Blog

ADD UPDATE, 5 November 2016: In the run-up to Eastleigh Borough Council (EBC)’s cabinet and full council meetings in December, Council Leader Keith House has been speaking with people regarding his thoughts about EBC’s impending Local Plan.

At a Winchester Southern Parishes meeting on 24 October, House spoke about some of the representations his Council had received from organisations during the consultation period at the beginning of the year.

As a newly available transcript of the meeting shows, House said that while certain organisations had provided some “pretty helpful suggestions”, others sent in “much less helpful responses”, whilst Network Rail had not offered a response at all.  House described this as “not unusual”, adding: “We find Network Rail one of the hardest agencies to deal with.”

As to why Network Rail didn’t respond, we can only speculate.  One possibility must be that they were stunned into silence by the absurdity of the suggestion that, under options B and C, a potential 30,000 extra car journeys per day would be expected to travel under the Allbrook railway bridge, which is not only too low but prone to flooding too.

As Liberal Democrat Councillor for Eastleigh South Paul Bicknell, himself a train driver, said at the Council meeting on 21 July: “I go up and down past [the] Allbrook [bridge] and I’ve yet to work out, as I go past, how on earth you’re going to bore a tunnel underneath!”  Quite.

In an email on 1 November 2016 to Gin Tidridge, Independent Counsellor for Bishopstoke, Mims Davies, MP for Eastleigh, sets out what she has been doing to win government backing for the Chickenhall Lane Link Road, a recent petition for which now has over 740 signatories, and her strong concerns over Eastleigh Borough Council (EBC)’s options B and C for its Local Plan.  She has recently met senior ministers to discuss both issues and promises to continue to campaign tirelessly to ensure EBC adopts a Local Plan that is supported by local residents.  ADD urges all elected officials to share their views with us on the Local Plan and commits to sharing all views equally on our website.

As supporters of ADD are aware, if Eastleigh Borough Council proceed with options B and C for its Local Plan, it will build a new North Bishopstoke link road from Mortimers Lane in the east towards the M3 in the west, squeezing under the Allbrook railway bridge along the way. With the Plan’s 6,000+ new houses creating an estimated 30,000 more daily car journeys, this bridge is clearly too narrow, too low, and too prone to flooding to cope (it even causes serious traffic jams today). With no plans to do anything about it, this bridge is one factor making a mockery of the viability of options B and C.

Newly available transcripts of recent meetings with EBC councillors, including Leader Keith House, demonstrate that councillors too are concerned about this bridge, and far from clear how this problem would be resolved should they favour options B and C.

At the Council meeting on 21 July 2016, Councillor Paul Bicknell, Liberal Democrat Councillor for Eastleigh South, said: “I happen to be a train driver and I go up and down past [the] Allbrook [bridge] and I’ve yet to work out, as I go past, how on earth you’re going to bore a tunnel underneath!”

At the same meeting, speaking about the wider problems associated with options B and C, Councillor Anne Winstanley, Liberal Democrat Councillor for Bishopstoke West, and Deputy Leader of the Council, also said: “Are we sure we could get under the railway at Allbrook?”

More recently, at a Winchester Southern Parishes meeting in Bishop’s Waltham on 24 October 2016, Council Leader Keith House seemed very uncertain about the answer. Asked how he was “going to deal with” the problem of the Allbrook bridge, he gave the following unconvincing reply:

“The work that has been going on, and this is not Council work, this is developers’ work, um, the developer promoting the option B and C patches, mainly option B patch, north of Bishopstoke, which is Highwood, have done a package of transport work, which they worked alongside Hampshire County Council as highway authority, who believe they can solve all those issues, technically.

“Now, I’m not an engineer, so I don’t understand all the detail, but they believe that a route can be made to work as far as the issues around the railway line are concerned, and that solution beyond getting to the railway bridge is then to swivel behind Allbrook, with a new road that leads up onto the link road to Junction 12, rather than taking traffic into Allbrook.”

