Hart Local Plan Immediate Review

Posted on January 25, 2020January 24, 2020

Stop Shapley Heath – Hart Local Plan Immediate Review

The adoption of the Hart Local Plan is anticipated in February or March 2020. The council has conceded in its main modifications to the need for an early review of the Local Plan in certain circumstances (see MM121). We support an immediate review of the Hart Local Plan, once adopted.

We think the following objectives should be set:

Build what we need, no more, no less.
Avoid any new settlement or large scale green field development. This means we should not build Shapley Heath, Rye Common or West of Hook.
Focus on brownfield development to revitalise our urban centres by delivering better health, community and cultural facilities.
Proportionate development within each parish.

We believe this can be done, and this post explains the first stage of how we do that.

Hart Local Plan Housing Delivery Test

Before we start, we need to acknowledge a weakness in the Local Plan that will shortly be adopted. The Government have imposed the Housing Delivery Test (HDT) on all councils. The HDT aims to maintain a steady supply of housing by forcing councils to keep their rolling 3-year delivery in line with the average required rate. The Hart Local Plan will run into trouble with the Housing Delivery Test (HDT) around 2025/26. This was covered by a question to the full Council meeting in July 2019. This effect might be delayed or reduced if some or all of the large developments underway slip their delivery schedules.

But, if places like Hartland Park and Grove Farm stick to their delivery schedules, we will be running short of housing in 2025/26. To rectify this, pass the HDT at 100% based on the 423 dwellings per annum (dpa) imposed by the Local Plan, we will have to build an extra 1,700 houses over the period to 2032.

Hart Local Plan and the Housing Delivery Test

Some council members may use this as a justification to pursue Shapley Heath Garden Village. We have already shown that Shapley Heath will deliver far more houses than we need, and unnecessarily urbanise the district.

Hart Local Plan versus the Standard Method

However, the Local Plan was examined under the (old) SHMA method. This, together with the alleged unmet need from Surrey Heath, resulted in a housing target of 423dpa. But, under the new standard method Hart’s housing requirement from 2020-2041 is only 251dpa (including a 40% affordability uplift).

Hart Household Requirements 2016-2041

Hart District Build Requirements under various scenarios

This results in a total requirement from 2020-2041 of “only” 5,271 houses.

Hart Local Plan versus the Standard Method

Revised Hart Local Plan to meet the Housing Delivery Test

However, any revised Local Plan would also have to meet the HDT. This would result in a total requirement of 6,783 houses over the period 2020-2041. The Local Plan has already identified 4,012, leaving 2,771 to find.

Hart Local Plan versus the proposed Revised Plan

Hart Local Plan Immediate Review

So, the challenge from a Hart Local Plan immediate review is during 2020 develop a vision for Hart in 2040 to:

Deliver the 2,771 houses we need at a steady rate
Revitalise our urban centres
Proportionate development across remaining parishes to make up the difference
Protect the green spaces that make Hart an attractive place to live

2020 Vision for Hart 2040

We believe this can be done. We will work on how this might be done in subsequent posts.

This is another of our posts showing:

What is Shapley Heath, explaining its location and scale?
All the reasons why Shapley Heath Garden Village is a bad idea
An outline of an alternative approach to long term planning in Hart

The master page containing all of these posts can be found here. A link is also provided in the navigation at the top of the page. Please do keep an eye out for further updates and share them with your friends.

Beware Lib Dem Fake News (Again)

Posted on November 28, 2019December 9, 2019

Lib Dem Fake News Leaflet North East Hampshire GE 2019

[Update]: They have now doubled down with a claim that despite promoting the unnecessary new town, they are really protecting green fields. [/Update]

A local person has been in touch highlighting more Lib Dem Fake News. There are a number of issues with their latest General Election Leaflet:

Now supporting the Shapley Heath Garden Village, when they claimed credit for it being struck out of the Local Plan
Denying that there’s capacity for 10,000 houses at Shapley Heath
Getting Hart’s housing requirement, supply and timing of planning decisions wrong
Another Lib Dem fake bar chart

The full leaflet can be found here. Details of their fake news claims are shown below. If anybody finds fake news from other candidates please do get in touch.

