Basingstoke & Deane Borough Council is consulting local people on the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA).

The key part of the SHLAA for Whitchurch is Appendix 5, which lists green field sites put forward by developers for house building. This can be downloaded here and includes a map showing the sites being considered.

It is important for people who know about these sites to send in their opinions whether they agree with the planners conclusions or not. Developers will certainly be trying to influence the result in their favour.

Comments can be made until 21 June:

through the Council’s website or
by post to Draft SHLAA Consultation, BDBC, Civic Offices, London Road, Basingstoke, RG21 4AH or
by attending a Council exhibition on Saturday 12 June 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. at Overton Community Centre (near the traffic lights).

Whitchurch needs some new building to house its own growing population, whether affordable houses to rent, starter homes for people to buy or places for growing families. So suitable sites have to be found for house building. Are the planners right to say that these green fields are suitable?

Planners now recommend four sites as suitable for building a total of 400 houses in the four years 2014 to 2018. They are described below. Be sure to make your views known about these fields.

The green field between Bloswood Lane and the new houses at Park View
Is this land suitable for building 100 houses between 2014 and 2018? To comment on this site, quote reference WHIT006.

The green fields next to the A34 by-pass between Bloswood Lane and Andover Road by the cemetery
Is this land suitable for building 50 houses between 2014 and 2018? To comment on this site, quote reference WHIT007.

The green field that slopes down from London Road by The Gables towards the River Test
Is this land suitable for building 50 houses between 2014 and 2018? To comment on this site, quote reference WHIT009.

The field behind Micheldever Road houses with road access only through The Knowlings
Is this land suitable for building 200 houses between 2014 and 2018? To comment on this site, quote reference WHIT010a.

Three other sites put forward by their owners are recommended for rejection. They are:
The whole of the hillside behind Lynch Hill Park from London Road round to the railway line near the water tower (reference WHIT008)
The hill above Caesar’s Way, crossed by a footpath uphill from the end of Bloswood Drive to a footbridge over the railway (reference WHIT016)
The whole of Arnolds Farm (the egg farm) north of London Rd (reference WHIT015).

Please don’t assume that your comments are not needed if you agree with the planners. Let them know what you think.

Thanks for the information, Keith; I have sent in my comments to the planners as you suggest, too: a direct link for comments is HERE (note: you have to go through the form for each individual site you want to comment on, a bit of a pain, but worthwhile).

I have made a map using Google's satellite picture of Whitchurch, and added in the "WHIT" borders you mentioned.

My initial reaction:
- I agree that WHIT008 and WHIT015 are unacceptable (flood plain for starters)
- Developing alongside A34 good - provided design statement recommendation followed (put up sound barriers to reduce noise; and don't cut through the old railway line)
- WHIT016 is nice open space, albeit ruined by the large traffic noise of A34
- WHIT009 should have been rejected - see below
- WHIT010a should have been rejected - see below

Even the 'CouncillorsFactPack' states WHIT009 should be rejected: "Environment Agency identify a lot of constraints on this site and recommend removing from potential sites ...". It is within the Laverstoke and Freefolk Conservation Area -- would 50 houses "preserve or enhance its special character and appearance"? I think an emphatic NOT!

There is just a small access point to WHIT010a for its proposed 200 houses - plus cars will clog up Micheldever even more, especially around schools and junction with Winchester St. Glad to see that the area where the skateboard and BMX track are was removed from consideration!

Today's Basingstoke Gazette has an article titled Build plan 'is dead' which quotes Cabinet member for planning, Councillor Rob Golding (Conservative), "I don't see any possibility of us having to build 945 [homes in B&DBC every year]". The article also quotes Conservative MP Maria Miller (my emphasis added), "I think the SHLAA process is completely discredited and it just exposed how out of touch the planning process has become..."

Comments received by B&DBC about previous draft versions still apply:


~Andrew~

From the SHLAA discussions on the BDBC site. A response from Zurich Life.



So not 50 houses but, if my sums are right, around 270 plus the 100 in the adjacent field.
I believe that the other sites are red herrings and that the developers know that the other proposed sites will be rejected. They will then be given, errr sorry that's granted, the above site as a consolation prize.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Welcome to the forums! Glad to have you about the place.