Asked about the propensity for the bridge to flood, House replied: “My understanding and, as I say, we are finalising the transport work at the moment, is that the County Council as highway authority don’t believe there are showstoppers with that route. I don’t pretend to understand the techniques behind it, but that is my understanding.”

Should EBC take the disastrous decision to proceed with options B and C, let’s hope Keith House, and all his councillors, fully understand how they are going to deal with this problem! Otherwise, on their heads be the resulting catastrophic traffic congestion for the area!

ADD UPDATE, 20 October 2016: Stokewood Surgery, Fair Oak, has written to Eastleigh Borough Council saying that they would seriously struggle to cope with the increased patient numbers options B and C would bring.  This position was unanimously agreed in a meeting with other local surgeries, Blackthorn Surgery (Hamble), Bursledon Surgery, Hedge End Medical Practice, St Luke’s Surgery (Botley) and West End Surgery.

Writes Senior Partner Dr Richard Shelly on behalf of all the partners at Stokewood Surgery: “We [the above local surgeries] considered that options A, B and C would create the most difficulties for the practices.  Those most directly affected felt these options would be an intolerable strain on the surgeries and there is no easy way to increase premises to provide adequate medical services to the patients from these new developments.”

“[Options] D and E, while also adding considerable strain to the current practices, may possibly be manageable with some financial contribution towards enlarging premises (from the developers) and in rental reimbursement agreement from the West Hampshire Clinical Commissioners.”

ADD UPDATE, 20 October 2016: More than 200 Bishopstoke residents crammed into the local Methodist church on 17 October for a meeting called by ADD, opposing plans by Eastleigh Borough Council to build an extra 6,500 homes in the area.

Gin Tidridge of ADD told the meeting: “Unless we do something, we’re going to lose what makes this area special, and I feel passionate about that.”

One ADD supporter, Rob Byrne, said the Council’s plans threatened outstanding countryside and woodland and would destroy the gaps separating individual communities. “We’re not a suburb of Southampton, and we don’t want to become one,” he said, to thunderous applause.

The proposals are set out in the Eastleigh development plan, published for consultation by the Council last December. Although ten options were initially under consideration, protesters believe that Council leaders have long privately favoured options B and C, involving big new developments in North Bishopstoke and Fair Oak as well as a major new link road. The additional housing would be equivalent to two new towns the size of Bishop’s Waltham.

The meeting heard a message of support from local MP Mims Davies, read by her assistant, who said on her behalf: “I completely oppose Options B and C. I will continue to stand alongside Action against Destructive Development.’ Neighbouring MPs Steve Brine (Winchester) and George Hollingbery (Meon Valley), whose constituencies would be affected by the plans, are also backing the campaign.

One of the biggest cheers of the evening came when a member of the audience said he was “shocked” that none of the four borough councillors for Bishopstoke had accepted invitations to attend. “They’re supposed to be representing our interests, but [aren’t listening] to our views,” he said.

“The silence from Bishopstoke’s councillors has been deafening,” added Mr Byrne. Several other speakers called on their local representatives to engage with the community in discussing the plans.

ADD member David Ashe told the audience the proposed new link road from Mortimers Lane to Allbrook would not work as a bypass, and was not costed.

There were also complaints that Eastleigh’s proposals do not make sufficient allowance for vital infrastructure such as surgeries, schools, water and sewerage.

Options B and C generated nearly 600 objections – far more than all other options combined – when the Eastleigh development plan went out to public consultation. Opponents include the Woodland Trust and the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England. ADD agree that Eastleigh needs new housing, but argue that there are more suitable, more accessible and more environmentally friendly sites available in the borough.

The meeting’s organiser, parish councillor Gin Tidridge, said she was delighted with the turn-out and interest shown by local residents. Although extra chairs were found to accommodate those who wanted to take part, there was standing room only for late arrivals.

‘I hope the level of interest and strength of feeling shown tonight will persuade the council to look seriously at our ideas,’ said Mrs Tidridge.

