Blog

ADD UPDATE, 12 March 2018: We thought the time was right to post the letter to the Daily Echo below, published on 28 December 2017, which refutes a suggestion made by Martin Kyrle, former Mayor of Eastleigh, that everyone protesting against Eastleigh’s Local Plan are “amateurs”! We thank David Betts, a parish councillor for Allbrook & North Boyatt, for standing up for the professionals opposed to, and working hard to prevent, Eastleigh’s monstrous Local Plan.

Under the heading “Not so many amateurs protesting”, David Betts wrote (click here for image):

“I REFER to the letter from Martin Kyrle (December 20) in which he refers to the recent Local Plan meeting at the Ageas Hilton at which Eastleigh Borough Council voted in favour of a highly controversial proposal to support the council leadership in the development of some 5,000+ homes and a new road to the North of Bishopstoke that will traverse areas close to ancient woodland and across the highly protected Itchen Valley – a Special Area of Conservation protected at the highest level.

“I am usually of the opinion that, at my age, 72, there is little to surprise me, but I truly believe Mr Kyrle has succeeded in raising arrogance to a new level of prominence and adopting a view totally inappropriate for someone in his position.

“He objects to criticism of his council colleagues when accused of “not listening”, but listening is more than hearing the words, it is also having an open mind to absorb input from all sides and make objective decisions. In this regard the council certainly were not listening and the decision on the plan was in direct opposition to extensive, well-informed opinion based on sound professional knowledge and experience from a wide swathe of expertise wholly relevant to the subject.

“Mr Kyrle refers to the “protesters” as amateurs and the council planning officers as “professionals” who, of course, are therefore omniscient and therefore able to make decisions impervious to challenge and in fact, before all relevant evidence is collated, which is certainly the case here!

“Mr Kyrle would do well to check his facts before expounding on the competencies of substantive individuals whose views differ from his. There were some 33 public speakers at the meeting and objectors to the plan were very much in the majority – certainly over 30. Referring to these individuals as “amateurs” is dangerous stuff indeed Mr Kyrle!

“Among their number we find, amongst others, professional surveyors, architects, highway engineers, environmental specialists and the backing of noted legal counsel with deep planning expertise.

“Objectors also included representatives from the Woodland Trust, Angling Trust and Campaign to Protect Rural England, amongst other notable organisations. The list also of professional qualifications extant within the group would do great credit to any similar number in local government or any branch of public service.

“Amateurs? I think not Mr Kyrle and I believe you should spend some time extracting your foot from your mouth!

“I am confident that many other objecting entities will be evident over the coming months in respect of the Local Plan and it is incumbent on local councillors to listen. This is one of, if the not the most, important planning decision to be made in Eastleigh for a generation. It is not a rehearsal and has to be made with the support of the local community as a whole, not a council leadership with entrenched views and closed ears.

“Eastleigh deserves better – much better!”

DAVID J BETTS, Allbrook

Woodland Trust, 5 March 2018: Prime Minister Theresa May has announced plans to overhaul England’s planning policy that will afford ancient woodland far more robust protection. The Woodland Trust has led the charge for decades for ancient woods to be given the same protection as our manmade heritage. It is now proposed that the National Planning Policy Framework will state “development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats such as ancient woodland should be refused, unless there are wholly exceptional reasons.” Beccy Speight, Woodland Trust CEO, said: “At last! The Government’s decision to amend planning policy to robustly – finally – protect ancient woodland is great news, and not before time.”

Letter to the Daily Echo, 23 February 2018: The letter above, about Eastleigh’s Local Plan, appeared in the Echo today. Under the heading “Not just one scandal…”, it reads:

“EASTLEIGH Borough Council’s plan to build 5,200 houses across a vast swathe of pristine rural landscape with no infrastructure has caused quite a scandal. I suggest that this complex issue is really three separate scandals.

