More than 600 protesters march through Botley in Hampshire against plans for 1,400 homes

Daily Echo: More than 600 march against plans for 1,400 homes More than 600 march against plans for 1,400 homes

MORE than 600 people took to the streets of a Hampshire village today to protest against a proposed housing development.

Residents – many carrying banners and placards – brought the centre of Botley to a standstill as they demonstrated against plans for 1,400 homes to be built on a golf course near Boorley Green.

Today’s march, which closed the High Street for half an hour, was organised by the Botley Parish Action Group (BPAG).

It says that the roads, schools and health services in the area could not support such a development and that the planning application is premature because Eastleigh Borough Council’s Local Plan is yet to be rubber stamped by an independent inspector.

Campaigners hope the march may sway Eastleigh councillors’ decision when they consider the plan at the Hedge End, West End and Botley Local Area Committee on February 18.

BPAG chairman Sue Grinham said: “We’re all concerned about the impact this is going to have on the environment.

“It’s a short sighted quick fix against all the council’s principles.”

The consortium behind the development has previously said that it will help tackle a housing shortage, would bring a host of community facilities, which could include a new primary school, supermarket and sports pitches, as well as economic benefits to Eastleigh borough and could also help to fund a bypass at Sundays Hill, Bursledon.

A spokesman added: "The Boorley Green consortium would like to emphasise that it is not unusual for outline planning applications to be submitted when final consultations into area's Local Plans are nearing their conclusions.

"Many of those developing much needed new homes across the country adopt a similar approach and the consortium responsible for the Boorley Green scheme sees the application submission as the next logical step following the extensive community consultations held last year.

"The consortiums have worked hard to consult with the community and have used feedback received both during and since the community consultations to shape the proposals have now been submitted to Eastleigh Borough Council."

Comments (38)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

2:29pm Sat 2 Feb 13

Traffic chaos says...

Improved transport is key to the success of this development. Eastleigh council have ruled out even thinking about a bypass until 2020. Even now, air quality is below allowed standards in the village. Adding more cars isn't going to help. People need houses, jobs and transport, but with a gridlocked M27 each morning and regular hold ups in Botley, just imagine what it will be like with 1500+ new houses and cars!
Improved transport is key to the success of this development. Eastleigh council have ruled out even thinking about a bypass until 2020. Even now, air quality is below allowed standards in the village. Adding more cars isn't going to help. People need houses, jobs and transport, but with a gridlocked M27 each morning and regular hold ups in Botley, just imagine what it will be like with 1500+ new houses and cars! Traffic chaos

3:00pm Sat 2 Feb 13

Pikey Pete says...

I am glad all the protesters went back to their homes.

Homes which were probably once under the spotlight as NOT REQUIRED either...

If it is on a golf course what harm is that?
I am glad all the protesters went back to their homes. Homes which were probably once under the spotlight as NOT REQUIRED either... If it is on a golf course what harm is that? Pikey Pete

3:12pm Sat 2 Feb 13

Noo Noo B says...

Not another wretched supermarket, how many do we need in one area?
Not another wretched supermarket, how many do we need in one area? Noo Noo B

3:25pm Sat 2 Feb 13

Lockssmart says...

**** Pete wrote:
I am glad all the protesters went back to their homes.

Homes which were probably once under the spotlight as NOT REQUIRED either...

If it is on a golf course what harm is that?
NIMBY's. Well said **** Pete.
[quote][p][bold]**** Pete[/bold] wrote: I am glad all the protesters went back to their homes. Homes which were probably once under the spotlight as NOT REQUIRED either... If it is on a golf course what harm is that?[/p][/quote]NIMBY's. Well said **** Pete. Lockssmart

3:53pm Sat 2 Feb 13

ghunter717 says...

This was a very well organised march. NOT by NIMBYS but by residenst who support housebuilding in the RIGHT place that IS sustainable. The proposed site at the Botley Park Golf Course Boorley Green Botley, is neither the right place nor is it sustainable. It is on a Green Field site which is also high grade agricultural land, but also with VERY BAD infrastructure.
These residents I am sure support smaller scale sustainable developments that Botley and its infrastructure can support, but NOT 1400 dwellings it cannot, that will dstroty the historical parish of Botley. Far better alternative sites exist in the borough, as suggested by EBC's own Planning & Policy Design Department.