Lib Dem Fake News: Shapley Heath

Regular readers will remember back in March, the Lib Dem district council candidates were claiming credit for saving Winchfield from the unnecessary new town.

Lib Dem Fake News claims to have saved Winchfield

Their latest leaflet for their candidate standing in the general election is trying to justify why we need the very same development.

Cockarill Lib Dem Fake News Leaflet North East Hampshire GE 2019. Fake Garden Village Claim.

Lib Dem Graham Cockarill justifying Shapley Heath Garden Village

This is quite a turnaround in just a few months. They don’t seem to be able to make their minds up.

Lib Dem Fake News: 10,000 houses

They are also claiming it is ridiculous to say Shapley Heath is going to be up to 10,000 houses.

#LibDem #FakeNews #GE2019 Fake 10,000 house claim

Lib Dem Fake News: Fake 10,000 houses claim

The leaflet doesn’t mention that Graham Cockarill is in fact the Hart Cabinet member for Place (aka Planning). He oversaw the Council’s bid for Garden Community funding. The Vision Document that was part of the bid, clearly states the developers are looking to put 10,000 houses on the site.

Shapley Heath: Vision Document 10,000 houses

And the bid itself talked of a development up to 10,000 houses.

If a candidate denies what is in their own documents, we can’t see how they can be fit for office.

Hart Housing Requirement, Supply and Planning decisions

The leaflet claims Hart’s housing requirement up to 2032 is 388 dwellings per annum. In fact, after review by the Inspector, the requirement form 2014 to 2032 is 423 dpa. This is because Hart has agreed to take some of Surrey Heath’s requirement.

Cockarill Lib Dem Fake News Leaflet North East Hampshire GE 2019

Lib Dem Fake News: Fake housing numbers claim

As part of their justification for continuing with Shapley Heath, the say Hart needs a 5 year land supply. It is true that local authorities need to maintain a 5-year land supply. But Hart currently has around 9 years supply. They also imply that Grove Farm was granted planning permission during the Conservative administration. In fact, the appeal was granted in October 2017, when the Lib Dem/CCH coalition were in power and Mr Cockarill was Cabinet member for Planning.

Lib Dem Fake News Bar Chart

Of course no Lib Dem leaflet would be complete without a misleading bar chart. This one is no exception. The leaflet says that NE Hampshire is a two-horse race and the Lib Dems are snapping at the heels of the Tories to win the seat.

Graham Cockarill Lib Dem Fake Bar Chart

They don’t mention their council coalition partners Community Campaign Hart in the bar chart. If they did, it would show that the Lib Dems are in fact in third place in terms of seats on Hart District Council. They also came a distant third, behind Labour, in the 2017 General Election with only 12.3% of the vote. Here is what their bar chart should have looked like.

Hart and NE Hampshire Election Results

Elvetham Chase Appeal Documents Revealed

Posted on June 8, 2018June 8, 2018

Wates Pale Lane aka Elvetham Chase Appeal

Elvetham Chase Appeal Documents

The Pale Lane aka Elvetham Chase appeal documents have been made available. At the time of writing, they haven’t yet been published on the Hart Council website, nor on the Planning Inspectorate website. These documents confirm our story that the Wates have appealed the decision to turn down the proposed development of 700 new houses.

The two documents can be found as downloads at the foot of this article.

The key elements of their statement of case are:

Elvetham Chase Appeal – Policies out of date

Wates argue that the policies used to refuse the original application are out of date. This argument was successful when the Grove Farm development was approved on appeal.

Elvetham Chase Appeal – Little impact on Fleet

Wates also argue that, contrary to Hart’s refusal decision, the Pale Lane development will have little impact on Fleet. In addition, the policies Hart have used to justify this stance are out of date.

