Cabinet rejects call from campaigners

CALLS to build fewer new homes in Basingstoke and Deane have been rejected by council Cabinet bosses.

Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council’s 10-strong decision-making Cabinet have set an interim target of between 735 and 770 new homes to be built every year for 15 years.

The number will form part of the borough’s Local Plan – a guide to how many homes will be built, and where they will go, from 2014 until 2029.

At the Cabinet meeting, campaigners sought to curb the number of new homes, amid fears that too many homes will harm the environment and overload the town’s infrastructure.

Peter Bloyce, from pressure group Save Our Loddon Valley Environment (SOLVE), said the proposed figure was based on “subjective” statistics, and he challenged the evidence used to determine the 770 figure.

“The council’s documents evidence relies on subjective projections which appear aimed at keeping a high housing target,” he said. “Proposals for 770 homes per annum for 15 years looks more like a massive expansion of Basingstoke. It will destroy the very character of the borough which makes this a nice place to live. No one wants this.”

Councillor Donald Sherlock, Cabinet member for planning, said that the borough council had “more work to do” before green-lighting the Local Plan He said: “I am very aware that these figures are contentious and that they will affect the lifestyles of people in this borough.”

He later added: “We need to set a realistic evidence-based figure that meets the Government’s new requirements and will be accepted by the Planning Inspectorate.

“This is a work in progress. This range of figures is based on the latest data available and is subject to review in the light of any further information that emerges before the plan is finalised for submission to the Planning Inspectorate.”

Comments (13)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:18pm Tue 13 Nov 12

RgPostcode says...

But people feel Basingstoke isn't a nice place to live.... just convenient.

We're still the but of jokes too...

I feel Basingstoke is a nice place to live, it's just we seem to cater to the lesser of society more dispite the town being full of professional jobs.

Basingstoke needs more upscale housing for people who have these jobs.

More Grove/Cranbourne/Kem
pshot/Lychpit like housing and less Popley and Oakridge like housing.

Heck why not hosing live in Ravenscroft in Hook?

or Brackley Avenue in Hartley Whitney?

Heck maybe have hous
But people feel Basingstoke isn't a nice place to live.... just convenient. We're still the but of jokes too... I feel Basingstoke is a nice place to live, it's just we seem to cater to the lesser of society more dispite the town being full of professional jobs. Basingstoke needs more upscale housing for people who have these jobs. More Grove/Cranbourne/Kem pshot/Lychpit like housing and less Popley and Oakridge like housing. Heck why not hosing live in Ravenscroft in Hook? or Brackley Avenue in Hartley Whitney? Heck maybe have hous RgPostcode
  • Score: 0

2:22pm Wed 14 Nov 12

cybersheeep says...

So if there's an average of 750 homes a year for 15 years that's 11,250 homes. Assuming an average of 3 people per household, that's an extra 33,750 people in Basingstoke! Seems a bit excessive to me!Are facilities going to be increased to cope? And assuming at least 1 person in each household works, where will they work - are 11,250 local jobs going to be created during this time?!
So if there's an average of 750 homes a year for 15 years that's 11,250 homes. Assuming an average of 3 people per household, that's an extra 33,750 people in Basingstoke! Seems a bit excessive to me!Are facilities going to be increased to cope? And assuming at least 1 person in each household works, where will they work - are 11,250 local jobs going to be created during this time?! cybersheeep
  • Score: 0

2:49pm Wed 14 Nov 12

Monty Clayton says...

It's a bit rich - to say the least - for SOLVE to complain about this new target when this is the direct outcome of the legal proceedings brought by them and the Manydown company. This led to the overturning of the original plan, which had a far lower (and far more realistic) number of homes.

I suppose SOLVE won't care as the additional houses will end up on Manydown, but 'their' green fields won't remain unbuilt on for long - if not in this plan, then next time. And the more homes that get built, the more pressure on land on all sides of the borough.

Only winners are the developers.
It's a bit rich - to say the least - for SOLVE to complain about this new target when this is the direct outcome of the legal proceedings brought by them and the Manydown company. This led to the overturning of the original plan, which had a far lower (and far more realistic) number of homes. I suppose SOLVE won't care as the additional houses will end up on Manydown, but 'their' green fields won't remain unbuilt on for long - if not in this plan, then next time. And the more homes that get built, the more pressure on land on all sides of the borough. Only winners are the developers. Monty Clayton
  • Score: 0

3:26pm Wed 14 Nov 12

RgPostcode says...

cybersheeep wrote:
So if there's an average of 750 homes a year for 15 years that's 11,250 homes. Assuming an average of 3 people per household, that's an extra 33,750 people in Basingstoke! Seems a bit excessive to me!Are facilities going to be increased to cope? And assuming at least 1 person in each household works, where will they work - are 11,250 local jobs going to be created during this time?!
To be fair all out secondary schools are under subscribed by quite a bit.

