Tag Archives: North Warnborough

The village of North Warnborough, Hart District, Hampshire

Proposal for Massive Distribution Centre at Lodge Farm

Posted on
Proposal for Massive Distribution Centre at Lodge Farm

Proposal for Massive Distribution Centre at Lodge Farm

There is a new proposal for a massive distribution centre at Lodge Farm, North Warnborough.  The backers have submitted a “scoping opinion” for an Environmental Impact Assessment and a separate pre-app to Hart Council. The company promoting the scheme is Obsidian Strategic.

The proposal is enormous in scale. Their cover letter calls for 105,000 square metres (or over 1.1m sq ft) of B2/B8 (storage and distribution) floor space over 5 separate warehouses. They also plan to provide space for 200 EV charging points. The overall site is over 32 hectares or 79 acres. The cover letter says the buildings will be 18-20m tall. However, the “Theoretical Visibility Plan” says 15-35m above existing ground level.

[Update 13 Jan 2024]: A dedicated group has been set up to oppose this development. You can visit their website to see their detailed objections here. [/Update]

Proposal Details

The scoping opinion application (Number: 22/01347/EIA ) can be found here.

The pre-app (Number: 22/01355/PREAPP) can be found here.

The scoping opinion was submitted first and at the time of writing had attracted 333 public comments, mostly opposed. Only 3 comments were in favour. The pre-app appears to have slipped under the radar, attracting only 3 public comments, all opposed.

We think that those who have objected to the scoping opinion should also submit their comments on the pre-app. It is difficult to object to a request for an opinion. Better to object to the actual application. However, Hart seem to only allow comments on the scoping opinion and not on the pre-app. This seems very odd to us, but we have sent in an objection direct to [email protected]. Both applications seem to have been delegated to officers to make a decision without the involvement of councillors, another worrying feature of this proposal.

Below we set out our main reasons for objecting to the proposed distribution centre at Lodge Farm.

  1. Fatally flawed Flood Risk assessment glosses over groundwater flooding.
  2. Incomplete Ecology Assessment misses out Basingstoke Canal impact.
  3. Defective Transport Assessment.
  4. No Analysis of Noise and Pollution
  5. Impact on Key Views from the Canal.
  6. Optimistic Economic Assessment overlooks Pyestock/Hartland Park distribution centre was cancelled.
  7. Impact on Food Production.

Each point is covered in more detail below:

Flood Risk at Proposed Distribution Centre at Lodge Farm

As part of the application, they have produced a Flood Risk Assessment. The document covers fluvial, surface water, reservoir, sewer and groundwater flooding.

The site is adjacent to the River Whitewater and part of the site to the South East is deemed at risk of flooding from the river. They have carefully avoided siting any of the warehouses on that part of the site. Roughly the same part of the site is assessed as being susceptible to surface water flooding. They propose to address this issue using a Sustainable Drainage System or SuDS.

However, their assessment of groundwater flooding is superficial and they do not provide a map. Helpfully, Hart has an online map that shows areas subject to groundwater flooding. We have superimposed the site boundary on to that map and it shows that most of the site is subject to groundwater flooding. See the image below.

Distribution Centre at Lodge Farm - Groundwater Flood Risk

Distribution Centre at Lodge Farm – Groundwater Flood Risk

We can certainly add anecdotal evidence to that map. A few years ago we got stuck axle deep in muddy water while attempting to cycle through the adjacent Bartley Heath woods. We recall the fields that the site covers were also flooded at that time.

Incomplete Ecology Assessment

The promoter have also produced an ecology assessment. However, this is incomplete as it fails to address the proximity of the site to the Basingstoke Canal SSSI and conservation area. About a third of the site is within the 500m buffer zone for the canal and all of it within the 1,500m buffer zone. As can be seen in the image below, the site is adjacent to a large number of SINCs and other SSSIs.

Distribution Centre at Lodge Farm - Ecological Constraint of Basingstoke Canal

Distribution Centre at Lodge Farm – Ecological Constraint of Basingstoke Canal

The report also highlights important species that have been found nearby including dormice, otters, water voles, hedgehogs, harvest mice and rare breeds of bats. Indeed some of the trees on site are assessed as being suitable to support roosting bats. They propose keeping those trees and implementing a “sensitive” lighting scheme. However, we remain to be convinced that the noise and pollution from thousands of daily HGV movements will be conducive to supporting bat or any other habitat.

Defective Transport Assessment

Obsidian Strategic have also produced a transport assessment. Unfortunately it is defective in two key respects:

  1. It omits the additional traffic movements from the 1,500-2,400 employees at the site.
  2. It doesn’t cover the impact on roads and junctions in the wider area.

