We Heart Hart response to the decision to abandon the consultation

Posted on January 16, 2016January 28, 2016

Protest at Hart Council’s Offices.

After a period of reflection, we have now had time to compose a response to Hart’s astonishing decision to abandon the Local Plan consultation and set out what we think should happen to bring the Local Plan back on track. This has been sent to all councillors.

Readers may wish to copy a link to this page and send it to their ward councillor and add their own ideas on what should be done. A list of councillor contact details can be found here.

What should we think about Hart Council’s decision to call off the Local Plan consultation with only a day to go before it was due to close? Well, to misquote Churchill, this consultation has been a farce in a fiasco inside an omnishambles. Never has so little been achieved by so many with so much of our money.

This is but the latest entry in a catalogue of mismanagement and misjudgement.

Back in April 2015, Peter Village QC described Hart’s position as “hopeless” and precious little has changed since then. This abandoned consultation has not even covered the areas that he said should have been covered, namely, employment, retail, transport and infrastructure.

Now, let’s look at the timeline:

In October, 2013, when the earlier version of the plan was rejected by the Planning Inspector, the council said:

“that while the council operates under the interim strategy, it is working on an updated Local Plan…. We expect to put this out for consultation early next year, and would look to submit it to an inspector next autumn [2014],”

In April 2014, the plan was to have a resubmission plan ready for consultation in October 2015.
In February 2015, the plan was to have a resubmission plan ready for Autumn 2015.
As late as April last year, the council was insisting that they were still on track to deliver a Resubmission Plan by Autumn 2015, despite our warnings that the project was slipping.
We are now in a position, according to the latest schedule, where the Resubmission plan is due in Autumn 2016, but this has to be in serious doubt given the failure of this consultation and the fact that the evidence base won’t be revised until Spring 2016 and Hart have to hold a Regulation 18 consultation on the draft Local Plan, and heaven knows why it is planned for the Summer, when many people will be on holiday.

It is difficult to come to a conclusion other than the project management is woeful.

We need also to look at the governance of the project. Power on the Local Plan Steering Group (LPSG) is concentrated in the hands of urban councillors who have presided over this mess.

Role	Member
Cabinet Member for Planning (Chairman)	Stephen Parker (Con Fleet East)
The Leader of Council	Stephen Parker (Con Fleet East)
Cabinet Member for Housing	Stephen Gorys (Con – Odiham)
Chairman of Planning Committee	Simon Ambler (CCH – Crookham West and Ewshot)
Political Group Leaders	David Neighbour (Lib Dem – Yateley East) James Radley (CCH – Crookham East) Stephen Parker (Con – Fleet East)

Not only that, the quality of the deliverables to date is poor. By way of example, in January last year Hart commissioned a piece of work to test the new settlement and urban extension options. The published results of this work have not met the objectives set at the outset.

I have had many people send me Facebook messages, tweets and emails saying what a farce the process has been a shambles and a waste of time and money. One correspondent has even been moved to write a poem, saying they thought our leader has led us up the garden path and couldn’t even run a bath. In short the council is a laughing stock. Many people have also come to the conclusion, rightly or wrongly, that the reason the consultation has been called off is that the people were giving the ‘wrong answer’. There is no confidence in the council, the credibility of the whole Local Plan process is subterranean, with some complaining of “consultation fatigue”.

If the consultation is re-run at the end of January, it is extremely likely that parts of the new evidence base will be released during the consultation, thus meaning that the consultation will be run on the wrong evidence base, invalidating the results.

The Local Plan process is so far behind schedule that we are running the risk of Central Government stepping in and doing the Local Plan for us. Moreover, the Government is currently consulting on plans to remove the New Homes Bonus from councils that do not have a Local Plan, so this further failure may result in a hit to services or increases in council tax. So, it is clear we need a good Local Plan and quickly.

But before we can move forwards it is imperative that we fix the management and governance failings that have led us to this unhappy place. It is simply untenable for the current incumbents to carry on as if nothing has happened.

