Campaigners to appeal against plans for 1,400 homes near Botley

Protesters are fighting plans for 1,400 new homes near Botley.

Protesters are fighting plans for 1,400 new homes near Botley.

First published in News Daily Echo: Photograph of the Author by , Senior Reporter

CAMPAIGNERS are renewing their fight once again to prevent more than 1,000 homes being built near Botley.

Botley Parish Action Group is appealing against a judge’s decision to rule in favour of a council that allowed 1,400 homes to be built on land at Boorley Green, near Botley.

The group is submitting written arguments to the courts and if that proves unsuccessful could return to court for a further hearing.

Campaigners want planning permission to be withdrawn until the site can be examined along with the rest of Eastleigh’s Local Plan, a blueprint for future housing in the borough, by an independent inspector.

They have previously argued that it was unfair for Eastleigh Borough Council to use the fact that it had failed to ensure a five-year supply of land for development and to ensure a current Local Plan was in place in time to justify its decision to grant the homes plans.

They also argued the council had breached European law on environmental impact assessment and that other sites are more sustainable.

But their application was not accepted by a High Court judge at a hearing in May.

Following legal advice, they have decided to launch an appeal.

“I can just trust in the legal process, there’s nowhere else we can go,” said BPAG chairman Sue Grinham, pictured below right.

“We may still not win, but at least we have tried everything we can do.”

So far the campaign has cost £25,000 in expenses, but at the previous hearing council costs of £5,000 were also awarded against BPAG.

The written appeal could cost campaigners up to an extra £7,000 and much more if they decide to apply for a further formal appeal hearing depending on the outcome of the written appeal.

So far they have sufficient funds from residents.

“I don’t think anybody can believe how much we have raised – it proves how angry people are,” said Mrs Grinham.

Campaigners fear that the development would swamp Boorley Green, change Botley and increase traffic with no infrastructure to support it.

Council leader Keith House, below left, has said the development would improve Boorley Green, bringing facilities and making it more sustainable while helping protect countryside gaps in other areas.

He said: “The Local Plan has been delayed due to the county council withdrawing a major site from the plan and then, a year later, reinstating it.

“BPAG continuing to pursue this through the courts, despite two judges agreeing with the council, just puts more greenfield sites around Botley at risk of development, given the pressure on the Planning Inspectorate to approve housing applications.

“Common sense needs to now prevail, with BPAG accepting the democratic decisions of the council and the decisions of the courts.”

Comments (28)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:20am Mon 9 Jun 14

one in a million says...

This is just a small part of the overall strategy by Eastleigh Council to concrete over huge swathes of countryside without investing in adequate infrastructure; BPAG are wasting their time and money, EBC do not give a fig about what locals think as shown elsewhere in the borough (Bishopstoke, Fair Oak).
This is just a small part of the overall strategy by Eastleigh Council to concrete over huge swathes of countryside without investing in adequate infrastructure; BPAG are wasting their time and money, EBC do not give a fig about what locals think as shown elsewhere in the borough (Bishopstoke, Fair Oak). one in a million
  • Score: 20

11:24am Mon 9 Jun 14

Torchie1 says...

one in a million wrote:
This is just a small part of the overall strategy by Eastleigh Council to concrete over huge swathes of countryside without investing in adequate infrastructure; BPAG are wasting their time and money, EBC do not give a fig about what locals think as shown elsewhere in the borough (Bishopstoke, Fair Oak).
Where would you like to see the 1400 homes built and how would you address the objections which would certainly be raised ?
[quote][p][bold]one in a million[/bold] wrote: This is just a small part of the overall strategy by Eastleigh Council to concrete over huge swathes of countryside without investing in adequate infrastructure; BPAG are wasting their time and money, EBC do not give a fig about what locals think as shown elsewhere in the borough (Bishopstoke, Fair Oak).[/p][/quote]Where would you like to see the 1400 homes built and how would you address the objections which would certainly be raised ? Torchie1
  • Score: -11

11:30am Mon 9 Jun 14

one in a million says...

Torchie1 wrote:
one in a million wrote: This is just a small part of the overall strategy by Eastleigh Council to concrete over huge swathes of countryside without investing in adequate infrastructure; BPAG are wasting their time and money, EBC do not give a fig about what locals think as shown elsewhere in the borough (Bishopstoke, Fair Oak).
Where would you like to see the 1400 homes built and how would you address the objections which would certainly be raised ?
I don’t mind where they are being built, my point is that there isn't the infrastructure support such growth (and yes, there are 330 being built very close to my home).

As shown in places like Romsey, houses are built with promises of new schools/ roads but once they are up such promises are reneged on.

You only have to try and drive anywhere in the borough during rush hour to see that things arent working, or visit a local school to see kids crammed into schools built with smaller numbers in mind or try and see a doctor.

So housing may be needed but so is the infrastructure to support it.
[quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]one in a million[/bold] wrote: This is just a small part of the overall strategy by Eastleigh Council to concrete over huge swathes of countryside without investing in adequate infrastructure; BPAG are wasting their time and money, EBC do not give a fig about what locals think as shown elsewhere in the borough (Bishopstoke, Fair Oak).[/p][/quote]Where would you like to see the 1400 homes built and how would you address the objections which would certainly be raised ?[/p][/quote]I don’t mind where they are being built, my point is that there isn't the infrastructure support such growth (and yes, there are 330 being built very close to my home). As shown in places like Romsey, houses are built with promises of new schools/ roads but once they are up such promises are reneged on. You only have to try and drive anywhere in the borough during rush hour to see that things arent working, or visit a local school to see kids crammed into schools built with smaller numbers in mind or try and see a doctor. So housing may be needed but so is the infrastructure to support it. one in a million
  • Score: 26

11:48am Mon 9 Jun 14

jen1 says...

