Agenda item

The Forum referred to the update report that was circulated with the agenda pack for information and comment. Chris Williams and David McCarthy (Grainger) addressed the forum, providing recent updates regarding infrastructure, community development, land sale and planning and the local centre since the report had been generated, as summarised below and answered members’ questions thereon.

Infrastructure

(i)            Phase 5 infrastructure - It was noted that the road connecting the two elements of Newlands Avenue had been finalised and was blocked off to prevent vehicular access, as set out in the Section 106 agreement. Phase 4 infrastructure and the southern access junction were identified as precursors to Phase 5 infrastructure being fully opened.

(ii)          Phase 4 infrastructure was expected to commence on site later in the year and would be implemented as a whole road to allow the construction of the southern access junction.

The southern access junction was expected to begin on site in the   early part of the next year. Upon completion, the focus would be on   finishing Phase 4 infrastructure to the correct standard.

(iii)         The safe routes to school scheme, part of Grainger's Section 106 obligations, was being installed and expected to be completed by the end of August.

(iv)         Works were also being carried out on the Western Link Road, finishing off the element outside of the new school.

(v)          Finishing works for New Gardens and Oak Vale roads were commencing to bring them up to an adoptable standard. Agreements with Hampshire County Council and utility providers were being sought for their adoption during the latter part of next year.

(vi)         General adoptions for legal agreements were proceeding at pace, with a standardised agreement now in place for most schemes. Progress was stalled by a third party with complications which had prevented progression into the wider development from the north. The issue had caused approximately six months of delays, but negotiations were hoped to be resolved soon. The southern half of the development was proceeding concurrently where possible.

Community Development and Engagement

(i)            There had been a significant amount of community engagement. However, a slowdown in participation and uptake in areas outside the community was observed. Methodologies were being developed to address this, aiming to deliver a comprehensive scheme of social value elements to the wider area.

(ii)          A social value wish list had been compiled, encouraging future developers and contractors to support the local community with requested social value elements. Some requests were too expensive, but others were easily resolved.

Land Sale and Planning Elements

(i)            Northern allotments were currently under construction on site and southern allotments, which included a car parking facility and a play area, were also under construction on site.

(ii)          Town Park Phase B was in planning, and comments from the local authority and highways were being addressed.

(iii)         The Community Nature Reserve was undergoing internal review for contractor tender packs, with works likely to commence later in the year.

(iv)         The cricket pavilion would require minor tweaks to the previously approved decision notice, and works were anticipated to start on site next year.

(v)          For Blue Star land which was outside the Berewood development, comments had been received on the proposal and work to address these was taking place.

(vi)         For school extension land, revised information for the application was being prepared for submission during July 2025.

Local Centre (Phase 6A):

(i)            A land parcel named Phase 6A within the development was divided into five elements: a medical centre, extra care facilities, retirement living, private residential units, and the local centre.

(ii)          The local centre was planned to include amenities such as a convenience store, 3-4 commercial units, a nursery with outdoor play provision and a community hall.

(iii)         Legal discussions with the developer providing the local centre were progressing well. Regular meetings with councillors had been implemented over the past 8-to-12-month period to provide progress updates.

(iv)         Time scales: Legal negotiations with the developer were hoped to be completed by September this year. The developer was keen to submit their application and hoped to achieve planning permission in April 2026, followed by immediate commencement on site.

The forum raised questions on the update received, which were responded to by Grainger representatives and relevant officers as summarised below:

(a)          Clarification was sought regarding dog exercise areas, which were proposed to be part of the allotment development. It was noted that the dog agility area would form part of the community nature reserve application in the south and would come forward as part of that delivery after the allotments.

(b)          A question was raised about the parish offices in relation to the local centre and community centre. It was stated that the parish offices had not been overlooked, and further discussions would commence and continue shortly. It was clarified that the community building would host various facilities within it.

(c)          In respect of the planning route for the Blue Star land, it was confirmed that the Blue Star land application was a joint planning application but was located outside the remit of the joint planning committee, it would therefore have two committee meetings: one at Havant Borough Council and one at Winchester City Council.

(d)          The detailed update on Phase 6A local centre area was welcomed. In response to a question regarding parish council consultation, it was emphasised that legal completion was required before the developer could submit their application. Discussions with the parish council regarding the community building was the next step. It was acknowledged that there had been a previous consultation and display of a proposal for the community building some years ago and a preference to the Eastleigh community centre model had since been indicated. The parish council requested to be involved in the details of the planning as early as possible.

(e)          The lack of status regarding the medical facility was highlighted, noting that land was reserved but there was no indication of when or if it would be delivered, expressing concern that government changes to the NHS might affect its final approval. These points were acknowledged with officers stating that the land remained earmarked for a medical centre, subject to integrated care funding and a further update would be provided in due course.

(f)           The Chairperson expressed significant concern regarding the approach to the village centre, particularly the limited opportunity for consultation with residents, suggesting that legal agreements with the developer would set tight parameters, leaving little flexibility. It was acknowledged that while this met Section 106 requirements, it may not be the best approach for building a community. In response, it was noted that comprehensive public consultation had been conducted in 2019, and those views were being carried forward, with concern that further consultation may cause frustration given existing constraints. It was explained that the Section 106 provision was clear, and that the planning process would address architectural form.

            In addition, further concern was expressed that the 2019 consultation         may no longer be valid due to the six-year gap that had elapsed and an estimated doubling of the population on site. It was suggested that          public demand for different elements might allow for flexibility,             particularly concerning what was built beyond physical architecture.             Concerns were raised about not building "the right thing" given changes in the community and in working habits since the pandemic. It         was noted that the developer was in favour of a community element             such as a coffee shop, and that recommendation was noted. It was agreed that close consultation would be required once the developer      was named.

(g)          The forum considered that the planning process was not a substitute for proper consultation, as strong resident views often held little weight in planning decisions made on planning grounds. A call was made for early discussions at both district and parish levels with Grainger and the developer to form ideas and make them known to residents, to ensure the best result.

(h)          Concerns were raised regarding the demand for commercial units, emphasising that the village centre should complement, not compete with Waterlooville town centre, highlighting the importance of discussions before anything was built.

(i)            It was noted that the health centre's redesign removed a pharmacy on cost grounds. Therefore, it was considered that one of the remaining shop units should be allocated as a pharmacy due to the long-distance residents would have to travel to facilities otherwise.

In conclusion, the Chairperson acknowledged the strength of feeling, particularly regarding the village centre and the importance of engagement in the process.

            RESOLVED:

                                    That the report be noted and the comments raised by the                               forum as set out above, be noted.