Blog

ADD UPDATE, 12 December 2025: On Wednesday night, 10 December, the Fair Oak and Bishopstoke Local Area Committee unanimously rejected the deeply flawed plan by Bloor Homes to build 245 homes near Mortimers Lane.

The result was greeted with cheers and applause by our supporters who had packed the public area, such that extra seating had to be provided for people who wanted to observe the meeting. They heard 20 speeches from objectors, including speakers from five parish councils, two councillors from Winchester, five members of the ADD team, and several other local residents.

The leader of Eastleigh Borough Council Keith House took the unusual step of attending in person to speak against the proposal, citing the need to wait for the Eastleigh Local Plan to be agreed before any decision is made.

“A big thank you to all those local residents who came to the meeting and filled the hall, leaving councillors in no doubt as to the strength of local feeling on this issue. It made a real difference to have our supporters’ concerns so eloquently expressed,” said ADD chair David Ashe. I’m delighted that councillors listened and have sent a strong message to other developers who might want bypass the Local Plan process.

“It was especially pleasing that Keith House expressed his support for what we have been advocating all along, namely a strong Local Plan to deliver real sustainable transport infrastructure for the new housing that Eastleigh needs.”

We still need your support – the battle is not over yet

Regrettably, there is still a lot more for us to do. Croudace are expected to apply early next year for permission to build 3,400 homes near Mortimers Lane. Like Bloor Homes, they are trying to bypass the Local Plan process, whilst adding hugely to the congestion on our roads. You can read our views on this plan here.

Over the last ten years – and again last Wednesday – ADD has shown that, with the backing of local residents, we can win the argument. Thank you for your support.

Daily Echo, 11 December 2025: Planning chiefs have sided with residents and refused a developer’s plans to build nearly 250 houses near Eastleigh. Councillors echoed the words used by angry objectors in a meeting on Wednesday night and said the plans were hostile, outrageous, unacceptable, and “leap-frogging” over the council’s local plan for Eastleigh. Applicant Bloor Homes had submitted plans to Eastleigh Borough Council to build 245 homes on land south of Mortimers Lane in Fair Oak, ahead of the council’s local plan to choose sites for housing next year. It forms one section of a larger scheme involving 3,500 homes. Members of the Bishopstoke, Fair Oak, and Horton Heath Local Area Committee rejected the plans, despite the recommendation to permit the development from council officers.

ADD UPDATE, 9 December 2025: If you’re not sure about whether to go to tomorrow’s (Wednesday’s) crucial planning meeting to consider Bloor Homes’ appalling proposal to build 245 houses alongside Mortimer Lane, here’s why we need you there.

If Fair Oak and Horton Heath Local Area Committee approve the application, it’s the tip of a massive development iceberg. It will open the floodgates to bigger, much worse plans in the pipeline. On 16 December, developers Croudace will launch a ‘consultation’ on their outline application for 3,400 homes in the Option A area (Mortimers Lane to the Fox and Hounds). They will obviously be watching the result of Wednesday’s meeting closely, so it’s a chance for us to send them a very strong message: ‘Stop bullying Eastleigh’.

If we want to prevent Fair Oak from being submerged in urban sprawl, with all that means for our roads and broader infrastructure, then please show your support as we seek to persuade the committee to reject Bloor Homes’ proposal.

This why we need the hall to be full… it could make all the difference.

Time: 6.30pm, Wednesday 10 December
Place: Woodland Community Centre, 55 Savernake Way, SO50 8DH

To speak at the meeting, email [email protected]

If you want to tell Croudace what you think of their proposals, their drop-in ‘consultation’ is on 16 December from 4.00pm until 7.00pm at St Thomas’s Church, Fair Oak, SO50 7BG

Thank you to everyone for your wonderful support!

ADD UPDATE: 3 December 2025: ADD is urging Fair Oak residents – and anyone else who cares about the integrity of the Eastleigh Local Plan – to make their feelings known when the Local Area Committee meets to consider a deeply unpopular plan by Bloor Homes to build 245 homes near Mortimers Lane.

We were aghast to learn that officers recommend acceptance, despite condemning the scheme for going against government guidance on transport issues. In so doing, they would surrender control of the Local Plan to developers whose overriding motive is to make a profit regardless of its impact on the area.

Time: 6.30 pm, Wednesday 10 December

Place: Woodland Community Centre, 55 Savernake Way, SO50 8DH

To speak at the meeting, email [email protected]

In making their recommendation officers ignored the feelings of the 215 residents who had objected. Reasons for doing so included the impact on the already overcrowded roads and other infrastructure and the feeling that the development would fundamentally change the character of the village.

“If this recommendation goes ahead the council will be flying the white flag and handing control of the Local Plan process to developers, who have no long-term interest in the well-being of the area or the people who live there,” said ADD chair David Ashe.

“It defies belief that the council would want to approve this application without first assessing the traffic and other implications of the proposals and comparing them to the other possible sites that have been put forward for the Local Plan. We know Eastleigh needs more housing, but this is the worst possible place to put them.”

“If this plan gets the go-ahead, there will be others along Mortimers Lane, not least the Croudace-Highwood plan for 3,400 homes, which will soon come up for consideration.”

We can still win this battle with your help. We hope to see as many people as possible at the public meeting on 10 December.

You can read the committee documents for this application (O/24/98619) here.

ADD is an action group for people in Eastleigh and surrounding areas set up to advocate good planning practice.

We seek to promote a healthy balance between the environment and the undoubted need to provide homes for a growing population, especially here in the Southeast.

Daily Echo, 29 November 2025: More than 270 objections have been made over a bid to build hundreds of homes – with planners set to make a decision in just weeks. Traffic concerns have sparked objections to the Bloor Homes Ltd outline application to build 245 homes on land south of Mortimers Road in Fair Oak. The proposal forms one section of a larger scheme involving 3,500 homes, led by developers Croudace and Highwood Strategic Land, on land between Mortimers Lane and Winchester Road. The Bishopstoke, Fair Oak and Horton Heath Local Area committee will make a decision at public meeting on December 10 at Woodland Community Centre in Savernake Way, Fair Oak.

NEWSFLASH, 13 November 2025: Following our article a few days ago on Bloor Homes’ deeply unpopular proposal to build 245 houses in a countryside location on Mortimers Lane, Eastleigh Borough Council has changed the date of its meeting to discuss these proposals from 26 November to 10 December.

We have been informed that the Fair Oak and Bishopstoke Local Area Committee will now meet at 6.30pm at the Woodland Community Centre, 38-51 Savernake Way, Fair Oak, Eastleigh SO50 8DH on Wednesday 10 December. Please change the date of this important meeting in your diaries.

As always, we will update you with more information as it becomes available.

ADD UPDATE, 9 November 2025: Bloor Homes’ deeply unpopular proposal to build 245 houses in a countryside location on Mortimers Lane is fast approaching. The Fair Oak and Bishopstoke Local Area Committee will meet on Wednesday 26 November [date now changed to 10 December] to decide whether to approve the plans in the face of strong opposition from residents.

We urge people to demonstrate the strength of local feeling by attending the meeting.

Bloor Homes are blatantly bypassing the agreed planning process. Eastleigh Borough Council is currently considering all options put forward by developers to meet government housing targets. It is expected to announce which ones it favours at the end of next year. So why has this company tried to jump the gun?

In ADD’s view, Option A (which encompasses Mortimers Lane) is the worst of all the possibilities. The government planning inspector came to a similar conclusion in 2020 when she ordered the council to delete the area north east of Fair Oak (then called Option C) as an area for development. It is hard to avoid the suspicion that Bloor Homes wish to avoid the scrutiny that would come with following due process.

The planning inspector cited traffic as one of her main concerns. That’s despite the fact that Option C (as it was then called) involved building a relief road, which is no longer on the table. And traffic chaos is the top, but not only reason given by the more than 200 residents who have contacted ADD to register their objections.

Bloor Homes promised to take the public’s comments into account before presenting their application. We can see no evidence that they have done so. Indeed there is nothing they can do to mitigate the impact of their proposed housing estate on our already over-crowded roads.

The correct way forward is for the council to identify sites near existing urban centres and reliable public transport, preferably with their own cycle and walking routes. This would then reduce the need to use cars as well as supporting local shopping centres and other amenities. The Bloor Homes proposal would do none of these things.

The Local Area Committee meeting is due to begin at 6.30 pm on Wednesday 26 November [changed to 10 December]. It is currently down to take place at the Woodland Community Centre, Savernake Way, but this may change. Please check this website before you go.

NEWSFLASH, 13 November 2025: Following our article above, Eastleigh Borough Council has changed the date of this meeting from 26 November to 10 December.

We have been informed that the Fair Oak and Bishopstoke Local Area Committee will now meet at 5.30pm at the Woodland Community Centre, 38-51 Savernake Way, Fair Oak, Eastleigh SO50 8DH on Wednesday 10 December. Please change the date of this important meeting in your diaries.

As always, we will update you with more information as it becomes available.

ADD UPDATE: 28 October 2025: The stretch of countryside along Mortimers Lane north-east of Fair Oak is yet again under attack from developers, who seem intent on gaming the system without any regard to the planning process. The latest firm to put in a bid is English Oak, who wish to build an estate for 50 plus a ‘dementia care village’ (see an image of the planned site above).

For readers unfamiliar with these matters, Mortimers Lane is at the core of Option A, one of four major sites (plus more than 50 smaller ones) being considered for development under the review of Eastleigh Borough Council’s Local Plan. The government requires the council to find room for 9,500 additional homes, and the authority’s planners are currently sifting through the different proposals with a view to making recommendations as to where they should be built by the end of next year.

ADD believes that, whilst Eastleigh may need the extra housing, Option A is a decidedly unsuitable choice. Its impact on the countryside and especially the South Downs National Park would be excessive and, because of its remote location, it would maximise car use on our already over-congested roads.  Our view chimes with that of the government planning inspector, who in 2020 rejected in very strong terms Fair Oak (then known as Option C of the previous Local Plan process) as a development area – even though this option then had an accompanying new road, which is no longer the case.

Yet there are now three sizeable proposals in the pipeline for still more urban sprawl in Mortimers Lane – all of them jumping the gun on the agreed planning timetable in the pursuit of corporate profit. The English Oak project follows a plan for 245 houses from Bloor Homes and another for 3,400 dwellings from Croudace/Highwood.  What right do these companies think they have to by-pass the system in this way?

There is no doubt that Hampshire needs more care facilities for the elderly, but we have several questions for English Oak, who have provided very little detail. This made it difficult for local residents to make informed comment, as the company had requested through a recent leaflet drop, especially given the short time allowed.

• Why does a care home need to have 50 houses next to it?
• What is a ‘dementia care village’ and how big an area will it cover (compared to, say, 50 houses) and how many residents and staff will it have? How will the ‘village’ look, and what will distinguish its appearance from a solid block?
• How much traffic will it generate, compared to, say, 50 houses?
• This is a remote location with a poor bus service. Other English Oak homes appear to be close to village or town centres. Why choose this location, not somewhere closer the centre of a community? Can they guarantee that the home will be built if planning permission is granted and not converted into an application for more housing?
• This development will be right opposite a well-loved local animal care home. Can they be sure that the two uses will be entirely compatible and that there will be no friction leading to pressure on the operations of St Francis?

ADD UPDATE: 11 October 2025: The wave of local people submitting their views to house builders Croudace and Highwood on their plan for a major new development of up to 3,400 north east of Fair Oak (see map above) continues to grow. Many thanks to everyone for your incredible energy and support.

If you have not yet submitted your views, please do as soon as you can. The best way is by emailing them to [email protected], copying [email protected]. This enables you not only to express your views how you wish (and not be confined by the house builders’ consultation form), but also copy them easily to us for the record.

We shared ADD’s message to the house builders on 24 September. To get a flavour of what other people are saying, please see one powerful submission below.

With very many thanks again to everyone for your help and support.

STARTS

Dear Croudace/Highwood,

I am writing in response to your current consultation on proposals for land north east of Fair Oak. Please record this as a formal objection.

Lack of Transparency

Your consultation website fails to disclose the true scale of the scheme. Nowhere on your public-facing materials is there any reference to the number of homes you are proposing. It is only by reviewing your EIA Screening Request to Eastleigh Borough Council that the figure of up to 3,400 homes becomes clear. That omission is indefensible.

Equally, the aerial photograph you use on your home page is clearly out of date, excluding existing major developments (such as Pembers Hill). The effect is to minimise the visible impact of your proposals. Presenting incomplete or selective information undermines trust and calls into question the credibility of the entire exercise.

Fundamental Breach of the Local Plan

The land in question is designated as countryside (Policy S5) in the adopted Eastleigh Local Plan (2016–2036). Policy S5 is explicit:

“There will be a presumption against new development in the countryside. Planning permission will only be granted where it is for one of a limited range of uses… and where it does not have an adverse impact on the character of the countryside, settlement gaps, biodiversity, or the landscape setting of the South Downs National Park.”

The Government’s Planning Inspector was equally clear. In her post-hearings letter, she wrote:

“The Strategic Growth Option at Bishopstoke and Fair Oak (Options B and C) is not justified and is not consistent with national policy. Its development would be unsustainable in transport terms, would cause harm to settlement gaps, and would have adverse impacts on sensitive landscapes adjoining the South Downs National Park.”

Her Final Report (March 2022) concluded:

“Options B and C… should be deleted from the Local Plan.”

Despite this, your current proposal seeks to resurrect what has already been examined and rejected as unsound.

Unsustainable Scale

According to the most recent Census (2021), the combined area of Fair Oak and Horton Heath has 4,618 households and 11,531 residents. Your proposal for up to 3,400 dwellings would therefore represent at least a 74% increase in households and a potential 73% increase in population. In reality, the true percentage increase for Fair Oak itself will be higher still, because the Census figures include Horton Heath, which is already undergoing massive expansion through the “One Horton Heath” development.

This is not an extension to a village; it is the creation of a new town at the edge of the Borough and the surrounding countryside, immediately adjacent to the South Downs National Park.

Environmental and Countryside Impact

The site is hemmed in by a network of irreplaceable and mature woodland, including Tippers Copse and Hall Lands Copse (both designated Ancient and Semi-Natural Woodland and SINCs), together with Park Hills Wood and Gore Copse. These woodlands form a vital ecological network and a defensible settlement boundary.

Your proposals talk of creating “new woodland” and “green infrastructure.” This comparison is fundamentally flawed. Ancient and mature woodlands cannot be recreated by planting trees on farmland. They are centuries-old ecosystems with complex soil structures, fungi networks, and biodiversity that cannot simply be replaced. New planting, even if delivered, will take generations to approach the ecological value of what already exists – and will remain fragmented and degraded by proximity to housing.

To claim “biodiversity gain” by inserting small patches of planting while simultaneously destroying countryside and threatening ancient woodland is meaningless. The Planning Inspector previously recognised the importance of maintaining settlement gaps and ecological balance here. To ignore those findings now would cause irreversible harm – not only to local biodiversity, but also to the landscape setting of the South Downs National Park, to which this area serves as a gateway.

Infrastructure Failings

The infrastructure case presented is weak and unrealistic.

• Roads: Rural lanes and local junctions are already overloaded. Adding thousands of homes would generate tens of thousands of extra car journeys each day.
• Public Transport: Far from improving, services are in retreat – the long-standing 61 bus route between Eastleigh and Winchester was axed in August 2025. This leaves Fair Oak residents even more dependent on cars.
• Schools and Healthcare: Local schools and GP practices are already under pressure. Nationally, new schools have even been mothballed because of falling pupil numbers, yet developers still cite them as benefits. The Inspector previously warned against such car-dependent, isolated developments.
• Utilities and Services: Eastleigh Borough Council already struggles to maintain reliable bin collections, while residents experience periodic blackouts. Adding 3,400 homes would only further degrade essential services.

Far from being a sustainable location, this site would require enormous additional services and infrastructure just to stand still – a burden that local systems simply cannot absorb.

Loss of Place and Character

Fair Oak already struggles to maintain a viable centre. Imposing an estate of this scale would obliterate local identity, replacing it with soulless, commuter-dormitory sprawl.

Good town planning is about creating wholesome, dynamic communities where homes, schools, businesses, and services evolve together. What you propose is the opposite: processed, formulaic development that turns countryside into disconnected housing estates with token strips of green space. This is not community-building, it is profit-driven land consumption.

Speculative Proposal Undermining the Local Plan Review

Eastleigh Borough Council is currently reviewing its Local Plan for post-2029 housing needs. A proper decision on Strategic Development Options is not expected until late 2026. For developers to push forward now with their own consultation and an EIA Screening Request is a clear attempt to bypass the democratic, evidence-based process. The Planning Inspector has already found that such developer-led proposals are unsound and unjustified.

Consultation Failings

For a scheme of this seismic scale, your consultation has been poorly publicised and minimally informative. I only became aware of it through Eastleigh Borough Council’s planning alerts. Fellow residents have found your online form inaccessible. This is not meaningful engagement but a token exercise designed to manufacture the appearance of consultation.

Conclusion

This proposal is unsustainable in principle, disproportionate in scale, environmentally damaging, and contrary to both the Planning Inspector’s findings and the adopted Local Plan. It represents an unacceptable attempt to pre-empt the Local Plan review and to impose, by stealth, development that has already been rejected.

As a resident of Fair Oak parish I therefore record my objection in the strongest possible terms.

ENDS

ADD UPDATE: 24 September 2025: Further to our last article on 3 September, many ADD supporters have kindly submitted their views to house builders Croudace and Highwood on their plan for a major new development of up to 3,400 north east of Fair Oak (see map above).

However, as has become clear to everyone, the structure of the house builders’ consultation form not only makes it hard for people to convey the true extent of their feelings towards the scheme, but also difficult to copy their views to ADD for the record.

As such, if you have not yet submitted your views, we are now suggesting you email them to [email protected], copying [email protected]. This will enable you to express your views how you wish, and easily copy them to us for saving.

Since our last post, we have also had confirmation from Eastleigh Borough Council that the Local Plan review will not, after all, be on the agenda for the Full Council on 25 September (tomorrow). We will obviously let everyone know when it is on the agenda. 

In the meantime, for the public record, we are sharing below the message that ADD has sent the house builders. Thank you, as always, to everyone for your support.

STARTS

Dear Croudace and Highwood,

Your vision document notes that you are ‘committed to working with the community every step of the way’. So why, when Eastleigh Borough Council (EBC) are currently at the very early stages of assessing ALL their options for meeting their need for new homes, are you starting a consultation into just one of the options a year earlier than they have firmly said will be the appropriate time?

The answer has to be, because you know that your proposals will not stand up to proper scrutiny. You are simply trying to recycle your already failed proposals for what was ‘Option C’ in the 2015 version of the Local Plan. Those proposals were rejected because, amongst other things, the Examination in Public found they would cause traffic chaos in the South Downs National Park and in all the communities surrounding the then Options B and C.

So what has changed? At least the 2015 proposals included the fig-leaf of the so-called ‘relief road’. No evidence was provided as to how this would help, and no account was taken of the devastating impact it would have on one of the world’s finest chalk streams, but everyone accepted that it would have provided some marginal relief. Your fresh proposals include NO relief to the already choked roads of Bishopstoke, Fair Oak, Colden Common and Twyford, and the rural lanes and villages of the National Park.

Your proposed development in what is now termed Option A (formerly Option C) is the worst option for public transport opportunities of any of those that EBC will be looking at. With bus services in the area poor and, even last week, getting worse, your proposed development will be highly dependent on the private car. This would not only have severe impacts on communities around it, but also be bad for the planet as a whole. Your proposed ‘bypass road’ acknowledges the problem, but demonstrates the limits of what you can do about it. This might help those houses along Winchester Road between Fair Oak Centre and the Fox and Hounds, but would do absolutely nothing to relieve the crippling traffic impact of your 3,400 homes on communities neighbouring Fair Oak. With the previous ‘relief road’ now no longer possible, there is indeed little that new roads (or road improvements) can do to mitigate these impacts.

The storm of objectors that we can see you have already received are pointing out that doctors’ surgeries and schools in Fair Oak are already desperately overloaded. We can accept that a major development such as yours is an opportunity to put that right, but the same can be said of any of the major development options that EBC will be looking at. The supposedly attractive array of ‘key features’ you set out are simply the standard any new development in the borough will have to meet.

To reduce car dependency and avoid increasing traffic chaos, EBC will need to ensure a frequent and reliable public transport system for its new developments, combined with good opportunities for active travel (walking and cycling).

Your proposed development, remote as it is from the town centre or any easy access to major transport infrastructure, cannot provide that. By having to depend on urging residents to use buses operating on already clogged roads, which they will be reluctant to do given poor and worsening bus services, your development is doomed to cause long-term disappointment, disruption and delay – in other words to be a failed development and a disaster for Fair Oak and the communities around it.

ADD and its supporters will be working to ensure that, such a disaster is, once again, avoided.

ENDS