Ha for 700 dwellings at 15.5 dph. This is a pathetically low density. They say 280 of them will be ‘affordable’, but as we know developers’ definition of ‘affordable’ doesn’t mean what most people would understand as affordable.
But if we press ahead with a brownfield strategy, Elvetham Chase won’t be needed.
Steve Culver
So, your answer to the pressure on our countryside is to build at a lower density so taking up more land per person housed, in more expensive properties that local people can’t afford? You are of course entitled to your opinion, but it isn’t one that I share.
The density proposed at Hartland VIllage is quite low at ~27 dwellings per hectare. They should be targeting more than double that imho.
The Wates proposal for Elvetham Chase is 59 hectares, but 14 hectares is for SANG, leaving 45Ha for 700 dwellings at 15.5 dph. This is a pathetically low density. They say 280 of them will be ‘affordable’, but as we know developers’ definition of ‘affordable’ doesn’t mean what most people would understand as affordable.
But if we press ahead with a brownfield strategy, Elvetham Chase won’t be needed.
Steve Culver
I think hartland should be scaled back. The council want to cram 1500 homes on this 135 acre brownfield site but only up to 700 (luxury) homes on a 146 acre greenfield site. By using all the brownfield site for housing, the ‘SANG’ and relief road are being designed on acres of woodland and heathland at detriment to sssi. Hartland is about hart dumping all the extra traffic on rushmoor and rushmoor dumping there’s on hart with up to 4000 houses being built down the road.
I think hartland should be scaled back. The council want to cram 1500 homes on this 135 acre brownfield site but only up to 700 (luxury) homes on a 146 acre greenfield site. By using all the brownfield site for housing, the ‘SANG’ and relief road are being designed on acres of woodland and heathland at detriment to sssi. Hartland is about hart dumping all the extra traffic on rushmoor and rushmoor dumping there’s on hart with up to 4000 houses being built down the road.
But they didn’t have brownfield development as an option so they didn’t actually ask the people of Fleet if that was a preferred option in the consultation. So to say have no mandate is meaningless
hi Kate. The reason they didn’t ask for opinions on brownfield is that it is a given (in their view) that some brownfield development is required if this is the most appropriate approach for that locality. So they were asking for guidance on formulating a plan based on this background. So I disagree with your view about the mandate being meaningless; it is still valid becuase brownfield is not up for debate. The voting on the consultation questions was quite clearl though, and in this order of preference: develop Winchfield, distribute, urban extension. So, the local view is don’t build extensions like Hartland; brownfield has nothing to do with it. As for what people in Fleet would say? I suspect they’d be as against the massively damaging Hartland development (and the other urban extensions around Fleet/Church Crookham) as the people of Winchfield are about development there. Apart from the negative impact on the built environment, the people in Fleet, who know the Hartland area well, know how special the natural environment is around there and, in my view, would rightly question this land is simply brownfield. By the way, my view, and vote in the consultation, was for distribution because I feel it is fairest (or least unfair) option, but I accept I was outvoted.
hi Kate. The reason they didn’t ask for opinions on brownfield is that it is a given (in their view) that some brownfield development is required if this is the most appropriate approach for that locality. So they were asking for guidance on formulating a plan based on this background. So I disagree with your view about the mandate being meaningless; it is still valid becuase brownfield is not up for debate. The voting on the consultation questions was quite clearl though, and in this order of preference: develop Winchfield, distribute, urban extension. So, the local view is don’t build extensions like Hartland; brownfield has nothing to do with it. As for what people in Fleet would say? I suspect they’d be as against the massively damaging Hartland development (and the other urban extensions around Fleet/Church Crookham) as the people of Winchfield are about development there. Apart from the negative impact on the built environment, the people in Fleet, who know the Hartland area well, know how special the natural environment is around there and, in my view, would rightly question this land is simply brownfield. By the way, my view, and vote in the consultation, was for distribution because I feel it is fairest (or least unfair) option, but I accept I was outvoted.
If Elvetham Chase (i think it is called) is built then Winchfield does indeed become an urban extension of Fleet. I know of one councillor who regards 200 yards of field to be ‘a green belt’ but there would barely be that.
If Elvetham Chase (i think it is called) is built then Winchfield does indeed become an urban extension of Fleet. I know of one councillor who regards 200 yards of field to be ‘a green belt’ but there would barely be that.
Yes, and the results of the consultation was no urban extensions. These two things don’t have to contradictory, but they are with Hartlands.
Yes, and the results of the consultation was no urban extensions. These two things don’t have to contradictory, but they are with Hartlands.
Hart’s strategy, as set out in the consultation is ‘brownfield first’.
Hart’s strategy, as set out in the consultation is ‘brownfield first’.
I think it should also be taken into account that the council does not have a mandate from the people of Hart to develop all brownfield sites. For example, Hartlands is an urban extension to Fleet which was the least favoured approach by the people of Hart (by a large margin). It is also worth considering that Hartlands (in its current form) is a prime example of why each brownfield site should be examined on its merits given, in this case, the very likely negative impact on the local community, a nature reserve and sssi. A much better (for Hart in general) use for Hartlands would be to either scale it back to a small development and create natural buffer between it and the nature reserve area or offer the developers another site and incorporate the whole site into the nature reserve.
I think it should also be taken into account that the council does not have a mandate from the people of Hart to develop all brownfield sites. For example, Hartlands is an urban extension to Fleet which was the least favoured approach by the people of Hart (by a large margin). It is also worth considering that Hartlands (in its current form) is a prime example of why each brownfield site should be examined on its merits given, in this case, the very likely negative impact on the local community, a nature reserve and sssi. A much better (for Hart in general) use for Hartlands would be to either scale it back to a small development and create natural buffer between it and the nature reserve area or offer the developers another site and incorporate the whole site into the nature reserve.
I don’t think they want brownfield to be a solution. They’d much rather build on the green areas. Pale Lane/Winchfield. They didn’t include various sites because they don’t want it to be the answer. Pathetic.
I don’t think they want brownfield to be a solution. They’d much rather build on the green areas. Pale Lane/Winchfield. They didn’t include various sites because they don’t want it to be the answer. Pathetic.
Nail … head … bang on Sue Beagley
Nail … head … bang on Sue Beagley
I hope this was not planned so Hart could show we still need to build on greenfield. Can we go to whichever body set up pilot scheme with WeHeartHart’s brownfield register?
I’ve tweeted Ranil and the relevant Government ministers. It looks to me like Hart Council is wasting everyone’s time and money with this pathetic effort.
I hope this was not planned so Hart could show we still need to build on greenfield. Can we go to whichever body set up pilot scheme with WeHeartHart’s brownfield register?
I’ve tweeted Ranil and the relevant Government ministers. It looks to me like Hart Council is wasting everyone’s time and money with this pathetic effort.
Hart fails to meet expectations? Surely not …