Summary of responses received to

1) The Hart Local Plan Refined Housing Options Consultation 2016

2) The Draft Vision for Hart

Contents Responses to the Refined Housing Options ...... 3 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? ...... 3 General Comments ...... 3 Affordable and Starter Homes ...... 5 Custom or Self-build Homes ...... 7 Specialist homes for older people ...... 7 Sites for the travelling community ...... 8 Q2a Where are the sites within that you think may be appropriate for Affordable and Starter Homes? ...... 10 Q2b Where are the sites within Hart District that you think may be appropriate for Custom and Self Build? ...... 13 Q2c Where are the sites within Hart District that you think may be appropriate for Homes for older people? ...... 15 Q2d Where are the sites within Hart District that you think may be appropriate for Travelling communities?...... 17 Q3 Do you agree with the current Settlement Hierarchy – Yes or No? ...... 19 Q4. Primary Approaches ...... 22 Q5. Combined Approaches ...... 28 Q6 The New Homes Sites Booklet shows, by Parish, sites that are available for the development of new homes...... 35 Blackwater and Hawley ...... 35 ...... 36 ...... 36 ...... 37 ...... 38 ...... 38 Elvetham Heath ...... 39 ...... 40 ...... 41 Fleet ...... 42 ...... 43 ...... 44 ...... 45 Hook ...... 46

Page 1 of 108

Long Sutton ...... 47 ...... 48 ...... 49 ...... 50 ...... 51 ...... 52 ...... 52 Q7. Do you have any other comments on the refined housing options paper? ...... 54 Comments regarding the Draft Vision and Strategic Priorities for Hart ...... 59 Q1. We have identified a set of key issues for the Local Plan in table 1 on page 5. Do you agree with them? ...... 59 Q2. 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? ...... 63 Q3. We have identified some draft strategic priorities for the Local Plan in table 2 on page 7 & 8. Do you agree with them? ...... 67 Individual Representations ...... 72

Page 2 of 108

Responses to the Refined Housing Options

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?

Number of Summary of Comments comments

General Comments Use brownfield sites first 240 In a new settlement - Fleet/Church Crookham over-built 124 SHMA is out of date, jobs forecast too high so remove 2000 for Hart's need for housing 102 Mixed with all other developments, avoid segregation 67 Where there is an existing community/close to Fleet to take advantage of transport & infrastructure 64 Important to consider infrastructure 55 Disperse new housing across area, reducing density 30 Complete range of homes needs to be built, not only large houses 28 Proportion of any new development should be for specialist groups 24 Why is Hart absorbing extra building from and other locations?/should not have to 20 Needs to be balanced and considered regarding location for wider community including specialist groups 20 Build higher-rise/flats wherever possible to minimise sprawl 15 All of these groups should be considered/included with their special needs 15 Proper research needed at local level rather than estimates based on statistics, consult with these groups to understand needs 13 Housing in Hart is too expensive for first time buyers and military families 9 New builds should be on or near public transport routes 9 Area is saturated, we do not need or want any further homes 8 Better use of military land inc. RAF Odiham 7 No more homes on flood plains or land adjacent to areas susceptible to flooding 5 Understanding of demographic is key to considering location 5 Build eco homes, zero carbon, use good quality energy efficient materials 5 Build more houses, not only retirement homes 5 Build more council houses 4 Locate affordable and other specialist houses in clusters 4 Fleet should not be default option/is too overcrowded 4 Offer prebuilt homes to speed up construction time and reduce costs 4 Not new development at Winchfield, costs don't stack up and ignorance of infrastructure requirements 4

Page 3 of 108

Need to measure how many 1 & 2-bed properties and for older people have been built or permitted already 4 Allocate sites of sufficient size to secure such provision 3 All groups have different needs and cannot be integrated on one large development 3 Most locations should be considered if appropriate 3 All homes should have garden space and car parking space 3 Not in Hook 3 Build on in-fill areas 2 Build around Winchfield station- already semi-blighted by earlier transport developments 2 Small developments of 10 -15 houses 2 Needs of these groups already adequately covered 2 Build where industry is failing and help industry to be successful 2 Redistribute growth to the regions not the south east 2 Build on SPAs and SSSIs if permission can be obtained, be realistic and put homes before nature reserves and strategic gaps 2 Need to provide evidence-based figures for these groups. Also why only these and not others e.g. disabled, migrants etc.? 2 More important is need for schools, especially secondary and junior 2 Allocate land at a given percentage below current market rate for these specialist groups 1 Only build where less impact to existing communities and roads in built up areas 1 Need to build more houses more quickly - reduce price of land with planning permission and make planning rules more flexible. 'Right to build' is a promising idea as are 'community land auctions' 1 Supportive of initiatives to address specialist group needs, with exclusion of travelling community 1 Is this actually going to happen or is there still argument as to whether it is right thing to do? 1 Villages should not be ruined for sake of housing when larger towns would benefit from additional housing 1 Ensure developers held to account to ensure appropriate contributions collected and utilised 1 300 home target for 'shaded' area beyond 5km is too low, build more here of all types 1 Do not build on conservation zones 1 Take money from developers and fund housing associations 1 Young professionals working from home need 2 small offices as well as bedrooms 1 Priority for people already renting in area 1 Provide planning process, tax & finance breaks for these types of housing 1 Buildings more than 2 storeys not appropriate in Hook 1 Amend tenancy agreements to give better protection to tenants 1 Work with other county councils across counties 1 Build good quality hostel-type accommodation for people moving to area 1 More emphasis/support for small builders/building projects as opposed to estates by large developers 1

Page 4 of 108

Every home which has had building work should be reassessed for council tax - extra revenue used for specialist housing 1 Fill gap between Elvetham Heath and Crookham Village 1 Identify sites in villages and small towns which would not otherwise be developable 1 Not in Hartley Wintney, infrastructure can't cope 1 Set up Housing Action Plan to tackle different housing issues for these groups 1 Build flats with gated developments with communal grounds for mixed use - elderly and affordable and starter homes 1 Neighbourhood plans can put options forward 1 New settlements on unused or poorly used farmland in between existing settlements 1 Church Crookham is best site 1 All specialist homes should have adequate floor area and have covenants to prevent change of use 1 Do not allow developers to use development of these groups to avoid levies such as CIL 1 Needs of these groups are side issue and should not cloud main concerns of market housing in Local Plan 1 Take care with development in smaller settlements regarding design and location 1 Not possible to meet needs of these categories in village areas 1 There are already a range of new houses/apartments being built on ex-commercial property in Hook 1 Not sure what influence Hart has to make developers provide a range of housing to meet these needs 1 Do not agree with piecemeal development spread across all areas of Hart 1 As one of richest districts in country, Hart is in good position to be innovative 1 Don't understand why this is first question in survey, surely can't be answered sensibly before key questions 4 and 5 1 Homes need to be practical rather than architectural 1 Provision of these groups of property should be developer led subject to local/national policies 1

Affordable and Starter Homes Priority for affordable and starter homes for young people and those with low incomes 163 Developers put % of affordable homes on a site as starter homes/integrate into rest of development 102 In areas well-served by public transport and local facilities 76 On brownfield site development/ re-development of offices 29 Affordable homes still too expensive/must be affordable, do not allow developers to scrap because unable to meet agreed targets 24 Help essential/key workers to afford homes 21 Housing associations should be encouraged to offer part ownership deals and create more social housing 17 Do not allow affordable housing to be purchased for buy to let 14 Only for those with family connections in Hart initially and then for those with employment in district 13 Located around as many existing settlements as possible, not only Fleet/Church Crookham 13

Page 5 of 108

Should be control on sell on prices so that low cost benefits are transferred to next owners 9 More studio or 1 or 2 bed flats with communal gardens for young people starting out 9 Starter homes on new developments outside smaller villages where property prices are lower 7 More 2 bedroomed properties with reasonable size rooms 6 Starter homes should have most basic fit designed for future upgrading or expansion by owners 6 Already catered for 6 Starter homes in rural communities under same planning rules as Rural Exception Sites 5 Starter homes close to pre-school and lower school facilities 5 Do not mix with larger homes as they have different needs for services 5 Better/more appropriate in larger developments where costs can be shared with more expensive homes 4 Use static mobile homes as affordable housing 3 Not only flats - people want outside space 3 Must have mandatory quota for social housing to rent 3 Stop payments to local area and keep starter houses to higher standard 3 Give discount to buyers of starter homes who have been resident in Hart for at least 10 years 2 No consideration to single people not high on eligibility for Help to Buy scheme 2 Allow sufficient provision for garaging and parking 2 Ideal in Winchfield, not Fleet/Church Crookham, good rail and road connections 2 Already have a lot in Crondall and infrastructure can't cope with more 2 No right to extend home so starter home don't migrate to larger ones 2 Do not allow affordable housing to exceed lowest stamp duty threshold 1 Placed where sympathetic/similar to surrounding residential properties 1 Starter homes should be on not-for-profit basis on council owned land - owners should live in them for 10 years before allowed to sell on open market 1 Allow percentage for non-priority - high number of MoD priority cases makes it difficult to obtain starter houses 1 Council should purchase land so that not included in price of home. Charge a levy each time the property is sold 1 100% mortgages should be more readily available not at such high interest rate for starter homes 1 Use land adjacent to M3 1 A few starter homes at west end of Gebe/Parsonage Field along with community shop 1 Not too many in Hartley Wintney 1 Should wait and save money to get on housing ladder as in other countries 1 Strong need in Yateley 1 Each village to have small sites of 4-8 properties only for local villagers 1 Section 106 documents need to have flexible definition of affordable housing to include starter homes 1 More likely to be acquired by city professionals as second homes 1

Page 6 of 108

Custom or Self-build Homes People have will and resources and should not be explicitly catered for 18 Each new site should have plots for self-build 12 In smaller towns and villages 10 Apply to individual infill plots 8 On brownfield sites as part of existing community 8 Ensure high architectural standard/strict planning permission 8 Case by case basis 7 Allow buy plots on zones for development and become self-builders 6 Encourage groups of people to form cooperatives/collectives to build shared blocks 6 More emphasis to attract people to self-build - less impact on infrastructure 6 Good idea - helps break mould of regular developments and can lead to innovative energy efficient homes 6 Distribute evenly throughout region 5 Too expensive and complicated to do 5 Use small windfall sites on edges of existing villages 3 Not good idea - leads to mix matched roads with little or no uniform style 2 On greenfield sites 2 At Hook, to break up monotony of estate architecture 1 Allow individual site at end of a line of market houses to reduce ongoing building disturbance 1 Replacement of old, unmodernisable housing stock 1 In undeveloped areas in South West such as South Warnborough, Long Sutton and Well 1 Alternative living/farming should be considered 1 In Crookham Village 1 Lower priority - only after needs for young and elderly are met 1

Specialist homes for older people Sheltered homes should be close to shops and community facilities 136 We have enough 72 Build more bungalow type properties for downsizing 30 We need more retirement homes 29 Affordable specialist homes should be priority 28 Within easy access of good transport links 25 Should be incorporated into new build developments 17 Should be spread throughout existing villages 12 Allow room for garages and parking 6 Smaller developments on brownfield sites in urban areas should be used 6 Intensive care home should be out of centres e.g. At Newnham 5 Need another development like Campbell Place available to elderly on housing register 4 Been taken care of by private developments/very expensive 4 As part of community in own homes 4 Not too many in town centres/single areas to avoid domination by this 4 Not only flats - people want outside space 3

Page 7 of 108

More 2 bedroomed properties 3 Need more warden assisted residences to allow elderly people to live in supported communities 3 Should be in Fleet/larger settlements 3 Should include some gated communities to increase security and quality of life 2 Need to have sufficient staff to work in them 2 Allow more independent living through design features like wheelchair friendly doorways 2 Fast broadband connection will be required in future 1 Strong demand in Crondall 1 Needed in Hook 1 Thoughtfully designed to include good natural light for solar gain and mental wellbeing 1 Provide separately in similar developments to Kings Road/Fleet Road 1 Better all together, rather than among younger noisier people 1 Not in Hartley Wintney 1 Smaller care sites offering individual care better than large sites 1 Use mobile homes 1 Needed in Hartley Wintney 1 Should not start at 55 1 In Crookham Village 1 Have Fleet bypass road 1 Difficult to sell so unwise to target 20% of all new build 1 No maintenance fees, not expensive complexes 1

Sites for the travelling community No more/we have enough 108 Not near large numbers of housing 34 Only accepted where pay fair share of tax burden 24 Extend existing sites/don't provide new sites 16 Good access to local amenities with existing infrastructure 14 As far away as possible 9 Good idea to provide permanent site 9 Get feedback from travelling community directly, to understand needs 8 Not priority as travellers choose their lifestyle 6 Sites strictly controlled and supervised by independent professionals 6 Why do they need land allocation if travelling? 6 Use site on A30 no longer used for Sunday market 4 Will always be contentious - burden on local services but unlikely to become part of community 3 Integrate into wider community rather than isolated 3 Spread across district - Yateley already has two sites 2 As near to main road system as practical 2 Only justification is to satisfy a statutory obligation 2 In urban areas on undevelopable brownfield land 2 If Hart takes extra houses for Surrey Heath and Rushmoor, they should take some of the travelling community 1

Page 8 of 108

If they want to settle down, use Housing association 1 Are they subject to same council tax as non-travelling homes? 1 Only when need for affordable/starter homes satisfied - many travellers are wealthy and can afford to pay 1 More informal locations 1 Must fully comply with planning requirements 1 Should be fully self-financing 1 Number restrictions on each site 1 Located to ensure access to schools 1 Hart appears to wilfully close its eyes to travelling community sites, allowing them to develop in inappropriate places 1

Total number of comments on question 1 - 1478

Page 9 of 108

Q2a Where are the sites within Hart District that you think may be appropriate for Affordable and Starter Homes?

Number of Summary of Comments comments

Winchfield/new settlement 391 Brownfield sites/unused office blocks 366 Fleet 226 With good access to amenities and public transport, in town centres 210 Hook 180 Dispersed to all areas throughout district 146 Percentage set aside on any new development 91 Ancells Farm 86 Strategic greenfield expansion on edge of one of main settlements 55 Yateley 52 In mixed developments interspersed with other new homes 47 With and adjoining existing settlements 39 Blackwater and Hawley 34 Elvetham Heath 33 Hartley Wintney 29 As part of large-scale developments 24 Church Crookham 19 Near to where people work, need to attract employers to area 17 Maisonettes/flats/smaller houses to utilise space to its best 17 Easy access to schools 16 Use MOD land, available with reduction of army personnel inc. RAF Odiham 15 The old Pyestock site 13 West of Hook 12 Eversley 11 Odiham 10 Crondall 9 West of Fleet 8 Need affordable homes for key workers/restrict to certain occupations at discount 8 Where they are most needed and in a suitable number 8 Hitches Lane site 7 Pale Lane Farm 7 Allocate/prioritise to residents and children of residents 7 Must improve infrastructure before building any more new homes 6 Rotherwick 6 Nowhere in Hart is affordable, must be solved by politicians 6 Rural exception sites 5 Allow plenty of parking 5 Crookham Village 5

Page 10 of 108

Bramshill 5 In cheapest part of Hart district 5 Other areas of should meet any further future need, esp. Farnborough/Aldershot where cheaper 5 Long Sutton 4 Council financial support for first time buyers/ Help to Buy scheme 4 Opportunities for part ownership should be available/important role for Housing Associations 4 Anywhere that can accommodate without affecting infrastructure loading and quality of life (road noise etc.) 4 No specific allocation with all sites subject to local and national policies 4 On council estates 3 Tier 4 settlements 3 Odiham 3 Good design with communal gardens and central locations 3 Sun Park 3 No more needed, people should rent until can afford to buy 3 Introduce way of measuring how many built or permitted and report at least every year 3 Murrell Green industrial site 3 Must be affordable for young first time buyers 3 Ewshot 3 Not in Hook 3 Affordable housing needs to be protected, do not allow to be sold off at premium 3 Only where the community agree, where results in an attractive proposition for all residents 3 Only build these and nothing else, for downsizing as well as starter homes 3 Small developments outside settlement boundary if Parish is happy 2 Dogmersfield 2 Do not allow purchase for buy to let 2 2 South Warnborough 2 Heckfield 2 Manor 2 Must be reasonable size with garden 2 Away from flood zones 2 Not in Hartley Wintney 2 As part of integrated plan, not piecemeal approach suggested by question 2 Do not mix with private stock as it is disincentive for developers 1 Where fit in with set out of proposed site 1 Don't mix with more expensive houses 1 Aldershot Road from industrial site up to Forresters 1 Land between Pondtail/Kings Road bridge towards Pyestock on right 1 1 Along Cove Road 1 Sankey Lane/Bramshot 1 Alongside embankments of M3 and railway line 1

Page 11 of 108

Off A287 by Peppones Restaurant and Golf Club 1 NW and SW of area 1 Mattingley 1 Work with Rushmoor on urban renewal 1 As far as possible from SPA 1 East of Fleet 1 New houses should have basements as they do in Scandinavia, increasing space by 50% 1 Allow space for gardens, play and green space 1 Adjacent to M3 corridor 1 Consult Thames Water on drainage issues 1 Marsh Lane 1 Too late, but Rifle Range Farm would have been a good location 1 Whilst locals in whatever area will be aggrieved for a period of time, they will forget over time 1 Any available, individual plots 1 Farmland 1 We already have Holt Park 1

Total number of comments on question 2a - 1574

Page 12 of 108

Q2b Where are the sites within Hart District that you think may be appropriate for Custom and Self Build?

Number of Summary of Comments comments

Brownfield sites 212 Winchfield/new development 189 Any appropriate site dispersed across district, especially where room for small number of properties only 95 As infill/replacement of existing dwellings within existing settlements 84 Plots on edges of existing settlements 54 Fleet 45 On small, individually purchased plots 45 Not a concern for the council, sites chosen and paid for by individual 45 Small sites in villages, tier 4 and 5 42 Where fit in with current set out/design and infrastructure can cope 36 Rural sites 32 No restrictions, anywhere appropriate within building regulations 30 Hook 28 Not high priority, only consider after need for starter homes etc. satisfied 26 Do not allow/need any 24 Proportionate allocation on larger developments 21 Mixed with all other developments 20 Hartley Wintney 17 On case by case basis 15 Encourage/provide incentives as can show environmental and innovative design 15 Crondall 14 Church Crookham 13 Eversley 12 Provision should be made to allow projects to go ahead 9 Warnborough 8 Elvetham Heath 8 Rotherwick 8 Odiham 8 Area is already saturated, no affordable sites available 8 Surplus MOD land 8 Ewshot 7 Yateley 7 Need closely controlled planning authority 6 Pyestock 6 West of Hook 6 Encourage on development zones where individual owns or buys land 5

Page 13 of 108

Blackwater and Hawley 5 Crookham Village 5 Dogmersfield 4 Pale Lane 4 West of Fleet 4 Long Sutton 4 Heckfield 3 Ancells Farm 3 Not in conservation areas 3 There should not be any more building without necessary infrastructure 3 All areas where no major road noise 3 Along embankments of M3 and railway line 2 Bramshill 2 Well 2 Murrell Green 2 Not on existing garden infills 2 Allocate some developments for self-build only 2 Yateley 1 Along Basingstoke Canal 1 Away from flood zones 1 Tier 3 1 Do not allow for buy to let 1 Mattingley 1 Off A287 by Peppones Restaurant and Golf Club 1 Not in Hook 1 As far as possible from SPA area 1 New houses should have basements as they do in Scandinavia to increase space by 50% 1 Newnham 1 Regulations need simplifying 1 Not Winchfield 1 Away from existing properties 1 Can't be considered in isolation 1 Outside Hart 1

Total number of comments on question 2b - 1100

Page 14 of 108

Q2c Where are the sites within Hart District that you think may be appropriate for Homes for older people?

Number of Summary of Comments comments

In village/town centres near shops and amenities including healthcare 639 Brownfield sites/unused office blocks 262 Fleet, inc. top of Kings Road 257 Anywhere served by public transport 180 Winchfield/new settlement 173 Hook 145 We have enough/no more 105 Yateley 97 Dispersed across district 91 Blackwater and Hawley 83 Hartley Wintney 47 Strategic greenfield expansion on edge of main settlements 40 Mixed communities with other groups to prevent ghettos 35 Proportion on all new developments 35 Odiham 20 Anywhere there is demand 20 Older people need options and variety, not all large residential buildings of apartments 20 Church Crookham 15 Not in Fleet 12 Elvetham Heath 11 Crondall 9 Encourage older people to downsize, releasing family homes 8 In smaller villages 8 Intensive care homes outside town and village centres 6 In specialist developments with ongoing management structure 6 Ancells Farm 6 Eversley 5 Park Lane Farm 5 Tiers 1 to 3 5 Pyestock 4 MOD land inc. RAF Odiham 4 Away from town centres but close to amenities 4 Bramshill 4 Crookham Village 3 Provide enough garaging and parking 3 West of Hook 3 West of Fleet 3 Hares Farm 3

Page 15 of 108

Must be more affordable 3 All areas where there is no major road noise 3 Case by case basis 3 Not in Hook 2 Tier 2 2 Not in Yateley 2 North Warnborough 2 Expand existing sites for the elderly 2 Where suitable accommodation for staff 2 Provide gardens and parks 2 Rotherwick 2 Should do more for those with disabilities 2 Give incentives to neighbours and relatives to help older people stay independent in own homes 2 Tier 3 1 Well-designed dwellings needed to accommodate wheelchairs etc. 1 Away from flood zones 1 Sun Park 1 Off A287 by Peppones Restaurant and Golf Club 1 Could involve charities 1 Move charity shops to centre of High Street and convert ends for elderly assisted living 1 Allow granny flats, extensions or small cottages alongside properties of relations 1 Dogmersfield 1 Ewshot 1 Not in Hartley Wintney 1 Improve current housing stock 1 Good large site at Hartford Bridge was rejected by HDC, reasons unknown 1 Note that older people fall in different categories, some active, some need some help, some need care homes 1 This is only temporary for baby boomers, will not be required in future 1

Total number of comments on question 2c - 1453

Page 16 of 108

Q2d Where are the sites within Hart District that you think may be appropriate for Travelling communities?

Number of Summary of Comments comments

None / no more / we have enough 421 Winchfield/new development 108 Use/expand existing sites 95 Away from settled communities 85 Brownfield sites 50 On the edge of main urban extensions to allow access to amenities and transport 36 With easy access to main roads 28 Fleet 25 Ask communities what they want themselves 24 Allow for communities willing to live like mainstream people and pay rates and taxes etc. 24 Areas providing required infrastructure and services 22 Rural sites 22 Dispersed throughout district 21 Hook 19 Yateley 18 Wherever doesn't cause issues with other developments 18 Specialist/designated sites 17 Not in large groups/ghettos, allowing integration 14 Blackwater and Hawley 9 Hartley Wintney 9 Blackbushe 9 Very low priority 9 In hands of central government, not only Hart/work with partners across wider area 9 Areas with good public transport links 9 Eversley 8 Provide sites which can be supervised and law enforced 8 Elvetham Heath 7 Need to be near schools 7 Available at all new sites 6 Ewshot 5 Church Crookham 5 Odiham 5 Crondall 4 Rotherwick 4 Encourage to settle down with Help to Buy and shared ownership schemes 4

Page 17 of 108

If travelling, why do they need a permanent site? Totally unpredictable level of demand, can't be planned 4 Villages 3 Unused MOD land inc. RAF Odiham 3 Long Sutton 3 Dogmersfield 3 South Warnborough 3 Located according to local demand and planning 3 Where they can contribute the most 2 Pyestock 2 Minley Woods 2 South west of Hart 2 Case by case basis 2 Ancells Farm 2 Not in Hook 2 Crookham Village 2 Not in Hartley Wintney 2 Bramshill 2 Heckfield 1 Bramshot Lane 1 Accessible locations alongside normal housing on allocated sites 1 Grove Farm 1 Greywell 1 West of Hook 1 Flood plain land if genuinely mobile when required 1 As far as possible from SPA area 1 Not in Fleet 1 Sun Park 1 Not near Greywell 1 Mill Lane 1 Hitches Lane 1 Sites must be provided to eliminate illegal encampments 1 Use old barns instead of converting to workshops 1 Facilities that are flexible and have capacity 1 No further development without necessary infrastructure 1 North Warnborough 1 Don't believe anyone in 21st century in UK should live in caravan, not hygienic or good for children's education 1 Site at junction of Crondall Road & A287 not fit for human habitation due to high voltage power lines 1

Total number of comments on question 2d - 1120

Page 18 of 108

The Council has an existing Settlement Hierarchy (2010) which is: Tier 1 – Main Urban Area – Fleet, including Church Crookham and Elvetham Heath Tier 2 – Primary Local Service Centres – Blackwater & Hawley, Hook, Yateley Tier 3 – Secondary Local Service Centres – Hartley Wintney, Odiham & North Warnborough Tier 4 – Main Villages – RAF Odiham, Crondall, Crookham Village, Dogmersfield, Ewshot, Eversley, Long Sutton, Rotherwick, South Warnborough Tier 5 – All remaining villages and hamlets

Q3 Do you agree with the current Settlement Hierarchy – Yes or No?

