Back in February, Stoke Residents Association tried to bring the details of Eastleigh Borough Council's new Local Plan process to the attention of residents in the area. The Association was very disappointed in the approach EBC were taking - for example:
I am really pleased and heartened to see that so many individuals and organisations took the trouble to make a representation as part of the public consultation process. It took EBC until June to meet its obligation to make those representations public. They are now available and it is really impressive to see 467 high quality representations expressing major concerns with Option B (the "option" describing developing the land north of Stoke Park Woods). It is worth taking time to browse the consultations (link here). The summary report prepared by EBC officers is also well worth a read (link here). The folowing are my own conclusions. 467 represents more than the total responses submitted for any of the other options. And I haven't included 251 petition responses that were also submitted - or 103 representations that were made using an online tool provided by the Woodland Trust. Simply achieving the highest number does not mean that an option should be dismissed though - this isn't a quantitative voting process. The quality of the content of the representations matter. The 467 detail specific concerns - and of course, these centre around loss of countryside, impact on valuable ecosystems and biodiversity, eroding the gaps that keep villages distinctive, and the link road that will do nothing to ease current congestion and that is likely to cost vastly more than the documents indicated. Of the 16 who supported option B, 2 were landowners or developers - and Wyevale Garden Centre. In a separate section specifically covering the North Bishopstoke link road for Options B and C, 80 objected and just 2 representations supported the idea. Again, doubts were expressed over its ability to address current traffic jams, over its cost and over its environmental impact. So should EBC opt to select Option B, they will be choosing the option that local people and organisations opposed the most. They will be opting to disregard local people in favour of developers and landowners. And the organisations who expressed major concerns on Option B included:
My quick summary:
It’s been a month now since Louise Parker-Jones, Anne Dean, Johanna Francis and myself were successful in standing as Independent candidates for Bishopstoke – thanks again for the amazing support - we want to work as hard as we can to make a difference.
One of the things we wanted to do was to make the activities of the Parish Council more transparent – and as we’ve had the first meeting, here’s a summary of what the 4 of us have been up to. Please bear in mind that these are not the meeting’s minutes – simply our reflections. New Communications and Engagement Working Group There was much criticism locally of the Parish Council following the publication by Eastleigh Borough Council of the Issues and Options document in December 2015. To be fair, it was the Borough that was to blame for failing to communicate effectively with residents about the process and content being considered for the new Local Plan – but we felt that the Parish could have done better too. So we have requested that a new working group be set up, replacing the previous “Social Media” group, to focus on local community engagement. Lou and myself are part of this group. We’ll let you know what we propose for this soon. Neighbourhood Plan The Neigbourhood Plan will be an invaluable way to ensure that local residents have more say over Bishopstoke’s development, I’ve been very keen to get involved as has Anne D. It may be too late to have much impact upon Eastleigh’s current Local Plan development, but will be vital in the longer term to influence the plan reviews, It is being led by Councillor Sue Toher, and the three of us are really looking forward to getting this project moving. Other working groups Lou is representing the Parish Council for the Streetart project which relates to funds from the developers of Bishopstoke Park and the Cemex site. I'm now the Parish Council's CPRE rep. Archaeology at the Cemex site Whilst we’ve mentioned the Cemex development (by Breach lane at the top of Church Road), we discovered why the builders have taken a break. Apparently archaeological remains have been found there that appear to be form the late iron age and early Roman period. So it’s archaeologists that we’re seeing up there at the moment instead! I’ve been in touch with the archaeology people at Hampshire County Council and am hoping to get more details to share soon. Travel Tokens Anne D and Lou have volunteered to be part of this working group – and Lou went with Sue Toher to do her first home visit. Please get in touch if you'd like to learn more about this scheme. Committees Johanna and Anne D are on the Planning Committee. We all volunteered for the Finance and General Purposes Committee but Anne D and Lou agreed to effectively share the role, with Anne acting as sub for Lou if required. This was to avoid a rather complex vote – we just hope that all the members of this committee make attendance a priority given the compromise we agreed to make. And other happenings from the first meeting…. Councillor Anne Winstanley was voted in as Chair. The vote was split 7:7 and she had the casting vote as current Chair. Councillor Trevor Mignot was proposed as Vice Chair – same thing happened again. So in a Parish Council that comprises 50% Liberal Democrat parish councillors, both the chair and vice chair are Liberal Democrats. It is worth noting that because both are also Borough Councillors, they are unable to take part in debates or votes where they are considered to be “dual hatted”. I did ask what would happen in this instance – apparently both would leave the room and the remaining councillors would need to work out who would facilitate the meeting. Wouldn’t it have been more sensible to have it so that one of the two position holders is not a Borough Councillor? All 4 of us fully supported a petition being drawn up that highlights issues with waiting times at the Old Anchor surgery. Hoping this has an online version soon as a good way to extend its reach. Of course the full minutes will be published by the clerk soon. Other activities we’ve been involved in…. Listening to residents - Breach lane Anne D and Lou met with residents from the Breach Lane area this week - they have been experiencing noise and other nuisance relating to the developments at the Retirement village and the Cemex development - dust and dirt - and it's stretching on for years as each development starts. Lou and Anne will be writing to the council on their behalf. Construction Traffic for “The Chase” David Lovegrove from Stoke Residents Association has had several conversations with Bellway – and I helped to collect evidence that the construction traffic was causing problems by not sticking to the prescribed route, blocking Bishopstoke Lane and using inappropriate residential roads. More here about how this progressed…. Cemetery access at “The Chase” Lou has been following up on concerns over access to the cemetery whilst the developers are active - particularly getting in from the car park. Getting in touch with us (and please do!) Our email addresses will be published on the Parish Council website at some point – in the meantime: • Anne Dean: [email protected] • Gin Tidridge: [email protected] @runnybun on Twitter • Johanna Francis: [email protected] • Louise Parker-Jones: [email protected] & Facebook link |
Against Destructive DevelopmentFormed this year by Stoke Residents Association working with other local community groups, this campaign is taking action against destructive development, focusing on Bishopstoke, Fair Oak, Colden Common and Upham. Archives
July 2017
Categories |