Straight talking Pru's misleading Press Release and Exhibition coverage

• BBC TV News coverage, the Millennium Dome and the £1,839,200 carpet     

• The overall size of the Mega Depot is still a total of 1,500,000 sq ft (100% increase in concrete floorspace) 
• The Pru's 'concessions' are 'spin' and supporting details will follow   
• We will shortly provide details on why the stated reduction in size of the largest Mega Shed by one third is also an increase of one third from the Pru's submitted Planning Applications
• There appears to be a reduction in the mature woodland clearance, yet they have managed to increase the previously submitted largest mega shed by one third. We wait confirmation of how much actual mature woodland would be lost      
• Concerns about the noise barrier and the concerning road improvements have already been covered, with more to follow

• Exhibition initial response:        

BBC TV News coverage on 2 June, included the Millennium Dome landing SPLAT on Hartland Park! News clip will be added shortly

Farnborough Mail and Fleet Mail 6 June’s front page featured ‘Pyestock exhibition a PR stunt, say campaigners’.

The newspaper edition had a picture of campaigners displaying ‘Prunocchio’. He is joining our website shortly.

The article includes:

• Evidence that comparative HGV traffic generated would be 2.5 times what the Pru’s selective assessment states  
  
  

• Previous site usage was very rarely continuously 24 x 7, and that was decades ago, so why NOW should we suffer 24 x 7 operation?
   

• Construction period suddenly reduced from 5 to 7 years to ‘about 2 years’. This is just ‘spin’ to hide excessive peak period congestion as a result of the construction traffic. The Developers also say it will still be ‘phased to meet market demand’. Phased in ‘about 2 years’ with remediation and construction, surely this is a contradiction?

Pyestock’s largest mega shed would be larger than this

With the resulting construction traffic adding to peak period congestions for many years, potentially 5 to 7 years

•           Noise impact has not been properly evaluated (we will cover the detail shortly)

The latest announcement has the largest proposed mega shed at 860,000 sq ft, which is equivalent to one third larger than the Pru’s last submitted Development Framework Plan in October 2005.

The October 2005 (pictured here and at the exhibition) removed the sizes and heights of the mega sheds. But the plot sizes were identical to September 2005 plan and the largest area accommodated a 629,000 sq ft mega shed. 

The September 2005 plan had several interesting points to be covered shortly.  The maximum height of the largest shed was 19 metres.

Read the full article:

Pyestock exhibition a PR stunt

We know the Pyestock site contains derelict plant and buildings and needs careful demolition and regeneration. But surely the needs of the local community should also be considered?

“The aim of Hart Council’s Development Control service is to ensure that:

•     land and buildings in the District are used in a way that is best for the whole community
   

•     pressures for change do as little harm and as much good as possible to the environment
   

•     local people have a say in what happens around them”

We will soon provide a detailed review of the spin in evidence at the exhibition and provide some new relevant information including:

•     The Pru’s revised proposal falls well short of the mark
   

•     Developers say that the Summit Avenue/Minley Link roundabout is to be removed and replaced with a road junction with traffic lights  
  

•     Traffic already queues through this junction at peak period, so how will adding traffic signals help? Is the other reason for this change to support the massive increase in HGVs manoeuvring the badly cambered roundabout? We think so!
   

•     The new M3 motorway noise barriers near Farnborough are, according to residents, making things worse rather than better. Why then would their proposed 600 metre noise barrier be effective?

           In the originally submitted plans, the largest mega shed was 19 metre in height, but would be the equivalent to 26 metres high. This is because close to Ively Road the floorstanding would have to be built up by 7 metres to take a mega shed. What will be the equivalent height within the revised plans compared to the constantly referred to existing 22 metre high building (which will be radically smaller than a Mega Shed)? Here is the developer’s previous drawing:

•           What really are the significant changes? We will soon provide the details

Did you attended the exhibition and are still to submit your comments card?

You need not answer their carefully crafted questions. Use the space provided to air your concerns. Keep a separate note of your documented concerns and then send in the pre-paid postcard. We will then be able to see if they accurately detail our concerns and comments in their pending report to Hart Council.    