Employee Traffic Movements Omitted

The assessment covers the additional traffic movements from the vehicles using the new centre. It quotes a range of additional movements dependent upon the eventual end use. The range is somewhere between 4,509 and 12,273 additional movements per day. The highest peak morning would be 581 2-way movements. the evening peak could be as high as 810 2-way movements. The report also says that a “high proportion of the vehicles to/from the site will be HGVs”.

Distribution Centre at Lodge Farm HGV movements

Distribution Centre at Lodge Farm HGV movements

The report also covers the additional movements generated by the 200 EV charging stations. They estimate the 200 charging stations could lead to 2,000 additional 2-way movements per day. This gives a total maximum number of 14,273 additional movements per day. We estimate that could be 700 total additional movements in the morning rush hour and nearly 1,000 in the evening busy period.

The economic assessment suggests that the proposal could deliver 1,500-2,400 jobs at the site. However the transport assessment doesn’t seem to take account of the additional movements from the employees. Of course, not all of the employees will work on the same day. But it is reasonable to expect the additional employee movements will be of the order of 1-2,000 per day.

They also talk of potentially providing service facilities to support the EV charging stations. It is possible that non-EV vehicles may stop at the services too, further increasing traffic.

Overall, this is a massive increase in traffic, mostly of heavy vehicles. We hesitate to think what impact it will have on J5 of the M3 and surrounding roads, especially at already busy peak times.

Wider Impact Ignored

The backers have not run a full Traffic Impact Assessment. They assume that the biggest impacts of the proposed development will be on the A287/B3349/Holt Lane roundabout and the Station Road/B3349 roundabout in Hook.

However, they have not really considered the wider potential impacts. They haven’t looked at the additional traffic likely to be generated on the B3349 from the A33 and M4. It is inconceivable that such a large warehouse would not attract traffic from the M4. Nor have they looked at the potential impacts further along the A287, notably the junction with the B3016 to Winchfield and the single carriageway part of the A287 towards Farnham and through Upper Hale.

Surely, this can’t be allowed to go ahead with such a superficial analysis of the traffic impact.

No Analysis of Noise and Pollution

In addition to the big increase in traffic movements, such a massive development is bound to have an impact on noise and pollution levels for the surrounding area. As far as we can tell, Obsidian have not provided any analysis of noise or pollution. We would have particular concern for the residents of Holt Lane, Derby Fields and Mill Lane

Surely, they can’t be allowed to get away with this?

Impact on Key Views

Hart’s Conservation Appraisal of Basingstoke Canal contains a number of key views. One of them is view number 6 looking northwards across the river Whitewater flood plain.

Basingstoke Canal Key Views

Basingstoke Canal Key View Number 6

We can’t imagine how 5 warehouses, each 20m tall will do anything to enhance this view.

Optimistic Economic Assessment for Proposed Distribution Centre at Lodge Farm

They have produced an economic assessment for the proposed development. They do make some good points about additional jobs, extra business rates and an increase in gross value added for the area.

However, they make extensive use of the 2016 Hart, Rushmoor and Surrey Heath Employment Land Review in their assessment. They make the claim that “only two out of the 24 [employment] sites have ‘distribution’ identified as their core use”.  This may well be true.

What they don’t mention is that Pyestock/Hartland Park was removed from the review.  Outline planning permission had been granted in 2005 for a 125,500 sq m distribution centre. The permission was extended in 2012. Even though the nearby road system has been improved to cope with the extra traffic, no takers could be found for the distribution centre. Later the site was sold and is now being redeveloped for housing.

It is difficult to believe their claims for a shortage of distribution sites, when a site of similar size could not find an investor at a time vacancy rates were even lower than today.

South East Logistics Availability from CBRE report

South East Logistics Availability from CBRE report

Note that the vacancy rate data shown above is taken from the CBRE report included in their own application. We conclude that the economic benefits they promise should be taken with a rather large pinch of salt.

Impact on Food Production

It is widely acknowledged that the world is about to endure a food crisis. The Prime Minister has outlined plans to boost UK food production with his “Grow for Britain” strategy. The site of the proposals is currently used for agriculture and food production.

It seems to us, that we should do all we can to protect the nation’s food security and keep growing food on productive fields, rather than concrete over them.

Conclusion on Proposed Distribution Centre at Lodge Farm

We believe that we should oppose this development because of the flood risk, the risk to local ecology, the additional traffic, noise and pollution, impact on the views from Basingstoke Canal and the apparently illusory economic benefits.

