Government approves 2,000 homes at Barton Farm (From Basingstoke Gazette)

This is what you get under a Conservative led government Maybe Mr Brine can use some of huge expenses to have fight Cala Homes

Have I been censored?

Private developers have had a virtual monopoly for over thirty three years. The result has been to turn a problem which was being resolved into a full-blown housing crisis.

The mind set which sees the pursuit of money as the only basis to make a decision is, I would have thought, well past its sell by date.

It clearly doesn't work. It has only resulted in the growing inequality and unhappiness that we see in the UK today.

It's all very sad to see this happen - and it will make the situation worse.

I cannot believe that the ruff, tough rolly-polly Yorkshireman called Pickles has backed down without pressure from his Boss.

The problem for the country is that Cameron appears only interested in increasing the budget for overseas aid and so there is no money left for defending the interests of local communities.

Blair got round to binning our Traditions and splitting up the UK.

Will Cameron's legacy be that of he who surrendered our countryside to Developers?

As a youngster I spent many an hour on the land around Badger Farm, before they built that abomination of an estate. This will probably happen and it too will be one of those places.

How sad.

Whilst the CALA homes exec are sipping champagne Winchester residents are in mourning.

How is is right that something can be inflicted on a society out of corporate greed and persistence that practically no one within that society wants and will unquestionably be of detriment?

This, combined with Eastleigh councils plans to build thousands of homes is going to turn what is already an overpopulated under resourced area into an absolute nightmare seriously impacting on the well being and health of residents.

It's always older people who protest, having no thought for those younger who would actually like to purchase a house one day. Rather sad.

Shoong wrote:
It's always older people who protest, having no thought for those younger who would actually like to purchase a house one day. Rather sad.

And where will the residents of 2000 new houses get school places? Doctors/dentists? Hospital resources? There is talk of a primary school and surgery, but believe me, they will be the last constructions on site! No talk of expansion of RHCH though. What happens before the facilities are in place? And besides, how do you know the age of anyone posting here?

No, not always older people who protest - just people who care about the area that they live in.

Just because more homes are needed does not mean this is the right location for them regardless of the consequences.

I was born and bred in Winchester, and having been renting for years and unable to afford house prices here I can only welcome the development of affordable housing in Winchester. Many of the people complaining are themselves sitting comfortably in their homes, forgetting that they were almost certainly built on a nice green field, and probably caused a lot of protest amoung nearby residents at the time.

Winchester is noted for it's beauty within an area of natural beauty and this how the City makes most of its money but this concept is ignored,steamrollere
d in favour of the politicians' mates and political opportunism.Whilst the Downs nearby gets a national Trust status (excluding MOD land of course).Politicians, delighted at the lubricated victory,will once again, unsurprisingly, reap the manifold benefits.

In the past citizens have largely ignored and accepted undemocratic, arrogant, fumbling with regards to social policy and planning. But why should we accept this now? These self-obsessed idiots will forever have the sheer gall to proceed with such a mind-numbingly poor decision unless we put a halt to it.

Yes, houses are needed but stop the sale of council houses and keep this stock for the truly needy - we can't go on building houses and wrecking the countryside and communities ad infinitum - but you can bet the politicians are going to give it a darn good try.They talk about change but they'll never change. We have to force them to change.

We simply do not have the space or the resources and our politicians are incapable of making fair or acceptable provisions or having the necessary vision for the City.

Continue to oppose them and get rid of them until we have a fair,decent and socially intelligent national and local governance.

macbeth101 wrote:
I was born and bred in Winchester, and having been renting for years and unable to afford house prices here I can only welcome the development of affordable housing in Winchester. Many of the people complaining are themselves sitting comfortably in their homes, forgetting that they were almost certainly built on a nice green field, and probably caused a lot of protest amoung nearby residents at the time.

Here, here.

Mrsc24 wrote:
No, not always older people who protest - just people who care about the area that they live in.

Just because more homes are needed does not mean this is the right location for them regardless of the consequences.

Your right - we should go and pave over another green field - as long as it's nowhere near you I suppose. Someone else should have to put up with it.

Many young people who have lived in Winchester cannot afford homes here.

I suppose there would much waling & cries of horror if it were filled up with Eastern Europeans.

Snobbish NIMBYism is abound here.

It is a false argument that wanting to preserve the countryside is standing in the way of providing decent housing for people.