Well Eastleigh council is lib dem and lib dems are supporters of rampant immigration and immigrants have to live somewhere. Eastleigh, you voted for the loopy, limp dumps, this is what you get
Well Eastleigh council is lib dem and lib dems are supporters of rampant immigration and immigrants have to live somewhere. Eastleigh, you voted for the loopy, limp dumps, this is what you get jen1
  • Score: 18

11:55am Mon 9 Jun 14

one in a million says...

jen1 wrote:
Well Eastleigh council is lib dem and lib dems are supporters of rampant immigration and immigrants have to live somewhere. Eastleigh, you voted for the loopy, limp dumps, this is what you get
Unfortunately, most of Eastleigh couldn't be ar@ed to vote, which is why the Fib Dems remain running the show.
[quote][p][bold]jen1[/bold] wrote: Well Eastleigh council is lib dem and lib dems are supporters of rampant immigration and immigrants have to live somewhere. Eastleigh, you voted for the loopy, limp dumps, this is what you get[/p][/quote]Unfortunately, most of Eastleigh couldn't be ar@ed to vote, which is why the Fib Dems remain running the show. one in a million
  • Score: 18

11:59am Mon 9 Jun 14

Torchie1 says...

one in a million wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
one in a million wrote: This is just a small part of the overall strategy by Eastleigh Council to concrete over huge swathes of countryside without investing in adequate infrastructure; BPAG are wasting their time and money, EBC do not give a fig about what locals think as shown elsewhere in the borough (Bishopstoke, Fair Oak).
Where would you like to see the 1400 homes built and how would you address the objections which would certainly be raised ?
I don’t mind where they are being built, my point is that there isn't the infrastructure support such growth (and yes, there are 330 being built very close to my home).

As shown in places like Romsey, houses are built with promises of new schools/ roads but once they are up such promises are reneged on.

You only have to try and drive anywhere in the borough during rush hour to see that things arent working, or visit a local school to see kids crammed into schools built with smaller numbers in mind or try and see a doctor.

So housing may be needed but so is the infrastructure to support it.
Nobody minds where the house are built as long as it isn't in their back yard.
[quote][p][bold]one in a million[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]one in a million[/bold] wrote: This is just a small part of the overall strategy by Eastleigh Council to concrete over huge swathes of countryside without investing in adequate infrastructure; BPAG are wasting their time and money, EBC do not give a fig about what locals think as shown elsewhere in the borough (Bishopstoke, Fair Oak).[/p][/quote]Where would you like to see the 1400 homes built and how would you address the objections which would certainly be raised ?[/p][/quote]I don’t mind where they are being built, my point is that there isn't the infrastructure support such growth (and yes, there are 330 being built very close to my home). As shown in places like Romsey, houses are built with promises of new schools/ roads but once they are up such promises are reneged on. You only have to try and drive anywhere in the borough during rush hour to see that things arent working, or visit a local school to see kids crammed into schools built with smaller numbers in mind or try and see a doctor. So housing may be needed but so is the infrastructure to support it.[/p][/quote]Nobody minds where the house are built as long as it isn't in their back yard. Torchie1
  • Score: 0

1:12pm Mon 9 Jun 14

Quentin Heslop says...

It all goes to prove how unpopular the Labour policy of a mass building programme will be if they get into power.
It all goes to prove how unpopular the Labour policy of a mass building programme will be if they get into power. Quentin Heslop
  • Score: 3

1:47pm Mon 9 Jun 14

skeptik says...

Democracy only good if you agree with the party in power? Whoever is in power folk voted for them - shame that they are all wrong and it is just you in the right. Have to chuckle when folk living in homes built within the last few decades get on their high horse about home for others.
Democracy only good if you agree with the party in power? Whoever is in power folk voted for them - shame that they are all wrong and it is just you in the right. Have to chuckle when folk living in homes built within the last few decades get on their high horse about home for others. skeptik
  • Score: -3

2:10pm Mon 9 Jun 14

forest hump says...

Selfish, greedy individuals. Save farmland?? Absolute nonsense. Try flying from Edinburgh to Southampton and see how much green space this country has. I think you will find there is significantly less than 10% is developed. If more houses were built of the correct category (not for benefit spongers) then the house price fiasco would not exist.
Selfish, greedy individuals. Save farmland?? Absolute nonsense. Try flying from Edinburgh to Southampton and see how much green space this country has. I think you will find there is significantly less than 10% is developed. If more houses were built of the correct category (not for benefit spongers) then the house price fiasco would not exist. forest hump
  • Score: -7

2:54pm Mon 9 Jun 14

Harold K Steptoe says...