 

 

Shapley Heath Major Road Transport Issues

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

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

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

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

Shapley Heath Major Road Issues - Overall Assessment

Shapley Heath Major Road Issues – Overall Assessment

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

Shapley Heath Survey with Suggested Responses
Shapley Heath Survey with Suggested Responses
Download Now!742 Downloads

Eastbound Travel

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

Shapley Heath Major Road Transport Issues: A287

A287

Shapley Heath Major Road Transport Issues: A287

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

M3 Junction

M3 Junction

M3 Junction

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

Hook Roundabouts

Hook Roundabouts

Hook Roundabouts

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

Shapley Heath Major Road Transport Issues: A30 London Road

A30 London Road

A30 London Road

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

Hartley Wintney Junctions

Hartley Wintney Junctions

Hartley Wintney Junctions

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

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

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

Shapley Heath Major Road Transport Issues: A323 Fleet Road

A323 Fleet Road

A323 Fleet Road

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

 

Hart SANG plan to obstruct brownfield development

Posted on
James Radley of CCH pulling the string of Graham Cockarill in Hart SANG plan to obstruct brownfield development

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

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

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

Hart SANG plan

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

Brownfield sites affected

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

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

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

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

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

It also runs contrary to paras 105 and 107:

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

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

Their new approach also goes against policy MG2 that says:

Policy MG2: Previously Developed Land

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

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

Financial impact of Hart SANG plan

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

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

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

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

Financial implications of Hart SANG plan

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

Conclusion

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

image

Local Plan: Brownfield sites protected from redevelopment

Posted on
Brownfield site at Ancells Farm, Fleet, Hampshire. Hart Council protecting from redevelopment.

Brownfield sites protected from redevelopment

The draft Local Plan put forward by Hart Council includes proposals to make brownfield sites protected from redevelopment. We think this proposal is bonkers and should be challenged in the consultation.

There are two different types of protection proposed in the Local Plan. The first identifies “Strategic Employment Areas”:

  • Bartley Wood, Hook
  • Bartley Point, Hook
  • Cody Park, Farnborough
  • Meadows Business Park, Blackwater
  • Osborne Way, Hook
  • Waterfront Business Park, Fleet

These sites are “given the highest protection and safeguarding against loss to non-B-class employment uses by protecting them for B-class uses”. We would agree that some of these sites should be given some protection. But some of the sites, particularly in Hook suffer from high vacancy rates. Indeed, some of the sites have already been converted to domestic use.  Recently the owners of the Virgin Media offices at Bartley Wood have sought advice on whether planning permission would be required to convert some of those buildings to housing. This demonstrates that there is little demand for offices on even the sites of alleged ‘strategic’ importance.

The trouble with this policy is that it cannot stop conversion of offices to apartments. These types of development require no planing permission. Nor do they bring any S106 or CIL contributions to infrastructure. Moreover, they don’t provide an attractive sense of place. By preventing proper redevelopment Hart is cutting off vital infrastructure funding. This makes no sense whatsoever.

The second type of protection is to “Locally Important Employment Areas”:

  • Ancells Business Park, Fleet
  • Blackbushe Business Park
  • Eversley Haulage Yard
  • Eversley Storage
  • Finn’s Business Park, Crondall
  • Fleet Business Park, Church Crookham
  • Grove Farm Barn, Crookham Village
  • Lodge Farm, North Warnborough
  • Murrell Green Business Park
  • Potters Industrial Park, Church Crookham
  • Rawlings Depot, Hook
  • Redfields Business Park, Church Crookham
  • Optrex Business Park, Rotherwick

These sites are offered a lower level of protection, but nevertheless the council is putting in place barriers to redevelopment.

Poor brownfield sites should not be protected from redevelopment

The reason this is a bad policy is that the Local Plan itself, as well as the Employment Land Review (ELR), acknowledges that there is an over-supply of low grade office space (para 125). The ELR states that investment in this stock is unviable (para 6.17):

Commercial agents note that the costs of refurbishing such stock to a good standard attractive to the market typically costs between £50-£60 per sq ft; and that the current over-supply of office accommodation limits investment in refurbishing such stock as low rent levels made such investment unviable.

Owners of these sites have three choices. First they can keep the wasting asset and collect no rent, which is not an attractive commercial proposition. Second, they can convert the offices into flats. By and large, they need no planning permission for this. However, these types of development carry no obligation for S106 or CIL payments to councils. Nor do they deliver a good ‘sense of place’. Finally, they could apply for planning permission to properly redevelop these sites into attractive homes, with a particular focus on affordable homes for the young. These types of development will be high-density, but with a good sense of place, and will attract some funding for infrastructure.

The consequences of this policy will be to discourage redevelopment of sites and either lead to more sites being simply converted or worse, sitting idle as eyesores.

We believe this policy should be reversed, particularly as it is a direct contravention of a statement made by the council leader, who said there were no plans to restrict the development of brownfield sites at a council meeting in September 2016:

https://www.hart.gov.uk/sites/default/files/4_The_Council/Council_meetings/M_Archive/16%2009%20Council.pdf )

Please respond to the Local Plan Consultation

This is our chance to shape the draft Local Plan that is currently our for consultation. Our suggested comments can be found on the link below. Please do download and review them. Please do make amendments into your own words and submit it to [email protected] before the deadline of 5pm on 9th June 2017. All of the Council’s consultation documents can be found here.