What these residents demand is to be heard. They are NOT Nimbys by a long long way.
This was a very well organised march. NOT by NIMBYS but by residenst who support housebuilding in the RIGHT place that IS sustainable. The proposed site at the Botley Park Golf Course Boorley Green Botley, is neither the right place nor is it sustainable. It is on a Green Field site which is also high grade agricultural land, but also with VERY BAD infrastructure. These residents I am sure support smaller scale sustainable developments that Botley and its infrastructure can support, but NOT 1400 dwellings it cannot, that will dstroty the historical parish of Botley. Far better alternative sites exist in the borough, as suggested by EBC's own Planning & Policy Design Department. What these residents demand is to be heard. They are NOT Nimbys by a long long way. ghunter717

4:35pm Sat 2 Feb 13

Lockssmart says...

As **** Pete said. I bet people complained when the current residents moved in.

Which means this lot complaining, are only complaining against what they did to the area in the first place.

That in my book makes them NIMBY'S
As **** Pete said. I bet people complained when the current residents moved in. Which means this lot complaining, are only complaining against what they did to the area in the first place. That in my book makes them NIMBY'S Lockssmart

4:56pm Sat 2 Feb 13

ColinM2 says...

People in Botley are not being NIMBY The Parish Council proposed a site for 300 houses, which was accepted in the Draft Local Plan. We are 2200 houses at present so 300 is about a 12% increase. We know more houses are needed and support that, but 1400 is rather too much in one remote area that will mean more traffic with no infrastructure to support it, no employment in the vicinity and so on. Polls throughout the village accepted up to 500 as people wanted houses for their children, elderly relatives, more affordable houses and so on.

Would you like to have the housing in your area increased by over 60%, or would you think it better to disperse it so everyone takes a share?

Who is being reasonable and not jumping to conclusions I ask. Is saying it is being a NIMBY a knee jerk reaction without getting the full picture?
People in Botley are not being NIMBY The Parish Council proposed a site for 300 houses, which was accepted in the Draft Local Plan. We are 2200 houses at present so 300 is about a 12% increase. We know more houses are needed and support that, but 1400 is rather too much in one remote area that will mean more traffic with no infrastructure to support it, no employment in the vicinity and so on. Polls throughout the village accepted up to 500 as people wanted houses for their children, elderly relatives, more affordable houses and so on. Would you like to have the housing in your area increased by over 60%, or would you think it better to disperse it so everyone takes a share? Who is being reasonable and not jumping to conclusions I ask. Is saying it is being a NIMBY a knee jerk reaction without getting the full picture? ColinM2

5:00pm Sat 2 Feb 13

Lockssmart says...

We have had it increased by 50% in our area.

We are all having to pay the price.

You just want something to complain about.

It's going to happen, if you can't handle it, move!
We have had it increased by 50% in our area. We are all having to pay the price. You just want something to complain about. It's going to happen, if you can't handle it, move! Lockssmart

5:04pm Sat 2 Feb 13

Lockssmart says...

The Nimby's of Botley has a ring to it.

Bit like the Wombles of Wimbledon.
The Nimby's of Botley has a ring to it. Bit like the Wombles of Wimbledon. Lockssmart

5:11pm Sat 2 Feb 13

Lockssmart says...

The Nimby's of Botley are whinging again,
They don't want people moving in, they are just a pain.
They didn't mind when they moved in to Botley
Now they all think they own it and sod everybody.
The Nimby's of Botley are whinging again, They don't want people moving in, they are just a pain. They didn't mind when they moved in to Botley Now they all think they own it and sod everybody. Lockssmart

5:57pm Sat 2 Feb 13

ohec says...

Where do they suggest these houses are built ? the answer will be anywhere but here, improved infrastructure will follow so i don't think that argument holds water. But i would like to see houses and not shoe boxes crammed together, as for the greenfield argument the whole country is overcrowded and we need to build on greenfield sites all over the country but its not the end of the world only a very small proportion of the U.K is built on we have plenty of countryside left, these NIMBY's will be the first to complain if their children or grandchildren have nowhere to live.
Where do they suggest these houses are built ? the answer will be anywhere but here, improved infrastructure will follow so i don't think that argument holds water. But i would like to see houses and not shoe boxes crammed together, as for the greenfield argument the whole country is overcrowded and we need to build on greenfield sites all over the country but its not the end of the world only a very small proportion of the U.K is built on we have plenty of countryside left, these NIMBY's will be the first to complain if their children or grandchildren have nowhere to live. ohec

6:04pm Sat 2 Feb 13

aghhhhh says...

