Hartland Village SANG provided by MoD

Hartland Park (Pyestock) near Fleet, Hart District, Hampshire, warehouse development not started

Brownfield site: Hartland Park (Pyestock) near Fleet, Hart District, Hampshire

It was announced at Hart Council that some Army training land adjacent to Pyestock is to be released to provide SANG for the proposed 1,500 home Hartland Village development.  This is a big step forward in securing this important new development for the Hart Local Plan.

Stephen Parker was quoted as saying:

Finally, after my meetings in the Spring with the Secretary of State for Defence and the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and following correspondence, yesterday I met along with officers the Commander of the Army training organisation in the South East.  The objective was to seek the release of some of the Army training estate to facilitate development at Pyestock and elsewhere.  I am pleased to announce that they have indicated an area adjacent to the Pyestock site, next to other Army training land which in turn adjoins Fleet Pond, which a preliminary estimates will be sufficient for the Pyestock site.  It still needs senior approvals, but as the training organisation has made it clear that they can spare this from their operational requirements, I do not anticipate a problem.

We now have a better understanding of the military utilisation of these areas, and there may be scope for future conversations

This is excellent news.

Barratts claimed housing need is tendentious nonsense

Barratt Developments Logo

As we reported here, a number of developers have put forward the idea that Hart District’s Local Plan housing target should be double that in the current housing market assessment. We have been through Barratt Homes‘ document and come to the conclusion that it is a load of tendentious nonsense.

In this post we demolish their main arguments.  Let us remember that Barratt Developments are behind the proposals for a new town at Winchfield and have a vested interest in putting forward the highest housing target they can. But as we shall see below, they really are simply thinking of a number and tripling it.

The Starting Point

They start innocuously enough, with the latest 2012-based population projections, leading to a starting point of 250 dwellings per annum, or a target of around 5,000 houses, somewhat less than the current SHMA figure of 7,534. Note that if this 5,000 number was used as our housing target, we would be able to meet our remaining housing target from windfalls and a few brownfield sites, and wouldn’t even need to redevelop Pyestock until after 2032.

Barratts Starting Point for Housing Need

Demographic Adjustments

However, they go on to say that the starting point should be ‘adjusted’ to allow for higher household formation rates (HFR) and more inward migration.

Barratts Demographic Adjustments for Hart District Housing Need 2011-2032

Barratts Key to charts

We would probably agree that some small adjustment needs to be made for HFR. However they argue that the 2008-based Government figures are somehow more accurate than the latest 2012-based figures. But the 2008-based forecasts were proven wrong by the actual census data in 2011, and even the 2011-based figures reverse the most recent trend towards slightly larger households.

Average Houshold Size projections for Housing Market Area

Average Household Size projections for Housing Market Area

But we really take issue with their logic on needing to take account of bigger inward migration to Hart from other districts. They appear to argue that because the 2012-based population projections are lower than the 2008-based projections, they simply must be wrong and need to be adjusted. They are arguing that because we built a lot of housing in the period 2003-2007, and created a great deal of housing supply, so inward migration increased, then we need to do that each and every year from 2011-2031.  They also suggest that Government’s population projections don’t include enough allowance for immigration to the country.  Let’s deal with their arguments:

First, the Government central projections already assume net immigration to the country of 185,000 per year out to 2039, nearly twice the Government’s target of 10’s of thousands, so we would argue that so migration from abroad is already in the starting point.

Second, by definition, migration from other parts of the UK, must be unmet need from other areas. But every area has to follow the National Planning Policy Framework and meet the needs of their local district, so where is this extra internal migration going to come from? As we have shown before, our analysis of five other housing needs assessments of planning authorities across Hampshire, Oxfordshire, Surrey and Berkshire reveals an average housing uplift on the baseline population projections of around 42%. It simply cannot be right for every district to be assuming that they need to make an uplift to their housing targets because of inward migration from other districts, or we will end up with far more houses than we need.

