Blog

ADD REMINDER, 2 August 2018: ONLY FOUR DAYS TO GO UNTIL EASTLEIGH’S LOCAL PLAN CONSULTATION ENDS (AT MIDNIGHT ON 6 AUGUST). HERE IS A REMINDER OF WHAT YOU NEED TO DO TO MAKE YOUR VIEWS HEARD. WE NEED EVERYONE TO PARTICIPATE. PLEASE SET ASIDE TIME TO DO SO.

You’ll recall that after we posted our initial guidance on submitting representations, two things happened. Firstly, several people told us the whole process was too complicated. Secondly, Eastleigh Borough Council (EBC) listened to our criticisms about their online form and made several important improvements. As a result, while our template [blank; with sample response] remains a valid way of submitting a representation, EBC’s form may now be the easier option.

While EBC’s online form may still look mind bogglingly complicated, it is actually a lot simpler and quicker than it looks. A few vital tips:

1. You do not have to answer all or even many of the questions. The main thing is that you are seen to make clear you think the Plan is unsound. It is ADD’s job to provide a detailed critique – and we are employing consultants to help us do so.
2. You only need complete the first two sections – i) About you (your details) and ii) Overall assessment of the Local Plan – though we encourage those who so wish to complete other sections.
3. Answering section two (Overall assessment of the Local Plan): When providing an overall assessment, we suggest you answer the legal compliance question by saying you are unsure. ADD is currently taking advice on this question. Our main argument is about its soundness. If you wish to object then you have to answer ‘no’ to the question:  “Do you consider the Local Plan to be sound?
4. You will then be asked to make comments about the soundness. It is essential to begin your answer “I/we believe the Local Plan to be unsound because …”. If you fail to use these words your submission is likely to be ignored.
5. All the other sections are optional. If you complete any of them, please always start: “I/we believe this policy to be unsound because …” This should ensure your views are considered.
6. Finally, make sure that your objection has been sent – job done!

Some of points you might like to make in answering section two:

Answering section two. Your comments can be brief. Below are some of our main objections. There’s no need to list them all, and feel free to add your own.

a) We believe the plan was predetermined. Emails that the council was forced to make public suggest that the leadership was already deciding the Local Plan in detail months before the public consultation.

b) The council then ignored the results of its own public (Issues and Options) consultation in December 2015, which showed that options B and C were by far the least popular. In fact, option B (including the new road) had more objections than the other nine options combined.

c) The council has made no serious attempt to consider the suitability of other options. In their comparison of options B/ C and D/E it uses the phrase “it is considered that” no less than 61 times.  This is no substitute for hard fact.

d) It voted to proceed with the plan on 11 December 2017 when nearly 40% of the evidence was still missing including the vital environmental impact and traffic reports.

e) It failed to provide prior consultation to bodies it was required to advise such as Hampshire County Council and the Environment Agency, making the consultation process less well informed.

f) Much of the council’s evidence is incomplete and vague (e.g. traffic impact assessment) and poorly costed (e.g. the proposed new link road).

g) The council appears to have ignored or even contradicted its own evidence in places (e.g. impact on the River Itchen Special Area of Conservation).

Other sections. You may be asked whether your comments apply to the bold text or to the rest of the text or both. Unless you have a lot of time, we suggest you stick to the bold text. As already stated, your main aim should be to register an objection to the soundness of the Plan. ADD will provide the detail.

Many people will want to answer section five – about Fair Oak and Bishopstoke, which would lose their identities, suffer horrendous levels of traffic congestion and see local amenities such as ancient woodland permanently and seriously degraded, according to the Woodland Trust among others.

Arguments should relate to good planning – for example, damage to ancient woodland and the River Itchen, damage to the landscape, the fact that the council has not modelled the traffic impact on the national park or adequately considered the Allbrook rail bridge and how the siting of the development would add unnecessarily to car use. Simply stating that you do not like something will not wash.

Again, having said you ‘oppose’ a policy, start your comments with “I/we believe the policy to be unsound because…”

For ideas for completing sections two and five of EBC’s online form, please click here – though DO REMEMBER TO USE YOUR OWN WORDS. If you use any of these examples verbatim, it will not count as a separate representation.

Please also be aware that EBC will likely want to use its form to demonstrate there is broad support for many of its policies – hence why it asks respondents to state whether they support/oppose its policies. This is not relevant to the planning inspector. What’s relevant is whether the Plan is sound or not.

