Hart District Council Local Plan
Fleet News and Mail have covered our story about the further delays in the Hart Local Plan. The full article can be found here.
It is good to see the leader of the council committing to producing a robust plan based on robust evidence. We look forward to seeing the new Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) when it is produced.
Hart’s Local Plan has been delayed again. Councillors who were due to go to a Local Plan Steering Group meeting on 30 August have been told that the meeting has been deferred. The reason given is that they cannot decide the ‘spatial strategy’ until the new Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) has been agreed.
Apparently, Rushmoor are still holding out for Hart to build 1,600 Rushmoor’s allocation. This could be changed by the new SHMA, but the SHMA remains incomplete because they are changing the methodology is being changed and a new piece of work has been commissioned from the consultants, Wessex Economics. Readers may remember we were first promised the new SHMA in February, then May, and subsequently, Rushmoor have indicated the SHMA would be ready in July 2016. But now we don’t have a date for completion.
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.
In April 2016, the plan was delayed yet again, with the timetable clearly stating that a draft version of the Local Plan would be published in September 2016. No revised date has yet been given for the draft to be published. The timetable they were working to was:
Full Draft Local Plan – September 2016 (Summer 2016, a couple of months slippage) [now slipped again]
Submission Plan – March 2017 (Autumn 2016, at least 3 months slippage)
Submit to Secretary of State – TBA (Winter 2016, unknown slippage)
Examination – TBA (Spring 2017, unknown slippage)
Adoption – TBA (Summer 2017, unknown slippage)
Of course, there is now a significant risk of the Government stepping in and doing the Local Plan for us.
In the light of the loss of the Moulsham Lane appeal, Hart are working hard on a revised set of policies. These will be discussed by councillors at a special meeting on 27 September, but in the meantime, developers will have a field day. because without a Local Plan and without up to date policies, Hart Council is essentially defenceless.
Don’t hold your breath.
It has been announced that Hart Council have lost the developer’s appeal about the proposed development at Moulsham Lane in Yateley.
The significant part of the decision is that the inspector has decided that Hart’s five year land supply is not sufficient grounds to turn down the application. This is contrary to the decision made by the inspector in last year’s Owens Farm, Hook appeal.
The other worrying aspect of the appeal is that the inspector has ruled that the council’s RUR2 policy which seeks to limit development in the countryside has been ruled to be out of date and partially inconsistent with the NPPF so will not offer significant protection until the new Local Plan is in place. This puts at risk place like Winchfield, Hares Lane in Hartley Wintney, Hook and Pale Lane Farm.
This decision shows the damage that can be done by the council not having a Local Plan in place. They have missed all of their self imposed deadlines as documented here. A new draft Local Plan is due to be published next month, but as we have not yet even seen the new SHMA, which was originally promised for February, then May, this timeline needs to be called into question.
We can only hope that they do get a plan published and that it focuses on the plentiful brownfield sites that will more than meet our requirement for decades to come.
Back in May we wrote about how housebuilders were not building enough smaller properties to meet local needs. We have now received the latest data for completions in 2015-16. The chart above shows that although there has been some improvement we are still not building enough 1 and 3-bed properties and are significantly over-building 4+bed properties.
The analysis to support these conclusions is shown below.
First, according to the current Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA), Hart needs to build 7,534 dwellings in the plan period running from 2011-2032. The SHMA is also very clear on the sizes and types of housing that needs to be built, including the number of affordable homes for the young and specialist housing for the elderly.
Hart Surrey Heath and Rushmoor SHMA Figure 9.8
Working through the arithmetic, and using Hart’s target of 40% affordable homes, we need to build in total the following number and proportion of properties by number of bedrooms:
We can compare these proportions to the dwellings that have been built since 2010-11:
This shows that we have built around 80% of 1-bed properties that we should have done and around three quarters of the targeted proportion of 3-bed properties. We have built nearly twice as many 4+bed properties compared to the target.
Overall we think this means that Hart needs to get smarter about how it monitors planning permissions so that we get as close as possible to meeting the needs of local people set out in the SHMA, as opposed to simply building houses that will maximise developer profits. However, it does seem clear that more redevelopment of vacant offices on brownfield sites would create more opportunities for more smaller properties to help young people get on the housing ladder.