Jobs Growth Adjustments

Barratts then go on to quote the average of three jobs forecasts that say that Hart District can and should produce jobs at a rate of 620 per annum, or 1,650 per annum across the whole Housing Market Area (HMA) that includes Rushmoor and Surrey Heath.

Barratts Jobs Growth Adjustments for Hart District Housing Need 2011-2032

Barratts Key to charts

This job creation rate for the HMA is higher than in the current SHMA (1,130 jobs per annum), which represents a near doubling of the job creation rate achieved in the period 1998-2012 and significantly higher than the 414 jobs per annum created in the same period for Hart District.

They then conclude that we need to build 730 houses per annum to meet these jobs forecasts, nearly three times the starting point of the population projections. They have literally taken the official Government projections and tripled them for no sound reason.

Of course, they then go on to say that we will need to have an even higher population in Hart, created by even more net migration to do the jobs in the forecasts.  But they don’t explain where this population is going to come from. Again, if overseas immigration is already factored into the Government population forecasts, and this even higher rate of population growth in Hart would have to be people from other districts, and those other districts are duty bound to meet the needs of their own people.

Elsewhere in the report, Barratts say that only 45% of Hart’s workforce work in Hart. Surely, if all these jobs were going to materialise in the district, more of the workforce would choose to work closer to where they live and we wouldn’t need more inward migration, and so our housing requirement would fall?

Their approach appears to be against the latest advice from the Planning Advisory Service which states that housing need should be “principally understood as a measure of future demand rather than aspiration”. Employment in the district should be a matter for consultation (see Peter Village QC opinion), and in any case a high level of jobs growth that requires more inward migration is by definition meeting the unmet needs of other districts and an ‘aspiration’ which is contrary to planning advice.

Affordable Housing

They then go on to claim that if we built 730 dwellings per annum, and affordable housing at the 40% rate in current policy we would deliver almost all of the affordable housing we need. But to support this claim, they say that Hart’s evidence base says we need 320 affordable houses per annum. This is four times the current SHMA (Figure 8.4) that says we need 79 affordable houses per annum, plus a few more intermediate houses.



All in all this report from Barratts is self serving, tendentious nonsense that should be dismissed out of hand.


What does the Hampshire devolution bunfight mean for Hart District?

Heart of Hampshire devolution proposals

There is a tremendous battle raging over the future of local government in Hampshire. There are competing visions for how Hampshire should be governed being put forward by both Hampshire County Council and the Heart of Hampshire local authorities, with no clear view on what solution will be adopted.

The row started after proposals were submitted to Government by Southampton, Portsmouth, Isle of Wight, Fareham, Gosport, Havant, Eastleigh and East Hampshire for a ‘Solent Combined Authority’. Apparently, discussions on this approach are being progressed with Government.

This leaves open the question of how the rest of Hampshire will be governed. The remaining Hampshire local authorities comprising Basingstoke and Deane, Winchester, Rushmoor, New Forest, and Test Valley, together with the Enterprise M3 Local Enterprise Partnership are exploring the potential for a combined authority and devolution deal with Government, tentatively called ‘The Heart of Hampshire Combined Authority’. Details of these proposals can be found here and here. The benefits of this proposal are claimed to include:

  • Responsibility for a multiyear consolidated and devolved local transport budget.
  • Powers over strategic planning and housing, including responsibility for creating a spatial planning framework for the Heart of Hampshire, supporting the duty to co-operate requirements, and to chair the Heart of Hampshire Joint Investment and Assets Board.
  • The ability to franchise bus services, subject to necessary legislation and local consultation.
  • Control of a new additional £30 million a year funding allocation over 30 years, to be invested to the Heart of Hampshire Single Investment Fund, to boost growth.
  • Responsibility for developing a Strategic Infrastructure Delivery Plan which will identify the infrastructure needed to support the delivery of new homes and improve transport and broadband connectivity across the area.
  • Responsibility for the 19+ Adult Education Budget, which will be devolved from academic year 2018/19

On the one hand, these look like reasonable proposals, however, they appear to simply add a new tier of Government in that Hampshire County Council remains in place with a reduced set of responsibilities and a new elected mayor of the Heart of Hampshire is put in place alongside all of the existing local authorities. This doesn’t appear to create any savings either by reducing the number of senior management posts, consolidating the number of councillors or entering into shared service arrangements to make savings in the back office.

