Blog

ADD UPDATE, 10 April 2017: Ahead of the Hampshire County Council (HCC) elections on 4 May, ADD has invited each candidate for each ward that will be impacted by options B and C of Eastleigh Borough Council’s Local Plan (namely its plans for 6,000+ houses and a major new road north of Bishopstoke and Fair Oak) to submit an article of no more than 100 words that describes their position with regards to this proposed major development area.

On 9 April, Ray Bellinger, Labour candidate for Bishopstoke and Fair Oak, sent us the following email:

“The Labour Party remains opposed to the proposed major development of 6000 houses around Bishopstoke and Fair Oak (Options B and C) for the following reasons.

• Environmental and infrastructure impact.
• Traffic congestion, pollution and parking. (New planned road will make little difference).
• Impact on countryside environments.
• Burden on local health and education services, including negative impact on our health from extra pollution.
• Extra strain and costs put on road maintenance.
• Over burdening of household waste centres.

“Labour believes that any housing plan should be based on a sensible and sustainable long term impact plan.”

Ray Bellinger
Labour candidate for Bishopstoke and Fair Oak

ADD UPDATE, 7 April 2017: In four weeks’ time, on 4 May, there are local elections for every ward in Hampshire County Council. Although Eastleigh’s emerging Local Plan is the work of Eastleigh Borough Council, we are certain that many local residents would like to learn more about the views of the County Council candidates.

The Action Against Destructive Development (ADD) campaign is not endorsing any candidate and we plan to provide a method by which residents can read and compare statements – a kind of virtual hustings.

We have invited each candidate for each ward that will be impacted if options B and C go ahead, to submit a short article, no more than 100 words, that describes their position with regards to the proposed major development area north of Bishopstoke and Fair Oak. (The aerial picture above shows the countryside in part of option B.)

We will be publishing each one, unedited, as a separate article on our website, Facebook page and Twitter feed – and we will email links to the articles. We are happy to include a photograph that the candidate supplies in the article and contact details.

The ADD campaign has received support from local politicians who represent many political parties as well as from independent representatives. By providing this virtual hustings, we aim to enable the electorate to decide which candidate will best represent their views on this critical local issue.

If candidates would like to accept this invitation, please email ADD at [email protected].

Hampshire Chronicle, 5 April 2017: A BBC wildlife expert has branded plans for housing near Winchester as a “piece of eco-vandalism”. Naturalist and TV presenter Chris Packham has criticised Eastleigh Council’s plans for 6,000 homes and a new road in Fair Oak and Bishopstoke (namely options B and C of its Local Plan) as “eco-vandalism”. He has also given his backing to ADD, the pressure group set up to fight these proposals. In 2003 Packham wrote the foreword to a document entitled ‘Wild about Eastleigh’, which promoted the council’s biodiversity plans. Some of the sites featured in that document are now included in option B of the Local Plan. “It is desperately important that people get behind the campaign to prevent this piece of eco-vandalism,” Packham said.

Letter from David Betts to the Daily Echo, 29 March 2017: IT WAS good to see Chris Packham’s views on option B/C of the Eastleigh Local Plan in your paper. I totally agree that to drive a road through the north Bishopstoke area will be nothing short of ecological vandalism in respect of the damage that will ensue to the areas of precious ancient woodland. There has been much comment from Eastleigh Borough Council (EBC) regarding the fact that the new road will not actually pass though the woodland, but this is disingenuous to say the least! Click ‘more’ to read David Betts’s other reasons why EBC would be wrong to choose options B and C for its forthcoming Local Plan.

Daily Telegraph, 27 March 2017: Chris Packham, the television naturalist, is backing a campaign to save the ancient woodland that inspired his passion for nature.  Stoke Park Woods, in Eastleigh, Hampshire, are threatened by plans to build more than 6,000 homes on greenfield land and have the houses served by a bypass carved out between two protected woods.

The plans also threaten the River Itchen, designated as a Special Area of Conservation.  Packham said, “Stoke Park Woods are where I learnt about wildlife as a kid, where I discovered my first kestrel nest.”