Response to the Hart Draft Local Plan Consultation
Response to the Hart Draft Local Plan Consultation
Download Now!330 Downloads

Odiham Parish Council submits its Neighbourhood Plan to Hart Council

Posted on
Odiham High Street, Hart District Hampshire

Odiham High Street, Hampshire

It has been reported in Fleet News and Mail that Odiham Parish Council have approved their draft Neighbourhood Plan and submitted it Hart Council for checking before being sent to an examiner.

Nine possible sites for housing have been included in the plan. Around 60 homes, or 30 homes plus a care home, could be built adjacent to Crownflelds in Odiham.

Other sites earmarked for development are at 4 Western Lane, Odiham (20 homes). Hook Road, North Warnborough (15), Albion Yard and Roughs Cottage, North Warnborough (both 12), Longwood, Odiham (10), Crumplins Yard, Odiham (eight), and land at The Swan Inn, North Warnborough (4). Land at Dunleys Hill in North Warnborough has also been earmarked for homes, subject to agreeing an acceptable minimum to allow for the remainder to be designated as a public open space or Local Green Space.

This amounts to a total of around 141 dwellings, plus Dunleys Hill, which compares to 120 plus 30 at Dunleys Hill for sites identified in an earlier draft of the Neighbourhood plan set out in the recent consultation, plus an additional 264 dwellings on sites put forward for ranking by Hart Council in the New Homes Booklet.

Urban Areas not taking their fair share of homes part 2

Posted on
Proposed percentage increase in dwellings by parish in Hart District New Town

Proposed percentage increase in dwellings by parish in Hart District New Town

Further to our post of yesterday, that showed the impact by parish of following a dispersal strategy, we have now created graphs to show the impact by parish of urban extensions and a new town.  In each case, it shows that the urban areas of the district are not taking their fair share of housing.

This demonstrates to us the need to step up efforts to follow a brownfield strategy and re-find the 1,400 units on brownfield sites that Hart lost after saying that 1,800 units on brownfield land could be readily quantified back in September 2015.

First, let’s take at the new town strategy.  The chart showing the %-age increase in dwellings by parish from 2011 to 2032 if we followed a new town strategy to meet the remaining need from now on is shown above.  The table showing how this has been calculated is shown below:

Proposed percentage increase in dwellings by parish in Hart District New Town Table

Proposed percentage increase in dwellings by parish in Hart District New Town Table

Of course, only 2,000 of the full 5,000 will be delivered before 2032.  We have distributed these across Winchfield (in others) and Hook parish in the same ratio of the overall delivery shown in the SHLAA.  However, the secret plan from the Winchfield Consortium showed the Murrell Green sites would be developed first, so this may understate the impact on Hook.

Now, let’s take a look at the Urban Extension option.  he chart showing the %-age increase in dwellings by parish from 2011 to 2032 if we followed an urban extension strategy to meet the remaining need from now, together with the table showing how this has been calculated are shown below:

[Update: The West of Fleet urban extension is actually in Crookham Village Parish so chart and table updated to show that]

Proposed percentage increase in dwellings by parish in Hart District Urban Extensions 201-2032

Proposed percentage increase in dwellings by parish in Hart District Urban Extensions 201-2032

 

Proposed percentage increase in dwellings by parish in Hart District Urban Extensions Table 2001-2032

Proposed percentage increase in dwellings by parish in Hart District Urban Extensions Table 2001-2032

The urban extensions are at Pale Lane which is split across Elvetham Heath and Hartley Wintney parishes, west of Hook which is in Hook parish and west of Fleet (in Crookham Village Parish].

Finally, let’s re-look at the dispersal strategy, we covered in yesterday’s post:

Proposed percentage increase in dwellings by parish in Hart District - dispersal strategy

Proposed percentage increase in dwellings by parish in Hart District – dispersal strategy

Parish  2011 Census Dwellings 2011-2015 % of total  2011-2015 Number 2011-2015 % increase  Dispersal Proposal 2011-2032 % Increase
Crookham Village 1,630 7% 322 19.8% 177 31%
Elvetham Heath, Fleet, Church Crookham, Ewshot 14,879 45% 2,070 13.9% 466 17%
Hartley Wintney 2,222 10% 460 20.7% 290 34%
Hook 3,111 19% 874 28.1% 204 35%
Odiham/Long Sutton/ South Warnborough 3,142 5% 230 7.3% 583 26%
Yateley/ Blackwater 9,826 11% 506 5.1% 480 10%
Others 2,526 3% 138 5.5% 1,027 46%
Total 37,336 100% 4,600 12.3% 3,227 21%

If you would like to ask Hart to abandon the new town and urban extension ideas 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 updated our 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
Responses to Local Plan Consultation
Download Now!440 Downloads

2 Minute version:

Respond to Local Plan Consultation in 2 minutes
Respond to Local Plan Consultation in 2 minutes
Download Now!424 Downloads

 

Fleet, Elvetham Heath, Crookham Village, Yateley, Blackwater and Ewshot not taking their fair share of housing

Posted on
Proposed percentage increase in dwellings by parish in Hart District

Proposed percentage increase in dwellings by parish in Hart District.