Hampshire County Council (HCC) is fighting back and has produced its own set of options contained in a report by Deloitte.

Hampshire County Council favoured devolution option - unitary council.

HCC clearly favours an option where the remaining authorities are consolidated into a giant unitary county authority, with the existing unitary authorities of Portsmouth, Southampton and the Isle of Wight (IoW) remaining in place. It is said this option generates £389.6m of net savings over a 10 year period from a reduction in senior management positions, reducing the number of councillors, reducing corporate services, optimising service delivery and savings in property costs. These proposals would effectively mean the abolition of most of the existing local authorities. These proposals do not apparently include a new mayor and so would miss out on the additional central Government funding on offer for new combined authorities.

Again, these proposals have some merit, but such a large county structure may effectively disenfranchise large numbers of voters and make it more difficult effectively to hold the new council to account.

A further option of 4 unitary councils (Option G) is also considered  appears to have more accountability with centres of local Government closer to the people and this option generates net savings of £250.5m over 10 years.

HCC does not endorse the Solent and Heart of Hampshire proposals and the leaders of the Hampshire boroughs are ‘disappointed’ that HCC have pressed ahead with the Deloitte report without informing or consulting them.

It is clear there is a massive bunfight going on and it is difficult to see how these competing ideas will play out. However, HCC is calling for wide consultation across the county on how we should be governed. It might be a good idea to try and take the best of each of the competing ideas, by adopting the Option G approach in the HCC report and moving to “combined authorities” with elected mayors and financial benefits from Government. The new combined authorities may even be able to share back office functions and make even greater savings.

We will keep you updated as we learn more, particularly if we can see how it will impact the Hart Local Plan.



£27m brownfield development in Hook approved

Decorean Brownfield development in Hook, Hampshire

Fast-growing London-based construction company, Decorean has won the contract for the £27m office to residential development of Bartley Wood Business Park, Hook, Hampshire.  The details of their press release is shown below. This represents another step along the long journey to demonstrate the Hart Local Plan can meet our remaining housing needs from brownfield development alone, and don’t need to concrete over any more of our countryside.

The development, which represents one of the UK’s largest office to residential developments in a business park to date, will see the 84,000sq ft business park, change from existing commercial usage into 107 modern one and two bedroom apartments, set over three floors. The flats will include oversized windows, high ceilings and will be built to a high standard.

The construction is expected to be completed in winter 2017. To date, a quarter of the units have been exchanged. The sale price of each unit in Hook is between £200-250K, in line with Decorean’s desire to build affordable and high quality living.

The park had previously attracted a number of major occupiers including Virgin Media and BMW.

Shraga Stern, Managing Director of Decorean, said: “The apartments will be built to the company’s usual high and exacting standard, exemplifying our dedication to perfection. The location of this site is particularly exciting for us with London being less than an hour away by train, making it a desirable commuter location. We are committed to creating high quality, affordable housing and proud of this development.”



Berkeley Homes launches Hartland Village consultation website

Berkeley Homes (St Edward) launches consultation site for new development at Hartland Village, aka Pyestock and Hartland Park

Proposed location of the new Hartland Village development at the former Pyestock NGTE site, near Fleet Hampshire

Berkeley Homes has launched a consultation website about its proposed Hartland Village development of 1,500 new homes at Pyestock (aka Hartland Park), near Fleet, Hampshire.  Its subsidiary St Edward Homes has now named the new development Hartland Village.

The consultation site can be found here.

They have published an email address to which local residents can register for further updates: [email protected]

Berkeley Homes’ representatives, GL Hearn have also sent letters to local businesses asking for their comments.  A copy of such a letter can be found here.