TOP

• Questions to consider for the Pru’s Exhibition

Further to the points raised in the previous update summary response, here are traffic related questions and further details to consider. 

If you do attend the exhibition then please email us, 
by clicking on to the icon,  
with any feedback or resulting concerns you have, or if you prefer post a comment on the web forum page.

• Traffic impact background

The Highways Agency is already forecasting increasing peak period congestion at the M3 J4A and additional ‘bottlenecks’ on local roads due to new developments (excluding the Pyestock development).

Farnborough Business Park (one of the largest office developments in South England, with 6,000 staff due in the next few years) has approval to re-align Kennels Lane from Summit Avenue to Ively Road at the Pyestock Horror Roundabout (with removal of existing mature woodland). The road re-alignment is to support their increasing traffic forecast. The Pyestock Mega Depot would further add to local traffic on single carriageway roads, 24 hours per day x 7 day per week (24 x 7).

Previous road infrastructure recommendations to reduce forecast congestion have included:

·       Widening the Summit Avenue railway bridge to accommodate two lanes into Southwood

·       Dedicated left turn lane from Minley Link, requires bridge widening to be effective

·       Changing Minley Link to two lanes from the M3 to the Summit Avenue junction (southbound) and retaining one lane northbound (it is apparently wide enough already)

• Traffic questions

1.        How can adding traffic signals to the Summit Avenue and Minley Link junction improve traffic conditions for local residents?

There have been considerably more recommendations made in the past to improve the local road infrastructure. Why do the Pru’s ‘improvements’ not seem much in comparison?

2.        Why do they need traffic signals, if the traffic is one third of a few years ago? 

Also, the majority of the Pyestock North site was closed by 2002! 

3.        How can adding the equivalent of one HGV per minute 24 x 7, commuting traffic of 1,800 new site jobs (7 days per week) and traffic from the existing Pyestock North retained buildings be less than one third of the traffic generated a few years ago?

The Pru’s quoted 1,600 peak staff employed appears to of been during the 1970s and referred to the whole of Pyestock, some of which is now part of Cody Park, south of the new Ively Road (DSTL is selling land there shortly). There was little local development and no M3 Junction 4A in those days.

4.        What happens if it takes more than ‘about 2 years’ of construction, who suffers the additional traffic congestion, their current plan states 5-7 years?

Traffic during the construction period will cause a rapid increase in peak period congestion. Is that why the Pru have reduced their previous 5-7 years of staged construction period to ‘about 2 years’.

5.        Now the Pru have announced Pyestock North will be called Hartland Park Business Park, will that mean an increase to office based staff commuting during the peak period?

6.        How can they commit to prevent HGVs using local roads?

HGVs already use Kennels Lane as a ‘cut through’, regular traffic congestion will cause HGV re-routing onto local roads and the unenforceable fine will be negligible.

For reference, TAG willingly entered into a legal agreement as part of their outline planning consent to avoid increasing the number of weekend flights for commercial reasons. They are currently challenging the legal agreement, by requesting additional weekend flights. So, how long after the Mega Depot is in operation will the lapse in preventing HGVs on local roads occur?

7.        The previous site usage was not permanently 24 hours per day 7 days per week. Why should we need to experience the additional 24 x 7 traffic, noise and pollution issues?

8.        What is their point in stating ‘logistics operation generates significantly less traffic than other uses such as industry and offices’?

Their plan is for a 24 hours per day 7 day per week environmentally unfriendly Mega Depot with constant HGV movements on already congested single carriageway roads, close to residential areas. There is a considerable amount of offices in our area, with one of the largest office developments in South England being built, perhaps we will need to tell them what their legal ‘fall back position’ is.

9.        Why do they now suggest to providing a 600 Metre noise barrier?

Is the barrier to reduce the noise of one HGV movement per minute x 24 hours per day x 7 days per week. Perhaps, it is for the overnight HGV traffic - on single carriageways, 74 per cent of articulated HGVs exceeded their 40 mph limit.