Great tip! All comments are published (HERE) on their site (you are notified this may happen before you fill in your questionaire):



So that's Whitchurch's allocation done in two fields near the noisy A34; and can push hard for noise barriers which would help rest of town (as the Design Statement, supplementary planning advice, guidelines state).

An issue with all this is that there is little or no connection made between all this extra build and community facilities. Seems like its just plunk down as many houses as can be squeezed in without regard to creating local shops/pubs/parks/open-space in the build area; and the requirements for schools/doctors...

AFAIK any development smaller than 20 hectares does not need to contribute to any improvement in local water and sewage provision. Just who pays for the undoubted new needs. Doh! Us of course, the greater public. The developers just walk away having built their required percentage (around 11%, I believe) of much needed social housing. Oh, and a new Bloswood Lane roundabout of course. I really can't see the Tories in BDBC giving a damn about making the developers contribute towards any other extra provisions 'cause it's Whitchurch and out of their control.

Is it any wonder that the 2 adjacent proposed developments add up to the magic figure of 370 houses - close to the projected 400 slated for poor old & dumb Whitchurch.

Note, I'm not arguing for no new development but a slow development which benefits local people and not some Zurich Life shareholder.
Once again, just who benefits? As always, follow the money.

...maybe a condition for new residents could be that they all have to drink at the New Railway Hotel and park on Newbury St ?

Good thinking. But at this stage just comment on the 'suitability' and 'deliverability' of the available sites. I think that should allow for comments on phasing - no sites are recommended for implementation 2018 - 2026.

Keith

Interestingly, the Contribution made by Cluttons on behalf of Zurich on WHIT007 ends with:


As well as WHIT007, Zurich is the owner of WHIT008, WHIT009 AND the land north of the railway up to the Harroway on both sides of Newbury Road!

This is total nonsense. Developers just don't care for any community. The just take the money & run.

If there isn't any prospect of development on the land north of the town just why has ZL bought it. Like an pension company they take the long term view that in the future they can build a tescograd. The foot in the door is a northern car park. The access road would have to be wide enough to get trucks to the proposed new industrial estate (irrespective of whether the new ind est gets built or not as the planning requirements would spec the road size.) ie, plenty wide enough to spur off a few tentative housing developments.

The AONB is a block but can be overcome no doubt. BDBC would cave in at the first mention of ZL building a new school, community centre, etc.
After all, the land would be connected to excellent road facilities just up the very wide old A34 to the north & south A34 junction. It would have a railway station, which could be expanded, on it's doorstep. It ticks all the boxes on a developers and government list.
It's a no brainer.

Zurich bought Eagle Star who had long term landholdings in Hampshire.

But the argument you make could equally well follow the question "why haven't ZL sold it?" They have sold off all the groups of 'historic' farm buildings for conversion to bijou residences. They have sold off all the arable land to one large farm business. They have listed three sites around Whitchurch in the SHLAA.

Of course they have long term ambitions to develop north of the railay. I just think the car park and acess road is too trivial a matter to affect this. They are trying to change the whole strategy for the area, and the AONB are against them.
Keith

Sorry it has taken me a while to respond to this thread but I thought I put my 2 pence in.

Personally I am against development of WHIT007 (the land between Park View and A34).

In a time where funding is in short supply even for all the services which are are going to be required to support the new housing and the people who live in I worry the A34 noise reduction solutions will not be done or done on the cheap and probably will be insufficient.

There is an argument that people who will choose to buy houses on WHIT007 will also choose to accept the noise of the A34. Thats a fair point. However I am more concerned about the people who will live in the social housing in the development whom are most likely going be closest to the A34 - they have less choice.

As a compromise I suggest developing WHIT006 (the land between Park View and Bloswood Lane) in the 2014-17. Since I understand Bewley Homes, who built Park View, are interested in development of this land this would be a quick win as it could easily be done as an extension of the existing estate.

I would only support development of WHIT007 once all the necessary services are either in place or in the process of being in place AND adequate noise reduction of the A34 done BEFORE development is approved.

Development of WHIT007 and the other sites mentioned should be staggered in stages up to 2026 and beyond. 400 houses in a space of 3 years in simply not acceptable even as a proposal.

BTW for the future - are there any firm covenants against extending Whitchurch westward beyond the A34?

Best Regards,
Nick.

