Blog

ADD UPDATE, 6 January 2017: Eastleigh Borough Council (EBC) has today responded to an article in the Daily Echo on 16 December 2016, which erroneously suggested that the council had chosen to pursue options B and C at its full council meeting on 15 December 2016. The article, under the headline “Eastleigh council agree local plan to build 6,000 homes on land north of Bishopstoke and Fair Oak”, caused considerable concern, particularly to the several hundred people who had attended the meeting. In a statement to the Daily Echo, EBC confirmed that “no formal decision was taken by the council… and any future proposals will be subject to a full consultation process.”  We thank EBC for this clarification.  Click ‘more’ below to view EBC’s statement.

ADD UPDATE, 4 January 2016: Having enjoyed a relaxing Christmas break, ADD researchers are back at work gathering information to ensure Eastleigh Borough Council (EBC) adheres to due process with regards to its Local Plan deliberations; is unable to ride roughshod over evidence it has previously supplied (and paid for through taxpayers’ money); and plays straight in its communications with the public.

As part of this work, we have uncovered this document, supported by EBC in 2011 at the time of its last Local Plan process, which gives a ‘landscape character assessment’ for Bishopstoke and Fair Oak.  It is important because, as readers know, EBC is now seriously considering that its new Local Plan should revolve around a ‘strategic development’ of 6,000+ new houses, and a major new road, on this same land (so-called options B and C).

It is striking, if not downright extraordinary, to compare a map on p.86 of the 2011 landscape character assessment, which shows land north of Bishopstoke designated as ‘Historic Parks and Gardens’ with the map on p.8 of the proposal by developers Highwood Group, which clearly shows that this land would be bulldozed if options B and C were allowed to go ahead.

How on earth could the council consider such a U-turn?  There is a suggestion, as local resident John Lauwerys said in his speech to councillors at the 15 December council meeting, that long-time Liberal Democrat leader Keith House “believes development in these [Bishopstoke/Fair Oak] areas might incur less opposition from potential Lib Dem voters than building elsewhere in Eastleigh.”  Voicing the hope of all residents with a faith in democracy, Lauwerys went on: “It would be outrageous if the future character of the whole borough were to be determined by party political interests and I am sure Lib Dem councillors will not allow this to be seen to be the case.”

Whatever the motivations of councillors, the majority still appear to believe they can convince locals (and no doubt themselves) about the merits of the plans for development in Bishopstoke and Fair Oak over the far more sensible ones around Allington Lane.

Take the ancient woodlands north of Bishopstoke, clearly marked in its 2011 landscape character assessment, as an example.  EBC claims that because the woodlands themselves would not be directly bulldozed by the proposed developments, life within them would be totally unaffected.

But, as the council itself admitted in its 2011 report (p.90, clause 4.117), a key issue for the area is “the number of ecological sites which need to be interconnected”.  As such, even if the woodlands are “saved”, the fact that development has been built around them will – as night follows day – seriously degrade them (eventually turning them into wildlife sterile areas that could later be developed).  Of course, the council knows this but can’t admit it.

As we wrote after EBC’s carefully worded news release following the 15 December council meeting (which gave the impression the Allington Lane proposals had been dropped when in fact all options remain on the table), growing awareness of this issue, both locally and nationally, means the spotlight will be shining brightly on Eastleigh’s councillors in 2017.  As the evidence becomes available over the next few months, local residents must have confidence that councillors will react to it fairly and without political prejudice.  The alternative would be truly dire for the borough and for its citizens’ belief in democracy – the bedrock of stability in our country.

Hampshire Chronicle, 22 December 2016: CONTROVERSIAL plans for thousands of homes and a main road in countryside south of Winchester would be “catastrophic”, according to one city councillor.  A swathe of land south of villages including Colden Common and Twyford would be developed under plans being considered by Eastleigh Borough Council. Cllr Susan Cook who represents the two villages, spoke at a heated Eastleigh council meeting in Hedge End. As the council prepares its Local Plan, it agreed to focus its research on a strategic site across the north of the borough in the Bishopstoke and Fair Oak area, known as options B and C, and close to Colden Common. Development would include 6,000 homes and a bypass running between Fair Oak and Allbrook, linking to the M3.

ADD UPDATE, 16 December 2016: A million thanks to the hundreds of local residents who travelled all the way to Hedge End last night to attend Eastleigh Borough Council’s meeting on its emerging Local Plan.  Thanks to the excellent representations from the public, councillors got a very clear message as to the level of opposition to the proposed development in Allbrook, Bishopstoke and Fair Oak, so-called options B and C, and the growing mountain of evidence against them.  Of the external contributions to the meeting, only one person spoke in favour of options B and C – and that was an agent to the developers in that area!