Yes 1315 55% No 1083 45%

Total number of responses - 2398

If not, how should it be changed?

Number of Summary of Comments comments

Hierarchy is based on out of date information, needs to be refined and improved 209 Hook should be tier 3 due to lack of services 125 Current consultation excludes small settlements so hierarchy is flawed 105 Dogmersfield should be tier 5 99 Build a new community at Winchfield, should be included 86 Fleet and Yateley area should have no more development until infrastructure improved 80 Development should be spread across entire area, regardless of settlement size - can be misleading in most cases 56 Should look instead at ability of local infrastructure to cope with new dwellings - esp. schools, public transport, broadband 51 Rotherwick should be tier 5 45 Use brownfield sites and infill 30 Hook should be tier 1 22 Odiham should be tier 2 19 Hart should not be building more homes, stop overdevelopment 15 Build on tiers 4,5 and 3 before tier 1 13 Yateley should be tier 1 13 Hartley Wintney should be tier 2 12 Winchfield should be tier 4 12 Blackwater and Hawley should be tier 1 10

Page 19 of 108

We should not take on extra houses to make up for Rushmoor and Surrey Heath's failure to meet quota 9 Keep extending existing settlements is not sustainable 8 Relocate southern border of tier 1 closer to Fleet to exclude Zebon Copse, Crookham Village and Church Crookham 8 Long Sutton should be tier 5 7 Priority should be given to preserving quality of life rather than expanding housing stock 7 Building must be done properly with services and infrastructure included 6 Merge tiers 4 and 5 6 North Warnborough should be separated from Odiham and in tier 4 6 Smaller villages need to get bigger so can support shop/pub/church etc. 6 Crookham Village should be rural location, therefore only enable development on a small scale 5 Ensure strategic gap between Hook and Newnham is maintained, do not build west of Hook 5 Hartley Wintney should be tier 4 or 5 5 Include Winchfield new settlement in tier 1 5 Remove tiers 4 and 5 - we should not be building there 5 South Warnborough should be tier 5 5 Tier 1 and 2 should be reversed 5 Winchfield should be tier 2 5 Crondall should be tier 5 4 Odiham should be grouped together with RAF Odiham in tier 3 4 Odiham should be tier 1 4 Opposed to new settlement at Winchfield 4 Build on tier 1 and 2 only 3 Crookham Village should be tier 3 3 Development should only be considered if not met in preceding tier i.e. tier 1 should be exhausted first 3 Eversley should be combined , /Up Green, Eversley Street and in tier 3 3 Facilities must be provided and distributed across Hart, not concentrated at Fleet 3 Merge tiers 1 and 2 3 Object to development of Crondall 3 Tiers 2 and 3 should be swapped round 3 Yateley should be tier 3 or 4 3 Tier hierarchy should be used flexibly to guide not restrict decisions, does not work well in Hart with many smaller villages 3 Do not merge beautiful villages, retain village boundaries 3 Allow more self-build 2 Crondall should be tier 3 2 Dogmersfield should be tier 3 2 Eversley Centre should be tier 5 2 Eversley Cross and Up Green should be tier 5 2 Ewshot should be tier 3 2 Long Sutton should be tier 3 2

Page 20 of 108

North Warnborough should be tier 5 2 Odiham should be tier 5 2 RAF Odiham should be tier 3 2 South Warnborough should be tier 3 2 Settlement hierarchy should be evaluated independently and reviewed in 2020 2 Climate change should be high priority with reduction of energy use and energy efficient buildings 1 Develop land along M3 between junctions 5 and 4a 1 Disapprove of infill as puts too much stress on infrastructure 1 Do not build anywhere near the M3 1 Do not build on flood prone land 1 Eversley Cross and Up Green must be regarded as separate settlements 1 Ewshot is not a sustainable village 1 Fleet should be tier 4 1 Merge tiers 3 and 4 1 Murrell Green should be added to tier 5 1 Must allow for sites like Guillemont Park which are located in Hart but adjacent to settlements in other districts 1 Need to develop Fleet town centre for increased population 1 Need to look at whole Hampshire, not only Hart, for sites for new settlements with good transport links 1 New homes are essential as people want to live in Hart 1 Odiham should be tier 4 1 should be added to tier 5 1 Priority should be given to views of existing communities 1 Rotherwick should be tier 3 1 Tier order should be 2, 5, 3, 4, 1 1 Tier order should be 2,3,4,1,5 1 Use ex-MOD land 1 What are views of travelling communities? 1 Will spoil areas and contribute to flooding problems 1 Most important to have a long term plan that will serve Hart residents fairly - lack of plan has caused chaos in some areas 1 Tier 4 should be considered for development as part of long term strategy 1 Danger with tiers of creating areas of elitism and more expensive locations in already overpriced property area 1 Tier 2 already clogged up with traffic in minor roads trying to access M3 1 Agree Eversley should be tier 4 1 Development in Ewshot would mostly affect Church Crookham, will be great increase in traffic 1 Hierarchy 1 and 4 should not have common borders as there will be natural overspill between 1

Total number of comments on question 3 - 1120

Page 21 of 108

Q4. Primary Approaches

Question 4 identified three possible approaches that could deliver new homes in Hart. The respondents were asked to identify which one the Council should prioritise to deliver the majority of Hart’s housing needs.

The question sought views only on what should be the Council’s primary approach to delivering Hart’s housing needs. The text to the question made clear that it did not mean it would be the only approach. The Council will need to ensure that it delivers a constant supply of new homes throughout the Local Plan period. Some elements of lesser preferred approaches may need to be included in the Local Plan.

4,480 respondents answered Question 4. 4,030 were from respondents with postcodes that were within the District boundary. 414 responses were from outside the District and 36 responses gave post codes that could not be matched. Respondents were asked to rank their choice in order of preference (1 = most preferred to 3 = least preferred)

1 2 3 Approach 1 Dispersal 1291 2100 1089 (29%) (47%) (24%) Approach 2 Urban Extension 564 2106 1810 (13%) (47%) (40%) Approach 3 Winchfield 2625 274 1581 (59%) (6%) (35%)

NB all percentages rounded to the nearest whole number

Page 22 of 108

Approach 1 – Disperse development throughout the towns and villages in the following parishes: Blackwater & Hawley, Crondall, Church Crookham, Crookham Village, Dogmersfield, Elvetham Heath, Eversley, Ewshot, Fleet, Hartley Wintney, Heckfield, Hook, Rotherwick and Yateley

The following three maps show distribution of preferences for Approach 1 within the district, where 1 (green) is the most preferred and 3 (red) is the least preferred

Approach 2 – Strategic Urban Extensions at main settlements (West of Hook, Pale Lane Farm adjacent to Elvetham heath and land west of Fleet)

The following three maps show the distribution of preferences for Approach 2 within the district, where 1 (green) is the most preferred and 3 (red) is the least preferred

Page 23 of 108

Approach 3 – A new settlement at Winchfield

The following three maps show the distribution of preferences for Approach 3 within the district, where 1 (green) is the most preferred and 4 (red) is the least preferred

Please provide further comments below.

Summary of Comments Number of comments

New community at Winchfield with new infrastructure would be best approach, has good rail and road links, currently underdeveloped, future opportunity to expand 573 Brownfield and infill should be used first, including Blackbushe and Pyestock sites and MoD land 481 Infrastructure could not cope with new settlement at Winchfield, no cross boundary impact with Surrey Heath and Rushmoor, beautiful countryside, will impact strategic gaps 267 Need overestimated. Should not have to provide for Surrey Heath and Rushmoor. Use new lower SHMA figures 177 Must not bolt on developments to Fleet and Church Crookham, infrastructure cannot cope 152 Needs to be widely spread throughout district, will have least impact 130 Must retain green space/rural feel of Hart/unique villages - reason voted best place to live in country 113 Must take care to provide infrastructure, including roads, public transport, schools and doctors, before any development at all 104 Hook's infrastructure cannot cope with new housing, already a lot planned 90 Expansion of urban areas best, would use existing infrastructure, and incremental development elsewhere, could provide short term opportunities compared to new development 80

Page 24 of 108

Should not be developing in tier 4, avoid urbanisation and urban sprawl of country villages, do not have required infrastructure 53 Opposed to any further development, infrastructure could not cope, Hart is full 32 Building would worsen flooding problems 27 Essential to keep strategic gaps between Newnham and Hook, Rotherwick and Hook and Yateley and Eversley 24 Fleet and Hook have necessary infrastructure to support growth, need regeneration of centres 22 Approach 1 does not have sufficient infrastructure for more housing 22 Approach 2 does not have sufficient infrastructure for more housing 20 Need a new secondary school, more school places 15 All 3 approaches are needed, difference is timescale not priority 11 Any development must not lead to coalescence with other settlements 11 Best to use existing infrastructure, new settlement would be next best 10 Yateley is already overloaded with very poor public transport 9 New settlement will take years to come to fruition during which smaller random sites will be under pressure 8 Could also be an expansion to villages in south - Long Sutton, South Warnborough, North Warnborough and Odiham 8 Limited building at Crondall - historic conservation site, would cause noise and light pollution, infrastructure could not cope, no public transport, flood risk 8 Need to consider how new settlement at Winchfield would be financed with all major engineering works necessary, more examination and consultation needed 8 Areas identified not large enough for sustainable new settlement 7 Building 141 new houses at Dogmersfield will overwhelm it and are in conservation area, infrastructure can't cope, could take small number 7 Need to work with communities, not impose options on them, new settlement sounds feasible but at what cost and disruption to residents 7 Any development must be well-designed to blend into existing settlement 6 Extreme care needed to preserve local wildlife and rare plants 6 Hartley Wintney cannot cope with more houses, would ruin character 6 Totally against building on agricultural land, means we have to import more food 6 Approach 1 is best, allows sustainable development in rural areas 5 Winchfield environment bad due to motorway - better to develop south of A287 and Odiham and around RAF Odiham 5 Proposed development in Crookham Village will increase population too much, too much traffic 5 Hartley Wintney and Odiham should take more housing, have better town centres 4 Expand Elvetham Heath, would have least impact 4 Yateley, Hook, Odiham and Winchfield should take additional housing requirements 4 Should have greater density and use of mid-sized apartments as found in Europe within walking distance of railway stations and town centres 4 Large conurbations of executive housing don't add to local economy, bought by commuters, need employment nearby 4 Approach 3 is simply joining together several existing settlements and swallowing others to create commuter belt sprawl 4

Page 25 of 108

Approach 1 doesn't include all settlements, many of main villages have necessary infrastructure 4 Winchfield should be included in Tier 2 4 Where are homeless people/families who will move into new developments? 3 Encourage govt to use financial incentives for people to live in housing which matches stage of life e.g. Elderly to move out of family homes 3 Building west of Hook has been rejected twice already. What if decide to build east of Newnham? 3 Conservation/SSSI areas should never be considered for development 3 If Approach 1 is used, developments should be restricted to under 100 dwellings 3 Plot indicated as land at Owen's Farm has already been rejected and should be shown as a rejected site 3 Hook, not Winchfield. should be main development area as it has railway station and access to M3 3 Blackwater and Hawley are at limit of infrastructure 2 Hook area for development prone to flooding 2 Government should change procedures to shorten lead times for new settlement and make low cost housing low cost to build 2 Preferable to have more spacious houses spread out more evenly and less densely 2 Problem is that for office redevelopment, developer does not have to provide affordable housing or infrastructure 2 As leaving the EU, pressure for new houses is removed 2 Numbers of affordable houses for young people can only be met by approaches 1 or 2 2 Settlement hierarchy does not reflect sites like Guillemont Park or Newnham that are on edge of HDC and do not form extension or infill to existing Hart settlement 2 Development on land west of Fleet would lose gap between Fleet and Crookham Village, designated conservation area 2

Winchfield is not correct location for new settlement, need open areas at centre of district 2 More sites should be included in Approach 2 e.g. SHL3 , 4, and 5 2 Do not build on greenfield land at Pale Lane Farm 2 Further housing will exacerbate issues with commuting time 2 New settlement at Winchfield is not possible or required, new settlements do not solve problems, they create them 2 Existing rail links are of overwhelming importance. Overloading existing settlements in north is not the answer 2 Sun Park development is very high density 1 Winchfield should take all travelling community sites if no other development 1 Do not agree with Brook House development - only delivers 60 homes and is greenfield 1 Can nearby areas e.g. Basingstoke take on additional development? 1 TBHSPA protected status should be challenged 1

In Crookham Village, Cross Farm is preferable to Grove Farm with less impact on landscape 1 Merging villages and filling in the spaces destroys the environment for local workers and employers 1 Remove SHLAA for Causeway Green and Farm (COM002) 1

Page 26 of 108

2 places in Approach 2 are too far from Fleet to encourage walking or cycling so would add to car traffic 1 Only consider development for needs of current Hart population, do not encourage additional people to move into area 1 Yateley, Blackwater and Hawley would be good areas for development, good transport links and proximity to employment opportunities 1 Identify how many unoccupied houses in Hart before approving any new development 1 Grove Farm unsuitable for development due to biodiversity and landscape 1 Rotherwick not suitable for dispersed development 1 West of Fleet development is best option if local gap policy reviewed 1 Winchfield should be centred around public transport and not include a new motorway junction 1 Development north of Deptford Lane would coalesce Greywell and North Warnborough, infrastructure couldn't cope, damage environment and natural habitat 1 Murrell Green preferable to Winchfield, better site access, minimal current population 1 Approaches 2 and 3 are not desirable or even acceptable 1 Prioritising is hugely influenced by where respondents live - Fleet area will vote for approach 3, smaller areas approach 2. How are results weighted? 1 Someone has to grasp the nettle and stop mucking about 1 Winchfield should appear in approach 1 1 By only considering land whose owners are willing to sell, are at mercy of developers - will build in most profitable places, not representative of views of local people 1 Not clear from documents why the Special Protection Area Avoidance Strategy (option 5) does not feature in these approaches 1 Opposition to approach 3 could overwhelm true feelings throughout other towns and villages effected, creating unfair imbalance 1 Boundary for new settlement at Winchfield very wide, extends to Murrell Green which is really part of Hook. Not sure how development north of M3 would link to road and rail 1 South east is being concreted over for housing needs due to influx of immigrants, out of control and no way of stopping 1 Will still need to build more new houses after 2032 so should plan an expandable solution now 1

Total number of comments on question 4 - 1933

Page 27 of 108

Q5. Combined Approaches

Question 5 dealt with the issue about if it were necessary to combine approaches to meet Hart’s housing requirements which combinations did the respondent prefer? Respondents were asked to rank their choice in order of preference.

Approach 4 – Combine Approaches 1 and 2: Disperse development throughout the towns and villages across the district and Strategic Urban Extensions at main settlements

Approach 5 – Combine Approaches 2 and 3: Strategic Urban Extensions at main settlements and a new settlement at Winchfield

Approach 6 – Combine Approaches 3 and 1: A new settlement at Winchfield and disperse development throughout the towns and villages across the district

Approach 7 – 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

4,480 respondents answered Question 5. 4,030 were from respondents with postcodes that were within the District boundary. 414 responses were from outside the District and 36 responses gave post codes that could not be matched.

Respondents were asked to rank their choice in order of preference (1 = most preferred to 4 = least preferred).

1 2 3 4 Approach 4 1 & 2 1573 125 461 2321 (35%) (3%) (10%) (52%) Approach 5 2 & 3 931 1456 1455 638 (21%) (33%) (32%) (14%) Approach 6 3 & 1 1810 696 1158 816 (40%) (16%) (26%) (18%) Approach 7 1 &2 &3 166 2203 1406 705 (4%) (49%) (31%) (16%)

NB all percentages rounded to the nearest whole number

Page 28 of 108

Approach 4 – Combine approaches 1 and 2: Disperse development throughout towns and villages and strategic urban extensions at main settlements.

The following four maps show the distribution of preferences for Approach 4 within the district, where 1 (green) is the most preferred and 4 (red) is the least preferred

Approach 5 - Combine approaches 2 and 3: Strategic urban extensions at main settlements and a new settlement at Winchfield.

The following four maps show the distribution of preferences for Approach 5 within the district, where 1 (green) is the most preferred and 4 (red) is the least preferred.

Page 29 of 108

Approach 6 - Combine approaches 3 and 1: A new settlement at Winchfield and Disperse development throughout the towns and villages.

The following four maps show the distribution of preferences for Approach 6 within the district, where 1 (green) is the most preferred and 4 (red) is the least preferred.

Approach 7 - Combine all 3 approaches: Disperse development throughout towns and villages, and Strategic urban extensions at main settlements and a new settlement at Winchfield.

The following four maps show the distribution of preferences for Approach 7 within the district, where 1 (green) is the most preferred and 4 (red) is the least preferred.

Page 30 of 108

Please provide further comments below.

Summary of Comments Number of comments

Use brownfield, infill land and regeneration of towns first, then wouldn't need new settlement 305 No new settlement at Winchfield, not needed, would cause gridlock and degradation of environment, infrastructure can't cope, destroy local gaps, flooding issues 299 Need is overestimated, should wait for new SHMA and ONA figures, should not take Rushmoor and Surrey Heath shortfalls 275 New settlement at Winchfield would allow coherent planning of infrastructure, has excellent rail and road links 223 Approaches biased towards new settlement at Winchfield- 3 out of 4 choices include this 192 Approach 4 best, allows sustainable development in rural areas. Use all other sites before problems associated with new development, more flexible approach 84 Dogmersfield not included in list of towns and villages for dispersal. Do not support building 141 new homes in Dogmersfield, infrastructure cannot cope 77 Whichever approach is chosen, must include provision for infrastructure investment, especially roads 70 Cannot keep bolting housing onto Fleet and Church Crookham, have had a lot already and infrastructure can't cope 67 Hook's infrastructure cannot cope with more development 62 Preserve the countryside and farm land, keep Hart rural, don't destroy wooded areas and wildlife 58 Any approaches allow for dispersal of development throughout district are best, mitigates urban sprawl and prevents overloading of existing infrastructure 58 Approach 6 is the fairest option, only one with planning, less impact on infrastructure 40 Approach 5 optimal as infrastructure will be newer and villages preserved 38 Strategic urban extensions require least investment in infrastructure and would be sufficient to meet Hart's need on its own 28 Approach 7 is best, well planned new development and realistic sustainable expansion of other areas 24 No development required, Hart is full, spread wealth across country not only in south east 24 None of options show any costs - developers don't pay for it all. Cannot make decision without knowing costs and who will pay 18 Dispersal fails to meet need, not extendable and degrades local infrastructure 16 New town will take 10 years for houses to be ready, so other options will also be needed 15 SHLAA sites at Winchfield should be included in dispersal strategy if Winchfield new town not created, otherwise Winchfield gets hardly any development 15 Development to west of Hook sited close to 5km zone from TBHSPA, would impact strategic gap with Newnham and Rotherwick, can't cope with site traffic 10 Essential to keep green spaces between settlements, not create urban sprawl 10 Should have little development in Crondall due to flooding and sewage back up, lack of public transport and infrastructure - increase of 50% in number of houses 9

Page 31 of 108

If there must be a new settlement at Winchfield, keep as small as possible with guarantees on no further expansion 8 Crookham Village has had a lot of new housing, needs to absorb impact before agreeing to any more, would be swamped by Cross Farm 8 Small village development should be restricted to existing site development to avoid destroying community and causing flooding problems 8 All areas should take %age of homes based on current size of location e.g. If Fleet has 30% of Hart's population, should have 30% of new homes 7 Make sure building contractors provide full support to locals and listen to what is needed at local level 7 Need for new schools before any extra house building 6 No further development on Pale Lane or West of Fleet to maintain gap and prevent negative impact on infrastructure 6 Approach 4 does not provide infrastructure/amenities and puts even more strain on current systems 6 Build new development at Hook as well as Winchfield 6 Make use of existing infrastructure where development will have least impact 6 Strategic urban extensions may not be able to provide infrastructure - developer would 'piggy back' on existing facilities 5 Combined approaches give no indication of relative proportions in which approaches 1 -3 will be combined or number of houses 5 Do not build on flood plains 4 Expand villages in south of Hart - Odiham, South Warnborough or Long Sutton 4 Take heed of Neighbourhood Plans 3 Need starter homes for young people so they do not move to another district, needed now and Winchfield will take time to implement 3 Conservation areas should never be considered and never have boundaries moved 3 Need to plan employment opportunities and infrastructure as well as housing, can't answer without 3 Number of houses should depend on future levels of immigration, do not provide houses for incomers who will not work in district 3 Must provide affordable housing for people on normal incomes and space for parking 3 Fleet is principle main settlement so should provide principle scope for development 3 Extending west of Fleet would lead to regeneration of town centre, is suitable with no outstanding objections from statutory consultees 2 Approach 5 is unsustainable as delivery of larger strategic sites is not guaranteed and would have long lead times 2 Whatever action is taken should be imminent, not delayed any further 2 Put development in Aldershot on ex-MoD brownfield land 2 New settlement or strategic urban extensions would require significant investment in infrastructure improvements which would take many years to complete 2 Make developers build on land they already own before approving any more applications 2 Both Winchfield and Blackwater could be better developed as have stations but not as new settlements 2 Wherever built, ensure high standards from developers and encourage cycling and walking with safe pavements and cycle ways 2

Page 32 of 108

Development within Thames Basin Heaths SPA and SSIs should be excluded 2 Questions structured to make it impossible to disagree with urban extension 2 Questions structured to make it impossible to disagree with dispersal (this features in 3 out of 4 options) 2 Need to know time frames for each approach 2 Use Bromfield sites such as Minley Manor and Bramshill avoiding floodplain 2 Don't have results from Adams Hendry on West of Hook site so cannot comment on viability and suitability 2 Urban extension would cause gridlock at Elvetham Heath, Pale Lane would require a 3rd railway crossing 1 Development should be allowed when it scores well against environmental metric 1 Pumping station issues at Hitches Lane need to be improved for existing residents 1 Development of land close to villages will be most difficult to implement 1 Utilise height e.g. 3 storey houses to maximise density and plan for at least 2 cars per house 1 Would like to see changes to Local Plan Steering Group Team to bring different dynamic to group 1 Cannot add to Yateley without enhancing infrastructure 1 Better to locate new settlement at Blackbushe 1 All sites close to M3 not suitable due to noise pollution, no solutions to comfort and natural ventilation. Includes Winchfield and most of Pale Lane site 1 Options which include increased commuting to Waterloo unaware of passenger carrying limitations by shortage of tracks at Nine Elms 1 Refuse supermarket site for depot and use land instead for housing 1 If Approach 2 used, only site should be Pale Lane, least impact and could enhance facilities at Elvetham Heath 1 Reject Thames Basin Heaths SPA which limits area of development within Hart 1 Grove Farm site does not integrate with surrounding communities, will be used mainly by commuters, on high land overlooking Crookham Village 1 Hop Garden site is not suitable either as part of urban extension or separately, has already gone through appeal 1 In favour of developments in small selected communities such as Ewshot which lacks population to support church and village hall etc. 1 Concentrate building on extremes of Hart with easier access to M3 - north to Reading and south to Alton 1 Rotherwick cannot take 70 new homes - destroy character and conservation area, density too high for rural area, unfair as is 35% increase in number of dwellings 1 Develop right hand side of Odiham Road (B3016) between access to Ashley Lodge and Old Road 1 Should have new mixed housing developments near Fleet town centre would lead to investment in shops and services 1 Must recognise environmental blight (noise, light, litter etc.) of any development 1

New town should be shifted west to be closer to M3 junction 5 rather than Winchfield station 1 Must give due consideration to number of houses already approved for each settlement 1 Eversley has highest allocation of proposed new housing, infrastructure cannot cope 1 No development in Hartley Wintney 1

Page 33 of 108

Long Sutton and Well cannot cope with too much new development, doesn't have infrastructure 1 Approach 7 makes no sense 1 None of the combined options look particularly attractive 1 These approaches should not preclude development being delivered at other sustainable settlements within district 1

Total number of comments on question 5 - 1530

Page 34 of 108

Q6 The New Homes Sites Booklet shows, by Parish, sites that are available for the development of new homes. For parishes where there is a choice of two or more shortlisted sites, please rank the sites in order of preference (1= most preferred, then 2, 3, 4 etc. to least preferred). 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. Do you have any comments on any of these sites?

