1,900 new homes would destroy town, protesters claim

Daily Echo: Protesters against the housing development in Romsey. Protesters against the housing development in Romsey.

MORE than 250 protesters packed into a public meeting in a market town last night as pressure mounts on housing bosses to scrap plans for hundreds of homes.

A local authority blueprint currently under revision is set to add 1,900 homes to the Romsey area to meet a chronic shortage of family homes.

About 1,300 houses are planned for farmland at Whitenap and another 300 at Hoe Lane.

But anti-development campaign group Romsave last night condemned the plans as flawed and claimed that they would destroy Romsey.

Waving placards and handing out their leaflets, supporters cheered on their spokesmen while heckling Test Valley borough councillors supporting the plan.

At one point Test Valley mayor Councillor Janet Whiteley had to intervene to calm passions down.

Addressing the ruling Conservative councillors, Romsave campaigner Richard Buss said: “Tonight is the time to put party politics to one side, do what’s right for the people, do what’s right for Romsey, send this plan back for a redraft, and save the jewel in Test Valley’s crown.

“Councillors, you simply can’t risk having this plan found unsound, you can’t afford to spend more than the £1.6 million it has already cost, for it to be found unsound.

“But should this current flawed plan end up being adopted, your individual names will forever be associated with the destruction of our beautiful, historic market town.

“Romsave is not saying no to housing in Romsey and we are not questioning the housing requirement for southern Test Valley, however we are saying no to having 94 per cent of Southern Test Valley’s housing requirement dumped in Romsey and North Baddesley.”

Mr Buss also claimed the plan breached Government competition rules.

This is because he said all the housing was being built on land owned by one person, Timothy Knatchbull. He has planned to build a mini Poundbury, a heritage-style village created in Dorset by his godfather, Prince Charles.

The creaking 70-year-old infrastructure could not cope with extra housing, Mr Buss said.

Only this week Romsey and Southampton North MP Caroline Nokes raised concerns in Parliament about the potential impact new development can place on areas with insufficient drainage capacity.

This followed repeated flooding in Romsey during recent weeks.

But Test Valley planning boss Cllr Martin Hatley said the sites were right, would help 2,500 families in the borough find a home and would save the town by adding more customers.

“Zero houses are not an option,” he said, adding: “The aim of this is to make Romsey a sustainable town.”

Consultation on the revised plan will start at the end of the month, running for six weeks, after which the council will go back and rewrite it, making amendments.

In July it will be sent to the Secretary of State and in September to a public inspector. If it is passed, construction would start after January 2015.

Comments (10)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:58am Thu 9 Jan 14

newsknight says...

Meanwhile along the Test Valley at Longstock NIMBYS are still contesting just 46 new houses (30 years awaited and they have had the funds several times over!!). These houses are required to offset the need by offspring of current residents for housing - otherwise they will add to the pressure on nearby towns!! Building of this small number of new homes at Longstock would also bring the chance of more signing up to be 'First Responders', and 'Retained Firefighters' in the villages of Longstock/Stockbridg
e, and mean bus services may be viable again. IF ALL TEST VALLEY VILLAGES WERE REQUIRED TO BUILD AND SUSTAIN RURAL LIFE IN DOING SO THEN LARGE BATCHES OF HOUSES SURROUNDING ROMSEY WOULD NOT BE THE OUTCOME!!!!
Meanwhile along the Test Valley at Longstock NIMBYS are still contesting just 46 new houses (30 years awaited and they have had the funds several times over!!). These houses are required to offset the need by offspring of current residents for housing - otherwise they will add to the pressure on nearby towns!! Building of this small number of new homes at Longstock would also bring the chance of more signing up to be 'First Responders', and 'Retained Firefighters' in the villages of Longstock/Stockbridg e, and mean bus services may be viable again. IF ALL TEST VALLEY VILLAGES WERE REQUIRED TO BUILD AND SUSTAIN RURAL LIFE IN DOING SO THEN LARGE BATCHES OF HOUSES SURROUNDING ROMSEY WOULD NOT BE THE OUTCOME!!!! newsknight
  • Score: 11