Elvetham Chase Appeal – Local Plan too slow

Wates are also arguing that Hart have not kept to their timetable for the Local Plan. There was supposed to be a presentation to members during May, prior to submission on 18 June. We understand that presentation did not happen, so the 18 June deadline may be at risk.

They also argue that the draft Local Plan and the site allocation may well face legal challenge.

The draft Local Plan doesn’t include Pale Lane in the site allocation. They say the plan is a long way from adoption and that refusal isn’t justified on those grounds. Wates are effectively saying that the draft Local Plan should carry very little weight in the appeal decision.

Elvetham Chase Appeal – Our View

We think the appeal will rest on this issue. If the Inspector believes the draft Local Plan carries significant weight, then he may well refuse the appeal. If however, he believes the opposite, then on the past precedent of Grove Farm, then he will probably allow the development to proceed.

We think Hart’s chances of successfully fighting this appeal are higher than Grove Farm, and it is probably worth the cost and effort of doing so. However, we hear some councillors are much less optimistic about Hart’s chances of success. Let’s hope common sense prevails and the appeal is dismissed.

We will work on what we think are the best arguments for fighting the appeal.

Wates Pale Lane/ Elvetham Chase Appeal Statement

Download Now!257 Downloads

Wates Elvetham Chase/ Pale Lane Appeal Statement of Common Ground

Download Now!264 Downloads

Appeal statement of case that can be found here.

Draft statement of common ground that can be found here.

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.

Hart squanders £110K on doomed Grove Farm appeal

Posted on November 14, 2017November 13, 2017

Grove Farm Appeal - Netherhouse Copse Site Layout

£110K squandered on Netherhouse Copse – Grove Farm appeal

It has come to light that Hart spent nearly £110,000 on lawyers and consultants in the course of defending the doomed Grove Farm appeal.

Regular readers may remember that the council failed to answer our questions about this at the last council meeting. However, a recent FOI request from a concerned resident has finally turned up some answers.

In total the council spent £109,858.59 on external legal and consultant costs. Astonishingly, Hart Council does not seem to track the time spent by its own staff on such matters and can’t tell us the costs incurred by internal officers. The good news is that it seems the developer did not press to be awarded its own costs of running the appeal.

However, it appears as though the council did not seek an external view on the chances of success of the appeal. We said back in December 2016 that the failure to determine the application would lead to an appeal and that Hart would likely lose the appeal.

£110,000 represents about 1% of Hart’s spending budget, and they are strapped for cash. Even though we oppose the Grove Farm development, we don’t think the council should be wasting money trying to fight lost causes.

Full FOI request on Grove Farm appeal costs

The full questions and answers (in red) are shown below:

Can you please set out the cost of defending the appeal including:

a) External legal and consultant costs: The Council holds the information that you seek. The costs were £109,858.59.

b) Internal time costs of officers. The Council does not hold the information that you seek.

c) Any potential loss of New Homes Bonus. The Council does not hold the information that you seek.

d) Lost time on the Local Plan due to resources being diverted to defend the appeal. The Council does not hold the information that you seek.

e) Appellant costs. The Council does not hold the information that you seek

Did the council receive legal advice on the chances of success in defending the appeal? The Council does not hold the information that you seek
a) What, in summary, did the advice say? The Council does not hold the information that you seek.

b) Will you make the advice public? The Council does not hold the information that you seek

c) Was the provider of this legal advice the same organisation that helped
defend the appeal? The Council does not hold the information that you seek

d) How much did the advice cost? The Council does not hold the information that you seek

Hart don’t know cost of Grove Farm appeal

Posted on October 27, 2017October 26, 2017

Hart Council knows nothing about Grove Farm Appeal

Hart Council have admitted they don’t know the cost of the Grove Farm appeal. They don’t know how much they spent on lawyers and consultants. They don’t cost the internal time costs of Hart Officers. Thankfully, there won’t be any loss of New Homes Bonus and the inspector did not award appellant costs against Hart.

