ADD Update, 12 January 2025: Further to our last article on the current consultation by Eastleigh Borough Council (EBC) on its new Local Plan, the council has produced this short survey, which enables everyone to give their views in answer to the following four questions:
- What are the key issues that you want the plan to address, and how?
- We won’t be able to build all the new homes we need within urban areas. Where should we develop greenfield sites and why?
- What do you think we should prioritise when planning new developments?
- Do you have any wider comments on the plan?
We now believe it is easier to complete this survey than to send the council an email.
We hope that everyone concerned about the future of Eastleigh and its surrounding areas will respond to the consultation before the cut-off date on 29 January. Please spread the word. To help with this, we have outlined below some key points that we think you may wish to consider when completing the survey.
By way of background, ADD welcomes EBC’s open-minded approach to the options being taken in this review. Having completed the process, its officers will take around 18 months to come up with a way forward. They certainly have a lot to do to gather the evidence needed to make an informed decision, but if we all add our voices we hope it will make their jobs easier!
In the face of the very high housing targets that Westminster has thrust upon the council, we appreciate that it will have hard choices to make about its plans for new developments. However, we strongly believe:
- Opportunities to redevelop unused or underused brownfield sites should be taken before more green fields are lost.
- Where greenfield development is necessary, supporting infrastructure must be provided, for the benefit of both the new communities and existing ones.
- New housing must be located in places that most encourage the use of trains, walking and cycling – and minimise car dependence. Not only will this help tackle the growing challenge of climate change (a key objective of the council), but also limit additional traffic load on the already highly congested roads in Eastleigh, Fair Oak and Bishopstoke, elsewhere in the borough, and in the District of Winchester and the South Downs National Park.
- Any new housing must prioritise local needs and be within the reach of first-time buyers as well as people hoping to rent at a reasonable price. These needs are not the four and five bedroom executive homes of the type promoted by developers.
We hope that taking these points together might help contextualise your answer to question 2, namely “where should we develop greenfield sites and why?”
Again, by way of background, EBC reckons it will need to put 9,500 homes on new greenfield sites. It identifies 52 small and medium size sites in and around existing communities, which will contribute to the numbers, but has also identified four ‘Strategic Development Options’ (SDOs). See map here.
Taking these in reverse order:
- Option D (North of Hedge End Station), which EBC estimates could provide 1300 homes.
- This location, next to the existing rail station, makes a promising option for a sustainable greenfield development.
- Option C (between West End and the railway), which EBC estimates could deliver 4,600 homes, and Option B (between the railway and Bishopstoke), where it estimates 2,800 homes could be built.
- Taken together with One Horton Heath these two options could create a community of approximately 9,000 homes, separated from West End, potentially centred on a new station at Allington Lane, and within easy reach of Eastleigh town centre.
- A new mass transport station was first proposed 10 years ago by the Solent Local Enterprise Partnership (a collaboration between business and local authorities) as part of an enhancement to public transport links from Portsmouth to Southampton. The time has come to explore this again.
- There is also the potential for a level cycleway that would link Allington Lane to central Eastleigh.
- In summary, Options C and B offer real potential for excellent public transport access, together with easy walking and cycling access to Eastleigh. As a recent government directive calls for ‘vision led’ transport planning, we believe Eastleigh’s planners should look carefully at these options.
- Option A (North and East of Fair Oak), which EBC estimates could deliver 4,600 homes.
- ADD’s thousands of supporters won’t fail to have noticed that this is the old Option C from the previous plan, which – after our assiduous campaign – the government planning inspector dismissed in 2020. This option is now rehashed, but this time without the accompanying road linking Mortimers Lane to the M3 at Junction 12 – a road that the council previously said was crucial to the viability of any major development in this area.
- The council will therefore be more than aware of the massive traffic problems associated with Option A, not least because it is far from any railway station.
- In 2020, the planning inspector said the previous proposals (which included the now non-existent link road) would have an unacceptable impact on roads through local villages as well as narrow lanes within the South Downs National Park. If Option A was given the go ahead this time, the roads through Colden Common, Twyford, Fair Oak, Bishopstoke and Bishop’s Waltham – which are already highly congested – would suffer complete gridlock on a daily basis, with all the devastating knock-on effects to neighbouring areas, especially the South Downs National Park.
- As the planning inspector concluded last time: “Given the statutory importance of the National Park, the scale of development proposed and the potential impacts of increases in traffic movements within and on the edge of the National Park, I am unable to conclude that the selected SGO [Strategic Growth Option] represents the most suitable option when considered against all other reasonable alternatives.”
- Put simply, the rail, walking and cycling possibilities that are available in Options B, C and D are not available in Option A.
- Separately, ADD supporters will also recall that much of the land in Option A drains down through central Fair Oak, where the storm drainage system currently struggles to cope. Even with well-designed Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS, which sterilise a large area of ground), there would be significantly enhanced flood risk through the centre of Fair Oak.
Conclusion
Overall, we believe that developments that will cause the most significant traffic mayhem and environmental damage should only be considered once all other options have been exhausted.
In particular, we hope EBC will show vision and leadership in its transport planning. As always, we will be scrutinising its plans and progress very carefully.
We trust this article has given you some useful information to complete the council’s survey and hope you will do so as soon as possible. Of course, if you think we have missed any key arguments, please let us know!
With huge thanks for your continued support. It is enormously appreciated.
