wide unlimited distribution - hart district · wide unlimited distribution 7 having examined this...

Wide Unlimited Distribution

1

Hart District Council,

Planning Policy Dept,

Civic Centre,

Harlington Way, Fleet,

Hampshire, GU51 4AE. 7th June 2017.

Public Consultation and My Review of the Draft Hart Local Plan Strategy &

Sites 2011 – 2032. Version 1.0 Final.

Dear Sirs,

First, I provide a contents listing, see below.

The Contents of this work:

Foreword: pages 1-2

My references: page 2

My previous work: pages 3-4

The brief summary of my findings: pages 4-6

My detailed findings: pages 6-25

Finally: pages 25- 26

1) Foreword:

The above listed plan is a futuristic look for Hart District up to 2032. Therefore,

it is a pivotal document that has to be robust and correct in what is says, and

this means that a very careful review has to be applied to it. It has been 4 years

in the making so it has to be right for the public assessment. Public

Consultation is defined as: “public comments on a draft document on matters

affecting them” [REF A]. That offered by Hart D C is a draft document at

version 1.0 final.

The background to it is not good. In 2013 an abysmal and appalling offering

(that is being polite) was sent to the Government Inspector for review and he

rejected it on a number of counts, and rightly so. Obviously, a clever chap who


2

knows a duff plan when he sees it! Hart District Council (HDC) must be viewed

by a democratically elected Government as “a cannot be trusted and failed

council”. Therefore, this second go around the buoy has to be outstandingly

excellent if it is to succeed. This means it has to be well conceived and

thoroughly vetted for correctness before issue for both a public consultation

and also Government. These issues tend to be a very weak aspect within Hart

D C as their ethos appears to be “any old thing goes”. So it is more than likely

that the public will find it riddled with: errors, assumed knowledge, poor

quality figures, incredible naivety, omissions and even more naivety. In short,

another duff plan! So any offering will need very careful scrutiny by the public

to correct any Paid Officials and District Councillor oversight and warped

philosophical thinking to book, before sending to the Government Inspectorate

for assessment.

What HDC, its councillors and members of the public need to understand is

that this plan is required by Government. HDC has to produce it according to

government quotas and dictats, so HDC simply becomes the solutioneer and

author. The reason for this is that HDC has the local knowledge to populate it

to meet government directions. The council taxpayers fund its creation and

this case is the second go around the buoy and council taxpayers’ money must

not be further wasted by an abysmal and appalling offering. As it is “The

Government’s Plan” it has to be written in “TOP DOWN” management mode.

The problem is that District Councillors are mainly useless reactors rather than

pro-activists and more often than not, function in a “BOTTOMS-UP”

management mode. This is a completely useless ethos in such a plan.

2) My References:

REF A: Google definitions from English dictionaries on Public Consultation.

REF B: My Letter to Hart D C: Review of Hart Local District Plan 2011 – 2032

“Refined Options for delivering New Homes” - Dated “November 2015”.

REF C: My Letter to Hart D C Review, Scrutiny and Views paper on Refined

Options for delivering new Homes, Feb: 2016.

REF D: Mr R M Jayawardena, MP; Voice: General Election Special, May 2017.


3

3) My Previous work:

HDC produced a document that contained an important declaration of

Planning Policy [REF B]. This Policy was that HDC has a Principal Planning Policy

of using Brownfield sites first to meet government housing quotas. What HDC

did was produce an incongruous scheme labelled “Winchook” based on

Greenfield sites which violated the Principal Planning Policy and made HDC

look rather silly and stupid to book. The suggested “Winchook” proposal was

lambasted by many on a number of points from far and wide and included our

local MP on coalescence matters. Thank goodness the ill-conceived thing failed

and confined to the dustbin! This suggestion was nugatory work by Hart D C

plus a waste of council taxpayer’s money and time refuting the stupid thing.

Faced with this HDC inspired nonsense, I sat down and took a fresh look based

upon the following available information (bulleted below) to yield some

common sense into this HDC inspired malaise:

Available HDC derived information;

Local knowledge; and

Google moving maps

The object being to yield a tally of Brownfield sites in Hart District. This

revealed the presence of over 3000 house sites [REF C] and so it can be

concluded that Hart District is rich in Brownfield sites. That covered in the

current documents relates to a total of ca 2000 Brownfield sites. There are still

1000 Brownfield Sites still out there! This quota could be used to reduce the

horrendous number of homes for Murrells Green, Greenfield land to say ca

800 or less.

I also did some additional research [REF C] covering contiguous N E Hampshire

/ Surrey infrastructure matters and housing potential in both Rushmoor and

Surrey Heath Council areas. The main reason for this was to refute the

assertions by Rushmoor and Surrey Heath Councils of the need to use Hart

District as a “sink” for their overspill population. Surrey Heath, in my view, is

rich in both Brown and Green field sites that could be exploited for housing.


4

Using the same techniques in the bullets listed above, I , inter alia, identified

the Longcross area as having great potential.

As it has turned out, Surrey Heath as a result of my research has discovered

the potential on the old Ministry of Defence, Chertsey,FVRDE site etc (adjacent

to the M3 motorway at Chobham Common and the Bagshot / Longcross Halt

to Waterloo Railway / M25) and in collaboration with Government has labelled

the area as a Longcross New Garden Village. What a success for my research!

