Blog

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

ADD UPDATE, 14 December 2016:  TOMORROW IS THE DAY.  We need EVERYONE to attend Eastleigh Borough Council’s full council meeting to register our opposition to options B and C of the council’s emerging Local Plan.  As supporters know, not only are these options the most environmentally damaging of EBC’s proposals but they also offer no prospect of linking to a sustainable public transport system.  They will therefore – without doubt – generate huge additional traffic congestion for the whole area.

PLEASE DON’T THINK OTHERS CAN GO FOR YOU.  Set everything aside: COME YOURSELF – AND BRING FRIENDS TOO.  This is a community event that is vital to our future.  WE MUST SHOW LARGE NUMBERS!  If you do nothing, it will be too late.

The meeting will be held at 7.00pm tomorrow, 15 December, at Kings Community Church, Upper Northam Road, Hedge End, Southampton, SO30 4BZ.

One question for you all: ITV Meridian News will be doing TV interviews outside the Community Church at 5.45pm tomorrow. If you are able to get there by then, to show support behind our interviewee, please email [email protected].  We would be really grateful to anyone who can make it!

BBC South Today and BBC Radio Solent will also be covering the story – so stay tuned!

PLEASE JOIN US TOMORROW AND MAKE OUR COMMUNITY PROUD!

ADD UPDATE, 14 December 2016: Eastleigh Borough Council (EBC)’s recently released infrastructure report on the viability of options for its Local Plan raises some very serious practical concerns regarding the planned new road essential to the viability of options B and C.  As readers know, this road would run from Mortimers Lane in the east towards the M3 in the west, squeezing under the Allbrook railway bridge along what is now the Highbridge Road.

Amongst the sea of concerns, the report highlights several problems with the tiny Allbrook railway bridge, which – if the new road is built – would need to accommodate an estimated 30,000 extra daily car journeys resulting from the proposals’ 6,000+ new houses. Although another EBC paper identifies (p.13) the need for “further technical investigation, including investigation of alternative strategies” for dealing with the constraints of the bridge, the problems seem so large that no amount of additional investigation will ever provide a solution.  Rather, it will simply waste both time and taxpayers’ money.

On page 16 of the infrastructure report, EBC focuses on the poor visibility of the eastern approach to the bridge, stating: “Realigning Highbridge Road on the eastern approach to the bridge… and by improving the horizontal and vertical alignment of the road, would help to improve forward visibility on the approach and exit from the bridge.”

As regards the vertical alignment, just how much can the road be lowered on the eastern side of the bridge without impacting the Itchen Navigation?  The water level in the Itchen Navigation on the south side of the road, and under the road bridge itself, appears to be roughly the same height as the road surface level under the railway bridge.  The Itchen Navigation road bridge and the railway bridge are very close to each other so – if lowering the road is possible – a new road bridge would also be required (and one that somehow still allows fish to access the fish ladder in the old lock on the north side of the road).  Moreover, to add to the folly of this harebrained scheme, it’s worth remembering that to close the Itchen Navigation – something that would be virtually inevitable to carry out this kind of work – requires an act of parliament!

Another passage on page 16 of the report refers to the need to widen the road under the bridge by removing the footpath under the bridge.  It states: “In relation to pedestrian and cycle access particularly under the railway bridge further work is required to identify potential alternative routes.  The onus would be on the potential developers [Highwood and Drew Smith] to identify route options which could possibly involve the use of the current underpass for the Itchen Way located slightly further south and then providing a new bridge link onto the western side of the river.  Current thinking is that some form of pedestrian provision is likely to still be required under the existing rail bridge, as this will remain the desire [sic] line that people are likely to want to use.”

Local residents don’t need to be told that using the towpath, as suggested, would be a most unattractive, and even dangerous, option, particularly at night time. Only a few years ago, the murderer of poor Georgina Edmonds at Brambridge was believed to have used this towpath route, and it was not far from here, while walking along this towpath, that a 21-year-old student called Joan Lesley McMurray was murdered in 1969.

So the statement that people would still prefer the current route under the railway bridge, in full view of passing traffic, is very well founded.  This is the route that most people will continue to take – with or without the pavement.

Page 16 also refers to 18 incidents of “bridge strikes” – oversize vehicles hitting the railway bridge – since 2008.  What the report omits, however, is any mention of the number of times an oversize vehicle has to stop short of the bridge and turn around, often causing serious traffic problems and needing police intervention.  While additional signage may reduce this problem, it is unlikely to stop it completely (as we know from the failure of lorry drivers to adhere to road signs for the Chase development in Bishopstoke).  With huge increases in traffic, further road alterations would be needed to allow errant vehicles to turn around quickly and safely.

These are only a few of the many reasons why options B and C are so unsuitable.  As we have said before, not only are they the most environmentally damaging of EBC’s options but they also offer no prospect of linking to a sustainable public transport system.  They will therefore – without doubt – generate huge additional traffic congestion for the whole area.