Blackwater and Hawley 1 2 SHLAA Ref 100 Sun Park, Guillemont 199 29 Park North (87%) (13%) SHLAA Ref 153 Brook House 29 199 (13%) (87%)

NB all percentages rounded to the nearest whole number

Total number of rankings - 228

Use brownfield site SHL21, Linkwater Cottages as there is already development there 58 Sun Park is a good place to develop with good road links 17 Roads and infrastructure cannot cope with more homes 10 Brook House is greenfield and huge space for small number of homes, will need major road development 10 These are good sites without severe impact on existing communities 5 Brook House would affect Fleet infrastructure 5 Add brownfield sites in area 3 Build on Sun Park first, then Brook House 3 Sun Park could be at risk of flooding and could cause air pollution 3 Blackwater is effectively a suburb of Camberley 2 Sun Park has very high density of homes 2 Use SHL176 2 Blackwater and Hawley already well provided with a mix of properties 1 More development spread across existing sites is better 1 Sun Park would be better as an employment site 1 Sun Park is already being developed 1 Use after Winchfield 1 Area is adjacent to Rushmoor and Surrey Heath so look at their plans too 1 This consultation should not establish housing numbers at Sun Park 1 Sun Park too near motorway and is really further development of Fleet 1 Ensure sufficient affordable and starter homes 1 Sun Park could be adopted by Rushmoor to provide their housing need 1 Brook House has good access to Fleet and motorway 1 Neighbourhood Plan should be the guide 1 Larger scale 1

Total number of comments on Blackwater and Hawley - 122

Page 35 of 108

Bramshill

There are no shortlisted sites in Bramshill

Use brownfield site SHL106 Police college 92 Smaller scale development should be possible before further development in Fleet 13 No development here to protect green space 6 Bramshill could support a major new settlement 3 Use infill sites 2 Site is not close to services and not sustainable, glad it's rejected 1 Use self-build alongside existing dwellings 1 Does this mean no houses on Bramshill estate or no additional houses over current proposals? 1 Obtain shortlisted sites 1

Total number of comments on Bramshill - 119

Church Crookham

There is one site only – SHLAA Ref 90 Stillers Farm - shortlisted in Church Crookham

Roads and infrastructure cannot cope with extra homes, already overstretched 86 Use brownfield site SHL28 62 No further development until Crookham Park completed and assessment undertaken of effect on infrastructure and amenities 22 Build on brownfield rather than greenfield 9 Stillers Farm is a good site, must not expand past 106 dwellings 9 Need more schools before more building 8 Stillers Farm development will add to urban sprawl of Fleet and Church Crookham 7 Flooding problem is getting worse with more development 6 Add SHL81 5 Stillers Farm site must be accessed from Crookham Park, not Ewshot Lane 4 Stillers Farm development better than further developments in Fleet 3 Use location for starter homes and affordable/social housing 2 Must look at site in conjunction with adjoining areas 2 Would remove one of last places of rural feel in Church Crookham 2 Area of recent development so impact of further housing minimal 2 Sadly inevitable, how long before further extended? 2 An acceptable site, natural extension to Gurkha development, has limited facilities such as shops and school 2 Encourage more innovative design 1 Build in a larger combined area rather than piecemeal 1 Need to leave green gap between settlements 1 Need to implement and promote SANG at Naishes Wood 1 Site too remote for schools and shops, will add major traffic 1 Build as many new homes as possible here 1

Page 36 of 108

Prioritise expanding urban areas and protect rural villages and greenfield sites 1

Total number of comments on Church Crookham - 218

Crondall

1 2 SHLAA ref. 73 Land west of Crondall 135 (51%) 130 (49%) SHLAA ref. 74 Land north west of Crondall 130 (49%) 135 (51%)

NB all percentages rounded to the nearest whole number

Total number of rankings - 265

Support Parish council's proposal for smaller and fair share of development on other sites than those proposed 64 Rethink SHL76 52 Sites inappropriate unless put forward in Neighbourhood Plan 52 Roads and infrastructure unsuited to further development 38 250 new houses would destroy historic character and overwhelm village 33 Risk of flooding with further development 27 Consider site at Mill Lane 12 SHL74 better with ease of access for transport and least impact on village 6 Consider new brownfield sites SHL178 and SHL179 6 in Hart area will be adversely affected 5 Build as many new homes as possible here, Crondall is underdeveloped, has space, is less visible 5 SHL73 would result in damage to ancient woodland 4 Use infills 3 Preferable to more development in Fleet 2 SHL74 joins Crondall with Fleet, leaving no clear boundary 2 SHL74 too remote and unconnected with village 1 Land around Crondall should be used for self-build 1 Prioritise expanding urban areas and protect rural villages and greenfield sites 1 SHL74 adjacent to trees covered by Tree Preservation Order and has public right of way running along boundary 1

Total number of comments on Crondall - 201

Page 37 of 108

Crookham Village

There is one site only shortlisted in Crookham Village – SHLAA Ref 116 Cross Farm

Road and infrastructure cannot cope 97 Will completely change character of Crookham Village which is in conservation zone 65 Use brownfield site SHL158 56 Site not suitable for access - very dangerous junctions and narrow twisting roads 34 Will link village to Fleet/Zebon Copse with no gap 29 Huge impact on wildlife, biodiversity and general environment 28 Flooding problems 26 Sufficient development has already taken place around here 21 Site is on higher ground and would be prominent for some distance, ruining countryside views 18 150 homes is excessive for rural village 16 Much of site is unsuitable for development 16 Use brownfield rather than greenfield 7 Cross Farm is good option but Winchfield new town better 6 Cross Farm would negatively impact infrastructure of Fleet (roads, rail station, schools & surgeries) without providing any significant funding for their improvement 2 Exceeds settlement boundary 1 There is need for a care and nursing home and would tie in with existing facilities 1 Has the capacity to absorb more than 150 and should be used 1 Build as many new homes as possible here 1 Prioritise expanding urban areas and protect rural villages and greenfield sites 1 Add brownfield site SHL28, listed as developable 1 No support for site 60 due to impact on Fleet infrastructure 1 Adjoins village no problem 1

Total number of comments on Crookham Village - 268

Dogmersfield

There is one site only shortlisted in Dogmersfield – COM001

Roads and amenities could not cope 111 Development would change landscape character and identity of village 91 Combined site too large scale for Dogmersfield. Suggest SHL39 and SHL55 instead 67 Site is within Conservation Area 64 Good place for local expansion, preferable to Fleet 15 Flood risk 6 Access is restricted 4 Development involves 5 different landowners with different priorities and timescales 3 Unacceptable encroachment on greenfield site 3 Building would close strategic gap between Crookham Village, Fleet and Dogmersfield 2

Page 38 of 108

Convert existing light industrial sites to housing 1 Site 54 should come forward in its own right 1 Overdevelopment of countryside 1 Away from station but still a nice area to live 1

Total number of comments on Dogmersfield - 226

Elvetham Heath

There is one site only shortlisted in Elvetham Heath – SHLAA Ref 104

OK to develop, has infrastructure in place and would not make significant change to area 74 Site listed with capacity of 45 not 40. Should develop this 51 Infrastructure, inc. schools and doctors, cannot cope with more houses 21 Should not reduce level of green space and conservation land on estate 5 Thought this site was planned for lift shares/park and ride - this has never been made available 3 No more development, Elvetham Heath is big enough 2 This site provides barrier visually and audibly from train line, should not be lost 1 Shame to take out rare trees on site 1 Should be affordable housing and is not 1 Development would cause massive disruption to already busy area 1 Do not like the idea of development south of A323 1 Disagree with zero capacity rating, does not fit with 200+ ratings given to other areas 1

Total number of comments on Elvetham Heath - 160

Page 39 of 108

Eversley

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 SHLAA Land west of 68 8 14 6 5 8 16 15 47 Ref 23 Marsh Lane (36%) (4%) (7%) (3%) (3%) (4%) (9%) (8%) (25%) SHLAA Land north of 24 39 12 29 29 17 14 16 7 Ref 26 Reading Road (13%) (21%) (6%) (16%) (16%) (9%) (7%) (9%) (4%) SHLAA Land adjoining 22 19 50 13 8 9 13 20 33 Ref Crosby Gardens (12%) (10%) (27%) (7%) (4%) (5%) (7%) (11%) (18%) 103 SHLAA CEMEX Site A 34 34 7 42 8 17 14 24 7 Ref (18%) (18%) (4%) (22%) (4%) (9%) (7%) (13%) (4%) 112a SHLAA CEMEX Site B 9 46 6 15 51 13 16 25 6 Ref (5%) (25%) (3%) (8%) (27%) (7%) (9%) (13%) (3%) 112b SHLAA Land west of the 3 8 33 32 35 55 10 5 6 Ref Fielders (2%) (4%) (18%) (17%) (19%) (29%) (5%) (3%) (3%) 122 SHLAA Area B Land at 7 13 25 20 21 21 62 11 7 Ref Eversley Cross (4%) (7%) (13%) (11%) (11%) (11%) (33%) (6%) (4%) 246 SHLAA Land north of 3 13 13 18 16 38 27 52 7 Ref Hollybush Lane (2%) (7%) (7%) (10%) (9%) (20%) (14%) (28%) (4%) 247 SHLAA Land between 17 7 27 12 14 9 15 19 67 Ref Eversley Road and (9%) (4%) (14%) (6%) (7%) (5%) (8%) (10%) (36%) 273 Firgrove Road

NB all percentages rounded to the nearest whole number

Total number of rankings – 187

Consider brownfield sites SHL117, SHL127 and SHL140 instead 56 Roads and infrastructure cannot cope with this many extra residents 24 This will double size of village, not fair compared to other villages 13 Would ruin character of existing settlement 12 This will join Eversley to Yateley, destroying village status 10 Eversley can take more homes but must have infrastructure improvements too 6 Flood risk from extra development 5 Will cause havoc to surrounding habitats and wildlife 3 Site 23 has already been found unsuitable on multiple grounds 2 Preferable to more development in Fleet 2 Site 246 is most preferred site - logical extension to village, designated as residential 1

These houses are not affordable and developers will not provide services to community 1

Page 40 of 108

Only in favour of CEMEX A and B and Marsh Lane area being developed 1 Most sites fall in 400m to 5km zone and must be mitigated through SANG 1 Develop new town here 1 Site 273 is most appropriate due to its proximity and relation to larger settlement of Yateley 1 Footpath/cycle path needed for safe connection between Eversley and Yateley 1 Site 26 is an unused and unsightly patch of scrub and would be good use for housing 1 SHLAA 23 would allow SANGS to be brought forward and financial contributions towards transport infrastructure 1 Unreasonable that SH127 is rejected, could be screened to improve landscape 1 Numbers over estimate number actually achievable 1 Sites 26, 103 and 273 are separate from Eversley 1 What is development opposite the Fielders at moment - is this infrastructure for the new development and already decided on? 1

Total number of comments on Eversley - 127

Ewshot

1 2 3 SHLAA ref 90 Stillers Farm 56 65 57 (31%) (37%) (32%) Combination site COM005 Land south of Church 25 92 61 Crookham (14%) (52%) (34%) Combination site COM006 Lane east of Redfields 97 21 60 Lane (54%) (12%) (34%)

NB all percentages rounded to the nearest whole number

Total number of rankings - 178

Consider again SHL80 and SHL174 54 Go forward with COM006 52 Roads and infrastructure cannot cope with more homes 29 Must understand effects of recent developments in area before any further building 19 COM005 currently provides gap between Church Crookham and Ewshot 8

This is really extension of development at Church Crookham, more than enough already 7 Development would ruin rural feel and character and affect wildlife in area 3 Good plan to distribute development 2 COM005 may be flood prone 2 Use brownfield sites only 2 Stillers Farm is better option than more development in Fleet 2 If Hitches Lane developed too, would create urban sprawl on this side of town 1 Site 90 would benefit from access and facilities through Crookham Park 1 COM005 and 6 have difficult access and limited adjacent infrastructure 1

Page 41 of 108

This is a nucleus of new housing with rationale behind it and could be improved by good design 1 Priority not very important, they will all be needed 1 This area could allow for some development without disrupting local surroundings 1 COM006 land already with an option by Berkeley homes following A287 roundabout works 1 Refer to Neighbourhood Plan 1

Total number of comments on Ewshot - 117

Fleet

1 2 3 4 SHLAA Ref 320 Fleet Town Centre, zone 2 266 21 34 72 (68%) (5%) (9%) (18%) SHLAA Ref 322 Fleet Town Centre, zone 4 19 247 92 35 (5%) (63%) (23%) (9%) SHLAA Ref 338 Land at Great Bramshot Farm, south of 67 50 124 152 A327 (17%) (13%) (32%) (39%) SHLAA Ref 357 Land at Sankey Lane 41 75 143 134 (10%) (19%) (36%) (34%)

NB all percentages rounded to the nearest whole number

Total number of rankings – 393

Site 333 should be reconsidered in conjunction with Pyestock but must have infrastructure 64 Add in brownfield sites SHL41, 42, 50, 69, 102, 113, 245, 275 57 Should build on brownfield and infills 33 Town centre sites should be prioritised as they have infrastructure 33 Need more schools and better infrastructure if build in Fleet 32 Go forward with SHL320, 322, 357, 358, 338 in that order. 30 Site 333 rejected on drawing and yet appears on shortlist on questionnaire 15 Development at Bramshot Farm and Sankey Lane would be in gap between Fleet and Cove 10 Any new developments should be small and very carefully considered 7 Fleet not taking fair share of new development, is tier 1 6 No more in Fleet town area 6

Should redevelop sites for older residents to allow independent living with built in aids 4 Bramshot Farm and Sankey Lane are nowhere near facilities 3 SHL333 preferable to Stillers Farm and Crookham Village, but very close to M3 so bad on environmental and health grounds 3 Sankey Lane and Bramshot Farm are good locations on main route directly out to M3 3 Problem when building small settlements no obligation to improve infrastructure and when large settlements built, can't cope 2

Page 42 of 108

Most of these seem reasonable 2 Should spread building throughout community rather than too many new build in one area 2 Reconsider brownfield sites SHL50, 51 and 275 2 Site 320 best suited to affordable and starter homes, not retail 2 Hartland Park site should be re-addressed, has been left undeveloped 2 Sankey Lane is marsh area 1 Bramshot Farm access is via busy narrow road and must be considered carefully 1 Better up towards M3 exit 4A 1 Disagree with zero capacity rating, does not fit with 200+ ratings given to other areas 1 Bramshot Farm development extends conurbation towards Hook 1

Any development in town should maximise affordable housing but fit character of town 1 Should extend upwards and build many more apartments on site 26 1 Use Lynchford Tyre site at end of Kings Road and car wash sites near Oatsheaf and on Albert Road 1 Site 322 is unsuitable as will increase load on sewer beneath Calthorpe Park, which blocks up and floods nearby properties 1 Reconsider site 102 1 Sankey Lane is very close to Ancells Farm Nature Reserve and development would have detrimental effect on reserve 1 Must be parking for 2 cars for every home built 1 Use imaginative and in keeping architecture 1 Housing east of Fleet station will impact town less than building to west 1 Should not be building on farmland 1 If west of Fleet site developed, parish boundary should be extended to incorporate it - it will use Fleet facilities and should not be in adjoining parish 1 Agree sites at Fitzroy Road and land at Little Mead should be excluded, has to be some protection for traditions of area 1 Build as many new homes as possible here 1

Total number of comments on Fleet - 219

Greywell There are no shortlisted sites at Greywell

Greywell should take its share, good location for M3 and schools 15 Traffic from sites 108 and 330 would be detrimental to Greywell, destroy local gap and ruin environment 7 Greywell should be kept small and protected 7 Follow Neighbourhood Plan 5 Sites should be considered here before further development in Fleet 3 Build on infill and land opposite Fox and Goose 1 Compulsory purchase land for self-build 1 No comment to make 1 Lucky them 1

Total number of comments on Greywell - 41

Page 43 of 108

Hartley Wintney

1 2 3 SHLAA Ref 19a Land at Grange Farm A 180 77 87 (52%) (22%) (25%) SHLAA Ref 19b Land at Grange Farm B 85 199 60 (25%) (58%) (17%) SHLAA Ref 89 & 94 Land adjacent to Causeway Green and 79 68 197 Farm (23%) (20%) (57%)

NB all percentages rounded to the nearest whole number

Total number of rankings - 344

Don't pursue shortlisted sites unless in Neighbourhood Plan 78 Consider again brownfield sites SHL95 and SHL216 73 Building on conservation areas, including the Green used for recreation and as visitor attraction 60 Roads and infrastructure cannot cope with more housing 54 Need to preserve countryside views and village feel of area 52 No more developments in Hartley Wintney, has had a lot recently 25 Combined capacity of 19a and b exceeds entire SHL19 listed with capacity of 80, incorrect numbers 25 Flooding/groundwater problems 22 Sites 19a and 19b are outside settlement boundary 19 Building is very close to historic listed buildings, would impact the setting 17 Building would have adverse effect on wildlife 16 Brownfield sites should be used, not greenfield 14 Sites have very limited access 12 Development would involve loss of fertile farming land 12

More development here needed, has schools, high street and good access to motorways 7 Building would close strategic gap 6 Better to have many small developments than 2 or 3 large developments 5 Consider new site SHL189 5

Causeway Farm is integral part of village and any redevelopment must be sympathetic 4 SHL155 should be reconsidered 3 All sites seem sensible 3 Owners of 19a and b have offered 'green lung' land and land to support accessibility for younger owners 3 COM002 provides greatest connectivity to village. Parking/road access should be provided to cottages at top of Green 3 Options preferable to further development in Fleet 2 Site 19a would have no pedestrian access to village, too cut off 2 Any housing must be affordable for local people 2

Page 44 of 108

Site 132 would be better than these sites 2 This consultation does not include all sites on SHLAA and more are coming forward as result of a call for sites 2 Phoenix Green is very small and could join with Hartley Wintney 1 Site 19b to be a Rural Exception Site 1 Sites 19a and b would have less impact on conservation area 1 Join up White Lion antiques with village to give more housing 1 Continue development along Fleet Road, away from Heath 1 Grange Farm was deemed undevelopable in November 2015, don't know why this has changed 1 Why not use land between St John's Church and Church View, surrounded by housing now? 1 Site 19a is low-lying and would be very wet 1 Architecture must blend in with older parts 1 Would cause damaging amount of light pollution in area 1

Total number of comments on Hartley Wintney - 236

Heckfield

There is one site only shortlisted at Heckfield – SHLAA Ref 92 Land south of Riseley

Don’t pursue SHL92 unless put forward in Neighbourhood Plan 45 Ideal area for further development. Need to identify sites for at least 150 homes 13 Need to upgrade infrastructure before further building 7 Reconsider sites 257 and 259, both available, accessible and suitable 5 Location good for access to A33 and M4 4 Site preferred to any of listed Fleet sites 3 Area prone to flooding 2

This site is really part of Riseley but is only part of Heckfield with required infrastructure 2 Too rural for more houses, should be protected 2 Use site for temporary travelling site or self-build/customer made rather than large development 1 New town required 1 No suitable public transport 1 Riseley is governed by Wokingham Dc but housing by Hart DC, would be major problem for admin 1 Need low-cost housing for residents 1 Should build on brownfield, not greenfield 1

Total number of comments on Heckfield - 82

Page 45 of 108

Hook

1 2 3 SHLAA Ref 9 Land at Owen’s Farm 104 97 219 (25%) (23%) (52%) SHLAA Ref 130 West of Varndell Road 46 318 56 (11%) (76%) (13%) SHLAA Ref 111 & 294 Hook Garden Centre, Reading Road 270 5 145 (64%) (1%) (35%)

NB all percentages rounded to the nearest whole number

Total number of rankings - 420

Develop brownfield sites such as vacant offices around Bartley Wood 65 Pursue SHL111, and SHL9 and 130 as a last resort 60 Redevelop Grand Parade and centre of Hook 55 Roads and infrastructure can't cope with more developments 45 Sites 9 and 130 will merge Hook and Newnham, gap must be preserved 25 Site of 500 homes already planned for east of village, no further housing should be allowed until impact considered 22 Owen's Farm has already been rejected twice including once on appeal 20 Must concentrate development in north-east sector of Hook, roads can cope better here and will be extension of planned housing in that area 11 Hook Garden Centre is along high speed route on a curve in the road, need new road layout 10 Hook has excellent transport connections by road and rail so good choice for development, should be reclassified as main urban area 9 Hook has had more than its fair share of development in last 30 years, no more 8 Sites 111 and 294 will connect Hook to Rotherwick, not desirable 7 Site at Hook Garden centre is flood zone 7 No viable road access to sites 9 and 130 6 Sites 9 and 130 adjoin existing development and have reasonable road access 5 All these sites are on outer fringes of village and will not have easy access to services or infrastructure. Sites 111 and 294 have no pedestrian pavements 5 Development would mean loss of habitat and wildlife sites 5 Any further expansion will destroy sense of community and character of village 3 Only obvious land is alongside M3 towards Hoggett pub, all other sites involve traffic congestion in Hook 3 Sites 3,4, and 5 should be reconsidered 2 Owen's Farm development would join Hart to Basingstoke and fill green gap 2 OK to expand as long as children can fit into primary school, building new school would be detrimental and fragment the community 2 Site 111 will significantly add traffic to Reading Road, 4,6, and 123 better 2 Upgrade to existing lane to Owens Farm must be main entrance to housing 2 Sites 111 and 294 go too far into unspoilt countryside and farming/allotment land, outside existing settlement 2

Page 46 of 108

All options preferable to developments in Fleet 2 Site 130 will increase risk of flooding to north of Hook 2 Hook residents have already accepted development on Reading Road, why not built yet? 1 Prefer smaller developments first 1 Use Hook after Winchfield 1 Ensure lower priced housing for residents, not simply smaller 1 Avoid routing more traffic onto A30, need other traffic calming measures 1 COM003 preferred if infrastructure and facilities upgraded 1 Build for old people in Hook to discourage more children needing places in school - causes too much congestion 1 South east of Hook has potential but has been ignored 1 Reconsider site 5 1 Developers should be mandated to fund facilities to support future growth 1 Distribute across Hook from congested areas 1

Total number of comments on Hook - 244

Long Sutton

1 2 3 4 SHLAA Ref 30 Land at Hyde Road 68 20 19 15 (56%) (16%) (16%) (12%) SHLAA Ref 32 Land east of Copse Lane 2 82 27 11 (2%) (67%) (22%) (9%) SHLAA Ref 62 Granary Fields 29 10 59 24 (24%) (8%) (48%) (20%) SHLAA Ref 291 Land south of Chaffers Close 23 10 17 72 (19%) (8%) (14%) (59%)

NB all percentages rounded to the nearest whole number

Total number of rankings - 122

Do not want development at these sites unless in Neighbourhood Plan 48 Reconsider brownfield site SHL296 46 Complete lack of infrastructure for new development 29 Village should not be overdeveloped, these developments are disproportionate to existing size and would completely change character 20 Dangerous narrow roads with poor visibility cannot take more traffic 14 SHL335 and 336 would be better as they have access to main road and would have least impact on village 8 Site 62 is preferred as is small development and avoids more traffic through middle of village 4 Site 30 is surrounded by historic listed properties 4 Development could cause flooding problems 4 Use brownfield first 3 Development runs along Conservation Embankment providing valuable habitat for wildlife 3 Should be a priority for development, is close to M3 and has schools 2

Page 47 of 108

Needs to take some share 2 Site 30 is best site and should be increased to 35 - 40 units 2 Klargester for local drainage situated in middle of site 62, would reduce area available for development 2 All options preferable to developments in Fleet 2 Site 30 is classified as 'important view' and this would ruin it 1 Lord Wandsworth College owns land and indicated 10 years ago there would be no property development 1 All sites reasonable but priority should go to those where bottlenecks of traffic least likely 1 Site 30 best for 10-12 houses of mixed sizes 1 Close to Robert Mays school, M3 and A30 1

