READING ROAD DEVELOPMENT Adjacent To John Morgans Close ( gas reducing station)...UPDATE

At last nights HDC planning meeting the Reading Road development was discussed and the access to the site will now be brought to the Major Sites Planning sub committee to determine where and how site access is achieved.

Cllr Mike Morris 

Should Britain build more bungalows to cope with the ageing population?

Local authorities have recently been advised by central government that they need to build more bungalows to cope with the ageing population. David Kingman reports…

Here is an interesting question for you to ponder: if you had a completely free choice, what type of home would you choose to live in? A castle? A Victorian townhouse? A new-build flat?

This question has been asked in a number of nationwide surveys looking at peoples’ housing preferences, and the answers they gave may seem surprising. According to a report from Policy Exchange entitled Housing and Intergenerational Fairness (published in April of this year), the most popular type of housing is actually the bungalow. A MORI poll conducted in 2002 found that 30% of people would prefer to live in a bungalow if they had the choice, and the preference is even stronger among older people. These findings have since been confirmed by several subsequent pieces of research.

The unexpected popularity of the bungalow raises a number of interesting questions for the UK housing market – questions which have become even more important in light of recent policy changes which could mean that more of them end up being built.

The decline of the bungalow

Of course, people usually only have quite a limited choice when it comes to what type of housing they live in. The most obvious constraint is that they have to live somewhere they can afford, which in an era of rising house prices has meant many of us now have much less space than we would like – Britain now has some of the smallest newly-built homes in Europe, and the problem of shrinking homes has got so bad the government is planning to take action against it.

People also usually want to live in a particular area to be near their friends and family, or so they can be close to their job, which means they are often stuck with whatever type of housing is available there. A notable flaw with the British housing market is that it is not very good at giving people what they want; numerous surveys have shown that the majority of tenants would prefer to be able to buy their own home, while a study produced by the OECD in 2011 (The Price Responsiveness of Housing Supply in OECD Countries) found that the housing supply in the UK is less responsive to demand than in most other developed countries.

Bungalows have been a particular casualty of Britain’s lack of flexibility over the supply of housing. Owing to fears of using up too much of Britain’s green and pleasant land to build houses, as well as the need to regenerate more brownfield sites, government planning policy for a prolonged period has sought to create more housing at higher densities. The current national planning framework handed down to Britain’s local authorities by the central government calls for new housing to ideally be built at a density of at least 30 dwellings per hectare; this focus on higher densities has led to more blocks of flats and identikit suburban developments being built, but has been the enemy of the bungalow.

Only 2% of all houses that were given planning permission during 2012 were bungalows – 1,700 new homes – compared to more than 27,000 bungalows being built each year during the 1980s. Pre-existing bungalows have often been targeted for demolition in recent years so that the land they occupy can be re-used for new developments at higher densities. Some estimates suggest that there could be as few as half a million bungalows left in the entire country. However, if the government gets its way this could be about to change.

A new direction

According to a recent article in the Daily Mail, local authorities are about to be issued with new advice instructing them to build more housing which is adapted for older peoples’ needs. It is projected that over the next 20 years or so, half of all the new households created will be over-65, and the new advice warns councils that the supply of new housing needs to reflect this trend:

“The need to provide housing for older people is critical given the projected increase in the number of households aged 65 and over.”

Local authorities are now being told to encourage the development of greater numbers of bungalows, in addition to retirement villages and developments of sheltered and supported housing. The planning minister, Nick Boles, gave the following quote:

“We must build more homes or suitable accommodation for older people if we are to avoid problems further down the track...We’re all living longer and there will be a big rise in the number of older people in future years. Making sure councils plan for this and for enough suitable homes like bungalows in their area will help ensure the ageing population can live in the places they want and enjoy their retirement.”

Could this help young people too?

Although it is primarily aimed at assisting older people, this policy shift could well turn out to be beneficial for younger people too.

This is because housing is closely tied to a person’s life-cycle. Generally speaking, when someone is alone or co-habiting they need a relatively small amount of space to themselves, but their housing needs then increase once they start to have children and get involved in permanent relationships; they typically need additional bedrooms and a bigger garden. Once someone reaches old age, their children have usually left home, and it may no longer be economic for them to pay for all the bills and upkeep costs which living in a larger home entails; they may even start to develop health problems which mean they need some form of supported housing.

Therefore, a well-functioning housing market should enable people who can afford it to trade up to larger houses while their housing needs are growing and then downsize once they feel it would be beneficial to do so. However, Previous research undertaken by IF (Hoarding of Housing: The intergenerational crisis in the housing market) has shown that Britain could have 25 million “missing” bedrooms in houses which are being under-occupied because not enough older people are downsizing, creating a bottleneck in the housing supply which makes it harder for younger people to move into family-sized homes.

