Sites discussed included those at Chineham, Oakley, Overton and Whitchurch

View looking from Sapley Lane in Overton Buy this photo » View looking from Sapley Lane in Overton

EVERYONE has made a good argument for not building anywhere in Basingstoke and Deane.

That was the view of borough council leader Councillor Clive Sanders after three hours of listening to the public’s views about which green fields may have to be turned into 7,800 homes by 2029.

The committee room was packed as the borough’s decision-making Cabinet heard opinions on a list of potential sites needed to hit the target of building between 730 and 770 homes every year, in line with Government requirements.

The Cabinet agreed to consider the comments made at the meeting when drawing up the new draft Local Plan, which should be out for consultation from mid-May before it is examined by an inspector and comes into force in March next year.

The long process is slowly advancing after a High Court judge threw out the borough’s Local Plan blueprint last year after the Conservative administration left out the council-owned land at Manydown from its considerations.

At the conclusion of last Thursday’s meeting, the Cabinet agreed to an amended list that dropped a requirement to build 200 homes in Bramley and 150 at Redlands opposite Sherfield Park. But it also agreed to another site in Overton and for another site to bring Whitchurch’s total to 550 new homes.

Transport studies, including the possibility of a road through Manydown, will also be undertaken.

Overton attracted far more speakers than any other settlement on the list. Most said it was in danger of being swamped with housing and ceasing to be a village. They were also angry that last-minute changes meant the village was suddenly facing “the bombshell” of a potential 300 more homes.

Local borough councillor Paula Baker said: “People have been talking about their fear of losing the character of the village, which has always been a working village, and of it becoming just another dormitory.”

Cllr Baker, like others, said the Court Farm site, if developed, would destroy a famous view of the church. (It was down for 80 homes in one report.) Parish councillor Lucy Sloane Williams and borough councillor Ian Tilbury said the sewerage system could not cope. Cllr Tilbury said Basingstoke should not use Overton as an overflow settlement.

Alison Cross said Overton had doubled in size in her lifetime and “so much of what we value about Overton is under threat”.

Tom Ridler, Overton Parish Council chairman, said the roads were inadequate, as was the “decrepit” railway station.

In response, Cabinet planning chief Cllr Donald Sherlock said that the site Land North of Court Farm was being reviewed.

Whitchurch and its infrastructure could not manage with another 2,000 residents, Cllr John Clark of the town council told the Cabinet.

Whitchurch borough councillor Keith Watts said there was no legal justification for adding another 200 homes to the 350 for which the town was already earmarked. He told the Cabinet: “We are not going to stand by while you destroy our community.”

Phil Cooper said he had been heavily involved in neighbourhood planning but the Cabinet had torn it up. Joanne Brooks said a petition against 550 homes had gained 242 signatures in 48 hours. She said: “We want neighbourhood planning. Don’t take away our right to have a say.”

Razors Farm and Cufaude Farm: Nicholas Bywater, of the campaign group Stand Against Razors Farm, said the two sites on the north-western edge of Chineham were not sustainable.

A representative from industrial gas suppliers Air Products said his company had been at Hampshire International Business Park, next to Razors Farm, for 25 years and feared conflict over noise from the developments. Borough councillors Chris Tomblin and Paul Miller said local opinion was clearly against further pressure on infrastructure and facilities.

North of Popley Fields: Vivien Washbourne and Jane Frankum, both borough councillors, said Popley residents had already put up with 10 years of construction on neighbouring sites and were awaiting the results of the appeal submitted by David Wilson Homes against refusal of permission for 450 homes on the site at Kiln Farm. Cllr Washbourne said approving 450 homes would “open the flood gates”. Edward Davies, from Sherborne St John, also spoke against inclusion of the site.

Kennel Farm and Basingstoke Golf Club: Stafford Napier, of the South Western Action Group, who lives in Dummer, warned that the two sites were full of sewerage and infrastructure pitfalls.

Julian Jones, chairman of Dummer Parish Council, said 1,250 homes on the sites would lead to great pressure on roads, especially the M3 junctions.

John Rothera, of Kempshott Residents' Association, said his members were very worried about the two sites and about parcel six of the Manydown land, which abuts Kempshott and is bisected by Pack Lane. He said Parcel Six was in “splendid isolation”.

Oakley: George Elkin, from Oakley Parish Council, said traffic from Manydown Parcel Six would require major reworking of Fiveways junction in Kempshott. The 200 homes proposed for Oakley were more than were wanted as the village's facilities were already over-stretched and it had no railway station.