Hampshire Chronicle, 21 March 2017: THE Angling Trust has written to Eastleigh Borough Council to protest against its plans for 6,000+ new houses and major new road north of Bishopstoke and Fair Oak (options B and C of its Local Plan), saying that the proposals endanger the health of the River Itchen.  The letter states: “The trust, as the national representative body for all forms of recreational fishing, is concerned that plans to build thousands of homes on or near the River Itchen’s Special Area of Conservation [SAC] would cause irreparable damage to one of the world’s most iconic chalkstreams… It is an offence under EU law to damage an SAC and were this to happen the UK could be found wanting by the Court of Justice.”

CPRE, March 2017: In a thought-provoking new report, the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) reveals that road-building is failing to provide the congestion relief and economic boost promised, while devastating the environment. It directly challenges government claims that ‘the economic gains from road investment are beyond doubt’; that road-building will lead to ‘mile a minute’ journeys; and that the impact on the environment will be limited ‘as far as possible’. The report shows how road building over the past two decades has repeatedly failed to live up to similar aims. As Eastleigh Borough Council considers its Local Plan options, will it listen to this compelling evidence? Click ‘more’ for the report and a short video summarising its conclusions.

ADD UPDATE, 10 March 2017: At Eastleigh Borough Council (EBC)’s full council meeting on 15 December last year, Keith House, EBC’s leader, told the 300+ local residents present: “[I want to pick up on] one comment, which is the suggestion that has been made by some that this council would destroy ancient woodland [woodland that has been in existence since at least 1600] at Stoke Park Woods or Crowdhill Copse – absolutely not. This council, I am confident, will not see the disruption of any ancient woodland [even] if we were to progress ultimately with any development at Bishopstoke/Fair Oak [so-called options B and C of the council’s emerging Local Plan]. So these things matter… when developers come to us saying you’ve got to have houses between two sets of woodlands, we will quite rightly turn round and say: “No, you can’t do that. That doesn’t work in terms of the environment and the protection of… the community.”

Several other councillors, including Councillors Vickieye Parkinson-McLachlan, Trevor Mignot, Margaret Atkinson and Derek Pretty – not to mention Martin Hawthorn, the agent for the developer Highwood – also pledged to protect the area’s ancient woodland. Councillor Parkinson-McLachlan told those present that “it is incumbent upon us to preserve those woodlands intact with the whole variety of wildlife that we currently see and which makes us so special”, while Councillor Atkinson said that failing to do so would be a “travesty”. Summing up, Keith House also said: “We need to be very clear: there are no proposals from anyone to destroy ancient woodland, and I hope that everyone in the room, everyone understands that and takes it on board.”

In the last couple of weeks however, the Woodland Trust has reiterated its deep concerns relating options B and C of EBC’s Local Plan, namely the proposed development of 6,000+ new houses and a major new road at Allbrook, Bishopstoke and Fair Oak. If EBC chooses these proposals, currently its favoured options, the Woodland Trust believes it will be “hugely damaging” to two of its ancient woodlands, Upper Barn Copse and Crowdhill Copse, between which its proposed new road would be built – see our annotated version of the developer’s map above. 

Moreover, as the map shows, the developers are saying to the council that they should “have houses between two sets of woodlands” (not only between the Upper Barn and Crowdhill copses but also between Upper Barn Copse and Stoke Park Wood, another ancient woodland owned by the Forestry Commission), so, if Keith House is true to his word, presumably he will now “turn around and say: ‘No, you can’t do that’”? (Given the woods and the fields between them are designated by the council as priority biodiversity areas/links, it seems extraordinary he hasn’t said this already – but that’s a different story).

The Woodland Trust noted in a 2012 report that “only 12% of the [UK’s] landscape is native woodland, and of that only 19% is classified as ancient woodland.” It is therefore not surprising that the Trust is concerned.  Alongside hundreds of other individuals and organisations, it made strong representations against options B and C during EBC’s consultation period at the start of last year but in recent comments, Oliver Newham, the Trust’s senior campaigner for ancient woodland, has emphasised how the development will be “hugely damaging”, adding: 

“The Woodland Trust is extremely concerned about proposals that could see thousands of houses built close to areas of ancient woodland near Bishopstoke. Ancient woods are hundreds of years old and act as havens for wildlife. They are very sensitive to change, each one unique and irreplaceable. Ancient woods need properly protecting from the impacts of development. We are particularly concerned about the prospect of a road being built between two of these woods, Upper Barn and Crowdhill copses. Any road between these woods would sever important wildlife corridors and further isolate the woodlands from each other. The woods would also be exposed to increased noise, light and other damaging impacts. We would urge those that love woodlands, particularly those with local experience of these woodlands, to do (and carry on doing) everything they can to convince decision-makers that these woods need protecting, not polluting.”