ADD UPDATE, 8 October 2016: We are holding another public meeting at 7.00pm on Monday 17 October 2016 at the Methodist Church Hall, Sedgwick Road, Bishopstoke, where we will share what we’ve found out so far about Eastleigh Borough Council’s developing Local Plan.

Still likely to be included in this plan are 6,000+ new houses and a major new road, as shown in our map above. This could double the current population of Fair Oak and Bishopstoke and will:

• Destroy much-loved, precious countryside.
• Destroy the unique identity of each of our communities.
• Contribute further to congestion and strain our infrastructure even further.

If you value this area, please consider supporting us by:

• Signing our petition to get the critical Chickenhall Lane Link Road built as soon as possible. This long-planned road, favoured by many stakeholders, is vital to allowing more appropriate development options.
• Donating to the cause – whilst we are volunteers, we have also hired planning, traffic / highways consultants and other professionals to ensure the highest possible chance of success. We’ve raised £14,500 but will need c.£50,000. Email us now at [email protected]
• Contacting us at [email protected] to offer your services – whatever you feel able to do (deliver leaflets, arrange an event, offer your professional skills), we would love to hear from you.

About Action against Destructive Development

Our campaign has been formed by a coalition of residents’ associations and parish councils. We are local people concerned about the impact this ill-considered development will have on our lives. We recognise we must build new houses, but this location is too destructive and the new development will be unsustainable. We are fighting to get our message across before it is too late. The campaign is not linked to, or against, any political party.

We desperately need your support. Please join us on 17 October to find out more!

Hampshire Chronicle, 2 October 2016: The Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) in Hampshire recently hosted a reception to celebrate 50 years of the charity’s work in protecting the Hampshire countryside. In her speech to the charity’s many long-serving volunteers, supporters and partners, Dee Haas, county branch chairman, highlighted some of its key successes, including the creation of the South Downs National Park (SDNP). She added: “We believe that one of the best ways to encourage urban regeneration and prevent urban sprawl in the south of the county is to create a tract of Green Belt along the north side of Fareham, Portsmouth and Southampton, creating a buffer for the SDNP and around Eastleigh and the south of Winchester to the New Forest National Park.” Read full story here.

ADD UPDATE, 9 September 2016: We will be holding a Village Meeting for Upham and Owlesbury residents (only, due to capacity restrictions) on the Eastleigh Local Plan 2016-36 at 7.30pm on Thursday 29 September 2016 in Upham School Hall. If options B and C go ahead, we will have a new settlement of over 6,000 new homes, twice the size of Bishop’s Waltham, on the unspoilt countryside south of Upham, between Fair Oak and Bishopstoke and reaching right up to the boundaries of the South Downs National Park.  This could result in 30,000 extra car journeys each day, creating dangerous traffic levels on our local lanes. We believe that this development is neither deliverable nor sustainable but, if we do nothing, it will happen. Come to the meeting to hear how the planning process is progressing, what happens next and how, together, we can fight this proposal. Refreshments available. Parking limited so please walk or share cars where possible.

ADD UPDATE, 7 September 2016: Our new website, and recent postings, have led to a massive surge in interest in our campaign to ensure Eastleigh Borough Council chooses the right Local Plan. We now urgently need more volunteers to staff our campaign and maintain this remarkable momentum. If you have experience in, or would like to turn your hand to helping us with, issues like digital media, PR, journalism, fundraising, research, planning, the law, leafleting or indeed anything you think we might need, please get in touch today. You would join a stimulating and fun group, pulling together for a cause we’re passionate about, and we would love to have you board!

Rob Byrne, 3 September 2016: In this brilliant new video, Rob Byrne reveals the truly shocking scale of Eastleigh Borough Council’s development plans north of Bishopstoke, so-called options B and C. From Lower Upham and the South Downs in the east to the motorway junction at Chandler’s Ford in the west. Starting with East Horton Golf Club, at the far south-eastern extremity of option C, which would be completely built on, Rob takes us through an extremely disturbing journey through what – for now – remains some of the UK’s finest countryside. Help us prevent this outrage now!