Totally agree but you have to admit that the location is attractive to developers for practical reasons.

Totally agree but the developer won't care. They will just be part of the noise buffer zone.

Why would any developer agree to that? They'll want a firm agreement to a plan submitted by them to BDBC before they even drive onto the site. BDBC and / or ZL is not going to fund any services / noise protection just on the chance that a developer agrees to buy the site.
Once WHIT006 is built and sold, WHIT007 is the natural progression as power, drainage, etc will be in place within a few yards.

Why do people always think that expansion and growth are good things? Is bigger better? Go to any city to find the answer. We think in terms of Gross National Product when we should be thinking of Gross National Happiness.
I'm all for social housing for local people but I'd not want to see large scale 'development' here.
Does anyone think that there are many positive sides to large scale 'development' in Whitchurch?

Does the access road to the northern car park breach the AONB?

There are plenty of examples of developers being granted permission to build in our National Parks let alone AONB's, Peak District, Brecon Beacons and even the new South Downs park so I don't think that the AONB will delay developers for too long. It's more about access, viability and profit.

Incidentally why do you think the northern car park is desirable?

One weakness of the new Management Plan for the AONB is that it doesn't deal with the 'fringe' issues around exisiting settlement bordered by the AONB. It would be up to the AONB planning people to comment on a specific application. I have been given the impression that they might object on the grounds of light pollution but there are special lights designed to minimise pollution that could be installed in the car park.

In any case, the AONB Management Plan is non-statutory so the final decision would rest with the Local Planning Authority.



I think any AONB objections would be weakened where there are no viable alternatives. It is important for a sufficient supply of other land for development to be identified in or around any settlement.


To allow access from Newbury Road and hence the wider area without increasing traffic on Whitchurch streets.

Keith

But I and others I care - so if the noise reduction measure are in place I personally don't want WHIT007 developed.




Agreed - so local and central government is going to fund this - if they really want to
offer this site up for potential development that is.



What about the extra public transport, shops, school places, doctor patient list places, etc, etc? Again this is going to have to be funded at least partially by local and central government.

I don't want Whitchurch to turn into a suburban sprawl with minimal facilities - they are not pleasant places.




Same here - enough new housing for social housing plus some limited expansion in town
population - certainly no more than about 10% up to 2026.




No - apart from expanding services for the whole community. With a larger population maybe we will even have a bank again *:)

Best Regards,
Nick

Article in the June 16 2010 Basingstoke Observer highlights one concern about planning all this greenfield development...

Basingstoke's 'water stress' under the spotlight




Would we ever see the day when new housing in Whitchurch sources water from the River Test?

~Andrew~

Maybe...

...when, all essential services have crumbled, law and order has disintegrated, the last pub has been bulldozed, the world crop failure has left us as food scavengers, mass starvation has led to a global civil war, disease is widespread, and worst of all people may even have to walk to the railway station.

Only problem is I reckon we'd need to watch those 'erberts over the hill.
Would you trust them not to put dead sheep in it to poison us?

Whitchurch water is supplied directly by Southern Water, not South East Water. We don't even have hosepipe bans in the summer here. I think there is plenty of groundwater in the Bourne and Anton valleys to keep us going. If we have a water-related constraint it will be in sewage treatment and effluent disposal. Our Borough Council didn't bother to comment on the Southern River Basin Management Plan, it is so obsessed by the pollution in the River Loddon (part of the Thames Basin).

If you want an apocalyptic vision, try this. All development around Basingstoke is stopped because of pollution in the Loddon catchment; all develoment in the north of the Borough is stopped because of Elf'n'safety concerns around AWE Aldermaston and Burghfield; Zurich and their buddies announce the new 'Eco Town' of Greater Freefolk uniting the ancient rivals of Overton and Whitchurch.

Time for me to deliver some leaflets.

As I expected, Zurich are not lying down and accepting the planners' recommended rejection of site WHIT008 as suitable for housing development.

At yesterday's exhibition in Overton, Zurich were represented by Agents Smith Gore and a design consultant who had produced an illustrative plan for development of the north of the site. According to this plan my description above of the site as 'behind Lynch Hill Park' would be inaccurate because the new housing would border the caravan site and Burgage Field and relocate the scout hut and day nursery but not border LHP.