I look forward to the day some serious building plans are made for the vast areas of country-side. We have a huge percentage of a generation that has no access to living anywhere other than tiny flats in town centers..stop being so small minded and selfish.....
I look forward to the day some serious building plans are made for the vast areas of country-side. We have a huge percentage of a generation that has no access to living anywhere other than tiny flats in town centers..stop being so small minded and selfish..... aghhhhh

6:28pm Sat 2 Feb 13

Lockssmart says...

aghhhhh wrote:
I look forward to the day some serious building plans are made for the vast areas of country-side. We have a huge percentage of a generation that has no access to living anywhere other than tiny flats in town centers..stop being so small minded and selfish.....
Sense at last.
[quote][p][bold]aghhhhh[/bold] wrote: I look forward to the day some serious building plans are made for the vast areas of country-side. We have a huge percentage of a generation that has no access to living anywhere other than tiny flats in town centers..stop being so small minded and selfish.....[/p][/quote]Sense at last. Lockssmart

6:48pm Sat 2 Feb 13

housewife says...

There are one million empty and second homes in the UK.
Fill them up before building more.
There are one million empty and second homes in the UK. Fill them up before building more. housewife

7:12pm Sat 2 Feb 13

Lockssmart says...

housewife wrote:
There are one million empty and second homes in the UK.
Fill them up before building more.
Must have taken you a while to count them?
[quote][p][bold]housewife[/bold] wrote: There are one million empty and second homes in the UK. Fill them up before building more.[/p][/quote]Must have taken you a while to count them? Lockssmart

7:35pm Sat 2 Feb 13

Sir Ad E Noid says...

ohec wrote:
Where do they suggest these houses are built ? the answer will be anywhere but here, improved infrastructure will follow so i don't think that argument holds water. But i would like to see houses and not shoe boxes crammed together, as for the greenfield argument the whole country is overcrowded and we need to build on greenfield sites all over the country but its not the end of the world only a very small proportion of the U.K is built on we have plenty of countryside left, these NIMBY's will be the first to complain if their children or grandchildren have nowhere to live.
Exactly where is the house that you have purchased with your hard earned?
[quote][p][bold]ohec[/bold] wrote: Where do they suggest these houses are built ? the answer will be anywhere but here, improved infrastructure will follow so i don't think that argument holds water. But i would like to see houses and not shoe boxes crammed together, as for the greenfield argument the whole country is overcrowded and we need to build on greenfield sites all over the country but its not the end of the world only a very small proportion of the U.K is built on we have plenty of countryside left, these NIMBY's will be the first to complain if their children or grandchildren have nowhere to live.[/p][/quote]Exactly where is the house that you have purchased with your hard earned? Sir Ad E Noid

8:54pm Sat 2 Feb 13

TR2708 says...

Lockssmart wrote:
The Nimby's of Botley are whinging again,
They don't want people moving in, they are just a pain.
They didn't mind when they moved in to Botley
Now they all think they own it and sod everybody.
just want to point out that not every resident in Botley is against the plans - there is a serve need for housing in the area. The aging population and high house prices mean the village will become a rural area of deprivation if action isn't taken so stop with your immature comments you bigoted cretin.
[quote][p][bold]Lockssmart[/bold] wrote: The Nimby's of Botley are whinging again, They don't want people moving in, they are just a pain. They didn't mind when they moved in to Botley Now they all think they own it and sod everybody.[/p][/quote]just want to point out that not every resident in Botley is against the plans - there is a serve need for housing in the area. The aging population and high house prices mean the village will become a rural area of deprivation if action isn't taken so stop with your immature comments you bigoted cretin. TR2708

9:00pm Sat 2 Feb 13

Lockssmart says...

Oooooooohhhhhh listen to her!
Oooooooohhhhhh listen to her! Lockssmart

9:06pm Sat 2 Feb 13

Huffter says...

How many people will 1400 homes house? 600 people protested. Who wins?
How many people will 1400 homes house? 600 people protested. Who wins? Huffter

9:08pm Sat 2 Feb 13

loosehead says...