1:00pm Thu 9 Jan 14

Brusher Mills says...

newsknight wrote:
Meanwhile along the Test Valley at Longstock NIMBYS are still contesting just 46 new houses (30 years awaited and they have had the funds several times over!!). These houses are required to offset the need by offspring of current residents for housing - otherwise they will add to the pressure on nearby towns!! Building of this small number of new homes at Longstock would also bring the chance of more signing up to be 'First Responders', and 'Retained Firefighters' in the villages of Longstock/Stockbridg e, and mean bus services may be viable again. IF ALL TEST VALLEY VILLAGES WERE REQUIRED TO BUILD AND SUSTAIN RURAL LIFE IN DOING SO THEN LARGE BATCHES OF HOUSES SURROUNDING ROMSEY WOULD NOT BE THE OUTCOME!!!!
Very true if all villages did there bit their communities will survive and with it rural life sad fact us locals children are priced out if their own villages as rich outsiders nice in and push up prices, these people normally older sit tight the area suffers, local schools close, post offices and pubs etc

Look at the percentage they want to build in Romsey it's stupid.
[quote][p][bold]newsknight[/bold] wrote: Meanwhile along the Test Valley at Longstock NIMBYS are still contesting just 46 new houses (30 years awaited and they have had the funds several times over!!). These houses are required to offset the need by offspring of current residents for housing - otherwise they will add to the pressure on nearby towns!! Building of this small number of new homes at Longstock would also bring the chance of more signing up to be 'First Responders', and 'Retained Firefighters' in the villages of Longstock/Stockbridg e, and mean bus services may be viable again. IF ALL TEST VALLEY VILLAGES WERE REQUIRED TO BUILD AND SUSTAIN RURAL LIFE IN DOING SO THEN LARGE BATCHES OF HOUSES SURROUNDING ROMSEY WOULD NOT BE THE OUTCOME!!!![/p][/quote]Very true if all villages did there bit their communities will survive and with it rural life sad fact us locals children are priced out if their own villages as rich outsiders nice in and push up prices, these people normally older sit tight the area suffers, local schools close, post offices and pubs etc Look at the percentage they want to build in Romsey it's stupid. Brusher Mills
  • Score: 2

1:21pm Thu 9 Jan 14

Crazywolf says...

As long as the houses are accompanied by: better roads, more schools, more local shops, a new railway station, more restaurants, parks, and a new business park to provide jobs for the people moving in - no problem.

Without extra facilities of all kinds this is an unsustainable development.
As long as the houses are accompanied by: better roads, more schools, more local shops, a new railway station, more restaurants, parks, and a new business park to provide jobs for the people moving in - no problem. Without extra facilities of all kinds this is an unsustainable development. Crazywolf
  • Score: 7

1:39pm Thu 9 Jan 14

Torchie1 says...

Brusher Mills wrote:
newsknight wrote:
Meanwhile along the Test Valley at Longstock NIMBYS are still contesting just 46 new houses (30 years awaited and they have had the funds several times over!!). These houses are required to offset the need by offspring of current residents for housing - otherwise they will add to the pressure on nearby towns!! Building of this small number of new homes at Longstock would also bring the chance of more signing up to be 'First Responders', and 'Retained Firefighters' in the villages of Longstock/Stockbridg e, and mean bus services may be viable again. IF ALL TEST VALLEY VILLAGES WERE REQUIRED TO BUILD AND SUSTAIN RURAL LIFE IN DOING SO THEN LARGE BATCHES OF HOUSES SURROUNDING ROMSEY WOULD NOT BE THE OUTCOME!!!!
Very true if all villages did there bit their communities will survive and with it rural life sad fact us locals children are priced out if their own villages as rich outsiders nice in and push up prices, these people normally older sit tight the area suffers, local schools close, post offices and pubs etc