Land East of Basingstoke: This site next to Chineham has already been the focus of a lot of opposition. Peter Bloyce, from Countrywatch, Kate Tuck from campaigning group SOLVE, and borough councillor Onnalee Cubitt spoke against its inclusion in the plan. Mr Bloyce said Tadley was the second largest settlement in the borough and should take “its fair share of housing”. Cllr Cubitt called on the Conservatives to build 594 houses per year in the borough instead of 770, as they had promised when elected.

The Cabinet response: Summing up, council leader Cllr Clive Sanders said refusing development was “not a viable option, given the growth of the population”.

The overall figure for new homes would have to stand up to examination by a Government planning inspector, he stressed.

But he said the list of sites being debated was “not a done deal” and further work would continue, including transport studies.

He had concerns about “parts of Overton and Whitchurch” and added: “We would support any effort to get Tadley back into the frame.”

His Cabinet colleague Cllr Rob Golding, said if the infrastructure did not support the housing numbers, “then the numbers will have to come down”.

Comments(8)

Sensory says...
8:38am Mon 11 Mar 13

"EVERYONE has made a good argument for not building anywhere in Basingstoke and Deane"

Indeed. I would be surprised if this was not reflected in every single other area in the country. Nimbyism is one of the worse problems we face as a society, and unfortunately it's not actually recognised as a problem.

dr_ajt says...
9:39am Mon 11 Mar 13

The bottom line is that the borough over built using up the good locations and is now left with housing demand that exceeds available space that is usable.

It is not NIMBYism to point out that the current infrastructure is inadequate and cannot accept any further growth.

No body at the meeting objected to some growth and "council housing", everyone objected to excessive growth in impracticable locations and without significant capital expenditure to bring infrastructure up to acceptable minimums.

This is a serious problem, but it's ultimately a problem of the council's own making.

JJ38JJ says...
11:27am Fri 15 Mar 13

This is a national problem. Central government are demading that local authorities in the south build more houses for which there is no apparenet need. Some yes. But the numbers are higher than local need requires. Meanwhile houses further north are empty and are being demolished.
Planning on a wider basis is required.
It would be interesting to see how many houses have existed in B&D over the last 30 years and how that figure has increased compared with the overall national increase.

AndrewRH says...
2:21pm Sat 16 Mar 13

The Gazette reporter starts their article with:
"EVERYONE has made a good argument for not building anywhere in Basingstoke and Deane."

Cllr Sanders full quote is more extreme than what the Gazette claims his view is:

"We try and do the best that we can in an honest way. If you listened to it and going through my notes what you find is that everybody has managed to put forward a very coherent argument for not developing on any of the sites at all anywhere."

I was at that meeting, and I recall the vast majority of people expressing their honest views regarding infrastructure and opposing just the additional increase in the number of homes the council wants eg the 200 extra proposed for Whitchurch, taking it from 350 to 550. That is much different to what Cllr Sanders stated to his committee.

I believe the residents of the Borough deserve and unreserved apology from Cllr Sanders for being completely misrepresented by his closing statement.

An edited video of that meeting, and of the one a month earlier where councillors argued not to build in Bramley (NIMBY? Surely not!) are embedded in the Whitchurch town website's article from 1 March.

Whitchurch.org.uk or wp.me/pQJTH-8ln

~Andrew~

AndrewRH says...
2:37pm Sat 16 Mar 13

At the same meeting, Cllr Golding made an emphatic argument for having more golf courses (which he said the elderly are attracted to).

Last year, in Whitchurch, B&DBC stated that they recognised that "...for certain facilities and certain sports there is a deficit towards the west and that is something that we need to look at.”

Would the council consider using the Knowlings land they own beside the QEII Field in Trust (Daniel Park), which is protected from development and can only be used for sport & recreation, for sport facilities that benefit all age groups, not just the elderly?

That is, put sport at the heart of Whitchurch, beside the lovely River Test, with housing encircling it, on the edges of town. Thus, people come into the historic centre area of town for shopping, schooling, and sport. This would also reduce the traffic burden on Micheldever Road, and would negate the need to build a road through Daniel Park.

The article about the sport meeting last May is on the Whitchurch town website at
Whitchurch.org.uk or wp.me/pQJTH-6nw

~Andrew~

AHSTONE says...
11:50am Wed 27 Mar 13

In line with most countries that need to build for expanding populations, we should be building upwards.Most international towns and cities have more apartment style living than the UK does. We should be building where there is building. Definatly not distroying english rural and village life because of this, and previous, governments inabilities to solve the mass immigration problems we have in this country.
I suggest we vote UKIP at the local elections. At least their policy is for BINDING local referendum on local building projects. That means NO right of appeal. If local people do not want huge developments, they do not happen.
As a nation, we should be concentrating on smaller building projects, infilling and converting of unused office or industrial space for starters. Insisting unused housing is brought back into residentual use. There is so much that can be done before we distroy our green belt.

