City and Country have released revised proposals for the Bramshill site they acquired in 2015. This is the former site of the Police College. They applied for planning permission some time ago. They eventually went to appeal. The appeal judgement was complex, but resulted in them not going ahead with the development.
Now, they have separated their proposals into two parts:
Refurbishment of the Grade I listed Bramshill House, to convert it into a single dwelling. Planning permission has already been granted for this. This is already on the market alongside 92 acres of gardens and various outbuildings.
Redevelopment of the rest of the site, to include 230 family homes and a care village consisting of assisted living dwellings and a residential care home. This will include getting rid of the old accommodation blocks associated with the Police College.
The developers are suggesting that these new proposals are more sympathetic to the setting of Bramshill House. They also claim these new proposals will result in fewer traffic movements, within the limits set by Hampshire County Council. They are proposing some road improvements:
Improvements to the geometry and visibility at the site access junction of Reading Drive South and Plough Lane.
A safety scheme at the off-site junction of Bramshill Road/Bracknell Lane, converting the double priority junction into a single priority T-junction resulting in significant safety benefits.
Improvements to the geometry and visibility at the off-site junction of Reading Drive South and Bramshill Road.
They held an exhibition on Thursday 16th January. The materials presented there are available on the City and Country website.
The main brochure can be downloaded below.
We think that it is important that the main Bramshill House is preserved for posterity and some development of the rest of the site is inevitable. However, we think 230 houses plus care home is still probably too much development for this site. We remain to be convinced that the proposed road improvements will be enough to mitigate the increased traffic. Let’s see how this develops.
Hart Council has committed to spending the £150K Government funding it received on Shapley Heath. It has also said that it will seek a further £500K of funding from next years’ budget. By way of context, Hart’s annual spending budget is around £10m. So, this £500K represents about 5% of annual expenditure.
However, Hart’s finances are coming under increasing pressure.
Second, the medium term outlook is deteriorating. It was described in a recent Cabinet paper as a “perfect storm of detrimental changes to funding”.
Hart District Council perfect Storm of detrimental changes to funding
This is caused by a number of issues such as the New Homes bonus being phased out and a reduction in business rates income. They are reliant upon risky and uncertain income from their commercial activities to balance the books from 2021/22.
This is illustrated in the following excerpt from the Cabinet paper:
Shapley Heath too expensive for Hart’s stretched finances
The medium term forecast is reliant upon making more than £500K profit in FY21/22 from commercial activities. This rises to over £1m in the following year.
Hart District Council reliant on commercial income from 2021/22
It seems that the actual weather is stubbornly refusing to comply with the flood assessment carried out for Hart Council as part of its evidence base for the Local Plan. The sustainability assessment claimed:
There was some evidence of wet ground at the far east of SHL183, but “no other obvious evidence of current or past flooding”.
The detailed assessment also said there’s only a one in 30 year chance of surface water flooding.
Taplins Farm Lane and Bagwell Lane are in the middle of the proposed Shapley Heath development. The proposal to spend £150-650K of taxpayer funds does not include any work to assess or mitigate flood risk.
Shapley Heath work-plan doesn’t look at flood risk
Let us hope for a more sensible approach prevails. We are working on a revision to the Hart Local Plan. These will mean we avoid a new settlement anywhere in Hart, and won’t need large urban extensions either to at least 2041. Plus we get improved facilities in our urban centres.
It is proposed to develop 15,000 new houses on land surrounding Grazeley village. This site lies just to the south of the M4 and west of the A33, adjacent to AWE Burghfield. The councils have already carried out a master-planning exercise. The plans include a new railway station, primary and secondary schools, employment buildings and outdoor space. Incidentally, this master-plan work looks far higher quality than anything so far produced for Winchfield New Town/Shapley Heath.
The press release from Wokingham Council says the development will require £750m of infrastructure spending for 15,000 houses. This equates to £50,000 per house. Interestingly, the master-plan evaluated 5,000, 10,000 and 15,000 house schemes. Only the 15,000 house scenario produced a viable outcome. The viability assessment for Shapley Heath included only £164m of infrastructure funding for 5,300 houses or only £31,000 per house. Grazeley is proposing around 61% more spending per dwelling than Shapley Heath. It seems Hart Council’s claims of massive infrastructure spending for Shapley Heath are just a pipe-dream.
The Grazeley site is close to the northern boundary of Hart District. Of course the extra traffic from extra 15,000 houses on our doorstep will have a big impact on our district. But the bigger question is, why do we need Shapley Heath Garden Village, if there is to be a much bigger new town just a few miles away?
All the reasons why Shapley Heath Garden Village is a bad idea
An outline of an alternative approach to long term planning in Hart
The master page containing all of these posts can be found here. A link is also provided in the navigation at the top of the page. Please do keep an eye out for further updates and share them with your friends.
