Blog

STATEMENT FROM ACTION AGAINST DESTRUCTIVE DEVELOPMENT (ADD), 4 DECEMBER 2017

The results of a council survey of Eastleigh residents underline the folly of its plans to build more than five thousand homes on the outskirts of Fair Oak and Bishopstoke, ADD said today. The public response shows that people want above all to minimise traffic congestion, preserve strategic gaps between villages, receive good medical services, reduce pollution and noise and protect the natural environment. Options B and C of the emerging Local Plan threaten all these objectives. To view the results, click here.

ADD recognises that new housing in Eastleigh is both necessary and desirable, but believes the council has chosen to locate them in areas that would maximise road usage and damage to the environment.

Eastleigh Borough Council is due to vote on these plans at a meeting at 7pm on Monday 11 December at the Hilton at the Ageas Bowl (SO30 3XH). ADD anticipates councillors will vote in favour of these flawed proposals (despite lacking large amounts of evidence to support the case). View papers for the meeting here.

ADD statement

“The public attitudes revealed by the council survey underline the folly of options B and C of the emerging Eastleigh local plan. Residents want to reduce traffic congestion at the same time as protecting strategic gaps between villages, reducing noise and air pollution and promoting medical services and the natural environment – objectives that we share.

“Yet if these options went ahead they would achieve the very opposite. They would create a massive urban sprawl, maximise car usage and therefore traffic congestion, creating 26,000 additional vehicle movements a day by building homes far away from public transport and motorway access and away from where people want to be. At the same time, the plans involve an ill-considered link road that would actually add to congestion, whilst permanently damaging ancient woodland and the River Itchen and slicing the village of Allbrook in two. Stoke Park Surgery, meanwhile, has warned it would not be able to provide the service needed if options B and C were to go ahead.

“There are better ways to achieve the housing that Eastleigh needs. Eastleigh and the surrounding areas deserve better.” 

Note: ADD is an action group set up to promote a sustainable response to the need for new housing. We are an evidence-based, politically neutral campaign that has the future of Eastleigh, the natural environment, the lives of residents and the surrounding area at heart. We have considerable support from organisations including the Campaign to Protect Rural England, the Woodland Trust, Friends of the Earth, the Campaign for Better Transport, the Angling Trust and many others. 

For further information, contact Mark Baylis of ADD – email: [email protected]; or tel: 02380 651473.

ADD UPDATE, 3 December 2017: On Friday night, Eastleigh Borough Council (EBC) published its proposed Local Plan. As we have long predicted (not least because the council has so clearly signalled), the plan involves building 5,200 new houses and a new link road north of Bishopstoke and Fair Oak and south of Colden Common, Owslebury and Upham, significantly affecting Allbrook, Boyatt Wood, Chandler’s Ford, Otterbourne, Brambridge, Highbridge, Twyford, Chandler’s Ford and Bishop’s Waltham too (the council’s options B and C – see an annotated EBC map above). To read all the papers, click here.

The experienced team at ADD, together with our professional advisers, are currently combing through every detail of the council’s plan. It’s clear the council is still short of much critical evidence and that certain important myths, carefully crafted over the last few years, have taken hold. We will outline our full objections in the next few days.

As we have stated from the beginning, all we want is a fully evidence-based Local Plan for Eastleigh. The council’s plan, by their own admission, is NOT evidence-based and is therefore full of ifs and buts.

For example, paragraph 111 in the Report of the Local Plan Advisor states: “It is important to recognise that there are some specific areas of evidence which are as yet emerging and/or uncompleted. These primarily relate to transport modelling, the Habitat Regulations Assessment and consequent environmental mitigation. Engagement and consultation will continue until the Local Plan is submitted. Therefore the conclusions to date will need to be kept under careful review to identify whether or not they remain valid once the Local Plan evidence is complete.”

As regards transport modelling, paragraph 1.2.2 of the traffic report (appendix 11) by SYSTRA, the international engineering and consulting group, notes that there will be “significant /severe traffic congestion impacts” occurring from the combination of the new road and 5,200 new houses. In following paragraphs, SYSTRA traffic engineers say they are still searching for solutions to the congestion B and C will cause. Their initial suggestions only attempt to address problems within Eastleigh itself. They do not mention the already severe traffic issues of Colden Common, Twyford, Upham and Owslebury.