This is partly because the large baby boomer cohort, which is now ageing, came of age during the years when Britain was building many more houses than it is now, so the market was able to respond to their need for family-sized homes. However, as we have now had an extremely inflexible supply of new housing for over 20 years, the market is not responding to their need for properties which are designed for older people to downsize into. If the government’s new planning regulations lead to more older people downsizing then more of us might get to live in the kind of homes we actually want to live in, which would be a better outcome for all of us, young and old alike.

http://www.if.org.uk/archives/4182/should-britain-build-more-bungalows-to-cope-with-the-ageing-population

Nick Boles wants more bungalows built

Planning minister Nick Boles wants more bungalows built because most pensioners want to “end their days” in one.

Nick Boles

He told a planning conference the amount of bungalows built in the past few years had dropped because developers were focusing on higher density developments.

“When you ask people where they would like to end their days, a lot of them say they want to end their days in a bungalow,” he said in comments reported by the Daily Telegraph.

“If we’re going to provide for more bungalows we’re going to have to provide more land than we otherwise would.”

Boles said developments with bungalows could face less local opposition and said that more housing for pensioners should be built in town centres.

http://www.bdonline.co.uk/build-more-bungalows-says-planning-minister/5062937.article

MEET YOUR MP AND DISCUSS DEVELOPMENT ISSUES

   Dear All

I've been able to put together a 'village to meet your MP' meeting so that the development issues within hook can be discussed.

Therefore would you please forward the below details of the meeting which is being held on Friday 14th at 7.30 pm at the Basingstoke Country Hotel to all your contacts so we can have a good attendance.

James Arbuthnot and Ranil Jayawardena intend to absorb the detail of the many emails James has received from the residents of Hook and try to answer these questions.

The general format will be :-

1. Cllr Stephen Parker the planning portfolio holder at HDC Cabinet will speak on how current planning policy affects planning decision making in these difficult times

2. MP and Candidate for MP to respond to the many emails sent by residents and explain what they are going to do about these problems

3. Questions from the floor

Time limit 1 hour.

Regards

Mike Morris BEM

Hart District Councillor

BROWN CROFT PLANNING APPLICATION

The Corporate Director of Planning at Hart District Council has informed me that the Highways Scheme for Brown Croft has been assessed by an outside agency, an expert in this feild, and the Scheme is deemed safe and within policy. 

Cllr Mike Morris

Councillor Mike Morris States His Annoyance Over Development in Hook

http://m.basingstokegazette.co.uk/news/11028923.Two_new_estates_in_Hook_get_the_green_light/

PUTTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT REGARDING HOUSING DEVELOPMENT IN HOOK

It is very unfair when negative comments are made from the written word of some residents having read an activist site. It's certainly not the view of the thousands of residents that actively play a part in village life within the local pubs, restaurants, sporting clubs, churches, charity groups, retailers and Neighbourhood Watch activities which make this village special. These residents who I know personally realise I and other councillors have diligently represented them for many years.

I'm aware and fully sympathise that many residents in Hook are upset at the outcome of the Brown Croft ( High Ridge farm)  and Reading Road ( Adjacent to John Morgan Close ) planning applications and I would like to put the record straight regarding the process and outcome. 

We are in worrying times and very different from previous years when then a current Local Plan protected the Village of Hook. The failure of the new Local Plan (LP) by the Government Inspector was a disaster for Hart and all the residents within the district, as it opened the doors to developers who have obtained options to buy land, especially around Hook. It's commonly believed that it was failed because the Government didn't want to cap the housing numbers captured within a LP and so to enable the Government to build more houses many Districts LP's were not agreed. The resubmitted plan would have to increase it housing numbers allocation with the intention of triggering the economy into growth by the notion of building more dwellings.

The land areas most at risk are those already identified on the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) list which includes the applications to Brown Croft (SHLAA 9), Hop Garden (SHLAA 8) and land Adjacent to Reading Road..Gas Reducing Station (SHLAA 7). They were identified as possible development sites some time ago and so the development concept for those areas for housing has been well known by residents for many years as developers have tried before to gain planning permission on these sites but the then current LP helped block these.

The tools that Hart District Council planning committee use to determine planning applications come in the form of policies. The policies utilised without a LP are saved polices from the last LP and the " over-riding" document the National Planning Policy Framework ( NPPF).

Objections could only be raised at the planning meeting if they were 'material planning reasons' which contravene planning policies. Even resident objections have to focus on policies and not like....don't want affordable homes near my house, country views lost and perceived loss of house value. Every detail is looked at by professional planning officers, the planning committee and before that by me. Unfortunately having worked many hours on these applications trying to locate issues outside of policy none were show stoppers and those found could be mitigated by conditions. 

At the heart of the lead document the NPPF is a 'presumption in favour of sustainable development', which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking.

Where the LP  is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, the Local Planning Authority should grant permission unless:-

"any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweighs the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole". That statement from the NPPF doesn't give much opportunity to decline applications. This is frustrating and annoying but it's the times we are currently in without a LP!

The only chink in the policy armour with the Brown Croft application was the traffic numbers and road safety. Even though at the planning committee meeting the Highways Authority Officer bungled his report, the Senior Planning Officer interjected and informed the Planning Committee that the amount of presumed vehicle movement to and from the site was within policy. Once he quoted that it then wasnt a material planning objection matter and this argument had no legs. However, myself and the planning committee questioned the officers regarding additional vehicle movements to and from the Suitable Area of Natural Green (SANG). That's why the SANG was discussed and a good job it was as we were able to obtain single use for that amenity space SANG for the proposed houses and for those local residents that could walk there only! Which means No additional car movements to or from the SANG from outside the development.

