Page 1

Whitehill Bordon Delivery Board Meeting 15th March 2011 14:30 – Phoenix Theatre, Station Road, Bordon Present: John Walker Cllr Andrew Joy

(JW) (AJ)

Cllr Melville Kendal Daphne Gardner Kevin Bourner Cllr Adam Carew Richard Nelson Cllr Dr William Wain

(MK) (DG) (KB) (AC) (RN) (BW)

Also: Wendy Shillam Lydia Forbes-Manson Caroline Sayers Malcolm Perrins Simon Beach Mandar Puranik

(WS) (LFM) (CS) (MPe) (SJB) (MP)

Bruce Collinson


Sarah Allan


Tim Wall


Andrew Wilson


Interim Chairman Portfolio Holder for Whitehill Bordon East Hampshire District Council (EHDC) Hampshire County Council (HCC) EHDC (Project Director) Home and Communities Agency (HCA) Whitehill Town Council (WTC) MoD Defence Estates Whitehill Bordon Town Partnership

EHDC (Project Manager) EHDC (Communications & Marketing Officer) EHDC (Project Officer – Governance) EHDC (Theme Lead - Economic Development) EHDC (Project Coordinator) EHDC (Theme Lead – Planning and Urban Design) EHDC (Theme Lead – Sustainable Environment) EHDC (Theme Lead – Eco-Housing and Retrofitting) HCC (Team Leader Highways Development Planning) HCC (Strategy Manager, Passenger Transport Group)





Welcome and Introductions - Chairman All members of the Delivery Board introduced themselves. For the benefit of the members of the public, the Chairman introduced the role and purpose of the Delivery Board and reiterated the importance of input from the community.


Minutes of previous meeting and matters arising Minutes of the previous Delivery Board meeting were approved as accurate.


Additional Delivery Board representation (minute no. 4.1): In the previous Delivery Board meeting, some members of the Board felt strongly that there must be a local County Council representative and a local District Council representative, both from the Whitehill Bordon area, on the Delivery Board. It was agreed that the Chairman would write to the District and County Council Leaders on behalf of the Delivery Board with a request that they consider additional local representation on the Board. This work has now been done. The response received from the County Council Leader is that the County Council is satisfied with present representation and that no further representation on the Board is needed. The District Council responded by saying it would listen to advice from the Board. Following further discussions with local representatives the recommendation from the Chairman is that the Leader should be invited to nominate one further local representation from the District Council onto the Delivery Board, who must be focused on delivery of the project first and foremost. The Chairman will now write a further letter to the District Council requesting for an additional representative from Whitehill Bordon to be nominated onto the Delivery Board. Funding Strategy (minute no. 6): Future dates for new funding options need to be identified. This should be included in the autumn meeting as clarity on funding is only slowly becoming clearer. Year 2 funding (minute no. 10): Further update on the position for Year 2 funding from the Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG) was given. The District Council may be able to access further funding for the project, but the District Council must commit in principle to an early demonstration project on the confirmation of the MoD’s release of land. From the District Council’s point of view, the councillors are happy to agree this in principle, but only as part of a role out programme of the Eco-town Masterplan proposal and not in isolation. This early demonstration project will need to be mixed use on land to be released by Ministry of Defence (MoD). The site could be Quebec Barracks, but until confirmation has been received on the funding and on the land availability, no decision will be made. A question was raised about how funding for the Eco-town project officers will be achieved in the years ahead. There is a need to look at funding for the whole project including staffing. This would be incorporated in the Delivery Board project planning workshop scheduled for April.


Public Questions Questions were received from three members of the public. The Chairman read out the questions and answers. The questions and answers are appended to these notes. (Appendix 1.)




Verbal update from Ministry of Defence On 15th February, a meeting between EHDC and MoD was held. The Deputy Chief Executive of Defence Estates explained the process being undertaken within the MOD to enable an announcement to be made regarding the future. This has taken shape in the form of the Defence Technical Training Change Programme. This work regarding Bordon is ongoing and currently running to programme with results expected in the spring/early summer. It is anticipated that when a decision is made regarding Bordon Garrison it will incorporate the entirety of the site, including Hogmoor Inclosure. Presently the Hogmoor Inclosure is a Site of Importance to Nature Conservation (SINC). In the future it may be suitable as a Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANG). It was discussed/ recommended that further surveys of the site were carried out for information and to enable well informed decisions to be made. This work will be incorporated into the work of the Sustainable Environment Specialist Group. The Habitat Regulation Assessment (HRA) and Green Infrastructure (GI) focus group are already aware of the need for this work.


