Shapley Heath Major Road Transport Issues

Posted on July 4, 2021July 4, 2021

Shapley Heath Major Road Transport Issues: Eastbound travel perhaps requires new road

We first raised issues about the Shapley Heath sustainable transport goals here. That post focused on the minor roads within the area of search. This post examines the major road network surrounding the proposed new development and the gaps in the network. The Shapley Heath Survey has a number of questions about “sustainable transport”. Interestingly, there’s not even an option to request improvement to local roads or to rail services. When many people think of sustainable transport they think of walking, running and cycling. This can be for fitness, leisure, work or even light shopping. So, it is worth exploring whether the road network in and around the area of search is capable of delivering the basics such as pavements and cycle paths.

The conclusion for the major roads is that significant investment will be required to alleviate congestion and provide adequate pavements and cycle paths. Here is the overall assessment, followed by an examination of each road one by one.

Shapley Heath Major Road Issues – Overall Assessment

Having read the rest of this article, you might like to respond to the Shapley Heath survey. This is your chance to make known your concerns about the proposals. We have produced a handy guide with suggestions as to how you might choose to answer the freeform questions. The guide can be found on the download below. The full survey can be found here. The survey closes on 5 July.

Shapley Heath Survey with Suggested Responses

Download Now!731 Downloads

Eastbound Travel

Starting with the those people who might want to travel to Crookham Village, Church Crookham, Fleet or further afield to Farnham, Farnborough or Guildford. We have already established that Chatter Alley, which is only single lane in places with no cycle path or pavement is totally unsuitable for a massive influx of new cars and people. Similarly, Pale Lane is too narrow. So, that raises the possibility of a new road from the eastern tip of the area of search to Hitches Lane. This would help access to Fleet and the Crookhams. This is shown on the image at the top of this post. It would need to be a proper 2-lane road with cycle paths and at least one pavement. Sadly, it would cut through part of the Edenbrook Country Park, but we can think of no other way of directing the extra traffic from 5-10,000 new houses eastbound.

Shapley Heath Major Road Transport Issues: A287

Moving clockwise, the next major road is the A287. The junction with the B3016 Odiham Road is already dangerous. So, there would need to be a new roundabout across the dual carriageway there. The rest of the road is suitable for busy 2-way traffic, but there’s no pavement or cycle path for much of the length of the road. That means this road would need to be widened to accommodate pedestrians and cyclists. And the roundabouts to Odiham and North Warnborough would probably also need to be improved.

M3 Junction

Prior studies into a Winchfield new town have raised the possibility of a new motorway junction. This seems unlikely on cost grounds, which means that significant improvements to Junction 5 of the M3 will be required. There is a rudimentary pavement across the junction that can also be used by cyclists, but it is quite dangerous. The pavements on the approach roads are also poor with scant provision for cyclists.

Hook Roundabouts

There is little provision for pedestrians on the B3349 from the M3 to Hook and no cycle lane. The roundabout already gets busy so would probably require improvement if Shapley Heath gets built. The other roundabout on Griffin Way South has poor provision for walkers and cyclists and would also need to be improved. Similarly, the roundabout with the A30 would need to be improved, especially as more houses are already being built near there.

Shapley Heath Major Road Transport Issues: A30 London Road

A30 London Road

The A30 does have a pavement/cycle path between Holt Lane and the turning for Borough Court Road. However, elsewhere the pavement provision is poor. There is room for a cycle path on the dual carriageway part, but not elsewhere. Presumably a new access road will be built to access the Murrell Green part of the development, so a new roundabout across the dual carriageway will be needed.

Hartley Wintney Junctions

There are pavements at each of the junctions in Hartley Wintney, but no cycle lanes. However, main road through Hartley wintney gets very busy already, so significant improvements will need to be made at the following junctions:

A30/Dilly Lane & Thackham’s Lane
A30/B3011 Bracknell Lane
A30/A323 Fleet Road

It’s not at all clear if there is enough space to make significant improvements such as adding extra lanes.

Shapley Heath Major Road Transport Issues: A323 Fleet Road

A323 Fleet Road

It is already almost impossible to turn right out of Church Lane on to Fleet Road, so this junction would need to be improved, perhaps with a roundabout. The stretch of the A323 from Hartley Row Park to the M3 bridge would need widening and improving because it has no pavements and no cycle lane. The junction with Pale Lane would also need to be improved, probably with a roundabout.

Are Shapley Heath Sustainable Transport Goals Deliverable?