Hart Council has published a lot of data related to the new consultation.  We have taken a look at it, come to the conclusion that the combination of the houses built or permitted since 2011, plus the proposals for dispersal show that our urban areas are not taking their fair share of housing. We think that Hart District should be trying harder to find brownfield sites in Fleet, Yateley and Blackwater to redress the balance and save our countryside (see slider of sites below).

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

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

The chart above shows the %-age increase in dwellings by parish by combining the data shown in the table in para 30 of the main consultation document. This gives the distribution of dwellings built or permitted since 2011:

Split of dwellings built or permitted since 2011 by Parish

Split of dwellings built or permitted since 2011 by Parish

It did look odd to us that the parishes of Elvetham Heath, Fleet, Church Crookham and Ewshot should be grouped together like they were to give the impression that these parishes had already taken a lot of housing.  Of course if you combine a number of parishes together, then it is obvious that their combined contribution is going to be larger than the individual parishes to which they are compared.

So, we started with the census data for the number of dwellings by parish, and combined them together in the same way Hart had, then added on the number of houses implied by the figure above, then added the number of houses proposed by the dispersal option and expressed the result as a %-age increase on the number of dwellings that were there in 2011:

Parish  2011 Census Dwellings 2011-2015 % of total  2011-2015 Number 2011-2015 % increase  Dispersal Proposal 2011-2032 % Increase
Crookham Village 1,630 7% 322 19.8% 177 31%
Elvetham Heath, Fleet, Church Crookham, Ewshot 14,879 45% 2,070 13.9% 466 17%
Hartley Wintney 2,222 10% 460 20.7% 290 34%
Hook 3,111 19% 874 28.1% 204 35%
Odiham/Long Sutton/ South Warnborough 3,142 5% 230 7.3% 583 26%
Yateley/ Blackwater 9,826 11% 506 5.1% 480 10%
Others 2,526 3% 138 5.5% 1,027 46%
Total 37,336 100% 4,600 12.3% 3,227 21%

This shows that the urban areas that include Fleet, Yateley and Blackwater will take the lowest %-age increase in housing. Whereas, places like Hook, Hartley Wintney and the other rural parishes  are going to take massive %-age increases in housing.

Of course, a new town would disproportionately impact Winchfield, but would also lead to 1,800 further houses in Hook and effectively join those parishes to Hartley Wintney, into a giant Hartley WInchook conurbation.  Even the proposed urban extensions will further increase the pressure on Hartley Wintney and Hook.

One of the proposed extensions, the so-called Pale Lane extension (SHL 52) is largely in Hartley Wintney Parish, and another of the extensions is to the west of Hook (SHL 173).

If you would like to ask Hart to abandon the new town and urban extension ideas 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 updated our 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
Responses to Local Plan Consultation
Download Now!440 Downloads

2 Minute version:

Respond to Local Plan Consultation in 2 minutes
Respond to Local Plan Consultation in 2 minutes
Download Now!424 Downloads

 

Whitewater Valley Preservation Society Oppose Winchfield/Hook new town

Posted on
River Whitewater Preservation Society 300x222

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
Responses to Local Plan Consultation
Download Now!440 Downloads

2 Minute version:

Respond to Local Plan Consultation in 2 minutes
Respond to Local Plan Consultation in 2 minutes
Download Now!424 Downloads

 

Which parishes have seen most development Hart District?

Posted on
Elvetham Heath near Fleet, Hampshire

Elvetham Heath near Fleet, Hampshire

There has been much controversy about how much development there has been in Hart District over the past few years, so inspired by a post on the Winchfield Action Group site, we thought we’d take a closer look at the data.

We have compiled a list by parish and ward of the number of dwellings in each area in 2001 and 2011, according to the census and the results are shown in the table below:

ParishWard2001 Census (Dwellings)2011 Census (Dwellings)% Increase
Blackwater & Hawley177218675.4
Bramshill9863-35.7
Church Crookham330933280.6
Crondall6887387.2
Crookham Village156316304.3
Dogmersfield1241283.2
Eversley5996508.5
Ewshot2292352.6
FleetCentral2235256514.8
FleetCourtmoor188819282.1
FleetNorth (inc Elvetham Heath)13602947116.7
FleetPondtail182018984.3
FleetWest185719786.5
Fleet Total91601131623.5
Greywell1041040
Hartley Wintney212622224.5
Heckfield137135-1.5
Hook2718311114.5
Mattingley2322382.6
Odiham & Long Sutton271228806.2
Rotherwick2052123.4
South Warnborough21326223
Winchfield2392587.9
Yateley79427959.2
Total34170373369.3

It should be noted that the data only runs up to 2011 and so misses out most or all of certain developments such as QEB in Church Crookham, Dilly Lane and Rifle Range Farm in Hartley Wintney, Edenbrook and the planned new developments at Hawley Park Farm, new development to the North East of Hook and at Watery Lane.

