Blog

Mims Davies MP, 21 July 2016: Hampshire MPs Mims Davies and George Hollingbery have expressed concerns today about Eastleigh Borough Council’s Local Plan, saying it again runs the risk of being thrown out by the planning inspector for a second time.

The plan is currently in the early stages of development and sets out the policies to guide the future development of Eastleigh borough in the period up to 2036. It will be discussed by councillors tomorrow (Thursday).

Eastleigh MP Mims said the scale of housing and commercial development required during this period and where it should be built must be enshrined in the local plan but it has to be valid.

David Lovegrove, ADD co-ordinator, presentation to Eastleigh Borough Council, 21 July 2016: I chair Stoke Residents’ Association in Bishopstoke and am co-ordinating a coalition of local organisations campaigning for ACTION AGAINST DESTRUCTIVE DEVELOPMENT.

I have been an architect for 40 years specialising in the design of new housing and schools.

The paper prepared by your planning officer makes clear that the Council’s housing target cannot be met without one of two strategic developments, either B and C or D and E. We don’t disagree.

It then argues that B and C are the most likely be to deliverable. Why is this? We think mainly because your leadership believes that the proposed North Bishopstoke bypass will solve traffic congestion. This is a NONSENSE and we believe that proper transport studies will prove this.

There are other major flaws of B and C:

• Options B and C destroy the finest environmentally rich open countryside in the Borough.
• Your council’s own reports refer to significant negative impacts on the Itchen Valley.
• The highest area planning status, the South Downs National Park, would be detrimentally impacted.
• Huge traffic problems would be caused by the North Bishopstoke bypass for Twyford and links to the M3. It is extremely doubtful that Network Rail would sanction a new bypass of sufficient capacity under the Allbrook railway bridge, thereby threatening the plans.

The better option is the combination of Options D and E which, in the past, your planning officers recommended for the following reasons:

• Options D and E are related to existing urban areas, with good access to employment in Eastleigh and Southampton.
• They achieved approval from the major conservation groups. The Environment Agency approved the idea of a link road between Allington Lane and the Chickenhall Lane Link Road.
• Sufficient green buffer zones could be provided between settlements to maintain strong identities.
• A new railway station, and/or sustainable rapid transit facilities could serve the development.
• The potential of junction 6 of the M27 could be future proofed.

Your leadership is playing down the possibility of achieving the Chickenhall Lane Link Road and this is why Options D and E are being described as ‘doubtful’.

How defeatest is that?

This Link Road should be your council’s ABSOLUTE TOP PRIORITY. Everyone agrees that it would relieve traffic congestion and a bid is already in preparation for central government funding.

The total development value of housing in Options D and E plus an uplift for the commercial opportunities in Riverside would be in the order of £1.5 billion. This would dwarf the £120 million cost of the Chickenhall Lane Link Road.

Is your council really saying that it can’t find this funding, either from government, developers or other stakeholders, to pay for this crucially important road?

Essentially D and E provide the better strategic development option and  there are LESS rather than MORE arguments against this choice as opposed to B and C.

Hampshire Chronicle, 12 June 2016: RESIDENTS in Twyford have been urged to fight plans for thousands of new homes being built on countryside.  Chairman of Stoke Residents Association David Lovegrove has formed a group called Action Against Destructive Development, which is battling plans by Eastleigh Borough Council to earmark 6,000 homes between Bishopstoke, Fair Oak, Upham, Colden Common and Allbrook.  As part of the campaign, Mr Lovegrove is rallying support from nearby villages including Twyford and Colden Common, Upham, Owslebury and Fair Oak.

Gin Tidridge, Independent Councillor, Bishopstoke, 15 June 2016: I am really pleased and heartened to see that so many individuals and organisations took the trouble to make a representation as part of the public consultation process. It took EBC until June to meet its obligation to make those representations public. They are now available and it is really impressive to see 467 high quality representations expressing major concerns with option B.

CPRE Hampshire, 16 February 2016: In response to Eastleigh Borough Council’s Local Plan 2011-2036 ‘Issues and Options’ document, CPRE has evaluated the options in terms of their impact on the countryside. This process has confirmed that options B and C are the most damaging to the finest landscape in the borough, and the least acceptable in environmental terms, leading to an unnecessary new road across fine countryside, and probable adverse impacts on the River Itchen SSSI/SAC and the South Downs National Park. These sites are also the furthest from Southampton, the railway and links to the M27. To that end, CPRE will be firmly objecting to options B and C, and will propose an alternative scenario to meet the requirements. View CPRE’s full response below.

Wave 105.2 FM, 6 February 2016: Campaigners will march through countryside near Eastleigh on Saturday morning to try to stop it from being built on. 3700 homes could be built on fields north of Bishopstoke. It is one option being considered in the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan (2011-36). EBC says it needs more homes to meet demand. But The Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) is urging the council to scrap or dramatically scale back two of the options under consideration.