Calderdale and Dorset reduce housing target

Posted on December 6, 2017December 6, 2017

Calderdale Reduces Housing Target

Calderdale and Dorset councils have now both reduced their housing targets in the light of the Government consultation on the new way of calculating housing need. This comes hot on the heels of a similar announcement from Leeds City Council.

Despite the Government saying it was starting ‘formal intervention’ against Calderdale for not producing its Local Plan on time, the housing target has been reduced from 17,000 to 13,000. Calderdale Council has said it will be looking at further opportunities on brownfield sites and increasing densities of town centre developments. The full story can be found here.

Meanwhile, Dorset council is looking to reduce the number of homes it is planning for following the publication of the government’s consultation on a standard methodology for objectively assessed need (OAN). This story can be found here (paywall).

With at least three councils now reducing their housing target, surely it is time for Hart to follow suit. As we have reported before, Hart planned to build a ridiculous 10,185 houses in the draft Local Plan. This compares to the 8,022 in the SHMA. The new Government approach would result in 292 dwellings per annum, or 6,132 over the plan period from 2011-2032. This would be likely increased to around 6,500 once we take into account the need to build a few extra for Surrey Heath. The balance left to plan for could easily be accommodated on brownfield sites:

Sun Park (320), from Local Plan para 109
Grove Farm (423), sadly green field but given the go ahead by the inspector at appeal
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

It is time the CCH/Lib Dem coalition dropped their ridiculous new town ideology and worked to protect our valuable green fields. Sadly, there is no sign of them doing so.

Hart Council refuses to answer infrastructure questions

Posted on November 30, 2017August 15, 2023

Last week, we tabled six infrastructure questions to be answered at tonight’s council meeting. We found out last night that five of them won’t be answered for dubious reasons. We think this behaviour form the council is dangerously authoritarian. Our questions (in bold), Hart’s reasoning, and our response (in red) are shown below.

In essence, it seems that the CCH/Lib Dem administration does not want to face facts about school and infrastructure provision. This is frankly pathetic, and does not bode well for the quality of the next version of the Local Plan that is due to be published before Christmas, in preparation for a Cabinet meeting in early January.

Infrastructure Questions – Schools

Q1: Hampshire County Council have recently published a school places plan that shows a surplus of secondary school places up to 2021. There is now extra space for expanding Calthorpe Park. Would a new secondary school be required if the Local Plan was based on:

The 10,185 units in the draft Local Plan?
The 8,022 units in the SHMA?
The 6,132 units (or ~6,500 if Hart needs to build some extra for Surrey Heath) implied by the recent Government consultation on the approach to calculating housing need?

Notwithstanding the fact that the question is badly framed because it seeks to compare a short term School Places Plan with a much longer Local Plan which would run to 2032 (therefore there is no possibility of a genuine comparison), Hampshire County Council has a statutory duty to ensure a sufficiency of school places for Hampshire children. Therefore the hypothetical question set out in the question about the need for a secondary school should be put to Hampshire County Council as Hart District Council is not promoting a new secondary school other than working with Hampshire County Council to secure the long term availability of land for a possible future secondary school.

We are therefore rejecting the question as it relates to a matter for Hampshire County Council and also the answer will not inform any current decisions or scenarios that are being considered by Hart District Council.

The question will not be put to Council on Thursday.

For background information Hampshire County Council made comments in respect of 10,185 units. These can be viewed on the Council’s web site at: https://www.hart.gov.uk/sites/default/files/4_The_Council/Policies_and_published_documents/Planning_policy/Local_Plan/EM143%20-%20Hampshire%20County%20Council.pdf

Given the Government has published new guidance on how to calculate housing need, we think it is perfectly reasonable to ask questions about how that will impact school place planning. We wish that HCC had done pupil forecasting beyond 2021, but they haven’t. We were not comparing HCC’s time horizon with the Local Plan period, merely noting that up to 2021, no new secondary school is required. The purpose of the question was to find out if this would remain the case up to 2032 under a range of housing target scenarios. We think this analysis is crucial to creating a sound Local Plan.

