Bordon Area Action Group

BAAG RESPONSES TO BURRIDGE’S STATEMENT 7 DECEMBER 2010 - FULL COUNCIL MEETING 

Last December BAAG wrote to Council members outlining 20 reasons why they should not approve the masterplan for development control purposes.  Councillor Burridge read a prepared rebuttal at the meeting before the vote was taken.  The Council did not publish the statement but we made an accurate transcriipt.  The following paragraphs summarise what Councillor Burridge's said, followed by our comments. We say each is wrong and misleadindg, intended to justify undue and unacceptable haste in approving a bad plan.  We call for Councillor Burridge to withdraw the statement and for a public apology.   

1.  Cllr Burridge dismisses the BAAG 90% NO survey response because “The information presented by BAAG at the consultation wasn’t shared with the officers”

This excuse in no way invalidates the actual data. BAAG put the question that the Council have never dared to ask: “Do you support the Council’s plan to double the size of Bordon?” because the Council fear the response will be overwhelmingly opposed.   

1.  Council’s postcard survey evenly split

The Council has not consulted fairly or objectively as facilitator.  As promoter of the eco-town scheme the design, presentation distribution and content of the Council’s ‘postcard’ and every other survey has had an inbuilt favourable bias. Nevertheless, a marginally larger number of total respondents are opposed.  It is neither accurate nor fair to distinguish between those within Bordon (particularly as the actual boundary remains undefined) and those without. Despite the Council’s publicity and cash prize reward overall numbers were so low as to be statistically insignificant.  Most of the postcard survey questions were worded to lead respondents to the desired answer.  The entire exercise was preceded and accompanied by promotional presentations and promotional material in leaflets, posters, the press and the Council’s magazine. Against this background “Community support” cannot be claimed. The Council has misled the DCLG and Ministers in this regard.

1. “Wait for transport study, available in January…any negative impact would require mitigation.” 

The transport survey background information, conclusions and recommendations promised for March 2011 is still not available. Mitigation is not acceptable where eco-town target requires no overall traffic increase and eventual reduction.  The primary duty is to demonstrate avoidance of harm; reference or suggestion of mitigation amounts to an expectation or admission of harm through significant increase in traffic. Without confirmed new job opportunities substantial increase due to out commuting is the unavoidable impact of non-interlinked housebuilding.   

1. Masterplan recognises poor air quality; aim to reduce A325 traffic; Ongoing air quality monitoring

Reduction on the A325 can only be achieved at the expense of building a new western “bypass” through Hogmoor Road, with corresponding decrease in air quality for along that road, adversely affecting both existing residents and those expected to live in proposed new housing. Simply stating that air quality is being monitored is meaningless without introducing effective measures to reduce pollution.  Poor air quality is already long established, but no reduction measures are included in the plan.

1. The required land is unavailable “We must plan for likely eventualities”

The Council’s plan is for just one, currently doubtful eventuality, at the same time giving itself power to change it at will regardless of evidence base or community support.  It is demonstrably unachievable in transport, employment, retail and amenity terms.  A hastily drawn, ambiguously worded letter from Defence Estates has been optimistically presented to justify rushing through masterplan approval.

1. “Building over woodland and playing fields outweighed by allocating alternative sites including Hogmoor Inclosure…”

Hogmoor is already an open space.  It cannot be counted twice and cannot provide sports pitches.  His remark “…Other pitches will be provided elsewhere” really means extinguishing a productive farm at the separate village of Standford some distance from Bordon.  The claimed “net gain of open space” deliberately misleads.  The plan severely downgrades the amount of valued and well used open space in Bordon itself which has long been woven into its fabric.

1. Statement acknowledges Standford Farm will be lost “after consulting the local community” and claims making it a public park will be “widely welcomed” by the local community.  

There can be no doubt that Bordon people would if consulted oppose the loss of their existing open spaces and substituting a remote and inconvenient one.  The so-called “public land” for this proposal was acquired by Hampshire County Council more than 50 years ago for the failed plan to create a huge new town centred on Bordon.  The ‘public land’ label applied to it by the Council as promoter does not justify the wrong use in the wrong place.  It is 100% opposed by the local Standford community and would be patently unacceptable were it to be applied to any private farmland. His claim that making it a public park will be “widely welcomed” by the local community is pure fantasy.  Failure to conduct a genuine ‘local community’ referendum on this issue will be met with the strongest possible objection and should signal the failure or fundamental recasting of the entire plan.

