Hundreds of homes could be built in a green gap between North Baddesley and Valley Park near Romsey

Hundreds of homes could be built on green belt land near Romsey

Hundreds of homes could be built on green belt land near Romsey

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

HUNDREDS of homes could be built on greenbelt land, sparking up-roar amongst residents.

Taylor Wimpey is behind plans to build 300 homes between North Baddesley and Valley Park.

Test Valley has a shortage of new homes but many feel the local gap at Great Covert Copse off Castle Lane should be spared.

The developers are claiming the plans will preserve the woodland.

Councillor Alan Dowden said: “This 300-home proposal at Great Covert is designated in a local gap. This has been designated as such within the emerging Revised Local Plan.

“The developers are bringing their proposal forward like many others in different areas because Test Valley has a shortage in its five year housing land supply.

He added: “The public have shown that they strongly support that local gap policy.

“It is my view that this proposal will be strongly objected to if an application were to come forward later and the objections for further development would be made on legitimate ground.”

Under Taylor Wimpey’s proposals the homes will be built on the eastern edge of the site. The company says this is to preserve woodland to the west and safeguard the local gap.

About 40 per cent of the homes will be affordable with shared ownership and there would be rentable accommodation.

Pedestrian and cycle links to North Baddesley village centre and Valley Park would be included.

Taylor Wimpey says of the 80 hectare site that only 12 of these is earmarked for housing. Its strategic projects manager Lynn McIver said: “This scheme represents an exciting opportunity to enhance the ancient woodland within the site, making it more accessible so people have the chance to benefit from this fantastic natural asset right on their doorstep.”

Nearly 2,000 newsletters have been sent to households in North Baddesley and Valley Park alerting residents to a public exhibition at North Baddesley Sports Pavilion on Wednesday, June 18 between 3pm and 8pm.

Comments (29)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:49am Fri 13 Jun 14

sotonboy84 says...

Locals have no say over proposals like this, more powers should be given to local people and councils. Councils should identify housing needs and then these needs should be put out to tender to developers and councils choose a developer that can meet theirs and local peoples requirements. Not the other way around as is currently the case.

Developers chose sites that maximise their profits, they don't build to help any claimed need for local housing.

These woodlands are recognised by the county council as being important for nature conservation so developers would find it very difficult to destroy. Their statement implies that they will chose to retain the Woodland out of the goodness of their hearts rather than destroying them not being an option.

I disagree with Lynn McIver, strategic projects manager for Taylor Wimpey. There's nothing exciting about this proposed development, the Woodland will not be enhanced by a load of cheap brick housing, UPVC windows and block paved driveways. The site is already accessible to anybody that wants to access it and it's this that has helped preserve it.
Locals have no say over proposals like this, more powers should be given to local people and councils. Councils should identify housing needs and then these needs should be put out to tender to developers and councils choose a developer that can meet theirs and local peoples requirements. Not the other way around as is currently the case. Developers chose sites that maximise their profits, they don't build to help any claimed need for local housing. These woodlands are recognised by the county council as being important for nature conservation so developers would find it very difficult to destroy. Their statement implies that they will chose to retain the Woodland out of the goodness of their hearts rather than destroying them not being an option. I disagree with Lynn McIver, strategic projects manager for Taylor Wimpey. There's nothing exciting about this proposed development, the Woodland will not be enhanced by a load of cheap brick housing, UPVC windows and block paved driveways. The site is already accessible to anybody that wants to access it and it's this that has helped preserve it. sotonboy84
  • Score: 10

1:04pm Fri 13 Jun 14

George4th says...

sotonboy84 wrote:
Locals have no say over proposals like this, more powers should be given to local people and councils. Councils should identify housing needs and then these needs should be put out to tender to developers and councils choose a developer that can meet theirs and local peoples requirements. Not the other way around as is currently the case.

Developers chose sites that maximise their profits, they don't build to help any claimed need for local housing.

These woodlands are recognised by the county council as being important for nature conservation so developers would find it very difficult to destroy. Their statement implies that they will chose to retain the Woodland out of the goodness of their hearts rather than destroying them not being an option.

I disagree with Lynn McIver, strategic projects manager for Taylor Wimpey. There's nothing exciting about this proposed development, the Woodland will not be enhanced by a load of cheap brick housing, UPVC windows and block paved driveways. The site is already accessible to anybody that wants to access it and it's this that has helped preserve it.
I suggest you direct your comments to those who do not have a home................
....or live in overcrowded dwellings...........
....
[quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: Locals have no say over proposals like this, more powers should be given to local people and councils. Councils should identify housing needs and then these needs should be put out to tender to developers and councils choose a developer that can meet theirs and local peoples requirements. Not the other way around as is currently the case. Developers chose sites that maximise their profits, they don't build to help any claimed need for local housing. These woodlands are recognised by the county council as being important for nature conservation so developers would find it very difficult to destroy. Their statement implies that they will chose to retain the Woodland out of the goodness of their hearts rather than destroying them not being an option. I disagree with Lynn McIver, strategic projects manager for Taylor Wimpey. There's nothing exciting about this proposed development, the Woodland will not be enhanced by a load of cheap brick housing, UPVC windows and block paved driveways. The site is already accessible to anybody that wants to access it and it's this that has helped preserve it.[/p][/quote]I suggest you direct your comments to those who do not have a home................ ....or live in overcrowded dwellings........... .... George4th
  • Score: -4

1:43pm Fri 13 Jun 14

huckit P says...

George4th wrote:
sotonboy84 wrote:
Locals have no say over proposals like this, more powers should be given to local people and councils. Councils should identify housing needs and then these needs should be put out to tender to developers and councils choose a developer that can meet theirs and local peoples requirements. Not the other way around as is currently the case.

Developers chose sites that maximise their profits, they don't build to help any claimed need for local housing.

These woodlands are recognised by the county council as being important for nature conservation so developers would find it very difficult to destroy. Their statement implies that they will chose to retain the Woodland out of the goodness of their hearts rather than destroying them not being an option.

I disagree with Lynn McIver, strategic projects manager for Taylor Wimpey. There's nothing exciting about this proposed development, the Woodland will not be enhanced by a load of cheap brick housing, UPVC windows and block paved driveways. The site is already accessible to anybody that wants to access it and it's this that has helped preserve it.
I suggest you direct your comments to those who do not have a home................

....or live in overcrowded dwellings...........

....
Those who do not already have a home will not be able to afford one of these even if they are built! As for the homeless - do you really think this will have any affect on them whatsoever?
What it will probably do is provide a lot of Buy-to-Let housing which only profits the landlord.
For an example of what happens just look at the development on the old Borden Chemicals site. Same developer and probably the same rubbish standard of build. Many homeowners there cannot sell their properties owing to ridiculous charges enforced by the so-called management company, and have been forced to let their homes in order to move elsewhere. If this proposal goes ahead it will just be more of the same.
[quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: Locals have no say over proposals like this, more powers should be given to local people and councils. Councils should identify housing needs and then these needs should be put out to tender to developers and councils choose a developer that can meet theirs and local peoples requirements. Not the other way around as is currently the case. Developers chose sites that maximise their profits, they don't build to help any claimed need for local housing. These woodlands are recognised by the county council as being important for nature conservation so developers would find it very difficult to destroy. Their statement implies that they will chose to retain the Woodland out of the goodness of their hearts rather than destroying them not being an option. I disagree with Lynn McIver, strategic projects manager for Taylor Wimpey. There's nothing exciting about this proposed development, the Woodland will not be enhanced by a load of cheap brick housing, UPVC windows and block paved driveways. The site is already accessible to anybody that wants to access it and it's this that has helped preserve it.[/p][/quote]I suggest you direct your comments to those who do not have a home................ ....or live in overcrowded dwellings........... ....[/p][/quote]Those who do not already have a home will not be able to afford one of these even if they are built! As for the homeless - do you really think this will have any affect on them whatsoever? What it will probably do is provide a lot of Buy-to-Let housing which only profits the landlord. For an example of what happens just look at the development on the old Borden Chemicals site. Same developer and probably the same rubbish standard of build. Many homeowners there cannot sell their properties owing to ridiculous charges enforced by the so-called management company, and have been forced to let their homes in order to move elsewhere. If this proposal goes ahead it will just be more of the same. huckit P
  • Score: 7

2:01pm Fri 13 Jun 14

RealTalkSouthampton says...

What puzzles me is, why do we need these boarder. Considering more people live in cities now then in the countryside. Should we not focus more on developing on the outskirts of cities instead of having all these parish councils and layers of ed tape. Southampton and Southern hampshire is a prime example of pure mess. If you think of how connected say london is, now imagine getting from totton to whiteley shopping centre. A distance of 13miles would take 3-4 bus journeys or 2-3 buses and a train. Estimated 1 way route 1.5 hours costing £8 excluding the train. compare this to richmond to Canary Wharf 14miles in less than 1 hour with a single change.

