One of the files in Taylor Wimpey’s planning application for White Dirt Farm was a ‘Statement of Community Involvement’. In it, Taylor Wimpey explain how the community has been consulted, that views have been incorporated into the plans, and as a result the design has evolved to address the community view.
Taylor Wimpey advise in their report that:
13% of the visitors to the consultation took the opportunity to oppose the plans
4% of comments said the views into the land should be preserved
5% were worried about the loss of the gap land
1% felt White Dirt Lane was unsuitable for cycle or foot paths
3% felt the development would worsen traffic in the surrounding roads
This is not the consultation I visited, nor the view I know the community has about the development. Many of you reading this will now realise why I posted a poll asking the exact same questions, but in a Yes – No – Don’t Know format. You will not be surprised to learn that this generated very different results, and this has been used to gather key data to challenge Taylor Wimpey’s ‘statement of community involvement’.
Along with the failure to consult with Horndean Parish Council, the general consultation quality and the two different plans of White Dirt Farm, Taylor Wimpey’s consultation has been a very substandard affair.
I have summarised this and the letter below is for the attention of the case officer asking him to support my view that the consultation was ineffective, and the application has no more weight than an application where consultation had not been carried out. If accepted this would be a serious embarrassment and a blow to Taylor Wimpey. Something like this could be the swinging point on a marginal application.
There are two files below. The Taylor Wimpey consultation report which has been submitted to EHDC and my letter raising my concerns.
horndeanmatters 
Guy, I follow and agree with what you are posting about White Dirt Farm. My comments relating to the application for land NORTH of the Rowlands Castle road in the plans for development east of Horndean essentially make the same point. This is that the consultation feedback was twisted and utterly misrepresented by the developer there too. The popular support was for development at Hazleton NOT north of the RC road.
Regards
Richard Lang
Sent from my iPhone
>
Hi Richard, I would not wish to see any development North of Rowland Castle Road. It is adjacent to the park and has a greater landscape impact. The development is made up of several different land owners and if it breaks up it is clear they will all do their own thing. This means less community infrastructure, and the land owner that currently has a cricket pitch on their land would look to put housing there instead. In effect keeping the land owners as one development allows the area north of RC road to be largely open space funded by the rest of the development. If WYG dropped the land North of RC road you would definitely have an application which would be full of housing which would have a real risk of getting through. Best wishes, Guy.
Hi Guy,
Re land east of Horndean
Thanks for your quick response.
My concern is that the original development consultation sought opinion on which of 3 sites east of Horndean should be developed. It was not presented as a single development; but as 3 separate sites.
In the ‘re-presented’ plans it is now being stated that it is one whole development. This is the misrepresentation that was disingenuously slid through ‘under the radar’.
Indeed your response appears to suggest that the cricket pitch is the ‘least worst’ option. However, the represented plans still show new housing jammed up next to Little Hook Cottage, which is outrageous.
As I understand it there is no means by which EHDC (through sect 106 agreements or similar?) can prevent future development of a cricket pitch and other adjacent land in perpetuity. The probability is that ownership of housing and land north of the RC road will change hands in the future and in due course further developments will be forced through against the wishes of local people.
Kind regards
Richard
Hi Richard, I think the original consultation which was held in April was to present the development as a whole. The Horndean need is 700 homes which this one development could achieve. Here is a link to the full set of consultation plans that were presented https://horndeanmatters.com/2014/04/28/land-east-of-horndean-plans/
A section 106 agreement would be used to define the community contribution the developer would need to make to ensure the community infrastructure would grow with the housing. An asset like a cricket pitch would normally be delivered to the Parish Council. It is the responsibility of a parish council to safeguard these assets, so I would view the risk of a cricket pitch subsequently being developed as unthinkable. You could contact the parish council directly if you wanted to hear this directly and Cllr Elaine Ticknell is the chairman of the open spaces.
Best wishes,
Guy.
Once again Guy, you have done a superb job of highlighting the sharp practices of Taylor Wimpey. Their so called consultation has been a complete sham and insults the intelligence of every Horndean/Clanfield resident. The basic premise of all recent development applications has been that EHDC has not identified sufficient land to meet its house building target. Another misleading statement…looks like they are building on sand.
Kind regards, Joe McManus
On 7 September 2014 16:35, horndeanmatters wrote:
> Cllr Guy Shepherd posted: “One of the files in Taylor Wimpey’s > planning application for White Dirt Farm was a ‘Statement of Community > Involvement’. In it, Taylor Wimpey explain how the community has been > consulted, that views have been incorporated into the plans, and as a > result t”
A very good responds to yet another example of how the developer and EHDC are not supporting the views and wishes of the local community. Just look at the Green Lane development and imagine what the end result will be?
Hi Roger, let’s give EHDC a chance to hear and decide the application. I think we have excellent grounds, and am confident we can present a very good case for refusal! Guy.
TW’s Consultation ‘percentages’ concerning the development of White Dirt Farm….don’t quite match the ‘objection’ percentages on the EHDC Planning Portal……a very large discrepancy!!
I am absolutely amazed at Taylor Wimpey’s figures for the WDF development. I must have gone to a completely different meeting to the one they attended. As I have written several times nobody wants this development and TW‘s take on the meeting is an insult to all residents in Clanfield. I know they will pursue this application but I hope EHDC will, for once, listen to the local people and dismiss this application.