Independent facilitator's report

2. METHOD Â

Whitehill Bordon Eco-town Neighbourhood engagement programme, autumn 2011 Independent facilitators’ report Biljana Savic, Enabling Places Caroline Fraser, Fraser Architects

24 January 2012

PETERSFIELD

Whitehill Bordon Eco-town neighbourhood engagement programme Independent facilitators’ report January 2012

INTRODUCTION This report provides a summary of the responses and views gathered during eleven public and stakeholder events on the Whitehill Bordon Eco-town Masterplan held in October and November 2011. The summary is based on the event notes and observations by Biljana Savic and Caroline Fraser, who provided independent facilitation and chairing of the events.

The report also includes the independent facilitators’ general observations regarding this engagement programme and recommendations to the Whitehill Bordon Project Team related to future community engagement.

The report should be read in conjunction with the main engagement programme report produced by the Project Team.

The views expressed in this report are those of Biljana Savic and Caroline Fraser and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Whitehill Bordon Project Team / East Hampshire District Council or their project partners.

Report structure This report is structured in three sections as follows: Section 1 - An introduction into the engagement programme in autumn 2011, the nature and aim of the events, and the independent facilitators’ role Section 2 - A summary of the key issues at ten community events and a stakeholder meeting, as recorded by the independent facilitators - Comments and recommendations to the Project Team and Delivery Board related to: o The next revision of the masterplan o The nature and focus of future public engagement events Section 3 – Appendices A. Standard agenda for the public engagement events B. Independent chairs’ notes of the public engagement events in the Whitehill Bordon area C. Independent chairs’ notes of the public engagement events in the villages surrounding Whitehill Bordon D. Agenda for the stakeholder event on 16 November 2011 E. Independent chairs’ notes of the stakeholder engagement event

Page 2

Whitehill Bordon Eco-town neighbourhood engagement programme Independent facilitators’ report January 2012

1.

BACKGROUND

1.1 The Eco-town project Work to develop the Whitehill Bordon Eco-town project has been ongoing since 2008. The project is managed by East Hampshire District Council (EHDC), and is a partnership between all levels of the local government, Whitehill Town Partnership, the Ministry of Defence (MoD) and the Homes and Communities Agency (HCA).

The project vision is for a whole town regeneration of the existing housing, improved new facilities, a new town centre, more employment and approximately 4,000 new eco-homes. In summer 2011 it was announced that the MoD garrison in Bordon would definitely close and that the MoD would vacate the town by 2015. The project aims to plan for the regeneration of Whitehill Bordon guided by the Eco-town Vision and to redress the high loss of MoD jobs by introducing new employment opportunities.

Timeline The Whitehill Bordon Draft Framework Masterplan (the masterplan) was prepared by consultants AECOM in mid 2010, following a year-long process of public engagement and expert studies. It was adopted as a material consideration by EHDC in December 2010. The masterplan is a strategic framework document, which is currently evolving. The next version of the masterplan will be produced in spring 2012.

Following the public consultations in 2010, the Whitehill Bordon Project Team commissioned a number of additional, specialist studies for the evidence base, including: • Green Infrastructure Strategy • Habitats Regulations Assessment • Water Cycle Study • Energy Feasibility Study • Retail Impact Assessment • Viking Park Design and Feasibility Study • Economic Development and Employment Strategy • Whitehill Bordon Transport Strategy • Transport Model and Transport Assessment • Rail Feasibility Study These studies were completed by the end of summer 2011. The next version of the masterplan is to take on board responses from the consultations in late 2010 and autumn 2011, as well as reflect the findings of the specialist studies and recent changes in planning legislation.

1.2 Neighbourhood engagement programme, autumn 2011 The Whitehill Bordon Eco-town Project Team organised a programme of events in autumn 2011 in order to involve local residents and stakeholders in the current stage of the project.