The changes we need are:

Resignation of the entire LPSG from their positions to be replaced by a new group of senior councillors from a balance of rural and urban wards.
I’m sorry to say it, but the cabinet member for planning and leader’s position is untenable after presiding over such a comedy of errors.
Whoever authorised the change to the questions mid-way through the consultation within the “officer” side must at least be severely reprimanded.
Hart need to appoint an experienced project manager to run the Local Plan project who should immediately review it and put together a realistic scope, objectives, deliverables, resource requirements, costs and timelines, publish it, and offer it for scrutiny by a recognised project assurance organisation
Only when the revised evidence base (SHMA and Employment Land Review) has been published, should Hart run a new Regulation 18 consultation covering employment, retail, transport, infrastructure as well as housing distribution as per the advice from Peter Village QC. The consultation should be put together and run by a competent third party organisation.
A standalone brownfield approach, covering all current brownfield sites in the SHLAA, the Stonegate Report and any new zones of opportunity identified in the call for sites should be added to the consultation as per the request of the 2,130 signatories of the WHH petition. It is simply not credible to set a “deliverable” criterion for brownfield sites when almost all of the green field sites subject to consultation were “not currently developable”. The council can’t have it one way for brownfield and another for greenfield sites. Many brownfield sites in the SHLAA/New Homes Booklet were “rejected” for apparently arbitrary reasons, they certainly did not appear to have more onerous constraints on them compared to those selected for consultation in Q6.
The differences between the site capacities shown in the New Homes Booklet compared to those in the official evidence base in the SHLAA (see point 4 in this letter to councillors, dated 20 November 2015 and Appendix) need to be rectified.
The process of the consultation needs to be simplified and improved, with the weighting system being resolved and published before the consultation starts.
The risks of a new town and urban extensions should be properly laid out (including creating capacity to take 3,000 houses from Rushmoor and Surrey Heath and the infrastructure costs).
All of the SHLAA sites should be offered for consultation in Q6, and the ranking approach changed to something more objective and able to be analysed across parishes such as “strongly oppose, oppose, support, strongly support”. It should be possible to pass comment without ranking sites that you don’t agree should be developed. It was particularly odd to see that the NHB rejected sites that had appeared in Neighbourhood plans.
You might do well to review my suggested 5-point plan that I tried to put to council in the Summer, but my question was censored.
The different infrastructure contribution regimes for different styles of development should be properly explained: a certain cabinet member was spreading misleading information about this during the recent consultation. My understanding is that only office conversions attract no S106/CIL whereas brownfield redevelopment is subject to the same contribution regime as green field development. It should also be explained that new homes in vacant office blocks attract council tax (and new homes bonus), which HDC retains, rather than business rates much of which is surrendered to the Government.
There also needs to be more robust processes for verifying the identity of all those participating in the consultation, and proper rules set on who can and cannot comment: theoretically the consultation just abandoned could have been answered by babes in arms in Aberdeen which is clearly ridiculous.

Only root and branch change of process and personnel will restore confidence and give enough credibility to create a sporting chance of getting a good Local Plan on time.

Press release is available for download below, together with a carousel of pictures of our shot demo outside Hart Offices.

Response to Hart’s decision to abandon the consultation

Download Now!367 Downloads

Protest at Hart Council's Offices about the consultation shambles.
Protest at Hart Council's Offices about the omnishambles Consultation
Protest at Hart's Offices about the Consultation farce
Protest at Hart Council's Offices about the consultation fiasco
Protest at Hart Council's Offices about the omnishambles Consultation.
Protest at Hart Council's Offices about the omnishambles Consultation

Protest at Hart Council’s Offices about the consultation shambles.

Protest at Hart Council’s Offices about the omnishambles Consultation

Protest at Hart’s Offices about the Consultation farce

Protest at Hart Council’s Offices about the consultation fiasco

Protest at Hart Council's Offices about the Consultation farce

Protest at Hart Council’s Offices about the omnishambles Consultation.

Protest at Hart Council’s Offices about the omnishambles Consultation

link

Rushmoor calls for new town, urban extensions and dispersal in Hart

Posted on January 14, 2016January 14, 2016

Empty Offices at Farnborough, Rushmoor Borough, Hampshire.