Q2: The school places plan also shows continuing pressure on Fleet schools. Given that there is significant development proposed at Sun Park and Hartland Village, have you considered siting a new secondary school, if required, at Hartland Village or using part of the Bramshot Farm SANG?

Apparently, this question will be answered tomorrow.

Q3: HCC has also published an Infrastructure Statement showing the cost of a 150-pupil expansion of Robert Mays to be £7.6m. Scaling this up, a 9-form entry secondary school at Murrell Green or Winchfield would cost ~£68m. The expected developer funding from an 1,800 unit development with 40% affordable would be around £16m. How do you propose to fund the remaining budget for the school plus necessary the road improvements and community infrastructure?

Hampshire County Council has a statutory duty to ensure a sufficiency of school places for Hampshire children. The scenario presented in Q3 about education costs is based upon speculation that does not reflect true costings (benchmarking costs as published on Hampshire County Council’s web site at http://documents.hants.gov.uk/education/NationalSchoolDeliveryCostBenchmarking-PrimarySecondarySENSc.pdf).

(It will confirm that the scenario of £68m is quite unrealistic)

We have checked this source, and they are quite right, using the median estimate per pupil, a 9-form entry, 1,350 pupil school would cost around £27.3m. However, this is somewhat below Hart’s/HCC’s own assessment in July 2015, of £56-60m. So, we don’t think our £68m estimate is out of the ballpark, given it is based on more recent budget numbers for a school extension. In any event, this is not a reason to refuse to answer the question.

In any event, the question is badly framed. It is not a proper question to put to Council as it is more of a hypothetical and speculative debating point. It starts with a false premise about secondary school cost (£68m for a secondary school that is not being promoted through the emerging Local Plan) and then goes on to make uninformed speculative statements on developer funding and cost without any supporting evidence base. The suggested conclusion is not logical either. The published facts confirm that for Murrell Green for example, the development will, in addition to its own infrastructure costs, deliver 40% affordable homes, £34.5m in S106 contributions, and still leave the developer a healthy and viable surplus.

A new school was certainly being promoted in the draft Local Plan, so we feel the question is entirely reasonable. The estimate of £34.5m S106 contributions for Murrell Green is entirely new to us. We based our calculation as follows. 1,800 units in total, 40% affordable leaves 1,080 units available to make contributions, of around £14,800 per unit. At an average price of £500,000 this would mean arond 3% of revenues, or around 20% of estimated net margin of 15% of selling price. Hart’s estimate of £34.5m assumes £32,000 per unit that sounds on the high side to us.

The next version of the Local Plan at formal Regulation 19 Publication stage will show how much housing we are planning for and where it is going. The accompanying infrastructure plan to support the development proposed will be published alongside it.

The Chairman is, therefore, rejecting the question for the above reasons as we consider that the preparation of an answer to such hypothetical and speculative scenarios would require a disproportionate amount of time, money, and effort in circumstances where the work required to answer the question would not inform any decisions to be made by the Council.

We don’t think it is at all hypothetical to ask about how our infrastructure will be funded. Indeed, James Radley has recently gone on the record calling for an “infrastructure led” Local Plan, which makes our questioning even more relevant.

The question will not be put to Council on Thursday.

Infrastructure Questions – Overall Funding

Q4: The same Infrastructure Statement showed an overall funding gap of £72m for Hart. The figures don’t include healthcare, extra-care places for the elderly nor countryside services. How do you propose to quantify the un-costed items and to close the funding gap?

The question again is badly framed and fundamentally mis-quotes the purpose of Hampshire’s Infrastructure Statement. It also confuses matters that are not infrastructure funding or relevant to funding from new development.

We have not misquoted Hampshire’s document. OUr report about it, and relevant images from the document can be found here. All of the elements in our question are in Hampshire’s statement. It is entirely reasonable to ask how the funding gap will be closed, whether through development or other means.

For the record, the HCC Infrastructure Statement set out the requirements identified to support growth, but it does not attempt to set priorities with regard to funding. The Statement also specifically recognises that local authorities cannot require developers to fund existing deficiencies in infrastructure provision.