Posted on June 27, 2021June 30, 2021

Shapley Heath Sustainable Transport Goals Overview

The Shapley Heath Survey has a number of questions about “sustainable transport”. Interestingly, there’s not even an option to request improvement to local roads or to rail services. When many people think of sustainable transport they think of walking, running and cycling. This can be for fitness, leisure, work or even light shopping. So, it is worth exploring whether the road network in and around the area of search is capable of delivering the basics such as pavements and cycle paths.

Sadly, the conclusion is a resounding “No”. Overall none of the roads into, out of or through the area of search are capable of sustaining busy 2-way traffic, a pavement on at least one side of the road and even a single cycle lane. Here is the overall assessment, followed by an examination of each road one by one.

Shapley Heath Sustainable Transport Goals Overall Assessment

Shapley Heath Survey with Suggested Responses

Download Now!731 Downloads

B3016/Odiham Road

Shapley Heath Sustainable Transport Goals B3016 Odiham Road

Starting with the busiest road in the area of search. The B3016/Odiham Road does have a pavement from the A30 to Station Road and this pavement is also designated as a cycle path. There is also a pavement from Bagwell Lane to the A287. However, for the rest of the length of the road, there is no room for either a pavement or a cycle path. There have been fatal accidents on this road, so it is questionable whether it is even suitable to take the extra car traffic from 5-10,000 houses.

Shapley Heath Sustainable Transport Goals: Station Road

Shapley Heath Sustainable Transport Goals Station Road

There is a pavement for the short distance from the B3016 to Winchfield Station. The rest of the road is barely capable of taking two way traffic. Of course, there’s a narrow tunnel under the railway too. There is no room for a pavement or cycle path.

Bagwell Lane

The road is barely suitable for occasional 2-way traffic. There’s no pavement and no room for a cycle path along any of its length. There is also a narrow bridge over a water course.

Taplins Farm Lane

Overall Taplins Farm Lane is barely suitable for 2-way traffic. There is a narrow tunnel under the railway and a blind bend. The bridge over the M3 does have pavements. But there is no pavement anywhere else on the road. There is not enough space for pavements or cycle paths along the rest of the length of the road. When it becomes Church Lane and passes Hartley Wintney it remains a narrow road, with an awkward turning on to the A323.

Shapley Heath Sustainable Transport Goals: Pale Lane

Shapley Heath Sustainable Transport Goals Pale Lane

Pale Lane is a narrow lane, barely capable of taking occasional 2-way traffic. There is a narrow tunnel under the railway and a narrow bridge over the River Hart. There is no space for a proper 2-way road and no room for pavements or a cycle lane.

Chatter Alley

The road out of the area of search towards Dogmersfield and Crookham Village is Chatter Alley. This is a narrow road with pinch-points to stop 2-way traffic. There is a short stretch of pavement near the school. There is no space for proper 2-way traffic and no room for a cycle lane or pavements along the rest of the length of the road.

Shapley Heath Sustainable Transport Goals: Pilcot Road

Pilcot Road

Pilcot Road is another narrow lane with a bridge over the River Hart and a pinch-point to stop 2-way traffic. The stretch up to Crookham Village does have a pavement, but the rest of the road doesn’t and there’s no room for a cycle path.

Totters Lane

This is a narrow road for most of its length and not capable of carrying 2-way traffic. There is also a tight, narrow bridge over the railway. The widest part of the road under the M3 does have a pavement. However, the rest of the road is not wide enough for a pavement or cycle lane.

#StormDennis dissolves daft Shapley Heath idea

Posted on February 16, 2020February 16, 2020

#StormDennis has taken its toll on Hart District. As far as we can tell, the worst hit area is around the mooted Shapley Heath/ Winchfield new town. Here we have evidence of yet another of these supposed 1 in 30 year events. We drove around there this morning and found:

The river Whitewater had flooded by the A30 opposite the Crooked Billet. This is the area that is supposed to be Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANG). The sort of area earmarked for country rambles and dog-walking. Definitely not water-skiing.

Totters Lane flooded at the top for quite a distance
Bagwell Lane in Winchfield flooded
Station Road flooded
Pilcot Road in Dogmersfield flooded
Hitches Lane in Crookham Village flooded near the new roundabout for the Grove Farm development. Who knows how the new residents are supposed to get out of their new houses.
Taplins Farm Lane flooded again. We didn’t even attempt to drive through in a 4×4.

Taplins Farm Lane Flood

#StormDennis also flooded Pale Lane and the fields either side. The west side is also supposed to be SANG for the proposed Shapley Heath development.

This latest flood comes in addition to the other floods we have recorded in the area. We have recorded flood events on 15 January 2020 (#StormBrendan), 20 December 2019, 4 February 2019, in April 2018 and three times in 2016 alone. Evidence documenting the 2016 flood events can be found here (4 Jan) , here (7 Jan), here (9 March on Station Road) and here (28 March due to #StormKatie).

