Stoke Residents Association        
                            "Don't Choke Bishopstoke"

“Cynical of Bishopstoke”: “Don’t say I didn’t tell you so!”

(A resident of Bishopstoke for 45 years)

 

So, it would seem the so called Lib/Dems, the totally dominant party upon Eastleigh Council,  are up to there usual old tricks again!

They called the initial consultation “The Draft Local Plan”, a redraft of 3 previous failed efforts by the local Council over the past 20 years  to formulate a Local Forward Plan,  and at relatively short notice Eastleigh  residents were informed that they had to have their written objections/considered opinions into the Council Planning Officers by the 17^th of February 2016. Proposals  within the Draft Plan of the greatest concern to residents of Bishopstoke were under the heading B. & C.: a new road, Mortimer’s Lane, Fair Oak, via ‘The Fox & Hounds’, across the Itchen Valley flood plain, crossing Church Lane, linking to a straightened B3335 at Highbridge, through, and under Allbrook rail arch, then after the demolition of 3 properties at the foot of Pitmore Road, north west to link to the motorway: these proposals to include the building of some 5000 new builds to the north of Stoke Park farm, Bishopstoke, on a flood plain, in one of the most beautiful green belt areas in the Eastleigh Borough! The resulting ‘feedback’ from Eastleigh Residents regarding these proposals: …. Hundreds objected & 4 residents in favour!!

So, one would therefore presume that Eastleigh Council Cabinet, led by Keith House, will heed the wants and opinions of the majority of local residents, and reject B. & C. when they consider the recommendations of their Planners upon the 16^th of June?? Well, this is where I have to make a somber prediction, and say that they will not only endorse options B. & C., they will favour options B. & C. and include them in their final Local Plan submissions to the Government Inspector in 2017, in fact I will go further, and say that the Lib/Dems. , in conference, as early as October 2015, had already taken a  Lib/Dem policy  decision to favour Options B. & C. amongst themselves, as the controlling group upon the Borough Council!!!!!!

Why do I think this to be the case?

In 2015  a local resident forwarded copy documents for my viewing: sourced from Highwood Group based in Romsey, Hampshire, ...” Experts in land procurement, development and assembly”: these documents detailed land that they had been instructed to procure on behalf of developers in the area of Bishopstoke, Fair Oak, Highbridge/Allbrook : i.e. potential development land. It is not coincidental that the land indicated in these documents covered the entire area as detailed under the Council’s Forward Draft Plan B. C.!!!

 

So, why would a company, and their associated developers, risk investing huge sums of money in taking an ‘option on what they see as being potential building land’, unless they had been given an indication that their investment was likely secure and low risk? That advise can have only come from one source: Eastleigh Borough Council, or their Planning Department;  if only by casual observation and reference!!

The Lib/Dems. Will now cry “Foul” and voice their protestations, so truth or false?

Bishopstoke Farm in Bishopstoke Lane, and all of its associated land, was sold to a developer five weeks ago, as being potential building land under the Council’s Forward Plan Options B. & C.??

Stoke Park Farm has already negotiated financial options with developers to sell large tracts of land immediately North of Stoke Park woods to Upper Barn copse, and further land, north of the farm house towards Colden Common, land which fully embraces the Council’s Forward Plan Options B. & C.??

Highbridge Farm which has land holdings in Church Lane, is already in negotiations with both developers and Winchester Council, with a view to the sale of land to accommodate the new road access to Highbridge under Options B. & C., and the straightening of the road: B3335 to the Allbrook railway arch??

So it would appear that the ,so called ‘Public Consultation of The Eastleigh Draft Forward Plan’, was in fact something of a shameful façade: a truth which only time will prove or disprove, resulting from decisions the Council decides to make upon the 16^th of June 2016: it will be interesting to see if this Council will even heeds advise from their own Planning Officers!

 

Of further interest:  the Stoke Residents Association asked all Borough candidates standing  for Bishopstoke in the forthcoming May elections, to indicate their stance regarding Options B. & C. contained in the Draft Forward Plan, as it greatly effects the future of Bishopstoke, and the maintenance & protection of its ambiance & surrounding countryside. Interesting: several candidates have responded, and all have to date voiced their total opposition to Options B. & C.: ‘no comment’ from the Lib/Dem. Candidates  to date………. One has to wonder why???????