It does show that the area with the largest increase is what was known as Fleet North, which has now been split after incorporating Elvetham Heath.

It is not really for us to point fingers at different areas of the district.  We will let readers make up their own mind and draw their own conclusions from the data.

If anyone finds an error in any of the data, then please do get in touch and we will make any corrections that are needed.

[Update]

I was asked to provide updated data of the permissions and completions since 2011.  There is no easy way to get this data.  This is a copy of what I received:

The majority of the information (with details of location and parish) on housing completions and permissions for the next few years can be found in the following two published documents :

Appendix 2&3
http://www.hart.gov.uk/sites/default/files/4_The_Council/Policies_and_published_documents/Planning_policy/Hart%205%20yr%20supply%20statement%20at%201st%20October%202015.pdf

And http://www.hart.gov.uk/sites/default/files/4_The_Council/Policies_and_published_documents/Planning_policy/Final%20Dwelling%20Completion%20Figures%202014-15_for%20website.xlsx

It’s regrettable  that you only used figures from the superseded five year land supply (2001-2011) calculation in the Interim Housing Delivery Strategy which was superseded by the Five Year Land Supply Position Statement:
Five Year Housing Land Supply Position Statement, 1st October 2015
2014-15, and the Completions list from Hampshire County Council (1st April 2015) both of which were linked on the  council website “Current planning policy and guidance” referring to the local plan consultation, and also discussed at a council meeting.

I’m glad got said you’d incorporate the latest numbers, and look forward to seeing this. I believe you’ll find disproportionate housing allocation to the North and East of the region whilst minimal development in the centre, West or south.

I can confirm that I used neither of the Housing Land Supply documents to produce the table above.  As the original post says, the source for the above is the census.

The link to the pdf just gives a long list of sites in a form that it is impossible to analyse in any meaningful way, least of all by parish.  The spreadsheet contains a list of starts, completions and losses for 2014-2015, a summary of which by Parish is shown below.

Dwellings started completed and lost in Hart District 2014-15

[/Update]

Lock, stock and two smoking barrels

Posted on

I present without further comment the contents of a letter I sent to Hart District Council yesterday (Friday 20 November 2015). Please do get involved with this consultation and respond to it using our guide on our dedicated page about this consultation here.

Errors, omissions and anomalies in the (Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment) SHLAA and consultation materials

Dear Messrs Daryl Phillips and Stephen Parker,

It is clear that Hart Council has been very busy, publishing a vast array of new material about the SHLAA and the materials to be used in the forthcoming consultation about Housing Options.  I have burned a considerable amount of midnight oil going through those materials in some detail, and I have identified material errors, omissions and anomalies that give me serious cause for concern that I would like to share with you.  The Excel workbook containing the amalgamation of the SHLAA Master List, the NHB data and the SHLAA detail is attached for reference. These fall into several broad categories:

  • Assessment of brownfield site capacity and delivery
  • Deliverable and developable sites not included in the Developing a Local Plan for Hart paper (DLP) nor the New Homes Sites Booklet (NHB)
  • Sites missing from NHB but in the SHLAA
  • Discrepancies between capacity shown in NHB compared to SHLAA detail
  • Sites shown in detailed assessment but not in master list
  • Sites assessed as “not currently developable”, but have been granted planning permission
  • Range of meanings of “not currently developable”
  • Lack of consideration of the economic aspects of housing options 
  1. Assessment of brownfield site capacity and delivery.

There are a number of components to this:

In Hart News in September, and again at cabinet on 1 October, it was said that brownfield capacity had increased to 1,800 units. Now, this has miraculously fallen by 75% to 450 units on some dubious grounds. First, para 41 of the DLP states correctly that years 6-10 need only “developable” sites to be included, beyond that you can be more vague about sites.  We are already 4 years into the plan period and, according to the land supply calculation based on the current inflated SHMA, we have 5.7 years of land supply.  Yet, you are only selecting sites to be included in your calculations that meet the most onerous criterion of being “deliverable”.  As you know I have two FOI requests outstanding with you, the first is inquiring about the disposition of the 750 brownfield units that we were told were achievable back on November 2014, and the second asking for the analysis to support the 1,800 figure.  It seems to me you have inappropriately applied criteria that are too onerous in order to artificially reduce the potential brownfield capacity.  An example of this would be excluding Bramshill, when everyone knows it will be preferable for this site to undergo some sort of redevelopment to stop the Grade 1 listed building decaying and of course the hideous 1970’s accommodation blocks need replacing too.