The Whitewater Valley Society have also reported that North Warnborough has been badly hit.

The actual weather has once again refused to comply with the flood assessment carried out for Hart Council as part of its evidence base for the Local Plan. The sustainability assessment claimed:

There was some evidence of wet ground at the far east of SHL183, but “no other obvious evidence of current or past flooding”.

The detailed assessment also said there’s only a one in 30 year chance of surface water flooding.

As far as we can tell, the road through the proposed development area and all roads out of the area were affected by the floods. Both SANG areas were also flooded. When will Hart District Council see sense and abandon this daft project?

Whitewater Valley Flood, Hook, Hampshire
Whitewater Valley Flood, Hook, Hampshire. #StormDennis.
Totters Lane Flood
Totters Lane Flood
Bagwell Lane Flood
Station Road Flood.
Taplins Farm Lane Flood
Pilcot Road Flood
Hitches Lane Flood
Pale Lane fields looking east flood
Pale Lane flood
Pale Lane Flood, Fields looking west

CCH Rhetoric Machine Goes Into Overdrive

Posted on November 12, 2019August 16, 2023

The CCH Rhetoric Machine went into overdrive at Thursday’s Cabinet. After claiming their untrue statements about Shapley Heath were just rhetoric, they went on to make more spurious claims in the Cabinet meeting (report here). We have produced a short video to tackle the main claims:

Since then , they have produced a defence of their position on Facebook. Below is their post, together with the RHA response in red.

CCH rhetoric machine goes into overdrive

This post is in response to accusations made against CCH Councillors on certain fb pages.

Do they mean us? Surely not.

If you would like to see for yourself what was said and how it was said, please see the link below for HDC’s live streaming of last night’s cabinet meeting and, Paper H relating to the Garden Community that was to be discussed.

Please take the video to 37 minutes to begin at the start of the Garden Community debate.

https://fb.me/HDCLiveStreaming (We believe this link will expire in a few days).

https://www.hart.gov.uk/…/19%2011%2007%20Garden%20village%2…

Alternatively, you can read our post, with edited highlights from the meeting here.

CCH have been accused of:

– being rude to members of the public.

Not by us. There are many words we could use to describe CCH’s attitude, but on the night they weren’t particularly rude to anybody.

– being prejudicial towards a new settlement.

Not true. Prejudicial has no meaning in this context. The accusation in the QC opinion is of CCH being of ‘closed mind’ and thus having a predetermined attitude to matters relating to Shapley Heath.

– wanting to build houses Hart doesn’t need.

Well, this is true. Their own Local Plan said that the new town wasn’t required. The inspector agreed and threw out Policy SS3. The Garden Village bid document said the same thing. Yet, they still bid for Government money for an unnecessary Garden Village. Now they have agreed to spend up to £650K to flesh out the plans for it having committed to Government that it would deliver 5,000 homes above local requirements with an indication that there is capacity “…for a development of 10,000 homes…”.

– wanting to build 10,000 new homes.

Up to 10,000 houses is stated both in the bid and the accompanying Vision Document.

We say, we were assertive in demonstrating our reasoning, were reactive to correct misinformation and were defensive, when necessary, of ourselves and, the people we represent.

As you decide for yourself, we would like to draw your attention (see below) to just one member of the public’s statement as it has bearing on one of the accusations made against us (We believe this refers to the RHA statement):-

Rural Hart Association (RHA, made up of 3 predominately Winchfield groups),

Not true. WAG is based in Winchfield. We Heart Hart is based in Hartley Wintney and NE Hants Greens are district-wide. In addition, other Hart-wide groups support RHA.

state they want to regenerate Fleet Town Centre and, have ‘given developers the Hart Centre’.

True. RHA does want to regenerate Fleet and the other urban centres to keep up with neighbouring towns like Camberley, Aldershot, Farnham and Wokingham. RHA came up with several options for regeneration of Fleet. Hart Shopping Centre was put forward as one of these options to developers by RSH.

They then state that their developers will not carry out any work on this ‘regeneration’ scheme ‘unless HDC takes the Garden Village off the table’.

Not true. The developers won’t invest time and money in urban regeneration when the Council has such an obvious bias towards the new town and clearly no interest in looking at urban regeneration.

Is this prejudicial by residents of Winchfield wanting future development away from them and for it to continue in and around Fleet?

