Ok, Here we have an article about another housing development. It is very easy to write about proposed development and say it is not a good place to build, Strategic Gaps will be affected, Landscape issues are a key concern etc, as most of the electorate are against development in principle, full stop. A populist argument. Nice and safe for a local Councillor.
For White Dirt Farm this has most certainly been the case but for me the rights and wrongs of Taylor Wimpey’s proposals do genuinely fit correctly with the public view. Given the opportunity however, I would be against any more development in Horndean in principal too as like most other residents of Horndean I wish to live in a semi rural community, but the reality is that this is just not possible.
We are living longer, we have more than 2 children, and there are fewer people per house every year. Responsible governance means planning for this population growth, and for Horndean between now and 2028 we need to find space to build another 700 homes. This is a lot, compared to our 5,200 current housing stock, but over this period works out at an increase of about 1.5% homes per year. We do need to plan for this housing, so it then becomes a task to put this in “the least worst place” and to get the best community facilities we can in return for the development. (Sustainable Development)
There is a key SHLAA site I believe is the right solution for Horndean and a developer has recently submitted an EIA Screening application to East Hampshire District Council. Like the White Dirt Farm development, this is NOT a planning application to build, but a technical process to establish the amount of environmental work needed to assemble a satisfactory planning application. I have included a link to the EHDC planning website below so you can view the EIA screening application and comment if you wish.
White Young Green are the planning consultancy that are representing the land owners and developers, and in stark contrast to Taylor Wimpey’s approach have been in touch over the last months to seek views on the community facilities we would wish to see in a new development, and to establish a firm commitment to have a thorough and effective consultation process. They have incorporated very many of the suggestions we have put forward and now need to go to public consultation to see what the community at large thinks, and what should be changed on the plans.
WYG have asked If I can post the details of their consultation online. This proposed development, if approved, will offer facilities for every home in Horndean so they are also writing to every household in Horndean over the next 7 days to invite everyone to the two consultations WYG will run in April and June this year.
The first of these two public consultations is on Friday 25th April 3:00pm to 8:00pm at Merchistoun Hall and you should attend and give your views.
The second public consultation will be to show the revised plans with public feedback incorporated. Click on the image below to enlarge.
The developers have issued a copy of the proposed site layout and this is below. Click on the image to enlarge it.
At the consultation give your views on if this is a suitable place to develop or not, what type of housing is required in the community, and what facilities you think are required.
Is This a done deal?
No. The proposals need to go through the rounds of consultation, and then through the planning application process.
Is this likely to be a successful application?
Quite Possibly. In your mind, Compare White Dirt Farm with this land and the landscape issues are significantly less damaging. The land is not strategic gap. It is positioned next to a motorway junction meaning the added burden of traffic through our villages will be minimal, so these 3 items alone mean the environmental harm of developing the 2 sites compare very differently. Now look at the community facility the East of Horndean land will bring and this gives it greater sustainable value, or a better community. These are the sorts of factors the case officer and planning committee will consider.
What can I add to the consultation and why should I go?
To have your say. This might be that you feel it is the right or wrong place to build. If approved it would be the biggest change for Horndean, but might do the most to protect our community at large from development in the wrong places. Importantly though are the community facilities and what the final plans include. Is the cricket pitch a good, or rubbish idea? Should we focus all the community benefit into the community center and have the best facilities we can in one item? What facilities should the developer hand over first? (700 homes would take years build and the community facilities would need to be handed over progressively as sales fund the facilities. What do we want first?)
Timescales?
WYG are proposing consultations in April and June with a planning application very soon after. The build process would be about 10 years if planning was granted.
Do you as a Councillor support it?
I firmly believe this land to the East of Horndean (Hazleton and Pyle farms) is the ‘least worst’ place to build in Horndean, and that if this represent the best solution to satisfy our housing need then my role as a Councillor is to pitch for as much good quality community facility as we can get, and to ensure the development compliments Horndean as best possible. I will not say I support this scheme yet until the final community facility shopping list is agreed, and a table established that links when the facilities are delivered compared to the houses delivered. I do believe that it will be possible to get to this point based on the proactive discussions so far, and look forward to seeing how this could add value to Horndean. It is essential now that the community at large gives their view at the consultations to shape the plans further to reflect what we all want. When WYG get a set of proposals together they will still need to go through the planning process.
Click here for the EIA Screening Application Link.
Please feel free to leave any comments on this post for everyone to see and they will also be passed onto the developers.
Why is what you suggest ‘the least worst option?’ Why is 700 more new houses in Horndean/Blendworth not a further encroachment on the ‘gap’ that barely remains with existing development in Havant Road and London Road, and the proposed sites in Blendworth Lane? Why not say 350 houses at White Dirt Farm and 350 at Hazelton Farm? And once again, are these houses for local people or just more buy to let opportunities?
Hi Janet, thank you for the comment.
The least worst option. There is no ‘good’ place to build 700 new homes. Any large development will need to build on open space, and around here this means farm land. The land at Hazleton and Pyle is relatively flat, so the landscape issues are the lowest impact on our communities, the development sits next to a motorway junction so of all the options would put the minimum traffic through the villages, and by locating a cricket and football pitch to the land East of Rowlands Castle road, this protects this from development permanently.
