Blog

ADD UPDATE: 24 September 2025: Further to our last article on 3 September, many ADD supporters have kindly submitted their views to house builders Croudace and Highwood on their plan for a major new development of up to 3,400 north east of Fair Oak (see map above).

However, as has become clear to everyone, the structure of the house builders’ consultation form not only makes it hard for people to convey the true extent of their feelings towards the scheme, but also difficult to copy their views to ADD for the record.

As such, if you have not yet submitted your views, we are now suggesting you email them to [email protected], copying [email protected]. This will enable you to express your views how you wish, and easily copy them to us for saving.

Since our last post, we have also had confirmation from Eastleigh Borough Council that the Local Plan review will not, after all, be on the agenda for the Full Council on 25 September (tomorrow). We will obviously let everyone know when it is on the agenda. 

In the meantime, for the public record, we are sharing below the message that ADD has sent the house builders. Thank you, as always, to everyone for your support.

STARTS

Dear Croudace and Highwood,

Your vision document notes that you are ‘committed to working with the community every step of the way’. So why, when Eastleigh Borough Council (EBC) are currently at the very early stages of assessing ALL their options for meeting their need for new homes, are you starting a consultation into just one of the options a year earlier than they have firmly said will be the appropriate time?

The answer has to be, because you know that your proposals will not stand up to proper scrutiny. You are simply trying to recycle your already failed proposals for what was ‘Option C’ in the 2015 version of the Local Plan. Those proposals were rejected because, amongst other things, the Examination in Public found they would cause traffic chaos in the South Downs National Park and in all the communities surrounding the then Options B and C.

So what has changed? At least the 2015 proposals included the fig-leaf of the so-called ‘relief road’. No evidence was provided as to how this would help, and no account was taken of the devastating impact it would have on one of the world’s finest chalk streams, but everyone accepted that it would have provided some marginal relief. Your fresh proposals include NO relief to the already choked roads of Bishopstoke, Fair Oak, Colden Common and Twyford, and the rural lanes and villages of the National Park.

Your proposed development in what is now termed Option A (formerly Option C) is the worst option for public transport opportunities of any of those that EBC will be looking at. With bus services in the area poor and, even last week, getting worse, your proposed development will be highly dependent on the private car. This would not only have severe impacts on communities around it, but also be bad for the planet as a whole. Your proposed ‘bypass road’ acknowledges the problem, but demonstrates the limits of what you can do about it. This might help those houses along Winchester Road between Fair Oak Centre and the Fox and Hounds, but would do absolutely nothing to relieve the crippling traffic impact of your 3,400 homes on communities neighbouring Fair Oak. With the previous ‘relief road’ now no longer possible, there is indeed little that new roads (or road improvements) can do to mitigate these impacts.

The storm of objectors that we can see you have already received are pointing out that doctors’ surgeries and schools in Fair Oak are already desperately overloaded. We can accept that a major development such as yours is an opportunity to put that right, but the same can be said of any of the major development options that EBC will be looking at. The supposedly attractive array of ‘key features’ you set out are simply the standard any new development in the borough will have to meet.

To reduce car dependency and avoid increasing traffic chaos, EBC will need to ensure a frequent and reliable public transport system for its new developments, combined with good opportunities for active travel (walking and cycling).

Your proposed development, remote as it is from the town centre or any easy access to major transport infrastructure, cannot provide that. By having to depend on urging residents to use buses operating on already clogged roads, which they will be reluctant to do given poor and worsening bus services, your development is doomed to cause long-term disappointment, disruption and delay – in other words to be a failed development and a disaster for Fair Oak and the communities around it.

ADD and its supporters will be working to ensure that, such a disaster is, once again, avoided.

ENDS

ADD UPDATE, 3 September 2025: As the summer comes to an end, house builders Croudace and Highwood have begun to push a scheme for a major new development of up to 3,400 houses north east of Fair Oak, on green fields that stretch from Mortimers Lane to Crowd Hill (see developers’ map above). They have not only asked Eastleigh Borough Council (EBC) about requirements for an Environmental Impact Assessment but also invited comments from the public.

As we have seen many times before, this is obviously an attempt by the house builders to get ahead of EBC’s planning process, set out in law, and therefore influence the orderly democratic preparation of its revised Local plan.

