Busy time ahead for the Hart Local Plan

Posted on May 14, 2016May 14, 2016

Keep Calm and Wait for news about the Hart Local Plan

News about the Hart Local Plan has been sparse lately, but we can expect a flurry of news over the coming weeks.

First, now that the council elections are over, we can expect the results of the recent consultation to be released over the next few weeks. Of course, we don’t know the results, but whatever the outcome, the results will be of limited value given that Pyestock (aka Hartland Park), has emerged as an additional brownfield site with capacity of around 1,500 dwellings.

Second, the new Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA), together with the related Employment Land Review (ELR) have been in gestation for a few months now and we should hear of the new housing numbers in the next few weeks. We Heart Hart is hopeful the new SHMA will result in Hart being asked to build 1,000-1,500 fewer houses over the planning period. Of course, the new SHMA should also reduce the allocation for Surrey Heath and Rushmoor and the new ELR should enable Rushmoor in particular to release more of the brownfield sites it is protecting. The net result should reduce the risk of Hart being asked to build 3,100 extra houses for those districts.

Third, the results of Hart’s brownfield study should be released in the next couple of months and will set out a more sensible view of the brownfield capacity of the district.

Finally, should also expect the revised timetable for the Hart Local Plan to be released, so we will know when we will be asked our views. Expectations are the draft Local Plan should be released in September or October.

Election update: Hook candidates declare their positions

Posted on May 5, 2016May 5, 2016

We Love Hart Ballot Box

Hook Action Against Over Development have been in touch with some of the local candidates for Hook ward in the Hart District Council local elections 2016, and managed to get some additional information out of their local candidates and have circulated this in an email to their supporters.

This is reproduced below, with our response where appropriate. The appropriate detailed pages for each party have been updated accordingly as well as our summary page. The detailed party pages are:

Community Campaign Hart
Conservative
Green
Labour
Liberal Democrat
UKIP have not responded to our requests for comment, and so there is no detailed page for them

Colin Ive, Liberal Democrat – No election leaflet delivered, local party website has no information on the current elections and no candidate contact details.

Mike Morris, The Conservative Party Candidate:

I joined the council because of the 550 houses that were proposed at NE Hook and out of choice became part of the planning team that is processing that site and others around Hook. As you know none of which I welcomed and said so in front of all that attended the Basingstoke Hotel Hook residents meeting.

I do not support urban extensions as they do not bring forward sufficient new infrastructure capacity but just overload current capacity. Nor do some Brownfield sites under permitted development! However I welcome the proposed development at Hartlands (sic) Park (Pyestock) with its 1000 plus housing which will reduce the housing numbers Hart has to deliver. Nevertheless this hasn’t changed my mind regarding the need for a large settlement site at Winchfield which I support as its deemed the only sustainable and developable site in the district to deliver sufficient housing numbers for the current ( impending ) plan and the future.

As you would expect every District Councillor defends his Ward and therefore some of my Conservative colleagues particularly those serving Wards in and adjacent to Winchfield would naturally be against the proposed Winchfield development. I fully understand their position and I would do the same if it applied to Hook or Rotherwick.

I’m unaware of a party line to vote one way or another on any future development and always intended to vote for and on behalf of Hook and Rotherwick residents within best practice in terms of planning policy.

Our response:

Hart Council has said Hartland Park has capacity for 1,500 homes, not 1,000. And of course it will not reduce the number of houses Hart has to deliver, but will make a significant contribution to meeting the alleged ‘need’.
All of the sites proposed for the Winchfield new town are classified as “not currently developable” in the SHLAA, so it is misleading to suggest otherwise. No evidence has been presented to demonstrate that a new town at Winchfield is ‘sustainable’.
Hook is adjacent to Winchfield, and indeed around 1,850 of the proposed 5,000 new houses in the Hartley Winchook new town are actually in Hook parish. One might hope that Hook councillors would acknowledge this fact and look more closely at our brownfield proposal that would result in fewer new houses in Hook than any of the other proposals. Now that Pyestock is on the table, this is now self-evident.