Again ‘prejudicial’ has no legal meaning. Residents aren’t the people who actually make planning decisions, so they can’t be predetermined. Of course, they can oppose proposals they disagree with. The Local Plan itself identifies the decline of Fleet as a key issue, yet the policies to address this are feeble. It is the interests of all Hart residents for the countryside to be preserved and for all of the urban centres of Fleet, Hook, Blackwater and Yateley to thrive. Private money is clearly available to support such schemes as evidenced by the regeneration of Camberley, Farnham, Aldershot and Wokingham.

If you live in Fleet, Church Crookham, Crookham Village, Elvetham Heath and Hook, you will know they’ve seen the majority of urban expansion over the last decade.

Compared to their size, Hartley Wintney and Odiham have also seen big new developments. In addition, Fleet has fallen behind its neighbours in terms of retail, leisure and public amenities.

Do you ‘really’ want more development tagged on, using existing infrastructure… roads, schools, doctors, station that already cannot cope?

No. A masterplan for all of our urban centres will address these issues and should also deliver infrastructure funding in the places that need it. Remember the infrastructure plans for the new settlement were described by the Inspector as “not of any great substance”. Plus, a new town won’t deliver any new infrastructure for existing settlements. At least urban regeneration would deliver funds for infrastructure in the areas that are already creaking under the strain.

Do you want to live in town where it’s centre is high rise apartment blocks offering no outdoor space for families?

The LSH proposal for the Hart Shopping Centre utilised existing sightlines and in no sense was it “high rise”. Additional regeneration opportunities such as the Civic Campus could also deliver outdoor spaces.

That’s what RHA are proposing for you.

More rhetoric that you shouldn’t take too seriously.

We will look at all options open to us but, CCH want to deliver our future housing needs in a way that is high quality, sustainable and right for the majority of Hart not, just for the few.

But you clearly aren’t looking at anything other than a new settlement. The Paper explicitly rules out looking at alternatives. There is nothing ‘high quality’ about any of the new town proposals delivered so far. For instance, three locations for a secondary school have been proposed. One was next to a mental health unit housing sex offenders, the second was directly on top of a high-pressure gas main and the third was under electricity pylons. And of course, the Inspector threw out the last proposal because he wasn’t convinced it was deliverable.

And, as we have said many times before, reiterated by Councillor “it’s only rhetoric” Radley last night, if we don’t ‘need’ to build more houses then we ‘won’t build any more houses.

The CCH Rhetoric machine is up and running again. The bid to Government committed you to building over and above the local requirement. The new town isn’t needed to meet requirements. So, why are you spending £650K of taxpayers money?

CCH reveal plan to Completely Concrete Hart

Posted on November 18, 2017November 18, 2017

CCH reveal plans to Completely Concrete Hart

Community Campaign Hart (CCH) have revealed their plan to Completely Concrete Hart by sticking to the ridiculous 10,185 housing target in the draft Local Plan. This comes despite the new Government method for calculating housing need results in a much lower housing target for Hart, Rushmoor and Surrey Heath.

It is time to up the pressure on CCH to come up with a strategy to take account of this new information. They should build a Local Plan that is good for the whole of Hart that everybody can live with. It is time to drop their plan to Completely Concrete Hart.

To be clear, in our view, Hart’s housing target should be reduced to around 6,500, to take account of the new Government approach, plus a few hundred for Surrey Heath. Using the figures in the draft Local Plan consultation (para 104), this would leave 906 new houses left to plan for. This could be made up from

Sun Park (320), from Local Plan para 109
Grove Farm (423), sadly
The forthcoming Rawlings depot site in Hook (123)
The remaining 40 can come from any number of brownfield sites for instance:
- Hartley Wintney (Nero Brewery – 10)
- Winchfield (Winchfield Court extension – 17)
- The derelict eyesores on Fleet Road – up to 200.

We can save Hartland Village (Pyestock) for the 2030’s.

The revelations came in a reply to an email sent to CCH by a concerned correspondent on Facebook. We reproduce the question, James Radley’s answer and our commentary in red below.

Question to Community Campaign Hart (CCH)

I write to you ask a question about your party’s policy towards supporting (or not) a reduced housing total for Hart District. Specifically, in regard of this statement on the We Heart Hart (WHH) Facebook page:

If Hart followed the latest Government approach to calculating housing need, even Hartland Park wouldn’t be needed. The remaining housing need could be met from Sun Park and any number of other small brownfield sites.

Answer from CCH revealing commitment to Completely Concrete Hart

I am probably the best placed to explain the CCH position on housing numbers. It is true that as a rule we do not engage in social media debates, mainly due to a lack of time. As well as trying to fit in my day job I also expect to spend over 6 hours in total in the council offices today and similarly tomorrow.