This is on my doorstep and I just accept them being built as there's lots of brown envelopes being passed about when plans are being submitted. It'll only be rejected if bigger brown envelopes get passed on to find alternative fields. They're all bent, get used to it....
This is on my doorstep and I just accept them being built as there's lots of brown envelopes being passed about when plans are being submitted. It'll only be rejected if bigger brown envelopes get passed on to find alternative fields. They're all bent, get used to it.... Harold K Steptoe
  • Score: 8

2:55pm Mon 9 Jun 14

derek james says...

forest hump wrote:
Selfish, greedy individuals. Save farmland?? Absolute nonsense. Try flying from Edinburgh to Southampton and see how much green space this country has. I think you will find there is significantly less than 10% is developed. If more houses were built of the correct category (not for benefit spongers) then the house price fiasco would not exist.
i think that land is needed for growing food as we import over 40% of our food, if scotland votes for independence we will lose about 40% of the uk land mass, this will make things worse
[quote][p][bold]forest hump[/bold] wrote: Selfish, greedy individuals. Save farmland?? Absolute nonsense. Try flying from Edinburgh to Southampton and see how much green space this country has. I think you will find there is significantly less than 10% is developed. If more houses were built of the correct category (not for benefit spongers) then the house price fiasco would not exist.[/p][/quote]i think that land is needed for growing food as we import over 40% of our food, if scotland votes for independence we will lose about 40% of the uk land mass, this will make things worse derek james
  • Score: 4

3:06pm Mon 9 Jun 14

confusedandbemused says...

one in a million wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
one in a million wrote: This is just a small part of the overall strategy by Eastleigh Council to concrete over huge swathes of countryside without investing in adequate infrastructure; BPAG are wasting their time and money, EBC do not give a fig about what locals think as shown elsewhere in the borough (Bishopstoke, Fair Oak).
Where would you like to see the 1400 homes built and how would you address the objections which would certainly be raised ?
I don’t mind where they are being built, my point is that there isn't the infrastructure support such growth (and yes, there are 330 being built very close to my home).

As shown in places like Romsey, houses are built with promises of new schools/ roads but once they are up such promises are reneged on.

You only have to try and drive anywhere in the borough during rush hour to see that things arent working, or visit a local school to see kids crammed into schools built with smaller numbers in mind or try and see a doctor.

So housing may be needed but so is the infrastructure to support it.
I totally agree. I lived in Hedge End for a few years and during that time they built hundreds of houses but very little in the way of infrastructure (one school which I've recently heard isn't big enough so they're having to extend it!). The doctors went from being able to get in within a couple of days, to having to wait over a week! No increase in train capacity or road capacity to cope with the extra traffic.
Eventually we moved out and are relieved we did so, as it looks like it's only going to get worse.
[quote][p][bold]one in a million[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]one in a million[/bold] wrote: This is just a small part of the overall strategy by Eastleigh Council to concrete over huge swathes of countryside without investing in adequate infrastructure; BPAG are wasting their time and money, EBC do not give a fig about what locals think as shown elsewhere in the borough (Bishopstoke, Fair Oak).[/p][/quote]Where would you like to see the 1400 homes built and how would you address the objections which would certainly be raised ?[/p][/quote]I don’t mind where they are being built, my point is that there isn't the infrastructure support such growth (and yes, there are 330 being built very close to my home). As shown in places like Romsey, houses are built with promises of new schools/ roads but once they are up such promises are reneged on. You only have to try and drive anywhere in the borough during rush hour to see that things arent working, or visit a local school to see kids crammed into schools built with smaller numbers in mind or try and see a doctor. So housing may be needed but so is the infrastructure to support it.[/p][/quote]I totally agree. I lived in Hedge End for a few years and during that time they built hundreds of houses but very little in the way of infrastructure (one school which I've recently heard isn't big enough so they're having to extend it!). The doctors went from being able to get in within a couple of days, to having to wait over a week! No increase in train capacity or road capacity to cope with the extra traffic. Eventually we moved out and are relieved we did so, as it looks like it's only going to get worse. confusedandbemused
  • Score: 9

3:10pm Mon 9 Jun 14

wwozzer says...

derek james wrote:
forest hump wrote:
Selfish, greedy individuals. Save farmland?? Absolute nonsense. Try flying from Edinburgh to Southampton and see how much green space this country has. I think you will find there is significantly less than 10% is developed. If more houses were built of the correct category (not for benefit spongers) then the house price fiasco would not exist.
i think that land is needed for growing food as we import over 40% of our food, if scotland votes for independence we will lose about 40% of the uk land mass, this will make things worse
We import so much because mostly it's either cheaper than producing it ourselves or it wouldn't grow in our climate anyway.

What forest hump says is absolutely spot on. We've all been conned into believing our countryside is in danger from development when in fact 90% of this country IS countryside. We could double everything that's already been built and you'd hardly notice the difference on a satellite picture.
[quote][p][bold]derek james[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]forest hump[/bold] wrote: Selfish, greedy individuals. Save farmland?? Absolute nonsense. Try flying from Edinburgh to Southampton and see how much green space this country has. I think you will find there is significantly less than 10% is developed. If more houses were built of the correct category (not for benefit spongers) then the house price fiasco would not exist.[/p][/quote]i think that land is needed for growing food as we import over 40% of our food, if scotland votes for independence we will lose about 40% of the uk land mass, this will make things worse[/p][/quote]We import so much because mostly it's either cheaper than producing it ourselves or it wouldn't grow in our climate anyway. What forest hump says is absolutely spot on. We've all been conned into believing our countryside is in danger from development when in fact 90% of this country IS countryside. We could double everything that's already been built and you'd hardly notice the difference on a satellite picture. wwozzer
  • Score: -1

3:44pm Mon 9 Jun 14

Juan202 says...