A concerned resident has written to South West Trains asking a series of questions about the capacity of the mainline railway that travels through Hart District and the alternative strategies for increasing capacity. The answers are a significant cause for concern and call into question not only the viability of the proposed Winchfield new town, but also further large scale development across Hart District.
In summary the mainline up to London already is 20% over-crowded at peak times and is forecast to have a 60% capacity shortfall by 2043. There are no plans to have more trains stopping at Winchfield (and by implication no plans for more trains at Hook or Fleet). There are no plans to extend the station at Winchfield (and by implication Hook too) properly to accommodate 12-car trains. There are no plans to increase car-parking capacity at Winchfield. The mooted solution of double-decker trains is a non-starter because of the infrastructure requirements and increased dwell times. Network Rail would not be responsible for the costs of widening the three tunnels under the railway in Winchfield, nobody has estimated the cost, but it is known to be considerable.
All this leaves the proposal for a new town in Winchfield in tatters, but it also calls into question the viability of so many more houses across Hart as there simply is not the rail capacity to accommodate the increased population.
The answers to the questions were produced under the supervision of a senior executive in South West Trains and in consultation with Network Rail’s Wessex Route Strategy team and are reproduced below:
Q1: Is my assertion that the planning authorities should be considering the capacity of the whole Southampton to Waterloo line rather than the capacity of individual stations is correct?
A1: Network Rail would always look at the capacity of the whole line, particularly in relation to additional services. This is because the impact of increasing capacity through additional services does not just affect an individual station. Additional stops for existing services will have an impact on journey times owing to the time taken to accelerate/ decelerate and dwell time at the platform all adding in time. Those existing services may also be close to capacity and adding extra stops would impact upon the ability for passengers further down the line to get on to the train. Network Rail would encourage a joined up approach between local authorities to ensure that capacity is looked at across the whole line.
Q2: If I am correct, is the line under, at or over capacity? If it is over capacity by how much and when you plan to bring it down to safe levels?
A2: The Wessex Route Study, published in August 2015 (http://www.networkrail.co.uk/long-term-planning-process/wessex-route-study/), states that there is currently 20% overcrowding on Main Line services and that growth to 2043 will see an additional 40% capacity being required. Therefore in the period to 2043 we expect to be required to accommodate 60% extra capacity. The Wessex Route Study sets out the strategy for meeting this growth and mitigating overcrowding. Unfortunately there is no quick fix for what is needed and therefore there are a number of incremental steps that will be taken, including a flyover at Woking, track reconfiguration works between Clapham Junction and London Waterloo, and a major infrastructure such as Crossrail 2. The summary Chapter 6 sets out what is required and Chapter 5 has a bit more of the detail.
Q3: Do you have plans to increase the frequency of trains stopping at Winchfield to soak up additional passengers? It has been suggested that some of the fast trains from Southampton might stop there. If this is not the case are there impediments to so doing?
A3: There are presently no plans to increase the frequency of stopping trains at Winchfield as there is insufficient route capacity and no physical capacity on trains which would take the additional calls. Furthermore to have the faster services calling at Winchfield would be detrimental to journey time from longer distance locations to London such as Salisbury, Winchester and Southampton.
Q4. Are any plans to extend the station at Winchfield? If this did occur would this be the responsibility of SW Trains, Network Rail or the Local Council? Have you any indicative costs for such an activity?
A4: Network Rail currently have no plans to lengthen the platforms at Winchfield. Automatic Selective Door Opening (ASDO) is employed at some stations where the platforms are not long enough to accommodate all carriages of a train; Winchfield is an example. ASDO allows for only some of the doors to open at stations with short platforms negating the need for expensive platform extensions. This is only employed where it is deemed safe to do so. Where platform pedestrian capacity is a problem then ASDO may not be the correct solution because it wouldn’t allow passengers to spread along the platform to spread a crowd waiting for a train.
Q5. Are there any plans to increase the car parking capacity at Winchfield? Again, if this were to occur where would the costs lie and how much would they be?
A5: There are no plans in the present franchise to increase car park capacity at Winchfield.
Q6: Are double-decker trains a serious option to overcome the overcrowding on this line? If they are not please can you tell me if there are any single major obstacles that will preclude their adoption on this line?