The point i'm making, is this our thinking does not reflect the time we are living in. We need a master plan for south hampshire with integration at the top of the list and cut all these parish councils etc down. #nomoreivorytowers
What puzzles me is, why do we need these boarder. Considering more people live in cities now then in the countryside. Should we not focus more on developing on the outskirts of cities instead of having all these parish councils and layers of ed tape. Southampton and Southern hampshire is a prime example of pure mess. If you think of how connected say london is, now imagine getting from totton to whiteley shopping centre. A distance of 13miles would take 3-4 bus journeys or 2-3 buses and a train. Estimated 1 way route 1.5 hours costing £8 excluding the train. compare this to richmond to Canary Wharf 14miles in less than 1 hour with a single change. The point i'm making, is this our thinking does not reflect the time we are living in. We need a master plan for south hampshire with integration at the top of the list and cut all these parish councils etc down. #nomoreivorytowers RealTalkSouthampton
  • Score: 7

2:02pm Fri 13 Jun 14

George4th says...

huckit P wrote:
George4th wrote:
sotonboy84 wrote:
Locals have no say over proposals like this, more powers should be given to local people and councils. Councils should identify housing needs and then these needs should be put out to tender to developers and councils choose a developer that can meet theirs and local peoples requirements. Not the other way around as is currently the case.

Developers chose sites that maximise their profits, they don't build to help any claimed need for local housing.

These woodlands are recognised by the county council as being important for nature conservation so developers would find it very difficult to destroy. Their statement implies that they will chose to retain the Woodland out of the goodness of their hearts rather than destroying them not being an option.

I disagree with Lynn McIver, strategic projects manager for Taylor Wimpey. There's nothing exciting about this proposed development, the Woodland will not be enhanced by a load of cheap brick housing, UPVC windows and block paved driveways. The site is already accessible to anybody that wants to access it and it's this that has helped preserve it.
I suggest you direct your comments to those who do not have a home................


....or live in overcrowded dwellings...........


....
Those who do not already have a home will not be able to afford one of these even if they are built! As for the homeless - do you really think this will have any affect on them whatsoever?
What it will probably do is provide a lot of Buy-to-Let housing which only profits the landlord.
For an example of what happens just look at the development on the old Borden Chemicals site. Same developer and probably the same rubbish standard of build. Many homeowners there cannot sell their properties owing to ridiculous charges enforced by the so-called management company, and have been forced to let their homes in order to move elsewhere. If this proposal goes ahead it will just be more of the same.
If you build it, they will come................
....................
.


It may have escaped people's notice that we have a chronic housing shortage!

Just build the blooming things!

Only 2.27% is actually built on in England! If you expand it to include the total "Urban" area that amounts to 10.6%!

We have so much land to build on! Unless of course you wish to preserve about 90% for the Wildlife!
I'm sure the homeless and the overcrowded and the young will applaud you for that!

Deport the NIMBYS and the BANANAS! :-)
[quote][p][bold]huckit P[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: Locals have no say over proposals like this, more powers should be given to local people and councils. Councils should identify housing needs and then these needs should be put out to tender to developers and councils choose a developer that can meet theirs and local peoples requirements. Not the other way around as is currently the case. Developers chose sites that maximise their profits, they don't build to help any claimed need for local housing. These woodlands are recognised by the county council as being important for nature conservation so developers would find it very difficult to destroy. Their statement implies that they will chose to retain the Woodland out of the goodness of their hearts rather than destroying them not being an option. I disagree with Lynn McIver, strategic projects manager for Taylor Wimpey. There's nothing exciting about this proposed development, the Woodland will not be enhanced by a load of cheap brick housing, UPVC windows and block paved driveways. The site is already accessible to anybody that wants to access it and it's this that has helped preserve it.[/p][/quote]I suggest you direct your comments to those who do not have a home................ ....or live in overcrowded dwellings........... ....[/p][/quote]Those who do not already have a home will not be able to afford one of these even if they are built! As for the homeless - do you really think this will have any affect on them whatsoever? What it will probably do is provide a lot of Buy-to-Let housing which only profits the landlord. For an example of what happens just look at the development on the old Borden Chemicals site. Same developer and probably the same rubbish standard of build. Many homeowners there cannot sell their properties owing to ridiculous charges enforced by the so-called management company, and have been forced to let their homes in order to move elsewhere. If this proposal goes ahead it will just be more of the same.[/p][/quote]If you build it, they will come................ .................... . It may have escaped people's notice that we have a chronic housing shortage! Just build the blooming things! Only 2.27% is actually built on in England! If you expand it to include the total "Urban" area that amounts to 10.6%! We have so much land to build on! Unless of course you wish to preserve about 90% for the Wildlife! I'm sure the homeless and the overcrowded and the young will applaud you for that! Deport the NIMBYS and the BANANAS! :-) George4th
  • Score: -9

2:40pm Fri 13 Jun 14

newsknight says...

huckit P wrote:
George4th wrote:
sotonboy84 wrote:
Locals have no say over proposals like this, more powers should be given to local people and councils. Councils should identify housing needs and then these needs should be put out to tender to developers and councils choose a developer that can meet theirs and local peoples requirements. Not the other way around as is currently the case.

Developers chose sites that maximise their profits, they don't build to help any claimed need for local housing.

These woodlands are recognised by the county council as being important for nature conservation so developers would find it very difficult to destroy. Their statement implies that they will chose to retain the Woodland out of the goodness of their hearts rather than destroying them not being an option.

I disagree with Lynn McIver, strategic projects manager for Taylor Wimpey. There's nothing exciting about this proposed development, the Woodland will not be enhanced by a load of cheap brick housing, UPVC windows and block paved driveways. The site is already accessible to anybody that wants to access it and it's this that has helped preserve it.
I suggest you direct your comments to those who do not have a home................


....or live in overcrowded dwellings...........


....
Those who do not already have a home will not be able to afford one of these even if they are built! As for the homeless - do you really think this will have any affect on them whatsoever?
What it will probably do is provide a lot of Buy-to-Let housing which only profits the landlord.
For an example of what happens just look at the development on the old Borden Chemicals site. Same developer and probably the same rubbish standard of build. Many homeowners there cannot sell their properties owing to ridiculous charges enforced by the so-called management company, and have been forced to let their homes in order to move elsewhere. If this proposal goes ahead it will just be more of the same.
If this goes ahead it will merely feed the 'buy to let' landlords who are sending the house prices rocketing!! Abbotswood, Romsey - the developer has sold whole groups of properties for buy to let (quick sale) and its now £1,000 per month to rent flats - local folk for purchase? - no chance :-(

The Government are thick if they think it is owner/occupiers escalating the trend - the buy to let landlords are literally scooping up properties, sending prices higher, and are stopping young people getting on the property ladder!!

Sensible building of 50 homes per village along the Test Valley would have eased the problem of more and more children of villagers joining the mass of those needing to buy in towns, if they can afford it, supply not meeting demand (again driving up prices!)
[quote][p][bold]huckit P[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: Locals have no say over proposals like this, more powers should be given to local people and councils. Councils should identify housing needs and then these needs should be put out to tender to developers and councils choose a developer that can meet theirs and local peoples requirements. Not the other way around as is currently the case. Developers chose sites that maximise their profits, they don't build to help any claimed need for local housing. These woodlands are recognised by the county council as being important for nature conservation so developers would find it very difficult to destroy. Their statement implies that they will chose to retain the Woodland out of the goodness of their hearts rather than destroying them not being an option. I disagree with Lynn McIver, strategic projects manager for Taylor Wimpey. There's nothing exciting about this proposed development, the Woodland will not be enhanced by a load of cheap brick housing, UPVC windows and block paved driveways. The site is already accessible to anybody that wants to access it and it's this that has helped preserve it.[/p][/quote]I suggest you direct your comments to those who do not have a home................ ....or live in overcrowded dwellings........... ....[/p][/quote]Those who do not already have a home will not be able to afford one of these even if they are built! As for the homeless - do you really think this will have any affect on them whatsoever? What it will probably do is provide a lot of Buy-to-Let housing which only profits the landlord. For an example of what happens just look at the development on the old Borden Chemicals site. Same developer and probably the same rubbish standard of build. Many homeowners there cannot sell their properties owing to ridiculous charges enforced by the so-called management company, and have been forced to let their homes in order to move elsewhere. If this proposal goes ahead it will just be more of the same.[/p][/quote]If this goes ahead it will merely feed the 'buy to let' landlords who are sending the house prices rocketing!! Abbotswood, Romsey - the developer has sold whole groups of properties for buy to let (quick sale) and its now £1,000 per month to rent flats - local folk for purchase? - no chance :-( The Government are thick if they think it is owner/occupiers escalating the trend - the buy to let landlords are literally scooping up properties, sending prices higher, and are stopping young people getting on the property ladder!! Sensible building of 50 homes per village along the Test Valley would have eased the problem of more and more children of villagers joining the mass of those needing to buy in towns, if they can afford it, supply not meeting demand (again driving up prices!) newsknight
  • Score: 9

3:05pm Fri 13 Jun 14

sotonboy84 says...

George4th wrote:
sotonboy84 wrote:
Locals have no say over proposals like this, more powers should be given to local people and councils. Councils should identify housing needs and then these needs should be put out to tender to developers and councils choose a developer that can meet theirs and local peoples requirements. Not the other way around as is currently the case.

Developers chose sites that maximise their profits, they don't build to help any claimed need for local housing.

