Blog

NEWSFLASH, 13 November 2025: Following our article a few days ago on Bloor Homes’ deeply unpopular proposal to build 245 houses in a countryside location on Mortimers Lane, Eastleigh Borough Council has changed the date of its meeting to discuss these proposals from 26 November to 10 December.

We have been informed that the Fair Oak and Bishopstoke Local Area Committee will now meet at 5.30pm at the Woodland Community Centre, 38-51 Savernake Way, Fair Oak, Eastleigh SO50 8DH on Wednesday 10 December. Please change the date of this important meeting in your diaries.

As always, we will update you with more information as it becomes available.

ADD UPDATE, 9 November 2025: Bloor Homes’ deeply unpopular proposal to build 245 houses in a countryside location on Mortimers Lane is fast approaching. The Fair Oak and Bishopstoke Local Area Committee will meet on Wednesday 26 November [date now changed to 10 December] to decide whether to approve the plans in the face of strong opposition from residents.

We urge people to demonstrate the strength of local feeling by attending the meeting.

Bloor Homes are blatantly bypassing the agreed planning process. Eastleigh Borough Council is currently considering all options put forward by developers to meet government housing targets. It is expected to announce which ones it favours at the end of next year. So why has this company tried to jump the gun?

In ADD’s view, Option A (which encompasses Mortimers Lane) is the worst of all the possibilities. The government planning inspector came to a similar conclusion in 2020 when she ordered the council to delete the area north east of Fair Oak (then called Option C) as an area for development. It is hard to avoid the suspicion that Bloor Homes wish to avoid the scrutiny that would come with following due process.

The planning inspector cited traffic as one of her main concerns. That’s despite the fact that Option C (as it was then called) involved building a relief road, which is no longer on the table. And traffic chaos is the top, but not only reason given by the more than 200 residents who have contacted ADD to register their objections.

Bloor Homes promised to take the public’s comments into account before presenting their application. We can see no evidence that they have done so. Indeed there is nothing they can do to mitigate the impact of their proposed housing estate on our already over-crowded roads.

The correct way forward is for the council to identify sites near existing urban centres and reliable public transport, preferably with their own cycle and walking routes. This would then reduce the need to use cars as well as supporting local shopping centres and other amenities. The Bloor Homes proposal would do none of these things.

The Local Area Committee meeting is due to begin at 5.30 pm on Wednesday 26 November [changed to 10 December]. It is currently down to take place at the Woodland Community Centre, Savernake Way, but this may change. Please check this website before you go.

NEWSFLASH, 13 November 2025: Following our article above, Eastleigh Borough Council has changed the date of this meeting from 26 November to 10 December.

We have been informed that the Fair Oak and Bishopstoke Local Area Committee will now meet at 5.30pm at the Woodland Community Centre, 38-51 Savernake Way, Fair Oak, Eastleigh SO50 8DH on Wednesday 10 December. Please change the date of this important meeting in your diaries.

As always, we will update you with more information as it becomes available.

ADD UPDATE: 28 October 2025: The stretch of countryside along Mortimers Lane north-east of Fair Oak is yet again under attack from developers, who seem intent on gaming the system without any regard to the planning process. The latest firm to put in a bid is English Oak, who wish to build an estate for 50 plus a ‘dementia care village’ (see an image of the planned site above).

For readers unfamiliar with these matters, Mortimers Lane is at the core of Option A, one of four major sites (plus more than 50 smaller ones) being considered for development under the review of Eastleigh Borough Council’s Local Plan. The government requires the council to find room for 9,500 additional homes, and the authority’s planners are currently sifting through the different proposals with a view to making recommendations as to where they should be built by the end of next year.

ADD believes that, whilst Eastleigh may need the extra housing, Option A is a decidedly unsuitable choice. Its impact on the countryside and especially the South Downs National Park would be excessive and, because of its remote location, it would maximise car use on our already over-congested roads.  Our view chimes with that of the government planning inspector, who in 2020 rejected in very strong terms Fair Oak (then known as Option C of the previous Local Plan process) as a development area – even though this option then had an accompanying new road, which is no longer the case.