Page 3

Whitehill Bordon Eco-town neighbourhood engagement programme Independent facilitators’ report January 2012

The purpose of the events was to: - present the findings of the recent specialist studies - get comments and views on a set of changes to the masterplan proposed by the Project Team in response to the specialist studies and previous community and stakeholder consultations - identify neighbourhood priorities for the core wards within the Whitehill Bordon Eco-town, for consideration and potential inclusion in the next phase of the project Ten public and one stakeholder engagement event took place in the period from 03 October to 23 November 2011. Of the ten public events, five were held in the inner wards of the Whitehill Bordon Eco-town Policy Zone, and another five in the surrounding villages, as listed in the table below. Discussion was broad across the eleven events, with participants giving their comments during the formal and informal sessions, as detailed in the following section of the report.

Area name Whitehill Deadwater

Surrounding the Policy Zone

In the Policy Zone

Whitehill Pinewood Whitehill Chase, Walldown Lindford Whitehill Hogmoor Blackmoor, Selborne, Oakhanger The Hangers and Forest Kingsley, Sleaford Headley Hollywater, Standford, Passfield Stakeholder event

Event date Monday, 03 Oct 5-8 PM Thursday, 06 Oct 5-8 PM Monday, 10 Oct 5-8 PM Friday, 14 Oct 5-8 PM Monday, 17 Oct 5-8 PM Tuesday, 18 Oct 5-8 PM Wednesday, 26 Oct 5-8 PM Wednesday, 02 Nov 5-8 PM Friday, 11 Nov 5-8 PM Wednesday, 23 Nov 5-8 PM Wednesday, 16 Nov 9:30 AM – 1:30 PM

Venue Forest Community Centre Pinewood Village Hall

Chaired by C Fraser

Forest Community Centre Lindford Village Hall

C Fraser

Forest Community Centre Blackmoor Village Hall

C Fraser

Greatham Village hall

C Fraser

The Kingsley Centre

B Savic

Headley Village Hall

C Fraser

Standford Hill Methodist Church Forest Community Centre

C Fraser

B Savic

B Savic

B Savic

B Savic

The Project Team organised pre-meetings with each ward’s councillors to prepare for the public engagement events.

The events were advertised by the Project Team using multiple channels - approximately 10,000 fliers were sent out to homes and businesses in the GU35 post code area and distributed to key buildings in surrounding villages. In addition the Team organised press releases, radio, TV and internet coverage and social media updates.

Page 4

Whitehill Bordon Eco-town neighbourhood engagement programme Independent facilitators’ report January 2012

As well as the eleven events mentioned above, the Project Team also ran two Saturday morning public drop-in exhibition events at the Tesco supermarket and the Forest Shopping Centre in Bordon. Two weekday drop-in sessions were organised at Bordon Library and the exhibition and studies were available for viewing at the Bordon Fire Station on Mondays, Wednesdays and Thursdays throughout October.

1.3 Structure of the events Public engagement events All public engagement events chaired and facilitated by Biljana Savic and Caroline Fraser took place in the early evening from 5pm to 8pm, in a variety of local community venues. The venues and the dates for the events were arranged by the Project Team, in response to the requests by the local residents and businesses, local councillors, availability and capacity of venues, as well as the desire to cover all areas within and in the immediate surroundings of Whitehill Bordon, and make it possible for the majority of local people to walk to the events.

The length of the events was guided by the desire to gather as much feedback / have a dialogue with as many attendees as possible during the event whilst not imposing too much on people’s free time.

The events were open to the public and not restricted to residents of a particular area. The residents were encouraged to attend the event nearest to where they live or work. There was a participatory group workshop during the event which focused on discussing facilities and ideas to improve individual local neighbourhoods.

Reference copies of the masterplan and all accompanying specialist studies were available at each event. Contact details for where this information could be obtained afterwards were also provided. An exhibition summarising the results of the specialist studies and the proposed changes to the masterplan was displayed at each event, and the same information was available on the Eco-town’s website (www.whitehillbordon.com).

Each event started with an informal one hour drop-in session (5-6pm), which allowed people with limited time to come along whenever they could. This was an opportunity for attendees to view the exhibition of the current proposals for Whitehill Bordon Eco-town masterplan.

They could discuss the project one to one with the facilitators and have their say on the proposed changes to the masterplan by filling in the event questionnaire.