In the 2012 report, entitled ‘Impacts of nearby development on ancient woodland’, the Woodland Trust referenced the significant amount of research that has been done into the various ways in which road and housing developments can degrade, and ultimately destroy, ancient woodland. These included ‘chemical effects’ (vehicle emissions), noise, vegetation clearance, light pollution and fragmentation (see pp 6-12).  The report also covered the effectiveness of ‘buffer zones’ as a means of mitigating the damage caused by development (see p.19). In this section, it detailed how  100-200 metres is necessary “to protect plant species from the effects of vehicle emissions from roads; 300 metres is necessary to “to protect woodland bird species from the effects of roads”; and 400 metres is necessary “to protect woodland bird species from the effects of urban development”.

Given that the gap between Upper Barn Copse and Crowdhill Copse is approximately 175 metres, and all of the woods will be within 400 metres of the proposed development (see map), we cannot see how EBC would be able to build its proposed new road and housing without ultimately destroying the ancient woodland. Even if the road was realigned to run down the centre of the gap between the two woods, the maximum buffer possible would only be 83 metres. Martin Hawthorn, the developers’ agent, talked about the need for “substantial buffers”, but obviously there isn’t the room. 

Given the clear promises made by Keith House and several of his fellow councillors to protect ancient woodland, surely this makes it a showstopper?

To support ADD in our campaign against options B and C, please offer your services, donate to the cause or simply join our Facebook group.

To find out more about the Woodland Trust and how to save Britain’s ancient woodlands, click here. 

Country Life, 9 March 2017: In Hampshire, the council at Eastleigh is considering a plan to put 6,300 homes on green fields, served by a bypass squeezed between two ancient protected woodlands once used by King John. Equally serious is that the bypass will intrude on and then cross the River Itchen, which enjoys the EU’s highest level of protection as a Special Area of Conservation. Conservation organisations are livid, particularly the Woodland Trust and the Campaign to Protect Rural England. The scheme is opposed by three local Tory MPs and local Green Party MEP Keith Taylor. The EU fine for damaging a Special Area of Conservation could be about €40 million (£34.2 million). The Government stated recently that ancient woodlands should be as protected as green fields.

ADD UPDATE, 5 March 2017: Further to the open letter that Mims Davies, Conservative MP for Eastleigh, sent to ADD last week, in which she spoke positively about the progress she is making to lobby for the Chickenhall Lane Link Road (CLLR), we invited Keith House, Liberal Democrat leader of Eastleigh Borough Council, to share his views with us too.

Whilst Hampshire County Council and the highways consultants supporting the developers’ proposals for option E have concluded that development in Allington Lane does not require the construction of the CLLR, this new road would open up land for housing and employment uses in a very suitable location and provide a genuine bypass for traffic going through the centre of Eastleigh. ADD is therefore an enthusiastic supporter of the CLLR.

Happily, we received the email below from Keith House yesterday, which makes clear he too supports the CLLR. Whilst we recognise, and understand, the need for political banter between Eastleigh’s two leading politicians, we are pleased to have it on record that both leaders are “committed” to the road.

Keith House writes:

“Mims Davies has no credibility on the Chickenhall Lane Link Road. She pledged during the 2015 election campaign to have funds in place for this bypass within 100 days of the election, and repeated this promise at the election count. She has failed to deliver on her promise. The Council, and local community, has to pick up the pieces on this failure. The Council’s commitment to this road has been clear for more than 20 years. We all need an end to excuses and broken promises made just to win votes.”

As a non-political group of local residents that simply wants the best for Eastleigh and the surrounding area, we urge both politicians to put aside their differences and work with other key stakeholders, all of whom we understand also support the road, to make it happen. As the 1,100+ people who have signed the petition in favour of the CLLR will testify, this will be a very popular move.

In the meantime, we thank Councillor House for his comments. We have also invited EBC to respond to our recent article on the relatively small infrastructure investment needed to support options D and E of the Local Plan. We look forward to receiving a reply on this issue too.