Earlier this week Rushmoor cabinet considered its response to Hart’s Local Plan consultation and has come up with some controversial proposals.

First, their response says:

Rushmoor Borough Council supports the strategy of prioritising development on brownfield land, and on land outside the zone of influence for the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area. Rushmoor expects that in addition to this, the first full consultation version of the Hart Local Plan will be based on a strategy to meet housing needs that requires a combination of the options set out in in the consultation paper. This will include dispersed development, strategic urban extensions and a new settlement at Winchfield in order to help deliver the housing need identified in the SHMA.

And in a veiled criticism of Hart’s strategy of holding the consultation now, when the evidence base is under review it says:

At this stage in the plan preparation process, Rushmoor Borough Council considers that the most appropriate strategy and timescale for meeting housing need across the HMA can only be identified once the update to the evidence base is in place. Moreover, until the implications of the conclusions in the updated evidence base are understood, it is not possible to comment on the detail of the housing options in isolation from other strategic cross boundary issues.

However, Rushmoor reserves the right to change its response, once the new evidence base is published:

It may be that once this evidence base is updated, some of Rushmoor’s comments may change or fall away, particularly when Hart publishes a complete version of its Local Plan for consultation, based on the most up to date evidence.

It seems to us that it would be poor strategy to commit to a new town now, when the evidence base is being reviewed. It may be that the threat to build 3,000 extra houses for Rushmoor and Surrey Heath falls away and Hart’s own alleged “need” also falls, in which case we will be able to build all of our remaining need on brownfield sites and have many sites left over for future planning periods. If we had a vision to keep our essential countryside, and not build a new town, then we would not need to meet Rushmoor’s need.

If you would like to ask Hart to abandon the new town alternative and create a brownfield solution to our housing needs, we urge you to respond to the Hart District Council consultation about the Local Plan and ask them to think again. 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:

Responses to Local Plan Consultation

Download Now!429 Downloads

2 Minute version:

Respond to Local Plan Consultation in 2 minutes

Download Now!416 Downloads

Rushmoor responds to criticism by revising evidence base and delaying its Local Plan

Posted on January 14, 2016January 14, 2016

Empty Offices at Farnborough, Rushmoor Borough, Hampshire

While all of our eyes have been on the Hart Consultation about the Local Plan, Rushmoor has also been busy on its own Local Plan. The most important point is that Rushmoor is revising the SHMA and the Employment Land Review which will:

be beneficial in assisting with a response to a number of comments received through the consultation, which challenged elements of the evidence base, and in particular, raised objection to the fact that the potential shortfall in housing supply in Rushmoor should be accommodated in Hart.

We might add that it was largely We Heart Hart supporters who made these comments – so thank you very much for your contributions. It does show that reasoned analysis of the evidence base can lead to real change, at least in Rushmoor.

In addition, as well as making reference to the Government’s lower population and household forecasts, Rushmoor say that “all of the three major forecasting houses that produce employment forecasts at local authority level have updated forecasts since those used in the SHMA and the ELR”. We Heart Hart have strongly challenged the previous jobs forecasts, so we can only hope that these forecasting houses have come up with something more reasonable.

Rushmoor is also revising its land bank database (SHLAA), and this should be available in early 2016.

Interestingly, Rushmoor has also delayed its Local Plan by up to a year in total to cater for these revisions to the evidence base. Rushmoor’s next consultation, built upon the new evidence base will be in October 2016.

We find it difficult to see how Hart is going to manage to produce a full draft Local Plan by the Summer of this year, when the updated evidence base is not going to be available until the Spring, and it is going to take Rushmoor at least 6 months to process that information and produce the next draft of its Plan.

Rushmoor has also provided a response to Hart’s Housing Options consultation that we will cover in another post.

7 reasons to oppose a new town in Hart

Posted on January 13, 2016January 13, 2016

Which would you rather preserve – derelict eyesore or our wildlife?

As the consultation on the Hart District Local Plan draws to a close, it is worth reiterating the main reasons why you should oppose a new town and urban extensions in Hart.