Leading into the local elections we were swamped with Lib-Dem propaganda telling us what wonderful things they were doing. They claim credit for everything going but the reality is different. I can swear that the Lib-Dem MP for Eastleigh told us that he represented the party that was going to keep the Borough green. They are hypocrites.
However, people do have to live somewhere and I agree that the new homes have to be supported by proper infrastructure that is incorporated into the planning and not 'promised' sometime in the future. The draft map of 350 homes near Wessex Vale crematorium does not show any infrastructure additions (worrying).
Leading into the local elections we were swamped with Lib-Dem propaganda telling us what wonderful things they were doing. They claim credit for everything going but the reality is different. I can swear that the Lib-Dem MP for Eastleigh told us that he represented the party that was going to keep the Borough green. They are hypocrites. However, people do have to live somewhere and I agree that the new homes have to be supported by proper infrastructure that is incorporated into the planning and not 'promised' sometime in the future. The draft map of 350 homes near Wessex Vale crematorium does not show any infrastructure additions (worrying). Juan202
  • Score: 6

3:49pm Mon 9 Jun 14

elvisimo says...

jen1 wrote:
Well Eastleigh council is lib dem and lib dems are supporters of rampant immigration and immigrants have to live somewhere. Eastleigh, you voted for the loopy, limp dumps, this is what you get
I haven't seen one of these "rampant" immigrants yet but will keep eyes peeled....
[quote][p][bold]jen1[/bold] wrote: Well Eastleigh council is lib dem and lib dems are supporters of rampant immigration and immigrants have to live somewhere. Eastleigh, you voted for the loopy, limp dumps, this is what you get[/p][/quote]I haven't seen one of these "rampant" immigrants yet but will keep eyes peeled.... elvisimo
  • Score: -1

4:13pm Mon 9 Jun 14

sophisticated says...

Dont forget the new town soon to be built in Fareham- 'Welbourne'. Another planning disaster.
Dont forget the new town soon to be built in Fareham- 'Welbourne'. Another planning disaster. sophisticated
  • Score: 5

8:06pm Mon 9 Jun 14

forest hump says...

Juan202 wrote:
Leading into the local elections we were swamped with Lib-Dem propaganda telling us what wonderful things they were doing. They claim credit for everything going but the reality is different. I can swear that the Lib-Dem MP for Eastleigh told us that he represented the party that was going to keep the Borough green. They are hypocrites.
However, people do have to live somewhere and I agree that the new homes have to be supported by proper infrastructure that is incorporated into the planning and not 'promised' sometime in the future. The draft map of 350 homes near Wessex Vale crematorium does not show any infrastructure additions (worrying).
Firstly, I am not a Lib Dem..couldn't be further from. Most politicians are liars and will twist the truth. Promises that will get them elected and then, once in, change course. Time and time again this has happened and will continue until it is legislated against. You just see how the Government starts to pander to our needs with the election looming. Lots of huge carrots and then when (if) elected, change again. The reason the promised EU vote is post Election is because Cameron will get the boot and if it were he that sent the country to vote, he would not get a ticket for the gravy train jobs in Europe. Scheming tyrants, the lot of them.
[quote][p][bold]Juan202[/bold] wrote: Leading into the local elections we were swamped with Lib-Dem propaganda telling us what wonderful things they were doing. They claim credit for everything going but the reality is different. I can swear that the Lib-Dem MP for Eastleigh told us that he represented the party that was going to keep the Borough green. They are hypocrites. However, people do have to live somewhere and I agree that the new homes have to be supported by proper infrastructure that is incorporated into the planning and not 'promised' sometime in the future. The draft map of 350 homes near Wessex Vale crematorium does not show any infrastructure additions (worrying).[/p][/quote]Firstly, I am not a Lib Dem..couldn't be further from. Most politicians are liars and will twist the truth. Promises that will get them elected and then, once in, change course. Time and time again this has happened and will continue until it is legislated against. You just see how the Government starts to pander to our needs with the election looming. Lots of huge carrots and then when (if) elected, change again. The reason the promised EU vote is post Election is because Cameron will get the boot and if it were he that sent the country to vote, he would not get a ticket for the gravy train jobs in Europe. Scheming tyrants, the lot of them. forest hump
  • Score: 3

8:55pm Mon 9 Jun 14

House Sparrow says...

Harold K Steptoe wrote:
This is on my doorstep and I just accept them being built as there's lots of brown envelopes being passed about when plans are being submitted. It'll only be rejected if bigger brown envelopes get passed on to find alternative fields. They're all bent, get used to it....
Please give your evidence to the police. At least publish it and then action will be taken.
[quote][p][bold]Harold K Steptoe[/bold] wrote: This is on my doorstep and I just accept them being built as there's lots of brown envelopes being passed about when plans are being submitted. It'll only be rejected if bigger brown envelopes get passed on to find alternative fields. They're all bent, get used to it....[/p][/quote]Please give your evidence to the police. At least publish it and then action will be taken. House Sparrow
  • Score: -1

8:56pm Mon 9 Jun 14

House Sparrow says...