Outcome of first meetings of the Specialist Groups The Chairman introduced a report on the outputs of the Specialist Groups which is work in progress and is for the Delivery Board to give guidance. It was felt important that the project team’s Theme Lead, Chair and Vice Chair of each group maintain strong liaison. In each Delivery Board meeting, the Chair or Vice Chair can give an update on the work of the group. A common format for showing priorities needs to be developed which shows what work needs to be done giving target dates, why, and what resources are available for that work so that gaps can be identified. The Infrastructure Specialist Group has developed a good example of a format which it was agreed should be used as a template. Environment Specialist Group – Work areas have been identified into first, second and third priorities with two to three projects for each time period with additional cross cutting issues needing liaison across Specialist Groups. Some issues are waiting the outcome of reports due in May. The group will also focus on explicit target dates and resource needs and will incorporate into the minutes of the Delivery Board meeting. Community Specialist Group – May need to set up working groups but there are resource implications. Therefore the group needs a steer from the Delivery Board on what can be taken forwards. There are many cross cutting issues. These include: funding and marketing for leisure, sports strategy and green infrastructure due to motor sports, audit of existing community facilities and shared use of MoD facilities. Health provision also needs more work to see what health facilities may


or may not be needed, their management and location. Local GPs are invited to Specialist Group meetings and Chase Liaison committee could be better utilised although there are problems with the break-up of the Primary Care Trust (PCT). Other sectors of the community that need to be involved are religious and/ or faith groups and young people. Other facilities that need to be considered are provision of burial grounds. A cross-cutting issue that was raised following the Standing Conference was disability. The Managing Director of All Inclusive Disability Consultants CIC has written and offered his support. It was agreed that disability issues need to be included in the work of all Specialist Groups. Infrastructure Specialist Group – Some work being carried out by this group needs Year 2 funding. Some resources are not yet identified. The Specialist Group wasn’t dealing with education issues yet as it was felt the autumn would be the best time. There is an excellent cluster schools network that needs to be included in this group. A cross cutting area is the effect of traffic increase and the possible effect on Special Protected Areas (SPA). This will be incorporated into the Habitat Regulations Assessment (HRA). A question was raised whether each work area identified should have a sub-group. This is up to the Specialist Groups themselves. The Specialist Groups should organise the work as they see fit as being most efficient taking into account the resources that are available. If expert and/ or officer support is needed, then this needs to also be factored in. Economic Development Specialist Group – The Economic Development Strategy is cross-cutting and affects other Specialist Groups especially with the Infrastructure Specialist Group. The initial list of priorities has now been prioritised into short, medium and long term. It was pointed out that the Specialist Groups are not a group of specialists, but are formed from people with a specialist interest; therefore work needs to be done to identify what the groups can achieve and what support the Whitehill Bordon project group can give with their team of specialists. Housing Specialist Group – Housing is a cross-cutting issue. Consideration has to be given to housing types, sequencing, location and design. It is recognised that short term renting is different to long term residential needs along with the type of houses and where they are sited. Along with this is construction of the houses and materials used and encouraging local employment. It was recommended that this housing information needs to be presented in a way that shows what the project needs are, what resources are needed and when. This will help with identifying where the gaps are. The housing issue has been identified in the Masterplan. The Specialist Group can look at the Masterplan and make recommendations.


Chris Youngs

General comments – A consistent format for presenting the priorities needs to be used. The Infrastructure Specialist Group has a good template that could be circulated. This work also needs to show why a topic is a high priority. Five basic questions should always be asked in the process of prioritising work – who, what, when, why and how. Because resources are finite and there will be a different waiting on different things, a gateway process needs to be identified. This work can be included in the Delivery Board’s project planning workshop arranged for April. (Specialist group work plans received at time of writing minutes of Delivery Board meeting are attached as appendix 2.)