Three years ago writing as ‘Cynical of Bishopstoke’, I  predicted correctly the Borough Council’s stance regarding both The Bellway & Cemex development proposals in Bishopstoke: both developments were voted through by the Borough Council, despite majority resident opposition.  Regarding Options B. & C. of the Draft Local Plan: I expect my predictions to be proved correct yet again, for this Borough Council will “sell its soul to the devil, or should I say developers’, if the ‘price is right’, whilst casting a cynically ambivalent sneer to residential opinion: those very people who made the mistake of electing these Lib/Dem. Councillors in the first instance!

Residents of Bishopstoke, we are now relegated to only being able to show our displeasure with our local council at the ballot box upon the 5^th of May. I urge residents not to waste this opportunity: caste your votes in these elections aside from political dogma & bias, and vote for candidates in your wards of Bishopstoke who sincerely  undertake to represent the views of the local residents in future, and to not simply to follow that of their political masters!!

 

Still: “Cynical of Bishopstoke!” in 2016.

 

Jim Saunders 16th February 2016
 

People of Eastleigh. it seems that a huge number of us stand united against the ever increasing number of developments that are now being passed through by our Council despite ever increasing objection. Our LibDem Councillors have stopped listening to us the people and continue to approve developers planning applications without regard for infrastructure or local wildlife.

Many residents letters to the new Conservative MP Mims Davies have gone unanswered and it seems this mass house building is the result of collaboration between Local LibDem Borough Council Leader Keith House and Conservative County Councillors.

There is only one way this situation can be dealt with now. That is for the people to join together and rise up in protest against this!

What you can do.
1 Attend all Local Area Committees in your area and show the Councillors WE MEAN BUSINESS!
https://www.eastleigh.gov.uk/…/c…/local-area-committees.aspx

2 DONT VOTE LIBDEMS

 

Eastleigh Borough Council

Local Area Committees

eastleigh.gov.uk|By Eastleigh Borough Council

 

Comment

Joy Newbrook Torbay is going the same way .new houses being built .all around the area .yes a good thing .,but nothing is being done to .ease the problem in our hospital .and particularly A&E .which is overun .and unsafe .because our nurses and Dr 's ,cant cope... Something has to give .!!!.. Stop burying your heads in the sand !!!.People are dying .!!!!!

 

Eastleigh, Hampshire Yep last time I was in Paignton I saw it for myself
Salesman in the sales office told me that rich investors from overseas are buying whole streets of new developments to rent out

_______________________________________________________________

Eastleigh Borough Council Local development plan – Make comments only until 17th February 2016

.

See the full plan and make comments here -- https://www.eastleigh.gov.uk/lp36

Please photocopy this page lots, and give to everyone potentially affected

Note the route of proposed brand new road link through unspoilt countryside, shown as red line

This option includes thousands of houses in unspoilt countryside on high ground visible for many miles

.

Option B –Expansion of Fair Oak and Bishopstoke to the north/north-east with related development in Allbrook village

Note: This is one of eight options that the Council has identified in order to seek the views of the public. At this stage the Council has not identified any preferred options. (See also Option A and Option C)

Figure 6.3 Option B – Expansion of Fair Oak and Bishopstoke and development at Allbrook

This option would destroy many bio-diversity habitats and be visible for many miles from within the South Downs National Park

If this new road is approved it will in time be inevitable that Fair Oak and Colden Common become joined up by housing.

This may all happen unless you and everyone you know actually object, now.

Reasons why Option B is not acceptable

The North Bishopstoke Bypass (NBB) is proposed to travel through unspoilt countryside and Water meadows with lots of unique rich bio-diversity in the river Itchen valley. This is a rare and cherished chalk-stream habitat.

Species known to inhabit the many small ponds and streams in this vicinity include - Otters, Brown trout, Atlantic salmon, water vole, great crested newt, king fishers and internationally threatened invertebrate species - the native white-clawed crayfish and the southern damselfly. The EU have made this a Special Area of Conservation (SAC).

