Hart District Council Local Plan Strategy and Sites 2016 - 2032 Publication Stage Representation Form Part B: Please use a separate sheet for each representation. For example, if you wish to comment on more than one policy, please submit a separate Part B form for each policy. Please refer to the guidance notes before completing Part B. Name/ Organisation: David Gordon Hedges Postcode: 1. To which part of the Local Plan does this representation relate? Paragraph Policy Policies Map SS3 2. Do you consider the Local Plan is: Please check as appropriate. (1) Legally Compliant Yes ☒ No ☐ (2) Sound Yes ☐ No ☒ (3) Compliant with the Yes ☐ No ☐ Duty to Cooperate 1 3. Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan is not legally compliant or is unsound or fails to comply with the duty to cooperate. Please be as precise as possible. If you wish to support the legal compliance or soundness of the Local Plan or its compliance with the duty to cooperate, please use this box to set out your comments. I write as a member of the Hartley Wintney Preservation Society (HWPS) to object to Policy SS3, search for a new settlement in Murrell Green / Winchfield as the proposal is unsound. I have lived in Phoenix Green, Hartley Wintney since 1983 and have been a member of HWPS for many years, I fully support its aims and objectives, which are:- 1. To understand, protect, enhance and promote the rich heritage of Hartley Wintney. 2. To help the people living in the village today to keep in touch with the past so as to better provide something worthwhile for the future. 3. To protect and enhance the character of the village and its appearance and oppose any unsuitable or unnecessary development. I agree with the HWPS that the SS3 policy proposal to search for a new settlement in Murrell Green Winchfield is unsound due to the following reasons: 1.The 2017 Resident Consultation cannot be extended to the current Plan and thus is invalid. 2.The preference for a new settlement approach is based on previous resident consultation in 2014, 2016 and 2017 which was predicated on much higher housing numbers. Residents were originally asked to express preferences based on 10,182 new homes whereas the current Plan is based on 6,208 new homes. The policy SS3 is being proposed based on the original consultation preference for a new settlement but it is invalid to rely on this data given the vastly different housing numbers. 3.The proposed number of new homes is significantly too high: The required Government figure is 292 p.a. (4,672 total), versus the Plan proposal of 388 p.a. (6,208 total) and the actual plans are for 6,346. These figures are already +32.9% or 35.7% over requirement. The policy SS3 proposes to deliver additional new settlement housing from 2,024. The Hart Local Plan includes a footnote on page 29 which clearly states that a new settlement within the area of search is not needed to meet the housing needs identified in this Plan. However, Policy SS3 proposes to deliver these new houses from 2024 ‐ in the middle of the Plan period when the housing is not needed. The percentage of over delivery of new homes is incalculable and is unsound. 2 Based on the above figures I do not think the New Settlement housing is required and would be additional to already significantly inflated housing numbers over the Government requirement. I think the regeneration of Fleet is more important than SS3: and Policy SS3 will restrict focus on alternative approaches. The long overdue regeneration of Fleet Centre, must be adequately funded. If the new settlement goes ahead, funding for Fleet will be probably not take place and Fleet will continue to decline as a retail and cultural town. I am particularly concerned that if a new settlement goes ahead the local infrastructure will not be enhance to cope with the additional demands and will not be funded by Developer contributions. Infrastructure for SS3 will not be fully covered by Developer contributions. Parking already is a problem at Winchfield Station and there is little room for expansion. I agree with HWPS that the land at Murrell Green / Winchfield is unsuitable for new housing asparts of the SS3 area are unsuitable because of a gas main, areas of conservation interest, a number of areas are also subject to flooding, parts are of high landscape value, which should be protected as they are a precious amenity for local residents. I am particularly concerned that Policy SS3 would incur major coalescence and local gap implications: The Plan emphasises the need to prevent coalescence of communities, but any new settlement in Murrell Green / Winchfield would largely fill the attractive rural countryside and landscapes between Hartley Wintney, Hook, Fleet and its westerly extensions, and Dogmersfield. Already this is being eroded between Phoenix Green and Murrell Green. The Plan specifically demands gaps between villages. There will be no gap west of Hartley Wintney / Phoenix Green if Murrell Green goes ahead. The current King William Court development is already on the border of Hartley Wintney and Murrell Green. In summary: My view is that inclusion of SS3 is unnecessary and renders the Plan unsound. SS3 is not an integral part of the Local Plan and as the footnote on page 29 clearly states SS3 is not needed to meet housing needs. I suggest that SS3 could be simply deleted from the Local Plan and the remainder approved given it provides adequate housing for the Plan period. Continue on a separate sheet if necessary 3 4. Please set out what modification (s) you consider necessary to make the Local Plan legally compliant or sound, having regard to the Matter you identified at question 3. above. (NB. Please note that any non-compliance with the duty to cooperate is incapable of modification at examination). You will need to say why this modification will make the Local Plan legally compliant or sound. It would be helpful if you are able to put forward your suggested revised wording of any policy or text. Please be as precise as possible. Continue on a separate sheet if necessary Please note your representation should cover succinctly all the information, evidence and supporting information necessary to support or justify the representation and suggested modification, as there will not normally be a subsequent opportunity to make further representations based on the original representation at publication stage. After this stage, further submissions will be only at the request of the Inspector, based on the matters and issues he/ she identifies for examination. 5. If your representation is seeking a modification, do you consider it necessary to participate at the oral part of the examination? NO, I do not wish to participate at the oral examination ☒ YES, I wish to participate at the oral examination ☐ 6. If you wish to participate at the oral part of the examination, please outline why you consider this to be necessary: 4 Continue on a separate sheet if necessary Please note the inspector will determine the most appropriate procedure to adopt to hear those who have indicated that they wish to participate at the oral part of the examination. 5 .