Total number of comments on Long Sutton - 96

Mattingley

There are no shortlisted sites at Mattingley

Should take share of development 12 Need to preserve character of villages and hamlets so right to reject developments 6 Follow Neighbourhood Plan 5 Sites should be considered here before any further development in Fleet 3 Use infill, must be available 2 Use Mattingley for temporary travelling site or self-build /custom made houses 2 Disagree with zero capacity rating, does not fit with 200+ ratings given to other areas 1 Consider converting barns at Church Farm 1 Reconsider sites 239 and 240, would relieve pressure on other areas 1 New town required 1

Total number of comments on Mattingley - 33

Page 48 of 108

Odiham

1 2 3 SHLAA Ref 79 Land south of Hamilton House 178 100 73 (51%) (28%) (21%) SHLAA Ref 327 Land to the south of Crownfields 78 218 55 (west) (22%) (62%) (16%) SHLAA Ref 108 & 330 Land to the north of Deptford Lane 95 33 223 (27%) (9%) (64%)

NB all percentages rounded to the nearest whole number

Total number of rankings – 351

Sites 108 and 330 must be ruled out, was rejected in Odiham Pre-submission Onward Plan 81 Only want sites in Odiham Neighbourhood Plan 78 Look again at rejected sites, many more suitable than COM004 65 Reconsider brownfield sites SHL29 and 119 47 Sites 79 and COM004 destroy strategic gaps with North Warnborough and Greywell 30 Developments would be significant overdevelopment, increasing traffic on dangerous roundabout on A287 17 Infrastructure could not cope with increased traffic and residents 16 COM004 would damage environment and natural habitats of wildlife 12 Sites 108 and 330 would create unsolvable access and traffic problems 11 Historic rural environment would be spoiled by development 10 Needs to take more development to be fair, has not already suffered from over-expansion and is close to M3 10 Site 79 would erode strategic gap between new settlement at Winchfield and Odiham and between Broad Oak and Odiham 10 There has been too much building in Odiham lately 10 Site 79 is too remote from rest of parish and far from amenities 8 Must not be any development because of impact on historic village of Greywell 5 108 and 330 would be best, would be whole new estate but close to high street without spoiling feel of Odiham. Also nearest to M3 and could supply playing fields for school 4 Use empty buildings such as the Swan Inn at North Warnborough 4 New larger development would be beneficial to Odiham as long as new infrastructure provided 3 Use brownfield sites before greenfield 3 Why has site 110 been rejected? 3 Site 327 suitable for starter homes or affordable housing or homes for elderly, but 10 houses isn't many 2 Site 79 has good access onto A287 and building work already taking place 2 More affordable housing needed 2 Site 108 was turned down by Hart Planning Committee about 2 years ago 2 Sites 108 and 330 are too far from town facilities 2 All options preferable to developments in Fleet 2 Reconsider sites 59 and 60 1

Page 49 of 108

Must protect Deer Park Conservation Area 1 Should identify a site for a Rural exception scheme in Odiham parish 1 Would not support development at site 327 1 Expand towards RAF Odiham 1 Site 327 road too busy and dangerous for more housing 1 Site 327 is natural extension of proposed development and sustainable 1 Site 79 has flooding issues 1 Why was Newlyns Farm site rejected as unsuitable? 1 Use smaller sites within settlement boundary if necessary 1 Reconsider sites 59 and 60 1

Total number of comments on Odiham - 244

Rotherwick

1 2 3 SHLAA Ref 87 Land north west of Rotherwick Village 51 25 66 (36%) (18%) (46%) SHLAA Ref 115 Land at Green Lane 56 70 16 (39%) (49%) (11%) SHLAA Ref 290 Land at Rosemary Cottage 35 47 60 (25%) (33%) (42%)

NB all percentages rounded to the nearest whole number

Total number of rankings - 142

Site 115 is too high density and would ruin look of village 23 Sites 87 and 290 would cause harm to rural character of village and are in conservation area and on green belt land 18 Roads and infrastructure, especially gas, electricity and broadband, could not cope 15 Should be no development due to outstanding beauty of rural landscape and would spoil view and character of village 14 Should follow Neighbourhood Development Plan 9 Too many houses - would increase housing stock by 45% 6 No amenities in village, would only be suited to commuters 4 Good idea to build in existing village, there is big demand for affordable rural housing 4 Site 290 borders listed buildings and has no access 3 Use brownfield and infill sites 2 Site 87 is worst as has highest capacity and would put too much burden on properties and traffic 2 Building would increase flood risk 2 All options preferable to developments in Fleet 2 Site 87 is best but still has access problems 1 Ensure new builds maintain appearance and are appropriate looking dwellings 1 Site 86 should be reconsidered as it is brownfield 1 New town required 1 Site 115 is best with least disruption 1

Page 50 of 108

Site 290 is best , will cause less disruption 1 SHLAA 5 is largely in Rotherwick and should appear here 1 May be more suitable for customer and self-build projects 1

Total number of comments on Rotherwick - 76

South Warnborough

1 2 3 SHLAA Ref 33 Plough Meadow 18 43 62 (15%) (35%) (50%) SHLAA Ref 71 Land adjacent to Nash Meadows / Ridley’s 35 61 27 Piece (28%) (50%) (22%) SHLAA Ref 172 Granary Court 70 19 34 (57%) (15%) (28%)

NB all percentages rounded to the nearest whole number

Total number of rankings - 123

Only develop if put forward in Neighbourhood Plan 50 Reconsider brownfield site SHL70 49 Site 71 is outside settlement boundary and would mean access through existing developments and unsuitable roads 10 Infrastructure is minimal with poor transport links 6 Needs to take some of the share without overdevelopment 5 Development is on high grade agricultural land 4 Previous affordable housing in South Warnborough had very little demand 4 Number of units in a small village is inappropriate and will change character 4 South Warnborough has basic facilities and good access to B3349 so some affordable homes and family homes could be built here 2 Sites 33 and 172 would create less traffic through village 2 Would be good site for temporary travellers site or custom/self-build, close to M3 and good local schools 2 All options preferable to developments in Fleet 2 Preserve greenfield sites so that people can enjoy countryside and wildlife 1 Site 71 is outside conservation area and would have little impact, is logical extension, available for development, lowest flood risk 1 Number of houses could cause drainage problems 1 Site 172 is brownfield with good access to roads and few onsite constraints 1 Site 172 would set precedent to expand village northwards and join Odiham 1 Site 33 is ideally located and would be sympathetic to rural character and lies outside 5km SPA zone so suitable for 18 homes 1 Sites should be as close to main Odiham-Alton road as possible 1 Why was site 75 rejected? 1

Total number of comments on South Warnborough - 82 Page 51 of 108

Winchfield

There are no shortlisted sites at Winchfield

Do not want to see any of strategic sites developed into a new town, would not be viable with M3 and railway, SANG, schools etc., beautiful natural landscape 103 Follow Neighbourhood Plan 77 Should be expanded into new town, has a station and good access to motorway but infrastructure must be provided 74 Reconsider sites 34, 84 and 114 69 Winchfield should take its share of smaller sites if new town not built 15 Small number of houses in Winchfield only 7 Use brownfield sites and infill instead of new settlement 6 Some areas are in flood zone - should reserve these for SANGs 2 No major developments, would link with Hartley Wintney, Hook, Fleet and Dogmersfield 1 Reconsider site 262 1 Build on Murrell Green 1 Suitable site at Old Potbridge Road available for 18 dwellings 1 Housing numbers too high, shouldn't be covering for Rushmoor and Surrey Heath 1 Planning applications in Winchfield have been turned down because not in keeping with rural nature of area - gives impression has been no development 1 On farm sites within area 1

Total number of comments on Winchfield - 217

Yateley

1 2 SHLAA Ref 11 Land at Moulsham Lane 162 105 (61%) (39%) SHLAA Ref 20 Land at Reading Road 105 162 (39%) (61%)

NB all percentages rounded to the nearest whole number

Total number of rankings – 267

Neither of these sites should be developed unless in Neighbourhood Plan 55 Consider redeveloping parts of town centre/brownfield sites 51 Infrastructure cannot cope with more building, no public transport 40 Site 11 totally unsuitable, poor access, flooding, wildlife implications and dangerous roads 34 Area are prone to flooding 7 Site 20 will cause less disruption than site 11, close to main road 7 Yateley needs to take its share, use existing infrastructure 7

Page 52 of 108

Council currently fighting appeal at site 11 6 Both developments are adjacent to existing settlements so good options as can use existing infrastructure 4 Site 20 has access and traffic problems 3 Reading Road has already had development including retirement village so no more 3 Yateley must be kept distinct and separate from other villages 3 Sites 103 and 273 in Eversley are really extensions to Yateley, cannot cope with more 2 Site 20 maintains gap between Yateley and Blackwater and should be left undeveloped 2 Encroaching on gap between Yateley and Eversley 2 All options preferable to developments in Fleet 2 Use after Winchfield 1 Site 11 better for starter and affordable homes 1 Site 20 better for elderly as near shops 1 Area with historical interest and outstanding natural beauty - should not be developed 1 Urnfield site should be built on as flooding problem could be dealt with as for retirement complex at Hampshire Lakes 1

Total number of comments on Yateley - 154

Total number of comments to question 6 – 3282

Page 53 of 108

Q7. Do you have any other comments on the refined housing options paper?

Summary of Comments Number of comments

Crondall cannot take this scale of housing, >50% increase, is conservation area, would increase flood risk and infrastructure, especially roads, cannot cope, also has district hut, can take fair share of about 46 houses 150 Build on brownfield sites, esp. Pyestock, to use existing infrastructure, but should be mixed use not only housing 136 Should be consulting on employment, retail, transport, infrastructure, environment, education as well as housing 120 Need overestimated, SHMA out of date, should not take shortfall from Rushmoor and Surrey Heath 109 All SHLAA sites not included, should have rejected sites with rejection criteria and brownfield sites 95 Development of land north of Deptford Lane would lead to urban sprawl, damage environment and natural habitat, generate large traffic volumes on narrow country lanes, destroy gap between Greywell and North Warnborough 90 Only way forward is new settlement at Winchfield with its own infrastructure, will allow for future expansion 73 No new settlement at Winchfield, would create urban sprawl, infrastructure can't cope, destroy beautiful countryside, contains SINCs, TPOs and SSSIs, would have insufficient capacity and would coalesce settlements, multiple ownership of sites 49 Overdevelopment will spoil countryside and characters of villages, cause flooding, rural areas should be recognised and protected 45 Odiham and North Warnborough are already taking their fair share of housing as determined by Neighbourhood Plan, do not have infrastructure for more 44 Consultation is biased, maps have no reference points, impossible to understand where proposed housing is, some areas rated with high capacity and others with virtually zero, document access difficult, not much information on how decisions reached 41 Fleet and surrounding area, inc. Church Crookham is full to capacity, cannot cope with more people and traffic pollution and gridlock, site 322 will cause flooding problems, any build on south/southwest will affect Crookham Village 39 Hook cannot take more new housing, does not have infrastructure, has already had a lot of development, part of shortlisted sites used as horse rescue home 36 Rotherwick cannot take 70 new houses, lacks infrastructure, would ruin unique rural character with wildlife and biodiversity, 14 SINCs and in conservation area, would be 35% increase 33 Spread housing burden across all towns and villages to be fair, will help smaller villages to keep existing services and facilities 28 Use Neighbourhood Plans and allow Parish to choose new sites 19 Fails to take account of housing already approved, including office conversions 16 Yateley and Eversley do not have facilities for more inhabitants, regular flooding, roads at full capacity, can only take small developments 12

Page 54 of 108

Make brave decisions for next generation, do not be bullied by nimbys, focus on opportunity to generate increased economic activity and investment, don't procrastinate, population is growing and needs somewhere to live 12 Document does not contain a compelling vision for Hart for next 30 years, will destroy local area, does not have regard to lives of current residents, need single, consistent approach which shows thought out planning 12 Build where there are facilities such as Fleet, Yateley, Odiham, Hook, Elvetham Heath, Blackwater and Hawley, not in small villages 11 Part of Crondall's allocation should be located at Mill Lane 10 Prioritise affordable homes, including flats, rather than huge houses for the minority. Still needs to be decent size room dimensions with garages and gardens 10 Hartley Wintney has had a lot of development lately, does not have infrastructure to support further expansion 10 Should not build on conservation areas or SINCs and protect listed buildings 10 Consultation biased in favour of new town at Winchfield, stating it will be self-contained, in question 5 only 1 of options excludes Winchfield 9 Should be green field boundary between all towns, esp. Yateley and Eversley 8 Long Sutton does not have infrastructure for further housing, suffers from flooding, would permanently alter historic integrity and would not be genuinely affordable, could have small number on sites 62, 291 and 31, site 62 is in joint ownership with Oasts Houses - oppose development 8 Weighting measures applied to answers have not been clarified, should take account of small populations of villages compared to larger urban areas 8 Anyone outside Hart can respond to consultation, this is open to abuse, best decided by people who live in the towns and villages, nothing is approved in Winchfield even if residents want it 8 Fleet needs to take more new houses, keep villages rural, regenerate Fleet town centre, build in greater density 7 Crookham Village does not have infrastructure and facilities for more housing, roads would be dangerous and lead to horrendous traffic problems 7 Questionnaire badly designed as have to rate developments in order of preference but no option for objecting to developments 7 Build within existing settlement boundaries wherever possible 6 No development required, Hart is full, redistribute growth to regions, North, Wales, Scotland, not south east 6 Odiham has potential for more housing and infrastructure, close to motorway junction, brownfield site at RAF Odiham, resubmit Lodge Farm site with fewer houses and a lake to mitigate flood risk 6 Take care over layout and appearance of new estates, would then be less invasive on green and leafy town and countryside, include adequate parking 6 Booklet did good job of presenting options in a balanced way, hope consultation is not overwhelmed by local politics 6 We do not need any more new houses, we need an improved infrastructure, including public transport. Current infrastructure cannot cope 6 Reconsider sites 3,4, and 5 and enlarge and regenerate Hook to reach its full potential, build in greater density, regenerate village centre, better than over-reliance on new settlement at Winchfield 6

Page 55 of 108

West of Hook site not suitable, no infrastructure, weight limit on railway bridge, is conservation area, dangerous roads, will cause coalescence with Newnham and overwhelm Newnham 6 Developers must fund facilities to support growth 5 Do not build on flood plains - canal could also flood. Flood defences just move the problem 5 Prioritise building for older people, Bramshill would be a good site for a retirement village 4 No evidence that testing has been done on strategic sites, especially traffic modelling 4 Site 11 at Moulsham Lane, Yateley is not a suitable site, possible flooding and poor access, lack of infrastructure 4 Inadequate notice of specific land being included - residents of Grange Farm only recently became aware it was included 4 Building 141 houses in centre of Dogmersfield is not sustainable or in keeping with surrounding area 4 Villages like Crondall, Rotherwick, Heckfield, Mattingley and Warnborough could be developed more 3 Building at end of Hop Garden was recently turned down so surprised to see sites 9 and 130 included in plan, would cause coalescence with Newnham 3 Document biased in favour of disperse development, not much detail on strategic approach and new settlement 3 Cycle routes urgently required around villages, particularly to link Crondall with Fleet and 3 Previous planning rejections should be seriously considered, including site 335 at Long Sutton 3 Should not build on farmland if at all possible, coniferous forestry has less long term economic value to rural community 3 Capacity figures on sites are calculated by HDC officers and not by site proposers, also no consideration of types of development site owners think most appropriate 3 SHMA should be higher so need additional housing sites such as land at White House Farm, north west of Hook and/or west of Fleet site and/or site 23 at Marsh Lane, Eversley 3 Survey results and Neighbourhood Plans will be heavily influenced by campaign groups etc., so professional planners should take objective view 3 Should not treat each part of Hart as separate communities, leads to piecemeal development not reflecting needs of future and current residents 2 Needs to be a clear division between Church Crookham and Ewshot, roads are dangerous and will be worse with more expansion, short listed sites do not affect Ewshot village but enlarge overall area of Fleet and Church Crookham 2 If we do not remain in EU, do not need to build more as economic migrants will leave 2 Don't allow supermarkets to destroy villages by offering to pay for other services and so corrupting process 2 New development should be undertaken at locations sustainable over longer term, not just plan period and must have all necessary infrastructure 2 Uneven distribution of sites - between 1750 - 4750 new homes within the Thames Basin Heaths SPA area and only 300 outside, consider new town outside area 2 Should be given idea of timescales and costs of any site deemed deliverable 2 Grange Farm is valuable rural pocket visited by many, bringing business and employment to village and should not be destroyed 2 Do we need new school, not good enough reason to concrete over Winchfield. Is larger Calthorpe really that bad? 1

Page 56 of 108

Winchfield, Hook and north Fleet have good transport links so should be developed, better than infill which causes gridlock 1 Environmental Impact Assessment should be carried out to maximise solar energy savings, rehouse species, add public transport, consider immigration and encourage non-polluting industrial 1 New developments should have ground rent attached to properties to cover landscape maintenance 1 Hart has non-adoption policy for taking on roads and lighting of new estates, will have negative impact on residents in future 1 Need all 3 options for different timeframes - dispersal first, then strategic urban extensions, then new settlement 1 Stop properties being rented out, is reason for lack of affordable housing 1 There are no shortlisted sites in Winchfield - should accept fair share if new town not developed 1 Site 92 south of Riseley is unsuitable, conflicts with Wokingham Borough Council strategy, infrastructure can't cope, poor access to major centres, within 5km of Thames Basin Heaths SPA so requires mitigation 1 Windfall allowance of 24 dwellings per annum seems rather high 1 Tier 5 settlements should not be excluded from dispersal strategy 1 Hartley Wintney and Odiham should take more housing, their centres can cope with more demand 1 Need local business incentives to keep local people employed locally 1 West of Hook site - what considerations have been taken into account? Should include road/pedestrian access. Lists Tylney Hall as 'place of material consideration', should also have church at Newnham 1 Reason for arbitrary combining of sites is unclear when different owners - need to know if COM sites will only be considered in entirety 1 Survey has grouped developments together and residents have to vote on whole group e.g. Can be pro Pale Lane development but against Hitches Lane 1 Murrell Green is preferred option, is flat, has access and large frontage onto A30, has employment opportunities and no flooding for over 50 years 1 Well is an area of outstanding natural beauty - document says Hart does not have any 1 Build in Aldershot, has a lot of ex-MoD brownfield land and town centre needs regeneration 1 Well should be included for potential new homes 1 Bramshill should have some sites, esp. former Police College site 1 New settlement in south west of district would be preferable with more facilities in settlement rather than adding extra demand for existing transport links 1 The views of Highway authorities and utility providers are primarily cost driven and not necessarily related to creation of desirable residential environment 1 Public should not be expected to rate sites which have not been fully assessed yet 1 Support development at Grove Farm 1 Sites at Yateley and Eversley have good transport links to M3 and M4 1 Eversley Cross has 479 new dwellings proposed but 3500 new homes have recently been built at Arborfield, 2 miles away so have had enough development 1 Murrell Green has listed building and beautiful countryside and farmland, need to protect for future 1

Page 57 of 108

Odiham and North Warnborough local plan pushed through despite low and non-proportional response rate, proposes greenfield sites instead of brownfield, increases socio-economic divide in villages 1 Many of sites are relatively small and S106 or CIL contributions will be insufficient to solve infrastructure problems 1 Has anyone talked to Basingstoke and Deane? We have a 'west of Hook strategic site'. Do they have an 'east of Newnham strategic site'? 1 Emphasis should be on 3 tier system - 1. parishes with sufficient infrastructure for growth, 2. need additional infrastructure and could be enhanced, 3. rural and character villages, must be protected 1 Council is under pressure from central govt but must remember is servant of people who pay council tax - compromises should be on side of local people 1 No one really wants to become an urban area 1 There are other sites available not included here which could be brought forward in which case the housing need can easily be found 1

Total number of comments to question 7 - 1019

Page 58 of 108

Comments regarding the Draft Vision and Strategic Priorities for Hart

Q1. We have identified a set of key issues for the Local Plan in table 1 on page 5. Do you agree with them?

Number of Summary of Comments comments

Brownfield sites have been ignored, nothing justifies development of greenfield, use vacant retail and office blocks, would resolve issue 13 159 Issue 4 should be stronger, particularly roads, education, health and leisure facilities. Hart cannot cope now. Should mention wastage/sewage, power, roads access, broadband 115 Centres of major settlements like Fleet, Hook, Yateley and Blackwater should be developed 92 Proposal for urban extensions and new settlement will make worse key issues 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 12, 13 and 14 86 Housing need should be more thoroughly assessed using up to date information, numbers too high, should not be taking overspill from Surrey Heath and Rushmoor 55 Issues very vague and idealistic, no clear view how they will be achieved 50 Would question need for new housing, prevent overdevelopment, population is not relentlessly increasing, preserve rural character of Hart, is becoming more and more suburban 41 Are issues in order of priority? Should allow public to prioritise 39 Issue 2 - Insufficient priority on affordable homes for younger people, not so much for elderly, already well catered for, should also include those who care for elderly/disabled 38 Issue 10 should be stronger, must promote and improve flood protection in flood risk areas, need new strategies 36 Road infrastructure could not cope with development at Winchfield, will have large negative effect on character of Hart area, leading to coalescence, does not achieve issues 5,6,10,13 32 Issue 8 is very important, we're creating chaos, esp. for those unable to drive, need to mention huge advantage of railway line and station, need bus service too, poss. trams along A30 31 Marginally neutral, agree in principle, some issues not very specific 26 Issue 13 should have higher priority, should include protection of Basingstoke canal, should provide network of bridleways and protect open spaces, add landscape character 22 Agree we need more places to live but keep housing to fair mixture, listen to locals, think in long term 19 Strongly agree with issue 6, don't want to live in urban sprawl, remove words 'where possible', also consider impact on settlements immediately beyond borders 17 Winchfield has good rail and road links and is ideal for new settlement, will prevent multiple villages being destroyed or losing green gaps 17 Quality of life and needs of existing and new residents is not mentioned 15 Priority should be affordable homes for residents of Hart, particularly key workers, becoming unaffordable because of commuters from outside 15

Page 59 of 108

Issue 14 - heritage is much more important, shouldn't be last priority, not being followed for land adj. to Causeway Farm or development at Crondall, should include St Johns Castle and surrounding area 15 Well thought out and argued, good that it is a long term plan, needs to enable housing delivery through plan period 11 Survey too complicated, citizens of one area should not be required to comment on other areas 11 Particularly agree with issue 12, no net loss of biodiversity would be better issue/target, change to 'not significantly affect' SPA, should include other SSSIs 11 Agree particularly with key issue 5 - need rural areas around settlements, should not build many new houses in Dogmersfield 10 Biased and delusional - issues contradict themselves, flagrantly breach current saved policies, too simplistic and needs more work 9 Fleet and Church Crookham are too overcrowded, cannot take any more housing, traffic is very bad, needs bypass 9 Economic development should be pushed to North, Wales and Scotland, we have enough in the South 8 Hart has a duty to preserve and maintain the balance of rural and urban, do not harm existing character and environment of settlements, keep Hart number 1 best place to live 8 Issue 9 - climate change is controversial topic and should not be allowed to influence housing decisions, used as excuse for bad planning 7 Must build houses that are more eco-friendly, first class insulation & solar panels as standard, with enough parking and dedicated cycle routes, encourage cycling/walking 7 Issue 7 is very important, need to build beautiful places to live, work and play, destinations for visitors, not just commuter towns. Should respect local and historic character and distinctiveness 6 Must not overlook environmental factors, strike hard deals with building companies to prevent build on inadequate land as at Hitches Lane 6 Need more focus on enhancing economic development to provide jobs within the district, rather than turning office blocks into housing 6 No reference made to Neighbourhood Plans 5 Generation of new jobs within Hart does not warrant this number of houses 5 Issue 4 - Hook has not had infrastructure improvements for proposed new housing, cannot cope now, should remain a village 4 Thames Basin SPA needs to be revisited and reviewed - too much emphasis and over- reaction in terms of expected mitigation 4 Load should be spread across district to cause minimal reduction in living standards of Hart residents, integrated into existing settlements to use existing infrastructure 4 Agree with some issues but not all 4 Issues 1 and 4 are indivisible - housing and infrastructure provision must be considered together 4 Imperative to avoid coalescence of settlements turning rural hamlets into suburban sprawls 4 Issue 6 is in conflict with issue 4 3 Issues 12 and 13 - SANGs pay little consideration to environment or wildlife, environmental advice does not need to be taken, should be local government control 3