One has to ask why the council Deputy Leader and portfolio holder for Services is spending quite so much time in council offices working on the Local Plan. One would hope this time would be put in by the portfolio holder for planning, Lib Dem councillor Graham Cockarill. It obviously takes a lot of effort to Completely Concrete Hart.

Social media debates are very time consuming in order to stay on top of all the posts and then the debate tends to descend to the lowest common denominator. I for one would certainly rather put the time and effort in where it matters and unless one is going to invest all that precious time in the social media arena, better not to engage at all.

This sounds like CCH want to stay in their own bunker and not actually engage with anyone who disagrees with them. They are afraid to engage because they don’t have any facts or arguments to back up their new town ideology.

Unfortunately WHH are wrong in their assessment of housing numbers.

No, we are not wrong in our numbers. Here is the relevant section of the Government consultation document.

Para 15 of Planning for the right homes in the right places

Working through this. The demographic baseline is the latest DCLG household projections (Table 406) that can be found here. These show that over the period 2011-2032, Hart requires 218 dwellings per annum, or 4,536 in total. In the reference period of 2016-2026 used by the Government, Hart requires 209 dwellings per annum. This 209 dpa is then modified to account for market signals and results in a new Government figure for Hart of 292 dpa. Scaling up to the full planning period results in 6,132 new houses for Hart. And that’s it. No more further adjustments for changes in household size. No more houses for people we have to import who then go and work in London. This compares to the 8,022 in the SHMA and 10,185 in the draft Local Plan.

Hart housing targets under alternative scenarios

They are citing a baseline figure in a government consultation paper which is not part of the planning policy framework in effect at this point in time and is a figure which even if it was policy is taken as a starting point on top of which other factors will add to the housing numbers needed.

We have answered the point about the baseline above. The baseline is the demographic projection. The Government then already made the upwards adjustment for market signals in the 292 dpa figure. It is true that these figures are so far only part of a consultation paper, but the feedback we have received is that the Government is committed to pushing these through. It would seem prudent to us for Hart to take these figures into account now and prepare a Local Plan with two scenarios:

The first scenario should be based upon the 6,132 outlined above. Plus a few hundred to give some flexibility to build some new houses for Surrey Heath. They may still have a problem meeting their new, lower housing target. This would give a total of around 6,500.
The second scenario should be based solely on the SHMA figure of 8,022.

To be clear, the daft 10,185 target in the draft Local Plan should be dropped forthwith. Even James Radley admits the extra 2,000+ houses on top of the SHMA won’t affect house prices. As the Government position becomes clear, Hart can make the decision on which scenario can be submitted to the inspector. There is no need to Completely Concrete Hart.

We lost the fight against Grove Farm because we don’t have a local plan in place. We don’t have a local plan because the Conservatives have allowed it to drift for years in a sea of procrastination driven by their internal in fighting.

True, Grove Farm was lost because we don’t have a Local Plan. It was also lost because our policies are out of date and because the application was not determined on time. Yes, the Tories missed all their own deadlines. But CCH have also played their part by forcing a delay in the Local Plan last December.

The main reason for taking control was to get the local plan out and to do so by a total focus and not letting the intentional disruptions from WHH to deflect us from that.

At no time have we sought to delay the Local Plan. We Heart Hart first highlighted the project management and governance problems back in April 2015 and again in January 2016 after the consultation omnishambles.

It is quite clear that if we don’t get a local plan out that is based on realistic and future proof housing numbers, then Fleet & Church Crookham will continue to be blighted by bolt on developments such as Grove Farm, Pale Lane and whatever is next.

Yes, we need a Local Plan. And quickly. The realistic numbers to use are the Government’s new numbers. These are already future proofed by the extra houses to take account of market signals. We have suggested a modest further uplift to help out Surrey Heath.

It is interesting that the Deputy Leader for the whole of Hart is only concerned about Fleet and Church Crookham. We are also concerned about Owens Farm to the west of Hook. We are also concerned about the long term impact of adopting a ridiculously high housing target. This will then be compounded for decades to come, putting even more of our green fields under threat, including Pale Lane and Crookham Village.

WHH know this and are trying to undermine the new settlement option in the full knowledge that they are condemning us to yet more incremental developments which do not produce any retrospective infrastructure.

We are opposed to the new settlement because we don’t believe it is needed. And we certainly don’t believe it will solve the infrastructure problems facing the district. And we don’t want to Completely Concrete Hart. If we adopt the new Government housing numbers, it will be better for everyone.

I hope that my brief explanation helps.