We never said it did.

In this regard, there is no expectation that development in Hart or any other District should seek to meet the overall funding gap as identified in the Infrastructure Statement (because much of the infrastructure deficit is historic) but infrastructure funding will be required to mitigate the adverse effects arising from the development itself.

We shall have to agree to disagree. When the Deputy Leader goes on the record calling for an ‘infrastructure led’ Local Plan, then it does set an expectation that our creaking infrastructure will be fixed. The reason why we have an historic funding deficit is continued mismanagement and inability to focus on getting infrastructure right. It seems by refusing to answer questions about it, the council is going to continue in the same vein. Continuing to do the same thing whilst expecting a different result is the definition of stupidity.

The Chairman is, therefore, rejecting the question for the above reasons as we consider that the preparation of an answer to such hypothetical and speculative scenarios would require a disproportionate amount of time, money, and effort in circumstances where the work required to answer the question will would not inform any decisions to be made by the Council.

The question will not be put to Council on Thursday.

Infrastructure Questions – Alternative Scenarios

Q5: What is the expected incremental infrastructure funding requirement and contribution from developers if you were to construct the Local Plan based on:

The 10,185 units in the draft Local Plan?
The 8,022 units in the SHMA?
The 6,132 units (or ~6,500 if Hart needs to build some extra for Surrey Heath) implied by the recent Government consultation on the approach to calculating housing need?

This question is based upon retrospective or hypothetical scenarios that are not being advanced by the Council. These again are debating points and not a proper question to be put to Council. In any event, the next version of the Local Plan at formal Regulation 19 Publication stage will show how much housing we are planning for and where it is going. The accompanying infrastructure plan to support development in the Local Plan will be published alongside it.

These are not hypothetical scenarios. The draft Local Plan called for 10,185 new houses. THe SHMA came up with 8,022. The consequence of the new Government consultation on housing need is 6,132 units. It is perfectly reasonable to expect the council to do some strategic scenario planning to calculate the different costs and contributions to infrastructure that might be expected under each scenario and make decisions accordingly.

The Chairman is therefore, rejecting the question for the above reasons as we consider that the preparation of an answer to such hypothetical and speculative scenarios would require a disproportionate amount of time, money, and effort in circumstances where the work required to answer the question will would not inform any decisions to be made by the Council.

We asked the question because we thought they would have already done this work. It is fundamental to the decision-making process.

The question will not be put to Council on Thursday.

Pathetic.

Q6: Which of the above options would result in the lowest infrastructure funding gap?

This question is based upon hypothetical scenarios that are not being advanced by the Council. These again are debating points and not a proper question to be put to Council. In any event, the next version of the Local Plan at formal Regulation 19 Publication stage will show how much housing we are planning for and where it is going. The accompanying infrastructure plan to support the Local Plan proposals will be published alongside it.

No, it is asking for a conclusion, based on the previous question. I think we all know that we will end up with a lower infrastructure funding gap if we go with a lower housing number. The council has a duty to at the very least consider this and make decisions based on sound data and information. And we as residents should expect no less from our elected representatives.

The Chairman is, therefore, rejecting the question for the above reasons as we consider that the preparation of an answer to such hypothetical and speculative scenarios would require a disproportionate amount of time, money, and effort in circumstances where the work required to answer the question will would not inform any decisions to be made by the Council.

The question will not be put to Council on Thursday.

If Leeds can cut its housing target why can’t Hart?

Posted on November 26, 2017November 26, 2017

Leeds cuts housing target

Leeds City Council has cut its housing target in response to the Government’s new housing need proposals. The new housing targets for Leeds are set out in this article in Inside Housing:

After the announcement of the government’s new methodology for assessing housing need, which closed for consultation two weeks ago, Leeds reviewed the plan and now proposes to leave 33 of the sites in the green belt – roughly 55% of the green belt sites originally included in the plan.

According to the city’s original local assessment of housing need, it needed 3,660 homes a year, but statistics released this week show that it only built 2,824 homes in 2016/17.

