7 reasons to oppose a new town in Hart

Posted on January 13, 2016January 13, 2016

Which would you rather preserve – derelict eyesore or our wildlife?

As the consultation on the Hart District Local Plan draws to a close, it is worth reiterating the main reasons why you should oppose a new town and urban extensions in Hart.

They would open us up to 3,000 extra houses from Surrey Heath and Rushmoor, and we would get the worst of all worlds, a new town, urban extensions and green field dispersal.
The rate of building would then be used against us in the next planning period, so the problems we create today would be compounded into the future.
It would be bad strategy to commit to a new town now, when we know that the housing needs assessment is being revised, and in all likelihood it will be revise down
The proposed new town location is simply not suitable, in that there isn’t enough land to create the nirvana of a self contained new settlement promised by some HDC councillors, and would lead to a giant Hartley Winchook conurbation.
The infrastructure costs are astronomical, and the developer contributions will not meet these costs, thus pushing up council taxes in the future
There is an alternative brownfield solution that will meet the actual needs of Hart residents through providing specialist accommodation for the elderly and affordable starter homes for the young people struggling to get on the housing ladder.
Brownfield development is a more sustainable, greener alternative that will be kinder to the environment and provide infrastructure funding for our existing communities.

If you would like to ask Hart to abandon the new town alternative and create a brownfield solution to our housing needs, we urge you to respond to the Hart District Council consultation about the Local Plan and ask them to think again. We have created a dedicated consultation page and two guides to responding to the consultation that are available on the downloads below. The comments are designed to be cut and pasted into the boxes provided. It will be very powerful if you could edit the comments into your own words. Please do find time to respond to the consultation and play your part in saving our countryside.

Full version:

Responses to Local Plan Consultation

Download Now!440 Downloads

2 Minute version:

Respond to Local Plan Consultation in 2 minutes

Download Now!425 Downloads

Hart Council starts to identify brownfield opportunities

Posted on January 12, 2016January 12, 2016

Hart District Council (HDC) starts the process of identifying brownfield opportunities

Hart Council starts the process of identifying brownfield opportunities

In a welcome development, it appears as though Hart Council has started the process of identifying brownfield opportunity areas.

These include Pyestock (aka Hartland Park), Ancells Farm and part of Redfields Business Park. This is an important development as Hart had previously ruled out Pyestock as a location.

They also identify a wide range of other brownfield sites, from the SHLAA that were deemed to have a capacity of 592 units, at an average density of 32.5 dwellings per hectare.

Parish/Ref	Sum of Site Assessment Capacity (Low)	Sum of Site Assessment Capacity (High)	Sum of Size (Ha.)	Average of Low Density (dpa)
Blackwater and Hawley	320	320	12.00	26.7
SHL100	320	320	12.00	26.7
Church Crookham	6	6	0.42	14.3
SHL28	6	6	0.42	14.3
Elvetham Heath	45	45	2.25	20.0
SHL104	45	45	2.25	20.0
Fleet	221	221	3.56	62.1
SHL113	12	12	0.68	17.6
SHL245	8	8	0.18	44.4
SHL320	150	150	1.80	83.3
SHL322	37	37	0.61	60.7
SHL41	6	6	0.05	120.0
SHL42	8	8	0.24	33.3
Grand Total	592	592	18.23	32.5

Whilst this is a welcome development, it is clear that work is yet to start on the rest of the district outside the environs of Fleet and Church Crookham.

We do call into question the assertions in the consultation that there is only capacity for 450 units on brownfield sites and the timing of the consultation, as it seems clear that brownfield capacity is going to rise significantly, so we will not need a new town, nor urban extensions.

If you would like to ask Hart to redouble its efforts to build the case for a brownfield solution to our housing needs, we urge you to respond to the Hart District Council consultation about the Local Plan and ask them to think again. We have created a dedicated consultation page and two guides to responding to the consultation that are available on the downloads below. The comments are designed to be cut and pasted into the boxes provided. It will be very powerful if you could edit the comments into your own words. Please do find time to respond to the consultation and play your part in saving our countryside.

Full version:

Responses to Local Plan Consultation

Download Now!440 Downloads

2 Minute version:

Respond to Local Plan Consultation in 2 minutes

Download Now!425 Downloads

Hart Council changes the rules of the Local Plan consultation as it goes along

Posted on January 11, 2016August 15, 2023

In a quite astonishing development, we have been alerted to the fact that Hart District Council has changed the rules of the consultation part way through the process. This is in addition to the inexplicable decision to postpone how the way answers will be weighted until after the consultation has closed.