In winter many species’ who normally habitat the margins of the flood plain migrate temporarily to slightly higher ground, as the flood plains saturates and the water table rises. This would not be possible as Option B would have houses built on them.

Swans often nest on the Itchen river just south, and just north of the B3335 road at Highbridge, which will bring more traffic and adversely impact their habitat. For example swans nest most years on islands in the middle of the river just south of Wardle road Highbridge.  The extra noise and vibrations are very likely to destroy this precious unique rare habitat.

The NBB will bring a much greater risk of floods upstream, in an era where we are told flooding and storms will increase.

The canal is a rare feature here and would in due course have additional bridges built over it.

The two NBB options to Highbrige crosses the stream which flows from east of main Road B3354. This stream has a catchment area as far east as Gabriel’s copse and includes three quarters of Colden Common. It flows westwards to near the dog and crook pub, then south. This stream has flooded roads and properties on numerous occasions, especially at Brambridge. This problem let to the installation of very expensive flood prevention solution which includes huge water storage tanks and pumps south of eastern end of kiln lane.

The NBB here crossing the flood valley of this stream would create a blocking dam to water-flows in the shallow ‘valley’ of this stream. Culverts, even several, would not solve the problem created, of a road blocking the natural water flows within the water meadows.

All of the fields south of the dog and crook pubic house are absolutely saturated in winter (as nature intended flood plains to be). The crazy road proposal cuts straight across the valley of this stream, and would have effect of creating a dam. Whilst it’s possible from a civil engineering perspective to have dozens of large culverts underneath the proposed road, this will still leave a dam effect with water in the ground trapped upstream of the road, and during heavy rainfall this is very likely to lead to flooding problems upstream through Brambridge and Colden common.

This would mean the need to incur huge cost to upgrade that flood system.

The dam needed for the NBB across this stream would mean huge civil engineering project which will cost the taxpayer a huge amount of money.

Additionally the existing B3335 Carriageway just north and south of its main bridge across the river Itchen, already acts as a dam across the river valley. This is particularly noticeable just south of the bridge, where the roadway causes the land to flood upstream extensively. The roadway also floods already.  As soon as additional traffic is diverted onto this road, there will be a need to upgrade it (within a year or less). The resultant civil engineering project will need multiple additional big culverts under the road, in various places across the flood plain in this area, along with significant carriageway works.  This will all be very expensive for the tax payer.

Whilst all the money for this massive civil engineering projects may come from the developers and thus the householders of the new houses, that means there will be far less money available from the developers to fund community schemes for all the new houses in this option, e.g. community centre / facilities, schools, doctors surgery, etc. etc.

Additionally there is also another small flood pump in Colden common further up this stream, the increase in water table height caused by the dam effect could undermine that capability, and cause further flooding there.

The NBB road will act as a siphon and bring lots of traffic off of the M27 & M3. Traffic will be attracted to this route from the huge conurbations of Fareham, Portsmouth, Gosport, hedge end, and will travel via Bishops Waltham, Botley and Hedge end northwards and join the new route in Mortimers lane or crowd hill.

Additionally traffic from the new houses to the north of Bishopstoke and Fair Oak will also place a huge burden on - a/ the roads through Colden Common and Twyford, and - b/ Down through Church Lane and the mill at Bishopstoke, as people try to reach Eastleigh and beyond. The houses associated with NBB should be located elsewhere, the options in the southern parishes do not have half as many problems as the NBB option.

A huge volume of traffic already travels north through this whole area in the mornings, and south in the evenings.

Every time there is a delay on those motorways traffic will naturally try to follow this route. In the mornings when traffic on this new route cannot easily get onto the M3 at Junction 12 at chandlers for north, these vehicles will turn north through the two north – south roads through CC and onwards through twyford.  Whilst regulators may toy with the idea of weight limits through Colden Common & Twyford, even if that is successfully regulated (very unlikely) there will still be a quadrupling of traffic volumes through these two villages.

The whole effect will be reversed in the evenings, with traffic turning off M3 at J11 at Winchester, and trying to travel south through twyford and Colden common, attracted by the proposed new road.

I note that on page 38 section 5.4.8 of the HCC Traffic analysis doc it is acknowledged that traffic will increase by a significant amount through Colden common and twyford – but no solution is offered.  I think we are all aware that this is because there is no possible solution to traffic grid-lock problems which will be caused at the western end of the “road to nowhere”.

