Hart District Local Plan 2011-2032 Consultation on Refined Housing Options and Vision & Strategic Priorities Consultation closes 15 January 2016 *Required Response Form Name:* You must give us your name otherwise it will invalidate your response to this Dogmersfield Parish Council Parish Clerk consultation. Postcode:* You must give us your postcode. Invalid postcodes will invalidate your response to this consultation. GU51 5SJ If you would like to be sent a copy of the results of this consultation and to hear about future local plan consultations please enter your email address below: Email address: clerk@dogmersfieldparish.co.uk 1
Consultation questions regarding the refined options for strategic new homes growth You need not answer every question or make comments but you must answer Questions 4 and 5 and you must complete those two questions in full by ranking all preferences otherwise it will invalidate your Q1. Do you have any comments on how to meet the needs of specialist groups such as affordable and Starter Homes, Custom or self-build homes, specialist homes for older people, and sites for the Travelling Community? The provision of these groups of property should be developer led subject to local/national policies for such as proportion of affordable homes. Developers should not be allowed to use these or similar specialised grouping in order to avoid policies and levies for example nominated sites as self-build in order to avoid the Community Investment Levy CIL. Q2. Where are the sites within Hart District that you think may be appropriate for: a) Affordable and Starter Homes? No specific allocation with all sites subject to local and national policies. b) Custom and Self Build? No specific allocation. c) Homes for older people? No specific allocation but many older people will wish to live close to centres of population providing easy access to shops, social and health care facilities. d) Travelling communities? Hart district has already provided as much accommodation for Travellers as the rest of Hampshire put together and should resist any further allocation. All planning applications for traveller sites should be considered only on normal planning considerations with no special exemptions or considerations particular for sites located in the countryside. 2
Q3. The Council has an existing Settlement Hierarchy (2010). If the scale or sustainability of existing settlements could be used to inform the acceptability of dispersing some of the future new home requirement, it is important to ensure that the existing hierarchy is correct. Do you agree with the current Settlement Hierarchy? (Please tick) Yes No If not, how should it be changed? Dogmersfield should be re-categorised from tier 4 (main village) to tier 5 (all remaining villages and hamlets) Dogmersfield is the smallest settlement in tier 4 (main villages) and several larger settlements are in tier 5. Hart s assessment in 2010 (Local Development Framework Background Paper, A Settlement Hierarchy for Hart District. January 2010 (updated August 2010) shows that the Dogmersfield settlement houses 127 residents which is well below the number of residents in a number of the tier 5 villages such as Greywell and Hound Green. The assessment appears to have concluded that Dogmersfield should be in tier 4 due to the number of positive features within the settlement. However the assessment has incorrectly identified that Dogmersfield benefits from a 'comparison store' and a 'childrens play area/playing field'. Neither of these facilities exist and when they are removed from the analysis it is clear that Dogmersfield ranks equally with other tier 5 settlements and should not be in tier 4. Q4. Of the 3 possible approaches that could deliver new homes in Hart, which one should we prioritise to deliver the majority of our housing needs?* your choice in order of preference (1 = most preferred to 3 = least You must complete this question in full by ranking all preferences otherwise it will invalidate your Option Rank Approach 1: Disperse development throughout the following towns and villages: Blackwater & Hawley, Crondall, Eversley, Ewshot, Fleet & Elvetham & Church Crookham, Hartley Wintney, Hook, Rotherwick and Yateley. 2 3
Approach 2: Strategic Urban Extensions at main settlements (West of Hook; Pale Lane, Fleet; and West of Fleet) 1 Approach 3: A new settlement at Winchfield 3 Q5. If we need to combine approaches, which combinations do you prefer? * your choice in order of preference (1 = most preferred to 4 = least. You must complete this question in full by ranking all preferences otherwise it will invalidate your Rank Approach 4 Combine Approaches 1 and 2 Disperse development throughout the towns and villages across the district and Strategic Urban Extensions at main settlements 1 Approach 5 Combine Approaches 2 and 3 Strategic Urban Extensions at main settlements and A new settlement at Winchfield 2 Approach 6 Approach 7 Combine Approaches 3 and 1 A new settlement at Winchfield and Disperse development throughout the towns and villages across the district Combine all three approaches Disperse development throughout the towns and villages across the district and Strategic Urban Extensions at main settlements and A new settlement at Winchfield 4 3 4