These woodlands are recognised by the county council as being important for nature conservation so developers would find it very difficult to destroy. Their statement implies that they will chose to retain the Woodland out of the goodness of their hearts rather than destroying them not being an option.

I disagree with Lynn McIver, strategic projects manager for Taylor Wimpey. There's nothing exciting about this proposed development, the Woodland will not be enhanced by a load of cheap brick housing, UPVC windows and block paved driveways. The site is already accessible to anybody that wants to access it and it's this that has helped preserve it.
I suggest you direct your comments to those who do not have a home................

....or live in overcrowded dwellings...........

....
As others have pointed out, these homes are not being built to house anybody that is homeless or living in overcrowded conditions. They're being built to sell and huge profits for the developers in the process.

I'm not suggesting that homes aren't built, I'm suggesting that there needs to be more control over where houses are built and developments need to take place with local housing needs being the emphasis and not developers profits.

There are over 66,000 hectares of brownfield sites in England with around a third of these in Greater London, the South East and East. Emphasis should be on using these and not the countryside. Just to give you an idea on the amount of brownfield sites available, these 66,000 hectares equates to around 255 square miles and the Southampton measures approximately 28 square miles.
[quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: Locals have no say over proposals like this, more powers should be given to local people and councils. Councils should identify housing needs and then these needs should be put out to tender to developers and councils choose a developer that can meet theirs and local peoples requirements. Not the other way around as is currently the case. Developers chose sites that maximise their profits, they don't build to help any claimed need for local housing. These woodlands are recognised by the county council as being important for nature conservation so developers would find it very difficult to destroy. Their statement implies that they will chose to retain the Woodland out of the goodness of their hearts rather than destroying them not being an option. I disagree with Lynn McIver, strategic projects manager for Taylor Wimpey. There's nothing exciting about this proposed development, the Woodland will not be enhanced by a load of cheap brick housing, UPVC windows and block paved driveways. The site is already accessible to anybody that wants to access it and it's this that has helped preserve it.[/p][/quote]I suggest you direct your comments to those who do not have a home................ ....or live in overcrowded dwellings........... ....[/p][/quote]As others have pointed out, these homes are not being built to house anybody that is homeless or living in overcrowded conditions. They're being built to sell and huge profits for the developers in the process. I'm not suggesting that homes aren't built, I'm suggesting that there needs to be more control over where houses are built and developments need to take place with local housing needs being the emphasis and not developers profits. There are over 66,000 hectares of brownfield sites in England with around a third of these in Greater London, the South East and East. Emphasis should be on using these and not the countryside. Just to give you an idea on the amount of brownfield sites available, these 66,000 hectares equates to around 255 square miles and the Southampton measures approximately 28 square miles. sotonboy84
  • Score: 2

3:24pm Fri 13 Jun 14

Richard 51 says...

Has anybody looked at Castle Lane between the hours of 4pm to 6 pm it is gridlocked 300 homes equals 400 + cars think about it.
Has anybody looked at Castle Lane between the hours of 4pm to 6 pm it is gridlocked 300 homes equals 400 + cars think about it. Richard 51
  • Score: 14

4:08pm Fri 13 Jun 14

George4th says...

sotonboy84 wrote:
George4th wrote:
sotonboy84 wrote:
Locals have no say over proposals like this, more powers should be given to local people and councils. Councils should identify housing needs and then these needs should be put out to tender to developers and councils choose a developer that can meet theirs and local peoples requirements. Not the other way around as is currently the case.

Developers chose sites that maximise their profits, they don't build to help any claimed need for local housing.

These woodlands are recognised by the county council as being important for nature conservation so developers would find it very difficult to destroy. Their statement implies that they will chose to retain the Woodland out of the goodness of their hearts rather than destroying them not being an option.

I disagree with Lynn McIver, strategic projects manager for Taylor Wimpey. There's nothing exciting about this proposed development, the Woodland will not be enhanced by a load of cheap brick housing, UPVC windows and block paved driveways. The site is already accessible to anybody that wants to access it and it's this that has helped preserve it.
I suggest you direct your comments to those who do not have a home................


....or live in overcrowded dwellings...........


....
As others have pointed out, these homes are not being built to house anybody that is homeless or living in overcrowded conditions. They're being built to sell and huge profits for the developers in the process.

I'm not suggesting that homes aren't built, I'm suggesting that there needs to be more control over where houses are built and developments need to take place with local housing needs being the emphasis and not developers profits.

There are over 66,000 hectares of brownfield sites in England with around a third of these in Greater London, the South East and East. Emphasis should be on using these and not the countryside. Just to give you an idea on the amount of brownfield sites available, these 66,000 hectares equates to around 255 square miles and the Southampton measures approximately 28 square miles.
We need to build build build, whatever form it takes!

Fortunately the government is loosening the red tape in order to free up the development of brownfield sites, converting buildings of every type into homes and selling government land. This will shorten the process considerably and kick-start the construction industry.

They should also bring in a law to stop "I'm all right jack" individuals/groups from trying to stop developments! It only ever slows down the process and the losers are the homeless, the overcrowded and the young at the bottom of the ladder.

As for what to build, let the Builders, Property developers and Housing Associations get on with it - Market forces will dictate what to build! Just build!

(This has all been exacerbated by the last Labour government miserably failing to build anywhere near half the houses required each year, and then allowing millions of immigrants to come in on top of that! Doh!)
[quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: Locals have no say over proposals like this, more powers should be given to local people and councils. Councils should identify housing needs and then these needs should be put out to tender to developers and councils choose a developer that can meet theirs and local peoples requirements. Not the other way around as is currently the case. Developers chose sites that maximise their profits, they don't build to help any claimed need for local housing. These woodlands are recognised by the county council as being important for nature conservation so developers would find it very difficult to destroy. Their statement implies that they will chose to retain the Woodland out of the goodness of their hearts rather than destroying them not being an option. I disagree with Lynn McIver, strategic projects manager for Taylor Wimpey. There's nothing exciting about this proposed development, the Woodland will not be enhanced by a load of cheap brick housing, UPVC windows and block paved driveways. The site is already accessible to anybody that wants to access it and it's this that has helped preserve it.[/p][/quote]I suggest you direct your comments to those who do not have a home................ ....or live in overcrowded dwellings........... ....[/p][/quote]As others have pointed out, these homes are not being built to house anybody that is homeless or living in overcrowded conditions. They're being built to sell and huge profits for the developers in the process. I'm not suggesting that homes aren't built, I'm suggesting that there needs to be more control over where houses are built and developments need to take place with local housing needs being the emphasis and not developers profits. There are over 66,000 hectares of brownfield sites in England with around a third of these in Greater London, the South East and East. Emphasis should be on using these and not the countryside. Just to give you an idea on the amount of brownfield sites available, these 66,000 hectares equates to around 255 square miles and the Southampton measures approximately 28 square miles.[/p][/quote]We need to build build build, whatever form it takes! Fortunately the government is loosening the red tape in order to free up the development of brownfield sites, converting buildings of every type into homes and selling government land. This will shorten the process considerably and kick-start the construction industry. They should also bring in a law to stop "I'm all right jack" individuals/groups from trying to stop developments! It only ever slows down the process and the losers are the homeless, the overcrowded and the young at the bottom of the ladder. As for what to build, let the Builders, Property developers and Housing Associations get on with it - Market forces will dictate what to build! Just build! (This has all been exacerbated by the last Labour government miserably failing to build anywhere near half the houses required each year, and then allowing millions of immigrants to come in on top of that! Doh!) George4th
  • Score: -5

4:54pm Fri 13 Jun 14

derek james says...

George4th wrote:
huckit P wrote:
George4th wrote:
sotonboy84 wrote:
Locals have no say over proposals like this, more powers should be given to local people and councils. Councils should identify housing needs and then these needs should be put out to tender to developers and councils choose a developer that can meet theirs and local peoples requirements. Not the other way around as is currently the case.

Developers chose sites that maximise their profits, they don't build to help any claimed need for local housing.

These woodlands are recognised by the county council as being important for nature conservation so developers would find it very difficult to destroy. Their statement implies that they will chose to retain the Woodland out of the goodness of their hearts rather than destroying them not being an option.

I disagree with Lynn McIver, strategic projects manager for Taylor Wimpey. There's nothing exciting about this proposed development, the Woodland will not be enhanced by a load of cheap brick housing, UPVC windows and block paved driveways. The site is already accessible to anybody that wants to access it and it's this that has helped preserve it.
I suggest you direct your comments to those who do not have a home................



....or live in overcrowded dwellings...........



....
Those who do not already have a home will not be able to afford one of these even if they are built! As for the homeless - do you really think this will have any affect on them whatsoever?
What it will probably do is provide a lot of Buy-to-Let housing which only profits the landlord.
For an example of what happens just look at the development on the old Borden Chemicals site. Same developer and probably the same rubbish standard of build. Many homeowners there cannot sell their properties owing to ridiculous charges enforced by the so-called management company, and have been forced to let their homes in order to move elsewhere. If this proposal goes ahead it will just be more of the same.
If you build it, they will come................

....................

.


It may have escaped people's notice that we have a chronic housing shortage!

