Word Version for Download

HEADLEY  PARISH  COUNCIL

Minutes of the Extra-ordinary Meeting of the FULL COUNCIL held on Monday 21 March 2011 at 8.00pm in the Village Hall, Arford Road, Headley.

Present:   Cllr A Williams (Chairman), Cllr D Chamberlain (Vice-Chairman),

                 Cllr J Grevatt, Cllr M Roffe, Cllr A Luff, Cllr R Clifford, Cllr R Stubbings,

                 Cllr J Truelove, Cllr D Tregay, Cllr G Hopwood and Cllr R Priestley.

Also Present:  Miss K Knowles (Parish Clerk), Mr R Seargent and a member of the public.

C159/10   APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

No apologies were received.

C160/10 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

There were no declarations of interest.

C161/10 WHITEHILL BORDON ECO-TOWN - DRAFT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENTAND EMPLOYMENT STRATEGY

Members thanked Cllr Williams for preparing a draft response to the draft Economic Development and Employment Strategy for consideration.

             a) After discussion it was RESOLVED to approve following amendments to the draft paper:

Section 2 – Overview Q2.2, Para 2.5 – Insert “No reason has been given as to      the boundary for the Strategy being different to that of the Eco-Town Masterplan Area”.

            Section 6 – Strategic Opportunities Q6.1 – Insert “We would trust that the          release of land for housing and land for employment are kept in balance and therefore land for housing should not be released until employment developments are built”.

            b) It was RESOLVED to approve the final comments to be submitted on behalf   of Headley Parish Council and are attached herewith.

There being no further business the meeting closed at 8.13pm.

Signed……………………………………………………………………..date…………………

HEADLEY PARISH COUNCIL’S COMMENTS ON THE WHITEHILL BORDON ECO-TOWN

Draft Economic Development and Employment Strategy February 2011

SECTION 1 – PURPOSE

Q1.1    The strategy is clear, and ambitious.  The employment aspirations are welcomed, provided that all other supporting infrastructure is in place.

Q1.2    As so much of the Strategy is dependent on (a) whether the Army relocates, (b) how much MOD land is released, (c) the zoning of the land released, divided between employment, housing and open space uses, (d) environmental restrictions, and (e) the timing of the release of land, it is difficult to suggest improvements at this stage.

SECTION 2 – OVERVIEW

Q2.1    The overview is very brief.  This is not a problem for readers who know the town and its immediate surroundings, but needs additional information for individuals and consultees from further afield.

Q2.2    Suggested information to be included are:

Para 2.2 to mention the two trading estates, and retail employment – there are not many orchards in the town.

            Para 2.3.  The A325 should be described as linking with the A3 to the south of the town, and Farnham, Aldershot, and the A31 and Blackwater Valley route to the north.

            Para 2.4.  Alton station is to the west of the town, Bentley station is to the north (and nearer than Alton station).

            Para 2.5.  The strategy determines the town by its five wards, plus Lindford Parish.  Other Masterplan maps stress the Eco-Town boundary as being delineated within the yellow circular boundary.  No reason has been given as to the boundary for the Strategy being different to that of the Eco-Town Masterplan Area.

            No mention is made of the satellite villages and parishes around Whitehill Parish which are featured in the Masterplan.

SECTION 3 – DATA SOURCES

Q3.1    We presume that data from District, Town and County Council Sources have been used, plus 2001 census information, and from Job Centre statistics.

SECTION 4 – PREVIOUS STUDIES

We are unable to comment upon the five studies outlined, dealing with employment issues, should the Army relocate, and the MOD release of land for housing and employment, etc.