Page 60 of 108

Think this will have a more negative than positive impact, do not agree with majority of key issues 3 Issue 6 is not a key issue and contains 'where possible' which makes it ambiguous 3 Needs to be flexible enough to accommodate more housing than currently envisaged and allow a rapid response to changed circumstances 3 Most important to preserve nature and boundaries of Hartley Wintney 3 Allocation of a range of strategic urban extension sites will help respond to key issues identified, shorter lead time than new settlement, can deliver affordable housing 3 General impression is Hart trying to build as little as possible, more good quality housing desperately needed by young people 3 Need to know costs before can comment 2 Why have some areas been rejected? Crondall would be ideal for small development, those proposed would overwhelm it. Also Odiham, Long Sutton, South Warnborough and Rotherwick should be included 2 Issues 5 and 6 will be undermined in Crookham Village if development occurs at Cross Farm, Grove Farm or Pilcot Farm and other bolt-on developments elsewhere 2 Some of the heritage assets are not worthy of conservation being poor examples of historic construction, just excuse to push development towards larger existing developments 2 No mention of need to provide local shops, cafes and restaurants, particularly in new settlement, to reduce need for travelling 2 Incomplete list - misses environmental impact (e.g. air pollution and lost habitat), health impact (e.g. encourage walking and cycling) and community cohesion 2 Concern over coalescence is overstated, some of places insisting on unique character are not most significant or special 2 Issue 9 - no mention of need to decarbonise energy and transport infrastructure, should read 'the effects of climate change' 2 Need more focus on setting and importance of conservation area 2 Issue 2 should include other types of specialist accommodation, disabled people should be higher priority than old people 2 Provision of new homes should be limited to actual need rather than catering for wish to live in area 2 Agree with all apart from 1, 2, 7 2 Issue 3 should not be part of local plan, growth should happen where there is local driver and community can cope with growth, not just for sake of it 2 Need to add issues associated with older people, those on low incomes and travellers 2 All inter-linked, not separate matters 2 Issue 8 needs to address air quality and pollution issues 2 Development of land north of Deptford Lane would be catastrophic for Greywell and North Warnborough - coalescence, environmental damage, traffic increase, infrastructure demands 2 Issue 11 should be higher priority 2 Should not provide anything for travelling community 1 GHQ defence line is a rare historical interest, protection of this should be in Hart policies 1 Don't believe timescales, think it will happen much quicker 1 Issue 8 - historically settlements have grown around road junctions, now considering developments away from good transport infrastructure 1

Page 61 of 108

Need hubbed office space for shared remote working and new cultural centre 1 Should build new motorway junction near Pale Lane - reduce amount of traffic through Elvetham Heath and along Elvetham Road 1 Need to follow all 3 approaches - small dispersed development, followed by urban extensions and then new settlement but insist on affordable housing in all 1 Don't consult and then procrastinate, start implementation straight away 1 No reference to neighbouring councils esp. Basingstoke and Deane which has built a lot of homes recently, affecting Newnham 1 Should make consideration for technological advances in transportation, distribution and use of robotics and impact on society 1 List should be split into 'tactical' - including planning for infrastructure and services, and 'strategic' , including climate change 1 Key issues cannot be reconciled with approval of development at Pyestock 1 There is legal requirement to consult on other key issues such as employment, retail, transport and infrastructure 1 Add something about future of High Street, with growth of internet shopping and lack of incentives to go into towns - parking costs, available shops, traffic/pollution 1 Issue 8 - junction 4a is far busier than junction 5 and Fleet station much busier than Winchfield, Fleet far too busy already 1 Density too high, inaccessible to service and emergency vehicles , need to allow for 3 cars and a caravan for lots of properties 1 Issue 6 - each settlement could have its own housing requirements based upon character and identity considerations 1 Should be more emphasis on smaller local developers/builders delivering development tailored to local needs and context 1 Key issue should be finding out what type of houses residents need, what has already been approved and what can be redeveloped 1 Development of land at Marsh Lane would address many of these issues 1 Blackbushe should be included, could diminish increases of population in Hart villages 1 Issue 9 is very important 1 Wildlife, greenbelt, insect and fauna biodiversity and endangered species protection all missing 1 Key is ensuring gov is supplying funding to match demands for extra housing and not just stretch existing funds 1 Issue 7 - community integration is not necessary for any new development 1 Think carefully how any development will impact on surrounding area and what services are available for potential residents 1 Must be strong and determined not to let developers have it all their own way 1 Local plan says 2011- 2032, why is it being developed in 2016? Is it late? 1 Not on land to west of Fleet 1 Add local employment opportunities during planning and construction 1 Add public spaces and planned events and provision for community groups 1

Total number of comments - 801

Page 62 of 108

Q2. 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?

Number of Summary of Comments comments

Ignores brownfield/infill land, including 1800 units 'readily available' in September 154 Proposed development at Winchfield will lead to coalescence, damage character and identity of settlements, would not be sustainable 146 Wishful thinking/unrealistic, population growth will devastate rural nature of area in next 20 years, plans do not reflect vision, insufficient funding available 135 Not certain that schools are actually required, do not have clear plan for where they will go if required, must be big enough for future community 94 Should have specific mention of Basingstoke Canal in final paragraph 84 Plan will require huge new infrastructure investment, esp. roads, transport and health- not clear how this will be funded, can't cope now 83 Should keep rural feel of district, expand conservation areas, do not over-populate, build on other urban areas of Hampshire/rest of country 79 Urban extensions or new town will damage green infrastructure and SPA 77 Should not take on building shortfalls of Rushmoor and Surrey Heath, too many houses planned, based on out of date information 48 Not enough attention given to prevention of settlement coalescence, maintain character and distinctiveness of villages, do not create urban sprawl 47 Mainly neutral/ agree with general aspirations, should be done sympathetically to the best of practice 36 Must build amenities, develop Fleet town centre, think about cinema/theatre/concert hall etc., planning controls to provide friendly and unique shopping experience 21 There is too much emphasis on old and infirm, need more healthy wealth creating professionals, need affordable/social housing for young 17 Proposal for 70 new dwellings on greenfield land within Rotherwick Conservation Area undermines this vision 15 Fleet, Hook and surrounding area is at capacity, cannot cope with more people, should distribute new housing more fairly through villages 15 Preservation of natural and built heritage relegated to last, loss of wildlife and unique habitat is serious threat, biodiversity must be protected on all future developments 15 Makes more sense to create new development with infrastructure than extending existing, causing poor service & lower quality of life 13 Villages like Hartley Wintney and Odiham should only take new homes on a small scale, do not spoil historic areas 11 2032 is a long way off and opinions and plans will change, external factors such as expansion of Heathrow will have effect 10 Needs real control of flood plan development and water management, must retain greenfield areas to absorb rainwater, should exclude Yateley, Moulsham Lane proposal 10

Page 63 of 108

If move on Winchfield development now, should largely accommodate requirements by 2032, vision should include explicit reference to delivery of new settlement 10 Should work with people like Environmental Systems and SENCE methodology to quantify value of countryside, consider obligations of European Landscape Convention 9 Fleet Pond and Whitewater River Valley are not mentioned in list of natural assets to be protected, also specific mention of SSSIs 9 Vision statement should be much shorter, this is just restatement of key issues 8 Not much of a visionary vision, refers to a lot already completed, need greater ambition, create places in which people of all backgrounds and ages can thrive 8 Any future vision must retain emphasis on quality of life - cycle lanes, tree planting, green belts 7 All new build must be zero carbon and high density, eco-friendly houses, solar panels as standard, insulation, efficient heating, high speed broadband, emphasis on quality and room size 7 Need more affordable housing giving priority to long term residents of Hart, otherwise will only get commuters 7 No mention of leisure facilities outside Fleet area, no cycle paths 7 Govt should not enforce housing on local councils, look at immigration to reduce numbers needed, needs to build more new towns 7 Misses a section on job/work creation for young people at all skill levels, must protect employment sites, do not convert all to housing 7 Priority should be given to dedicated space for personal over group transport i.e. walking/cycling with integrated cycle and pathways vs. cars, lorries etc. 7 West of Hook development will lead to coalescence of settlements 6 Would have preferred to see more focus on greenfield development to meet long term plan objectives including infrastructure, allow for windfall developments 6 Does not take into account views of local residents, particularly young people, maintain community spirit 5 Lacks strategic focus on tackling environmental risks such as energy, transport and water, our generation has responsibility to manage environment 5 There is no prioritisation, there will need to be some compromises to deliver 4 Without gaps, air pollution from traffic will become dangerous to health, also noise pollution, should have mention of maintaining and enhancing a safe living environment 4 Open to multiple interpretations by parties that have different agendas - no definitive statements 4 Very hard to judge in view of complexity, would need a lot of study with clearer documentation, should not have to comment before submitting form 4

District will be completely overwhelmed with building sites, road works, people and cars 4 Job numbers in National Planning Policy are wildly optimistic. Jobs should be pushed to the north of UK 3 Too internally focused, no mention of combined developments with other agencies such as Hampshire County Council, Thames Water and Environment Agency, transport operators and developers 3 Spend time to get it right. Don't get local plan thrown out again 3

Page 64 of 108

Needs to say where line will be drawn - there will come a time when we have to say Hart is full, probably before 2032 3 Provision of facilities must be aligned to need, need must be clearly defined before vision can be proposed, should meet needs of population rather than housing market 3 Coalescence of settlements is not more important than new homes, stop idealistic idyllic ideals and live in real world where progress and development are essential 3 Brownfield land unlikely to meet housing targets, must also consider range of greenfield sites 3 Avoidance of coalescence of settlements shouldn't be a restriction, need changes in town/country balance, protect SPAs/SSSIs but not every field 2 Climate change will not be protected with increase in cars, will get worse 2 Winchfield or location near new housing is better location for leisure facilities than Frogmore 2 Lacks any sense of distinctive local character, no mention of culture/arts, poss. have local festival, no mention of supporting small local businesses 2 No consideration for technological advances that are currently or shortly will be in mass production, need digital plan for economic and shopping needs 2 Planning policy is unduly influenced by the Thames Basin Heaths SPA for nesting birds 2

Need bypass or town relief road or one way street system in Fleet to deal with congestion 2 Should state that community will be based on centre in Fleet, with self-sufficient satellite communities 2 Last paragraph is dangerous, by specifying that the best of our assets will be preserved, we might lose those that are 'not best', how will they be 'enhanced'? 2 Should be aspiration to have a seamless transition into the plan beyond 2032, 2nd paragraph should say 'will continue to play its role in meeting development needs' 2 All new housing towards west of Fleet, this land is still truly greenbelt and should be better protected 2 It is qualitative/generic so OK for vision - need quantitative objectives and measures to understand where trade offs will have to be made 2 Fleet is a dormitory settlement based on out commuting rather than the romanticised rural idyll the vision describes, acknowledge that most people want/need a car 2 Has provision of another sixth form college in Fleet or Winchfield been considered? Possibly on land from old leisure centre 2 May need to build more apartments as in the rest of Europe to accommodate extra numbers and affordable housing 2 Must be requirements, not aims and must be continuously monitored throughout the life of the development and beyond, needs to be supported by detailed policies 2 Individual parishes should be given choice on future development, use Neighbourhood Plans 2 Greater emphasis should be made for meeting full housing needs of Borough including existing shortfall and any unmet need from neighbouring authorities 2 No more country parks, no substitute for countryside 2 Small communities are better - mix of housing, facilities within reasonable distance, can control crime better, engender community spirit 1

Page 65 of 108

Support space for travelling community if they abide by local laws and contribute fully for use of local facilities 1 If new town agreed should be based on a garden city design 1

Ensure military owned open spaces still available for use by community for leisure activity 1 Please write in non-political way and do not use 'council speak' 1 Not sufficiently taking into consideration the small sites 1 No specific mention of Yateley Common, important part of Hart adding to environment for wildlife and enjoyment of local community 1 Local/ community builds must be given priority, put profits back into key projects 1 With dispersal option and urban extension, rural nature of areas of Hart together with conservation setting for historic buildings will be damaged 1 Penalising and discouraging property renting/letting will enable first time buyers to get on property ladder, council should police this 1 The Country Park should be protected along with 75% of all green areas in Hart 1 Mentions green infrastructure but doesn't give definition of what this is 1 Would like to see statement about taking refugees 1 More about waste management - need waste food collection, more recycling points, waste wood collection for power generation 1 Need school transport to get parents off road for school runs 1 Sports - current pools don't offer public facilities when required, how about adult outdoor gyms throughout district 1

In development of brownfield sites, need to avoid too much high density compact housing 1 Should add 'a good place for London commuters to live in' 1 Relationship with Basingstoke for those in the west needs to be sorted 1 Vision regarding coalescence of settlements should also apply to settlements immediately beyond Hart's borders 1 No mention of Pyestock and the land associated with it, question its availability for building and SANG 1 Needs to be wider - include importance of countryside in keeping us sane 1 Many parts of Crondall are not yet on main sewers and prone to flooding, present unique challenges to development on sites proposed 1 Needs to include a section on maintaining and enhancing existing commercial centres, of each of tier 1,2, and 3 settlement hierarchy areas in particular 1 Make sure local councillors also want to achieve the same vision 1 Minimise carbon footprint where possible - minimise car journeys, improve public transport e.g. make it easier to get to railway stations from surrounding areas 1 Invest in Blackbushe airport 1

Total number of comments - 809

Page 66 of 108

Q3. We have identified some draft strategic priorities for the Local Plan in table 2 on page 7 & 8. Do you agree with them?

Number of Summary of Comments comments

Should not accept shortfall from Surrey Heath and Rushmoor 327 Lack of review of SHMA/reduced Government population projections/ housing need not objectively assessed 203 Need more emphasis on using brownfield sites/vacant retail premises/infill for new development, do not build on fields 182 No mention of high level expected infrastructure costs, current £78m infrastructure deficit, high priority, cannot cope now, esp. roads & healthcare, need mention of working with HCC 171 No detail on school provision - who will build them? Need specific mention of working with HCC. Should be based on population forecasts over entire plan period. Poss. Academy schools? 95 Does not recognise unique challenges of rural areas 90 Lack of detail and priorities/relative importance 80 No mention of sewers and drainage 76 Restrictions on housing development with SPAs and SANGs are out of proportion - challenge Natural 72 Numbers 6 - 10 can only be achieved by abandoning new urban extensions and a new town 71 Vision says Hart will be largely rural, so high strategic priority should be plan for rural areas within district, preserve Hart's character and villages' identity, ensure separation between areas 58 Very woolly and vague, difficult to disagree, question whether will be implemented, not focussed on people, no quantification, open to interpretation 39 Avoid new town development at Winchfield, would not preserve character and identity of settlements or protect and enhance natural environment, would not provide mix of housing 31 Transport, including public transport and links/commuting to London, needs to be higher up the list 26 Fight any more development in Hart, done more than its part already, meet objectives for current residents without expanding number of people living in area 25 Mainly neutral / agree with general aspirations 21 No mention of flooding, Edenbrook and Watery Lane developments already built on flood plains and causing problems 21 Should have priority to minimise adverse impact of change on existing residents, very important with transport to accommodate impact on to existing network, limit to %age size gain 19 Affordable starter homes should be higher priority than any other homes to be built, not only older people, local residents should take priority 19

Page 67 of 108

Use balance in planning decisions to ensure area continues to deliver quality of life as in past, enhanced planning for design and quality, plan for longevity, create biodiverse and attractive environments 19 Survey is far too complex, please expand abbreviations - didn't know what SANG is, don't understand 'multi-functional green infrastructure network', insufficient information supplied 18 Ensure numbers of new houses mirrors ability to attract sufficient jobs and funding for infrastructure, based on local needs not what is imposed upon Hart 18 Need to consider environment, particularly in relation to climate change, should have higher priority, reducing energy consumption and waste should be top 17 Vision and strategic priorities best met by well planned new settlement, not urban extensions or piecemeal development, needed sooner than 2032, can also provide local shopping needs 15 Crondall can only take up to 40 houses, many can be built in the Mill Lane area, infrastructure inadequate, crowded roads, no public transport. SHLAA 73 and 74 must be rejected 15 Point 8 is very important, leisure facilities must not be too expensive, also for children and teenagers as well as adults, need areas for outdoor recreation 13 Should include safe travel, roads not safe for cycling, need cycle and walking paths to encourage healthy living 13 Working with neighbouring authorities is right but should have lower priority than meeting needs of Hart 12 Should ensure mixed housing development, Fleet is a town of mainly detached houses, need mix of flats and houses for all types of people, focus on families, also need care accommodation 12 Should be more support for retail sector in main centres, many empty units in shopping centre, should be modern and aspirational to attract young professionals 11 Point 7 is vital but is often ignored by Hart , should add 'and other SSSIs outside the TBHSPA', should mention protection of rivers Hart, Whitewater and Blackwater, also Canal and Fleet Pond 11 We do not require any further retail/leisure or commercial development here, lower priority, should be looked at with what is available in Surrey Heath & Rushmoor, encourage home working 9 Need eco-friendly homes and digitally enabled with high-speed internet access and fibre to the premises 8 Priorities are just restatement of key issues and vision, are they SMART (specific, measurable, achievable, realistic, time-bound)? 7 SANGs are unacceptable alternative when compared with loss of green space, not enough to allow development, must be true nature areas not just glorified dog- walking parks 7 Points 6 and 7 seem incompatible with others - in reality, won't carry much weight, do not lose assets that make Hart distinctive 6 Work on improving employment and opportunities elsewhere in UK to spread demand over wider area - the south east is becoming one vast greater London community 6

Page 68 of 108

Point 4 - Need to recognise modern ways people shop, town centres are not necessary and protecting them is a waste of money 6 Strategy fine for 2032 goal, need plan for 2016 - 2021, so much can change over next decade, important to meet housing needs every year and allow flexibility for needs not identified in plan 6 Need to work with other local regions to provide housing - Wokingham is planning new town in Arborfield, Aldershot has ex-military land, don't need artificial council boundaries 5 Priorities can be met by strategic development of existing settlements 5 Too many priorities, should be 4 or 5 at most, remainder should be 'guiding principles' 5 Point 6 - Hook has already taken more than its fair share of development, only small builds should be allowed 4 Do not agree, do not believe these can be achieved, cannot protect natural environment by building on it, points 8-11 are not achievable 4 Utilisation of unused military land has to be major priority 4 Should not convert too many office areas into housing as then there will be no major employers and everyone will have to commute, support local business, create Enterprise zones 4 Social spaces (rooms for community groups to hire cheaply, meeting places, coffee shops) are also important for social cohesion, should be protected and promoted 4 Need a central leisure centre in vicinity of Winchfield to serve Odiham, Hook, Hartley Wintney and Winchfield without need to drive to Fleet 4 Point 4 is very important, support what is already here, add provision for commuting, can only happen if new homes and businesses are created 4 Dispersal strategy on greenfield sites will be an important contribution to housing supply 4 Unrealistic to provide simple yes/no answer to 11 strategic priorities, a more nuanced response is required 4 Growth and development etc. is much too high a priority, will make strategic priorities difficult to achieve 4 Needs more inventive use of housing association models to achieve housing requirements, also Supported Accommodation 3 Point 4 - providing for local shopping need has failed in Hook, this should be addressed 3 Document should be dated from 2016, not 2011 3 Point 2 - SANG provision - should help maintain green spaces in Hart and we can offload some of housing provision to Rushmoor and Surrey Heath 3 Reference should be made to provision of up to date five year housing land supply in compliance with NPPF Paragraph 47, where possible maintain 10 years supply 3 Need to do more to provide local jobs e.g. small industrial units for start-ups etc. Need to have some sites within the proposed Winchfield development, will leave less space for housing 3 If list is in order of priority, those near bottom will receive little attention to enable top priorities to be met 3

Page 69 of 108

Agree with some of the priorities 3 Significant errors and inaccuracies have been identified, these should be addressed first 3 Point 8 - Hook has none/not much of these things 2 Do not take a too flexible approach to developer contributions and affordable housing requirements when conversions or redevelopments are proposed 2 Has Pyestock site been considered for residential development?, has road and utility infrastructure in place already 2 Should be mention of support for local arts and culture in point 8 2 By definition of being desired housing in Hart cannot be affordable 2 Protection of SPAs of Thames Valley basin is high priority and constant development getting ever nearer is a great concern 2 Point 6 seems too high in priority list 2 Disagree with affordable housing requirements within Hartley Wintney - there are other nearby areas where cheaper houses can be built enabling HW to retain largely ABC1 profile 2 Should not be providing land for travellers 2 Good survey, need simple, timely, factual feedback, aims must be set in stone and continuously monitored throughout life of development and beyond 2 Point 1 - No guarantee that planned locations will come forward so should not rule out unplanned locations, add in 20% contingency as not all sites will be developed 2 Need to review after EU referendum - some industry and population may leave if decision is to leave EU 2 Points 5, 6 and 7 should be prioritised before points 2 and 3 2 Recognise rural areas are accessed by car so adequate provision required in housing design 2 Starting with bad assumptions, leading to bad conclusions. Start again 2 Hart should listen to residents and not gloss over the results of the consultation and do what the developers want anyway 2 Points 5, 9 and 8 should be the highest priority 1 Point 11 is politically correct rubbish 1 Best way to help with climate change is not build any homes, no extra carbon emissions from heating system and extra cars 1 Should build a new road between Norris bridge roundabout and main road to Guildford, cutting through Long Valley 1 Housing provision for elderly should be focussed in smaller villages and parishes to ensure economic activity in those locations 1 Fleet should establish a Development Corporation, like Basingstoke, which buys land property and promotes its redevelopment 1 Issues should be prioritised - 11(climate change),7(environment),8(communities),6(conservation),3(housing mix),10(character),4(economy),5(infrastructure),9(transport),2,1 1 Should consider providing space and permits for regular local farm markets 1 Should start with small scale sites incentivising affordable and specialist housing, then urban extensions, then new town to allow maximum flexibility 1

Page 70 of 108

Should reject any application to build on ancient Deer Park at Odiham 1 Priority should be 6, 10, 11, 7, 9, 8, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 1 Cannot keep putting houses further and further away from the centre of Hook, aging population cannot get to facilities in village centre 1 Looking at development of Hop Garden site again despite appeal win, will not protect from coalescence as in point 6 1 If development cannot be avoided 1 Need stronger emphasis on developing a 'Business Plan', requiring evidence gathering, development of case for investment & commitment to lobbying those responsible for investment 1 Space is important for people, overcrowding leads to tension and trouble 1 The west of Fleet site was only recently refused on a single issue relating to a local gap and is otherwise a deliverable scheme which could contribute to five year housing land supply 1 Points 1 and 2 should be combined worded 'Work with Rushmoor & Surrey Heath to ensure both objectively assessed housing need for Hart and wider HMA are delivered…' 1 Should combine Court Moor and Calthorpe schools to be one Fleet School with 2 sites - years 7 & 8 at Court Moor and 9-11 at Calthorpe 1 Point 10 - Hart should learn from Elvetham Heath regarding nuisance criminality in early years - does not support priority of creating safe environment 1 Point 4 - large housing estates in green fields will not provide for local shopping in town centres - people will use cars to go to major towns and shopping centres 1 Need to stress need to work with Network Rail and the TOC to solve rail capacity 1 Provided the listed National Priorities are also an integral part of the plan 1

Total number of comments - 889

Page 71 of 108

Individual Representations Summary of comment General Comment – I have read your submission document and my comments Derek Morrison to the first plan still stand. Do not allow development on flood plains, infrastructure must lead all development and do not get distracted by government and other local authorities in meeting housing requirements. General Comment - For such an important document this was a nightmare to Nigel Blundell complete. Dwellings to the west of Hook- Q6. I have concerns about the possible urban extension to MP Maria Miller the west of Hook with capacity for approx. 730 dwellings. The site adjoins the boundary of Basingstoke and my constituency of Newnham. I believe the impact of potential development beyond the western boundary of Hook and that the views of my constituents be taken into account. Development would have a significant impact on the strategic gap between Hook and Newnham and this would lead to coalescence, which is contrary to Hart Local Plan policies. Furthermore, this would impact on the rural character of Newnham and its heritage. Land at Grange Farm A and B, Q6. SHLAA19a and B. Land at Grange Farm, Hartley Hartley Wintney (SHLAA19a and Wintney. Agents promoting the site for housing in the SHLAA19b) – Hart LP and/or HW Neighbourhood Plan. Agents Heritage SW Limited. Land at Owen's Farm, Hook 2 cds sent in support of land at Owens Farm. (SHLAA9) – Wilber Developments Ltd. Stiller's Farm, Church Crookham Q4. Approach 1,2,3. Q5. Approach 1,4,2,3. Q6. Support for (SHLAA90) – Stillers Farm including a masterplan and additional Taylor Wimpey Strategic Land. technical studies in support of the site. White House Farm, Hook (NEW Q1- specialist housing needs can be met through strategic SITE)- urban extensions such as White House Farm, Hook. Q2. Terrence O'Rourke (Agent Land at White House Farm, Hook. Q3. Yes. Q4. Approach Double) 2, 1 and 3. Q5. Approach 4, 7, 5 and 6. Q6. Land at White House Farm. Q7. Hart should plan for more housing than the level suggested in the 2014 SHMA to allow for any shortfall from Rushmoor and SH. Additional sites should therefore be allocated such as White House Farm, Hook. Q8. Agree. Q9. Vision will need to be supported by policies which are positively prepared. General comments – Q1. Why should we in Hart shoulder Rushmoor’s housing PM Stone need? Q2. The Winchfield plan is the least destructive. Q3. Can more effort be put into brownfield sites before mowing up the countryside which in many cases have infrastructure already in place. Q4. The Crondall proposal is illogical for the following reasons- listed buildings, local character, traffic congestion and flooding. General comments – Q4. Preferred Approach 3, 1 and 2. Q5. Preferred R W Dyer Approach 6, 7, 5 and 4.

Page 72 of 108

Land west of Ewshot Lane, In relation to Q1.We do not object but we think that the Church Crookham (SHLAA90)- wording be rephrased for the issues and vision regarding Martin Grant Homes housing needs to reflect national policy. Q2. All suitable sites should contribute to affordable housing. Q3. We agree that Fleet should be at the top of the settlement hierarchy (Tier 1) given its size and range of facilities. Q4. Overall the housing evidence is based on outdated evidence. Therefore the current housing target should be significantly higher in the emerging LP. Q6. We support the SHLAA Site 166 and seek to promote it within the emerging LP. Chequers Lane, Eversley (New Q6. Please find attached a masterplan vision document site) -Terrence O'Rourke for land at chequers Lane, Eversley. The Crondall Society Q4. The new settlement (Option 3) is generally supported as the only option that comes with unique opportunities but only to the extent that better use of brownfield sites (and a possible reduction in overall housing growth cannot achieve what is required. General Comment. We would encourage a much more pragmatic approach to all brownfield sites, but in particular Bramshill Police College and Minley Manor. Similar ‘Listed Building’ sites in sensitive areas have been developed at many other locations across the UK and we encourage Hart to find ways to assist developers to re-use these sites as well. The Parish Council is of the view that the consultation process does not give respondents a true choice but appears rather focussed on a single outcome. Option 1 shows “zero” development values for many suitable sites, including: Bramshill, Mattingly and Winchfield, while only 30 dwellings are attributed to Fleet. This is not a sustainable or practical option. o With no specific values for development in rural parishes under Options 2 & 3, the “choice” cannot be seen as informed or fair. o We remain unclear as to how the responses submitted will be processed and given the various late changes in wording and reported errors, we can retain confidence in the process. Much of Option 1 is contrary to the stated “Key Issues” and “Vision”. In the Parish of Crondall, SHLAA 73 & 74 are firmly rejected. Crondall Parish Council acknowledges its responsibility to share a reasonable part of the development pressure across the District and asserts its right on behalf of its residents to manage the distribution of those dwellings across the Parish. The location of specific developments at both the District and Parish levels needs to be sustainable in respect of both practical infrastructure and character issues. Land adjacent to Causeway Q6. We oppose the development of land adjacent to Green and Farm (COM002- Causeway Green and Farm for reasons listed in our full SHLAA89 and SHLAA94)-General rep. comment - Mrs A.M. Vicary

Page 73 of 108

General comment- The Rep provides generic comments on lack of Arthur Hammond regeneration and lack of assistance to existing businesses. It does not respond to the Document. General comment- Option 3- we oppose the development of more homes. Mr C.W.Phillips However we support the new settlement approach option. General comment- Supports Approach 3. Mr C.G. Phillips Land at Cross Farm (SHLAA116)- Q1. Full provision should be made for all housing types for Crookham Care Village Ltd (Bell the older generation. Q2. Promoting Cross Farm, Cornwall) Crookham Village site. Q3. Whilst the settlement hierarchy is useful in determining location for general housing, it isn't relevant to specialist housing which is site and developer-led. Q4. Preferred Approach 1/ 2/ 3. Q5. Approach 4/ 7/ 6/5. Q6. Support the shortlisting of our clients land. Q7. No comment. Detailed comments set out in the original representation. Land adjacent to Causeway Q6. We oppose the development of land adjacent to Green and Farm (SHLAA116)- Causeway Green and Farm for reasons listed in our full resident rep. General comment- Does not support Winchfield new settlement - Hart needs D.J. Goddard one area of natural beauty. Use brownfield. Q4. Approaches 2, 1. Q5. Approach 4 only General comment- I am unable to pick any of the 3 options. However a new David K. Collins settlement would appear to be the most sensible option. General comment- Q6. We strongly object to any form of urbanisation. We Desmond and Simone Whittall must preserve some green belt around Hartley Wintney. Land adjacent to Causeway Q6. Objects to the proposal for 100 homes at this Green and Farm (SHLAA116)- location. Ms Frances Naughton Land at Firs Lane/ West Street, Frank Butler Farm promotes land at Firs Lane, West Odiham (SHLAA138) – Street, ODIHAM and its suitability for Self-build/ custom Frank Butler Farms Ltd (Bell homes. However object to their sites status as a "rejected Cornwall) site". Q4. Approach 1/ 2/ 3. Q5. 4/7/6/5. See full representation for details. Land adjacent to Causeway Q6. Objects to the proposal for 100 homes at this Green and Farm (SHLAA116) - location. G.H.Sallis Land adjacent to Causeway Q6. Objects to the proposal for 100 homes at this Green and Farm (SHLAA116)- location, is conservation area and would have impact on Geoff and Katrina Helliwell local wildlife and historic area Dogmersfield Parish Council Q3. Object to the settlement hierarchy which places Dogmersfield as tier 4 village when it is a tier 5 and the proposal for 141 new homes over the plan period. This will overwhelm Dogmersfield. Furthermore, we are committed to a neighbourhood plan. General comment – My preferred approach is 3 -New settlement in resident Winchfield.

Page 74 of 108

General comment – Q6. In response to the Councils housing shortage H.E. Goodsell promotes his site for 3 semi-detached homes. There are plenty of opportunities for brown field land such as mine and other sites notably the MOD land between Fleet and Crookham which could be put forward for new housing rather than building on green sites. Land North of Deptford Lane, N. Q6. supports land north of Deptford Lane, North Warnborough (NEW SITE)- Warnborough Hallam Land Management (Barton Willmore) (SHLAA116) land adjacent to Q6. HWPS Objects to land adjacent to the Causeway Causeway Green and Farm Green and Farm for housing. Hartley Wintney Preservation Society General comment- Option 3 combined with option 2 provides the right Mrs Jean E. Gazeley requirements to meet housing shortages. General comment- Acknowledges housing is needed but the building behind Mrs Jacqueline Barrington Redfields has not been considered. Fleet is being ruined by additional development. General comment- Objects to new houses behind Pankridge Street and Mrs Willis Fleming Borough. I oppose this idea as traffic is always a problem and there is no bus service. General comment- Hart identifies a target of 3,000 new homes to cover the Dr John Drake-Lee shortfall at Rushmoor and SHBC. Is Hart challenging this? The 2,500 new dwellings is understandable. With so much MOD land in the area could some not be released for building the 3,000 home shortfall from Rushmoor and SHBC? General comment- resident Does not respond to the housing options document. General comment- resident Preferred approach 3/2/1. Preferred combination 5/7/6/4. General comment- Supports Approach 3 - Winchfield Mrs M. Watson General comment- Q4. Further building around Fleet and Church Crookham is Mrs M.D. Meachen not just an option. A new settlement at Winchfield is the way forward, followed by dispersement through existing villages and brownfield sites being utilised before loss of further green field sites. General comment- resident Q4. Votes for a new settlement at Winchfield. (Approach 3) then 1 and 2). General comment- Ms Dorman Q6. Objects to land at Causeway Green and the Farm. General comment- resident Support option 3. General comment- resident Q6. Objects to land at Causeway Green and the Farm. General comment- resident Support option 3. General comment- P. Clarke Q6. Identifies land adjacent to Blackbushe Airport. General comment- Q6. Objects to land at Causeway Green and the Farm. Paul and Jan Newman General comment- Objection to another Council consultation. Peter and Jennifer Gillespie- Brown

Page 75 of 108

Land at Totters Lane, Murrell Q4. Preferred options is 1, 2 and3. Q5. 4, 7, 6 and 5. Q6. Green (SHLAA123)- Objects to their site being rejected. Bell Cornwall on behalf of the Consortium of land owners. General comment- Q4. Preferred approach is 3 and then 2. Mrs R. Monet General comment- R Cork Q4. Objects to option 3 as it is a greenfield site. Land adjacent to Causeway Farm Object to housing proposal at this site. and Green - resident General comment- Sylvia Bezant Q4. Approach 6, 7, 5 and 4. Land at Wintney Court, Hartley Trustees of Mrs H Brake Estate owns land at Wintney Wintney (new site)- Court and wishes to promote its development over the Trustees of Mrs H Brake Estate plan period. Q4. Approach 1, 2 and 3. Q5. Approach 4, 7, 6 and 5. Q6. We strongly object to the status of our site as a rejected site. General comment- I noted that there were no sites listed for the Long Sutton, Mr W.F.Varney South Warnborough and Upton areas. Is there a reason for this? Land at Moulsham Lane, Yateley Q3. Agreed with settlement hierarchy and the site being ,Welbeck (SHLAA11)- Strategic identified as Tier 2. Q4. Preferred approach 1, 2 and 3. Q5. land LLP Q6. Welbeck Strategic land LLP promoting their land interest at Moulsham Lane, Yateley. See representation for full details. They oppose the sites status as a "rejected site". 28th Odiham - Q6. Any development on SHLAA74 would result in a SHLAA74 significant and detrimental impact not just on Scouting in Crondall but also more widely across Hart District. The Crondall Scout Centre, adjacent to SHLAA74, is very frequently used by several Scout Groups within Odiham District. Land at Grange Farm, Hartley Q6. SHLAA19A and B. Land at Grange Farm, Hartley Wintney (SHLAA19a and B- Whitney. Agents promoting the site for housing in the Rob McLennan Planning on Hart LP and/or HW Neighbourhood Plan. behalf of Mr & Mrs Hazell General comment- In Crondall none of the services are adequate for the Peter Hall current population. The town centre is congested, the primary school is already full to capacity and there is no bus service. The drains and sewers are inadequate and the borough and Pankridge Street is always flooding. We have frequent power cuts, gas and water leaks and the internet is really bad. It would be impractical to add an additional 250 homes which will double the existing village without improving infrastructure. The Winchfield Option is the least bad of the three options given. Though this option will not be popular with all as it will destroy the lovely countryside in this part of world and will increase the Hart population, many of which will commute into London leading to already overcrowded trains.

Page 76 of 108

Owens Farm, Hook (SHLAA9)- Owens Farm, Hook. One of many documents submitted in Wilbur Development support of this allocation. (Armstrong Rigg) General comment- Q1. Why should we in Hart shoulder Rushmoor’s P.M. Stone problems? Q2. If the intention is to ruin the local area then the Winchfield option is the least destructive. Q3. Can more effort be put into brownfield sites before carving up the countryside? There are many sites available with infrastructure in place. Q4.The proposed site at Pankridge is illogical for a number of reasons e.g., set within an historic village with many listed buildings, roads already congested, local school at capacity, another 250 homes will swamp existing infrastructure. Therefore Winchfield is the best option though likely to be unpleasant for the future inhabitants. General comment- Q4. Approach 3, 1, 2. Q5. Preferred Approach 6, 7, 5, 4. R.W & Martine Dyer Chequers Lane, Eversley referred CEMEX UK Properties Ltd are supporting the to as Site 112A and Site 112B - development of two of their landholdings at Chequers CEMEX UK Properties Ltd. Lane, Eversley referred to as Site 112A and Site 112B (Terence O'Rourke) which are proposed for residential development. As the development of Sites 112A and 112B satisfy all of the tests set out in the NPPF, we contend that the Council should confirm the Sites’ allocation for development in the draft Local Plan. General comment- I am dissatisfied with consultation paper. Three Annabel Hall unacceptable options have been presented. It is essential that Hart addresses its housing predication are corrected and that all our brownfield and MOD sites are filled before you consider building over villages and creating new towns which will only encourage other local authorities to encroach on land. General comment- I wish to object vehemently to the proposal to build yet Barry Tindall more houses in three different locations in Hook. I appreciate that you are under government pressure to provide more accommodation but I believe that this has largely been caused by the lax control of migration into the and I have no desire to consort with their failings on this issue. Hook simply does not have the infrastructure to absorb yet more housing and consequently more people. Schools, shops, utilities, medical services, road layout and general infrastructure do not exist to the level that would be required to support a larger population. I will not seek to rehearse all the problems once again as it would just be a repetition of my previous objections on this subject. Please record this e- mail as an objection.

Page 77 of 108

Basingstoke and Deane Borough Basingstoke and Deane has no comment on Hart’s Vision Council and Priorities documents. Through previous discussions, the Councils have agreed that Basingstoke and Deane Borough and Hart District are not part of a single Housing Market Area, but it is recognised that there are links between the areas in terms of jobs and homes. It is therefore essential that Hart’s strategy is underpinned by an understanding of the balance between jobs and homes, and how this might impact upon neighbouring areas. Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council recognises that this is an early consultation looking at potential options, but has concerns that the potential impacts of development to the west of Hook upon Basingstoke and Deane have not been fully assessed or understood. There are particular concerns that an allocation in this location would result in coalescence with Newnham, would have a harmful impact upon its heritage assets, and would result in problems relating to highways and infrastructure. Bracknell Forest Borough Having reviewed the ‘Refined Options’ paper, it appears Council that Approach 1 (disperse development to the towns and villages within 5km of the TBHSPA) is the most likely to involve new development close to the boundary with this Borough, although the scale of any development is not currently clear. It is not possible to comment on the adequacy of infrastructure and any mitigation required (including transport), as studies have not yet been produced. It already appears that there will be unmet housing need within the Rushmoor, Hart, Surrey Heath Housing Market Area (HMA), though it is noted that Rushmoor are provisionally considering whether unmet needs from Rushmoor and Surrey Heath could be achieved in addition to accommodating the need identified for Rushmoor. If need cannot be met within the HMA, Bracknell Forest are concerned regarding the potential implications for Bracknell Forest (as Bracknell Forest adjoins the Surrey Heath/Hart/Rushmoor HMA through Hart and Surrey Heath). General comment- We support the new settlement option as the only viable David & Sonia Hannan solution to provide the housing numbers and essential infrastructure needed in Hart. The other options namely dispersing new homes throughout the area and brownfield development would put an unbearable burden on infrastructure that is already stretched to capacity. General comment- Q4. Approach 2, Q5. Approach 4. I am horrified at the Diana Ford possibility of a new settlement at Winchfield. Q6. 100 new homes at Long Sutton and with no shops, seems excessive. Also I wished you had put names of the main settlements on the maps provided.

Page 78 of 108

General Comment – Gladman consider that there are number of areas the Gladman Developments Council will need to address in order to be able to deliver a sound plan. 1. Unmet need in the HMA. Gladman suggest the inclusion of a buffer of 20% additional sites to ensure the housing requirements will be delivered. 2. DTC- Hart must be able to demonstrate that it has engaged and worked with neighbouring authorities, alongside their existing joint working arrangements, to satisfactorily address cross boundary strategic issues, and the requirement to meet any unmet housing needs. e.g. a significant issue affecting the authorities across the HMA Gladman question whether the issue of SANG provision has been adequately discussed or considered as part of the duty to cooperate? (SA). Full details are set out in the representation. General comment- Q6. Please remove sites SHLAA111 & SHLAA294 from your Leanna Milward planning shortlist sites, they are valuable greenfield sites with high conservation benefits, supporting a biodiversity of wildlife & fauna. Both sites are also prone to extensive flooding for 5 months of the year, being a wetland with marsh & natural springs. There is already traffic congestion at rush-hour times along the B3349 along these sites (waiting to join the A30), & additional housing would only cause further congestion & delays along the B3349 & the A30. They mark a valuable boundary between Hook & Rotherwick. Please prioritise the expansion of towns & brownfield sites for development, this is important for many Hook residents who value the preservation of our greenfield sites for the enjoyment of all, including future generations. General comment – Q1. No sites for Specialist Housing have been included on Lucas Land & Planning the shortlist of sites identified for housing. Q2. We are working with Beachcroft Retirement. We are aware that there is significant unmet need for retirement housing for older persons in the borough and specifically at Hartley Wintney. Q3. We agree with the settlement boundary hierarchy. Q6. We support COM002 and SHLAA 19b for this type of development. General comment- We have been resident in Fleet since 1979. During this Maurice O'dea time we have seen the building of numerous new houses and an enormous increase in the traffic both within and through the town. As was to be expected these increases, they have produced pressure on all the infrastructure of the town, particularly, schools, medical facilities and roads. One of the options being put forward is the development of a NEW SETTLEMENT centred round Winchfield, complete with schools, medical and recreational facilities etc., all planned right from the start, is exactly what should be done. The dispersal of housing throughout towns and villages, therefore, becomes the

Page 79 of 108

‘poor second best’ option. Urban extension at main settlements is the worst and most damaging option because it merely adds to the problems of the already over extended infrastructures.

Natural England 1. SHLAA153 – part of this site lies within 400m of the Thames Basin Heaths SPA. This is not in accordance with Hart DC interim TBH strategy, NRM6, the SPA Delivery Framework, and the NPPF. NE advise that a proportion of this site is not compliant with the operating policies and legislation. 2. SHLAA100 – this site is partially within 400m of the TBH SPA, which is not compliant with the above documents. 3. SHLAA116 – adjacent to Basingstoke Canal Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). It will need to be demonstrated that there is no likelihood of harm to the SSSI from this location. If this cannot be demonstrated, then this allocation should not be included. 4. COM004 – adjacent to SSSI and Basingstoke Canal SSSI. It will need to be demonstrated that there is no likelihood of harm to the SSSIs from this location, otherwise this allocation should not be included. Natural England advise that a HRA should also be prepared in conjunction with this document and /or the local plan, which must robustly demonstrate how there will be no likely significant effect on the SPA. If it cannot be screened out, then an Appropriate Assessment will need to be undertaken. We have reviewed the document and as long as the additional residential is compliant with the interim TBH strategy, NRM6, the SPA Delivery Framework, and other constraints have been assessed (e.g. see list above), then Natural England have not comments to make on which Approach is taken. NHS North Hampshire Clinical In regard to Strategic Priorities 2, 3 and 5 (housing and Commissioning Group infrastructure) we would ask the council to be mindful of the additional pressures that new residential development (and the resulting increase in population) could place on local health and care services, in particular primary care services provided at local GP practices. We welcome priorities 8 and 9 (community sport and sustainable transport) as making a positive contribution to the general health and wellbeing of the local community.

Page 80 of 108

General comment- My immediate thoughts relate not so much with the large Patrick Humphrys number of properties but to the infrastructure. So, 5000 new homes equates these days to a min 10,000 extra cars - how will they get to the motorways. Which hospital will the 10,000 - 15,000 people attend and how will they cope. Same for the GP surgeries. General comment- In my view there is a complete disregard for the need for Peter & Julie Merriman AFFORDABLE RENTED HOUSING which this and communities up and down the country desperately need. In recent times we have allowed to be built, too many houses for London overspill, which were advertised on London Railway stations. It is also patently obvious, to anyone who lives in the Crookham Parishes, that we now have to consider focusing future growth on a new Community in Winchfield, where proper infrastructure can be provided, rather than the Sticking plaster approach of grafting estates onto existing communities. Life is getting very pressured by people numbers and traffic in the Crookham and Fleet Communities, by over development, and adversely affecting our quality of life. So your APPROACH 3 has to be the way forward. General comment- Q4. Approach 3, 1 and 2. Q5. Approach 6. I cannot Peter Earl understand why we should be involved with taking overflow from Rushmoor and Surrey Heath. I urge you to strongly resist this route. Runnymede Borough Council I can confirm that this Council supports the respective Draft Strategic Priorities set out at Table 2 on pages 7/8 of the Draft Vision and Strategic Priorities for Hart; the Priorities of relevance are referenced 1, 2, 3, 7 and 11. In respect of the Refined Options for Delivering New Homes, this Council does not consider that it needs to express a preference for any of the options presented. We would wish to state, though, that Hart District Council should ‘leave no stone unturned’ in its attempts to deliver all the objectively assessed need across the District between 2011 and 2032, whichever option is selected. Rushmoor Borough Council Rushmoor Borough Council welcomes the opportunity to work with Hart District Council on developing a planning strategy to meet the housing needs of the HMA, within the HMA, in accordance with national planning policy, and the Terms of Reference of the Joint Member Liaison Group. It will continue to work with Hart and Surrey Heath Councils to ensure a timely update to the joint evidence base, to enable the three authorities to demonstrate positive outcomes through Plan making, as required by the Duty to Co-operate, and reflected in the tests of soundness at Examination of Local Plans. (see full response for detailed comments)

Page 81 of 108

Surrey Heath Borough Council 1. We support Hart in considering a range of refined options for delivering new homes and welcome the recognition in the Refined Options Paper that there may be a requirement for Hart to meet the needs of neighbouring authorities, particularly those within the HMA. 2. With regard to the options put forward, Surrey Heath is of the view that a combination of the options that incorporates the provision of a new settlement at Winchfield would be preferred as this would appear to represent the best opportunity for Hart to help to deliver the Housing Market Area (HMA) requirement if other authorities in the HMA, despite their best endeavours, are unable to fully meet their housing need. General comment- Definitely support new settlement with associated Susan Dee infrastructure. Fleet is already built up enough and the infrastructure cannot cope. There is also a need for elderly housing close to facilities not apartments. The Yateley Society Q1. We believe all major developments should include a mix of housing needs. This would promote a more homogeneous society. Q2. With so much pressure on land for more housing, the needs of groups living ‘outside the box’, e.g. gypsies and travellers, should be realistic and given a low priority. Q3. No; we believe there is a fundamental flaw in identifying a hierarchy in this way. Your report assumes that services are adequate for existing residents but ignores whether there is (a) a full range of services and (b) whether these services are already under pressure from the existing settlements. Therefore, each site should be individually assessed and a hierarchy created by identifying its ability to support expansion. Q4. Approach 1, 2 and 3 (with a caveat on this selection, because we are now assuming that a new settlement at Winchfield will not be able to deliver a substantial number of new homes in the plan period. Q5. This is an impossible question to answer. We do not know (a) if Rushmoor has yet made a formal request for its unmet housing, (b) if they do then how many homes are required and (c) we are not convinced without changes to legislation that forcing unmet housing on an adjacent district is legally enforceable. Hart, we believe, has a better case for justifying it cannot take this unmet delivery than Rushmoor has of not being able to meet its own needs. Approach 2, 3, 4 and 1. Q6. SHLAA153 Blackwater/Hawley – Brook House (60) This site is possible but sustainability may be a problem as there are no local services. SHLAA26 Eversley – A number of sites have been listed for possible development, which equate to a possible 437 new homes all around the Eversley Cross area, represent unsustainable development. Adding more homes to an area already over developed is unsustainable and needs

Page 82 of 108

to be re-defined. Land to the east of Moulsham Lane, locally known as the Urnfield and the Reading Road site is a possibility.

Waverley Borough Council 1. Both Options 2 and 3 of your consultation do not meet any unmet housing need in Rushmoor and Surrey Heath. Option 1 of your consultation only has the ability to make a small contribution to Rushmoor and Surrey Heath’s potential shortfall of 3,000 new homes. If the housing needs within the Hart, Rushmoor, and Surrey Heath HMA cannot be met in full then this could put pressure on other surrounding authorities, including Waverley, to meet them. These authorities may be no better placed to do so. This Council would therefore encourage Hart, Surrey Heath and Rushmoor to work together to agree an approach that meets all their needs within the HMA as far as possible. 2. In terms of cross boundary impacts, Waverley has no specific comments to make on the most appropriate option or combination of options for housing distribution put forward in your consultation, as each will have some impact on Waverley’s assets, infrastructure and other services. However, in considering the most appropriate option, Waverley requests that Hart assesses the impact on Waverley and through the duty to cooperate, work with us to ensure that there are sufficient measures to mitigate it.

Page 83 of 108

Yateley Town Council 1. The current out of date infrastructure of Yateley is inadequate at present and cannot sustain any significant future development, either in Yateley or the surrounding areas. 2. The short listed site at Moulsham Lane sits on a dry island in flood zone 1 and members were surprised it had not been rejected particularly as 3 other sites (13, 17 and 149) were rejected “due to flood risk, these sites are considered unsuitable for housing”. 3. Regarding Winchfield, members felt the new settlement option afforded the potential to deliver a significant contribution to Hart’s housing needs in tandem with a modern, up to date infrastructure including adequate provision for new schools and medical services. 4. Members also noted that Winchfield had the added advantage of a mainline rail station and was in close proximity to the M3 motorway offering the possibility of a new junction. Regardless of which development options are progressed Yateley Town Council wish to see appropriate infrastructure put in place alongside any development. Infrastructure improvements should be an integral part of any development option and not an add- on after development. SHLAA30, SHLAA31, SHLAA62, Q5. Support new settlement at Winchfield. Q6. Lord SHLAA291)- Wandworth Estate has over 12,000 acres in around the Lord Wandsworth College- village of Long Sutton. All four shortlisted sites in Long Simmons & Sons Sutton are owned by Lord Wandsworth College and are available for development. Rentplus (Tetlow Planning) The submission does not relate to the consultation instead it promotes a new affordable housing model- Rent Plus. General comment- I regret that find both the online ‘Refined Options’ main Tony Nicholson paper and also the counterpart printed summary version confusing to the point of being misleading. As currently presented, any response to the individual questions would be potentially flawed – and HDC at risk, again, of the exercise being discredited or challenged… see full representation General comment- I am opposed to major developments on Greenfield sites A.B.Dicken and vehemently opposed to the suggestion of a new settlement at Winchfield. I would also wish to see more effort put into establishing the number of available Brownfield sites before I am able to answer your consultation questions. General comment- I wish to bemoan the fact that the process was complex in Andrew Robinson that it required the reading and understanding of documents where the subject matter would be familiar only to people with professional experience in this area. As a result I'm sure many potential respondents would have been put off. I felt all the so-called options amount to a truly awful future for the district and that your

Page 84 of 108

documentation fails to portray the huge 'quality of life' issues that such massive urbanisation will bring. What is particularly galling is that you are not drawing any 'lines in the sand' over the outrageous imposition of Hart having to absorb unmet housing allocations from other districts.

General comment- I wish to lodge my objection to the land adjacent to Anne Hallowes Causeway Green and Farm – COM002 being made available for 100 homes as a SHLAA site within Hart District Council’s plan. This site is within the Conservation Area and no development should be allowed here. The word ‘conservation’ denotes ‘keeping from change, protection, preservation of existing conditions and careful management of natural resources and of the environment’. On entering the village from Fleet, the fields of Causeway Farm are essential to maintain Hartley Wintney’s heritage and unique identity within its farming community and our rural setting. General comment- I am very upset and shocked to hear of the development Anne Thompson proposed for the fields to the rear of Causeway Farm and the Cricket Green, fields which I believe are within the Conservation Area. I cannot believe that such an intrusive development could ever be considered to so disfigure our iconic and historic Cricket Green. Indeed what is the point of having a Conservation Area designated if it can be set aside so easily? We are all very proud of our village and accept that there must be changes but this proposal is a step too far and I sincerely hope that it will not be allowed to proceed. General Comment- I am unaware where the ‘brownfield’ areas are in Yateley Aurelia Duarte and the surrounding countryside. Building of new homes has been pledged by every government in power and still the demand for new homes grows and is never sufficient. You have stated that your priority will be to use ‘brownfield’ first and then consider available green areas. My personal view is that the areas around Winchfield and the option of combining Pale Farm and Elvetham could be a possibility. My one consideration would be how the new homes would impact on the existing infrastructure. Traffic at certain times of the day is a nightmare and all these homes (wherever you build them) will need access to main roads. Apart from this, there is the matter of schools, doctors’ surgeries, public transport and a host of other things which make life worth living.

Page 85 of 108

Land at Dunleys Hill, Odiham - Q6. Reference is made to the fact that the Odiham & SHLAA65. North Warnborough Neighbourhood Plan has identified a Avant Homes-JB Planning potential for around 164 further homes within the parish. Associates The Council identifies that the total number of potential new homes from ‘Shortlisted’ sites in Odiham and North Warnborough is 384 dwellings. It states that the final number will be identified in the draft Local Plan, which is scheduled to be published in summer 2016. Our view is that Odiham is capable of accommodating growth at the higher end of this range. Our client’s site on land at Dunleys Hill, Odiham is identified as SHLAA65. Winchfield New Settlement- Q4. Our Clients’ submission is in response to that of the Barratt Homes & Gallager potential “new settlement”, which we have termed the Estates (Barton Willmore) “Winchfield Garden Community” (WGC). 1. HDC should re-visit its current approach to overall housing targets for the Plan period (2011-2032), and continue to engage with RBC and SHBC, to establish the likelihood or otherwise of any unmet need within the HMA. Q5. The observation that a combination of approaches will be required in order to ensure a sufficient and consistent supply of housing is provided over the plan period is supported. Details of the proposal for WGC are set out in the representation. Reading Road, Yateley Q2. The Agent highlights the potential of client site to (SHLAA20)- accommodate specialist/ older persons housing due to its Bell Cornwell location close to shops and facilities and/or starter homes. Q3. Support settlement hierarchy. Q4. Approach 1, 2 and 3. Q5. Approach 4, 7, 6 and 5. Q6. We strongly support the shortlisting of our client’s site- Reading Road, Yateley (SHLAA20) however we would argue that the site is capable of accommodating a far greater capacity than 24 dwellings. We would suggest 35 dwellings. However we do not support sites SHLAA13, SHLAA17 and SHLAA149 are unsuitable for residential development due to flooding. SHLAA303 would contribute towards the infilling of an existing gap between Yateley and Frogmore, resulting in the loss of a strategic gap. On the basis that our clients land presents a logical small scale extension to Yateley, this site should be shortlisted for development over the plan period.

Page 86 of 108

General comment- We represent a number of landowners in the Hart District Bell Cornwall and would like to make the following submission. Q1. It is important the Council plans to meet the needs of all community groups and it is important to show specific allocations are made for these groups. Firstly to ensure that these specialist forms of housing are actually delivered and secondly to safeguard the right locations for each type of development. Q2. We consider that suitable sites for affordable and starter homes are provided in Hart's main settlements. We consider that sites for custom and self-build would be most suitable coming forward as part of the larger schemes. Sites for travellers would be best provided as extensions to existing sites. Q3. We do not agree with the Council's settlement hierarchy without a full review of this paper. Whilst we agree with the concept of a settlement hierarchy, it is clear that there has been some changes since the adoption of the hierarchy in 2010. Q4. Approach 1, 2 and 3. Q5.Approach 4, 7, 6 and 5. Q7. Additional comments are provided in the main representation. Land West of Fleet, The representations go into detail under question four Berkeley Strategic (Nathaniel and five about why it is considered that a combination of Litchfield) Approaches 1, 2 and 3 would best serve the housing delivery needs of Hart District because the objective assessment of housing need (OAHN) in Hart is in fact much higher than is currently being planned for by the Council. It also goes on to demonstrate how the West of Fleet site promoted by Berkeley is the best of the three strategic site options in Approach 2 to deliver housing early in the plan period. Question 7 goes into further detail about why the OAHN concluded in the Wessex Economics SHMA report (December 2014) underestimates the needs of Hart and inflates those of Rushmoor. A report produced by NLP entitled ‘Review of Objectively Assessed Housing Need Hart, Rushmoor and Surrey Heath’ (January 2016) is included as an appendix to the representations and sets out NLP’s critique of the Wessex Economics report and NLP’s own assessment of OAHN in Hart, Rushmoor and Surrey Heath. General Comment- I think that Hartley Wintney has fulfilled its quota of C.Chance houses recently with St Mary's, Rifle Range farm and the retirement homes in the village. The proposed development of land adjacent to Causeway Green and Farm - COM002 (includes sites 89 & 94) is a site too far. Our already stretched facilities: Doctors, Dentist, Schools and amenities will not absorb more families. Depending on access to new development it could well impact on the leisure activities of families on land between Cricket pitch and the Pond at Causeway farm but will definitely impact the view as there would be buildings where now is countryside

Page 87 of 108

Cala Homes (South Homes These representations are made on behalf of Cala Homes Counties) Ltd - Vail Williams (South Home Counties) Ltd and focus attention specifically on the settlement hierarchy and the approach to development across the District but specifically at Odiham/North Warnborough. We do not consider that the 3 shortlisted sites could provide suitable alternative development opportunities but that they are not as suitable as those already identified and confirmed within the draft Neighbourhood Plan and therefore do not consider it appropriate to rank them. Approach 1 should be extended to include the area to the south west of the District and the estimated capacity of sustainable sites identified within Odiham/North Warnborough added to the total new homes that could be delivered from sustainable towns and villages of Hart. Campaign for Real Ale (CAMRA) CAMRA’s chief concern is that the Local Plan will afford suitable protection, in planning terms, for public houses. The continuing loss of traditional pubs, both in urban and rural settings, is in our view having a very negative effect on the communities concerned. The planning system affords a potentially powerful line of defence against the efforts of some pub owners to make short-term financial gains at the expense of valuable community facilities. Our hope would be that the Local Plan will include policies which support the retention of community assets like pubs and resist applications for change of use unless there is very clear evidence that the facility is no longer wanted or needed. As the Local Plan develops I would suggest inclusion of a policy as set out in the representation. In addition we would strongly advocate that the Council develops pub protection further within a Supplementary Planning Document (SPD). This has already been done in neighbouring Rushmoor who introduced a SPD relating to Development Affecting Public Houses and we would like you to consider the introduction of something similar in Hart. SHLAA89 AND SHLAA94- I wish to object very strongly to sites 89 & 94 being Cecilia Dorman considered for development. We live in Mount Pleasant, our garden backs on to the proposed land and as the land rises we would feel overwhelmed by houses looking down on us. The traffic on the Fleet Road going in and out of the village is already heavy and can only get worse once Hartley Row Park, formerly Rifle Range Farm, is fully occupied. To then add another 100 houses directly opposite would be madness. It is already difficult to get out from Mount Pleasant on to the Fleet Road, particularly to turn right to go towards the A30. The site proposed is within the Conservation Area - what is the point of a Conservation Area if it is not respected? The character of Hartley Wintney as a rural village must be preserved.

Page 88 of 108

Land adjacent to Causeway I feel strongly that this land is not suitable for Green and Farm - COM002 development, indeed of the three sites put forward as (includes sites SHLAA89 & part of the consultation this one is by a long way the least SHLAA94)- appropriate. The Cricket Green, Causeway Green and the Charles Giles pond adjacent to Causeway farm and Barn represent the very best parts of Hartley Wintney: this area is quiet, peaceful and much used for recreational purposes not only by villagers but by visitors from other areas who are attracted by its beauty and ambience. I can vouch for this since when dog walking I meet visitors, as often as not, who have come from many miles away to enjoy this part of Hartley Wintney - and often to eat and shop in the village too. Building on the land referred to would clearly destroy the character of this beautiful area and its setting. If approved, it would be seen as a case of planning vandalism. It must not happen. Land adjacent to Causeway With reference to COM002 sites 89 and 94 land adjacent Green and Farm - COM002 to Causeway Green. These sites are not suitable for (includes sites SHLAA89 & development next to the Cricket green, the oldest in the SHLAA94)- world. It is in Christopher Brown conservation area, what is the point of conservation if new homes can be built to ruin the Green? I should add that the roads around the green have had a dramatic increase in traffic over the past 10 years, the roads are categorised as ACCESS ONLY which is routinely ignored by motorists and despite requests the police make no attempt to stop motorists and enforce the law. There are no footpaths on the roads which is why they are access only, there will soon be an accident even without increased housing. Land adjacent to Causeway I oppose the suggested developments on the sites above. Green and Farm COMOO2 I would not object to the sites (includes sites 89 & 94) – suggested in the Hartley Wintney Village Plan exhibited to D.N. Beazley the public on Saturday 12 March 2016. Land adjacent to Causeway I wish to object in the strongest terms to the proposal to Green and Farm COMOO2 develop the land south of causeway farm. The land is in a (includes sites 89 & 94) – conservation area. The land south of the farms the first David Reader you see driving north from Fleet and would be a visual intrusion to the countryside setting of Hartley Wintney. There is already much new building in the village, Rifle range farm, Dilly Lane, behind Monachus house and next to the surgery. The new houses would be very visible from the Cricket green because of rising ground and produce a sight of suburbia in a village setting. The proposal is a denigration of the whole concept of a conservation area. I urge that this site is not developed.

Page 89 of 108

Land adjacent to Causeway I have lived in Hartley Wintney over 35 years and have Green and Farm COMOO2 seen much development but, in the end, it has not (includes sites 89 & 94)- impacted too badly on our village. However, this is not the Elizabeth Lockett case with the proposed building of 100 homes at Causeway Green and Farm. This would strike at the very heart of the village, our lovely peaceful idyllic cricket green. How anyone could propose spoiling this beautiful example of rural village England I don’t know. People from all around the area visit our cricket green, bringing their children to play on the grass and see the ducks, secure in the knowledge that they can sit on one of the many seats and not feel as though they are surrounded by building. I strongly protest against such a plan. Build if you must but, for goodness sake, not in a Conservation Area. Please consider my views. Land at Pale Lane Farm Q4. Preferred Approach 2, 3 and 1. Q5. Option 5. Q6. (SHLAA052) and Land at Developer promoting both SHLAA 052 and SHLAA104 Elvetham Heath SHLAA104- sites. More detailed comments provided in the Trustees of Elvetham Estate/ representation. Wates Development (Carter Jonas) Environment Agency Sites SHLAA153, SHLAA23, SHLAA246, SHLAA273, SHLAA116, SHLAA20, SHLAA11 and COM003 have flood zones within the boundary of the site. We have record of site SHLAA20 flooding in 1947. We recommend the local authority refers to Diagram 1: Taking flood risk into account in the preparation of a Local Plan, reference ID: 7- 005-20140306. All proposed sites/ areas should be subjected to the sequential test (even those in Flood Zone 1) to ensure developments are appropriate for all types of constraints and to ensure development is not proposed in Flood Zone 3 and Flood Zone 2 unless no other suitable sites are identified. If sites within Flood Zone 3 and 2 are found to be required due to the need for more sites, it may be necessary to complete a level 2 SFRA. None of the proposed 8 sites has detailed flood modelling currently available. If these sites are taken forward detailed flood modelling would need to be undertaken as part of any site specific flood risk assessment. More detailed comments are set out in the representation. Land between Eversley Road and This representation is made on behalf of our clients, EPV Firgrove Road (SHLAA273)- EPV (North Hampshire), who are promoting their site south of (North Hampshire) Eversley Road, Yateley (reference SHL273) for allocation in the Hart Local Plan. The consultation paper sets out three main options, with a further four based on combinations of the main options. Of these options we would advocate the use of a combination of options 1 and 2 (which is sub option 4). This option would see a combination of dispersal of development across all towns and villages (option 1) as well as the allocation of sustainable urban extension(s). Key to any future strategy will be flexibility

Page 90 of 108

and contingency in land supply. Therefore option 1, which provides the opportunity for the greatest range of allocations across a number of locations has to form a key part of whichever option is finally adopted. More detailed comments are set out in the representation.

Land at Owens Farm, Hook Flavia Estate promoting their site SHLAA09. Detailed (SHLAA09)- comments provided in the main representation. Flavia Estates (Woolf Bond) Friday Street Developments x2 plans are provided however no response form or (Southern Planning Practice) comments on the Housing Options Document. General Comment- Representation sets out general comments but does not H.Wren respond to the Refined Options Housing Paper. Hampshire & Q4. Preferred Approach 3, 2 and 1. Q5. Approach 2, 1, 3 Wildlife Trust and 4. With regard to the shortlisted sites that are being considered for possible development we would like to raise some concerns. Our concerns are principally with regard to the proximity of these sites to nationally and internationally designated sites and those that are under our management, and as such the potential impacts that may arise from increased recreational pressure. These sites are as follows; Blackwater & Hawley Site SHLAA100 – Sun Park, Guillemot Park North: This site is located approximately 400m from the SPA boundary at Hawley Common SSSI SPA, however the woodland between the proposed site at the SPA is contiguous with it and therefore the potential for negative impacts to occur on the SPA is significant. Site SHLAA153 – Brook House: This site borders the Trust’s reserve at & Ancells Meadows SSSI and as such we are concerned that increased development pressure will result in adverse impacts occurring on this site. Fleet Site SHLAA357 – Land at Sankey Lane: This site is located immediately adjacent to the Trust’s Ancells Farm SSSI nature reserve. Given the extent of development to the west and south, if development is permitted in the east, the reserve could be significantly impacted as a result of increased recreational pressure and fragmentation. See representation for more detailed comments.

Page 91 of 108

Hampshire County Council Q1. Hampshire County Council as the Highway Authority recommends that affordable, starter and specialist homes for older people would ideally benefit from being located in areas of high accessibility in terms of access to facilities, amenities and employment opportunities (where applicable) which reduces the need to travel and encourages the use of sustainable modes of travel by residents / staff which ideally discourages car use. Where future developments meet the required thresholds they should be supported by an appropriate Transport Assessment to identify the transport impacts of the development on the highway network and determine how these can be successfully mitigated. Developments should also be supported by a Travel Plan to encourage and facilitate sustainable travel habits. Q2. Hampshire County Council’s Strategic Transport Team will not be commenting at this consultation stage on the suitability of individual locations for development throughout Hart district without having first been able to review and assess the appropriate transport related evidence base. Q4. Approach 1, 2 and 4. Q6. More detailed comments are provided within the main representation. Highways England In general we are supportive of the approach set out in the consultation documents. We will continue to engage with all parties to develop the Local Plan. Land at Hares Farm (SHLAA155) - Q3. Broadly supportive but would like HW to be included Highwood Land Hartley Wintney in Tier 2 as it performs better than a secondary Local Ltd (Woolf Bond) service centre. Q4. Prefer a more dispersed strategy that focuses growth across more sustainable settlements. Q6. The developer wants this site to be put forward in the next reiteration of the Local Plan for affordable specialist housing for older persons. Historic England Questions 1 and 2: whilst we have no specific views on how to meet the needs of specialist groups or any sites that we think may be appropriate, we will expect any choice of sites to have proper regard to the need to conserve and enhance heritage assets, and any criteria- based policy to include a criterion to this effect. Question 3: we are not in a position to comment on the current Settlement Hierarchy. Questions 4 and 5: we do not consider that we have sufficient information for us to rank the three possible approaches or combined approaches identified but we would make the following comments. All three approaches lie within the Forest of Eversley so particularly careful attention would need to be given to protecting existing areas that particularly contribute to the character of the Forest, and opportunities taken to respect and reinforce that character where possible. Question 6: we have assessed the sites identified in the New Homes Booklet against our records of designated

Page 92 of 108

heritage assets. Detailed comments can be found in the representation.

General Comment- Q1. Yes. The suppliers of new homes, including but not Ian Campbell solely developers of specialist groups, all want to operate within long term cycles set within a consistent and deliverable policy framework. The existing fragmented local authority boundaries make this difficult, very nearly impossible. The existing five year electoral cycle introduces and keeps policy uncertainty levels very high, which is a direct deterrent to long term investment decisions and impedes delivery of creative and efficient design solutions. Q2. I do not know. It is sensible from a transport and utility infrastructure point of view, and also in order to keep families together, enabling different generations to support one another, that these groups should generally be kept together both in the short term, and also in the long term in accessible locations. This sort of forward policy requires strategic, long term planning policies which have cross-party consensual support. Q3. I do not agree. First in my opinion the key initial test, or selection criterion to be applied in deciding possible housing locations is economic. Second, in my opinion in order to deliver an environmentally long term sustainable Local Plan Hart must challenge the 5km TBHSPA protection zone. If there is a conflict between delivering a long term sustainable Local Plan in accordance with Government policy and adherence to TBHSPA policies the priority must be delivery of a sustainable Local Plan. It will be for Government to decide how the conflict is resolved. Finally, in my opinion this question cannot be answered in accordance with Government policy on sustainability without consideration of new town or new city extension options in relation to Reading and Basingstoke as a means of meeting some of Hart's current and future housing needs. There is no evidence in the draft Local Plan this analysis has happened, or if it has, the outcome of this exercise. Q4. I support a new settlement, or alternatively new urban extension, but only at Winchfield (Approach 3) Q5. A combination of approaches will work best. Q6. No. More detailed comments are set out in the representation.

Page 93 of 108

Land adjacent to Causeway This proposed development on top of the recent building Green and Farm COMOO2 at St. Mary's Park and Rifle Range Farm is too much. (includes sites 89 & 94) – Hartley Wintney is a village with a village atmosphere and Jean Baker further building will upset the nature of this lovely place. Roads are already overcrowded, schools full to capacity and doctors surgery is not coping. Please rethink and let us keep HW a rural village. Land adjacent to Causeway I live on Hartley Wintney Cricket Green and am horrified Green and Farm COMOO2 at the proposal to build housing on this site which is a (includes sites 89 & 94) – Conservation Area. The view from my house will be ruined Jill Brown thus reducing the value of my property. I have lived here 19 years and have taken an active part at the cricket club, the green being one of the oldest in the country. Many people enjoy coming to the green in summer to watch the cricket and their view would be ruined by housing behind the old properties along the top of the green. The village already has 2 new areas of housing and the village cannot sustain more new homes. In recent years the intakes of both schools has had to be substantially increased in the last 5 years. I have worked at the Doctors surgery for 17 years and feel the surgery, as it is, can't support any more new families. Waiting times to see Doctors and other medical staff have increased hugely and all the rooms are fully utilised. In the time I have lived here there have been a number of accidents on the Fleet Road (many of them fatal) so building an access on the road would be very dangerous as people constantly speed into and out of the village. I urge you to reconsider this planning proposal. Land adjacent to Causeway Please please do not go ahead with this as it will Green and Farm COMOO2 completely ruin the beautiful village of Hartley Wintney (includes sites 89 & 94) – both in look and feel. The new homes would be clearly Jo Allen visible from the beautiful and picturesque (currently) setting of the Cricket Green and many people come here to enjoy the peaceful and semi-rural atmosphere. Building even more homes would put further strain on the village’s resources including the health care and shops and the beautiful countryside which is slowly being destroyed. I am also concerned about an even greater volume of traffic coming through the village as well. Hartley Wintney is currently one of the best places to live in the UK but this is slowly being destroyed by all the new houses being built and it is fast becoming just another, overcrowded busy town. Please don’t build these new homes and please keep Hartley Wintney as the beautiful and tranquil village that it is. Land adjacent to Causeway I would like to resubmit my original response but also Green and Farm COMOO2 have some additional comments regarding potential (includes sites 89 & 94) – opportunities which I think would be worth highlighting. John Gatward The opportunity I would like to include is with reference to the area behind Cricket Green in Hartley Wintney. Whilst my original concerns relating to this potential

Page 94 of 108

development remain, after consideration I also think that the development, if done well and in keeping with existing buildings/architecture, could benefit existing residents.

Land adjacent to Causeway I would like to object to the inclusion of Causeway Green Green and Farm COMOO2 and Farm – COM002 for development in the Hart District (includes sites 89 & 94) – Plan. This is a designated conservation area and part of a John Spencer unique landscape for which the whole of Hart District are extremely fortunate to possess. It is the focal point for both Hartley Wintney and its hinterland, for many major social events such as the Annual Cricket Testimonial Match Day, Village Ball, etc. This facility will be devastated by the development of 100 homes immediately behind the Cricket Green and Mount Pleasant. Because there is a hill rising away from the green to what must be a height of 50 feet, any construction will tower over the current line of cottages and houses bordering the green. This will create an ugly backdrop dominating the current Victorian cottage setting around the green, seriously diminishing the attractive character of the location. It has been given Conservation Area status to protect it from being spoilt by such developments. General comments- Q3. YES. Q4. Preferred approach 1, 2 and 3. Q5. Approach Jonathan Greig 1, 3, 2 and 4. Q6. Supports SHLAA100 and SHLAA 153 sites. Land adjacent to Causeway I object to any development at this site. I moved here Green and Farm COMOO2 because the village is so attractive. I had hoped it was (includes sites 89 & 94) – protected from development. Joseene Davies Land adjacent to Causeway I am writing to log my objection to the above proposal to Green and Farm COMOO2 build 100 new homes. The Cricket Green is the oldest (includes sites 89 & 94) – Cricket Green in the country and must be protected from Kathy Gale over development. The Cricket Green is the heart of the village of Hartley Wintney. The cottages and houses on the Cricket Green were built in the 1850s and to build a large development of new houses would be detrimental. The proposed site is in the conservation area and the 2 oak trees are not only protected but a landmark of the village. The wildlife in the fields would also be destroyed. This historic location would be totally spoilt by this proposal plan of building 100 new houses.

Page 95 of 108

General comment- Since I moved to Fleet nearly forty years ago I have seen Kerry Mann my reasons for coming here gradually eroded. My wife wanted an urban existence where I wanted to live in a village, Fleet was a good compromise. The one redeeming thing about the area is that Winchfield has remained unspoilt. Fleet, once a town with interesting shops and amenities, has now become a town of pubs, eateries, supermarkets and chain shops. Winchfield gives to the community one of the most prestigious Music Festivals in the South of England. If those people who back and organise the event were to lose their allegiance, enthusiasm and facilities to the place they've devoted so much effort and time to, it will be an irreparable loss to the community. Land adjacent to Causeway I am a 17 year old girl named Kirsty Brown who lives on Green and Farm COMOO2 the cricket green (Upton Cottage). I have lived here all of (includes sites 89 & 94) – my life. I understand that there is a rising population Kirsty Brown which means that more houses need to be built for these people. However, Hartley Wintney is already at bursting point. Whilst I was at Oakwood and Greenfields the class sizes got bigger as I progressed through the schools. Also, whilst I was at Greenfields there was building work being done to extend the school to accommodate for the increasing amount of children. The same has happened at Oakwood. Since more housing estates have been built like St Mary's Park more children have been applying to Oakwood and Greenfields which is why they have had to extend their buildings. As well as affecting the schools, if the new houses are built, it will affect the amount of traffic going in and out of Hartley Wintney. With more people there will be more traffic so it will be harder to get in and out of Hartley Wintney. General comment- I wish to refer to Approach 1: Development throughout Lois Walton the district’s towns and villages. Under the heading "Disadvantages" you omitted to state that the areas of Yateley and Eversley are under consideration for building on narrow lanes, no footpaths and are prone to flooding. Approach 2: Strategic ‘greenfield’ expansion on the edge of one or more main settlements- you have stated in this section under "disadvantages" that the existing infrastructure in the settlements is already operating at full capacity. Limited existing public transport and loss of individual identity of existing settlements. The objections put forward to Approach 2 should also apply to Approach 1 for Yateley and Eversley. I am still unsure why Hart has to accommodate the needs of Rushmoor and Surrey Heath, who if they investigated properly, would find lots of brownfield sites they could use to fill their quota.

Page 96 of 108

Land adjacent to Causeway We would strongly urge that the land adjacent to Green and Farm COMOO2 Causeway Green and Farm is not developed. The whole (includes sites 89 & 94) – character of the iconic Village Green and Cricket Green, Mary M.Jenkins and Christopher including the Cricket Club, and Causeway Pond, would be J. Bromage destroyed by any proposed development. The current rural aspect, with workers cottages backing onto fields, would be lost forever. More than any other Village development, this would ruin the rural landscape, and surely cannot be considered as the fields are in a Conservation Area. National Grid (Amec Foster Q6. The following sites have been identified as being Wheeler) crossed by or within close proximity Overhead Powerline apparatus: · SHL167 - Land between the Motorway and Railway · SHL169 Land at Totters Farm, Murrell Green National Grid does not own the land over which the overhead lines cross, and it obtains the rights from individual landowners to place our equipment on their land. Potential developers of the sites should be aware that it is National Grid policy to retain our existing overhead lines in-situ. Because of the scale, bulk and cost of the transmission equipment required to operate at 400kV National Grid only supports proposals for the relocation of existing high voltage overhead lines where such proposals directly facilitate a major development or infrastructure project of national importance which has been identified as such by central government. Therefore we advise developers and planning authorities to take into account the location and nature of existing electricity transmission equipment when planning developments. More detailed comments are set out in the representation. Land adjacent to Causeway We wish to register our objections to the proposals. The Green and Farm COMOO2 proposals to build on the fields behind the houses and (includes sites 89 & 94) – cottages bordering on the Cricket Green, the adjacent Norman Davies Causeway Green and Mount Pleasant run contrary to the understood protective principles of the Conservation Area. To build in this area would deleteriously affect the rural setting of the Cricket Green and would amount to the desecration of an iconic area enjoyed by generations of local inhabitant and visitors to the village and to Hart district.

Page 97 of 108

Odiham and N.Warnborough The NPSG is responding in the light of evidence gathered Neighbourhood Plan Steering during our own consultations and commenting on those Group matters in your consultation which were demonstrably important to our residents. To summarise: 1. Our plan makes a valuable contribution to your target for our area, recognising that our villages are the largest of the settlements in the area beyond the SPA 5km buffer zone and not as isolated as other parts. 2. Both villages are significantly constrained by a combination of national heritage, biodiversity and flood risk designations, as the respective statutory consultees have made clear in their pre-submission representations. 3. Our plan contributes at least 75% of the target of 300 extra new homes identified in the New Homes Sites Booklet for the area beyond the SPA 5km zone of influence. In addition, we note that Hart needs to assess sites for potential development outside our parish (in South Warnborough, Long Sutton and West of Hook), dependent upon the eventual strategic approach adopted in the Local Plan for Hart. As a result, in our view there is no need for the Local Plan when it is finalised to allocate further sites within this parish beyond those already in the ONWNP. Q4. The Hart consultation invites the ranking of additional sites in the ONWNP area. The NPSG endorses its pre-submission plan and does not consider it appropriate to rank extra sites that have not been agreed by the community in our consultations. Over 55's Forum Q1. It is very clear that although Affordable Housing is mentioned within Hart’s plan but that there has been insufficient thought gone into meeting the needs of the Elderly. This we find extraordinary since it is a large demographic group; as homes for the elderly tend to be more compact it would allow higher density housing; this is especially true when thinking about the “specialist needs” a large proportion of this age group will need e.g. care homes. We feel strongly that wherever possible that planned housing/care for this age group should be linked to “each community” so they do not have to move away from support and friends who live locally. Q4. Support for dispersal Approach. Q5. Since this may involve increasing the number of people in each community it is essential that current infrastructure needs are reviewed; especially around Local Transport/Communication. So people can remain active and self- sufficient for as long as possible but we are aware that there is already a shortfall in funds for planned infrastructure. It therefore does not seem sensible to consider building a completely “New Settlement” proposed at Winchfield.

Page 98 of 108

Land adjacent to Causeway As a resident I have been struck by the visual and physical Green and Farm COMOO2 impact many new developments have on the rural (includes sites 89 & 94) – landscape, particularly those built on previously Paul Clinch undeveloped land or greenfield spaces. The infrastructure to support these developments comes as an afterthought and when it does its usually inadequate. More detailed comments are set out in the representation. Land adjacent to Causeway Whilst we accept, albeit reluctantly, the need for new Green and Farm COMOO2 houses behind Causeway Farm and the Cricket Green we (includes sites 89 & 94) – object to them being visible from the Cricket Green. The Peter and Ellie Williams speed at which new houses are being built in the area is alarming. The last remnants of this beautiful village need to be preserved. We would be happy to see a row of trees between the new houses and the village. Planning Sphere Q1. We fully support the inclusion of Starter Homes as part of the overall affordable housing mix to help meet the needs of first time buyers. We support the provision of an element of custom and self-build housing as a delivery mechanism to supplement volume home builder provision, and to also widen the choice of new housing by attracting households who would not otherwise consider purchasing a new home and we support the provision of housing suitable for occupation by elderly households including provision for downsizing as well as specialist provision. Q4 &5. There is not a credible ‘one size fits all’ scenario. A combined approach, including the new settlement option, will be required to maintain a 5-year housing land supply. Q6. A new settlement at Winchfield of c. 5,000 homes could deliver 3,000 homes by the end of the plan period (2032) and should form an integral part of the housing delivery strategy for the district. We can confirm that Mr Hull’s land interests, as outlined in the two attached Land Registry Title Plan extracts remain available for development in the Winchfield new settlement proposal. Land at Marsh Lane (SHLAA23)- Q1. Current Local Plan Policy seeks 40% affordable homes White, Young and Greene. in developments of 15 dwellings or higher, or, in settlements where the population is below 5000, where development sites are 0.2ha or larger and would provide 5 or more dwellings. The delivery of affordable housing through smaller, piecemeal sites is less likely in terms of overall numbers, more likely to fall away as a result of development viability and would create less attractive packages for housing providers. For these reasons the delivery of affordable homes is more appropriate through larger developments. This is acknowledged on page 33 of the Refined Options For Delivering New Homes – February 2016 paper (ROFDNH). Q2. The land at Marsh Lane (SHLAA ref 23) would be suitable to provide Affordable Homes / Starter Homes as part of a residential

Page 99 of 108

development proposal. Q3. No. more detail is provided within the representation. Q4. Approach 1, 2 and 3. Q5. Approach 1, 4, 2 and 3. Q6. More detailed comments are provided in the representation.

Land adjacent to Causeway I would like to express my complete & utter dismay when Green and Farm COMOO2 looking at the Local plan & discovering that Hart District (includes sites 89 & 94) – council would even consider building houses behind Rebecca Wallis Hartley Wintney’s much loved Cricket Green. Building houses directly behind the oldest Cricket Green in Hampshire, will destroy the very heart of the village. It is a quiet, tranquil place & whilst houses surround it, the beautiful houses at the top of the Green add to its character. I believe that if the 100 houses were built behind the Green, they would be clearly visible & would destroy the view across open fields & also the beautiful view down through the Oaks to Causeway pond. Houses behind the Green would trap the noise of both the M3 & A30 & would make the green feel like a park in the centre of Suburbia. The road down through the Green & the road directly outside the Cricketers pub is already lethal with cars speeding through at rush hour, as people are too impatient to queue on the A30. A housing estate directly behind the Green would mean more people would use this cut through & children’s lives would be endangered. Hartley Wintney has a wonderful history & we are all very proud to live here. I am not prepared for this to happen, I must protect this village for my children’s future & for the many more generations to come. Land adjacent to Causeway I am writing to advise my objection to the proposed Green and Farm COMOO2 development of the above, for the following reasons:- (includes sites 89 & 94) – a) It is within the Conservation Area Richard Horne b) It closely borders areas visible and used, including the Fleet Road c) It is on rising ground, making the skyline very visible with housing development, making it unacceptable. Therefore this site is not suitable for this kind of development and should be refused.

Page 100 of 108

Land adjacent to Causeway I have looked at the proposed plans for causeway farm Green and Farm COMOO2 and other areas proposed in the Hartley Wintney. The (includes sites 89 & 94) – proposals are ill conceived and badly thought out. In Rob Aiers essence that Causeway farm proposal will extend the curtilage of the village towards Fleet and like Rifle range farm sets a precedent for further extending the boundary and expanding the village. The autonomy of villages such as Hartley Wintney, Odiham et al needs to be retained in order that we keep village environment, as, just that. It is vitally important that we do not become a suburb of Fleet, Hook, etc. We are not opposed to considered building of new homes in the village, indeed there are a number of areas more suitable than that proposed at Causeway Farm. Also not considered in the plans that I can see, is the decimation of very elderly Oak trees on the proposed site at causeway farm. These trees whilst old are by no means at the end of their life and are our natural heritage that cannot be replaced. I respectfully suggest that all proposals are put on hold until public opinion is further sought to better develop the village to retain its autonomy whilst seeking to accommodate the councils need to build new homes. General comment- 1. It is difficult to see how any decision can be finalised Robert Merrick until the plans for adjoining district councils have been considered. They should be included in the consultation process so that the implications of adjoining developments can be properly assessed. 2 On the limited information available I would prefer Approach 7 so that the impact of development is reduced and allowance is made for future variations. Rotherwick Parish Council and The report reflects the considered views of the bodies the Rotherwick Neighbourhood concerned. The two organisations recognise the particular Development Plan Steering housing delivery issues that are been addressed in the Group emerging local plan. It is encouraging that the local plan is now being delivered to a refreshed timetable. The community also recognises the importance of delivering the objectively-assessed housing needs of the district and are committed to taking an appropriate and agreed amount of new growth in the parish which both reflects in very distinct character and appearance and which reflects historic growth rates. Q3.In any event it is both out of date and inconsistent with the core principles underpinning the NPPF. The community also believes that any objectively-assessed and refreshed version of a settlement hierarchy would place Rotherwick in the lowest category (Tier 5). Q4. The two organisations have concluded that Option 2 – Strategic greenfield extension represents the most appropriate, practical and deliverable option. The two organisation can also see similar strategic merits in the delivery of Option 3 – a new settlement. However, it is not favoured over Option 2. Q6. In

Page 101 of 108

principle the organisations consider that an overall figure of 70 new dwellings for Rotherwick in the Plan period is unjustified, disproportionate in scale and fundamentally in conflict with its distinctive character and appearance. This assertion reflects the very limited services within the village in general, and its lack of effective retail and public transport facilities in particular. The community is also concerned that development of this scale will fundamentally impact on the tranquillity and character of the village. These factors are reflected in the Conservation Area character appraisal. More detailed comments are set out in the representation.

RSPB The RSPB particularly welcomes the application of retained policy NRM6 from the South East Plan to give priority to directing development to areas outside the Thames Basin Heaths (TBH) Special Protection Area (SPA) zone of influence where potential effects can be avoided. Given the location of existing settlements within Hart and the proportion of Hart’s area covered by the 5km TBH zone of influence, we appreciate that it may not be appropriate to seek to deliver all development outside that area as some locations are likely to be less sustainable than others. Q6. The RSPB notes that the Bramshill Police College has been rejected as a potential allocation within the Plan (SHL106). We welcome the appropriate recognition of the constraints associated with this site, particularly the TBH SPA, which would need to be addressed to make development of the site acceptable in respect of avoiding impacts on the SPA. We are not in a position to comment on the wider sustainability of the site, but in respect of the environmental considerations we are yet to see a scheme which would appropriately address these constraints and therefore rejection of this as an allocation site is fitting. Land adjacent to Causeway I am writing to object strongly to the proposed Green and Farm COMOO2 development at Causeway Green and Farm and I call upon (includes sites 89 & 94) – Hart District Councillors to listen to the views of their Sally Solomon voters and defend them against the incursions of developers who see this area as a "cash cow" for their companies. As I understand it, this area is within the current Conservation Area and Hart District Council has previously defended it and promised not to change the boundaries. What has changed? These areas were introduced to make sure that they would be kept free of

Page 102 of 108

development for the next generations, this should be defended rigorously. Many people visit Hartley Wintney for its peaceful setting and to watch the cricket and perhaps picnic on the common areas, the shops in the village need the business these visitors bring and more development may make them drive on to somewhere more attractive.

Land adjacent to Causeway I strongly object to this proposal for the following reasons. Green and Farm COMOO2 Such a development would be a further unnecessary (includes sites 89 & 94) – extension of the established village ‘footprint’ and create Simon Barber unsightly views across the cricket green, which is a highly valued and greatly enjoyed asset to the village. Such a development would also destroy the approach view to the village when coming from the direction of Fleet. This would be another unnecessary and inappropriate ‘green- field’ development in a village which has limited sustainability, already very busy road networks, congested local schools and struggling commuter services. ·This is an unsuitable site for new home building as it will add even further pressures to the community and further erode the ‘village environment’, in what should remain a unique and highly attractive part of North Hampshire. Hartley Wintney is a highly desirable place to live. This unwanted encroachment on village life and the continued threat of a ‘ribbon development’ joining Hartley Wintney to Fleet, and in the other direction Hartley Wintney to Hook, is shortly going to destroy Hartley Wintney’s village status and the quality of life we still just about enjoy unless it is stopped. Greedy landowners are taking advantage of the current pressures on housing to sell off valuable arable farmland for short term profit, with resulting ‘long term’ damage to the community and the environment. This is an inappropriate plan and should be rejected immediately. General comment- Q4. Approach 2. This seems the most acceptable, though Sophia Bennett not ideal, approach. However, I do feel that much greater effort should be employed to identify & build on brown field sites. We are reliably informed that there are many within Hart. I also feel that we should not bow to pressure from the Government to cater for Surrey Heath and Rushmore’s housing needs. There is surely a great deal of underused MOD land that could be developed in both council’s areas as well as brown field sites. Lastly, please, please, please do not destroy this particularly lovely part of Hampshire.

Page 103 of 108

Spencer Lunt I would refer to your recent communication and booklet re the future building programme in Hart and in doing so offer my observations. Any properties constructed, wherever that might be, will be expensive and in all probability purchased by people who already have houses etc. to sell. Not good enough! Driving around the area there are quite a few empty office blocks with good car parking facilities. Surely these could be compulsorily purchased and with sensible planning and cost effective funding converted into one bedroom flats and offered at subsidised prices to enable the young people of Hart to get onto the property ladder instead of paying inflated rents to profiteering landlords. I am 81 and fed up with seeing old people’s homes being built all over the place together with houses, the latter being out the reach of our young people. Land at Firgrove Road – Promoting land at Firgrove Road, Eversley for 55-65 units Strutt and Parker including 40% affordable housing. No responses to consultation Little Holt Plan – Promoting land south of Little Holt, Holt Lane, Hook for Strutt and Parker 30-50 units including 40% affordable housing. No responses to consultation Email referring to Land at Firgrove Road submission Land adjacent to Causeway I would like to convey my disappointment at the proposed Green and Farm COM002 - plan to build houses behind the existing houses around Stuart Wallis – the cricket green at Hartley Wintney. Having lived in Strutt and Parker Hartley Wintney for 16 years, and latterly in a property surrounding the green for over 2 years, I'm amazed the Council would even consider impacting the fantastic and historic view around the cricket green that is currently enjoyed by all the village residents and visitors alike. As the oldest cricket green in Hampshire and one of the oldest in the country I think it's essential to maintain the current view, and to build houses behind those already there would change the view and the feel of the green immeasurably. I have 2 young children who play on the green daily and with all the plans for housing developments around Hart I genuinely worry what the village might look like when they reach adulthood. I feel the need for us to protect this historic view for the generations to come and object vehemently to any proposed development on this site

Page 104 of 108

Thames Water Important to consider the net increase in wastewater demand to serve the development and impact off site, further down the network. The impact of multiple sites in the same area coming forward may have a greater impact. The scale, location and time to deliver any required network upgrades will be determined after receiving a clearer picture of the location, type and scale of development together with its phasing. It should be noted that in the event of an upgrade to our sewerage network assets being required, up to three years lead in time is usual to enable for the planning and delivery of the upgrade. In relation to the Winchfield new settlement option or an urban extension option, as previously indicated we recommend that a mini Integrated Water Management Strategy (IWMS) is produced to support the development promotion. Q6 Concerns regarding wastewater services at many of the proposed sites, see rep for details SHL130 - Land West of Varndell Priority to avoid 5km SPA zone - only client's site and land Road, Hook – at Owen's Farm does this so no mitigation required. Site The Baker Family (Woolf Bond) close to Hook, good for facilities, employment opportunities and rail station, most sustainable development option Transport Planning Q2. Winchfield new settlement Q3. No comment Q4. Associates on behalf of Approaches 3, 1, 2 Q5. Approaches 6, 5, 7, 4 Do you Winchfield Consortium agree with key issues? Yes. Do you agree with vision? Slightly agree. Do you agree with strategic priorities? Yes. Also sent detailed transport strategy for Winchfield new settlement COM002 Land adjacent to I strongly object to Causeway Farm being built over. It Causeway Green, Hartley would have a very bad impact on the heart of the Wintney – Conservation Area. To suggest turning such a large part of Wanda Tucker the conservation area into building land is flatly against the policy of the Conservation Area. The character of Hartley Wintney is of a village set in a rural landscape. For this very reason these fields of Causeway Farm were included in the Conservation Area and are essential to maintaining Hartley Wintney's unique identity in its landscape setting. Causeway and Cricket Green are the recreational hubs of the village. Buildings that will be affected have between them: 3 listed buildings, 5 Focal buildings, 15 Locally listed buildings, 34 Positive listed buildings Total 74 Flood Zone 1 "Mostly low, but partly medium potential likelihood of groundwater flooding". Over the years we have been flooded by groundwater running off the field into our garden and into our house, twice seriously leading to hefty insurance claims. We have lost count how many times the kitchen has been flooded.

Page 105 of 108

SHL11 Land east of Moulsham Q2. Client's site appropriate location for affordable and Lane, Yateley – starter homes. Q3. Yes, agree Yateley should be tier Welbeck Strategic (Montagu 2. Q4. Approaches 1, 2, 3 Q5. Approaches 4, 6, 7, 5 Q6. Evans) For Yateley SHL11 ranked 1, SHL20 ranked 2. Detailed submissions in support of site attached. Do you agree with key issues? Yes. Do you agree with vision? Yes. Do you agree with strategic priorities? Yes Winchfield Consortium Q2. Winchfield new settlement Q3. No comment Q4. (Pegasus) Approaches 3, 1, 2 Q5. Approaches 6, 5, 7, 4. Do you agree with key issues? Yes Do you agree with vision? Slightly agree - should be amended to include new settlement if brought forward. Do you agree with strategic priorities? Yes. Detailed submissions in support of new settlement at Winchester - would meet housing and infrastructure needs and prevent coalescence between other villages, has good transport links Winchfield Parish Council Q1. Elderly people need sites close to established town centre and public transport, with shops, amenities and facilities, not appropriate for new settlement, use brownfield land. Starter homes and self-build homes should be on brownfield land. Hart already accommodates over half of Hampshire's travelling communities so other authorities should meet future needs. Q3. No, analysis for settlement hierarchy is out of date, flawed approach to only consider growth in higher order settlements, should be dispersed over all. Q4. Approaches 1, 2, 3 - no consultation on OAHN - SHMA is out of date - or employment, retail, transport, infrastructure. Too early to draw conclusions about level of unmet need in Rushmoor and Surrey Heath. Winchfield is not suitable for new settlement - limited existing utility and infrastructure, effects on character and appearance, landscape and biodiversity impacts, coalescence, listed buildings. Required infrastructure improvements would be extensive and costly. Not big enough to be sustainable. Q5. Approaches 4, 7, 6, 5. Use brownfield land as much as possible. Do you agree with key issues? No, does not recognise parlous state of infrastructure in Hart's existing settlements. Do you agree with the vision? Slightly agree, vision does not address key issue 6 - need to respect separate character and identity of Hart's settlements. Do you agree with strategic priorities? No, for above reasons. See rep for more details Wokingham Borough Council This is an early stage of the Local Plan process and more detail will be provided at the next stage of the process. HDC therefore needs to take into consideration the impact of the Local Plan on Woking Borough Council in terms of housing, cross-boundary movement, infrastructure, jobs and transportation. WBC requests

Page 106 of 108

that BDC continues to consult with WBC as work on the Local Plan progresses, through the Duty to Cooperate.

SHL11 - Land east of Moulsham Land should be an excluded site due to constraints of Lane – flood risk, significant adverse impacts: on accessibility to Yateley Urnfield Residents services and facilities, on local roads and lanes, on Action Group highway safety and on the character of the area and the environment. Over 675 residents have signed in support of YURAG's objectives SHL246 Land at Eversley Cross Objecting to site being found as not currently developable Area B - Amanda Jacobs from because 1) outside settlement boundary - boundary could West Waddy ADP on behalf on be changed slightly 2) northern part of site in flood zone - landowner has already been built on and remainder is outside flood zone 3) several listed buildings nearby - development could be sensitive to curtilage of listed buildings 4) site in conservation area - development will be sensitive and conserve and enhance area. Site is therefore suitable, available, achievable and appropriate for housing delivery now

Number of Individual Representations - 162

Page 107 of 108