Building Shapley Heath will increases Hart’s housing target. This is quite a complex argument, but please bear with us. First let’s dispel some myths.
The CCH/Lib Dem coalition claim that Hart’s housing target is bound to increase, so we must plan for Shapley Heath. But nothing could be further from the truth.
The Hart Local Plan is being examined under the old SHMA method, plus we have been asked to build 731 extra houses for Surrey Heath. This results in an average 423 dwellings per annum (dpa) over the plan period to 2032 (see main modification 19). The SHMA is the Strategic Housing Market Assessment, where the councils concerned pay consultants to make up numbers about our housing need. If we had been assessed under the new standard method, the housing need for Hart would have been 282 dpa.
In various documents Hart has suggested it will pursue an early review of the Local Plan once adopted. This early review will be carried out using the standard method. According to the latest ONS projections, this will see our annual average requirement fall to around 251 dpa for the period 2020-2041.
Hart District Build Requirements under various scenarios
In summary, all the evidence points to Hart’s housing need falling, not increasing. Having dispelled the Lib Dem/CCH myth, let’s have a look at the impact of their proposals. In fact, building Shapley Heath will bake in over-building for decades to come.
Shapley Heath Garden Village impact on housing need
In recent years, we have built at a faster rate than is required by the Local Plan. This is the result of ‘planning by appeal’, where we have had a number of large developments forced upon us. This is forecast to continue out to around 2023. The Shapley Heath housing trajectory submitted to the Government adds to the build rate, starting in 2023.
Shapley Heath/Winchfield New Town Housing trajectory
However, under the standard method, our requirement falls to 251 dpa over the period 2020-2041. The steady-state build rate for Shapley Heath is 360 dpa, far higher than the requirement. If we add Shapley Heath (at only 5,000 total houses) to the existing Local Plan commitments, and compare it to the 2020-2041 requirement, then we will end up building 3,225 extra unnecessary houses out to 2039. If Shapley Heath expands to 10,000 houses, then this excess build rate will continue for many more years.
Shapley Heath Garden Village Excess Building
But it gets worse. The housing target is derived from population and household projections. The population projections are based upon trends from the previous ten years extrapolated forwards. If we continue to build more than we need to, this over-build is baked into our future housing targets, affecting us for decades to come. This will add extra pressure to build even more settlements or urban extensions such as Rye Common or West of Hook. So we must try and build at a steady rate to match no more than our annual housing target.
In conclusion, the rationale for investigating Shapley Heath is built on (at best) a misconception about future housing targets. Continuing to build this monstrosity will add even more pressure to build even more. It is a reckless policy that must be stopped.
Let’s hold our politicians to their word:
If the Government don’t force any more houses on us, this development is not needed, it will never go ahead.
If we don’t need the houses, then it won’t get done.
Well, we don’t need the houses, so it’s time to save £650K and abandon the project now.
All the reasons why Shapley Heath Garden Village is a bad idea
An outline of an alternative approach to long term planning in Hart
The master page containing all of these posts can be found here. A link is also provided in the navigation at the top of the page. Please do keep an eye out for further updates and share them with your friends.
Shapley Heath is not required to meet our housing targets to 2032. Indeed we believe that our housing needs up to at least 2041 can be met without any new settlement or urban extension anywhere in Hart. Here is our evidence to support our claims.
As part of this we have identified a new settlement within the Local Plan. However, we did not need to do this as delivery from the new settlement is not required to meet the identified Local Plan housing target of 6,208 homes but is provided ‘in addition’ to this.
No evidence Shapley Heath Garden Village is deliverable or viable
In addition, the Inspector raised grave concerns about the soundness, viability and deliverability of the plan.
No evidence that Shapley Heath is viable or deliverable
At para 18 he said:
I have a number of fundamental concerns with regard to the soundness of Policy SS3.
Despite over 4 years of effort, the Inspector also found:
In addition, to my above concerns, there is little evidence to demonstrate that a site can actually be delivered in terms of infrastructure, viability and landownership within the identified AoS…
There is consequently some doubt, at this time, whether a comprehensive and inclusive new community can be delivered as required by Policy SS3 and its supporting text. Given all of this, I am not sufficiently content based on the evidence available to the examination that Policy SS3 is deliverable and is therefore not effective.
The Inspector did leave open the door to a new settlement in the future. However, this would need to be backed with proper evidence and:
I am also mindful that following further work, there can be no guarantee that the evidence would support it as the most appropriate long-term growth strategy or that Policy SS3 would be found sound.
Hart Council’s new work programme is not even trying to address the key issues. It is focusing on “visioning” to start with. Then using consultants to create a project plan and land equalisation issues. Finally, it is hiring some admin support.
There are natural constraints in the shape of SSSIs, ancient woodland SINCs and TPOs.
Shapley Heath Garden Village Key constraints Natural.