Please provide any further comments on this below. All of the approaches have negative implications for Dogmersfield. These are explained under a heading for each approach. Approach 1 Dogmersfield is not included in the list of towns and villages in the definition of Approach 1 within question 4 in the Refined Options for Delivering New Homes document. Dogmersfield is also not included in the text definition of Approach 1 on page 32 of the Refined Options for Delivering New Homes document although it is included in the table of shortlisted sites on the same page. Consequently the potential impact on Dogmersfield was not apparent from the content of the summary booklet delivered by Hart DC to all households within the district. The shortlisted sites shown in the New Homes s Booklet that make up COM001 are all outside the Dogmersfield settlement boundary and within the Dogmersfield Conservation Area. Building 141 new houses immediately adjacent to the settlement will overwhelm Dogmersfield as it will be impossible to integrate a 230% increase in the size of the settlement. The existing settlement will lose its character and identity becoming part of a modern housing estate. Many of the features highlighted in the appraisal of the Dogmersfield Conservation Area will be obliterated or swamped in direct contravention of Hart s draft strategic priority no 6. Dogmersfield currently suffers from infrastructure shortcomings that indicates that development on the scale of 141 houses will have significant sustainability issues. Ranked 2 but in making this judgement note has been taken that Dogmersfield in not included in the list of towns and villages that defines the dispersal approach and this ranking must not be interpreted to be support for building 141 new houses in Dogmersfield village. The above comments are expanded in the response to Question 6. Approach 2 The map for COM001 in New Homes s Booklet illustrates the close proximity of the strategic sites to the west of Fleet and at Pale Lane to Dogmersfield village. These approximately 1250 new homes will have a significant adverse implications for Dogmersfield due mainly to the creeping urbanisation that they will represent. Of major concern is the impact on local roads and lanes as the existing rat run traffic through Dogmersfield is likely to substantially increase and Dogmersfield will become the principle through route to the A287 for much of this new housing. The local roads do not have sufficient capacity for the expected traffic levels which will have a marked deterioration in quality of life for many Dogmersfield residents and road safety will become a major concern within the settlement. It is essential that mitigation measures are put in place as confirmed with Hart s draft strategic priorities 5 and 9 To ensure that transport, social and physical infrastructure required to support new development is delivered in a timely and coordinated manner.and the delivery of measures to minimise, or accommodate the impact of new development on the existing network. Ranked 1 but in making this judgement it has been assumed that adequate mitigation will be provided for the increase in traffic through Dogmersfield resulting from the strategic sites to the west of Fleet and Pale Lane. Approach 3 The map for COM001 in New Homes s Booklet also illustrates the close proximity of the potential new settlement of up to 5000 new houses which will be within 1km of the Dogmersfield settlement. This small separation this will not prevent the area become largely urbanised with significant 5
and widespread adverse implications for all Dogmnersfield residents. The current largely rural environment will be lost for ever due to the increases in noise and light pollution, traffic, loss of wildlife and the impact of being so close to a large centre of population. The only potential offset is the possibility of infrastructure improvements which could reduce traffic flows through the settlement and improve access to schools, social and health care facilities. In this respect it is essential that Hart DC delivers on all of its draft strategic priorities for all residents and not for the occupants of new houses at the expense of exiting residents however small a community they represent. Ranked 3 but in making this judgement it has been assumed that Hart DC delivers on all of its draft strategic priorities for all residents and not for the occupants of new houses at the expense of exiting residents however small a community they represent. Approach 4 Ranked 1 but in making this judgement it has been noted that Dogmersfield in not included in the list of towns and villages that defines the dispersal approach in the Refined Options document and this ranking must not be interpreted to be support for building 141 new houses in Dogmersfield village. Also it has been assumed that adequate mitigation will be provided for the increase in traffic resulting from the strategic sites to the west of Fleet and Pale Lane. Approach 5 Ranked 2 but in making this judgement it has been assumed that adequate mitigation will be provided for the increase in traffic resulting from the strategic sites to the west of Fleet and Pale Lane. Also with regard to the new settlement it has been assumed that Hart DC delivers on all of its draft strategic priorities for all residents and not for the occupants of new houses at the expense of exiting residents however small a community they represent. Approach 6 Ranked 4 but in making this judgement with regard to the new settlement it has been assumed that Hart DC delivers on all of its draft strategic priorities for all residents and not for the occupants of new houses at the expense of exiting residents however small a community they represent. Also it has been noted that Dogmersfield in not included in the list of towns and villages that defines the dispersal approach in the refined options document and this ranking must not be interpreted to be support for building 141 new houses in Dogmersfield village. Approach 7 Ranked 3 but in making this judgement it has been noted that Dogmersfield in not included in the list of towns and villages that defines the dispersal approach in the Refined options document and this ranking must not be interpreted to be support for building 141 new houses in Dogmersfield village. Also it has been assumed that adequate mitigation will be provided for the increase in traffic resulting from the strategic sites to the west of Fleet and Pale Lane. With regard to the new settlement it has been assumed that Hart DC delivers on all of its draft strategic priorities for all residents and not for the occupants of new houses at the expense of exiting residents however small a community they represent. Q6. The accompanying New Homes s Booklet shows, by Parish, sites that are available for the development of new homes. Do you have any comments on any of these sites? 6