So where does this leave Hart DC? The answer can only be a parsimonious

attitude, sulking, incompetence and / or not invented here by HDC. Clearly, not

a way forward for a plan up to 2032. Is HDC under proper management in this

area? The Government Inspector needs to be made aware of the insidious bad

attitudes within HDC thus delaying the delivery to Government of a plan until

2018 that is worthy after 5 years of toil. After 4 years of toil, HDC claims it still

has work to do, so what is going on at HDC? It appears to me that Hart D C is

very badly managed.

My Review of The Document (listed above as: Draft Hart Local Plan Strategy

& Sites 2011 – 2032. Version 1.0 Final) (NB: Not endorsed for public release)

Problem areas (clangours) found in the plan at Detailed Findings are

highlighted in red in the texts at section 5.

4) Summary of my findings:

Having examined this plan document I have discovered a large number of

problems with it which are listed as a summary here, but more fully below

under Detailed Findings at section 5:

The document title: A poor description of what the plan is about and

needs total revision to restore a level of meaningful knowledge rather

than the colloquial and assumed knowledge by that given in the title;

The document: Been 4 years in the making and still has a lot wrong

with it which needs immediate rectification. Hart D C effectiveness at

managing the production of such an important document is thrown

into serious question. All that Hart D C appears to do is prevaricate on

delivery with weak and feeble excuses. Hart D C still claims that more


5

additions are required, even after 4 years, so more excuses and more

taxpayer expense! This smacks of Hart D C paid official management

malaise and incompetence;

The document structure: This requires complete restructuring to make

it more succinct; a more useful and readable document;

Document release: That achieved does not appear to be worthy of that

for an organized organisation. That conducted appears to be a Hart D C

inspired muddle and disorganisation viz:

The document should have been vetted by an independent paid

official in Hart D C before Hart D C authorised its release to

District Councillors for their review;

Following on, having incorporated District Councillors comments,

the document should have been vetted by The Leader of Hart D

C prior to release to the public;

No vetting appears to have been executed at any level prior to

public release and underscores the need for a thorough public

review to correct any misguided enthusiasm at Hart D C. There is

plenty of it;

This implies incompetence at both Head of Planning and Leader

of Hart District Council levels. Both must be given exit strategies

with brown envelopes for this debacle!

Infrastructure: this will affect everyone in Hart District and needs to be

presented up front early rather than later. Structural problems with

the plan content listing provide even more muddle;

Contents List:

This has a number of omissions and requires urgent correction;

It also is structurally dysfunctional and requires re-ordering;

Reference Document trees are not given showing how they

support the Top Level Plan;

A family tree for the Collaborative bodies forming the document

is required and is not given;

References are given in the texts and as footnotes, very

shambolic indeed and appears to be the work of a Hart D C

weaner, or perhaps a “babe and suckling”!;


6

The planning solutions are written in “bottoms up” mode, this

will require re-ordering via cut and paste to yield a “Top Down”

approach and a more readable document;

Word Processing:

The given document pagination does not match that of the scroll

and generates confusion. Hart D C needs to get its act together!

The document holds spelling mistakes; no spell checking!

Neighbourhood Plans: These simply appear of a waste of space and

taxpayer’s money! The Town & Parish councils appear to have a

parsimonious attitude coupled with a weak and ineffective Hart D C

does not help. Some District Councillors sit on these listed councils!!

Hart D C attitude: On numerous occasions within the texts, Hart D C

writes something personifying a state of incredible naivety arising from

a lack of understanding. This needs to change forthwith;

Planning Policies: Two fictitious planning policies are present in the

document. This shows that the document is really embryonic and its

stature. It has not progressed over these past 4 years;

Entertainment: There is a paragraph in the texts but no Hart D C policy

on this matter. Below in section 5, I elucidate suggestions for Hart D C

to take control and instigate themed money spinner activities aimed at

deficit reduction;

Brexit implications: Not addressed and more incredible naivety.

European publications are referenced in the texts. Caveats need to be

applied stating that the use is interim until Brexit negotiations are

finalised;

Pollution as addressed: It would appear that Hart D C staff will be

policing the critters to stop them urinating and defecating in water

courses. Perhaps Hart’s Pre-eminent Ditch Tsars should be involved!

Government Inspector: The final chart on the last page requires the

Inspector to have a cranked neck to review it! Neither is it understood

by the reviewer! More clarity is required.

5) Detailed Findings:


7

Having examined this plan, the ability of Hart’s District Councillors to provide

an adequate review of this document to remove errors etc, must be thrown

into question. A detailed assessment is given below.

It must be noted that this document has been 4 years in the making since the

rejection of the abominable plan submitted in 2012/13. Therefore, Hart D C

has had more than adequate time, in my view, to provide a highly polished

robust document for consultation and review. During these past 4 years all

that council taxpayers’ have seen and heard are weak and feeble excuses

aimed at Hart D C prevarication on plan delivery. Clearly, a pathetic situation

demonstrating malaise with Hart D C.

The first aspect to review in any document is the title versus the contents

listing.

THE TITLE:

The Title is given as “Local Plan” this implies that it must address an infinite

range of local topics covering “Strategy and Sites”. There is no plan scope

formally listed and this seen as a serious omission as what this plan covers

must not be assumed. The texts also refer to what are colloquialisms, with no

definition at Appendix 2, and this is not acceptable in such a pivotal document.

Hart D C has fallen at the “first fence”, so is there any hope for this proposed

submission?

Why has Hart District Councillors not spotted these anomalies? Have they

bothered to read all 148 pages in this document?