Version 4 of the consultation paperwork, dated 3 December 2015, stated clearly that questions 4 and 5 of the consultation must be answered:

Hart Consultation V4 must answer Q4 and Q5

But Version 5 of the consultation paperwork, dated 6 January 2016, says there is no requirement to answer questions 4 and 5:

Hart Consultation V5 no requirement to answer Q4 and Q5

As of 09:30 on Monday 11 January 2016, Questions 4 and 5 were mandatory in the on-line version of the consultation. This is a fundamental change to the rules in the middle of the consultation and one is left wondering quite how the results can be considered valid and surely it can’t be right that the rules for paper submission are different to those for online submission.

In addition, Hart Council announced at a meeting of the Hart District Association of Town and Parish Councils that they would not decide how to weight the answers to the questions until the consultation was complete. This is confirmed by a question to the December Council meeting:

Hart determining scoring criteria after the consultation is complete

[Update]

It gets worse. The paper copies of the form have no comments box for Q4 of the consultation, but the on-line form does:

Page 3 of the Consultation form

Page 4 of the Hart District Council Local Plan Consultation form

Page 4 of the Consultation form

[/Update]

[Update 2]

I have been alerted to even more differences between the two versions of the document:

V5 now seems to include Crookham Village, Dogmersfield & Eversley in Q4. V4 doesn’t include those parishes. The online version now includes them, but I don’t know if it has been changed.

Neither version has a comments box for q4, but there is a q4 comment box online, even though Q6 directs you to a comments box for q4.

In V4, the question directs you to Table 2 on page 7, in V5 it directs you to the same table on page 9. In the version of the booklet I have, Table 2 starts on page 8.

And perhaps most significantly:

Q6 has been changed, with V4 allowing comments on rejected sites and V5 not including the following in the question:

“You may also comment on any ‘rejected ‘sites (in blue and listed on the tables on each map)”

Has someone been taking inspiration from The Thick of It?

[/Update 2]

This is a very worrying development and resembles how one might expect countries to operate that do not have as mature democracies as we enjoy in this country.

If you would like to try your luck in responding to the consultation and objecting to the new town idea, we urge you to respond to the Hart District Council consultation about the Local Plan and ask them to think again. We have created a dedicated consultation page and two guides to responding to the consultation that are available on the downloads below. The comments are designed to be cut and pasted into the boxes provided. It will be very powerful if you could edit the comments into your own words. Please do find time to respond to the consultation and play your part in saving our countryside.

Full version:

Responses to Local Plan Consultation

Download Now!440 Downloads

2 Minute version:

Respond to Local Plan Consultation in 2 minutes

Download Now!425 Downloads

Whitewater Valley Preservation Society Oppose Winchfield/Hook new town

Posted on January 7, 2016January 6, 2016

River Whitewater

The Whitewater Valley Preservation Society (WVPS) have struck a blow for common sense and advised their members to vote against the proposed Hartley Winchook new settlement in Winchfield and Hook parishes.

Their full advice can be found here. The key quotes from their document are:

“The potential impact of 5,000 houses said to be at Winchfield, but especially those either side of the A30 at Murrell Green, upon the river and its valley will be significant. One other site which will have a significant impact on the river and valley is in Odiham parish at North Warnborough / Greywell”…

…”If, on looking at the table above, you are not convinced of the benefits of a new town, then in question 4 you
should rank Approach 3 last; and in question 5 you should rank Approach 4 first (this being the only one which
excludes the Winchfield new town)”…

…”The Hook sites at Murrell Green listed in the table above are all in the proposed Winchfield new settlement, and the Odiham site “COM004” would see the open fields between Greywell and North Warnborough developed with houses and sports pitches”…

…”And the second pair of questions asks to what extent you agree with the draft vision and whether you have any comments on the Vision. You may wish to point out, in response to either of these two pairs of questions that the level and location of the developments proposed will clearly make it very difficult to realise the vision.”

