Blog

CPRE Hampshire, 31 August 2016: Since a fairly frustrating Eastleigh Borough Council (EBC) meeting at the end of July, CPRE Hampshire has been working alongside ADD on the next steps to fight options B and C.  CPRE asks you take the time to sign the petition to “Get the Chickenhall Lane Link Road Moving” – see link in article.  If this road was built it would open up a number of more appropriate development options for the council.

Chris Tomkins/Rob Byrne, 29 August 2016: This great aerial photo by Chris Tomkins shows the extent of the destruction that options B and C would cause. Stoke Common Road is at the bottom of the picture, with Upper Barn and Crowdhill Copses in the middle of the picture, and Stoke Park Woods on the right. At the far top is the countryside north of Mortimer Lane, Fair Oak heading towards Upham. It’s important to realise the open countryside you see is only two thirds of the total ‘new town’ Eastleigh Borough Council is thought to be planning as Allbrook, Highbridge and the M3 are not visible.

Rob Byrne, 29 August 2016: In this video, Rob Byrne gives us a detailed exposé of the likely scale of the destruction that Eastleigh’s Lib Dem council are considering north of Bishopstoke – options B and C of their proposed Local Plan. It currently appears these options are – incredibly – the council’s favoured plan, so take a look at these stunning images now before it is too late.

Rob Byrne, presentation to Eastleigh Borough Council, 21 July 2016: I wish to register my opposition to this massive new town, aka options B and C, set to blight our villages.

I’d like to tell you about the rich wildlife habitat around the various fields and woods we locals refer to as Stoke Park Woods, and the fact that in the past the 4th Bishopstoke Brownies won a national award for a study of flora and fauna which was presented by David Bellamy in Northampton.

I’d like to tell you about over six miles of rights of way that will be lost.

I’d like to tell you about the incredible number of people that are able to access those rights of way by foot. Indeed a breakdown of figures collated over four days shows over 80% are from Bishopstoke, Fair Oak and Colden Common. This is in line with the previous Local Plan’s desire to see more access to the countryside without recourse to the car. Although 20% were also from as far afield as Romsey, Downton and Guildford following internet walks.

I’d like to remind you of the Hampshire County Council countryside access plan for the Forest of Bere, which highlights the need for more horse and cycle access. I’d contend that Stoke Park is superior for recreation to the large Forest of Bere woodland in Wickham, due to it’s diverse woodland, extensive views and the River Itchen – all of which combine to make marvellous walks and rides.

I’d like to remind you of the huge opposition from groups such as Eastleigh Ramblers, 12th Eastleigh Scouts, the Campaign to Protect Rural England and the Woodland Trust.

I’d like to invite councillors to take a guided walk with me but I’ve already done that in conjunction with ADD and Guess what ?…… Not one bothered.

All these facts are clear to see in the submissions to the planning office, so as much as I would like to wax lyrical….. I won’t.

WHY ????

Because this whole process smacks of predetermination both to force through this option and to ignore the people of this borough who have responded in there thousands to oppose this.

My family, London Irish, arrived here over a hundred years ago and helped build this town, I hold in my hand a medal my dad was given by King Edward VIII in 1936 for the incorporation of Eastleigh as a borough, on it is the crest of that brave new town, with it’s motto SALUS POPULI SUPREMA LEX (“the welfare of the people is the supreme law”) which indeed Mr Mayor [Councillor Des Scott] is emblazoned across the top of the stage, above your very head.

Councillors, make yourselves worthy of your predecessors, names like Bradshaw, Quilley, and Soar. Listen to the people and save our beautiful accessible countryside, you have your own minds, you are not sheep, you are human beings! Thank you.

Daily Echo, 25 August 2016: IT WOULD be easy to dismiss the self- styled group Action Against Destructive Development (ADD) as just another group of self- serving residents who appear determined to protect their own corner of Hampshire. They have already fought plans to build 6,000 homes near Eastleigh and made themselves a force to be reckoned with by attracting over 1,000 names to their petition. Now the group is targeting not the proposal to develop in the area but what it claims is inaction and unnecessary delay in forging ahead with a £120 million road plan to build a road.

ADD UPDATE, 24 August 2016: Today we launch our refreshed website. We hope you’ll read it and want to get in touch. Our aim is that it becomes a channel to reach and engage as wide a group of people as possible to get behind our campaign. Our battle to ensure that Eastleigh Borough Council (EBC) chooses the very best, sustainably located, development options for Eastleigh’s new Local Plan is critical to our long-term future. In two weeks, on 8 September 2016, EBC’s cabinet is due to meet to decide the way ahead. This will be followed by a full council meeting which we hope as many of you as possible will attend. As soon as we know the date, we shall let you know.

Gin Tidridge, Independent Councillor, Bishopstoke, 18 August 2016: On 21 July 2016, Eastleigh Borough Council (EBC) discussed the next steps for the Local Plan 2011-2036. I was at the meeting and this post represents my impressions of what happened – the minutes are available on the EBC website but sadly don’t appear to include the debate on the Local Plan. The key takeaway for me was that although EBC have been good at giving the public opportunities to voice our views, including those supporting the ADD campaign, we really aren’t considered important enough for our views to be influential.