Don’t forget that Highwood is the developer that tried to push through a similar scheme in 2020 – then called Option C – which was flatly rejected by a government planning inspector. (It is worth noting that at the time EBC itself said it wouldn’t promote Option C without its accompanying Option B, which included a major new road. Even with this, the inspector threw out that plan.)

We therefore urge everyone who opposed Options B and C, as well as anyone who dislikes the new scheme, to make their views known. Indeed, when you do, please send your comments to [email protected] so we can keep a log. Otherwise, it is likely they will never see the light of day!

As we have discovered previously (including most recently when hundreds of people voiced their concerns over a brazen plan from Bloor Homes for 245 homes on Mortimers Lane), individual voices do matter and, together, we really can make a difference.

Needless to say, in their recent literature Croudace and Highwood don’t talk about the traffic impacts that its 3,400 home development would have on already overloaded roads in Fair Oak, Bishopstoke, Colden Common, Twyford and the lanes and villages of the National Park. There is no plan for a new road this time.

EBC has responded to the developers’ move, rightly pointing out that it is currently evaluating all of the options set out in its consultation at the beginning of the year, and won’t decide on its preferred new major development sites until late 2026. The council’s next step is to report on the findings of its consultation, which currently looks likely to happen at its next Full Council on 25 September.

As we have done since our foundation in 2015, ADD supports the need for Eastleigh to plan for the right homes in the right places. We simply insist that any assessments are based on objective evidence (especially traffic impacts) and not led by developers’ desires to make profits.

Traffic chaos across Fair Oak and all neighbouring communities, whether in Eastleigh or Winchester, is a prime concern for all ADD supporters.

To reduce dependency on roads and avoid adding to the current congestion, Eastleigh will need to ensure a reliable, frequent and varied public transport system for its new development, combined with good opportunities for active travel (walking and cycling).

A development that relies on urging its residents to use buses that operate on already clogged roads, as the Croudace/Highwood plan does, is doomed to cause long-term disappointment, disruption and delay – in other words to create a failed development. Indeed, it’s not lost on ADD supporters that this week a key bus route in our community was axed. On the other hand, a development that is close to current (or future) train or light rail stations, with good level access to the town centre, would be set up for success. It is the only option that can deliver the housing that Eastleigh needs and deserves, and – fortunately – Eastleigh has these options. Many others don’t.

In summary, if you are concerned about Croudace and Highwood’s plans, for traffic or other reasons, please respond to their consultation, telling them what you think – and then emailing us your submission for the record.

Please also make a note of EBC’s next Full Council meeting on 25 September (7.15pm, venue TBC). If this proposed development is on the agenda, we will let you know so that we can remind councillors of the importance of this issue and that we continue to watch matters very closely.

ADD UPDATE: 3 February 2025: On 8 January, Bloor Homes launched a blatant attempt to circumvent Eastleigh’s Local Plan process with an application to build 245 homes on greenfield land at Mortimers Lane in Fair Oak. We wrote about this five days later, urging local residents to object formally to the application. The deadline to do so is this Friday, 7 February, so if you are yet to give your feedback to Eastleigh Borough Council (EBC), we would be extremely grateful if you could do so by emailing Eastleigh’s planning specialist Clare Martin at [email protected]. Every comment counts!

ADD UPDATE, 24 January 2025: Local residents will be aware that Eastleigh Borough Council (EBC) has recently fired the starting pistol to create its new Local Plan. The process is at its earliest, yet critical phase, which involves an “Issues and Options” report that is currently out for consultation.

If you have not yet contributed to this consultation, please do so by next week’s deadline of 29 January. Click here for the short survey, and here and here for recent articles on points you may wish to raise.

As you will know, traffic is a hugely significant factor for the council’s planners. ADD’s longstanding traffic consultant, who helped win important arguments during the last Local Plan process, has now stated he is unhappy with the lack of detail being provided on transport assessments at the Issues and Options stage.

The newly revised National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states (Section 9, Promoting Sustainable Transport, para 109): “Transport issues should be considered from the earliest stages of plan-making and development proposals, using a vision-led approach to identify transport solutions that deliver well-designed, sustainable and popular places. This should involve…making transport considerations an important part of early engagement with local communities.”