Look at the percentage they want to build in Romsey it's stupid.
Will you be happy to buy a village property which is listed on a restricted market so that you can only sell it on to other hard pressed villagers instead of trousering a nice profit by selling it on to a wealthy outsider? You complain about the price of these village property's but they have been sold in the past by the older relatives who either frittered away the money or let it be inherited by their children. You can't have it all ways.
[quote][p][bold]Brusher Mills[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]newsknight[/bold] wrote: Meanwhile along the Test Valley at Longstock NIMBYS are still contesting just 46 new houses (30 years awaited and they have had the funds several times over!!). These houses are required to offset the need by offspring of current residents for housing - otherwise they will add to the pressure on nearby towns!! Building of this small number of new homes at Longstock would also bring the chance of more signing up to be 'First Responders', and 'Retained Firefighters' in the villages of Longstock/Stockbridg e, and mean bus services may be viable again. IF ALL TEST VALLEY VILLAGES WERE REQUIRED TO BUILD AND SUSTAIN RURAL LIFE IN DOING SO THEN LARGE BATCHES OF HOUSES SURROUNDING ROMSEY WOULD NOT BE THE OUTCOME!!!![/p][/quote]Very true if all villages did there bit their communities will survive and with it rural life sad fact us locals children are priced out if their own villages as rich outsiders nice in and push up prices, these people normally older sit tight the area suffers, local schools close, post offices and pubs etc Look at the percentage they want to build in Romsey it's stupid.[/p][/quote]Will you be happy to buy a village property which is listed on a restricted market so that you can only sell it on to other hard pressed villagers instead of trousering a nice profit by selling it on to a wealthy outsider? You complain about the price of these village property's but they have been sold in the past by the older relatives who either frittered away the money or let it be inherited by their children. You can't have it all ways. Torchie1
  • Score: 3

2:07pm Thu 9 Jan 14

sarfhamton says...

NIMBYs saying no to local homes and work for people, hope they are proud
NIMBYs saying no to local homes and work for people, hope they are proud sarfhamton
  • Score: -5

2:37pm Thu 9 Jan 14

newsknight says...

Torchie1 wrote:
Brusher Mills wrote:
newsknight wrote: Meanwhile along the Test Valley at Longstock NIMBYS are still contesting just 46 new houses (30 years awaited and they have had the funds several times over!!). These houses are required to offset the need by offspring of current residents for housing - otherwise they will add to the pressure on nearby towns!! Building of this small number of new homes at Longstock would also bring the chance of more signing up to be 'First Responders', and 'Retained Firefighters' in the villages of Longstock/Stockbridg e, and mean bus services may be viable again. IF ALL TEST VALLEY VILLAGES WERE REQUIRED TO BUILD AND SUSTAIN RURAL LIFE IN DOING SO THEN LARGE BATCHES OF HOUSES SURROUNDING ROMSEY WOULD NOT BE THE OUTCOME!!!!
Very true if all villages did there bit their communities will survive and with it rural life sad fact us locals children are priced out if their own villages as rich outsiders nice in and push up prices, these people normally older sit tight the area suffers, local schools close, post offices and pubs etc Look at the percentage they want to build in Romsey it's stupid.
Will you be happy to buy a village property which is listed on a restricted market so that you can only sell it on to other hard pressed villagers instead of trousering a nice profit by selling it on to a wealthy outsider? You complain about the price of these village property's but they have been sold in the past by the older relatives who either frittered away the money or let it be inherited by their children. You can't have it all ways.
The NIMBYS in Test Valley Villages Longstock/Stockbridg
e were friends of Maggie Thatcher, bought their council houses for £16k back in the day and now won't allow the land opposite to be used to replace their sold off houses!! Big mistake by Maggie selling the choice of future generations to live in their home village....and provide a mixed age group for the benefit of the community (only OAPs and wealthy will remain in villages in years to come!). 46 houses in each village as opposed to 1900 dropped on Romsey - what do you think?
[quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brusher Mills[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]newsknight[/bold] wrote: Meanwhile along the Test Valley at Longstock NIMBYS are still contesting just 46 new houses (30 years awaited and they have had the funds several times over!!). These houses are required to offset the need by offspring of current residents for housing - otherwise they will add to the pressure on nearby towns!! Building of this small number of new homes at Longstock would also bring the chance of more signing up to be 'First Responders', and 'Retained Firefighters' in the villages of Longstock/Stockbridg e, and mean bus services may be viable again. IF ALL TEST VALLEY VILLAGES WERE REQUIRED TO BUILD AND SUSTAIN RURAL LIFE IN DOING SO THEN LARGE BATCHES OF HOUSES SURROUNDING ROMSEY WOULD NOT BE THE OUTCOME!!!![/p][/quote]Very true if all villages did there bit their communities will survive and with it rural life sad fact us locals children are priced out if their own villages as rich outsiders nice in and push up prices, these people normally older sit tight the area suffers, local schools close, post offices and pubs etc Look at the percentage they want to build in Romsey it's stupid.[/p][/quote]Will you be happy to buy a village property which is listed on a restricted market so that you can only sell it on to other hard pressed villagers instead of trousering a nice profit by selling it on to a wealthy outsider? You complain about the price of these village property's but they have been sold in the past by the older relatives who either frittered away the money or let it be inherited by their children. You can't have it all ways.[/p][/quote]The NIMBYS in Test Valley Villages Longstock/Stockbridg e were friends of Maggie Thatcher, bought their council houses for £16k back in the day and now won't allow the land opposite to be used to replace their sold off houses!! Big mistake by Maggie selling the choice of future generations to live in their home village....and provide a mixed age group for the benefit of the community (only OAPs and wealthy will remain in villages in years to come!). 46 houses in each village as opposed to 1900 dropped on Romsey - what do you think? newsknight
  • Score: 4