Our long-held objective for the meeting was to ensure that councillors keep an open mind as to the two strategic options for the plan and act only on the basis of proper evidence.  Thanks to your support, we achieved this outcome.  Despite this morning’s comments from Council Leader Keith House implying all the work will now concentrate on options B and C and that the Allington Lane proposals are undeliverable, a clear majority of councillors recognised they do not yet have the evidence to choose between the options.  We are grateful to councillors for listening to our reasoned arguments and agreeing to keep all options on the table while further professional studies are carried out.

The way our community has come together with such energy to fight the unworkable plans in the north of the borough is truly terrific. The ADD team is now going to take a break for Christmas but we will be back, stronger than ever, in the new year.  If any of you would like to contribute to our efforts, either financially or intellectually, please let us know.  To the growing number of you who have already done so, thank you.  If you can do more, please do! If you have yet to contribute, please do think about what you can do.

All the evidence suggests we will – together – reach the right outcome but it’s clear we will need to work with the council to do so. Ultimately our objectives are the same: to give Eastleigh a much-needed Local Plan that works for the whole of the borough.

With all best wishes for a very Merry Christmas and a happy and healthy new year,

ADD

Mims Davies MP, 16 December 2016: Mims Davies MP last night joined many activists, residents, parish councillors and community groups who attended Eastleigh Borough Council’s meeting on its Local Plan in Hedge End. At the meeting, the council agreed to continue pursuing all options but focus its feasibility studies on large strategic sites across the north of the borough in Bishopstoke and Fair Oak (so-called options B and C). Davies said: “I am as disappointed as many of the members of the public with the current outcome where options B and C will be the focus going forward for further investigation. I believe [council leader] Keith House and his group have got this wrong and they know it.”

David Ashe, chairman of Upham Parish Council, presentation to Eastleigh Borough Council, 15 December 2016:  I’m speaking to you tonight as chairman of Upham Parish Council on behalf of Upham and with the consent of John Chapman, my opposite number at Owslebury, on behalf of his parish also.

However I’m not just here to tell you about your lovely local national park and how you mustn’t build anywhere near it.

We are realists and know that you have some hard choices to make.  Equally we know you will do your neighbours the natural courtesy of making sure that the decision you take is the best possible one given all the evidence available, and we welcome [Leader of Eastleigh Borough Council] Keith House’s words on this.

Hard choices indeed between a development that is strung out along a road [options B and C in Allbrook, Bishopstoke and Fair Oak] or one that is centred around a railway station [options D and E in Allington Lane].  Which is better for the planet?

Or a development which is on the fringe of the borough remote from the town centre [B/C], or one that links easily into the town centre and supports and re-inforces it [D/E].  Which is better for Eastleigh?

I have to say we are mystified by the report before you today.  On the one hand it provides (with some omissions) a preliminary and fair SWOT analysis of each of the schemes, and stresses the amount of work there is to do to develop this.  Options B and C are identified as being the highest risk option, with Allington Lane (which you identified 15 years ago this month as being the only acceptable location for a major greenfield development in the borough) scoring only one threat as against four for B and C.  Yet it then leaps to the conclusion in the recommendations before you that you should forge ahead with B/C and dismiss D/E.  There seems no logic to this.

Obviously B and C dangles the carrot of a possible answer to congestion problems in the shape of the North Bishopstoke relief road.  However for a road-based proposal there is, astonishingly to us, no traffic study work that backs this up.  What little evidence there is, Hampshire’s preliminary strategic traffic study done a year ago, is very noncommittal.  There is no work yet done on the impact of these houses on the narrow lanes to the north and east of them.

When Keith House met with us two months ago [at a Winchester Southern Parishes meeting in Bishop’s Waltham on 24 October 2016], he was very clear that this road would need to be built by Eastleigh ahead of any development.  He is absolutely right about that, as to do otherwise would be to condemn Fair Oak and Bishopstoke to 20 years of traffic misery as the fields between Upham and Fair Oak fill with houses.  Even if the road does provides relief, a 95% complete relief road is no relief road at all.  Yet even assuming it were technically possible this is a huge financial decision. The £31 million budget from the county doesn’t cover a long length of road, any works to the infamous Allbrook railway bridge nor anything to cover Network Rail’s potential request for a ransom payment.  Have you debated how this cost, which could comfortably exceed £50 million, is to be paid for?  Would the money be better spent elsewhere?

So, with so many risks hanging over B and C and so much work to do to find out more about them, we would urge you to consider again your paper’s recommendation 3 and put both options on a level playing field.

So whats the rush?  Why leap into a decision before you have to and before you know the full facts?  Keith House has said this evening that you need to take your time.