Government guidance to planners adds: “An assessment of the transport implications should be undertaken at a number of stages in the preparation of a Local Plan: as part of the initial evidence base in terms of issues and opportunities; as part of the options testing; [and] as part of the preparation of the final submission.”

When we asked our traffic consultant to examine the traffic information provided in the Issues and Options report, he replied: “In my opinion, there is simply not enough evidence-based detail about the traffic impacts of the various options to allow respondents to give an informed view. For example, the traffic impacts of Strategic Development Option (SDO) A, the plans for 4,600 new homes north and east of Fair Oak, are covered by the simple statement: “Relative to the other SDOs, SDO A may have more effect on the South Downs National Park in terms of traffic” – and that’s it!” This contrasts significantly with information on ‘the retention of gaps between settlements’, another key factor that planners will have to consider, on which the EBC evidence base involves a detailed 200-page paper.  

ADD chair, David Ashe, said: “Traffic congestion is not something EBC can sweep under the carpet – creating car dependent new developments would cause chaos in surrounding communities and trash its aspirations to ‘tackle climate change’.  Minimising car use should be fundamental to the whole process of planning new developments. Last time around Eastleigh took decisions without thinking seriously about the traffic impacts and got its plan thrown out by the government inspector, after a lot of grief, angst – and expense. We hope that this time around the new planning team will have learned the lessons from that debacle.”

As the Local Plan process unfolds, the ADD team – and all our supporters – will be working hard to hold council leaders to account, not least by demanding that all the evidence is in place and in the public arena before they take crucial decisions. Failing to do so will cost them dear.  

We encourage everyone to make their voice heard by completing the consultation’s short survey by 29 January. Thank you for doing so!

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:

1. What are the key issues that you want the plan to address, and how?
2. We won’t be able to build all the new homes we need within urban areas. Where should we develop greenfield sites and why? 
3. What do you think we should prioritise when planning new developments?
4. 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:

1. Opportunities to redevelop unused or underused brownfield sites should be taken before more green fields are lost.
2. Where greenfield development is necessary, supporting infrastructure must be provided, for the benefit of both the new communities and existing ones.
3. 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.
4. 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.

ADD UPDATE: 1 January 2025: First of all, a very Happy New Year to everyone!

2025 is all set to be a momentous year for Eastleigh and its surrounding areas.

As you may be aware, Eastleigh Borough Council (EBC) has given the public until 29 January to make views heard on its emerging new Local Plan, which will change the face of the area for ever.

To see a map of the four massive Strategic Development Options, click here. EBC has said it will welcome your feedback. We urge you to seize the opportunity to take part – it will not come again.

The government requires EBC to allow more than 18,000 new homes (including those in the pipeline) over the next 20 years. This is potentially great news for people hoping to buy places of their own. It could enhance existing communities or lead to the creation of vibrant new ones.

At the same time, the plan will undoubtedly be unpopular with many residents. After all, who wants more cars on their already overcrowded roads and the loss of yet more green space? And there’s a real danger that, without any overarching vision, the plan could just create yet more urban sprawl.

The right homes in the right places

In these circumstances, EBC’s challenge will be to ensure that the right types of home are built in the right places.  A top priority should be to make full use of brownfield sites – urban locations that can be repurposed for housing. The council currently estimates that such sites could accommodate slightly more than 2,000 new homes, but we believe that it can do much better than that.

Eastleigh needs, above all, more starter homes, as well as reasonably priced rental accommodation. Developers, on the other hand, prefer to build executive estates in rural or semi-rural locations. How this inevitable conflict of interest plays out will largely determine the plan’s success.

Transport is key

If Eastleigh’s slogan ‘Tackling climate change’ means anything, EBC’s decisions must minimise car use. Homes should be built as close as possible to existing urban centres and public transport routes, and people must be encouraged to travel by train, bicycle, or on foot. Otherwise EBC’s aspiration to become a carbon-neutral borough will be meaningless, and our roads will become even more unbearably crowded.

ADD has, therefore, commissioned its transport consultant to set out clearly and professionally what EBC needs to consider when it does its own review, so that we can hold the council to account. We will make the findings public once this report has been completed.