It is simply more profitable for developers to buy up "Barton Farms" than to come up with imaginative solutions that respect the environment and the people that have to live there.

It is a great shame that profit is the only motive here.

Shoong wrote:

macbeth101 wrote:
I was born and bred in Winchester, and having been renting for years and unable to afford house prices here I can only welcome the development of affordable housing in Winchester. Many of the people complaining are themselves sitting comfortably in their homes, forgetting that they were almost certainly built on a nice green field, and probably caused a lot of protest amoung nearby residents at the time.

Here, here.

What makes you think the "affordable" housing on this development will be any more "affordable" than what exists already?

Peterv11 wrote:

Shoong wrote:

macbeth101 wrote:
I was born and bred in Winchester, and having been renting for years and unable to afford house prices here I can only welcome the development of affordable housing in Winchester. Many of the people complaining are themselves sitting comfortably in their homes, forgetting that they were almost certainly built on a nice green field, and probably caused a lot of protest amoung nearby residents at the time.

Here, here.

What makes you think the "affordable" housing on this development will be any more "affordable" than what exists already?

"Affordable" in this context means social market rental and maybe some shared ownership(?). It does NOT mean that the houses/flats will be for sale at lower than market price.
The private houses/flats will find a market level appropriate to this corner of southern England.
There will not be enough built to affect local house prices.

Not sure that Shoong quite understands the concept.

Shoong wrote:

Mrsc24 wrote:
No, not always older people who protest - just people who care about the area that they live in.

Just because more homes are needed does not mean this is the right location for them regardless of the consequences.

Your right - we should go and pave over another green field - as long as it's nowhere near you I suppose. Someone else should have to put up with it.

Many young people who have lived in Winchester cannot afford homes here.

I suppose there would much waling & cries of horror if it were filled up with Eastern Europeans.

Snobbish NIMBYism is abound here.

Barton Farm is nowhere near me, so your accusation of NIYBY is false. I doubt it is your back yard either.

What exactly do you want from this development Shoong, the houses for local people or to be "filled up with Eastern Europeans"? If your argument for the development is lower cost housing for local people then I guess you would wail cries of horror if they are filled with London commuters or Eastern Europeans or anyone else not already local - there are no guarantees these houses will go to local people or that they will be affordable for most.

What is wrong and yet unfortunately common at the moment is that over 14 years CALA have been rejected for valid reasons and yet kept pushing and appealing with the money to back their arguments until they get what they want. A "no" decision is really not a "no" decision, but just a delay of a "yes" decision.

Already stretched healthcare, education, roads, rail and parking are going to see an increase of apx 5,500 users - another 3,000 cars on our already busy roads. Another 2,000-3,000 people competing for local jobs.

Will the CALA profits help reduce the impact? I doubt by enough.

I would think it much better all round for another small town to be built in the local countryside with good road and rail links, in an area of minimum impact to the already overcrowded and cramped population of the South East.

That way hopefully families would not have to live in tiny cramped houses with postage stamp sized gardens miles away from countryside. We all deserve to share the countryside and yet these sprawling towns and cities mean most never get to use it.

Mrsc24 wrote:

Shoong wrote:

Mrsc24 wrote:
No, not always older people who protest - just people who care about the area that they live in.

Just because more homes are needed does not mean this is the right location for them regardless of the consequences.

Your right - we should go and pave over another green field - as long as it's nowhere near you I suppose. Someone else should have to put up with it.

Many young people who have lived in Winchester cannot afford homes here.

I suppose there would much waling & cries of horror if it were filled up with Eastern Europeans.

Snobbish NIMBYism is abound here.

Barton Farm is nowhere near me, so your accusation of NIYBY is false. I doubt it is your back yard either.

What exactly do you want from this development Shoong, the houses for local people or to be "filled up with Eastern Europeans"? If your argument for the development is lower cost housing for local people then I guess you would wail cries of horror if they are filled with London commuters or Eastern Europeans or anyone else not already local - there are no guarantees these houses will go to local people or that they will be affordable for most.

What is wrong and yet unfortunately common at the moment is that over 14 years CALA have been rejected for valid reasons and yet kept pushing and appealing with the money to back their arguments until they get what they want. A "no" decision is really not a "no" decision, but just a delay of a "yes" decision.