This is, of course, only illustrative, and if the site is recategorised as 'suitable' it wll be the whole of that hillside that appears in the SHLAA, all the way to London Road.

So if you support the rejection of this site as 'extending Whitchurch unnecessarily into the open countryside', put your comments in before 21 June!

If comments have already been put in, then would putting in further comments invalidate the previous one?

My map of the WHIT sites is HERE.

~Andrew~

I can't see why it should. Just in case, copy your comments to me at my Council email address.

Did anyone attend Monday's Town Council Meeting when the SHLAA was discussed?

I would be interested to hear what the Council's official line was on each site and their overall reaction to the affects of such development on Whitchurch.

I've put my comments in online today.

Nick.

My comments on the Public Consultation can be read here. These expand upon comments that I made during the 'Councillor consultation' phase and were rejected.
Keith

Not quite sure what you mean. Are you saying that BDBC rejected your entire submission? Will all the potential sites be included in this borough housing plan?

Planning Officers rejected my comments on the Whitchurch sites so Version 4 was the same as Version 3 in these cases except that the 'Yield' for WHIT009 was reduced from 100 to 50 dwellings. All the public consultation comments will now be considered and another Version produced. Councillors will then have a right to 'call-in' any site with which s/he is still dissatisfied and put a case to the Planning & Infrastructure Overview Committee. The Cabinet Member for Planning & Infrastructure will then express his views and the final SHLAA will be signed-off by the Head of Planning & Transport.

Sorry for me being thick but are all the proposed development sites in Whitchurch very likely to be included in the SHLAA if the public consultation, etc fail to stop tem? That's 06, 07, 09, 010a with a total of 400 houses. Is this correct?

No you're not thick but I just lost the whole of a lengthy reply to you by being timed out. Back tomorrow.

PS, Zurich haven't given up on 08, either, but so far as I can see no resident commented on that.

First, don’t assume that because the sites get in the SHLAA they will inevitably be allocated for development in the cited timescale or at all.

The next stage, the ‘core strategy’ will, among other things, choose the preferred sites for ‘strategic development’. As you have read my submission you will know that I wrote that the only strategic housing development in Basingstoke & Deane should be in a properly planned, properly resourced extension to Basingstoke. This is the key point that we in Whitchurch and Overton need to be concerned about, the people who now control the administration on the Borough Council gained control by winning seats in west Basingstoke after promising to ‘disperse’ housing development across the Borough. Only then will a number be attached to the houses to be planned for in the Borough as a whole and in Whitchurch.

The Council has identified a ‘hierarchy of settlements’ in which Overton, Tadley and Whitchurch form the second tier. This is where party politics might come into play. It might also be when we need to mobilise Whitchurch people to exercise influence. Under the previous government’s process, the ‘core strategy’ would be subject to an examination in public by a Planning Inspector. I have effectively been preparing for a submission to that over nearly two years. It will also be open to landowners and developers to make submissions. Zurich Assurance have given two indicators to how they will behave. They can afford better lawyers than the Council can.

Let’s assume that Whitchurch is not preferred for strategic housing development. Probably in January to March 2011, decisions will be made on which sites will be allocated locally for housing development across the years up to 2026. That is when the assessment of Whitchurch sites in the SHLAA will be used as ‘evidence’. I believe that it is very important now to get those assessments right.

It is true, therefore, that unless I get changes in the SHLAA assessments this month, all of sites WHIT006, 007, 009 and 010a will remain in the SHLAA as Available, Suitable and Deliverable. I am fairly optimistic of getting support from elected members on the main issues. But committees of elected members don’t make decisions in councils any more. A Corporate Director will exercise her judgement and the final SHLAA will be signed-off by the Head of Service (an employee of the Council).

Keith

Edited on 4 July to correct a mistake (see italics)

I did. I emailed you a copy of all my submitted comments on Thu 03/06/2010 16:45.
(WHIT006,7,8,9,10a,15,16).

~Andrew~

What Mr Watts says may possibly happen actually does come to pass, this plan spells an end to the charm of Whitchurch. It fact it's a complete disaster as it brings with it more traffic and a greater likelihood of a food superstore. Then of course more development.
Apart from much needed social housing the only possible winners are the developers.