In the letter they say:

St Edward is now in the process of developing proposals for a residential development of the site, which would make a significant contribution towards meeting the need for new homes in the area. As a brownfield (already developed) site, Hartland Village will be an ideal location for delivery of new homes in a development with a distinctive character of its own with village shops and community facilities.

St Edward is committed to thorough public consultation on all of its projects and it is anticipated that the first round of engagement with local people will take place in the next few months. Further details of these public events and initial proposals for the site will be publicised in due course.

We Heart Hart encourages everyone to participate in this initial consultation, and would suggest that the proposed development is welcomed, but also make clear that this new development should take account of the following points:

  1. The proposed site is large at 135 acres.  It is essential we make the best use of this previously developed land, and we would encourage Berkeley Homes to consider building at a higher density than that proposed.  1,500 homes on 135 acres amounts to only around 27.5 dwellings per hectare – densities of double that should be considered.
  2. The area is short of truly affordable homes for local people, so the development should include a fair provision of smaller, starter homes for those struggling to get on the housing ladder. Remember just calling homes ‘affordable’ does not make them so and due note should be given to understanding what is genuinely affordable to those households on median incomes in the district
  3. It is essential that proper infrastructure is delivered alongside this development such as schools as well as shops and community facilities. Some of this land should be set aside to meet the educational needs of the area.
  4. We should also take a properly strategic view of transport and use this opportunity to build new roads and/or modify the existing road network to improve traffic flow in and around Fleet.
  5. It will be important to deliver proper SANG provision for recreation and sports facilities.
  6. Fleet Pond and its immediate surroundings should be protected.
  7. Decontamination of the land should be done properly, so there is no risk to future residents


Greens set out their position on Winchfield, Pyestock and housing policy

Green Party Logo

The local Green Party have been in touch, setting out their position on the key planning issues impacting the Hart Local Plan and some ideas on broader housing policy.  In short, all of the candidates oppose Winchfield New Town and support redeveloping the brownfield site at Pyestock (aka Hartland Park). This is an important issue for the Hart Local Elections 2016.

We have updated our summary page, and table of candidates accordingly.  The detail of their response is reproduced below.

In brief I can confirm that the local [Green] party, and all its candidates in these elections are opposed to the Winchfield new town, but support the latest proposal for redevelopment of housing in Pyestock.
1. Winchfield – No. It is not required to meet Hart’s own housing targets and  by concreting over such swathes of green space, would be the destruction of Hart as we know it for generations to come. In addition, Winchfield simply does not have the infrastructure to support a New Town – it would put strain on GPs, schools, roads and quality of life – not just in Winchfield but also in Hook, Fleet, Hartley Wintney, etc.
2. Pyestock for housing – Yes. By developing brownfield sites such as Pyestock, Hart’s housing targets can be met through dispersal of home building, and lessen the burden on roads and facilities in a concentrated area. Additionally, such developments are eligible for central Government grants towards infrastructure and do not leave HDC at the mercy of council tax hikes and s106-shy developers.
Our more detailed response will include demands for any new housing to be zero- or negative-carbon and high density, and any new roads to incorporate cycle lanes. But more importantly, we don’t see this as being just about whether or not to build the Winchfield development and need to address the broader policy – how the housing need projections are worked out and allocated. If this area continues to be put under pressure to build new houses, taking in allocations from outside the area, other beautiful rural areas will be hit.
We need to emphasise the importance of rural, countryside for everyone, not just those of us lucky enough to live in villages/ rural areas. There are genuine benefits for non residents too – loads of research on mental health benefits, conservation, getting children engaged with nature, air quality etc.
And we  need to be offering alternatives, and to acknowledge the problems lots of people have in getting onto the property ladder. Is continuing to build in the over-developed South East really the answer? Should we be pushing for a more equal distribution of investment, for example, promoting business growth and sustainable development in northern England?
Consequently we are developing a vision starting with what the area should look like in 2030, and then how to get there.
We Heart Hart welcomes the stance of the Green Party on the local development issues in Hart and broadly accept many of their ideas on wider housing policy.