From 6pm to 6.30pm there was a formal plenary slide show presentation by the Project Team, followed by a question and answer session. The presentation included an overview of: • the previous consultations and concerns raised • the main findings of recently completed studies • the proposed amendments to the masterplan This was followed by a workshop session (6.30pm to 7.45pm). Groups of one facilitator and up to eight residents sat around tables with maps of the area, the proposed masterplan and writing and drawing equipment. The workshop was to identify important issues in each resident’s local neighbourhood - improvements they would like to see as part of the Eco-town development, and also things they might be concerned about generally and would like to be Page 5

Whitehill Bordon Eco-town neighbourhood engagement programme Independent facilitators’ report January 2012

addressed. Participants were asked to focus on their priorities, and to be as specific as possible.

Group work was included in the programme to give everyone, not just the most vocal participants, an opportunity to express their views. Local residents and businesses had the chance to meet each other and to discuss and prioritise their ideas and suggestions together.

The aim was not only to arrive at an agreed set of priorities but to illustrate the complexity involved in balancing the needs and views of all, which is the essence of masterplanning, and in bringing the new development and improvements forward.

At a number of events the group workshop started with a ten minute warm up. Each facilitator introduced their table to a couple of fictitious characters, and asked each person to imagine they were one or the other of them and to suggest one improvement to the local area that character would want as part of the new Eco-town development. These proposals were then discussed around the table. The activity broke the ice and encouraged participants to think about issues from different points of view. It also reminded participants that the Ecotown is a long term project that would not be finished for twenty or so years, and would be lived in by thousands of new residents.

For the main workshop activity each person was asked to provide up to five ideas for improvements in their local area on post its. Participants referred to the maps of their local area and the post it activity ensured each person contributed their own ideas. They were then guided by their facilitator on how to group these ideas and have a discussion around the table about issues raised. The table discussions were lively, and the group facilitator made sure everyone had the chance to speak. Each table then agreed which three of the suggested improvements would be most worthwhile and reported them back to the plenary.

The chair summed up the workshop findings to close the formal part of the event. There was then about 15 minutes left in the venue for attendees to have informal discussions, view the exhibition boards and fill in their event questionnaires. This extra time was well-used; attendees often stayed in their groups and continued discussing the future of their town.

In four out of the ten public engagement events, no group workshop occurred due to a long list of questions that attendees put forward and/or the preference expressed by the attendees to replace the workshop with a longer plenary Q&A. See the report Appendices for the standard agenda and notes of each event.

Stakeholder engagement event In addition to the ten public engagement events, a stakeholder event was held on 16 November 2011 at the Forest Community Centre. Attendees for this event included local authority officers and members, representatives of public sector national and local organisations, schools and colleges, third sector, community associations, theatre and private sector consultants. Most attendees were familiar with the work undertaken by the specialist groups and the commissioned studies in their area of expertise.

The event provided a unique opportunity for a large group of stakeholders to meet each other and the Whitehill Bordon Project Team. They got a project progress update and discussed Page 6

Whitehill Bordon Eco-town neighbourhood engagement programme Independent facilitators’ report January 2012

ideas, issues and next steps in groups and plenary. See the report Appendices for the agenda and notes of the stakeholder engagement event.

1.4 Recording feedback After each of the eleven events, the Whitehill Bordon Project Team typed up all the gathered feedback. This information is a detailed and valuable record of each attendee’s comments.

The feedback will be fed into the next stage of the project development.

The Project Team will produce a summary of the comments received, and a report will be available in early 2012.

1.5 Independent facilitators’ appointment Biljana Savic and Caroline Fraser were appointed to provide independent chairing and facilitation services for the ten public and one stakeholder event. They were commissioned to: • provide input to the engagement programme • help develop the events’ agenda and brief for the group facilitators • chair the events, making sure that: o attendees understand the relevance and purpose of events o the discussion is focused on relevant issues o events are kept to a tight time schedule • brief the group facilitators before the start of each event • provide a verbal summary of responses and key themes at the end of each event • provide a brief written report Biljana and Caroline are built environment professionals with extensive experience of working on complex architectural, urban design and spatial planning projects, as client and stakeholder advisors. They work for private, public and third sector clients. Through their past work as senior members of staff at the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE) they have supported many local authorities, and public design and development projects. They develop training and engagement programmes and are experienced event facilitators and chairs.