If you agree with WVPS and would like to make your voice heard and object to the new town idea, we urge you to respond to the Hart District Council consultation about the Local Plan and ask Hart to think again. We have created a dedicated consultation page and two guides to responding to the consultation that are available on the downloads below. The comments are designed to be cut and pasted into the boxes provided. It will be very powerful if you could edit the comments into your own words. Please do find time to respond to the consultation and play your part in saving our countryside and our rivers.

Full version:

Responses to Local Plan Consultation

Download Now!440 Downloads

2 Minute version:

Respond to Local Plan Consultation in 2 minutes

Download Now!425 Downloads

Fleet Town Council seeks to mislead the public

Posted on January 6, 2016January 6, 2016

Fleet Town Council Leaflet

Fleet Town Council have distributed a leaflet that, in our view, seeks to mislead the public. The leaflet suggests that a new settlement in Hart would be a “long term sustainable solution to the housing and infrastructure needs” of the district as an “official recommendation”.

We think this is misleading and wrong on many levels:

Concreting over the equivalent of 25 football pitches a year is not in any way sustainable, and this approach would lead to another new town being required every 10-15 years and destroy the green spaces that make Hart such a great place to live.
The type of housing in a new town estate is exactly the wrong type of housing to meet the needs of our growing elderly population and the needs of our young people struggling to get on the housing ladder
A new town will require over £300m of infrastructure funding, with only £50m of developer contributions, and of course will do nothing to address the £78m infrastructure funding deficit across the district.

Surely, it would be much better to follow Ranil’s advice and redevelop our ageing and vacant office blocks in a brownfield solution that will meet the needs of Hart residents as opposed to those wishing to move here from London and deliver infrastructure funding for our existing communities. Of course, Fleet Town Council offer no evidence at all to support their assertions.

We are of course flattered that they have chosen to make their leaflet in the style of the leaflet we distributed at the end of last year.

Housing Options consultation leaflet

Download Now!370 Downloads

If you would like to make your voice heard and object to the new town idea, we urge you to respond to the Hart District Council consultation about the Local Plan and ask them to think again. We have created a dedicated consultation page and two guides to responding to the consultation that are available on the downloads below. The comments are designed to be cut and pasted into the boxes provided. It will be very powerful if you could edit the comments into your own words. Please do find time to respond to the consultation and play your part in saving our countryside.

Full version:

Responses to Local Plan Consultation

Download Now!440 Downloads

2 Minute version:

Respond to Local Plan Consultation in 2 minutes

Download Now!425 Downloads

11% of pupils at Hart schools are from outside the district

Posted on January 3, 2016August 15, 2023

We have questioned before the need for a new secondary school in Hart District. Interestingly, an FOI request made by a Hart District resident has demonstrated that more than 11% of pupils at Hart Schools come from outside the district. The relevant questions and answers are shown below:

How many children are currently being educated in state schools within Hart District?

13436 pupils in primary and secondary schools

How many of these children live outside Hart District?

1533 pupils

How many children from Hart District are being educated outside the District in State schools?

264 pupils, of which 103 are in special schools, the remainder being in primary and secondary. These figures do not include pupils who may live in Hart but are enrolled in schools outside Hampshire LA.

These figures include 13.6% of Robert Mays and 5% of Calthorpe Park pupils coming from outside the district.

These pupils are in addition to the extra capacity forecast for secondary school pupils up to 2018 and the forecast reduction in birth rate.

Secondary School Capacity in Hart District

It is looking increasingly likely that Hart does not need a new secondary school.

Winchfield new town plan proposes 772 new houses on former landfill site

Posted on January 2, 2016January 2, 2016

SHL 167 former landfill site Beggars Corner, Winchfield, Hart District, Hampshire

One of the sites proposed for the Winchfield new town is a former landfill site. There are 772 new houses proposed for site SHL 167, also known as Beggars Corner. However, a solar farm was recently turned down at this site and the environmental report shows that much of the site was once landfill, with unknown contents.

SHL167 SHLAA Map – Beggars Corner, Winchfield, Hart District, Hampshire

SHL 167 Landfill details Beggars Corner, Winchfield, Hart District, Hampshire

Interestingly, Hart Council’s decision to refuse the solar farm application (ref: 15/01614/FUL) had nothing to do with the landfill issues, but was because the proposed site was:

“within the zone of theoretical visibility and the Odiham Conservation Area. The proposed development would seriously detract from the amenity and consequent recreational value of the nearby public right of ways”.