I don't live there but went out with a lady from Botley & stayed over there.
I remember houses going up where green fields were before or a field left with houses all around as the field was green belt.
so unless you live in a pre 60's house( maybe pre 30's) how can you complain about new housing unless it's on a protected site or green belt?
just take yourself back to the village of Botley & think of what the residents thought of your new homes & if they'd fought to stop the developments of Botley & Hedge end where would you be living now?
I don't live there but went out with a lady from Botley & stayed over there. I remember houses going up where green fields were before or a field left with houses all around as the field was green belt. so unless you live in a pre 60's house( maybe pre 30's) how can you complain about new housing unless it's on a protected site or green belt? just take yourself back to the village of Botley & think of what the residents thought of your new homes & if they'd fought to stop the developments of Botley & Hedge end where would you be living now? loosehead

9:13pm Sat 2 Feb 13

loosehead says...

housewife wrote:
There are one million empty and second homes in the UK.
Fill them up before building more.
Do you want to move to Liverpool or a deprived area of say the North East where there are whole estates empty?
because if you'd watched ch4's program it was all about the north of England so unless all of the Southerners want to move North we have to build here( some london councils are asking people on the waiting list if they would move North)
[quote][p][bold]housewife[/bold] wrote: There are one million empty and second homes in the UK. Fill them up before building more.[/p][/quote]Do you want to move to Liverpool or a deprived area of say the North East where there are whole estates empty? because if you'd watched ch4's program it was all about the north of England so unless all of the Southerners want to move North we have to build here( some london councils are asking people on the waiting list if they would move North) loosehead

11:46pm Sat 2 Feb 13

Torchie1 says...

housewife wrote:
There are one million empty and second homes in the UK.
Fill them up before building more.
There are plenty of empty bedrooms in homes where the children have flown the nest. Do you propose commandeering them because you don't own them either.
[quote][p][bold]housewife[/bold] wrote: There are one million empty and second homes in the UK. Fill them up before building more.[/p][/quote]There are plenty of empty bedrooms in homes where the children have flown the nest. Do you propose commandeering them because you don't own them either. Torchie1

4:06am Sun 3 Feb 13

MiddleOfRoad says...

I empathise with the local residents. I am sure most people understand that there needs to be more housing, if only to house the illegal immigrants and the masses of EU people waiting to enter the benefits generous and high health care country known as the UK. OK the last comment was in jest though I suspect somewhat applicable.
However, there has been a history of councils and other planning bodies approving small and large housing developments without any coordination with neighbouring councils and without any proper master plan.
Infrastructure and quality of life are the two aspects most often eroded by this adhoc inefficient town planning.
Councils have to include real and measurable and easily understood plans to maintain or better improve roads, public transport, parking, recreation areas, greenfiled areas, population densities, policing, schools, child care, medical and dental facilities, hospital access, library facilties, traffic control plans etc.
This list is not exclusive and as any competent town planner will know all of these factors and more impact upon, or are impacted upon by, other councils and govt services and facilities.
Incidentally the Govt is also similarly deficient in understanding the cause and effects of their policies. I suspect that the previous Govt had little of no provisions in mind when it decided to permit upwards of 5 million additional people into the UK - the consequences of which are being felt by all and sundry as we debate this issue.
Unfortunately local council town planning, without a full and complete understanding and acknowledgement of these basic TownPlanning 101 topics, usually falls down. End result reduced quality of life and loss of amenity for residents, often reduced real estate valuations and increasing social and mental health issues.
So on these matters alone I support the protesters, who are maybe possessing some NIMBYism but who seem to be mainly reflecting the scepticism that is healthy and necessary given the track records of councils over the last 30 years.
One last point - if the residents compiled a list of all necessary infrastructure factors, some of which are listed above, and demanded the council provide an accounting of their considerations of these matters I suspect the council would prevaricate and decide to review the whole matter. The difficulty in the current maze of adhoc town planning the currently blights the UK is getting any council to admit it is less than magnificent.
I empathise with the local residents. I am sure most people understand that there needs to be more housing, if only to house the illegal immigrants and the masses of EU people waiting to enter the benefits generous and high health care country known as the UK. OK the last comment was in jest though I suspect somewhat applicable. However, there has been a history of councils and other planning bodies approving small and large housing developments without any coordination with neighbouring councils and without any proper master plan. Infrastructure and quality of life are the two aspects most often eroded by this adhoc inefficient town planning. Councils have to include real and measurable and easily understood plans to maintain or better improve roads, public transport, parking, recreation areas, greenfiled areas, population densities, policing, schools, child care, medical and dental facilities, hospital access, library facilties, traffic control plans etc. This list is not exclusive and as any competent town planner will know all of these factors and more impact upon, or are impacted upon by, other councils and govt services and facilities. Incidentally the Govt is also similarly deficient in understanding the cause and effects of their policies. I suspect that the previous Govt had little of no provisions in mind when it decided to permit upwards of 5 million additional people into the UK - the consequences of which are being felt by all and sundry as we debate this issue. Unfortunately local council town planning, without a full and complete understanding and acknowledgement of these basic TownPlanning 101 topics, usually falls down. End result reduced quality of life and loss of amenity for residents, often reduced real estate valuations and increasing social and mental health issues. So on these matters alone I support the protesters, who are maybe possessing some NIMBYism but who seem to be mainly reflecting the scepticism that is healthy and necessary given the track records of councils over the last 30 years. One last point - if the residents compiled a list of all necessary infrastructure factors, some of which are listed above, and demanded the council provide an accounting of their considerations of these matters I suspect the council would prevaricate and decide to review the whole matter. The difficulty in the current maze of adhoc town planning the currently blights the UK is getting any council to admit it is less than magnificent. MiddleOfRoad

