Delivery Board notes - December 2010

Whitehill Bordon Delivery Board Meeting 7th December 2010 10:00 – Transition Room, Mill Chase school, Bordon Present: John Walker Cllr Andrew Joy Ian Parker

(JW) (AJ) (IP)

Daphne Gardner

(DG)

Kevin Bourner Cllr Adam Carew Richard Nelson Cllr Dr William Wain

(KB) (AC) (RN) (BW)

Interim Chairman Portfolio Holder EHDC Hampshire County Council (HCC) on behalf of Councillor Melville Kendal East Hampshire District Council (EHDC) (Project Director) Home and Communities Agency (HCA) Whitehill Town Council (WTC) MoD Defence Estates Whitehill Town Partnership

Also: Wendy Shillam Lydia Forbes-Manson Caroline Sayers Kate Hillerby Malcolm Perrins Simon Beach

(WS) (LFM) (CS) (KH) (MPe) (SJB)

EHDC EHDC EHDC EHDC EHDC EHDC

(Project Manager) (Communications & Marketing Officer) (Project Officer – Governance) (Funding Manager) (Theme Lead - Economic Development) (Project Coordinator)

Item

Notes

1.

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. He explained that the Board’s focus would be on delivery of the vision for the project. The Board would have a focused and coordinated approach, would advise partners on the actions which the Board considered to be necessary, and would listen to the views of the community, and these will be channelled through the Specialist Groups and the Standing Conference.

2.

Public Questions Questions were received from four members of the public. The questions were read out and answers given.

As a result of two of the questions, a request was made to clarify points regarding Hogmoor Inclosure and Budds Lane. The questions

Action

and (revised) answers are appended to these notes.

3.

Verbal update from Ministry of Defence MoD has confirmed that St Athan remains the preferred option for the relocation of the training carried out at Bordon Garrison.

Richard Nelson told the meeting that MoD still wishes to consolidate training on one site. The most recent letter from MoD was read out.

This letter is attached to these notes.

A ministerial confirmation is due in the New Year.

The Delivery Board requested as early a decision as possible, along with a timetable for the work/ move to St Athan.

4.

Governance structure

4.1

Responding to comments on proposed Governance Structure The Project Director introduced a report. This report summarises the main issues received during the feedback process. This feedback was then used to inform the proposed structure and how it works, along with three recommendations for the Delivery Board to consider. These are: 1- To ensure a close link between the Specialist Groups and Delivery Board, a Delivery Board representative will sit on each of the Specialist Groups as either the Chair or Vice Chair.

2- That the proposed structure with the current nominations remains for now. This structure will be reviewed in nine months.

3- To ensure that local and district councillors are involved, AJ is willing to convene a liaison group.

Some members of the Board felt strongly that there must also be a local County Council representative and a local District Council representative, both from the Bordon area, on the Delivery Board.

Others felt there were ample opportunities for local involvement in the new structure, through the Standing Conference and Specialist Groups, and that it was important to keep the Board small and focussed.

The Chairman reminded members that the focus of the Delivery Board is the delivery of the project. Board Members need to be in a position to drive this delivery forward in the organisations which have nominated them to the Board. He said he was comfortable with the make-up of the Delivery Board as there are extensive opportunities for local and community involvement throughout the structure. He acknowledged however that local support for the delivery structure was important and for this reason the District and County Councils should be asked whether they felt that an additional representative on the Board would be useful.

It was agreed that:

RN

4.2

(i) The Chairman on behalf of the Delivery Board would write to the District and County Council Leaders with a request that they consider additional local representation on the Board.

JW

(ii) The Specialist Groups elect their own Chairman annually with a representative from the Delivery Board attending each Group. The Delivery Board member should be either Chairman or Vice Chairman.

All

(iii) The Delivery Board notes the offer of the District Council’s portfolio holder to convene a liaison group of local district councillors to facilitate their input to the project, but that this should be held over until the outcome of the request to the Councils regarding additional membership was clear.

AJ

Launch of the Governance Structure The Project Director introduced her report outlining the suggested roles, terms of reference, membership and operation for the Delivery Board, Specialist Groups and Standing Conference.

With reference to paragraph 2.1 and 2.3 of the report, it was confirmed that the Board has no legal standing and the only decision-making powers it has are in relation to its own workload and priorities.

With reference to 5.3 of the report, membership of the Standing Conference, it was suggested that representatives from outside should not exceed representation from the town. One member felt there should be increased representation from the Town Council to address this balance.

It was proposed that the launch of the governance structure will take place in the New Year. It is important to establish the Specialist Groups and develop a programme of work. This needs to be underway before the next Delivery Board meeting.

It was proposed that the Specialist Groups should convene in February with the Standing Conference meeting taking place early March, prior to the next Delivery Board meeting.

A suggestion was made that those recommendations that the previous PAGs had made to the old Executive Group need to be reviewed and updated at the first meeting of the new Specialist Groups.

It was agreed: (i) That the role, membership and operation of the • Delivery Board • Specialist Groups • Standing Conference as set out in the report was agreed as a basis for the initial terms of reference for these groups.

Ecocoordinator

5.

Communications strategy The Communications and marketing officer gave a brief summary of the purpose of the report.

It is important to take the team’s work into the community rather than expect the community to come to us.

The community needs to be listened to. The Delivery Board needs to ensure that they take on board what councillors and the previous PAG groups say that the community wants.

It was agreed: That the ‘Ecommunication’ document is approved and implemented to ensure that localism is at the very heart of regenerating Whitehill Bordon Eco-town.

6.

LFM

Funding strategy The Funding Manager introduced her proposed draft Funding Strategy, which dealt with short term funding priorities.

In due course, the strategy also needs to identify the viability gap the project is trying to close. From this, we can see what funding is required.

The issue of developers’ contributions will also need to be addressed to show what part developers’ contributions may play in funding Eco-town projects.

A suggestion was also made for an update and presentation to a future Board meeting on new sources of funding such as the New Homes Bonus.

Some projects have started, others are getting underway – e.g. demonstration and community projects. Development will come once there is clarity of MoD’s position. Bordon is expecting large change when MoD goes – re-use of buildings etc. The funding strategy should tie into this work.

It was suggested it would be useful to show how current government Eco-town money is being spent.

It was agreed: That the Delivery Board adopts the Funding Strategy and calls for further updates at appropriate times.

7.

Economic Development and Employment Strategy The Economic Development Theme Lead introduced his report and gave a brief summary of the purpose of the report which sets out

KH

proposals for developing an economic development and employment strategy.

Planning for economic development is essential, and this has to happen along with infrastructure development and the development of housing in a coordinated way.

It was noted that in 2.3.2 of report, there is mention of the need to create demand for houses, services and facilities. There is already a demand for new housing from the existing community.

The report did not detail key issues including training and education.

It was confirmed this will be an integral part of the new strategy.

The purpose of the report was to outline the suggested timetable and approach for approval by the Delivery Board.

There is also an option for marketing the town using the Eco-town status and being a gateway to South Downs National Park. It was agreed that a marketing strategy is also needed, aligned with economic development priorities.

It was agreed: The development of a draft Economic Development and Employment Strategy along the lines set out in the report was approved.

8.

MPe

Landowners update report Richard Nelson introduced his report and gave a brief summary of it.

Supply of land and funding for this work is fundamental to the success of the Eco-town. The landowners are keen to agree principles for sharing costs and revenues in an equitable way. The principal landowners will invite other landowners onto the Landowners’ Group.

The Chairman was pleased that the landowners are already working together and stressed how useful an agreement could be to the successful delivery of the high standards required for the Eco-town.

A Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) is in final draft and should be ready to present at the next Delivery Board meeting.

A brief explanation of a Land Equalisation Agreement was given. It seeks to allow everyone to pool land and take a share of any returns, with the planning process dictating what goes where, rather than the landowners.

The Board noted, welcomed and agreed the work of the Landowners’ group.

9.

Project update report

RN

The Project Manager introduced her report and gave a brief summary of the purpose of the report.

10.

A request for neighbourhood consultation for the Whitehill Club and the Working Mens’ Club was made.

WS

It was confirmed that for the Eco-station, tender documents were in preparation and it was hoped that the documents could go out to tender before Christmas. The first phase can open in the spring.

Architects are in the process of being appointed for phase two.

WS

For the Youth Drop In Centre, three sites have been proposed on a rotating basis. No date is set yet for when the centre will be open.

SJB

Transport studies are to be discussed at the March meeting.

TW

Verbal update on Department for Communities and Local Government Year 2 funding The Project Director confirmed the project received the year one funding from Department for Communities and Local Government (CLG) earlier this year. This was in the region of ÂŁ10 million. Year two funding will be a reduced amount.

The Civil Servant concerned has been in discussion with the Project Director and has asked for an update on the project so that he can use this information to brief the minister. We have not been asked to put in a specific bid.

The Project Director confirmed we need further funding for community projects and public transport; therefore we have repeated the need for this and are lobbying hard for money. We are hoping for a decision by the end of December.

The Delivery Board will need to prioritise which projects to take forward.

11.

JW/ DG

Forward programme Dates for future Delivery Board meetings were noted.

A paper which identified items that will need to be considered during future Delivery Board meetings was presented and discussed.

The Project Officer will maintain a rolling forward programme of items for future meetings.

CS

Appendix 1: Public Questions

Public Questions Liz Simes Question 1. Please could it be explained, how an ecotown or even the 'green town vision' can be deemed to be 'eco' where the masterplan proposes to build over the existing green spaces within the town.

2. The playing fields are being built on in the town. This recreation space is proposed to be replaced on the outskirts of the town at Standford Grange Farm. What evidence is there that this will not result in the greater use of motor vehicles travelling to SGF, given the distance from the new dwellings to the proposed facilities?

3. The Government are backing campaigns that increase our self sufficiency for reducing food miles. Why is the farm being included in the masterplan against the wishes of the community, the National Trust and Headley Parish Council.

4. Why was Headley Parish Council’s objection to the inclusion of Standford Grange Farm not communicated to Councillors?

5. Will the delivery board agree that the attendees of the new community groups, which will replace the PAGs, will be able to approve the minutes of the meetings that they attend?

6. Will the delivery board agree to meet outside of normal working hours which will enable more members of the public to attend?

Answer An Eco-town has to balance social, economic and environmental concerns. The intention is to develop the brownfield MoD land. Existing public open space within the town is not proposed for development under the masterplan. The proposals provide a further 127ha of new green space. Inevitably some space like private MoD playing fields may become school playing fields. All parts of the masterplan are open to future detailed consultation.

The masterplan proposals show an increase in public playing fields. Our transport team are working on new proposals which will include providing non-car methods of getting to all public facilities wherever they are located. The evidence of traffic flows will be available in detail soon, when the multi-modal transport model is published.

The masterplan supports and makes a provision for allotments. We recognise the local appreciation of the farm. The current masterplan proposals for Standford Grange Farm is it to be included under the Green Loop network as a publicly accessible open space.

The brief for the Green Infrastructure Strategy includes consideration of maintenance of Standford Grange Farm as a farm.

All objections have been given to officers who are dealing with them in the normal way.

Council members have received a prĂŠcis of these objections and as you can see from the answer to 3. above further work is already responding to those comments.

Action notes will be prepared to record the actions agreed by the new specialist groups; these will be agreed with the chairman of the group.

It is the intention to hold Delivery Board meetings at different times of the day, including evenings, to suit as many people as possible.

Public Questions Alan Metcalfe Question 1. It having been confirmed that, inter alia, the creation of the green corridors, green spaces and, most importantly, employment opportunities must be in place before any development, what immediate "early win" steps do the Board propose in these respects?

2. Bearing in mind that a Habitat Regulation Assessment will be required of the final definitive proposals following completion of, at least, the currently awaited : - Economic and Employment Report.

- Rail Feasibility Study.

- Transport Study Report - Air Quality Report.

- Viking Park Feasibility Study - Water, sewage treatment Reports - Renewable energy solutions report before any development can take place, what progress does the Board envisage in the next 12 months towards the initial steps for the delivery of an eco-town?

Answer Early wins already agreed with the old Executive Board and our funders, the Department of Communities and Local Government are listed in the Project Update which is a regular report to this committee.

They are briefly grouped under the headings of creation of green corridors and green spaces, employment and economic development, community projects, infrastructure and masterplanning.

'Early wins' projects include a variety of biodiversity projects, the recruitment of a countryside ranger and a community worker which work within the boundary of the Ecotown. In addition we are committed to produce a Green Infrastructure Strategy and 2nd edition of the Local Biodiversity Action Plan (Wildlife of Whitehill) by May 2011. The delivery of further early projects will be guided by the priorities in each document in partnership with stakeholders. The Specialist Groups will be a key part of this process.

Key progress expected within the next 12 months will be: Early wins projects as outlined above Completion of key reports Update of Habitats regulations Assessment Further Public Consultation Announcement from MoD – anticipated in the New Year Publication of EHDC Core Strategy Agreement between Landowners Business plan for delivery Evidence from studies associated with the Masterplan will continue to inform the Habitats Regulations Assessment over the next 12 months. The following studies will be completed by May 2011: Water Cycle Study Energy Feasibility Study Transportation studies Biodiversity and Green Infrastructure Strategy Economic Development and Employment Strategy In addition the Green Infrastructure Strategy and 2nd Edition of Wildlife of Whitehill will be completed by May 2011.

The identification of additional work will be dependent on the completion of these documents and ongoing consultation with stakeholders.

The Whitehill Bordon Masterplan also requires that an accompanying and fully aligned Economic Development and Employment Strategy is produced. It is envisaged that such a draft strategy will be produced for consideration by the Delivery Board at their 15th March 2011 meeting. A consultation draft of the strategy will be widely available during Spring 2011 and at least one event held to encourage active input from local businesses, training providers, business intermediaries, land holders and key infrastructure providers to ensure their full input into the Strategy’s development. The strategy will provide a framework for action plans that will: - assist the town’s employment base to further develop through both indigenous growth from existing assets, - improve its capability to attract additional local, regional, national and international companies by building on the town’s ‘green credentials’ and attractive setting, - assist to re-dress the current balance of outcommuting for employment, - encourage the development of a high quality and skilled local workforce, - encourage the supply and development of appropriate commercial land and employment locations.

3 As the proposed Specialist Groups are to have no power to make decisions, merely to make recommendations and suggestions to the Standing Conference, the Standing Conference is to have no power to make decisions, merely

The strategy development will be accompanied by specific actions including the opening of the Eco-station during 2011 that will provide a focus for exhibitions and events that will stimulate interest by the existing and investing businesses in developing sectors including lowcarbon energy and sustainable construction.

During 2011 an Eco-grant scheme will be developed and launched to encourage existing employers to enhance their viability and improve their overall sustainability, for example; improved energy or resource efficiency.

The governance structure aims to involve as many people as possible, to ensure that there is a strong focus on delivery and to influence all the partners and statutory agencies, not just EHDC.

to make recommendations and suggestions to the Delivery Board and the Delivery Board is to have no power to make decisions, merely to make recommendations and suggestions to East Hampshire District Council who will make any decisions, what is the purpose of the Delivery Board and the Standing Conference and would it not save considerable "bureaucracy" for the Specialist Groups to report direct to EHDC?

The power to make decisions still rests in the partner organisations who have statutory duties and resources to deliver. For example EHDC is the planning authority.

The partnership – represented by the Delivery Board – is the arena where individual partners can come together to agree their collective strategies.

The Delivery Board will take advice from the Standing Conference and the Specialist Groups, as well as from partners and their officers.

It will be for the delivery board to agree strategic issues by consensus between the partners.

This is a new structure. The systems are not cast in stone and will be reviewed and can be changed if better options come forward.

Public Questions Marilyn Metcalfe Question I have been a member of the Environment PAG since it was formed. I now read that part of the new structure is to be Sub Groups that would work in a similar way to the PAGs. Can you confirm that the Delivery Board will take notice of information the Sub Groups give to them, or will it be the same as with the PAG groups where nineteen pages of recommendations were made to the Executive Board, and nothing happened! Between April and September 2009 there were 23 meetings of PAGs, all of whom had made recommendations to the Executive Board and nothing came back. (EHDC Overview and Scrutiny Committee (Place) Minutes Wednesday 28th July 2010 page 6).

Suggested Answer Yes, Sub-Group (now to be called Specialist groups) recommendations will come forward to the Delivery Board for their review and consideration. The Board will be commissioning work from the Specialist Groups and will be asking for their views, input and feedback. The Board wants to hear their expertise.

Public Questions Steve Parsons Question - The initial transport survey work on the A325 concluded that it would be overloaded by 46% during the peak evening rush hour as a result of the proposed development. It was a matter of considerable concern to me that an officer of Hampshire County Council who was introduced to us at a PAG, as the co-ordinator of the

Answer In order to provide a robust and credible transport evidence base against which the impact of the Eco-town proposals can be assessed a Transport Model is being created, based upon recent traffic and travel surveys, which will quantify the impact of the proposed development scenarios on the transport

transport plan, was unaware of this report or its findings. What evidence is there that demonstrates that the town and the surrounding minor, local roads will not become overwhelmed by traffic arising from the proposed development.

If the answer to this question is that you don't know and are awaiting the results of further studies, would you agree that the decision on the eco-town should be delayed until these reports are available and you know how people will be affected by the development?

network, including both the local and strategic road networks.

The Transport Model will inform the ongoing Transport Assessment work which will report in early 2011. This work will assess the likely impact of the proposals on the transport network and develop appropriate mitigation measures where necessary.

No 'decision' is currently being made on the Eco-town. Any future decisions will be subject to the MoD decision on the availability of the land.

Appendix 2: MoD letter

David Olney MBA IET C.Eng Deputy Chief Executive Daphne Gardner, East Hampshire District Council, Penns Place, Petersfield, GU31 4EX

Ref: DE/CE 189/2010

Defence Estates 1st Floor St Georges Court 2 - 12 Bloomsbury Way London WC1A 2SH Telephone (MOD): Military: Mobile: Facsimile (MOD): E-mail:

+44 (0)20 305 3984 (9)6305 2984 +44 (0)7775 625097 +44 (0)20 305 4175 david.olney@de.mod.uk

November 2010

Dear Daphne FUTURE OF MOD LAND AT BORDON Following my previous letter sent on 27 October I thought I would take this opportunity to provide you with an update on MOD’s plans for its land at Bordon and the future proposals for the rationalisation of Defence Training.

Firstly I would like to reiterate that the decision made regarding the termination of the Defence Training Review Package 1 (DTR P1) Project, taken back in October, does not automatically mean that the site will be retained. Moreover the termination of DTR P1 in its current guise does not necessarily mean there will be significant changes to the anticipated programme for the vacation of MOD Land at Bordon and therefore its availability for disposal.

As mentioned in my previous letter the concept and aspirations of the DTR Project remain the same, it is the means of achieving this that are changing. Since the announcements in October we have been working hard to devise a new strategy and to create a new approach to the project.

This ongoing work is a priority for the Department and accordingly it is anticipated that we should be a position to confirm MOD’s position regarding land at Bordon in the New Year.

Hopefully this letter goes someway to reassuring you of our commitment to clarifying the Department’s position regarding land at Bordon and to confirm the intention to make it available for redevelopment. Should you wish to discuss the matter further I would be happy to do so or alternatively please feel free to contact Richard Nelson who is leading the work at Bordon on behalf of the Department.

Yours sincerely,

David Olney Deputy Chief Executive