You have under-stated the brownfield capacity in the DLP, compared to the assessed capacity in the SHLAA documents. This is shown in the table below:

Parish/Ref Sum of Site Assessment Capacity (Low) Sum of Site Assessment Capacity (High) Sum of Brownfield Capacity in Table 1 in DLP doc
Blackwater and Hawley 320 320 300
SHL100 320 320 300
Church Crookham 6 6 8
SHL28 6 6 8
Elvetham Heath 45 45 45
SHL104 45 45 45
Fleet 221 221 83
SHL113 12 12 17
SHL245 8 8 14
SHL320 150 150 20
SHL322 37 37 17
SHL41 6 6 6
SHL42 8 8 9
Grand Total 592 592 436

 

This shows that the capacity shown in the DLP (excluding the 20 units from the sites with planning permission) is some 156 units lower than your own assessments in the SHLAA documents with most of the discrepancy arising from sites SHL320 & 322.  Correcting this would reduce the net requirement by 156 units.

In Figure 2 of the DLP, you assert that 52% of the development completed or where permission has been granted since 2011 is on brownfield sites. Yet at September Council, a question was asked along similar lines and the response was “these figures exclude brownfield sites that require planning permission, because those are not currently split between greenfield and brownfield developments”.  This leads one to conclude either that you have simply made up the figures in the DLP, or you knowingly misled the Council and the public in September.  Which is it?

  1. Deliverable and developable sites not included

[updated with this note]

There’s a large number of deliverable and developable sites that are in the SHLAA but not apparently referred to in the DLP or the NHB.  A list if these is shown in the table below (some of which are in the NHB):

Parish/Ref Sum of NHB Capacity Sum of Site Assessment Capacity (Low) Sum of Site Assessment Capacity (High)
Blackwater and Hawley 320 320
SHL100 320 320
Church Crookham 6 6
SHL28 6 6
Elvetham Heath 45 45
SHL104 45 45
Fleet 25 243 248
SHL113 12 12
SHL245 8 8
SHL275 25 12 17
SHL320 150 150
SHL322 37 37
SHL41 6 6
SHL42 8 8
SHL69 10 10
Hartley Wintney 6 6
SHL95 6 6
Hook 550 550
SHL1&2 550 550
South Warnborough 16 16 16
SHL172 16 16 16
Grand Total 41 1,186 1,191

The land supply document shows a total of 3,878 units built, permitted or deliverable up until 1 April 2015, some 722 below the 4,600 figure you assert in the DLP.  I accept that 340 units from SHL1 & 2 and 10 from SHL69 are included in the land supply.  But the land supply does not include 300 units from Watery Lane.  Netting all of this off, then there are around 5,000 units already accounted for by being completed, permitted or deliverable, which would reduce the current net requirement by ~400 units compared to what you assert in the DLP.

  1. Sites missing from NHB but in the SHLAA

There are 76 units on sites in the SHLAA that are not already on the brownfield list and not strategic sites that do not appear in the NHB.  These are shown in the table below:

Parish/Ref Sum of NHB Capacity Sum of Site Assessment Capacity (Low) Sum of Site Assessment Capacity (High)
Fleet 10 10
SHL69 10 10
Hartley Wintney 6 6
SHL95 6 6
Heckfield 5 5
SHL157 5 5
Mattingley 48 48
SHL160 48 48
Yateley 7 7
SHL18 7 7
Grand Total 76 76

 

This raises the question as to why these sites have not been included in the NHB process either as selected or rejected sites.

 

  1. Discrepancies between capacity in NHB and SHLAA

There are material discrepancies between the site capacities shown in the NHB and those in the SHLAA.  Sometimes the NHB can be above the SHLAA figures and sometimes below.  But overall, adding up all of the sites where the NHB capacity is outside the range of SHLAA lower and upper limits, the NHB shows a lower capacity of some 1,500 units.  This demonstrates that the potential capacity of dispersal sites is being materially under-stated.  These sites are shown in the table in Appendix 1.

 

  1. Sites present in the detail of the SHLAA but not on the master list, and hence not in the NHB, nor mentioned in the DLP.

There are three sites, SHL167, 168 and 169 appear in the detailed assessments of sites, but not on the master list.

  1. Sites shown as “not currently developable” but have in fact been granted planning permission

Sites SHL68 and SHL117 are listed in the detail SHLAA documents as “not currently developable”, but according to the master list of sites have been granted planning permission.

