Policy SPS2: Regeneration
Section 5: Mitigating and Adapting to Climate Change
1. Policy SPS2 talks of regeneration of areas that undoubtedly could benefit from redevelopment. However, the talk of a minimum 200 net additional new homes takes the emphasis away from quality and onto quantity, in areas where green spaces are already at a premium. It would be better for SP2 not to mention any target for additional homes and to justify itself in terms of quality of housing provision.
SPS2 also fails to set any timescales. The local plan needs to recognise that, for families that have bought their homes, they may find them blighted or difficult to sell if buyers are aware of the intention to regenerate areas. This policy needs to be more precise in terms of identifying the areas that might be impacted than shown in Figure 6.1.
2. Policy SPS3 should state the Council’s intentions regarding the shop units in Festival Place and whether they are seen as potential for housing conversions. What is, for example, the Council’s intention towards the old Debenhams store, and is the top floor of shops being deliberately kept with low occupancy rates for this purpose?
3. Policy SPS4 does not state whether the Council’s plan is still to sever Churchill Way. This should be clarified.
4. Para 6.28 refers to Churchill Way not having development above it. Does this mean that it is Council policy to remove the car parking spaces that currently cross this road? This needs to be clarified.
5. Policy SPS5.3, speaks of creating an attractive gateway to Basingstoke. I believe he Local Plan would benefit from a policy that speaks of outward appearances as well as layouts as part of the approvals process. This would give the Development Control committee increased powers to insist on developments that met its criteria for being attractive.and appropriate for a location
6. Policy SPS5.4 et al. The Local Plan indicates 18,000 homes will be built to the west of Basingstoke, the traffic for which will be expected to use existing routes into town such as the A30, the B3400 Worting Road and the A339. There is no mention of a new north-south link for general traffic, and this is an omission. The draft local plan speaks of a new railway crossing to provide active travel and public transport connectivity to North Manydown, but speaks only of ‘active travel’, which I take to mean walking and cycling. Later (para 6.69) it gives the impression that the object is to avoid providing a through route for general traffic. So, if the thinking is that the crossing of the railway line will be only for pedestrian and cycling, I feel that will be insufficient for the pressures that will be generated.
7. Without a general use facility, there will excess use of the Kempshott Lane / Buckskin Lane corridor, congestion caused by the railway bridge on the Roman Road, and increased use of the motorway for short-distance commuting.
8. Para 6.71 speaks of a parking strategy. The Council must bear in mind that when parking spaces were restricted by law in the past, the car did not go away. Instead great tension between neighbours was created by drivers leaving their cars in positions that caused difficulty for others.
9. Policy SPS5.5, Popham Garden Village is, in my opinion, currently unsustainable, being too far removed from existing developments and supporting infrastructure. It will invite ribbon development, infilling between Basingstoke and its location, and also open up this, till now, undeveloped part of central Hampshire. If the opening up of central Hampshire is the objective, it should be stated and agreed with neighbouring Councils.
10. Para 6.87 should acknowledge that 3,000 homes on Popham Airfield is too few to sustain a secondary school and that pupils will need to travel to Basingstoke or Andover.
11. Policy SPS10, Oakdown Farm, continues to speak of this location being used for warehousing. Two applications for warehousing on this site have been turned down and a third is pending consideration. A better use would be for a science park to complement the preferred site for the new hospital opposite. The warehouse application will make for an unattractive gateway to the town.
12. Para 6.203 speaks of an Economic Needs Assessment evaluation of a need for 99,000 sqm of warehousing space needed over the plan period. Such buildings could be provided in a less obtrusive position and the ENA may be wrong. There is already a surfeit of unfilled warehousing jobs in Basingstoke, which can bee seen by any spot check for warehousing jobs on the recruitment websites.
13. Para 6.206 refers to the need for a Transport Assessment and Travel Plan. This should recognise that the traffic generated by warehouses will be in addition to the 18,000 homes planned for the west of Basingstoke and the impact on the A30.
14. Policy SPS12, Chineham Railway Station would not necessarily be served only by the Basingstoke to Reading stopping service. It could be that future services would see some trains stopping at Chineham but not Basingstoke, thereby reducing the amount of commuting into Basingstoke town centre and reducing traffic there. It should also be remembered that some services using the Reading line also access stations to the south of Basingstoke. It would be better to think of a new station at Chineham as ‘Basingstoke East’ and maximise its use that way.