Page 7

Whitehill Bordon Eco-town neighbourhood engagement programme Independent facilitators’ report January 2012

2. SUMMARY OF KEY ISSUES FROM THE WORKSHOP SESSIONS This section of the independent facilitators’ report provides a summary of the key issues that came up at the question and answer and workshop sessions at the events they chaired. The summary is based solely on the independent facilitators’ own observations and event notes, which are available in the Appendices.

Sections 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3 below list the key issues for the inner wards, the surrounding villages and the stakeholders respectively.

2.1 Public engagement events in the Whitehill Bordon area The key issues from the workshops that took place in the inner wards of the Whitehill Bordon Eco-town Policy Zone are listed below.

Housing 1. New build eco-homes. Support for these to be well-designed. Questions about why the cost of the Eco-house reported in the local media is so high. Concern that the project’s high eco standards may not follow through from the masterplan to the detailed design and built housing and facilities. Requests that these standards are protected and monitored throughout the project stages.

2. Eco- refurbishment of existing homes. Worries over the cost of refurbishing the existing homes to eco-homes standards. Requests that the Eco-town Project Team prioritises and facilitates this work to existing homes.

3. Density. Concerns that the Eco-town will be too dense, lack green space and that its rural character will be eroded.

Town centre / retail 4. New town centre. Support for the proposed new town centre. The majority of residents were enthusiastic about new shops, services and leisure facilities, and the creation of a distinctive heart and civic presence for the town.

5. Proposed ASDA store. General agreement with the finding of the recent retail study commissioned by the Project Team about the negative impact of the proposed new ASDA store at Viking Park on the new town centre.

6. Existing retail in the town. Questions about the impact of the new town centre on the existing retail at the Forest Centre, which is generally seen as a very important local facility. Calls for a greater integration and connection between the new and existing town centres.

Employment 7. New jobs. Request for more information on how the Eco-town project creates 5,500 new jobs. Request that the jobs and infrastructure are established first, before the 4,000 new homes are built.

8. Existing employment space. Concerns about the impact of the new proposed employment uses on the existing employment spaces (e.g. Lindford industrial estate) some of which already underused.

Page 8

Whitehill Bordon Eco-town neighbourhood engagement programme Independent facilitators’ report January 2012

Transport 9. Linked sustainable transport routes. Calls for effective and convenient links (walking, cycling, public transport) between the existing and new parts of the town and the surrounding area to be established, including, for example, a shuttle bus to the proposed new railway station in the Eco-town, and/or to the existing railway stations at Liphook, Farnham and Haslemere.

10. Railway station. Mixed opinions on the need for a rail station in the town itself. Concerns over the high cost involved, hence requests for an efficient shuttle bus to the existing railway station at Liphook (as in item 9 above).

11. Proposed new relief road. The relief road generally seen as a positive measure but suggestions that the alignment shown in the masterplan would split the new development in two, hence calls for it to be moved to the western edge of the Eco-town instead.

12. A325 within the town. Calls for crossing over A325 throughout the town to be improved and noise from both A325 and Station Road reduced.

13. Walking and cycling. Support for the proposed focus on walking and cycling routes in the Eco-town. Suggestions to include charging points for electric bikes.

Community facilities 14. Neighbourhood facilities. Request that the project retains facilities within walking distance for existing residents, and specifically that the Forest Centre is retained and improved. Concerns that the new development will negatively affect the existing facilities and result in a ‘divided’ town.

15. Open spaces. Retain and enhance for community use all existing open spaces.

16. Education. Improve education facilities, including linking education to careers, employment and Higher Education research.

17. Children’s play facilities. New play facilities needed in existing neighbourhoods, not just in the new development.

18. Health services. Calls for a general hospital including A&E services to be provided.

Water, waste, energy 19. Sewage treatment. Questions about the impact of the enlarged sewage treatment plant on the adjoining residential areas of Lindford.

20. Energy. Questions about the implementation and management of sustainable energy production. Observations that Bordon currently suffers power cuts.

Town identity / character areas 21. Retention of existing buildings of merit. Calls for the retention and reuse of key garrison buildings which give the area its character. For example conversion of Louisburg Barracks buildings into residential use, not only commercial. Support for the project’s proposals to reuse Prince Philip Barracks, the focus of the new town centre.