Just build the blooming things!

Only 2.27% is actually built on in England! If you expand it to include the total "Urban" area that amounts to 10.6%!

We have so much land to build on! Unless of course you wish to preserve about 90% for the Wildlife!
I'm sure the homeless and the overcrowded and the young will applaud you for that!

Deport the NIMBYS and the BANANAS! :-)
that may be the case as an average for the uk, but in hampshire i would suspect it is substantially more (built on), as previously mentioned we need all the agriculural land we have and more to feed the population
[quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]huckit P[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: Locals have no say over proposals like this, more powers should be given to local people and councils. Councils should identify housing needs and then these needs should be put out to tender to developers and councils choose a developer that can meet theirs and local peoples requirements. Not the other way around as is currently the case. Developers chose sites that maximise their profits, they don't build to help any claimed need for local housing. These woodlands are recognised by the county council as being important for nature conservation so developers would find it very difficult to destroy. Their statement implies that they will chose to retain the Woodland out of the goodness of their hearts rather than destroying them not being an option. I disagree with Lynn McIver, strategic projects manager for Taylor Wimpey. There's nothing exciting about this proposed development, the Woodland will not be enhanced by a load of cheap brick housing, UPVC windows and block paved driveways. The site is already accessible to anybody that wants to access it and it's this that has helped preserve it.[/p][/quote]I suggest you direct your comments to those who do not have a home................ ....or live in overcrowded dwellings........... ....[/p][/quote]Those who do not already have a home will not be able to afford one of these even if they are built! As for the homeless - do you really think this will have any affect on them whatsoever? What it will probably do is provide a lot of Buy-to-Let housing which only profits the landlord. For an example of what happens just look at the development on the old Borden Chemicals site. Same developer and probably the same rubbish standard of build. Many homeowners there cannot sell their properties owing to ridiculous charges enforced by the so-called management company, and have been forced to let their homes in order to move elsewhere. If this proposal goes ahead it will just be more of the same.[/p][/quote]If you build it, they will come................ .................... . It may have escaped people's notice that we have a chronic housing shortage! Just build the blooming things! Only 2.27% is actually built on in England! If you expand it to include the total "Urban" area that amounts to 10.6%! We have so much land to build on! Unless of course you wish to preserve about 90% for the Wildlife! I'm sure the homeless and the overcrowded and the young will applaud you for that! Deport the NIMBYS and the BANANAS! :-)[/p][/quote]that may be the case as an average for the uk, but in hampshire i would suspect it is substantially more (built on), as previously mentioned we need all the agriculural land we have and more to feed the population derek james
  • Score: 4

6:43pm Fri 13 Jun 14

Not Southy says...

sotonboy84 wrote:
Locals have no say over proposals like this, more powers should be given to local people and councils. Councils should identify housing needs and then these needs should be put out to tender to developers and councils choose a developer that can meet theirs and local peoples requirements. Not the other way around as is currently the case. Developers chose sites that maximise their profits, they don't build to help any claimed need for local housing. These woodlands are recognised by the county council as being important for nature conservation so developers would find it very difficult to destroy. Their statement implies that they will chose to retain the Woodland out of the goodness of their hearts rather than destroying them not being an option. I disagree with Lynn McIver, strategic projects manager for Taylor Wimpey. There's nothing exciting about this proposed development, the Woodland will not be enhanced by a load of cheap brick housing, UPVC windows and block paved driveways. The site is already accessible to anybody that wants to access it and it's this that has helped preserve it.
Sotonboy84 has exposed his ignorance of the planning system on here before. We have a growing population and the average household size is shrinking. Combined with net migration... we need a good think about housing. It's already been mentioned, only a small amount of this country is developed but our cities are heaving and schools/GPs/roads/dr
ains etc are over capacity. So... low supply & high demand is raising property costs. Also, these houses would be outside of the reach of many, agreed, but a) 10% would be for housing association and b) you need bigger houses for famillies who've outgrown their smaller places to move to. This movement through the system frees up afforadable entry homes. Developers will be paying around £15k per house in CIL (developer taxes) which go to local schools, bus routes, libraries etc - so we really need new homes. And also, jobs made in construction.... CO2 saved with new homes rather than poor quality old housing stock.... can't you see the bigger picture?
Yes, we need to get vacant properties occupied & redundant spaces filled, but, Sotonboy.... stick to your yoga, and stay out of grown up decisions until you get that big lefty chip off your shoulder!
[quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: Locals have no say over proposals like this, more powers should be given to local people and councils. Councils should identify housing needs and then these needs should be put out to tender to developers and councils choose a developer that can meet theirs and local peoples requirements. Not the other way around as is currently the case. Developers chose sites that maximise their profits, they don't build to help any claimed need for local housing. These woodlands are recognised by the county council as being important for nature conservation so developers would find it very difficult to destroy. Their statement implies that they will chose to retain the Woodland out of the goodness of their hearts rather than destroying them not being an option. I disagree with Lynn McIver, strategic projects manager for Taylor Wimpey. There's nothing exciting about this proposed development, the Woodland will not be enhanced by a load of cheap brick housing, UPVC windows and block paved driveways. The site is already accessible to anybody that wants to access it and it's this that has helped preserve it.[/p][/quote]Sotonboy84 has exposed his ignorance of the planning system on here before. We have a growing population and the average household size is shrinking. Combined with net migration... we need a good think about housing. It's already been mentioned, only a small amount of this country is developed but our cities are heaving and schools/GPs/roads/dr ains etc are over capacity. So... low supply & high demand is raising property costs. Also, these houses would be outside of the reach of many, agreed, but a) 10% would be for housing association and b) you need bigger houses for famillies who've outgrown their smaller places to move to. This movement through the system frees up afforadable entry homes. Developers will be paying around £15k per house in CIL (developer taxes) which go to local schools, bus routes, libraries etc - so we really need new homes. And also, jobs made in construction.... CO2 saved with new homes rather than poor quality old housing stock.... can't you see the bigger picture? Yes, we need to get vacant properties occupied & redundant spaces filled, but, Sotonboy.... stick to your yoga, and stay out of grown up decisions until you get that big lefty chip off your shoulder! Not Southy
  • Score: -1

7:22pm Fri 13 Jun 14

Tony Blair's Accountant says...

We have just over 200,000 new people moving to the UK every single year. They have to live somewhere.

Mass immigration is good for the country, we're constantly told. Unless we're being lied to. But surely that couldn't happen?
We have just over 200,000 new people moving to the UK every single year. They have to live somewhere. Mass immigration is good for the country, we're constantly told. Unless we're being lied to. But surely that couldn't happen? Tony Blair's Accountant
  • Score: -4

7:53pm Fri 13 Jun 14

forest hump says...

G4th is absolutely right. These homes must be built, along with many others. 1st time buyers might well not find these affordable but ultimately it will liberate other properties which are affordable. Let's stop this "save our green fields" claptrap and build. It will stimulate the economy and ease the supply/demand bottleneck. Let us stop consulting the insects/bugs/dung beetles et. al. and make progress. Take a flight from Edinburgh to Southampton and see for yourselves how much land we actually have for development.
G4th is absolutely right. These homes must be built, along with many others. 1st time buyers might well not find these affordable but ultimately it will liberate other properties which are affordable. Let's stop this "save our green fields" claptrap and build. It will stimulate the economy and ease the supply/demand bottleneck. Let us stop consulting the insects/bugs/dung beetles et. al. and make progress. Take a flight from Edinburgh to Southampton and see for yourselves how much land we actually have for development. forest hump
  • Score: -3

10:53pm Fri 13 Jun 14

Sir Ad E Noid says...

George4th wrote:
sotonboy84 wrote:
Locals have no say over proposals like this, more powers should be given to local people and councils. Councils should identify housing needs and then these needs should be put out to tender to developers and councils choose a developer that can meet theirs and local peoples requirements. Not the other way around as is currently the case.

Developers chose sites that maximise their profits, they don't build to help any claimed need for local housing.

These woodlands are recognised by the county council as being important for nature conservation so developers would find it very difficult to destroy. Their statement implies that they will chose to retain the Woodland out of the goodness of their hearts rather than destroying them not being an option.

I disagree with Lynn McIver, strategic projects manager for Taylor Wimpey. There's nothing exciting about this proposed development, the Woodland will not be enhanced by a load of cheap brick housing, UPVC windows and block paved driveways. The site is already accessible to anybody that wants to access it and it's this that has helped preserve it.
I suggest you direct your comments to those who do not have a home................

....or live in overcrowded dwellings...........

