If SHMA adjustments were applied nationally we would be building too many houses

Posted on October 10, 2015October 10, 2015

Figure 1: Hart Surrey Heath and Rushmoor SHMA adjustments applied at national level

Evidence presented at the examination of the Vale of the White Horse Local Plan has demonstrated that if the adjustments made to the baseline DCLG housing projections were applied on a national basis, they would increase the national output of housing to double the DCLG estimate of what is needed and triple the recent output of housing.

Applying a similar approach to the Hart, Rushmoor and Surrey Heath SHMA shows that on a national basis, we would be delivering 54% more housing than we need on a national basis, see Figure 1 above. Surely it cannot be right that we are being asked to build at a rate that would lead to a surplus of housing.

Figure 2: England housing delivery actuals and projected 1946-2031

The baseline DCLG projections for the combination of Hart, Surrey Heath and Rushmoor call for 790 houses per annum (SHMA Figure 7.3). This equates to the DCLG projection of 220,000 houses per annum nationally (see figure 2 above). This compares to recent performance of around 150,000 houses per annum.

The final SHMA, after taking into account past under-delivery, amount to a total of 24,413 houses (see table below), or an increase of 54.6% over the DCLG baseline figures. The duty to cooperate might mean that Hart District has to build more houses than either Surrey Heath or Rushmoor as part of our Local Plan.

	Hart District	Surrey Heath Borough	Rushmoor Borough	Total Housing Market Area
Original SHMA	7,534	7,057	9,822	24,413
Proposed Transfers	3,022	(1,400)	(1,622)	0
New Total	10,556	5,657	8,200	24,413

If the same 54.6% uplift were applied to the DCLG projection, we would be building over 340,000 houses per annum nationally, more than double recent performance.

In recent years Hart has built more houses than it has been required to do and built at a rate above regional and national averages (SHMA Table 5.11). It is beginning to look like the total of the local SHMAs are much larger than the overall requirement as defined by the DCLG. Surely it cannot be right that we are being asked to build at rate more than 50% higher than the DCLG suggests we need to meet overall demand.

Latest jobs growth figures well short of SHMA estimates

Posted on October 8, 2015October 8, 2015

Hart Surrey Heath and Rushmoor Jobs Growth rates 1998 to 2013 compared to SHMA

The Government have released the revised BRES job numbers for 2013 and these show that the jobs growth rate we have achieved since the recession ended in 2009 is still much lower than the jobs growth rate assumed in the SHMA for the period 2011-2031, during which period it is inevitable we will experience at least one more recession. This comes at a time when the UK is creating more jobs than the rest of the EU put together, so can hardly be described as a normal set of circumstances.

The flawed jobs growth rate in the SHMA adds 5,100 extra houses to to the overall housing allocation to the combined Housing Market Area of Hart, Surrey Heath and Rushmoor. The impact of this is that it pushes up Hart’s own allocation and forces Surrey Heath and Rushmoor to ask Hart to become a sink for 3,000 extra houses for them. Furthermore, these jobs forecasts lead to over-estimates of the amount of employment land we need and so constrains the amount of land that might be made available for housing.

Hart becomes Housing Sink for Surrey Heath and Rushmor

Hart becomes sink for 3,100 houses from Surrey Heath and Rushmoor

If these errors in the SHMA growth rate were corrected the threat from Surrey Heath and Rushmoor would evaporate and Hart’s own housing allocation for the Local Plan would come down from 7,534 to around 6,750, which would definitely mean the remaining requirement could be made from brownfield sites alone.

How long before the penny drops with Hart District Council and the other Hampshire boroughs that they need to revise the SHMA to a more realistic number?

Ranil says no to Winchfield new town and yes to brownfield

Posted on October 6, 2015October 15, 2015

Ranil Jayawardena says no to Winchfield new town and yes to brownfield development

In a very welcome move, local MP for Hampshire North East, Ranil Jayawardena has come down strongly against proposed large scale green field developments such as Winchfield New Town, and asked Hart Council to produce a register of brownfield sites and be more active in using Compulsory Purchase Orders (CPOs) on brownfield sites that are suitable for housing.

In a week where Conservative MP’s have been spat at on the streets of Manchester, I think the only risk to Ranil after publishing his article is that he will be showered with kisses from his local constituents.