For parishes where there is a choice of two or more shortlisted sites (in red and listed on the tables on each map), please rank the sites in order of preference (1=most preferred, then 2, 3, 4 etc. to least. Please add any comments to support your ranking. You may also comment on any rejected sites (in blue and listed on the tables on each map) You may complete the ranking for as many parishes as you like. In terms of the weighting given to responses to this question, regard will be paid to how close you live to the sites being ranked. Please read the New Homes Booklet for more detail. Please note that Question 6 and the sites booklet relate only to non-strategic sites. Very large site strategic site options covered under Approaches 2 and 3 (Strategic Urban Extensions and New Settlement) are not included in this ranking exercise. If you wish to make comments on those sites please do so under Questions 4 and 5 of the response form. Blackwater & Hawley 100 Sun Park, Guillemont Park North 153 Brook House Comments on Shortlisted and/or Rejected s Bramshill no shortlisted sites 7
Comments on Rejected s Church Crookham 90 Stillers Farm (shared with Ewshot parish) Comments Crondall 73 Land west of Crondall 74 Land north west of Crondall Comments on Shortlisted and/or Rejected s Crookham Village 8
116 Cross Farm Comments on Shortlisted and/or Rejected s Dogmersfield COM001 Land at Dogmersfield Comments on Shortlisted and/or Rejected s The Dogmersfield Parish Council recognises that there should be some new housing in the Parish over the next 20 years and the work is underway to develop a neighbourhood plan that will identify what is a sustainable level of new development that the majority of residents support, where this can be sited and what type of accommodation should be provided. The shortlisted sites shown in the New Homes s Booklet that make up COM001 are all outside the Dogmersfield settlement boundary and within the Dogmersfield Conservation Area. There are currently 58 dwellings within the Dogmersfield settlement boundary which excludes the pub and school, garages, school etc. There are also 6 dwellings which either adjoin or are very close to the boundary. The number of residents in the settlement is between 120 and 130. Building 141 new houses immediately adjacent to the settlement will overwhelm Dogmersfield as it will be impossible to integrate a 230% increase in the size of the settlement. The existing settlement will lose its character and identity becoming part of a modern housing estate. Many of the features highlighted in the appraisal of the Dogmersfield Conservation Area will be obliterated or swamped in direct contravention of Hart s draft strategic priority no 6 To conserve and enhance the distinctive built and historic environment in Hart including the protection of heritage assets and their settings and the protection of the character and identity of settlements, including through protection from coalescence and in direct contravention of the last paragraph of the Draft Hart Vision 2032 The best of Hart s natural, built and heritage assets will have to be protected. And where possible enhanced. These assets include the Thames Basin Heaths and other protected habitats, the chalk down land in the south west of Hart, riverine environments, Historic Parks and Gardens, Conservation Areas, Listed Buildings and scheduled Ancient Monuments. These features 9
help define the distinctive character of Hart. It seems unlikely that potential developers will deliver the 141 new houses predicted for COM001. For example there is a current planning application for three new houses on SHLAA sites 56 and 143 whereas these two sites are predicted to contribute 16 new homes towards the 141 total. Similarly there has been a pre-application for three new houses on SHLAA site 54 that is predicted to contribute 21 new homes towards the total of 141. No justification has been given for preventing residents and other respondents from ranking the six SHLAA sites that have been added together to become COM001. This is not an homogenous entity as implied and development will involve five different landowners with deferent priorities and timescales. It is a major shortfall that residents have not been given the opportunity to express their preference for parts of this site. Dogmersfield currently suffers from infrastructure shortcomings that demonstrate that development on the scale of 141 houses will have significant sustainability issues. Particular examples are that parts of the village have a significant flood risk which will be exacerbated by any surface water run-off from a new development, the road network is overloaded with Chatter Alley being virtually impassable at peak times due to the lack of parking at the primary school and the sewage system is already working at capacity as confirmed when Thames Water agreed to redirect the effluent from the 24 new houses on the Tudgey s nursery site away from the Dogmersfield pumping station. Elvetham Heath 104 Land at Elvetham Heath Comments Eversley 10
23 Land west of Marsh Lane 26 Land north of Reading Road 103 Land adjoining Crosby Gardens 112a CEMEX site A 112b CEMEX site B 122 Land west of the Fielders 246 Area B land at Eversley Cross 247 Land north of Hollybush Lane 273 Land between Eversley Road and Firgrove Road Comments on Shortlisted and/or Rejected s Ewshot 11