Good luck! Any questions, please contact us via [email protected].

ADD UPDATE, 1 August 2018: You may recall that in January local writers Amanda Oosthuizen and Louise Taylor launched a website – Words for the Wild – to compile stories and poems about the countryside. What’s more, they kindly suggested their website should form the basis of an anthology which they would publish in support of the ADD campaign. Since January, Words for the Wild has published pieces by over 100 writers from four continents. Some are established and well-known, others are relative newcomers but all are united by their concern for the dwindling wild spaces and places of our world.

As they promised, Amanda and Louise have now launched Words for the Wild’s first print anthology, with all profits going to ADD’s fighting fund. Priced at £8, the anthology is available through Words for the Wild’s online shop and from P&G Wells bookstore in Winchester.

Many of you have already donated generously to the ADD campaign, and we hope many others of you will do so too (here’s how). Buying a copy of Words for the Wild’s anthology is a practical additional way of supporting our goal of quashing Eastleigh Borough Council’s ill-conceived Local Plan – whilst also offering you an immersive escape into dozens of different landscapes.

Praise for the Words for the Wild anthology:

“…in this anthology, a range of terrific writers from all over the world are raising their voices to protect the environment for future generations…” – Alison MacLeod

“…an exquisite walk on the wild side…and the perfect gift for any wildlife enthusiast. A reminder not to take our natural treasures for granted.” – Rosie Johnston

Thank you Amanda and Louise! Please buy your copy of their anthology now.

ADD UPDATE, 30 July 2018: One of our key supporters – an expert angler – has produced a great video showing the threat to the River Itchen from sediment run-off. The area he visited is a development of 60 houses in Bishopstoke, the Chase, and his video gives a very clear idea of what might happen if plans for 1,000 extra houses adjacent to the Chase, and 4,300 other houses north of Fair Oak (Eastleigh council’s so-called ‘options B and C’ of its Local Plan), were allowed to go ahead.

The potential irreparable damage to ‘probably the most iconic chalk stream in the world’, as it was described in a World Wildlife fund report, must not be allowed to happen – and we continue to do everything we can to stop it.

As our supporter says at the end of his video: “It is very difficult on a site like this to build 1,000 houses on a slope that goes down to the River Itchen without risk and I would argue that this development should be knocked on the head. There are other sites after all – flat sites – which may be equally close to the River Itchen but they are unlikely to be as damaging.”

See the video below:

 

To all residents of Chandler’s Ford: your Parish Council will be holding an Extraordinary Meeting on Monday 30 July to discuss Eastleigh Borough Council’s Local Plan. Please attend! The meeting will be held at 7.30pm at the Fryern Pavilion, Greenways. Chandler’s Ford.

The Motion, proposed by Cllr Ricketts, will be: “Having had sight of the Draft Local Plan it is noticeable that Chandler’s Ford (CF) would be subjected to increased traffic congestion and pollution, as the Plan includes a major new link road from the large development [of 5,300 new houses] north of Bishopstoke to Junction 12 of the M3 (CF and Eastleigh). This road is expected to carry 26,000 vehicles a day. The knock-on effect would be much increased queueing on the approaches to the motorway in CF (Winchester Road, Hocombe Road, Hiltingbury Road) and these roads are already experiencing additional traffic pressure from major housebuilding projects in Romsey, funnelling extra vehicles to the M3. Therefore, shouldn’t Chandler’s Ford Parish Council be joining ten other local parish councils in objecting to the Draft Local Plan?”

Public participation: a period will be set aside at the beginning of the meeting for members of the public to ask questions or make statements.

Click here for the formal notice.

Like all similar Local Plan meetings, ADD encourages as many Chandler’s Ford residents as possible to attend.

Hampshire Chronicle, 23 July 2018: RESIDENTS in Otterbourne turned out for a packed meeting to voice objections to plans to build 5,200 new homes on the border between Winchester and Eastleigh. Otterbourne Parish Council, which – like NINE other parish councils – opposes the plans, invited John Lauwerys of ADD to give a talk instructing residents of the best way to object. ADD has so far raised £60,000 to hire a team of experts to battle the plans which will see a town the size of three Colden Commons built near ancient woodland between Fair Oak and Bishopstoke. Amongst other things, Mr Lauwerys pointed out the proposed new link road to the M3, via the Allbrook railway bridge, would cause traffic chaos in the area.