---

TOP

• Updated summary response to the Pru’s misleading Press Release

The ‘straight talking’ Pru say they have amended their plans in response to public comments. Here is a summary response to their main ‘totally underwhelming’ and misleading points:

        The largest mega shed could now be over 38% larger than the previously reduced mega shed in their current planning applications!

A Pyestock mega shed could now be 11 full football pitches (7 x area and 2 x height of B&Q Farnborough)

Larger than this mega shed - add the area of B&Q Farnborough to get a comparison

        No denial of the equivalent of one HGV movement per minute x 24 hours per day x 7 days per week (24 x7)!!

  The developer originally stated there would be no HGVs during the peak periods. Then amended their position to state there would be!

  We know other mega depots are extremely busy with HGVs traffic during peak time!

  This diagram is a forecast of morning peak period traffic (heavy black lines) congestion without the Pyestock Mega Shed. So, how much will a 24 x 7 Mega Depot increase the peak period congestion on our single carriageway roads and bridges? 
click on picture for larger size

       Traffic will be allegedly one third of the previous traffic generated (we will cover their misleading transport study shortly), so why are they offering:

·         600 Metre noise barrier on the Minley Link?

Perhaps, it is for the overnight HGV traffic. On single carriageways, 74 per cent of articulated HGVs exceeded their 40 mph limit.

·         Traffic signals at Summit Avenue and the Minley Link junction?

The reason for the traffic lights is not actually to improve the traffic flow, but to cause an amount of traffic to avoid the junction during the peak periods – that is what HCC Highways informed us! So, expect an increase in traffic congestion in other locations as traffic avoids this congestion and the peak period to expand. Not quite a road improvement is it? 

        ‘Converting the previously developed site’ – no mention of more than a 100% increase of concrete floorspace (in areas not previously developed) or the change of operating hours to 24 hours per day 7 days per week

This drawing shows the amount of woodland impacted when the largest shed was substantially smaller. We wait to see how much mature woodland will be impacted with the new layout. The mature trees would have acted as barriers against the various types of pollution caused by a Mega Depot and protected the important strategic gap.

Short notice of a Public exhibition during half term week, how convenient for the Pru - not as many concerned residents or workers can visit..

We will provide some interesting questions for you to ask the Pru if you are able to visit their exhibition, the details are:

The entrance to the ‘Heartless Park’ site is Bramshot Road (access off the large Pyestock roundabout, between Nokia’s entrance and the railway bridge):
Friday 2nd June, 2pm - 8pm
Saturday 3rd June, 10am – 4pm
Monday 5th June, 2pm – 8pm

We would like to thank the Pru for digging themselves further into an easy to see through misleading propoganda campaign.

Please keep checking this website for updates and it is easy to object using the link at the top of this webpage.

TOP

HISTORY

How Big does a 1,250,000 sq ft Shed look?

We thought you would like an idea of what a gargantuan 1,250,000 sq ft hideous Shed looks like, but we could not find any! So, instead have a look at this:

a gargantuan mega shed 

Look at the Shed size relative to the HGVs and cars! This mega shed used approximately 44,000 tonnes of concrete and over 900 tonnes of steel fibres!

Now consider that the Hartland Park Heartless Park 1,250,000 sq ft Shed would be over 1.5 times larger!! and there will be 4 other warehouses! several of the existing buildings will remain (including an aerospace noise test facility).

The developer’s other advertised option is for two mega sheds:

• One would be 125% of the area of Amazon’s distribution centre (the largest e-commerce distribution centre in Europe)!

• Another would be 75% of the area of Amazon’s distribution centre

• And there would be 5 other warehouses in addition to several retained buildings (including an aerospace noise test facility)

• We believe the same issues already outlined will apply to this option as well

Amazon's mega shed 

A SPOKESMAN FOR THE AGENT OF THE ‘STRAIGHT TALKING’ PRUDENTIAL (THE PYESTOCK NORTH LAND OWNER) AND THEIR PARTNER ASTRAL DEVELOPMENTS DENIES CONSIDERING A MASSIVE SINGLE BUILDING!

Sparks fly as an agent’s spokesman for the ‘straight talking’ Prudential (Michael Sparks Ass.) said in an interview with Stephen Lloyd published in 31 March’s Fleet News: “We have never considered a single building of that size on that site.”