....
There is plenty of social housing or council estates to meet the needs of people who do not have a home or live in overcrowded accommodation. Would you agree that these houses, in a inappropriate site, are just fine because we all want to live in a nice area, even though we can't afford it? If we build loads of cack houses we will drag the area down and open up the housing stock for one and all. Is it necessary to ruin every area to accommodate the unfortunate, the needy and people in overcrowded accommodation? Why not build more multi-story accommodation on Weston Estate. That would clear up our housing needs in Southampton. Surely that must be the better way?
[quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: Locals have no say over proposals like this, more powers should be given to local people and councils. Councils should identify housing needs and then these needs should be put out to tender to developers and councils choose a developer that can meet theirs and local peoples requirements. Not the other way around as is currently the case. Developers chose sites that maximise their profits, they don't build to help any claimed need for local housing. These woodlands are recognised by the county council as being important for nature conservation so developers would find it very difficult to destroy. Their statement implies that they will chose to retain the Woodland out of the goodness of their hearts rather than destroying them not being an option. I disagree with Lynn McIver, strategic projects manager for Taylor Wimpey. There's nothing exciting about this proposed development, the Woodland will not be enhanced by a load of cheap brick housing, UPVC windows and block paved driveways. The site is already accessible to anybody that wants to access it and it's this that has helped preserve it.[/p][/quote]I suggest you direct your comments to those who do not have a home................ ....or live in overcrowded dwellings........... ....[/p][/quote]There is plenty of social housing or council estates to meet the needs of people who do not have a home or live in overcrowded accommodation. Would you agree that these houses, in a inappropriate site, are just fine because we all want to live in a nice area, even though we can't afford it? If we build loads of cack houses we will drag the area down and open up the housing stock for one and all. Is it necessary to ruin every area to accommodate the unfortunate, the needy and people in overcrowded accommodation? Why not build more multi-story accommodation on Weston Estate. That would clear up our housing needs in Southampton. Surely that must be the better way? Sir Ad E Noid
  • Score: -3

1:29am Sat 14 Jun 14

southy says...

Tony Blair's Accountant wrote:
We have just over 200,000 new people moving to the UK every single year. They have to live somewhere.

Mass immigration is good for the country, we're constantly told. Unless we're being lied to. But surely that couldn't happen?
true enough but there is just as many leaving the country also
[quote][p][bold]Tony Blair's Accountant[/bold] wrote: We have just over 200,000 new people moving to the UK every single year. They have to live somewhere. Mass immigration is good for the country, we're constantly told. Unless we're being lied to. But surely that couldn't happen?[/p][/quote]true enough but there is just as many leaving the country also southy
  • Score: -5

1:33am Sat 14 Jun 14

southy says...

What is need first is to sort out all these holiday homes that lay empty for most of the year, maybe it might be time to stop having holiday homes as some people have more that just 1 holiday home, you gat only live in one home at a time. We do have hotels that could be used
What is need first is to sort out all these holiday homes that lay empty for most of the year, maybe it might be time to stop having holiday homes as some people have more that just 1 holiday home, you gat only live in one home at a time. We do have hotels that could be used southy
  • Score: -3

5:17am Sat 14 Jun 14

skeptik says...

Overview of Hampshire Landscape - Heathland 4% - Coastal 2% - Other 3% - Urban 15% - Woodland 19% - Grassland 20% - Arable 37% - official publications
Overview of Hampshire Landscape - Heathland 4% - Coastal 2% - Other 3% - Urban 15% - Woodland 19% - Grassland 20% - Arable 37% - official publications skeptik
  • Score: 3

9:31am Sat 14 Jun 14

Tony Blair's Accountant says...

southy wrote:
Tony Blair's Accountant wrote:
We have just over 200,000 new people moving to the UK every single year. They have to live somewhere.

Mass immigration is good for the country, we're constantly told. Unless we're being lied to. But surely that couldn't happen?
true enough but there is just as many leaving the country also
No, 500,000 arrive every year and 300,000 leave. Those are the government's recently released figures.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tony Blair's Accountant[/bold] wrote: We have just over 200,000 new people moving to the UK every single year. They have to live somewhere. Mass immigration is good for the country, we're constantly told. Unless we're being lied to. But surely that couldn't happen?[/p][/quote]true enough but there is just as many leaving the country also[/p][/quote]No, 500,000 arrive every year and 300,000 leave. Those are the government's recently released figures. Tony Blair's Accountant
  • Score: 2

10:02am Sat 14 Jun 14

Lone Ranger. says...

Sir Ad E Noid wrote:
George4th wrote:
sotonboy84 wrote:
Locals have no say over proposals like this, more powers should be given to local people and councils. Councils should identify housing needs and then these needs should be put out to tender to developers and councils choose a developer that can meet theirs and local peoples requirements. Not the other way around as is currently the case.

Developers chose sites that maximise their profits, they don't build to help any claimed need for local housing.

These woodlands are recognised by the county council as being important for nature conservation so developers would find it very difficult to destroy. Their statement implies that they will chose to retain the Woodland out of the goodness of their hearts rather than destroying them not being an option.

I disagree with Lynn McIver, strategic projects manager for Taylor Wimpey. There's nothing exciting about this proposed development, the Woodland will not be enhanced by a load of cheap brick housing, UPVC windows and block paved driveways. The site is already accessible to anybody that wants to access it and it's this that has helped preserve it.
I suggest you direct your comments to those who do not have a home................


....or live in overcrowded dwellings...........


....
There is plenty of social housing or council estates to meet the needs of people who do not have a home or live in overcrowded accommodation. Would you agree that these houses, in a inappropriate site, are just fine because we all want to live in a nice area, even though we can't afford it? If we build loads of cack houses we will drag the area down and open up the housing stock for one and all. Is it necessary to ruin every area to accommodate the unfortunate, the needy and people in overcrowded accommodation? Why not build more multi-story accommodation on Weston Estate. That would clear up our housing needs in Southampton. Surely that must be the better way?
Goodness me a type of ethnic cleansing comes to Hampshire
[quote][p][bold]Sir Ad E Noid[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: Locals have no say over proposals like this, more powers should be given to local people and councils. Councils should identify housing needs and then these needs should be put out to tender to developers and councils choose a developer that can meet theirs and local peoples requirements. Not the other way around as is currently the case. Developers chose sites that maximise their profits, they don't build to help any claimed need for local housing. These woodlands are recognised by the county council as being important for nature conservation so developers would find it very difficult to destroy. Their statement implies that they will chose to retain the Woodland out of the goodness of their hearts rather than destroying them not being an option. I disagree with Lynn McIver, strategic projects manager for Taylor Wimpey. There's nothing exciting about this proposed development, the Woodland will not be enhanced by a load of cheap brick housing, UPVC windows and block paved driveways. The site is already accessible to anybody that wants to access it and it's this that has helped preserve it.[/p][/quote]I suggest you direct your comments to those who do not have a home................ ....or live in overcrowded dwellings........... ....[/p][/quote]There is plenty of social housing or council estates to meet the needs of people who do not have a home or live in overcrowded accommodation. Would you agree that these houses, in a inappropriate site, are just fine because we all want to live in a nice area, even though we can't afford it? If we build loads of cack houses we will drag the area down and open up the housing stock for one and all. Is it necessary to ruin every area to accommodate the unfortunate, the needy and people in overcrowded accommodation? Why not build more multi-story accommodation on Weston Estate. That would clear up our housing needs in Southampton. Surely that must be the better way?[/p][/quote]Goodness me a type of ethnic cleansing comes to Hampshire Lone Ranger.
  • Score: 2

10:42am Sat 14 Jun 14

southy says...

Tony Blair's Accountant wrote:
southy wrote:
Tony Blair's Accountant wrote:
We have just over 200,000 new people moving to the UK every single year. They have to live somewhere.

Mass immigration is good for the country, we're constantly told. Unless we're being lied to. But surely that couldn't happen?
true enough but there is just as many leaving the country also
No, 500,000 arrive every year and 300,000 leave. Those are the government's recently released figures.
They don't count the ones that leave that come here for 6 mths work and then go home or the ones that are here for education and yet they are counted in, the in and out are about equal theres not a lot a difference between the 2,
The idea behind all of this is to keep the country divided makes it easier to conquer.
[quote][p][bold]Tony Blair's Accountant[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tony Blair's Accountant[/bold] wrote: We have just over 200,000 new people moving to the UK every single year. They have to live somewhere. Mass immigration is good for the country, we're constantly told. Unless we're being lied to. But surely that couldn't happen?[/p][/quote]true enough but there is just as many leaving the country also[/p][/quote]No, 500,000 arrive every year and 300,000 leave. Those are the government's recently released figures.[/p][/quote]They don't count the ones that leave that come here for 6 mths work and then go home or the ones that are here for education and yet they are counted in, the in and out are about equal theres not a lot a difference between the 2, The idea behind all of this is to keep the country divided makes it easier to conquer. southy
  • Score: -4

11:14am Sat 14 Jun 14

Torchie1 says...

southy wrote:
Tony Blair's Accountant wrote:
southy wrote:
Tony Blair's Accountant wrote:
We have just over 200,000 new people moving to the UK every single year. They have to live somewhere.