1. “Much of the essential town character is hardly rural…”

This statement confuses appearance with size, location and average density.  In all those respects Bordon is little different from Alton, Petersfield or comparable country towns.  Bordon’s rapid growth, inferiority of form and appearance is entirely due to the Council’s poor planning record. Bordon has been starved of Council support and investment for comparable facilities and public realm improvement, perpetuating its dormitory suburb character, dominated by heavy through traffic, super markets and grim car parks.

1. “Awaiting result of further Habitats Regulation Assessment…”

Why? He admits previous studies recognise the harm arising from the proposed quantity of development.  This aspect does not  have as claimed “the full support of Natural England” and is opposed by other bodies such as the National Trust and Hampshire Wildlife.

1.    “Air quality will be informed by awaited transport model...and acted on as appropriate”  

This statement amounts to the same meaningless side stepping of the issue as noted at item 4 above.

1.    Impact on surrounding settlements “aim to reduce use of private car…(but accepts) unlikely to bring about much change”  “…traffic management will potentially relieve some local traffic hot spots…”  

The plan’s failure to show how car use is to be reduced substantially below its present level despite 100% growth in population demonstrates that it is an empty aspiration.  No UK settlement has achieved this. 

1.    “We still have to deal with MOD vacation of garrison…the alternative is piecemeal development…decided at appeals…[[which] cannot deliver wider benefits of properly planned approach…”

The Council’s approach is not properly planned.  The clear alternative to harmful overdevelopment is a different, incremental plan matching the possible release of brownfield land in  Bordon and its true capacity to absorb growth without harm. The ‘piecemeal’ claim is an example of the continued greed and scaremongering tactics that have characterised the Council’s approach throughout.

1.    “There are no vested interests…”  

This claim is manifestly dishonest. The MOD, HCC and EHDC all have vested interests in maximising development and selling off land. Their operating goals and processes were secretly negotiated long before any consultation took place.  Neither the plan nor any background study presents convincing evidence that the  “minimal scale required to deliver services and facilities…”  is 5,300 houses.

1.    [The 2008 consultation which favoured 2000 homes] “was very early consultation” 2000 not sufficient to deliver benefits…no certainty yet exists on the number of dwellings” 

This is simply rubbishing a consultation result that failed to support the Council’s declared ‘preferred option’ so was dismissed. The structural contradiction of Council’s position is obvious; it wants complete flexibility because “…there is no certainty… “ but still says it must deliver up to 5,300 houses to generate claimed but unspecified ‘benefits.’   

1.    550 unanimous votes in favour of resolutions to oppose masterplans dismissed because “it wasn’t a District Council function.”

The largest ever numbers attending any meeting concerned with the planning of Bordon cannot be dismissed simply because it was not a Council function.  These meetings were open to all and presented an alternative view of the Council’s plans, encouraged questions and open debate.  Councillors were specifically invited to attend but only two or three local councillors did so

1.    “Headley Parish Council’s objections have not been published yet.  Masterplan acknowledges further work needed for green spaces…prospect of retaining Standford Grange Farm within the eco-town will be further considered.”

Headley PCs objection is to inclusion of any part of Headley Parish within the eco-town.  Other objections include loss of Standford Grange Farm, impact of traffic increase, location of education facilities, these adverse effects all resulting from many more houses in the plan than the area can sustain without damage.

1.    “There is Interest from the business communitylocating or expanding in Whitehill-Bordon…no marketing has been done ahead of the MOD announcement…”

This statement is completely at odds with the lack of any detail of who is interested and how many jobs can be expected.  More crucially, it bears every indication of dishonesty in the light of the Council’s current effort to re-badge Viking Park, taking it out of employment use on the pretext that employers are not interested, in order to deliver the ‘quick win’ housing secretly promised in the eco-town funding bid nearly 2 years ago. 

1.    “The masterplan links new housing with new jobs”

No, it doe not – the Councillor knows that nothing in the plan prevents mass housing being developed without limit, even if jobs do not come.  We call for a definite policy which would halt any further stage of housebuilding without matching job provision.

1.    “The issue to manage effect of MOD departure…without framework..piecemeal approach”.

This is a repeat of item 12 above.  More rubbish – the alternative is not absence of framework but better one.

1.    “Ensure that local views continue to influence framework…”

The Council has never allowed local views on the quantum of development to influence successive plans and policies in any significant manner.  If it did the masterplan should have been scrapped years ago.