SECTION 5 – PRINCIPAL ISSUES

Q5.1    From sub paragraph 5.4 onwards, the town is referred to as Whitehill Bordon, whereas in paragraphs 5.1 – 5.3 it is referred to as the Eco-Town.  There should be consistency in description.  We would ask whether a small release of MOD land, sufficient for say 1,000 new dwellings/1,000 new jobs, would still be described as an Eco-Town?  Para 5.14 – Infrastructure, should mention the poor (and dangerous) road system, both the A325 which is not planned to be improved if the Eco-Town goes ahead nor the local roads radiating from Whitehill Bordon.  The number of fatalities on the A325, and surrounding roads, in the last ten years has been totally unacceptable – and yet no road improvements have been made, or are proposed in the Masterplan.  New employment providers will not choose Bordon to relocate to unless the highway system is improved – there are too many alternative sites with good road access.

Q5.2    In the Economic overview, no mention is made of the nature of the employment enjoyed by the current residents of Whitehill Bordon who outcommute.  Many are believed to work in the construction industry either as self-employed sub-contractors, or employees.  (a) They are likely to be affected by the Global downturn, and (b) will they be able to find employment WITHIN the new town of Whitehill Bordon – hopefully they will.

SECTION 6 – STRATEGIC OPPORTUNITIES

Q6.1    The ambitious plan for developing the local economy is welcomed, BUT (Q6.2) the difficulty is combining the 12 suggested elements with (a) the need to reduce car and road transport dependency (as outlined in the Eco-Town vision), when so many of the 12 proposals will involve increased travel for employment, transport of goods, and leisure, which will (b) not be possible, or sustainable, with the present sub-standard road layout.  It is no use (Para 2.1) stating that the enlarged Whitehill Bordon will be bigger than the ancient towns of Alton or Petersfield, as they are both served by rail, and the A31 and A3 respectively.  Although the long awaited Transport Survey has not been published, the road infrastructure of the A325, and the surrounding minor roads, must be addressed or the town and surrounding villages will suffer as a result.  The proposal to transfer local government services to Whitehill Bordon (Element 6) is warmly supported.  Such a move would kickstart a Business Park – a truly ‘exemplar’ move.  We would trust that the release of land for housing and land for employment are kept in balance and therefore land for housing should not be released until employment developments are built.

SECTION 7 – PRIORITY ACTIONS

Q7.1    The six themes present a virtual cornucopia of employment opportunities.  Perhaps the Education, Skills and Training theme is the most important, as Whitehill Bordon, and the surrounding villages, suffer from poor transport links to training and higher education facilities.  Many of the ‘Actions’ are a wish list of possible future opportunities – which in a capitalist economy will only be achieved if the prospective employer actually spends its own money in relocating to Whitehill Bordon.  As Viking Park has demonstrated, mere provision of developable land does not guarantee a factory or cinema.  However, the choice of actions listed is to be commended – infrastructure permitting, although C5 “major forest holiday destination” may be controversial!

SECTION 8 – FUNDING

            The funding section is one that the Parish Council has no expertise of – however we note that mention is not made of grants available from the waste disposal levy.  In view of the number of worked out sandpits in Whitehill Bordon, Headley and Kingsley, we would hope that grants from this levy would be available – unless it is covered by the “Carbon Trusts Grants” heading.  We would also mention that there is local concern, from BAAG, as well as individuals, as to how the £10 million Eco-Town grant is being expended.  We trust that annual Accounts of expenditure from this Central Government Grant will be published.

SECTION 9 – CONSULTATION AND EVALUATION

            No member of Headley Parish Council is a member of the Delivery Board, however the press reports of the first meeting of the Board were somewhat critical.  We note the fourteen    “Possible Economic Performance Indicators”, included 9.4/10 “Leverage of external funding as         a direct result of partner intervention”!  We trust that monitoring of these fourteen indicators will be sufficient.

SECTION 10 – RECOMMENDATIONS

            We have no further comments upon the 12 elements in Section 5, nor the six priority themes in Section 7.  We agree with the Q10.3 recommendation that the Strategy should be regularly     reviewed and adapted to meet new opportunities, and Q10.4 that socio-economic indicators may need to be further developed – but both principles are on the basis that the Army will vacate the Bordon Garrison, and that the MOD Estates will release land as outlined in the Masterplan.

Headley Parish Council

21^st March 2011