Arrangements for recruiting the permanent chairman for the Delivery Board The Project Director explained that the interim chairman, John Walker’s contract will expire this summer. When his contract was first written, it was expected a decision from MoD would have been confirmed by now. Without the confirmation from MoD, it was felt that the Board cannot recruit a permanent chairman. In light of this, the present chairman is willing to extend his contract into next year. There is still urgency. Even if the chairman’s contract is extended, the Delivery Board needs to agree the Job Description and Person Specification. (At this point, the interim Chairman left the room.) The Delivery Board recognises that it will be difficult to recruit a permanent chairman while there is no MoD decision, and agreed that the interim chairman’s contract should be extended. The MoD’s decision is expected by the summer recess. Therefore, the contract should be extended by at least three to six months beyond this taking the contract into next year, with a recommendation that the contract is actually renewed for one year. The impact of the MoD’s decision on the development of a Delivery Vehicle can be reviewed in December 2011, and will allow the Delivery Board to take advantage of John Walker’s wealth of experience. Renewal of the contract will need to follow EHDC’s procurement procedures and funding of the post is available through the Eco-town funding. The job description and person specification have already previously been circulated with many of the comments now added. Any further comments should be sent to the Project Director as soon as possible.


Transport model and rail feasibility study Tim Wall introduced the transport model. The transport model is now starting to test different scenarios. The Delivery Board noted the findings and these findings will be taken to the Specialist Group. The HRA work could affect the number of houses proposed; therefore a suggestion was made that the transport study should use a 3,000 or 3,500 figure as well as the 1,700, 4,000 and 5,300 options already being tested. However, this additional testing would be difficult to complete before the core strategy’s May 2011 deadline, and would incur



extra costs. A 3,000 or 3,500 figure would not be likely to provide a significant variation to the other test options being considered. Andrew Wilson introduced the rail feasibility study. There is no further update since the Standing Conference; therefore he focused on the recommendations and next steps. It was suggested that without the rail link, the Eco-town credentials would be very difficult to reconcile. If the town cannot have a rail link, this will be likely to have a knock on effect to the Economic Development work. The most viable rail link showing presently is travelling north to Bentley. It was considered that approximately one third of the community travel south, therefore the rail link may not tick all the boxes required for the Eco-town. This is an area that the Specialist Group will need to look at. The rail feasibility study that has recently completed is GRIP2. This is a gateway that has been successfully passed through. The next stage is GRIP3 which will have to be paid for with no guarantees of getting through. The funding for GRIP3 is available through Year 2 funding. GRIP3 will look into all aspects in more detail. This will include the ecological issues, operation costs and revenues. There are six GRIP stages in total. With each successful stage passed, the business case for accessing public funding for implementing rail in the town is strengthened. If we don’t allow this study to go ahead, we loose this opportunity. It is important to go ahead with this work taking other considerations into account. A question was raised that if this fails, do we look at other options? Heavy rail is the only viable option to take forwards; the other options considered, including light rail and bus rapid transit, do not establish a business case for private or public funding. This area does not have the necessary infrastructure (depot, rolling stock) for the light rail option. Light rail also works best where there are no cars. The infrastructure for heavy rail is already there; therefore we have to work with what we already have. The alternative option is to look at enhanced bus routes which run the risk of causing traffic jams for other cars. It should be noted that under any situation, the Eco-town proposals will require and include significant improvements in public transport. Because of the size of this issue, it may be worth considering holding a seminar for Delivery Board members on transport issues. The threshold for a ‘high’ value for money business case is a cost benefit ratio of two, and schemes which do not establish 'high' value for money are very unlikely to receive funding or support. The heavy rail option offered to take forwards has a ratio of 2.14. This figure is based on 5,300 houses. Using 4,000 housing figure, the ratio value falls to 1.5, below the business case scenario threshold. The heavy rail option being considered is for a rail line travelling north. Therefore road options are only available for travelling south, east or west. A question was raised whether this study meets the Eco-town requirements, credentials and targets. This is outside the rail study


piece of work. This would feed into the transport study work. The Delivery Board needs to give GRIP3 support.