In response to questions from his constituents, Ranil has set out his views on planning and development. Ranil has also set up a petition saying brownfield development must be more strongly prioritised by Local Planning Authorities and Neighbourhood Plans must continue to be respected, both in the absence of Local Plans and by Local Planning Authorities when devising Local Plans.

Sign Ranil's Petition

The key passage from Ranil’s article is re-produced below:

I believe unused and redundant commercial buildings should be brought forward for regeneration before any more greenfield sites are allocated anywhere in North East Hampshire. That includes Grove Farm, Hop Garden, Winchfield, the Urnfield – and any other greenfield site for that matter – unless a locally-led Neighbourhood Plan wants to build homes to meet local needs.

I’ll go further. I’m against these developments – indeed, this sort of large-scale top-down volume-led development generally – as I do not believe they are necessary to deliver the housing we need in our area. Looking at Hart District specifically for a moment, as the largest part of the constituency, I believe that the local housing demand can be met on brownfield sites. This has the massive advantage of, often, improving an area; instead of vacant office buildings on Fleet Road, for instance, why not have modern apartments for young professionals who can’t otherwise buy a home in our area?

In July 2015, the Chancellor set out in the budget that, to reinforce our commitment to making best use of brownfield land, legislation will grant permission in principle for housing on suitable sites identified in the new statutory brownfield register. (Interested folk might recall that Hart District Council was previously asked to create a register, but chose not to. There will now be one.) Brownfield redevelopment will also be supported by strengthened advice for authorities on the release of land earmarked for employment purposes where it is no longer needed. Whatever your politics, I hope you’d agree that the Government – while still protecting the rights of local Councils to determine the future of their own area – is being clearer than ever that brownfield land must be prioritised.

I’d even suggest, perhaps unusually for a Conservative, that Councils should be more active in their use of Compulsory Purchase Orders (CPOs) where brownfield sites exist and it is clear that it would be a good site for housing, but the landowner is standing in the way of development, or the site as a whole is currently in multiple ownership. Not only would this deliver properly thought through regeneration, maximising the potential of brownfield land but, done right, it would also be good for local taxpayers, as the receipts from such a scheme on the eventual sale or rental of properties would help to keep Council Tax low in future…

Of course, the National Planning Policy Framework has always made clear that “planning policies and decisions should encourage the effective use of land by re-using land that has been previously developed (brownfield land)” and that local Councils “may continue to consider the case for setting a locally appropriate target for the use of brownfield land”. I’ve spoken with Government Ministers and others about this policy, which applies across the country. I was pleased that the Prime Minister included a £1billion ‘brownfield regeneration fund’ in the Conservative Party manifesto, which will help make more brownfield regeneration happen, while now requiring Councils to bring forward 90% of suitable brownfield sites for housing by 2020, both of which will help protect our countryside.

Needless to say, We Heart Hart is delighted by Ranil’s article as it reiterates many of the points we have been making for some time about brownfield capacity and the need to establish a proper database of brownfield sites as part of a different approach to the local plan.

It remains to be seen whether Hart District Council’s Conservative administration will heed the advice of its local Conservative MP and the express wishes of the Conservative Government when preparing the forthcoming coming consultation paper on housing options for the Local Plan.

Of course, Ranil’s intervention also increases the pressure on Rushmoor Borough Council who are needlessly protecting 96 hectares of brownfield land when there is a massive surplus of employment land whilst at the same time asking Hart to build 1,600 houses for them.

Hart Council rejects opinion of 2,130 people who signed the We Heart Hart petition

Posted on October 2, 2015October 2, 2015

Hart in Heart of Hart, Winchfield, Hart District, Hampshire

Hart in the Heart of Hart, Winchfield, Hampshire

We went to the Cabinet meeting last night armed with a draft of Hart Council’s response to the petition and unfortunately, the council rejected the three main elements of petition to reduce the overall housing allocation for Hart and our demand that the remaining housing allocation is met from brownfield sites alone. The council also refused to stop planning to build a new town that would act as a sink for 3,100 houses from Rushmoor and Surrey Heath.

