Blog

ADD UPDATE, 9 July 2017: Less than two weeks before Eastleigh Borough Council (EBC) makes a key decision on a massive 6,200 housing development, it has been hit by a double whammy. Problems are piling up one after another. In one case, Network Rail wants a ransom of millions of pounds for improving a road under a deathtrap bridge. And Southern Water has now admitted it would have to find alternative supplies if the scheme goes ahead. If it can’t find them then the scheme is, literally, dead in the water.

In the case of the bridge, EBC has been warned by Network Rail that trying to squeeze a new road under a very old road bridge could cost lives. In recent years, lorries have hit the bridge no less than 18 times. Fixing it could also cost the council millions of pounds because Network Rail will only allow improvements to be made to the bridge to accommodate the huge housing development if it gets a share of the developers’ profits. It’s demanding a share of the uplift in value from agricultural to residential land. And, say experts, that could cost so many millions that it would make the whole scheme unviable. And as if that wasn’t enough, the council has already been warned by an MEP that if the planned new road damages the River Itchen’s floodplain then the UK could be taken to court and fined many millions of euros.

In an official statement that now confirms the dangers, Network Rail said: “This bridge is already prone to bridge strikes, with 18 recorded since 2008, and an increase in the volume of traffic would increase the risk of such incidents. Bridge strikes not only present a safety risk to road users and pedestrians, they also delay thousands of rail passengers and cost the taxpayer significant amounts of money. In addition, an increase in the volume of traffic may require changes to the road and bridge in order for it to be compliant with safety standards designed to protect road users and pedestrians, and generally to reduce the risk of bridge strikes should a housing development of this scale proceed.”

One solution being considered is to ban HGVs from the bridge, together with pedestrians. But that would divert even more heavy traffic onto near roads and increase congestion. And all this even if engineers found a way of squeezing the new road between protected ancient woodlands.

And now even EBC admits the scheme could have vast funding problems. A council statement confirms Network Rail “are under a best-value obligation from the Department for Transport to ensure that any rights granted (or other related work needed to enable the scheme) are appropriately valued and take into account the uplift in land value (from agricultural to residential) that such works will unlock. The value secured by Network Rail in that scenario would then be reinvested back into the railway network. This could result in a significant value being due to Network Rail which could significantly impact upon the viability of the development option.”

But apart from money problems there is now a new question: how to supply thousands of new residents with water. The Environment Agency (EA) has ordered Southern Water to drastically reduce the amount of water it takes from both the Test and the Itchen. The EA is forced to restrict how much water is taken from the rivers because of the EU Habitats Directive which has ruled that the rivers are not up to par. The decision will be finally made by a public inquiry next year. But in the meantime the water company has admitted: “We will consider all the options (including desalination, water recycling and transfers from neighbouring water companies) for the alternative new supplies we need and how long it will take to implement these schemes.”

EBC is due to make a key decision about the plan at a public meeting on 20 July (7pm at Kings Community Church, Upper Northam Road, Hedge End, Southampton, SO30 4BZ) when hundreds of protestors are due to attend. More details on this meeting can be found here. We look forward to seeing you there!

ADD UPDATE: 9 July 2017: Eastleigh Borough Council has announced the venue for its council meeting on 20 JULY, at which it will take a critical decision relating to its Local Plan options. The meeting, which will take place at 7pm, will be held at Kings Community Church, Upper Northam Road, Hedge End, Southampton, SO30 4BZ.

Join us to make local opinion heard at this crucial meeting when we believe the council, led by Keith House (Lib Dem, pictured), will push forward with its preferred GIANT housing development (enough to cover its housing need for the next 20 years) in the very north of the borough (Allbrook, Bishopstoke and Fair Oak), right on the border with Winchester’s southern villages (Upham, Owslebury, Twyford, Colden Common, Bishops Waltham, Otterbourne). THIS IS A MASSIVE DEVELOPMENT ON SOME OF HAMPSHIRE’S FINEST COUNTRYSIDE!

