Blog

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.  

ADD UPDATE, 5 December 2016: As you know, ADD believes that Eastleigh Borough Council (EBC) will make a crucial decision regarding its proposed Local Plan at its full council meeting on 15 December.  In particular, we believe it will decide in favour of its most destructive options, namely options B and C.  We are extremely grateful to everyone who has sent letters to their respective Eastleigh Borough Councillors, Winchester City Councillors, MPs and other elected representatives expressing concern and consternation about these shocking proposals.  If you have yet to do so, we thought this letter, published in the Daily Echo on 1 December 2016, might spur you into action!

ADD UPDATE, 2 December 2016:  Ahead of Eastleigh Borough Council (EBC)’s council meeting on 15 December, at which we believe it is likely to decide in favour of its Local Plan’s options B and C, its most destructive proposals, all EBC councillors have today received a report from planning consultants West Waddy, commissioned by ADD.  This report looks at the options through the prism of nationally recognised planning best practice and environmental guidelines, as well as EBC’s own research and publicly stated objectives.  ADD’s covering letter (below) emphasises the “momentous” nature of the decision and urges the councillors to recognise the report’s conclusion that options D and E “are overwhelmingly the best suited to meet Eastleigh’s housing needs from a practical, environmental and traffic perspective”.

COVERING LETTER

Dear Councillor,

Eastleigh Local Plan

Last summer we wrote to you about one of the most momentous decisions that Eastleigh Borough Council will ever be asked to take – determining the shape of the Local Plan 2011-36.  This will have an irreversible impact on the whole character of the borough and some neighbouring areas.

It is a source of great concern to a lot of people that the options for meeting the demand for new housing in Eastleigh are being driven by developers who would not have to live with the consequences of their actions.  With this in mind, Action against Destructive Development (ADD) commissioned a report from planning consultants West Waddy.  Their brief was to look at the options objectively through the prism of nationally recognised planning best practice and environmental guidelines, as well as Eastleigh Borough Council’s own research and publicly stated objectives.

Their conclusion is that Options D and E are overwhelmingly the best suited to meet Eastleigh’s housing needs from a practical, environmental and traffic perspective.  Furthermore, the North Bishopstoke link road (or bypass) is not required to relieve congestion on Bishopstoke Road, and Options D and E can be delivered without causing coalescence or the need to build the Chickenhall Lane Link Road.  Whilst of course we do not claim that this report provides all the detailed answers, we nonetheless appeal to the council to engage with us in constructive dialogue before ruling out these options.

We would also ask you please to take the trouble to read and consider the arguments put forward in the enclosed report and the accompanying comparison of Options B and C with Options D and E, assessed against EBC policy objectives.  The issues at stake are incredibly important for the whole area, and we thank you for your trouble.  We will send you further reports as and when we commission them.

Yours sincerely,

Deborah Mitchell on behalf of ADD

Action against Destructive Development (ADD)

ADD is a coalition of villages, residents’ associations and supporters who oppose Options B and C of the Eastleigh local plan, and who believe strongly that there are better ways to meet the demand for additional housing.

Daily Echo, 24 November 2016: RESIDENTS and council leaders in Colden Common have backed plans to fight thousands of new homes.  Nearly 200 people gathered at Colden Common Community Centre to hear about the ongoing campaign by Action against Destructive Development (ADD).  The group is battling plans by Eastleigh Borough Council to build thousands of homes between Bishopstoke, Fair Oak, Upham, Colden Common and Allbrook to meet government targets.  The homes could be served by a major road which campaigners fear will “merge” the villages.  Residents in the village gave strong backing to ADD and its campaign to ensure that the borough’s housing needs are met in a way that protects the countryside and communities.

ADD ALERT, 23 November 2016: At its next council meeting on Thursday 15 December, we believe Eastleigh Borough Council (EBC) is likely to decide in favour of its Local Plan’s options B and C, its most destructive proposals, which would involve the development of 6,000+ houses and a major new road in, and north of, Bishopstoke and Fair Oak.  We are appealing to anyone who is against these options to attend this meeting to leave EBC councillors in no doubt about the strength of local residents’ opposition.  The meeting will be at 7.00pm at Kings Community Church, Upper Northam Road, Hedge End, Southampton, SO30 4BZ.  If you need a lift, let us know.  We look forward to seeing you there! 

So far:

• Over 1,400 people have signed the petition against options B and C, submitted to EBC on 21 July 2016.
• Over 1,060 people support our cause on Facebook.
• Over 1,060 people have signed the petition to get the Chickenhall Lane Link Road built as soon as possible.
• Over 20 key local and national organisations support our cause.
• All three local MPs support our cause.
• Not a single person has responded positively to our question about whether anyone is in favour of options B and C!

ADD has done a vast amount of work getting to grips with EBC’s options and is strongly of the opinion that options D and E represent a better solution for our housing needs and for the future of our area.

If you value this area, and wish to protect it, please do SHOW UP to this crucial meeting!  If you don’t, it could be too late.

Thank you very much.

New ‘night blight’ maps for England, released by the Campaign to Protect Rural England this summer, show the problem of light pollution worsening across the country.

The maps, which come at a time of increasing awareness of the harmful effects of light pollution on the health of people and wildlife, provide powerful support for CPRE’s campaign to encourage local councils and developers to take light pollution into account when planning new developments.

In Hampshire, CPRE is campaigning for a Green Belt for South Hampshire, which would protect the countryside between the urban conurbations of South Hants and the New Forest National Park to the east and the South Downs National Park to the west and north. This, they say, would not only assist with urban regeneration but also prevent unnecessary sprawling of large built-up areas into unspoilt countryside – which only results in more light pollution and a shameful waste of energy and money.

As Eastleigh Borough Council weighs up the options for its Local Plan ahead of its meeting in December, let’s hope it doesn’t abandon its much-vaunted hopes for a greener world at the crucial moment and takes CPRE Hampshire’s recommendations for a Green Belt, amply supported by its ‘night blight’ map of the borough (above), into account.

ADD UPDATE, 20 November 2016: It was standing room only as around 175 people packed into the community centre at Colden Common to hear an update on the Eastleigh development plan from representatives of Action Against Destructive Development (ADD).  The meeting gave its strong backing to the action group and its campaign to ensure that the borough’s housing needs are met in a way that protects top-quality countryside and the characters of local communities.

Opening the meeting, Kate Beal Blyth of ADD said their campaign had the support of a wide range of organisations and individuals.  She read a message from local MP Steve Brine, thanking the action group for its work and pledging his continued help.

John Lauwerys told the gathering that there were more appropriate ways open to the Council than options B and C of the Eastleigh plan, which would mean building more than 6,000 houses in Bishopstoke and Fair Oak.  Options D and E, he said, made better planning sense.  They would locate housing nearer to existing public transport and to places where people wanted to be such as urban centres, public transport and motorways.  B and C would maximise car usage, meaning at least an extra 30,000 vehicle movements a day.  Furthermore, options D and E were more compact, making it possible to create a central community focus, whereas B and C amounted to ribbon development.

Mark Baylis said that option B, which involves building a major new road through part of Colden Common, would permanently change the character of the village. He said the plan was developer-led, and it contradicted Eastleigh Borough Council’s stated objectives of protecting the countryside, promoting biodiversity, preserving the identities of individual communities and tackling climate change.  The new road, he said, was likely to increase rather than relieve congestion, and make it more likely that Colden Common would eventually become a suburb.

Caroline Dibden of the Campaign to Protect Rural England told the meeting that, from their perspective, options B and C were by far the worst of all those under consideration.

As well as ADD members, there were words of support from district councillors Richard Izard (who also chairs Colden Common Parish Council) and from Sue Cook, with the latter reading out a message from the chair of neighbouring Twyford Parish Council.  There was also backing at the meeting from Otterbourne and Allbrook and North Boyatt Parish Councils.

There followed a lively question and answer session lasting more than hour, with several of those present saying there was an urgent need for the Chickenhall Lane Link Road.

Afterwards Kate Beal Blyth, who chaired the meeting and is a founding member of ADD, said she was “very encouraged” by the level of support shown by villagers and by the number of people who came forward offering to help their work.