According to the government’s new methodology, however, this figure is actually higher than necessary. The government’s new assessment of housing need in Leeds is that 2,649 homes are needed every year, leading the council to scale back its development plans.

This of course begs the obvious question: If Leeds can do it, why can’t Hart?

We believe Hart’s housing target in the forthcoming Local Plan should be cut from the ridiculous 10,185 in the latest draft to a more reasonable 6,500. This would include the 6,132 from the Government consultation and allow a few hundred extra to help out Surrey Heath.

However, it seems we have new town ideologues running the council now, who won’t listen to reason.

Why the 10,185 ridiculous housing target is a bad idea

Posted on November 12, 2017November 11, 2017

Why the 10,185 ridiculous housing target is a bad idea

We challenged a number of groups who did not oppose the ridiculous housing target. This led to one of the accused groups saying we were spreading “negative waves, man”. We think it is very negative to support the 10,185 housing target, but were surprised that many did not understand the full impact. This post aims to explain why the housing target in the draft Hart Local Plan is such a bad idea.

This analysis shows that, given the way Government household projections are calculated, if we continued to follow the 10,185 target in the Local Plan, the compounding effect would mean we end up building over 12,000 houses. However, if we followed the new Government methodology, we would end up building around 8,200 new houses, which could be accommodated on brownfield sites.

The only possible reason to continue with this ridiculous housing target is CCH’s ‘new town at all costs’ ideology that will end up destroying what all most love about living in Hart district.

The detailed analysis is shown below:

How are the Government household projections calculated

The primary driver of household projections is the ONS population forecast.

Methodology for calculating DCLG household projections

The sub-national population forecasts are in turn calculated as follows (emphasis mine):

Data for up to 6 preceding years are used, so for the 2014-based projections trends were based on data from the years 2009 to 2014. The projections based on these trends are constrained to the assumptions made for the principal 2014-based national population projection for England.

….

The civilian population from the previous year is then aged-on, local fertility and mortality rates are applied to calculate projected numbers of births and deaths, and the population is adjusted for internal (movement between areas within England), cross-border (movements between England and the other countries of the UK), and international (movements between England and countries outside of the UK) migration.

Impact of higher migration into Hart from other districts

We know that the SHMA is already planning for more houses than we need, and the SHMA itself acknowledges that these extra people will come from other districts. Hart have then compounded this problem by planning for 2,000 more houses than the SHMA calls for.

The impact of planning for more houses than we need is that inward migration is artificially inflated and then used in later years to inflate the future housing requirement even further. This is compounded each time the population and household projections are made. Remember also that Local Plans are supposed to be reviewed every five years and the revised household forecasts taken into account.

Hart housing target model

We have done some simple modelling to illustrate the impact of this over the plan period. This is illustrated in the data table below:

Hart housing requirement data table

The table shows four baseline numbers for 4 different scenarios:

The raw 2014-based DCLG household projections which give a total of 4,586 new houses over the plan period
The new Government methodology, using their rate of 292 per annum from 2016-2026 over the whole plan period of 2011-2032. This gives a total of 6,132.
The SHMA, which gives a total of 8,022
The ridiculous 10,185 in the draft Local Plan

The first thing to note is the draft Local Plan figure is more than twice the raw household projections. The second point to note is the figures in the new Government methodology already include a 40% ‘market signals’ uplift over the raw household forecasts. This is because Hart’s house prices are very expensive compared to local earnings.

However, these numbers are not the end of the matter, because the Local Plan has to be reviewed every five years. We have modelled what might happen in 2021 and 2026 under two scenarios. When we get to 2021, the DCLG household forecasts will look backwards at the rate of population and household growth from 2016 to 2021 and project this rate of growth forwards. Similarly, in 2026, the forecasts will project forwards the 2021-2026 rate of growth.