As TV naturalist Chris Packham says: “It is desperately important that people get behind the campaign to prevent this piece of eco-vandalism.” MORE THAN 6,000 HOUSES (equivalent to a town more than three times the size of Colden Common), several thousand new vehicles daily on our existing roads plus a major new road driven through ancient woodland and unspoilt countryside. Once gone, it will be lost forever – but we CAN do something about it.

Come to this meeting and join us in protesting against this wanton destruction of our beautiful countryside. Whilst we may not persuade the council to abandon these plans (known as options B and C) this time, a big turnout WILL make a significant difference when we demonstrate the strength of local opposition to the independent planning inspector.

PLEASE SAVE THIS DATE AND ASK OTHERS TO DO SO TOO! WE LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING YOU THERE.

ADD UPDATE, 7 July 2017: Is the Eastleigh Local Plan consultation a stitch-up? In this update, we reveal the emails that Eastleigh Borough Council (EBC) tried to hide from the public…

According to two emails that have come to light despite attempts by EBC to keep them hidden, the leader of the council was involved in detailed discussions with the developers of options B and C of the Local Plan (namely the proposals for a monster housing sprawl and a major new road north of Bishopstoke and Fair Oak) well before they were made public.

The emails show that Cllr Keith House was discussing a ‘master plan’ and ‘joint venture’ with the developer, Highwood, in October 2015 – and that at least two senior officers were also aware. To the best of ADD’s knowledge EBC was not involved in comparable discussions relating to the other eight development options that were later nominally under consideration as part of the Local Plan, which eventually went public more than two months later. Nor were most councillors made aware of these talks.

Whilst it is quite common for council leaders to have high-level talks with potential developers, the amount of apparent detail suggested by these emails is most unusual at such an early stage in the process. Furthermore, any council is required to demonstrate an open mind about where development might take place and not to pre-determine the outcome of any consultation. Unless EBC had parallel talks about other potential developments, it is very difficult to see how it can have met this condition.

ADD has asked EBC to clarify certain points. In particular, we would like to know more about the ‘joint venture’. What does it involve? Who will benefit? Why were details not made public? We have also asked if EBC has had similar discussions around other options. We will post any responses but, if our past experience is any guide, they will be a long time coming.

The emails only came to light after local Bishopstoke resident Phil Tidridge issued a Freedom of Information (FOI) request to see specified records held by EBC pertaining to the Local Plan. FOIs came into existence in 2000 to enable citizens to see documents that would help them understand what has shaped the thinking of public bodies.

It is a publicly acknowledged fact that options B and C – which would involve more than 6,000 new homes in the Bishopstoke and Fair Oak areas – have been driven by local property developers. They are opposed by just about anyone who has expressed an opinion apart from the Lib Dems on EBC. The Woodland Trust say they would cause serious and permanent damage to valuable ancient woodland, whilst the TV environmentalist Chris Packham has described them as ‘eco-vandalism’.

Tidridge was concerned that EBC’s close relationship with the people who stand to profit if these options go ahead was disproportionate to the public interest this served. He wanted to know more.

The saga that followed (see timeline below) was one of delay and resistance by EBC. As a result, a process that could have taken eight weeks at most dragged on for more than a year. EBC repeatedly missed legal deadlines, despite receiving several reminders, and eventually told Tidridge they were refusing to co-operate. He then took the council to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), which ruled mostly in his favour. EBC appealed against the regulator’s decision but eventually agreed to release the emails, with some details redacted (i.e. cut out).

Despite the edits, the emails reveal a great deal about the relationship between Cllr House and the developers (click here to read the emails). They confirm what ADD already suspected from private conversations we have had with key people, but have so far been unable to demonstrate publicly. Whilst not suggesting financial impropriety, they cast serious doubt on the council’s claim to have acted impartially during the Local Plan consultation process, as they are required to do.

No doubt this will not disturb EBC councillors, dominated as they are by the ruling party. The planning inspector may take a different view. 