Both Brown Croft and the Reading Road applications went to Full Council on 27th February because they were a departure from the LP and Interim Housing Delivery Strategy (IHDS). The only reasons that can be discussed at full council are those that contravene planning policy and as previously stated without a local plan and with the NPPF's presumption to develop there were no such reasons. However, as I was concerned about the  Internal Highways advice regarding vehicle movement numbers, I have helped arrange that the Brown Croft highways element undergoes a further full and thorough investigation of traffic numbers and road safety assessment. This will be  carried out by an non political outside expert. Should this expert find fault in the safety of the road or entrance/exit to the site it could be a show stopper. However, if he considers everything within Government policy or mitigation allows the road scheme to become safe, the Director of Planning will then and only then release the grant documentation. Even then the developer has to abide by all the conditions that are placed upon the grant documentation. These conditions are similar to those at the Reading Road and include foul water and surface water conditions to ensure adequate facility before development commences along with many other conditions to mitigate the effects of the development on the village.

The Reading  Road development had a condition placed upon it at the planning meeting to review the safety of Junction into the site. I will be meeting with the applicants highways engineers and a senior Hart District Council Planning manager to discuss a new layout to make it safer. Once this has been resolved then the application goes back to the planning Committee in March. In the mean time the safety of the new junction will be independently sanctioned by the same expert used on Brown Croft. As the planning committee had already granted permission for this development only the changes to the entrance can be discussed when brought back to the planning meeting.

The application then goes back to Full Council. As before only contravened policies can be discussed at this meeting and unfortunately there are none and so there's no grounds like that at Brown Croft to 'call in' the application.

As previously said I was very disappointed with the Highways Officer at the planning meeting so I requested at Full Council that the Leader request the portfolio holders of Environment and Planning to look into and review the current level of internal highways representation and advice received at planning meetings and to report back on their conclusions.

The Failed LP identified sites SHLAA 1, 2 ( North East of Hook ) and possibly 7 (Land Adjacent to Reading Road..Gas Pumping Station) for housing/retail development and the amount of housing to each SHLAA site, totalling 600 dwellings. That has all changed including the numbers. It is expected that the new LP which should be ready for inspection by Government inspector early next year, will more than likely need to raise the numbers of housing to be delivered by Hook and other settlements within the district. Therefore if it would have been possible to prevent the developments SHLAA 7 and 9 there was no guarantee that, even with the housing numbers from rejected LP which would have brought forward 600 , those numbers may not have be enough to fulfil the new LP housing number requirements for Hook. Meaning SHLAA 7, 8 and 9 and the NE Hook Development (600) may be part of the new LP after all!

Much has been spoken about the IHDS Hart produced and that it's housing numbers mentioned in the document should prevent any additional development . However the IHDS is only a preference (strategy) to what Hart would like housing numbers to be, it's not policy and could not be used for valid argument regarding housing numbers or where they were sited. There is hope with this Strategy as Hart District Council are furiously working on a housing number capping strategy to hopefully align with the IHDS and this maybe will have a restrictive value for applications coming forward in the future.

As your Ward planning member I have spent many hundreds of hours studying hundreds of planning applications within Hook and Rotherwick and I have worked conscientiously with each Parish Council to ensure applications are fairly and honestly determined. Even though I was fully aware that Brown Croft and The Reading Road developments were within policy I went against my impartial principles and was one of only a few on the planning committee to vote against both applications as I didn't agree with the locations and still had concerns about the traffic. The later concern I will deal with professionally and the former I'm still not happy with but policy has determined its outcome.

With regard to Sainsbury's the majority of Hook residents were in favour of a Sainsbury's store within the village including those near the store (I know I live there!) and although I was never in favour of its position the NPPF and saved policies allowed the application to be granted. Hundreds of hours were expended by the planning officers at Hart, myself and the Parish Council ensuring mitigation was carried out to minimise the effects on the village. An enormous amount of funding will be spent by Sainsbury's in the form of Section 106 legal contributions on extensive highways improvements to cope with the addition traffic, including a larger and more efficient roundabout. Other conditions include to control light pollution, noise, surface and foul water removal, safety cameras to car parks and junction for safety, acoustic fencing to protect the Hook House Hotel, silent unloading bays to protect adjacent dwellings. In addition the surgery car park will be free for the first 4 hours and the Grand Parade car park will also be refurbished.  Even if it was possible to defer/reject this application (which it wasn't) all the section 106 mitigation funding to benefit Hook would have been lost when the inevitable granting permission would have taken place at appeal. 

Tesco's application came on the scene after Sainsbury's application was granted and even should Tesco's get planning permission it's still unclear whether it will be built as it's thought Rawlings has not yet found a alternative location to move to!

I'm sorry this is long winded but it's a complicated subject and I wanted to make clear the process.

Cllr Mike Morris BEM

District Councillor 

Ward Planning Member for Hook and Rotherwick.