Prices of new homes out of reach of Hart residents

Bewley Homes 3-bed semi detached Hartley Row Park Hartley Wintney Hampshire

Bewley Homes has released the prices of the new houses it is building at Hartley Row Park, Hartley Wintney, Hampshire, also known as Rifle Range Farm.

The lowest price for a 3-bed semi-detached home is set at £465,000. The lowest anticipated price of the 2-bed homes due to be released later in 2016 is £370,000.

This compares to the median incomes in Hart set out in Figure 4.8 of the SHMA, which is £40,200.

Hart Rushmoor and Surrey Heath Median Incomes Figure 4.8 of SHMA

This means that the cheapest 3-bed house is 11.5 times median income, and the cheapest 2-bed home will be 9.2 times median incomes.  The cheapest new properties will be totally out of reach of middle-income families in the district.

We have argued for some time that these types of new developments such as Hartley Row Park, Edenbrook (in Fleet), the proposed new town at Winchfield and the newly proposed urban extension at Pale Lane deliver the wrong type of housing to meet the needs of local people.

We need more smaller, more affordable properties and more specialist accommodation for the elderly. Development of brownfield sites for the remainder of our Local Plan period are much more likely to deliver more cheaper properties that will give our young people more chance of getting on the housing ladder.

Planning Inspector’s Trimmers Farm decision could scupper Winchfield new town plan

Solar Farm at Trimmers Farm, Hook, Hampshire turned down by planning inspectorate

Trimmers Farm solar farm turned down by inspector

The Planning Inspectorate has decided not to allow a solar farm to be built at Trimmers Farm, near Beggars Corner, on a site that straddles Hook and Winchfield parishes.  The implication of this decision is that it also likely scuppers the proposed Hartley Winchook new town. The full decision can be downloaded from the button below.

The main reason given by the planning inspector was that the solar farm “would cause substantial harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding landscape”. Although the inspector did also say that ” the proposal would make a valuable contribution to the cutting of greenhouse gas emissions. It would also assist in securing the ongoing viability of the farm enterprise”. The more detailed assessment of the harm said:

From my own observations and having regard to the appellants’ photomontages and Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV), the solar farm would have an adverse visual impact which would significantly detract from the visual amenity of the area. Having taken into account the presence of the railway, motorway and pylons I consider that the proposal would consolidate the spread of man-made features across the skyline and add to the creeping urbanising effect on the area, thereby exacerbating the resultant harm to the landscape character and visual amenity. In conclusion the level of harm to the character and appearance of the landscape would be significant and would conflict with LP saved Policies GEN10, GEN1, GEN3, CON23, RUR2 and RUR3.

SHL167 SHLAA Map - Beggars Corner, Winchfield, Hart District, Hampshire

SHL167 SHLAA Map – Beggars Corner, Winchfield, Hart District, Hampshire

The implications of this could be quite interesting as the same Beggars Corner site is contained in the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment as SHL 167, and is included in the proposals for the proposed new town at Winchfield. We have written before that 772 houses were proposed to be built on the former land fill site.

SHL 167 Landfill details Beggars Corner

SHL 167 Landfill details Beggars Corner, Winchfield, Hart District, Hampshire

However, we find it difficult to believe that 772 houses, many of which might have solar panels on their roofs, would have a lower visual impact or create less creeping urbanisation than a solar farm.  Of course, the challenges of building houses on landfill would be much greater than installing solar panels.

As can be seen from the image below, the removal of SHL167 from the new town plan would effectively isolate two halves of the proposed new town, with the Murrell Green sites being disconnected from the other sites.  This will compromise sustainability and will also reduce the housing capacity.

