Plan to build 107 homes in Oakley

Basingstoke Gazette: Plan to build 107 homes in Oakley Plan to build 107 homes in Oakley

PLANS to build more than 100 homes in Oakley have been submitted to the borough council.

Gleeson Developments has asked for permission to build 107 homes, with associated landscaping, open space and car parking, on land west of Beech Tree Close.

The company wants to create a mixture of flats and houses on the 14.6-acre site, which is made up of two fields of grassland used for horse grazing for a number of years.

The development would comprise 14, one-bedroom flats, eight, two-bedroom flats, 31, two-bedroom houses, 38, three-bedroom houses, and 16, four-bedroom houses. Up to 43 of these would be affordable housing.

A total of 4.4 acres of the site would be used for public open space, and new vehicular access would be created from Beech Tree Close, with a pedestrian/cycle link to Barn Lane.

There would be 161 allocated and 42 unallocated parking spaces, and 200 long-stay and 107 short-stay cycle spaces.

A consultation leaflet was sent to around 400 homes near the site, and 66 people responded.

The application states 17 responders felt the site was suitable for new development.

The majority of those who felt it was unsuitable for development had concerns regarding access and the impact on the highway network.

However, the application states: “The application is supported by a transport assessment which addresses the majority of concerns raised in relation to proposed access, and the impact on the local road network.”

Another concern was that facilities would not be able to cope with the additional population.

Gleeson Developments plans to contribute towards highways, public open space and education to mitigate this impact.

The application states: “There are compelling reasons for giving favourable consideration to a housing scheme on the site which will deliver affordable market housing for which there is a known demand and which will make a worthwhile contribution toward the ever-growing social housing requirements of this area and the district.”

It adds: “Due weight should also be given when determining this application to the council’s deficiency in available housing land.”

As previously reported in The Gazette, a steering group has been formed in the village to oppose the plans, which will be discussed by Oakley Parish Council next Thursday, at a meeting in Oakley Junior School.

The newly-formed group is set to meet the day before, at the same venue, to discuss the proposals ahead of presenting their views to the council.

Brian Hunkin previously told Oakley Parish Council that villagers were “shocked” by the plans, adding: “We are fully aware that in the Neighbourhood Plan, Oakley will most likely have to accept 150 houses in that plan.

“But we would like to see that future development shared around the village in small developments that hopefully have little impact on anyone.”

Comments (4)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:19am Wed 14 May 14

JJ38JJ says...

No mention of infrastructure in this report. Schools, doctors, dentists, transport, etc. Oakley doesn't have a secondary school for instance and the catchment secondary is a 2 or 3 miles away in Basingstoke.
As for transport, this report comes a day after a smaller development was turned down in Worting and one of the reasons was transport/roads. Doesn't the main road between Oakley and Basingstoke go through Worting?
Here's a novel plan - how about reopening the old railway station in Oakley? Or better still building another one on the other side of the village that can serve both main lines.
No mention of infrastructure in this report. Schools, doctors, dentists, transport, etc. Oakley doesn't have a secondary school for instance and the catchment secondary is a 2 or 3 miles away in Basingstoke. As for transport, this report comes a day after a smaller development was turned down in Worting and one of the reasons was transport/roads. Doesn't the main road between Oakley and Basingstoke go through Worting? Here's a novel plan - how about reopening the old railway station in Oakley? Or better still building another one on the other side of the village that can serve both main lines. JJ38JJ
  • Score: 7

5:45pm Wed 14 May 14

OvercrowdedCountry says...

Infrastructure doesn't matter - it won't affect the people who will make money from building over even more of the countryside. If you have a railway station, trains have to stop and pick up passengers. The Railway Companies don't like doing that because it slows down the trains.
Infrastructure doesn't matter - it won't affect the people who will make money from building over even more of the countryside. If you have a railway station, trains have to stop and pick up passengers. The Railway Companies don't like doing that because it slows down the trains. OvercrowdedCountry
  • Score: -3

8:48pm Wed 14 May 14

Peter H. says...

An interesting and novel idea JJ!

I’ve little idea about the finances involved, but I suspect the cost is not so much running an unmanned station or the time delay, rather providing sufficient parking. The catchment area is quite large and I’m guessing you may need space for 50-75 cars? The revenue it generates helps pay for the station while avoiding ticking off local residents.
An interesting and novel idea JJ! I’ve little idea about the finances involved, but I suspect the cost is not so much running an unmanned station or the time delay, rather providing sufficient parking. The catchment area is quite large and I’m guessing you may need space for 50-75 cars? The revenue it generates helps pay for the station while avoiding ticking off local residents. Peter H.
  • Score: 5

8:20am Thu 15 May 14

JJ38JJ says...

Peter H. wrote:
An interesting and novel idea JJ!

I’ve little idea about the finances involved, but I suspect the cost is not so much running an unmanned station or the time delay, rather providing sufficient parking. The catchment area is quite large and I’m guessing you may need space for 50-75 cars? The revenue it generates helps pay for the station while avoiding ticking off local residents.
Oakley is bigger than Micheldever, Overton and Whitchurch even without these planned homes and yet all three have stations. And Oakley sits on the junction of two lines not just the one. A station at the junction would serve people in Kempshott and Buckskin as well.
And here's a novel thought - if building does go ahead at Manydown then the station would be less than a mile away giving access to London, Reading, Southampton, Portsmouth, Salisbury and Exeter.
[quote][p][bold]Peter H.[/bold] wrote: An interesting and novel idea JJ! I’ve little idea about the finances involved, but I suspect the cost is not so much running an unmanned station or the time delay, rather providing sufficient parking. The catchment area is quite large and I’m guessing you may need space for 50-75 cars? The revenue it generates helps pay for the station while avoiding ticking off local residents.[/p][/quote]Oakley is bigger than Micheldever, Overton and Whitchurch even without these planned homes and yet all three have stations. And Oakley sits on the junction of two lines not just the one. A station at the junction would serve people in Kempshott and Buckskin as well. And here's a novel thought - if building does go ahead at Manydown then the station would be less than a mile away giving access to London, Reading, Southampton, Portsmouth, Salisbury and Exeter. JJ38JJ
  • Score: 7

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