Verd Nabbs, The Labour Party Candidate

From printed election material:

Local councillors have surprisingly limited powers, but they can be held to account, so they represent YOUR views. In particular over the proposed Winchfield development. A new development will prevent the irresponsible expansion of existing towns and will come with essential infrastructure improvements. We need to act now, before a solution is imposed upon us!

Dai Rees, UK Independence Party (UKIP)

Statement from local branch website:

On housing, a UKIP representative would weigh up the merits of any particular project and would decide accordingly. We all understand the results of over-development – schools, doctor’s surgeries, roads etc. simply cannot cope with the additional strain being placed upon them but nothing ever seems to get done to curb the problem. A UKIP councillor would introduce a measure of realism into the debate and could be relied upon to listen to residents and take account of any grievances they may have. We recognise that new dwellings do have to be built to cope with the increase in our population – caused largely by a laissez-faire attitude to immigration by subsequent governments – but accommodating additional persons must be done sensibly and UKIP councillors would concentrate on brown field sites as a priority.

A UKIP councillor would support improved infrastructure measures and would seek to ensure that there are better schooling and medical facilities, more parking places especially where doing so helps local businesses, and an improved transport network.

[Update] the UKIP candidate has now said he will oppose a new town in Hook. [/Update]

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

Posted on May 4, 2016May 5, 2016

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.

Ranil supports redevelopment of Pyestock (Hartland Park)

Posted on May 3, 2016May 3, 2016

Ranil Jayawardena Stephen Parker and Michael Fallon at Pyestock (Hartland Park)

Our local MP, Ranil Jayawardena has published an article on his website showing his support for the redevelopment of the brownfield Hartland Park (formerly the Pyestock, National Gas Turbine Establishment (NGTE) site, near Fleet in Hart District, Hampshire. Readers will remember, that it is proposed to build 1,500 new homes on this site.

He is pictured with the Secretary of State for Defence, Michael Fallon and leader of Hart District Council, Stephen Parker.

Ranil Jayawardena, M.P., said: “Pyestock is exactly the sort of brownfield regeneration that should be supported. I am pleased that Hart are working together with HM Government to deliver homes on brownfield sites wherever possible, rather than building on green fields.”

Secretary of State, Michael Fallon, M.P., said: “It’s good to see sites like Pyestock being put forward for development. HM Government is ensuring that brownfield regeneration is central to local areas building new homes. A new ‘brownfield register’ is included in the Housing and Planning Bill, which will ensure that development is prioritised on brownfield sites rather than at the expense of the countryside.

We Heart Hart warmly welcomes Ranil’s support for this project. We understand that a site for Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANG), needs to be found before the redevelopment can go ahead. Let us hope that Michael Fallon can help find some redundant MoD land to help with this, so it can be included in the Hart Local Plan.

Prices of new homes out of reach of Hart residents

Posted on April 27, 2016May 5, 2016

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

Posted on April 26, 2016September 19, 2017

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

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, 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

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

Download Now!663 Downloads

link

Wates Developments seeks Environmental Assessment of Pale Lane site

Posted on April 25, 2016December 5, 2016

SHL 52 SHLAA Site - Pale Lane, near Elvetham Heath and Hartley Wintney, Hart District Hampshire

Wates Developments has submitted an application for an Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report on the Pale Lane site (known as SHLAA site SHL 52 and strategic site STR009) that straddles Elvetham Heath and Hartley Wintney parishes.

Wates have made a presentation to Elvetham Heath Parish Council, and plan to make further presentations to interested groups. A copy of the slides used can be found on the download below.

The site lies to the west of the existing Elvetham Heath development, and is bounded to the north by the M3 motorway and to the south by the main railway line to London.

Wates Homes Pale Lane Development Proposal, near Elvetham Heath and Hartley Wintney, Hart District, Hampshire.