one in a million wrote:
This is just a small part of the overall strategy by Eastleigh Council to concrete over huge swathes of countryside without investing in adequate infrastructure; BPAG are wasting their time and money, EBC do not give a fig about what locals think as shown elsewhere in the borough (Bishopstoke, Fair Oak).
Eastleigh are neither the highway authority nor do the provide schools. Both of these are the responsibility of Hampshire County Council.
[quote][p][bold]one in a million[/bold] wrote: This is just a small part of the overall strategy by Eastleigh Council to concrete over huge swathes of countryside without investing in adequate infrastructure; BPAG are wasting their time and money, EBC do not give a fig about what locals think as shown elsewhere in the borough (Bishopstoke, Fair Oak).[/p][/quote]Eastleigh are neither the highway authority nor do the provide schools. Both of these are the responsibility of Hampshire County Council. House Sparrow
  • Score: -1

9:18pm Mon 9 Jun 14

derek james says...

wwozzer wrote:
derek james wrote:
forest hump wrote:
Selfish, greedy individuals. Save farmland?? Absolute nonsense. Try flying from Edinburgh to Southampton and see how much green space this country has. I think you will find there is significantly less than 10% is developed. If more houses were built of the correct category (not for benefit spongers) then the house price fiasco would not exist.
i think that land is needed for growing food as we import over 40% of our food, if scotland votes for independence we will lose about 40% of the uk land mass, this will make things worse
We import so much because mostly it's either cheaper than producing it ourselves or it wouldn't grow in our climate anyway.

What forest hump says is absolutely spot on. We've all been conned into believing our countryside is in danger from development when in fact 90% of this country IS countryside. We could double everything that's already been built and you'd hardly notice the difference on a satellite picture.
you living in the realms of fantasy, it's 40% of food we import and rising sharply, we have to export as well to get the balance right, with an increasing world population and blue tongue and other diseases of livestock/ crops and uncertain political situations it would be foolish indeed to to rely on a continued affordable import strategy
[quote][p][bold]wwozzer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]derek james[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]forest hump[/bold] wrote: Selfish, greedy individuals. Save farmland?? Absolute nonsense. Try flying from Edinburgh to Southampton and see how much green space this country has. I think you will find there is significantly less than 10% is developed. If more houses were built of the correct category (not for benefit spongers) then the house price fiasco would not exist.[/p][/quote]i think that land is needed for growing food as we import over 40% of our food, if scotland votes for independence we will lose about 40% of the uk land mass, this will make things worse[/p][/quote]We import so much because mostly it's either cheaper than producing it ourselves or it wouldn't grow in our climate anyway. What forest hump says is absolutely spot on. We've all been conned into believing our countryside is in danger from development when in fact 90% of this country IS countryside. We could double everything that's already been built and you'd hardly notice the difference on a satellite picture.[/p][/quote]you living in the realms of fantasy, it's 40% of food we import and rising sharply, we have to export as well to get the balance right, with an increasing world population and blue tongue and other diseases of livestock/ crops and uncertain political situations it would be foolish indeed to to rely on a continued affordable import strategy derek james
  • Score: 3

10:48pm Mon 9 Jun 14

Poppy22 says...

one in a million wrote:
This is just a small part of the overall strategy by Eastleigh Council to concrete over huge swathes of countryside without investing in adequate infrastructure; BPAG are wasting their time and money, EBC do not give a fig about what locals think as shown elsewhere in the borough (Bishopstoke, Fair Oak).
.. and Bursledon where the almost untouched meadows between the Windmill and upper River Hamble conservation areas (which will cease to be attractive with approx 200 houses built!) will soon be gone!
But, hey, the Lib Dems are protecting the car boot sale site and adjacent/nearby scruffy land, calling it "countryside" - also the former airfield at Hamble!
Seems the only area in the Borough being protected by the Lib Dems is the land immediately adjacent to Hamble Lane. Must be where most of the Lib Dem voters are ...! You only have to look at an aerial map to see the poor quality of the land there (also flat - ideal for building much-needed affordable housing), when compared to the real countryside sites that will soon be destroyed for ever.
Good luck Botley. The rest of the Borough may follow if you succeed. If not, then the continued loss of Lib Dem votes will tell how the majority of people feel.
As for the Hamble Lane traffic argument, we drove along both Hamble Lane and the A27 between 4.30pm and 6pm today and, no surprise, Hamble Lane was far less congested than the A27. The only heavy traffic on Hamble Lane was between Windhover Roundabout and Jurd Way, just below Tesco. After that it was freely moving, unlike the A27!
[quote][p][bold]one in a million[/bold] wrote: This is just a small part of the overall strategy by Eastleigh Council to concrete over huge swathes of countryside without investing in adequate infrastructure; BPAG are wasting their time and money, EBC do not give a fig about what locals think as shown elsewhere in the borough (Bishopstoke, Fair Oak).[/p][/quote].. and Bursledon where the almost untouched meadows between the Windmill and upper River Hamble conservation areas (which will cease to be attractive with approx 200 houses built!) will soon be gone! But, hey, the Lib Dems are protecting the car boot sale site and adjacent/nearby scruffy land, calling it "countryside" - also the former airfield at Hamble! Seems the only area in the Borough being protected by the Lib Dems is the land immediately adjacent to Hamble Lane. Must be where most of the Lib Dem voters are ...! You only have to look at an aerial map to see the poor quality of the land there (also flat - ideal for building much-needed affordable housing), when compared to the real countryside sites that will soon be destroyed for ever. Good luck Botley. The rest of the Borough may follow if you succeed. If not, then the continued loss of Lib Dem votes will tell how the majority of people feel. As for the Hamble Lane traffic argument, we drove along both Hamble Lane and the A27 between 4.30pm and 6pm today and, no surprise, Hamble Lane was far less congested than the A27. The only heavy traffic on Hamble Lane was between Windhover Roundabout and Jurd Way, just below Tesco. After that it was freely moving, unlike the A27! Poppy22
  • Score: 1