Contents listing: The following Issues arise:-

No Scope for the document is given – Hart D C oversight;

No formal Reference listing is provided (references are buried in the

texts or as footnotes).This is not an acceptable way to proceed;

No tree structure is provided showing how supporting documents feed

into this plan – Hart DC Oversight;

No tree structure is given on how formal liaison with contiguous

councils, that with Hampshire County Council, providers of


8

infrastructure and lastly, but not least, the local MP, Mr R M

Jayawardena; Hart D C oversight;

It must be concluded that the given content is dysfunctional and incomplete.

That addressing infrastructure is “dumped” towards the rear of the

document and appears as an afterthought by Hart D C. This is a pivotal

subject matter that will affect all residents that must appear near to the

front. The document is full of planning doctrine which arises as a result of

“solutioneering”. This planning doctrine that arises, can be referenced in a

lesser document in the document tree in order to keep this top level

document SUCCINCT and much more readable. The planning doctrine

appears to be that from an unreferenced textbook and massaged by Hart D C

to apply to this plan. Not much expertise other than Hart D C ‘s screen gazers

appearing as “cutters and pasters”. I note that Policy NE1: Thames Basin

Heaths Special Protection Area (TBHSPA) has very profound impacts on the

choice of future building sites and needs to be moved forward in the

dysfunctional plan structure. Fig 10 is of poor quality and requires re-visiting

and replacement to improve what it is trying to say.

I note that the pagination does not match that on the scroll. A word

processing clangour.

“What is this plan for” Page 1 on pagination. As this document is infinite I have

added a few topics, policies in this response, not covered for Hart D C, so that

immediate and urgent work can be undertaken by HDC to fully populate the

plan. (H D C Clangour);

What is the Local Plan for? Page 1 and unnumbered para:

Says nothing about identifying the infrastructure to service developments.

This is seen a gross error and clangour by Hart D C.

What will be in the new Local Plan?: Page 1 unnumbered Para 2

It says nothing about infrastructure requirements. Only about some legal

requirement on contiguous councils on “cross boundary issues” to dump

their overspill on Hart D C. Yes, helping other councils with their overspill

might be a legal requirement but council research shows that the

requirement no longer exists. What the e.g. should have referenced is


9

“infrastructure” as several pivotal infrastructures are far more important to

eastern Hart District and the people living there, particularly the NHS.

In connection with this I note that Mr Ranil Jayawardena, MP states “[REF

D]: Voice: General Election Special May 2017 ”) and I quote:

”Here in North East Hampshire I have started my work for you”.

To deliver more good school places for everyone.

To secure additional funding for our local NHS.

To get the infrastructure improvements we need”.

Includes £30M for extra roads. But is it enough?

All of this needs to be fed into the current document draft “Local plan –

strategy and sites”. Unfortunately, Mr Jayawardena’s activity seems to fall

on deaf ears at Hart D C. A major clangour by Hart D C. Is there any chance

that Hart’s County Councillors will be able to emulate that achieved by our

MP in their negotiations with Hampshire CC? The challenge is made!

So why does Hart D C not reference Mr Jayawardena’s successes and identify

a formal working group with the MP to insure that his plans are bearing

fruit? Seems a “Not Invented Here” bad management clangour by Hart D C in

respect of the local MP.

The bullets at this un-numbered para: on page 1:

Bullet 3: You were pulled up by the inspector on the failed 2013 plan for not

having anything formal with neighbouring entities whether they are councils

or providers of infrastructure etc. You need to list the formal Working Groups

etc with all other entities. (A clangour that requires more work by Hart D C)

Bullet 4: Seems a disaster area with Neighbourhood Plans with the Parish

and Town Councils in general having a parsimonious attitude (Must be seen

as a Hart DC management failure - clangour);

Bullet 5: There is no evidence that Hart D C listens to what residents say as

the comments raised against the previous failed plan have not been taken

up. (Clangour and needs resolution)

What will be in the new Local Plan? Page 3 or is it 4!


10

Neighbourhood Plans – Page 9 para 11:

This request seems a wash-out and a waste of time as delivery of them is

mixed and all seem to embody a parsimonious attitude.

Fig 1 on Page 11:

A most excellent of presentation. A good figure is worth a 1000 words!

Fig 2 on page 12: Another excellent piece of communication and in a top

down mode too!

Page 13 para 22: This listing does not include the Hamlet of Pyestock which is

identified throughout Fleet by signposts and on maps presented in the plan

etc. Viewed as a serious omission by incredibly naïve document authors. Hart

D C should note that government thinking is for villages, so why not simply go

with the flow? Is this a very silly embedded Hart D C parsimonious attitude

problem?

Para 19 page 12 The words do not identify the fact that Fleet is a car centric

place and getting worse.

At para 24, Yateley is identified as being car centric and so consistency needs

to be applied across all settlements in Hart District.

Page 16 para 33: The words only identify commuters to London. The Hart D C

author seems to be oblivious to the fact that a good number of professionals

work from home, when in the UK, and travel the world from the nearby

airports in the locality as part of their business. Some even work for

international companies. Others simply have car travel to venues in the UK as

Hart District has good road communications to the rest of the UK. They live in

Hart because it is a quiet and pleasant place to live where they can relax after a

strenuous time wealth creating. Paid Officials in Hart D C do not have to do this

and only communicate with contiguous councils and infrastructure providers!

It has to be noted that paid officials within Hart D C appear to live a sheltered

and cosseted life in the Hart Civic Centre. Likewise for most of the District

Councillors. This may explain why they are all so incredibly naïve about why

people want to both come and live in Hart District.


