Bell Cornwell LLPPresentation to the OPC;

alterations to the Deer Park Proposals.

Wednesday 30th SeptemberThe Vine Church

Introduction from Graham Bell; [BA, Dip.TP, MSc.(EA), FRGS]

� What is the purpose of this presentation tonight?

� What happens at the end of the presentation ?

Where were we before tonight ?� These proposals for the Deer Park began many years before there was anything called a Neighbourhood

Plan [NP]

� The NP process and the Park proposals have got entwined and now run in parallel – a consequence never

envisaged originally

� The proposal was always going to be a special one-off proposition for the area within which it sits i.e. the

Odiham conservation area

� We took the owner’s ideas to the OPC first as a matter of courtesy and then later to the public via an

exhibition, web site information etc.

� We found ourselves watching the NP emergence from the side-lines – first contact was March 2015; LGS

letter from Steering Group

� When invited to comment on the NP we have made known our representations for the owner just like

many others have done so

� Following on now is the shape of the Deer Park with the main impacts we have as of today and the first

landscape master plan presented to the public

Where are we now?� The Deer Park [only the Revell land] is now to be included in the emerging NP as a possible very large LGS

� Apart from this new matter we remain, in adopted planning terms, where we were before – [extract from

HDC plan to follow next]

� We are now able to suggest alterations following the exhibition responses which we received and then

considered and in many cases discussed personally with people at the time

� We are happy to present these alterations to the OPC and for you to discuss them at an appropriate time,

whenever that may be, but hopefully soon

� We can closely align these proposals to the NP ‘vision’ for the local area that has evolved with the

agreement of the community through your NP consultation process

� We are nearing the stage of the formal submission of an overall landscape-based scheme for this part of

the Park and an application for those elements needing planning permission.

Main changes are relating to:

1. The landscape Plan overall

2. The Hub, off public car park

3. The Access & Footpaths

4. Deer Park fencing

5. Tree planting

6. The housing

7. Public Open Spaces

Main changes

1. The Plan overall

� Issue – too ambitious – scale down in size

� Concern from owner of grass runway to north and increased tree planting in top

fields

� Surface water flows speeded through the site to the west

� Solution – leave other land to north alone – concentrate on single ownership of

42ha only

� Increase the likelihood of complete delivery by doing less

� Have wet woodland landscape in parts and restore ponds and help natural flow

Main changes

2. The Hub, off the public car park

� Issue – not enough parking - how would it be run?

� Do we need a community building or something else ?

� Solution – increase area available for parking and events –

retain community building offer until not wanted officially

� Widen events field to increase potential uses

� Retain potential for level footpath to Health centre from

Palace Gate area

� Retain Hub as part of land offered to the OPC for the

community.

Main changes

3. The Access & Footpaths

� Issue – road access unsafe for amount of traffic – don’t

want footpaths extinguished or diverted away from Deer

sanctuary field– don’t want footpaths fenced in or

corralled in high hedges

� Solution – leave as many footpaths alone as possible

� Reduce height of hedges and create viewpoints across the

Park

� Check safety of access with HCC/HDC Highway engineers.

� Designed by WSP as a 4.1m

driveway and 2m joint

footway/cycleway within a

12m wide landscape zone

� Use an existing access point

onto Dunley's Hill

� Has been agreed by HDC

Highways as a suitable

junction

� Can become a part of the

new definitive footpath

network linking to FP17

� Is deliverable

� No footpath extinguished in full – only 2 diversions

� 2 new definitive footpaths offered by landowner

� Overall increase in linear meters of footpaths across

the site– see chart

� Public open space areas will also increase the linear

meters of footpath but not counted here.

Main changes

4. Deer Park fencing

� Issue – don’t like the idea of unsightly fences being seen

� How high?

� What do they look like?

� Where are they?

� Solution – follow the principle of a Pale boundary and

effectively hide the fencing in the landscape

� Use virtually invisible fencing

Main changes

5. Tree planting

� Issue – the tree boundary will create a

continuous screen stopping our views into the

Park.

� Solution – show at a defined scale, the effect of

the spacing being suggested of 25m centres and

6m oak trees from year 1

� Relate to other established and Listed deer parks

– see ‘the Ride’ at Bushy Park [opposite].

Main changes

6. The Park housing

� Issue – too much housing [12 units] – too large – Parkers

House not acceptable and too prominent

� Solution – lower the number of units by 4 [1/3rd less] and

give more plot size to provide significant landscape setting

to each

� Re-site houses away from any direct views

� Reduce size of Parkers House by 20% and re-site further

back into the site using stream and topography

� Relate to other examples of houses in Parks elsewhere.

Main changes

7. Public Open Spaces

� Issue – what is offered and how and for how long?

� Is a lease to the OPC good enough ?

� What happens in 25 years time when a lease runs out ?

� Solution – clarify the land to be dedicated – [plan based on

landscape master plan to follow this page]

� Enlarge the area to provide better ‘events field’ and

permanent and overspill parking associated with it

� Clarify it is gifted in ownership through planning covenant to

OPC for ever not by lease

� Clarify that planning covenants on the land would be offered

at application stage

� Create owner/community liaison group for management

issues

� Is a lease to the OPC good enough ?

� What happens in 25 years time when a lease runs

outIssue – what is offered and how and for how

long?

� ?

Summary� Continued liaison with OPC to allow this meeting to be held , is welcomed

� Changes [large and small] have been made to explain better or amend matters that created objection or

concern or misunderstanding at the exhibition

� More clarity will become apparent at an application stage to satisfy HDC decision makers that what is on

offer can be delivered securely and lawfully

� This is a one-off proposal for all the 42ha of land in a single ownership on the northern and eastern edges

of Odiham and North Warnborough

� Landscape enhancement and heritage restoration will be phased in relation to development so that one

does not occur without the other

� The landscape planting, restoration and open space is for future generations to enjoy, as well as all of us

now

� The scheme meets many aims of the NP vision agreed with the community – [NP statement follows] -

Finally –

� It is a good scheme for the community with little impact

and many benefits and we hope you agree,

� Thank you for listening and are there any questions from

the Parish Councillors?

Summary cont’d.