7:16am Sun 3 Feb 13

Miguel Raton says...

The population of the UK is increasing rapidly and people need somewhere decent to live. As long as any necessary additional infrastructure is included in the plans there should be no objection. It is not as though the council is planning to demolish existing buildings.
The population of the UK is increasing rapidly and people need somewhere decent to live. As long as any necessary additional infrastructure is included in the plans there should be no objection. It is not as though the council is planning to demolish existing buildings. Miguel Raton

10:40am Sun 3 Feb 13

andysaints007 says...

housewife wrote:
There are one million empty and second homes in the UK.
Fill them up before building more.
No one is moving in to my second home - cos its MINE !!
[quote][p][bold]housewife[/bold] wrote: There are one million empty and second homes in the UK. Fill them up before building more.[/p][/quote]No one is moving in to my second home - cos its MINE !! andysaints007

10:51am Sun 3 Feb 13

Linesman says...

ghunter717 wrote:
This was a very well organised march. NOT by NIMBYS but by residenst who support housebuilding in the RIGHT place that IS sustainable. The proposed site at the Botley Park Golf Course Boorley Green Botley, is neither the right place nor is it sustainable. It is on a Green Field site which is also high grade agricultural land, but also with VERY BAD infrastructure.
These residents I am sure support smaller scale sustainable developments that Botley and its infrastructure can support, but NOT 1400 dwellings it cannot, that will dstroty the historical parish of Botley. Far better alternative sites exist in the borough, as suggested by EBC's own Planning & Policy Design Department.

What these residents demand is to be heard. They are NOT Nimbys by a long long way.
"NOT by NIMBYs but by residents who support housbuilding in the RIGHT place that IS sustainable."

In other words,

NOT IN MY BACK YARD!
[quote][p][bold]ghunter717[/bold] wrote: This was a very well organised march. NOT by NIMBYS but by residenst who support housebuilding in the RIGHT place that IS sustainable. The proposed site at the Botley Park Golf Course Boorley Green Botley, is neither the right place nor is it sustainable. It is on a Green Field site which is also high grade agricultural land, but also with VERY BAD infrastructure. These residents I am sure support smaller scale sustainable developments that Botley and its infrastructure can support, but NOT 1400 dwellings it cannot, that will dstroty the historical parish of Botley. Far better alternative sites exist in the borough, as suggested by EBC's own Planning & Policy Design Department. What these residents demand is to be heard. They are NOT Nimbys by a long long way.[/p][/quote]"NOT by NIMBYs but by residents who support housbuilding in the RIGHT place that IS sustainable." In other words, NOT IN MY BACK YARD! Linesman

12:02pm Sun 3 Feb 13

sydneyfarm says...

what is wrong with being a nimby anyway?
what is wrong with being a nimby anyway? sydneyfarm

12:03pm Sun 3 Feb 13

Mr E says...

Houses need to be close to jobs and facilities like schools and shops.

The further away you build them the more transport infrastructure is needed for people to lead their daily lives.

This development is in the wrong place. (and I don't live anywhere near it)
Houses need to be close to jobs and facilities like schools and shops. The further away you build them the more transport infrastructure is needed for people to lead their daily lives. This development is in the wrong place. (and I don't live anywhere near it) Mr E

12:26pm Sun 3 Feb 13

Linesman says...