22. The town’s green feel. Ensure the Eco-town retains its rural, green feel.

23. Neighbourhood identity. Calls to preserve and enhance the identity of existing neighbourhoods as distinctive parts of the town, particularly when new development arrives.

Page 9

Whitehill Bordon Eco-town neighbourhood engagement programme Independent facilitators’ report January 2012

The masterplan 24. Next version of the masterplan. Requests for the next version of the masterplan to be more detailed and developed urgently, in order to understand the latest changes proposed by the Project Team and generally better understand how the local people’s concerns expressed during all consultations to date have been addressed. For example to investigate in more detail housing layouts, open spaces, non-vehicular routes, streets and civic spaces.

25. Communicating the proposals through visual materials. With reference to the exhibition panels on display at the events, requests for the proposed changes to the masterplan to be communicated through drawings, not just text. Also requests for three dimensional drawings and examples/photographs of comparable existing places, e.g. related to the type, volume and density of housing.

2.2 Public engagement events in the villages surrounding Whitehill Bordon The key issues from the five events that took place in the villages surrounding the Whitehill Bordon Eco-town Policy Zone are listed below.

Housing 26. New population profile. Request for more information on who will live in the 4,000 new eco-homes.

27. Demand for new homes. Concerns over the slow take up of recently completed homes in the area (quoted example in Lindford) and whether there will be sufficient demand for the proposed number of new homes in the Eco-town.

28. Affordability. Questions about the affordability of new homes, particularly for young people, and whether it would be possible to build eco-houses at an affordable price, especially given the current economic crisis.

29. Self-build/commissioned housing. Suggestions to include self-build/self-commissioned housing in the masterplan, as a solution for providing more affordable homes.

Employment 30. Financial incentives for businesses. Statements about the importance of attracting new businesses to the area in advance of housing and calls for financial incentives to be provided in order to do so.

31. Addressing the current unemployment level. Concerns over the high number of unemployed people in the area, hence calls for the Eco-town project to deliver even more jobs than the proposed 5,500, in order to provide jobs for the existing, not just the new population.

Transport/traffic 32. Road traffic. Statements about the existing problems in the surrounding villages, mainly road congestion at peak times and speeding traffic outside of peak times. Existing narrow country roads are unable to cope with current traffic. Widespread concern that the Eco-town project would increase this problem.

Page 10

Whitehill Bordon Eco-town neighbourhood engagement programme Independent facilitators’ report January 2012

33. Traffic measures to be implemented as part of the Eco-town project. Requests for more information (including timing) on what traffic measures the Eco-town project may or may not deliver outside the Eco-town Policy Zone.

34. Construction traffic. Concerns over the amount of traffic that will be generated by construction over so many years and calls for more work to be done to plan properly for this.

35. Traffic model. Difficulties in understanding technical issues related to how the forecasts were generated using the traffic model, hence some scepticism over their validity.

36. Parking. Questions about the proposed number of cars per household in the Eco-town and whether the assumed modal shift is achievable.

37. New rail link via Bentley. Mixed views on the new rail link. Concerns over its cost, the likely frequency of service and convenience of connection to the existing mainline services. Suggestions that passengers commuting to London might prefer the existing fast and relatively frequent Portsmouth-London rail service via Liphook, rather than the proposed route via Bentley.

38. Public transport. Requests for improved bus service to Liphook station, shops in Bordon and to the local schools. Complaints that the previous school buses had recently been cancelled.

39. Walking, cycling and riding. Observations that non-vehicular transport should be encouraged in an Eco-town. Interest in where new walking, cycling and riding routes would be, and that they connect the surrounding villages. Concerns that walking, cycling and riding are already dangerous on local roads because of the speed of vehicles, and calls for action to be taken to solve this problem.

Community facilities 40. Standford Grange Farm. Request for more information on options for the future of the farm. General disagreement with the Eco-town project’s current proposals for the farm to remain as a working farm, but be opened up for public access. However, mixed opinions on future use - some requests to remove it from the project altogether, others interested to get involved with an options appraisal exercise.

