Blog

At the Bishopstoke Public Meeting on 17 October 2016, Mims Davies, MP for Eastleigh, asked for a statement to be read out expressing her wish that Eastleigh Borough Council (EBC) “get on with producing a Local Plan that represents the best deal for this area.”  She said she believes EBC needs to choose the “right” Local Plan and that she “completely opposes options B and C.”  She added that she stands alongside Action against Destructive Development (ADD) to get options B and C thrown out. 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.

ADD UPDATE, 1 November 2016: Strengthening the case for options D and E of Eastleigh Borough Council (EBC)’s Local Plan (see map above) is the Solent Local Enterprise Partnership’s Solent Strategic Transport Investment Plan published in May this year.  This Plan proposes a new light rail network from the centre of Southampton, through Southampton Parkway station to Fareham.

The plans show stations at Eastleigh Riverside and another central to the area of options D and E at Allington Lane.  This network would allow direct public transport for journeys to Eastleigh, Southampton and Portsmouth, and would link to the rail and air network for longer journeys.  This would do much to mitigate the increased traffic caused by the building of 6,000+ houses and would create tremendous opportunities for business growth in the area.  Options B and C, which are isolated from any public transport options, would offer no such advantages.

Past experience of new train stations in the area show how successful a new station at Allington Lane might be: Chandlers Ford Station, originally built in 1847 but closed in 1969, which cost £2.8 million to reopen in 2003, now serves a quarter of a million passengers a year. Similarly, Hedge End station, which was opened in 1990 to link that area to Eastleigh and Portsmouth, serves the extensive housing developments in that area and is now used by half a million passengers per year.

There are many reasons why options D and E are better than options B and C, the potential for a new station at Allington Lane being just one of them.  Let’s hope Eastleigh’s councillors see sense and favour the right options when they decide upon our future in December!

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, 30 September 2016: Eastleigh Borough Council (EBC)’s cabinet voted on Tuesday to delay their Local Plan process so that it does not go live until mid-2018, at least a year later than originally anticipated.

The cabinet stated, ‘Due to the need to “roll forward” the plan evidence and resulting plan policies and spatial strategy to 2036, a substantial amount of additional time and resources is required. This is necessary to ensure the most sustainable and deliverable locations for proposed development are included and justified in the Plan.‘

The delay is driven by EBC’s need to show their large-scale development plan of over 6,000 houses to be ‘deliverable’ to the Planning Inspector – which means more preparation is required.  The July 2016 Council Paper indicates that a large development should be investigated further – and that only two areas are being considered as locations – North Bishopstoke and Fair Oak (Options B and C) being one; Allington Lane (Options D and E) being the other. 

In our view, it may be that Cllr House has realised that he faces organised and strong opposition if North Bishopstoke and Fair Oak is included in the plan.  

This means that those of us who support the ADD campaign are in for a marathon, not a sprint.

It also means that Eastleigh is exposed to developers submitting whatever they want between now and 2018 as there is no Local Plan.  In theory, failing to get the Plan done by Spring 2017 means that the Secretary of State could opt to take the plan over – but we believe that this is unlikely.

Several ADD campaigners attended the meeting – and we exercised our right to record it as we are concerned that EBC official minutes do not detail debates or the content of public representations.

Cllr Airey said that he hadn’t realised it was ‘such a beautiful area’ and that it was ‘smothered with many footpaths’ – until he had walked through it with Rob Byrne.  Sadly, Cllr Airey’s remarks were not minuted! We hope that more councillors will take up Rob’s invitation for a guided walk so that they can see why we are so convinced that the North Bishopstoke and Fair Oak development is such a destructive idea. 

ADD UPDATE, 16 September 2016: 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 this 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, as this picture shows, 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.