TIMELINE: HOW TIDRIDGE’S REQUEST FOR INFORMATION DRAGGED ON

3 April 2016: Phil Tidridge places initial information request under Freedom of Information and Environmental Information regulations.

15 April 2016: EBC requests clarification as to the date parameters of the request. Tidridge replies on the same day.

3 May 2016: EBC misses deadline to respond to initial 20-working day deadline.

1 June 2016: EBC misses deadline to respond to extended 40-working day deadline.

2 June 2016: EBC advises Tidridge that it has the information but is “consulting with third parties” before deciding whether to disclose it.

10 June 2016: EBC contacts him to refuse to release any information.

13 June 2016: Tidridge appeals to EBC for an internal review.

4 July 2016: EBC refuses.

7 July 2016: Tidridge takes his case to the ICO, which assesses the case.

27 Jan 2017: ICO rules against EBC, criticising its processes and specifying which documents should be released in the public interest.

24 Feb 2017: Having been chased, EBC advises Tidridge that it has lodged an appeal against the ICO’s judgement regarding two communications from external third parties. It offers no explanation.

3 March 2017: ICO confirms it has received the appeal from EBC within the 30-day deadline (so EBC can meet deadlines when it wants to)! 

6 June 2017: Following correspondence with the ICO over previous week, Tidridge receives an email from an ICO solicitor advising him that an agreement has been reached prior to an end-of-June court date and that redacted emails will be released by EBC. Tidridge asks EBC to send these emails to him.

15 June 2017: EBC sends Tidridge the redacted emails. 

BBC News, 6 July 2017: A water company has been asked to nearly halve the amount of water it takes from a Hampshire chalk stream. The Environment Agency has published a plan to reduce abstraction from the River Test from 136 to 80 million litres a day. It said the change was needed to protect wildlife and to “restore sustainable abstraction”. Southern Water said it recognised the region was “water-stressed” and would need time to find solutions. It added the Environment Agency had already asked to vary all five abstraction licences in Hampshire, at a time when house building and population growth was increasing in demand. A public inquiry in 2018 is due to explore previously requested licence changes on the Test and the Itchen.

ADD UPDATE, 4 July 2017: As Eastleigh Borough Council (EBC) considers its plans for a monster housing sprawl and a major new road north of Bishopstoke and Fair Oak (options B and C of its emerging Local Plan – see map above), one of the key pieces of research it has yet to complete is the plans’ effect on traffic flows. At the moment, EBC cannot make statements that the proposed new road will ease congestion or alleviate future increased traffic based on anything other than conjecture. It is likely to be Hampshire County Council that does this work, but EBC will commission it. As we all know, public transport would be limited to say the least: double-decker buses would not be able to get under the railway bridge at Allbrook and there is no railway line in options B or C.

In the meantime, ADD campaigners have been doing their own modelling – in fact anyone with access to online mapping can do so! The new road is expected to cross Winchester Road at the Fox and Hounds, join Highbridge Road, then run behind Allbrook to J12 of the M3.

For people thinking of moving into a new home on the Pembers Hill Farm site (recently signed off by a Local Area Committee in advance of the Local Plan and the first part of option C to reach the planners), here are the routes to places they might want to travel (assuming options B and C go ahead) and an assessment of whether they are likely to use the proposed new road.

Railway station

• Hedge End is the nearest: 2.9 miles, along Botley Road – unlikely to use new road.
• Southampton Airport Parkway: 4.9 miles, through Eastleigh town centre, along Bishopstoke Road – unlikely to use new road.

Conclusion: the new road would not be used so pressure on the existing roads would increase.