I can't see that the BDBC tories will stop it either and as for the Cleggeron government you can give up hope. One of the governments core strategies for economic growth is (wait for it) an increase in the house building sector to almost 25% of the economy! Brain dead, all of them.

If Whitchurch is selected as a 'strategic site' it will be BDBC Tories who select it. I will let you know when it will be useful for you to spend an evening or two in Basingstoke.

If it is not, there will still be the issue of how many houses are to be built here. The coalition government has abolished the South East Plan that specified 'top down' a target of 900-odd houses a year for Basingstoke & Deane as a whole. In so doing, they also abolished the 'top down' policy that would have confined housing to meet the 'strategic growth' to a corridor from Basingstoke to Newbury, leaving Overton, Whitchurch and St MB up to Highclere with minimal new housing.

The new government's planning policy is to be lifted unchanged from a Conservative pamphlet that I haven't yet studied. When I do I will post a link here.

Meanwhile I am working to plan. On 9 July I will be informed of how the SHLAA looks after the public consultation has been 'taken into account'. If that is in the public domain I will share it. I will then be away for a week Saturday to Saturday. I have until the following Monday, 19 July, to call in any sites that I am disputing, with a written justification. The first call-in meeting will be on the following Monday evening. If I persuade the Committee to disagree with the Head of Service but she doesn't back down, the final judgement will be made by a Corporate Director of BDBC (not the Conservative Cabinet Member as I wrotr above)

Sorry

No problem!



Time for a beer? ==> TOKEN

The town council have put online their comments about the SHLAA: see minutes from their June 14, 2010 meeting...

http://whitchurchtowncouncil.org.uk/meetings/agendas-minutes/

~Andrew~

STOP PRESS

I have received Draft 5 of the SHLAA. Apart from minor amendments, the Whitchurch sites are all included in the same category as before.

There is also a new proposed site for housing development in Whitchurch - Land to the rear of Redleaf cottage.

I am about to take a week's holiday. When I return I will 'call-in' sites WHIT007, WHIT009 and WHIT010a for reconsideration by a Committee of elected members on 26 or 29 July.

Keith

PS, I apologise to all those people who responded to consultation on site WHIT008 for maligning them.

This is a disaster.
The decision to include all the sites in the SHLAA is a fundamental shift in the direction that Whitchurch could take and has been made by the tories in B&DBC who don't live here. Tory democracy in action - rich developers get richer and damn the local people.
Unless Keith can get substantial changes then Whitchurch as we know it is finished in 5 to 10 years.
Time to move out I think.

This thread has received much less attention than a thread about a ruddy pub / car park and yet will affect every single person in the town whether they agree or not to the plan.

This is unfair to Tories (I never thought I would write such a sentence). The decisions so far have all been made by Officers, who advise that as the SHLAA is 'evidence' its content should not be politically influenced (i.e. by people who have been elected).

Next week's call-in meetings are a compromise, the Overview & Scrutiny Committees do not have decision making powers (this is the result of the Labour Government changes to local government), they can only make recommendations to decision takers. However, I am optimistic that a strongly supported recommendation would carry weight.

Keith

Elected members of all parties and none are working together at this SHLAA stage. Politics might come in at the next stage when the Number of houses to plan for in Whitchurch will be an issue.

Re tories. Leopards don't change their spots. Witness the denationalisation of the NHS so that more private companies can get access to the market!

Historically, landowners and developers have supported (read contributed to) the tories and they are the ones most likely to benefit from any large scale building here. Very few local people will benefit. The houses are likely to be out of the price range of local people and with the exception of social housing (if you qualify) locals will be continue to be driven out by richer folks from the surrounding towns.
I cannot believe that the officers are not influenced and are undoubtedly aware of the employment prospects, using their skills, in these companies. I've seen it happen.
Gamekeeper turned poacher so to speak.

I really hope that you can influence the decision Keith but I fear that the total amount of houses, in whatever location (IMO the Manor Farm location), will be close to 400.

Developers are not nice people and don't give a damn for the local community. IMO tories are the same. Cameron's 'big society' is drivel and is just government farmed out to the voluntary sector because it's cheaper. I expect them to privatise local planning.

Only when those commenting on proposals can justify in financial terms the cost of various decisions taken by Officers of the Council and apply them to Policy Documents defining the terms of service of those officers and which include Profit to the Community (by this I mean the existing community and the Proposed additional community) will we get focussed consideration.

Developers will seek to make maximum profit.You will never change that.The amount of support they get will depend on the law (this could be changed) and the way the law is interpreted will depend on how those we have employed through payment of taxes apply themselves.Scrutiny of a businesslike type may reveal that they are working to parameters outside our needs and they are taking too long to do it. One would then seek to have Job Descriptions established that fit the needs of taxpayers.If the yield from our investment is unsatisfactory then we may press for a reduction in our investment namely Council Tax.
Some local authorities have seen the warning signs and council tax levies are not increasing.
The Victorians built dramatically but once a given number of dwellings were planned (not installed it was all planned strategically) they added a shop, a post office, sewage mains, water mains, then a school , a well managed park.What they built they built to last, not like many of the houses going up now.Why because those in control cared about quality of life generally.In those times and before it was a core of people who came from all levels in society.Some of the Quakers were the richest in the land but they cared.The Unions after the second killing session were empowered to persuade most ordinary people to get what they aspired to so we got The Education Acts and The Health Service.Consumerism of an unnacceptable sort has eroded the benefits since .
What those younger than me have to fear is an erosion of Britain's power in world capitalism.That will happern and maybe those who can find no way to get what they want through the accepted morality of a caring society will resort to crime and violence.
Of course this was seen in USA as a major business opportunity. USA has a higher percentage of people "in jail" than anywhere and it is a big priavte business enterprise.

Last night's meeting did not reach the Whitchurch sites. The session on Thursday is already programmed so there will have to be one or more further meetings to consider 'call-ins'.

Two Whitchurch residents planning to speak at the meeting sat there for four hours while Councillors wrangled over the principles to be applied and discussed some Basingstoke sites.

Three Whitchurch green field sites will be discussed this evening. I am expecting representatives from Whitchurch Town Council and residents of Micheldever Road and The Gables to attend and speak as well as me.

In furthering my preparation for this meeting I came across the response to public consultation on the SHLAA from Town Councillor Michael Fitzgerald, proposing an increase of 2,500 in the population of Whitchurch and saying that Arnolds Farm is a prime site for development. Cllr Fitzgerald owns Arnolds Farm.

You can download Mr Fitzgerald's comments in full after following this link.

The Borough Council Planning & Infrastructure Overview & Scrutiny Committee has agreed that the case for building houses on sites near The Gables and at the back of Micheldever Road should be reviewed by the Council’s Corporate Director before it goes forward for the next stage of planning. I, a Town Councillor and a resident from each of the two areas spoke at the meeting on 10th August.

The Committee did not agree with me that site WHIT007, next to the bypass A34, could not be called suitable until noise reduction measures had been agreed

My comments at the meeting can be read here.

Keith

Hi Keith,

Thanks for your efforts here.

I think it is crazy that WHIT007 is considered suitable for development without expert evaluation of what noise reduction is possible. As mentioned before I suspect therefore any noise reduction measures will be done on the cheap and the required social housing will be crammed at the points closest to the A34.

Of course I think the whole SHLAA process is deficient because no evaluation of the extra services required for any new housing has been done - sorry my constant bugbear about this whole process. *:)

Do you know if the minutes of the whole meeting will be available online at some point? I'd like to know more about what was said particularly the reasons for not referring WHIT007.

All the best,
Nick.

The nearly 5 hours of webcast of the meeting are on the B&DBC website HERE.

WHIT007 (Manor Farm next to A34) timeline in the webcast...
0:04:37 - Intro (by officer) - difference between 'category 1' and 'category 2'
0:07:21 - Keith Watts talks about WHIT007 (move to cat.2 ie requires further info/investigation)
0:12:43 - start of questions
0:15:53 - start of debate
0:20:36 - ...Councillors put case against Keith's proposal
0:22:15 - ...Keith rebuts (and waves the SHLAA paper in the air!)
0:28:00 - THE VOTE (7 in favour, 7 against)
0:28:47 - ...Keith emphatically reminds chairman of his very own words about how he'd cast his vote
0:28:47 - ...Chairmain wiggles and casts deciding vote against

The Whitchurch Design Statement was not referred to, unfortunately (unlike later debates). It states this in section 4: "Ensure that adequate and effective bypass noise reduction and screening measures are in place for future development of housing between the A34 and the disused railway embankment."