10:56pm Mon 9 Jun 14

Poppy22 says...

confusedandbemused wrote:
one in a million wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
one in a million wrote: This is just a small part of the overall strategy by Eastleigh Council to concrete over huge swathes of countryside without investing in adequate infrastructure; BPAG are wasting their time and money, EBC do not give a fig about what locals think as shown elsewhere in the borough (Bishopstoke, Fair Oak).
Where would you like to see the 1400 homes built and how would you address the objections which would certainly be raised ?
I don’t mind where they are being built, my point is that there isn't the infrastructure support such growth (and yes, there are 330 being built very close to my home). As shown in places like Romsey, houses are built with promises of new schools/ roads but once they are up such promises are reneged on. You only have to try and drive anywhere in the borough during rush hour to see that things arent working, or visit a local school to see kids crammed into schools built with smaller numbers in mind or try and see a doctor. So housing may be needed but so is the infrastructure to support it.
I totally agree. I lived in Hedge End for a few years and during that time they built hundreds of houses but very little in the way of infrastructure (one school which I've recently heard isn't big enough so they're having to extend it!). The doctors went from being able to get in within a couple of days, to having to wait over a week! No increase in train capacity or road capacity to cope with the extra traffic. Eventually we moved out and are relieved we did so, as it looks like it's only going to get worse.
Used to be able to get a doctor's appointment within a few days. Now have to wait at least a month unless "urgent" (in which case we'd be at A&E not the doctor's surgery!). And they wonder why almost 1 GP-worth of appointments are missed! After a month no wonder people forget they had an appointment, or the condition has gone and they've tried several times to phone the surgery to get through, then given up!
[quote][p][bold]confusedandbemused[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]one in a million[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]one in a million[/bold] wrote: This is just a small part of the overall strategy by Eastleigh Council to concrete over huge swathes of countryside without investing in adequate infrastructure; BPAG are wasting their time and money, EBC do not give a fig about what locals think as shown elsewhere in the borough (Bishopstoke, Fair Oak).[/p][/quote]Where would you like to see the 1400 homes built and how would you address the objections which would certainly be raised ?[/p][/quote]I don’t mind where they are being built, my point is that there isn't the infrastructure support such growth (and yes, there are 330 being built very close to my home). As shown in places like Romsey, houses are built with promises of new schools/ roads but once they are up such promises are reneged on. You only have to try and drive anywhere in the borough during rush hour to see that things arent working, or visit a local school to see kids crammed into schools built with smaller numbers in mind or try and see a doctor. So housing may be needed but so is the infrastructure to support it.[/p][/quote]I totally agree. I lived in Hedge End for a few years and during that time they built hundreds of houses but very little in the way of infrastructure (one school which I've recently heard isn't big enough so they're having to extend it!). The doctors went from being able to get in within a couple of days, to having to wait over a week! No increase in train capacity or road capacity to cope with the extra traffic. Eventually we moved out and are relieved we did so, as it looks like it's only going to get worse.[/p][/quote]Used to be able to get a doctor's appointment within a few days. Now have to wait at least a month unless "urgent" (in which case we'd be at A&E not the doctor's surgery!). And they wonder why almost 1 GP-worth of appointments are missed! After a month no wonder people forget they had an appointment, or the condition has gone and they've tried several times to phone the surgery to get through, then given up! Poppy22
  • Score: 4

11:00pm Mon 9 Jun 14

Poppy22 says...