This is not surprising to us, although it must be a major disappointment to Eastleigh’s leaders who have hailed the new road as providing “a solution to take traffic off Bishopstoke Road”. The traffic engineers’ first report was delivered just before the 20 July full council meeting. After more than four months, and presumably intense pressure to deliver a solution, they have still not come up with a viable and effective set of ‘patches’ for the problem.

Given the only justification for this scheme is this new road, SYSTRA’s findings are a massive hole in the heart of the Local Plan proposals.

Paragraph 130 of the Report of the Local Plan Advisor says: “If the outstanding evidence does not support the approach taken then the final Plan will be changed to reflect this; and if this results in a major change to the Local Plan, it will be brought back to Council for a decision.”

The Local Plan Advisor clearly believes, like the rest of us, that the council is still short of sufficient evidence to decide on its Plan. However, despite previous commitments by Councillor House, leader of the council, and other councillors, that they should wait on making a decision until all the required evidence is available, the council is now being asked to approve a scheme – options B and C – before that evidence is available!

Given this, it is hard – if not impossible – to see how councillors could vote in favour of this “plan” on 11 December. To do so would be folly. Surely, for all our sakes, it would be better to wait until all the evidence is available and then decide – as they themselves have said all along. Indeed, as recently as 16 November, Councillor House said: “Getting it [the Local Plan] right is more important that doing it fast”

Whilst the ADD team works hard to analyse these plans, we ask one thing of the many of you who oppose them.

That is – please – to turn up to the council’s meeting at 7pm on Monday 11 December at the Hilton at the Ageas Bowl (SO30 3XH), at which we anticipate councillors will – unbelievably – vote in favour of this flawed plan (despite the huge outstanding holes).

Next year a planning inspector will have to scrutinise Eastleigh’s Local Plan. Whilst it will already be clear to this inspector (whoever he or she may be) that there is vast opposition, locally and nationally, to the council’s intentions (and the council’s decision-making is totally unsound), it would be excellent to demonstrate our opposition again on 11 December. Please, please do come. And bring all your friends and family with you!

Together we will win this battle – but only if we stick together!

ADD UPDATE, 2 December 2017: Many thanks to all who came to the ADD roadshow over the last three weeks. Over 400 people came along. The points raised and questions asked are really helping us to prepare for the Eastleigh Borough Council (EBC) meeting on Monday 11 December at the Hilton at the Ageas where councillors will consider the draft Local Plan, namely proposals for 5,200 new houses and a new link road north of Bishopstoke and Fair Oak. The 11 December meeting is critical – it is so important that councillors grasp how much their decision will impact us and that they take that decision in public. Please do join us there (7pm at the Hilton at the Ageas Bowl, SO30 3XH) – and get in touch if you need a lift or are able to offer a lift. There is masses of parking, so don’t let that put you off! We need to at least double the number of people who came to a similar meeting last year, which had a significant impact on EBC decision-making (see above).

In Colden Common, John Lauwerys (Brambridge) and Kate Beal Blyth (Highbridge) were joined by Winchester City Council (WCC) councillors Richard Izard and Sue Cooke. The impacts on Colden Common of around 26,000 extra daily car journeys were discussed alongside the impact on Highbridge of having the North Bishopstoke Link Road built through the hamlet. Richard and Sue explained that Winchester City Council, not EBC, would be the planning authority for that stretch. There is a Duty to Cooperate between EBC and WCC, but WCC have been disappointed by EBC’s lack of engagement.

In Bishopstoke, residents Rob Byrne and Gin Tidridge focused on the impacts on Stoke Park Woods and the two Sites of Ancient Woodland managed by the Woodland Trust. With a gap of just 120 metres between Crowdhill Copse and Upper Barn Copse, the Trust are extremely concerned about building the new major road in that gap – they are clear that it will be damaging. EBC themselves describe the gap as being of great importance to the borough’s biodiversity in a report in 2002. The Forestry Commission have told EBC that the gap north of Stoke Park Woods would need to be of a magnitude of hectares, not metres, and that current development has been damaging.