Firstly, the planning decision made by the council is the worst possible choice because it provides the least public benefit at the greatest public cost. They chose to ignore an urban fringe site with potential for a railway station and a motorway junction and instead decided to destroy a beautiful and biodiverse rural area with no sustainable infrastructure. This is a matter for HM Planning Inspectorate.

Secondly, the council has conducted itself in a highly irregular manner. We now know the planning decision was pre-determined several years ago and the subsequent consultation process has been an obvious sham. The motive for the choice of site cannot be based on serving the public interest because it is objectively the worst possible choice, so another motive must be at work.

Conspiracy and deception are not acceptable behaviours for public officials in this country. This warrants an investigation by the criminal justice system.

Thirdly, it is scandalous that England’s system of local government is so dysfunctional that a politician like Keith House (leader of Eastleigh council for 25 years!) can seize so much power and hold onto it for so long. The rot is so deep that he is able to sacrifice the public interest for his own personal agenda on such an enormous scale and to feel quite confident doing so in plain sight. It is time to impose short maximum terms for local government posts and to render the career politician extinct.”

NAME AND ADDRESS SUPPLIED

Eastleigh News, 21 February 2018: Eastleigh’s MP has revealed a brown field site ‘in the centre of Eastleigh’ – currently owned by Network Rail – could be re-developed for housing. In a press release Mims Davies describes a recent meeting with roads minister Jesse Norman in which she presented the case for a Chickenhall Lane link road. During the meeting she says officials set out why bidding for funding to support the proposed road had so far ‘been unsuccessful’. One of the reasons was that the Network Rail land could potentially be used for housing. So far, however, Eastleigh council has ignored this opportunity and instead chosen green fields north of Bishopstoke and Fair Oak (known as options B and C) for its Local Plan.

Daily Echo, 21 February 2018: AN ACTION group has hit out at the leader of the Lib Dems for backing plans on thousands of new homes near ancient woodland. Members of Action against Destructive Development Eastleigh (ADD) said Vince Cable “talked complete nonsense about local issues” when he visited Eastleigh last week. As previously reported, during his visit, Sir Vince met town bosses and backed their Local Plan to meet the housing need across the borough. These include proposals to build 5,200 new homes near ancient woodland between Fair Oak and Bishopstoke. ADD said: “Cable is an honourable man, but we do not imagine that he has had time to study the borough’s Local Plan and the evidence (or lack of) to support it.”

ADD UPDATE, 14 February 2018: Although ADD is fiercely politically neutral, it reserves the right to speak out when a politician of any persuasion talks complete nonsense about local issues.

On a visit to Eastleigh last week, Liberal Democrat leader Sir Vince Cable made some outrageously misleading comments about the council’s plans to submerge the villages of Bishopstoke, Fair Oak and Allbrook and wreak havoc on the natural environment.

Cable is an honourable man, but we do not imagine that he has had time to study the borough’s Local Plan and the evidence (or lack of) to support it. We can safely assume that, when he spoke to the Daily Echo, he was repeating in good faith what he had been told by party colleagues in Eastleigh. In other words, he had been sold a pup.

So, let’s look at what he told the Echo about the Local Plan: “The basic strategy is to build ambitious housing developments combined with a good environmental policy. My understanding is that they [the council] are trying to create garden villages to protect the green land between Eastleigh and Southampton.

“The basic point is that this is an area that is desperate for new houses and there must be a substantial increase in supply. It has to be done in a green, sensitive manner. This is what I judge the council here are doing.”

Cable backed up these quotes with a tweet, no doubt written by someone else, that said “Now big #housing push within #greeninfrastructure meeting local need”.

So, on behalf of tens of thousands of local people, represented by seven parish councils, here are some of the questions we have for the Lib Dem leader:

1) He says there is a desperate need for new houses, but he is aware that the council is planning to build nearly two thousand more than are actually required, and does he approve of this?

2) Is he aware that the “green and sensitive” development he refers to will destroy over 800 acres of prime countryside, which his own council’s research has identified as being by far the most environmentally sensitive in the borough, leading Chris Packham to brand the plans as “eco-vandalism”?