Yet there are now three sizeable proposals in the pipeline for still more urban sprawl in Mortimers Lane – all of them jumping the gun on the agreed planning timetable in the pursuit of corporate profit. The English Oak project follows a plan for 245 houses from Bloor Homes and another for 3,400 dwellings from Croudace/Highwood.  What right do these companies think they have to by-pass the system in this way?

There is no doubt that Hampshire needs more care facilities for the elderly, but we have several questions for English Oak, who have provided very little detail. This made it difficult for local residents to make informed comment, as the company had requested through a recent leaflet drop, especially given the short time allowed.

• Why does a care home need to have 50 houses next to it?
• What is a ‘dementia care village’ and how big an area will it cover (compared to, say, 50 houses) and how many residents and staff will it have? How will the ‘village’ look, and what will distinguish its appearance from a solid block?
• How much traffic will it generate, compared to, say, 50 houses?
• This is a remote location with a poor bus service. Other English Oak homes appear to be close to village or town centres. Why choose this location, not somewhere closer the centre of a community? Can they guarantee that the home will be built if planning permission is granted and not converted into an application for more housing?
• This development will be right opposite a well-loved local animal care home. Can they be sure that the two uses will be entirely compatible and that there will be no friction leading to pressure on the operations of St Francis?

ADD UPDATE: 11 October 2025: The wave of local people submitting 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) continues to grow. Many thanks to everyone for your incredible energy and support.

If you have not yet submitted your views, please do as soon as you can. The best way is by emailing them to [email protected], copying [email protected]. This enables you not only to express your views how you wish (and not be confined by the house builders’ consultation form), but also copy them easily to us for the record.

We shared ADD’s message to the house builders on 24 September. To get a flavour of what other people are saying, please see one powerful submission below.

With very many thanks again to everyone for your help and support.

STARTS

Dear Croudace/Highwood,

I am writing in response to your current consultation on proposals for land north east of Fair Oak. Please record this as a formal objection.

Lack of Transparency

Your consultation website fails to disclose the true scale of the scheme. Nowhere on your public-facing materials is there any reference to the number of homes you are proposing. It is only by reviewing your EIA Screening Request to Eastleigh Borough Council that the figure of up to 3,400 homes becomes clear. That omission is indefensible.

Equally, the aerial photograph you use on your home page is clearly out of date, excluding existing major developments (such as Pembers Hill). The effect is to minimise the visible impact of your proposals. Presenting incomplete or selective information undermines trust and calls into question the credibility of the entire exercise.

Fundamental Breach of the Local Plan

The land in question is designated as countryside (Policy S5) in the adopted Eastleigh Local Plan (2016–2036). Policy S5 is explicit:

“There will be a presumption against new development in the countryside. Planning permission will only be granted where it is for one of a limited range of uses… and where it does not have an adverse impact on the character of the countryside, settlement gaps, biodiversity, or the landscape setting of the South Downs National Park.”

The Government’s Planning Inspector was equally clear. In her post-hearings letter, she wrote:

“The Strategic Growth Option at Bishopstoke and Fair Oak (Options B and C) is not justified and is not consistent with national policy. Its development would be unsustainable in transport terms, would cause harm to settlement gaps, and would have adverse impacts on sensitive landscapes adjoining the South Downs National Park.”

Her Final Report (March 2022) concluded:

“Options B and C… should be deleted from the Local Plan.”

Despite this, your current proposal seeks to resurrect what has already been examined and rejected as unsound.