In Fair Oak, resident Helen Rees explained how concerned she was about the extra traffic, especially as EBC have not completed proper traffic modelling yet. Losing miles of footpaths and trails through what is now beautiful countryside will impact quality of life in Fair Oak as the conurbation becomes so large. Concern about flooding was raised; as the attenuation ponds at Crowdhill Green have demonstrated, developers do not always get their hydrological calculations right. Crowdhill Green also demonstrates how the new housing will not help local youngsters. Only 35% of the housing will be “affordable” – low compared to other authorities – and developers frequently negotiate a lower proportion, especially when they are required to contribute to infrastructure projects like an expensive new road. Positioning close to Winchester will mean high prices too.

In Boyatt Wood, Allbrook resident Dave Betts showed how the North Bishopstoke Link Road will split Allbrook village in two, from the A335 link to the M3 to the B335 at the mini roundabout at Pitmore Lane. Impact on wildlife, including bats and the Southern Damselfly, is of great concern. The River Itchen is of global ecological importance as a chalk stream, hence its protected status. Building the road and the ensuing heavy traffic risks polluting the river, its tributaries and water meadows. The plans for the road do not include replacing the Allbrook Arch railway bridge that is only 3.7 metres high – too low for large HGVs that will still have to travel through central Eastleigh.

The Bishop’s Waltham Society invited ADD to speak to members on 1 December. Upham resident David Ashe talked about the impact on the South Downs National Park (SDNP) of having the new conurbation sprawling up to its border, and about the traffic impact on the SDNP’s lanes and villages. Commuters will use the fastest route they can, and that will not always mean using the new road.

At all the meetings, concern was expressed about building a car-dependent major housing development so far from infrastructure.

If you were unable to raise a point at one of the meetings, or have concerns you would like ADD to consider, do please get in touch via our email: [email protected]. We’d also love to hear about any fundraising ideas you may have.

Thanks again for helping us shape our preparations for the EBC meeting on Monday 11 December. We look forward to seeing you there! 

ADD REMINDER, 29 November 2017: TOMORROW, THURSDAY 30 NOVEMBER, ADD will be holding another UPDATE MEETING ON EASTLEIGH’S LOCAL PLAN – this time at ST PETER’S CHURCH, BOYATT WOOD, starting at 7pm. This meeting follows recent successful events in Colden Common, Bishopstoke and Fair Oak and is part of a series of meetings across the large area that Eastleigh Borough Council is likely to choose as its preferred development site at ITS NEXT KEY MEETING ON 11 DECEMBER (please, please attend this meeting: We need EVERYONE against the plan to be there).

As many of you know, this plan involves a monster housing sprawl (5,200 new homes) and a major new road north of Bishopstoke and Fair Oak and south of Colden Common, Owslebury and Upham, significantly affecting Allbrook, Boyatt Wood, Chandler’s Ford, Otterbourne, Brambridge, Highbridge, Twyford, Chandler’s Ford and Bishop’s Waltham too (the council’s options B and C). Click here for a map.

If you live in Allbrook, Boyatt Wood, Chandler’s Ford, Otterbourne, or have been unable to attend any of the other meetings, THIS MEETING IS FOR YOU!

At our update meetings, we aim to share our research on Eastleigh’s emerging Local Plan, update you on the campaign’s progress and hear your views and questions. Please join us if you can: simply come to the meeting most convenient for you.

• Tuesday 14th November, 7pm, Colden Common Community Centre – COMPLETED WITH c.150 ATTENDEES
• Wednesday 22nd November, 7pm, Bishopstoke Methodist Church – COMPLETED WITH c.110 ATTENDEES
• Monday 27th November, 7:30pm, Fair Oak Village Hall – COMPLETED WITH c.120 ATTENDEES
• TOMORROW, THURSDAY 30TH NOVEMBER, 7pm, St Peter’s Church Hall, Boyatt Wood – PLEASE COME

Click here to see a flyer on the meetings: please distribute as many as you can, either via email or hard copy.

WHY IS BUILDING OVER 5,000 HOUSES NORTH OF FAIR OAK AND BISHOPSTOKE THE COUNCIL’S MOST DESTRUCTIVE OPTION?

Destructive traffic impact

• The development will only be accessible by road, far from infrastructure. The Campaign for Better Transport agrees that local traffic will get will get worse without a public transport solution.
• The new road will use the current Allbrook railway bridge, frequently flooded, too low for large lorries: it cannot ease Eastleigh’s truck congestion.
• The council expects the 26,000 extra daily traffic movements to be channelled via the M3 at junction 12. We assess congestion will increase on all local roads, through our communities, villages and the South Downs National Park.

