High Court defeat for Barton Farm developer

Daily Echo: Barton Farm Barton Farm

A DEVELOPER who wants to build 2,000 homes on the edge of Winchester has suffered a defeat in the High Court on the eve of the crucial public inquiry.

A High Court judge yesterday rebuffed Cala Homes in its quest to make a planning inspector follow regional housing targets.

Cala argues that no weight should be given to Government plans to scrap the targets in the inquiry over houses at Barton Farm.

Last autumn the Government advised planners to bear in mind the targets are being scrapped in favour of devolving power down to councils.

Keeping the 12,000-home target for the Winchester district until 2026 is widely reckoned to make it more likely that Barton Farm will be built.

However, dismissing Cala’s case, Mr Justice Lindblom said there was nothing irrational about the Government advice and the company’s objections were “based on an incorrect understanding of what the Secretary of State (Eric Pickles) has actually done.”

The judge said that, at the planning inquiry due to start today, the sole contentious issue will be whether there is a “need” for large-scale housing development at Barton Farm.

Cala’s barrister Peter Village QC had attacked the advice as a “transparently unlawful attempt to subvert” the will of Parliament, saying planners are obliged to apply the law as it stands and it could not be right for them to take into account the Government’s stated intention to effectively revoke regional strategies and to “abolish the regional tier of development plan policy”.

Comments (6)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

5:34pm Tue 8 Feb 11

Bagman says...

Why do these developers think they can wave their cash and build whatever and wherever they want. Thay are under the impression that they rule the roost. Most people want to see a bit of greenery between towns, not blotted out by their monstrosities. Leave some space for the rest of the people, you've had your share.
Why do these developers think they can wave their cash and build whatever and wherever they want. Thay are under the impression that they rule the roost. Most people want to see a bit of greenery between towns, not blotted out by their monstrosities. Leave some space for the rest of the people, you've had your share. Bagman
  • Score: 0

5:51pm Tue 8 Feb 11

Poppy22 says...

Bagman wrote:
Why do these developers think they can wave their cash and build whatever and wherever they want. Thay are under the impression that they rule the roost. Most people want to see a bit of greenery between towns, not blotted out by their monstrosities. Leave some space for the rest of the people, you've had your share.
Hear, hear! Build on the true brownfield sites and MOD etc land first, before destroying more of our countryside. And this constant argument by builders that people on the housing list will benefit from the homes being built (quoted on another website)- what a load of rubbish! Our county is full of 4-5 bed "executive" housing estates with lip service paid to social housing. It never works when the two are mixed - eg more recent developments in Whiteley (and people paying full price - or over the odds -for a house will resent their "social housing" neighbours who paid much less or pay a nominal rent). How about someone building some true social housing in an area which suits the people who'll be living in the houses and gives them walking and/or bus access to the facilities they need (not miles outside towns with close proximity only to motorways for commuting up the M3 to executive jobs!).
[quote][p][bold]Bagman[/bold] wrote: Why do these developers think they can wave their cash and build whatever and wherever they want. Thay are under the impression that they rule the roost. Most people want to see a bit of greenery between towns, not blotted out by their monstrosities. Leave some space for the rest of the people, you've had your share.[/p][/quote]Hear, hear! Build on the true brownfield sites and MOD etc land first, before destroying more of our countryside. And this constant argument by builders that people on the housing list will benefit from the homes being built (quoted on another website)- what a load of rubbish! Our county is full of 4-5 bed "executive" housing estates with lip service paid to social housing. It never works when the two are mixed - eg more recent developments in Whiteley (and people paying full price - or over the odds -for a house will resent their "social housing" neighbours who paid much less or pay a nominal rent). How about someone building some true social housing in an area which suits the people who'll be living in the houses and gives them walking and/or bus access to the facilities they need (not miles outside towns with close proximity only to motorways for commuting up the M3 to executive jobs!). Poppy22
  • Score: 0

6:19pm Tue 8 Feb 11

forest hump says...

"Most people want to see a bit of greenery between towns" That statement is inaacurate on two points.

Most people want an affordable place to live. Also, I suggest you jump in an aeroplane and fly from Scotland to Southampton: I'll think you will find plenty of greenery between towns...more than you would ever imagine. I suspect this is a pure case of nimbyism
"Most people want to see a bit of greenery between towns" That statement is inaacurate on two points. Most people want an affordable place to live. Also, I suggest you jump in an aeroplane and fly from Scotland to Southampton: I'll think you will find plenty of greenery between towns...more than you would ever imagine. I suspect this is a pure case of nimbyism forest hump
  • Score: 0

6:22pm Tue 8 Feb 11

forest hump says...