We would urge you to do your due diligence, as you said you would in July [at the last full council meeting on 21 July 2016], before you narrow down your options.  To do otherwise risks having your plan thrown out a second time as being unsound.  This would just create a developers’ free for all, bad for you as councillors, bad for us as your neighbours and a disaster for the whole borough.

John Lauwerys, presentation to Eastleigh Borough Council, 15 December 2016: Over the coming months leading to the draft local plan in May 2017, you have collectively the awesome responsibility of determining forever the future physical character of the borough.  The paper on the two strategic growth options show either could make the biggest contribution to delivering the additional housing required by 2036.  The SWOT analysis shows there are many more weaknesses and threats in the case of options B and C (in Allbrook, Bishopstoke and Fair Oak) compared to D and E (around Allington Lane).  The report makes clear further investigation is required before any decision can be reached on which to include in the draft Local Plan which must be evidence based if the council is to avoid its plan again being rejected by the Planning Inspector.

However, you are asked to agree the extraordinary recommendation this evening that even before supporting evidence is available, a clear preference should be expressed by the council for options B and C.  Why is the highly experienced leader of the council and his cabinet making this surprising proposal?  Keith House is a gifted salaried full time politician who has led Eastleigh Borough Council with distinction for 22 years so would not propose this course of action without good reason.

He says it is primarily because options B and C would enable the building of the North Bishopstoke Link Road which would relieve traffic congestion in Eastleigh.  He also says that the borough will borrow the necessary funds to deliver this road ‘upfront’, recovering the cost from the developers of the 6,200 houses. He does not admit to the financial risk this involves.  He also dismisses options D and E because he says that without the delivery of the Chickenhall Lane Link Road, the traffic from development in Allington Lane could not be managed.  However, none of the expert traffic studies completed to date support any of these contentions.

Another suggestion has been made as to why the leader favours options B and C, the most beautiful and environmentally sensitive areas remaining in the borough which could together deliver all of the balance of houses needed by 2036.  Namely that development in these areas might incur less opposition from potential Lib Dem voters than building elsewhere in Eastleigh. It would be outrageous if the future character of the whole borough were to be determined by party political interests and I am sure Lib Dem councillors will not allow this to be seen to be the case.

Surely the borough which regards environmental concerns as a priority would not want to choose the strategic option which will generate 30,000 extra traffic movements per day? Rather should it not press for a new station to be built at Allington Lane and support in every way the proposed Solent Metro Link which could serve development in the options D and E areas? That really is about giving meaning to the council’s slogan ‘Tackling Climate Change’.

The choice of which strategic option to include in the new Local Plan must be on the basis of sustainability.  Only the completion of the further studies identified in your report will provide the vital evidence you need.  Tonight is not the time to make an ill-judged premature decision.

Matthew Waterman, presentation to Eastleigh Borough Council, 15 December 2016: Approximately 85% of existing journeys in the vicinity of options B and C are made by car.  The addition of 6,000+ extra homes in these areas, which are rural, not urban, would introduce approximately 30,000 extra traffic movements to the already heavily congested local roads, per day.

It has however been suggested that these options would be supported by a ‘strategic relief road’.  It is very concerning to local residents that additional traffic would be encouraged to pass under the small railway bridge at Allbrook, which already suffers from significant flooding.  Inviting additional vehicles to Mortimers Lane would be similarly detrimental in that it can often take longer than 10 minutes to join Winchester Road, even when the M3 isn’t busy, causing motorists to divert through the small village of Durley.

The proximity to the M27, which is likely to be used by a significant proportion of any future residents on a daily basis, is also a key issue.  Options B and C are the furthest from this strategic road link than anywhere else in the borough, and to reach it, residents would be forced to drive several miles across the borough on already congested roads.  The same can be said for those residents who would seek to use the train to travel to their place of work.  Due to the distances involved, and lack of an effective and sufficiently practical bus service, they would be forced to use their vehicles to make their way to the station.

If further development must take place on the proposed scale, and I’m not saying it should, especially as we are currently seeing rampant residential construction throughout the borough, it would be entirely judicious to pursue those options that are supported by the construction of a much-needed additional train station, especially one that is sited appropriately close to the new development. This would not only allow the use of trains without needing to drive to the station for new residents, thereby encouraging walking and cycling, but would also allow existing road users to switch to rail.  This would provide a significant mitigation to development in the borough, which incidentally, the public does not consider to be part of Southampton.  The pursuit of such fundamental principles, and those development options that permit them to be realised, should be a priority for any borough council, but particularly one that openly advertises its efforts to tackle climate change.