EBC’s failure to get the Planning Inspector’s approval for its previous Local Plan must have been an expensive mistake, although a Freedom Of Information request to “estimate the cost of the Draft Local Plan rejected by the Inspector” was side-stepped.  Now history is being repeated with the council pursuing another inappropriate plan that will, in all likelihood, be similarly rejected by the Inspector, wasting huge additional sums of taxpayers’ money.

Unsurprisingly, local residents are, in their thousands, scratching their heads as to why Keith House, the Lib Dem leader of the council for over 22 years, seems so determined to find ways to overcome the clearly insurmountable problems associated with options B and C, whilst at the same time being unprepared to make any effort to address the relatively few issues associated with the alternative proposals in Allington Lane (options D and E).  

Would it be disingenuous of us to think that this has something to do with the fact that supporting the Allington Lane proposals would place a large development next to the ward that elected him and might put his re-election in jeopardy?  Let’s hope not.  Nimbyism is unattractive at the best of times but in our leaders it is both destructive and dangerous.  In the face of all the evidence so far, at least we can take solace in what happened to King Canute.  This deluded monarch’s spectre currently looms large at EBC’s headquarters!

Letter to the Daily Echo from the chairmen of Owslebury Parish Council and Upham Parish Council, 13 December 2016: EASTLEIGH Borough Council is meeting on 15 December to consider the next steps in the production of a much needed Local Plan.  The plan could well affect not only the residents of Eastleigh, but those in Winchester district as well.  So it is a matter of great public concern the evidence base for the plan has still not been published, with many fundamental reports (such as a proper assessment of the traffic implications) still awaited.  Surely Easteigh Borough councillors at their meeting tomorrow cannot narrow down the options until there is proper assessment, publicly available, of the related implications?

ADD UPDATE, 12 December 2016: An Eastleigh Borough Council (EBC) infrastructure report updating councillors on the viability of options for its Local Plan reveals a multitude of reasons why councillors will be swimming against the tide of evidence if they decide to pursue options B and C – in Allbrook, Bishopstoke and Fair Oak – at its crucial council meeting this Thursday.  Significantly, buried at the back of the report (pp 17-18), is a new reason: Network Rail’s potential right to share in the massive profits of the scheme, which – if true – would likely blow it out of the water.

Amongst numerous infrastructure-related obstacles, the report majors on problems associated with the proposed North Bishopstoke ‘link road’, which would carve its way through glorious countryside to accommodate the estimated 30,000 extra daily traffic movements resulting from the planned 6,000+ houses in the scheme. In particular, the report focuses on the tiny Allbrook railway bridge, under which this road would have to pass and which – as local residents have been saying ad nauseam – is totally ill-equipped to cope with the massive increase in traffic.  As the report admits, the bridge is not only prone to substantial flooding, but also too low (“there have been 18 ‘bridge strikes’ since 2008″) and too narrow (“HGVs generally give way to each other if two are approaching the bridge at the same time” causing “delays on the approaching links”).

Critically, neither Hampshire County Council, as the highway authority, nor Network Rail have been prepared to give EBC assurances that they would sanction the plans for the new road.  As the report states: “Further work will be required… in terms of technical delivery; safety for road and rail users [from, for example, ‘bridge strikes’]; and potentially significant additional costs impacting upon the viability of the proposals.”

Indeed, on this last point, discussions with Network Rail have highlighted a potential showstopper.  According to the report, Network Rail could have the right to a share in profits from the whole development if works to the railway bridge make the scheme viable.  “This could result in a significant value being due to Network Rail which could significantly impact upon the viability of the development option,” says the report.

A spokesman for the group Action against Destructive Development (ADD), which strongly opposes options B and C and is urging the council to favour far more sustainable proposals in Allington Lane, said: “This report provides yet further reasons to question why on earth EBC is so keen on pursuing options B and C.  On numerous measures, the plans just don’t stack up.  Extraordinarily, though, councillors are set to commit huge sums of additional tax payers’ money on Thursday to try and square the circle. It’s simply not possible.  Ultimately this will be proven, but at substantial cost to the council’s reputation and already-stretched purse.  The proposals in Allington Lane are both sustainable and deliverable.  We want new houses and the council has a workable plan right under its nose – let’s hope councillors smell it soon, before it’s too late for them and their electorate!”

Daily Echo, 10 December 2016: Action Against Destructive Development (ADD) this week delivered a planning consultant’s report to Eastleigh Borough Council ahead of its full cabinet meeting on 15 December, where policy-makers will discuss the local plan for the area.  ADD’s report outlined the group’s opposition to the council’s favoured option to develop in the area north of Bishopstoke and Fair Oak, which would see 6,000+ houses and a new major road being built (the so-called options B and C). Instead it outlined why the council should pursue preferable options near Allington Lane.  In a covering letter to the report, ADD appealed to the council “to engage in constructive dialogue before ruling out these options.”

ADD UPDATE, 9 December 2016: Eastleigh Borough Council (EBC)’s cabinet have today published a paper ahead of the crucial full council meeting next Thursday (15 December) recommending that the council pursues options B and C.  Setting out some of the factors in the debate, the paper recommends “the Council confirms its commitment to act in progressing” these proposals.