There are also physical constraints including conservation areas, pylons, high pressure gas main, former landfill, flood risks and of course a big land ownership gap.
Shapley Heath Garden Village Key constraints Physical
In summary, Shapley Heath is not required and there’s no evidence that it will ever be deliverable. None of the money the council is spending will even attempt to address these issues. Why is this project happening at all when the council’s finances are constrained?
Remember what the councillors said when discussing this at Cabinet:
All the reasons why Shapley Heath Garden Village is a bad idea
An outline of an alternative approach to long term planning in Hart
The master page containing all of these posts can be found here. A link is also provided in the navigation at the top of the page. Please do keep an eye out for further updates and share them with your friends.
Hart Council has released the Shapley Heath Viability Study under a Freedom of Information request. At first glance, it looks as though the proposal is viable.
Shapley Heath Garden Village Viability Summary
The summary shows 5,300 units in total, split 60:40 into 3,180 open market units and 2,120 affordable units of various types. This generates revenue of £1.68bn. It appears as though the discounted cash-flow gives a £32.1m surplus at the end of the project. This comes after an investment of £164m in infrastructure.
But, the good news ends there. There are three major flaws in the analysis:
Mismatch between the viability study and the commitments made in the Shapley Heath bid
Significant areas infrastructure are not even mentioned in either the study or the bid
The infrastructure spend per unit is much lower than proposed at the Grazeley Garden Town just over the border in Wokingham/West Berkshire.
Let’s look at each area in turn:
Mismatch between viability study and commitments
The bid to Government for £150K to support further work on Shapley Heath Garden Village contained a number of infrastructure commitments:
Shapley Heath Bid Infrastructure Commitments
These included 4 primary schools, a health centre and health garden. Railway station and car park improvements were also promised.
However, the sketchy costings in the viability study missed out key elements:
Shapley Heath Garden Village Viability Assessment Infrastructure Costs
The eagle-eyed amongst you will note that it only mentions 3 primary schools and there is no mention of a health centre. It is debatable whether the railway station improvements are included in the “transportation” bucket. So, there is a primary school and a health centre missing.
The missing infrastructure
However, the issues don’t stop there. First, let’s continue the discussion about railways. They don’t give any detail on the proposed improvements to the station. Winchfield station car-park is already full on weekdays and the line is acknowledged to be running over-capacity. The station has short platforms too.
Already 500 houses are being built in north-east Hook. Hook station car park is also full. So, it is likely many of these residents will try and use Winchfield station. Adding a further 5-10,000 new houses at Shapley Heath is equivalent to adding as many houses as in Fleet parish today. This would put a massive further strain on the station. It is difficult to see how this could be accommodated at the current site. Indeed, a study in 2015 by Hart Council said that it might be appropriate to relocate the station to Murrell Green. The cost of this wasn’t calculated, but it is difficult to see how they would get change from £25m.
The road improvements mentioned do not seem to include:
Improvements to the bridges over the railway on Station Road, Taplins Farm Lane and Pale Lane.
Strengthening and widening the the bridges over the River Hart at the Queens Head, Dogmersfield and Pale Lane
Improving the roads to the east side of the development including Taplins Farm Lane, Pale Lane, Chatter Alley/Pilcot Road through Dogmersfield to Crookham Village or Totters Lane.
It is difficult to see how they can improve M3 J5, the A30, B3016 and A287 as well as the above for the paltry £20m they have set aside. Remember the roundabout improvements on the A30 near Blackbushe cost £4m.
Moreover, the 2015 study also talked of a new juntion on the M3. This would likely cost around £100m. Of course, we don’t know how much, if anything they have allowed for re-routing the high-pressure gas main or burying the high voltage power lines or a new sewage works.
Lower spending per unit than Grazeley
Wonkingham and West Berkshire councils are planning the Grazeley Garden Town. This is for around 15,000 new homes just south of the M4 and west of the A33. They suggest £750m of infrastructure spending is required for a town of this size. This equates to £50,000 per unit. The Shapley Heath viability study suggests £164m for 5,300 houses. This is around £31K per unit. The spending would have to increase by £101m to £265m to match the level of spending per unit at Grazeley.
Summary
We can estimate the extra spending required to match the commitments made and quantify the missing elements:
Extra primary school: £5m
Health Centre/Garden: £2m
New railway station: £25m
Additional road improvements: £20m
Bridge improvements: £18m
Total: ~£70m
We don’t know if they have set realistic budgets for re-routing the high pressure gas main, burying the power lines and building a new sewage works.
These extra requirements would likely render the project not viable, because it would more than wipe out the £32m surplus. Remember what Councillor Radley said:
All the reasons why Shapley Heath Garden Village is a bad idea
An outline of an alternative approach to long term planning in Hart
The master page containing all of these posts can be found here. A link is also provided in the navigation at the top of the page. Please do keep an eye out for further updates and share them with your friends.