41. Existing village facilities. General concerns that the new development will negatively affect existing facilities.

Water, waste, energy 42. Water provision and availability. Request that the Eco-town project demonstrates more fully its water provision and usage strategy. Concern as existing community already suffers occasional water shortages.

43. Sewage treatment. Request for more information on sewage treatment in the Eco-town project.

Area character 44. New railway link. Requests for the visual impact of the proposed new railway link into the town to be assessed, particularly if it runs on an embankment.

45. Distinct nature of each village. Requests for the existing character of the villages to be enhanced / protected against any adverse impact of the Eco-town.

Page 11

Whitehill Bordon Eco-town neighbourhood engagement programme Independent facilitators’ report January 2012

2.3 Stakeholder engagement event The key issues from the stakeholder event are listed below.

1. Local facilities for local people. More services, shops, jobs and homes need to be provided locally, for local people – this is indicating a strong preference for self-reliance, self-sufficiency, which is a fundamental principle of an Eco-town.

2. Choice. Increase the range of shops, homes, jobs in the town.

3. Delivery. “A clear pathway” is needed for delivery, at least for the first five years. A more detailed phasing plan is needed, including an assessment of the impact of phasing on security, traffic, and maintaining the balance between jobs and housing.

4. Involvement of landowners. More intensive and proactive involvement of landowners in developing a more detailed delivery plan is important.

5. Leadership. Strong leadership is essential to make plans happen on the ground.

6. Design. It is essential to protect the high design quality and eco standards promoted by the masterplan through all stages of the project to construction.

7. The town’s identity and Unique Selling Point (USP). The Eco-town needs a distinct identity, and a fresh way to communicate that identity and its USP to the existing community and to the people and businesses interested in relocating to it.

2.4 Additional general comments from attendees at events in the Whitehill Bordon area and the surrounding villages.

1. Events publicity. Complaints about some households not receiving publicity about the events, including that none of the GU30 post code had received flyers.

2. Events timing. Complaints about the timing of the events not suitable for commuters who may not be back from work before 7pm.

2.5 Commentary and recommendations from the independent facilitators to the Whitehill Bordon Delivery Board and Project Team The independent facilitators have the following comments on the key issues raised at the events and recommendations for future work on the Eco-town project.

1. General views regarding the Eco-town proposals The events illustrated that there is broad support for the Eco-town principles within the Policy Zone. While the discussions in the Policy Zone were wide ranging and constructive, there were generally more negative comments in the surrounding villages, with people principally worried about the impact of the Eco-town on their area. Following are the independent facilitators’ views as to the potential causes of this difference and the related recommendations to the Project Team and the Delivery Board.

Nature and location of events. The project team organised this round of events in local venues specifically in response to the requests from councillors and residents (as explained in section 1), so that local people could discuss improvements to their local neighbourhood that could be implemented as part of the Eco-town project. However, this approach resulted in the discussion at some of the events, particularly in the surrounding villages, being dominated by one or two local issues. There was a distinctly different tone of discussion at the events inside the Policy Zone and those outside it. It may be worth Page 12

Whitehill Bordon Eco-town neighbourhood engagement programme Independent facilitators’ report January 2012

bringing together the residents of the Whitehill Bordon wards and those of the surrounding villages so that a balanced and more constructive discussion can be had at future engagement events.

Communicate project scope. Much of the negativity in the surrounding villages is related to existing, particularly traffic-related, issues and an inadequate understanding of the Project Team’s remit / the masterplan’s scope. The Eco-town masterplan deals with the impact the new development might have on the surrounding area, with much effort put by the Project Team and their consultants in their recent and ongoing work into making sure the impact is minimised and addressed through mitigation measures. However, addressing many of the current problems mentioned at the events in the surrounding villages goes beyond their remit. It is therefore suggested that all the Eco-town delivery partners (principally through the Delivery Board) continue to communicate clearly the Eco-town project’s scope and the Project Team’s powers regarding the improvements outside the Policy Zone and work with those whose role is to address these concerns in order to allow the Eco-town project to move forward. For example an effective and immediate engagement by Hampshire County Council (HCC) transport team and implementation of traffic management measures in the surrounding villages would deal with the existing traffic problems and enable a more effective and constructive discussion with the villages about the Eco-town project.