AndrewRH says...
1:25pm Wed 27 Mar 13

The meeting has been 'called-in' and so tomorrow, on Thursday 28th at 6:30pm, residents of Whitchurch and Overton can have another say at the council meeting. About a dozen people from there have already registered with B&DBC to speak.

~Andrew~

dr_ajt says...
8:38pm Thu 28 Mar 13

I was not able to attend the called in meeting but here is my written submission:

I wish to raise an objection to the excessive housing development in the village of Overton. Overton is a small village with limited local employment and the plan does not call for the construction of any industrial or commercial units. I believe that it is unsustainable to build excessive housing in Overton and for similar reasons that I will expand upon in Whitchurch. As the plans are for housing only, it is only reasonable to expect most of these occupants to commute out of our village for employment.

One of the cited reasons for the development is the railway line that runs east west between Exeter and London, with stations in Whitchurch, Overton and Basingstoke. This line is already operating at around 100% capacity at commuting time, often exceeding 100% occupancy on the east bound trains in the mornings and west bound in the evenings. Given the congestion at London Waterloo station and the significant capital expenditure in infrastructure and rolling stock required to increase capacity, I think it is unreasonable to expect any future capacity increases on this line within the time frame of the housing plan and probably beyond.

Currently Overton station is accessed via private roads that are unlit and do not provide any pavement for pedestrians. The station car park is beyond full already, with cars parked on grass verges and other inappropriate locations. There is no space to expand facilities even if there were funds to do so.

I do not believe that there is any reasonable mitigation possible to address the rail issues and indeed with considerable scheduled development in Andover the line will probably start to degrade in quality at peak times even with without any new development within the borough.

Overton does not have high speed Internet and BT have suggested that it may be many years if at all that it will be practical to provide modern fibre-optic technology to our village. While a few people may work at home on some days, it is highly unlikely that many people will be able to work from home on a regular basis.

The bus service through Overton runs only east-west and is a slow rural service that is clearly not of the speed or frequency of an urban service. While it may be possible to provide additional peak-time buses it clearly not cost effective to provide additional off-peak services without a long term public subsidy.

There is nowhere within a reasonable walking distance of Overton for employment, were it actually safe to walk there, as most of the roads leading out of the village have no pedestrian footpath anyway. While the cycle distances are better for commuting, the roads are not safe for cyclists. Many of the roads are twisty, narrow and unlit making them highly dangerous for cyclists to use. Only with the extension of the Basingstoke/Oakley cycle way through Overton to Whitchurch would cycling begin to be practical. I believe that the cost and practicality of doing this is beyond the mitigation budget of the housing developments planned.

Given the congestion on the rail line, limited bus service and the impracticality of home working, impossibility of walking or cycling one can only expect most of the new households to commute by car.

Both Overton and Whitchurch have the B3400 running through the centre of the community. It is therefore impossible to significantly alter this road without knocking down a significant portion of the existing settlements. The B3400 is a dangerous road as acknowledged by Hampshire County Council. It is twisty, mostly unlit, mostly without pedestrian pavement, narrow in sections and clearly unsuitable as a major highway. As well as passing through the centre of settlements it also passes under two railway bridges, so it is I believe, beyond the mitigation budget to carry out any significant upgrades to this road.

Going north or south from Overton via road is actually worse than travelling east-west. The south bound C29 than links to the A303 is a road of an even lower standard than the B3400, and as it crosses the rail line the cost of a bridge upgrade would be most considerable. The north bound road is another twisty rural road that offers no real escape to the frustrated commuter.

The smaller rural roads are utterly unusable for regular commuting. Given that all the roads are narrow and twisty with limited overtaking opportunities the commute time can be considerable as these roads have slow moving farm traffic, buses that stop where they cannot be passed while stationary and existing goods traffic to Overton Mill.

Councillors that travel our road and rail network off-peak may find that they seem empty and placid, however that is not the case for those of us that use them at peak-time to get to and from work.

Like most Overton residents I am not opposed to some development in a slow and measured manner over the coming decades to meet organic growth of the local community. I am adamantly opposed to the dumping of houses onto our village just to turn it into a dormitory overspill for Basingstoke.

While the borough talks of mitigation and adequate infrastructure, I believe the failure to provide adequate infrastructure before the Foxdown and Overton Hill developments were completed speaks volumes. The cost of providing the upgrades for these even larger developments will be considerable and I have little faith that they are possible within the limited budgets available or that they will be completed in a timely manner.

Overton is a village not a dumping ground for Basingstoke's housing problems. For these reasons, I strongly urge the councillors to remove OV004 (2 Gate Meadow) from the plan, and delay the start of OV002 (Overton Hill) toward the end of the plan with phased construction.

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