Hart Council is very short of money, and the costs of this appeal must represent a significant proportion of Hart’s spending budget of £9m this year (see budget book p14). It is scandalous that they have no ability to track the costs of such large expenditures.

We warned back in December 2016 that the failure to determine the application would lead to an appeal and that Hart would likely lose the appeal.

It is still highly likely the developers will appeal the decision anyway because the officers recommended approval. Realistically, it is likely Hart would lose the appeal.

Apparently, the Overview and Scrutiny Committee won’t be looking into the decision to defend the Grove Farm appeal. Councillors apparently have no plans to forgo any of their allowance to help replenish public funds.

More worrying, Hart have no plan to avoid being a sitting duck in planning appeals between now and when the Local Plan is finally adopted.

Full questions and answers about Grove Farm appeal

Here is our list of questions and our recollection of the answers in red received at Council on Thursday (answers to be updated when the minutes are published):

Q1: It is of course a highly regrettable that the Grove Farm planning application was granted at appeal. However, given that officers recommended that planning permission be granted and the planning committee failed to make a determination on time, it is not unexpected that the appeal was allowed. Can you please set out the cost of defending the appeal including:

External legal and consultant costs. A lot of words that amounted to “Don’t know”.
Internal time costs of officers. Don’t identify internal costs.
Any potential loss of New Homes Bonus. £0.
Lost time on the Local Plan due to resources being diverted to defend the appeal. Don’t know.
Appellant costs. £0.

Q2: Did the council receive legal advice on the chances of success in defending the appeal? In accordance with the Hart Code of Conduct objectives for openness and transparency, can you answer the following:

What, in summary, did the advice say?
Will you make the advice public?
Was the provider of this legal advice the same organisation that helped defend the appeal?
How much did the advice cost?

Answer: It’s a planning matter so we didn’t take legal advice on the chances of success

Q3: A recent joint Chief Executive statement said “In terms of the impact for planning across the District this appeal decision tells us little that is new. The Inspector used the same reasons that had previously been used by the Inspector at Moulsham Lane”. In accordance with the Code of Conduct statements about “Managing risks and performance through robust internal control and strong public financial management”, will the Overview and Scrutiny Committee be examining the decision to defend the Grove Farm appeal and making recommendations to avoid future waste of public funds?

Answer: Overview and Scrutiny only examine decisions from the Executive, not of committees, so no.

Supplementary: Will councillors and officers who made the decision to proceed with the appeal forego all or part of their allowance or bonus to show solidarity with hard pressed council taxpayers by helping to replenish public funds? No.

Q4: Given the saved policies have been ruled to be out of date twice now, what steps can the council take to avoid becoming a sitting duck in future planning decisions and appeals in advance of the Local Plan being adopted? Lots of words that amounted to “None”.

Hart major planning site update

Posted on October 26, 2017October 23, 2017

Hart Major Planning Site: Planning application submitted for 700 houses at Owens Farm west Hook 17/02317/OUT

Hart Major Planning Site Update

This post will provide a Hart major planning sites update. We will cover:

West of Hook – Owens Farm
Bramshill
Pale Lane (Elvetham Chase)
Hartland Park (Pyestock)
Grove Farm (Netherhouse Copse), Fleet

Hart Major Planning Site: Owens Farm West of Hook

A planning application has been made for 700 houses at Owens Farm, west of Hook. The deadline for comments and objections has been set for 1st November 2017. The application can be found at Hart’s public access system and searching for reference 17/02317/OUT.

Hook Action Against Over-Development have published some excellent guidance on how to respond. This can be found here.

We don’t think this development is either desirable or necessary and would urge you to oppose it.