They would open us up to 3,000 extra houses from Surrey Heath and Rushmoor, and we would get the worst of all worlds, a new town, urban extensions and green field dispersal.
The rate of building would then be used against us in the next planning period, so the problems we create today would be compounded into the future.
It would be bad strategy to commit to a new town now, when we know that the housing needs assessment is being revised, and in all likelihood it will be revise down
The proposed new town location is simply not suitable, in that there isn’t enough land to create the nirvana of a self contained new settlement promised by some HDC councillors, and would lead to a giant Hartley Winchook conurbation.
The infrastructure costs are astronomical, and the developer contributions will not meet these costs, thus pushing up council taxes in the future
There is an alternative brownfield solution that will meet the actual needs of Hart residents through providing specialist accommodation for the elderly and affordable starter homes for the young people struggling to get on the housing ladder.
Brownfield development is a more sustainable, greener alternative that will be kinder to the environment and provide infrastructure funding for our existing communities.

Full version:

Responses to Local Plan Consultation

Download Now!429 Downloads

2 Minute version:

Respond to Local Plan Consultation in 2 minutes

Download Now!416 Downloads

Fleet resident describes Winchfield new town as “monstrous”

Posted on January 8, 2016January 8, 2016

Development proposals around M3 J4a and Bramshott Farm

A resident of Fleet has written to We Heart Hart and described the proposals for a new town at Winchfield as “monstrous” and proposed a number of brownfield sites around the district as alternatives to meet our housing needs. He also points out that “our MP, Mr Ranil Jayawardena, is against coalescence in the Winchfield area as it will introduce hideous and wanton destruction of a large chunk of rural Hampshire by HDC civic vandals and philistines”.

His full report that has been sent to Hart District Council can be downloaded on the link below.

The alternative brownfield sites he proposes for development include Bramshott Farm, Minley and Guillemont Park, shown in the image above.

He goes on to propose a number of other sites including land near Runabout and Iveley Road (see below),

Development proposals Norris Bridge Gyratory

Additional brownfield land near Pyestock (see below),

Development proposals around Kennels Lane near Pyestock

and the worked out gravel pits near Bramshill and Blackbushe airport (see below).

Development proposals on brownfield gravel pit sites at Bramshill

Development proposals on brownfield gravel pit sites near Blackbushe

We welcome these ideas from a Fleet resident, as it shows that opposition to a new town comes from many people, not just those living in or near Winchfield. If you would like to make your voice heard and object to the new town idea, we urge you to respond to the Hart District Council consultation about the Local Plan and ask them to think again. 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:

Responses to Local Plan Consultation

Download Now!429 Downloads

2 Minute version:

Respond to Local Plan Consultation in 2 minutes

Download Now!416 Downloads

Full report from the Fleet resident:

Fleet resident brownfield site ideas

Download Now!258 Downloads

Link

Fleet Town Council seeks to mislead the public

Posted on January 6, 2016January 6, 2016

Fleet Town Council Leaflet

Fleet Town Council have distributed a leaflet that, in our view, seeks to mislead the public. The leaflet suggests that a new settlement in Hart would be a “long term sustainable solution to the housing and infrastructure needs” of the district as an “official recommendation”.

We think this is misleading and wrong on many levels:

Concreting over the equivalent of 25 football pitches a year is not in any way sustainable, and this approach would lead to another new town being required every 10-15 years and destroy the green spaces that make Hart such a great place to live.
The type of housing in a new town estate is exactly the wrong type of housing to meet the needs of our growing elderly population and the needs of our young people struggling to get on the housing ladder
A new town will require over £300m of infrastructure funding, with only £50m of developer contributions, and of course will do nothing to address the £78m infrastructure funding deficit across the district.

Surely, it would be much better to follow Ranil’s advice and redevelop our ageing and vacant office blocks in a brownfield solution that will meet the needs of Hart residents as opposed to those wishing to move here from London and deliver infrastructure funding for our existing communities. Of course, Fleet Town Council offer no evidence at all to support their assertions.