Destructive to our communities

• The Campaign to Protect Rural England supports our campaign, concerned that quality of life will be damaged in our area.
• Fair Oak will double in size, with fewer accessible green spaces.
• The new road will divide Allbrook, splitting the village in two.

Destructive to our woods, River Itchen and wildlife

• The Woodland Trust say that building the road in the 120 metre gap between Crowdhill Copse and Upper Barn Copse will damage their Sites of Ancient Natural Woodland.
• The Test and Itchen Association are concerned that the road will damage the Itchen which has European conservation status.
• Acres of countryside and miles of footpath will become housing estates. Naturalist Chris Packham describes this as “eco vandalism”.

PLEASE COME TO ONE OF OUR UPDATE MEETINGS AND – IN PARTICULAR – MAKE SURE YOU ATTEND THE KEY COUNCIL MEETING ON MONDAY 11 DECEMBER: 7PM AT THE HILTON AT THE AGEAS BOWL, SO30 3XH.

TO CONTACT US, PLEASE EMAIL US AT [email protected]

Daily Echo, 28 November 2017: EASTLEIGH could do so much better. Those were the words of campaigners meeting to discuss their plans to fight the borough’s emerging Local Plan. Action Against Destructive Development (ADD) came together to talk about future housing development in the area and Eastleigh Borough Council (EBC) plans which they say will result in a “giant urban sprawl”. The ADD meeting in Bishopstoke was one in a series at different locations, including Colden Common and Fair Oak, which will be impacted by the plans. EBC’s preferred options – known as options B and C – would see 5,200 homes built to the north Bishopstoke and Fair Oak but ADD, which has enormous support locally and nationally, is fighting these proposals vigorously.

ADD REMINDER, 25 November 2017: THIS MONDAY, 27 NOVEMBER, ADD will be holding another UPDATE MEETING ON EASTLEIGH’S LOCAL PLAN – this time at FAIR OAK VILLAGE HALL, starting at 7.30pm. This meeting follows recent successful events in Colden Common and Bishopstoke and is part of a series of meetings across the large area that Eastleigh Borough Council is likely to choose as its preferred development site at ITS NEXT KEY MEETING ON 11 DECEMBER (please, please attend this meeting: We need EVERYONE against the plan to be there).

As many of you know, this plan involves a monster housing sprawl (5,200 new homes) and a major new road north of Bishopstoke and Fair Oak and south of Colden Common, Owslebury and Upham, significantly affecting Allbrook, Otterbourne, Brambridge, Highbridge, Twyford, Chandler’s Ford and Bishop’s Waltham too (the council’s options B and C). Click here for a map.

At our update meetings, we aim to share our research on Eastleigh’s emerging Local Plan, update you on the campaign’s progress and hear your views and questions. Please join us if you can: simply come to the meeting most convenient for you.

• Tuesday 14th November, 7pm, Colden Common Community Centre – COMPLETED WITH c.150 ATTENDEES
• Wednesday 22nd November, 7pm, Bishopstoke Methodist Church – COMPLETED WITH c.110 ATTENDEES
• THIS MONDAY, 27TH NOVEMBER, 7:30pm, Fair Oak Village Hall – PLEASE COME
• Thursday 30th November, 7pm, St Peter’s Church Hall, Boyatt Wood

Click here to see a flyer on the meetings: please distribute as many as you can, either via email or hard copy.

WHY IS BUILDING OVER 5,000 HOUSES NORTH OF FAIR OAK AND BISHOPSTOKE THE COUNCIL’S MOST DESTRUCTIVE OPTION?

Destructive traffic impact

• The development will only be accessible by road, far from infrastructure. The Campaign for Better Transport agrees that local traffic will get will get worse without a public transport solution.
• The new road will use the current Allbrook railway bridge, frequently flooded, too low for large lorries: it cannot ease Eastleigh’s truck congestion.
• The council expects the 26,000 extra daily traffic movements to be channelled via the M3 at junction 12. We assess congestion will increase on all local roads, through our communities, villages and the South Downs National Park.

Destructive to our communities

• The Campaign to Protect Rural England supports our campaign, concerned that quality of life will be damaged in our area.
• Fair Oak will double in size, with fewer accessible green spaces.
• The new road will divide Allbrook, splitting the village in two.

