Blog

ADD UPDATE, 3 March 2017: ADD has received an open letter from Mims Davies, MP for Eastleigh, in which she criticises Eastleigh Borough Council (EBC) for the delay in its emerging Local Plan and its preference for options B and C, namely the development of 6,000+ new houses and a new road at Allbrook, Bishopstoke and Fair Oak.

In her letter, Mims Davies also notes with dismay the council’s claim that the principal alternatives to B and C are not feasible without the much-wanted Chickenhall Lane Link Road.  She believes this to be incorrect, and two very separate issues. That said, like the 1,100+ people who have signed this petition in support of the Chickenhall Lane Link Road, she says she is actively lobbying for the road, which she believes EBC has been less than active in promoting.

As a non-political group, we have invited Keith House, Leader of Eastleigh Borough Council, to give us his views on the Chickenhall Lane Link Road project and will post his response on this – and indeed anything to do with the Local Plan – as and when we receive anything.  

Mims Davies writes:

“Planning in our area dominates my mailbox. I regularly receive emails, letters, phone calls and social media messages about the threats to our green spaces posed by Eastleigh Borough Council’s delayed Local Plan. I have long been campaigning against options B and C alongside many residents and of course Action Against Destructive Development. The emerging Local Plan is more than just about housing: it is about infrastructure, jobs and commercial space and the potential new plan tackles other possible strategic housing sites. Much has been said about these strategic options but sadly with an emotive issue such as this there have been inaccuracies emerging.

“To be clear from the outset, I am not a Councillor nor do I make or wish to make the decisions about strategic sites, housing number assessments or the evidence base used to construct a Local Plan. My job as an MP is to stand up for residents and give them a voice in Parliament and in the constituency. The Council’s role is to work with residents and stakeholders in a clear and transparent process looking at all the options for housing, jobs and opportunities for the best outcome for our communities. Ordinarily MPs are rightly happy to leave planning matters to their Local Council. The residents writing to me believe the situation is so dire that I have had to step in and explain the process to them.

“Put simply, options B and C represent an appalling loss of green space and amount to environmental vandalism. Stoke Park Woods is a beautiful area and once we destroy Ancient Woodland it never returns. Moreover, the old planning adage that once you tarmac over a field it never comes back is true. Before being elected to Parliament I was a Councillor for six years and I know that there are times when a scrappy old field at the end of the settlement can be a reluctant but appropriate site for well-designed housing. The situation we find ourselves however is the other extreme: our natural heritage under threat.

“The situation has arisen because of the way that this Local Plan is being constructed. Residents are up in arms about the potential options and yet very little listening seems to be being done by the Council. It has taken an age for Eastleigh Borough Council to get a submission ready plan for Inspection. While 74% of England now has an adopted Local Plan we are still waiting here in Eastleigh. In the meantime piecemeal applications such as that at Pembers Hill Farm seek to pre-empt that process – one of the reasons why I asked the Secretary of State to call in the application.

“Clearly, one of our key issues is the lack of sufficient infrastructure. I have noticed the rather lazy response by Eastleigh Borough Council to my call for alternatives to B and C. They claim that others are not feasible without the Chickenhall Lane Link Road. This is not correct and is an attempt to dismiss residents’ genuine concerns about green space. They are two separate issues.

“I am continuing to lobby Government and the Local Enterprise Partnership and all stakeholders for their key support on bringing forward the much needed Chickenhall Lane Link Road. I am hosting a summit to discuss this with key local stakeholders at Southampton Airport this month. This is necessary as I have had feedback from Government that the bid will be stronger and will continue to move positively forward with all the stakeholders if Eastleigh Borough Council show a greater level of support for it than they have to date, including in the work they do around their Local Plan.”

ADD UPDATE, 2 March 2017:  ADD has long argued that Eastleigh Borough Council’s options D and E (around Allington Lane) for its Local Plan provide the best solution to Eastleigh’s housing needs.  Anyone reading the report prepared by planning consultant, West Waddy, last December will see just how compelling the arguments are – whether viewed from a planning, financial, human, practical or environmental perspective.

Surprisingly, given the strong desire in certain quarters to push through options B and C (at Allbrook, Fair Oak and Bishopstoke) as quickly as possible, EBC’s own infrastructure report largely agrees with our analysis, describing B and C as the riskier way forward.

So EBC was absolutely right to vote unanimously at its meeting on 15 December to keep all options open until councillors have more information to consider.  Was this, we wonder, just a tactical retreat – or is the leadership going into this process with a genuinely open mind?

Whichever options eventually go ahead will require considerable investment in supporting infrastructure.  And EBC is certainly going to great lengths to find ways of financing the so-called and misnamed North Bishopstoke bypass, which is deemed necessary for B and C.  We understand the council is negotiating a £50 million loan to pay for the road up-front – a bold gesture for an authority as mired in debt as EBC. (This sum almost certainly underestimates the road’s cost, but that is another story.)