I know thats only 1 thing but

seriously...

Cranbourne only offers 180 places now but they did offer 260 not top long ago and they struggle to fill 180
Brighton Hill only have 114 for next year

So for out Schools we're safe

and 33,750 people? that's a bit much Basingstoke is only like 96,000 as it is.

33,750 is more people than the entire town of Fleet...

That's less than the population increase
of the 60's which was 25,000+50% = 37,500

so there's a positive if this happens.

at least it's not as bad as the 60's (I was not born then though)

also... who will these new homes cater for?
[quote][p][bold]cybersheeep[/bold] wrote: So if there's an average of 750 homes a year for 15 years that's 11,250 homes. Assuming an average of 3 people per household, that's an extra 33,750 people in Basingstoke! Seems a bit excessive to me!Are facilities going to be increased to cope? And assuming at least 1 person in each household works, where will they work - are 11,250 local jobs going to be created during this time?![/p][/quote]To be fair all out secondary schools are under subscribed by quite a bit. I know thats only 1 thing but seriously... Cranbourne only offers 180 places now but they did offer 260 not top long ago and they struggle to fill 180 Brighton Hill only have 114 for next year So for out Schools we're safe and 33,750 people? that's a bit much Basingstoke is only like 96,000 as it is. 33,750 is more people than the entire town of Fleet... That's less than the population increase of the 60's which was 25,000+50% = 37,500 so there's a positive if this happens. at least it's not as bad as the 60's (I was not born then though) also... who will these new homes cater for? RgPostcode
  • Score: 0

4:48pm Wed 14 Nov 12

jmwturner says...

Well done ,the readers with basic arithmetic skills tht the council appear to lack. It's madness to think of that scale of increase. Who benefits? The developers, oh and Tesco of course.
The rest of us poor residents have to suffer more traffic chaos as the roads are dug up for extra infrastructure and ultimately more rush hour jams. And yes, where will the jobs be for these newcomers? And we may well be deprived of pleasant countryside and wildlife habitats.
Well done ,the readers with basic arithmetic skills tht the council appear to lack. It's madness to think of that scale of increase. Who benefits? The developers, oh and Tesco of course. The rest of us poor residents have to suffer more traffic chaos as the roads are dug up for extra infrastructure and ultimately more rush hour jams. And yes, where will the jobs be for these newcomers? And we may well be deprived of pleasant countryside and wildlife habitats. jmwturner
  • Score: 0

11:07pm Wed 14 Nov 12

The _right_stuff says...

Monty Clayton wrote:
It's a bit rich - to say the least - for SOLVE to complain about this new target when this is the direct outcome of the legal proceedings brought by them and the Manydown company. This led to the overturning of the original plan, which had a far lower (and far more realistic) number of homes.

I suppose SOLVE won't care as the additional houses will end up on Manydown, but 'their' green fields won't remain unbuilt on for long - if not in this plan, then next time. And the more homes that get built, the more pressure on land on all sides of the borough.

Only winners are the developers.
Monty. You realise that the obverse to SOLVE is the Save Manydown group.

The Manydown company brought their own case against the BDBC siting that they had acted unlawfully and that exactly what the result of the court case was.
SOLVE were waiting in the wings to start their own judicail review, although I believe they did help with some of the information for the Manydown company judicial review.

I had another look at the SOLVE website. the main thrust is fairness and all sites treated in the same way.

Also, have a look at the AGA (Audit, Governance and Accounts Committee) 144 page report on the BDBC website into the mandydown issue, then make up your own mind as to why the judicial review was successful (note the confidential report hasn't been issued yet).
[quote][p][bold]Monty Clayton[/bold] wrote: It's a bit rich - to say the least - for SOLVE to complain about this new target when this is the direct outcome of the legal proceedings brought by them and the Manydown company. This led to the overturning of the original plan, which had a far lower (and far more realistic) number of homes. I suppose SOLVE won't care as the additional houses will end up on Manydown, but 'their' green fields won't remain unbuilt on for long - if not in this plan, then next time. And the more homes that get built, the more pressure on land on all sides of the borough. Only winners are the developers.[/p][/quote]Monty. You realise that the obverse to SOLVE is the Save Manydown group. The Manydown company brought their own case against the BDBC siting that they had acted unlawfully and that exactly what the result of the court case was. SOLVE were waiting in the wings to start their own judicail review, although I believe they did help with some of the information for the Manydown company judicial review. I had another look at the SOLVE website. the main thrust is fairness and all sites treated in the same way. Also, have a look at the AGA (Audit, Governance and Accounts Committee) 144 page report on the BDBC website into the mandydown issue, then make up your own mind as to why the judicial review was successful (note the confidential report hasn't been issued yet). The _right_stuff
  • Score: 0

11:08pm Wed 14 Nov 12

The _right_stuff says...