Kate Beal Blyth, local Lib Dem businesswoman, presentation to Eastleigh Borough Council, 21 July 2016: I run a long-standing business based in Wessex House and own a property in the borough too. I have lived most of my life in Eastleigh.

Firstly, I’d like to say that I’m a card carrying Lib Dem and have actively campaigned with the team here. I did this because I truly believed in the good work the council did. For years I have proudly told my friends across the country how progressive Eastleigh is – especially when it comes to the environment.

We were first out of the gate with green wheelie bins and food composting. The council-owned building my company resides in is covered with solar panels. Futuristic electric cars are plugged in next to Sainsbury’s. Even our ‘welcome to Eastleigh’ sign has the tag line ‘tackling climate change’.

However, I cannot reconcile how the council I respect is seriously considering building houses and a major new road across the most environmentally important countryside in the entire borough.

I strongly believe that building of options B and C and the so-called North Bishopstoke bypass will only increase our current problems not solve them. It is not the neat solution presented by the supporters of these plans – where the developers pay for everything and it solves all of Eastleigh’s congestion problems in one fell swoop. It’s only priced at £31million after all…

I’m not going to enter into fine details arguments against the proposed road. I’ll let our traffic consultant do that as we progress into the next stage. I am simply going to give you some headline thoughts.

Firstly, I would like to counter the argument that the road would ease congestion. If options B and C are given the go ahead it is estimated that there will be a minimum of 30,000 extra vehicle movements each day. These movements coming from one single area will only add to the congestion problems we have already. The North Bishopstoke bypass will end up being simply self-serving to the new housing estates. Not the neat solution to help relieve traffic into Eastleigh town centre.

Secondly, I would argue that the proposed location of the road itself is unworkable. Parts of Highbridge Road and the area under Allbrook bridge is renowned for regular flooding. And on the matter of the bridge how viable is it really to either lower the road or raise the bridge to an adequate height to let freight vehicles through? Has this large undertaking been factored in to the £31 million price tag? Is it genuinely achievable?

Lastly, there are three main routes onto the M3 for anyone living in the proposed option B and C area. Adding the North Bishopstoke bypass into the mix isn’t going to change our current bottleneck congestion issues as it does not provide a new way onto the motorway. We are simply adding another 30,000 vehicle movements a day into the mix.

I want to ask councillors if you have fully explored all transport options or whether you are going for the supposed easy solution offered by developers? Surely it is your duty to ask for and support a full highways assessment at this stage?

Putting a major road through the most valuable countryside in the borough must be the last resort – it’s not the neat solution to our congestion problems. Our countryside, and residents, deserve better.

Lib Dem Bishopstoke Focus – Summer 2016: The long-proposed, and much-needed, Chickenhall Lane Link Road has received a boost from Eastleigh’s former Lib Dem MP Mike Thornton, and Eastleigh Borough Councillor Trevor Mignot in the Liberal Democrat’s summer 2016 edition of Bishopstoke Focus. Crucially, they say: “We’ll keep chasing until we get the result we need.” That’s great, because it’s exactly what we’re doing! But we need the result fast! If we’re to provide sustainable transport infrastructure for the 6,000+ new houses in Eastleigh Borough Council’s new local plan, we desperately need the Chickenhall Lane Link Road approved.

Sarah Le May, Councillor, Upham, 8 August 2016: Despite having received by far the largest number of objections to the initial proposals, our worst fears were confirmed last week when Eastleigh Borough Council (EBC) decided that options B and C would be carried forward for further investigation.

Although they will continue to try to establish some smaller scale developments, Eastleigh has broadly decided that the majority of its housing need up to 2036 should be met from a ‘strategic scale development’. They suggest that, after allowing for almost 10,000 dwellings that are already in the planning process, there will be another 6,500 required: with a potential for 6,200 new homes, options B and C are clearly their preferred options.

Eastleigh claims not to be ruling out the only other Options capable of creating a strategic scale development: options D and E, which are based on land around Allington Lane, south of Fair Oak. This area was included in earlier plans and is considered by many to be a more logical choice. However, the statement in the Way Forward document that, “[Options D and E] must be seen as doubtful at this time”, might be seen by the more cynical as suggesting that they believe that the decision has already been made.

However, the initial reports from our planning and traffic consultants suggest that we have good grounds on which to fight these proposals: they consider that the impact on the National Park and the ecological protection given to the River Itchen in options B and C may make this selection difficult to be shown to be sound. We also continue to pursue inadequacies in the transportation assessments and believe that, once greater work has been undertaken by EBC in this respect, the problems we have identified with the proposed new road will raise further questions as to the viability of this scheme.

Five Action Against Destructive Development representatives (all Eastleigh residents) spoke at the Council Meeting and we hope that they have shown how serious we are in opposition to B and C. We are now working hard to involve our MPs, local councillors and extend the work of our consultants: generally trying to find any means by which we can undermine these proposals. This is potentially the biggest threat that Upham has ever faced and we will need everyone’s help!