So, in a spirit of impartiality, we hope and assume the council is devoting similar energies to finding ways to fund the infrastructure needed to support options D and E, which all the independent experts who have studied the plans agree is the best way forward.  The relatively minor modifications to existing roads needed to make D and E viable would certainly cost much less than £50 million.  Indeed, there would be enough money left over to fund, in addition, a new railway station at Allington. Now, that really would alleviate traffic congestion in Eastleigh and make it a greener place to live.

We wait with bated breath to learn what EBC is doing to research the infrastructure needs for D and E and the best ways to meet them.

We have invited EBC to comment on this article and will post any response if and when we receive one. 

Hampshire Chronicle, 15 February 2017: A WINCHESTER parish councillor has expressed concerns over plans to build more than 6,000 homes in Eastleigh. Chairman of Owslebury Parish Council John Chapman appealed for more information on options B and C of Eastleigh Borough Council (EBC)’s Local Plan, which would see development north of Bishopstoke and Fair Oak, as the parish was already experiencing a disruptive volume of commuter traffic. In an open letter, he asked how EBC would reconcile its obligations under its transport plan to reduce residents’ need to travel by car with its preference for development proposals which offered poor access to the railway. Councillor Chapman’s letter comes as an application to build 250 homes in Fair Oak, in option C, was approved by EBC last month.

ADD UPDATE, 14 February 2017: In the wake of last week’s government housing white paper, in which Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Sajid Javid gave greater protection to ancient woodland, we have decided to publish a four-minute version of Rob Byrne’s video (first shown last summer) exposing the scale of destruction of Eastleigh Borough Council (EBC)’s options B and C for its proposed Local Plan (on land north of Allbrook, Bishopstoke and Fair Oak).  As more and more people now know, these options, which include the development of 6,000+ new houses and a major new road on beautiful countryside that includes no less than SIX sites of ancient woodland are – incredibly – the council’s favoured plan, so take a look at what could be lost before it is too late.

To view developer Highwood Group’s plan, and its path of destruction, click here.

As Mims Davies, MP for Eastleigh, said in the House of Commons after the publication of the white paper: “I welcome the protection of ancient woodland because, at the moment, the only answer in Eastleigh is ‘out of space’ development dropped on ancient woodland.”

In response Sajid Javid said: “I agree with my hon. friend… she is right about ancient woodland. She has spoken to me about that on a number of occasions, and in the white paper I did not see why ancient woodland should have less protection than the green belt, as is the case currently. That is why we are upgrading the protection of ancient woodland to the same level as green belt.”

As EBC targets a springtime publication of its preferred outcome, let’s hope it realises soon, for everyone’s sake, that options B and C are both undeliverable and unsustainable.

To view the new version of Rob Byrne’s video, click here.

To view the full version, published last summer, click here.

Jennifer Gosling, 8 February 2017: Recently posted on Facebook, this short video by local resident Jennifer Gosling gives a glimpse of the wonderful sight and sound of the thousands of rooks that congregate daily during winter months each year in the fields and woods of Bishopstoke.  At dusk, they normally display and then fly to roost in Upper Barn Copse.  If Eastleigh Borough Council chooses options B and C of its emerging Local Plan, these fields – which are not only the rooks’ meeting ground but also a valuable corridor for an enormous variety of other wildlife – will be lost forever.  Join our campaign against options B and C now!  We must do all we can to ensure future generations can also enjoy these truly magnificent aerial displays.

Hampshire Chronicle, 4 February 2017: A CAMPAIGN group has hit out at plans to build more than 200 homes in Eastleigh in advance of a Local Plan for the area, which lies close to Winchester City Council district. An application to build 250 homes in Fair Oak was approved at the local area committee meeting in Bishopstoke.  Prior to the meeting, Action against Destructive Development Eastleigh (ADD) outlined their opposition to developer Drew Smith’s application to build on Mortimers Lane. In an open letter, the group stated the application at Pembers Farm undermined Eastleigh Borough Council’s consultation process on its new Local Plan, which determines future development in the borough. A draft Local Plan is due to be published later this year.

ADD UPDATE, 31 January 2017: On Wednesday 25 January 2017, upwards of 100 people watched Eastleigh Borough Council (EBC)’s Local Area Committee for Bishopstoke, Fair Oak and Horton Heath approve an outline application for “up to 250 dwellings” at Pembers Hill Farm in Fair Oak.  After some well-argued speeches from objectors, local residents were shocked by the way in which what will probably be one of the most significant planning applications in Fair Oak/Bishopstoke this year was decided in about 15 minutes with no discussion at all of the issues.  Given that EBC’s stated remit of Local Area Committees is “to discuss major planning applications and to review progress on important projects”, and that “members of the public are invited to attend these meetings and to listen to the debate”, it seems regrettable that all of the discussion that mattered had clearly taken place before the meeting.