This is just the tip of the iceberg, but I am hopeful you will now agree that options B and C are clearly the worst and you will reject them on the basis of traffic alone. Should you however disregard this considered advice, please remember that the public will hold you, you, and all of Eastleigh’s borough councillors directly accountable for the resultant chaos on the borough’s roads.

Thank you.

Daily Echo, 15 December 2016: A HAMPSHIRE MP has urged civic chiefs to listen to residents ahead of its meeting on the controversial delayed Local Plan.  Eastleigh MP Mims Davies has written a letter to the borough council calling on them to reject options B and C of the emerging Local Plan.  Those options would see more than 6,000 houses and a new major road being built in the area north of Bishopstoke and Fair Oak, also impacting on villages south of Winchester.  A council meeting in Hedge End tonight is expected to draw hundreds of residents against these proposals and in favour of alternative plans, options D and E, on land between Allington Lane and Burnetts Lane, north of the M27.

ADD UPDATE, 15 December 2016: Last night, ahead of Eastleigh Borough Council (EBC)’s full council meeting tonight, EBC called a meeting of all parish councillors to discuss the council’s emerging Local Plan.  To keep readers abreast of our activities, we thought you would be interested to see the letter we wrote to all parish councillors ahead of last night’s meeting.  As you’ll see, this letter includes links to the proposals by developers Highwood and Drew Smith for options B and C (Allbrook-Bishopstoke-Fair Oak), and by Bovis and Hallam Land for option E (Allington Lane South).  Interesting reading!  We look forward to seeing as many of you as possible at tonight’s meeting at 7.00pm at Kings Community Church, Upper Northam Road, Hedge End, Southampton, SO30 4BZ.

STARTS

Dear Parish Councillors,

At your meeting on Wednesday evening [14 December 2016] Eastleigh Borough Council will be briefing you on one of the most important decisions Councillors will ever take about Eastleigh’s future.

The Progress Report for this meeting shows that Eastleigh’s plan process is being led by the developers rather than your planning department, with the developers’ proposals for B and C (Allbrook-Bishopstoke-Fair Oak – click here for developers’ proposal) being compared to those for option E (Allington Lane South – click here for developers’ proposal).

The analysis [in the Progress Report] shows that options B and C are much the riskiest proposal, with no fewer than 4 significant threats to delivery compared to E’s one.  It notes that the new North Bishopstoke Relief Road associated with B and C ‘could reduce congestion’ although further work is required to prove this.  Hampshire Highways’ preliminary comments on this road are wary of suggesting that it could provide any more ‘relief’ than to reduce the dire effects of putting a new settlement the size of Petersfield on the north and east of Fair Oak/Bishopstoke.  Hampshire County Council (HCC)’s other preliminary suggestions for reducing congestion are dismissed.

Even assuming that it works, the relief road will of course be 100% useless as a relief road until it is 100% complete.  This is why [EBC leader] Keith House has told neighbouring Councils that Eastleigh will shell out to build the whole road before any money comes back from the development.  But in addition to the huge cost of this (the £30M quoted by Hampshire only covers two thirds of the length, and leaves out any works to the Allbrook bridge), buried on page 17 of the [separate EBC] infrastructure report, is the threat that Network Rail may, as part of allowing works to the bridge, require a share of the development profits for the whole development.  In Network Rail’s own words this could result in a significant value being due to Network Rail which could significantly impact on the viability of the development option.

• So why is the conclusion to throw the Council’s efforts into supporting the riskiest proposal?
• Are these two developer proposals being assessed on a level playing field?
• What’s the rush, when enough evidence is not yet there?
• Are councillors being led by the nose towards an option that is good for the developer but bad for Eastleigh?
• What discussions have Eastleigh been having with Network Rail about the Allbrook bridge?
• What discussions have EBC had with Winchester about the work required to build a road within the Itchen river Special Area of Conservation, which in the words of this report will ‘only be allowed in the most exceptional of circumstances’?
• What are the funding arrangements for the road if EBC have it built before the infrastructure as Keith House has undertaken? How can they ensure the borough is not saddled with an unrepayable debt?
• Why, when Eastleigh are so keen to be seen ‘tackling climate change’ are they choosing to support a car dominated development strung along a road, in preference to a sustainable community, centred (if option D land is included) around a station.

These questions matter to Eastleigh so much because, if Councillors rush into a decision before the full facts are available, the plan will be thrown out by the inspector as being unsound. This will leave everyone, both in Eastleigh and around it, to suffer the consequences of a developers’ free-for all.

In case you are interested we attach a report by independent planning consultants on the progress of the plan so far. The exec summary and appendix make a good read.

We hope you have an enjoyable and illuminating evening on Wednesday.

Kind regards

Action against Destructive Development