It is outrageous that Hart Council should dismiss the opinion of 2,130 people. Hart’s own consultation only received 750 replies and only 202 of those expressed a preference for a new town. Given the earlier failure of the Local Plan at inspection, it is simply astonishing that Hart should be basing their planning policy on a “guesstimate” of brownfield capacity. It is unbelievable that they refuse to set up a proper register of brownfield sites and can’t be bothered to track which brownfield sites have been granted planning permission.

We have produced a press release about this that can be downloaded from the link below:

We Heart Hart Press Release 2 October 2015

Download Now!363 Downloads

Hart becomes sink for 3,100 houses from Surrey Heath and Rushmoor

On a more positive note, the council did say they would consider the vision we put forwards and will include a new vision in the forthcoming consultation. The council did also say they would try to accommodate the needs of the elderly, but implied they could only do so if they built a new town at Winchfield. It is clear the council has no means of measuring its performance against the SHMA requirement to build 2,500 specialist units for the elderly.

The debate at council raised a number of interesting points, but Cabinet did not resolve to alter anything in the draft response they had put forward and clearly had not fully considered our suggested response to the petition. In effect, the council are ignoring the views of 2,130 people on several of the key issues raised by the petition. We will have to mobilise our supporters to put forward their views in the forthcoming consultation.

The detail of the discussion covered a number of topics:

Challenging the SHMA. The council did concede that they would need to re-visit the SHMA in due course and update the employment forecasts. We did point out that the jobs forecasts assume a growth rate nearly double that we achieved in the period 1998-2012, and that Cambridge employment forecasts for the South East used in a challenge to the Vale of White Horse Local Plan are similar to historic average growth rates we beleive should be used in the SHMA.

The council refused to undertake a study to quantify the value of Hart’s environment and ecology. This is a blow as it could enable the council to use environmental constraints as an argument for not building the full housing allocation.

Brownfield sites. Despite putting evidence in front of council that there is brownfield capacity for at least 2,438 dwellings and possibly over 3,600 units, Hart is still sticking by its current “guesstimate” of only 1,800 units on brownfield sites. It is quite astonishing that Hart is basing its planning policy on a “guesstimate”. Last week Hart Council did admit that there was a residual requirement of only 2,900 houses. It is clear to us, that meeting the the remaining need from brownfield only is well within reach.

Some councillors were concerned about our proposed densities in urban areas until we pointed out that they have already approved and are delivering developments at even higher densities. Other concerns raised were about using up too much employment land until we pointed out that there’s over 500,000 sq m of vacant employment land across the housing market area, and we are in no danger of running out any time soon.

Overall I am afraid I got the impression that they listened, but they had already made their mind up that a new town was the answer to the Local Plan no matter what contrary evidence was put to them.

We must gird our loins for a long campaign to fight against these proposals.

Power over the Hart Local Plan concentrated in urban councillors

Posted on October 2, 2015October 2, 2015

Hart District Council Offices

It has emerged from answers to Winchfield Action Group’s questions at last week’s Hart District Council meeting that the Hart Local Plan Steering Group (LPSG) is made up largely of urban councillors and all of them voted in favour of keeping Winchfield as the only new settlement option for testing back in November 2014. The full Q&A can be found here. The question and answer about the composition of the LPSG is shown below:

Question 2

Could the Council confirm who are the members of the core strategy team in HDC, both elected and officers, who are formulating the Local Plan and their respective responsibilities?

SP response

Local Plan Steering Group comprises:

Cabinet Member for Planning (Chairman) Stephen Parker (Con)

The Leader of Council As above

Cabinet Member for Housing Stephen Gorys (Con)

Chairman of Planning Committee Simon Ambler (CCH)

Political Group Leaders David Neighbour (Lib Dem)

James Radley (CCH)

Officers:

Joint Chief Executive – Daryl Phillips – Project Sponsor

Planning Policy Manager – Daniel Hawes, (supported by a Principal Planning Policy Officer and a Planning Technician) – responsible for delivery of [the] local plan

All of the councillors above, except for Stephen Gorys (Odiham, Hampshire ward), represent urban areas in the district. It is also worth noting that Stephen Parker is council leader, the cabinet member for planning and leader of the Conservative group and so takes 3 of the 7 available positions on the LPSG as just one person.