Message from Bishopstoke Parish Council, 20 July 2018: In order to help formulate Bishopstoke Parish Council’s response to Eastleigh’s Local Plan, the council will be holding a Community Listening Exercise for residents to share their views at 7.30pm on Friday 27 July. Here is a message below from Cllr Sue Toher, chair of the council (pictured above), with the details:

“Bishopstoke Parish Council is holding a Community Listening Exercise on Friday 27 July at Bishopstoke Community Centre. The Centre will be open from 7.00pm and the meeting will start at 7.30pm.

The aim is for the parish council to hear the views of local residents on the current version of the Local Plan, which we hope you have been able to see at the recent borough council drop-in sessions. All the opinions shared will then be used when the parish council meets to decide its own response to the Local Plan.

For anyone who has not yet seen the detail of the Local Plan, a copy is available at the parish office, next to the Memorial Hall on Riverside. The office will be open on Monday and Thursday next week, but other days may be available by appointment.”

Please note that relying on your parish council’s objection to the Plan is not enough. Please submit your own objection too. For an easy guide for how to do this, click here.

ADD UPDATE, 19 July 2018: Since we posted our guidance on submitting representations on the Local Plan last week, two things have happened. Firstly, several people have told us the whole process remains too complicated. And secondly, Eastleigh Borough Council (EBC) have listened to our criticisms about their online form and made several important improvements. As a result, while our template [link] remains a valid way of submitting a representation, EBC’s form may now be the easier option.

While EBC’s online form may still look mind bogglingly complicated, it is actually a lot simpler and quicker than it looks. A few vital tips:

1. You do not have to answer all or even many of the questions. The main thing is that you are seen to make clear you think the Plan is unsound. It is ADD’s job to provide a detailed critique – and we are employing consultants to help us do so.
2. You only need complete the first two sections – i) About you (your details) and ii) Overall assessment of the Local Plan – though we encourage those who so wish to complete other sections.
3. Answering section two (Overall assessment of the Local Plan): When providing an overall assessment, we suggest you answer the legal compliance question by saying you are unsure. ADD is currently taking advice on this question. Our main argument is about its soundness. If you wish to object then you have to answer ‘no’ to the question:  “Do you consider the Local Plan to be sound?
4. You will then be asked to make comments about the soundness. It is essential to begin your answer “I/we believe the Local Plan to be unsound because …”. If you fail to use these words your submission is likely to be ignored.
5. All the other sections are optional. If you complete any of them, please always start: “I/we believe this policy to be unsound because …” This should ensure your views are considered.
6. Finally, make sure that your objection has been sent – job done!

Some of points you might like to make in answering section two:

Answering section two. Your comments can be brief. Below are some of our main objections. There’s no need to list them all, and feel free to add your own.

a) We believe the plan was predetermined. Emails that the council was forced to make public suggest that the leadership was already deciding the Local Plan in detail months before the public consultation.

b) The council then ignored the results of its own public (Issues and Options) consultation in December 2015, which showed that options B and C were by far the least popular. In fact, option B (including the new road) had more objections than the other nine options combined.

c) The council has made no serious attempt to consider the suitability of other options. In their comparison of options B/ C and D/E it uses the phrase “it is considered that” no less than 61 times.  This is no substitute for hard fact.

d) It voted to proceed with the plan on 11 December 2017 when nearly 40% of the evidence was still missing including the vital environmental impact and traffic reports.

e) It failed to provide prior consultation to bodies it was required to advise such as Hampshire County Council and the Environment Agency, making the consultation process less well informed.

f) Much of the council’s evidence is incomplete and vague (e.g. traffic impact assessment) and poorly costed (e.g. the proposed new link road).

g) The council appears to have ignored or even contradicted its own evidence in places (e.g. impact on the River Itchen Special Area of Conservation).

Other sections. You may be asked whether your comments apply to the bold text or to the rest of the text or both. Unless you have a lot of time, we suggest you stick to the bold text. As already stated, your main aim should be to register an objection to the soundness of the Plan. ADD will provide the detail.

Many people will want to answer section five – about Fair Oak and Bishopstoke, which would lose their identities, suffer horrendous levels of traffic congestion and see local amenities such as ancient woodland permanently and seriously degraded, according to the Woodland Trust among others.

Arguments should relate to good planning – for example, damage to ancient woodland and the River Itchen, damage to the landscape, the fact that the council has not modelled the traffic impact on the national park or adequately considered the Allbrook rail bridge and how the siting of the development would add unnecessarily to car use. Simply stating that you do not like something will not wash.