Mass immigration is good for the country, we're constantly told. Unless we're being lied to. But surely that couldn't happen?
true enough but there is just as many leaving the country also
No, 500,000 arrive every year and 300,000 leave. Those are the government's recently released figures.
They don't count the ones that leave that come here for 6 mths work and then go home or the ones that are here for education and yet they are counted in, the in and out are about equal theres not a lot a difference between the 2,
The idea behind all of this is to keep the country divided makes it easier to conquer.
Perhaps you can contact the Office of National Statistics and ask them to correct the 'net flow' migration figures which showed an increase to 212000 as of September 2013. The use of word 'net' means that they have included all persons, and I'm inclined to have a bit more faith in their figure as they don't have a worn out axe to grind. Obviously I can be persuaded to back your assertions if you can provide an acceptable form of proof. As the coalition government are looking to reduce net migration to below 100000, I'm sure David Cameron would welcome your congratulations that he is on target to achieve this.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tony Blair's Accountant[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tony Blair's Accountant[/bold] wrote: We have just over 200,000 new people moving to the UK every single year. They have to live somewhere. Mass immigration is good for the country, we're constantly told. Unless we're being lied to. But surely that couldn't happen?[/p][/quote]true enough but there is just as many leaving the country also[/p][/quote]No, 500,000 arrive every year and 300,000 leave. Those are the government's recently released figures.[/p][/quote]They don't count the ones that leave that come here for 6 mths work and then go home or the ones that are here for education and yet they are counted in, the in and out are about equal theres not a lot a difference between the 2, The idea behind all of this is to keep the country divided makes it easier to conquer.[/p][/quote]Perhaps you can contact the Office of National Statistics and ask them to correct the 'net flow' migration figures which showed an increase to 212000 as of September 2013. The use of word 'net' means that they have included all persons, and I'm inclined to have a bit more faith in their figure as they don't have a worn out axe to grind. Obviously I can be persuaded to back your assertions if you can provide an acceptable form of proof. As the coalition government are looking to reduce net migration to below 100000, I'm sure David Cameron would welcome your congratulations that he is on target to achieve this. Torchie1
  • Score: 3

11:17am Sat 14 Jun 14

Sir Ad E Noid says...

Lone Ranger. wrote:
Sir Ad E Noid wrote:
George4th wrote:
sotonboy84 wrote:
Locals have no say over proposals like this, more powers should be given to local people and councils. Councils should identify housing needs and then these needs should be put out to tender to developers and councils choose a developer that can meet theirs and local peoples requirements. Not the other way around as is currently the case.

Developers chose sites that maximise their profits, they don't build to help any claimed need for local housing.

These woodlands are recognised by the county council as being important for nature conservation so developers would find it very difficult to destroy. Their statement implies that they will chose to retain the Woodland out of the goodness of their hearts rather than destroying them not being an option.

I disagree with Lynn McIver, strategic projects manager for Taylor Wimpey. There's nothing exciting about this proposed development, the Woodland will not be enhanced by a load of cheap brick housing, UPVC windows and block paved driveways. The site is already accessible to anybody that wants to access it and it's this that has helped preserve it.
I suggest you direct your comments to those who do not have a home................



....or live in overcrowded dwellings...........



....
There is plenty of social housing or council estates to meet the needs of people who do not have a home or live in overcrowded accommodation. Would you agree that these houses, in a inappropriate site, are just fine because we all want to live in a nice area, even though we can't afford it? If we build loads of cack houses we will drag the area down and open up the housing stock for one and all. Is it necessary to ruin every area to accommodate the unfortunate, the needy and people in overcrowded accommodation? Why not build more multi-story accommodation on Weston Estate. That would clear up our housing needs in Southampton. Surely that must be the better way?
Goodness me a type of ethnic cleansing comes to Hampshire
Not at all. First, I don't live any where near the proposed development near Romsey and have no real interest in it. Why ruin yet another piece of the green belt, where ever it is, just for houses. It is wrong to build 3, 4 or 5 bedroomed houses on that land as much as it is wrong to build a whole estate to cater for for the social housing needs of many. Even if you did build on the land, the type of house and who it is aimed at is a consideration. Get that wrong and you are in trouble. Building large modern flats, not like the ones from the 60's, works and can accommodate many in some style on a relatively small footprint. It's a fact the area they want to build these houses in is expensive to live, and why not. Filling that area up with cheap housing will ruin the area. If you had what the people in Romsey and surrounding areas have you would not want over development to ruin it.
[quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sir Ad E Noid[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: Locals have no say over proposals like this, more powers should be given to local people and councils. Councils should identify housing needs and then these needs should be put out to tender to developers and councils choose a developer that can meet theirs and local peoples requirements. Not the other way around as is currently the case. Developers chose sites that maximise their profits, they don't build to help any claimed need for local housing. These woodlands are recognised by the county council as being important for nature conservation so developers would find it very difficult to destroy. Their statement implies that they will chose to retain the Woodland out of the goodness of their hearts rather than destroying them not being an option. I disagree with Lynn McIver, strategic projects manager for Taylor Wimpey. There's nothing exciting about this proposed development, the Woodland will not be enhanced by a load of cheap brick housing, UPVC windows and block paved driveways. The site is already accessible to anybody that wants to access it and it's this that has helped preserve it.[/p][/quote]I suggest you direct your comments to those who do not have a home................ ....or live in overcrowded dwellings........... ....[/p][/quote]There is plenty of social housing or council estates to meet the needs of people who do not have a home or live in overcrowded accommodation. Would you agree that these houses, in a inappropriate site, are just fine because we all want to live in a nice area, even though we can't afford it? If we build loads of cack houses we will drag the area down and open up the housing stock for one and all. Is it necessary to ruin every area to accommodate the unfortunate, the needy and people in overcrowded accommodation? Why not build more multi-story accommodation on Weston Estate. That would clear up our housing needs in Southampton. Surely that must be the better way?[/p][/quote]Goodness me a type of ethnic cleansing comes to Hampshire[/p][/quote]Not at all. First, I don't live any where near the proposed development near Romsey and have no real interest in it. Why ruin yet another piece of the green belt, where ever it is, just for houses. It is wrong to build 3, 4 or 5 bedroomed houses on that land as much as it is wrong to build a whole estate to cater for for the social housing needs of many. Even if you did build on the land, the type of house and who it is aimed at is a consideration. Get that wrong and you are in trouble. Building large modern flats, not like the ones from the 60's, works and can accommodate many in some style on a relatively small footprint. It's a fact the area they want to build these houses in is expensive to live, and why not. Filling that area up with cheap housing will ruin the area. If you had what the people in Romsey and surrounding areas have you would not want over development to ruin it. Sir Ad E Noid
  • Score: -3

11:30am Sat 14 Jun 14

freefinker says...

Torchie1 wrote:
southy wrote:
Tony Blair's Accountant wrote:
southy wrote:
Tony Blair's Accountant wrote:
We have just over 200,000 new people moving to the UK every single year. They have to live somewhere.

Mass immigration is good for the country, we're constantly told. Unless we're being lied to. But surely that couldn't happen?
true enough but there is just as many leaving the country also
No, 500,000 arrive every year and 300,000 leave. Those are the government's recently released figures.
They don't count the ones that leave that come here for 6 mths work and then go home or the ones that are here for education and yet they are counted in, the in and out are about equal theres not a lot a difference between the 2,
The idea behind all of this is to keep the country divided makes it easier to conquer.
Perhaps you can contact the Office of National Statistics and ask them to correct the 'net flow' migration figures which showed an increase to 212000 as of September 2013. The use of word 'net' means that they have included all persons, and I'm inclined to have a bit more faith in their figure as they don't have a worn out axe to grind. Obviously I can be persuaded to back your assertions if you can provide an acceptable form of proof. As the coalition government are looking to reduce net migration to below 100000, I'm sure David Cameron would welcome your congratulations that he is on target to achieve this.
.. and this is where southy does his disappearing trick as he's been challenged to back up his assertions. Or he may come back with reams of irrelevant waffle.

I have been through the net migration statistics with him several times before, but as we all know the ONS just make the statistics up and only southy from his (bought from the council) home in Redbridge has the correct and accurate figures. Why oh why should be disbelieve this intellectual genius?
[quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tony Blair's Accountant[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tony Blair's Accountant[/bold] wrote: We have just over 200,000 new people moving to the UK every single year. They have to live somewhere. Mass immigration is good for the country, we're constantly told. Unless we're being lied to. But surely that couldn't happen?[/p][/quote]true enough but there is just as many leaving the country also[/p][/quote]No, 500,000 arrive every year and 300,000 leave. Those are the government's recently released figures.[/p][/quote]They don't count the ones that leave that come here for 6 mths work and then go home or the ones that are here for education and yet they are counted in, the in and out are about equal theres not a lot a difference between the 2, The idea behind all of this is to keep the country divided makes it easier to conquer.[/p][/quote]Perhaps you can contact the Office of National Statistics and ask them to correct the 'net flow' migration figures which showed an increase to 212000 as of September 2013. The use of word 'net' means that they have included all persons, and I'm inclined to have a bit more faith in their figure as they don't have a worn out axe to grind. Obviously I can be persuaded to back your assertions if you can provide an acceptable form of proof. As the coalition government are looking to reduce net migration to below 100000, I'm sure David Cameron would welcome your congratulations that he is on target to achieve this.[/p][/quote].. and this is where southy does his disappearing trick as he's been challenged to back up his assertions. Or he may come back with reams of irrelevant waffle. I have been through the net migration statistics with him several times before, but as we all know the ONS just make the statistics up and only southy from his (bought from the council) home in Redbridge has the correct and accurate figures. Why oh why should be disbelieve this intellectual genius? freefinker
  • Score: 0

11:31am Sat 14 Jun 14

southy says...