This is somewhat surprising as we have material proof that as early as 2004 articles appeared in the Trade Press (watch out for forthcoming announcements on this website), confirming the option of a massive single unit of 1,250,000 square feet at the Pyestock site.

Despite the denial, we have documentation from the developer’s main website www.hartlandpark.co.uk advertising an opportunity for a single unit of 1,250,000 square feet. The website mysteriously stopped working just before the BBC TV coverage on 24 March…

If you are quick then you can also see the 1,250,000 square feet single unit ‘opportunity’ being actively promoted, but hurry as the remaining websites may also mysteriously go ‘off air’ soon…

The Hartland Park Brochure (takes a while to load, but worth the wait)

"A unit of 1,250,000 sq ft could be accommodated"

In a recent article in The Guardian, this type of gargantuan warehouse was described as “a six-storey tall warehouse with a floor area of at least 1M sq ft” “the biggest single building ever constructed in Europe”. Read the full article below:

Gargantuan warehouses

"Large-scale warehousing can devastate tranquillity, add to congestion and increase greenhouse gas emissions"

So perhaps we should remind Michael Sparks Associates, as they seem to have forgotten, that their own logo is on Site Layout Plan Option 3 (March 2005)! The drawing is for 5 warehouses, the largest of which is 1,229,647 square feet (the developer refers to this as the single 1,250,000 square feet unit). Here it is for all to see:

click here – this pdf file takes a while to load, but well worth the wait

The ‘straight talking’ Prudential should have a straight talk with their agent (Michael Sparks Associates)! Then can the Pru add the straight talk as a video clip on your website. This could be clip Straight Talking 7:

Parkinson – sponsored by the Prudential

The only other remark made by the spokesman “There is only one application before the council at the moment”. We count two current applications (05/00238/MAJOR and 05/00242/MAJOR).

Although 05/00238/MAJOR online case file has many details, the developer requested the application to be for outline planning, with all matters other than access reserved for consideration at a later date. 

"FLEXIBLE BUILDING SIZES"

If outline planning consent is given then this would allow an opportunity for the 1,250,000 square feet warehouse to appear at the next stage! There is no mention of this size of warehouse in either of the current applications – we wonder why!

Bear in mind that the existing application details refer to two massive warehouses of 620,000 sq ft+ and 380,000 sq ft as well as 5 other warehouses (which is in addition to several existing buildings including an engine test facility).

Our offer is to the ‘straight talking’ Prudential – please talk straight and tell us is there an option to build a single warehouse unit of 1,250,000 square feet at Pyestock? Will your website start working again shortly?

[Click to read the full Fleet News Article]

Lib Dem President visits the Pyestock Horror Site!

Liberal Democrat President Simon Hughes was taken by Sue Fisher (Pondtail Councillor) to the Pyestock Horror site on his recent whistle stop visit.

Simon is pictured with Lib Dem colleagues beside the Heartless Park Hartland Park board which clearly shows the now notorious words “Flexible Building Sizes”- which we recently discovered could reflect a single warehouse option for one of the largest buildings in Europe!

Sue has seen the developer’s option for a 1,250,000 square feet single unit in their brochure (see the “Sparks denial” ) and on their website (it mysteriously stopped working, just before the BBC news coverage). Sue says “I am so glad that local people are now taking this issue very seriously and I wanted my Liberal Democrat colleagues to see the site for themselves. I am also highly impressed by the level of expertise being brought by the residents to this campaign”.

“We must insist on a more rigorous Traffic Impact Assessment being carried out.  Noise and air pollution and other environmental concerns must also be fully and vigorously addressed when this matter is finally decided.”

We must not allow developers to ruin our area nor our quality of life.

We will cover in later articles Lib Dem concerns raised by Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay and Vince Cable, the Shadow Chancellor and Deputy Leader regarding the recent QinetiQ flotation. The concerns include the sale of Pyestock North (now dubbed the Pyestock Horror), which reflected in the majority of QinetiQ’s profit during Half Year 2005 (the lead up to the flotation)!

TOP