3) What does he say to the Woodland Trust who have warned that the plans would cause serious and permanent damage to seven areas of ancient woodland?

4) What does he say to the Angling Trust who are up in arms about the extensive damage the plans would cause the River Itchen at a spot so sensitive that it is protected at a European level?

5) How will the new houses help local people when they are going to be way beyond the reach of first-time or even most second-time buyers, and far from public transport?

6) Where are the plans for garden villages? They certainly have not been made public. And what does he say to people living in Bishopstoke, Fair Oak and Allbrook, who would see their villages disappear into a mass of urban sprawl?

7) His party is committed to promoting public transport. Is he aware that Eastleigh Borough Council has refused to seriously consider the alternative area for providing the additional housing the borough needs – an area which is not only less environmentally sensitive but also nearer to existing infrastructure and, indeed, could be served by a new railway station? The only new infrastructure that the council is planning – a new link road – has been condemned by the Campaign for Better Transport and strongly criticised by Winchester City Council and Hampshire County Council.

8) Finally, has he spoken to the five former Eastleigh Lib Dem councillors who have resigned from the group in protest over the plans – and to party colleagues from Winchester who also strongly oppose them?

We have many more questions, but we know Sir Vince is a busy man. We shall send these eight questions to his office requesting a response, and post any reply that we may receive.

Daily Echo, 9 February 2018: THE leader of the Libs Dems has waded into the row over controversial plans to build 5,200 new homes on land near ancient woodland. The scheme, for land between Fair Oak and Bishopstoke, sparked  protest among residents and even led to several Lib Dem councillors quitting the party. But on a visit to Eastleigh yesterday, Mr Cable backed the council’s stance, arguing that the homes were badly needed. Mr Cable said: “The basic strategy the council has adopted seems to be right, which is to build ambitious housing developments combined with a good environmental policy.” He added new developments have “to be done in a green, sensitive manner [and] this is what I judge the council are doing.”

6 February 2018: In an open letter responding to recent leaflets from Eastleigh council’s leadership, headed by Keith House (above), residents of Bishopstoke and Fair Oak are urging locals not to believe what the council is saying about its Local Plan. Headed ‘Re-Focus’, the residents’ letter urges people to wake up to the council’s lies about its plans for 5,200 new houses and a link road in their two villages. To read the letter, see below. Please spread the word by forwarding this link or – if necessary – printing this article and distributing. The government will have to approve the council’s Local Plan later this year. Residents believe it is vital everyone knows the truth before it is too late. They urge people “to stop being hood-winked now!”

RE-FOCUS

Dear fellow Bishopstoke and Fair Oak residents,

DO YOU WANT YOUR VILLAGES TO DISAPPEAR? 

If the answer is ‘no’, read on…

As you may know, Eastleigh Borough Council plans to submerge Bishopstoke and Fair Oak in a sprawl of 5,200 new homes – a scheme dreamt up by developers without any attempt to consult local residents. Council leader Keith House is so keen to get into bed with them that he is prepared to build nearly 2,000 more homes between now and 2036 than the council is required to provide. He says it is good to be a YIMBY (‘Yes, In My Back Yard’).

Backers of this scheme – known as options B and C of the Eastleigh’s Local Plan – say it can all be done whilst maintaining the quality of life and the identity of our communities. Who do they think they are kidding?  

Bishopstoke and Fair Oak would entirely disappear as independent villages, losing all the strategic gaps that protect them. There would be huge damage to countryside that, according to the council’s own research, is by far the most environmentally sensitive in the borough. And it would create congestion locally of nightmare proportions, adding an estimated 26,000 traffic movements daily.

To alleviate the traffic, they propose to build the North Bishopstoke Link Road to the M3.  This would permanently damage five stretches of ancient woodland, the wildlife it supports and other much valued local amenities, pollute the River Itchen with terrible consequences for rare aquatic life, degrade parts of the South Downs National Park and destroy the village of Allbrook. No wonder Chris Packham calls it “eco-vandalism”.