Torchie1 wrote:
southy wrote:
Tony Blair's Accountant wrote:
southy wrote:
Tony Blair's Accountant wrote:
We have just over 200,000 new people moving to the UK every single year. They have to live somewhere.

Mass immigration is good for the country, we're constantly told. Unless we're being lied to. But surely that couldn't happen?
true enough but there is just as many leaving the country also
No, 500,000 arrive every year and 300,000 leave. Those are the government's recently released figures.
They don't count the ones that leave that come here for 6 mths work and then go home or the ones that are here for education and yet they are counted in, the in and out are about equal theres not a lot a difference between the 2,
The idea behind all of this is to keep the country divided makes it easier to conquer.
Perhaps you can contact the Office of National Statistics and ask them to correct the 'net flow' migration figures which showed an increase to 212000 as of September 2013. The use of word 'net' means that they have included all persons, and I'm inclined to have a bit more faith in their figure as they don't have a worn out axe to grind. Obviously I can be persuaded to back your assertions if you can provide an acceptable form of proof. As the coalition government are looking to reduce net migration to below 100000, I'm sure David Cameron would welcome your congratulations that he is on target to achieve this.
He wants to reduce the outward flow not the inward flow, the higher the unemployment the more control they have over wages, working hours and life span and working contictions, It as been long known that the ONS Agency will publish the figures given to them by the government.
The net flow that is publish will only give the right figure if every thing is taken into account if parts are being deliberitly left out it will show a figure that they want want.
Just like how Unemployment is fix figures there is a lot more that are unemployed that the government will amitt to.
[quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tony Blair's Accountant[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tony Blair's Accountant[/bold] wrote: We have just over 200,000 new people moving to the UK every single year. They have to live somewhere. Mass immigration is good for the country, we're constantly told. Unless we're being lied to. But surely that couldn't happen?[/p][/quote]true enough but there is just as many leaving the country also[/p][/quote]No, 500,000 arrive every year and 300,000 leave. Those are the government's recently released figures.[/p][/quote]They don't count the ones that leave that come here for 6 mths work and then go home or the ones that are here for education and yet they are counted in, the in and out are about equal theres not a lot a difference between the 2, The idea behind all of this is to keep the country divided makes it easier to conquer.[/p][/quote]Perhaps you can contact the Office of National Statistics and ask them to correct the 'net flow' migration figures which showed an increase to 212000 as of September 2013. The use of word 'net' means that they have included all persons, and I'm inclined to have a bit more faith in their figure as they don't have a worn out axe to grind. Obviously I can be persuaded to back your assertions if you can provide an acceptable form of proof. As the coalition government are looking to reduce net migration to below 100000, I'm sure David Cameron would welcome your congratulations that he is on target to achieve this.[/p][/quote]He wants to reduce the outward flow not the inward flow, the higher the unemployment the more control they have over wages, working hours and life span and working contictions, It as been long known that the ONS Agency will publish the figures given to them by the government. The net flow that is publish will only give the right figure if every thing is taken into account if parts are being deliberitly left out it will show a figure that they want want. Just like how Unemployment is fix figures there is a lot more that are unemployed that the government will amitt to. southy
  • Score: -1

11:56am Sat 14 Jun 14

Torchie1 says...

southy wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
southy wrote:
Tony Blair's Accountant wrote:
southy wrote:
Tony Blair's Accountant wrote:
We have just over 200,000 new people moving to the UK every single year. They have to live somewhere.

Mass immigration is good for the country, we're constantly told. Unless we're being lied to. But surely that couldn't happen?
true enough but there is just as many leaving the country also
No, 500,000 arrive every year and 300,000 leave. Those are the government's recently released figures.
They don't count the ones that leave that come here for 6 mths work and then go home or the ones that are here for education and yet they are counted in, the in and out are about equal theres not a lot a difference between the 2,
The idea behind all of this is to keep the country divided makes it easier to conquer.
Perhaps you can contact the Office of National Statistics and ask them to correct the 'net flow' migration figures which showed an increase to 212000 as of September 2013. The use of word 'net' means that they have included all persons, and I'm inclined to have a bit more faith in their figure as they don't have a worn out axe to grind. Obviously I can be persuaded to back your assertions if you can provide an acceptable form of proof. As the coalition government are looking to reduce net migration to below 100000, I'm sure David Cameron would welcome your congratulations that he is on target to achieve this.
He wants to reduce the outward flow not the inward flow, the higher the unemployment the more control they have over wages, working hours and life span and working contictions, It as been long known that the ONS Agency will publish the figures given to them by the government.
The net flow that is publish will only give the right figure if every thing is taken into account if parts are being deliberitly left out it will show a figure that they want want.
Just like how Unemployment is fix figures there is a lot more that are unemployed that the government will amitt to.
I've long suspected that this is yet another government agency that posts false right wing propaganda in order to make the electorate question your figures that from undisclosed sources!!! It would be a lot more helpful to publish the source of your material so that a balanced judgement about which figure is correct could be made. This would be the normal way of getting people to back you in any argument or debate.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tony Blair's Accountant[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tony Blair's Accountant[/bold] wrote: We have just over 200,000 new people moving to the UK every single year. They have to live somewhere. Mass immigration is good for the country, we're constantly told. Unless we're being lied to. But surely that couldn't happen?[/p][/quote]true enough but there is just as many leaving the country also[/p][/quote]No, 500,000 arrive every year and 300,000 leave. Those are the government's recently released figures.[/p][/quote]They don't count the ones that leave that come here for 6 mths work and then go home or the ones that are here for education and yet they are counted in, the in and out are about equal theres not a lot a difference between the 2, The idea behind all of this is to keep the country divided makes it easier to conquer.[/p][/quote]Perhaps you can contact the Office of National Statistics and ask them to correct the 'net flow' migration figures which showed an increase to 212000 as of September 2013. The use of word 'net' means that they have included all persons, and I'm inclined to have a bit more faith in their figure as they don't have a worn out axe to grind. Obviously I can be persuaded to back your assertions if you can provide an acceptable form of proof. As the coalition government are looking to reduce net migration to below 100000, I'm sure David Cameron would welcome your congratulations that he is on target to achieve this.[/p][/quote]He wants to reduce the outward flow not the inward flow, the higher the unemployment the more control they have over wages, working hours and life span and working contictions, It as been long known that the ONS Agency will publish the figures given to them by the government. The net flow that is publish will only give the right figure if every thing is taken into account if parts are being deliberitly left out it will show a figure that they want want. Just like how Unemployment is fix figures there is a lot more that are unemployed that the government will amitt to.[/p][/quote]I've long suspected that this is yet another government agency that posts false right wing propaganda in order to make the electorate question your figures that from undisclosed sources!!! It would be a lot more helpful to publish the source of your material so that a balanced judgement about which figure is correct could be made. This would be the normal way of getting people to back you in any argument or debate. Torchie1
  • Score: 2

3:37pm Sat 14 Jun 14

southy says...

Torchie1 wrote:
southy wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
southy wrote:
Tony Blair's Accountant wrote:
southy wrote:
Tony Blair's Accountant wrote:
We have just over 200,000 new people moving to the UK every single year. They have to live somewhere.