Economic Development and Employment Strategy Consultation The Economic Development Theme Lead gave a brief introduction. The Delivery Board approved the development of the strategy during the December meeting. The strategy has now been developed, circulated and distributed. There have been media releases and a consultation workshop held on 23rd February. An update was given at the recent Standing Conference and comments will be received up to 28th March. The results will be carefully assessed and presented back to the Delivery Board in June. The economic development theme lead will be leaving the team at the end of April. He has confirmed that he will be able to produce the next iteration of the strategy before then. The Delivery Board thanked the theme lead for producing an excellent strategy, and for the quality of his work. Whitehill Town Council (WTC) in their meeting raised the issue of marketing and external investment, the impact of the South Downs National Park and local heritage. WTC would like to see tourism options pushed to top of the agenda.



Update from Landowners Group Richard Nelson introduced his report and gave a brief summary of it. The Landowners Group has met twice since the last Delivery Board meeting. Participation has included Chris Youngs from WTC and Chris Murray from EHDC has made a presentation on planning perspectives. The Landowners’ Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) has been summarised in the report and Richard Nelson can be contacted for a request for a copy. The primary purpose of the group is land equalisation and land acquisition. Accountability is also a priority. WTC do not own as much land, but a suggestion was made that they should have a representative on the group.


Project update report The Project Manager introduced her report and gave a brief summary of the purpose of the report. Referring to the minerals section on page 63 of Delivery Board papers, it was highlighted that there is a HCC document out for consultation. The Sustainable Environment Specialist Group will look at this. Whitehill Bordon has huge reserves of soft sand and gravel. It is



recommended that during the course of development local sources of sand are used to reduce transport and transportation. It is also recommended that aggregate e.g. from concrete bases is recycled locally during development. There is still time for any specialist Group to be involved in the HCC consultation. Another issue raised was waste. An incinerator is not wanted. Despite the alternatives of anaerobic digesters or biomass, importing waste for these alternatives is also not wanted. This is a topic that the Sustainable Environment Specialist Group will be looking at. A question was raised regarding the woodland along the A325. The aim is to maintain this area as public open space. Viking Park first stage feasibility and consultation is due to end this month. It was proposed that meetings would be held with local councillors during Design Sustainability review meetings to present options. We will notify people when the information is publicly available.


Forward Programme Dates for future Standing Conferences will be held at least two weeks before each Delivery Board meeting. The time and venue will be rotated. A paper which identified items that will need to be considered during future Delivery Board meetings was presented and discussed. A schedule of work needs to come back from each Specialist Group. Once this has been finalised, this schedule will need to be incorporated into the forward programme. The Project Officer will maintain a rolling forward programme of items for future meetings.

Any Other Business Whitehill Town Partnership (WTP) – The arrangements made for the Standing Conference were not appreciated by WTP. They felt it was a poorly organised meeting and communication was difficult. Therefore improvements need to be made. Whitehill Town Council (WTC) – Similar comments were raised. In addition, the Town Council was disappointed that the questions raised on the transport study were not answered.

Exempt items


Financial report



The Board members reviewed up-to-date programme and budget information. The Board members then sought clarity and discussed various project budget lines in more detail.


Risk register report The Board members reviewed the risk register report. It is recognised that the risk register is work in progress and is a working document.


Appendix 1: Public Questions Public questions – Peter Parkinson 1) The various Specialist Groups have their own particular aims and objectives, which overlap and may conflict with each other. How will these differing aims and priorities be resolved? How for example, will concerns for better traffic flow be reconciled with concerns for air pollution and damage to wildlife sites?

We will sponsor joint meetings of the various Specialist Groups as necessary to try and resolve any differing or conflicting aims and priorities. We may also seek the views of the Standing Conference. If these cannot be resolved then the Delivery Board will be asked to take a view.

2) In view of the demanding objectives of the eco-town proposal, has a mechanism been put in place to monitor particular factors and halt development, if adverse effects are found or targets are not achieved? If not why not? This mechanism might apply to traffic, air pollution, employment, wildlife habitats, water resources, provision of new facilities and so on. I understand this idea has been used elsewhere as a condition for planning consent.

We agree this is very important and have asked our consultants to advise on how best to ensure that monitoring is effective, timely and feeds back into policy changes wherever necessary to adjust policy. It is important that the monitoring is timely and therefore objective.