It does, but not in the way he thinks. It confirms CCH is in the driving seat, dragging the Lib Dems along with disastrous policies to Completely Concrete Hart. The explanation confirms CCH is in a bunker, unwilling and unable to debate the real issues. CCH is locked into its new town ideology and is trying to justify it by sticking to a ridiculous housing target.

Fleet and Crookham groups fail to oppose ridiculous housing target

Posted on November 7, 2017November 6, 2017

The Scream - Hart Rushmoor and Surrey Heath SHMA

Fleet and Crookham groups fail to oppose ridiculous housing target

The responses to the draft Local Plan consultation have finally been published and it is clear that groups from Fleet and Church Crookham groups have failed to oppose the ridiculous housing target.

We have looked at the responses from the following groups and can find no mention of their objection to the housing target:

Face IT
Fleet and Church Crookham Society
Church Crookham Parish Council
Fleet Town Council

Many of these groups strongly oppose the now withdrawn Cross Farm proposal that was included as a strategic site in the draft Local Plan. Their message seems to be: go ahead and build thousands of houses we don’t need, but don’t put them in Fleet or Church Crookham.

Councillors fail to challenge the ridiculous housing target

Completely Concrete Hart CCH fail to challenge the ridiculous housing target

Community Campaign Hart CCH councillors fail to challenge the ridiculous housing target

Moreover, three Community Campaign Hart councillors have responded to the consultation without opposing the ridiculous housing target of 10,185 in the draft Local Plan:

Between them, these councillors argued for:

Fewer homes at the brownfield site Hartland Village (Pyestock), which would add to pressure for green field development
Dropping Murrell Green in favour of Winchfield East, even though the Murrell Green sites were in the area of search in the 2015 consultation (see image below) and the Winchfield East sites fared less well in testing.
Removing Cross Farm from the Local Plan. This application for this site has now been withdrawn.

No wonder they are being nicknamed Completely Concrete Hart

Area of search for Winchfield new settlement opportunity

Brian Blewett of the Liberal Democrats has also responded, supporting the position of Blackwater and Hawley Town Council and Neighbourhood Plan group. Neither of these groups opposed the housing target. As far as we can tell, Hook and Crondall Parish Councils did not oppose the housing target either.

We struggle to understand the logic of this position. We can’t understand why members who purport to stand for the good of the whole of Hart support the ridiculous uplift from the SHMA total of 8,022. The Government consultation is clear, Hart’ new housing need is going to be 6.132 units. The remaining target can be met from brownfield sites alone.

Some councillors and local groups oppose the ridiculous housing target

In better news, Andrew Renshaw, member for Hartley Wintney argued for a lower overall housing target. As did the following groups:

Crookham Village Parish Council
Dogmersfield Parish Council
Eversley Parish Council
Hartley Wintney Preservation Society
Odiham Society
Rotherwick Parish Council
Rural Hart Association
Whitewater Valley Preservation Society
Winchfield Action Group
Winchfield Parish Council

Alastair Clarke, chair of the Hart District Association of Parish and Town Councils (HDAPTC), also opposed the housing target in his personal response.

It’s great that such a diverse set of groups has seen the logic of opposing the ridiculous 10,185 housing target.

Conclusion

It is time all parishes and groups within Hart united behind the opportunity that the new Government consultation brings. This will benefit the whole of Hart and help stop the needless playing off of one parish against another.

Grove Farm development approved at appeal

Posted on October 6, 2017October 6, 2017

Breaking News: Hart needs to build 1,500 fewer houses for the Local Plan

Grove Farm (Netherhouse Copse) development allowed on appeal

The planning inspector has granted outline planning permission to the Grove Farm (Netherhouse Copse) development, between Fleet and Crookham Village. This comes as a blow to those of us who oppose green field development, so our commiserations go to those most affected by this decision.

The full decision can be found here.

Impact of Grove Farm (Netherhouse Copse) decision

It is early days to come to firm conclusions, but here are a few thoughts:

Costs. The appeal decision doesn’t talk about the costs of the appeal, but at the very least the council will have to meet its own costs. These are likely to be of the order of £100,000. This is a self-inflicted wound as it was the council itself that failed to make a decision on the planning application. This left the developer with little choice but to appeal on the grounds of non-determination.

Local Plan. This decision adds 423 houses to the housing supply that weren’t in the draft Local Plan. Theoretically, this could free up other sites that are in the Local Plan. Of course, if the council adopts the new Government methodology for calculating housing need, we certainly won’t need a new settlement now, and it is questionable whether even Hartland Village will be required. [Update 2] The finding that the polices are out of date and the level of housing supply is irrelevant makes it imperative that the council gets the Local Plan and associated policies in place ASAP [/Update 2].