Mr E wrote:
Houses need to be close to jobs and facilities like schools and shops.

The further away you build them the more transport infrastructure is needed for people to lead their daily lives.

This development is in the wrong place. (and I don't live anywhere near it)
Working on that theory, everyone who works in London should live in London and everyone who lives in Botley should work in Botley.

The theory sounds good, but it totally impractical.
[quote][p][bold]Mr E[/bold] wrote: Houses need to be close to jobs and facilities like schools and shops. The further away you build them the more transport infrastructure is needed for people to lead their daily lives. This development is in the wrong place. (and I don't live anywhere near it)[/p][/quote]Working on that theory, everyone who works in London should live in London and everyone who lives in Botley should work in Botley. The theory sounds good, but it totally impractical. Linesman

1:20pm Sun 3 Feb 13

loosehead says...

Mr E wrote:
Houses need to be close to jobs and facilities like schools and shops.

The further away you build them the more transport infrastructure is needed for people to lead their daily lives.

This development is in the wrong place. (and I don't live anywhere near it)
So we'll knock down 90% of housing in the South & move it North then as that's where the majority of industry is isn't it?
wouldn't even have to go on a house building spree as there's whole estates empty in Liverpool,Middlesbro
ugh etc;
then we can leave the South to farmers some fishermen,some dock workers & of course the rich retired people of say Hythe Marina or "Botley"
how many of these people have been agreeing with Labour about getting people working on building & infrastructure projects?
the problem then comes to pass that no one wants it near them(HS2 & Botley)
[quote][p][bold]Mr E[/bold] wrote: Houses need to be close to jobs and facilities like schools and shops. The further away you build them the more transport infrastructure is needed for people to lead their daily lives. This development is in the wrong place. (and I don't live anywhere near it)[/p][/quote]So we'll knock down 90% of housing in the South & move it North then as that's where the majority of industry is isn't it? wouldn't even have to go on a house building spree as there's whole estates empty in Liverpool,Middlesbro ugh etc; then we can leave the South to farmers some fishermen,some dock workers & of course the rich retired people of say Hythe Marina or "Botley" how many of these people have been agreeing with Labour about getting people working on building & infrastructure projects? the problem then comes to pass that no one wants it near them(HS2 & Botley) loosehead

1:58pm Sun 3 Feb 13

Lone Ranger. says...

andysaints007 wrote:
housewife wrote:
There are one million empty and second homes in the UK.
Fill them up before building more.
No one is moving in to my second home - cos its MINE !!
How do you do it ...... One brainless comment after another 24 carat idiot
[quote][p][bold]andysaints007[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]housewife[/bold] wrote: There are one million empty and second homes in the UK. Fill them up before building more.[/p][/quote]No one is moving in to my second home - cos its MINE !![/p][/quote]How do you do it ...... One brainless comment after another 24 carat idiot Lone Ranger.

2:15pm Sun 3 Feb 13

ColinM2 says...

There are other places in Eastleigh which are far more suitable. One such is Allington Lane which has far more potential for the future, is closer to employment areas and has much lower grade agricultural land.

People in Botley are not against extra housing and have voted for some that is within walking distance of the village centre. The proposed site at Boorley Green includes much high grade farm land as well as the golf course, and it is car riding distance so once in a car people might well go to say the Sainsburys/Marks & Spencer complex at Hedge End as it is not much further.

Of course no one would say that because Eastleigh is putting up money for facilities at the Agea Bowl (formerly the Rose Bowl) Cricket in West End which will include an 18 hole golf course that it is perhaps helpful that the nearest rival course is being effectively closed by them allowing houses all over it. Perish the thought!

Also never mind the fact that the professional planners at Eastleigh recommend the Allington Lane site and have stated so in writing.
There are other places in Eastleigh which are far more suitable. One such is Allington Lane which has far more potential for the future, is closer to employment areas and has much lower grade agricultural land. People in Botley are not against extra housing and have voted for some that is within walking distance of the village centre. The proposed site at Boorley Green includes much high grade farm land as well as the golf course, and it is car riding distance so once in a car people might well go to say the Sainsburys/Marks & Spencer complex at Hedge End as it is not much further. Of course no one would say that because Eastleigh is putting up money for facilities at the Agea Bowl (formerly the Rose Bowl) Cricket in West End which will include an 18 hole golf course that it is perhaps helpful that the nearest rival course is being effectively closed by them allowing houses all over it. Perish the thought! Also never mind the fact that the professional planners at Eastleigh recommend the Allington Lane site and have stated so in writing. ColinM2

3:00pm Sun 3 Feb 13

kingnotail says...