- 10 -

Public questions – Chris Wain 1.) There have been five meetings of the Specialist Groups in February, all of which have followed the same lines as the original Policy Advisory groups and been open to all members of the Public. The new groups were asked for topics for further investigation, which is exactly what the PAGs have been doing for the past three years with information being passed forward as recommendations. Change for changes sake! The Green Town Delivery Vehicle (GDV) is “to define and focus activities …. avoiding duplication of effort”; (Governance Structure – Role of Delivery Board and Associated Groups – 20 May 2010). So should the GDV not be setting the projects for these groups, on which it needs specialist and particularly local information?

- 11 -

This item is on the Delivery Board agenda for today’s meeting. Yes, the Delivery Board does need to do this work informed by the local community

Public questions - I A Johnstone Question 1: The PFI contract for St Athan has fallen through and will not be resurrected in the current financial climate. It was previously stated that, in this event, there would be two fall-back options: Option 1. Relocate electronic trade training from Arborfield to Bordon. Option 2. Continue training at both Bordon and Arborfield. Since both options require the retention of the MoD land in Bordon, why has the retention of the site not yet been announced?

Following the cancellation of the PFI contract for St. Athan, known as the Defence Training Review (DTR), a new study has been introduced. This is known as the Defence Technical Training Change Programme (DTTCP).

Question 2: The Eco-town Bid was submitted by EHDC without reference to the Whitehill Town Council or the residents of the town. A referendum was promised in the event that the Army did not move to St Athan and St Athan has now fallen through. If the Army is staying, there is no need for a referendum. If there is any doubt, then the referendum should be held as soon as possible. Who will organise it, who will decide on the question or questions to be asked and who will be entitled to vote?

A referendum on the future of Whitehill Bordon will be held after the Army signs contracts to leave the town.

- 12 -

The concept of DTR was to transform training and rationalise the estate. This concept remains the same under DTTCP. At present the DTTCP study is exploring a number of options with regards to achieving these concepts. This work regarding Bordon is ongoing and currently running to programme with results expected in the spring/ early summer. The current departmental assumption is that Bordon will be made available for redevelopment.

This action was included in the communications strategy agreed at the first meeting of the Board in December. If the Army is staying there is clearly no need for a referendum. As we are awaiting confirmation of the MoD's intentions, no decisions have been taken yet on the detail of the referendum.

Appendix 2: Specialist Group work plans INFRASTRUCTURE EDUCATION & TRANSPORT WORK PLAN / PRIORITIES Transport Work Work Area Walking and Cycling Strategy (to include promoting access to appropriate land)

Provide Overall Strategy for future improvements, consider feasibility and constraints, and a prioritised implementation plan Parking Strategy

Strategy to consider future provision for car parking at home, work and in the new town centre. To consider parking numbers, location and nature of provision Emerging Transport Strategy

Transport Strategy to be revised to take account of progress, and work done on Rail Study and Transport Evidence Base Freight Strategy Strategy to manage heavy traffic both through the town but also to serve the new town centre and commercial uses. Strategy to also consider management of construction traffic Traffic Management Strategy (to include a mitigation strategy for heavy traffic)

To consider what mitigation measures and interventions may be necessary to discourage inappropriate use of local roads – Build on results of Transport Evidence Base.

Sub-Regional Bus Links

Programmed date Draft Brief for SG Agreement - May 2011

Priority / Stage needed Medium Planning Application

Draft Completed – October 2011 Final Report – December 2011 Draft Brief for SG Agreement - May 2011

Medium Planning Application

Draft Completed – October 2011 Final Report – December 2011 Draft revised version of ETS for SG consideration - May 2011 Approved Revision Strategy – September 2011 Draft Brief for SG Agreement September 2011

Study timescales dependant on funding Initial work undertaken for end May 2011 Further identified work brief prepared for SG approval September 2011 Study timescales dependant on funding Proposed

- 13 -


Resources External Consultant - Funding Available from Yr 1

External Consultant - Funding Available from Yr 1

Internal HCC Resources

Core Strategy Submission

Medium Planning Application

High / Medium Some elements may be required for Core Strategy


No Resources currently identified

Partial funding available from Yr 1

No Resources

To develop detail of future bus linkages set out in HCC Subregional Bus Strategy A325 / IRR / Urban Design To provide the Urban Design concepts for the A325 and IRR corridors, to consider design codes, key requirements and provide feasibility design Smarter Choices / PJP To develop an implementation plan for the Smarter Choices initiatives Monitoring Strategy To provide a Strategy for monitoring future travel behaviour, demand and impact of the Ecotown, to include hard and soft monitoring measures

approach for SG consideration December 2011 Draft Brief for SG Consideration December 2011 Study timescales dependant on funding Proposals for SG consideration March 2012 Proposals for SG consideration March 2012

Planning Application Low Planning Application

Low Planning Application Medium

currently identified

No Resources currently identified

No Resources currently identified Internal HCC Resources

Planning Application

Education work Work Area Proposal for school sites –to include the need to have a 0-19 strategy

- 14 -

Programmed date Autumn 2010

Resources Internal HCC Resources



Action Lead Specialist Group Specialist Group

Programmed date April meeting

Priority/stage needed High


Form Working parties to develop priorities Define 5/6 products for a marketing campaign and hold a Unique Selling Point workshop Research potential needs of inward investors Maximizing the legacy from military training Feasibility for Skills Centre and promote apprenticeship schemes


Summer 2011


Non identified


WB Team



WB Team


External consultants

Summer/autumn 2011 Post MoD announcement Summer/autumn 2011

Engage with young people




Encourage Working from home

Mid term

Specialist Group WB Team

Within Eco-town resources Within Eco-town resources Joint funding – possible EHDC contribution What is required?

Summer 2011

Within Eco-town resources

Develop Best practice


Specialist Group


Medium – Core Strategy Submission Medium/High

Identify Concessions/incentives for business - supporting Local Businesses Early regeneration – High visibility gateways on A325




Non identified

Mid term

WB Team


Plan for re-use of redundant buildings

Mid term

WB Team

Summer/autumn 2011 for Northern gateway Summer 2011

Northern gateway at Firestation – non identified at southern gateway Within Eco-town resources

Create a Centre for Alternative Technology Plan Green Business Parks

Longer term Longer

Specialist Group WB Team

Short term

- 15 -

High High


Medium – Core Strategy Submission Medium/High

Summer 2011

Medium – Core

Not required

Non identified

Non identified Within Eco-town

term Promote a Public Sector Centre

Longer term

WB Team

Summer 2011

Developing green transport

Longer term

WB Team

Summer 2011

Encouraging social enterprise

Longer term Longer term

Specialist Group WB Team


Specific sector work e.g. Eco-tourism, sustainable construction, value added food

- 16 -


Strategy Submission Medium – Core Strategy Submission Medium – Core Strategy Submission Medium/High


Dependant upon sector needs

Within Eco-town resources

Within Eco-town resources Within Eco-town resources Non identified


Programmed date

Priority / Stage needed

Theme: Green Infrastructure & Biodiversity

Discuss initial findings from Green Infrastructure Strategy – April SG Meeting


Work Area: Protecting and enhancing biodiversity Crucial in securing a net gain in biodiversity. Design options for spaces to be considered and discussed through Specialist Group Members

Needed to support the revision of the draft masterplan

Explore design options on Hogmoor Inclosure – April SG Meeting

Supporting Study / Strategy Green Infrastructure Strategy Habitats Regulations Assessment Wildlife of Whitehill


Funding available to complete GI Strategy, but further resources with be needed to bring in external expertise or provide opportunity for study trip Approx extra costs £1k to March 2012

Discuss completed Green Infrastructure Strategy – July SG Meeting Set up working group to prepare design implementation plan to deliver a net gain in biodiversity on all sites – July SG Meeting Present design implementation plan – October SG Meeting Theme: Waste and Minerals Work Area: Fly-tipping The issue of dumping waste materials on or near sensitive environmental sites is a key issue. Mainly arising from contractors waste on nearby building sites or refurb works

Discuss ways of promoting recycling activities in Whitehill Bordon at the domestic and commercial scale – Oct SG Meeting Develop a project to address issues, including education, prevention and prosecution – Oct SG Meeting

HIGH Can be developed now as a project to promote more appropriate ways of dealing with fly-tipping issues

