top of page

What We Said at the Examination in Public

 

Many of our supporters will recall our Public Meetings in 2014 and again in 2015, where we encouraged local people to submit comments on the Local Plan.  Since then, we've worked hard to focus our arguments on specific issues and failings in the Council's Local Plan, to identify changes that would improve outcomes for local people.  Thanks to generous contributions from some of our supporters, we were able to hire some impressive professional support.  Our barrister, Dr Ashley Bowes, was responsible for presenting the case for local people in Lancashire that ended with Cuadrilla being refused permission for fracking in the area, so his credentials are impressive.  Steven Scott-Brown, Mike Henry and Chris Rose also provided invaluable assistance on matters of landscape, sustainability, traffic and transport, and environment, and of course Stafford Napier and Antony Merriman continued to work very hard to marshal strong and cogent arguments about weaknesses in the Plan.

 

Our statements to the Inspector are attached below.  Essentially, we focused our concerns on the following points:

Distribution of Housing Doesn't Match Sustainability Appraisal

 

The Council's Sustainability Appraisal (SA), which reviewed all of the available sites in the Borough to assess which should be developed, concluded that the correct approach was one in which development was spread evenly to the west and east of the Town, rather than with a focus in either area.  However, the final housing distribution put 73% of the development in the west.  They've therefore contradicted their own conclusions, and have offered no credible explanation for this.  They've even tried to say that because there are more separate sites in the east than the west, this constitutes balance - even though these sites, combined, have just a third of the total houses proposed for the west!

 

It appears that very significant changes were made to the Council's assessment of sustainability for sites to the east and west of the Town between March 2014 & May 2015.  There is no explanation as to why negative assessments became positive and previous concerns were set aside without any justification.  (For example, 'Accessibility' for Lodge Farm was given a double negative, while Hounsome Fields, further from Town and more isolated, was given only a single negative).  In summary, we believe that the Council’s judgements are unsound because there is no audit trail on what appear to be important changes of mind.  The public expects to see consistency rather than a hurried bodge to make up numbers; anything else is a failure of duty to the people the Council is supposed to represent.

 

Hounsome Fields and the Golf Course – Other Factors

 

The developers for the Golf Course and Hounsome Fields also claim that these sites will form a strong, joined-up community with a shared identity.  This, they say, will (miraculously) be brought about via a 'pelican' crossing across the A30 - a busy, fast, split-level dual carriageway, which will need to be crossed daily by primary school children.  We are sceptical.

 

Both sites breach the ridgeline, which is important in landscape terms.  They were also previously flagged in earlier assessments as having important social or historical functions in their own right, but at no point is this acknowledged in the current Plan.  For example, the Golf Course has been part of the experience of Basingstoke people for several hundred years, as a piece of managed landscape with a number of important historic connections.

 

The land in these two sites is also "Best and Most Valuable" (BMV) agricultural land; much of Hounsome Fields is Grade 3a, which rules say should be preserved, whilst 69% of Golf Course is Grade 2 & some is Grade 1.  All of this is better than the land on several sites to the east of the Town, but there is no explanation in the Plan of why this fact is ignored.

 

It's pretty obvious that the proximity of the western sites to the M3 will encourage out-commuting to other employment centres.  This, and the distance from the Town centre and local employment sites, will undermine the Council's growth strategy, limiting the opportunity for people to work in the Town and simply encouraging Basingstoke to become yet another dormitory town.  However, the Plan says that these sites have great potential for "modal shift" - moving from car-based transport to cycling and/or walking.  This is despite the fact that the Council's proposals for cycling provision here are sketchy at best, with no clear separation of cycle and heavy road traffic on the A30, and the distance from the town and the gradients involved would naturally suggest regular cycling into Town would be a difficult and risky undertaking.

 

In truth, we believe that Hounsome Fields is now favoured purely because it is seen as somewhere where a lot of new homes could be built in a short time - a rapid "housing trajectory" – to meet the Council’s increased "Objectively Assessed Housing Need" (OAHN).  (See also "Housing Numbers and Strategy" for why this number is flawed).  However, the site has a designated heritage asset - a listed farmhouse and its setting.  No masterplan has been produced to show how this setting will be preserved, which is a pre-requisite before development can proceed.  This causes an issue with deliverability; objections to preserve the setting may limit the proposed figure of 750 dwellings.  Development of the site is supposed to start in 2017, initially with 50 units and with build rates going up thereafter.  We believe that this is fanciful, given the preparatory work needed, including a detailed Transport Assessment, proper definition of transport solutions for connecting to A30, infrastructure planning, flooding, air quality mitigation, etc.  However, despite the lack of sustainability, the developer (Wates) is pressing ahead with an application for planning permission, in an attempt to pre-empt the Inspector's likely judgement that the site is unsustainable.

 

Infrastructure Funding

 

Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council (B&DBC) has an uneviable reputation when it comes to under-delivery of infrastructure to support major housing projects.  For example, at Rooksdown, a doctor's surgery and a primary school are only now being provided - 15 years after the development was built.  At Beggarwood, the development brief included:

 

  • a school;

  • a religious building;

  • a sports hall;

  • a café;

  • 3 "Local Equipped Areas for Play" (LEAPs)

  • a "Neighbourhood Equipped Areas for Play!" (NEAP) for older children;

  • a "woodland park";

  • public art to give a "sense of place".

 

The only thing that currently exists are the 3 x LEAPs. The café became an estate agent's shop.  The new community building, now proposed as part of the Area N development (around 10 years after Beggarwood was built) is to be built on land originally set aside as part of Beggarwood park (together with its car park).  It doesn't match the specification for a sports hall - indeed, we're unclear what the specification is meant to be, as there was minimal consultation with the people who would be expected to use it. There was a contribution of £1M for the employment area to seed new businesses, but this was syphoned off to Chineham Business Park. The developer contributed £600K+ for the buses over 6 years.  Because the location is unsustainable, the No12 is now fully subsidised by HCC and the No8 is part subsidised by B&DBC.

 

The developer provided cycle tracks, but some are rarely used - probably because there are no viable connections to the Town. The "woodland park" has never been landscaped and planted as its name might have suggested. Instead it has been urbanised with children's play equipment, allotments and a health track (all good things but not what was intended).  The Council now proposes to apply for Local Nature Reserve status for Beggarwood Park (an urban park), instead of for Old Down (already a Site of Interest for Nature Conservation) as we requested, which is a nonsense, driven by their wish to retain an option to build a road across Old Down.

 

One of the main issues is, of course, the cost of the infrastructure.  The main funding mechanisms through which developers and landowners contribute to infrastructure costs are called "Section 106" (s106) and the "Community Infrastruction Levy" (CIL).  In order to be able to demand CIL contributions for the proposed sites, the Council has to show that there is a shortfall between the money they have and what is needed to provide the 'necessary' infrastructure.  Based on documents published by the Council, the total shortfall for roads infrastructure alone is of the order of £53M - a huge amount.  What's worse, there are several projects, such as improvements to J7 of the M3, where the proposed cost is "tbc" - ie they still have no idea what it will cost - and other areas where the proposed costs are so low as not to be credible.  For example, the improvements to the Brightion Hill roundabout are estimated to cost £4M - half the amount allocated for the Wallop Drive (Sainsbury's) roundabout.  Given the relative complexity of the two junctions, this seems ludicrous.
 

Other infrastructure funding can be applied for via a scheme called the "New Homes Bonus", and the M3 Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) can also bid for cash from Central Government for specific projects, on the Council's behalf.  The Council make a big play of the LEP's intention to help them get money via this route.  However, looking at the truly enormous shortfall in the budget, the way that Council-run projects such as the Black Dam Roundabout modifications have overrun, the track record so far of LEP funding and the current Government's fixation on the so-called 'Northern Powerhouse', we believe that an expectation that enough money will somehow materialise to pay for all of the 'necessary' infrastructure is fanciful at best, and disingenuous at worst.

 

The Council have recently admitted that they don't believe that CIL can ever fill the funding gap, and have switched their focus to s106 as the main source of money.  Not only do we remain unconvinced that they can raise enough money through any of the funding formulas available to them, but s106 funding is only determined as part of the specific planning application for a site.  What the Council seem to be saying is "trust us. it'll all come right when we sort out the planning applications".  However, this will be after the Plan has been approved by the Inspector and there's no going back.  Given the Council's previous track record on infrastructure, there can be precious little trust in this area.

 

We presented our case on this at the EiP, asking for the strengthening of certain clauses that would allow the Council to only approve a particular development if they can clearly show that sufficient funds are both available and committed to delivering the necessary infrastructure in an appropriate timescale.  (This was supported by a similar initiative from Maria Miller MP).  If the Council resist this, we can only assume that it is their intention to proceed with developments whether or not they intend to provide the necessary infrastructure - as they've done in the past.

 

Area 6 of Manydown and the Fiveways Junction

 

The triangle of land between the railway embankment, Pack Lane and Dorset Crescent has been designated Area 6 of Manydown.  We have long opposed the plan to build upwards of 300 houses here, as it is isolated from the main Manydown development, and the traffic emanating from this estate would have to exit via the already-overstretched Fiveways junction and through Kempshott, in addition to the other traffic coming from other parts of Manydown to the motorway.  Until very recently, Hampshire County Council (HCC) agreed with our view that no practical solution for the necessary improvements to Fiveways existed without compulsory purchase of adjacent (built) properties.  However, the Manydown Company has, at the very last moment, come up with a plan which they say will work, and HCC, having opposed the scheme, then approved this within one day.  (HCC is a 25% shareholder in Manydown).  The proposed changes to the junction will only work if what little cycling provision already exists is removed - but we fully expect to see the isolated Area 6 also promoted on the grounds of "modal shift" towards cycling.

 

Environmental Issues

 

There are quite a few environmental issues erlated to the A30 sites and Manydown.  I'm sure we're all aware of the impact Kennel Farm will have on the ancient woodlands that separate it from Old Down, and the way that the developers, together with the Council, have fought the imposition of an adequate buffer-zone between the houses and the woods.  The other big issue is that of water.

 

Bizarrely, the water companies have a statutory duty to say they can and will provide water services to the new estates, even though this is contradicted in their own business plans.  Treated sewage from the new developments across Basingstoke has to be discharged into the Loddon.  The current phosphate level in the river of about 0.4 is well within the current limits, but the water company currently holds back effluent to maintain it at that level.  However, the phosphate trial on the Loddon is not due to be completed until March 2017.  The last two years have been wet, so flows must be relatively good, but there would be a big difference in dry years such as experienced in 2012. Thames Water say they are confident they can keep phosphate levels down, but this may involve new plant.  Our understanding from what was said at the EiP is that the Phase 2 improvements which are in the Infrastructure Delivery Plan for 2015-20 are not actually going to happen.

 

We raised a number of concerns, including:

 

  • It has been conceded by the water companies that the area is water stressed, and the building of Manydown, Hounsome Fields and the Golf Course will affect the recharge of the principal aquifer for the area.  Without mitigation measures, resulting from some strategic planning, there will be a reduced water supply.

  • The hydrological study requested in the Phase 2 water cycle study of 2009 has still not been carried out to inform any such planning and this should be done as soon as possible.

  • A strategic surface water management plan needs to be carried out by HCC to draw together the three water authorities in the area, as in the DEFRA recommendation of 2010.

  • The water companies seem to feel that metering and higher charges will force people to be more water efficient.  As it is, Basingtoke already imports water from outside our local area.  More people on more estates will increase that demand, no matter how water-efficient they are. The proposed new limit is 110 litres per person per day, but average current usage is 150 litres per day.  The water companies' business plans say they will be needing new water sources by the mid 2020's are there are no plans for any in our area.

 

To us, there seem to be issues of accountability and co-ordination that are conspiring to create what is threatening to be a disastrous situation in years to come.

 

 

bottom of page