Community Campaign Hart (CCH). This party will be particularly angry and disappointed at this decision. They also suffered setbacks with the recent decisions at Watery Lane, Crookham Park and Edenbrooke. However, to our knowledge, CCH have never challenged the ridiculous housing target. Now they are putting in place obstructions to brownfield development. Perhaps now is the time to rethink their strategy. They should focus on a sensible housing target and brownfield development.

We will provide further updates as we find out more information.

[Update 1]

Detailed findings from the Inspector

The decision rested on a number criteria. First, the inspector found limited impact on the Local Gap between Fleet and Crookham Village. Here is the Inspector’s summary:

Grove Farm (Netherhouse Copse) Local Gap decision

Second, the inspector found no grounds to reject the application based on highway safety:

Grove Farm (Netherhouse Copse) Highway Safety decision

Third, the inspector found it to be very significant that most of the policies that the council relied upon for its defence were out of date:

Grove Farm (Netherhouse Copse) Out of date policies

Fourth, the inspector didn’t determine one way or the other whether the council has a five year land supply. Essentially, the five year land supply is irrelevant.

Grove Farm (Netherhouse Copse) Housing Supply Irrelevant

In summary, the inspector found significant economic benefits, and that the potential harms would not outweigh those benefits.

Grove Farm (Netherhouse Copse) Summary of decision

[/Update 1]

Hart SANG plan to obstruct brownfield development

Posted on October 4, 2017July 13, 2022

CCH calling the shots on Hart SANG plan to obstruct brownfield development

Hart Council has published a new report recommending that its own SANG land should not be used to enable brownfield development. This effectively renders the council’s SANG useless and calls into question the council’s ability to fund the repayments on the loan it has taken out to buy the SANG.

The document is sponsored by Community Campaign Hart (CCH) Deputy Leader, James Radley and not the portfolio holder for Planning, Lib Dem Graham Cockarill. This indicates that CCH is pulling the strings on important planning matters. The Hart SANG plan will be discussed at Cabinet tomorrow.

Hart SANG plan

Hart has bought its own SANG land at Bramshot Farm which lies between Ancells Farm and the link road between Hartland Village and the M3. The site has capacity to support 1,745 new houses. The new report proposes that no SANG land is allocated to the sites set out below unless signed off by both the Services Portfolio Holder (James Radley) and the chair of the Planning Committee (Graham Cockarill).

Brownfield sites affected

The following brownfield sites will effectively be blocked from development by the Hart SANG plan:

Bartley Wood, Hook, RG27, 9UP
Bartley Point, Hook, RG27 9EX
Cody Park, Farnborough, GU14 0LX
Meadows Business Park, Blackwater, GU17 9AB
Osborne Way, Hook, RG27 9HY
Waterfront Business Park, Fleet, GU51 3OT
Ancells Business Park, Fleet, GU51 2UJ (right next door to Bramshot Farm)
Blackbushe Business Park, GU46 6GA
Eversley Haulage Yard, RG27 0PZ
Eversley Storage, RG27 0PY
Finn’s Business Park, Crondall, GU10 5HP
Fleet Business Park, Church Crookham, GU52 8BF
Grove Farm Barn, Crookham Village, GU51 5RX
Lodge Farm, North Warnborough, RG29 1HA
Murrell Green Business Park, RG27 9GR
Potters Industrial Park, Church Crookham, GU52 6EU
Rawlings Depot, Hook, RG27 9HU
Redfields Business Park, Church Crookham, GU52 0RD
Optrex Business Park, Rotherwick, RG27 9AY

Essentially, development on every significant potential brownfield site other than Hartland Park and Sun Park (which already have SANG earmarked), will be hindered by this new proposal.

This new proposal runs contrary to the Vision outlined in the draft Local Plan which says:

The priority will have been given to the effective use of previously developed land (‘brownfield land’) so that ‘greenfield’ development will have been limited,

It also runs contrary to paras 105 and 107:

Our preference is still to deliver as much of our New Homes Left to Plan as possible on previously developed land.

many new homes will be built on brownfield sites (where possible and if they are viable)

Their new approach also goes against policy MG2 that says:

Policy MG2: Previously Developed Land

The Council will encourage the effective use of land by reusing land that has been previously developed (brownfield land), provided that it is not of high environmental value.

Of course, this plan also goes against stated Government policy to encourage brownfield development. See here and here.