Work: based on some of the area’s biggest employers

• Chickenhall Lane (Prysmian): 3.2 miles, along Bishopstoke Lane – unlikely to use new road.
• Airport area (Specsavers, Amey, BAA): 5.3 miles through Eastleigh town centre, along Bishopstoke Road – unlikely to use new road.
• Portsmouth (IBM), Fareham (NATS): joining M27 at Hedge End, reached along Botley Road – unlikely to use new road.
• Winchester, Basingstoke and further north (HCC, Arqiva, Sony, AA): more likely to drive up to J11 at Winchester via Twyford or Owslebury – unlikely to use new road.
• Southampton (Old Mutual Wealth, Carnival, Associated Ports): 8.6 miles via Allington Lane – unlikely to use new road.
• Chandlers Ford: 5.9 miles now (using M3), but new road might be quicker – Asda area (B&Q, Aviva, Ageas, Cisco) – yes, may use new road.
• Hursley (IBM) – yes, may use new road.
• West Southampton, Nursling area (Ordnance Survey, Lidl distribution centre, Tesco distribution centre, Newsquest) – yes, may use new road.

Conclusion: to avoid adding to congestion on current roads, all residents would have to work in Chandlers Ford, Hursley, Nursling area – or Bournemouth.

Supermarkets

• Sainsbury’s, Lidl in Eastleigh 2.85 miles, using Bishopstoke Lane – unlikely to use new road.
• Sainsbury’s in Hedge End 3.37 miles, via Botley Road – unlikely to use new road.

Conclusion: the new road would not be used so pressure on the existing roads would increase.

Hospitals

• Royal Hampshire, Winchester: 9.2 miles via Twyford, 10.2 miles via Owslebury – unlikely to use new road.
• Southampton General: 11.5 miles via M3 – yes, may use new road.

Conclusion: the new road would only help with trips to Southampton General.

College or university

• Eastleigh College, Barton Peverill College: 4.5 miles, using Bishopstoke Road – unlikely to use new road.
• Southampton University: 6.6 miles, via Allington Lane – unlikely to use new road.
• Solent University: 8.0 miles, via Allington Lane – unlikely to use new road.

Conclusion: the new road would not be used so pressure on the existing roads would increase.

ADD’s conclusion is that the new road would substantially fail to deal with the increase in traffic resulting from the new housing.  Yes, it would be used for some journeys but it is unlikely to be the route for most trips – so congestion would continue to increase at current pinch points, and air quality would continue to be a problem. 

Pressure would increase on Allington Lane, Botley Road and Bishopstoke Road with congestion likely to grow in Eastleigh, Hedge End, Fair Oak, Bishopstoke, Colden Common and Twyford.  Rat-running through country lanes would be likely to increase.

Talking to residents in Bishopstoke and Fair Oak, it seems that the road would be of even less utility to the current community.  The Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) has a fascinating report on how road schemes often fail to deliver intended reductions in congestion.

We find it hard to make the case that EBC’s planned new road will alleviate Eastleigh’s current or future congestion.

ADD UPDATE, 28 June 2017: Ahead of the by-election TOMORROW, Thursday 29 June, for a Parish Councillor in Bishopstoke (East), ADD invited each of the candidates to supply us with no more than 350 words on how they feel about options B and C of Eastleigh Borough Council (EBC)’s emerging Local Plan, namely its plans for a Monster sprawl of 6,000+ houses and a major new road north of Allbrook, Bishopstoke and Fair Oak, and any relevant action they intend to take. By way of reminder the candidates are:

EDWARDS, John Peter – Independent
HARRIS, Geoff – Liberal Democrat
MCCORMICK, Tabatha – Independent

ADD would like to thank John Edwards and Tabatha McCormick for taking the time to send us a brief statement, thereby participating in our virtual hustings. Please click on their names above to view their statements.

Sadly Geoff Harris, the Liberal Democrat candidate, chose not to participate.  

For the sake of our community, today and in the future, please READ the statements above and VOTE (if eligible) tomorrow, THURSDAY 29 JUNE, to make your voice heard!

