Hart District Council ‘brownfield first’ commitment in tatters

Posted on October 1, 2015October 1, 2015

Vacant brownfield Block at Ancells Farm, Fleet, Hart District, Hampshire

Vacant Office at Ancells Farm, Fleet, Hampshire

In an astonishing admission, Hart Council have said that they do not track planning applications for brownfield site developments separately to green field developments. This comes on top of their insistence that they do not need to build a register of brownfield sites in the district and their inadequate classification of sites in the SHLAA.

Taken together, these make a mockery of the council’s supposed commitment to a ‘brownfield first’ strategy.

The admission came in answers to questions put to the council by Winchfield Action Group at the council meeting last week on 24 September. The full Q&A can be found here. The brownfield topic is quoted below in full (my emphasis added):

Question 8

How many units have been applied for or granted or identified, and their locations and categories, as possible conversions or developments on brownfield sites since October 2014?

SP response

With regards solely to conversions allowed through permitted development rights:

At 14^th September 2015, there were 258 dwellings approved through the permitted development/prior approval notice procedure the bulk of which are conversions from offices to residential. 5 units were completed in the year 1^st April 2014 to 31^st March 2015. This information is published on Hart’s website.

These figures exclude brownfield sites that require planning permission, because those are not currently split between greenfield and brownfield developments. We do need to be mindful that as yet the PDR regime closes next May, and it is now way too late for a developer complete any such conversion if not already started. You will however note the brownfield provisions on today’s council agenda, which we will be discussion later this evening.

You will note that the question was not properly answered. It was designed to get the council to confirm the figures we have put together regarding the available capacity on brownfield sites.

However, in better news, it emerged that there are only 2,900 dwellings left to grant permission for up to 2032. This almost certainly means that there is now more brownfield capacity than the remaining housing target in the Hart Local Plan.

Question 9

Of the 7534 housing target set out in the SHMA, what is the residual requirement left that need to be granted planning permission?

SP response

At 14^th September 2015 the residual requirement to 2032 was approximately 2,900 dwellings needed to meet Hart’s housing needs as identified in the December 2014 SHMA, although we will be required to refresh this document before we go to Examination. However I should point out that this figure does not allow for any unmet need arising in Rushmoor and Surrey Heath that we may have to meet under the provisions of the Duty to Cooperate. Rushmoor currently say they have a 1,600 dwelling shortfall although as I have said previously, Hart has challenged that figure

It is clear that we don’t need a new town in Winchfield, Hampshire or anywhere else.

Local Liberal Democrats split on Winchfield New Town

Posted on October 1, 2015October 2, 2015

Lib Dem Focus Sept 2015 1 of 2

Despite the article above by Liberal Democrat Hampshire County Councillor, David Simpson, in their local newsletter, it has emerged that the local Liberal Democrats are split on the issue of a Winchfield New town.

Mr, Simpson opposed a new town at Winchfield in the strongest possible terms. However, Hart District councillor, Graham Cockarill, in an email to another Hart resident has supported the concept of a new town and come out in favour of Winchfield as his preferred option saying, “it does appear to me that, again on balance, Winchfield is the better option”.

Interestingly, at the council meeting last week, Liberal Democrat party leader on Hart District Council, Dave Neighbour denied all knowledge of David Simpson’s article when asked about it by We Heart Hart. Since then neither he nor any other of the Lib Dem councillors we emailed with the article have replied to our question asking if they supported David Simpson’s position.

It looks like a split is opening up in the Lib Dems. It seems quite astonishing that many of the councillors pictured in the newsletter don’t actually agree with the main article published there.

Lib Dem Focus Sept 2015 2 of 2

Hartley Wintney councillors furious over Hart Council news ‘propaganda’

Posted on September 30, 2015October 3, 2015

Fury over council news propaganda

Councillors for Hartley Wintney ward, Anne Crampton, Andrew Renshaw and Tim Southern have expressed their fury to the Fleet News and Mail about the way Hart District Council expressed a preference for a new town in Winchfield in the latest edition of Hart News, even though the testing process is not yet complete.

Hart Council said in their article about the Local Plan:

[Winchfield] has an existing station, and it is relatively free of environmental contraints. It is also close to the motorway which could also possibly allow for a new junction onto the M3.

Clearly major infrastructure improvements would be needed and it would be a large scale project that would fundamentally change that part of Hart

The councillors think that edition of Hart News should be pulped because they think it inappropriate for the council to be putting out only one side of the story when they are preparing to engage the public in another round of consultation about housing options.

Not only that, Hart have done very little work to quantify the infrastructure costs of such a development, but our estimate of £300m, taken together with the existing funding deficit of £78m would mean a new town is simply undeliverable.

This comes hot on the heels of the article by Hampshire County Councillor David Simpson in the local Liberal Democrat newsletter where he says “Winchfield is the wrong place for major development”

Hart Council cabinet is due to debate their response to the We Heart Hart petition tomorrow night at Hart Offices at 7pm. Please do come along and support us. Facebook invitation here.

Large image of the article here.

UPDATE: Same story now covered in GetHampshire

Hart District Council Local Plan slips a further 3 months in 3 days

Posted on September 25, 2015August 15, 2023

In a quite astonishing development, Hart Council has announced a further slippage of at least 3 months in the Local Plan project just three days after publishing a revised schedule in Hart News, which itself pushed the schedule back a year.

The further revised schedule is published in papers due to be discussed at Cabinet next week.

This now sets out the following timetable (timetable and slippage compared to that announced in Hart News in brackets).

Refined Housing Options Paper* – Winter 2015 (Winter 2015, no change)

Full Draft Local Plan* – Summer 2016 (Spring 2016, 3 months slippage)

Resubmission Plan* – Autumn 2016 (late Summer 2016, 3 months slippage)

Submit to Secretary of State – Winter 2016 (Autumn 2016, 3 months slippage)

Examination – Spring 2017 (Winter 2016, 3 months slippage)

Adoption – Summer 2017 (Spring 2017, 3 months slippage)

There is a saying that keeping doing the same thing in the same way and expecting a different result is the definition of insanity. Surely, some councillors can see that this project is off the rails and the management needs to change.

The image of the timetable announced in Hart News is shown below:

Housing pressure from neighbours may affect Hart. Hart Local Plan timetable. Hart slips Local Plan timetable

Hart slips Local Plan timetable again

[Update] Plan slips further in March 2016

Hart Council Local Plan timetable slips two years within two years

Posted on September 25, 2015September 25, 2015

Hart Council refuse to acknowledge failings in the Local Plan

Hart Council has announced in Hart News that it has slipped the Local Plan timetable yet again. Given the number of times this timetable has been amended we have to question the credibility of their project management. Hart Council is running the risk of the Government stepping in and writing the plan for them.

Hart slips Local Plan timetable again in Hart News (Hampshire)

The revised timetable, shown in the image above is:

Refined Housing Options Paper* – Winter 2015

Full Draft Local Plan* – Spring 2016

Resubmission Plan* – late Summer 2016

Submit to Secretary of State – Autumn 2016

Examination – Winter 2016

Adoption – Spring 2017

* = documents subject to public consultation.

This is the latest in a long line of delays:

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

“Cllr Parker 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],” he added.”

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 this 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 where the Local Plan has slipped two years within two years. It is difficult to come to a conclusion other than the project management is woeful and we run the risk of the Local Plan being taken out of local hands and handed to Government Inspectors. One has to ask why more councillors are not holding the Executive and the Officers to account and demanding a change of approach, such as our suggested 5-point plan.

Hartley Wintney and Eversley Lib Dems oppose Winchfield New Town

Posted on September 23, 2015September 25, 2015

Hart in Heart of Hart, Winchfield, Hart District, Hampshire

Hart in the Heart of Hart, Winchfield

In a very welcome move, the latest edition of the Liberal Democrats’ Focus newsletter for Hartley Wintney and Eversley includes an article strongly opposing a new town in Winchfield.

The article is authored by David Simpson, the Hampshire County Councillor for the area. In it he says:

I have said, right from the start, that Winchfield is the wrong place for a major development as it is in the middle of the country lanes. To work it would need massive spending on new roads and infrastructure that will devastate the rural heart of Hart”…

“What is needed is proper planning of where new houses should go and how infrastructure is provided to ensure a good quality of life for local residents.

That means ensuring we can get to where we need to go without traffic jams; it means making sure we have all the services we need, and it means accommodating development without ruining our beautiful district.

Make sure you stand up to be counted be letting Hart know your views. We are at crisis point. If we don’t make sure they get it right, our children and grandchildren could regret these decisions for generations to come.”

We Heart Hart completely endorses this view. It is to be hoped that these views are shared by the Lib Dem councillors on Hart District Council and they now vote against the proposals for a new town and exert pressure to improve the Hart Local Plan.

Images of the newsletter are shown below:

Lib Dem Focus Sept 2015 1 of 2

Lib Dem Focus Sept 2015 2 of 2

Full size images here and here.

Update: One Lib Dem councillor we spoke to last night at council denies having seen the article. So, this page has been sent to a number of Lib Dem councillors and we have asked them what their current position is on the Winchfield New Town.

Hart Council persists with Winchfield New Town idea despite petition from 2,130 people

Posted on September 22, 2015September 23, 2015

Example of Urban Sprawl

Hart District Council’s Planning Department are persisting with plans for a new town in Winchfield, despite receiving a petition from 2,130 people asking that it does not include a new town in its new Local Plan. In its latest edition of Hart News, it has included a number of articles about the Local Plan which contain many controversial statements as outlined below.

Why we need 3,500 new homes in Hart

In its first article, Hart Council say the “Council is reluctant to see ever more growth in existing towns and villages so the preference is to explore a new settlement at Winchfield”. This is in direct contradiction to the 5th objective of the petition which says:

To demand the council and government do not plan for any new settlement in Hart that will act as a sink for the unmet housing need in neighbouring areas.

Moreover, they say that brownfield capacity is only 1,800 units when we have already demonstrated that since last October, their original estimate of only 750 units is now in the range of 2,438-3,688, demonstrating that the remaining allocation of 3,500 is within reach with a bit of extra effort.

Hart Council also conveniently gloss over the fact that there is already a £78m infrastructure funding gap that can only get worse if they go for a new town, because the £300m infrastructure costs will far outweigh any developer contributions (c. £40m).

Communities have a say on shaping area’s future. Council wins Hop Garden appeal to halt urban sprawl

In their second and third articles, they emphasise that they turned down the proposed development at Hop Garden Road, Hook to stop unwanted sprawl and to protect the environment, local residents and protected species. The very same arguments could be advanced to protect Winchfield, which unlike Hop Garden Road is inside the zone of influence of the Thames Valley Heath SPA and contains 3 SSSI’s and many SINCs.

Hart Council laud Neighbourhood Plans as a chance for residents to play a much stronger role in shaping the areas in which they live and work whilst at the same time rather ominously suggesting that Neighbourhood Plans must conform to Hart Council’s assessment of their housing needs. It remains to be seen how Winchfield’s Neighbourhood Plan, which WeHeartHart understands will propose significant development, will be treated by Hart Council when it is submitted.

Hart is going to give its formal response to the petition at the Cabinet meeting on 1 October. After seeing today’s articles, that debate is going to be interesting…..

Remaining Hart District housing target can be met from brownfield sites alone

Posted on September 13, 2015September 27, 2015

Vacant block at Bartley Wood in Hook, Hampshire

Bartley Wood Estate in Hook

New facts have come to light since Hart Council planning department put together their estimate of brownfield capacity which show that Hart’s remaining housing target can be met from brownfield development alone. Please support us in getting a brownfield only option included in the forthcoming consultation by attending the Hart Cabinet on 1 October where Hart’s response to the We Heart Hart petition will be agreed.

Last November, the council’s estimate of brownfield capacity over the entire plan period was around 750 units (taken from parts 1 and 3 of the SHLAA as per the FOI request we made) out of the then remaining 4,000 units to build (or grant permission for) up to 2032.

Since then, a number of interesting things have happened:

An important study by Stonegate Homes has shown that brownfield capacity is much larger
Planning permission has been applied for or granted on other sites that were either not in the SHLAA or were not counted as brownfield sites.
New potential sites have come to light that were not included in the SHLAA

Location	Number of Dwellings
Guillemont Park Phase 1 (not included as brownfield site in SHLAA)	150
Guillemont Park Phase 2	320
Ancells Farm, Fleet	370
Bartley Wood, Hook	200
Fleet Road, Fleet	220
Bramshill House	350
Fleet Police Station	50
Extra dwellings at Landata House	28
Total	1,688

All of the dwellings above were not included as brownfield sites in the SHLAA. Guillemont Park (Sun Park) was in the SHLAA but for a smaller number of units, and was shown in Part 2, which was not considered to include brownfield locations. Since last November revised permission has been granted at Landata House, Hook for 28 more dwellings than were included in the 5 year land supply calculation.