Green Infrastructure Strategy

No funding allocated at present

Habitats Regulations Assessment

Approx £10k to March 2012 Resources to fund a flytipping prevention and education project

Theme: Green Infrastructure & Biodiversity Work Area: Recreational pressure and future usage

Establishment of a monitoring programme to enable ongoing assessment of how use of existing green spaces changes with future development

Theme: Green Infrastructure & Biodiversity Work Area: Suitable Alternative Natural Green space (SANG) location and design. Including visitor management on European Protected Sites Part of continuing work to determine the SANG requirements in relation to housing numbers, densities. Important to explore SANG design and functions

Work to be triggered on confirmation of MoD’s departure.

HIGH/ MEDIUM Needed to support the revision of the draft masterplan

Walking and Cycling Strategy


SANG implementation plan to be discussed – October SG Meeting

Habitats Regulations Assessment Sports and Recreation Strategy

Draft monitoring programme to be presented to group – October SG Meeting

Explore design options on Hogmoor Inclosure – April SG Meeting

Green Infrastructure Strategy

Needed to support the revision of the draft masterplan To be supported by the next phase of the Habitats Regulations Assessment

Green Infrastructure Strategy Habitats Regulations Assessment

Funding available as part of work to establish monitoring framework Ongoing funding will be required to support planning process monitoring and surveys – Approx £100k to March 2012 Funding available to complete first phase of this work through the current Green Infrastructure and Habitats Regulations Project Further funding required to complete the implementatio n plan and deliver early demonstration projects Approx £100k to March 2012 NB: LIFE+ funding from Europe could provide support. Currently being explored, deadline July 2011.

- 18 -

Theme: Low Carbon Living Work Area: Food Promotion of Higher Level Stewardship (HLS) schemes to minimise food miles. Resulting in a lower carbon footprint for the town. Allotments are an important feature of promoting local food production, health and well-being

Theme: Water Work Area: Water efficiency Retrofitting of water efficiency and conservation measures in existing town to reduce water demand and promote the principle of water neutrality

Invite someone from (HLS) to speak at Specialist Group – July SG Meeting

MEDIUM Needed during consultation and further phases of demonstration projects

One Planet Living Strategy Green Infrastructure Strategy

Building on existing allotment project. Further exploration of allotment provision within the draft masterplan – Oct SG Meeting Prepare outline of water efficiency project, combined with further retrofitting of energy efficiency measures – Paper to July SG Meeting, suggest working group

Funding required to support HLS workshop and wider discussion about promoting more sustainable food chain (including further allotment or ‘grow your own’ projects) Approx £50k


Needed during consultation and further phases of demonstration projects

(Awaiting outcome of Water Cycle Study and Energy Feasibility Study)

- 19 -

One Planet Living Strategy

Water Cycle Study Energy Feasibility Study

Environmental Sustainability Theme Lead and Housing Retrofit Officer to prepare project plan Funding required Approx £50k to initiate project, but expect to seek external funding to enlarge the project

Theme: Energy - cross cutting issue, linked to other Specialist Groups Work Area: Energy efficiency and tackling fuel poverty Additional retrofitting of energy efficiency measures in existing town to reduce energy demand and lower energy bills.

Explore further incentives and programmes for retrofitting tailored to Specialist Group priorities – Session on achievements so far and future opportunities – Jan SG Meeting

MEDIUM Needed to follow on from current LCCC and retrofitting projects

One Planet Living Strategy Energy Feasibility Strategy Funding Strategy Communication and Engagement Strategy

Including: Installation of energy efficiency measures to address fuel poverty – ongoing

Environmental Sustainability Theme Lead and Housing Retrofit Officer

Funding requirement to be confirmed inline with current LCCC and retrofitting projects. Also needs to be linked to the development of a water efficiency project

Set up monitoring regime to assess the impact of rising fuel costs on existing community – Jan SG Meeting Theme: All aspects of Sustainable Environment – cross cutting with other Specialist Groups Work area: Education programmes and community engagement Suggested initiatives: 1. Green Champions 2. Countryside Watch 3. Pride in our town 4. Arson Awareness and Prevention 5. Responsible Recreation 6. Conservation Volunteering 7. Sustainable Living Campaign 8. Healthy Living 9. Sustainable Transport