As part of their submission, Wates have given an indicative layout of the final scheme (reproduced above), that will, if eventually approved, contain around 700 new houses, a local community centre, a new primary school and be called Elvetham Chase.

We don’t oppose an Environmental Assessment being carried out, but we would be very disappointed if this development went ahead because:

Hart currently has a 6.7 year land supply, based on the existing inflated Strategic Housing Market Assessment
The Housing Market Assessment is currently being reviewed, and the expectations are our housing allocation will be reduced
Hart District Council is participating in a Government pilot scheme to create a register of brownfield sites,
Hart has initiated a study to identify the brownfield capacity of the district and
Our figures suggest there is capacity for around 4,000 homes on brownfield sites (including Pyestock aka Hartland Park) compared to only 2,500 further houses need to be permitted to meet our current housing target up to 2032.

So, we see no need to concrete over any more of our greenfields for decades to come.

We also note that Adams Hendry’s assessment determined that there were significant transport issues with the site and suggested that Pale Lane might have to be closed to vehicular traffic saying:

Primary vehicular site access would almost certainly be provided onto the A323, with a potential secondary access to the south on Pale Lane. However, the Pale Lane access is severely constrained by being a single track lane with a narrow single-track tunnel under the railway and single track bridge over the River Hart. If it were to provide an effective access point for development at the site, all of this infrastructure would need to be upgraded, not least to ensure effective and safe pedestrian and cycle access between the site and the Hitches Lane Country Park to the south of the railway. However widening the tunnel under the railway and the bridge over the river are likely to be very costly. Therefore, it would be sensible to test closing Pale Lane to all vehicular traffic as an alternative that would ensure safe pedestrian and cycle access could be achieved.

Wates presentation to Elvetham Heath PC about Pale Lane

Download Now!683 Downloads

link

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

Posted on April 12, 2016May 7, 2016

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:

There is a lack of evidence to justify the need for a new settlement
Winchfield is not a suitable location for a new settlement
A new settlement is not a viable approach
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 Labour Party set out their position on Pyestock

Posted on April 11, 2016May 5, 2016

North East Hampshire Labour Party set out their position on Pyestock

The North East Hampshire Labour Party have responded to our request for them to set out their position on developing a new sustainable village at the Pyestock (aka Hartland Park) site. This is an important issue for the Hart Local Elections 2016.

Their response can be found here. They say they support the redevelopment of Pyestock, but still support the idea of a new town at Winchfield.

There are a number of points in their post that We Heart Hart disagrees with and a number of inaccuracies that are addressed below:

Not building enough to meet housing targets

First, it is true that taken as a whole, the country is not building enough to meet its overall housing targets. However, not all of the blame can be pinned on Local Authorities or Government. A recent report form the Communities and Local Government select committee, chaired by Labour MP Clive Betts has said:

The real problem isn’t local authorities failing to give planning permission but developers getting planning permission and then, possibly as a way to maximise profits, taking a long to time to fully develop sites. We are calling on the government to review these proposals, and to identify the powers local authorities need in order to require or encourage developers to build out sites in their areas.

We support the development of brownfield sites for housing where it contributes to meeting local housing needs.

This chimes with our research and that of Alan Wenban-Smith. There is also evidence that housing targets across our area are over-stating the real need, being on average 41.9% higher than the official population projections would suggest.

Inaccurate assessment of the remaining housing need and infrastructure funding

Second, the local Labour party say:

Due to this national under-development, Central Government has given Hart a fairly high building target to reach by 2032 of around 7,500 homes. Somewhere in the region of 3,500 homes have had [sic] been granted planning permission, some of which being on brownfield sites. These developments are simply extensions to our existing towns and villages, but crucially don’t come with any money to pay for improvement to our infrastructure, be it our schools or surgeries.