3:02pm Thu 9 Jan 14

House Sparrow says...

Instead of just saying no to new housing, prehaps protestors should be made to put forward alternative plans to provide the homes this country needs.
Instead of just saying no to new housing, prehaps protestors should be made to put forward alternative plans to provide the homes this country needs. House Sparrow
  • Score: 3

4:03pm Thu 9 Jan 14

Torchie1 says...

newsknight wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
Brusher Mills wrote:
newsknight wrote: Meanwhile along the Test Valley at Longstock NIMBYS are still contesting just 46 new houses (30 years awaited and they have had the funds several times over!!). These houses are required to offset the need by offspring of current residents for housing - otherwise they will add to the pressure on nearby towns!! Building of this small number of new homes at Longstock would also bring the chance of more signing up to be 'First Responders', and 'Retained Firefighters' in the villages of Longstock/Stockbridg e, and mean bus services may be viable again. IF ALL TEST VALLEY VILLAGES WERE REQUIRED TO BUILD AND SUSTAIN RURAL LIFE IN DOING SO THEN LARGE BATCHES OF HOUSES SURROUNDING ROMSEY WOULD NOT BE THE OUTCOME!!!!
Very true if all villages did there bit their communities will survive and with it rural life sad fact us locals children are priced out if their own villages as rich outsiders nice in and push up prices, these people normally older sit tight the area suffers, local schools close, post offices and pubs etc Look at the percentage they want to build in Romsey it's stupid.
Will you be happy to buy a village property which is listed on a restricted market so that you can only sell it on to other hard pressed villagers instead of trousering a nice profit by selling it on to a wealthy outsider? You complain about the price of these village property's but they have been sold in the past by the older relatives who either frittered away the money or let it be inherited by their children. You can't have it all ways.
The NIMBYS in Test Valley Villages Longstock/Stockbridg