It seems that the actual weather is stubbornly refusing to comply with the flood assessment carried out for Hart Council as part of its evidence base for the Local Plan. The sustainability assessment claimed:
There was some evidence of wet ground at the far east of SHL183, but “no other obvious evidence of current or past flooding”.
The detailed assessment also said there’s only a one in 30 year chance of surface water flooding.
Taplins Farm Lane is in the middle of the proposed Shapley Heath development. The proposal to spend £150-650K of taxpayer funds does not include any work to assess or mitigate flood risk.
Shapley Heath work-plan doesn’t look at flood risk
Let us hope for a more sensible approach in the New Year. We plan to come forward with some alternative ideas for a review of the Local Plan. These will mean we avoid a new settlement anywhere in Hart, and won’t need large urban extensions either to at least 2041. Plus we get improved facilities in our urban centres.
We wish all our readers a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.
The latest electoral material from Lib Dem Graham Cockarill reveals that at the very best he has his pants on fire. This comes hot on the heels of the previous fake news. It is quite astonishing that he claims that he is “the man with a plan to save our green fields”.
NE Hants Lib Dems: Pants On Fire
This is the same man who is sponsoring the entirely unnecessary new Shapley Heath Garden Village. The developers expect this to deliver up to 10,000 houses. So, that’s 10,000 unnecessary houses on our green fields. Entirely the opposite of his claim to save them.
Shapley Heath: Vision Document 10000 houses
This new town was thrown out of the Local Plan because it was unnecessary. In fact the Local Plan itself said it was unnecessary. The Inspector agreed and even the bid for Government money said so.
Shapley Heath Garden Village not required
Despite four years of effort, no evidence could be produced to demonstrate viability or deliverability.
Shapley Heath not viable or deliverable
NE Hants Lib Dems play down brownfield capacity
Perhaps the most egregious claim in the leaflet is he says “only an idiot or a liar would pretend all our housing needs could be met by brownfield land”. We have long campaigned for brownfield development in place of needlessly concreting over our green fields. We remind Mr Cockarill that back in 2015, Hart Council claimed there was capacity for only 450 homes on brownfield land. Since then around 1,500 have been granted permission at Hartland Park plus over 500 at Sun Park and many more on smaller sites across the district. As a result, we have over 2,500 dwellings on brownfield sites. Or more than 5 times the claimed capacity. And we haven’t even started on revitalising our urban areas yet.
We will leave it up to readers to decide who is the idiot and who is lying.
Shapley Heath controversy: where each NE Hampshire candidate stands.
The Shapley Heath controversy erupted at the recent North East Hampshire hustings. The Basingstoke Gazette covered the story here. In summary, Conservative candidate Ranil Jayawardena opposes the Shapley Heath proposal. He believes that our future housing needs can be met by redeveloping brownfield land and revitalising our urban centres. Liberal Democrat candidate, Graham Cockarill supports the proposal. Indeed in his role as Cabinet member for Place on Hart Council he is the sponsor of the programme. Labour’s Barry Jones admitted he knew little about the proposals but would reluctantly support the plan.
Three candidates were not invited to the hustings. The local Green party confirmed on Twitter that their candidate Culann Walsh opposes the scheme. Independent candidate Tony Durrant also opposes the plan. Monster Raving Loony, Screaming Laud Hope has not yet responded to our question. We have summarised the positions of the candidates in the graphic above.
Shapley Heath Controversy – Details of the hustings
Apparently, candidate Cockarill challenged the notion of Shapley Heath being up to 10,000 houses. We were told that Mr Jayawardena brandished the vision document clearly showing the 10,000 ambition in the Vision Document.
We understand from others at the hustings that candidate Cockarill stated brownfield development was desirable. However, he thought landowners in Fleet aren’t interesting in selling. We know from the work carried out by the Rural Hart Association that the owners of the Hart Shopping Centre are interested in redevelopment. Indeed, they supported the Future High Streets bid (see final letter in the appendices) to regenerate Fleet. Moreover, some of the other prime regeneration sites are owned by either Hart District Council or Hampshire County Council. For instance, much of the Civic Quarter, including the Harlington Centre, plus Victoria Road car park and Church Road car park are in public ownership.
Creative thinking in three dimensions could preserve parking space; deliver better leisure and cultural facilities; housing that people can afford and infrastructure spending. It does seem odd that our local councils prefer to concrete over our green fields, rather than provide better facilities for their residents.
Of course, planning is a local rather than a national matter. However, our MP can ‘set the tone’ for the area; lobby Government to cut off further funding to Shapley Heath; call on Government to provide regeneration investment and vote more generally for brownfield first policies. Many people will of course be more concerned about national matters. Please bear Shapley Heath in mind when casting your vote on December 12th.