We agree the target is 7,534 new homes are said to be our ‘need’ in the planning period up to 2032. But, they are inaccurate in their inference that 4,000 homes are yet to be granted planning permission for Hart’s Local Plan. Hart Council’s own figures in the recent consultation stated that only 2,500 still needed to be permitted (see here, para 21). Their claim about infrastructure funding is also untrue in that all developments (with the narrow exception of office conversions) attract S106 or CIL payments.

Due to their insistence that 4,000 more homes need to be granted permission, they say it is inevitable we have to build more housing in the countryside. However, as we have shown above, their claim is inaccurate, but even if it were true, our analysis has shown that there is capacity for around 4,000 homes on brownfield sites. It seems rather perverse to on the one hand support brownfield development, but at the same time be in favour of more green field development.

We have done our own analysis to show that the infrastructure costs of a new town will far exceed developer contributions and Winchfield Parish Council commissioned a report from professional planners, John Boyd Associates, into the new town idea and they concluded that:

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

All in all it appears as though the local Labour Party has come to the wrong conclusions based on some dodgy data and inaccurate assumptions. So, We Heart Hart does not support their position. A summary of all of the local candidates’ positions on this can be found here.

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

Posted on April 10, 2016May 5, 2016

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:

Do they still support a new town at Winchfield and,
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.