We will also urge the council to pursue the possibility of a rail station at Allington Lane – a potential game-changer that could be at the heart of a new green development with an easy level cycleway into the centre of town.

Don’t repeat old mistakes

Of the four main candidates for development (for more details, see our previous post and, again, this map), we are especially concerned that one of them – Strategic Development Option A – would mean 4,600 homes north-east of Fair Oak. That would effectively revive Option C of the previous Local Plan, which was slammed and dismissed by the government’s planning inspector (see our previous article’s here and here).

This would be incredibly damaging to the South Downs National Park, Colden Common, Twyford, Fair Oak and Bishopstoke.

But what do you think?

These are some of our initial thoughts, but what about yours? We would be interested to learn but, above all, please take part in the council’s consultation.

For more details on the emerging Local Plan, click here.

The link to the council’s consultation is here. We realise this is long, so you can either complete the consultation in full or email your views to [email protected], making sure you include your name and state that you agree to your name and comments being published.

Forthcoming opportunities to view the proposals

• Hedge End – Tuesday 7 January, 3.30pm – 7.30pm, St Johns Underhill Centre, St John’s Road
• Boorley Park – Wednesday 8 January, 3.30pm – 7.30pm, Boorley Green Sports Pavilion, Wallace Avenue
• Fair Oak – Monday 13 January, 3.30pm – 7.30pm, Fair Oak Village Hall (Grace Mears Room), Shorts Road
• Bishopstoke – Thursday 16 January, 4pm – 8pm, Bishopstoke Community Centre, Church Road
• Eastleigh – Monday 20 January 3.30-7.30pm, Eastleigh House, Upper Market Street

As always, if you would like to get in touch with us, please email [email protected].

ADD UPDATE, 27 November 2024: Although Eastleigh has seen significant development growth over the last few decades, it is on the cusp of the biggest housing expansion in its history – and residents will soon have a chance to comment on the proposals put forward by developers to achieve it. The emerging Eastleigh Local Plan will shape the borough and affect every aspect of life here for generations to come. So this is a pivotal moment, and we encourage people to get involved.

The government requires Eastleigh Borough Council (EBC) to find room for 11,600 new homes over the next 20 years (18,040 if you include those already in the pipeline), of which 9,570 are earmarked for greenfield sites. On 4 December, EBC will formally publish all the available options; the public will have until 29 January to send in their comments before councillors decide on the best course of action.

There are currently four possible main development areas: north-east of Fair Oak (potentially 4,600 new homes); south of Bishopstoke (2,800); north of West End (4,600) and north of Hedge End (1,300). There are also 52 much smaller proposed sites.

ADD recognises the need for new homes as long as they are of the right sort and in the right places. We will be following the plan closely, commenting on the various schemes once we have scrutinised them and had discussions with officers. In the meantime, however, here are some of the main criteria we will use to judge them.

Brownfield sites: We believe it is possible to be more ambitious in the number of homes to be built on brownfield sites. The town centre and riverside in particular are ripe for the high-density, low-cost housing that would appeal to first-time buyers and people looking to rent. It is perfectly placed for all the amenities, as well as bus and rail transport. This kind of development would bring vibrancy to an area that needs a boost.

Minimising car use: It is hard to overstate the importance of choosing sites that reduce the need for car travel and that encourage people to use public transport and walk or cycle to their desired locations. A criticism of the previous Local Plan was that it involved building on environmentally sensitive locations well away from urban centres. The estates would have been almost entirely car-dependant, adding to the borough’s carbon footprint and yet more traffic to our already over-crowded roads. The railways, in particular, have the potential  to fulfil the council’s number one pledge of tackling climate change. We believe there is potential for a new station near Allington Lane.

Types of housing: Another criticism of the previous Local Plan was that it favoured executive estates over starter homes and social housing. Options B and C of the plan, which were rejected by the government inspector, would have attracted wealthy outsiders and done virtually nothing to meet Eastleigh’s housing needs. We hope very much to see a better mix, including high-density housing so that more people can get onto the ladder or rent at prices they can afford. We also anticipate, of course, that the new homes will be fully energy-efficient making use of renewables where practical.