Again, having said you ‘oppose’ a policy, start your comments with “I/we believe the policy to be unsound because…”

For ideas for completing sections two and five of EBC’s online form, please click here – though DO REMEMBER TO USE YOUR OWN WORDS. If you use any of these examples verbatim, it will not count as a separate representation.

Please also be aware that EBC will likely want to use its form to demonstrate there is broad support for many of its policies – hence why it asks respondents to state whether they support/oppose its policies. This is not relevant to the planning inspector. What’s relevant is whether the Plan is sound or not.

Good luck! Any questions, please contact us via [email protected].

Campaign Against Urban Sprawl in Essex (CAUSE) welcomes the recent letter from the Planning Inspector about the North Essex Garden Communities Plan. In the letter Mr Roger Clews raises a number of problems with the Plan, concluding that it is unsound, and that the proposals have not been shown to have a reasonable prospect of being viably developed. The letter highlights shortcomings including major flaws in the viability appraisal of the proposals, including failure to deal adequately with transport infrastructure costs, weaknesses in the deliverability of affordable housing and no feasibility study or costing of mass rapid transit options.

ADD GUIDE, 10 July 2018: Eastleigh Borough Council’s emerging Local Plan 2016-2036 has now entered the public consultation stage.  This is the part of the formal process where the Council must seek the comments of residents, interested groups and statutory consultees (e.g., Hampshire County Highways; the Environment Agency) on whether the Plan is sound, and whether the Council has met its legal requirements in terms of the 2012 Local Planning Regulations.  A Planning Inspector will review the Plan and consider the comments that have been submitted, provided these are deemed valid. The object of this guide is therefore to help you submit a valid representation (before the deadline of midnight on 6 August).

If you care about the future of the borough, it is very important that you submit your comments as a formal “representation”.  We want to demonstrate to the Planning Inspector that there many local people who care passionately about the Local Plan. You might have made a representation at an earlier stage in this Local Plan process – the Issues and Options consultation phase, in early 2016.  This is different; this time, your comments must relate to the Proposed Submission Local Plan published in June 2018, and your representation needs to concentrate not on the policies themselves (EBC are, sadly, not going to change those), but on why the process by which the Plan has been developed is unsound.  We do recommend that you read at least some of the evidence base on the Eastleigh Local Plan website, so that you can make informed comments that will carry more weight with the Planning Inspector.  Our advice about which policies you might want to look at, with reference to legal requirements and soundness, is below, under the heading ‘EBC’s emerging Local Plan: Making a representation’.

Ways of submitting a representation

This section describes the available mechanisms for submitting a representation. Representations may be made by email or letter or via the bespoke form on the EBC website.

Note that the Council must make all representations made visible to the public, but individuals may choose not to have their name and address published with the text of their representation.

If you use EBC’s online form:

Please note that you do not have to answer every question in the online form; skip any that are not of interest and focus on the questions that matter to you.

If you would like to refer to ADD’s ‘user guide’ to the EBC form, click here.

If you are sending your representation by letter or email:

We have created a template (click here) which you may use if you find it easier than the form provided on EBC’s Local Plan pages on its website.  Our template includes prompts for the mandatory and the optional information that EBC requests in its online form. We recommend that you use the template in conjunction with the advice below, under ‘EBC’s emerging Local Plan: Making a representation’.

Click here for a sample submission. A representation on each policy requires a separate sheet (Part B).

For those who would prefer not to use our template, here are details of what is mandatory for a valid representation, and what is optional:

Mandatory

• The following are mandatory if you want your representation to be considered: You must provide your name and address (if you do not want these published alongside your representation, you must state this).
• For each policy you want to comment on, use a separate page and provide the related policy number
• For each policy you comment on, state whether you support or oppose it, and why.
• State your overall view as to the legal compliance of the Local Plan – see below (I do/do not consider the Local Plan to be legally compliant). Provide an explanation of why you take this view, and what modifications you believe are required to make the plan legally compliant.  Include reference to all of the specific policies, paragraphs and/or documents that your comments relate to.
• State your overall view as to the soundness – see below (I do/do not consider the Local Plan to be sound). Provide an explanation of why you take this view, and what modifications you believe are required to make the plan sound. Include reference to all of the specific policies, paragraphs and/or documents that your comments relate to.
• If your representation is seeking a modification to make the Local Plan legally compliant or sound, state whether you consider it to be necessary for you to participate at the oral part of the examination, and give your reasons, if you do wish to speak at the examination.