Ward	Name	Party	Position on Winchfield new town	Position on Pyestock
Blackwater and Hawley	BLEWETT, Brian Frederick	Liberal Democrat	Voted in favour Nov 2014	?
Blackwater and Hawley	CULLEN, Amy Louise	The Labour Party Candidate	All Labour candidates in favour of new town	Some support Pyestock, but prefer Winchfield
Blackwater and Hawley	DICKENS, Jane Elizabeth	The Conservative Party Candidate	Keeping her views to herself	Keeping her views to herself
Blackwater and Hawley	FRANCIS, Steven John	Green Party	Oppose	Support
Blackwater and Hawley	GASCOIGNE, Mike	UK Independence Party (UKIP)	?	Brownfield sites as a priority, but no definitive position on Pyestock
Crookham East	BUTLER, Helen Rosalind	The Conservative Party Candidate	Not the right way forward	Supports redevelopment for housing
Crookham East	RADLEY, Edward James	Community Campaign (Hart)	Still support new town	Support, but want safeguards on school places, traffic and environment
Crookham East	WILLIAMS, Ruth Ann	The Labour Party Candidate	All Labour candidates in favour of new town	Some support Pyestock, but prefer Winchfield
Crookham West and Ewshot	AMBLER, Simon Rory	Community Campaign (Hart)	Still support new town	Support, but want safeguards on school places, traffic and environment
Crookham West and Ewshot	MOORS, Dawn	UK Independence Party (UKIP)	?	Brownfield sites as a priority, but no definitive position on Pyestock
Crookham West and Ewshot	SIMMONS, Chris	The Conservative Party Candidate	Does not support	Does not support
Crookham West and Ewshot	SMYTH, Moira	The Labour Party Candidate	All Labour candidates in favour of new town	Some support Pyestock, but prefer Winchfield
Crookham West and Ewshot	SPRADBERY, Charles John	Green Party	Oppose	Support
Fleet Central	BOBETSKY, Max	The Conservative Party Candidate	Opposed when stood for General Election 2015	?
Fleet Central	GAWTHORPE, John Grant	The Labour Party Candidate	All Labour candidates in favour of new town	Some support Pyestock, but prefer Winchfield
Fleet Central	HOPE, Howling Laud	The Official Monster Raving Loony Party	?	?
Fleet Central	MAKEPEACE-BROWNE, Wendy Louise	Community Campaign (Hart)	Still support new town	Support, but want safeguards on school places, traffic and environment
Fleet Central	OWENS, Major David	UK Independence Party (UKIP)	?	Brownfield sites as a priority, but no definitive position on Pyestock
Fleet East	BUTLER, Sam	The Labour Party Candidate	All Labour candidates in favour of new town	Some support Pyestock, but prefer Winchfield
Fleet East	DEVONSHIRE, Peter William	UK Independence Party (UKIP)	?	Brownfield sites as a priority, but no definitive position on Pyestock
Fleet East	WALTON, Neil Christopher	Liberal Democrat	?	?
Fleet East	WRIGHT, Jonathan Bruce	The Conservative Party Candidate	Yes	Yes
Fleet West	BENNISON, John	Community Campaign (Hart)	Still support new town	Support, but want safeguards on school places, traffic and environment
Fleet West	BUCKLAND, Lesley Ruth	The Labour Party Candidate	All Labour candidates in favour of new town	Some support Pyestock, but prefer Winchfield
Fleet West	EINCHCOMB, Paul Stephen Walter	Liberal Democrat	?	?
Fleet West	FORSTER, Steve	The Conservative Party Candidate	Voted in favour Nov 2014. Still supports if not enough brownfield available, but only if it comes with proper infrastructure	Supports redevelopment for housing, provided it comes with improvements to roads, busses and new schools
Fleet West	RUTTER, Karin	UK Independence Party (UKIP)	?	Brownfield sites as a priority, but no definitive position on Pyestock
Hartley Wintney	CRAMPTON, Anne	The Conservative Party Candidate	Voted against Nov 2014	In favour
Hartley Wintney	HAMILTON, Ruth Stella	UK Independence Party (UKIP)	?	Brownfield sites as a priority, but no definitive position on Pyestock
Hartley Wintney	JARMAN, Ruth Elizabeth	Green Party	Oppose	Support
Hartley Wintney	WILLIAMS, Ieuan Mon	The Labour Party Candidate	All Labour candidates in favour of new town	Some support Pyestock, but prefer Winchfield
Hartley Wintney	WOOLFORD, Alan Maurice	Liberal Democrat	Opposed to new town	In favour
Hook	IVE, Colin	Liberal Democrat	Voted in favour Nov 2014. No specific comment in this election.	?
Hook	MORRIS, Mike	The Conservative Party Candidate	Voted in favour Nov 2014. Still in favour	Supports
Hook	NABBS, Verd	The Labour Party Candidate	All Labour candidates in favour of new town	Some support Pyestock, but prefer Winchfield
Hook	REES, Dai	UK Independence Party (UKIP)	No new town in Winchfield	Brownfield sites as a priority, but no definitive position on Pyestock
Odiham	AFFLECK-CRUISE, Amanda Jane	The Labour Party Candidate	All Labour candidates in favour of new town	Some support Pyestock, but prefer Winchfield
Odiham	GORDON, Rosalyn Jane	Liberal Democrat	?	?
Odiham	KENNETT, John Richard	The Conservative Party Candidate	Voted in favour Nov 2014. Now not convinced it is necessary	Redevelopment of Pyestock is very welcome
Odiham	OLIVER, Kevin	UK Independence Party (UKIP)	?	Brownfield sites as a priority, but no definitive position on Pyestock
Yateley East	BURTON, John Peter Simon	The Conservative Party Candidate	?	?
Yateley East	COCKARILL, Graham	Liberal Democrat	Voted in favour Nov 2014	?
Yateley East	GANTLEY, Frank	Green Party	Oppose	Support
Yateley East	STILL, Joyce Edna	The Labour Party Candidate	All Labour candidates in favour of new town	Some support Pyestock, but prefer Winchfield
Yateley West	CRISP, Gerry	Liberal Democrat	Voted in favour Nov 2014	?
Yateley West	HALL, Peter	The Conservative Party Candidate	?	?
Yateley West	HOWE, John William	UK Independence Party (UKIP)	?	Brownfield sites as a priority, but no definitive position on Pyestock
Yateley West	SUTHERLAND, Alistair William	The Labour Party Candidate	All Labour candidates in favour of new town	Some support Pyestock, but prefer Winchfield