The road is also bizarrely proposed to go through an 19^th century / 190 year old bridge, this has a height limit of just twelve feet, and this will inevitably mean that lorries hit the structure, or have to reverse in a very constrained situation. Damage to the structure of the bridge may well also lead to the closure of a main arterial rail route.

The proposed long diversion for cyclists and walkers to cross under the railway line is unacceptable. It’s lengthy, and will bring personal safety issues in such a remote location.

The bridge is also very narrow, it’s very likely that damage will arise to the structure of the bridge due to lorries passing each other under the bridge.

Any attempt to provide greater headroom through the bridge by lowering the road level underneath the bridge, will bring with it a huge risk of undermining the foundations of the bridge structure with the risk to services on this critical railway line.

There is already a dip in the road and a sump under bridge, this floods and fills in heavy rain already – note the flood markers on the sides of the bridge!

It would need a major civil engineering project to build a suitable pumping arrangement with an inherently expensive future energy costs, to run the pumps.

All of the fields in this whole area are saturated in winter, every piece of roadway and road foundations will affect the natural function of the flood plain

This option has become known in Colden Common, Twyford, Allbrook and Fair Oak as – “A road to nowhere”. It will create a huge amount of extra traffic in Twyford, Kiln Lane, and on Highbrige road, the latter two across the river Itchen. As a strategic option this ‘Bishopstoke Bypass route is bonkers – it will bring a lot of traffic to a point on Highbridge road, which will inevitably lead to major increases of additional traffic over the river Itchen on these two roads – which will within a year of it being built lead to calls for new bridges / widening on the B3335 and Kiln lane. Thus the North Bishopstoke bypass option will build in major middle term and long term civil engineering costs for the tax-payer. Other options do not have such major financial issues.

Whilst other options have their constraints, any NBB option, by trying to build a large road across a floodplain of the river Itchen (and key tributary streams) will have an inherent civil engineering cost which would not be anything like as large with many of the other options, particularly those in the southern parishes

The traffic projections of an extra 2000 vehicles an hour on the NBB are grossly underestimated -- every time there is any delay on M3/ M27 motorways, a huge volume of extra traffic will use the NBB and grid-lock all the roads in every direction from the Highbridge end of the link road.

From a strategic traffic management perspective any NBB route is a very expensive option, and a comparative waste of tax payers money which would be much better spent on other options.

By contrast a better alternative route to relieve traffic in Eastleigh and Bishopstoke is the southern bypass route. Whilst it still has challenges, it will cross the Itchen valley at a location adjacent to built-up industrial areas and the sewage works. The Southern Bypass route would therefore have much less impact on the environment, much less visual impact, and would be a much better option for many other reasons.

Comments on other options –

Option A proposes a similar road as Option B, but with the north westerly end shown ending at Highbridge, this would funnel a high volume of traffic through Twyford and Colden common - and I make the same comments as all of above.

Options for housing and new roads in the southern parishes will be much less expensive from an environmental and cost perspective.

______________________________________________________________________

Saturday 23rd January 2016 

Eastleigh Borough Local Plan 2011-2036: Issues and Options

With apologies for the length of this comment.

Wednesday 20^th January 2016 : viewing at The Community Centre Bishopstoke.

Reaction.

I have seldom seen such a ‘hotch Potch’ Planning presentation as a Proposal for a Local Plan.

The Presentation and its content reflects the past inadequacies of Past Planning policy in the Borough, and the fact that despite three local Plans having been drawn and put forward over the past decade, the last was again  rejected by the Government Inspector! Current proposals now reflect an almost ‘panic policy’ by Eastleigh Borough Councillors and their Planners!

Dealing with matters in  priority in as much as it effects where I live in Stoke Common Road, Bishopstoke. (Option B.)

This option is impracticable, totally unfeasible, and will only adds to the current road congestion, grid lock situation, which everyone in the North, Central and Eastern Parishes experiences at this present time.