We are of course flattered that they have chosen to make their leaflet in the style of the leaflet we distributed at the end of last year.

Housing Options consultation leaflet

Download Now!361 Downloads

If you would like to make your voice heard and object to the new town idea, we urge you to respond to the Hart District Council consultation about the Local Plan and ask them to think again. 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:

Responses to Local Plan Consultation

Download Now!429 Downloads

2 Minute version:

Respond to Local Plan Consultation in 2 minutes

Download Now!416 Downloads

Floods in Winchfield, Hartley Wintney, Hook and Crookham Village cast doubt on new town plan

Posted on January 4, 2016January 16, 2020

Flood Taplins Farm Road Winchfield 3 January 2016.

Bravehart donned his waders and took to his canoe yesterday to take pictures of the widespread floods across the country roads in Winchfield and the roads in and out of the proposed new town in Hartley Wintney, Hook and Crookham Village.

As you can see from the carousel below the floods were severe and widespread, and that is without all the surrounding green fields being concreted over. Imagine what it would be like if the capacity of the soil to absorb water was reduced by building 5,000 houses.

Bravehart found floods in the following areas:

Winchfield, Hook, Crookham Village Floods 3 January 2016

Church Lane, Hartley Wintney near St Mary’s Church
Taplins Farm Lane, near the farm and near the bridge over the M3
Taplins Farm Lane, just below the Internet car showroom, along the road through the railway tunnel up to near Hurst Farm
The Hurst and Pale Lane in Winchfield
Extensive flooding along Station Road from the Hurst to Bagwell Lane and again through the railway tunnel
The bottom of Bagwell Lane, Winchfield and at many places along the lane towards Odiham Common
Totters Lane under the M3, near the bridge over the railway and near the A30 in Hook parish
On the A30 between Murrell Green and Phoenix Green
On the B3016 Odiham Road near the junction with the A30 and under the M3
On Pilcot Road near the junction with Hitches Lane in Crookham Village

Railway bridge at Station Road Winchfield. Village 3 January 2016
Flood at Station Road Winchfield. 3 January 2016.
Flood Hitches Lane/Pilcot Road Crookham Village 3 January 2016.
Flood Hitches Lane/Pilcot Road Crookham Village 3 January 2016
Flood Totters Lane Hook 3 January 2016
Flood Totters Lane Hook 3 January 2016.
Flood Totters Lane Hook 3 January 2016.
Flood Totters Lane Hook 3 January 2016.
Flood Totters Lane Hook 3 January 2016.
Flood Totters Lane Hook 3 January 2016.
Flood A30 Hartley Wintney 3 January 2016
Flood B3016 Odiham Road Hartley Wintney 3 January 2016.
Flood B3016 Odiham Road Winchfield 3 January 2016.
Flood B3016 Odiham Road Winchfield 3 January 2016.
Flood Bagwell Lane Winchfield 3 January 2016.
Flood Bagwell Lane Winchfield 3 January 2016.
Flood Bagwell Lane Winchfield 3 January 2016.
Flood Bagwell Lane Winchfield 3 January 2016.
Flood Bagwell Lane Winchfield 3 January 2016.
Flood Bagwell Lane Winchfield 3 January 2016.
Flood Bagwell Lane Winchfield 3 January 2016.
Flood Bagwell Lane Winchfield 3 January 2016.
Flood Bagwell Lane Winchfield 3 January 2016.
Flood Potbridge Road Winchfield 3 January 2016
Flood Potbridge Road Winchfield 3 January 2016.
Flood Potbridge Road Winchfield 3 January 2016
Flood Totters Lane Hook 3 January 2016.
Flood Station Road Winchfield 3 January 2016
Flood Station Road Winchfield 3 January 2016.
Flood Station Road Winchfield 3 January 2016
Flood Station Road Winchfield 3 January 2016
Flood Station Road Winchfield 3 January 2016.
Flood Station Road Winchfield 3 January 2016.
Flood Bagwell Lane Winchfield 3 January 2016.
Flood Bagwell Lane Winchfield 3 January 2016.
Flood The Hurst Winchfield 3 January 2016
Flood The Hurst Winchfield 3 January 2016.
Flood Pale Lane Winchfield 3 January 2016
Flood Pale Lane Winchfield 3 January 2016
Flood Pale Lane Winchfield 3 January 2016
Flood Pale Lane Winchfield 3 January 2016
Flood Taplins Farm Road Winchfield 3 January 2016
Flood Taplins Farm Road Winchfield 3 January 2016.
Flood Taplins Farm Road Winchfield 3 January 2016
Flood Taplins Farm Road Winchfield 3 January 2016
Flood Taplins Farm Road Winchfield 3 January 2016
Flood Church Lane Hartley Wintney 3 January 2016
Flood Church Lane Hartley Wintney 3 January 2016
Flood Taplins Farm Road Winchfield 3 January 2016
Flood Taplins Farm Road Winchfield 3 January 2016.
Flood Taplins Farm Road Winchfield 3 January 2016
Flood Taplins Farm Road Winchfield 3 January 2016
Flood Taplins Farm Road Winchfield 3 January 2016
Flood Taplins Farm Road Winchfield 3 January 2016