wwozzer wrote:
derek james wrote:
forest hump wrote: Selfish, greedy individuals. Save farmland?? Absolute nonsense. Try flying from Edinburgh to Southampton and see how much green space this country has. I think you will find there is significantly less than 10% is developed. If more houses were built of the correct category (not for benefit spongers) then the house price fiasco would not exist.
i think that land is needed for growing food as we import over 40% of our food, if scotland votes for independence we will lose about 40% of the uk land mass, this will make things worse
We import so much because mostly it's either cheaper than producing it ourselves or it wouldn't grow in our climate anyway. What forest hump says is absolutely spot on. We've all been conned into believing our countryside is in danger from development when in fact 90% of this country IS countryside. We could double everything that's already been built and you'd hardly notice the difference on a satellite picture.
We're not talking about the whole country here - if we were, then the Govt would be building on some of the huge swathes of the country where there is little building (though that would mean taking away yet more farmland). We're talking about keeping some green spaces for future generations in this area, rather than just a concrete mass and the air so polluted that they won't be able to venture outdoors! Also, the more we import food, the more we can be held to ransom by other countries in future years. Countries like China will obviously feed themselves before they feed other countries! Can't believe how many people with children don't see this as an issue for the future.
[quote][p][bold]wwozzer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]derek james[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]forest hump[/bold] wrote: Selfish, greedy individuals. Save farmland?? Absolute nonsense. Try flying from Edinburgh to Southampton and see how much green space this country has. I think you will find there is significantly less than 10% is developed. If more houses were built of the correct category (not for benefit spongers) then the house price fiasco would not exist.[/p][/quote]i think that land is needed for growing food as we import over 40% of our food, if scotland votes for independence we will lose about 40% of the uk land mass, this will make things worse[/p][/quote]We import so much because mostly it's either cheaper than producing it ourselves or it wouldn't grow in our climate anyway. What forest hump says is absolutely spot on. We've all been conned into believing our countryside is in danger from development when in fact 90% of this country IS countryside. We could double everything that's already been built and you'd hardly notice the difference on a satellite picture.[/p][/quote]We're not talking about the whole country here - if we were, then the Govt would be building on some of the huge swathes of the country where there is little building (though that would mean taking away yet more farmland). We're talking about keeping some green spaces for future generations in this area, rather than just a concrete mass and the air so polluted that they won't be able to venture outdoors! Also, the more we import food, the more we can be held to ransom by other countries in future years. Countries like China will obviously feed themselves before they feed other countries! Can't believe how many people with children don't see this as an issue for the future. Poppy22
  • Score: 3

8:16am Tue 10 Jun 14

Dai Rear says...

elvisimo wrote:
jen1 wrote:
Well Eastleigh council is lib dem and lib dems are supporters of rampant immigration and immigrants have to live somewhere. Eastleigh, you voted for the loopy, limp dumps, this is what you get
I haven't seen one of these "rampant" immigrants yet but will keep eyes peeled....
Come to Lymington then and outside Tesco you'll see an immigrant "Big Issue" seller, one of many, who has fulfilled a lifelong ambition to come to our country to be homeless or, as the clerks at the Home Office would say "self-employed". Since these people invariably come through France which is very much less concreted than England, I suggest the concrete be poured there.
[quote][p][bold]elvisimo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jen1[/bold] wrote: Well Eastleigh council is lib dem and lib dems are supporters of rampant immigration and immigrants have to live somewhere. Eastleigh, you voted for the loopy, limp dumps, this is what you get[/p][/quote]I haven't seen one of these "rampant" immigrants yet but will keep eyes peeled....[/p][/quote]Come to Lymington then and outside Tesco you'll see an immigrant "Big Issue" seller, one of many, who has fulfilled a lifelong ambition to come to our country to be homeless or, as the clerks at the Home Office would say "self-employed". Since these people invariably come through France which is very much less concreted than England, I suggest the concrete be poured there. Dai Rear
  • Score: 0

8:52am Tue 10 Jun 14

Gristy says...

jen1 wrote:
Well Eastleigh council is lib dem and lib dems are supporters of rampant immigration and immigrants have to live somewhere. Eastleigh, you voted for the loopy, limp dumps, this is what you get
a good point jen1.
One has to question why there is such a high demand for housing. OK it is an established fact that the pressure for housing in the UK has been brought about by uncontrolled immigration. Prior, to Traitor Blair and his cronies opening the floodgates when our borders flooded by immigrants from all over the world, there was no pressure on housing and consequently no exorbitant rise in property values..
I have a solution to the problem but i suppose i cannot write it here!. There will come a time when the indigenous peoples of Great Britain (I hope Scotland stays with us) will say enough and take their country back. I trust in British values and patriotic duty!
[quote][p][bold]jen1[/bold] wrote: Well Eastleigh council is lib dem and lib dems are supporters of rampant immigration and immigrants have to live somewhere. Eastleigh, you voted for the loopy, limp dumps, this is what you get[/p][/quote]a good point jen1. One has to question why there is such a high demand for housing. OK it is an established fact that the pressure for housing in the UK has been brought about by uncontrolled immigration. Prior, to Traitor Blair and his cronies opening the floodgates when our borders flooded by immigrants from all over the world, there was no pressure on housing and consequently no exorbitant rise in property values.. I have a solution to the problem but i suppose i cannot write it here!. There will come a time when the indigenous peoples of Great Britain (I hope Scotland stays with us) will say enough and take their country back. I trust in British values and patriotic duty! Gristy
  • Score: 3

9:21am Tue 10 Jun 14

one in a million says...

House Sparrow wrote:
one in a million wrote: This is just a small part of the overall strategy by Eastleigh Council to concrete over huge swathes of countryside without investing in adequate infrastructure; BPAG are wasting their time and money, EBC do not give a fig about what locals think as shown elsewhere in the borough (Bishopstoke, Fair Oak).
Eastleigh are neither the highway authority nor do the provide schools. Both of these are the responsibility of Hampshire County Council.
Maybe, but why does EBC approve plans that are going to seriously impact the infrastructure without making sure that a suitable infrastructure is in place to support it; surely they should consider the impact that things like this are going to have on the people they are meant to serve. You must work for the council promoting their usual slopey shouldered BS. EBC (or the lib dems) come across as indifferent to the concerns of local people and weak in terms of standing up for them.
[quote][p][bold]House Sparrow[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]one in a million[/bold] wrote: This is just a small part of the overall strategy by Eastleigh Council to concrete over huge swathes of countryside without investing in adequate infrastructure; BPAG are wasting their time and money, EBC do not give a fig about what locals think as shown elsewhere in the borough (Bishopstoke, Fair Oak).[/p][/quote]Eastleigh are neither the highway authority nor do the provide schools. Both of these are the responsibility of Hampshire County Council.[/p][/quote]Maybe, but why does EBC approve plans that are going to seriously impact the infrastructure without making sure that a suitable infrastructure is in place to support it; surely they should consider the impact that things like this are going to have on the people they are meant to serve. You must work for the council promoting their usual slopey shouldered BS. EBC (or the lib dems) come across as indifferent to the concerns of local people and weak in terms of standing up for them. one in a million
  • Score: 4

5:32pm Tue 10 Jun 14

forest hump says...