Form cross cutting working group (to be discussed between Specialist Group Chairs and Vice Chairs) - tbc

MEDIUM Needed to support ongoing community engagement to promote sustainable living and help protect sensitive areas Linked with neighbourhood level consultation

One Planet Living Strategy Walking and Cycling Strategy Transport Strategy Green Infrastructure Strategy Sports and Recreation Strategy Funding Strategy Communication and Engagement Strategy

- 20 -

Community Development Worker Communication s Manager Local Authorities Local Community and Environmental Groups/Trusts Make full use of local community facilities and Eco-station Funding required to be discussed with other Specialist Group Chairs and Vice Chairs

Community Facilities and Amenities Specialist Group Draft Work Plan and Priorities.

Work Area and Actions

Programmed date

Future of the Chase Community Hospital and Health needs survey for Whitehill Bordon- developing the action plan.




Presentation by Jane Howard, NHS / Alton Community Hospital

10th May 11 ( TBC)

Agree on the action plan- recommendations in response to the health needs survey findings.

5th July 11

Sports and playing pitches Strategy – developing the action plan.




10th May 11

Presentation by the consultants on the findings report on the playing pitch strategy.

5th July 11

Heritage and Arts Strategy

Some elements may be required for the Core Strategy.

Community Services, EHDC


Set up a group who will lead on the preparation of the strategy and identify resources.

10th May 11


Presenting the proposals for the Heritage Exhibition or Gallery at the Fire Station

5th July 11

Heritage Society

Present the initial review of the existing studies, audit and action priorities based on the MoD decision.

01st November 11

Emergency Services- police, fire brigade Discuss with the emergency services authorities to establish their emerging plans, proposals and provision for Whitehill Bordon. Report the findings back to the Specialist Group.


- 21 -

No Resources currently identified

01st November 11

Coordinating Community Facilities and Amenities with the Green Infrastructure Strategy (Interconnected bridleways/ footpaths/ cycle ways/ open spaces/ motor sports areas.) Provide feedback – meeting notes from the Sustainable Environment Specialist Group Meeting- GI study

Additional resources will be required.


10th May 11

Sustainable Environment Specialist Group.

Adam Carew / Chris Youngs

Involving Young People in the future of community facilities and amenities.

All meetings


Various organisations

Existing and proposed community facilities – identifying any issues, upgrading needs, shared use, grouping and accessibility.

Study timescales dependant on funding


No Resources currently identified

Note: The work plan was drafted following a meeting between the Chairman, Vice-Chairman and officers as advised by the Delivery Board. This will be used as a working draft for the next Specialist th Group meeting on 10 May 2011.

- 22 -

Draft Housing work plan and priorities Work area

Programmed date

Retrofit strategy Retrofitting existing homes is a key contributor towards national targets of 80% reductions in CO2 emissions by 2050. In order to work towards majority of properties in the town being retrofitted, need to develop a clear plan, actions and timetable for how this will be achieved

Outline proposal for SG agreement: April 2011

Priority / Stage needed ?



Initially, EHDC inhouse

EHDC inhouse

Draft strategy – June 2011 Final strategy -?

Actions • Summary of lessons from LCCC programme • Ongoing feedback from insulation programme • Set up retrofit champions network (working with residents who have had loans/ insulation installation) and agree monitoring strategy • Proposal for how to engage wider community • Medium to long term retrofit plan for homes and neighbourhoods Neighbourhood quality charter Influencing the quality of current and future housing proposals by developing a shared set of principles developed with the community, EHDC and other key local stakeholders

April 2011

April / May 2011

April / May 2011 Outline proposal for SG agreement: April 2011

Final charter – Dec 2011 Actions • Develop brief and programme of activities including proposal for engaging communities Housing standards Agree the appropriate standards for new housing in line with the aspirations for new development reaching very high eco standards Actions • Meeting local needs

- 23 -

May 2011

Ensure future housing proposals meet the needs of existing residents as well as new communities CROSS-CUTTING ISSUES Housing numbers

Will be agreed as part of the core strategy process and not within SG remit Environmental sustainability SG


- 24 -

Delivery Board notes March 2011  

Notes from the meeting of the Whitehill Bordon Delivery Board