This looks to us like an unhealthy concentration of power in too few hands and the members of the LPSG cannot be said to be representative of the whole of Hart. Moreover, the Local Plan project is massively behind schedule with more delays announced only last week.

Surely, it is time for the composition of the group to change to bring in more fresh ideas, project management experience and achieve a better balance between urban and rural councillors.

Hart District Council ‘brownfield first’ commitment in tatters

Posted on October 1, 2015October 1, 2015

Vacant brownfield Block at Ancells Farm, Fleet, Hart District, Hampshire

Vacant Office at Ancells Farm, Fleet, Hampshire

In an astonishing admission, Hart Council have said that they do not track planning applications for brownfield site developments separately to green field developments. This comes on top of their insistence that they do not need to build a register of brownfield sites in the district and their inadequate classification of sites in the SHLAA.

Taken together, these make a mockery of the council’s supposed commitment to a ‘brownfield first’ strategy.

The admission came in answers to questions put to the council by Winchfield Action Group at the council meeting last week on 24 September. The full Q&A can be found here. The brownfield topic is quoted below in full (my emphasis added):

Question 8

How many units have been applied for or granted or identified, and their locations and categories, as possible conversions or developments on brownfield sites since October 2014?

SP response

With regards solely to conversions allowed through permitted development rights:

At 14^th September 2015, there were 258 dwellings approved through the permitted development/prior approval notice procedure the bulk of which are conversions from offices to residential. 5 units were completed in the year 1^st April 2014 to 31^st March 2015. This information is published on Hart’s website.

These figures exclude brownfield sites that require planning permission, because those are not currently split between greenfield and brownfield developments. We do need to be mindful that as yet the PDR regime closes next May, and it is now way too late for a developer complete any such conversion if not already started. You will however note the brownfield provisions on today’s council agenda, which we will be discussion later this evening.

You will note that the question was not properly answered. It was designed to get the council to confirm the figures we have put together regarding the available capacity on brownfield sites.

However, in better news, it emerged that there are only 2,900 dwellings left to grant permission for up to 2032. This almost certainly means that there is now more brownfield capacity than the remaining housing target in the Hart Local Plan.

Question 9

Of the 7534 housing target set out in the SHMA, what is the residual requirement left that need to be granted planning permission?

SP response

At 14^th September 2015 the residual requirement to 2032 was approximately 2,900 dwellings needed to meet Hart’s housing needs as identified in the December 2014 SHMA, although we will be required to refresh this document before we go to Examination. However I should point out that this figure does not allow for any unmet need arising in Rushmoor and Surrey Heath that we may have to meet under the provisions of the Duty to Cooperate. Rushmoor currently say they have a 1,600 dwelling shortfall although as I have said previously, Hart has challenged that figure

It is clear that we don’t need a new town in Winchfield, Hampshire or anywhere else.

Local Liberal Democrats split on Winchfield New Town

Posted on October 1, 2015October 2, 2015

Lib Dem Focus Sept 2015 1 of 2

Despite the article above by Liberal Democrat Hampshire County Councillor, David Simpson, in their local newsletter, it has emerged that the local Liberal Democrats are split on the issue of a Winchfield New town.

Mr, Simpson opposed a new town at Winchfield in the strongest possible terms. However, Hart District councillor, Graham Cockarill, in an email to another Hart resident has supported the concept of a new town and come out in favour of Winchfield as his preferred option saying, “it does appear to me that, again on balance, Winchfield is the better option”.

Interestingly, at the council meeting last week, Liberal Democrat party leader on Hart District Council, Dave Neighbour denied all knowledge of David Simpson’s article when asked about it by We Heart Hart. Since then neither he nor any other of the Lib Dem councillors we emailed with the article have replied to our question asking if they supported David Simpson’s position.

It looks like a split is opening up in the Lib Dems. It seems quite astonishing that many of the councillors pictured in the newsletter don’t actually agree with the main article published there.

Lib Dem Focus Sept 2015 2 of 2

Hartley Wintney councillors furious over Hart Council news ‘propaganda’

Posted on September 30, 2015October 3, 2015

Fury over council news propaganda

Councillors for Hartley Wintney ward, Anne Crampton, Andrew Renshaw and Tim Southern have expressed their fury to the Fleet News and Mail about the way Hart District Council expressed a preference for a new town in Winchfield in the latest edition of Hart News, even though the testing process is not yet complete.