In their brief speeches, several of the councillors expressed regret that they had to approve the application, as to do otherwise would have meant “the council losing at appeal”.  As Councillor Des Scott put it: “We are handcuffed by the NPPF [the National Planning Policy Framework, which sets out the government’s planning policies for England].”  Several experts, including the independent planning consultant West Waddy, dispute this analysis.  Given that the application, whether the council liked it to or not, linked the development to the much larger plan to develop 6,000+ new houses north of Fair Oak and Bishopstoke – the so-called options B and C of the council’s Local Plan – West Waddy argues the opposite, namely that the application ran counter to the government’s planning policy advice in the NPPF.  As West Waddy wrote in a paper prepared ahead of the meeting: “To accord any weight to the strategic option of locating development on the option B and C land would fundamentally conflict with the government’s planning policy advice in the NPPF.” 

Separately, others question the councillors’ judgement on grounds of failing to represent people’s views by approving an application on assumption of passage on appeal.

Even if the councillors’ reasoning was sound, there are big question marks over whether they should have approved the application on the basis of the facts presented to them.  Drew Smith, the developer, submitted the application in 2015, so councillors had no shortage of time to iron out any problems, but it appears they didn’t do so. Indeed, to outside observers, it seems they knowingly decided to overlook key problems.

There are three particular issues where the application appears to fall short:

Firstly, the design statement for the application states that the density will be 30 dwellings per hectare, which is a typical medium density.  On 7 April 2016 Dawn Errington, the council’s planning officer, wrote to the developer suggesting that as it was agreed that only 6.4 hectares or less were developable (versus the original 12.4 hectares), the application title should be amended to “up to 190 dwellings”.  The applicant came back a few days later (in response to landscape and other concerns) with a revised plan showing only 119 buildings on the site.  Some of these are clearly ‘semis’ but as the application is for ‘housing’ it would be impossible to see how there could be more than 160 houses on the revised plan (itself a generous estimate).  As this drawing was the one shown to the meeting to support the application for “up to 250 dwellings” (which would be around 40 dwellings per hectare), how could approval be granted?  If that wasn’t bad enough, neither Dawn Errington nor any councillor made any reference to this anomaly, despite the fact it was pointed out both before and during the meeting.  To make matters even worse, the ‘up to’ was hardly ever mentioned either.

If the developer has any idea how to deliver 250 houses, it hasn’t shared this with the people of Fair Oak.  Why, therefore, wasn’t the number on the application reduced before the decision taken?

Secondly, there was no mention in the planner’s presentation of the concerns expressed by the borough’s own landscape officer, Louise O’Driscoll, who had originally described the scheme as “poorly screened” and “obtrusive”.  Indeed, she said that the amount of green space in the revised scheme was still “completely inadequate” and raised concerns about how Gore Copse and the floodwater attenuation ponds (which cannot be used as green space) will be maintained.  “There should be a reduction on our usual density requirement to allow for belts of screen planting around the margins of the site and for the large SUDS [sustainable urban drainage systems] areas, which aren’t required in existing urban contexts,” she wrote on 14 April 2016.

Thirdly, and most crucially for the councillors, is the correspondence to them from Dr David Sear, a professor in river processes at Southampton University, who – using strongly worded language – has condemned the methodology of the applicant’s flood risk engineers.  In an email to councillors on 22 January 2017, he wrote: “I was horrified to see that not only had they used an outdated and unsuitable hydrological model to design their proposal, they had also failed to include standard uplifts for rainfall which in light of recent UK floods was increased to 40% in the future, and 10% to account for urban creep (the building of drives and conservatories post development).”

Dr Sear’s opinion matters: as well as being a local resident well aware of the risk to Fair Oak’s centre from the stream arising on Pembers Hill Farm, he sits on the National Flood and Erosion Risk Management technical advisory group, where he provides input into the development of policy and strategy for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Environment Agency.  He has over 27 years’ experience of working on flooding, flows, sediment transport and ecosystem impacts of a range of land use and channel management, during which time he has worked on river management issues across the UK and overseas, most recently dealing with recent flooding in Cumbria.

The clear suggestion from his letter is that more space needs to be given over to attenuation.  On a matter as critical as flood risk, the councillors are being very ‘brave’ to leave this to be determined by a planning condition.  As Louise O’Driscoll, the borough’s landscape officer, wrote on 14 April 2016: “It is now established in case law that projects must be defined in sufficient detail, even at outline stage, to allow its effects on the environment to be identified and assessed.”