Hart Major Planning Site: Bramshill

This is the application for around 250 units at the former Police College at Bramshill. This application was turned down in March 2017. However, the developer has appealed and the appeal hearing will be held in the main house starting at 10am on 31st October.

The application can be found at Hart’s public access system and searching for reference 16/00720/FUL.

We support the redevelopment of this brownfield site. In particular, we would like to see Grade I listed main Bramshill House preserved in some way. We recognise that the developer will probably have to make money elsewhere to properly fund the redevelopment. However, we do have reservations about the scale of development proposed elsewhere on the site which is in the SPA.

Hart Major Planning Site: Pale Lane (Elvetham Chase)

Elvetham Chase (Pale Lane)

This is the application for 700 new houses at Pale Lane aka Elvetham Chase. The site lies between Elvetham Heath, the railway and the M3. The controversial planning application was submitted for this site back in November 2016.

We understand that the deadline for determination has been extended to 10 November 2017. There is a Planning Meeting at council planned for 8 November 2017.

The application can be found at Hart’s public access system and searching for reference 16/03129/OUT.

We hope and expect that Hart Council will reject this application. However, we would not be at all surprised if the developer appealed the decision. It would be difficult to defend the appeal after the Grove Farm decision, unless they manage to get the Local Plan in place before the appeal is heard.

Hart Major Planning Site: Hartland Park (Pyestock)

Hartland Park (Pyestock) Master Plan

This is the site of former Pyestock National Gas Turbine Establishment. We have no further update since Hart Council’s planning committee agreed to the principle of building up to 1,500 new homes on this brownfield site.

We agree with this decision in principle, but echo the council’s concern about a number of items:

The developer is proposing only 20% Affordable Housing. We would like to see more affordable housing and especially some social housing for those who can’t rent and can’t buy.
We are concerned about the road network and therefore think Kennels Lane should be upgraded to provide a relief road around the site
There should be a proper cycle/walking route installed to provide easy access to Fleet station.

We will continue to monitor this development.

The application can be found at Hart’s public access system and searching for reference 17/00471/OUT.

Hart Major Planning Site: Grove Farm (Netherhouse Copse)

Grove Farm – Netherhouse Copse Site plan

Sadly, this site was approved for development by the planning inspector. This is an application for 423 new houses on the site off Hitches Lane in Fleet. The appeal for this site was heard back in July.

Community Campaign Hart have not learned lessons

Posted on October 21, 2017October 22, 2017

Completely Concrete Hart (CCH) Community Campaign Hart have learned no lessons

Community Campaign Hart (CCH) have learned no lessons

Community Campaign (Hart) – CCH hint at keeping a new town in the Local Plan in an opinion piece in this week’s Fleet News and Mail. The full article can be found here. The summary is:

Building more houses won’t lead to a reduction in prices.
We need to build more Affordable homes, but set policies that will achieve precisely the opposite outcome.
The Grove Farm decision is everybody else’s fault. Yet CCH chaired the meeting that failed to make a decision on time.
There’s a conspiracy to derail and delay the Local Plan, yet CCH have frustrated the process.
Hint that they must press on with the ridiculous housing target and an unnecessary new town
Hart must deliver an Infrastructure led Local Plan (whatever that means). Yet they have no idea how to close the £1.2bn funding deficit across Hampshire and £72m in Hart.

In short, CCH have learned no lessons and are pressing on with their failed policies. No wonder they are becoming known as Completely Concrete Hart.

Let’s deconstruct what James Radley has to say.

Building more houses won’t lead to a reduction in prices

First, let’s start on points of agreement. We do agree that within sensible limits, building more houses will not bring down house prices. This is backed up by research by Ian Mulheirn of Oxford Economics, which we reported on here. We also agree the decision to go ahead and develop Grove Farm (Netherhouse Copse), is a bad decision.