This heads-up makes it EVEN MORE ESSENTIAL that all of us who believe options B and C represent an unsustainable and undeliverable solution to Eastleigh’s housing problems attend the council meeting to register our opposition to them.

Not only are they the most environmentally damaging options but they also offer no prospect of linking to a sustainable public transport system.  They will therefore – without doubt – generate huge additional traffic congestion for the whole area.

If you live in Bishopstoke, Fair Oak, Upham, Owslebury, Allbrook, Colden Common, Chandler’s Ford, Highbridge, Brambridge, Twyford or Otterbourne, you are likely to be badly affected by these ill-considered plans.

The meeting will be held at 7.00pm next Thursday, 15 December, at Kings Community Church, Upper Northam Road, Hedge End, Southampton, SO30 4BZ.

This unusual venue takes up to 1,300 people, which suggests the council knows local residents oppose these plans in their droves.  TV, radio and newspaper journalists are now interested in this story.  We really do need EVERYONE there to make our case as forcibly as we can.

Councillors need to understand that we won’t cease in our opposition, and will go wherever we need to go to attend meetings.  This is a fight for the sustainability of the future of Eastleigh and its surrounding area – our villages, our lifestyles, our environment.  

We demand the best for the whole of the borough.  PLEASE ATTEND.  PLEASE SPREAD THE WORD.

Thank you.

To read the full paper, click here.  The key clauses are numbers 44-70.

ADD UPDATE, 8 December 2016: A 2002 book sponsored by Eastleigh Borough Council (EBC), which pledges to protect threatened wildlife in the fields and ancient woodland of Eastleigh, has been uncovered by ADD researchers.  Should EBC proceed with proposals to build 6,000+ houses and a major new road north of Bishopstoke and Fair Oak – so-called options B and C for its Local Plan – the development would carve through the book’s ‘Stoke Park Priority Area’, which is home to a wide range of rare species including the ‘purple emperor’ butterfly, dormice and lesser quaking grass (see picture above).

‘Wild about Eastleigh – a biodiversity action plan for the borough’, the foreword for which was written by TV naturalist Chris Packham (click here for Part One; and here for Part Two), pledged to protect every one of the threatened species – recommendations that EBC specifically promised to act upon.

Chris Packham wrote: “Safeguarding this fantastic variety of plants, birds, mammals, insects and fungi is never easy, particularly here in the south at a time when the pressures on the land are at their greatest ever.  This is why Eastleigh Borough Council has taken the important step of banding together organisations and individuals who are dedicated to conserving our local wildlife to produce this book… Eastleigh covers a tiny fraction of the earth’s surface yet it is still very important, particularly for those of us that live in it.  We are the ones best placed to ensure that this rich community of life continues to prosper so please join us in action, because as we all know… tomorrow is too late.”

If today’s EBC – led by Councillor Keith House, the same man who was in charge in 2002 – decides in favour of options B and C, it would be a broken promise of monumentally irresponsible proportions.

As one example, the book (Part Two, p.53) quotes the plight of the Stoke Park Priority Area’s dormice population, saying: “The dormouse is identified within the UK Biodiversity Action Plan as a species in need of priority action to halt its decline and to help restore populations.  In the past 100 years it has become extinct in 7 counties and surviving populations have become more and more isolated as woodlands and linking tree cover has been grubbed up.”  If EBC adopts options B and C, a major new road would carve a path between two ancient woodlands, making a mockery of any promise to protect these precious woodland mice – and destroying much else besides.

In another case, the book (p.53) cites the plight of the area’s quaking grass.  It says: “During 2000, a population of the rare plant, lesser quaking grass was recorded from the large arable field to the north of Stoke Park Woods.  This species of grass has declined considerably within the UK over the past century due to changes in farming practice and has been identified as a priority species for action in Hampshire.”  That “large arable field to the north of Stoke Park Woods” would be covered by the tarmac of the proposed new road.

These are just two of the threatened species.  Overall, the book (p.52) singles out Stoke Park Woods, which dates back to the days of King John, as having a particularly “diverse and species-rich plant population”, and gives a firm promise to protect no less than 40 species that live there.  It says: “These plants are called ancient woodland indicator plants and are typical components of botanically rich ancient woodland communities.”

A proposed ‘action’ in the book (p.54), which was backed by EBC, states: “To ensure there is no further loss or fragmentation of semi-natural habitats as a result of development, the Local Plan identifies important wildlife sites that must be protected from development.”

Given Councillor House must have agreed to this book, and its actions, surely he can’t now ignore it?  Doesn’t he have an obligation, if only a moral one, to honour the book’s commitments?

If EBC goes ahead with options B and C, it would be an ecological disaster for rare flora and fauna – not only locally but nationally too.  If anything has changed since 2002, it’s our need to protect our environment even more vociferously.  We can’t allow our politicians to break their promises.  We must stop this madness now.

Please join us at EBC’s next full council meeting on 15 December, at which we believe councillors will – unbelievably – favour options B and C.  The meeting will be held at 7.00pm at Kings Community Church, Upper Northam Road, Hedge End, Southampton, SO30 4BZ.