ADD UPDATE, 26 June 2017: Ahead of the by-election on 29 June for a Parish Councillor in Bishopstoke (East), ADD has invited each of the candidates to supply us with no more than 350 words on how they feel about options B and C of Eastleigh Borough Council’s emerging Local Plan (namely its plans for a Monster sprawl of 6,000+ houses and a major new road north of Allbrook, Bishopstoke and Fair Oak) and any relevant action they intend to take, if elected.

On 26 June, John Edwards, Independent candidate, sent us the following email:

“I’m standing as a concerned Independent candidate / resident because I believe that most of the parish councillors have betrayed your trust. The worst examples are the Lib Dem councillors who refuse to oppose the Lib Dem borough council and their shocking planning policies that are set to change the essence of Bishopstoke forever.

“I am against further mass development in Bishopstoke and district. I am the only candidate to voice this opinion.

“Options B and C, along with others, should be put on hold until problems with infrastructure and a borough plan have been agreed and put in place. Eastleigh council have divided residents into choosing their preferred options. ADD, to their credit, have done some work on this but it’s not going to be enough.

“We’ve had enough hot air. It’s time for tough political action. I’m prepared to do this for you, if you elect me.

“I want your council to demand a moratorium (halt) on housing development now. A full survey and census of traffic movements need to be called for and solutions sought now. Bishopstoke cannot take any more traffic, or thousands of new houses, whether they are in the North or South of Bishopstoke.

“I am also concerned at the poor upkeep of Bishopstoke, particularly at our local shopping centres both in Whalesmead and Sandy Lane. Don’t we, the residents, deserve better?

“Some of our roads and footpaths are seriously neglected. Cheap road dressings that don’t last, vegetation in the gutters left for long periods of time, poorly maintained footpaths. Grass cuttings are left strewn across footpaths and drives. All this at a time when our parish is being impacted by the Lib Dems’ planning policies and their broken pledges and promises to stand up for Bishopstoke.

“I want your parish council to brighten up our neighbourhoods where they have been neglected and forgotten. Isn’t it time for a change?

“As your Independent councillor, I will be forthright and will fight on your behalf.”

John Edwards, Independent

ADD REMINDER: 25 June 2017: Eastleigh Borough Council has said that it will make a critical decision on which its Local Plan options it will pursue at its next full council meeting on 20 JULY (at 7pm – location to be decided).

Join us to make local opinion heard at this crucial meeting when we believe the council, led by Keith House (Lib Dem), will push forward with its preferred GIANT housing development (enough to cover its housing need for the next 20 years) in the very north of the borough (Allbrook, Bishopstoke and Fair Oak), right on the border with Winchester’s southern villages (Upham, Owslebury, Twyford, Colden Common, Bishops Waltham, Otterbourne). THIS IS A MASSIVE DEVELOPMENT ON SOME OF HAMPSHIRE’S FINEST COUNTRYSIDE!

As TV naturalist Chris Packham says: “It is desperately important that people get behind the campaign to prevent this piece of eco-vandalism.” MORE THAN 6,000 HOUSES (equivalent to a town more than three times the size of Colden Common), several thousand new vehicles daily on our existing roads plus a major new road driven through ancient woodland and unspoilt countryside. Once gone, it will be lost forever – but we CAN do something about it.

Come to this meeting and join us in protesting against this wanton destruction of our beautiful countryside. Whilst we may not persuade the council to choose the more sensible options in Allington Lane this time, a big turnout WILL make a significant difference when we demonstrate the strength of local opposition to the independent planning inspector.

7PM, 20 JULY 2017 – SAVE THIS DATE AND ASK OTHERS TO DO SO TOO!

THIS FLYER WILL COME THROUGH YOUR DOOR SOON! PLEASE PRINT OUT AND PASS ON IF YOU CAN!

ADD UPDATE, 18 June 2017: As our group fights to save Bishopstoke from the eco-vandalism of Eastleigh Borough Council’s (EBC) emerging Local Plan, we try resolutely to stay out of party politics. Nonetheless, we have little choice but to correct allegations made in this Liberal Democrat leaflet of Geoff Harris, entitled ‘Bishopstoke Parish Council Election Special – 29 June 2017’.