Hart Council said in their article about the Local Plan:

[Winchfield] has an existing station, and it is relatively free of environmental contraints. It is also close to the motorway which could also possibly allow for a new junction onto the M3.

Clearly major infrastructure improvements would be needed and it would be a large scale project that would fundamentally change that part of Hart

The councillors think that edition of Hart News should be pulped because they think it inappropriate for the council to be putting out only one side of the story when they are preparing to engage the public in another round of consultation about housing options.

Not only that, Hart have done very little work to quantify the infrastructure costs of such a development, but our estimate of £300m, taken together with the existing funding deficit of £78m would mean a new town is simply undeliverable.

This comes hot on the heels of the article by Hampshire County Councillor David Simpson in the local Liberal Democrat newsletter where he says “Winchfield is the wrong place for major development”

Hart Council cabinet is due to debate their response to the We Heart Hart petition tomorrow night at Hart Offices at 7pm. Please do come along and support us. Facebook invitation here.

Large image of the article here.

UPDATE: Same story now covered in GetHampshire

Hart District Council Local Plan slips a further 3 months in 3 days

Posted on September 25, 2015August 15, 2023

In a quite astonishing development, Hart Council has announced a further slippage of at least 3 months in the Local Plan project just three days after publishing a revised schedule in Hart News, which itself pushed the schedule back a year.

The further revised schedule is published in papers due to be discussed at Cabinet next week.

This now sets out the following timetable (timetable and slippage compared to that announced in Hart News in brackets).

Refined Housing Options Paper* – Winter 2015 (Winter 2015, no change)

Full Draft Local Plan* – Summer 2016 (Spring 2016, 3 months slippage)

Resubmission Plan* – Autumn 2016 (late Summer 2016, 3 months slippage)

Submit to Secretary of State – Winter 2016 (Autumn 2016, 3 months slippage)

Examination – Spring 2017 (Winter 2016, 3 months slippage)

Adoption – Summer 2017 (Spring 2017, 3 months slippage)

There is a saying that keeping doing the same thing in the same way and expecting a different result is the definition of insanity. Surely, some councillors can see that this project is off the rails and the management needs to change.

The image of the timetable announced in Hart News is shown below:

Housing pressure from neighbours may affect Hart. Hart Local Plan timetable. Hart slips Local Plan timetable

Hart slips Local Plan timetable again

[Update] Plan slips further in March 2016

Hart Council Local Plan timetable slips two years within two years

Posted on September 25, 2015September 25, 2015

Hart Council refuse to acknowledge failings in the Local Plan

Hart Council has announced in Hart News that it has slipped the Local Plan timetable yet again. Given the number of times this timetable has been amended we have to question the credibility of their project management. Hart Council is running the risk of the Government stepping in and writing the plan for them.

Hart slips Local Plan timetable again in Hart News (Hampshire)

The revised timetable, shown in the image above is:

Refined Housing Options Paper* – Winter 2015

Full Draft Local Plan* – Spring 2016

Resubmission Plan* – late Summer 2016

Submit to Secretary of State – Autumn 2016

Examination – Winter 2016

Adoption – Spring 2017

* = documents subject to public consultation.

This is the latest in a long line of delays:

In October, 2013, when the earlier version of the plan was rejected by the planning inspector, the council said:

“Cllr Parker said that while the council operates under the interim strategy, it is working on an updated Local Plan.

“We expect to put this out for consultation early next year, and would look to submit it to an inspector next autumn [2014],” he added.”

In April 2014, the plan was to have a resubmission plan ready for consultation in October 2015.

In February 2015, the plan was to have a resubmission plan ready for Autumn 2015.

As late as April this year, the council was insisting that they were still on track to deliver a Resubmission Plan by Autumn 2015, despite our warnings that the project was slipping.

We are now in a position where the Local Plan has slipped two years within two years. It is difficult to come to a conclusion other than the project management is woeful and we run the risk of the Local Plan being taken out of local hands and handed to Government Inspectors. One has to ask why more councillors are not holding the Executive and the Officers to account and demanding a change of approach, such as our suggested 5-point plan.