e were friends of Maggie Thatcher, bought their council houses for £16k back in the day and now won't allow the land opposite to be used to replace their sold off houses!! Big mistake by Maggie selling the choice of future generations to live in their home village....and provide a mixed age group for the benefit of the community (only OAPs and wealthy will remain in villages in years to come!). 46 houses in each village as opposed to 1900 dropped on Romsey - what do you think?
Logic would suggest that building council houses in rural locations would then lead to demands for more infrastructure to support the new residents. This would be the start of a slippery slope that would see these rural locations end up like Romsey so why not just add more residential property to an area that already caters for thousands of people?
[quote][p][bold]newsknight[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brusher Mills[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]newsknight[/bold] wrote: Meanwhile along the Test Valley at Longstock NIMBYS are still contesting just 46 new houses (30 years awaited and they have had the funds several times over!!). These houses are required to offset the need by offspring of current residents for housing - otherwise they will add to the pressure on nearby towns!! Building of this small number of new homes at Longstock would also bring the chance of more signing up to be 'First Responders', and 'Retained Firefighters' in the villages of Longstock/Stockbridg e, and mean bus services may be viable again. IF ALL TEST VALLEY VILLAGES WERE REQUIRED TO BUILD AND SUSTAIN RURAL LIFE IN DOING SO THEN LARGE BATCHES OF HOUSES SURROUNDING ROMSEY WOULD NOT BE THE OUTCOME!!!![/p][/quote]Very true if all villages did there bit their communities will survive and with it rural life sad fact us locals children are priced out if their own villages as rich outsiders nice in and push up prices, these people normally older sit tight the area suffers, local schools close, post offices and pubs etc Look at the percentage they want to build in Romsey it's stupid.[/p][/quote]Will you be happy to buy a village property which is listed on a restricted market so that you can only sell it on to other hard pressed villagers instead of trousering a nice profit by selling it on to a wealthy outsider? You complain about the price of these village property's but they have been sold in the past by the older relatives who either frittered away the money or let it be inherited by their children. You can't have it all ways.[/p][/quote]The NIMBYS in Test Valley Villages Longstock/Stockbridg e were friends of Maggie Thatcher, bought their council houses for £16k back in the day and now won't allow the land opposite to be used to replace their sold off houses!! Big mistake by Maggie selling the choice of future generations to live in their home village....and provide a mixed age group for the benefit of the community (only OAPs and wealthy will remain in villages in years to come!). 46 houses in each village as opposed to 1900 dropped on Romsey - what do you think?[/p][/quote]Logic would suggest that building council houses in rural locations would then lead to demands for more infrastructure to support the new residents. This would be the start of a slippery slope that would see these rural locations end up like Romsey so why not just add more residential property to an area that already caters for thousands of people? Torchie1
  • Score: 0

4:13pm Thu 9 Jan 14

Hantsmen says...

It is CRAZY to expect Romsey to take 94% of the housing needs for the southern Test Valley. Which planet do these councillors live on?
Romsey has just been under SEVERAL feet of water, yet these idiots want to build EVEN MORE houses on a FLOODPLAIN, thus making future floods MORE likely!!
The current infrastructure CANNOT cope as it is.
This unfair, undemocratic, mad scheme MUST be opposed until a fairer, SAFER, smaller-scale solution is proposed. Keep up the fight please!
It is CRAZY to expect Romsey to take 94% of the housing needs for the southern Test Valley. Which planet do these councillors live on? Romsey has just been under SEVERAL feet of water, yet these idiots want to build EVEN MORE houses on a FLOODPLAIN, thus making future floods MORE likely!! The current infrastructure CANNOT cope as it is. This unfair, undemocratic, mad scheme MUST be opposed until a fairer, SAFER, smaller-scale solution is proposed. Keep up the fight please! Hantsmen
  • Score: 5

4:51pm Thu 9 Jan 14

newsknight says...