Financial impact of Hart SANG plan

However, all the large, controversial green field developments are being proposed with their own SANG. This includes Murrell Green, Winchfield, Pale Lane (Elvetham Chase), Rye Common and Grove Farm (Netherhouse Copse). Most of these sites are probably outside the 5km catchment area of this SANG anyway or closer to Crookham Park SANG. Of course, the new Government consultation has reduced Hart’s housing target by ~4,000 houses compared to the draft Local Plan. If this new target (plus a few extra to help out Surrey Heath) was adopted, our remaining housing target could be more than met by Sun Park and Hartland Park alone.

So, if the main brownfield sites are excluded from using the council SANG, the other brownfield sites have their own SANG and the major greenfield sites are not needed, or have their own SANG, we have to ask what it will be used for.

Apparently, the council is about to sign an agreement with Rushmoor to use the SANG to support the delivery of approximately 1,500 new homes in Rushmoor. However, the latest Government housing target consultation has reduced Rushmoor’s allocation by ~3,000 dwellings and Surrey Heath’s by 630 houses. This calls into question whether Rushmoor will need this SANG at all.

The council is strapped for cash, and has borrowed £5.3m to fund the purchase of this SANG. It must payback this loan in instalments up to 2023/24:

These new developments call into question the immediate demand for this SANG, and of course, Hart’s ability to repay the loan.

Conclusion

It is a scandal that Hart is using its powers to obstruct brownfield development. The major greenfield developments come with their own SANG, and probably aren’t required anyway. Rushmoor and Surrey Heath’s housing targets will probably be reduced. This calls into question the financial sustainability of the council’s purchase of this SANG land.

image

Cross Farm application withdrawn

Posted on September 20, 2017September 20, 2017

Cross Farm planning application withdrawn

Cross Farm Site Layout

The planning application for a 160-unit Care Village at Cross Farm has been withdrawn. This comes hot on the heels of our report a few days ago where we said the appeal for this site had been withdrawn.

The details of the application can be found here, or going on the http://publicaccess.hart.gov.uk/ website and searching for 16/03400/OUT.

Impact of Cross Farm Withdrawal

The withdrawal is of course good news for residents of Crookham Village. This area has seen significant development in recent years.

However, it leaves the Hart Local Plan in some difficulty as this was one of the flagship sites in the recent consultation. But, things may not be too bad as the Government has announced a new methodology for calculating housing need that should lead to a significant reduction in Hart’s housing need. If this new methodology is adopted, none of the green field sites in the Local Plan consultation will be required.

We await further developments.

Hart fails to decide Cross Farm application on time

Posted on July 8, 2017July 10, 2017

Sad clown at Hart council fails to decide Cross Farm Appeal document 16/03400/OUT

Hart Council clowns fail to decide Cross Farm application

Hart Council has failed to decide the Cross Farm in Crookham Village planning application on time. This has led the developers to submit an appeal on the grounds of non-determination. This comes on the heels of the failure to determine the Grove Farm (Netherhouse Copse) application back in December 2016. This is Jedi-level incompetence that makes the Council look like clowns.

The original application was made in January this year and should have been decided by 7 April. The application doesn’t seem to have been considered at all by the Planning Committee. Details of the original application for the Cross Farm development can be found here, and searching for 16/03400/OUT. The appeal documents can be found by searching for 17/00078/NONDET.

The proposed Cross Farm development in Crookham Village was one of the recommended sites in the recent Local Plan consultation. This indicates that the proposal was supported by officers.

We can only guess at why it wasn’t determined on time. Clearly, the council is dysfunctional. The Conservatives were in charge of the council when the application should have been decided. However, Community Campaign Hart (CCH) held the chair of the Planning Committee at that time. Now the Planning Committee is chaired by Graham Cockarill of the Liberal Democrats, and the administration is jointly run by CCH and Lib Dems. Therefore, it seems none of the parties are able to get a grip on the planning process and take decisions on time.

One explanation might be that despite Cross Farm being in the draft Local Plan, CCH councillors felt unable to support the proposals. Therefore, they abdicated responsibility, so they could blame any decision on the Inspector. Of course, the appeal will be at council taxpayer expense.

[Update] Another explanation might be that it wasn’t in the interests of the Tory administration or the officers to bring this to the Committee on time. Cross Farm in Crookham Village was a preferred site in the draft Local Plan. If Cross Farm had been rejected at Committee, it would have effectively scuppered the Local Plan. [/Update]

Cost of Cross Farm, Crookham Village appeal

It is likely that this public enquiry style appeal will cost the council over £100,000 to defend. We find it difficult to understand how they expect to win the appeal given that the site is in the draft Local Plan. Therefore, we think it likely the inspector will award costs to the developer should they win. This would bring the total costs of the appeal to over £200,000.

The overall council budget is ~£10m. Surely, this appeal money could be better spent on local services, infrastructure or social housing?