Destructive to our woods, River Itchen and wildlife

• The Woodland Trust say that building the road in the 120 metre gap between Crowdhill Copse and Upper Barn Copse will damage their Sites of Ancient Natural Woodland.
• The Test and Itchen Association are concerned that the road will damage the Itchen which has European conservation status.
• Acres of countryside and miles of footpath will become housing estates. Naturalist Chris Packham describes this as “eco vandalism”.

PLEASE COME TO ONE OF OUR UPDATE MEETINGS AND – IN PARTICULAR – MAKE SURE YOU ATTEND THE KEY COUNCIL MEETING ON MONDAY 11 DECEMBER: 7PM AT THE HILTON AT THE AGEAS BOWL, SO30 3XH

TO CONTACT US, PLEASE EMAIL US AT [email protected]

ADD UPDATE, 24 November 2017: Two Hampshire councils have fallen out big time over proposals to build thousands of new houses on greenfields.

It has emerged that Winchester City Council has written to Eastleigh Borough Council (EBC) leader Keith House saying it’s in no way convinced that the proposals – which are Eastleigh’s favoured options for its emerging Local Plan – will work. The proposals, known as options B and C, are to build over 5,000 houses on greenfields north of Bishopstoke and serve them by a new link road which has to squeeze between protected ancient woodlands and then cross the EU protected floodplain of the River Itchen before trying to get through a railway bridge that so narrow its seen over 20 lorry crashes in the last few years.

In a damning letter over the summer, Winchester leader Caroline Horrill accused Keith House of ignoring requests for meetings and a failure to communicate. She wrote: “Our communities have repeatedly asked to meet with you or your officers, a request that to my knowledge has not been met.” She added: “I would like to be able to assure our councillors that Eastleigh is adopting a sound, evidence led approach and that there will be full and meaningful consultation with neighbouring communities. I am sorry to say that I believe I cannot give those assurances at the moment.”

What’s worse, she wrote, is the lack of cooperation. She explained: “I am fully committed to cooperate with you in the development of your [Local] Plan but I do not believe that you and your team are providing us with the opportunity to do so.”

And, worrying about the landscape, she commented: “There are very significant issues as yet unexplored and a lack of evidence as to how they can be satisfactorily resolved. These include the landscape and habitats impacts, local infrastructure delivery and most significantly from our point of view, the impact on traffic and movement in the area… I am very concerned that the timescale proposed in your officer’s report [published last summer] will not be achievable unless it limits the time available for research, evidence gathering and consultation and engagement to an absolute minimum. That would not be acceptable to those communities in Winchester which may be affected by the development or to the City Council.”

What also concerns the Winchester leader is that part of the planned new road is actually in Winchester territory.

She wrote: “We will have an obligation to satisfy ourselves about [the] modelling and analysis before we could grant consent. There is also the issue of the broader landscape and visual impact that a new road could generate, not to mention the change from open countryside… I believe there is good reason for us to see shortcomings in your approach and good reason for us to seek reassurance about how you will deliver your timetable and the appropriate level of public engagement – which we do not believe has been sufficient so far… I have to say that Winchester is not satisfied with extent of the dialogue between our two authorities and I look forward to hearing how this can be resolved as you progress your Local Plan work.”

In his reply, Keith House – who hopes his council will make a definitive decision on its Local Plan this December – wrote: “I am unaware of any outstanding requests for meetings regarding our Local Plan and would appreciate clarification on your assertion. Eastleigh’s Local Plan is fully evidence based.” He added his council had not taken a decision on the Local Plan, rather had simply published “a work in progress to give clarity to our local communities on our direction of travel and to enable discussion with key partners such as your Council ahead of decision making later in the year. I would be grateful if you would make this clear to your Council as this point is clearly made in our Cabinet Report.”

EBC is due to decide on its Local Plan at its next full council meeting on 11 December. Despite all the arguments against options B and C, it is widely believed that councillors will vote in favour of these proposals. IF YOU OPPOSE THESE PLANS, PLEASE, PLEASE ATTEND THE CRUCIAL MEETING ON 11 DECEMBER: 7PM AT THE HILTON AT THE AGEAS BOWL. 

We need to prove to the planning inspector next year the strength of our opposition to these plans.

TOGETHER, WE REMAIN CONVINCED WE CAN WIN THIS FIGHT.