Why have councillors not insisted on this?

In summary, councillors have approved an application for 250 dwellings, supported by a drawing for at best 160 dwellings on which its own landscape officer wants more open space (i.e., fewer dwellings) and one of the country’s foremost experts says that, for the risks to Fair Oak to be mitigated, more attenuation is required (which also means fewer dwellings).  Given all this, perhaps half the number of dwellings approved can actually be built on the site at the density the landscape officer wants and with adequate flood protection.

Last week’s approval was therefore based not only on a very misleading presentation but also on one that had received no scrutiny at all.  Why does this matter?  Surely all this will be dealt with at the detailed approval stage?

It matters because councillors passed an unachievable target number of dwellings.  Executives at Drew Smith would be only human if they set their designers the task of getting as close to that figure as they can, with a resulting very high density (highly visually intrusive) on what there is left to build on.

It also matters because of the effect that halving the number of dwellings would have on what the application has promised the community.  For example:

• The 88 promised affordable dwellings would be halved, if not rendered completely ‘non-viable’, by the cost of providing enough flood attenuation by ponds on a sloping site;
• The highways improvements promised would be reduced; and
• The funds available for improvements to Gore Copse as a local amenity, and commuted sums for its maintenance, would also be threatened.

At a time when the council’s bargaining power with developers is at its strongest, it should have tied down the details of the application far more closely.  Now the councillors – together with Fair Oak parish council and all of us who live locally (whether in Fair Oak or not) – face an uphill struggle trying to ensure we get a scheme at the low density the landscape officer says is required and at the quality the site deserves.

PEMBERS HILL FARM DECISION, 26 January 2017: It was very nearly a full house at Stoke Park Junior school yesterday evening, with around 100 people looking to see whether Eastleigh councillors from the Bishopstoke, Fair Oak and Horton Heath Local Area Committee would stand up for their communities.

Chairman Trevor Mignot started the evening by telling everyone that the decision on Drew Smith’s application for 250 houses at Pembers Hill Farm was not about options B and C (of Eastleigh’s Local Plan) and the application had to be seen as a standalone decision.  He warned speakers from the public (all of eight whom were against the application) to avoid raising the merits of B and C.

Planning Officer Dawn Errington opened the item with a long explanation as to why the scheme had to be approved as it complied with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

The eight passionate and well-argued speeches from the floor drew loud applause and cheering from the audience.

After the planning agent’s predictable speech, Councillor Des Scott started his speech by saying “this application is premature” (to huge applause from the audience).

He then went on to explain why he had to support ‘approval’ as “we are handcuffed by the NPPF” and “if we don’t grant this it will go to appeal.  We have got to defend applications we know we can win. We can’t win this one.”

This set the tone (had they been agreeing this at the pre-meeting?).  One by one councillors expressed regret but said they would vote in support.

Councillor Anne Winstanley was more unapologetic and said “we need to get back to building houses so I will be voting for the application.”

Councillor Rob Rushton said: “I understand the need for housing and we need to go by planning law. We would lose this on appeal.  I’m reluctant but I will be voting in favour.”

He then proposed the motion, which was seconded by Anne Winstanley and carried unanimously.

The lack of recognition by the councillors and planning officer of the area’s traffic problem was, amongst other things, extremely noticeable – an omission that will infuriate all those already caught in the area’s traffic chaos.  More houses will, of course, only make the problem worse but perhaps the councillors and planners feel they have no responsibility for it?

What’s clear is that Eastleigh councillors are not listening to their electorate or, if they are, they are choosing to ignore us.  In a democracy, this only ends one way!  We may have lost last night’s vote, but we fight on – more determined that ever before.

ADD UPDATE, 25 January 2017: Gin Tidridge, Independent Parish Councillor for Bishopstoke and an ADD spokesperson, today spoke with Julian Clegg on Radio Solent’s breakfast show about local residents’ objections to the hostile planning application for 250 houses at Pembers Hill Farm on Mortimers Lane in Fair Oak. As ADD supporters know, Eastleigh councillors from Bishopstoke, Fair Oak and Horton Heath will TONIGHT make a decision on this application. We encourage anyone who objects to this proposal – which signals the start of option C in Eastleigh Borough Council (EBC)’s emerging Local Plan – to attend this meeting to support friends and neighbours who will be urging councillors to reject the plan.  

THE MEETING WILL BE HELD AT 7PM TONIGHT (25 JANUARY 2017) IN MAIN HALL, STOKE PARK JUNIOR SCHOOL, UNDERWOOD ROAD, BISHOPSTOKE SO50 6GR.

Click here for a longer version of Gin’s interview, which starts with a reminder of local residents’ opinions at EBC’s full council meeting on 15 December. Gin’s interview itself is half way through.

Click here for the shorter version.