Why is Option B. being put forward in the first place? Simply because the local Council, have already ‘shot themselves in the foot’, by already authorising development in the area designated under their supposed (Option C.) East of Fair oak. Developers Drew Smith have already been granted planning East to Mortimers Farm and will shortly start construction. Land owners from Hall Lands to Pyle Hill, Mortimers Farm, Stroudwood, north to the B2177 are currently being offered £0.5Million per acre as potential development land by developers, under the Councils proposed C.!!!! In short, whilst Option C. is currently being promoted as a proposal, in reality it is already a 90% certain development in the eyes of the Borough Council. Now the Planners state that this area will have the option for 2500 dwellings: 5000 would be a more realistic figure within the designated area south of Mortimers Farm extending north in a curve under Option C. to exit opposite the Fox & Hounds public house on the main Fair Oak Winchester road. How do I know the above facts to be correct, because I have spoken to every landowner within the area of Option C. Hall Lands to Mortimers Farm, to Stroudwood, and they are all in discussions with developers wanting to purchase land for their Land Banks, under Option C. at this current time. 

What you may well ask has Option C. got to do with Option B.: simple, you need to apply a simple formula regularly used by Highway Engineers when assessing possible traffic flow charts within the area of Option C. As a general rule of thumb, every New Build will generate 3 vehicle movements per day on local roads. (commuter and service vehicles). So, with the Council having already granted planning to Drew Smith for development West of Mortimers Farm, Fair Oak,  it is fair to assume that the remainder of their Option C. will be carried forward and completed regardless of local public opinion. As a consequence the Council will then have created a ‘Colditz situation’, a probable total 3-5000 new builds along that development line East of Fair Oak, around to the main road opposite the Fox & Hounds, with NO WAY OF GETTING OUT!  12,000 yes 12,000 more traffic movements at every rush hour, trying to get out to work South to Southampton, or North to Winchester, upon roads which are currently absolutely gridlocked at peak time!!! So having put the ‘egg before the chicken’, the Council desperately needs “a way out”, and this is where their Option Plan B. comes into being!

Option B

If a new road were to be constructed north of Eastleigh, (Fox & Hounds Fair Oak – Allbrook)  linking to the North of Fair Oak, then the Council and their planners think that ‘trapped traffic flow’ under Option C. East of Fair Oak, could use this new link road as an escape route: clearly they have again not done their homework! The Council Planners under Option B. say that 4000 New Builds would need to be built as development along the route of the proposed new road link under Option B. to Allbrook! Another 4000 new builds equals another 12,000 vehicle movements daily to add to a further 12,000 trying to use this proposed new link from the area of Option C. at peak times!!! Result: total traffic mayhem with any new Northern Link road having to try and handle 20,000 – 25,000 traffic movements at peak times, because there is NO OTHER OPTION.

Further, and dealing with the proposed route of the Northern Link road under Option B.

Eastleigh Borough Council only control 45% of the land of the route, (despite their failed  efforts under the recent boundary commission review to re-establish the Eastleigh Boundary further North along Church Lane Bishopstoke!) the remainder comes under Winchester Council, who already have their Forward Plan in place and fully accepted by Government, and are not particularly in favour of a New Relief road cutting through the South of their administration to Allbrook via Highbridge, and I have confirmed this fact after discussions with local Conservative Councillors in Winchester, who’s majority controls the Council in such matters! 

The route as proposed will cut through vast areas of water meadows, and through natural flood plain: well, we only have to look towards the north, and recent flooding events, to see what happens with new builds constructed within water meadow, and natural flood plain areas, or don’t we learn from past disasters?.

The proposed route will cut through some of the most beautiful, scenic areas of the Eastleigh Borough, turning it into an urban sprawl, surrounding the whole of Eastleigh, north of Stoke Woods, right through to Allbrook. It is clearly the intention of Eastleigh Borough Planners to Urbanise this area to the cost of the Parishes of Fair Oak & Bishoptoke and the local  residents, and in the process destroy the extensive wildlife that currently exists along the proposed route, under Option B.

The route is proposed, across Church Lane, to cut behind the ‘Dog & Crook’ public house and exit onto the main Highbridge road, turning west along that road after much straightening through Highbridge Farm, and discussions have already taken place with the owners of Highbridge Farm regarding land purchase to achieve this end: so perhaps, not so much an option, more a “done deal”????