Torchie1 wrote:
newsknight wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
Brusher Mills wrote:
newsknight wrote: Meanwhile along the Test Valley at Longstock NIMBYS are still contesting just 46 new houses (30 years awaited and they have had the funds several times over!!). These houses are required to offset the need by offspring of current residents for housing - otherwise they will add to the pressure on nearby towns!! Building of this small number of new homes at Longstock would also bring the chance of more signing up to be 'First Responders', and 'Retained Firefighters' in the villages of Longstock/Stockbridg e, and mean bus services may be viable again. IF ALL TEST VALLEY VILLAGES WERE REQUIRED TO BUILD AND SUSTAIN RURAL LIFE IN DOING SO THEN LARGE BATCHES OF HOUSES SURROUNDING ROMSEY WOULD NOT BE THE OUTCOME!!!!
Very true if all villages did there bit their communities will survive and with it rural life sad fact us locals children are priced out if their own villages as rich outsiders nice in and push up prices, these people normally older sit tight the area suffers, local schools close, post offices and pubs etc Look at the percentage they want to build in Romsey it's stupid.
Will you be happy to buy a village property which is listed on a restricted market so that you can only sell it on to other hard pressed villagers instead of trousering a nice profit by selling it on to a wealthy outsider? You complain about the price of these village property's but they have been sold in the past by the older relatives who either frittered away the money or let it be inherited by their children. You can't have it all ways.
The NIMBYS in Test Valley Villages Longstock/Stockbridg e were friends of Maggie Thatcher, bought their council houses for £16k back in the day and now won't allow the land opposite to be used to replace their sold off houses!! Big mistake by Maggie selling the choice of future generations to live in their home village....and provide a mixed age group for the benefit of the community (only OAPs and wealthy will remain in villages in years to come!). 46 houses in each village as opposed to 1900 dropped on Romsey - what do you think?
Logic would suggest that building council houses in rural locations would then lead to demands for more infrastructure to support the new residents. This would be the start of a slippery slope that would see these rural locations end up like Romsey so why not just add more residential property to an area that already caters for thousands of people?
Sensible growth mean villages survive - complete with school, congregation for the church to survive (!), post office, shop, pub, etc... check out Kings Somborne, Sopwith gave the land else affordable housing and housing for locals probably would not have been built, and the village would be dead - the school would certainly have closed without pupils :-( Oh yes, the people of Ampfield, we pay over the odds to keep that school open, not a few houses built there would make the school actually a viable cost per head...!!
[quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]newsknight[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brusher Mills[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]newsknight[/bold] wrote: Meanwhile along the Test Valley at Longstock NIMBYS are still contesting just 46 new houses (30 years awaited and they have had the funds several times over!!). These houses are required to offset the need by offspring of current residents for housing - otherwise they will add to the pressure on nearby towns!! Building of this small number of new homes at Longstock would also bring the chance of more signing up to be 'First Responders', and 'Retained Firefighters' in the villages of Longstock/Stockbridg e, and mean bus services may be viable again. IF ALL TEST VALLEY VILLAGES WERE REQUIRED TO BUILD AND SUSTAIN RURAL LIFE IN DOING SO THEN LARGE BATCHES OF HOUSES SURROUNDING ROMSEY WOULD NOT BE THE OUTCOME!!!![/p][/quote]Very true if all villages did there bit their communities will survive and with it rural life sad fact us locals children are priced out if their own villages as rich outsiders nice in and push up prices, these people normally older sit tight the area suffers, local schools close, post offices and pubs etc Look at the percentage they want to build in Romsey it's stupid.[/p][/quote]Will you be happy to buy a village property which is listed on a restricted market so that you can only sell it on to other hard pressed villagers instead of trousering a nice profit by selling it on to a wealthy outsider? You complain about the price of these village property's but they have been sold in the past by the older relatives who either frittered away the money or let it be inherited by their children. You can't have it all ways.[/p][/quote]The NIMBYS in Test Valley Villages Longstock/Stockbridg e were friends of Maggie Thatcher, bought their council houses for £16k back in the day and now won't allow the land opposite to be used to replace their sold off houses!! Big mistake by Maggie selling the choice of future generations to live in their home village....and provide a mixed age group for the benefit of the community (only OAPs and wealthy will remain in villages in years to come!). 46 houses in each village as opposed to 1900 dropped on Romsey - what do you think?[/p][/quote]Logic would suggest that building council houses in rural locations would then lead to demands for more infrastructure to support the new residents. This would be the start of a slippery slope that would see these rural locations end up like Romsey so why not just add more residential property to an area that already caters for thousands of people?[/p][/quote]Sensible growth mean villages survive - complete with school, congregation for the church to survive (!), post office, shop, pub, etc... check out Kings Somborne, Sopwith gave the land else affordable housing and housing for locals probably would not have been built, and the village would be dead - the school would certainly have closed without pupils :-( Oh yes, the people of Ampfield, we pay over the odds to keep that school open, not a few houses built there would make the school actually a viable cost per head...!! newsknight
  • Score: 1

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