A6: Double Decker Trains were investigated as part of the Wessex Route Study. The study looked at Waterloo to Basingstoke as the scope area. This was decided upon as there are relatively few limited clearance structures on this stretch of line and therefore if it wasn’t feasible here, then it wouldn’t work on other parts of the network such as between Basingstoke on Southampton where there are a number of tunnels. In short, the Route Study concluded that the combination of needing to operate bespoke rolling stock (as no rolling stock operated elsewhere in the world would work on our infrastructure), the cost of modifying the infrastructure to accommodate the trains (track lowering, bridge rebuilding, platform adjustments and lineside infrastructure moves and adjustments), the impact on dwell times and the fact that double deck services would only be necessary in the peak mean that the business case was not strong enough to warrant such investment.
Q7: There is an embankment running east of Winchfield Station pierced by three road tunnels. Should road widening be deemed necessary for any or all of these tunnels, what would your reaction be? Who would pay for such works? What would be the indicative costs please?
A7: Network Rail would need to assess the impact of widening the tunnels on the embankment and if it was deemed safe. The Network Rail Asset Protection team would need to be satisfied that Network Rail’s assets were not damaged or compromised in anyway. We do not have foresight of costs for such a scheme and this would not be a cost that Network Rail would expect to be accountable for.
Hart Council has published a new land supply calculation that shows we have 6.3 years land supply. The document can be found here.
This is good news as it shows that Hart can still retain a degree of control over granting planning permission to voracious developers up to the point it finally gets a Local Plan in place.
However, there are a number of interesting points coming out of the new calculation:
Brownfield site: vacant offices at Ancells Farm Business Park, Fleet, Hart District, Hampshire.
Hart District Council has at last published its register of brownfield sites in the district. Sadly, the register has failed to live up to expectations. The full register can be downloaded on the link below.
The purpose of the brownfield register is to provide house builders with up-to-date and publicly available information on all brownfield sites available for housing locally. The register is supposed to help housebuilders identify suitable sites quickly, speeding up the construction of new homes. Hart Council was one of the pilot local authorities participating in the national brownfield register scheme as announced back in March 2016.
At first glance, the register identifies 3,542 potential units on brownfield sites, which might be considered good news. However, closer inspection of the register reveals:
We have contacted the council to find out the reasons why this important opportunity has been botched. We have been told this is a temporary blip due to lack of SANG capacity. We are far from convinced of this reason as the register itself has a column for constraints. The purpose of the register should be to identify all of the sites and not miss some out because SANG capacity is not yet available.
We do hope that Hart Council gets to grips with this, because a robust brownfield register will be a significant piece of evidence, as part of the Local Plan, to help fend off the proposals to build at Pale Lane (Elvetham Chase) and Grove Farm (Netherhouse Copse). The register of brownfield sites becomes a statutory obligation next year.
Berkeley Homes (St Edward) launches consultation site for new development at Hartland Village, aka Pyestock and Hartland Park
Berkeley Homes (St Edward) have begun their consultation on the proposed Hartland Village at the brownfield Pyestock site, near Fleet in Hampshire. They held meetings on 14th and 16th July. The papers they discussed at those meetings can be found here.
They propose submitting a planning application in Spring 2017, and assuming permission is granted relatively speedily, construction could begin in late 2017 or early 2018. This shows how important this brownfield development can be in delivering significant contribution to Hart District’s housing needs up to 2032as part of the Local Plan.
We Heart Hart broadly supports this development, provided proper infrastructure is developed along side the housing especially schools, community facilities, cycle paths and roads.
If you would like to make a comment on this application, then Berkeley Homes have set a deadline of 5 August 2016. Please send your comments to [email protected] or see the main consultation page here.
Grove Farm – Netherhouse Copse Site plan
[Update] Application approved on appeal, making the council a sitting duck for new applications [/Update]
Berkeley Homes have submitted an application to build 423 dwellings at Nether House Copse (aka Grove Farm) in Fleet, Hampshire. Hart District Council have circulated a letter to some people seeking observations.
We Heart Hart does not believe this development is either necessary or desirable as there is plenty of brownfield land available, most notably the proposed Hartland Village at the Pyestock site, also proposed by the Berkeley Home group, and many others we have set out here.
We encourage you to object to this development, by going to the Hart consultation website and searching using the reference 16/01651/OUT.
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.