Then, of course we get to the ‘stopper in the bottle situation’: the Itchen Navigation crossing, and Allbrook rail bridge: an already bottleneck situation which Eastleigh Planners are suggesting be worsened by adding a further likely 15 – 25,000 more traffic movements per day at peak times from Fair Oak & Bishopstoke!!!!!!!!! Are we actually paying Planners to come up with totally ridiculous proposals such as this??? During the last heavy rainfall the Allbrook Rail Arch was closed and under 1.5 metres of water, under Option B. the Planners are suggesting further excavation beneath Allbrook rail arch, at horrendous cost, to accommodate higher sided vehicles! Well, readers, you will not need a car or lorry: you will need a boat or an Ark!!

 Today I have been advised that a conservative estimate to remodel the Allbrook Arch will be between £1.5 - £2.0 million, and that is only if agreement can be reached between Rail Track & the local authorities involved, there will also be an ongoing maintenance, annual charge levied by Railtrack which will add considerably to these costings: where is this money going to come from; certainly not from the developers of the estimated 3-4000 new builds along the proposed new road route under Option B.;  because they are going to be asked to fund the new road and new social facilities, schools etc! Further, this costing only considers the remodeling of the Allbrook Arch, it does not consider the horrendous engineering problems resulting from the adjacent Itchen Navigation, and its stream bed levels, which simply cannot be lowered beyond that of the surrounding flood plain. In short the situation at the Allbrook Arch, makes Options A. & B., totally cost ineffective, absolutely impracticable, an engineering nightmare & , if completed, will simply add to existing traffic flow problems, creating total grid lock at peak times in both directions West to East: East to West!

After the rail arch the road is narrowed and limited, by new apartment blocks to the left and a listed house to the right, and Planners are suggesting a compulsory purchase of two bungalows at the bottom of Pitmore road, then through Di Brookes old yard, the back of the Otter Pub, to the motorway, a scheme, which as I have detailed is simply unworkable, and which ignores both natural obstructions, and sustainable projected traffic flow figures!

Option B under the Local Plan proposals

An option which is impracticable, and fails to address any of the local traffic issues. This Option will simply add to existing traffic congestion problems; is likely to worsen the situation, and the cost of carrying this option through is well beyond either Eastleigh, Winchester, the County  Council’s, or any developers budgeting? 

Finally a worrying thought.

I have recently taken the opportunity to discuss Option B & C. with three different County Councillors: their reaction: “with this current Government, you are going to have to accept this Northern Link road around Eastleigh, whether either you, or we as a controlling authority, like it or not!!!!!

So much for the so called democratic process, so much for consultation, it would seem that we are all of us wasting our time, including the Planners of Eastleigh Borough Council!!!

I have to conclude this rather lengthy Epistle, but in fairness to the argument, will at a later date, write again, with what I believe to be the best options available to Planners to what is an almost insolvable problem in the Borough of Eastleigh: in future perhaps they should remember that “The Chicken came before the Egg, and that more common-sense Planning Policy in the past would have eased the problems that we are experiencing today!

Currently it takes a commuter 1 hour 15 mins, to get to their office in central London by train from Eastleigh station. It takes a commuter 1 hr. 30mins. To get from their home in Fair Oak to their office in Southampton by car, if they are lucky.  Think about it!

Brian L. Glanville

Codicil added Wednesday 2nd January 2016

Comments on other options –

Option A. proposes a similar road as Option B, but with the north westerly end shown ending at Highbridge, this would funnel a huge volume of traffic through Twyford and Colden common: regarding this option I make the same comments as above.

A suggested preferred option:  An improved Allington Lane  link, (with widening and adjustment)  with new build housing extending South, West & East across Allington lane, from Strawberry Fields, South to the Southampton boundary, together with a full supporting social infrastructure,  extending, into & through the area East of the airport. The development of a new relief road from the Allington lane development West, exiting north of the Airport, to link South to the motorway. (This total area if developed could account for 15,000 New Builds in a 'serviced Village environment!) & would avoid the construction of an additional link 6 to the M27 motorway, and would be a much less expensive option from an environmental and cost perspective to any of the options offered in either A.  B. or C.

Brian L, Glanville