90 Stillers Farm (shared with Church Crookham parish) COM005 COM006 Land south of Church Crookham Land east of Redfields Lane Comments on Shortlisted and/or Rejected s Fleet 320 Town Centre, zone 2 322 Town Centre, zone 4 338 Land at great Bramshot Farm 357 Land at Sankey Lane Comments on Shortlisted and/or Rejected s Greywell no shortlisted or rejected sites Hartley Witney 12
19a 19b Land at Grange Farm A Land at Grange Farm B COM002 Land adjacent to Causeway Green and Farm Comments on Shortlisted and/or Rejected s Heckfield 92 Land south of Riseley Comments on Shortlisted and/or Rejected s Hook 9 Land at Owen s Farm (1=most preferred, 2=least 130 West of Varndell Road 13
COM003 Hook Garden Centre, Reading Road Comments on Shortlisted and/or Rejected s Long Sutton 30 Land at Hyde Road 31 Land east of Copse Lane 62 Granary Fields 291 Land south of Chaffers Close Comments on Shortlisted and/or Rejected s Mattingley no shortlisted sites Comments Rejected s Odiham 14
79 Land south of Hamilton House 327 Land to the south of Crownfields (west) COM004 Land to the north of Deptford Lane Comments on Shortlisted and/or Rejected s Rotherwick 87 Land north west of Rotherwick Village 115 Land at Green Lane 290 Land at Rosemary Cottage Comments on Shortlisted and/or Rejected s South Warnborough 15
33 Plough Meadow 71 Land adjacent to Nash Meadows / Ridley s Piece 172 Granary Court Comments on Shortlisted and/or Rejected s Winchfield no shortlisted non-strategic sites Note: To comment on the Winchfield New Settlement option please see questions 4 and 5 Comments Rejected s Yateley 11 Land at Moulsham Lane 20 Land at Reading Road Comments on Shortlisted and/or Rejected s 16
Q7 Do you have any other comments on the Refined Housing Options Paper? The Refined Options for Delivering New Homes document is deficient as it fails to adequately reflect the accompanying Draft Vision and Strategic Priorities for Hart document. A particular shortcoming is the failure to recognise, identify and take account of Conservation Areas. This runs contrary to and ignores Key Issue 6 The need to deliver development where possible, which respects the separate character and identity of Harts settlements and landscapes, the last paragraph of the Draft Hart Vision 2032 The best of Hart s natural, built and heritage assets will have to be protected. And where possible enhanced. These assets include the Thames Basin Heaths and other protected habitats, the chalk down land in the south west of Hart, riverine environments, Historic Parks and Gardens, Conservation Areas, Listed Buildings and scheduled Ancient Monuments. These features help define the distinctive character of Hart and Draft Strategic Priority no 6 To conserve and enhance the distinctive built and historic environment in Hart including the protection of heritage assets and their settings and the protection of the character and identity of settlements, including through protection from coalescence. The Refined Options for Delivering New Homes document is also heavy biased in favour of the disperse development throughout the towns and villages across the district approach. A clear example is with the high level of detail provided for each of the individual sites associated with the dispersed communities compared to the paucity of information about the sites within strategic approach and about the new settlement. The following afterthought comment within the response form proves that strategic sites have not been given the same level of focus and visibility. Please note that Question 6 and the sites booklet relate only to non-strategic sites. Very large site strategic site options covered under Approaches 2 and 3 (Strategic Urban Extensions and New Settlement) are not included in this ranking exercise. If you wish to make comments on those sites please do so under Questions 4 and 5 of the response form. 17
Consultation questions regarding the draft Local Plan Vision and Priorities We have identified a set of key issues for the Local Plan in table 1 on page 5. Do you agree with them? (Please tick) Yes No Do you have any comments on the key issues? The current drafting of Issue 4 refers only to mitigating the impact of new development through infrastructure improvements. Most infrastructure in Hart is already saturated or overloaded and consequently this issue should confirm that all the infrastructure improvements needed to support new development and offset the impact of new development on existing infrastructure should be provided in a timely manner. The current drafting implies that further degradation is inevitable. We have drafted a vision setting out how the district might look by 2032 on page 6. To what extent do you agree with it? (Please tick) Agree Slightly Agree Slightly disagree Disagree Do you have any comments on the Vision? Much of the vision statement is welcome particularly the specific reference to conservation areas. The absence of any mention of transport improvements under the fourth paragraph is a significant shortcoming and consequently the vision provides no comfort on this vital matter. We have identified some draft strategic priorities for the Local Plan in table 2 on page 7. Do you agree with them? (Please tick) Yes No 18
Do you have any comments on the strategic priorities? Although transport is mentioned in priority 5 the comment that most residents will want to see is rather buried in priority 9 hence accommodate the impact of new development on the existing network should also be added into priority 5. Please send this response to: Planning Policy Team Hart District Council Civic Offices Harlington Way Fleet Hampshire GU51 4BR Or email it to: planningpolicy@hart.gov.uk 19