Our aim is to fight proposals put forward by developers to build over 6,000 homes just outside Bishopstoke and Fair Oak (often called options B and C), which are apparently supported by the Lib Dem leadership of EBC. We believe that these options would have catastrophic environmental consequences for the borough, for local ancient woodlands, for the River Itchen, for the South Downs National Park and for the character of Bishopstoke.

We have widespread support from, among others, conservation and wildlife organisations, the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE), parish councils, angling clubs, the Woodland Trust and from the TV naturalist Chris Packham, who has accused EBC of “shabby politics”.

We are also supported across the political divide by Conservatives, Labour, UKIP, Green Party, Winchester Lib Dem Councillors and all three local MPs. In other words, the Eastleigh Lib Dems are totally isolated on this issue. For the record, and in response to the Lib Dem leaflet:

• ADD is not standing in this parish council by-election. We are pleased to have the open support of Independent candidate Tabatha McCormick, but she is not part of the ADD committee nor financed by us.
• It is for EBC, not ADD, to decide where to build houses; we are simply commenting upon options they have proposed. To contribute positively to the debate we have commented on which sites, in our view, would be less environmentally damaging. These are, however, EBC’s options not ours. In our view, EBC should do more to assess and promote other potential sites and not be led by developers.
• The only significant infrastructure ‘improvement’ identified by Mr Harris is a road link to the M3. There is no evidence that this road will alleviate traffic congestion and ADD has severe concerns over the cost, routing and ecological implications of such a road. Despite promises, EBC has still not released the further traffic/ecological studies that they themselves have identified as necessary.

We call upon EBC to show us the evidence that demonstrates that the proposed road will solve traffic congestion and will not result in massive ecological damage. We hope that this post corrects the inaccurate impressions created by Mr Harris’s leaflet so that the people of Bishopstoke are better informed when they choose how to vote in the Bishopstoke (East) by-election on 29 June.

ADD UPDATE, 15 June 2017: Ahead of the by-election on 29 June for a Parish Councillor in Bishopstoke (East), ADD has invited each of the candidates to supply us with no more than 350 words on how they feel about options B and C of Eastleigh Borough Council’s emerging Local Plan (namely its plans for a Monster sprawl of 6,000+ houses and a major new road north of Allbrook, Bishopstoke and Fair Oak) and any relevant action they intend to take, if elected.

On 15 June, Tabatha McCormick, Independent candidate, sent us the following email:

“It can often be said that you often don’t fully appreciate something until you have lost it. And the potential loss of huge swathes of our green space has certainly made me re-appreciate our local countryside. I moved to Eastleigh for work after finishing university and decided to make Bishopstoke my home for many reasons. One of the most important was the close proximity of the Itchen Navigation, Stoke Park Woods and Upper Barn Copse and the countryside that knit these areas together. Within a short walk from Bishopstoke I can feel that I am away from everywhere. My family and I have spent many happy times walking around this countryside, appreciating the changing seasons and wildlife that the local area has to offer.

“The plans for options B & C do not only affect us, they affect wildlife. Whilst we can say ‘it is OK we are not building on the woods themselves’ it does matter. These green corridors are the highways for animals to get from one area to another, they are also part of the heritage that we can hand on to future generations.

“As a parent I understand the need for housing for future generations. I worry about where my children will live and how they will be able to afford to buy a house in the local area (should they wish in the future). As a user of the local roads, as a motorist, cyclist and pedestrian I understand the frustration that we all feel when we try to travel by road to Eastleigh. I am aware that something needs to be done, that there is a need for better transport links and cycle paths. I don’t believe that options B & C provide an adequate solution to the need for new housing or new roads.

“Should I be elected to Bishopstoke Parish Council I would support the ADD campaign, to attempt to have a stronger voice for Bishopstoke to help to campaign to protect our area’s green spaces.”

Tabatha McCormick, Independent