2. Local involvement and ownership Neighbourhood events showed that Whitehill Bordon residents are passionate about their town and ‘revealed’ some new community champions (e.g. related to the efforts to retain the recently closed pub as a community facility in Lindford). Many local residents, particularly in the wards within the Policy Zone, came up with interesting design ideas and concepts for the next version of the masterplan. They all represent a valuable local resource. The Project Team should continue to nurture community relationships via these representatives and/or encourage them to get involved in the work of specialist groups and the development of the next version of the masterplan. It was also clear at some of the events in the Whitehill Bordon area (e.g. in the areas with low attendance at events) that engaging people more actively may require a bit of encouragement and perseverance. Once a relationship is established, people may be more inclined towards more actively participating in the development of the masterplan, as illustrated by some of the autumn 2011 events. It is important therefore that there is an effective follow up by the Project Team to the autumn 2011 events and a continuous communication and engagement strategy throughout the future phases of the project.

3. Events publicity and timing As previously mentioned there were several complaints about households not receiving events publicity (particularly in the surrounding villages) and the timing of the neighbourhood events. The Project Team aimed to achieve widespread publicity of the events using different media and supplemented evening events by weekend exhibitions and surgeries at Tesco and the Forest Centre, as well as weekday surgeries at the Fire Station, as detailed in section 1 of this report. It is suggested that even though most of the complaints by residents about these aspects of the 2011 engagement programme can not be justified, further improvements could be achieved by the Project Team by Page 13

Whitehill Bordon Eco-town neighbourhood engagement programme Independent facilitators’ report January 2012

promoting any future engagement events through existing community groups, schools, posters at key shops and outside the venues, in addition to the communication methods used to date. Also the Team might consider organising a greater portion of events either during weekends or slightly later in the evening (e.g. 7-9pm).

4. Communicating the design proposals and findings of technical studies There were several comments related to the nature of the proposed development and the way the information about the design and specialist studies has been communicated, for example the nature of visual material used to show whether the Eco-town will retain a green character, what the areas of different densities will look like etc. It is suggested that these concerns can be tackled through continued engagement of local communities in the next design stage (see point 6 below) and the use of visual, particularly 3D, materials and relevant comparable examples of other places with a variety of development densities and ways of integrating green space.

5. Building on previous community engagement Several comments were made during the events about the need to urgently develop the next version of the masterplan, to show in more detail the proposed changes and clearly illustrate how the comments and ideas provided at the engagement events were addressed. It is also clear that it is very important for the results of this round of consultation to feed not only into the next version of the masterplan but any associated specialist studies too - e.g. the ongoing transport/traffic management study commissioned by HCC. 6. The nature of the design process Some of the negative comments at the public events may be related to the nature of the design process and the (perceived or actual) role the community has had in it. It is suggested that a constructive contribution by the community in the next phase of the masterplan, a greater feeling of ownership over its results and a better understanding of the interconnected, multi-disciplinary nature of the design process may be encouraged by adopting innovative approaches to design development through participatory workshops.

This implies the development of design proposals during a workshop (or a series of workshops) with the direct and active engagement of communities and stakeholders in their evolution alongside the technical/design team. In this way the community and stakeholder feedback is instant, design changes visible and the process proactive, rather than reactive.

7. Ensuring delivery of design quality and eco-standards It is clear from the events that local people strongly support the high design quality and eco-standards promoted by the masterplan. However many expressed their concerns over whether these aspirations will be delivered on the ground, due mainly to costs/viability, perceived lack of strategy for safeguarding design quality and ecostandards through delivery (i.e. if and when private developers take over the delivery) and concerns over whether the public sector financial support as well as political championing and leadership (at national and local level) can be sustained. Continuing effective leadership was highlighted at the stakeholder event on 16 November as an essential ingredient of success. To address these concerns it is suggested that a clear Page 14

Whitehill Bordon Eco-town neighbourhood engagement programme Independent facilitators’ report January 2012

and detailed delivery plan is developed by the project partners, including the establishment of, and funding for, design quality and eco-standards monitoring mechanisms. These may include design review, more detailed planning and design policies, development procurement briefs and selection processes.

Page 15