Mass immigration is good for the country, we're constantly told. Unless we're being lied to. But surely that couldn't happen?
true enough but there is just as many leaving the country also
No, 500,000 arrive every year and 300,000 leave. Those are the government's recently released figures.
They don't count the ones that leave that come here for 6 mths work and then go home or the ones that are here for education and yet they are counted in, the in and out are about equal theres not a lot a difference between the 2,
The idea behind all of this is to keep the country divided makes it easier to conquer.
Perhaps you can contact the Office of National Statistics and ask them to correct the 'net flow' migration figures which showed an increase to 212000 as of September 2013. The use of word 'net' means that they have included all persons, and I'm inclined to have a bit more faith in their figure as they don't have a worn out axe to grind. Obviously I can be persuaded to back your assertions if you can provide an acceptable form of proof. As the coalition government are looking to reduce net migration to below 100000, I'm sure David Cameron would welcome your congratulations that he is on target to achieve this.
He wants to reduce the outward flow not the inward flow, the higher the unemployment the more control they have over wages, working hours and life span and working contictions, It as been long known that the ONS Agency will publish the figures given to them by the government.
The net flow that is publish will only give the right figure if every thing is taken into account if parts are being deliberitly left out it will show a figure that they want want.
Just like how Unemployment is fix figures there is a lot more that are unemployed that the government will amitt to.
I've long suspected that this is yet another government agency that posts false right wing propaganda in order to make the electorate question your figures that from undisclosed sources!!! It would be a lot more helpful to publish the source of your material so that a balanced judgement about which figure is correct could be made. This would be the normal way of getting people to back you in any argument or debate.
Talk to people who have got to do the jobs, talk to there Union leaders easy enough for any one to do, ask what sort of thing they have to do in order to keep there jobs.
The Government never going to tell you the real truth, that stop happening 30 years odd years ago, and when we do get in a government that will tell you the truth you be wondering how come we let it go so far. You be saying we did not know and the reason for that you turned a blind eye to what was happening around you.
[quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tony Blair's Accountant[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tony Blair's Accountant[/bold] wrote: We have just over 200,000 new people moving to the UK every single year. They have to live somewhere. Mass immigration is good for the country, we're constantly told. Unless we're being lied to. But surely that couldn't happen?[/p][/quote]true enough but there is just as many leaving the country also[/p][/quote]No, 500,000 arrive every year and 300,000 leave. Those are the government's recently released figures.[/p][/quote]They don't count the ones that leave that come here for 6 mths work and then go home or the ones that are here for education and yet they are counted in, the in and out are about equal theres not a lot a difference between the 2, The idea behind all of this is to keep the country divided makes it easier to conquer.[/p][/quote]Perhaps you can contact the Office of National Statistics and ask them to correct the 'net flow' migration figures which showed an increase to 212000 as of September 2013. The use of word 'net' means that they have included all persons, and I'm inclined to have a bit more faith in their figure as they don't have a worn out axe to grind. Obviously I can be persuaded to back your assertions if you can provide an acceptable form of proof. As the coalition government are looking to reduce net migration to below 100000, I'm sure David Cameron would welcome your congratulations that he is on target to achieve this.[/p][/quote]He wants to reduce the outward flow not the inward flow, the higher the unemployment the more control they have over wages, working hours and life span and working contictions, It as been long known that the ONS Agency will publish the figures given to them by the government. The net flow that is publish will only give the right figure if every thing is taken into account if parts are being deliberitly left out it will show a figure that they want want. Just like how Unemployment is fix figures there is a lot more that are unemployed that the government will amitt to.[/p][/quote]I've long suspected that this is yet another government agency that posts false right wing propaganda in order to make the electorate question your figures that from undisclosed sources!!! It would be a lot more helpful to publish the source of your material so that a balanced judgement about which figure is correct could be made. This would be the normal way of getting people to back you in any argument or debate.[/p][/quote]Talk to people who have got to do the jobs, talk to there Union leaders easy enough for any one to do, ask what sort of thing they have to do in order to keep there jobs. The Government never going to tell you the real truth, that stop happening 30 years odd years ago, and when we do get in a government that will tell you the truth you be wondering how come we let it go so far. You be saying we did not know and the reason for that you turned a blind eye to what was happening around you. southy
  • Score: -1

6:39pm Sat 14 Jun 14

Torchie1 says...

southy wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
southy wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
southy wrote:
Tony Blair's Accountant wrote:
southy wrote:
Tony Blair's Accountant wrote:
We have just over 200,000 new people moving to the UK every single year. They have to live somewhere.

Mass immigration is good for the country, we're constantly told. Unless we're being lied to. But surely that couldn't happen?
true enough but there is just as many leaving the country also
No, 500,000 arrive every year and 300,000 leave. Those are the government's recently released figures.
They don't count the ones that leave that come here for 6 mths work and then go home or the ones that are here for education and yet they are counted in, the in and out are about equal theres not a lot a difference between the 2,
The idea behind all of this is to keep the country divided makes it easier to conquer.
Perhaps you can contact the Office of National Statistics and ask them to correct the 'net flow' migration figures which showed an increase to 212000 as of September 2013. The use of word 'net' means that they have included all persons, and I'm inclined to have a bit more faith in their figure as they don't have a worn out axe to grind. Obviously I can be persuaded to back your assertions if you can provide an acceptable form of proof. As the coalition government are looking to reduce net migration to below 100000, I'm sure David Cameron would welcome your congratulations that he is on target to achieve this.
He wants to reduce the outward flow not the inward flow, the higher the unemployment the more control they have over wages, working hours and life span and working contictions, It as been long known that the ONS Agency will publish the figures given to them by the government.
The net flow that is publish will only give the right figure if every thing is taken into account if parts are being deliberitly left out it will show a figure that they want want.
Just like how Unemployment is fix figures there is a lot more that are unemployed that the government will amitt to.
I've long suspected that this is yet another government agency that posts false right wing propaganda in order to make the electorate question your figures that from undisclosed sources!!! It would be a lot more helpful to publish the source of your material so that a balanced judgement about which figure is correct could be made. This would be the normal way of getting people to back you in any argument or debate.
Talk to people who have got to do the jobs, talk to there Union leaders easy enough for any one to do, ask what sort of thing they have to do in order to keep there jobs.
The Government never going to tell you the real truth, that stop happening 30 years odd years ago, and when we do get in a government that will tell you the truth you be wondering how come we let it go so far. You be saying we did not know and the reason for that you turned a blind eye to what was happening around you.
The accurate figures for UK net migration are now based on anecdotal evidence from union members and their leaders? Didn't you understand the underlying message when you were de-selected, stop making up stories, it's embarrassing for the socialists and they were tired of it. As for governments telling the truth, it always suits you to believe bad news like rising unemployment but when the trend goes the other way, it's government lies. Try to take a step back and see how your posts look to an independent third party, they're laughable.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tony Blair's Accountant[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tony Blair's Accountant[/bold] wrote: We have just over 200,000 new people moving to the UK every single year. They have to live somewhere. Mass immigration is good for the country, we're constantly told. Unless we're being lied to. But surely that couldn't happen?[/p][/quote]true enough but there is just as many leaving the country also[/p][/quote]No, 500,000 arrive every year and 300,000 leave. Those are the government's recently released figures.[/p][/quote]They don't count the ones that leave that come here for 6 mths work and then go home or the ones that are here for education and yet they are counted in, the in and out are about equal theres not a lot a difference between the 2, The idea behind all of this is to keep the country divided makes it easier to conquer.[/p][/quote]Perhaps you can contact the Office of National Statistics and ask them to correct the 'net flow' migration figures which showed an increase to 212000 as of September 2013. The use of word 'net' means that they have included all persons, and I'm inclined to have a bit more faith in their figure as they don't have a worn out axe to grind. Obviously I can be persuaded to back your assertions if you can provide an acceptable form of proof. As the coalition government are looking to reduce net migration to below 100000, I'm sure David Cameron would welcome your congratulations that he is on target to achieve this.[/p][/quote]He wants to reduce the outward flow not the inward flow, the higher the unemployment the more control they have over wages, working hours and life span and working contictions, It as been long known that the ONS Agency will publish the figures given to them by the government. The net flow that is publish will only give the right figure if every thing is taken into account if parts are being deliberitly left out it will show a figure that they want want. Just like how Unemployment is fix figures there is a lot more that are unemployed that the government will amitt to.[/p][/quote]I've long suspected that this is yet another government agency that posts false right wing propaganda in order to make the electorate question your figures that from undisclosed sources!!! It would be a lot more helpful to publish the source of your material so that a balanced judgement about which figure is correct could be made. This would be the normal way of getting people to back you in any argument or debate.[/p][/quote]Talk to people who have got to do the jobs, talk to there Union leaders easy enough for any one to do, ask what sort of thing they have to do in order to keep there jobs. The Government never going to tell you the real truth, that stop happening 30 years odd years ago, and when we do get in a government that will tell you the truth you be wondering how come we let it go so far. You be saying we did not know and the reason for that you turned a blind eye to what was happening around you.[/p][/quote]The accurate figures for UK net migration are now based on anecdotal evidence from union members and their leaders? Didn't you understand the underlying message when you were de-selected, stop making up stories, it's embarrassing for the socialists and they were tired of it. As for governments telling the truth, it always suits you to believe bad news like rising unemployment but when the trend goes the other way, it's government lies. Try to take a step back and see how your posts look to an independent third party, they're laughable. Torchie1
  • Score: 2

7:29am Mon 16 Jun 14

skeptik says...

They most definitely not 'laughable' - incoherent maybe.
They most definitely not 'laughable' - incoherent maybe. skeptik
  • Score: 0

11:14am Thu 19 Jun 14

newsknight says...

Attended the information evening last night - representative of the developer admitted "building land hard to obtain - building here because they can". Which means those with 'power' who live in smaller villages throughout the Test Valley have the means to prevent 50 houses per village but Baddesley and Romsey are easy 'dumping grounds' to fulfil targets for huge new developments - idiocy rules!! Who will use the Park & Ride at Wren's Farm which serves Hampshire Corporate Park if you cannot get to it to park due to gridlock ... Knightwood morning exit of householders commute is bad enough and the road there is wider :-( This area of Test Valley has done its bit and developers have already built many hundreds of homes - the Government should target Parish Councils in villages and make them build in sensible numbers - opposite the Council Houses Maggie Thatcher sold cheap and never replaced...!!
Attended the information evening last night - representative of the developer admitted "building land hard to obtain - building here because they can". Which means those with 'power' who live in smaller villages throughout the Test Valley have the means to prevent 50 houses per village but Baddesley and Romsey are easy 'dumping grounds' to fulfil targets for huge new developments - idiocy rules!! Who will use the Park & Ride at Wren's Farm which serves Hampshire Corporate Park if you cannot get to it to park due to gridlock ... Knightwood morning exit of householders commute is bad enough and the road there is wider :-( This area of Test Valley has done its bit and developers have already built many hundreds of homes - the Government should target Parish Councils in villages and make them build in sensible numbers - opposite the Council Houses Maggie Thatcher sold cheap and never replaced...!! newsknight
  • Score: 0

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