Draft Local Plan Consultation Response Advice – Full List
This page contains the full list of points that you might consider for a response to the Local Plan. The shorter list with the main points only is at hookdevaction.org.uk/consultation-2017-advice. Please refer to that page for the links to the consultation documents and how to respond.
The list on this page is strictly in document, page and section order according to the consultation documents, not in any order of priority. There is also some duplication because some points apply to more than one document section.
|Document||Page||Section||Support, oppose or|
|Draft Local Plan: Strategy and Sites||25||77 objective 2||Oppose||- Disagree with the objective to create a new community at Murrell Green|
|Draft Local Plan: Strategy and Sites||33||101||Oppose||- The affordable housing uplift is arbitrary and not justified.|
|Draft Local Plan: Strategy and Sites||34||103||Oppose||- Affordable housing uplift now being claimed to be as a general and very large contingency figure.
- Including a large contingency here will mandate the houses are built, quite possibly unnecessarily
|Draft Local Plan: Strategy and Sites||36||112||Oppose||- Delete the 87 homes identified as required to be allocated for Hook in light of the > 60% expansion already underway.|
|Draft Local Plan: Strategy and Sites||36||114||Oppose||- Incorrect statement - The most favoured option by the public in the 2016 Refined Housing Options consultation was “Approach 3: Focus growth on a new settlement at Winchfield”.
- Distorting facts will lead to loss of public confidence
- Distorting facts will risk rejection of the plan by planning inspector
|Draft Local Plan: Strategy and Sites||36||115||Oppose||- The options listed here were not presented in the 2016 public consultation and should not have been considered for the draft Local Plan without a further interim consultation.|
|Draft Local Plan: Strategy and Sites||36||116||Oppose||- Disagree Murrell Green is best option
- Appropriate evidence has not been produced
- Sustainability Assessment compares 1800 homes at Murrell Green with 3000 at Winchfield, why not like for like of 1800 each
- It is not separate to Hook
- It will compete with Hook when Hook Neighbourhood Plan is trying to improve Hook centre
- No scope for future post 2032 expansion
- Not the preferred choice of 2016 consultation
- Hart should look again for new settlements including a smaller Winchfield
|Draft Local Plan: Strategy and Sites||37||118||Support||- Support decision not to have Urban Extensions
- These were rejected in previous consultation
- No school can be delivered with Urban Extensions
- Developer contributions to infrastructure are fragmented with Urban Extensions
|Draft Local Plan: Strategy and Sites||48||158 policy MG6||Oppose||- Housing development Option 2 (Murrell Green) is a development in a local gap contrary to this objective|
|Draft Local Plan: Strategy and Sites||48||158 policy MG6||Support||- Support Local Gaps to maintain distinct communities
- recognise high value of rights of way through local gaps
- The Local Gap between Hook and Newnham must be preserved.
- No development should take place outside the existing western boundary of Hook encroaching on this already diminished Local Gap.
|Draft Local Plan: Strategy and Sites||51||169||Comment||- 1,500 dwellings on this site is far higher than any other settlement in Hart
- Density (dwellings per hectare - dph) is defined in the glossary but never used with respect to settlements
- The Hartland Village density is not in keeping with Hart's semi-rural character
|Draft Local Plan: Strategy and Sites||70||222 policy SC5||Oppose||- Delete the 87 homes identified as required to be allocated for Hook in light of the > 60% expansion already underway.|
|Draft Local Plan: Strategy and Sites||71||224 policy SC6||Comment||- requirement for "2 & 3" bed properties is not specific enough
- The SHMA indicates that greatest need is for 3 bedroom or larger properties
- this would release smaller properties as larger properties are occupied
- to avoid developments with no 3 bedroom properties, policy statements for 2 bed and 3+ bed proportions should be separate and explicit
|Draft Local Plan: Strategy and Sites||84||273 policy ED2||Support||- Important that Hook sites are protected for employment use to prevent Hook becoming a dormitory town|
|Draft Local Plan: Strategy and Sites||84||273 policy ED2||Comment||- Policy ED2 seeks to protect Bartley Wood, Bartley Point and Osborne Way, Hook as Strategic Employment Sites so office buildings in these areas should be protected from conversion to residential use.|
|Draft Local Plan: Strategy and Sites||85||273 policy ED2||Comment||- The Rawlings Depot in Hook is listed as a Locally Important Employment Area
- Rawlings wish to vacate their site in favour of a more suitable location at Murrell Green Business Park. Murrell Green is a sensible commercial location
- It would free up sustainable and centrally located brownfield space for retail and residential use in Hook
- This opportunity to improve the centre of Hook should not be lost.
|Draft Local Plan: Strategy and Sites||93||312||Oppose||- The Retail, Leisure and Town Centres Study (2015) recommends that the boundary of Hook District Centre is “revised” (meaning reduced in size)
- With Hook growing this reduction must not take place.
|Draft Local Plan: Strategy and Sites||93||313||Oppose||- It is accepted that Hook requires additional shops, financial and professional services, restaurants and cafes, drinking establishments, and hot food takeaway floorspace.
- Services required by Hook must be located in Hook, not in another separate settlement
|Draft Local Plan: Strategy and Sites||116||395||Comment||- Document says "A draft of the IDP is available to view in conjunction with this draft local plan" - it has not been published
- Without an Infrastructure Plan it is not possible to quantify the impact of suggested housing developments and increases in population on the district.
|Sustainability Appraisal||All||All||Comment||- This sustainability appraisal should look beyond the current Local Plan period to be truly sustainable.|
|Sustainability Appraisal||12||6.3.3||Comment||Factual Inaccuracies:
- The Full Council meeting in 2014 decided on a new settlement at Winchfield as the preferred option for new housing.
- In the last consultation the New Settlement option was entitled "Approach 3: Focus growth on a new settlement at Winchfield" – not "in the Winchfield Area".
|Sustainability Appraisal||25||7.2.1||Oppose||- The table comparing options shows that discarded options are better than chosen options in many areas
- The summary could be written to support any of the 6 options provided.
- There is no clear explanation for choices of one option over the other. This is an entirely subjective assessment.
|Sustainability Appraisal||27||8.2||Comment||- Options 2 to 5 (which include Murrell Green) are not in line with the results of the earlier public consultation in 2016.
- The option chosen by the vast majority was for a new settlement at Winchfield of 3000+ houses (Option 6 in this current document).
- The dispersal strategy was a secondary choice, not the primary choice so little weight should be accorded to it.
- Winchfield could be re-examined as an initial site for 1,800 homes which would provide the scope for future expansion beyond this Local plan period should it be necessary.