A strategic gap separates distinct communities so that villages do not blend in together. If the Proposals on Blendworth Lane were approved, and a scheme like this too then there is still a large amount of open fields between the two. This includes the archery field, but if you have residual concerns here then do bring them up at the consultation, and on here too.
Why not build 350 at WDF. The land at White Dirt Farm is strategic gap land to stop Catherington, Horndean and Clanfield from merging. The impact on the landscape from building on it will be enormous and very damaging. WDF in theory could accommodate about 220 homes but being on a slope would not sustain games fields, and is too small to put in any worthwhile community facility. By building the homes in one lot the opportunity for good facilities becomes much greater.
Homes for local people? The development would have 40% affordable housing. We need at the consultation to give views on if these need to be 1) rented social housing, 2) shared ownership, 3) first time buyer, 4) down sized accommodation for the elderly with special needs. I have strong views which get me in trouble but believe if someone owns a part of the property, they look after it better. For me, 2,3&4 are the ones that are important to us. The remaining 60% is of course open market housing.
I hope that answers the questions,
Guy.
Delighted to see care home and supported homes on the plans, sensibly allowing elderly people alternative to living in homes too big for their current needs and freeing those houses up for families. As a cautionary note, it was made clear at the EHDC Community Forum last week that even if this development were to go ahead, it doesn’t mean White Dirt Farm will be ‘safe’. If the plans meet the sustainable development criteria laid down by NPPF the planning team will have no grounds to refuse permission. It was confirmed that 700 is a minimum, there is no maximum…..
Hi Jan, thank you for the post, and this is right, and worth expanding on.
Planning is a balance of Economic, Environment and Social needs.
If a development like Hazleton, Pyle Farm were not an option then the WDF developer could use the lack of other options as a strong reason to override the objections to the site. in effect the social need would be very high and the environmental damage an unfortunate, but maybe acceptable loss.
Because of timing, many of the applications we know of will be considered entirely on their own merits because the housing need is not being satisfied. This includes WDF, Lovedean Lane, Blendworth Lane and others.
If WDF is refused (what we, the community are looking for) then Taylor Wimpey will most certainly appeal. We need some approvals for housing we can live with to be granted before this appeal so that we achieve the 5 year plan, can rely on the strategic gap policy. If we then satisfy the need for housing (social) then the bar for environmental gets higher as the social need is lower. This application for the land East of Horndean could be the answer to this.
Once we have our identified housing ahead, we are still vulnerable as you say to an application that takes us over the 700 if the application is sustainable ( balance of social, economic and environment) but with Social being satisfied, again the bar on Environment gets higher.
I hope that makes sense!
Guy.
If there is a choice to be made, then I opt for the Hazleton/Pyle Farm option.
But nothing can detract from the strongly felt loss of countryside, especially trees and wildlife, which are given very little importance, in my opinion..
From what I have read, it is not a ‘done deal’ that if Hazleton/Pyle gets permission to build, that WDF will not be developed. When, if ever, will Horndean get back on ‘Plan’? (Seeing as we missed the deadline for the last one.)
I note that you mention several reasons why it is necessary to build more and more homes, but surely our population has increased as well? And what about the numbers of young adults who stay at parental homes until they’re in their ’30’s? I suppose I am questioning the numbers of homes specifically required for Horndean. 700 (minimum) seems extortionate.
Hi Wendy, I fully agree about the loss of open space, farmland, woodland etc, but while our population grows there is little alternative. as you note people in their 30’s are still unable to buy first homes due to market conditions. with so little housing built in the last 6 years it seems it is now time to catch up.
You are correct that building on Hazleton Farm will not guarantee protection for WDF, but it will go a long way to doing so in that the justification for building on WDF reduces because they can not say there are no other choices elsewhere.
Yes, our population has increased. The new homes in Horndean work out at about 70 houses per year. This is a 1.5% increase per year. The UK population grew by 420,000 last year which is a factor of higher birth rates and living longer. In itself this is the main reason for our increased housing need and EHDC are not alone in facing significant increases in house building needs.
Guy.
How refreshing it is to see a full comprehensive plan that includes all the specifics required by the local people including the school, care home, playing fields etc – this was a strong point made at the last consultation meeting that received a round of applause by all the attendees ( i just hope that these ‘extras’ dont get forgotten !!! ) It is also great to see that all the houses could be spread among the two farms at Hazleton and Pyle farm rather than sqeezed into a smaller plot such as the development at the Gales Brewery site. It seems, so far, that the council are taking interest in the needs of the village rather than ploughing ahead regardless. I appreciate that this is not a ‘done deal’ and obviously it would be better with no building at all, however houses need to be built , so it gets my vote…..
Having lived in blendworth for the last sixty years I have seen a lot change and the need for horndean to grow the proposed development would fit in well and prvide the community with all facilitys they need in one well organised delelopment
With the ongoing increase in traffic accessing Horndean, much of which is being created by the Gales and Havant Road developments, together with the ongoing Clanfield (Green lane) development(s), it is essential, for public safety reasons, that every opportunity be taken to stabilise such traffic increases. We should also not forget that there is a suggestion that another 40 houses could be built in Blendworth! Developing the land East of Horndean would provide easy vehicle access to the motorway (North/South), as well as assisting in the prevention of increased noise and pollution created by high traffic levels in the centre of the village. Building East of Horndean provides benefits that the development of WDF would not offer.