Winchfield and Hook New Town proposal

Winchfield and Hook New Town proposal

We have previously challenged the viability of the new town plan, as have Winchfield Parish Council. However, to re-cap, the SHLAA suggests that the housing capacity of the new town sites is in the range 6,500-7,500. But not enough space has been set aside for SANG, or for sports facilities, schools, shops, car-parks or community facilities. Making allowance for these elements would reduce capacity to 4,000-5,000. Removing the 772 houses from SHL167 would further reduce the capacity to 3,228-4,228, which is well below the minimum viability threshold of 5,000 dwellings.


Trimmers Farm Solar Farm Planning Inspector’s Appeal Decision
Trimmers Farm Solar Farm Planning Inspector’s Appeal Decision


Community Campaign Hart set our their position on Pyestock and Winchfield New Town

Community Campaign Hart (CCH) logo

Community Campaign Hart (CCH) have responded to our request for clarification on their current position on the Winchfield New Town and the redevelopment of Pyestock for housing as part of the Hart Local Plan, an important issue for the Hart Local Elections 2016.  Their answers to our questions and our response is shown below:

Do you support the new town proposed at Winchfield?

Even with the emerging opportunity at Pyestock there will be a need for many more houses to be built both in this plan period and realistically also in the future. A new town option gives the opportunity for a community to be built with sufficient road capacity and local school places such that the development can be sustainable. Forever extending existing communities does not lead to sustainable development.

Our response:

The Pyestock (Hartland Park) development has the capacity to deliver around 1,500 homes.  The density proposed is only around 28dph.  The capacity could be increased by moving to higher density.  Even without that, we have calculated that there is capacity for around 4,000 homes on brownfield sites, whereas we only need to grant permission for a further 2,500 homes up to the end of the plan period.  Nobody has set out any figures to demonstrate that the infrastructure requirements of a new town can be funded, indeed it looks as though the costs will be over £300m and the developer contributions only around £50m. Winchfield Parish Council’s submission to the recent consultation has demonstrated that:

  1. There is a lack of evidence to justify the need for a new settlement
  2. Winchfield is not a suitable location for a new settlement
  3. A new settlement is not a viable approach
  4. There should be more of a focus on alternatives such as brownfield development and dispersal

Do you support the recently announced redevelopment of Pyestock for housing?

We welcome any opportunity to redevelop this derelict site (Pyestock) and believe that housing would have less impact than lorries running through the night. However, as with all major developments, Hart must ensure that the development will provide the necessary school places (especially at a secondary level), delivers any necessary traffic mitigation and that there is no adverse impact on local SSSIs and SPA. At 1,000 to 1,500 new homes, Pyestock does not unfortunately negate the need for a new town.

Our response:

Of course we agree that the required number of school places should be provided, but that also Hampshire County COuncil needs to do a proper long range plan to set out the real need for school places over the rest of the plan period.  We also support traffic mitigation measures and the need to ensure there is no adverse impact on the local SSSI’s and SPA.  However, we do think that this new development at Pyestock negates the need for a new town, and we do not accept that a new town is necessary, viable or deliverable.

So, we have some agreement with CCH on Pyestock, but not on the Winchfield new town. We have updated their position on our summary page, here.



Local Elections 2016: Where do Hart candidates stand on new town and Pyestock redevelopment?

We Love Hart Ballot Box

The Local elections will be held on Thursday 5th May, and we thought it would be a good idea to compile a database of local candidates and ask where they stand on two key planning issues facing the district:

  1. Do they still support a new town at Winchfield and,
  2. Do they support the redevelopment of Pyestock (aka Hartland Park) as housing

Community Campaign Hart have launched their election page and have now answered our questions making clear they support the development of Pyestock, but want to ensure safeguards on school places and roads as well as ensuring the SSSI’s and SPA are protected.  However, they still also support a new town in Winchfield.  Their detailed answers and our responses can be found here.

The North East Hampshire Conservatives have always been split on the issue, with many councillors voting in favour of the new town in November 2014, but notably all of the opposition to the new town came from local Conservatives. Of course, our local MP Ranil Jayawardena has opposed the new town idea too. We have had responses from many of the Tory candidates now and it is clear support for the Winchfield new town is weakening, with strong support for the proposed Pyestock development. The detailed answers we have received can be be found here.