NIMBYs are a cancer on development in modern Britain, from rural housing and windfarms to HS2 and airport runways.
NIMBYs are a cancer on development in modern Britain, from rural housing and windfarms to HS2 and airport runways. kingnotail

6:11pm Sun 3 Feb 13

J.P.M says...

ColinM2 wrote:
There are other places in Eastleigh which are far more suitable. One such is Allington Lane which has far more potential for the future, is closer to employment areas and has much lower grade agricultural land.

People in Botley are not against extra housing and have voted for some that is within walking distance of the village centre. The proposed site at Boorley Green includes much high grade farm land as well as the golf course, and it is car riding distance so once in a car people might well go to say the Sainsburys/Marks & Spencer complex at Hedge End as it is not much further.

Of course no one would say that because Eastleigh is putting up money for facilities at the Agea Bowl (formerly the Rose Bowl) Cricket in West End which will include an 18 hole golf course that it is perhaps helpful that the nearest rival course is being effectively closed by them allowing houses all over it. Perish the thought!

Also never mind the fact that the professional planners at Eastleigh recommend the Allington Lane site and have stated so in writing.
Oh be quiet.
The development is going ahead where it should be - not where the keyboard dreamers want it.
[quote][p][bold]ColinM2[/bold] wrote: There are other places in Eastleigh which are far more suitable. One such is Allington Lane which has far more potential for the future, is closer to employment areas and has much lower grade agricultural land. People in Botley are not against extra housing and have voted for some that is within walking distance of the village centre. The proposed site at Boorley Green includes much high grade farm land as well as the golf course, and it is car riding distance so once in a car people might well go to say the Sainsburys/Marks & Spencer complex at Hedge End as it is not much further. Of course no one would say that because Eastleigh is putting up money for facilities at the Agea Bowl (formerly the Rose Bowl) Cricket in West End which will include an 18 hole golf course that it is perhaps helpful that the nearest rival course is being effectively closed by them allowing houses all over it. Perish the thought! Also never mind the fact that the professional planners at Eastleigh recommend the Allington Lane site and have stated so in writing.[/p][/quote]Oh be quiet. The development is going ahead where it should be - not where the keyboard dreamers want it. J.P.M

6:35pm Sun 3 Feb 13

kingnotail says...

sydneyfarm wrote:
what is wrong with being a nimby anyway?
Because things have to be built, and they have to be built somewhere, and yet there will always be whinging luddites who wish the industrial revolution never happened.
[quote][p][bold]sydneyfarm[/bold] wrote: what is wrong with being a nimby anyway?[/p][/quote]Because things have to be built, and they have to be built somewhere, and yet there will always be whinging luddites who wish the industrial revolution never happened. kingnotail

7:44pm Sun 3 Feb 13

Lockssmart says...

J.P.M wrote:
ColinM2 wrote:
There are other places in Eastleigh which are far more suitable. One such is Allington Lane which has far more potential for the future, is closer to employment areas and has much lower grade agricultural land.

People in Botley are not against extra housing and have voted for some that is within walking distance of the village centre. The proposed site at Boorley Green includes much high grade farm land as well as the golf course, and it is car riding distance so once in a car people might well go to say the Sainsburys/Marks & Spencer complex at Hedge End as it is not much further.

Of course no one would say that because Eastleigh is putting up money for facilities at the Agea Bowl (formerly the Rose Bowl) Cricket in West End which will include an 18 hole golf course that it is perhaps helpful that the nearest rival course is being effectively closed by them allowing houses all over it. Perish the thought!

