6 comments on “White Dirt Farm Application Arrives

  1. Hi Guy,

    While I entirely agree with the views you have expressed as to why the application should be opposed, it struck me, after receiving Taylor Wimpey’s recent letter, that if EHDC was minded to grant permission, the possibility of securing the dedication of the northern part of the sitefor informal public open space (with a commuted maintenance payment from TW) through a s.106 agreement, ought to be explored. In other words I share your cynicism about the prospects of a future “phase II”!

    Regards,

    Chris Duggan

  2. Please see below copy of email that I have sent to George Hollingbery MP:

    Dear Mr Hollingbery

    I am appalled and disgusted that Taylor Wimpey have gone ahead with this application in light of the overwhelming response from local people regarding the unsuitability of this site and the robust support for Hazleton/Pyle Farms as being the ‘least worst option.’ There was almost zero support for White Dirt Farm and yet the developer has pressed ahead by revising its plans – reducing the number of houses and scope of the site to be developed as though this would be acceptable to the local residents. They have made no effort to showcase these revisions to the villagers in the form of a second consultation, just posted revised plans on their website. Adding insult to injury (and in my view showing a disgraceful lack of professionalism) they have had the audacity to comment on the plans that there will be’ planting to reinforce separation between Clanfield and Catherington’! They still don’t get that the land lies in Horndean, not Clanfield!

    The government needs to use this as an example of their ‘policy’ that local people decide where development takes place. Nobody wants the development at Hazleton/Pyle Farm but are resigned to the alleged need for housing – a completely separate debate that we could argue about for several hours…

    Please ensure your colleagues are completely aware of the unrest of the electorate regarding their planning policy.

    Regards

    • I second that!

      This revised application is itself pretty cynical – and in complete contrast to what we viewed yesterday – the Pyle/Hazleton proposal – at Napier Hall. (If we must have our quota of housing.) I would really like to know how (not by whom) the housing requirement figures were decided….?

  3. Hi Wendy, The housing need in the district comes from a SHMA (Strategic Housing Market Assessment). This is a study that takes data from our census, housing offices etc. For example it looks at how many children we have and how long we live. If every couple has just 2 children, and our lifespan is the same as 10 years ago we would not need any more housing. If we have 2.4 children and a generation lasts 30 years, then we have a population (and increased housing need) of 20% every 30 years. We live longer, and there are fewer people in each house now than 10 years ago due to single parent families etc. The SHMA considers all of these. This identifies the number of houses we need to build in the next 15 or so years. Here is a link to the full report. It is heavy reading at times but I hope answers the question. Guy: http://www.easthants.gov.uk/ehdc/formsfordownload.nsf/0/682CEC83EE363F2880257B9D004D3401/$File/12701+-+East+Hampshire+Strategic+Housing+Market+Assessment+-+April+2013+Final+-+03-07-13.pdf

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s