Hart housing target using new Government methodology

Hart housing requirement using new Government methodology

Under the first scenario, we have assumed that Hart builds at the rate of 292 per annum from 2016 to 2021. This rate of growth won’t have any impact on house prices, unless there is a significant recession. So, house prices will still be very high compared to earnings. Even James Radley agrees with this. Therefore, the ‘market signals’ upwards adjustment will apply again. This will inflate the required build rate. Similarly, in 2026, the 2021 build rate will then be further adjusted. This will result in a total build in the period 2011-2032 being 8,239. This is slightly more than is in the current SHMA.

Hart housing target using Local Plan figures

Hart housing requirement using Local Plan figures

Under the second scenario, we have started with the 485 build rate in the Local Plan. We then made adjustments in 2021 and 2026 as above. The result is that the total build in the period 2011-2032 will be 12,185 units. Or 2.6 times the baseline household projections.

This is clearly an unsustainable proposition. We must reject the current Local Plan target and use the new Government figures as soon as possible. The only possible reason to continue with this ridiculous housing target is CCH’s ‘new town at all costs’ ideology that will end up destroying what all most love about living in Hart district.

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.

Winchfield new town – EIA requested by developers

Posted on November 5, 2017November 5, 2017

Developers request EIA Assessment of Winchfield New Town

Developers request screening opinion EIA Assessment of Winchfield New Town

Barton Willmore have submitted an application for an Environmental Impact Assessment screening opinion on Winchfield New Town (aka Garden Community). The application can be found here and searching for application number 17/02592/EIA.

As far as we can tell, the proposed site directly abuts the proposed Pale Lane (Elvetham Chase) development. The proposal is for:

2,000 new dwellings
A new secondary school
Up to 2 new primary schools
Children’s nursery
Two local/neighbourhood centres
4 Ha of employment land
Provision of Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace

Reasons to oppose Winchfield New Town

As might be expected, we oppose this new development on number of grounds:

Flood Taplins Farm Lane Winchfield 28 March 2016

The site is not in the draft Local Plan, and to change the Local Plan so significantly would require another round of consultation and more delay, putting at risk other sensitive sites such as Pale Lane and West Hook.
Development of this scale is simply not required. The new Government approach to calculating housing needs would result in 6,132 new houses for Hart compared to the unnecessary and ridiculous 10,185 in the draft Local Plan.
The site is totally unsuitable for such large scale development due to flood risk as we documented here (4 Jan) , here (7 Jan), here (9 March on Station Road) and here (28 March due to #StormKatie). The area of Taplins Farm Lane near the railway bridge flooded three times in 2016 alone.
Lack of road infrastructure
Historic Environment
Bio-diversity
Landscape
Water Quality

We suggest that you add your comments by logging on to Hart’s public access system on this link, and searching for 17/02592/EIA.

Local Plan Consultation responses to be published 6 November

Posted on October 28, 2017October 27, 2017

Local Plan consultation responses are still being hidden by Hart Council

The recent Local Plan consultation responses were being hidden by Hart Council. However, thanks to questions at Thursday’s Council meeting and pressure from an open Freedom of Information request, the results will now be published. Hart Council cabinet member, Graham Cockarill announced that the consultation comments will be released on 6 November 2017.

Local Plan Consultation Responses History

The consultation on the draft Local Plan completed on 9 June 2017. The pro-forma response form said:

All valid comments (electronic or written) and the name(s) of the respondent will be made publically (sic) available. Personal contact details will remain confidential.

In answer to a question made at the council meeting held on 29 June asking when the consultation comments would be made public, the answer was:

We hope to be able to publish this information in the next couple of months

One of Hart’s own Code of Corporate Governance principles calls for “Ensuring openness and comprehensive stakeholder engagement”. More than four months have now elapsed since the close of the consultation, and the consultation responses have not yet been published.

Hart’s website says:

It is our intention to publish all the responses received when we publish a Pre-Submission Local Plan for comments in Winter 2017.

Hart Council to publish Local Plan Consultation responses

However, at September Cabinet, they said that the next round of consultation would not start until January 2018:

It was confirmed that the next stage on the Reg 19 consultation is expected to start in January

We have now submitted a Freedom of Information request to get these comments out in the public domain. The deadline they have set themselves for response is 16 November 2017.

Let’s see if they now stick by their commitments.

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.