Unsustainable Scale

According to the most recent Census (2021), the combined area of Fair Oak and Horton Heath has 4,618 households and 11,531 residents. Your proposal for up to 3,400 dwellings would therefore represent at least a 74% increase in households and a potential 73% increase in population. In reality, the true percentage increase for Fair Oak itself will be higher still, because the Census figures include Horton Heath, which is already undergoing massive expansion through the “One Horton Heath” development.

This is not an extension to a village; it is the creation of a new town at the edge of the Borough and the surrounding countryside, immediately adjacent to the South Downs National Park.

Environmental and Countryside Impact

The site is hemmed in by a network of irreplaceable and mature woodland, including Tippers Copse and Hall Lands Copse (both designated Ancient and Semi-Natural Woodland and SINCs), together with Park Hills Wood and Gore Copse. These woodlands form a vital ecological network and a defensible settlement boundary.

Your proposals talk of creating “new woodland” and “green infrastructure.” This comparison is fundamentally flawed. Ancient and mature woodlands cannot be recreated by planting trees on farmland. They are centuries-old ecosystems with complex soil structures, fungi networks, and biodiversity that cannot simply be replaced. New planting, even if delivered, will take generations to approach the ecological value of what already exists – and will remain fragmented and degraded by proximity to housing.

To claim “biodiversity gain” by inserting small patches of planting while simultaneously destroying countryside and threatening ancient woodland is meaningless. The Planning Inspector previously recognised the importance of maintaining settlement gaps and ecological balance here. To ignore those findings now would cause irreversible harm – not only to local biodiversity, but also to the landscape setting of the South Downs National Park, to which this area serves as a gateway.

Infrastructure Failings

The infrastructure case presented is weak and unrealistic.

• Roads: Rural lanes and local junctions are already overloaded. Adding thousands of homes would generate tens of thousands of extra car journeys each day.
• Public Transport: Far from improving, services are in retreat – the long-standing 61 bus route between Eastleigh and Winchester was axed in August 2025. This leaves Fair Oak residents even more dependent on cars.
• Schools and Healthcare: Local schools and GP practices are already under pressure. Nationally, new schools have even been mothballed because of falling pupil numbers, yet developers still cite them as benefits. The Inspector previously warned against such car-dependent, isolated developments.
• Utilities and Services: Eastleigh Borough Council already struggles to maintain reliable bin collections, while residents experience periodic blackouts. Adding 3,400 homes would only further degrade essential services.

Far from being a sustainable location, this site would require enormous additional services and infrastructure just to stand still – a burden that local systems simply cannot absorb.

Loss of Place and Character

Fair Oak already struggles to maintain a viable centre. Imposing an estate of this scale would obliterate local identity, replacing it with soulless, commuter-dormitory sprawl.

Good town planning is about creating wholesome, dynamic communities where homes, schools, businesses, and services evolve together. What you propose is the opposite: processed, formulaic development that turns countryside into disconnected housing estates with token strips of green space. This is not community-building, it is profit-driven land consumption.

Speculative Proposal Undermining the Local Plan Review

Eastleigh Borough Council is currently reviewing its Local Plan for post-2029 housing needs. A proper decision on Strategic Development Options is not expected until late 2026. For developers to push forward now with their own consultation and an EIA Screening Request is a clear attempt to bypass the democratic, evidence-based process. The Planning Inspector has already found that such developer-led proposals are unsound and unjustified.

Consultation Failings

For a scheme of this seismic scale, your consultation has been poorly publicised and minimally informative. I only became aware of it through Eastleigh Borough Council’s planning alerts. Fellow residents have found your online form inaccessible. This is not meaningful engagement but a token exercise designed to manufacture the appearance of consultation.

Conclusion

This proposal is unsustainable in principle, disproportionate in scale, environmentally damaging, and contrary to both the Planning Inspector’s findings and the adopted Local Plan. It represents an unacceptable attempt to pre-empt the Local Plan review and to impose, by stealth, development that has already been rejected.

As a resident of Fair Oak parish I therefore record my objection in the strongest possible terms.

ENDS

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.