The local Greens have now said that all of their candidates oppose the Winchfield New Town and support the redevelopment of Pyestock (aka Hartland Park).  They have also set out some interesting ideas on broader housing policy. The detailed answers we have received can be found here.

North East Hampshire Labour have recently published an article in favour of the new town at Winchfield, stating it is the settled position of all of their candidates. They have also published an article supporting redeveloping Pyestock for housing, but make clear they also support a new town at Winchfield. Our response to that can be found here.

All of the sitting Liberal Democrats on Hart Council all voted in favour of the new town in November 2014.  The Lib Dem County Councillor (David Simpson) opposes the new town, and some local candidates stood on a platform opposing the new town in May 2015. The local Lib Dems have published a newsletter in Hartley Wintney and Eversley opposing the new town idea. They later published a leaflet supporting the redevelopment of Pyestock. We do not yet know if this represents the views of Lib Dems across the district. The posts related to their leaflets are here and here.

We only know the position of the local UKIP candidate for Hook. He opposes the Winchfield new town and supports a brownfield first policy, but has made no definitive statement about Pyestock. However, UKIP have made a statement on their website, supporting a brownfield first strategy, which is recorded in this post.

We have contacted all of the local parties and asked them to clarify their views on the new town and Pyestock.  We will update the table below when we receive answers from the parties or individual candidates.  If any of the candidates want to get in touch to clarify their current position, we will happily make any corrections requested. Our contact email address can be found here.