And yet, with the plan due to go to the government’s planning inspector later this year, the council has produced no evidence at all that the road would actually improve traffic congestion. We think it would probably make matters worse.  

Action against Destructive Development (ADD), the local group vehemently fighting the council’s proposals, knows that all this is completely avoidable.  The council has refused to give serious consideration to other much more suitable locations that would minimise coalescence between centres. For example, it has recently turned down an application to build housing on former industrial land in Hamble – even though local authorities are being encouraged to develop ‘brownfield’ sites.

Meanwhile the council’s ‘consultation’ has been shown to be a sham. Thanks to persistent probing by ADD, we know that its ‘Master Plan’ was in place as far back as July 2015 – long before it was made public. When ADD arranged a meeting in 2016 for residents to air their views, the response of one local councillor was to try to stop it taking place on public order grounds. They would really much rather not hear what we have to say.

Having lost the argument, the council’s leadership has resorted to a campaign of ‘fake news’. We hope you will have time to read the information below putting the record straight. It’s time to RE-FOCUS.

EASTLEIGH’S LOCAL PLAN – SOME MYTHS

On December 11, 2017 Eastleigh Borough Council agreed provisionally to adopt options B and C of the Local Plan. The decision was taken despite huge gaps in the evidence base, including traffic, flooding and environmental impact assessments. The final say rests with the council’s chief executive. In other words, the most important decision about Eastleigh for a generation will be taken behind closed doors by an unelected officer without any democratic scrutiny.

To justify this affront to open government, the council’s leadership has pursued a campaign of misinformation that would make even President Putin blush. 

HERE ARE A FEW OF THE CLAIMS BEING MADE BY THE COUNCIL’S LEADERSHIP THAT ARE EITHER BLATANTLY UNTRUE OR CANNOT BE SUBSTANTIATED:

Myth one.  The Local Plan would relieve traffic congestion.

Building 5,200 new homes would add an estimated 26,000 daily traffic movements. The homes would be built away from public transport links, urban centres and other places where people want to be, so maximising vehicle use. There is no evidence that the promised new road would help. It would probably make matters worse.

Myth two. The local plan would provide homes for local families.

Papers submitted by the developers show that the new properties would sell for upwards of £400,000 – no use whatsoever to young people trying to get started. The promised affordable housing is just window-dressing. It is common practice for developers to promise affordable housing and, once planning permission is received, to go back on their word. It will not happen.

Myth three.  A new railway station at Allington and an extra Junction 6 on the M27 cannot happen because Network Rail and Highways England have ruled them out.

This is simply not true. Both organisations have said they would consider such schemes if the local authority came to them. However, Eastleigh Borough Council have shown no interest in doing so.

Myth four. There are no other possible sites within Eastleigh for the housing.

There are several potential sites, especially if we stick to the 3,350 new homes required by the government rather than the 5,200 in the local plan. Every single one of them would involve much less environmental damage than options B and C. The council has chosen not to give them serious consideration. 

Myth five. Recent modifications to the plan mean the ancient woodland is safe.

The Woodland Trust has categorically denied this claim, made by Councillor House.

Myth six. All options are equally unpopular with local residents. 

Options B and C received far more objections than the others. Including the road, option B (Bishopstoke/Allbrook) received more than the other nine combined.

The government will be asked to approve the council’s Local Plan later this year. We therefore believe it is important that everyone knows the truth before it is too late. Stop being hood-winked. Re-Focus now!

Thank you.

TO SUPPORT THE CAMPAIGN TO STOP EASTLEIGH COUNCIL’S SHOCKING PLAN, VISIT WWW.ADD-EASTLEIGH.ORG/DONATE.