The National Park: The government inspector slammed the previous Local Plan for the traffic impact development close to the South Downs National Park would have had on roads in the Park itself. This issue is as important and mission-critical as ever.

Don’t forget people: While there have been some excellent examples of people-friendly developments, this is by no means the norm. According to the Design Council, 75% of new housing schemes are either poor or mediocre – we cannot trust developers to get it right on their own. We shall be looking for imaginative lay-outs, with plenty of green spaces and parkland. We don’t need any more urban sprawl! Quality of life is every bit as important as meeting (frankly arbitrary) government targets.

If you have any views we should be delighted to receive them. Please contact us at [email protected]

ADD UPDATE, 7 October 2024: The new government has instructed Eastleigh Borough Council (EBC) to find room for another 3,675 homes – on top of the already challenging requirement to deliver 9,675 over the next 15 years. Although brownfield sites are part of the solution, it means that swathes of much-loved countryside are potentially under threat. We are due to get a better idea of the direction of travel when EBC publishes an options document towards the end of the autumn. That is when we need to be on full alert.

“The conundrum that has yet to be resolved is the mismatch between the executive estates on attractive rural or semi-rural sites that developers want to build and what is actually needed – affordable homes in or near existing urban centres,” says ADD chair David Ashe. “Unless they think outside the box, the government’s ambitions to build 1.5 million new dwellings will not necessarily make owning a home more affordable. There’s currently little sign of the imaginative thinking required.”

The UK now has substantially more houses per head of population than it did 50 years ago – yet prices have soared dramatically in that time.

Whilst ADD recognises the need for more housing, we are strongly of the view that it should be determined strategically and collaboratively by the planning authority after consulting local residents and businesses. We know from the previous Eastleigh Local Plan, and from experience elsewhere, that this is too important to be left to developers, whose objectives will inevitably be to maximise profits rather than protect the local environment and quality of life. In particular, attention needs to be paid to the impact on local services and our already over-stretched roads, accentuating the need to keep car use to a minimum.

What is more, quality is important or the dream of owning your own home can quickly turn sour. According to the Design Council, 75% of new housing schemes are either poor or mediocre – another reason not to trust developers to get it right on their own.

As if the picture is not already complicated enough, the government’s requirement to build 13,350 homes in Eastleigh is unrealistic. As EBC acknowledge, the government targets could well result in thousands more homes being built than the borough will need over the next 15 years, according to population projections. And developers will only build houses they can be confident of selling at a profit. There is also a serious skill shortage in the industry, which is bound to get worse as a high proportion of building workers are over 50 years of age.

Of course, ADD cannot influence government policy, but it is our intention to play a constructive role locally, pressing for the best possible outcomes. In short, the right houses in the right places.

We will continue to keep you updated as events unfold.

ADD UPDATE: 19 August 2024: If Bloor Homes were hoping that their low-key public consultation for a proposed 250-home estate in Mortimers Lane would go under the radar, they have certainly had a rude awakening. More than 60 residents sent objections in just eight days after ADD alerted supporters to the plans, an exceptional response that shows the strength of feeling locally.

To put that number into context, when Eastleigh Borough Council launched a much more widely publicised and accessible consultation into plans for two new developments in Allington Lane back in 2015, they received just five objections.

Whilst we have not yet had time to study residents’ views in detail, nearly everyone was concerned about the impact on our already overcrowded roads, with many expressing similar worries about GP services. No one disputed the need for new homes, but there was considerable annoyance at the apparent attempt by the company to pre-empt the planning timetable, which will determine the best locations for future development.

“I would like to express our heart-felt gratitude to our supporters for their prompt response in sending their objections,” said ADD chair David Ashe. “We totally endorse the need for more housing, but we regard the Bloor plans as a textbook case of the wrong homes in the wrong place.”

To view ADD’s own response, click here.

Separately from ADD’s initiative, local Liberal Democrat councillor Nick Couldrey has made his opposition clear, telling the Daily Echo that “the current proposal should be resisted…There are many proposals and these need to be compared to each other before deciding where any new homes should be built.”

ADD will keep supporters updated. If you or anyone you know would like to receive our emails, please use this sign-up form to do so. You can also contact us at [email protected].