Optional

The Council also asks you to provide the following information, but you do not have to:

• Whether you are writing on your own behalf or are representing another person or an organisation.
• Your telephone number, so that any queries arising from your representation may be followed up.
• Your email address, if you wish for an acknowledgement from EBC of safe receipt of your representation.
• Your age, within a 10-year range (this is for the Council’s analysis of the demographics of the respondents to the consultation).

Where to send your representation

Letters:
Reference Local Plan 2016-2036 Consultation, Eastleigh Borough Council, Eastleigh House, Upper Market Street, Eastleigh SO50 9YN.

Emails:
[email protected]
Subject line: Reference Local Plan 2016-2036 Consultation

EBC’s emerging Local Plan: Making a representation

This section gives guidance on ensuring that your representation is valid.  It explains the tests of legal compliance and soundness.  Finally, Table 1 (below) presents some areas of the Plan that supporters of ADD’s campaign might wish to comment on in representations.  You do not need to comment on every part of the Plan; ‘skip’ the policies that do not apply and focus on the policies that are of interest to you.

There are two key parts of the Plan that the team at ADD are expecting that members of the public will want to comment on:

• The proposed new Strategic Growth Option (SGO) at Options B and C (Policy S5 – New Communities, land north of Bishopstoke and land north and east of Fair Oak)
• The proposed new road between Fair Oak and Allbrook (Policy S6 – New Allbrook Hill, Bishopstoke and Fair Oak link road)

Table 1 below shows the key issues and some further issues on which we think people might wish to comment in their representation, together with the most relevant policies.

Making sure your representation is valid

Two of the mandatory questions in the online form, which must also be addressed in written or emailed representations, relate to whether the Plan is ‘sound’, and whether the Council has met its legal requirements, in accordance with the regulations set out by the Planning Inspectorate.  If your representation does not give an opinion (I do/do not consider the Local Plan to be legally compliant; I do/do not consider the Local Plan to be sound) and an explanatory comment, your representation will not be deemed ‘valid’ and will not be looked at by the Planning Inspector.  Therefore, for each part of the Plan to which you object, it is crucial that you provide an explanation as to why you consider it not legally compliant, or not sound. Legal compliance and soundness are explained below.

Legal compliance:

To be legally compliant, a Local Plan must be prepared according to the following regulations:

• Statement of Community Involvement and other relevant regulations: the Council has a duty to consult appropriate bodies, in line with the Council’s Statement of Community Involvement.
• Duty to Co-operate: the Council must prepare its Local Plan in co-operation with the relevant local planning authorities and statutory bodies – for example, Winchester City Council; the Environment Agency. EBC’s Duty to Co-operate statement is here.
• National Policy and Legislation Compliance: the Plan must be prepared in accordance with relevant national policy and legislation – for example, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).
• Sustainability Appraisal Report: the Council must carry out an adequate Sustainability Appraisal. See EBC’s Sustainability Appraisal (non-technical summary), Main report, and Appendices.
• Habitats Regulations Assessment: the Council must carry out an appropriate assessment under the Habitats Regulations.

If it fails in any one of the above tests, the Plan is not legally compliant.

For initial examples of ways in which we believe the Plan is not legally compliant, click here.

Soundness:

There are four key phrases that define ‘soundness’ in terms of a Local Plan

• Positively prepared – the plan should be prepared based on a strategy which seeks to meet objectively assessed development and infrastructure requirements, i.e., it should be based on well researched evidence.
• Justified – the plan should be the most appropriate strategy, when considered against the reasonable alternatives, based on proportionate evidence.
• Effective – the plan should be deliverable over its period and based on effective joint working on cross-boundary strategic priorities.
• Consistent with national policy – the plan should enable the delivery of sustainable development, in accordance with the policies in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

If it fails in any one of the above tests, the Plan is not sound.

For initial examples of ways in which we believe the Plan is not sound, click here.

Commenting on aspects of the Local Plan

There is no expectation that members of the public will wish to comment on each of the 111 policies that constitute this Local Plan.  It is perfectly acceptable to skip questions in the online form and not to address them in a written or emailed representation.  ADD suggest that our supporters focus on two or three aspects of the Plan that are of particular interest to them, and be sure to comment on at least some of the associated policies.  As a minimum, we ask you to comment on the proposed new Strategic Growth Option (SGO) at B and C, and on the proposed new road.