Community Campaign Hart policies will achieve the opposite of their objectives

However, we start to part company with Community Campaign Hart when they say we need to build more ‘Affordable’ homes. Yes, we do need more homes that people can afford to buy. But that isn’t the same as building Affordable homes. Take a recent development at Hartley Wintney where the cheapest 3-bed was over 11 times median household income in the district and the cheapest 2-bed was more than 9 times income. Even with a 20% ‘affordable’ discount, these houses are out of reach of most first time buyers in the district.

CCH’s argument is being used to justify Hart’s ridiculous decision to plan to uplift the housing target from the 8,022 in the SHMA to 10,185 units. This is justified on the grounds it will deliver ~800 extra ‘affordable’ homes. As Mr Radley states in his preamble, these extra homes won’t actually reduce prices. All they will do is attract more buyers from London, rather than meet the needs of ordinary people already here. They are doing their best to avoid and ignore the new Government consultation that set Hart’s housing target at 6,132 units, and that includes an affordable housing uplift on the base demographic requirement.

A glut of these ‘affordable’ homes won’t help those who can’t rent or buy, like Mr. Radley’s son. What these young people need is more social housing with cheaper rents. These ‘affordable’ houses won’t help those who can rent, but can’t buy either. These people can probably afford to service a mortgage if they can afford rent, but don’t have enough money for a deposit. Building extra houses won’t help these people either.

We understand that the new Lib Dem/CCH administration has shelved plans for Hart to create its own housing development corporation, which would have provided a significant number of social rented homes. Plans for this company have disappeared from the Corporate Plan consultation, thus reducing supply of social housing.

Moreover, the new Lib Dem/CCH cabinet have recently approved plans to obstruct brownfield development by restricting the supply of council owned SANG. These types of development tend to deliver smaller, cheaper properties. This type of property is more likely to be bought by young people trying to get on the housing ladder.

So, CCH’s actual policies are precisely the opposite of what is required to meet the objectives they have set.

Community Campaign Hart take no responsibility for the Grove Farm decision

Mr Radley blames the inspector for ‘setting aside the democratic expression of will’ in the Grove Farm decision. However, he fails to mention that the council officers recommended that permission be granted. However, we do think Community Campaign Hart is partly culpable because CCH was chair of the planning committee when they failed to determine the planning decision on time. Moreover, CCH caused a delay in the Local Plan last December, when they insisted Winchfield (which had failed testing), be included as an option.

The main reason why the inspector granted permission is that Hart don’t have a Local Plan, and the policies are out of date. The other reason of course is that our housing target is far too high. We have yet to see any public statement from CCH calling for:

A reduction in the ridiculous housing target.
More brownfield development.

Indeed, we hear on the grapevine that CCH argued in private for fewer houses to be built at Hartland Park (Pyestock). This puts extra pressure on green field development.

It is simply ridiculous to mourn the loss of Grove Farm, but strongly support concreting over green fields elsewhere.

Community Campaign Hart take no responsibility for Local Plan delays

The article says:

I fear there are some who may have deliberately attempted to derail the Local Plan process in order to achieve planning by appeal and so impose all the housing growth on those areas which already have over stretched schools and congested roads

In other words, he is right, everybody else is wrong, and anybody who disagrees with him is conspiring against him. On the one hand, he claims there’s majority support for his view, whilst arguing there’s a conspiracy against him. This is clearly ridiculous.

What Mr Radley overlooks since the last attempt at a Local Plan was thrown out:

He has been a councillor for all of that time.
Mr Radley himself has been a Cabinet member in 2014/15 and again now, in 2017
CCH delayed the Local Plan consultation last December, by insisting a new town at Winchfield be included, even though it was clear that the proposals had not passed testing
The previous administration promised a Regulation 19 consultation on the next version of the Local Plan in ‘Winter 2017’. This has now been pushed back until at least January 2018.
Despite promising in June this year that the responses to the latest consultation would be published ‘in a couple of months’, there is still no sign of them

It is to be hoped he wasn’t referring to us as part of the conspiracy to “derail” 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.