Poppy22 wrote:
wwozzer wrote:
derek james wrote:
forest hump wrote: Selfish, greedy individuals. Save farmland?? Absolute nonsense. Try flying from Edinburgh to Southampton and see how much green space this country has. I think you will find there is significantly less than 10% is developed. If more houses were built of the correct category (not for benefit spongers) then the house price fiasco would not exist.
i think that land is needed for growing food as we import over 40% of our food, if scotland votes for independence we will lose about 40% of the uk land mass, this will make things worse
We import so much because mostly it's either cheaper than producing it ourselves or it wouldn't grow in our climate anyway. What forest hump says is absolutely spot on. We've all been conned into believing our countryside is in danger from development when in fact 90% of this country IS countryside. We could double everything that's already been built and you'd hardly notice the difference on a satellite picture.
We're not talking about the whole country here - if we were, then the Govt would be building on some of the huge swathes of the country where there is little building (though that would mean taking away yet more farmland). We're talking about keeping some green spaces for future generations in this area, rather than just a concrete mass and the air so polluted that they won't be able to venture outdoors! Also, the more we import food, the more we can be held to ransom by other countries in future years. Countries like China will obviously feed themselves before they feed other countries! Can't believe how many people with children don't see this as an issue for the future.
Typical selfish, nimby, response. Just care about green spaces in this area. As for air pollution?? you really ought to get out more.
[quote][p][bold]Poppy22[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]wwozzer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]derek james[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]forest hump[/bold] wrote: Selfish, greedy individuals. Save farmland?? Absolute nonsense. Try flying from Edinburgh to Southampton and see how much green space this country has. I think you will find there is significantly less than 10% is developed. If more houses were built of the correct category (not for benefit spongers) then the house price fiasco would not exist.[/p][/quote]i think that land is needed for growing food as we import over 40% of our food, if scotland votes for independence we will lose about 40% of the uk land mass, this will make things worse[/p][/quote]We import so much because mostly it's either cheaper than producing it ourselves or it wouldn't grow in our climate anyway. What forest hump says is absolutely spot on. We've all been conned into believing our countryside is in danger from development when in fact 90% of this country IS countryside. We could double everything that's already been built and you'd hardly notice the difference on a satellite picture.[/p][/quote]We're not talking about the whole country here - if we were, then the Govt would be building on some of the huge swathes of the country where there is little building (though that would mean taking away yet more farmland). We're talking about keeping some green spaces for future generations in this area, rather than just a concrete mass and the air so polluted that they won't be able to venture outdoors! Also, the more we import food, the more we can be held to ransom by other countries in future years. Countries like China will obviously feed themselves before they feed other countries! Can't believe how many people with children don't see this as an issue for the future.[/p][/quote]Typical selfish, nimby, response. Just care about green spaces in this area. As for air pollution?? you really ought to get out more. forest hump
  • Score: -3

9:33pm Tue 10 Jun 14

Buzzard2 says...

forest hump wrote:
Selfish, greedy individuals. Save farmland?? Absolute nonsense. Try flying from Edinburgh to Southampton and see how much green space this country has. I think you will find there is significantly less than 10% is developed. If more houses were built of the correct category (not for benefit spongers) then the house price fiasco would not exist.
So, in your obviously educated, erudite opinion, what is the safe proportion of built-up land versus 'green' space? Particularly when compared with other European countries?

By the way, the 'build more and reduce the price' has been around for decades and has been disproved by economists time after time. Sadly how easily we forget what has gone before. Spain did too - and now has whole streets of empty houses. Increasingly, increased interest rates are being predicted for the end of this year (putting around £250 a month on the average mortgage) and the attendant bursting of the property bubble should greatly reduce demand, not to mention the increasing possibility of a withdrawal from the EU.
[quote][p][bold]forest hump[/bold] wrote: Selfish, greedy individuals. Save farmland?? Absolute nonsense. Try flying from Edinburgh to Southampton and see how much green space this country has. I think you will find there is significantly less than 10% is developed. If more houses were built of the correct category (not for benefit spongers) then the house price fiasco would not exist.[/p][/quote]So, in your obviously educated, erudite opinion, what is the safe proportion of built-up land versus 'green' space? Particularly when compared with other European countries? By the way, the 'build more and reduce the price' has been around for decades and has been disproved by economists time after time. Sadly how easily we forget what has gone before. Spain did too - and now has whole streets of empty houses. Increasingly, increased interest rates are being predicted for the end of this year (putting around £250 a month on the average mortgage) and the attendant bursting of the property bubble should greatly reduce demand, not to mention the increasing possibility of a withdrawal from the EU. Buzzard2
  • Score: 2

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

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