Also never mind the fact that the professional planners at Eastleigh recommend the Allington Lane site and have stated so in writing.
Oh be quiet.
The development is going ahead where it should be - not where the keyboard dreamers want it.
JPM. For once, your making sense. Top man.
[quote][p][bold]J.P.M[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ColinM2[/bold] wrote: There are other places in Eastleigh which are far more suitable. One such is Allington Lane which has far more potential for the future, is closer to employment areas and has much lower grade agricultural land. People in Botley are not against extra housing and have voted for some that is within walking distance of the village centre. The proposed site at Boorley Green includes much high grade farm land as well as the golf course, and it is car riding distance so once in a car people might well go to say the Sainsburys/Marks & Spencer complex at Hedge End as it is not much further. Of course no one would say that because Eastleigh is putting up money for facilities at the Agea Bowl (formerly the Rose Bowl) Cricket in West End which will include an 18 hole golf course that it is perhaps helpful that the nearest rival course is being effectively closed by them allowing houses all over it. Perish the thought! Also never mind the fact that the professional planners at Eastleigh recommend the Allington Lane site and have stated so in writing.[/p][/quote]Oh be quiet. The development is going ahead where it should be - not where the keyboard dreamers want it.[/p][/quote]JPM. For once, your making sense. Top man. Lockssmart

12:43pm Mon 4 Feb 13

No to 5000 says...

It’s time to stop the rot in the South! I hear people whinging about the cost of housing and complaining about these NIMBYs. In reality there are plenty of homes for those that can afford one. People are not automatically entitled to own a house in a certain area. My house is probably worth about the same amount as when I bought it 3 years ago (which thanks to inflation means in real terms it has dropped in value) so I know exactly how hard it is to get a house. People should live within their means and not just demand more houses are built in the hope they might attain one. If you can’t afford one now 5000 homes is not suddenly going to make them cheaper. I wonder if those that are complaining about the NIMBYs are actually builders or developers, as I can not understand why anybody else would want further development of this environmentally stressed area. Perhaps some people will not be happy until everything south of the M4 is a developed as Portsmouth with the added benefit of having little employment nearby.
It’s time to stop the rot in the South! I hear people whinging about the cost of housing and complaining about these NIMBYs. In reality there are plenty of homes for those that can afford one. People are not automatically entitled to own a house in a certain area. My house is probably worth about the same amount as when I bought it 3 years ago (which thanks to inflation means in real terms it has dropped in value) so I know exactly how hard it is to get a house. People should live within their means and not just demand more houses are built in the hope they might attain one. If you can’t afford one now 5000 homes is not suddenly going to make them cheaper. I wonder if those that are complaining about the NIMBYs are actually builders or developers, as I can not understand why anybody else would want further development of this environmentally stressed area. Perhaps some people will not be happy until everything south of the M4 is a developed as Portsmouth with the added benefit of having little employment nearby. No to 5000

5:02pm Mon 4 Feb 13

loosehead says...

No to 5000 wrote:
It’s time to stop the rot in the South! I hear people whinging about the cost of housing and complaining about these NIMBYs. In reality there are plenty of homes for those that can afford one. People are not automatically entitled to own a house in a certain area. My house is probably worth about the same amount as when I bought it 3 years ago (which thanks to inflation means in real terms it has dropped in value) so I know exactly how hard it is to get a house. People should live within their means and not just demand more houses are built in the hope they might attain one. If you can’t afford one now 5000 homes is not suddenly going to make them cheaper. I wonder if those that are complaining about the NIMBYs are actually builders or developers, as I can not understand why anybody else would want further development of this environmentally stressed area. Perhaps some people will not be happy until everything south of the M4 is a developed as Portsmouth with the added benefit of having little employment nearby.
Personally they should knock down Hedge end & return it to fields but I'm against hypocrites who bought new builds ( like the waterside) then protest against new housing or pre planned developments like Dibden container port
[quote][p][bold]No to 5000[/bold] wrote: It’s time to stop the rot in the South! I hear people whinging about the cost of housing and complaining about these NIMBYs. In reality there are plenty of homes for those that can afford one. People are not automatically entitled to own a house in a certain area. My house is probably worth about the same amount as when I bought it 3 years ago (which thanks to inflation means in real terms it has dropped in value) so I know exactly how hard it is to get a house. People should live within their means and not just demand more houses are built in the hope they might attain one. If you can’t afford one now 5000 homes is not suddenly going to make them cheaper. I wonder if those that are complaining about the NIMBYs are actually builders or developers, as I can not understand why anybody else would want further development of this environmentally stressed area. Perhaps some people will not be happy until everything south of the M4 is a developed as Portsmouth with the added benefit of having little employment nearby.[/p][/quote]Personally they should knock down Hedge end & return it to fields but I'm against hypocrites who bought new builds ( like the waterside) then protest against new housing or pre planned developments like Dibden container port loosehead

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree