notice of meeting agenda

Transcription

NOTICE OF MEETING
Meeting:
Cabinet
Date and Time:
Thursday, 1 December 2011 at 7pm
Place:
Council Chamber, Civic Offices, Fleet
Telephone Enquiries to:
01252 774141 (Mrs G Chapman)
[email protected]
Members:
Crookes (Chairman), Appleton, Butler C,
Kinnell, Parker and Singh
G Bonner
Chief Executive
CIVIC OFFICES, HARLINGTON WAY
FLEET, HAMPSHIRE GU51 4AE
AGENDA
COPIES OF THIS AGENDA ARE AVAILABLE IN LARGE PRINT
AND BRAILLE ON REQUEST
1
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING
The Minutes of the meeting of 3 November 2011 are attached to be confirmed and
signed as a correct record. Paper A
2
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
3
CHAIRMAN’S ANNOUNCEMENTS
1
4
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST (PERSONAL AND PERSONAL AND
PREJUDICIAL)
5
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION (ITEMS PERTAINING TO THE AGENDA)
6
FUTURE PROVISION OF CCTV
To advise members of the preferred option for the replacement of the CCTV
control room and the external CCTV cameras and their future management.
Paper B
RECOMMENDATION
That Officers undertake a joint tender with Rushmoor Borough Council to purchase
replacement CCTV for Hart and a control room to be jointly operated and jointly
managed with Rushmoor BC.
7
URGENT REPAIRS TO LIGHTING AT THE CIVIC OFFICES
To update Members on the recent approval of a capital expenditure for repairs to
the civic office lighting. Paper C
RECOMMENDATION
That Cabinet note that the Chief Executive, acting under the “Urgent Decisions”
delegated power within the council’s Scheme of Officer Delegation, has approved the
allocation of £32.5k in the Council’s Capital programme to fund urgent lighting works
at the Civic Offices based on a single quote, for the reasons outlined in the report.
8
SOLAR PHOTOVOLTAIC PANELS AT FROGMORE LEISURE CENTRE
To advise Cabinet of the recent approval of capital works to install photovoltaic (PV)
panels on to the flat roof area of Frogmore Leisure Centre. Paper D
RECOMMENDATION
installation of photovoltaic (PV) panels on the flat roof area of Frogmore Leisure
Centre at an estimated cost of £28,332.29 based on a single quote, for the reasons
outlined in the report.
9
DISABLED FACILITIES GRANTS UPDATE AND REQUEST FOR
ADDITIONAL FUNDING
To update Cabinet in relation to Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) funding and to agree
additional funding to ensure there is no waiting list for these grants in HDC.
Paper E
2
RECOMMENDATION
That Cabinet notes the position regarding DFG spending and agrees that up to £100k
funds be transferred to the DFG programme YR05, from Housing Capital Receipts in
each of the years 2011/12, 2012/13 and 2013/14.
10
CONSERVATION AREA REVIEW – CRICKET HILL, YATELEY
To approve the Conservation Area Character Appraisal and Management Plan for
Cricket Hill, Yateley. Paper F
RECOMMENDATION
That the Conservation Area Character Appraisals and Management Proposals for the
Cricket Hill Conservation Area as shown in Appendix 1 are adopted by the Council,
and that the accompanying maps in Appendix 3 are amended in accordance with the
recommendations.
11
CONSERVATION AREA REVIEW – DARBY GREEN, YATELEY
To approve the Conservation Area Character Appraisal and Management Plan for
Darby Green, Yateley. Paper G
RECOMMENDATION
Darby Green Conservation Area as shown in Appendix 1 are adopted by the
Council, and that the accompanying maps in Appendix 3 are amended in accordance
with the recommendations.
12
ADOPTION OF STATEMENT OF COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT:
FIRST REVISION
Following the public consultation on the draft during the summer, to agree to adopt
the revised version of the Council’s Statement of Community Involvement as part of
the Hart District Local Development Framework (LDF). Paper H
RECOMMENDATION
That the appended revision of the Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) be
adopted as a replacement for the 2006 SCI.
13
PRINCIPLES FOR ALLOCATING SECTION 106 LEISURE
CONTRIBUTIONS
To seek Cabinet’s approval to the process to be used in allocating individual strategic
(ie district wide) Section 106 (S106) leisure contributions to projects. Paper I
3
RECOMMENDATION
That the process for allocating district wide S106 leisure contributions to projects, as
set out in the report, be agreed.
14
ARMED FORCES COMMUNITY COVENANT
To seek the Cabinet’s approval to enter into an Armed Forces Community Covenant
between Hart District and the Armed Forces community in Hart. Paper J
RECOMMENDATION
That Cabinet agree to enter in to the Armed Forces Community Covenant for Hart.
15
CABINET WORK PROGRAMME
The Cabinet Work Programme is attached for consideration and amendment.
Paper K
EXCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC
Members must decide whether the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public
interest in disclosing the information.
It is suggested that, in accordance with Section 100A of the Local Government Act 1972, the
public be excluded during the discussion of the matters referred to in the items listed below,
on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information, as defined in
the respective paragraph of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act, and the public interest in
maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.
Paragraph 3 – Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person
(including the authority holding the information).
16
FLEET VISION – FEASIBILITY STUDIES
To recommend that the Council enter into an agreement with a commercial
company as outlined in the report to consider the feasibility of progressing the Fleet
Vision. Paper L
RECOMMENDATION
That the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Leader, be authorised to enter into
an agreement as outlined in the report, to commission feasibility studies, and to incur
any necessary expenditure up to the limit set out in paragraph 6.2.
Date of Despatch: 22 November 2011
4
PAPER B
CABINET
DATE OF MEETING:
1 DECEMBER 2011
TITLE OF REPORT:
Report of:
Corporate Director
Cabinet member:
Councillor Nippy Singh, Community Safety
1
PURPOSE OF REPORT
1.1
To advise members of the preferred option for the replacement of the CCTV
2
RECOMMENDATION
2.1
3
BACKGROUND
3.1
The existing CCTV system was implemented in 1996 and much of it is now
obsolescent, outdated and reached the end of its useful life. Both the actual cameras
and the control they are linked into need to be replaced. Hart District Council has
54 cameras across the District, a schedule of them, their location and incident
capture is in Appendix 1 of this document.
3.2
The Council has been looking at options to replace the CCTV equipment for the
past two years. The Council needed to be clear on its own requirements and all
relevant technological developments before future options could be considered. It
therefore carried out a review to establish the best technical solution and also the
best way to deliver that solution.
3.3
The finding of this review was presented to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee
on 16 of August 2011. The report set out three options for the future delivery of the
CCTV service:

Upgrade the existing CCTV control room, cameras and manage the service in
house, as it is currently done.

Upgrade the cameras and transfer the hosting of the control room to
Winchester City Council making use of their new control room on the edge
of the city with a direct link through to the Police headquarters at Netley.

Upgrade the cameras and work in partnership with Rushmoor to develop a
shared control and jointly manage it in the future.
1
PAPER B
3.4
The committee were presented with procurement, technical and financial
considerations. Members debated the options and many questions were raised. It
was resolved that more information be provided to Cabinet to enable them to make
an informed decision about the three options.
The extra information required was:



3.5
This paper has also been considered by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee who
broadly supported the recommendation but also recommended that:


3.6
A set of criteria to assess the value of camera should be drawn up and agreed
by the CSP to aid the rationalisation process.
More emphasis on the justification for CCTV to be included in the Cabinet
paper.
The remainder of this paper will now set out an options appraisal for the three
options:



3.7
Information about service levels and location of cameras
An assessment of the significance of local knowledge
Feedback from Parishes/Town Council on the Options
Upgrade the existing CCTV control room, cameras and manage the service in
house
Upgrade the cameras and transfer the hosting of the control room to
Winchester City Council
Upgrade the cameras and work in partnership with Rushmoor to develop a
shared control and jointly manage it in the future.
The appraisal will be based upon the following considerations:




Technical
Financial
Service levels (including local knowledge)
Deliverability ( including procurement)
3.8
The paper concludes with a recommendation arising from the options appraisal.
4
TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS
4.1
All three proposed options would be based on similar technology incorporating:




Digital recording systems providing high quality images and improved data
resilience
LCD style screens with video wall manipulation
Enhanced management software to improve audit and operational reporting
An upgraded control room providing greater resilience through improved air
condition and UPS units as well as providing a more functional working
environment.
2
PAPER B
The main technical difference between the options relates to the transmission of the
pictures to the different control room locations.
4.2
All options currently leave the camera fibres terminating at the Hart Civic Office
building and therefore some equipment will need to reside within this building. If in
future the council wants to vacate the existing Civic Offices it would need to reroute
camera fibres to an independent location, such as a BT exchange or the new office.
The cost of doing this would depend upon the number of wireless cameras it
purchases, as detailed in the following paragraph.
4.3
A couple of suppliers have carried out initial wireless cameras surveys in the district
to ascertain the feasibly of replacing the fibre camera links with wireless technology.
The introduction of wireless cameras would have two benefits, reduced annual rental
costs and reduced fibre rerouting costs in the event of an office move.
4.4
Due to their cost, detailed district wide wireless surveys are generally carried out by
suppliers during the tender process and contract negotiations. It will be at this stage
prior to the award of any contract that the feasibility and cost savings of introducing
wireless cameras and rerouting the remaining fibres to an independent location will
be established.
5
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
5.1
The indicative costs of implementing the three options are:
Options
Option A
Option B
Option C
Upgrade and
managed in house
with camera refresh
Winchester CC
managed service
option with camera
refresh
Rushmoor BC
managed service
option with camera
refresh
Capital
Revenue
Control
Room
£235,000
Cameras
Total
One off
Revenue
Total
£275,600
£510,600
£12,000
£208,433
£114,000
£275,600
£389,600
£31,760
£139,199
£126,000
£275,600
£401,600
£29,700
£155,973
Total
5.2
The cost of the camera is based upon replacing the same number of cmaeras we
already have on a like for like basis.
5.3
The capital elements of the inhouse option are based upon purchasing cameras via a
frame work agreement and developing a control room in the Civic Offices for sole
use by Hart District Council. The revenue costs are based on the current costs and
current level of service provision, which is that the cameras are monitored from 5pm
-3am Sunday to Wednesday and 5pm until 5 am Thursday to Saturday. These
operating hours are covered with 2.5 FTE.
3
PAPER B
5.4
The recent implementation of the control room at Winchester means that the capital
spend on the Winchester options would only consist of digital recording equipment
and encoders. These could be reused in the event of the contract changing to
another supplier or being brought back in house at the end of the contract. The one
off revenue spend relates to the cost of the fibre cable between Winchester and
Rushmoor and one off redundancy costs. The ongoing revenue covers the contract
costs for the monitoring of the camera and maintenance of the cameras and control
room.
5.5
The capital spend on the Rushmoor element relates to equipping a single control
room within the council offices at Rushmoor, to serve both authorities. This
estimated cost is £280,000, providing a capital saving of £190,000 to be split between
the two authorities.
5.6
The one off revenue costs relates to the fibre cable and procurement costs. The
ongoing revenue costs is the total cost of the monitoring of the cameras and
maintenance of the cameras and control room, split between the two authorities.
5.7
The savings have been apportioned between the two authorities based on the
number of CCTV cameras in each area. Hart currently has 54 cameras and
Rushmoor has 74 cameras. The number of cameras in Rushmoor will decrease to 64
this year as those providing least value will be removed. The percentage split based
on cameras would then be 45% Hart and 55% Rushmoor.
5.8
Members should note that Rushmoor undertook this rationalisation by looking at
which camera has the lowest levels of incidents reported. The complete list of
cameras across the District is attached in Appendix 1.
5.9
If Hart were to remove the bottom performing cameras (for example, the bottom
10), our contribution towards the cost of the service could reduce to 40%.
However, this approach must be treated with caution, when looking at rationalising it
is important to bear in mind that a camera may still have its uses even if it is not
registering incidents. When an incident is occurring, cameras nearby are used to
follow and keep track of individuals/vehicles. If removed, this could lead to issues
when dealing with certain incidents.
5.10
The Community Safety partnership does agree that a review should be conducted
regarding the location of the cameras across the District. The police and the
Community Safety Team at Hart will be undertaking a joint exercise to establish
where the crimes which CCTV can help detect take place (violence against the
person; criminal damage; anti-social behaviour), over the past five years. This
information will then be plotted on a map, alongside where the cameras are cited and
where incidents are recorded. This information will then provide an accurate picture
of hot spots across the District and will inform the review about the number and
location of CCTV cameras across the district.
5.11
Members must also note that further revenue savings for all options could be realised
with the introduction of wireless cameras. Any rollout would be subject to site
surveys but there is potential savings of £40k per annum from all options if the fibre
links were replaced. The introduction of wireless cameras may also create
4
PAPER B
rationalisation as there will be some areas that require two static cameras to
monitor an area that one wireless camera could cover.
5.12
Therefore, officers recommend that should members choose the Rushmoor option,
the principle to split the costs based on the number of cameras between the two
Authorities is agreed. Officers then concurrently undertake the wireless survey and
camera rationalisation work to ensure that the optimum number of cameras are
installed. The apportionment costs would then be agreed finally once these pieces of
work had taken place.
5.13
Please also note that Fleet Town Council, Hook and Blackwater Parish Councils
contribute towards the cost of camera in their areas (see Appendix 1 for details of
which cameras).
6
SERVICE CONSIDERATIONS
6.1
CCTV is used to respond to Crime and Disorder, particularly in relation to violent
crime and anti-social behaviour. The police rely on CCTV in bring offenders to
justice. In particular in Hart, the Community Safety Teams priority to reduce violent
and drink related offences would be severely hampered without the professional
support provided by Hart CCTV operators at times of high demand - in particular
from 2100hrs to 0300hrs on Thursday, Friday and Saturday evenings in Fleet town
centre.
6.2
In terms of service delivery, all three options would provide a modern control room
with improved functionality that would enable operators to focus on their key tasks
rather than spending time changing tapes and other time-consuming, and out of date,
processes which would create a higher level of service.
6.3
There are a number of generic benefits from working with another Local Authority
to provide this service, be it the managed service at Winchester or a joint team at
Rushmoor. These include:




6.4
Eliminating the potential problem of relocating the CCTV control room at a
later date should the Council move from the current Civic Offices.
A more resilient service able to cover for annual leave, training and sickness
without the need to extend shifts or incur overtime payments.
A more flexible service, able to respond to events and incidents where extra
operators were required, sometimes at short notice.
Capacity for other activities such as ‘out of hours’ emergency service and
parking enforcement.
Within the Rushmoor option, it is proposed that the service will be provided by a
joint team of 6.0 staff, from both Authorities. It is currently proposed that the Hart
staff would TUPE over to Rushmoor. This has the added benefits of ensuring that
local knowledge is maintained and reduces need for any redundancies (potentially
there could be one redundancy of .25 of a post as a result). It will also provide a
single point of contact for the police which is particularly relevant now that the Hart
and Rushmoor policing areas have combined.
5
PAPER B
6.5
A final consideration for service levels is that the number of operational hours ,
currently Hart monitor cameras at night only. The financial implications of the inhouse service in section 5 are based on these hours. The revenue costs for
Winchester are also based on these operating times. However, in the Rushmoor
model, the hours of operation would be adjusted to cater for the needs of both
authorities. This means that the control room would be staffed between 08.00 am
and 01.00 am Sunday to Wednesday and 08.00 am – 04.00 am Thursday to Saturday.
6.6
It should be noted that town and Parish Councils have been consulted about the
options. The general feeling was that local knowledge should be preserved in the
chosen option.
7
DELIVERABILTY CONSIDERATIONS
7.1
A summary of the procurement routes for the three options is shown below:
Option
Full owned – Hart
Partnership –
Rushmoor
Contractual
Agreement –
Winchester
Control Room
Tender Process
Tender Process – could utilise
Rushmoor Procurement
Support to reduce costs
No tender. Potential legal risk
Cameras
Framework Agreement
Tender Process
Framework Agreement
7.2
For all potential options the cameras could be purchased through an existing
framework agreement thereby reducing procurement costs and timescales. In this
instance it would still be advisable to hold a mini tender to ensure value for money
but this would not need to be as involved as a full EU tender. This could be
undertaken whilst the wireless survey and rationalisation work takes place.
7.3
Both the Hart in-house and Rushmoor shared options would require a full tender for
the control room and this could take anywhere up to 6 months to complete. This
will not need to be a full EU procurement as security surveillance type services are
"Type B” and do not need to be advertised in the EU. However a UK tendering
process would still be resource intensive and would take approximately 6 months to
complete.
7.4
It should be noted that Hart does not have a dedicated procurement resource or
experience of large scale tendering. The advantage of the Rushmoor option would be
that the partnership would be able to utilise Rushmoor’s in-house procurement
support. If Hart do chose this option, it would make more sense to procure cameras
as part of the overall tender along with the control room, rather than sue the
framework agreement as this would ensure maximum economies of scale.
7.5
The Winchester control room is already built and gone live. It is managed by
Quadrant on behalf of the City Council. If Hart pursue this option, we would have
an agreement with Winchester City Council, who would provide a managed service
through their Quadrant Contract. The Winchester options would be the cheapest
and quickest option to implement. The value of the project is under the EU threshold
6
PAPER B
so the Council has no statutory duty to tender. However, a supplier could challenge
the Councils decision not to tender this work.
8
CONCLUSION AND NEXT STEPS
8.1
This has been a broad brush options appraisal, without formal scoring. The
conclusions that have been drawn from it are that all options are evenly weighted in
terms of use of technology. Financially, the in house option is the least favourable,
with Winchester being the cheapest, by a small margin. The Winchester option
would be the easiest to implement but comes with a risk, which could outweigh the
benefit, bringing it on a par with the Rushmoor option. Officers are of a view that
in terms of use of technology, finance, and deliverability, there is little to choose
between Rushmoor and Winchester. The options of working with other Councils
also provide greater service benefits than Hart providing the service alone.
However, the added benefits of the transfer of local knowledge, increased operating
hours and remaining within police boundaries make the Rushmoor option the
preferred option.
8.2
Officers at Rushmoor have produced a similar paper to this, recommending to their
members that Hart and Rushmoor share a CCTV service, to be presented to their
Overview and Scrutiny at the end of November and to their Cabinet in December.
If both groups agree to progress this option, the following next steps will occur:
Establish new priority areas for
CCTV location
Agree Governance Structure for
Hart/Rushmoor Shared Service
Appoint Consultant to write
specification for cameras and
control room
Tender Project
Wireless Survey
Installation
8.3
Timescale
End of December 2011
Responsibility
Hart DC /Police
End of December 2011
Hart/Rushmoor
January 2012
Hart/Rushmoor
Summer 2012
Summer 2012
Autumn 2012
Hart/Rushmoor
Suppliers/Tenderers
All
It is proposed that a consultant is appointed jointly between the two Authorities, to
undertake a comprehensive tender incorporating the procurement of the cameras,
wireless survey and the new control room. The tender document will include the
new priority areas for the cameras, as established by the piece of work that the
police and Community Safety team are undertaking. The supplier will then be
required to produce a tender that provides optimum camera coverage, addressing
the priority areas, with the best use of wireless technology at the lowest cost.
Contact Details:
Emma Broom / 4450 / [email protected]
APPENDICES:
Appendix 1 – Camera Location
BACKGROUND PAPERS:
Overview and Scrutiny Paper – August 2011
7
PAPER B
Appendix 1
CCTV Cameras by Incident – 01/11/10 – 01/11/11
No.
39
27
53
54
28
22
48
49
26
8
18
41
7
15
11
24
36
51
33
38
10
52
45
47
21
13
43
46
16
14
20
37
42
44
6
9
12
35
40
23
17
4
19
50
34
2
1
5
3
Location
Green Lane Car Park
HLC Side
Central Car Park/Doctors
Central Car Park/Alley
HLC Rear
Civic Offices Car Park – Side
FLC Front
FLC Rear
HLC Front
Fleet Road/Avondale Road
Oakley Park Pavilion
The Meadows
Fleet Road/Kings Road
Reading Road South/Basingbourne
Albert Street/Church Road
Church Road Car Park (North)
Station Road/Alldays
Deva Antiques
Ravenscroft Rear
A30 London Road
Kings Road/Pinewood Hill
A30/Fleet Road
Plough Lane
White Lion
Civic Offices Courtyard
Reading Road South/Albert Street
Royal Oak
Dog and Partridge
Crookham Crossroads
Aldershot Road/Glen Road
Harlington Way
Elms Road/A30
Rosemary Lane/A30
Manor Park Drive/Shops
Fleet Road/Church Road
Fleet Road/Railway Station
Albert Street/Upper Street
Station Road
Blackwater Station
Victoria Road Car Park
Basingbourne Road Pavilion
Fleet Road/Brankesomewood
Oakley Park Playpark
Darby Green
Ravenscroft Front
Fleet Road/Gurkha Square
Fleet Road/Oatsheaf
Fleet Road/Somerfield
Fleet Road/Upper Street
Town/Parish
Blackwater
Fleet
Hartley Wintney
Hartley Wintney
Fleet
Fleet
Yateley
Yateley
Fleet
Fleet
Fleet
Blackwater
Fleet
Fleet
Fleet
Fleet
Hook
Hartley Wintney
Hook
Hook
Fleet
Hartley Wintney
Yateley
Yateley
Fleet
Fleet
Yateley
Yateley
Church Crookham
Fleet
Fleet
Hook
Blackwater
Yateley
Fleet
Fleet
Fleet
Hook
Blackwater
Fleet
Fleet
Fleet
Fleet
Yateley
Hook
Fleet
Fleet
Fleet
Fleet
*= paid for by Town/Parish Council
8
Incidents
Camera Removed
0
0
4
6
7
7
7
11
12
15 *
16
17
19 *
25
26
27
28
28 *
29
33
36
36
37
39
39
40
42
44
44 *
50
50
59
62
64
70
72
81
95
102
116 *
118
120 *
125
137 *
199
237
280
420
PAPER C
CABINET
DATE OF MEETING:
1 DECEMBER 2011
TITLE OF REPORT:
URGENT REPAIRS TO LIGHTING AT THE CIVIC
OFFICES
Report of:
Head of Technical Services and Environmental
Maintenance
Cabinet member:
Councillor Stephen Parker, Environment
1
PURPOSE OF REPORT
1.1
To update Members on the recent approval of capital expenditure for repairs to the
civic office lighting.
2
OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
2.1
delegated power within the council’s Scheme of Officer Delegation, has approved
the allocation of £32.5k in the Council’s Capital programme to fund urgent lighting
works at the Civic Offices based on a single quote, for the reasons outlined in the
report.
3
BACKGROUND
3.1
Since 1 April 2011 mechanical and electrical building maintenance works have been
procured through Hampshire County Council’s Engineering Term Maintenance
Contract.
3.2
As part of a recent routine inspection of the lighting at the civic offices the term
maintenance contractor reported that the office light fittings were faulty and in need
of replacement. An independent electrical engineer was therefore appointed to
inspect and report on the condition of the lighting. His report showed that the
condition of the fittings presented both a fire risk as well as a safety risk to anyone
working on them.
3.3
This situation was verbally reported by the Head of Technical Services and
Environmental Maintenance to the Council’s Capital Board on the 13 October 2011.
The board, which was attended by the Chief Executive, Council Leader and the
Section 151 officer agreed that an emergency budget should be allocated in the
Council’s capital programme to fund these works.
3.4
The value of the required work was estimated at between £20-40k. In accordance
with standing orders three quotes would normally have been obtained for this value
of work. However, due to the nature of the works and the urgent need for them, it
was not practical to obtain three quotes. A single quote of £32,500 was, however,
obtained from Pegasus building services on the basis of trial replacements carried
out by them. It is possible to demonstrate that this quote represents value for
money by comparing it with day work rates from the term maintenance contract. If
1
PAPER C
this had been used to procure the works then it is estimated that the overall cost of
the work would have been in excess of £40k.
3.5
The Section 151 officer was consulted and agreed to the appointment of the
contractor for these works using comparison of the single quote with the term
maintenance contract.
3.6
The Chief Executive formally authorised acceptance of the quotation provided by
Pegasus Building Services on 3rd November 2011.
3.7
Replacement of the faulty fittings commenced on site 16th November 2011, it is
anticipated that this work will take several weeks to complete.
4
4.1
The estimated cost of the works is £32,500; the Council’s capital programme has
been updated to include this.
5
MANAGEMENT OF RISK
5.1
The contractor has completed a risk assessment for the works, and is operating in
accordance with all necessary Health and Safety legislation.
5.2
Whilst the majority of works are being carried out during normal office hours the
contractor is coordinating with staff to ensure that disruption to normal office
operations is minimised.
5.3
The speed with which these works have been procured has helped minimise the
safety and fire risk.
6
CONCLUSION
6.1
Members are asked to the note the approval of this urgent work.
Contact Details: John Elson – Head of Technical Services and Environmental
Maintenance / Extension 4491 / e-mail [email protected]
APPENDICES - None
BACKGROUND PAPERS:
Cabinet Report - Hampshire County Council Engineering Term Maintenance Contract –
3 March 2011.
2
PAPER D
CABINET
DATE OF MEETING:
1 DECEMBER 2011
TITLE OF REPORT:
SOLAR PHOTOVOLTAIC PANELS AT FROGMORE
LEISURE CENTRE
Report of:
Climate Change Officer
Cabinet Member:
Councillor Crookes, Leader
1
PURPOSE OF REPORT
To advise Cabinet of the recent approval of capital works to install photovoltaic (PV)
panels on to the flat roof area of Frogmore Leisure Centre.
2
2.1
3
BACKGROUND
3.1
For a number of months officers have been working up a proposal to install
photovoltaic cells on the flat roof of Frogmore Leisure Centre. The proposal has
been discussed at the Capital Board and was due to be recommended to Cabinet for
approval shortly. The proposal would benefit from the government’s “Feed in Tariff”
(FIT), which meant that the capital cost of the investment would have been recouped
over the next 8 years, generating a profit thereafter. It was calculated that the
£28,332.29 initial investment would give the council a return on investment of 12.9%
and a profit over 25 years of £25,000.
3.2
The FIT is a government initiative that is funded by energy companies to encourage
the uptake of electricity generating technologies in the UK. It was launched in April
2010. The FIT is paid to a solar PV installation owner in two streams, generation
tariff and export tariff. The generation tariff pays the owner a given rate per kWp
generated by the panels regardless of whether the electricity is used in the building
or fed back into the grid. This is index linked and is paid for a 25 year period. The
export tariff pays a given rate for each kWh exported back into the grid. This rate is
controlled by what the market is willing to pay but the minimum is set at this. For the
system size we are looking for at Frogmore Leisure Centre, the generation tariff is
37.8 pence, the export tariff is 3 pence.
3.3
The FIT rates were due to drop in value in April 2012, and the market was gearing up
for this change. However on 31 October 2011, the Department of Energy and
Climate Change announced significant changes in the value of the tariff that would
have affected the financial viability of this project if installation was not completed by
1
PAPER D
11 December 2011, the date at which the tariff changes come into effect. The new
tariffs are significantly less generous from the council’s point of view.
3.4
In order to take advantage of the existing rates, the Chief Executive, acting in
consultation with the Leader, and with the advice of the Head of Finance, has
approved the immediate installation of the panels, to take place before the
11 December deadline
4
CONSIDERATIONS
4.1
FIT eligibility criteria:


4.2
The installer of the system must be MCS accredited
The system must be MCS accredited
Frogmore Leisure Centre is the only building within the Hart District Council estate
that offers all the required criteria for the FIT and solar panels in general:



Large enough roof of correct orientation (between SE and SW)
A building that will be there for 25 years (the duration of the FIT)
No shading from trees or neighbouring buildings on the roof where the panels
will sit.
4.3
Planning permission is not required as this is permitted development.
4.4
The Chief Executive has authorised the purchase based on one quote. The reason
only one quote was obtained was due to the December 11th deadline, which meant
that many PV installers were not prepared to quote as they could not get the stock
or did not have the staff resource to fulfil the order in time. The quote which was
obtained came within the initially proposed spend of £30k and offered a technology
that provides efficiency levels on a par with other market leaders.
5
5.1
The Feed in Tariff offers a robust investment model for Hart District Council.
Table 1. illustrates the financial modelling of the proposed investment and resulting
profit. This is a conservative calculation based the UK average sunshine data, we
would expect more sunlight in the South of England.
NB. The ‘Generation tariff’ and ‘export tariff’ have been index linked at 2.5%, the
maintenance and energy prices are inflated by 2% year on year.
Table 1.
Electricity Savings*
YEAR 1
£
410
OVER 25 years
£
12,987
Generation Tariff (income)
3,210
108,482
Export Tariff* (income)
127
4,305
2
PAPER D
Maintenance
-300
-4,305
Resulting profit
3,447
116,175
With NPV discount applied (6%)
25,396
* for this size system, export and usage is deemed at 50% and the feed in tariff paid
on that basis, these calculations reflect that.
5.2
Table 2 illustrates the impact of the drop in FIT on the project should the installation
have been delayed until after December 11th 2011. The breakeven on the project
would have been at 13 ½ years.
Table 2.
Electricity Savings
YEAR 1
£
440
OVER 25 Years
£
13,948
Generation Tariff (income)
1,532
51,779
Export Tariff (income)
137
4,263
Maintenance
-296
-9,494
Resulting profit
1,710
60,496
With NPV discount applied (6%)
£691
5.3
Electricity
Frogmore Leisure Centres current spend on electricity per year is currently £30,140
therefore the resulting profit (including electricity saving) will offset 12% of the total
electricity bill.
6
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS
6.1
In addition to the robust financial investment model the FIT offers, there are clear
environmental benefits as we will reduce the leisure centres dependency on fossil
fuels and therefore address the carbon footprint. As a key building in the community,
this will also demonstrate the councils continuing commitments to addressing climate
change and fuel security.
6.2
Frogmore Leisure Centres current carbon footprint from electricity is 196 tCO2 and
total carbon footprint from energy use is 326tCO2. This project would reduce it by
5tCO2, which is 2.6% on electricity and 1.5% on total energy related carbon
footprint. This contributes to our overall ambition to reduce emissions by 5% year
on year, to which this would contribute 0.2%. This is significant from a single project
at one site particularly considering the leisure centre represents on 19% of the
councils overall emissions from energy use.
3
PAPER D
7
CONCLUSION
7.1
Installing a 9.88kWp solar PV array at Frogmore Leisure Centre is a great
opportunity for Hart District Council to capitalise on a government initiative that
offers a return on an investment as well as showing an on going commitment and
leadership position on climate change.
Contact Details:
Carolyn Whistlecraft
email: [email protected]
telephone: 01252 774251
4
PAPER D
Appendix 1 Solar
1)
PV FAQ
This is a how a typical installation will look:
Solar PV array
on roof
Electricity
DC
Inverter
000768
AC
Isolator
Generation
meter
012345
Main
Main Consumer
2)
Electricity
meter
How do solar photovoltaic panels work?
Daylight hits the photovoltaic cells and is converted to clean electricity. The inverter
converts the electricity from direct to alternating current, for use in the building. This
is prioritised over gird energy and free electricity will be used during this time. When
the solar energy system is producing more power than is needed it is exported to the
grid. At night, power is imported from the grid in the normal way.
3)
What are the maintenance implications
Solar photovoltaic systems are silent in operation, have no moving parts and require
little maintenance. During the lifetime of the system we have planned to replace the
inverter once, however this will not occur until the inverter fails.
4)
How are PV cells affected by dirt?
The degree of soiling will depend on the location but usually dust accumulation and
self-cleaning reach a steady state after a few weeks if the array tilt is at least 15
degrees. In extreme cases dust may cause a power reduction of about 10%. At low
5
PAPER D
tilts horizontal glazing bars can trap debris which could lead to shading of part of the
array. The design of the system should aim to minimise uneven soiling.
Within the maintenance budget we have allowed for cleaning – done in a similar way
to upper storey windows.
5)
Does it really work in the UK?
Yes. The cells in the tiles only require daylight to work, and will even generate energy
on cloudy days.
6)
What happens if there is a power cut?
A photovoltaic system is grid connected. If there is a power cut your system is
automatically switched off. This is a safety measure designed to stop electricity
leaking on to the national grid and to protect individuals who may be working to
restore the power supply.
7)
How long will the system last
The whole system will be under a manufacture and installation warranty for 10 years.
We would expect the inverter to last in excess of 15 years. The panels are under a
performance warranty for 25 years (states that they will not perform less that 80% of
their starting power). The panels are expected to far out live this 25 year mark
however.
8)
Do we need to tell the DNO (district network operator – grid owner)
Yes, the installer will do this.
9)
Do we need planning permission
Yes.
6
PAPER E
CABINET
DATE OF MEETING:
1 DECEMBER 2011
TITLE OF REPORT:
DISABLED FACILITIES GRANTS UPDATE &
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDING
Report of:
Head of Housing
Cabinet Member:
Councillor Chris Butler, Housing and Health
1.
PURPOSE OF REPORT
1.1
To update Cabinet in relation to Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) funding and to agree
additional funding to ensure there is no waiting list for these grants in HDC.
2.
2.1
That Cabinet notes the position regarding DFG spending and agrees that up to £100k
funds be transferred to the DFG programme YR05, from Housing Capital Receipts in
each of the years 2011/12, 2012/13 and 2013/14.
3.
BACKGROUND
3.1
At about this time over each of the last two years a paper has been presented
outlining the need for additional funding for the DFG programme, £43k in 2009/10
and £120k in 2010/11. In addition, the paper in January 2011 indicated that a saving of
some £75k was likely to be achieved through a series of steps being taken in order to
reduce the overall cost of the DFG programme. In the end the actual savings
amounted to approximately £45k, as one of the schemes did not come on stream
until 2011/12.
3.2
The programme of savings is continuing through:
 a countywide purchasing agreement for level access showers, and
 contributions from housing associations towards the cost of adaptation works
in their own homes
In addition this year through the reorganisation of the delivery of the Home
Improvement Agencies a saving of 10% of the cost of works in a number of grants is
being made. A fourth cost reduction proposal, relating to a countywide purchasing
agreement regarding stairlifts, has yet to be finalised.
It is expected that these cost reduction measures will again save the authority £80k.
3.3
In January 2011 central government published some research by the Building
Research Establishment into a new methodology for distributing DFG funds
nationally. Using this method, HDC would receive significantly less grant funding,
however the paper goes on to advise the intention would be that no authority should
receive less than their current grant.
1
PAPER E
3.4
The amount spent on DFGs in recent years is shown in the table below:
Year
Total DFG
Spend
HDC
Contribution
Central Gov
Contribution
04/05
05/06
06/07
07/08
08/09
09/10
10/11
11/12
Budget
£275,000
£366,000
£258,000
£303,000
£453,000
£384,000
£568,000
£462,000
£125,000
£219,000
£103,000
£129,000
£195,000
£156,000
£304,000
£202,000
£150,000
£147,000
£155,000
£174,000
£258,000
£228,000
£264,000
£260,000
3.5
The majority of grants are either for adaptations for older people, often level access
showers and / or stairlifts and averaging some £5k, or for children, in which case
extensions are often required and the grant can be at or in excess of the maximum
level of £30k. All grants, other than those for children, are subject to a financial
assessment of the applicant.
3.6
Children’s grants were removed from being financially assessed following a review of
the DFG programme in 2005. The reasons for this change were to:
 remove the disincentive to work for parents,
 end the delay, in accessing funding, that is harmful to children’s life
chances
 produce significant savings through improving the health of parents and
children and preventing accidents.
3.7
The Council has maintained a policy of not holding up the processing of DFG
applications for financial reasons.
4.
CONSIDERATIONS
4.1
Currently some £320k has been spent on DFGs and it is anticipated that spend for
the remainder of the year will be approximately £250k. This year’s spending pattern
is different from previous years, see Appendix A; in a large part this is due to the
extremely high levels of grant approvals made in 10/11. The high levels of DFG
approvals last year were mainly attributable to additional OT resources reducing
waiting lists for both children’s and adult DFGs.
4.2
The value of DFG approvals in 11/12 is below previous levels, see Appendix B, and
the number of grant approvals is also below previous years (25 so far this year
compared to 79 last year). In addition the average grant approval this year is
approximately two thirds of that last year. The value of approved grants not yet
spent is at the relatively low level of £170k. However an estimate of the value of
grants currently being processed remains at a relatively high level, approximately
£300k, indicating that demand for DFGs is continuing.
4.3
The recent House Condition Survey (2010) suggests that some 10% of households
contained at least one person suffering from a long term illness or disability, many of
2
PAPER E
these people will be the frail elderly. While many of the needs will be met with the
installation of simple grab rails or shower seats, these figures also suggest that
demand for DFGs will continue at a high level.
4.4
Joint working with the County and the Home Improvement Agency is also leading to
a reduction in the time an applicant has to wait for their adaptation works to be
completed, with smaller works, eg level access showers and straight stairlifts, now
taking approximately 7 months from first notification to installation. This more rapid
turnaround of grants will also have the short term effect of raising payment levels.
5.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
5.1
This authority has maintained a policy of not operating a waiting list for DFG
applicants for two reasons, firstly the vulnerable nature of the people involved and
secondly because of the length of time the total process takes from initial contact
with the OT service to completion of adaptation works. It is not recommended that
this policy should be changed.
6.
6.1
In the current financial year demand is continuing for DFG works and while some
indicators, ie number of grant approvals and average level of grant award, show a
short-term down ward trend, it is anticipated that the current budget will potentially
be overspent by up to £100k. It is recommended that this shortfall, be funded from
Housing Capital Receipts on the same basis as previous years, ie that this money is
applied only to adaptation works in social housing.
6.2
In future years it would be prudent to anticipate a continuing high level of DFG
spending particularly due to the effects of the aging population. The current DFG
budget is funded from a combination of the government grant and funds from the
Capital Receipts general. No additional funding from central government can be
anticipated. For each of the last 3 years, including this one, significant additional funds
have needed to be committed from the Social Housing Initiatives fund. It is suggested
that the future Capital Programme includes a transfer of £100k annually from
Housing Capital Receipts, to provide a base DFG budget of £560k.
6.3
There are no direct revenue implications from this paper.
6.4
This report was considered and endorsed by Capital Board at its meeting on 10th
November.
7.
CONCLUSION
7.1
That Cabinet agrees to £100k being transferred from the Housing Capital Receipts to
the Disabled Facilities Grant budget (YR05) for each of 2011/12, 2012/13 and
2013/14, and that this position be reviewed during 2013/14.
Contact Details:
Nigel Preston
[email protected]
3
ext 4488
PAPER E
BACKGROUND PAPERS:
Cabinet Report September 08 – Changes to Disabled Facilities Grants
Cabinet Report December 09 – Disabled Facilities Grants
Cabinet Report January 11 – Request for Additional Funding for Disabled Facilities Grants
4
APPENDIX A
Cumulative Paid 2009 - 2012
600000
500000
400000
£'s
2009/2010
2010/2011
300000
2011/2012
Budget 2011/2012
200000
100000
0
Months
5
APPENDIX B
Cumulative Approved 2009-2012
800000
700000
600000
500000
£'s
2009/2010
2010/2011
400000
2011/2012
Budget 2011/2012
300000
200000
100000
0
Months
6
PAPER F
CABINET
DATE OF MEETING:
1 DECEMBER 2011
TITLE OF REPORT:
CONSERVATION AREA REVIEW – CRICKET HILL,
YATELEY
Report of:
Landscape and Conservation Manager
Cabinet member:
Councillor Richard Appleton, Planning and
Environmental Regulation
1
PURPOSE OF REPORT
1.1 To approve the Conservation Area Character Appraisal and Management Plan for
Cricket Hill, Yateley.
2
2.1
3
3.1
It is recommended that the Conservation Area Character Appraisals and Management
Proposals for the Cricket Hill Conservation Area as shown in Appendix 1 are adopted
by the Council, and that the accompanying maps in Appendix 3 are amended in
accordance with the recommendations.
BACKGROUND
The Council has embarked upon a programme of Conservation Area Reviews. The
programme included a review for the Cricket Hill Conservation Area in 2010.
3.2 The Review Process
Each Conservation Area is reviewed following a standard format.
 The first stage is a walkabout through the area. This took place on 13th December
2010. Attending the walkabout were representatives from the Yateley Society,
H.C.C. Commons Rangers and the CA Consultant. During the walkabout issues
were discussed, such as the boundary of the conservation area along with some of
the main issues that face the community.

Following the walkabout all participants were invited to submit comments and the
first draft of the Appraisal Document and Management Plan was produced.

This draft then formed the basis of the public consultation and placed on the
Council’s web site, along with the accompanying maps. A public exhibition was then
held at the Yateley Town Council building for a two week period.

A questionnaire was available on the HDC website and at the public exhibition
inviting comments on the first draft and CA maps.

All comments received were then assessed and responded to and form Appendix
2 of this report.
3.3 The consultation process carried out by the Council was successful and there was effective
public engagement. All responses received have been taken into account and where
appropriate incorporated into the revised text of the Appraisal Document and Management
Plan (Appendix 1). The Revised Draft Document includes amended or additional text
underlined to ensure that changes can be identified easily within the original text.
1
PAPER F
The Appraisal Document and Management Plan
The format of the document follows closely the suggested format advocated by English
Heritage. It is different to previous appraisals and management plans in that it is argued that
the preparation of an area appraisal should not be an end in itself. English Heritage in its
Guidance on conservation area appraisals states that the preparation of an appraisal should be:
“..regarded as the first step in a dynamic process, the aim of which is to preserve and enhance
the character and appearance of the designated area – and to provide a basis for making
sustainable decisions about its future through the development of management proposals”.
It continues;
“It should not result in a series of detailed descriptions of apparently discrete sub-areas, losing
sight of the character of the area as a dynamic whole”.
The Management Plan
The character of conservation areas is not static and it is susceptible to change, whether
that is dramatic change or small and incremental alterations to the area. Very often the
very qualities that make the area special also encourage pressure for over-development.
Positive management of that pressure for change is necessary.
4
CONSIDERATIONS
The Management Proposals include a number of recommendations that address threats,
opportunities for improvement or proposals. Monitoring and Review is also recommended.
5
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The implementation of the Conservation Area Review would be in accordance with the
aims of the Council to enhance the environment and improve the quality of development
throughout the district
6
6.1 The cost of the conservation area review for and the production of the relevant documents
can be met through existing budgets.
6.2 There is no budget in place to deliver elements of the Management Proposals. These have
implications for Officer time and it may not be possible to meet the recommendations of
the Management Proposals within existing staff levels.
7
MANAGEMENT OF RISK
If the Council does not approve the Conservation Area Appraisal and Management
Proposals it may not be able to protect Conservation Areas from inappropriate
development.
2
PAPER F
8
CONCLUSION
It is recommended that the Conservation Area Character Appraisal and Management
Proposals (Appendix 1) are approved, along with the recommended amendments to the
various maps.
Contact Details:
Andrew Ratcliffe/ 4429 / [email protected]
APPENDICES
Appendix 1 – Cricket Hill Conservation Area Character Appraisal and
Management Plan
Appendix 2 - Summary of Responses from the Public Consultation
Appendix 3 – Townscape Appraisal Map and Character Area Map
BACKGROUND PAPERS:
The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990
Planning Policy Statement 5 (PPS 5): Planning for the Historic Environment,
March 2010
Guidance on Conservation Area Appraisals, English Heritage, Feb 2006
Guidance on the Management of Conservation Areas, English Heritage, Feb 2006
Historic Area Assessments: Principles and Practice, June 2010
3
Appendix 1
Recommended changes -
CRICKET HILL CONSERVATION AREA
CHARACTER APPRAISAL AND
MANAGEMENT PROPOSALS
December 2011
Cabinet Document
This document has been written by:
The Conservation Studio,
1 Querns Lane,
Cirencester,
Glos GL7 1RL
Tel: 01285 642428
Email: [email protected]
Website: www.theconservationstudio.co.uk
1
Contents:
1
Introduction
1.1
The Cricket Hill Conservation Area
1.2
Summary of key characteristics and recommendations
1.3
The planning policy context
1.4
The local policy framework
1.5
Article 4 Directions
1.5
Community involvement
2
Location and landscape setting
2.1
Location and activities
2.2
Topography and geology
2.3
Relationship of the conservation area to its surroundings
2.4
Biodiversity
3
The historical development of Cricket Hill
3.1
Early development
3.2
Post-Conquest development
4
Spatial analysis
4.1
Layout and street pattern
4.2
Open spaces, trees and landscape
4.3
Focal points, focal buildings, views and vistas
4.4
Boundaries
4.5
Public realm
5
The buildings of the conservation area
5.1
Building types
5.2
Listed buildings
5.3
Locally listed buildings
5.4
Positive buildings
5.5
Building styles, materials and colours
6
Character areas
6.1
Reading Road and Cricket Hill Lane
6.2
Old Welmore and Royal Oak Valley
6.3
The Green, Handford Lane and Sunnyside
6.4
Stevens Hill and Yateley Common
7
Issues
7.1
Summary of Issues
Page
2
THE MANAGEMENT PROPOSALS
8
Introduction
8.1
Format of the Management Proposals
9
Issues and recommendations
9.1
Protecting Yateley Common and other green spaces
9.2
The control of new development
9.3
Building issues
9.4
Conservation Area Boundary Review
10
Monitoring and review
APPENDICES
Appendix 1
Appendix 2
Appendix 3
Appendix 4
Townscape Appraisal Map
Character Areas Map
Bibliography
Contact details
ILLUSTRATIONS
Historic maps and photographs (to follow)
3
1
INTRODUCTION
1.1
The Cricket Hill Conservation Area
Cricket Hill is almost the most northerly of Hart’s conservation areas, close to the Berkshire
border and located on undulating former heathland. It forms a group of conservation areas
(Yateley Green, Cricket Hill and Darby Green) which lie within one mile of each other in the
parish of Yateley and are loosely connected by the Reading Road. About one quarter of the
Cricket Hill Conservation Area is registered common land (Yateley Common - designation
number CL24), the common now being partly wooded with some areas of restored open
heathland. Four ponds, meandering watercourses, and undulating topography characterise the
Conservation Area, providing a pleasant backdrop to the rather dispersed development. Cricket
Hill Green, just off Cricket Hill Lane, and the adjoining Cricketers Public House, gives some
focus to the community, the public house being one of the few commercial businesses in the
area apart from a hotel and restaurant in Handford Lane (Casa dei Cesari) and some offices in
Cricket Hill Lane (Yateley Lodge). Otherwise, the uses are almost entirely residential.
Whilst a substantial amount of the Conservation Area is open green space and woodland,
providing a rural quality to the area, areas of 1960s and 1970s housing lie to the north and west
of the Conservation Area’s boundaries. The busy Cricket Hill Lane runs through the centre of
the Conservation Area, connecting Reading Road in the north to the A30 in the south. Historic
buildings, mainly small detached houses and cottages, lie on either side of this road, or are
collected into small groups in Sunnyside and Brandy Bottom. There are only three listed
buildings, Yateley Lodge, a substantial house re-fronted in the early 19th century house with an
earlier core; Thatch Cottage, a modestly sized re-fronted timber-framed cottage, probably 17th
century in date; and The Nest, a mid-18th century brick cottage which also faces Cricket Hill
Lane. Old Welmore contains a number of Inter-War houses, set in spacious plots, with some
later infilling.
This part of Yateley Common, between Reading Road and the A30, is owned and managed by
Hampshire County Council. Another large area of Yateley Common to the south of the A30 is
owned by the MOD and managed by the Hampshire Wildlife Trust.
Away from the inhabited area successive heathland restoration projects have cleared trees and
undergrowth to provide suitable habitats for ground-nesting birds, particularly night jars, Dartford
warblers and woodlarks. Most of Yateley Common forms the major part of the Castle Bottom to
Yateley and Hawley Commons Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) which is itself part of the
Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area for Wild Birds (SPA), designed to protect the
habitats of these three ground nesting birds. In total Yateley Common covers about 500
hectares, and has six different owners.
The Cricket Hill Conservation Area was designated by Hart District Council in March 1988 and
subsequently extended by the Council in June 1990 to include Royal Oak Valley and the
remainder of the Old Welmore area. A Conservation Area Proposals Statement for the Cricket
Hill Conservation Area was published in 1999, including a further addition to the Conservation
Area, namely the addition of Yateley Lodge and the adjoining pond on Cricket Hill Lane. This
appraisal draws on, and supersedes, this earlier document.
1.2
This Character Appraisal concludes that the key positive characteristics of the Cricket Hill
Conservation Area are:
4












Historic rural settlement located between Yateley village and Blackwater in north
Hampshire
About one third of the Conservation Area is formed by Yateley Common, a large
registered common which stretches from Reading Road in the north and beyond the A30
in the south
Large areas of woodland and open heath, with some open areas of grass – principally
Cricket Hill Green
Most of Yateley Common is a Special Protection Area (SPA), designated under
European Directives to protect the habitats of three specific species of ground-nesting
birds, as well as being a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) – this also provides
protection to a variety of other wildlife interests within the Cricket Hill Conservation Area.
Cricket Hill Lane forms the ‘spine’ of the Conservation Area, running north to south from
Reading Road to the A30
There is dispersed historical development, mainly along the eastern side of Cricket Hill
Lane
Further focused historic development of cottages and small houses in Sunnyside and
Brandy Bottom, where the properties tend to date to the late 19th or early 20th centuries
Old Welmore was developed from the late 1920s onwards and contains a number of
‘positive’ houses of architectural interest
Cricket Hill Green (forming a small part of Yateley Common) and the adjoining Cricketers
Public House provide some focus to the community
Other commercial uses include a hotel and restaurant (Casa dei Cesari) in Handford
Lane and the offices in Yateley Lodge, which is located on the corner of Cricket Hill Lane
and Reading Road
There are just three listed buildings – Yateley Lodge, Thatch Cottage and The Nest –
and (currently) no locally listed buildings
Use of brown or red brick, slate, red clay tiles, and a little exposed timber-framing and
thatch
The Management Proposals make the following Recommendations (summary):









Protect Yateley Common and its setting through the strict enforcement of policies
contained within the Local Plan and resist applications for change which would have a
detrimental effect on the land and properties within or on the edges of the Common
Continue to ensure that all applications for change within, or on the edges of the
Conservation Area, preserve or enhance its rural character, taking the scale, general
form and materials of the proposal particularly into account
Seek the continued protection of all heritage assets, including the listed and (potentially)
locally listed buildings, and their settings, from demolition or unsympathetic change
Do not allow uses within or on the edges of the Conservation Area which it is considered
do not enhance the rural character of the Conservation Area
New development must not generate additional traffic which might adversely affect the
rural qualities of the Conservation Area
Produce additional publicity and guidance about the existing Article 4 Direction for
property owners in the Conservation Area
Undertake a building-by-building photography survey of all of the affected properties to
aid possible future enforcement action
Produce detailed Design Guidance, to help property owners repair and alter their
buildings in a sympathetic way
Monitor all applications for change to ‘positive’ buildings extremely carefully and refuse
any which adversely affect their architectural or historic interest.
5



1.3
Applications to demolish ‘positive’ buildings will generally be refused
Review the Local and the Statutory List for Cricket Hill, ideally in partnership with the
Yateley Town Council and the Yateley Society
Add two buildings in Reading Road to the Conservation Area (the Royal Oak Public
House and Corner Cottage, listed grade II)
Conservation areas are designated under the provisions of Section 69 of the Planning (Listed
Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. A conservation area is defined as “an area of
special architectural or historic interest the character or appearance of which it is desirable to
preserve or enhance”.
Section 71 of the same Act requires local planning authorities to formulate and publish proposals
for the preservation and enhancement of these conservation areas. Section 72 also specifies
that, in making a decision on an application for development within a conservation area, special
attention must be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance
of that area.
In response to these statutory requirements, this document defines and records the special
architectural and historic interest of the Cricket Hill Conservation Area and identifies
opportunities for enhancement. It is in conformity with English Heritage guidance as set out in
“Guidance on conservation area appraisals” (August 2005) and “Guidance on the management
of conservation areas” (August 2005). Additional government guidance regarding the
management of historic buildings and conservation areas is set out within Planning Policy
Statement 5 (PPS5), which has recently replaced Planning Policy Guidance 15: Planning and
the Historic Environment” (PPG15).
This document therefore seeks to:
1.4

Define the special interest of the Cricket Hill Conservation Area and identify the issues
which threaten the special qualities of the conservation area (in the form of the
“Character Appraisal”)

Provide guidelines to prevent harm and achieve enhancement (in the form of the
“Management Proposals”)
These documents provide a firm basis on which applications for development within the Cricket
Hill Conservation Area can be assessed. The omission of any feature in either the appraisal or
the management proposals does not imply that it is of no interest, and because both will be
subject to regular review, it will be possible to amend any future documents accordingly.
It should be read in conjunction with the wider development plan policy framework as set out in
the Hampshire County Structure Plan (Review) 1996-2011 the South East Plan (Approved
May 2009) and Hart District Council’s Local Plan, adopted in December 2002. This provides
general policies relating to listed buildings, locally listed buildings, and conservation areas which
are relevant to the Cricket Hill Conservation Area, but there are no site specific issues.
The 2002 Local Plan is being incrementally replaced by a new Local Development Framework.
This new planning system was established by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004,
6
which abolishes Structure and Local Plans and replaces them with Local Development
Documents. More information about this important change to the planning system can be found
on the District Council’s website: www.hart.gov.uk.
1.5
There is currently an Article 4 Direction in the Cricket Hill Conservation Area. This is a matter
which is further discussed in the Management Proposals.
1.6
This document was initially drafted following a walkabout with representatives from Hampshire
County Council, Yateley Parish Council, local stakeholders, and local residents on 13th
December 2010. During this event, the extent of the existing Conservation Area boundary was
discussed, along with some of the main problems and issues which face the community. A
questionnaire was also provided to encourage more detailed responses before the document
was drafted.
The first draft was agreed subsequently agreed with the District and the document was then put
on the District Council’s website for six weeks from 4th July 2011. After the completion of this
period of public consultation, the final draft was produced. and the document illustrated with
photographs and historic maps?
7
2
LOCATION AND LANDSCAPE SETTING
2.1
Cricket Hill lies within the parish of Yateley in north eastern Hampshire close to the boundaries
with Berkshire and Surrey, with Sandhurst and Blackwater both near by. The Conservation Area
is located between the busy Reading Road and the even busier A30, although the designated
area does not quite stretch as far as this principal route. Unfortunately, Cricket Hill Lane itself is
a short-cut for heavy traffic from nearby Berkshire towns to junction 4A of the M3. Blackbushe
Airport is located not far away on the edge of the Common, to the north of the A30. Two further
conservation areas can be found nearby at Yateley Green and Darby Green.
The name ‘Cricket Hill’ is a relatively late (possibly 18th century) name which referred to the rural
area around a small green, now next to the Cricketers Public House. Today, Cricket Hill forms
one of a group of small neighbourhoods (Yateley village, Darby Green, and Frogmore) which
together form the parish of Yateley. These historic settlements have been incrementally linked
by Post-war residential development, mainly dating to the 1960s and 1970s, which now
stretches from Blackwater in the east to Yateley village in the west. To the north of the
settlements the ancient water meadows in the floodplain of the River Blackwater now mostly
consist of a complex of man-made lakes which have been formed from earlier gravel workings.
The River Blackwater, which eventually joins the Whitewater, flows westwards through these
lakes.
The Conservation Area is almost totally in residential uses apart from offices in Yateley Lodge
and a hotel and restaurant named Casa dei Cesari in Handford Lane. The Cricketers Public
House, located in a late 1920s building on the edge of Cricket Hill Green, provides a useful local
facility. The part of Yateley Common,which is owned and managed by Hampshire County
Council has been designated as a Country Park, and a small part of this is included in the
Conservation Area.
2.2
The parish of Yateley lies on a succession of terraces of Bagshot Sand which rise to the south of
the valley of the River Blackwater, which flows through a number of lakes created by the flooding
of post-war sand and gravel pits. The historic settlements of Yateley Green, Cricket Hill, and
Darby Green are all located on gently undulating heathland, cut by small streams which largely
flow northwards towards the River Blackwater. Two such streams run through the Cricket Hill
Conservation Area, the slightly larger stream in the east (Pottle Stream) providing the water for
four large manmade ponds which all lie within the Conservation Area. The second stream runs
through the Royal Oak Valley which forms the western boundary to the Conservation Area.
These streams originate from naturally occurring springs which characterise this part of Yateley.
To the east of the Conservation Area, the land rises more noticeably along Stevens Hill.
The Landscape Character Assessment 1997 for Hart District does not cover the Yateley area.
defines the heathland area within Cricket Hill Conservation Area as within Character Area
12 - Minley. The key characteristics are:

A diverse patchwork of farmland, open heath, woodland and parkland with a mixed
but pervasively ‘heathy’ character

The extensive open commons of Yateley and Hawley, heavily used as a recreation
resource
8

A somewhat suburbanised and fragmented character created by the intrusion of
roads and isolated buildings and installations, and its proximity to the urban
fringes of Blackwater and Hawley
The underlying geology is of sand, which provides a poor soil for agriculture, so much of this
area remained heathland or common land with a few dispersed farmsteads, such Hilfield (now
demolished and redeveloped for housing) to the north-east of the Conservation Area.
2.3
A large part of the Cricket Hill Conservation Area is formed by Yateley Common, a substantial
swath of woodland and heathland which separates the settlements of Yateley from the A30.
Yateley Common extends to the south of the A30, as far as the ancient boundary between the
Hundreds of Crondall and Holdshot, first mentioned in a charter before the Conquest. South of
that boundary there is further heathland (Warren Heath, Yateley Heath Wood, Horningly
Common and Hawley Common) as far as the M3. The eastern and southern boundaries of the
Conservation Area therefore abut areas of woodland and open heathland associated with the
Common, as well as some areas of open fields. Estates of 1960s and 1970s houses abut the
Conservation Area on its west side, although the Royal Oak Valley provides a strong boundary
between the two. To the north, the Reading Road creates an obvious boundary between the
Conservation Area and the more built-up area of houses beyond.
2.4
Biodiversity
A large section of the Cricket Hill Conservation Area lies within Yateley Common, which
consists of around 500 hectares. Parts of the Common (including that within the eastern
parts of the Cricket Hill Conservation Area) are subject to two specific designations, as
an SSSI (Site of Special Scientific Interest) and as an SPA (Special Protection Area for
Wild Birds).
In 2005 much of Yateley Common was designated as part of the Thames Basin Heaths
Special Protection Area (SPA). The SPA is a network of heathland sites which are
designated under the European Birds Directive1 and the Habitats Directive2 and protected
in the UK under the Habitats Regulations3. The SPA provides a habitat for the
internationally important bird species of Dartford warbler, nightjar, and woodlark. These
birds are particularly subject to disturbance from walkers, dog walkers and cat predation
because they nest on or near the ground.
Particular rules apply to development proposals in the vicinity of the SPA designed to
ensure that they are not likely to have significant adverse effects on the integrity of the
SPA, either alone or in combination with other developments. The duty to consider the
possibility of likely significant effects applies to all types of development, but it is
residential development that has been most affected. Proposals for an increase in the
number of dwellings within 5km of the SPA, without ‘avoidance measures’ are considered
likely to have a significant effect on the SPA. Within 400 metres of the SPA ‘avoidance
measures’ are unlikely to be effective and net residential development should be avoided.
(Please see the Council’s Avoidance Strategy for the Thames Basin Heaths Special
Protection Area for further details).
1
European Directive 79/409/EEC Conservation of Birds
European Directive 92/42/EEC Conservation of Habitats
3
The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010
2
9
A large section of the Cricket Hill Conservation Area lies within Yateley Common, which consists
of around 500 hectares. Until the 1950s Yateley Common remained as the man-managed open
heathland it had been for millennia. When active management ceased after WW2 the heathland
(then consisting of low heathers and gorse) was overrun by scrub and trees, quickly creating
young woodland. In 1978 the Yateley Common Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) was
notified, covering 218 hectares of Yateley Common. This was subsequently greatly expanded
and now covers almost 1,000 hectares in both Hart and Rushmoor, stretching from the Castle
Bottom National Nature Reserve in Eversley to Hawley Common.
The Common immediately surrounding, and partly included within the Cricket Hill Conservation
Areas, is owned and managed by Hampshire County Council. Since the 1970s the County has
managed their part of Yateley Common, which extends to some 193 hectares, as a Country
Park accredited under the 1968 Countryside Act.
Following the notification in 1993 that much of Yateley Common, and all the ‘County Park’,
would be designated a “Proposed Special Protection Area for Wild Birds’, the County Council
redoubled its efforts to balance the inevitable conflicts between maintaining public access to the
common as a Country Park, and the requirements of the EU Habitats and Wild Bird Directives.
Article 6 is one of the most important articles in the Habitats Directive as it defines how SPA
sites are managed and protected. Paragraphs 6(1) and 6(2) require that, within SPA sites,
Member States must:


Take appropriate conservation measures to maintain and restore the habitats and
species for which the site has been designated to a favourable conservation status;
Avoid damaging activities that could significantly disturb these species or deteriorate the
habitats of the protected species or habitat types.
As part of the SSSI recovery plan the County embarked on a heathland restoration programme
including clearing parts of the woodland to create a suitable habitat for the protected species of
birds to breed. Near the adjoining Darby Green Conservation Area, Stroud Pond is managed as
a wild life pond and as a focus for the County Rangers’ education service to local schools and
colleges. Similarly, within the Cricket Hill Conservation Area, there are two ponds which appear
to have been created as fish ponds or reservoirs, Wyndham Pond and Hospital Pond. These
are also subject to proposals for change, including the creation of a more open area to the east
of Wyndham Pond.
There are other similarities resulting from management objectives and practice. In order to
achieve ‘Favourable Conservation Status’ for the SPA and SSSI, site managers must try to
emulate the methods employed by the commoners historically. In Yateley in the past
commoners’ animals, put out to graze daily and the annual burn of the common in February,
controlled and renewed the heathland habitat, preventing the growth of trees and tall brush.
Since grazing has ceased site managers must copy these traditional practices by tree-felling,
mechanical scrub clearance and the deployment of volunteers including members of the Yateley
Society. Traditional management methods are no longer practiced since the farms which that
once exercised their common rights are now in private residential occupation, and their farmland
is covered in new housing or in institutional use such as schools. Because of the new housing
and schools the controlled burns are also no longer acceptable.
The legal origins of Yateley Common go back to the Statute of Merton in 1236, and in practice
its origins may go back millennia. It could be argued therefore that Yateley Common is the
oldest man-made ‘heritage asset’ within the boundaries of the Conservation Area, and that
managing the Conservation Area to the benefit of the biodiversity of this oldest ‘heritage asset’
10
must be the main conservation objective both because it is legally required to obtain biodiversity
objectives, and because those legal requirements sit neatly with the normal requirements for the
preservation of heritage assets required by the 1990 Act.
Lowland Heath is an internationally rare habitat protected by national legislation and
European directives. Until the 1950s Yateley Common remained as the man-managed
open heathland it had been for millennia. When active management ceased after WW2 the
heathland (then consisting of low heathers and gorse) was overrun by scrub and trees,
quickly creating young woodland. In 1978 the Yateley Common Site of Special Scientific
Interest (SSSI) was notified, covering 218 hectares of Yateley Common. This was
subsequently greatly expanded and now covers almost 1,000 hectares in both Hart and
Rushmoor, stretching from the Castle Bottom National Nature Reserve in Eversley to
Hawley Common. The SSSI was designated as supporting an international important
population of rare birds, a particularly rich invertebrate fauna including a number of
nationally scarce species, an outstanding dragonfly assemblage, and nationally rare
reptiles. The government target that 95% of the nation’s SSSI’s should, by 2010, be
assessed as ‘unfavourable recovering’, or better, has been met in this area.
In 2005 much of the Common was designated as part of the Thames Basin Heaths Special
Protection Area for Wild Birds (SPA) which seeks to protect the natural habitat of three
ground-nesting birds - night jars, Dartford warblers and woodlarks. These birds are
internationally rare and are protected under European Directives. Across the Thames
Valley region the SPA covers 8,000 hectares of which 2,500 hectares are in Hart District.
The majority of heathland sites in the London Basin are small, with 75% of them less than
5 hectares in extent. The 1,000 hectares of the Castle Bottom to Hawley Common SSSI
are thus very significant as being one of the largest continuous tracts of lowland heath
included in the SPA.
Designation of Yateley Common as a Special Protection Area for Wild Birds means that
new development is largely prevented by the EU Habitats and Bird Directives, which have
been adopted within UK law as the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations
2010. New residential development within 400 metres of the boundary of the SPA is also
prevented.
11
3
THE HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF CRICKET HILL
3.1
Early development
The earliest evidence for human activity in Yateley was provided by the discovery of a
concentration of knapped flints on Yateley Common, dating to the Mesolithic period. Burial urns
of early Bronze Age settlers have been also found on the river terraces to the north of Yateley
Green, at Hillfield and at Quarry Lane (both within the Cricket Hill Conservation Area), and close
to Minley Manor. Much later, evidence for pre-Conquest occupation is provided by the survival
of Saxon place names and, most significantly, the Saxon north wall of St Peter’s Church.
The name ‘Yateley’ appears to be derived from the Anglo-Saxon ‘yat’ (gate) and ‘ley’ (forest
clearing). The name ‘Cricket Hill’ is shown on the 1841 census although the game of cricket
does not appear to have been regularly played on Cricket Green until the 1880s, when the
census of 1881 records the existence of the original Cricketers Inn, originally licensed as a
‘beerhouse’ in 1830.
3.2
The development of Yateley
The Cricket Hill Conservation Area lies about one kilometre from the centre of the larger village
of Yateley around Church End Green, and its history is therefore closely interwoven with the
development of Yateley and the surrounding area.
Before 1066 the area lay within the Manor and Hundred of Crondall, part of the larger kingship
royal demesne of Wessex. The Manor was granted by King Alfred in his will of 899 to his
nephew Ethelm, but was soon under the control of the Prior of Winchester. At the Reformation
the land holdings of the Prior passed to the Dean and Chapter of Winchester, then to the
Ecclesiastical Commissioners and, much later, to the Church Commissioners, who remained the
Lords of the Manor of Crondall until the 1950s, when the ‘waste of the manor’ was sold to
Yateley Town Council. Meanwhile the Hundred of Crondall had effectively been removed by the
Local Government Act of 1894 and by the 1920s Law of Property Act.
The medieval parish of Yateley included Blackwater, Hawley, Southwood, Bramshot, Cove and
Minley. At this time Yateley was a loosely dispersed settlement with small farms eking out a
living on the heathland soil. A system of ‘common land’ was already established by the Normal
Conquest, whereby peasants were allowed to settle on poor quality land and use it to graze their
animals. They were also allowed to take bracken for roofing and animal bedding, as well as
heather and wood for fuel.
It is surprisingly to learn therefore that in 1334, when a national tax was levied, Yateley returned
the highest tax within Crondall Hundred, equal to the tax levied in Leeds. Some of this wealth
may have come from income derived from its location close to what is now the A30, the historic
route from London to Salisbury and the West Country beyond. St Peter’s Church facing Church
End Green in Yateley village was enlarged in the late medieval period and was partly rebuilt
following a fire in 1979. A medieval mill is recorded on the river Blackwater.
A large medieval ‘capital messuage’ (called Hall Place) is recorded in 1287 on the site of what is
now Yateley Manor School, about a mile to the west of Cricket Hill. By 1567 Richard Allen lived
there and he had 23 tenants. During the late 17th century the property was owned by Sir
Richard Ryves, a director of the East India Company. By the 18th century it was in the
12
ownership of Thomas Wyndham who called it the Manor of Hall Place, effectively a sub-manor
of Crondall Manor. Hall Place was then the principal house and estate in Yateley, and Thomas
Wyndham soon expanded his property holdings by purchasing Minley Manor and the inn then
known as the Red Lion at Blackwater. He also built a large pond in Yateley Common (which
now lies within the Cricket Hill Conservation Area) as a water supply to fish ponds further down
the valley. The pond was drained during WW2 and has been refilled since to create an
important wildlife habitat in the middle of Yateley Common Country Park. Another substantial
house, Yateley Hall, is located to the south of Yateley Green and is now listed grade II*.
Previously known as Calcotts, the garden is included on Hart District Council’s Historic Parks
and Gardens Register grade ‘B’ and includes the remains of a ha-ha and a short canal feature
which may be the remains of a medieval moat.
The close proximity of Sandhurst, Camberley and Aldershot (by 1854, the ‘home’ of the British
Army’) ensured a constant demand for a variety of houses in Yateley and in the immediate
vicinity. In 1942, when a major new airfield was built on Yateley Common at Hartfordbridge,
most of the farmland in western Yateley was covered in hutments for the RAF – which on closing
at the end of WW2 were used for squatter housing. When the time came to move these
residents on, land owned by Yateley Manor was sold for new development. Despite this
expansion the population of Yateley was only 4,469 in 1961 but by 1981 it was assessed at
around 20,000 – demonstrating the type of growth experienced by the official New Towns.
The development of Cricket Hill
Whilst there is evidence for some fragmented development during the 17th century, Cricket Hill
appears to have grown as a series of early ‘squatters’ encampments, with small groups of tiny
cottages being built on the edges of Yateley Common from the 18th century onwards. Two of
these groups can be seen, albeit expanded, at Brandy Bottom and Sunnyside, with some 20th
century buildings scattered in between mainly 19th century cottages and slightly larger houses.
Jesse Cottage is recorded on the Tithe Map of 1846. The oldest house in the Conservation
Area appears to be Yateley Lodge, which despite its early 19th century appearance, contains
16th 17th and 18th century fabric. Casa dei Cesari also retains a 17th century cottage at its core,
and Thatch Cottage, facing Cricket Hill Lane, is said to similarly contain early timber-framing,
although the brick façade to the front was probably added in the late 18th or early 19th century.
Close by, The Nest dates to c1750. These properties possibly took advantage of the availability
of water, as this part of Yateley lies over the spring line, as is evidenced by the two streams
which rise close to or within the southern part of the Conservation Area.
In 1827 a small Baptist Chapel (called the Zoar Chapel) was built on Cricket Green – this was
demolished and replaced with the present building in 1965. A National School was also built in
Cricket Hill Lane at about the same time (1834) but in 1866 it was transferred to a new and
much larger building on Yateley Green, which is now Yateley Village Hall. This remained as the
village school until 1958 when it was replaced by a purpose-built primary school which was
provided on land previously owned by Yateley Manor School. This primary school has recently
(August 2010) closed. The old school building in Cricket Hill went into private ownership in 1865
and in 1900, when the owner died, he donated it to the community and with some additional
funds from another benefactor, a small Cottage Hospital was set up. This was expanded over
the years and was a popular local facility until it closed in 1974. In 1988 the old buildings were
demolished by Hart District Council and a large block of flats was built, now called Heathlands
Court.
Much of the later development of Cricket Hill, between the mid-19th to the early 20th century,
came under the influence of the Stilwell family who lived in the largest house in the immediate
13
area. This was called Hilfield, and it was located on the east side of Cricket Hill Lane to the
north of Yateley Common. John Pakenham Stilwell, JP (1832-1921) was a wealthy London
banker who came to Cricket Hill when his wife, Georgina Stevens, inherited Hilfield from her
parents in 1871. They were both involved in local affairs - Stilwell was a member of the church
choir and also a Chairman of the Parish Council, and in 1900 he became the secretary of the
Conservators of Yateley Common, successfully resisting proposals to have the Common
enclosed. Hilfield at this time was a Victorian mansion which had been added onto a more
modest but older property, but in 1900 it burnt down, necessitating a complete rebuilding. The
new structure was renamed Yateley Place. When Geoffrey Stilwell died in late 1920s the estate
was sold although several members of the family continued to live in Yateley, including his
widow, who had a new house built for her in Stevens Hill (Thriftswood). Hilfield House was
eventually demolished in 1973 and the land around it developed for housing.
Insert historic maps: 1846, 1888 and 1900
The 1846 map of Cricket Hill shows the location of Hilfield on the northern edge of Yateley
Common, with larger, enclosed fields to the west and north. Gravel pits are also shown, and a
few buildings in what are now Brandy Bottom, Sunnyside, and Cricket Green. Dispersed houses
can also be seen along the east side of Cricket Hill Lane – many of these buildings remain
today. Otherwise, the Zoar Chapel and Hilfield House, on the north-eastern edge of Cricket
Green, are the only two ‘named’ buildings (although what is now Yateley Lodge would also have
been a prominent local building). By 1888, Wyndham’s Pond and Hospital Pond are both clearly
illustrated on the map. There has also been further development at Brandy Bottom and
Sunnyside. By 1900, both of these areas contained more continuous groups of properties, with
‘Cricket Hill House’ being clearly marked on the north side of Cricket Hill Green – this is now
Casa dei Cesari and appears to have been substantially extend in the 1890s. A large fish pond
is also shown to the south of Stevens Hill.
In the 1920s and 1930s new large houses were built in Cricket Hill, Yateley and Darby Green for
members of the army who had recently retired, or who were based at nearby Sandhurst or
Aldershot. In Cricket Hill, Old Welmore was created, providing a number of very substantial
houses set in large gardens, which were further infilled in the Post-WW2 period. In 1928 a new
public house, now called The Cricketers, was built facing The Green and the former public
house (now called The Old Cricketers) became a private house.
During WW2 RAF hutments stretched north to Cricket Green itself. The sewerage system
installed for the hutment area to the west was the primary instigation for the greatest changes to
the area which came in 1960s and 1970s, when much of Yateley was developed with new
housing estates which incrementally joined Blackwater to the historic core of Yateley through
Frogmore and Cricket Hill. Heathlands Cemetery, on the edge of the Conservation Area, was
provided on former heathland in 1957.
The Cricket Hill Conservation Area was designated in March 1988 and extended to include
Royal Oak Valley and the remainder of the Old Welmore area in June 1990. As a result of
further public consultation, Yateley Lodge and an historic pond off Cricket Hill Lane were also
added to the designated area.
14
4
SPATIAL ANALYSIS
4.1
The principal route is Cricket Hill Lane, which forms the spine of what is essentially a linear
Conservation Area. This north-south route connects Reading Road in the north to what is now
the A30 in the south and in 1971 it was straightened out and widened – a small section of the
‘old’ lane can be seen forming the lay-by in front of Thatch Cottage and between the
junctions with Beaver Lane and Quarry Lane. The lane bends slightly along its course, running
roughly parallel to the line of the Pottle Stream, which drops down from the two ponds in the
north, around Stevens Hill, then under Reading Road before joining the River Blackwater.
Skaters Pond, once called Hilfield Pond, lies on the east side of Cricket Hill Lane and once lay
within the gardens of Hilfield House – despite pond clearance some 20 years ago it is now little
more than marsh due to the pond incrementally silting up. .
Handford Lane is another old route and connects Cricket Hill Lane with Yateley Green. Cricket
Hill Green lies close to the junction of Cricket Hill Lane and Handford Lane, but its impact on the
main road is lessoned by the hedges which surround it, although views over the Green to the
1930s public house are of note.
Both lanes are largely surrounded by areas of woodland, particularly in the south, where the
land falls within Yateley Common, or by low density houses or cottages, mostly set back slightly
from the road in large gardens. Development tends to be concentrated to the west side of the
lane, with quite different groups of houses or cottages, according to when they were built.
Mainly 19th century development, such as can be that seen in Brandy Bottom and Sunnyside,
is made up of single depth properties which share a fairly common building line and are set
close together with large gardens behind. These are accessed off the main roads by narrow
unmade tracks which cut through the woodland. More recent 20th century development, such as
can be seen in Beaver Lane, Old Welmore and Quarry Lane, is characterised by narrow winding
unmade roads with large detached houses set in very spacious plots. These differences are
discussed in greater detail in Chapter 6: Character Areas.
4.2
With about half of the Conservation Area being wooded heathland, open green space or private
gardens, the whole area is dominated by trees which form significant groups on either side of
Cricket Hill Lane. Larger areas of woodland also stretch back from Cricket Hill Lane, on the east
side, around Hospital Pond and Wyndham Pond. The woodland is made up of both deciduous
and coniferous trees, with many small self-seeded Silver Birches. A large Cedar tree in the
garden of Yateley Lodge is of special note. The most important trees and groups of trees are
marked on the Townscape Appraisal Map, but due to the very large number and density of the
trees within the Conservation Area, are indicative only.
The principal open green space is Cricket Hill Green, an area of rough grass which lies between
the Cricketers Public House and Cricket Hill Lane. There are further open green spaces,
similarly informal and simply grassed, in front of Sunnyside and Brandy Bottom. The Royal Oak
Valley is a pleasant but often very narrow linear park which forms most of the western boundary
of the Conservation Area and which forms a useful separation between Old Welmore and the
Post-War housing estates further west.
15
4.3
There are no focal points in the Conservation Area apart from Cricket Hill Green, which has
greater impact in the summer months when some of the customers of the public house sit
outside. Because most of the buildings were built as cottages or relatively modest houses, there
are no buildings which have any great impact apart from:





The Cricketers Public House, The Green – important in views across the open green space,
particularly from Cricket Hill Lane
Handfords, Handford Lane – an unlisted a locally listed but important historic building
(presumably once a farmhouse) with a weather-boarded barn next to it, also Locally Listed,
which together are very important in oblique views along the lane
Well Moor, Cricket Hill Lane – another important but unlisted historic building which sits on
the west side of the road and is again important in oblique views along the road
Yateley Lodge, on the corner of Cricket Hill Lane and Reading Road – the oldest and most
impressive historic building in the Conservation Area, which is also notable for the large
cedar tree in its front garden
The Royal Oak Public House (currently not within the Conservation Area) – a late 19th
century double pile building which sits on a prominent corner site
Casa dei Casari has recently been extended and, although now by far the largest building in the
Conservation Area, it is set well back from Handford Lane and is not particularly dominant in
views from the lane. The impact of this hotel’s more recent development can be seen from
Cricket Hill Green, largely because the new development comes right up to the property
boundary next to the 1960s Baptist Church.
Whilst there are many oblique views along the roads or lanes within the Conservation Area
(most notably along Cricket Hill Lane), longer views are relatively limited due to the way in which
the buildings are laid out. Areas of thick woodland are also dominant and prevent views in many
locations, although along the eastern edge of the Conservation Area, they contain views to the
skyline of Stevens Hill from Cricket Hill Lane. There are pleasant views across Cricket Hill
Green, and short views across the two ponds in the Country Park.
The most important views are noted on the Townscape Appraisal Map, but the omission of a
view does not mean that it is of no significance.
4.4
Boundaries
Nearly all of the boundaries to the properties within the Conservation Area have front gardens of
some size, and the majority of these are defined by clipped or ‘natural’ hedging (the simplest
and most in keeping), low brick walls, or low timber palisade fencing (stained or painted), such
as can be seen in Sunnyside. Along Cricket Hill Lane, and less appropriate, the busy traffic
means that some property owners have erected high brick walls or modern timber-panelled
fencing, or have grown high tall Leyland Cypress (leylandii) hedges. The untidy timber
panelled fencing in front of Handfords is a regrettable feature.
4.5
Public realm
The public realm is composed of the space between the buildings, largely in public ownership,
which is made up by the streets, pavements, lighting, street furniture, signage and other similar
features. For most of the roads and lanes in the Conservation Area, the public realm is simple
and very low key with pavements and streets covered in modern black asphalt tarmacadam (in
16
some locations there are no pavements, in keeping with the rural character of the area). There
are no examples of historic paving. Street lighting is provided by modern concrete ‘hockey-stick’
standards with glass lanterns, or, on the Reading Road, by tall slender steel poles with curved
tops and glass lanterns. Street names are marked by modern white plastic signs with black
lettering, on black posts, similar to the signage found throughout Hampshire. A traditional ‘pub’
sign, advertising The Cricketers, can be seen on the west side of Cricket Hill Lane. Two
carefully designed ‘Yateley Common’ signs can be seen in Cricket Hill Lane and in Handford
Lane. There are some overhead cables, but they are not particularly dominant.
Because the tracks through Yateley Common are across registered common land they cannot
be surfaced without the consent of the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to the
Commons Act 2006 as an ‘enclosure’ of common land. They are thus not adopted. The recent
resurfacing with asphalt tarmacadam of the lane which leads around Thriftswood and down to
Heathlands Cemetery has caused a degree of local controversy.
17
5
THE BUILDINGS OF THE CONSERVATION AREA
5.1
Building types
Most of the buildings in the Conservation Area are unlisted and date to the 19th or 20th century,
but there are three earlier listed buildings, of which one (Yateley Lodge) is now used as offices.
There are no Locally Listed buildings. Several other buildings may be of listable quality and
this is discussed further in the Management Proposals.
All of the buildings (both historic and more recent) in the Conservation Area were built for
residential use apart from the Cricketers Public House, but it does not stand out in that it is only
two storeys high and retains a domestic character. Heathlands Court is the only purpose-built
block of flats, and its large bulk is unfortunately highly visible due to its location next to Cricket
Hill Lane.
The buildings within the Conservation Area fall roughly into three types:



5.2
Distinctive rows of mainly late 19th century cottages and houses located in a woodland
setting (Brandy Bottom and Sunnyside)
More dispersed linear development with a mixture of historic and more modern buildings
(around the west and north side of Cricket Hill Green, and along the east side of Cricket Hill
Lane – some of these are listed)
Inter-War houses set in very large gardens in a ‘planned’ layout (Old Welmore) – three of
these are considered to be of special quality (Quarry House, Tudor House, and Mill House)
Listed buildings
There are just three listed buildings in the current Conservation Area, all listed grade II, as
follows:
Yateley Lodge, Cricket Hill Lane
The list description says c1800, and the details are Georgian, but the slightly asymmetrical
window layout and front parapet suggests a refronting of an older building at about this date.
Otherwise the two storey building is faced in painted stucco with a simple Tuscan portico facing
the large front garden. Later two storey extensions have been added to the south
(appropriately) and to the north (less sympathetically). This part of the building appears (from
Reading Road) to be suffering from damp penetration. The refronted house disguises several
earlier phases of the building commencing from the Tudor era, with principal additions in the late
17th century.
Thatch Cottage, Cricket Hill Lane
Thatch Cottage sits down from the road and its low eaves and prominent thatched roof mean
that it is hardly visible from the pavement. The building is timber-framed with a painted rendered
front, casement windows, and a modern (in keeping) thatched porch. It may date to the 18th or
even the 17th century and is typical of the small (two cell) cottages which would once have been
far more common in the area.
The Nest, Cricket Hill Lane
This building was listed in 1989 and the list description was amended in 1998. It is now
described as an 18th century two bay two storey timber-framed cottage with a front elevation of
red brick with glazed headers. The pitched roof is covered in clay tiles with a half hip on the
northern end and brick chimney stacks at either end. The windows are modern casements, in
18
keeping, and there is a simple tiled porch to the front. Like Thatch Cottage, it sits well down
from Cricket Hill Lane.
5.3
Locally Listed buildings
The District Council has produced a short list of locally significant buildings within Yateley
Parish,. but none Three of them lie within the Cricket Hill Conservation Area boundary. Local
listing provides such buildings with a degree of additional protection, and policies for their
preservation are included in the Hart Local Plan, adopted in December 2002.
More information, and suggestions for Local Listing, are provided in the Management Proposals.
5.4
Positive buildings
In addition to the listed and Locally Listed buildings, nearly 30 buildings many unlisted
buildings have been identified on the Townscape Appraisal Map as being positive historic
buildings of townscape merit. Buildings identified as being positive will vary, but commonly they
will be good examples of relatively unaltered historic buildings where their style, detailing and
building materials provides the streetscape with interest and variety. Most importantly, they
make a positive contribution to the special interest of the conservation area. Where a building
has been heavily altered, and restoration would be impractical, they are excluded.
Within the Cricket Hill Conservation Area, the ‘positive’ buildings are mainly grouped in
Sunnyside, where 13 out of the 17 properties in the group are considered to be of special merit.
A small group of three ‘positive’ buildings can also be seen to the north of Thatch Cottage, and
another group of three in Old Welmore, but otherwise, the ‘positive’ buildings tend to be
somewhat scattered throughout the Conservation Area.
The most important ‘positive’ buildings are:






Thriftswood, Stevens Hill – this substantial brown and red brick house was built in 1929 for
Geoffrey Stilwell’s widow by the architect A C Martin, a pupil of Edwin Lutyens. It is
mentioned in both the old and new additions of Pevsner’s Buildings of England series.
Quarry House, Old Welmore – one of a number of significant ‘Tudor’ style houses which
were erected in the area in the 1920s by a local builder, B A Fullbrook. A former quarry
(hence the name) lies within its front garden which has recently been developed with a new
detached house. The site is contained by boundary walls built from unusual burnt blue and
red bricks. Two further ‘positive’ buildings, of similar quality, lie to the south (Tudor House
and Mill House)
Well Moor – a 17th century cottage (exposed timber-framing can still be seen on the north
flank wall) which was much extended in 1937 to form a substantial house which faces the
main road.
Handfords – a former farmhouse with adjoining weather-boarded barn – the simple brick
faced two storey building with a long catslide roof at the back, casement windows and three
brick chimney stacks, is probably 18th century but may be earlier. A dwelling of this name is
mentioned in the 1567 Crondal Customary.
The Old Cricketers, Cricket Hill Green – a three bay early 19th century white painted brick
cottage with casement windows and a clay tiled roof.
Moorside, Cricket Hill Lane
19
In addition, there are a number of well detailed mainly mid to late 19th century cottages or small
houses – good examples are Cricket Hill Cottage, on the north side Cricket Hill Green, and
Jesse Cottage (although it has been much extended) in Brandy Bottom.
English Heritage guidance advises that a general presumption exists in favour of retaining those
buildings which make a positive contribution to the character or appearance of a conservation
area. The guidance note states that proposals to demolish such buildings should be assessed
against the same broad criteria as proposals to demolish listed buildings. Again, further
information is provided in the Management Proposals.
5.5
The overall character of the historic buildings in the Conservation Area is domestic and
vernacular, so most of the buildings are modestly sized (just two storeys high) and are faced in
brick or painted stucco. Steeply pitched roofs, covered in natural slate and handmade or
machine-made clay tiles, are also prominent. Thatch Cottage, as its name suggests, is the only
example of the use of this material which must have once been far more common. Handmade
clay tiles are important on Handfords and The Nest, and on some of the cottages in Sunnyside.
Decorative tile hanging, again using handmade clay tiles, is also notable on some of the late 19th
century cottages in Brandy Bottom, and also (again) in Sunnyside. Brick red brick, mixed with
blue headers, can be seen on the front elevations of The Nest and Jesse Cottage. Several
buildings appear to have been built as timber-frames, but the only building which has any visible
framing is Well More on Cricket Hill Lane.
Whilst timber casement windows, painted white, would once have been the most predominant
window type, many of the properties facing Cricket Hill Lane have uPVC or modern timber
windows which do not replicate the original design (this is despite the Article 4 Direction which
seeks to control the use of modern materials and details). Yateley Lodge is one of the few
properties in the Conservation Area which has multi-paned sash windows, many of which
appear to be early 19th or possibly late 18th century. Some of the houses in Brandy Bottom and
Sunnyside have substantial extensions which are often almost as large as the original building.
20
6
CHARACTER AREAS
The Cricket Hill Conservation Area divides into four Character Areas according to the age and
type of the buildings, and the landscape setting (see Map 2 Character Areas). These are:




6.1
Old Welmore and the Royal Oak Valley
The Green, Hartford Lane and Sunnyside
These two roads form the ‘spine’ of the Conservation Area and are both historic routes although
modern road-widening schemes have somewhat obliterated their earlier features. Cricket Hill
Lane is the most important road in the Conservation Area, although it does retain more of a rural
character due to the mature trees and ponds which mainly lie to the east and south. Dispersed
development of cottages and small houses can be found on both sides, though to the south and
west, large areas of woodland conceal Sunnyside. Cricket Hill Lane retains the Conservation
Area’s only listed buildings – Yateley Lodge, Thatched Cottage and The Nest.
Negative features or issues for this Character Area:









6.2
The continued maintenance and enhancement of the natural features – trees, grass verges,
watercourses and ponds
The busy and fast moving traffic (despite the 30 mph speed limit), which creates a potentially
dangerous pedestrian environment
There has been a large amount of Post-War development, mainly along the south-east side
of Cricket Hill Lane, of no special interest
Heathlands Court is a large modern block of flats which is out of scale with the other
buildings in the Conservation Area
The large plot sizes in many locations means that there is pressure for further development
Parking in front gardens and the loss of front boundaries
The loss of original features such as windows and front doors on some of the unlisted family
dwellings (despite the Article 4 Direction)
Some of the buildings may be eligible for local listing or even statutory listing
A small extension to the Conservation Area to include the Royal Oak Public House and
Corner Cottage is proposed, both in Reading Road
Old Welmore and the Royal Oak Valley
Old Welmore was laid out in the late 1920s, probably after the Hilfield estate was broken up.
There are three narrow access roads – Quarry Lane, Old Welmore, and Beaver Lane, which
provide access to nearly 20 detached properties, the largest and oldest of which are on the north
side of Quarry Lane (Quarry house, Tudor House and Mill House). These are well detailed very
substantial houses which sit in very large plots. Some of the properties have been added since
WW2 and at least one is a bungalow. Clipped hedging, and the unusual purple and brown bricks
outside Quarry House, make a major contribution to the character of this part of the
Conservation Area.
The Royal Oak Valley is a narrow, well treed public park woodland, much of which is a SINC,
which follows the course of the stream northwards towards Reading Road.
21



6.3
Pressure for the redevelopment of existing properties or the addition of further properties
using existing garden space, as has been recently done at Quarry House
The protection of the tranquil, sylvan character of this part of the Conservation Area
Some of the buildings may be eligible for Local Listing
The Green, Handford Lane and Sunnyside
This part of the Conservation Area has a very rural character due to the areas of thick woodland
and the open green spaces within it. Around the Green are a number of cottages and smaller
houses of which Cricket Hill Cottage is perhaps the best preserved. The Green forms a focal
space which is overlooked by the public house (The Cricketers) and the 1960s Baptist Church.
Whilst there has been some modern development, the spacious plots have been preserved and
the many mature trees all add to the rural character of the area. Casa dei Cesari is the largest
building but is surrounded by trees and set back from the road. Its main visual intrusion is to the
left of the Baptist Church. Handford Lane cuts through this part of the Conservation Area and is
also very busy – Handfords is an unlisted a locally listed former farmhouse which, with its
barn, also locally listed, is a key focal building. Further south, Sunnyside is a row of mainly
mid to late 19th century houses accessed by an unadopted road from Cricket Hill Lane – most of
the properties are considered to be ‘positive’, and overall they remain reasonably well preserved
with many retaining their original front doors, windows, and roof materials.









6.4
Ensuring that the Article 4 Direction is adhered to
Protection of front boundaries and front gardens
Preventing out of scale development and the loss of garden space
Busy traffic along Handford Lane
The poor condition of the access lane to Sunnyside
Out of keeping modern garages in Sunnyside
The timber panel fence to Handfords is in poor condition
The impact of the new extensions to Casa dei Cesari on the adjoining area
A Yateley Common sign on the edge of the Green has been vandalised
This large area of mainly woodland, streams, and ponds makes up about one third of the
Conservation Area. Stevens Hill, to the north, backs onto more open farmland although there
are also areas of woodland. Otherwise, most of this area forms part of Yateley Common and is
managed by Hampshire County Council’s Rangers, who are currently undertaking a series of
landscape improvements as part of the heathland restoration programme and also to try and
prevent vandalism and other anti-social activities.
Apart from some detached houses in Stevens Hill, there is only one area of development –
Brandy Bottom – a row of mixed 19th and 20th century houses with small front gardens which is
accessed from an unadopted lane which leads past Hospital Pond.
22
Brandy Bottom:






Despite the Article 4 Direction, some of the properties have been altered using modern
materials such as uPVC windows
Some dominant modern garages
Jesse Cottage is the oldest building and has been substantially extended
A few visible satellite dishes in front gardens
The poor condition of the access road to Brandy Bottom
Pressure for new development including extensions
Yateley Common:


The care and enhancement of Yateley Common
Balancing the need to protect the Common with the need for public access
General:

Thriftswood in Stevens Hill may be eligible for local or even statutory listing
23
7
ISSUES
7.1
Summary of Issues
Based on the Negatives Features summarised in Chapter 6, and on comments made during the
initial public consultation/walkabout, the following are considered to be the most important
Issues for the Cricket Hill Conservation Area at this point in time:




The protection of the common land and other open green spaces (and their setting) from
unsympathetic new development
The care of the natural features of the common land and other green spaces – the trees,
grass verges, ponds, and watercourses
The continued protection and restoration of the SPA and SSSI
The general enhancement and protection of the rural qualities of the Conservation Area

A general pressure for new development, including the redevelopment of existing
buildings (where larger plot sizes exist)
Building issues



The continued protection of all heritage assets, including the Listed and Locally Listed
buildings, and their settings, from demolition or unsympathetic change
The control of unlisted positive buildings through the existing Article 4 Direction
A thorough review is needed of the statutory and the Local List
Additions:

Add properties in Reading Road – the Royal Oak Public House ( a purpose-built public
house dating to c1900) and Corner Cottage, a grade II listed late 18th century house on the
opposite side of Reading Road
Deletions:

None
24
8
INTRODUCTION
8.1
Part 1 of this document, the Character Appraisal, has identified the special positive qualities of
the Cricket Hill Conservation Area which make the Conservation Area unique. Part 2 of this
document, the Management Proposals, builds upon the negative features which have also been
identified, to provide a series of Issues and Recommendations for improvement and change.
Most, but not all, will be the responsibility of the Hart District Council, Yateley Town Council or
Hampshire County Council.
The structure and scope of this document is based on the suggested framework published by
English Heritage in Guidance on the management of conservation areas (2005). Both the
Conservation Area Character Appraisal and the Management Proposals will be subject to
monitoring and reviews on a regular basis, as set out in Chapter 10.
9
ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS
9.1
Yateley Common makes up a substantial (about one third) part of the designated Conservation
Area, and it therefore makes an important contribution to the special interest of the Conservation
Area because of its green spaces, watercourses, ponds, and, most importantly, its trees and
open heath. These are looked after by the Common rangers who are employed by Hampshire
County Council. The rangers work in a team of four people and are responsible for a total of 13
sites in all. A Management Plan for Yateley Common has been drawn up in past, and a
partnership with DEFRA has resulted in a Countryside Stewardship scheme which has a further
three years left to run. This has primarily provided funding to improve the conservation status of
Yateley Common to “unfavourable – recovering”, including the clearing of trees and scrub within
the Common to create the open spaces and heath land favoured by ground-nesting birds. A
new Management Plan has recently been approved by the Yateley Common Management
Committee and it is hoped it will result in new funding partly from the Higher Level Stewardship
Scheme. The rangers carry out much of the tree work themselves, with occasional help from
local tree surgeons. They use subcontractors for large scale heathland restoration involving
mechanical equipment, and volunteer groups for many other projects. A principal concern of the
rangers is to enhance the wild life opportunities within the SPA and SSSI in order to meet
national and European Union targets, and to provide educational opportunities for children and
the public in general. They also undertake a number of other improvements and projects, such
as the creation of the new pond on the south side of Darby Green Road
The south-eastern quadrant of Yateley Common is owned by the MOD, part of their Minley
Manor estate, and is managed by the Hampshire Wildlife Trust. The Wildlife Trust has recently
been asked to manage the south-western quadrant of Yateley Common, which is owned by the
Calthorpe Estate. The north-western quadrant of Yateley Common is owned by Blackbushe
Airport and is currently unmanaged with respect to wildlife interests. An extensive area along
the river valley of the Blackwater is administered by the Blackwater Valley Countryside
Partnership, an authority made up from the three county councils and all the adjoining local
authorities. The grass verges either side of Cricket Hill Lane and Reading Road are looked after
by Hampshire County Council (Countryside Services).
25
The greatest threat to Yateley Common comes from new development, either in the form of
alterations to, or reconstructions of, existing properties, or from completely new development,
which could have a detrimental effect on the peaceful ambiance of the majority of the Common.
Any increase in traffic along the principal roads such as Cricket Hill Lane and Reading Road
should also be resisted due to the impact on the Common (and the flora and fauna within it) and
the more incipient effect on the Conservation Area in general.
Recommendation:

9.2
The District Council and Hampshire County Council will continue to protect Yateley
Common and its setting through the strict enforcement of policies contained within the
Local Plan and will resist applications for change which would have a detrimental effect
on the land and properties within or on the edges of the Common.
There are very few opportunities for new development within the Conservation Area due to
restrictive Local Plan policies other than the extension or rebuilding of existing properties. In
both instances, there is a possibility of the new development being too large and not in keeping
with the modest, domestic scale of nearly all of the buildings in the Area. Additionally, new
development must not be allowed which that would generate large amounts of new traffic,
although the largest commercial business in the Conservation Area, Casa dei Cesari, has
already been substantially extended. In accordance with existing Council policies, Conservation
Area Consent should not be granted for the demolition of any building without an agreed
scheme for the site being granted planning permission.
Recommendation:




9.3
The District council will continue to ensure through the use of its Development Control
powers, that all applications for change within, or on the edges of the Conservation Area,
preserve or enhance its rural character, taking the scale, general form and materials of
the proposal particularly into account
The District Council will seek the continued protection of all heritage assets, including the
Listed and Locally Listed buildings, and their settings, from demolition or unsympathetic
change
The District Council will not allow uses within or on the edges of the Conservation Area
which it is considered do not enhance the rural character of the Conservation Area
rural qualities of the Conservation Area.
Building issues
Article 4 Direction
Since 1998 the unlisted family dwellings in the Area have been protected by an Article 4
Direction which brings certain alterations to these buildings under planning control. This means
that a changes to windows, front doors, roof materials, chimneys and front boundaries may
require permission from the District Council (listed buildings, and unlisted buildings in other uses,
are already protected by different legislation). In the past, there has been limited publicity about
this additional level of control although the existence of an Article 4 Direction should show up on
solicitor’s searches when property changes hands.
26
Recommendation:



The District Council will consider producing additional publicity and guidance for property
owners in the Conservation Area
The District Council will undertake a building-by-building photography survey of all of the
affected properties to aid possible future enforcement action (resources allowing)
The District Council will produce detailed Design Guidance, to help property owners repair
and alter their buildings in a sympathetic way
The control of unlisted positive buildings (including Locally Listed buildings)
As part of the Appraisal process, and as recommended by English Heritage and in PPS5, a
large number of ‘positive’ buildings have been identified and are marked on the Townscape
Appraisal Map for the Cricket Hill Conservation Area. Generally, these are individual or groups
of buildings which retain all or a high proportion of their original architectural detailing and which
add interest and vitality to the appearance of the conservation area. Most of them date to the
mid to late 19th century, but some may be much earlier. Where they have been too heavily
altered, and restoration is not easily achievable, they are excluded.
As with listed buildings, there is a general presumption in favour of their retention. Any
application for the demolition of a positive building will therefore need to be accompanied by a
reasoned justification as to why the building cannot be retained, similar to that required for a
listed building. The owner must also have made positive efforts to market the building, or to find
a suitable new use, before an application can be determined.
Recommendation:


The District Council will consider applications for change to ‘positive’ buildings extremely
carefully and will refuse any which that adversely affect their architectural or historic
interest.
Applications to demolish ‘positive’ buildings will generally be refused.
Local List and Statutory List
There are currently no three Locally Listed buildings in the Conservation Area but no review has
been carried out in recent years. Additions may include some of the ‘positive’ buildings
identified as part of the Character Appraisal process.
Some may even be eligible for statutory listing.
Recommendation:

9.4
Subject to resources, the Local and the Statutory List for Cricket Hill should be reviewed,
ideally in partnership with the Yateley Town Council and the Yateley Society.
Addition
Add properties in Reading Road

It is proposed to add two buildings to the Conservation Area. Firstly, the Royal Oak Public
House, an early 20th century red brick two storey building which sits on a very prominent site
27
on the corner with Reading Road, and secondly, Corner Cottage, a grade II listed mid-18th
century two storey building which is located opposite the public house.
During the stakeholder’s walkabout in December 2010, an inspection was made of Heathlands
Cemetery; to see if could be added to the Conservation Area. The cemetery was opened in
1957 and although of undoubted local significance, it does not have any ‘special architectural or
historic interest’ which would merit its inclusion within the Conservation Area. It may, however,
be a possible candidate for Hart District Council’s Local List of Historic Parks and Gardens.
Deletions
There are no proposed deletions to the Conservation Area.
10
MONITORING AND REVIEW
10.1 As recommended by English Heritage, this document should be reviewed every five
years from the date of its formal adoption by Hart District Council. It will need to be assessed in
the light of the emerging Local Development Framework and government policy generally. A
review should include the following:

A survey of the Conservation Area including a full photographic survey to aid possible
enforcement action

An assessment of whether the various recommendations detailed in this document have
been acted upon, and how successful this has been

The identification of any new issues which need to be addressed, requiring further
actions or enhancements

The production of a short report detailing the findings of the survey and any necessary
action

Publicity and advertising.
It is possible that this review could be carried out by the local community under the guidance of
a heritage consultant or the District Council. This would enable the local community to become
more involved with the process and would raise public consciousness of the issues, including
the problems associated with enforcement.
APPENDICES
Appendix 1
Appendix 2
Appendix 3
Appendix 4
Character Areas Map
Existing Article 4 Direction
Bibliography
Contact details
28
APPENDIX 1 Townscape Appraisal Map
Character Areas Map
APPENDIX 2 EXISTING ARTICLE 4 DIRECTION
The Direction controls changes to the principal elevations and roofs (where they front a highway
or other public space) of all unlisted family dwellings within the Cricket Hill Conservation Area
which might otherwise have been allowed automatically under house owners’ ‘permitted
development’ rights. The aim of the Direction is to prevent the Conservation Area from being
incrementally spoilt by a variety of unsympathetic changes such as plastic windows or concrete
roof tiles. The Direction means that planning permission is required for a variety of works as
follows:


Extensions, improvements or other alterations to the dwelling house
Alterations to existing boundaries, or the creation of new boundaries
A copy of the Article 4 Direction can be viewed at the Planning Department, Hart District Council,
Fleet, and a more detailed summary of the Direction is included below.
This Article 4 Direction covers all unlisted residential properties in use as a single family unit i.e.
not flats or in multiple occupation, where different legislation applies. The Direction brings under
planning control the following works as specified in the General (Permitted Development) Order
1990 (as amended):

Class A The enlargement, improvement or other alteration of the frontage* of a dwelling
or building within the curtilage of a dwelling, including works affecting a frontage* roof
slope (In respect of side extensions, these are covered where they are in front of the rear
wall of the dwelling);

Class B The erection, construction, alteration or demolition of a porch on the frontage* of
a dwelling;

Class C The erection, alteration or removal of a gate, fence, wall or other means of
enclosure to the frontage* of a dwelling;

Class D The exterior painting of any part of the frontage* of a dwelling or building within
the curtilage of a dwelling (This requires consent where it involves either a painting
scheme dramatically different from the existing or involves areas of the building not
previously painted);

Class E The erection, alteration or removal of a chimney or building within the curtilage
of a dwelling;
*Frontage refers to the elevations or roof slope of the dwelling which face a highway, a footpath,
a bridleway, a waterway or a public open space. In respect of side extensions, these need
permission where they would be forward of the rear wall of the dwelling.
The curtilage is the contained area around the dwelling.
29
APPENDIX 3 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Yateley Society website (http://www.yateleysociety.org.uk/)
Kerslake, Valerie A Walk on Cricket Hill Published by the Yateley Society 1996
APPENDIX 4 CONTACT DETAILS
For further information, please contact the following:
Hart District Council,
Civic Offices,
Harlington Way,
Fleet,
Hampshire GU51 4AE
Tel: 01252 622122
Listed Buildings within Cricket Hill Yateley CA
Yateley Lodge
Thatched Cottage
The Nest
Reading Road
Cricket Hill Lane
Cricket Hill Lane
Yateley
Yateley
Yateley
Locally Listed Buildings within Cricket Hill Yateley CA
Cricket Hill Cottage
(House)
Handfords
Handfords Barn
Exinct Lake at
Cricket Hill Lane
Yateley
Handford Lane
Handford Lane
Brandy Bottom
Yateley
Yateley
Yateley
30
Appendix 2 – Summary of Consultation Comments for Cricket Hill Conservation Area Appraisal
1
Comments on Cricket Hill Yateley CA Appraisal
Respondent Summary of Responses
09.08.2011
Joanne
BettanySimmons
Planning
Policy
Officer
Hart
District
Council
HDC Officer Comment
Proposed
Recommendation
Response to:


Cricket Hill Conservation Area Character
Appraisal and Management Proposals
Darby Green Conservation Area Character
Appraisal and Management Proposals
The Local Policy Framework
1.
Both documents set out that they should be read in
conjunction with the Hampshire County Structure Plan.
This was superseded, with its policies ceasing to have
force, when the Regional Spatial Strategy for the South
East – the South East Plan was approved in May 2009.
Agree
2.
The Darby Green Appraisal makes reference to policies
17a and 17b for Clarks Farm. It would be appropriate to
mention that these come under Local Plan Policy ALT
DEV17. – this relates to Darby Green CA Review only
See Darby Green CA Appraisal
Appendix 2
See 1.4 Change
Hampshire County
Structure Plan the
Regional Spatial Strategy,
May 2009
Biodiversity – SPA
1
3
2
2
3. 2.4 - Both of the documents make reference to the SPA.
In particular for the Cricket Hill Appraisal the
explanation of the SPA is quite confusing – it would be
helpful if paragraph 2 under 2.4 is used to fully explain
what the SPA is, when it was designated, what it is
protected by, what this means to development rather
than splitting it up throughout this section, with
repetition in places.
Some suggested wording is set out below (in blue) based
around the Council’s Avoidance Strategy for the SPA
and wording in the document. Although the explanation
in the Darby Green review is slightly clearer, due to the
impact of the whole area being within 400m it may be
helpful to include similar wording.
In 2005 much of Yateley Common was designated as
part of the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection
Area (SPA). The SPA is a network of heathland sites
which are designated under the European Birds
Directive1 and the Habitats Directive2 and protected in
the UK under the Habitats Regulations3. The SPA
provides a habitat for the internationally important bird
species of Dartford warbler, nightjar, and woodlark.
These birds are particularly subject to disturbance from
walkers, dog walkers and cat predation because they
nest on or near the ground.
Across the Thames Valley region the SPA covers 8,000
3
hectares of which 2,500 hectares are in Hart District.
The majority of heathland sites in the London Basin are
small, with 75% of them less than 5 hectares in extent.
The 1,000 hectares of the Castle Bottom to Hawley
Common SSSI are therefore very significant as being one
of the largest continuous tracts of lowland heath
included in the SPA.
Particular rules apply to development proposals in the
vicinity of the SPA designed to ensure that they are not
likely to have significant adverse effects on the integrity
of the SPA, either alone or in combination with other
developments. The duty to consider the possibility of
likely significant effects applies to all types of
development, but it is residential development that has
been most affected. Proposals for an increase in the
number of dwellings within 5km of the SPA, without
‘avoidance measures’ are considered likely to have a
significant effect on the SPA. Within 400 metres of the
SPA ‘avoidance measures’ are unlikely to be effective
and net residential development should be avoided.
(Please see the Council’s Avoidance Strategy for the
Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area for
further details).
The Common immediately surrounding……
Joanne Bettany-Simmons
Planning Policy Officer
4
Hart District Council
Cllr Davies
from Yateley
Green CA
appraisal that
also apply to
Cricket Hill
CA
See comments from Cllr Davies on Yateley Green CA where changes Agree
were made to the text re Ancient History of Yateley
3.2 ‘part of the larger kingship of Wessex’ do you mean ‘part of the
royal desmesne lying within Wessex’? If, however, you are referring
to the pre-conquest divisions of England either you mean the
‘kingdom of Wessex’ (pre the reign of Athelstane), or (post
Athelstane’s reign the ‘Earldom of Wessex’).
Point taken: we do indeed mean “part of the royal demesne”.
To avoid any misunderstandings re Wessex it might just be
best to substitute “of King Alfred”
Amend
HDC
1.4 - Correct HC Structure Plan with regional Spatial Strategy for SE
0 The South East Plan approved May 2009 (See Jo Bettany’s email)
3.2 - Correct 4th paragraph with ‘It is surprising’ not surprisingly.
1.6 - Include date of Public Consultation 4th July to 15th August 2011
4.3 - Handfords, Handford Lane is a locally listed building, as is
Handfords Barn
5.1 - Insert word ‘be’ – 3rd paragraph last bullet point between ‘to’
and ‘of special quality’.
5.3 - Correct statement that there are no Locally Listed buildings in
Cricket Hill CA
Locally Listed Buildings within Cricket Hill Yateley CA are :
Agree
Amend
Agree
Agree
Agree
Amend
Amend
Amend
Agree
Amend
Agree
Amend
HDC
HDC
HDC
HDC
HDC
HDC
Cricket Hill Cottage (House) Cricket Hill Lane
Yateley
Handford Cottages
Handford Lane
Yateley
Handfords Barn
Handford Lane
Yateley
Exinct Lake at
Brandy Bottom
Yateley
5.1 - Correct statement ‘There are no Locally Listed Buildings. Refer
to list above
Agree
Amend
5
HDC
HDC
HDC
HDC
The Yateley
Society
Do not agree. The proposed
extension to the CA is on the basis
that Whipple Cottage is a positive
building. However, no mention of
Whipple Cottage was made in the
early drafts of the document.
Further research by Andrew
Ratcliffe, confirmed by The Yateley
Society, has determined that this
building is early C20 rather than
mid to late C19 and in combination
with unsympathetic alterations to
the windows and alterations to the
overall massing of the building,
Whipple Cottage does not qualify
as a ‘positive building’, in
accordance with EH guidance. To
designate the building as ‘positive’
and extend the CA boundary on
this basis therefore risks
undermining the surrounding
heritage assets.
6.3 - Handfords is a Locally Listed building – so is the Handford’s Barn Agree, amend text to remove any
ambiguity
5.4 - Add Whipple Cottage to buildings added in extension to CA ? It
has been shown on the TAM but is not included anywhere in the
document text
6.4 - Correct spelling – first line ‘steams’ should be ‘streams’
9.3 - Local List and Statutory List – Change ‘There are currently no
Locally Listed Buildings in the Conservation Area. See above list of LL
buildings.
6.4 - Suggests that Thriftswood in Stevens Hill may be eligible for
local or even statutory listing
Agree
Agree
Agree. Given current and ongoing
application for change of use to this
Remove the green
symbol for this building
from the proposed
TAM. Remove the
proposed CA
extension to include
this buildings property
boundary from the
TAM
Both buildings are
correctly
acknowledged in the
text
Amend
Amend
Amend
6
HDC
HDC
HDC
HDC
9.4 – suggests that Heathlands Cemetery may be a possible candidate
for HDC’ s Local List of Historic Parks and Gardens
site 9.5 has been amended to reflect
this
2.2. says that the HDC landscape Character Assessment does not
cover Yateley. This is only partly correct as the Character
Assessment deliberately excludes the more densely populated urban
communities as these have there own urban character. However, the
Character Assessment does cover an extensive eastern area of the
CA that includes the heathland as the setting for the CA. In this event
the character assessment should be used not only to provide a
suitable references but also to be consistent with other past CA
appraisals.
5.1 - delete ‘There are no locally listed buildings’, because there are.
5.2 - add ‘once’ to Thatch Cottage para
9.1 – in addition to ‘trees’ add ‘open heath’ and ‘open heath land’ as it
is this type of habitat that encourages the protected bird species to
breed and is therefore an important part of this landscape character
Agree
Amend
Agree
Agree
Agree
Amend
Amend
Amend
7
RO
AD
R ST
HU
SA
ND
SO
CRES
CENT
M
ER
VIL
in
D ra
14
9
10
11
12
8
4
HA
YD
O
7a
2
N
PL
AC
E
ADD
7b
9
42
16
21
38
1
R
29
L
YA
O
O
AK
C
ADD
Corner
Cottage
57.9m
Royal Oak
(PH)
SE
LO
7
Playing Field
12
Sinks
52
13
El
Sub Sta
31
12
Fire Station
26
1
E
IV
DR
29
28
FB
69
Fis
C o ke
urt
29
32
16
2
23 6
AL
K
O
RD
O
NW
15
35
30
AL
K
3
31 6
ke
Fis
9
13
1
14 0
7
11
OO
D
4
4 1
4 5
44 0
L
H IL
CR
IC
KE
T
8
12
1
3
2
BAN NIST
GAR
ER DEN
S
12
5
8
11
AVEN
UE
15
COLE
RIDG
E
46
FB
Hill View
The Brambles
Farriers
Rose
Cottage
Oakhurst
Fish Pond
Duffy
Cottage
Chestnut
Cottages
Oak Trees
Moonrakers
Lea Cottage Corners
Kestrel
Lodge
1
33
NE
'S LA
37
LS
EYG
Path
Track
72
GA
RD
EN
S
12
78
BARN
FIELD
16
4
1
KE
L LA
1
7
12
15
Hylands
ETT
ROY
AL O
AK V
ALLE
Y
4
3
MO
OR
LO
WE
R
18
NE
2
DENH
12
H IL
1
MANO
10
6
1
1
CR
ICK
ET
R PA
RK
DRIV
E
AM DR
IVE
84
94
12
1
10
3
32
53
Wayside
Weir
Woodhatch
38
3
FB
C ha
CR
OF
T
m)
Path
(u
61
54
3
The Nest
THE GREEN
The Cricketers
(PH)
Hotel
Handfords
1
Thriftswood
THE NEST
Yateley Common
(Country Park)
Yateley Common
(Country Park)
E
HIL
Moorside
Hotel
CR
CR
Issues
LA
NE
Church
ET
HA
ND
FO
RD
LB
Baptist
Casa Dei
Cesari
BM 72.51m
in
8
2
17
CF
D ra
RD L
ANE
Drain
27
1
14
7
11
DFO
RD
LANE
The
)
(u m
10
Hurdcott
H AN
th
Pa
d
Un
The Barn
Hill
DFO
in
11
The Annexe
Cricket
HAN
21
15
Pottle
Stream
ICK
2
D ra
AN
5
Yateley
12
19
Thriftswood
Handfords
LL
6
1
The Old Cricketers
49
1
E
TUD
ORD
RIV
E
TL
Lynden
60
44
THATCH
COTTAGE
Thatch Cottage
Drain
71
68
43
bS
ta
ris Cr
oft
Stick
s
TH E
Tanglewood
FB
Cricket Hill
Cottage
33
11
L IT
Wychwood
Drain
OAKS
L
HIL
BB
11
1
15
S
Forge
Tra ck
W AL
34
1
48
El Sub Sta
Piggery
CRICKET HILL
CF
NU T
Magpie Cottage
G ra
s sh
op
pe
rs
m)
16
SubEl
Sta
(u
17
th
Pa
11
11a
33
6
CL O
SE
Cricket Hill
12
MICHAELMAS CLOSE
L ym
Bayleys
6
War
d Bd
y
18
39
The Bungalow
Heatherview
19
m)
ED &
h (u
Cricket Hill
36
'S DR
IVE
Pat
79.9m
CB
Chestnut Cottage
The Rangers House
th
Pa
1
SUNNYSIDE
24
NE
24
CR
ICK
ET
H
th P
Cricket Hill Conservation Area
Heathcroft
PO
1
54
Eliz
a be
Heathlands Court
Oak Haven
Heathlands Cemetery
IL L
Ivy Cottage
1 to
ar ad
e
Heatherside
Cottages
LA
Und
31
1 2
30
TCB
6
27
Path (um
)
LB
45
CB
12
25
)
m
Cricket Hill
31
El
Sub Sta
avn
Car
1
Laurel Cottages
Bro
2
12
om
59
13
H ill
Cre
st
H ea
ther
dene
Yateley Common
(Country Park)
edge
Hospital
Pond
Park
Wyndham's
Pool
Picnic
Area
Not to scale
N
13
ET
L
FW
1
Brackens
CF
CH
Posts
m)
N yh
h (u
TU
DO
R
C ra
nwill
D en
e
Holly Cottage
Pat
15
2
Red Hatch
DR
IV
E
10
GA
RD
EN
S
(u
TCB
2
43
Gorse Cottages
73
17
G
Existing Conservation Area Boundary
m)
YATELEY COMMON
44
h (u
)
Path (um
LE
NA
VO
m)
Pat
(u
Path
Owlpen
CR
Path (um)
(um)
Path
Pat
85
h (u
m)
Proposed Conservation Area Boundary
1
CR
Path (um)
3
OO
DL
AN
DS
Listed Buildings
Pat
h (u
m)
Path
(um)
11
8
5
4
YATELEY
COMMON
Jesse
Cottage
ED &
and
Ward
Ward
Bdy
Bdy
Locally Listed Buildings
1
5
Positive Buildings
BRANDY BOTTOM
Brandy Bottom
Yateley Common
Path (um)
Important Views
(Country Park)
m)
th
Pa
)
(u m
10
W
12
Path
(u
ETL
Track
TO N
us
Wo
od
pe
c ke
rs
1
38
BAR
Track
Important Trees
th
Pa
Path (um)
(u
(u
Pa
th
(u
Path (um)
m)
87.2m
m)
Focal Building
Tra
ck
Pa
th
Path (um)
Pa
th
(u m
)
m)
Track
(u
Path
m)
Path
(um)
)
Path (um
Yateley Common
(Country Park)
Path (um)
11
EN
57
Pembroke House
2
29
Su
Whipple
Cottage
2
OE
RO
AD
5
27
El
Gable
End
11
ET
EV
CO
Barnfield
Homefields
TL
ST
Stevens Hill
GA
RD
EN
S
9
MIS
20
Tank
13
Handford
Cottage
5
12
MA
PLE
AY
8
14
Greenslopes
Playground
26
18
1
Badgers Wood
Folly's End
70
18
W
19
LE
24
AP
UE
EN
AV
9
M
E
G
80
SE
FIE
LD
Kings Ride
14
ID
8
Ppg
Sta
5 6
Holly Acre
51
1
14
O
CL
61
10
ON
AS
23
R
LE
O
82
c
Play
Area
5
Foxcote
7
M
H IL
17
C
82
a
15
12
ILL
SH
84c
84a
d
81
B
a
81
85
d
9
STEVENS
HILL
Hornbeam
32
83d
27
D CLOSE
ROUN
2
47
EN
42
8
10
GD
NS
HIL
LR O
AD
5
EV
ta
bS
28
83
a
29
43
ST
Su
35
El
86d
LEY
Well Moor
Hill
33
H EN
25
11
11a
El
Sub Sta
Cricket
85
a
E
ID
10
Gatekeepers
16
86a
5
R
Sandy Rise
Birchwood
54
Trevenen
House
28
PO
TL
EY
1a
14
14a
87d
C
L
AL
W
AS
1
Orchard House
Braemar House
1
17
El
Sub
Sta
8
87
a
N LE
YG A
RD
EN
S
3
31
58
Mandalay
22
41
CASWALL
RIDE
E
DL
UD
LP
TO
HE
19
FB
Craigmarloch
Maple Cottage
BEAVER LANE
11
El Sub Sta
Broken-Acre
Sto
C one yc
tta roft
ge
19
SE
2
11
1
LO
SubEl
Sta
4
11
9
1
39
12
48
13
1
Twaingate Cottage
Skater’s
Pond
Beavers
1a
1
Mayfield
Fairhaven
Sarnia
RO
VE
12
in
ra
D
10
1
4
OR
TH
C
14
27
66.1m
40
Stoneycroft
Maple Court
74
76
78
80
82
4a
M
Te ano
rr a r
ce
EN
TW
21
4
SE
LO
W
5
10
9
CL
OS
E
30
2
2
BM
67.58m
1
46
NU
TL
EY
25
LB
8
DC
UN
RO
72
Mill House
8
97
TC
21
K
AL
FB
14
EN UE
85
6
1a
85
BEEC
HBRO
OK AV
1
W
Oakdene
LA
NE
D ra
1
in
7
77 9
8
813
70
2
RE
MO
EL
9
OL
D
3
17
ONW
RD
GO
Pine House
UA
RR
Y
71
1
6
4
Montevideo
2
N
TO
CE
NT
8
11
3
75
18
Hu
x lo
e
IN
19
ES
The Beeches
Huxloe
W
R
5
Quarry Cottage
Cross Foxes
58
20
22
29
C
2
Potters End
1
24
26
33
Playground
25
OLD
WELMORE
Tudor House
Sinoa
10
OO
D
2
End Beech
HERW
G
in
1 to 8
2
ra
Q
4
51 9
4
47 5
DR
IV
E
RK
D
Co
u rt
56
LA
NE
4
49 6
69
2
43
PA
R
O
AN
M
PA
RK
18
Fiske
Court
2
24 1
Fiske
Court
14
RD
68
BELL
El Sub Sta
Pastones
Garrick
Lodge
28
H AT
8m
DR
IV
E
Kildare
Longmead
19
16
Garrick
Lodge
18
24
FO
Playing Field
Pastones
4
1
35
AN
Kingfisher House
15 to
SE
6 5.
CR
51
Heather Mount
Longmead
CL
O
9
58
in
NE
LA
38
ra
1
D
Playing
Field
K
45
54
Hilfield Cottage
IC
42
RR
N
TO
RE
IN
O
M
EL
W
OL
D
W
53
NT
CE
ES
CR
CA
Deron
Abbeywood
CAMP
Ardeas
Watch
Quarry House
Playing Field
5
62 9
5
61 8
D
OA
LR
HIL
35
63
12
10
Squirrels Dray
52
60
55
63
EY
TL
PO
Cricket Hill
Yateley
Infant School
79
RO
AD
54
56
8
53
57
in
14
TCB
LB
11
1
68
Herons Court
D ra
RE
AD
ING
Brook House
11
Carrick House
47
50 4
51 8
42
65
59
YATELEY
LODGE
Coach House
WALK
Y'S
6
1
23
33
26
Yateley Lodge
40
52
6
8
NN
5
7
R
20
49
13
G
S
AR
DL
7
PED
SE
JE
ON CLO
GO
RD
ONW
58
HEARM
11
8
12
El Sub Sta
tion
Sta
45
19
El Sub Sta
lic e
39
68
14
53
RK
Po
13
7
13
PA
LA
NE
R
IL L
O
CR
IC
KE
TH
AN
12
M
1
40
O VE
AR
ST
PE
TE
R'S
G
5
41
50
60
1
HER
W
DE
NS
19
LODG
EG R
OV
E
H AT
Yateley
19
48
7
OR D
LE
11
NT
CE
ES
CR
2
7
32
LAWF
6
1
22
E
OS
CL
24 23
1a
L
EL
6
W
IL
ST
1
1b
3
1
This map is reproduced from Ordnance Survey material with the permission
of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery
Office © Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown
copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. (178182) (2011).
RO
AD
R ST
HU
SA
ND
SO
CRES
CENT
M
ER
VIL
in
D ra
14
9
10
11
12
8
4
HA
YD
O
7a
2
N
PL
AC
E
1
16
21
Corner
Cottage
57.9m
7b
9
42
38
R
29
L
YA
O
O
AK
C
Royal Oak
(PH)
SE
LO
7
Playing Field
12
Sinks
52
13
El
Sub Sta
31
12
Fire Station
26
1
E
IV
DR
29
26
69
58
The Beeches
DENH
1
7
15
12
78
BARN
FIELD
AL
K
35
29
32
30
16
2
23 6
AL
K
O
RD
O
NW
OO
D
4
49 6
4
44 0
3
31 6
Co
u rt
Fis
C o ke
urt
H IL
CR
IC
KE
T
ke
Fis
9
13
1
14 0
7
11
8
12
2
1
1
3
2
BAN NIST
GAR
ER DEN
S
12
5
8
11
AVEN
UE
15
COLE
RIDG
E
LS
EYG
Path
57
Track
72
16
4
1
KE
NE
12
L LA
2
12
H IL
1
4
3
MO
OR
LO
WE
R
18
GA
RD
EN
S
10
6
1
1
CR
ICK
ET
R PA
RK
DRIV
E
MANO
94
12
1
10
3
32
53
46
Hill View
Oakhurst
Fish Pond
37
NE
'S LA
2
Kestrel
Lodge
1
33
ETT
Moonrakers
Wayside
Weir
GA
RD
EN
S
Woodhatch
ris Cr
61
44
60
oft
C ha
CR
OF
T
3
m)
Thriftswood
Yateley Common
(Country Park)
Yateley Common
(Country Park)
Handfords
1
5
Yateley
LB
Baptist
Moorside
Hotel
CR
CR
Issues
LA
NE
ET
HA
ND
FO
RD
12
HIL
BM 72.51m
in
ICK
2
D ra
LL
Church
19
4
The Nest
THE GREEN
The Cricketers
(PH)
Hotel
Lynden
E
6
1
The Old Cricketers
54
Handfords
1
E
TUD
ORD
RIV
E
TL
49
Thatch Cottage
AN
Stick
s
TH E
bS
ta
FB
Path
(u
71
68
43
11
11
L IT
3
Tanglewood
29
Su
Whipple
Cottage
2
Cricket Hill Cottage
33
27
El
Gable
End
Wychwood
Drain
38
3
FB
Drain
OAKS
15
L
HIL
Rose
Cottage
Lea Cottage Corners
8
2
17
CF
D ra
in
RD L
ANE
Drain
27
1
14
7
11
DFO
RD
LANE
The
)
(u m
10
Hurdcott
H AN
th
Pa
d
Un
The Barn
Hill
DFO
11
The Annexe
Cricket
HAN
21
15
Forge
1
48
Tra ck
El Sub Sta
CRICKET HILL
Piggery
G ra
s sh
op
pe
rs
34
SubEl
Sta
16
17
CF
NU T
Magpie Cottage
W AL
11
11a
33
6
CL O
SE
Cricket Hill
12
MICHAELMAS CLOSE
L ym
Bayleys
6
War
d Bd
y
The Bungalow
Heatherview
19
CB
Chestnut Cottage
3
79.9m
The Rangers House
th
Pa
(u
)
m
TCB
1
2
43
Gorse Cottages
m)
ED &
Cricket Hill
h (u
39
36
'S DR
IVE
Pat
TO N
us
Wo
od
pe
c ke
rs
1
18
1
38
BAR
SUNNYSIDE
24
CR
ICK
ET
H
th P
Heathcroft
LB
Path (um
)
45
El
Sub Sta
Red Hatch
C ra
nwill
D en
e
avn
Car
1
Laurel Cottages
Bro
2
12
om
59
13
H ill
Cre
st
H ea
ther
dene
Yateley Common
(Country Park)
edge
Hospital
Pond
Park
Picnic
Area
Wyndham's
Pool
Cricket Hill Conservation Area
N
13
ET
L
FW
1
Brackens
CF
CH
Posts
m)
N yh
h (u
Holly Cottage
Pat
15
2
TU
DO
R
DR
IV
E
10
GA
RD
EN
S
Heathlands Cemetery
CB
12
25
PO
1
54
Eliz
a be
Heathlands Court
Oak Haven
4
IL L
Ivy Cottage
1 to
ar ad
e
Heatherside
Cottages
LA
Und
31
1 2
30
TCB
6
27
NE
24
Cricket Hill
31
m)
73
17
G
YATELEY COMMON
44
h (u
)
Path (um
LE
NA
VO
m)
Pat
(u
Path
Owlpen
CR
Character Areas Map
Path (um)
Pat
85
h (u
m)
(um)
Path
1
CR
Not to scale
Path (um)
YATELEY
COMMON
Pat
h (u
m)
Path
(um)
11
8
5
4
4
1
5
BRANDY BOTTOM
Yateley Common
Path (um)
(Country Park)
Path
(u
ETL
Track
m)
th
Pa
)
(u m
10
12
3
OO
DL
AN
DS
ED &
and
Ward
Ward
Bdy
Bdy
W
Track
th
Pa
Path (um)
1
Reading Road & Cricket Hill Lane
2
Old Welmore
3
The Green, Handford Lane & Sunnyside
(u
m)
Track
4
(u m
)
Pa
th
Path (um)
(u
Pa
th
(u
m)
Path (um)
Stevens Hill & Yateley Common
87.2m
m)
Tra
ck
Pa
th
(u
Path
m)
Path
(um)
)
Path (um
Yateley Common
(Country Park)
Path (um)
11
S
BB
11
1
5
EN
CO
Tank
Barnfield
Homefields
OE
RO
AD
20
8
MA
PLE
9
ET
12
Farriers
Chestnut
Cottages
Playground
13
TL
EV
FB
70
26
Handford
Cottage
MIS
ST
The Brambles
LE
19
5
AY
Pembroke House
Oak Trees
18
18
1
Stevens Hill
Duffy
Cottage
Ppg
Sta
W
AP
UE
EN
AV
9
M
E
G
8
80
ID
5 6
Holly Acre
51
1
SE
FIE
LD
Kings Ride
14
R
LE
O
Hylands
10
14
1
O
CL
61
Folly's End
5
ON
AS
23
C
ILL
SH
Badgers Wood
M
H IL
17
7
STEVENS
HILL
Greenslopes
82
c
Play
Area
12
47
EN
Foxcote
82
a
d
81
B
84c
84a
15
5
Hornbeam
a
81
85
d
9
Well Moor
Hill
32
83d
27
2
43
EV
ta
bS
42
8
10
GD
NS
Cricket
28
83
a
29
HIL
LR O
AD
D CLOSE
ROUN
11a
El
Sub Sta
ST
Su
35
El
86d
LEY
25
11
24
33
H EN
54
E
ID
10
Gatekeepers
2
16
85
a
R
Sandy Rise
Birchwood
PO
TL
EY
1a
Trevenen
House
28
86a
5
C
L
AL
W
AS
1
Orchard House
Braemar House
1
14
14a
N LE
YG A
RD
EN
S
3
17
El
Sub
Sta
22
41
CASWALL
RIDE
31
58
Mandalay
8
87
a
87d
14
39
E
DL
UD
LP
TO
HE
19
FB
Craigmarloch
Maple Cottage
BEAVER LANE
11
El Sub Sta
Broken-Acre
Sto
C one yc
tta roft
ge
19
SE
2
11
1
LO
SubEl
Sta
AM DR
IVE
84
48
13
1
Twaingate Cottage
Scaters
Pond
Beavers
1a
1
Mayfield
Fairhaven
Sarnia
RO
VE
12
in
ra
D
10
1
4
OR
TH
C
4
11
9
1
4
12
M
Te ano
rr a r
ce
EN
TW
14
27
66.1m
40
Stoneycroft
Maple Court
74
76
78
80
82
4a
5
10
9
CL
OS
E
BM
67.58m
1
46
NU
TL
EY
30
2
2
SE
LO
W
3
21
DC
UN
RO
72
Mill House
8
97
TC
25
LB
8
FB
14
EN UE
85
6
1a
85
W
BEEC
HBRO
OK AV
1
Oakdene
LA
NE
D ra
1
in
7
77 9
8
813
70
2
RE
MO
EL
9
OL
D
1
21
K
AL
Pine House
UA
RR
Y
71
2
N
TO
Hu
x lo
e
IN
CE
NT
10
OO
D
17
ONW
RD
GO
4
Montevideo
HERW
6
75
18
8
11
3
Quarry Cottage
Cross Foxes
Huxloe
W
19
ES
5
1
20
22
29
R
2
Potters End
2
28
FB
24
26
33
C
OLD
WELMORE
Tudor House
Sinoa
1 to 8
G
End Beech
4
45 1
LA
NE
in
Playground
25
L
56
ra
Q
4
51 9
4
47 5
DR
IV
E
RK
PA
R
O
AN
M
D
47
50 4
51 8
69
2
43
El Sub Sta
14
PA
RK
18
8m
RD
68
28
H AT
Fiske
Court
2
24 1
Fiske
Court
18
SE
6 5.
DR
IV
E
Pastones
Garrick
Lodge
9
FO
Playing Field
19
16
Garrick
Lodge
CL
O
24
AN
Kildare
Longmead
Pastones
15 to
BELL
CR
51
Heather Mount
Kingfisher House
4
1
35
Longmead
1
58
in
NE
LA
38
ra
K
D
Playing
Field
Hilfield Cottage
IC
45
54
RR
42
CA
N
TO
RE
IN
O
M
EL
W
OL
D
W
53
NT
CE
ES
CR
2
Deron
Abbeywood
CAMP
Ardeas
Watch
Quarry House
Playing Field
5
62 9
5
61 8
D
OA
LR
HIL
35
63
12
10
Squirrels Dray
52
60
55
63
EY
TL
PO
Cricket Hill
RO
AD
54
56
8
53
57
in
Yateley
Infant School
79
RE
AD
ING
11
14
TCB
LB
YATELEY
LODGE
Brook House
15
68
Herons Court
Coach House
11
Carrick House
D ra
Yateley Lodge
HER
W
59
42
65
23
40
33
1
6
8
WALK
Y'S
6
1
52
R
NN
5
7
G
20
49
13
S
AR
DL
7
PED
SE
JE
ON CLO
GO
RD
ONW
58
HEARM
11
8
12
El Sub Sta
tion
Sta
45
19
El Sub Sta
lic e
39
68
14
53
RK
Po
13
7
13
PA
LA
NE
R
IL L
O
CR
IC
KE
TH
AN
12
M
1
40
O VE
AR
ST
PE
TE
R'S
G
5
41
50
60
1
H AT
DE
NS
19
LODG
EG R
OV
E
19
48
Yateley
7
OR D
LE
11
NT
CE
ES
CR
2
7
32
LAWF
6
1
22
E
OS
CL
24 23
1a
L
EL
6
W
IL
ST
1
1b
3
1
PAPER G
CABINET
DATE OF MEETING:
1 DECEMBER 2011
TITLE OF REPORT:
CONSERVATION AREA REVIEW – DARBY GREEN,
YATELEY
Report of:
Cabinet member:
1
PURPOSE OF REPORT
1.1 To approve the Conservation Area Character Appraisal and Management Plan for
Darby Green, Yateley.
2
2.1 It is recommended that the Conservation Area Character Appraisals and Management
Proposals for the Darby Green Conservation Area as shown in Appendix 1 are adopted
by the Council, and that the accompanying maps in Appendix 3 are amended in
3
3.1
BACKGROUND
The Council has embarked upon a programme of Conservation Area Reviews. The
programme included a review for the Darby Green Conservation Area in 2010.
3.2 The Review Process
Each Conservation Area is reviewed following a standard format.
 The first stage is a walkabout through the area. This took place on 18th October
2010. Attending the walkabout were representatives from The Yateley Society,
H.C.C. Commons Rangers and CA Consultant. During the walkabout issues were
discussed, such as the boundary of the conservation area along with some of the
main issues that face the community.

Following the walkabout all participants were invited to submit comments and the
first draft of the Appraisal Document and Management Plan was produced.

This draft then formed the basis of the public consultation and placed on the
Council’s web site, along with the accompanying maps. A public exhibition was then
held at the Yateley Town Council building for a two week period.

A questionnaire was available on the HDC website and at the public exhibition
inviting comments on the first draft and CA maps.

All comments received were then assessed and responded to and form Appendix
2 of this report.
3.3 The consultation process carried out by the Council was successful and there was effective
public engagement. All responses received have been taken into account and where
appropriate incorporated into the revised text of the Appraisal Document and Management
Plan (Appendix 1). The Revised Draft Document includes amended or additional text
underlined to ensure that changes can be identified easily within the original text.
1
PAPER G
The Appraisal Document and Management Plan
The format of the document follows closely the suggested format advocated by English
Heritage. It is different to previous appraisals and management plans in that it is argued that
the preparation of an area appraisal should not be an end in itself. English Heritage in its
Guidance on conservation area appraisals states that the preparation of an appraisal should be:
“..regarded as the first step in a dynamic process, the aim of which is to preserve and enhance
the character and appearance of the designated area – and to provide a basis for making
sustainable decisions about its future through the development of management proposals”.
It continues;
“It should not result in a series of detailed descriptions of apparently discrete sub-areas, losing
sight of the character of the area as a dynamic whole”.
The Management Plan
The character of conservation areas is not static and it is susceptible to change, whether
that is dramatic change or small and incremental alterations to the area. Very often the
very qualities that make the area special also encourage pressure for over-development.
Positive management of that pressure for change is necessary.
4
CONSIDERATIONS
The Management Proposals include a number of recommendations that address threats,
opportunities for improvement or proposals. Monitoring and Review is also recommended.
5
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The implementation of the Conservation Area Review would be in accordance with the
aims of the Council to enhance the environment and improve the quality of development
throughout the district
6
6.1 The cost of the conservation area review for and the production of the relevant documents
can be met through existing budgets.
6.2 There is no budget in place to deliver elements of the Management Proposals. These have
implications for Officer time and it may not be possible to meet the recommendations of
the Management Proposals within existing staff levels.
7
MANAGEMENT OF RISK
If the Council does not approve the Conservation Area Appraisal and Management
Proposals it may not be able to protect Conservation Areas from inappropriate
development.
2
PAPER G
8
CONCLUSION
It is recommended that the Conservation Area Character Appraisal and Management
Proposals (Appendix 1) are approved, along with the recommended amendments to the
various maps.
Contact Details:
Andrew Ratcliffe/ 4429 / [email protected]
APPENDICES
Appendix 1 – Darby Green Conservation Area Character Appraisal and Management Plan
Appendix 2 - Summary of Responses from the Public Consultation
Appendix 3 – Townscape Appraisal Map and Character Area Map
BACKGROUND PAPERS:
The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990
Planning Policy Statement 5 (PPS 5): Planning for the Historic Environment,
March 2010
Guidance on Conservation Area Appraisals, English Heritage, Feb 2006
Guidance on the Management of Conservation Areas, English Heritage, Feb 2006
Historic Area Assessments: Principles and Practice, June 2010
3
Appendix1-DG CAA and MPs #2 19.12.10-showing changes
DARBY GREEN CONSERVATION AREA
CHARACTER APPRAISAL AND
MANAGEMENT PROPOSALS
December 2011
Cabinet Document
This document has been written by The Conservation Studio,
1 Querns Lane,
Cirencester,
Glos GL7 1RL
Tel: 01285 642428
Website: www.theconservationstudio.co.uk
1
Contents:
1
Introduction
1.1
The Darby Green Conservation Area
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.5
2
Location and landscape setting
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
Biodiversity
3
The historical development of Darby Green
3.1
Early development
3.2
4
Spatial analysis
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
Boundaries
4.5
Public realm
5
The buildings of the conservation area
5.1
Building types
5.2
Listed buildings
5.3
Locally listed buildings
5.4
Positive buildings
5.5
6
Character areas
6.1
Darby Green Road and Reading Road
6.2
Yateley Common: Wooded area between Darby Green Road and Reading Road
6.3
7
Yateley Common: Wooded area to south of Reading Road
Issues
7.1
Summary of Issues
2
8
Introduction
8.1
9
Issues and recommendations
9.1
9.2
9.3
9.4
9.5
9.6
10
Traffic, pedestrian movement and parking
Building issues
Site specific
Monitoring and review
APPENDICES
Appendix 1
Appendix 2
Appendix 3
Appendix 4
Character Areas Map
Bibliography
Contact details
ILLUSTRATIONS
Historic maps and photographs (to follow)
3
1
INTRODUCTION
1.1
The Darby Green Conservation Area
Darby Green is almost the most northerly of Hart’s conservation areas, close to the Berkshire
border and located on undulating former heathland. It forms a group of conservation areas
(Yateley Green, Darby Green and Cricket Hill) which lie within one mile of each other in the
parish of Yateley and are loosely connected by the Reading Road. Much of the Darby Green
Conservation Area is also registered common land (Yateley Common - designation number
CL24), the common now being woody heathland with some areas of open green space. This
very large track of land stretches away to the south of the Conservation Area as far as the A30.
Otherwise, to the east and north-east, the Conservation Area is surrounded by Post-war housing
development with more open spaces, associated with a large comprehensive school, to the
west. Today, because of this urban expansion, Darby Green forms part of the larger
conurbation of the Blackwater Valley settlements, which connects Camberley in Surrey through
to the parish of Blackwater & Hawley. Historically Darby Green would have been a more
isolated agricultural hamlet set in heathland, within the ancient parish of Yateley.
Although the busy Reading Road runs through it, the Conservation Area still retains a rural
character, as about 90% of the area is woodland or open green space. To the north, around the
junction of Darby Green Road and Reading Road, there are three listed buildings, two of which
were once farmhouses. The earliest of these is Pond Farm, a timber-framed building with a later
brick casing, which dates to the 16th century. Clarks Farm, of a similar date, lies about 300
yards to the west. These listed buildings are distinctive for their use of bright red brickwork and
orangey-red handmade clay tiles. Yew Tree Cottage is locally listed and is located between
Clarks Farm and Pond Farm – this timber-framed ‘black and white’ cottage retains an early,
probably 15th century core, with substantial 19 th and 20th century additions.
The wooded area between Darby Green Road and Reading Road contains a large playing field,
used mainly at weekends, and a modern sports pavilion (the Darby Green Centre). Footpaths
cross the playing field connecting to Reading Road and then continuing southwards into Yateley
Common proper, where there is very limited and somewhat scattered housing development
along a series of narrow unmade tracks which weave through the woodland. The principal track
is now called Stroud Lane, a modern definition to please the postal delivery service. This part of
the Conservation Area is quite isolated and views into and out of it are severely constrained by
the thick woodland. Away from the inhabited area successive heathland restoration projects
have cleared trees and undergrowth to provide suitable habitats for ground-nesting birds such
as night jars, Dartford warblers and woodlarks. Most of Yateley Common forms part of a Special
Protection Area (SPA), designed to protect the habitats of these birds, and it is also a Site of
Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), the boundary of which includes a small part of the
Conservation Area to the east of part of Stroud Lane. In total Yateley Common covers about 500
hectares, and has six different owners. There area included in the Conservation Area, and
extending south to the A30, is owned and managed by Hampshire County Council. Another
large area of common to the south of the A30 is owned by the MOD and managed by the
Hampshire Wildlife Trust.
The Darby Green Conservation Area was designated by Hart District Council in March 1988. A
Conservation Area Proposals Statement for the Darby Green Conservation Area was published
in 2002, and this appraisal draws on, and supersedes, this earlier document.
4
1.2
This Character Appraisal concludes that the key positive characteristics of the Darby Green
Conservation Area are:
















Historic rural settlement located between Yateley village and Blackwater in north
Hampshire
About 90% of the Conservation Area is green – either woodland, open green spaces, or
grass
Much of this green space is part of Yateley Common, a large registered common which
stretches southwards to the A30 and Blackbushe Airport
Most of the common is a Special Protection Area (SPA), designated under European
Directives to protect the habitats of three specific species of ground-nesting birds, as well
as being a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) – this also provides protection to a
variety of other wildlife interests
In Yateley Common, evidence for ancient fields boundaries is provided by ditches and
banks - within the Conservation Area, this is most notably between Cuckoo Cottage and
the school playing fields
The boundary for these areas of special protection immediately abuts the south-eastern
boundary of the Conservation Area, and in one place (along the southern section of
Stroud Lane), incorporates land within the Conservation Area
The northern and central part of the Conservation Area is somewhat dominated by the
busy Reading Road which curves through the Conservation Area in a north-west to
south-easterly direction
A modern roundabout marks the junction of Reading Road and Darby Green Road, and
it is close to here that three listed buildings and one locally listed building are located
Two of these listed buildings were once farm houses (Clarks Farm and Pond Farm) and
these both date from the 16th century
Pond Cottage is the third listed building, which is 17th century, and Yew Tree Cottage, a
locally listed building, has origins to the 15th century, with more evident timber-framing
The use of bright red brick and orange handmade clay tiles is predominant on many of
the historic buildings
Between Darby Green Road and Reading Road is a small section of Yateley Common
(managed by Yateley Town Council) which is now a large area of woodland and playing
fields used by local football clubs
The only buildings are a modern sports pavilion (with a large adjoining car park) and a
semi-detached cottage dating to 1910
South of Reading Road there are about 18 properties, mainly grouped along the main
road but also scattered along the tracks across the common (including Stroud Lane)
which lead off Reading Road
These houses are very dispersed and often hidden by the woodland which surrounds
them – they are mainly 20th century
There are two locally listed buildings - Darby Green House, a substantial red brick Arts
and Crafts house of the early 20th century, and The Old Cottage, a timber-framed cottage
with exposed timber-framing which is a good example of a modest 16th century cottage
which must have once been more ubiquitous in the locality
The Management Proposals make the following Recommendations (summary):

Protect Yateley Common and the other green spaces
5













1.3
Improve pedestrian safety in the Conservation Area and strictly enforce any existing
parking restrictions
Ensure that all applications for change within, or on the edges of the Conservation Area,
preserve or enhance its rural character
Continue to protect all heritage assets, including the Listed and Locally Listed buildings,
and their settings
Do not allow uses within or on the edges of the Conservation Area which will not
enhance the rural character of the Conservation Area
rural qualities of the Conservation Area
Article 4 Direction:
o Produce additional publicity and guidance for property owners in the
Conservation Area
o Undertake a building-by-building photography survey of all of the affected
properties to aid possible future enforcement action
o Produce detailed Design Guidance, to help property owners repair and alter their
buildings in a sympathetic way
Consider applications for change to ‘positive’ buildings extremely carefully
Refuse applications to demolish ‘positive’ buildings
Review the Local and the Statutory List for Darby Green
Ensure that uses on the Clarks Farm site do not have an adverse effect on the locality,
particularly on the setting of the adjoining listed buildings (Clarks Farm and Pond Farm)
Ensure that Clarks Farm is adequately maintained and that any necessary repairs are
promptly carried out
Consider ways of improving the facilities at the Darby Green Centre
Add properties along the north side of Darby Green Road, and Diamond Cottages in
Reading Road, to the Conservation Area
Conservation areas are designated under the provisions of Section 69 of the Planning (Listed
Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. A conservation area is defined as “an area of
special architectural or historic interest the character or appearance of which it is desirable to
preserve or enhance”.
Section 71 of the same Act requires local planning authorities to formulate and publish proposals
for the preservation and enhancement of these conservation areas. Section 72 also specifies
that, in making a decision on an application for development within a conservation area, special
attention must be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance
of that area.
In response to these statutory requirements, this document defines and records the special
architectural and historic interest of the Darby Green Conservation Area and identifies
opportunities for enhancement. It is in conformity with English Heritage guidance as set out in
“Guidance on conservation area appraisals” (August 2005) and “Guidance on the management
of conservation areas” (August 2005). Additional government guidance regarding the
management of historic buildings and conservation areas is set out within Planning Policy
Statement 5 (PPS5), which has recently replaced Planning Policy Guidance 15: Planning and
the Historic Environment” (PPG15).
6
This document therefore seeks to:
1.4

Define the special interest of the Darby Green Conservation Area and identify the issues
which threaten the special qualities of the conservation area (in the form of the
“Character Appraisal”)

Provide guidelines to prevent harm and achieve enhancement (in the form of the
“Management Proposals”)
These documents provide a firm basis on which applications for development within the Darby
Green Conservation Area can be assessed. The omission of any feature in either the appraisal
or the management proposals does not imply that it is of no interest, and because both will be
subject to regular review, it will be possible to amend any future documents accordingly.
It should be read in conjunction with the wider development plan policy framework as set out in
the Hampshire County Structure Plan (Review) 1996-2011 the South East Plan (Approved
May 2009) and Hart District Council’s Local Plan, adopted in December 2002.
In the Local Plan, Inset Map No. 30 covers the area between Yateley and Blackwater. It
confirms that revised polices 17a and 17b, from Local Plan Policy ALT DEV 17, relate to
land at Clarks Farm, most of which lies immediately outside the Darby Green
Conservation Area. The policy states that Clarks Farm is considered suitable for
redevelopment for employment uses (B1 and B2) in a landscaped parkland setting,
subject to the removal of existing uses and a number of more detailed criteria.
In the Local Plan, the proposals map confirms that policy ALTDEV 17 relates to land at
Clarks Farm, most of which lies immediately outside the Darby Green Conservation Area.
The policy states that Clarks Farm is considered suitable for redevelopment for
employment uses (B1 and B2) in a landscaped parkland setting, subject to the removal of
existing uses and a number of more detailed criteria.
Otherwise the Local Plan contains the usual polices relating to listed buildings, locally listed
buildings, and conservation areas.
The 2002 Local Plan is being incrementally replaced by a new Local Development Framework.
This new planning system was established by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004,
which abolishes Structure and Local Plans and replaces them with Local Development
Documents. More information about this important change to the planning system can be found
on the District Council’s website: www.hart.gov.uk.
1.5
There is currently an Article 4 Direction in the Darby Green Conservation Area. This is a matter
which is further discussed in the Management Proposals
1.6
This document was initially drafted following a walkabout with representatives from Yateley
Parish Council, local stakeholders, and local residents on 18th October 2010. During this event,
7
the extent of the existing Conservation Area boundary was discussed, along with some of the
main problems and issues which face the community. A questionnaire was also provided to
encourage more detailed responses before the document was drafted.
The first draft was agreed subsequently agreed with the District and the document was then put
on the District Council’s website for six weeks from 4th July 2011. After the completion of this
period of public consultation, the final draft was produced. and the document illustrated with
photographs and historic maps.?
8
2
LOCATION AND LANDSCAPE SETTING
2.1
Darby Green is located in the parish of Yateley in north Hampshire close to the boundaries with
Berkshire and Surrey, with Sandhurst and Blackwater both close by. The name ‘Darby Green’
was once attached more concisely to the area of open common land which is now dominated by
the roundabout at the junction of Darby Green Road and Reading Road, but in more recent
times it has been used more generally to describe the hamlet of Darby Green which focuses on
this open space. Historically this stretched as far as Blackwater, but this part of the Civil Parish
of Yateley has now been renamed Frogmore, after the large mansion house which was
demolished to make way for acres of Post-war housing. Until the 1960s Darby Green, along
with Yateley village and Frogmore, therefore had more distinctive boundaries, but since WW2
they have been somewhat subsumed by this Post-war housing development which now
stretches from Blackwater in the east to Yateley village in the west. The three settlements lie
mostly on former heathland. To the north of the settlements the ancient water meadows in the
floodplain of the River Blackwater now mostly consist of a complex of man-made lakes which
have been formed from earlier gravel workings. The River Blackwater, which eventually joins
the Whitewater, flows westwards through these lakes.
Much of the Darby Green Conservation Area is part of Yateley Common, a substantial swath of
woodland and heathland which separates the settlements of Yateley from the A30. Further
heathland (Warren Heath, Yateley Heath Wood and Hawley Common) lies between the A30 and
M3. Two further conservation areas can be found nearby at Yateley Green and Cricket Hill.
The Conservation Area is almost totally in residential uses apart from a cattery which is
located at No. 33 Reading Road (the 3C’s Cattery). A large public sports field and
adjoining sports pavilion lie between Darby Green Road and Reading Road. Clarks Farm
forms part of a much larger site which largely lies outside the Conservation Area. This
site retains a large open ‘barn’ which until a few years ago was used to make mushroom
compost. The site is currently (November 2010) subject to a planning application for use
as a materials recycling centre
The Conservation Area is almost totally in residential uses apart from a cattery which is
located at No. 33 Reading Road (the 3C’s Cattery). A large public sports field and
adjoining sports pavilion lie between Darby Green Road and Reading Road. Clarks Farm
forms part of a much larger site which largely lies outside the Conservation Area. This
site retains a large open ‘barn’ which until a few years ago was used to make mushroom
compost. The site is currently (October 2011) subject to a planning application for use as
a materials recycling centre. However, alternative proposals for the residential
redevelopment of the site are expected to be submitted imminently which would supplant
that use. The listed building (Clarks Farm) is apparently used as accommodation for staff
of the materials recycling centre at the site. If the site were to be used for residential
purposes it is not clear what use would continue for this building.
The listed building (Clarks Farm) is apparently used as accommodation for staff at the site.
Frogmore Comprehensive School lies just outside the Conservation Area to the west of an area
of playing fields which separate the modern school buildings from the edge of Yateley Common.
9
2.2
The parish of Yateley lies on a succession of terraces of Bagshot Sand which rise to the south of
the valley of the River Blackwater, which flows through a number of lakes created by the flooding
of earlier sand and gravel pits. The historic settlements of Darby Green, Cricket Hill, and
Yateley Green are all located on gently undulating heathland, cut by small streams which largely
flow northwards to join towards the River Blackwater. One such stream can be traced in the
Darby Green Conservation Area through Yateley Common, under Reading Road, then beneath
the modern playing fields, where it is culverted. The River Hart also runs in an east to west
direction, bounding the large areas of heathland which lie to the south of the A30.
The Landscape Character Assessment 1997 for Hart District does not cover the Yateley area.
defines Darby Green as lying partly within Character Area 6, Firgrove (the western portion
of the Conservation Area) and partly within Charcter Area 12 Minley (the eastern portion
of the Conservation Area). The key characteristics area:

A diverse patchwork of farmland, open heath, woodland and parkland with a mixed
but pervasively ‘heathy’ character

The extensive open commons of Yateley and Hawley, heavily used as a recreation
resource

A somewhat suburbanised and fragmented character created by the intrusion of
roads and isolated buildings and installations, and its proximity to the urban
fringes of Blackwater and Hawley
The underlying geology is of sand, which provides a poor soil for agriculture, so much of this
area remained heathland or common land with a few dispersed farmsteads, such as Clarks
Farm and Pond Farm. From the 1920s onwards pressure for new housing land resulted in the
development of Yateley and its adjoining hamlets into a more continuous and much larger
residential settlement.
2.3
The Darby Green Conservation Area forms part of a string of three conservation areas in the
parish of Yateley (the other two are Yateley Green and Cricket Hill) which are all centred on
large areas of open or wooded green space, usually with very dispersed historic buildings
around them. These are loosely connected by the Reading Road (the B3272) which joins
Blackwater to Eversley – this road passes through Darby Green, Cricket Hill and Yateley Green.
The immediate surroundings to Darby Green are diverse and include the River Blackwater’s
valley floor, which is largely filled by flooded gravel workings (Yateley Lakes). The town of
Sandhurst lies to the north on the Berkshire side of the Blackwater valley. To the west, a large
school and its playing fields provide a certain amount of open space which abuts the
Conservation Area boundary. The Cricket Hill Conservation Area and the Yateley Green
Conservation lie further west along the Reading Road. Further south and east, Yateley
Common wraps around the Conservation Area, continuing the woodland which lies within the
Conservation Area boundary. The Common ends along the line of the A30, with further
heathland beyond. Post-war suburban housing estates lie to the east and north-east.
10
2.4
Biodiversity
There are two special designations for the natural environment within the Darby Green
Conservation Area, both relating to Yateley Common which, in total, consists of 500 hectares of
Lowland Heath. Lowland Heath is an internationally rare habitat protected by national legislation
and European directives.
In 2005 much of Yateley Common was designated as part of the Thames Basin Heaths
Special Protection Area (SPA). The SPA is a network of heathland sites which are
designated under the European Birds Directive1 and the Habitats Directive2 and protected
in the UK under the Habitats Regulations3. The SPA provides a habitat for the
internationally important bird species of Dartford warbler, nightjar, and woodlark. These
birds are particularly subject to disturbance from walkers, dog walkers and cat predation
because they nest on or near the ground.
Until the 1950s Yateley Common remained as the man-managed open heathland it had been for
millennia. When active management ceased after WW2 the heathland (then consisting of low
heathers and gorse) was overrun by scrub and trees, quickly creating young woodland. In 1978
the Yateley Common Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) was notified, covering 218
hectares of Yateley Common. This was subsequently greatly expanded and now covers almost
1,000 hectares in both Hart and Rushmoor, stretching from the Castle Bottom National Nature
Reserve in Eversley to Hawley Common. The SSSI was designated as supporting an
international important population of rare birds, a particularly rich invertebrate fauna including a
number of nationally scarce species, an outstanding dragonfly assemblage, and nationally rare
reptiles. The government target that 95% of the nation’s SSSI’s should, by 2010, be assessed
as ‘unfavourable recovering’, or better, has been met.
Particular rules apply to development proposals in the vicinity of the SPA designed to
ensure that they are not likely to have significant adverse effects on the integrity of the
SPA, either alone or in combination with other developments. The duty to consider the
possibility of likely significant effects applies to all types of development, but it is
residential development that has been most affected. Proposals for an increase in the
number of dwellings within 5km of the SPA, without ‘avoidance measures’ are considered
likely to have a significant effect on the SPA. Within 400 metres of the SPA ‘avoidance
measures’ are unlikely to be effective and net residential development should be avoided.
(Please see the Council’s Avoidance Strategy for the Thames Basin Heaths Special
Protection Area for further details).
Since much of the Darby Green Conservation Area falls within this restriction its effects are
profound. Significantly these development constraints designed to conserve biodiversity
interests on Yateley Common reinforce constraints sought in Conservation Area policies to
preserve the dispersed rural settlement pattern in the Conservation Area.
The Common immediately surrounding, and partly included within both the Darby Green and
Cricket Hill Conservation Areas, is owned and managed by Hampshire County Council. The socalled ‘County Park’ extends to some 193 hectares, and forms the north-eastern quadrant of the
common. It is crossed by the A30 in an east-west direction and by Cricket Hill Lane, the former
1
3
2
11
route of Vigo Lane, in a north-south direction. Since the 1970s the County has managed their
part of Yateley Common as a Country Park accredited under the 1968 Countryside Act.
Following the notification in 1993 that much of Yateley Common, and all the ‘County Part’, would
be designated a “Proposed Special Protection Area for Wild Birds’ under EU Habitats Directive
92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992, the County Council redoubled its efforts to balance the inevitable
conflicts between maintaining public access to the common as a Country Park, and the
requirements of the EU Habitats and Wild Bird Directives. Article 6 is one of the most important
articles in the Habitats Directive as it defines how SPA sites are managed Natura 2000 sites
are managed and protected. Paragraphs 6(1) and 6(2) require that, within Natura 2000 SPA
sites, Member States must:


Take appropriate conservation measures to maintain and restore the habitats and
species for which the site has been designated to a favourable conservation status;
Avoid damaging activities that could significantly disturb these species or deteriorate the
habitats of the protected species or habitat types.
As part of the SSSI recovery plan the County embarked on a heathland restoration programme
including clearing parts of the woodland within the Conservation Area to create a suitable
breeding habitat for the protected bird species. of birds to breed. There is documentary
evidence that Stroud Pond was managed for fish breeding in the reign of Elizabeth I. Situated
just outside the southern-most tip of the Conservation Area, the County’s Rangers use Stroud
Pond as a focus for their education service to local schools and colleges, managing it as a wildlife pond. The Yateley Society has currently (2010) applied to the Heritage Lottery Fund for a
grant to provide a pond-dipping platform for Stroud Pond. This pond feeds the stream which
eventually emerges close to Reading Road in the Conservation Area. A further wild-life pond
can be seen to the south of Darby Green Road within the northern part of Yateley Common.
Designation of Yateley Common as a Special Protection Area for Wild Birds is the allimportant consideration for the Darby Green Conservation Area in particular, and for
Yateley in general. The EU Habitats and Bird Directives, their adoption within UK law as
the The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010, and consequential
policies both nationally and locally, has resulted in a complete ban on new residential
development within 400 metres of the boundary of the SPA.
There are other similarities resulting from management objectives and practice. In order to
achieve ‘Favourable Conservation Status’ for the SPA and SSSI, site managers must try to
emulate the methods employed by the commoners historically. In Yateley in the past
commoners’ animals, put out to graze daily and the annual burn of the common in February,
controlled and renewed the heathland habitat, preventing the growth of trees and tall brush.
Since grazing has ceased site managers must copy these traditional practices by tree-felling,
mechanical scrub clearance and the deployment of volunteers such as from the Yateley Society.
Traditional management methods are no longer practiced since the farms which exercised their
common rights are now the listed buildings in private residential occupation, and their farmland
is covered in new housing or in institutional use such as schools. Because of the new housing
and schools the controlled burns are also no longer acceptable.
The legal origins of Yateley Common go back to the Statute of Merton in 1236, and in practice
its origins may go back millennia. It could be argued therefore that Yateley Common is the
oldest man-made ‘heritage asset’ within the boundaries of the Conservation Area, and that
managing the Conservation Area to the benefit of the biodiversity of this oldest ‘heritage asset’
12
must be the main conservation objective both because it is legally required to obtain biodiversity
objectives, and because those legal requirements sit neatly with the normal requirements for the
preservation of heritage assets required by the 1990 Act. Modern site management of the SPA
and SSSI is thus emulating the historic management which was exercised by the former
residents of today’s heritage assets within the Conservation Area.
13
Darby Green Conservation Area Character Appraisal and Management Proposals
November 2010
3
THE HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF YATELEY
3.1
Early development
The earliest evidence for human activity in Yateley was provided by the discovery of a
concentration of knapped flints on Yateley Common, dating to the Mesolithic period.
Burial urns of early Bronze Age settlers have been also found on the river terraces to the
north of Yateley Green, at Hilfield, and close to Minley Manor. Much later, evidence for
pre-Conquest occupation is provided by the survival of Saxon place names and, most
significantly, the Saxon north wall of St Peter’s Church.
The name ‘Yateley’ appears to be derived from the Anglo-Saxon ‘yat’ (gate) and ‘ley’
(forest clearing).
3.2
The development of Yateley
Before 1066 the area lay within the Manor and Hundred of Crondall, part of the larger
kingship of Wessex royal demesne. The Manor was granted by King Alfred in his will
of 899 to his nephew Ethelm, but was soon under the control of the Prior of Winchester.
At the Reformation the land holdings of the Prior passed to the Dean and Chapter of
Winchester, then handed on to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and, much later, to the
Church Commissioners, who remained the Lords of the Manor of Crondall until the
1950s, when the ‘waste of the manor’ was sold to Yateley Town Council. Meanwhile the
Hundred of Crondall had effectively been removed by the Local Government Act of 1894
and by the 1920s Law of Property Act.
The medieval parish of Yateley included Blackwater, Hawley, Southwood, Bramshot,
Cove and Minley. At this time Yateley was a loosely dispersed settlement with small
farms eking out a living on the poor heathland soil. A system of ‘common land’ was
already established by the Normal Conquest, whereby peasants were allowed to settle
on poor quality land and use it to graze their animals. They were also allowed to take
bracken for roofing and animal bedding, as well as heather and wood for fuel.
It is surprisingly to learn therefore that in 1334, when a national tax was levied, Yateley
returned the highest tax within Crondall Hundred, equal to the tax levied in Leeds. Some
of this wealth may have come from income derived from its location close to what is now
the A30, the historic route from London to Salisbury and the West Country beyond. St
Peter’s Church facing Church End Green in Yateley village was enlarged in the late
medieval period and was partly rebuilt following a fire in 1979. A medieval mill is
recorded on the river Blackwater.
A large medieval ‘capital messuage’ (called Hall Place) is recorded in 1287 on the site of
what is now Yateley Manor School, about a mile to the west of Darby Green. By 1567
Richard Allen lived there and he had 23 tenants. During the late 17th century the
property was owned by Sir Richard Ryves, a director of the East India Company. By the
18th century it was in the ownership of Thomas Wyndham who called it the Manor of Hall
Place, effectively a sub-manor of Crondall Manor. Hall Place was then the principal
house and estate in Yateley, and Thomas Wyndham soon expanded his property
holdings by purchasing Minley Manor and the inn then known as the Red Lion at
Blackwater. He also built a large pond in what is now Yateley Common as a water
14
November 2010
supply to fish ponds further down the valley – it was drained during WW2 and has been
refilled since to create an important wildlife habitat in the middle of Yateley Common
Country Park. Another substantial house, Yateley Hall, is located to the south of Yateley
Green and is now listed grade II*. Previously known as Calcotts, the garden is included
on Hart District Council’s Historic Parks and Gardens Register grade ‘B’ and includes the
remains of a ha-ha and a short canal feature which may be the remains of a medieval
moat.
The close proximity of Sandhurst, Camberley and Aldershot (by 1854, the ‘home’ of the
British Army’) ensured a constant demand for a variety of houses in Yateley and in the
immediate vicinity. In 1942, when a major new airfield was built on Yateley Common at
Hartfordbridge, most of the farmland in western Yateley was covered in hutments for the
RAF – which on closing at the end of WW2 were used for squatter housing. When the
time came to move these residents on, land owned by Yateley Manor was sold for new
development. Despite this expansion the population of Yateley was only 4,469 in 1961
but by 1981 it was assessed at around 20,000 – demonstrating the type of growth
experienced by the official New Towns.
The first National School was established in Cricket Hill in 1834 and transferred to a new
school building opened on Yateley Green in 1866. This served as the village school until
1958 when it was replaced by a purpose-built primary school which was provided on
land previously owned by Yateley Manor School. This has recently (August 2010)
closed.
The development of Darby Green
‘Darby Green’ is noted on the Historic Environment Record as a medieval settlement
site, first documented in AD1227 as Derby (presumably as it was associated with the
family of William de Derby). However, this attribution (from the Royal Commission on
Historic Monuments of England – RCHME) is dubious. What is more certain is that
properties in the Darby Green area were held from the Manor of Hall Place in the 18th
century and that this is confirmed by a record dated 1759 in the manorial court book (ref:
Place Names of Hampshire). The derivation of the name may have been from the May
family who lived in ‘Darby House’ and whose daughter Anne’s baptism and early death
are recorded in parish registers in 1661 and 1662. A more popular attribution of the
name is to Parson Darby, said to have been a vicar of Yateley who was hanged as a
highwayman from the yew tree in front of Yew Tree Cottage. However there was never a
Yateley clergyman of this name, and no documentary evidence of the hanging.
The older of the two former farmhouses in the Conservation Area, Pond Farm, dates to
the 16th century, and not far away, Clarks Farm dates (according to the list description)
to the 17th century. Both were originally timber-framed and both have been altered
including refacing in brick. Only Clarks Farm retains the character of a farmyard with
land to both sides and the rear of the building, although from the road it appears that no
historic farm buildings remain. Pond Cottage is close by and the listing also dates it to
the 17th century, as does Willows, a timber-framed house which was heavily restored in
the 1930s and currently lies just outside the Conservation Area boundary. All of these
buildings are shown on the Tithe Map of the 1840s, which shows dispersed buildings set
back from the road around an irregularly-shaped open common, which today is
recognised in the triangle of land between Darby Green Road and Reading Road.. The
setting of these buildings is entirely rural, with differently shaped and sized fields
15
November 2010
surrounding the common. There was some further residential development at the end of
the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century including the construction of two
substantial houses - Heathcroft (now demolished) and Darby Green House (c1909), both
of them located to the south of Reading Road off Stroud Lane. Heathcroft was lived in
successively by a Captain Masterman and an Admiral Hawksley. Darby Green House
was designed and lived in by John Duke Coleridge, a pupil of Sir Edwin Lutyens.
Coleridge purchased the land in 1908 – the completed house is shown on the 1910 map.
A small church (St Barnabas) was built on common land to the south of the old Darby
Green Road, close to Yew Tree Cottage in the 19th century but fell into disrepair and was
demolished in the 1990s.
The greatest changes to the area came in the Post-war period when much of Yateley
was developed for housing, particularly in the 1960s and 1970s, when new estates were
built which incrementally joined up Blackwater to the historic core of Yateley through
Frogmore, Darby Green and Cricket Hill. The Darby Green Conservation Area was
designated in March 1988.
16
November 2010
4
SPATIAL ANALYSIS
4.1
The principal street in the Conservation Area is the east to west route of the Reading
Road, which connects Blackwater to Eversley through Yateley. Otherwise, there is no
coherence in the street layout of the Conservation Area, although there is some sense of
focus to the north where Darby Green Road meets Reading Road. At this point, Darby
Green Lane, Darby Green Road and Reading Road have all been realigned and short
sections of the old Darby Green Lane remain, in a rather muddled layout, with areas of
woodland and grass verges in between. The large modern roundabout and the
dominant overhead walkway are both detrimental features. A cul-de-sac made up of a
small group of four detached houses (Sydney Loader Place), has been built between
Yew Tree Cottage and Pond Farm, but is well screened from Darby Green Lane with a
pleasant pond forming a centrepiece. These open green spaces are later described as
‘Darby Green’.
Reading Road almost cuts the Conservation Area in two, and sweeps in a wide arc to
the south-east through Yateley Common and then continues eastwards to the
roundabout with the A30 at Blackwater. Part of the land between Reading Road and
Darby Green Road forms the most northerly section of Yateley Common, although it is
partly used as playing fields. South of the Reading Road, a long section of wooded
heathland forms the more southerly part of the Conservation Area and is notable for the
narrow unadopted tracks over the common which lead to the scattered houses which
can be found down Stroud Lane and other smaller tracks leading off it.
Historical development in the northern part of the Conservation Area, facing Darby
Green Road and Reading Road, is largely provided by the three listed buildings, two of
which, Clarks Farm and Pond Farm, sit well back from the road with large plots. Pond
Farm particularly has a very large garden, although a new house was built to one side
(presumably on land which once formed the cartilage to the farmhouse) in the 1980s. A
small group of houses can be seen to the south of Reading Road, of which one (No. 33)
is a notable early 19th century stuccoed cottage. This part of the Conservation Area
retains the highest concentration of historic buildings although their setting has already
been compromised to a degree by the modern roundabout, overhead walkway, and road
re-alignments.
4.2
With around 90% of the Conservation Area being wooded heathland, open green space
or private gardens, the whole area is dominated by trees which form significant groups
particularly to the south of Reading Road, where Yateley Common proper starts. Here
the woodland is made up of both deciduous and coniferous trees, with many small selfseeded Silver Birch in the open areas which have been cleared for the wildlife. The area
is also notable for the survival of a number of deep ditches and low earth banks which
historically were used to denote property boundaries, particularly the boundary to the
common itself – one such ditch and bank can be seen on the north-west side of Stroud
Lane.
17
November 2010
Further groups of trees can be seen to the north of Reading Road, next to the playing
fields, and on the north side of Darby Green Road, where they shield the entrance of
Sydney Loader Place and Yew Tree Cottage from the busy main road to the south.
The only open space of any note is around the junction of Reading Road and Darby
Green Road, where there are areas of grass verges, their significance somewhat
compromised by the busy traffic, modern roundabout and overhead walkway. The rural
character of this space however is enhanced by the close proximity of areas of dense
woodland and the large pond on the south side of Darby Green Road.
4.3
The only focal point in the Conservation Area is around the western end of Darby Green
Road where it meets firstly, Darby Green Lane, and secondly, Reading Road. This
series of spaces provides, in the east, a pleasant setting to Pond Cottage and Pond
Farm and, in the west, to Yew Tree Cottage and Clarks Farm. Whilst this area is
sometimes referred to as ‘Darby Green’, there is little sense of an historic village green
due to the realignment of the older routes and the provision of the large modern
roundabout and very dominant pedestrian walkway. Looking across these spaces, the
low line of both Pond Farm and Clarks Farm provide some sense of focus, but both
buildings are set back from the road so their impact on the street scene (particularly in
the case of Pond House) is quite limited. Clarks Farm is more visible, which is why its
current very poor quality setting and somewhat neglected appearance is a cause for
concern.
A large playing field provides a useful facility between Darby Green Road and Reading
Road, but it can only be glimpsed from the first and cannot be seen at all from the
second due to the dense woodland which lines the north side of Reading Road. The
adjoining sports pavilion is a low, modern building of little merit which appears to be
suffering from vandalism.
South of Reading Road, the continuous woodland associated with Yateley Common
means that there are no opportunities for focal buildings, and, indeed, the buildings
which are located in these woods are usually well screened from the tracks which lead to
them.
Views within the Conservation Area are therefore very contained due to the trees which
line many of the routes through the area. There are short views across Darby Green
towards Pond Farm and longer views from Stroud Lane over the clearings which have
been made in the heathland. Walking around Yateley Common, additional longer views
can be seen from the edge of the Conservation Area, looking over undulating land
towards the A30, and over Stroud Pond and the adjoining school playing fields.
The most important views are noted on the Townscape Appraisal Map, but the omission
of a view does not mean that it is of no significance.
4.4
Boundaries
Nearly all of the boundaries to the properties facing the principal roads are natural –
either hedging or trees. A high clipped yew hedge in front of Pond Cottage conceals the
building from the road and is a notable feature in views along the street. Outside the late
18
November 2010
19th or early 20th century properties in Darby Green Road are an assortment of modern
boundaries such as low timber-panels (outside Chestnuts) or low brick walls. Small
timber posts mark the edge of Darby Green, preventing vehicular overrun, although
outside Yew Tree Cottage the grass has been worn away by vehicles parking on the
verge.
4.5
Public realm
The public realm is composed of the space between the buildings, largely in public
ownership, which is made up by the streets, pavements, lighting, street furniture,
signage and other similar features. For most of the roads and lanes in the Conservation
Area, the public realm is simple and very low key with pavements and streets covered in
modern black asphalt tarmacadam. There are no examples of historic paving. Street
lighting is provided by modern concrete ‘hockey-stick’ standards with glass lanterns, or,
on the Reading Road, by tall slender steel poles with curved tops and glass lanterns.
Street names are marked by modern white plastic signs with black lettering, on black
posts, similar to the signage found throughout Hampshire.
Negative features include the occasional overhead wires and timber telegraph poles,
which can be discordant, for example, across the grass areas in front of Pond Farm.
The most obviously unsympathetic intrusion in the street scene is the elevated walkway
across the roundabout junction over Reading Road. A plethora of traffic signs (lorry
bans, speed limits and directions) and pedestrian barriers occur all around the
roundabout. Some of the signs are dirty and in need of maintenance.
Because the tracks through Yateley Common are across registered common land they
cannot be surfaced without the consent of the Secretary of State for the Environment,
pursuant to the Commons Act 2006 as an ‘enclosure’ of common land. They are thus
not adopted, and are simply surfaced with hogging and gravel, without any street lighting
or signage. Continuing maintenance, particularly after long spells of wet or frosty
weather is often an issue for the Commons Rangers.
19
November 2010
5
THE BUILDINGS OF THE CONSERVATION AREA
5.1
Building types
All of the buildings in the Conservation Area were built for residential use apart from the
modern sports pavilion off Darby Green Road. There are just three listed buildings in the
Conservation Area, and three locally listed buildings, and these vary in age from the 15th
to the 20th century. In addition, there are a number of early and mid-20th century
properties, mostly along Darby Green Road and off Reading Road. Nearly all of the
properties on Yateley Common are 20th century apart from The Old Cottage, a timberframed Locally Listed house. The majority of these unlisted buildings are of no special
architectural merit but are fortunately well screened from the public domain. None of the
residential properties are of any size, the largest being Pond Farm, a long, low timberframed house which was extended in the 1930s with a slightly taller cross-wing, and
Darby Green House, built in the Arts and Crafts style.
It should also be mentioned that the Conservation Area is rural in character with
relatively few buildings (about 30) which are often concealed by trees and other planting.
This low density of buildings needs to be maintained if the green and leafy character of
the Conservation Area is to be preserved.
5.2
Listed buildings
There are just three listed buildings in the current Conservation Area, all listed grade II,
as follows:
Pond Farm, Darby Green Lane
This long, low two storey building sits back from the road with a notable clay tiled roof.
Originally timber-framed, and probably built in the 16th century as to a lobby-entry plan,
the building became tenement cottages in the 19th century. It was substantially
extended in the 1930s, when a slightly taller cross-wing was added to the western end of
the building, and another bay, utilising old timbers from a demolished barn, added to the
east. The building has been encased in brick, probably in c1800, and the casement
windows and wide front porch would appear to be largely of the 1930s. The northern
elevation retains exposed curved timber tension braces.
Clarks Farm, Reading Road
Clarks Farm is another lobby-entry house with three bays. The substantial four-shafted
brick stack, steeply pitched peg-tiled roof with a gablet on the western hip and a full
gable on the eastern elevation, are all worthy of special mention. Although described as
17th century in the list description, it looks older, and its documentary history can be
traced back to the Crondall Customary of 1567. It was refaced in blue and red brick,
over the original timber-frame, probably in the late 18th century. A central string course
and evidence for blocked-up windows are both interesting archaeological features. The
three light Gothic timber windows are probably late 19th century in date. Overall, this is a
highly complex building which would benefit from a detailed archaeological evaluation.
Pond Cottage, Darby Green Road
Pond Cottage is another timber-framed building of the 17th century, two storeys high with
a red clay tiled roof. A large brick chimney breast can be seen on the west elevation.
20
November 2010
The building is faced in red brick with some exposed timber-framing, filled-in with brick
noggin. The casement windows are modern, as is the porch.
The Management Proposals contain a recommendation that small changes are made to
the Conservation Area boundary, including the addition of Willows, Darby Green Road,
which was recently listed at grade II.
Willows is a timber-framed two storey house which was (like Pond Farm) altered and
extended in the 1930s in a ’picturesque’ style which matched the original building. The
timber-frame is exposed in places and infilled with red brickwork, some of it arranged in
a herringbone pattern. There is a series of steeply pitched roofs, all of them covered in
handmade clay tiles. The original building was described as thatched when it was
enfranchised in 1907, and it appears on the Tithe Map of 1844, at about which time it
became a beerhouse named The Greyhound. The building obtained a full alehouse
licence in 1860, but after the bankruptcy of its owner the licence was transferred to
another nearby building under different ownership.
5.3
Locally Listed buildings
The District Council has produced a short list of locally significant buildings within
Yateley Parish of which three lie within the Conservation Area and are marked on the
Townscape Analysis Map. Two of them are early timber-framed properties and the third
is a prestigious Arts and Crafts house – all three may be eligible for statutory listing.
They are presently Locally Listed to provide them with a degree of additional protection,
and policies for their preservation are included in the Hart Local Plan, adopted in
December 2002. The following buildings in the Darby Green Conservation Area are
Locally Listed:



Yew Tree Cottage, Darby Green Road – a somewhat altered complex of low,
one-and-a-half storey mainly late 19th century buildings which include a small
timber-framed cottage which may date to the 15th century
Old Cottage, Yateley Common – a pretty ‘black and white’ timber-framed two
storey cottage, possibly also 16th century in date – it was the home of a famous
court painter to Queen Victoria in the 19th century
Darby Green House, Yateley Common – this substantial red brick Arts and Crafts
House designed by John Duke Coleridge for his own use and built on land which
he purchased by in 1908. The house is shown on the 1910 map, so it was
presumably constructed between 1908 and 1910. Coleridge was a pupil of
Lutyens, and is accredited as the architect of a number of other notable buildings
before he left Lutyens’ firm.
Further information about the control of Locally Listed buildings is provided in the
Management Proposals.
5.4
Positive buildings
In addition to the listed and Locally Listed buildings, a very small number of unlisted
buildings have been identified on the Townscape Appraisal Map as being positive
buildings of townscape merit. Buildings identified as being positive will vary, but
commonly they will be good examples of relatively unaltered historic buildings where
their style, detailing and building materials provides the streetscape with interest and
21
November 2010
variety. Most importantly, they make a positive contribution to the special interest of the
conservation area. Where a building has been heavily altered, and restoration would be
impractical, they are excluded.
Within the Darby Green Conservation Area, the ‘positive’ buildings are limited to two
pairs of late 19th or early 20th century cottages which face Darby Green Road and to a
brick-built cottage (Cuckoo Cottage) in the most southerly part of Yateley Common,
which appears to date to the 1930s. Pound Cottage, part of the 3 C’s Cattery, is an
interesting symmetrical white-painted two storey cottage with casement windows and a
slate roof. This property could, perhaps, be Locally Listed – its name relates to the
adjoining village pound which still existed in 1976 but appears to have been lost when
the road was widened. A building is marked on the Tithe Map of 1844 on this site and it
appears to be Pound Cottage.
English Heritage guidance advises that a general presumption exists in favour of
retaining those buildings which make a positive contribution to the character or
appearance of a conservation area. The guidance note states that proposals to
demolish such buildings should be assessed against the same broad criteria as
proposals to demolish listed buildings. Again, further information is provided in the
Management Proposals.
5.5
The overall character of the historic buildings in the Conservation Area is domestic and
vernacular, so most of the buildings are modestly sized (mainly two storeys high) with
steeply pitched roofs, often with substantial brick stacks, which are covered in
handmade clay tiles. All of the four listed buildings off Darby Green Road and Reading
Road have roofs like this. All of these buildings are also faced in bright reddy-orange
brick, which often conceals an earlier timber-frame which can also be exposed, as on
the back elevation of Pond Farm, Pond Cottage and Willows. Clarks Farm appears from
its roof shape and central chimney stack to be a probably 16th or even earlier timberframed house with a lobby-entry plan, which was encased in red and blue brick,
probably in the late 17th or 18th century – further analysis would be helpful. The core of
Yew Tree Cottage is a single storey, possibly 15th century, timber-framed cottage of the
type which would have been built on common land in a day to give the owner ‘squatters’
rights’ to live there.
Brick or painted roughcast is also used to infill between the exposed timbers. Yew Tree
Cottage and Old Cottage (Locally Listed) provide attractive examples of early timberframed cottages with white-painted roughcast infill panels, which contracts contrasts
with the black-painted timber-framing. There are no thatched roofs, although these may
have been more common in the past. Windows are predominantly timber casements,
which are sub-divided by glazing bars. Some of the properties, such as Yew Tree
Cottage, have leaded-light windows, but again, these do not appear to be historic
although they look in keeping. Clarks Farm retains some Gothic-style pointed windows
to the front elevation which appear to be relatively modern.
Some of the unlisted ‘positive’ properties along Darby Green Road provide good
examples of polychrome brickwork, such as Chestnuts, which is built using red brick with
yellow brick dressings to the ground floor bays and first floor window openings. The
22
November 2010
windows are all sashes, which appear original. Almost opposite, a further pair of
positive cottages (Hawthorn Villas) are dated 1910 and are faced in pebbledash to the
first floor, with a similar bay-window arrangement as Chestnuts to the ground floor. The
windows on the eastern section of Hawthorne Villas have been replaced using uPVC.
Pound Cottage off Reading Road is an unusual early 19th century building with a
symmetrical front, casement windows and a low Welsh slate roof.
23
November 2010
6
CHARACTER AREAS
The Darby Green Conservation Area divides into three Character Areas according to
historical development; street pattern and layout; built form; and uses and activities.
These are:



6.1
Yateley Common: Wooded area between Darby Green Road and Reading Road
This part of the Conservation Area lies on the northern edge of Yateley Common and
provides the highest number of quality historic buildings which face either Reading Road
or Darby Green Road. The wide grass verges provide the character of a village green
although modern road improvements have had a detrimental impact. The many trees,
open green spaces and the close proximity of the northern part of Yateley Common all
add to the rural qualities of the area. There are three important buildings – three listed
(Clarks Farm, Pond Farm, and Pond Cottage) and one Locally Listed building, Yew Tree
Cottage. Willows (grade II) also form part of this group though it is currently just outside
the Conservation Area. A small estate of new houses (Sydney Loader Place) has been
allowed, but this is low density, set back from the road, and attractively landscaped,
including a new pond.
General:





The continued maintenance and enhancement of the natural features – trees,
grass verges, and watercourses
The protection of the rural qualities of the area from the effects of new
development and the busy traffic along the two main roads
The control of the historic buildings which face onto the open green spaces, and
the continuing need to ensure that they remain protected from unsympathetic
alterations and/or new development which could adversely affect their setting
The effect on the Conservation Area of the modern road improvements including
the re-alignment of Reading Road and Darby Green Road, the creation of ‘leftover’ sections of somewhat neglected streets, and the dominant footbridge over
the large roundabout at the junction of Reading Road and Darby Green Road
The busy traffic which already uses Reading Road as a major east-west route
Site specific:
Clarks Farm – this site was used for a while as a centre for the production of
mushroom compost, the owner utilising a large modern ‘barn’ which lies just
outside the Conservation Area. The current owner is seeking permission to
develop the site as a materials recycling centre, which potentially could have an
adverse effect on the setting of Clarks Farm and the character of the Conservation
Area.
24
November 2010
Clarks Farm – this site was used for a number of years as a facility for the
production of mushroom compost, the owner utilising a large modern ‘barn’
which lies just outside the Conservation Area. The current owner is seeking
permission to develop the site as a materials recycling centre, which potentially
could have an adverse effect on the setting of Clarks Farm and the character of
the Conservation Area. For this, and other reasons, a residential redevelopment of
the area would be beneficial provided it did not adversely affect the Conservation
Area and other interests of acknowledged importance. To this end it is considered
that a number of the criteria set out in local plan policy ALTDEV17 would apply
equally to that development proposal.


Clarks Farm, a grade II listed building, appears to be somewhat neglected and in
need of repairs and maintenance
The poor condition of the former public house on Darby Green Road (just outside
the current Conservation Area boundary), which is currently boarded up and
vacant, though plans have been approved for its restoration and re-opening in a
different usage.
6.2
Yateley Common: Wooded area between Darby Green Road and Reading
Road
This forms the most northerly part of Yateley Common but is divided from the larger tract
of common land which stretches southwards by the busy Reading Road. About half of
the space is used as playing fields and for the site of the Darby Green Centre, a
probably 1980s building of no distinction which does however serve a useful purpose for
the local community. The remaining space is thick mixed woodland, which contains the
open green areas and hides them from view. An ancient pond has been restored facing
Darby Green Road which is used as an educational resource and has been designed to
provide a suitable habitat for a variety of fish, animals and birds.

6.3
There is only one issue for this Character Area, namely the on-going care and
maintenance of the Darby Green Centre (which suffers from periodic vandalism),
including the collection of rubbish from the Centre car park
This Character Area is primarily wooded heathland and stretches beyond the
Conservation Area to a much larger section of common land. Narrow winding lanes,
mostly single track width, lead to a small (about 13) number of properties which lie in
relative isolation. Most of these are 20th century bungalows or smaller houses which
date to 1920s onwards, but two (at least) have historic and architectural interest, namely
The Old Cottage, a timber-framed property which is probably 16th century in date, and
Darby Green House, dating to c1909. Both are Locally Listed. Part of this Character
Area lies within the SPA and SSSI which seeks to protect the habitats of three species of
ground nesting birds, as well as other internationally rare flora and fauna.
25
November 2010


Pressure for new development, including the replacement of smaller houses with
much larger properties
The care of the trees and green spaces
26
November 2010
7
ISSUES
7.1
Summary of Issues
Based on the Negatives Features summarised in Chapter 6, and on comments made
during the initial public consultation/walkabout, the following are considered to be the
most important Issues for the Darby Green Conservation Area at this point in time:




The protection of the common land and other open green spaces (and their
setting) from unsympathetic new development
The care of the natural features of the common land and other green spaces –
the trees, grass verges, ponds, and watercourses
The continued protection and restoration of the SPA and SSSI
The general enhancement and protection of the rural qualities of the
Conservation Area




The effect of modern ‘road improvements’ on the surrounding Conservation Area
Busy and fast moving traffic along Reading Road and Darby Green Road
Lack of pedestrian crossings along Reading Road
Untidy and possibly illegal car parking on the grass verge outside Yew Tree
Cottage

A general pressure for new development, including the redevelopment of existing
buildings (where larger plot sizes exist)
Building issues



The continued protection of all heritage assets, including the Listed and Locally
Listed buildings, and their settings, from demolition or unsympathetic change
The control of unlisted positive buildings possibly through the existing Article 4
Direction
A thorough review is needed of the statutory and the Local List
Site specific




Clarks Farm – current applications for change may be detrimental to the
listed building, its setting, and the Conservation Area in general, if
approved
Clarks Farm – any applications for the development of the site should
ensure that they are not detrimental to the listed building, its setting, and
the Conservation Area in general, if approved
Clarks Farm appears to be in need of repair and maintenance
The care and maintenance of the Darby Green Centre
27
November 2010
Additions


Add properties along the north side of Darby Green Road
Add Diamond Cottages in Reading Road
Deletions

None
28
November 2010
8
INTRODUCTION
8.1
Part 1 of this document, the Character Appraisal, has identified the special positive
qualities of the Darby Green Conservation Area which make the Conservation Area
unique. Part 2 of this document, the Management Proposals, builds upon the negative
features which have also been identified, to provide a series of Issues and
Recommendations for improvement and change. Most, but not all, will be the
responsibility of the Hart District Council, Yateley Town Council or Hampshire County
Council.
The structure and scope of this document is based on the suggested framework
published by English Heritage in Guidance on the management of conservation areas
(2005). Both the Conservation Area Character Appraisal and the Management
Proposals will be subject to monitoring and reviews on a regular basis, as set out in
Chapter 10.
9
ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS
9.1
Whilst only a small part of Yateley Common falls within the designated Conservation
Area, it makes an important contribution to the special interest of the Conservation Area
because of its green spaces, watercourses, ponds, and, most importantly, its trees.
These are looked after by the Common rangers who are employed by Hampshire
County Council. The rangers work in a team of four people and are responsible for a
total of 13 sites in all. A Management Plan for Yateley Common has been drawn up in
past, and a partnership with DFRA has resulted in a Countryside Stewardship scheme
which has a further three years left to run. This has provided some funding for a number
of improvements and projects, such as the creation of the new pond on the south side of
Darby Green Road, and the clearing of trees within the Common to create the open
spaces favoured by ground-nesting birds. A new Management Plan has recently been
approved by the Yateley Common Management Committee and it is hoped it will result
in new funding partly from the Higher Level Stewardship Scheme. The rangers use local
tree surgeons – they do not carry out the tree work themselves. A principal concern of
the rangers is to enhance the wild life opportunities within the SPA and SSSI in order to
meet national and European Union targets, and to provide educational opportunities for
children and the public in general.
The south-eastern quadrant of Yateley Common is owned by the MOD, part of their
Minley Manor estate, and is managed by the Hampshire Wildlife Trust. The Wildlife
Trust has recently been asked to manage the south-western quadrant of Yateley
Common, which is owned by the Calthorpe Estate. The north-western quadrant of
Yateley Common is owned by Blackbushe Airport and is currently unmanaged with
respect to wildlife interests. Watercourses to the north of the Conservation Area, beyond
Pond Farm, are managed by the former Environment Agency. An extensive area along
the river valley of the Blackwater is administered by the Blackwater Valley Countryside
Partnership, an authority made up from the three county councils and all the adjoining
29
November 2010
local authorities. The grass verges either side of Darby Green Road and Reading Road
are looked after by Hampshire County Council (Countryside Services).
The greatest threat to Yateley Common comes from new development, either in the form
of alterations to, or reconstructions of, existing properties, or from completely new
development, which could have a detrimental effect on the peaceful ambiance of the
majority of the Common. Any increase in traffic along the principal roads should also be
resisted due to the impact on the Common (and the flora and fauna within it) and the
more incipient effect on the Conservation Area in general.
Recommendation:

9.2
The District Council and Hampshire County Council will continue to protect
Yateley Common and its setting through the strict enforcement of policies
contained within the Local Plan and will resist applications for change which
would have a detrimental effect on the land and properties within or on the edges
of the Common.
It has already been noted that both Reading Road and Darby Green Road are subject to
heavy traffic, particularly at peak times of the day. The close proximity of a large school
(Frogmore Comprehensive) has also resulted in the generation of additional traffic
through the Conservation Area. One of the results of this has been the provision of the
modern roundabout and overhead pedestrian walkway within the Conservation Area, the
later being largely built to provide a safer route for school children. However, other
sections of Reading Road are not provided with any safe crossings for pedestrians,
particularly for those wishing to access the Dalby Green Centre.
Whilst the County Council has provided low wooden bollards to prevent cars parking on
most of the grass verges to either side of the principal streets, a small area outside Yew
Tree Cottage suffers from illegal car parking which has resulted in the erosion of the
verge.
Recommendations:
 The District Council and Highways Authority will consider ways of improving
pedestrian safety in the Conservation Area and will strictly enforce any existing
parking restrictions. Any signage or traffic calming measures must, however, be
carefully designed to fit in with the sensitive historic environment.
9.3
There are very few opportunities for new development within the Conservation Area due
to restrictive Local Plan policies other than the extension or rebuilding of existing
properties. In both instances, there is a possibility of the new development being too
large and not in keeping with the modest, domestic scale of nearly all of the buildings in
the Area. Additionally, new development must not be allowed which would generate
large amounts of new traffic, for instance at Clarks Farm or along Stroud Lane, where
the rural qualities of the narrow lane track must be preserved by law. In accordance with
existing Council policies, Conservation Area Consent should not be granted for the
30
November 2010
demolition of any building without an agreed scheme for the site being granted planning
permission.
Recommendation:




9.4
The District council will continue to ensure through the use of its Development
Control powers, that all applications for change within, or on the edges of the
Conservation Area, preserve or enhance its rural character, taking the scale,
general form and materials of the proposal particularly into account;
The District Council will seek the continued protection of all heritage assets,
including the Listed and Locally Listed buildings, and their settings, from
demolition or unsympathetic change
The District Council will not allow uses within or on the edges of the Conservation
Area which it is considered do not enhance the rural character of the
Conservation Area
New development must not generate additional traffic which might adversely
affect the rural qualities of the Conservation Area.
Building issues
Article 4 Direction
Since 1998 the unlisted family dwellings in the Area have been protected by an Article 4
Direction which brings certain alterations to these buildings under planning control. This
means that a changes to windows, front doors, roof materials, chimneys and front
boundaries may require permission from the District Council (listed buildings, and
unlisted buildings in other uses, are already protected by different legislation). There are
only about 19 buildings in the Conservation Area which are affected by the Article 4
Direction, but there has been little publicity in the past about this additional level of
control although the existence of an Article 4 Direction should show up on solicitor’s
searches when property changes hands.
Recommendation:



The District Council will consider producing additional publicity and guidance for
property owners in the Conservation Area
The District Council will undertake a building-by-building photography survey of
all of the affected properties to aid possible future enforcement action
The District Council will produce detailed Design Guidance, to help property
owners repair and alter their buildings in a sympathetic way
The control of unlisted positive buildings (including Locally Listed buildings)
As part of the Appraisal process, and as recommended by English Heritage and in
PPS5, a number of ‘positive’ buildings have been identified and are marked on the
Townscape Appraisal Map for the Darby Green Conservation Area. Generally, these
are individual or groups of buildings which retain all or a high proportion of their original
architectural detailing and which add interest and vitality to the appearance of the
conservation area. Most of them date to the mid to late 19th century, but several,
including some which are Locally Listed at present, are much earlier. Where they have
31
November 2010
been too heavily altered, and restoration is not easily achievable, they are excluded. It is
assumed that all Locally Listed buildings are ‘positive’.
As with listed buildings, there is a general presumption in favour of their retention. Any
application for the demolition of a positive building will therefore need to be accompanied
by a reasoned justification as to why the building cannot be retained, similar to that
required for a listed building. The owner must also have made positive efforts to market
the building, or to find a suitable new use, before an application can be determined.
Recommendation:


The District Council will consider applications for change to ‘positive’ buildings
extremely carefully and will refuse any which adversely affect their architectural
or historic interest.
Applications to demolish ‘positive’ buildings will generally be refused.
Local List and Statutory List
There are just three Locally Listed buildings in the Conservation Area but no review has
been carried out in recent years. Additions may include some of the ‘positive’ buildings
identified as part of the Character Appraisal process. Some of the existing Locally Listed
buildings may be eligible for statutory listing.
Recommendation:

9.5
Subject to resources, the Local and the Statutory List for Darby Green should be
reviewed, ideally in partnership with the Yateley Town Council and the Yateley
Society.
Site specific
Hampshire County Council is currently (November 2010) considering an
application for the use of the Clarks Farm site as a materials recycling centre.
This use could generate large amounts of additional lorry traffic to and from the
site, and might result in negative effects on neighbouring properties as well as on
the Conservation Area in general. In addition, the grade II listed former farmhouse
(Clarks Farm) appears to be poorly maintained and may require upgrading and
repairs. Any new development must adhere to Policies 17a and 17b (Local Plan
Policy ALT DEV 17) in the Hart District Local Plan.
Recommendation:

Hart District Council and Hampshire County Council should ensure that
uses on the Clarks Farm site do not have an adverse effect on the locality,
particularly on the setting of the adjoining listed buildings (Clarks Farm
and Pond Farm).
32
November 2010

Hart District Council, through its development control powers, should ensure that
Clarks Farm, a grade II listed building, is adequately maintained and that any
necessary repairs are promptly carried out.

Hampshire County Council is currently (October 2011) considering an
application for the use of the Clark Farm site as a materials recycling
centre. This use could generate large amounts of additional lorry traffic to
and from the site, and might result in negative effects on neighbouring
properties as well as on the Conservation Area in general. Alternative
proposals for residential development may be able to ensure such harm
does not occur, but any redevelopment for residential development will
need to ensure that the character and appearance of the Conservation Area
is preserved or enhanced and the setting of the adjoining listed buildings
(Clarks Farm and Pond Farm) is preserved or enhanced. In addition, the
grade II listed former farmhouse (Clarks Farm) appears to be poorly
maintained and may require upgrading and repairs. Any new development
must ensure that the detailed aims of policy ALTDEV17 in the Hart District
Local Plan are achieved.
Recommendation:


Hart District Council and Hampshire County Council should ensure that
any development on the Clarks Farm site does not have an adverse effect
on the locality, particularly on the setting of the adjoining listed buildings
(Clarks Farm and Pond Farm).
Hart District Council, through its development control powers, should
ensure that Clarks Farm, a grade II listed building, is adequately maintained
and that any necessary repairs are promptly carried out.
Darby Green Centre
The Darby Green Centre appears to date to the 1980s and is in a poor state of repair. It
is also subject to occasional vandalism. Whilst the building does not make a positive
contribution to the special interest of the Conservation Area, it does provide a useful
social and cultural function for the local community. It is owned and maintained by
Yateley Parish Council.
Recommendation:

The Parish Council could explore ways of improving the facilities (including the
parking and rubbish recycling areas) on the site, and, in the long term, seek the
replacement of the existing building with a new building which would be more
appropriate to the sensitive location in the Conservation Area.
33
November 2010
9.6
Additions
Add properties along the north side of Darby Green Road

These include Willows, a recently listed timber-framed building with a steeply
pitched clay tiled roof and exposed timber-framing, and Hawthorne Villas, a pair
of two storey cottages dated 1910. The former public house (once called The
Greyhound) is an early 20th century building which is currently in need of some
restoration.
Add Diamond Cottages in Reading Road

Diamond Cottages date to 1881 (date plaque) and are two storeys high. Each
has a small porch with Gothic bargeboards which are original and face the road.
The red and yellow brickwork is concealed at first floor level by modern white
painted render.
Deletions
There are no proposed deletions to the Conservation Area.
10
MONITORING AND REVIEW
10.1 As recommended by English Heritage, this document should be reviewed every
five years from the date of its formal adoption by Hart District Council. It will need to be
assessed in the light of the emerging Local Development Framework and government
policy generally. A review should include the following:

A survey of the Conservation Area including a full photographic survey to aid
possible enforcement action

An assessment of whether the various recommendations detailed in this
document have been acted upon, and how successful this has been

The identification of any new issues which need to be addressed, requiring
further actions or enhancements

The production of a short report detailing the findings of the survey and any
necessary action

Publicity and advertising.
It is possible that this review could be carried out by the local community under the
guidance of a heritage consultant or the District Council. This would enable the local
community to become more involved with the process and would raise public
consciousness of the issues, including the problems associated with enforcement.
34
November 2010
APPENDICES
Appendix 1
Appendix 2
Appendix 3
Appendix 4
Character Areas Map
Existing Article 4 Direction
Bibliography
Contact details
APPENDIX 1 Townscape Appraisal Map
Character Areas Map
APPENDIX 2 EXISTING ARTICLE 4 DIRECTION
The Direction controls changes to the principal elevations and roofs (where they front a
highway or other public space) of all unlisted family dwellings within the Darby Green
Conservation Area which might otherwise have been allowed automatically under house
owners’ ‘permitted development’ rights. The aim of the Direction is to prevent the
Conservation Area from being incrementally spoilt by a variety of unsympathetic
changes such as plastic windows or concrete roof tiles. The Direction means that
planning permission is required for a variety of works as follows:


Extensions, improvements or other alterations to the dwelling house
Alterations to existing boundaries, or the creation of new boundaries
A copy of the Article 4 Direction can be viewed at the Planning Department, Hart District
Council, Fleet, and a more detailed summary of the Direction is included below.
This Article 4 Direction covers all unlisted residential properties in use as a single family
unit i.e. not flats or in multiple occupation, where different legislation applies. The
Direction brings under planning control the following works as specified in the General
(Permitted Development) Order 1990 (as amended):

Class A The enlargement, improvement or other alteration of the frontage* of a
dwelling or building within the curtilage of a dwelling, including works affecting a
frontage* roof slope (In respect of side extensions, these are covered where they
are in front of the rear wall of the dwelling);

Class B The erection, construction, alteration or demolition of a porch on the
frontage* of a dwelling;

Class C The erection, alteration or removal of a gate, fence, wall or other means
of enclosure to the frontage* of a dwelling;

Class D The exterior painting of any part of the frontage* of a dwelling or
building within the curtilage of a dwelling (This requires consent where it involves
either a painting scheme dramatically different from the existing or involves areas
of the building not previously painted);
35
November 2010

Class E The erection, alteration or removal of a chimney or building within the
curtilage of a dwelling;
*Frontage refers to the elevations or roof slope of the dwelling which face a highway, a
footpath, a bridleway, a waterway or a public open space. In respect of side extensions,
these need permission where they would be forward of the rear wall of the dwelling.
The curtilage is the contained area around the dwelling.
APPENDIX 3 BIBLIOGRAPHY
http://www.yateleysociety.org.uk
APPENDIX 4 CONTACT DETAILS
For further information, please contact the following:
Hart District Council,
Civic Offices,
Harlington Way,
Fleet,
Hampshire GU51 4AE
Tel: 01252 622122
36
November 2010
Listed Buildings within Darby Green CA
Clarks Farmhouse
Pond Farm
Pond Cottage
Willows
Darby Green Lane
Darby Green Lane
Darby Green Lane
Darby Green Lane
Darby Green
Darby Green
Darby Green
Darby Green
Locally Listed Buildings within Darby Green CA
Darby Green House
Old Cottage
Yew Tree Cottage
Stroud Lane
Reading Road
Darby Green Lane
Darby Green
Darby Green
Darby Green
37
Comments on Darby Green CA Appraisal
Date
Respondent Summary of Responses
C/1
Joanne
BettanySimmons
Planning
Policy HDC
HDC Officer Comment
Proposed
Recommendation
Agree. See 1.4, change HCC
Structure Plan to the Regional
Spatial Strategy, May 2009
Amend
Response to:


Cricket Hill Conservation Area Character Appraisal
and Management Proposals
Darby Green Conservation Area Character Appraisal
and Management Proposals
The Local Policy Framework
1.
Both documents set out that they should be read in
conjunction with the Hampshire County Structure Plan. This
was superseded, with its policies ceasing to have force, when
the Regional Spatial Strategy for the South East – the South East
Plan was approved in May 2009.
2.
The Darby Green Appraisal makes reference to policies 17a
and 17b for Clarks Farm. It would be appropriate to mention
that these come under Local Plan Policy ALT DEV17.
Biodiversity – SPA
3. Both of the documents make reference to the SPA. In particular
for the Cricket Hill Appraisal the explanation of the SPA is
quite confusing – it would be helpful if paragraph 2 under 2.4 is
1
3
2
1
used to fully explain what the SPA is, when it was designated,
what it is protected by, what this means to development rather
than splitting it up throughout this section, with repetition in
places.
Some suggested wording is set out below (in blue) based
around the Council’s Avoidance Strategy for the SPA and
wording in the document. Although the explanation in the
Darby Green review is slightly clearer, due to the impact of the
whole area being within 400m it may be helpful to include
similar wording.
In 2005 much of Yateley Common was designated as part of
the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area (SPA). The
SPA is a network of heathland sites which are designated under
the European Birds Directive1 and the Habitats Directive2 and
protected in the UK under the Habitats Regulations3. The SPA
provides a habitat for the internationally important bird species
of Dartford warbler, nightjar, and woodlark. These birds are
particularly subject to disturbance from walkers, dog walkers
and cat predation because they nest on or near the ground.
Across the Thames Valley region the SPA covers 8,000
hectares of which 2,500 hectares are in Hart District. The
majority of heathland sites in the London Basin are small, with
75% of them less than 5 hectares in extent. The 1,000 hectares
of the Castle Bottom to Hawley Common SSSI are therefore
very significant as being one of the largest continuous tracts of
lowland heath included in the SPA.
Particular rules apply to development proposals in the vicinity
of the SPA designed to ensure that they are not likely to have
2
significant adverse effects on the integrity of the SPA, either
alone or in combination with other developments. The duty to
consider the possibility of likely significant effects applies to all
types of development, but it is residential development that has
been most affected. Proposals for an increase in the number of
dwellings within 5km of the SPA, without ‘avoidance measures’
are considered likely to have a significant effect on the SPA.
Within 400 metres of the SPA ‘avoidance measures’ are unlikely
to be effective and net residential development should be
avoided. (Please see the Council’s Avoidance Strategy for the
Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area for further
details).
The Common immediately surrounding……
C/2
C/3
Mr Steven
Neal of
Boyer
Planning
Crowthorne
House, Nine
Mile Ride,
Wokingham
Berkshire
RG40 3GZ
Agrees with the ‘Key Characteristics’
Suggests adding a bullet point:. The view of Clarks Farm and Yew Tree Cottage from Reading Road is
adversely affected by the unsympathetic appearance to the industrial
area (former mushroom composting facility) to the north of the
Conservation Area.
Agrees with the Recommendations
Does not have any he’d like to add
He does have other issues he’d like to raise
They are:Section 6.1 contains the site specific paragraph:‘Clarks Farm – this site was used for a while as a centre for the
production of mushroom compost, the owner utilising a large modern
‘barn’ which lies just outside the Conservation Area. The current
owner is seeking permission to develop the site as a materials recycling
centre, which potentially could have an adverse effect on the setting of
Clarks Farm and the character of the Conservation Area’.
Thank you. Agree in principle, but
this issue is suitably covered
elsewhere within the text
6.1 Agree
No change required
Add this para to the text
No change required
Noted, in the planning context this
3
The above paragraph will become out of date very soon, possibly prior
to the adoption of the document. At the time of writing the application
is being held in abeyance by Hampshire CC pending a planning
application for residential development which is imminent. An
alternative paragraph is suggested below:‘Clarks Farm- this site was used for a while as a centre for the
production of mushroom compost, the owner utilising a large modern
‘barn’ which lies just outside the Conservation Area. The modern barn,
expanse of hard-standing within the site and associated industrial
buildings do not contribute positively to the character of the
Conservation Area. The site is allocated for employment
redevelopment within the Local Plan and a use more appropriate in
terms of scale and activity which would be in keeping with its
surroundings would enable an improvement to the visual amenities of
the Conservation Area and improve the setting for Clarks Farm’.
site is currently very active with
discussions taking place for a
potential change of use to
something far more sympathetic to
the character of the CA and the
text covers this sufficiently.
Cllr Davies
Agree
3.2 See comments from Cllr Davies on Yateley Green CA where
changes were made to the text re Ancient History of Yateley
3.2 ‘part of the larger kingship of Wessex’ do you mean ‘part of the royal
desmesne lying within Wessex’? If, however, you are referring to the
pre-conquest divisions of England either you mean the ‘kingdom of
Wessex’ (pre the reign of Athelstane), or (post Athelstane’s reign the
‘Earldom of Wessex’).
Point taken: we do indeed mean “part of the royal demesne”. To avoid
any misunderstandings re Wessex it might just be best to substitute “of
King Alfred”
C/6
HDC
C/7
HDC
1.1 -3rd paragraph - Correct word ‘There’ to ‘The’ so it reads ‘The area
included’
1.2 - Check explanation on SPA description
Correct word 10th Bullet point down ‘centur’ add ‘y’ – century
C/4
C/5
Agree
amend
amend
4
C/8
HDC
1.4 - The Hampshire County Structure Plan (Review) 1996-2011 was
superseded, with its policies ceasing to have force, when the Regional
Spatial Strategy for the South East – the South East Plan was approved
in May 2009.
Clarks Farm – Policy Alt Dev 17 – This policy is an employment
allocation at Clark’s Farm for up to 2,500 square metres of B1 land.
Policy saved against which a future planning application will be judged.
This proposed allocation of land is consistent with PPG4: Industrial and
Commercial Development and Small Firms which states that ‘one of the
Government’s key aims is to encourage continued economic
development in a way which is compatible with its stated environmental
objectives’. The policy is also compliant with the emerging PPS4
Sustainable Economic Development. (Ref: Comment from HDC
Appendix 1 on saved policies in First Alterations to Hart District Local
Plan (Replacement) 1996 December 2008).
1.6 - Remove ‘ADD LATER’ and duplicated word ‘agreed’- Add in
Public Consultation dates ‘4th July to 15th August 2011’
C/9
HDC
C/10
HDC
1.7 & 2.1 - Planning Application ref 10/00811/CMA - ‘Use of existing
industrial building (Class B2) as a sustainable waste materials recycling
facility (MRF)(Class B2) together with associated vehicle, plant and
containers storage at Clarks Farm, Reading Road, Yateley, Hampshire
GU17 0DP’– Decision – Objection
Decision includes reason ‘The proposed development would also
adversely affect the setting of Clark’s Farmhouse as a Grade II listed
building and would not preserve or enhance the character or
appearance of the adjoining Darby Green Conservation Area’.
C/11
HDC
2.4 - Correct word ‘scare’ to ‘scarce’ ?
See comments on SPA wording
Agree, amend. Section 2.4 has been
rationalised with repetition taken
amend
5
C/12
Cllr Davies
originating
3.2 - See Cllr Davies comments on ‘Kingship of Wessex’ and amend
accordingly.
3rd paragraph - Correct ‘surprisingly’ to ‘surprising’
C/13
C/14
HDC
The
Conservation
Studio
4.1 - Correct 2nd line ‘though’ to ‘through’
5.4 - Consider Pound Cottage, part of 3 C’s Cattery for Local Listing
C/15
C/16
5.5 - 2nd Paragraph Change word ‘contracts’ to ‘contrasts’
6.1 & 7.1 - Comments on Clarks Farm in relation to planning
application on site
C/17
HDC
Robert
Jackson,
HDC
HDC
C/18
HDC
C/19
HDC
9.5 - Clarks Farm HCC sand/gravel planning consent is currently being
held in abeyance by the applicant as they have also applied for a change
of use to residential. Given the current climate of under used
employment land in the District, set against a current use that
unfortunately has little ability to either preserve or enhance the
character and appearance of the associated Listed Buildings at the front
of the site and of equal consideration, the immediately adjacent Darby
Green CA.
2.2 - says that the HDC landscape Character Assessment does not
cover Yateley. This is only partly correct as the Character Assessment
deliberately excludes the more densely populated urban communities as
these have there own urban character. However, the Character
Assessment does cover an extensive eastern area of the CA that
includes the heathland as the setting for the CA. In this event the
character assessment should be used not only to provide suitable
references but also to be consistent with other past CA appraisals.
2.2. says that the HDC landscape Character Assessment does not
cover Yateley. This is only partly correct as the Character Assessment
out
Agree
amend
Agee
To be considered. Assessment
required by HDC Listed Buildings
Officer, current work
commitments allowing
amend
Agree, amend text along the lines
suggested
amend
Given the current and ongoing
application for change of use to this
site 9.5 has been amended to
reflect this
amend
Agree
Amend
Agree, amend text to include
relevant description of landscape
Amend
6
deliberately excludes the more densely populated urban communities as character types
these have there own urban character. However, the Character
Assessment does cover an extensive eastern area of the CA that
includes the heathland as the setting for the CA. In this event the
character assessment should be used not only to provide suitable
references but also to be consistent with other past CA appraisals.
7
POND
FARM
CLARKS
FARM
YEW TREE
COTTAGE
D
G R
OAD
BY
AR
ADD
EN ROAD
GRE
POND
COTTAGE
WILLOWS
DARBY GREEN
CENTRE
NG
I
AD
RE
AD
RO
POUND
COTTAGE
THE OLD
COTTAGE
ADD
B3
27
DARBY
GREEN
HOUSE
2
LA
NE
DIN
ST
RO
UD
REA
YATELEY
COMMON
Darby Green Conservation Area
Not to scale
Proposed Conservation Area Boundary
Listed Buildings
Locally Listed Buildings
Positive Buildings
Important Views
Important Trees
Focal Building
SSSI and SPA
POND
FARM
CLARKS
FARM
YEW TREE
COTTAGE
D
G R
OAD
BY
AR
1
EN ROAD
GRE
POND
COTTAGE
WILLOWS
DARBY GREEN
CENTRE
NG
I
AD
RE
AD
RO
POUND
COTTAGE
2
THE OLD
COTTAGE
3
B3
27
DARBY
GREEN
HOUSE
2
LA
NE
DIN
ST
RO
UD
REA
YATELEY
COMMON
Darby Green Conservation Area
Character Area Map
Not to scale
Conservation Area Boundary
1
2
Yateley Common: wooded area
between Darby Green Road and
Reading Road
3
Yateley Common: wooded area to
south of Reading Road
PAPER H
CABINET
DATE OF MEETING:
1 DECEMBER 2011
TITLE OF REPORT:
ADOPTION OF STATEMENT OF COMMUNITY
INVOLVEMENT: FIRST REVISION
Report of:
Head of Planning Services
Cabinet member:
1
PURPOSE OF REPORT
1.1
Following the public consultation on the draft during the summer, to agree to adopt
the revised version of the Council’s Statement of Community Involvement as part of
the Hart District Local Development Framework (LDF).
2
2.1
3
BACKGROUND
3.1
The SCI is a legally required document which sets out how a local authority proposes
to engage with its stakeholders and the community in the development plan-making
process and in considering planning applications.
3.2
The Hart SCI was adopted in September 2006. In June 2008, the Government
revised the legislation governing the preparation of development plan documents
with the number of consultation stages being reduced from three to two. The
adopted SCI thus became out of step with current plan-making requirements.
4
CONSIDERATIONS
4.1
Cabinet agreed a draft revised version of the SCI in April and consultation on this
took place in parallel with that on the Core Strategy Preferred Approach and the
Vision for Fleet between 29 July and 7 October.
4.2
Eight representations were received in response. Three of these were from Town
and Parish Councils providing updated contact details for inclusion in the SCI. The
Theatres Trust and the Surrey and Hampshire Canal Society both requested to be
included in the list of general consultation bodies in Appendix B of the SCI. The
Theatres Trust additionally felt that paragraph 4.3 of the SCI about updating the list
of general consultation bodies should contain contact details and a postal address for
individuals and groups to request to be included on the LDF database for future
consultations. Cllr Mrs Radley suggested some detailed drafting changes whilst the
Coal Authority and Natural England both reviewed the SCI and had no comments to
make on it.
PAPER H
4.3
The SCI has been amended to reflect these representations together with a number
of minor drafting changes.
5
5.1
There are no direct financial implications as a consequence of revising the SCI as it
does not commit the Council to any additional actions compared with the document
currently in use.
6
MANAGEMENT OF RISK
6.1
There are no anticipated risks associated with revising the SCI to bring it into line
with current legislation. On the contrary, if the Council were not to do so, the Core
Strategy and other development plan documents might not meet the legal
requirements needed for them to be found sound by a planning inspector.
7
CONCLUSION
7.1
The SCI has undergone some minor revisions and updates to bring it into line with
current plan-making legislation without lessening the Council’s commitments to
engage with its stakeholders on preparing draft development plans and to consult on
planning applications. It is recommended that it now be formally adopted by the
Council
Contact Details:
John Cheston, Planning Policy Team, x4273 [email protected]
APPENDICES:
Appendix 1: Statement of Community Involvement: First Revision
PAPER H
PAPER H
Appendix 1
Statement of Community Involvement
First Revision
Adopted December 2011
Part of the Hart District Local
Development Framework
Hart LDF Statement of Community Involvement
contents
Contents
Page
1. Introduction
2
2. Which documents make up a Local Development Framework?
2
3. How does Sustainability Appraisal/Strategic Environmental Assessment fit into the
process?
3
4. Who will Hart District Council involve in the preparation of the LDF?
4
5. How will Hart District Council engage you in the preparation of the LDF?
5
6. What happens after community engagement?
5
7. Community engagement in the determination of planning applications
6
Appendix A: Consultation procedures for Hart’s LDF documents
7
Appendix B: List of statutory consultees
11
Appendix C: Local newspapers used to advertise LDF consultations
12
Appendix D: Consultation procedures for planning applications
13
Appendix E: Public library and Parish / Town Council office locations and contact
details
18
1
1. Introduction
1.1. The Council’s first Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) was adopted in
September 2006 with the aim of ensuring that the community was effectively
engaged in planning and development processes in the District. It sets out how
the community is to be engaged in the production of the Local Development
Framework (LDF) and in the planning application decision-making process.
1.2. This revision of the SCI has been made necessary by changes in the legislation
that governs plan-making and the opportunity has also been taken to refresh the
document in the light of experience.
1.3. The Council values the contributions of a wide range of people both within, and
representing, the community and seeks to achieve as much agreement as possible
on development and controversial planning issues. To assist with this process,
the Hart SCI has been prepared to outline clearly:
 how the community will be involved
 which sectors of the community will be involved
 the stages at which that involvement will take place
 the methods for that involvement, and
 a commitment to feed back the outcome of community engagement
to the community.
1.4. This document presents a realistic assessment of the level of work that the
Council can undertake with the resources available and aims to make use of
existing organisations and representative groups. It will be periodically reviewed
so that it is able to reflect changing circumstances.
2. Which documents make up a Local Development Framework?
2.1. The Local Development Framework is a collection of Local Development
Documents (LDDs) produced by a local planning authority which together
provides the spatial planning strategy for the area. There are two types of LDD:
2.2. Development Plan Documents (DPDs), which include the Core Strategy
and other planning documents which relate to the development and use of land.
2.3. Supplementary Planning Documents (SPDs), which provide greater detail
on the policies and proposals in DPDs and cover matters such as design guidance
and development briefs.
2.4. Further information on the documents making up the LDF is outlined in the Hart
Local Development Scheme which is available to view at the Council Offices or
on the website (www.hart.gov.uk). The key stages in the production of LDDs
are set out in Figures 1a and 1b below.
2
Figure 1a: Key stages in the production of Development Plan Documents
Public Participation
Informal discussions with statutory consultees and participation, where appropriate, with local residents
and businesses
Pre-Submission Publication
Final consultation before document is submitted to the Secretary of State
Submission Stage
The documents and any representations made are sent to the Secretary of State to be examined for
‘soundness’ by an independent planning inspector
Public Examination
An independent planning inspector presides over a process which allows representations to be considered
in writing and/or put forward in person at the examination. The inspector considers the ‘soundness’ of the
DPD and then submits a report which identifies whether or not the DPD is ‘sound’ and whether any
changes to it need to be made by the Council before it can be adopted
Adoption
The formal process by which the Council finalises the document
Figure 1b: Key stages in the production of Supplementary Planning Documents
Early Involvement
This stage is informal and is based around discussions with stakeholders, statutory consultees and other
interested parties
Draft SPD
A draft of the SPD is produced which is subject to wider public consultation. Following consultation, the
responses received are considered and any required changes made to the document
SPD Adoption
This is a formal process by which the Council finalises the document
3. How does Sustainability Appraisal/Strategic Environmental Assessment fit
into the process?
3.1. The term ‘sustainable development’ has been used in policy-making since 1987
following the publication of the World Commission on Environment and
Development Report Our Common Future, commonly referred to as the
Brundtland Report. The report developed guiding principles for sustainable
development as it is generally understood today and contained the following
definition of sustainable development:
“development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability
of future generations to meet their own needs.”
3.2. Sustainability Appraisal (SA) is required in the UK by the Planning and
Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. All DPDs are subject to SA, but SA is not
3
required for SPDs, it is optional. An SA considers how the principles of
sustainable development have been taken into account in the development of the
document being appraised.
3.3. Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) is required in the European Union by
an EU Directive, commonly referred to as the SEA Directive1, on the assessment
of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment. Plans and
programmes with the potential to have significant environmental effects (positive
or negative) are required to undergo SEA. All DPDs are subject to SEA, whilst
SPDs have the potential for significant environmental effects and may therefore
be subject to SEA.
3.4. SA and SEA are required by separate legislation. However, as there are many
crossovers between the two processes, government guidance has recommended
that the two processes be undertaken simultaneously. This approach will be
taken for Hart’s LDF. Therefore, where SA is referred to, this incorporates the
requirements of SEA.
3.5. When preparing a DPD or SPD, the start of the process is the preparation of a
Scoping Report (for SA or SEA) which is consulted upon for a minimum of five
weeks. Where SA incorporating SEA is carried out, this is followed by an SA
Report. Where SEA only is carried out, the report produced is an
Environmental Report. Both SA Reports and Environmental Reports are also
consulted upon for a minimum of five weeks. This is usually carried out in
parallel with the consultation on the preferred approach or draft DPD/SPD.
4. Who will Hart District Council involve in the preparation of the Local
Development Framework?
4.1. The minimum requirements for public engagement in LDDs are set out in
secondary legislation2. The Hart SCI sets out how these minimum requirements
will be met and exceeded locally for the preparation of documents forming part
of the Hart LDF. These standards and procedures will be adhered to by the
Council in the preparation of these documents. This legislation is under review
and an amended version of the Local Planning Regulations3 is anticipated to come
into effect in spring 2012. The Council will need to modify its public engagement
to suit.
4.2. When preparing LDDs, the Council needs to consider whether it is appropriate
to consult with certain ‘specific’ and ‘general consultation bodies’. These
statutory consultees are set out in Appendix B.
4.3. The list of general consultation bodies will be regularly updated and groups can
contact us at the postal or email address on the back cover of this document if
1
Directive 2001/42/EC
The Town and Country Planning (Local Development)(England) Regulations 2004 (as amended in 2008
and 2009), a copy of which may be viewed at http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2004/2204/contents.
3
Local Planning Regulations Consultation, Department for Communities and Local Government, July 2011
2
4
they wish to be added to the list. The changes to the list and new groups added
to it will, from that point, be used in the process of community involvement at
the appropriate stages.
4.4. Full account will be taken of the views expressed by the public, consultees,
District Councillors and Town and Parish Councils.
4.5. The Council recognises that there are groups of people within our community
who are considered to be hard to reach but whose involvement in the
consultation process is desirable. We have identified below some specific groups
the Council considers are hard to reach and for whom additional effort to
ensure their involvement in the consultation process will be made. It should be
noted that this list is not exhaustive:
 younger people
 minority communities including Gypsies and Travellers
 businesses
 the homeless
 commuters
 people with disabilities.
4.6. The Council proposes to meet with representatives of these groups at locations
and times convenient to their members when producing the Council’s LDF
documents. However, the effectiveness of this method will need to be reviewed
periodically and, if necessary, other methods developed to meet the specific
needs of individual groups.
5. How will Hart District Council engage you in the preparation of the Local
Development Framework?
5.1 Appendix A comprises a table providing details of who will be engaged, the stage
at which they will be involved and how that engagement will be undertaken. The
table is also divided into the statutory requirements and what we will do to
exceed those requirements.
5.2 Responses to the engagement must be made by letter, email, questionnaire or
pro-forma response and received by the consultation deadline. Consultation
response forms will contain some personal questions about the respondent to
enable a profile of respondents to be compiled. This will in turn enable results to
be analysed and, if necessary, weighted, to ensure that they are representative.
6. What happens after community engagement?
6.1. Once community engagement has been completed, the comments received will
be analysed and feedback will be provided showing how views received from the
community engagement have been taken into account and what, if any, actions
taken as a result in the production of the LDD. To achieve this feedback, the
Council will use any or all of the following methods as appropriate. (Please note
5
that the minimum standard employed in this respect will include those methods
marked *)
 Publishing information on the Council website *
 Issuing press releases and statements *
 Copy of feedback available to view at the Council Offices *
6.2. Copies of feedback will be available to view at the Council Offices and at the
locations given in Appendix E of the SCI.
7. Community engagement in the determination of planning applications
7.1. This section details how the community will be engaged in the determination of
planning applications. All planning applications are subject to statutory
consultation requirements and these are set out in Appendix D together with
the additional actions this Council undertakes over and above the statutory
minimum. Hart District Council will continue to engage its community on the
basis of these requirements.
7.2. The results of any such consultation will be reported and taken into account in
decisions made by, and on behalf of, the Council.
6
Appendix A: Consultation procedures for Hart's Local
Development Documents in the LDF
Preparation Stage
Statutory Requirements for
Consultation & Notification
(What must happen)4
Options for Additional
Community Engagement
(What we could / will do extra)
Core Strategies and all other DPDs
Evidence gathering
SA Stage A

Public participation in the
preparation of a development
plan document and SA Stage
B and C, and part of Stage D




Publication of a development
plan document and SA Stage
D






Natural England, English Heritage
and Environment Agency are
consulted
Specific and general consultation
bodies (as appropriate) from
Appendix B are notified and
invited to comment on what the
document ought to contain
Consider whether to invite
comments from local residents or
businesses
For SA, consultation will include:
and Environment Agency together
with other appropriate key
stakeholders from Appendix B
Consider any representations
received

Involvement of other stakeholders
as appropriate will take place

Place details of consultation on
Council website
Place details of consultation in
libraries and parish council offices
(for locations see Appendix E)
Consult Local Strategic
Partnership & stakeholders
Consider meetings with
community forums such as the
Local Strategic Partnership and
Hart Citizens’ Panel
Consider holding public
exhibitions
Consider whether to consult on
policy options in the document
Make proposed submission
documents available for inspection
including on the Council’s website
Send a copy (which can be a CD)
of the proposed submission
documents to each of the specific
and general consultation bodies
invited to comment during public
participation
Give notice by local advertisement
Anyone may make
representations during the
consultation period which must be
for at least 6 weeks from the date
of notice
Publish on the Council website a
summary of the main issues raised
from representations received.
Representations will be available
to view on the Council’s website
For SA, consultation will take
place on the Sustainability
Appraisal report in the same way

4





Issue press release announcing
proposed submission documents
consultation exercise
These statutory requirements are expected to change in spring 2012. The Council will need to revise its
procedures to accord with the new regulations.
7
as above. This will include
appropriate bodies from Appendix
B
Preparation Stage
(What we must do)
(What we could / will do
extra)
Submission of a development
plan document and
Sustainability Appraisal report
to the Secretary of State


Public examination
Adoption
Send documents to the Secretary
of State and any specific and
general consultation bodies
(Appendix B) previously invited to
make comments and publish on
website.
 Give notice by local advertisement
 Notify anyone who requested to
be notified of submission
At least 6 weeks before the
examination starts:
 Publish details of venue and date
on website
 Notify people who made
representations of those details
 For SA, significant changes
resulting from representations
would be appraised at the
examination
 Make adopted document,
adoption statement and SA report
available for inspection
 Notify anyone who requested to
be notified of adoption
 Send the document and the
adoption statement to the
Secretary of State
8






No community engagement takes
place at this stage
submission
Feedback given on how views
received at previous stages have
been taken into account
place at this stage
details of the public examination
place at this stage
adoption
Preparation Stage
(What we must do)
extra)
Supplementary Planning Documents
Evidence gathering - where
 Where an SA/SEA Scoping Report
SA or SEA are carried out,
Stage A will be completed
Public participation and,
where SA/SEA is carried out,
Stage B, C and most of D will
be completed





Adoption and, for SA, the
remainder of Stage D


is prepared, this will be consulted
upon for a minimum of five weeks
Make document available for
inspection including on the
Council’s website and send to
appropriate bodies from Appendix
B
Anyone may make a
representation. The
representation period must be
between 4 and 6 weeks
Consider any representations
received
For SA, consultation will include:
and the Environment Agency
together with other appropriate
key stakeholders from Appendix B
Adopted document, adoption
statement & statement of
representations made available for
inspection
9

public participation exercise

place at this stage
Issue press released announcing
adoption

Preparation Stage
(What we must do)
extra)
Statement of Community Involvement
Public participation



Invite representations on what the
contents of the SCI might be from
appropriate general consultation
bodies in Appendix B and any
relevant authorities in Hart or
adjoining areas
Consider whether it is appropriate
to invite representations from
local residents and businesses
Consider all representations
received
10
 Issue press release announcing
public participation
Appendix B: List of statutory consultees
When preparing local development documents, the Council must consider whether any of
certain ‘specific’ and ‘general consultation bodies’ may have an interest in the subject matter of
the document and should therefore be consulted.
For Hart, the relevant ‘specific consultation bodies’ are:


















The Coal Authority
The Environment Agency
English Heritage
The Highways Agency
Homes and Communities Agency
Natural England
Adjoining Local Planning Authorities
Town and Parish Councils within Hart District as well as those adjoining the district
Hampshire County Council
Hampshire Police Authority
NHS Hampshire and Hampshire Community Health Care
Network Rail
NHS South Central Strategic Health Authority
Surrey County Council
Berkshire Joint Strategic Planning Unit
Relevant gas and electricity providers
Relevant sewerage and water providers
Relevant telecommunications providers or those who own or control electronic
communications apparatus located within Hart District
The relevant ‘general’ consultation bodies in Hart are:

















Amenity groups (including the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings, the
Georgian Group, the Victorian Society and the Twentieth Century Society)
Civic Societies
Community groups and residents associations
Countryside / Conservation groups
Development and property owning interests
Disability groups
Ethnic minority groups (to include the National Federation of Gypsy Liaison Groups)
Health groups
Housing interest groups and Housing Associations
Local business groups
Older persons groups
Other groups / individuals (to include the residents of Hart District)
Parish Plan groups
Religious groups
Surrey and Hampshire Canal Society
The Theatres Trust
Youth groups
The Council will also invite representations from South West Trains.
11
Appendix C: Local newspapers used to advertise LDF
consultations5
Alton Herald
Basingstoke Gazette
Farnham Herald
Fleet News and Mail
Star Courier
Yateley News
Use will also be made of Parish magazines wherever reasonably possible.
5
The Government’s draft revised Local Planning Regulations remove the requirement for local authorities
to publicise LDF consultations in local newspapers. These are anticipated to come into effect in spring
2012.
12
Appendix D: Consultation procedures for planning
applications
Pre-submission of planning application
Nature of Proposed
Development
Statutory Requirements
for Consultation &
Notification
(What must happen)
 Applicant to serve notice on
owner of land or, if unable to
identify all the owners, then a
site notice is displayed and
press advertisement
undertaken
Applications for planning permission,
listed building consent or conservation
area consent
Post submission of planning application
Statutory Publicity
Nature of Proposed
(What is required to
Development
happen)
All applications except for:
Listed Building Consent
Consent to display advertisements
Prior approval for demolition of
dwellings
Agricultural determination as to
whether prior approval of the Local
Planning Authority is required
Applications made under Section 191
and 192 of the Act (applications for a
certificate of lawful development for
existing or proposed development or
use)
Applications (except those under
Section 191 or 192 of the Act)
affecting the character or appearance
of a Conservation Area




(What we will do extra)

Encourage developers to
discuss major development
proposals with interested
parties and local communities.
For example, meet the parish
council, notify immediate
neighbours, local exhibitions,
newsletters, leaflets, internet
etc
(What we will do)
Details of valid planning
applications entered on
statutory register
Site notice or neighbourhood
notification letters

Send letters to
owner/occupiers of adjoining
properties, giving 21 days in
which to make comments
Press notice published by the
Council
A site notice to be displayed
by the Council for at least 7
days

Site notice displayed for
period of 21 days
13
Statutory Publicity
Nature of Proposed
Development
happen)
Applications (except those under
Section 191 or 192 of the Act)
affecting the setting of a Listed
Building

Application accompanied by an
Environmental Impact Assessment
(EIA) when application initially
submitted to Council

Application accompanied by an EIA
when EIA submitted to Council at a
later date

Departure from the development plan





Proposal affecting a public right of way


(What we will do)
Council
days

period of 21 days
Council
days

period of 21 days
Council
by the applicant for at least 7
days

Send letters to
properties, giving 21days in
Council
days or neighbour notification

Send letters to owner/
occupiers of adjoining
properties giving 21days in
Council
days
Council
days
Development of:

10 or more dwellings,

1000m2 or more of floorspace,
or

on a site larger than 0.5ha.

Development of:
 9 or fewer dwellings,
 less than 1000m2 floorspace, or
 on a site less than 0.5ha.
(includes householder development)

by the Council at a prominent
position near application site
for at least 21 days or
neighbour notification

Send letters to
except those where the proposals are
for listed building consent to alter only
the inside of a building listed Grade II or
to vary/discharge conditions on such a
consent already granted

Council
days

period of 21 days


14
Statutory Publicity
Nature of Proposed
Development
happen)
where the proposals are to alter only the
inside of a building listed Grade II or to
vary/discharge conditions on such a
consent already granted
Nil
Conservation Area Consent


Council
days
Consent to display advertisements
Nil
Applications to undertake works to
trees covered by Tree Preservation
Orders
Notifications of intent to carry out
work to trees in a Conservation Area
not subject to a Tree Preservation
Order

Details of applications entered
on statutory register.

Details of notifications entered
on statutory register
Determination for demolition of
dwellings as to whether prior
approval of Local Planning Authority is
required
Prior approval for the method of
demolition and restoration of site
associated with the demolition of
dwellings

applicant
(What we will do)

period of 21 days

Send letters to

Send letters to
Nil
Agricultural determination as to
whether prior approval of Local Planning
Authority is required
Nil
Agricultural prior approval where prior
approval of the Local Planning Authority
is required for the siting, design and
external appearance

applicant

Send letters to
Telecommunications prior approval

days or neighbour notification

Both site notice and letters to
properties giving 21 days in

Equivalent publicity for
application for planning
permission of that type
(Permitted development where prior
approval of the Local Planning Authority
is required for siting and appearance)
Applications under Section 191 of the
Act (application for certificate of
lawful development for existing
development or use)
Nil
15
Statutory Publicity
Nature of Proposed
Development
happen)
Applications under Section 192 of the
Act (application for certificate of
lawful development for proposed
development or use)
Nil
(What we will do)
Nil
Notes:




Letters of notification may extend beyond statutory minimum dependent on officer
discretion.
All initial notification letters will give 21 days for comment.
Consultation with statutory consultees and other amenity bodies is undertaken as
appropriate in line with both statutory requirements and circular advice.
Where significant amendments to the application are accepted, further notification
with adjoining owners and statutory consultees (as appropriate) will be undertaken.
A minimum period of 14 days will be given for comment.
Definition of ‘Adjoining Property’:
a) Any neighbouring property that shares a common boundary with the land subject to
the proposed development.
b) Where the proposed development is in a sub-divided building (e.g. a flatted property)
and neighbouring land is NOT a sub-divided building - all parts of the building
adjoining or within 4m of the part subject to the application, plus all parts of the
building directly above and below. (a) above also applies.
c) Where the proposed development is NOT a sub-divided building but neighbouring
land comprises a sub-divided building (e.g. a flatted property) - only those parts of the
subdivided building that share a common boundary with the land for which the
development is proposed, plus all parts of the building directly above and below those
parts.
d) Where the proposed development is in a sub-divided building (e.g. a flatted property)
AND neighbouring land also consists of a sub-divided building – we will follow (b) and
(c) above.
16
Development
control Planning
Applications
(What must happen)
(What we will do extra)
Determination of
applications
Application may be determined by the
Head of Planning Services in
accordance with the powers given by
Council OR by the Planning
Committee in accordance with powers
given to it by Council.
For applications dealt with by Planning
Committee:
For applications dealt with by
Planning Committee:
Report to committee available to be
viewed 5 working days prior to
committee meeting.
Planning application appeals
Notify in accordance with Planning
Inspectorate rules.
17

Public speaking at committee
permitted for applicants, local
residents, Parish Council and
people who have made written
representations. For each
application a total of 9 minutes is
allowed for public speaking with
each party having a maximum of 3
minutes each.
Appendix E: Public library and Parish / Town Council
office locations and contact details
Public library locations
Fleet Library
236 Fleet Road, Fleet, Hampshire GU51 4BX
Odiham Bridewell Library
The Bury, Odiham, Hampshire RG29 1NB
Yateley Library
School Lane, Yateley, Hampshire GU46 6NL
Town and Parish Council office locations and contact details
Blackwater and Hawley Town Council
Blackwater Centre, 12-14 London Road, Blackwater, Camberley, Surrey GU17 9AA
Tel: 01276 33050
Bramshill Parish Council
Church Crookham Parish Council
The Harlington Centre, Fleet Road, Fleet, Hampshire GU51 4BY
Tel: 01252 626793
Crondall Parish Council
PO Box 623, Farnham, Surrey GU9 1HB
Tel: 07510 917232
Crookham Village Parish Council
Dogmersfield Parish Council
18
Elvetham Heath Parish Council
The Parish Office, Elvetham Heath Community Centre, The Key, Elvetham Heath
Fleet, Hampshire GU51 1HA
Tel: 01252 623700
Eversley Parish Council
Email: mailto:[email protected]
Ewshot Parish Council
PO Box 616, Farnham, Surrey GU9 1GT
Tel: 01252 824589
email: [email protected]
Fleet Town Council
The Harlington Centre, 236 Fleet Road, Fleet, Hampshire GU51 4BY
Tel: 01252 625246
Greywell Parish Council
Hartley Wintney Parish Council
Parish Office, Appleton Hall, West Green Road, Hartley Wintney, Hook, Hampshire
RG27 8RE
Tel: 01252 845152
Heckfield Parish Council
Email: mailto:[email protected]
Hook Parish Council
Hook Community Centre, Ravenscroft, Hook, Hampshire RG27 9NN
Telephone 01256 768573 or 768687
19
Long Sutton and Well Parish Council
Mattingley Parish Council
Odiham Parish Council
Odiham Parish Council Office, The Bridewell, The Bury, Odiham, Hampshire RG29 1NB
Tel: 01256 702716
Rotherwick Parish Council
South Warnborough Parish Council
Winchfield Parish Council
Yateley Town Council
Council Offices, Reading Road, Yateley, Hampshire GU46 7RP
Tel: 01252 872198
20
If you would like to request a copy of this document
in large print, Braille, Audio Tape or another language
please contact the Council’s Planning Policy Section
by telephoning 01252 774118.
Hart LDF Statement of Community Involvement (SCI)
Planning Department
Civic Offices
Harlington Way
Fleet
Hants
GU51 4AE
Website: www.hart.gov.uk
e-mail: [email protected]
21
PAPER I
CABINET
DATE OF MEETING:
1 DECEMBER 2011
TITLE OF REPORT:
PRINCIPLES FOR ALLOCATING SECTION 106
LEISURE CONTRIBUTIONS
Report of:
Chief Executive
Cabinet Member:
Councillor Ken Crookes, Leader
1.
PURPOSE OF REPORT
1.1
To seek Cabinet’s approval to the process to be used in allocating individual strategic
(ie district wide) Section 106 (S106) leisure contributions to projects.
2.
RECOMMENDATION
2.1
set out in the report, be agreed.
3.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
3.1
In December 2010 Cabinet agreed the principles and priorities to be adopted in
seeking future Planning Obligations – commonly known as S106 contributions. That
report looked at a whole range of different contributions, from education to highway
needs.
3.2
So far as Leisure contributions were concerned, the report divided these into two:
a)
“Parish” contributions – covering the need for relatively small scale local
leisure provision, benefiting people at parish/community level. These
contributions would be gathered by the district council, taking account of
local leisure needs as identified by parish councils, and would be held by the
District Council until suitable parish level projects to use the money had been
identified. Although the District Council would ultimately take the formal
decision to release funding to specific projects, it was agreed that the Cabinet
would look primarily to the parish councils to take a lead in identifying and
prioritising those projects.
It should be noted that, whilst parish councils were expected to take this lead,
they may choose to allocate funds to other bodies for implementation, such
as local community groups, trusts or even the District Council itself. The key
issue in determining whether a project should be funded from parish level
contributions was whether the project was of significance only at parish level.
b)
“Strategic” contributions – these are contributions towards schemes
which have a benefit across most, if not all, of the District Council area.
Contributions for these projects would be gathered and held by the District
Council, who would also take the lead in bringing forward projects for using
1
PAPER I
them. The report outlined an initial list of such projects, and it was envisaged
that this list would be updated periodically to take account of changing needs
and opportunities.
Again, it should be noted that whilst the District Council will take the lead in
identifying and prioritising projects to use these contributions, it will not
necessarily be responsible for implementing any particular project. The
emphasis is on whether the scheme benefits most, if not all, of the district.
3.3
This report builds on the December 2010 report, and sets out a process by which
the District Council will allocate the contributions it receives towards
strategic/district wide projects. It explains the process on which individual
contributions will be chosen to fund individual projects, and also the process for
reviewing the list of strategic projects on a regular basis.
4.
CONSTRAINTS ON USING CONTRIBUTIONS
4.1
The Cabinet Report in December 2010 set out the basis on which the District
Council would in future seek to enter into negotiations with developers, and the
types and levels of contribution the council would seek.
4.2
Ultimately, though, every S106 contribution is governed by the terms of the final
agreement reached between the council and the respective developer. Irrespective
of the basis on which the council entered into the negotiation, it is only the wording
of the agreement itself which constrains how any contribution can ultimately be used.
For example, for one development the council might seek a contribution of £50,000,
made up of £30,000 for a leisure centre and £20,000 towards a country park. Unless
the eventual agreement explicitly stipulates these purposes, however, the council
could eventually choose to use all the money for whatever form of provision it saw
fit – the money could all be put into the country park, for example, or indeed it could
be used for a purpose which was nothing to do with either leisure centres or
country parks. The council would be able to use its discretion as to how the money
was spent.
4.3
Generally speaking, the Council now seeks to negotiate agreements that give it the
maximum freedom of manoeuvre in using the contributions received. Often
developers do not seek to impose constraints, and this gives the District Council
complete freedom in using those contributions. This accords with a longstanding
principle of administrative law; that councils should not fetter their own future
discretion.
4.4
However, a number of existing agreements contain constraints on how, where or
when a contribution can be used – and some developers may insist on a similar
situation applying to future agreements. A developer may seek to place a time
constraint on the contribution (for example, that they have to be used within
10 years), the purpose for which it can be used (eg, to provide or enhance a country
park), or the geographic area within which the contribution has to be spent (eg,
within 5 miles of a particular settlement).
4.5
Clearly, any such constraint has to be taken into account in determining which
contributions can be used to support particular projects. From the Council’s point
2
PAPER I
of view, it makes sense to try to maintain as much flexibility as possible. This means
that, in considering how a particular project should be funded, there is an advantage
in using contributions that would be constrained from funding other projects. It
makes sense, for example, to use time limited contributions first, to avoid the risk
that no further projects will come forward and the contribution will have to be
returned.
4.6
The general principle underlying the use of contributions, therefore, should be to use
the most constrained contributions first, and the least constrained last.
4.7
Bearing that principle in mind, it is therefore recommended that when a project is
being considered for S106 funding, the Council adopt the following process:
a)
The project will be evaluated against all outstanding contributions, taking
account of any constraints, to identify which contributions are capable of
being used to fund it. This will produce a list of eligible contributions.
b)
Within the eligible contributions list, an assessment will be made of which
contributions have the greatest constraints. The most constrained
contributions will be allocated to the project first, with further contributions
being added in order of constraint until either the project is fully funded, or
all the constrained contributions have been used up.
c)
Any remaining funding necessary for the project will be taken from the
unconstrained contributions, using the oldest contribution first, until the
project is fully funded.
4.8
The whole process will be overseen by the Capital Board, and will be the subject of
an annual monitoring report to Overview and Scrutiny Committee and Cabinet, to
coincide with the budget preparation process each autumn.
5.
5.1
Currently the council has around £680,000 of S106 contributions available for
strategic/district wide leisure projects, with a further £348,000 for parish level
projects. As a result of the proposed new approach to development and developers
contributions arising from the Local Development Framework, a significant level of
further contributions is likely to arise in future years. The process set out above will
help the council to manage these resources in as effective a way as possible.
Contact:
Geoff Bonner , Chief Executive, x4108, [email protected]
Background Papers:
Report to Cabinet – 2 December 2010 – “Planning Obligations – Principles and Priorities”
3
PAPER J
CABINET
DATE OF MEETING:
1 DECEMBER 2011
TITLE OF REPORT:
Report of:
Chief Executive
Cabinet Member:
Councillor Ken Crookes, Leader
1
PURPOSE OF REPORT
1.1
To seek the Cabinet’s approval to enter into an Armed Forces Community Covenant
between Hart District and the Armed Forces community in Hart.
2
RECOMMENDATION
2.1
3
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
3.1
Earlier this year the Government signed the Armed Forces Covenant, a copy of
which is attached as Appendix A.
3.2
The Government are encouraging local authorities to adopt the terms of the
covenant within their areas. Hampshire County Council signed a covenant a couple
of months ago, and given the significance of the two main armed forces bases in Hart,
it is recommended that the Cabinet enter into a similar covenant with those bases.
3.3
The covenant does not commit either the Council or the armed forces to specific
actions. Rather it is about recognising the general responsibility of the civilian
community towards the armed forces, and to ensure that members of the armed
forces and their families suffer no disadvantage compared to other citizens in the
provision of public and commercial services. In some cases, it is even appropriate to
give special consideration to those needs.
3.4
If Cabinet is minded to sign the covenant, the signing ceremony will take place on
Wednesday 7 December at 11am in the Council Chamber.
4
4.1
There are no direct financial implications arising from the signing of the covenant.
CONTACT:
Geoff Bonner – Chief Executive, x4108, [email protected]
PAPER J
Appendix 1
CABINET
KEY DECISIONS/ WORK PROGRAMME AND EXECUTIVE DECISIONS MADE
December 2011
Cabinet is required to publish its Key Decisions and forward work programme to inform the public of issues on which it intends to make policy or
decisions. The Scrutiny Committee also notes the Programme, which is subject to regular revision. Items in italics denote changes to a previously published
Plan. All items are key decision unless stated otherwise.
Report Title
Outline/Reason for
Report/Comments
Ref
(Note 1)
Original
Due Date
Revised
Due
Date
Decision
Deadline
Cabinet
Member
(Note 2)
Service
(Note
3)
Oct 11
Cricket Hill and Darby Green – for
approval
Dec 11
RA
P&ER
S106 Funds
Nov 11
Principles for allocation of S106
Leisure Funds
Dec 11
KC
CX
Statement of Community
Involvement in the LDF
Nov 11
Report
Dec 11
RA
P&ER
CCTV
Sept 10
Future service
Nov 10
NS
CX
Works to Civic Offices
Nov 11
Approval for urgent works to civic
office lighting
Dec 11
SP
TS&EM
Armed Forces Covenant
Nov 11
Report
Dec 11
KC/JK
CX
Corporate Plan
Jan 12
Draft for Consultation
Jan 12
KC
CX
Gypsy and Traveller Management
July 11
Report
Nov 11
Jan 12
CB
HS
Green Lane Car Park
July 11
Report on future options
Oct 11
Jan 12
CB
HS
Section 106 Transition Land Fleet –
Berkeley Homes
Nov 11
Report
Jan 12
RA
P&ER
Setting the Council Tax Base
Annual
Report
Jan 12
KC
F
2012/13 Budget Report
Annual
Update on current position
Jan 12
KC
F
1
Dec 11
PAPER K
Conservation Areas
Report Title
Outline/Reason for
Report/Comments
Ref
(Note 1)
Original
Due Date
Revised
Due
Date
Decision
Deadline
Cabinet
Member
(Note 2)
Service
(Note
3)
Heathlands Court
Sept 11
Future options
Nov 11
Feb 12
CB
HS
Tenancy Strategy
July 11
For approval
Nov 11
Feb 12
CB
HS
Biodiversity Plan
Oct 11
Feb 12
RA
P&ER
2011/12 Revenue Budget, Capital
Programme and Council Tax
Proposals
Annual
Approval
Feb 12
KC
F
Treasury Management Strategy
Annual
Update
Feb 12
Mar 12
KC
CX
KC
S151
2011/12 Quarterly Budget
Monitoring
Quarterly
Quarterly monitoring
Sep 12
Dec 12
Apr 12
Service Plans
Annual
Service Plans 2012/13
Treasury Management
Twice
Yearly
Report
June 12
Nov 12
KC
F
Revenue and CapitalOutturn
2011/12
Annual
Report on outturn
June 12
KC
F
Treasury Management Outturn
2011/12
Annual
Report
June 12
KC
F
Outside Bodies
Annual
To confirm representatives on
Outside Bodies
June 12
KC
CX
Environmental Maintenance Service
Enforcement Policy and Procedures
Oct 09
To comply with the Clean
Neighbourhoods and Environment
Act
Dec 09
TBD
SP
TS&EM
Designated Protected Areas Policy
June 11
For adoption
July 11
TBD
CB
HS
2
All
Notes:
1
2
3
Date added to Programme
Cabinet Members:
KC
Crookes
SK
Kinnell
Service:
CX
Chief Executive
CS
Community Safety
F
Finance
SLS
Shared Legal Services
RA
SP
Appleton
Parker
CB
NS
Butler C
Singh
CD
HS
DS
MO
Corporate Director
Housing and Customer Services
Democratic Services
Chief Solicitor & Monitoring Officer
P&ER
L&EP
TS &EM
EH
Planning and Environmental Regulation
Leisure and Environmental Promotion
Technical Services and Environmental Maintenance
Environmental Health
EXECUTIVE DECISIONS
26/10/11
Cllr Kinnell
Release of S106 Funds to Hartley Wintney Parish Council
No call in
PAPER K
3
CABINET
Date and Time:
Thursday, 1 December 2011 at 7.00 pm
Place:
Council Chamber, Civic Offices, Fleet
Present:
COUNCILLORS –
Crookes (Chairman)
Appleton (7.05 pm), Butler C, Kinnell (7.10 pm), Parker
In attendance: Councillors Axam, Cockarill, Davies, Gorys, Kennett, Lit (7.05 pm),
Neighbour, Radley JE, Wheale (8.10 pm)
Officers Present:
Geoff Bonner
Emma Broom
Nigel Preston (7.15 pm)
Andrew Ratcliffe
John Cheston
83
Chief Executive
Corporate Director
Head of Housing and Customer Services
Senior Policy Planner
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING
The Minutes of the meeting held on 3 November 2011 were confirmed and signed as
a correct record.
84
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Apologies were received from Councillor Singh.
85
CHAIRMAN’S ANNOUNCEMENTS
None.
86
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST (PERSONAL AND PERSONAL AND
PREJUDICIAL)
Councillor Davies declared a personal interest in item 16, Fleet Vision, by virtue of a
small shareholding in the company referred to.
Councillors Appleton and Butler also declared an interest in item 16 as they are
members of Fleet Town Council.
87
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION (ITEMS PERTAINING TO THE AGENDA)
None.
CAB.24
88
Members were advised of the preferred option for the replacement of the CCTV
RESOLVED
NB Councillors Appleton, Kinnell and Lit entered the meeting during this item.
89
URGENT REPAIRS TO LIGHTING AT THE CIVIC OFFICES
Members were updated on the recent approval of a capital expenditure item for
repairs to the civic office lighting.
RESOLVED
delegated power within the council’s Scheme of Officer Delegation, had approved the
allocation of £32.5k in the Council’s Capital programme to fund urgent lighting works
at the Civic Offices based on a single quote, for the reasons outlined in the report.
90
SOLAR PHOTOVOLTAIC PANELS AT FROGMORE LEISURE CENTRE
Cabinet were advised of the recent approval of capital works to install photovoltaic
(PV) panels on to the flat roof area of Frogmore Leisure Centre.
RESOLVED
delegated power within the council’s Scheme of Officer Delegation, had approved the
NB Nigel Preston entered the meeting during this item.
91
DISABLED FACILITIES GRANTS UPDATE AND REQUEST FOR
ADDITIONAL FUNDING
Cabinet were updated in relation to Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) funding and
asked to agree additional funding to ensure there is no waiting list for these grants in
HDC.
CAB.25
RESOLVED
92
1
That the position regarding DFG spending be noted, and that up to £100k
funds be transferred to the DFG programme YR05, from Housing Capital
Receipts in 2011/12 be agreed.
2
That consideration to making similar provision for future years be given as
part of the budget process.
CONSERVATION AREA REVIEW – CRICKET HILL, YATELEY
Approval was sought for the Conservation Area Character Appraisal and
Management Plan for Cricket Hill, Yateley.
RESOLVED
93
1
That the Conservation Area Character Appraisals and Management Proposals
for the Cricket Hill Conservation Area as shown in Appendix 1 be adopted
by the Council, and that the accompanying maps in Appendix 3 be amended in
2
That the Head of Planning, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for
Planning, be authorised to make detailed amendments in respect of heavy
goods vehicle movements.
CONSERVATION AREA REVIEW – DARBY GREEN, YATELEY
Approval was sought for the Conservation Area Character Appraisal and
Management Plan for Darby Green, Yateley.
RESOLVED
Darby Green Conservation Area as shown in Appendix 1 be adopted by the Council,
and that the accompanying maps in Appendix 3 be amended in accordance with the
recommendations.
94
ADOPTION OF STATEMENT OF COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT:
FIRST REVISION
Following the public consultation on the draft during the summer, Cabinet were
asked to adopt the revised version of the Council’s Statement of Community
Involvement as part of the Hart District Local Development Framework (LDF).
RESOLVED
CAB.26
95
PRINCIPLES FOR ALLOCATING SECTION 106 LEISURE
CONTRIBUTIONS
Cabinet were asked to approve the process to be used in allocating individual
strategic (ie district wide) Section 106 (S106) leisure contributions to projects.
RESOLVED
set out in the report, be agreed, subject to amending paragraph 4.7 to read as
follows:4.7
96
Bearing that principle in mind, it is therefore recommended that when a
project is being considered for S106 funding, the Council adopt the following
process:
a)
The project will be evaluated against all outstanding contributions,
taking account of any constraints, to identify which contributions are
capable of being used to fund it. This will produce a list of eligible
contributions.
b)
Within the eligible contributions list, an assessment will be made of
which contributions have the greatest constraints. The most
constrained contributions will be allocated to the project first, with
further contributions being added in order of constraint until either
the project is fully funded, or all the constrained contributions have
been used up.
c)
If further funding is required, it will be taken first from the
unconstrained contributions within the catchment area of the project.
d)
Any remaining funding necessary for the project will be taken from the
remaining unconstrained contributions, using the oldest contribution
first, until the project is fully funded.
Approval was sought to enter into an Armed Forces Community Covenant between
Hart District and the Armed Forces community in Hart.
RESOLVED
NB Councillor Wheale entered the meeting during this item.
97
CABINET WORK PROGRAMME
The Cabinet Work Programme was considered and amended.
CAB.27
98
EXCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC
RESOLVED
That in accordance with Section 100A of the Local Government Act 1972, the public
be excluded during the discussion of the matters referred to in the item below, on
the grounds that it involved the likely disclosure of exempt information, as defined in
the respective paragraph of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act, and the public interest
in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosing the
information.
Paragraph 3 – Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular
person (including the authority holding the information).
99
FLEET VISION – FEASIBILITY STUDIES
It was recommended that the Council enter into an agreement with a commercial
company as outlined in the report, to consider the feasibility of progressing the Fleet
Vision.
RESOLVED
1
That the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Leader, be authorised to
enter into an agreement as outlined in the report, to commission feasibility
studies, and to incur any necessary expenditure up to the limit set out in
paragraph 6.2.
2
That the Chief Executive be asked to consider appropriate publicity for the
development of the Fleet Vision.
The meeting closed at 9.10pm
CAB.28

notice of meeting agenda

Transcription

Similar documents

New Study Shows ʺCollapseʺ of Worldʹs Largest

COMMUNITY - Ol Pejeta Conservancy

PDF of project data sheet.

Welcome to - Yateley Manor

flower valley conservation trust

Jianchu Xu Sept1-Xu_WWW_2014

Restore America

In Kind - Venture for Fund Raising

Wildlife Times

Conservation Tool Box - Lower Shore Land Trust