It seemed to me, listening to the debate, that many councillors just didn't understand the motion on the table: They thought it was about rejecting WHIT007 based on cost of sound barriers, rather than moving it from category 1 to 2 (i.e. neither acceptable nor unacceptable, just needing further info and investigation).

As for the chairman's wiggle? Would you agree that the 'status quo' is a draft SHLAA as the chairman did? (the chairman stated he would vote as per the 'status quo'; Keith argued that meant the adopted local plan not the draft SHLAA).

Next up...
WHIT009 (The Gables at London Rd)
0:30:00 - Intro (by officer)
0:31:37 - Keith argues against it being in category 1 ("it's the worst possible...")
0:35:32 - The Mayor, Cllr John Clark states that Town Council strongly objects to WHIT009, and quotes from the Whitchurch Design Statement (WDS)
0:38:18 - Mr. Eardly talks as a person living nearby the site, describing B3400/London St congestion to come; and that site would look 'urban' not 'rural'
0:40:26 - Questions, including further reference to the WDS, and environment agency
0:52:36 - Debate (although one debate item was a few mintues before followed by questions)
0:53:34 - Keith enters the debate
1:00:10 - Chairman summarises and sees that the committee agrees to refer the site to 'Karen' for review

Next up...
WHIT010A (East of The Knowlings, owned by B&DBC)
1:01:16 - Intro (by officer)
1:02:40 - Keith argues against WHIT010A and states there is no reference to highway authority; asks for it to be category 2 (ie requires further info/investigation)
1:06:28 - Jim Seamuns, resident of Micheldever Rd. argues against it because of difficulty of access; road congestion/safety; value of field as environmental gateway to countryside.
1:09:27 - The Mayor, Cllr John Clark argues against it on behalf of the Town Council
1:10:34 - No questions; debate starts
1:12:13 - Keith enters the debate and says if can't be cat.2 then make it cat.3 (reject it)
1:18:05 - Emotions build...A wonderful argument about relevency of highway but not environment in SHLAA; plus respecting Keith's views
1:19:25 - Summary by chair and decision to refer to 'Karen' for further investigation

Next up...
Overton Hill
1:20:43 ...oh, wait, that belongs on their forum but...
1:38:58 - A good rant against the officers' methods begins
1:40:16 - An officer responds using the Humphrey Appleby approach
1:41:19 - The councillor lays in some more about SHLAA process (with a round of applause from the audience at the end)
1:59:40 - Keith dares to comment on what's appropriate for Overton
...more lively debate...
2:44:40 - laying into officer again about how SHLAA process being done
Shortly after that, they broke for a 'comfort break'; and I went to bed.

~Andrew~

A key dynamic that could influence planners is affects on the funds available to pay their salaries.

200 new houses at the average £1416 per household (British Average).added to the

£2,709,188.57
received at present consolidates the cash flow that is supporting them but if history repeats itself not us.

Two point seven million !

It isn't like that. First of all, the borough council does not keep all the council tax it collects. The money goes to the government which decides how much grant each local authority can receive, and in effect how much it can spend. Secondly, a very high proportion of what the borough council collects will be used to support the county council's expenditure.

So the Basingstoke and Deane planners will not be influenced in the way you suggest.

There are many good reasons for opposing large-scale development in Whitchurch and Overton (where I live), and we should concentrate on the valid arguments and not mix them up with inaccuiracies or prejudices.

My point is related to "outgoings".

Next we should identify clearly and simply where that tax goes and how much of it comes back.

Then we can begin to apply measured judgements relating to all participants in its sharing.

Apparently someone has developed a web based system whereby one can easily analyse local authority figures.

I am only against additional housing if it has no self sustaining infrastructure.We need housing a bit more like the council houses I grew up in, large gardens so we could grow veg, schools, parks close and lots of shops.

For those who can pay more we need green aware buildings powered by sustainable energy , lots of trees. Then our shops may find it easier to survive also our pubs.

First of all - welcome to the forums, TonyW!

~Andrew~

The report of the Corporate Director of Basingstoke & Deane Borough Council on the sites called-in for review on 26th and 29th August can be read here.

What? No reaction?

Surely Bob Mortlock must have something to say about this.