WardNamePartyPosition on Winchfield new townPosition on Pyestock
Blackwater and HawleyBLEWETT, Brian Frederick Liberal Democrat Voted in favour Nov 2014?
Blackwater and HawleyCULLEN, Amy LouiseThe Labour Party Candidate All Labour candidates in favour of new townSome support Pyestock, but prefer Winchfield
Blackwater and HawleyDICKENS, Jane ElizabethThe Conservative Party Candidate Keeping her views to herselfKeeping her views to herself
Blackwater and HawleyFRANCIS, Steven JohnGreen Party OpposeSupport
Blackwater and HawleyGASCOIGNE, MikeUK Independence Party (UKIP) ?Brownfield sites as a priority, but no definitive position on Pyestock
Crookham EastBUTLER, Helen Rosalind The Conservative Party Candidate Not the right way forwardSupports redevelopment for housing
Crookham EastRADLEY, Edward JamesCommunity Campaign (Hart) Still support new townSupport, but want safeguards on school places, traffic and environment
Crookham EastWILLIAMS, Ruth AnnThe Labour Party Candidate All Labour candidates in favour of new townSome support Pyestock, but prefer Winchfield
Crookham West and EwshotAMBLER, Simon RoryCommunity Campaign (Hart) Still support new townSupport, but want safeguards on school places, traffic and environment
Crookham West and EwshotMOORS, DawnUK Independence Party (UKIP) ?Brownfield sites as a priority, but no definitive position on Pyestock
Crookham West and EwshotSIMMONS, ChrisThe Conservative Party Candidate Does not supportDoes not support
Crookham West and EwshotSMYTH, MoiraThe Labour Party Candidate All Labour candidates in favour of new townSome support Pyestock, but prefer Winchfield
Crookham West and EwshotSPRADBERY, Charles JohnGreen Party OpposeSupport
Fleet CentralBOBETSKY, MaxThe Conservative Party Candidate Opposed when stood for General Election 2015?
Fleet CentralGAWTHORPE, John GrantThe Labour Party Candidate All Labour candidates in favour of new townSome support Pyestock, but prefer Winchfield
Fleet CentralHOPE, Howling LaudThe Official Monster Raving Loony Party ??
Fleet CentralMAKEPEACE-BROWNE, Wendy LouiseCommunity Campaign (Hart) Still support new townSupport, but want safeguards on school places, traffic and environment
Fleet CentralOWENS, Major DavidUK Independence Party (UKIP) ?Brownfield sites as a priority, but no definitive position on Pyestock
Fleet EastBUTLER, SamThe Labour Party Candidate All Labour candidates in favour of new townSome support Pyestock, but prefer Winchfield
Fleet EastDEVONSHIRE, Peter WilliamUK Independence Party (UKIP) ?Brownfield sites as a priority, but no definitive position on Pyestock
Fleet EastWALTON, Neil ChristopherLiberal Democrat ??
Fleet EastWRIGHT, Jonathan BruceThe Conservative Party Candidate YesYes
Fleet WestBENNISON, JohnCommunity Campaign (Hart) Still support new townSupport, but want safeguards on school places, traffic and environment
Fleet WestBUCKLAND, Lesley RuthThe Labour Party Candidate All Labour candidates in favour of new townSome support Pyestock, but prefer Winchfield
Fleet WestEINCHCOMB, Paul Stephen WalterLiberal Democrat ??
Fleet WestFORSTER, SteveThe Conservative Party Candidate Voted in favour Nov 2014. Still supports if not enough brownfield available, but only if it comes with proper infrastructureSupports redevelopment for housing, provided it comes with improvements to roads, busses and new schools
Fleet WestRUTTER, KarinUK Independence Party (UKIP) ?Brownfield sites as a priority, but no definitive position on Pyestock
Hartley WintneyCRAMPTON, AnneThe Conservative Party Candidate Voted against Nov 2014In favour
Hartley WintneyHAMILTON, Ruth StellaUK Independence Party (UKIP) ?Brownfield sites as a priority, but no definitive position on Pyestock
Hartley WintneyJARMAN, Ruth ElizabethGreen Party OpposeSupport
Hartley WintneyWILLIAMS, Ieuan MonThe Labour Party Candidate All Labour candidates in favour of new townSome support Pyestock, but prefer Winchfield
Hartley WintneyWOOLFORD, Alan MauriceLiberal Democrat Opposed to new townIn favour
HookIVE, ColinLiberal Democrat Voted in favour Nov 2014. No specific comment in this election.?
HookMORRIS, MikeThe Conservative Party Candidate Voted in favour Nov 2014. Still in favourSupports
HookNABBS, VerdThe Labour Party Candidate All Labour candidates in favour of new townSome support Pyestock, but prefer Winchfield
HookREES, DaiUK Independence Party (UKIP) No new town in WinchfieldBrownfield sites as a priority, but no definitive position on Pyestock
OdihamAFFLECK-CRUISE, Amanda JaneThe Labour Party Candidate All Labour candidates in favour of new townSome support Pyestock, but prefer Winchfield
OdihamGORDON, Rosalyn JaneLiberal Democrat ??
OdihamKENNETT, John RichardThe Conservative Party Candidate Voted in favour Nov 2014. Now not convinced it is necessaryRedevelopment of Pyestock is very welcome
OdihamOLIVER, KevinUK Independence Party (UKIP) ?Brownfield sites as a priority, but no definitive position on Pyestock
Yateley EastBURTON, John Peter SimonThe Conservative Party Candidate ??
Yateley EastCOCKARILL, GrahamLiberal Democrat Voted in favour Nov 2014?
Yateley EastGANTLEY, FrankGreen Party OpposeSupport
Yateley EastSTILL, Joyce EdnaThe Labour Party Candidate All Labour candidates in favour of new townSome support Pyestock, but prefer Winchfield
Yateley WestCRISP, GerryLiberal Democrat Voted in favour Nov 2014?
Yateley WestHALL, PeterThe Conservative Party Candidate ??
Yateley WestHOWE, John WilliamUK Independence Party (UKIP) ?Brownfield sites as a priority, but no definitive position on Pyestock
Yateley WestSUTHERLAND, Alistair WilliamThe Labour Party Candidate All Labour candidates in favour of new townSome support Pyestock, but prefer Winchfield