We find it difficult to believe that a former landfill site is a suitable location for the 772 new houses proposed in the same location. And it is also hard to see how a planning application won’t face the same difficulties as the solar farm application, further undermining the questionable viability of the proposed Hartley Winchook new town.

If you would like to make your voice heard, we urge you to respond to the Hart District Council consultation about the Local Plan and ask them to think again. We have created a dedicated consultation page and two guides to responding to the consultation that are available on the downloads below. The comments are designed to be cut and pasted into the boxes provided. It will be very powerful if you could edit the comments into your own words. Please do find time to respond to the consultation and play your part in saving our countryside.

Full version:

Responses to Local Plan Consultation

Download Now!440 Downloads

2 Minute version:

Respond to Local Plan Consultation in 2 minutes

Download Now!425 Downloads

Does Hart District need a new secondary school?

Posted on December 31, 2015August 15, 2023

As part of the debate about the alleged ‘need’ for a new town at Winchfield, a number of councillors have stated that one of the benefits would be a new secondary school, even though the proposed location was between the M3 and the Mildmay Oaks hospital. But what is the evidence we actually need a new secondary school?

Well, it is patchy at best. Hampshire County Council have only planned school places up to 2018. This shows a 9% surplus of secondary school places:

Secondary School Capacity in Hart District

The same document also forecasts a fall in the birth rate across Hampshire (individual forecasts for Hart District are not available). This will reduce future pressure on secondary school places:

Hampshire Live Birth Forecast

[Update]

Moreover, some 1,533 pupils out of the total 13,436 pupils being educated in Hart District schools come from outside the district. Whereas only 264 pupils (of which 103 are in special schools) from Hart are being educated outside of the district. These figures include 13.6% of Robert Mays and 5% of Calthorpe Park pupils coming from outside the district. Source is an FOI request made to Hampshire County Council.

[/Update]

In communication with Hampshire County Council, I have been told the following about the circumstances that would need to prevail to justify the expense of building an entirely new school:

Again there will be a number of factors to consider before deciding to build a new school to meet increased demand, these including:

being able to demonstrate that the existing school system (net capacity) is unable to reasonably cope with the increased number of children.

That the increased demand is sufficient to warrant a sustainable size school (1FE/210 places as a minimum is desirable) in primary and at secondary a school of 900 (180 per year group).

That where new housing is proposed a suitable size site is secured during the planning process

Moreover, Hart’s own infrastructure requirements list published in October 2014 did not call for a new school:

Hart District Draft Regulation 123 List October 2014

Hart District Draft Regulation 123 Infrastructure List October 2014

So, it is far from clear at all that we need a new secondary school. Even if we did need more places, it is not clear that we would need enough to justify the provision of a new 900-place school.

Full version:

Responses to Local Plan Consultation

Download Now!440 Downloads

2 Minute version:

Respond to Local Plan Consultation in 2 minutes

Download Now!425 Downloads

More brownfield sites come available in Hart District

Posted on December 30, 2015December 30, 2015

Brownfield site: vacant offices at Ancells Farm Business Park, Fleet, Hart District, Hampshire.

Brownfield site: vacant offices near Ancells Farm Business Park, Fleet, Hart District, Hampshire.

Bravehart has been on a tour again, taking photos of newly vacant commercial premises in Hart. It is becoming increasingly obvious that we can meet our housing needs by regenerating these vacant sites.

Brownfield site: vacant offices at Ancells Farm Business Park, Fleet, Hart District, Hampshire.

Vacant offices at Murrell Green, Hart District, Hampshire

Brownfield site: vacant offices at Winkworth Business Park, Hart District, Hampshire.