We have never seen a CCH member ask a question at council challenging the persistent missing of deadlines. We have never seen a CCH member challenge the ridiculous housing target. We have never seen Community Campaign Hart support brownfield development.

What is an Infrastructure led Local Plan?

This is the $64,000 question, to which we don’t have a proper answer. We think they mean to continue with a Local Plan that includes an unnecessary new settlement at Murrell Green or Winchfield. However, the justification for this falls away, if they adopt the new Government approach to calculating the housing target. If they do accept this, then the remaining housing needs can be met from Sun Park and Hartland Park.

Meanwhile, SWR are proposing to cut services at Winchfield and Hook train stations. This blows a hole in main main argument for siting a new town near Winchfield station.

Even their arguments for a new school are falling away, with latest Hampshire County Council projections showing a new secondary school is not needed.

Looking at the bigger picture, it’s even worse. The latest infrastructure plan from Hampshire County Council shows a £1.2bn funding deficit across the county. £72m of this shortfall is attributed to Hart.

These figures don’t include healthcare or provision of extra care places for the elderly. The overall numbers should be regarded as a minimum figure.

Hampshire £1.2bn infrastructure funding gap regarded as minimum

CCH would be much better off working out how to close the existing funding gap. Their policies will result in building more unnecessary housing that will make the problem worse.

It’s time for CCH to realise their mistakes, learn form them and change strategy. They should focus on a realistic housing target and support for brownfield development.

Application for 700 houses at Owens Farm west Hook

Posted on October 15, 2017October 15, 2017

Planning application submitted for 700 houses at Owens Farm west Hook

A planning application has been submitted for 700 new houses at Owens Farm west of Hook. This follows on from the consultation we discussed back in July. It appears as though the developer, Wilbur Developments Limited is taking advantage of Hart not having a Local Plan.

Since the appeal decision granting permission at Grove Farm (Netherhouse Copse), Hart is effectively a sitting duck. Hart’s saved policies were ruled to be out of date and its five-year land supply was judged to be irrelevant.

The planning application, with reference 17/02317/OUT, is for an urban extension of 700 dwellings on Owens Farm, on the western edge of Hook. There’s over 140 documents to wade through.

This site did not figure in the draft Local Plan consultation. We don’t need it to even to meet Hart’s ridiculous 10,185 housing target. And we certainly don’t need it to meet the Government’s new target of 6,132 for Hart District.

Obviously, Hook residents are hopping mad with the proposals, with one resident describing the proposals as follows:

Owens Farm west Hook consultee comment

How to object to Owens Farm West Hook

Please lodge you objections to these unnecessary proposals here.

You might like to join Hook Action against Over Development, whose website can be found here and their Facebook page is here.

Grove Farm decision makes Hart Council a sitting duck

Posted on October 7, 2017August 16, 2023

Hart Council is a sitting duck after the planning inspector decided to grant planning permission for 423 new houses at Grove Farm (Netherhouse Copse). The inspector demolished the main pillars of the council’s argument against the development (See below):

The inspector found that the main policies it used to defend the appeal were out of date
Hart’s claim to have a five-year land supply was essentially ruled to be irrelevant

The impact of this is that it opens the way for developers to make even more planning applications. It will also embolden developers to appeal where the council doesn’t take decisions on time or turns down planning applications.

This makes it imperative that the Local Plan and associated policies are put in place ASAP. Sadly, the precedent is not good because Hart has missed every deadline it has set itself over the past few years. It is now four months since the consultation into the draft Local Plan. The consultee comments haven’t even been published. Of course, we have no idea how the Council will respond to the comments. Nor do we have any idea how they will respond to Government consultation that will reduce our housing target by around 4,000 houses.

Detailed findings from the Inspector that make Hart Council a sitting duck

The decision rested on a number criteria. 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 make Hart Council a sitting duck

Second, 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 and makes Hart Council a sitting duck