ADD UPDATE: 1 February 2018: On 11 December 2017, Eastleigh Borough Councillors approved a draft Local Plan that includes the development of 5,200 new houses north of Fair Oak and Bishopstoke and a new road running from Fair Oak in the east to Allbrook and the M3 in the west (so-called options B and C). In front of 800 aghast members of the public (and many hundreds more following on social media), they forced through a plan which – if completed – would needlessly DESTROY hundreds of acres of ancient Hampshire countryside between Eastleigh and Winchester. This shocking plan lacks critical evidence and ignores far better alternatives. To help stop this plan, sign this petition to SAVE South Hampshire’s glorious countryside NOW! Please share too!

ADD UPDATE, 19 January 2018: On 11 December 2017, Eastleigh Borough Councillors approved a draft Local Plan that includes the development of 5,200 new houses north of Fair Oak and Bishopstoke and a new road running from Mortimers Lane, Fair Oak in the east to Highbridge Road, Allbrook and the M3 in the west. To read more about the meeting click here.

Below is how each councillor voted:

Bishopstoke Councillors:
Trevor Mignot, Liberal Democrat, FOR
Victoria Parkinson, Liberal Democrat, FOR
Angela Roling, Liberal Democrat, left the meeting before the vote
Anne Winstanley, Liberal Democrat, FOR

Fair Oak and Horton Heath Councillors:
Nick Couldrey, Liberal Democrat, absent as he has declared a pecuniary interest in option B
Rob Rushton, Liberal Democrat, FOR
Des Scott, Liberal Democrat, Abstained

Eastleigh North Councillors:
Sarah Bain, Independent Liberal Democrat, AGAINST
Maureen Sollitt, Independent Liberal Democrat, AGAINST
Chris Thomas, Independent Liberal Democrat, left the meeting before the vote

Eastleigh Central Councillors:
Mark Balaam, Independent Liberal Democrat, AGAINST
Tina Campbell, Liberal Democrat, FOR
Wayne Irish, Liberal Democrat, FOR

Eastleigh South Councillors:
Darshan Mann, Liberal Democrat, Absent
Paul Bicknell, Liberal Democrat, FOR
Steve Sollitt, Independent Liberal Democrat, AGAINST

Botley Councillors:
Rupert Kyrle, Liberal Democrat, FOR
Angel Myerscough, Liberal Democrat, FOR

Bursledon and Old Netley Councillors:
Tonia Craig, Liberal Democrat, FOR
Steve Holes, Liberal Democrat, FOR
Jane Rich, Liberal Democrat, Absent

Chandlers Ford Councillors:
Alan Broadhurst, Liberal Democrat, FOR
Haulwen Broadhurst, Liberal Democrat, FOR
Pamela Holden-Brown, Liberal Democrat, FOR
David Pragnell, Liberal Democrat, FOR

Hamble-le-Rice and Butlocks Heath Councillors:
Malcolm Cross, Liberal Democrat, FOR
Elizabeth Lear, Conservative, AGAINST

Hedge End Councillors:
Margaret Allingham, Liberal Democrat, Absent
Ian Corben, Liberal Democrat, FOR
Cynthia Garton, Liberal Democrat, FOR
Clifford Morris, Liberal Democrat, Absent as he has declared a pecuniary interest in option B
Jerry Hall, Conservative, AGAINST
Keith House, Liberal Democrat, FOR
Derek Pretty, Liberal Democrat, FOR

Hiltingbury Councillors:
Margaret Atkinson, Conservative, AGAINST
Judith Grajewski, Conservative, AGAINST
Daniel Hatfield, Conservative, Absent
Michael Hughes, Conservative, AGAINST

Netley Abbey Councillors:
David Airey, Liberal Democrat, FOR
Lizette Van Niekerk, Liberal Democrat, FOR

West End Councillors:
Janice Asman, Liberal Democrat, FOR
Carol Boulton, Liberal Democrat, FOR
Daniel Clarke, Liberal Democrat, FOR
Bruce Tennent, Liberal Democrat, Absent

You can read the council’s minutes of the meeting here.