Yesterday’s events demonstrate the evidence in the site assessment that the area is very susceptible to groundwater flooding.

Winchfield Flood Risk

We find it difficult to believe that anyone can conclude that these sites and these roads are a suitable location for a new town of 5,000 houses.

[Update]

This story covered in Get Hampshire January 4 2016: Floods will worsen if green fields are concreted over for new Winchfield town, campaigners warn

And covered in Fleet News and Mail January 6 2016: Flooding proves new town idea will not float says campaigner

[/Update]

Full version:

Responses to Local Plan Consultation

Download Now!429 Downloads

2 Minute version:

Respond to Local Plan Consultation in 2 minutes

Download Now!416 Downloads

Flood Church Lane Hartley Wintney 3 January 2016

Flood Taplins Farm Road Winchfield 3 January 2016

Flood Potbridge Road Winchfield 3 January 2016

Flood Totters Lane Hook 3 January 2016.

Flood Bagwell Lane Winchfield 3 January 2016.

Railway bridge at Station Road WInchfield. Floods at Winchfield, Hook and Crookham Village 3 January 2016

Railway bridge at Station Road Winchfield. Village 3 January 2016

Flood Hitches Lane/Pilcot Road Crookham Village 3 January 2016

Flood B3016 Odiham Road Winchfield 3 January 2016.

Winchfield new town plan proposes 772 new houses on former landfill site

Posted on January 2, 2016January 2, 2016

SHL 167 former landfill site Beggars Corner, Winchfield, Hart District, Hampshire

One of the sites proposed for the Winchfield new town is a former landfill site. There are 772 new houses proposed for site SHL 167, also known as Beggars Corner. However, a solar farm was recently turned down at this site and the environmental report shows that much of the site was once landfill, with unknown contents.

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

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

Interestingly, Hart Council’s decision to refuse the solar farm application (ref: 15/01614/FUL) had nothing to do with the landfill issues, but was because the proposed site was:

“within the zone of theoretical visibility and the Odiham Conservation Area. The proposed development would seriously detract from the amenity and consequent recreational value of the nearby public right of ways”.

We find it difficult to believe that a former landfill site is a suitable location for the 772 new houses proposed in the same location. And it is also hard to see how a planning application won’t face the same difficulties as the solar farm application, further undermining the questionable viability of the proposed Hartley Winchook new town.

If you would like to make your voice heard, we urge you to respond to the Hart District Council consultation about the Local Plan and ask them to think again. 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:

Responses to Local Plan Consultation

Download Now!429 Downloads

2 Minute version:

Respond to Local Plan Consultation in 2 minutes

Download Now!416 Downloads

Hart District’s £78m infrastructure funding deficit

Posted on January 1, 2016August 15, 2023

Much is being made of the supposed infrastructure benefits of a new town in Hart District. We believe these benefits are a mirage and have written elsewhere about the astronomical £300m costs and the pitiful expected developer contributions. This post is about the massive infrastructure funding deficit facing our existing communities and how developer contributions won’t make a bit of difference to this and how a new town will make things worse.