Poppy22 wrote:
Bagman wrote: Why do these developers think they can wave their cash and build whatever and wherever they want. Thay are under the impression that they rule the roost. Most people want to see a bit of greenery between towns, not blotted out by their monstrosities. Leave some space for the rest of the people, you've had your share.
Hear, hear! Build on the true brownfield sites and MOD etc land first, before destroying more of our countryside. And this constant argument by builders that people on the housing list will benefit from the homes being built (quoted on another website)- what a load of rubbish! Our county is full of 4-5 bed "executive" housing estates with lip service paid to social housing. It never works when the two are mixed - eg more recent developments in Whiteley (and people paying full price - or over the odds -for a house will resent their "social housing" neighbours who paid much less or pay a nominal rent). How about someone building some true social housing in an area which suits the people who'll be living in the houses and gives them walking and/or bus access to the facilities they need (not miles outside towns with close proximity only to motorways for commuting up the M3 to executive jobs!).
I'd wager you would soon have the "for sale" sign up if there were social housing proposed near you
[quote][p][bold]Poppy22[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bagman[/bold] wrote: Why do these developers think they can wave their cash and build whatever and wherever they want. Thay are under the impression that they rule the roost. Most people want to see a bit of greenery between towns, not blotted out by their monstrosities. Leave some space for the rest of the people, you've had your share.[/p][/quote]Hear, hear! Build on the true brownfield sites and MOD etc land first, before destroying more of our countryside. And this constant argument by builders that people on the housing list will benefit from the homes being built (quoted on another website)- what a load of rubbish! Our county is full of 4-5 bed "executive" housing estates with lip service paid to social housing. It never works when the two are mixed - eg more recent developments in Whiteley (and people paying full price - or over the odds -for a house will resent their "social housing" neighbours who paid much less or pay a nominal rent). How about someone building some true social housing in an area which suits the people who'll be living in the houses and gives them walking and/or bus access to the facilities they need (not miles outside towns with close proximity only to motorways for commuting up the M3 to executive jobs!).[/p][/quote]I'd wager you would soon have the "for sale" sign up if there were social housing proposed near you forest hump
  • Score: 0

7:16pm Tue 8 Feb 11

Bagman says...

To Forest Hump, during the sixties and seventies, I was a long-distance lorry driver. When you see towns as in the Midlands and in Lancashire when there are no gaps between them. there is no room for local people to get fresh air of any kind. From the BIC to Wolverhampton, it is only with the aid of an ABC map that you can tell where you are. Having had to drive under these conditions for years, I was always glad when i got south of Newbury to see some greenery.
Most of the houses around the Winchester area are owned by commuters working in London. None of their money is spent locally. If they want to work in London, live in London and don't moan about having to pay exhorbitant fares. It is their choice.
To Forest Hump, during the sixties and seventies, I was a long-distance lorry driver. When you see towns as in the Midlands and in Lancashire when there are no gaps between them. there is no room for local people to get fresh air of any kind. From the BIC to Wolverhampton, it is only with the aid of an ABC map that you can tell where you are. Having had to drive under these conditions for years, I was always glad when i got south of Newbury to see some greenery. Most of the houses around the Winchester area are owned by commuters working in London. None of their money is spent locally. If they want to work in London, live in London and don't moan about having to pay exhorbitant fares. It is their choice. Bagman
  • Score: 0

7:38pm Tue 8 Feb 11

forest hump says...

Bagman wrote:
To Forest Hump, during the sixties and seventies, I was a long-distance lorry driver. When you see towns as in the Midlands and in Lancashire when there are no gaps between them. there is no room for local people to get fresh air of any kind. From the BIC to Wolverhampton, it is only with the aid of an ABC map that you can tell where you are. Having had to drive under these conditions for years, I was always glad when i got south of Newbury to see some greenery. Most of the houses around the Winchester area are owned by commuters working in London. None of their money is spent locally. If they want to work in London, live in London and don't moan about having to pay exhorbitant fares. It is their choice.
I specifically said go by plane. You will see there is a significant difference than driving. This country does not have an issue with overdevelopment. It is a figment of imagination.
[quote][p][bold]Bagman[/bold] wrote: To Forest Hump, during the sixties and seventies, I was a long-distance lorry driver. When you see towns as in the Midlands and in Lancashire when there are no gaps between them. there is no room for local people to get fresh air of any kind. From the BIC to Wolverhampton, it is only with the aid of an ABC map that you can tell where you are. Having had to drive under these conditions for years, I was always glad when i got south of Newbury to see some greenery. Most of the houses around the Winchester area are owned by commuters working in London. None of their money is spent locally. If they want to work in London, live in London and don't moan about having to pay exhorbitant fares. It is their choice.[/p][/quote]I specifically said go by plane. You will see there is a significant difference than driving. This country does not have an issue with overdevelopment. It is a figment of imagination. forest hump
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

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

I agree