11

I complained about this poor and incredibly naïve attitude by HDC Paid

Officials in the 2012 plan abomination and clearly nothing has sunk in to Paid

Officials mind sets.

An update is required by Hart D C Officials on this work functionality issue.

Page 16 para 34: The reference source of the 11 times earnings is not revealed.

Hart District is a mainly professional residential backwater where the

inhabitants earn many, many times that of minimum wage earners. The tenor

of the para seems to be predicated on minimum wage earnings which is not

realistic. Most minimum wage earners come to Fleet from the surrounding

areas of Farnborough and Aldershot etc, etc, both of which are in the

contiguous Rushmoor Borough, see Fig 1.

Hart’s Paid Officials need a reality check on what professionals earn.

Fig 3 Net Commuting to / from Hart District:

This figure is 16 years out of date! Its usefulness up to 2032 timeframe must be

thrown into question. It poses questions about the capability of Hart D C’s Paid

Officials in using grossly out of date information. Furthermore, a text box used

cannot spell Rushmoor (the “h” is missing!). Why o’ Why did Hart’s Paid

Officials not spot this and more besides, where were the District Councillors

who should have reviewed this document before public consultation? Were

they asleep by now and bored stiff having arrived at Page 17? Such oversights

are known in the trade as “HOWLERS / Clangours”.

In addition, the identifier tag refers to the previous document failed by

Government. Its reuse in this document is not apparent and Hart D C should

have commissioned more research in the 4 years since the rejection by

Government of the original abominable plan. Why has this not been done?

What this means is an INCREDIBLE HOWLER is present in this document.

This means that Hart D C Planning Authority is at fault along with the Leader of

Hart D C who must have authorised this document for public inspection.

Therefore, both must take the blame for this debacle and both be the subject of

an exit strategy.

Page 18 Paras 43, 44 & 45 Retail Shopping etc:


12

What the paragraph does not cover is the local shopping areas in the Fleet area

at Church Crookham, Crookham Camp, Crookham Village, Pondtail, Zebon

Copse, Ancells, etc, etc. The paragraph appears to imply that Fleet Centre is

the centre of the shopping universe, it is not! Obviously, a clueless author from

Hart D C Paid Officials who are clearly out of touch with the real world. More

incredible naivety by Hart D C! Clangour!

Page 18 Para 44:

What this paragraph does not address is the expenditure outflow due to

Internet shopping which is on the increase and dramatically so. What Fleet so

desperately needs are collection centres for the ordered goods delivered when

the occupants are at work. What Hart D C needs to do is to “get real” about

Internet shopping – more Hart D C naivety and clangour!

Page 18 Para 45:

The nearby towns are doing regeneration and have the land available for doing

it. Fleet does not. Hart D C needs to realise that the new Pyestock Village will

be Farnborough facing and that for Wellesley Village will be Farnborough

facing initially, with Aldershot facing once an existing dormant and likely

regenerated shopping centre comes back “on stream”.

Why Hart D C is trying to pursue investment strategies simply beggars belief

when Fleet Shopping Centre has large empty shops because the foot count is

simply not there and Fleet’s shopping infrastructure does not favour

expansion. Internet shopping has not helped either or the fact that Hart

District etc contains car centric towns, so people travel to find the outlet most

wanted. “Her indoors“who shall be obeyed, wants an outing; Fleet is not taken

as an outing! The warped thinking ongoing in Fleet D C is seen as antiquated

and financially disastrous in a futuristic plan. Hart D C must revise its thinking

and words accordingly.

The gems in the crown in Fleet are the Men’s outfitters: i.e. Staffords and 217

Fleet Road as they both address “FAT FITS” applicable to the aging population.

Hart D C needs to coordinate the demography statements given earlier and the

niche function available in Fleet’s specialist shops serving the indigenous

population. Multiple shops i.e. Marks & Spencer (The Meadows) only stock


13

slim or extra slim fits and are not only sexist but discriminate against the larger

/ aging population. Hart D C needs to be aware of this multiple’s abysmal sales

policy and encourage in more smaller but specialist shops.

Para 45 also refers to Leisure and Entertainment. (Gross oversight here by

HDC)

Fleet has a theatre (The Harlington). It is currently not financially viable as it

loses ca £180 K as an in year deficit. It also needs some TLC investment to

resuscitate it. Fleet Town Council are currently the managing agents and their

proposals are full of fanciful thinking, totally unsatisfactory and spiralling out of

financial control. So Fleet TC needs to be replaced as the managing agent. No

HDC policy seems to exist for the Harlington and its Edenbrook amphitheatre.

This seen as an oversight by Hart D C.

Hart D C needs to assemble a Task Force from District Councillors, (like that

done for the new Fleet Leisure Centre thinking in Top Down Mode) take The

Harlington back and attempt to investigate how its operation can reduce the

ongoing deficits. This could involve (in addition to the shows currently booked)

the use of heavily sponsored themed activities. This would bring in the media

and supporters etc. Major industry in the area is identified as: Virgin Media,

Serco, & Surface Technology International. So why not get Virgin Media

sponsored themes and events to link up with The Harlington to hopefully

provide a “money spinner” and remove the deficit?

Coupled with this Fleet is surrounded by good hotels i.e. The 4 Winds,

Elvetham Hall, Tylney Hall and The Lismoyne to name a few to house the

participants in luxury in Hampshire’s countryside and all positive strokes. New

incoming money which could / should reduce the deficit to hopefully

something positive. The current Harlington would then become a prized

possession in its restored state. Urgent action is required by Hart D C and take

control of its managing agent Fleet T C and replace them.