The Bramshill House and Fleet Police station sites were not included in the SHLAA.

The Stonegate report identified 370 units at Ancell’s Farm in Fleet, 200 units at Bartley Wood in Hook and a further 220 units on Fleet Road in Fleet.

Derelict Offices in Fleet, Hampshire

However, the proposals for Ancells Farm cover only 7 of the 23 office buildings in the business park which shows that there is additional capacity there. Moreover, there are even more vacant office blocks in Hook so there is more capacity there too. Of course, across Hart, Surrey Heath and Rushmoor, there is currently 500,000 sq m of vacant office space, and forecasts for even more vacancies, so there is no danger of restricting jobs growth by redeveloping offices.

If the original 750 units were to be added to the 1,688 units identified above, then that amounts to a total of 2,438 potential units on brownfield. If it were possible to increase the density (from 30dph to a still reasonable 80dph in urban areas) on the original 750 units, the total identified capacity would rise to some 3,688 units.

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

Moreover, these figures do not include the massive potential of the 119 acre Hartland Park (or Pyestock) site where planning permission for a big warehouse was given years ago, but no activity is visible. Surely, the developers of this site want to earn some return on their investment and would change to residential.

The remaining requirement of 4,000 has of course been reduced by the unfortunate decisions to allow development at Watery Lane (300 units) and Hawley Park Farm (126 units) leaving the remaining allocation of at most 3,574.

It is clear that it is easily possible to meet the entire remaining of 3,574 from brownfield alone. It will take some creativity and energy, but a combination of increasing density and allocating more vacant offices is easily within reach, so we don’t need a new town and can protect our countryside.

We have put proposals to Hart Council to include a formal brownfield option in their forthcoming consultation on the Hart Local Plan. Please support us by coming along to the Hart Cabinet on 1 October where Hart’s response to the We Heart Hart petition will be agreed.

Petition Response: We don’t need a new town

Posted on September 10, 2015September 11, 2015

Cows in Winchfield, Hart District, Hampshire

Do we want to lose our cows to concrete?

As we posted earlier, we have submitted the We ♥ Hart petition with 2,130 responses to Hart District Council and the council have set out the process by which they will consider the petition.

We have drafted some suggestions as to how the council should respond and sent them to Council leader, Stephen Parker. We have a chance to put these ideas to Cabinet on 1 October at 7pm. Please tell us if you are coming along to give us your support and please e-mail your councillors to ask them to support these proposals and incorporate them into the forthcoming consultation about the Local Plan.

The full set of suggestions can be found here.

If the council implements all of the ideas we have put forward, there will simply be no need for a new town, in Winchfield or anywhere else. Especially if you consider the following:

We would become a sink for the potential unmet need of Surrey Heath and Rushmoor
Recent report from the RTPI suggesting new town developments near to railway stations are not sustainable and add to traffic congestion because only a small proportion of the population use the station to get to work
Government has called on planners to recognise the intrinsic value of the countryside.
Eye-watering costs of infrastructure for a new town, especially considering the current £78m funding deficit in Hart and £1.9bn funding deficit across Hampshire.

Petition Response: Cater for the ageing population

Posted on September 9, 2015September 10, 2015

Hart District Council fails to consider the needs of the ageing population

As we posted earlier, we have submitted the We ♥ Hart petition with 2,130 responses to Hart District Council and the council have set out the process by which they will consider the petition.

The full set of suggestions can be found here.

This suggestion relates to properly considering the needs of the ageing population.

We set out in a question to council earlier this year that Hart will need to deliver around 2,500 housing units to meet the needs of the ageing population.

Hart District Requirements for the Ageing Population

We contend that a new town will simply build the wrong type of accommodation in the wrong place to meet those needs. It would be far better if these were built on brownfield sites in more urban areas, close to amenities such as doctors, post offices, shops and so on. When the elderly move into these types of development, their well-being improves and of course, they free up conventional housing stock for families. Could we therefore ask that the forthcoming consultation paper contains specific proposals on how the needs of the ageing population will be met?