Bravehart Mascot to We Heart Hart
Bartley Wood Estate in Hook
Bartley Wood Estate in Hook
Derelict Offices on Fleet Road in Fleet, Hampshire
Vacant Office in Ancell's Farm, Fleet, Hampshire
Vacant Block at Ancells Farm, Fleet, Hampshire
Vacant Block at Ancells Farm, Fleet, Hampshire
Development Land in Fleet / Church Crookham, Hart District, Hampshire
Vacant Block in Fleet / Church Crookham, Hart District, Hampshire
Vacant offices in Hook, Hampshire
Vacant block at Ancells Farm, Fleet
Vacant, derelict block in Hook, Hampshire
Vacant Sun Park (Guillemont Park) block near J4A of M3, Hart District, Hampshire
Brownfield site: Hartland Park (Pyestock) near Fleet, Hart District, Hampshire, warehouse development not started
Vacant office in Hook, Hampshire
Vacant office in Hook, Hampshire
Vacant Block at Ancells Farm, Fleet, Hart District, Hampshire
Vacant Office at Ancells Farm, Fleet, Hampshire
Brownfield Land at Pyestock, Hartland Village Hart District, Hampshire.
Development site near Tweseldown, near Fleet/ Church Crookham, Hart District, Hampshire
Brownfield site at Hartland Park, Hartland Village, Pyestock, Hart District, Hampshire
Brownfield site near Crondall, Hart District, Hampshire
Proposals to redevelop Fleet Police station being blocked
Admiral House, Harlington Way, Fleet, Hart District, Hampshire
Future High Streets bid: Fleet Challenges broad and far reaching
Vacant Office Flagship House, Fleet, Hart District, Hampshire
Hart District Council seeks to block brownfield development
Brownfield site: vacant offices at Ancells Farm Business Park, Fleet, Hart District, Hampshire.
Brownfield site: vacant offices at Ancells Farm Business Park, Fleet, Hart District, Hampshire. We Heart Hart. We Love Hart
Brownfield site: vacant offices at Winkworth Business Park, Hart District, Hampshire.
Vacant offices at Murrell Green, Hart District, Hampshire
Brownfield site at Ancells Farm, car park reverting back to heathland.
Brownfield site at Ancells Farm. Hart Council protecting from redevelopment.
Brownfield site at Ancells Farm, Fleet, Hampshire. Hart Council protecting from redevelopment.

Full version:

Responses to Local Plan Consultation

Download Now!440 Downloads

2 Minute version:

Respond to Local Plan Consultation in 2 minutes

Download Now!425 Downloads

Secret Winchfield New Town plan emerges

Posted on December 28, 2015August 15, 2023

Winchfield Consortium Preferred Development Option

A secret Winchfield new town plan has emerged from Hart District Council. The document was produced in February 2015 by the Winchfield Consortium who appear to be promoting land around Murrell Green (as Pearson Strategic) alongside the land promoted by Barratts in Winchfield to create the Hartley Winchook settlement. The document, which is available for download below, contains a number of interesting points that appear to undermine the case for a new settlement at those sites:

First, the total capacity of the proposed ‘settlement’ is 4,883 units (which is somewhat below the minimum size of 5,000 units for new eco-towns) spread across four loosely connected development zones. One would have to be quite generous to term this type of development a new ‘settlement’ as there is no defined centre, or heart.

Second, the infrastructure contribution looks to be very limited, with the document talking of the “majority of the infrastructure will be delivered through S106 agreement”, with the infrastructure being defined as a spine road, a primary school, the secondary school and the local centres. This appears to mean that the Winchfield Consortium/Barratts/Pearson Strategic will contribute only 50.1% of the cost of these specific elements. It is notable that there is no mention of healthcare or sports facilities, no upgrades to the connecting road network and no upgrades to the railway station. And of course, these contributions will do nothing to address the infrastructure deficit in out existing settlements.

Third, it is clear that the Murrell Green sites, which are largely in Hook parish, are required to make the proposal work, and these sites are in the first phase of development (see pages 26-27), contrary to the expectations of the Hook community groups.

Fourth, this is now the third document (others here and here) we have seen that shows a proposed secondary school adjacent to the Mildmay Oaks hospital.

Comparison of development sites to flood risk areas

Finally, comparing Hart’s strategic site assessments to this document shows that much of the proposed development is in an area susceptible to varying degrees of groundwater flooding. We have seen only this week the dangers of building close to flood zones.

The Winchfield Concept document can be found on the download below:

Winchfield Consortium Concept Paper

Download Now!255 Downloads

If these plans concern you, we have created a dedicated consultation page and two guides to responding to the consultation that are available on the downloads below. The comments are designed to be cut and pasted into the boxes provided. It will be very powerful if you could edit the comments into your own words. Please do find time to respond to the consultation and play your part in saving our countryside.

Full version:

Responses to Local Plan Consultation

Download Now!440 Downloads

2 Minute version:

Respond to Local Plan Consultation in 2 minutes

Download Now!425 Downloads

link