Page 17 para 46 Sport & Leisure:

There is no mention of a reception centre for Fleet Pond and its nature

reserve. As Pyestock Village will dump a further ca 7000 persons on the Fleet

pond doorstep. The pond facility will become more popular so that residents


14

can enjoy the pond and the associated critters. The document is viewed as

remit in not listing a requirement for a Fleet Pond reception centre. Hart D C to

add this to its plan forthwith.

Page 19 Para 49 Health and Wellbeing:

This para is a load of “garbage”. Unless you live in or near a town centre in Hart

District you need to drive and have a vehicle to get about. Public transport is

almost non-existent and that existing is useless as Hart District is a car centric

place. People in Hart do not need or use public transport as they have their

own resilient “on demand” transport.

Hart D C should know that Hampshire CC has little or no money for public

transport (BSOG’s). Hart D C is the same and the bus company has to turn in a

profit. All this means is that what is left is pathetic going to useless.

Hart D C must stop listening to the fanciful idealistic “whingers” and start

thinking more positive in a top down mode on transport matters.

As an aside on transport related matters: The NHS specialists for East Hart

District convene their out patients clinics at a number of venues which are

both indigenous to Hart District and also cross boundary. The NHS specialists

recognise that access to Frimley Park Hospital (as is that for Basingstoke) is

exceedingly difficult. So they organise out patients clinics at the following, all of

which have easier access:

Aldershot Medical Centre, Hospital Hill;

Fleet Hospital;

Farnham Hospital;

Odiham Hospital;

Yateley – I have no information.

The listed venues mean that you have to have transport to get there and this

does not appear to be understood by a naïve Hart D C. A Major Clangour.

Page 18 Education and Schools:

Basically agree with what has been said. The only comment I make is that

bussing out of district for pupils up to and including secondary schools must be


15

resisted at all costs. For 6th Form colleges I take a different view, as the pupils

will have to transition to a university afterwards and this will mean a step

change. So bussing or train to the 6th Form College will help harden the pupils

to the big jump to university.

Transport and Travel:

Para 57 on page 20:

There is an important omission here. It is the Blackwater Valley Road, A331

(links the M3 with the Hogs Back and onto the A3 and also towards Bracknell &

Reading). The Blackwater Valley road is seen as strategic as it is an important

east – west style of road. Corrections needed.

Para 58 on Page 20 Rail: Again some omissions, a cross boundary infrastructure

has to be considered.

The para does not address how to get to the Blackwater Valley Line from Fleet

station etc or even Reading. Two options:

Fleet to Farnborough Main Station and a short walk to Farnborough

North Station. The paragraph fails to acknowledge that the Blackwater

Valley railway provides a link to Gatwick Airport (going east) and a much

improved railway hub station at Reading and onwards to anywhere in

the UK, i.e. North , South West, East and West.

Fleet to Basingstoke – connection to Reading Station.

There is also a train from Farnborough Main to East Anglia.

This paragraph needs revisiting as it is naïve and a clangour by Hart D C.

National Rail Enquiries (Goggle) can provide the answers.

Pages 19 and 20 Local Travel paras 60 and 61:

This is a load of Whinging. If you do not have transport, then do not live in Hart

District. There is no public money for busses as the utilisation is or was so poor

when we had them. The inhabitants use their cars as the primary mode of

transport, so stop whinging with naïve Civic Centre gossip.


16

On walking, cycling etc: Hampshire and its contiguous counties all have

numbered cycle routes and also footpaths. This information is on the Internet,

so why not include it in this plan as it will impact upon future developments.

HDC to add approved footways and cycleways to the plan

Page 22 para 71 Other Utilities:

When granting planning permission for new developments, then make the

permission subject to “The adequate supply of all utilities before construction

commences”. This will incentivise both the developers and utility providers to

insure that they can provide with urgent investment (includes Thames Water

on sewage).

Page 27 Para 77 (point 1) :

Simply tell Surrey Heath and Rushmoor “to go on their holidays”. At [REF C], I

looked in their back yards and found that they had an adequate supply of

Building sites. Surrey Heath has a new Garden Village and at Longcross which I

identified in my research. So hands off Hart by Rushmoor and Surrey Heath!

Page 30 Fig 4 Hart District Settlement Hierarchy.

The tag states it’s a withdrawn figure and from the out of date previous failed

plan. The proposed new settlements are not shown – seen as a serious

omission. This plan is for the future up to 2032, not rearwards facing. Major

clangour by Hart D C.

The following are not shown:

Winchfield, Heckfield, Mattingley, Hound Green are not shown. There will be

others.

As the Fig 4 is from a failed document its re-use here is not appropriate unless

it is updated to include those omissions etc. This is something of a “clangour”.

Page 33 paras 96

Meeting neighbouring council’s needs. It might be a statuary requirement but

this should not support apathy and laziness by these councils. In my research

[REF C] I discovered that Surrey Heath is rich in potential building sites. I also


17

identified the land on the old MoD FVRDE (Dstl / QinetiQ) Brownfield site at

Longcross which is now to be developed as a garden village at Government

instruction. So go and tell Surrey Heath to go “on their holidays”. Rushmoor I

understand have no requirement to poach on Hart District and wonderful!

Fig 5 Spatial Strategy page 32.

Comment: The use of “Hartlands” is seen as totally irrational. In Fig 5 the River

Hart is shown and it goes nowhere near the NGTE Pyestock site. All of the

maps and road signage around Fleet show “Pyestock” and the previous

address of the NGTE was Pyestock. So the “cobbled-up” title of “Hartlands” has

no pedigree with the site whatsoever or the history of the Hamlet of Pyestock,

within the Parish of Fleet, for that matter. So why not simply ditch the title

“Hartlands” as it has no place. Has Fleet Parish Churches been contacted to

ascertain their views on this “Hartlands” title abomination?

The title “Hartlands” is seen as a major clangour, so remove it and replace it

with “Pyestock Village” as Government wishes; a much more attractive title

yielding sales potential.

The one thing you do not declare are the working group or forums you hold

with contiguous councils and also meeting frequency. This is an area where the

Government Inspector, in the abominable 2012 / 13 document, made a

complaint. So why don’t you simply declare these formal meetings in a figure

tree and reference them to be compliant with Government requirements?

This is seen as a gross oversight by Hart D C and is a major “clangour”. It is

easily rectified in a reference and tree listing.

Page 51 Para 169 Policy SC1 Pyestock Village (Brownfield Site – Hoorah)

This is written in bottoms up mode when it should be in top down mode. This

section contains a solution which is what this plan is primarily about. After the

introductory words Fig 6 should appear with the planning doctrine stuff in a

separate and referenced document.

Operating the wrong plan writing strategy is seen as a major clangour as it

does not flow down.

The above comments also apply to:


18

SC2 Murrell Green and Fig 7 (Greenfield Site, oh dear);

SC3 Cross Farm and Fig 8 (Greenfield Site, oh dear);

SC4 Sun Park and Fig 9 (Brownfield Site – hoorah!)).

Comments on SC1 The Pyestock Village:

Fig 6 could do with a “thumbnail drawing” showing the position of the

site within Hart District and keep the submission in top down mode. This

will be more informative for the “cold” reader and remove Hart D C

inspired assumed knowledge. More importantly, for the Government

Inspector as he will need to read it cold. The comment about

thumbnail sketches also applies to Figs 7 , 8 and 9;

Vehicle Through Road: It is essential that the proposal at Fig 6 does not

provide a vehicle through route from Ively Road to the A 327

roundabout and vice versa. It must be noted that Kennels Lane carries

HGV’s in increasing numbers and these guys have SATNAV’S and will use

them for the best route. So any Town & Country Planning thinking for

the site must embody this unwanted possibility of avoiding a vehicle

through route. A through route for cyclists and pedestrians would

appear as advantageous and connect up with other cycle routes etc in

Hampshire etc.

Site Screening: Site screening is shown on all sides. That shown for the

West, Northern and East ends is seen as unnecessary and redundant as

there is more than adequate screening by the surrounding lands

including Bramshot Common. That screening along Ively Road is seen as

essential and could well do with deepening to improve the screening

function. So move the building sites toward the East and North and build

up to the current NGTE Brownfield site boundary fence. This should yield

a much better proposal. A proposal at full housing capacity by say 2-300

more homes could be forthcoming thus relieving the pressure on the

Greenfield Murrells Green proposal.

Church: There appears to be no provision for a church – seen as an

oversight by Hart D C heathens!;

Monument: There is no provision for a monument / plaque etc to

commemorate those who worked at NGTE and undertook the WORLD

CLASS RESEARCH now embodied on all jet aircraft. There are precedents


19

for doing this and planning permission will be required. Hart D C should

indicate in the plan that that is willing to accept a planning application

on this issue for consideration. This has not been declared and is a

dreadful omission (Clangour) as well as an insult to those who worked at

NGTE. Many still leave in the area!

GP Surgery: There appears to be no sign of a GP surgery on this site,

Major Clangour;

SC1 policy: The SC1 policy implies that a large number of persons are

going to be on the site. They will want to get to both the railway station

and Fleet Central via Fleet Pond. Provision needs to be made to expedite

the inhabitants to their destination. Also, Fleet Pond etc will be much

more visible to the public and so well planned access is seen as a

necessary pre-requisite for the future. This must involve a reception

centre for Fleet Pond etc. Hart D C needs to look at the Forestry

Commission endeavours at Alice Holt Forest, pick the best ideas and

ditch the rest for the Fleet Pond complex.

Policy SC 2 Murrells Green: (Greenfield site and no rationale given

covering its down selection). Is this another Hart D C clangour?

Brownfield sites in Hart District: My research [REF C] showed a total

capacity of 3000 homes plus on Brownfield land. Only ca 2000 homes

are identified in this plan / document. This leaves 1000 undeclared

Brownfield home sites left in Hart District. Use these undeclared sites

given in [REF C] to reduce the impact of the horrendous number quoted

in this plan for Murrells Green to around, say 800 homes. Concentrate

this reduced construction to be near to the Phoenix Green end to

minimize the impact to Hook. The need for the Winchfield station

footpath could disappear and minimize development costs.

A 30 road: The A 30 is a busy road and egress onto it from the proposed

site will cause traffic problems (potential for accidents). Has the HCC

Roads Supremo Mr Stuart Jarvis been consulted on this policy SC2 and

the works necessary to make it safe? I note that there are existing

footpaths on the A 30 but they are somewhat spartan at the Phoenix

Green end.


20

Flooding etc: It would appear that flooding and water channels has been

well addressed for this site. Could it be that Hart’s Pre-eminent Ditch

Czars have been effective?

Footpath: A footpath is shown leading to Winchfield Station. As it passes

through Woodlands it will need lighting to reduce the risk of rogue

footpads attacking pedestrians. Will such lighting affect the M3

Motorway and has the Motorway Highways Authority been

approached? The cost will not be insignificant and involve a bridge over

the M3. Again, has this been addressed with the appropriate authority

along with funding issues? A reduced development size nearer to

Phoenix Green would remove this requirement.

Infrastructure: The proposal involves a massive amount of housing etc,

has the necessary infrastructure been assessed i.e. sewage, clean water,

lighting, gas, electricity and telephony to establish supply feasibility or

are they all to be on “Modern Drainage” and a Broadband blackspot! It

must be noted that “Modern Drainage” will require soakaways which

will feed into the watercourses. Has the Hart Pre-eminent Ditch Tsars

approved of this possibility?;

Church: No provision made or required (Clangour);

Park and Ride: The proposal shows provision for a park and ride near to

Phoenix Green. HCC is devoid of transport funds as is Hart DC so who is

going to fund it? If the current car centricity for the area is maintained or

exceeded then it could well be a White Elephant. There might be a case

for commuters to and from the railway at peak times. The title “Rat Run”

is used in this policy and not understood as it is colloquial. A definition

does not appear at Appendix 1. Another major clangour?

SC 3 Land at Cross Farm: (A Greenfield solution and no rationale given over

its down selection)

Solution: This looks a good house building solution, with the exception

of the care home.

Care Home: A care home stuck out “in the sticks”! Is Hart DC suffering

from more naivety? The home will need staff to staff it and they will

have to travel to get there from wherever they live. All that this will do

is increase the staff operating costs etc and involve more area traffic. If


21

you are going to place a home of this sort, place it nearby to the

available infrastructure, such that those relatives without transport

can get there and back.

A more appropriate solution would be to use /adapt redundant office

buildings in the Fleet Road, Fleet and also in Hook Central. Both are

close to existing infrastructure etc. (HART D C has work to do!)

Flooding etc: Flooding and watercourses are again well managed.

Another success for Hart’s Pre-eminent Ditch Czars?

SC 4 Sun Park:

Site: This is a Brownfield site and its reuse is to be applauded. The

problem is that the current vehicle entrance is close to the M3

Motorway Junction 4a. This means that it is a traffic hub and

exceedingly busy at times. It is not cycle or pedestrian friendly. Any

egress from the site will need to be predicated on the Rushmoor land

and also that of schools; I note that Hart DC boundary falls within the

boundary of the Junior school, so Hart D C can claim School Place

“rights” etc, etc?

Access to the other side of the M3 Motorway: This will require a bridge

to link the Sun Park community with that of Rushmoor’s Trunk Road

for the safe passage of pedestrians, cyclists and children. Has the

appropriate authority including Rushmoor B C been consulted?

Hart D C and Rushmoor B C need to collaborate on the possibility of

installing a vehicle choke point on the site to prevent it being used as a

short cut to the adjacent school and Rushmoor’s housing estates;

Development: I also note that development is not at full housing

capacity. It does not extend to the Barracks old road network for

Guillemont barracks Brownfield land. This seems to me to be a housing

potential loss for no very good reason. This site needs revisiting to

better use up the available land for housing and reduce the need for

the horrendous Greenfield development at Murrells Green;

The usefulness of footpaths in the vicinity the M3 J4a is not

understood.


22

The Thames Water lament is noted. They will have to get on with it as

the site has previous planning history involving military barracks and

industrial Sun Park etc so all water capability must be present. Inform

TWA to stop whinging and tell them to put in the investment! Is the

problem in Sun Park or elsewhere in Rushmoor? If it is the latter, and I

suspect it is, then this is not a show stopper for Hart D C. Thames

Water Authority has to sort it with Rushmoor.

I note that flooding and water courses are well understood, so has

Hart’s Pre-eminent Ditch Tsars been active?

Policy SC5 item C) Overall Housing Distribution Strategy: The plan says:

“ C) Overall housing distribution strategy (Policy SS!); and d) Housing and other applicable policies in this plan”

What is Policy SS ! - I cannot find it??? and not in Appendix 2 Looks like a major clangour to me. Neither can I find Policy SC 12 and neither is it in Appendix 2 ?? (Another

major Clangour ?)

Page 77 Refers to Policy SC 12 and a footnote number 19 appears allied to SC9 Rural Exception Sites. This needs to be made clear as to what this refers to and not specialist housing.

Page 83 Para 269 Spelling mistake on sites (a word processing clangour)

Page 85 “2. Locally Important Employment Areas”: The site at Elvetham

Railway Bridge onwards to Hartley Wintney is not listed ( Clangour!)

What about The Stables site at Church Crookham just past Redfields, Neither

are the industrial sites on the A 287 Odiham Road and also that between

Odiham centre and The Public Lord Wandsworth School. (More clangours?)

Neither is the Industrial complex behind the Redfields Garden Centre site in

farm buildings (Stiller’s Farm – this a Brownfield site)?

There are probably others. Hart DC needs to do a proper job here. (Clangour)

Page 89 Para 289: Basingstoke and Farnborough are nearby and connected

by train and road to Fleet. Both entities are being revitalised at this time.


23

Aldershot with the 14,000 persons Wellesley development may well drive the

resuscitation of the dormant shopping centre in Aldershot.

This para seems to expound Hart D C naivety. People that live in Hart District

are mobile with cars. They also indulge in Internet shopping which is not

mentioned and a gross oversight by Hart D C (another set of clangours ?)

Page 90 para 297 and 298:

Fleet Town Centre has many empty shops in Fleet Shopping Centre. The Fleet

BID is a joke because Fleet does not have the foot count and this has been a

recipe for disaster in the past with Sainsburys on the Harlington / Civic

Centre Site. Will Hart D C ever learn or are they simply ensconced in “cloud

cuckoo ville”? Fleet is not a place that “Her indoors, who must be obeyed”

considers it to be a place as an outing! Fleet District Councillors need to stop

living in their dreams.

These paras come across as fanciful thinking and reading. Another Hart D C

clangour.

Page 86 Para 324: The UK is to leave the EU. So referencing the European

Birds Directive, March 2005 requires caveats. Anyway, the directive is already

12 years out of date and therefore is inappropriate as a reference for 2032.

Something of a Hart D C inspired muddle and clangour.

Page 97 Para 327: Cat predation. So is this an admission by Hart D C that

there are wild cats i.e. wild tigers, etc in the woods in Hart District. Hart D C

needs to make it clear on this threat in a risk assessment covering resident’s

pedestrians and cyclists. This is a threat clangour.

Page 98 para 328: You define a threat to the critters from human existence

but you do not state how you are to enforce and limitations. Seems a lot of

useless verbiage and nugatory work by Hart D C. How is Hart D C going to

stop / police the critters from defecating and urinating in the water ways

thus polluting them? Major clangour resulting from Hart D C naivety.

Page 98 para 336: The SANG has to have paid officials running and

monitoring it. Is this a stealthy way of passing through rate increases on

Council Taxpayers?


24

Fig 10 on page 100: The tag lists this as Fig 7. Therefore, Hart D C has lost

control of this draft plan document and this is a cardinal sin for such a top

level document.

Fig 10 is also very poor as it lacks clarity. What clot suggested its reuse? It

must represent a slovenly approach by Hart D C such that the A 30 is

obliterated in a number of areas. It appears to me that this figure was used in

the failed plan of 2012/3 and therefore has to die with the previous

abominable plan. What this underscores is the state of malaise at Hart D C. A

serious clangour.

Page 104 para 348: Flood Risk.

It would appear that Hart’s Pre-eminent Ditch Tsars have been very active on

Flood Risk and this activity is very credible.

Page 105 para 352: Water Quality.

The para refers to several rivers in Hart District. Many of them take the

outflows from sewage works. There is no mention of this or the requirement

of the sewage works to maintain outflow water quality, even in times of

adversity.

Seen as a useless para obviously written by out of touch naïve Paid Officials !

Something of a clangour.

Page 110 para 370 Water Stressed Areas:

It would be very useful if Hart D C could render a map showing the locations

of the water stressed areas. A good picture is worth a 1000 words; is Hart D C

aware of this guidance? Some rework is required here. (Clangour)

Page 111 para 372 Water usage limitation per new dwelling:

How are you going to enforce it? If you have very silly people and i.e. cholera

etc sets in, this means you will need a lot more NHS to service potential

demand. Has the Paid Official who wrote this naivety thought of this

possibility? Is Hart D C trying to tell us by stealth that the water utility

companies cannot meet demand in the timeframe to 2032? (Clangour)


25

Page 116 INFRASTRUCTURE: (AT LAST)

One of the most important aspects for the future is the infrastructure and

how it is going to be increased to match that development listed in this draft

plan.

This is another example where Hart D C has lost the plot by going BOTTOMS

UP on such an important topic the end of the plan.

Infrastructure in Top Down Mode needs to be alongside the development

solutions presented much earlier in this plan. The plan is currently

structurally dysfunctional. There is an imbalance between what is required in

that required for Top Down application and the consequential planning

doctrine which is only in follow on mode. Put the planning doctrine in a

separate referenced document and make this document more succinct and

readable.

This is a major, major Clangour.

Page126 para 430 Flooding problems at Phoenix Green. The Pre-eminent

Hart Ditch Tsars need to be involved, if not already!

Policy 17 What is a “Policies Ma”. Hart D C has some explaining to do. Is this

some new thing recently created by Hart D C?

A major clangour?

Para 431 – Get the Hart Pre-eminent Ditch Czars in!

Appendix 3 Hart Local Plan Housing

To read this the Government Inspector will need a cranked neck. I could not

understand it – words of explanation are required. A Clangour !

6) Finally:

This is the end of my review which is not an insignificant task. It would

appear that Hart D C needs to identify the 1000 house Brownfield sites I


26

identified in REF C that they have failed to use. The impact of housing at

Murrells Green requires mitigation as that proposed is the largest entity of

all. I suggest ca 800 homes at the Phoenix Green end of the site.

Hart D C will need to give this very careful study as the plan (this document)

needs to be as robust as possible. My review has revealed many items of

error, naivety, assumed knowledge, dysfunctional structure all of which

along with the numerous “clangers” identified requires significant work by

HDC to produce a quality document that is worthy until 2032.

Sending out an unvetted document for public review is a cardinal sin. It

embodied inter alia sloppy and unprofessional activity. Heads must roll in

HDC for this insult to council taxpayers as they (Paid Officials) have wasted

our hard earned money. This is the second time around the buoy for this task

and Hart D C needs to get its head around of what is being asked of them.

The old attitude in Hart D C of “anything will do” is not acceptable in this day

and age. The list of red lined clangours is extensive and underscores this

remark.

Hart D C should note that in the Project Management world, if you have

never ever had your work red penned, then you must be seen as a weaner!

Hart D C needs some reconciliation with world reality.

CC: Wide Distribution.

wide unlimited distribution - hart district · wide unlimited distribution 7 having examined this...

Documents