Sorry about the spelling. Will try harder next time :)
Sorry about the spelling. Will try harder next time :) The _right_stuff
  • Score: 0

1:48pm Thu 15 Nov 12

Jonty11 says...

I don't know if you have spotted, but the current Government's view is that the way out of this hell hole of a recession is to build!

They are trying to get us to do that in a number of ways:-

a. suggesting that the likes of you and I could stick a 6m extension on the back of our houses without planning permission

b. the government releasing land specifically for development

c. changing the whole planning guidance (NPPF) which specifically promotes development

d. the localism act - which would you believe the Government thought would give local communities the power to force new housing in their own areas (trust me, you can find evidence of this on the government websites)


Then there is the fear factor - if BDBC don't manage to get a new plan agreed by the Planning Inspector (who is aware of all the above and who is responsible for ensuring development is planned for)...............t
hen in the absence of a plan it is a free for all for the developers - the worst possible of situations

apologies - rant over - but I think you need to look 'higher' for the guilty parties here!
I don't know if you have spotted, but the current Government's view is that the way out of this hell hole of a recession is to build! They are trying to get us to do that in a number of ways:- a. suggesting that the likes of you and I could stick a 6m extension on the back of our houses without planning permission b. the government releasing land specifically for development c. changing the whole planning guidance (NPPF) which specifically promotes development d. the localism act - which would you believe the Government thought would give local communities the power to force new housing in their own areas (trust me, you can find evidence of this on the government websites) Then there is the fear factor - if BDBC don't manage to get a new plan agreed by the Planning Inspector (who is aware of all the above and who is responsible for ensuring development is planned for)...............t hen in the absence of a plan it is a free for all for the developers - the worst possible of situations apologies - rant over - but I think you need to look 'higher' for the guilty parties here! Jonty11
  • Score: 0

7:10pm Thu 15 Nov 12

BugBear says...

Plenty of free lunches coming their way I dare say, caressing their ego's and making them feel as important as they aren't.
Plenty of free lunches coming their way I dare say, caressing their ego's and making them feel as important as they aren't. BugBear
  • Score: 0

7:24pm Fri 16 Nov 12

Marina Morris says...

"Cranbourne only offers 180 places now but they did offer 260 not top long ago and they struggle to fill 180
Brighton Hill only have 114 for next year"

And Brighton Hill will struggle to fill that with parents from Hatch Warren and Beggarwood still preferring to bus their kids to secondary schools in Alresford and Winchester
"Cranbourne only offers 180 places now but they did offer 260 not top long ago and they struggle to fill 180 Brighton Hill only have 114 for next year" And Brighton Hill will struggle to fill that with parents from Hatch Warren and Beggarwood still preferring to bus their kids to secondary schools in Alresford and Winchester Marina Morris
  • Score: 0

5:32am Sat 17 Nov 12

RgPostcode says...

Marina Morris wrote:
"Cranbourne only offers 180 places now but they did offer 260 not top long ago and they struggle to fill 180
Brighton Hill only have 114 for next year"

And Brighton Hill will struggle to fill that with parents from Hatch Warren and Beggarwood still preferring to bus their kids to secondary schools in Alresford and Winchester
No Brighton Hill still offer 255 but next year they only have 114 year 7's out of 255 places
[quote][p][bold]Marina Morris[/bold] wrote: "Cranbourne only offers 180 places now but they did offer 260 not top long ago and they struggle to fill 180 Brighton Hill only have 114 for next year" And Brighton Hill will struggle to fill that with parents from Hatch Warren and Beggarwood still preferring to bus their kids to secondary schools in Alresford and Winchester[/p][/quote]No Brighton Hill still offer 255 but next year they only have 114 year 7's out of 255 places RgPostcode
  • Score: 0

11:29pm Sat 17 Nov 12

Marina Morris says...

114 ! ? !

ha ha ha!
114 ! ? ! ha ha ha! Marina Morris
  • Score: 0

11:01am Sun 18 Nov 12

RgPostcode says...

Marina Morris wrote:
114 ! ? !

ha ha ha!
http://www3.hants.go
v.uk/secondarydata_o
ffer_day_march_2012.
pdf

look at the poor numbers for the Basingstoke Schools....
[quote][p][bold]Marina Morris[/bold] wrote: 114 ! ? ! ha ha ha![/p][/quote]http://www3.hants.go v.uk/secondarydata_o ffer_day_march_2012. pdf look at the poor numbers for the Basingstoke Schools.... RgPostcode
  • 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