Remember that, to make a valid representation, you must:

1. Refer to the associated policy number, using a separate page for each policy to which you object.
2. State that you object to the policy, on the grounds of legal compliance and/or soundness.
3. Explain why.
4. State what modifications to the Policy are necessary to make the plan legally compliant and/or sound.

Table 1 proposes some aspects of the Local Plan that are likely to be of interest to ADD’s supporters, together with some of the policies that relate to them. The list is not exhaustive. Page numbers refer to the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan document (June 2018) and are provided for your reference.

Table 1 – Issues and associated policies

Issue	Associated policies (not an exhaustive list)	Page
As a minimum
New communities north of Bishopstoke and north and east of Fair Oak	Policy S5 – New Communities, land north of Bishopstoke and land north and east of Fair Oak	41
Link road	Policy S6 – New Allbrook Hill, Bishopstoke and Fair Oak link road	48
If you wish to object on a broader point, against a range of policies
Wrong development; wrong place	Policy S1 – delivering sustainable development (various clauses)	32
	Policy S3 – location of new housing – especially, the development of approximately 5,300 dwellings (3,350 within the plan period) on a strategic growth option north of Bishopstoke and north and east of Fair Oak	36
	Policy S5 – New Communities, land north of Bishopstoke and land north and east of Fair Oak	41
	Policy S6 – New Allbrook Hill, Bishopstoke and Fair Oak link road	48
	Policy S7 – New development in the countryside	52
	Policy DM1 – General criteria for new development	70
	Policy DM11 – Nature conservation	90
	Policy DM13 – General development criteria – transport.	101
Biodiversity: Damage to Ancient Woodland; loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats	Policies: S1 – Delivering sustainable development (and see the NPPF, para 118 – link)	32
	Policy DM1 – General criteria for new development	70
	Policy DM11 – Nature conservation	90
	Policy DM13 – General development criteria – transport.	101
Damage to the Itchen SAC	Policy S1 – delivering sustainable development, esp clause vi, p. 33	32
	Policy S5 – New Communities, land north of Bishopstoke and land north and east of Fair Oak – various clauses, including clauses 12 & 13	41
	Policy DM5 – Sustainable surface water management and watercourse management	78
	Policy DM10 – Water and waste water.  Water abstraction and waste water treatment.	88
	Policy DM11 – Nature conservation	90
Destruction of high-quality landscape	Policy S1 – delivering sustainable development esp clause ix, p. 33	32
	Policy S3 – Location of new housing	36
	Policy S5 – New Communities, land north of Bishopstoke and land north and east of Fair Oak – various clauses, including clauses 12 & 13	41
	Policy S6 – New Allbrook Hill, Bishopstoke and Fair Oak link road	48
	Policy S7 – New development in the countryside	52
	Policy DM1 – General criteria for new development	70
	Policy DM13 – General development criteria – transport	101
Urban sprawl: loss of community identity	Policy S3 – location of new housing	36
	Policy S5 – New Communities, land north of Bishopstoke and land north and east of Fair Oak	41
	Policy S8 – Protection of countryside gaps. (Inconsistently applied policy on countryside gaps)	54
Inadequate ‘buffers’ between development and areas of high landscape sensitivity	Policy S5 – New Communities, land north of Bishopstoke and land north and east of Fair Oak, clause 3b.  See also p.47 for proposed buffers	41
	Policy DM11 – Nature conservation	90
Increased car use	Policy S1 – delivering sustainable development esp clause v, p 33	32
	Policy S5 – New Communities, land north of Bishopstoke and land north and east of Fair Oak	41
	Policy S6 – New Allbrook Hill, Bishopstoke and Fair Oak link road	48

If you have any queries about this document or the advice given, please email [email protected]

ADD UPDATE, 6 July 2018: In our post of 23 June – ‘Eastleigh publishes Local Plan – CRUCIAL final consultation launched. Reality bites. Action required!‘ – we said we would post guidance today on how to make valid representations to the Planning Inspector on the soundness and legal compliance of Eastleigh Borough Council (EBC)’s Local Plan.

However, over the last couple of weeks, it has become apparent that EBC has decided to abandon the Planning Inspectorate’s standard guidelines on how members of the public and expert bodies should make representations – and adopt a new online system. We’ll post our advice as soon as we’ve digested this new system.

Stay tuned!