ADD Update, 23 November 2017: At ADD, we guard fiercely our political neutrality. We welcome anyone, from any political persuasion, who supports our central aim: which is to inform the debate for Eastleigh’s emerging Local Plan such that the borough ends up with a fully evidence-based Local Plan.

In this article, we post together the responses of Eastleigh’s Conservative MP, Mims Davies, and its Liberal Democrat leader of the council, Keith House, to the recent announcement by the Communities Secretary, Sajid Javid, that the government is poised to intervene in the housebuilding plans of 15 local authorities, including Eastleigh, if they do not publish their housebuilding plans or explain “any exceptional circumstances” why they cannot produce a Local Plan by the end of January next year.

Sajid Javid’s letter can be read here.

The response of Keith House, Leader of Eastleigh Borough Council, can be read here.

The response of Mims Davies, Eastleigh’s MP, can be read here.

If we succeed in our central aim – a fully evidence-based Local Plan – we believe the best outcome will be achieved not only for the borough but also for its neighbouring communities and for its many visitors.

Campaign for Better Transport, 21 November 2017: Situated in Hampshire between Southampton and Winchester, Eastleigh was formed in the 19th century as a railway town. Today, the area is blighted by significant congestion and air quality issues. Guest blogger Gin Tidridge, from local campaign group Action Against Destructive Development (ADD), tells us more: ADD was formed following significant concerns about Eastleigh Borough Council (EBC)’s emerging Local Plan. At the heart of the proposals is a new development of over 5,000 new houses on greenfield sites, located on the borough’s northern boundary. Along with the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE), all local MPs and all affected parish councils, ADD is campaigning to persuade EBC that there are more sustainable locations for new houses.

ADD UPDATE, 21 November 2017: On 26 September, Eastleigh Borough Council’s Local Area Committee that covers the town centre agreed to look into limiting HGVs at rush hour and during the night “within the area encompassing Southampton Road from Chestnut Avenue northwards to Twyford Road roundabout and west from the roundabout along Leigh Road and Romsey Road to Passfield Avenue.”

It is great that the Eastleigh LAC, which is made up of borough councillors, wants to address the environmental impact of lorries in the town centre. Concerns about the road surface deteriorating, noise levels and air pollution issues are very relevant to the lives of residents.

ADD would like to highlight to the LAC that, if the link road proposed for the massive new development north of Bishopstoke and Fair Oak goes ahead, it will be unable to alleviate this impact.

Allbrook railway bridge is too low for vehicles over 3.7 metres high and – as such – there have been regular ‘bridge strikes’ over the years that have caused significant damage and confusion. Three days before this committee meeting, for example, two lorries (one pictured here) added to considerable congestion on the B335 as they attempted to pass under the bridge. On 8 October, two more lorries stopped at the bottom of Allbrook Hill whilst they reconsidered their route, blocking the road. On 17 October, another lorry blocked Highbridge Road as it made a multi-point turn to avoid the bridge. And, on 17 November, there was yet another incident with a truck, the photo above showing the resulting traffic issue. If lorries hit the bridge, they potentially jeopardise the main rail line to London.

No plans have been published to replace or raise this bridge if the new road is built, and transport experts consulted by ADD cannot see any way of economically adapting the bridge to address the height issue. Therefore, the new road cannot alleviate the numbers of large lorries trundling through the town centre. To suggest otherwise would be misleading.

If the council opted to replace the bridge, the cost of the road would soar way beyond anything that has been suggested up to now. In addition to the extra construction costs probably totalling well over £10 million, Network Rail would require significant payments. Replacement would be likely to result in delays for rail commuters over many months.

ADD opposes the proposed road for many reasons – not least because it does not offer a solution to Eastleigh’s traffic congestion. The published plans indicate that, due to the bridge, it would be physically incapable of diverting large lorries from Eastleigh town centre.

OTHER READING

Emerging Eastleigh Local Plan – An Allbrook Perspective, Dave Betts, Allbrook and North Boyatt Parish Councillor, 26 October 2017

Eastleigh’s monster housing plan hit by rail and water double whammy, ADD Update, 9 July 2017

Fair Oak resident urges EBC to reject options B and C “on the basis of traffic alone”, Matthew Waterman, presentation to Eastleigh Borough Council, 15 December 2016

Eastleigh’s Local Plan and the spectre of King Canute, ADD Update, 14 December 2016

Councillors raise questions about Allbrook bridge, answers unclear, ADD Update, 29 October 2016