Back in October 2014 Hart Council produced an infrastructure delivery schedule that set out the current deficit, split by type and area. This shows a deficit of £78m not including healthcare facilities. The breakdown is shown by type and area in the images below:

Hart District Estimated Infrastructure costs by type March 2013.

Hart District Estimated Infrastructure costs by area March 2013

Key quotes from the document include:

“It is therefore reasonable to conclude that it is unlikely that there will be sufficient future funds, from both capital programmes and developer contributions, within the plan period, to deliver all of the projects listed in the HCC Transport Statement”

“Although developer contributions will continue to play an important role in helping to bridge the funding gap, it is also clear that the funds raised through developer contributions will only contribute a modest proportion of the total identified funding gap”

“Developer contributions are, however, by no means the only source of funding for infrastructure providers. Local Authorities, for example, could fund the costs of meeting future unmet community infrastructure needs, in addition to developer contributions, through a variety of means including Infrastructure Provider Capital Programmes, Council Tax, Prudential Borrowing, New Homes Bonus, Grants (Government and private), Capital Receipts, Council Reserves and Local Economic Partnership (LEP) funding”

“The South West Main Line (SWML) outer trains, which serve Hart, has significant forecasted future peak crowding, with a capacity shortfall of over 6,100 passengers in the high-peak hour, even if every main line train is at maximum length”

As can be seen, Fleet, Church Crookham and Hook have the largest deficits and there is no way that developer contributions are going to make a dent in these, let alone cover the extra infrastructure costs of a new town. Nobody has yet explained how these deficits will be fixed by building a new town. On the contrary, a new town is likely to starve these areas of much needed investment.

Full version:

Responses to Local Plan Consultation

Download Now!429 Downloads

2 Minute version:

Respond to Local Plan Consultation in 2 minutes

Download Now!416 Downloads

Does Hart District need a new secondary school?

Posted on December 31, 2015August 15, 2023

As part of the debate about the alleged ‘need’ for a new town at Winchfield, a number of councillors have stated that one of the benefits would be a new secondary school, even though the proposed location was between the M3 and the Mildmay Oaks hospital. But what is the evidence we actually need a new secondary school?

Well, it is patchy at best. Hampshire County Council have only planned school places up to 2018. This shows a 9% surplus of secondary school places:

Secondary School Capacity in Hart District

The same document also forecasts a fall in the birth rate across Hampshire (individual forecasts for Hart District are not available). This will reduce future pressure on secondary school places:

Hampshire Live Birth Forecast

[Update]

Moreover, some 1,533 pupils out of the total 13,436 pupils being educated in Hart District schools come from outside the district. Whereas only 264 pupils (of which 103 are in special schools) from Hart are being educated outside of the district. These figures include 13.6% of Robert Mays and 5% of Calthorpe Park pupils coming from outside the district. Source is an FOI request made to Hampshire County Council.

[/Update]

In communication with Hampshire County Council, I have been told the following about the circumstances that would need to prevail to justify the expense of building an entirely new school:

Again there will be a number of factors to consider before deciding to build a new school to meet increased demand, these including:

being able to demonstrate that the existing school system (net capacity) is unable to reasonably cope with the increased number of children.

That the increased demand is sufficient to warrant a sustainable size school (1FE/210 places as a minimum is desirable) in primary and at secondary a school of 900 (180 per year group).

That where new housing is proposed a suitable size site is secured during the planning process

Moreover, Hart’s own infrastructure requirements list published in October 2014 did not call for a new school:

Hart District Draft Regulation 123 List October 2014

Hart District Draft Regulation 123 Infrastructure List October 2014

So, it is far from clear at all that we need a new secondary school. Even if we did need more places, it is not clear that we would need enough to justify the provision of a new 900-place school.

Full version:

Responses to Local Plan Consultation

Download Now!429 Downloads

2 Minute version:

Respond to Local Plan Consultation in 2 minutes

Download Now!416 Downloads