  1. Range of meanings of “not currently developable”

It is clear from the above that the term “not currently developable” is a somewhat elastic phrase that can include sites that are just an administrative stroke of the pen away from deliverability as well as sites that face very significant challenges.  Many sites in the NHB and of course many of the strategic sites face very significant challenges that it is difficult to see how they can be remedied, such as proximity to flood zones, SSSI’s, SINCs, TPOs and the SPA and lack of proximity to existing settlements whereas others are much closer to deliverability.

However, the main materials being circulated for the consultation do not make this distinction clear.

  1. Lack of discussion about economics

The discussion about infrastructure costs in the DLP, with the only mention of costs being the woefully [inadequate] £30m for a new motorway junction – I would think there is little chance of change out of £100m.  But even so this misses out other important infrastructure items like the local road system, new or upgraded railway station, widening of the railway bridges over the local roads, new sewage farm, burying overhead power lines, new schools and new healthcare facilities to name but a few.  Hart currently has a £78m infrastructure funding deficit, Hampshire as a whole £1.9bn and the local NHS is predicted to have a large annual funding deficit.

These issues associated with a new town should be spelled out in detail, and I would think many of the same issues will arise with urban extensions.

It is certainly true that these issues will need to be resolved before the Local Plan can be found sound at examination.

So, what are we to conclude from the above?  First, the discrepancies outlined above, once corrected will make a very material difference to the calculation of how many more houses we need to build on green field sites (if any) and the capacity of each parish to deliver them.  I do not wish to subscribe to conspiracy theories.  However, the sum-total of the above, coupled with the obvious single-minded desire on the part of some members to push through a new town at all costs, leads me to conclude that either the people who created these consultation documents were incompetent or they are by their omission or intent about to mislead the public.   It is also clear that whatever systems and processes you are using to plan, manage, monitor and control the SHLAA are completely inadequate with such large discrepancies between different views of the same data.

It is clear to me that the forthcoming consultation should be postponed until these discrepancies are ironed out.

I would like you to treat this letter as a formal complaint and respond according to LGO guidelines.  I might also add that I will copy this letter to the chairman of the Standards Committee to ask him to set up an investigation and to our Local MP.  You might expect this letter and your response to be presented as evidence in any examination of the Local Plan.

Yours sincerely,

 

cc:           Peter Kern, Chairman of Hart DC Standards Committee

Ranil Jayawardena, MP

 

Appendix 1:

Parish/Ref Sum of NHB Capacity Sum of Site Assessment Capacity (Low) Sum of Site Assessment Capacity (High)
Blackwater and Hawley 15 12 12
SHL21 15 12 12
Bramshill 300 250 250
SHL106 300 250 250
Crondall 112 130 130
SHL159 65 100 100
SHL72 16 18 18
SHL76 31 12 12
Crookham Village 70 100 100
SHL53 70 100 100
Dogmersfield 40 5 10
SHL39 40 5 10
Eversley 91 123 123
SHL127 50 70 70
SHL140 41 53 53
Ewshot 120 187 187
SHL174 63 105 105
SHL355 48 75 75
SHL80 9 7 7
Fleet 706 881 886
SHL102 43 45 45
SHL275 25 12 17
SHL333 500 750 750
SHL50 46 60 60
SHL51 92 14 14
Hartley Wintney 208 287 301
SHL155 117 194 194
SHL216 8 6 6
SHL35 34 3 17
SHL45 25 51 51
SHL91 10 11 11
SHL97 12 10 10
SHL99 2 12 12
Heckfield 169 45 65
SHL109 44 5 5
SHL257 62 20 30
SHL259 63 20 30
Hook 2,090 3,849 3,849
SHL123 13 20 20
SHL3 543 1,000 1,000
SHL4 458 1,800 1,800
SHL5 1,065 1,000 1,000
SHL6 11 29 29
Long Sutton 63 65 65
SHL296 6 5 5
SHL335 34 35 35
SHL336 23 25 25
Mattingley 130 40 60
SHL239 55 20 30
SHL240 75 20 30
Odiham 3,308 2,894 2,904
SHL108 387 160 160
SHL110 2,160 1,900 1,900
SHL138 204 261 261
SHL228 48 75 75
SHL29 10 6 6
SHL328 25 30 30
SHL329 44 30 30
SHL57 47 75 75
SHL59 115 175 175
SHL60 11 12 12
SHL65 36 50 50
SHL67 53 80 80
SHL78 168 40 50
Rotherwick 130 200 200
SHL86 130 200 200
South Warnborough 36 20 25
SHL70 7 5 5
SHL75 29 15 20
Winchfield 119 32 42
SHL114 11 12 12
SHL262 108 20 30
Yateley 9 60 60
SHL13 0 8 8
SHL149 0 10 10
SHL17 0 30 30
SHL303 9 12 12
Grand Total 7,716 9,180 9,269

See more at our consultation page:

link