Already stretched healthcare, education, roads, rail and parking are going to see an increase of apx 5,500 users - another 3,000 cars on our already busy roads. Another 2,000-3,000 people competing for local jobs.

Will the CALA profits help reduce the impact? I doubt by enough.

I would think it much better all round for another small town to be built in the local countryside with good road and rail links, in an area of minimum impact to the already overcrowded and cramped population of the South East.

That way hopefully families would not have to live in tiny cramped houses with postage stamp sized gardens miles away from countryside. We all deserve to share the countryside and yet these sprawling towns and cities mean most never get to use it.

I didn't feel I needed my point proven but you've done it quite well and very eloquently.

I was born and bred in Winchester. I can't afford to live in Winchester. So, I live somewhere else nearby. Why do I have any more right over anyone else to live in Winchester? (Answer: I don't)

As for the old "NIMBY" argument (which translates as not having an argument at all) perhaps you should look at the plans again - Barton Farm is actually in very few back yards, barely a handful on Park Road in fact! Certainly not 5,000 - the number of people who joined the Save Barton Farm group. 5,000 people who are aware that this is not just a question of building over a beautiful piece of Hampshire countryside, but also a question on a massive increase in pressure on road infrastructure (which already creaks), medical infrastructure (there is no expansion potential at RHCH anymore), schools infrastructure (one primary is planned, but existing are bursting at the seams as it is.) and so on.

There are better ways to deal with this - you don't have to lump 2000 homes in one location - towns/villages nearby should take some of the burden, spread the demand on roads/schools/transp
ort etc. 750 in Winchester maybe (Bushfield Camp?), 500 in Romsey, 250 in Stockbridge, etc. etc. Just a thought!

Peterv11 wrote:
Have I been censored?

no but you should be

Peterv11 wrote:

Shoong wrote:

macbeth101 wrote:
I was born and bred in Winchester, and having been renting for years and unable to afford house prices here I can only welcome the development of affordable housing in Winchester. Many of the people complaining are themselves sitting comfortably in their homes, forgetting that they were almost certainly built on a nice green field, and probably caused a lot of protest amoung nearby residents at the time.

Here, here.

What makes you think the "affordable" housing on this development will be any more "affordable" than what exists already?

"What makes you think the "affordable" housing on this development will be any more "affordable" than what exists already?" - the story says the affordable will be available to rent for people on the council waiting list - that looks pretty clear to me

romsey saint wrote:

Peterv11 wrote:
Have I been censored?

no but you should be

I wonder which far right politics you support?

Peterv11 wrote:

romsey saint wrote:

Peterv11 wrote:
Have I been censored?

no but you should be

I wonder which far right politics you support?

ahhh now were getting down to it, accuse me of being right wing because I dont agree with you and dare to answer back how pathetic..... and your still a NIMBY

romsey saint wrote:

Peterv11 wrote:

romsey saint wrote:

Peterv11 wrote:
Have I been censored?

no but you should be

I wonder which far right politics you support?

ahhh now were getting down to it, accuse me of being right wing because I dont agree with you and dare to answer back how pathetic..... and your still a NIMBY

No it's because - as you clearly state - you want to to censor people who don't agree with you! Duh!

Peterv11 wrote:

romsey saint wrote:

Peterv11 wrote:

romsey saint wrote:

Peterv11 wrote:
Have I been censored?

no but you should be

I wonder which far right politics you support?

ahhh now were getting down to it, accuse me of being right wing because I dont agree with you and dare to answer back how pathetic..... and your still a NIMBY

No it's because - as you clearly state - you want to to censor people who don't agree with you! Duh!

ummmm seems like your starting to lose the plot young man..... and your still a NIMBY

Why are we building more homes in an area that is relatively wealthy? Why not in areas of the country that would benefit from the employment opportunity and investment? I guess it all comes down to profit, not any sense of obligation to the community. In any case, would we really need these homes if we hadn't had an open door policy on immigration for the last 15 years? I don't think anyone has an issue with immigration when the newcomers are self sufficient and add to the economy, but the problem is that we have brought in millions who need social housing and benefits because they are unemployable. Forgot any claims of NIMBYism, this is going to be the pattern from now on unless the government get a grip on who has a right to social housing.

cardinalfang wrote:
Why are we building more homes in an area that is relatively wealthy? Why not in areas of the country that would benefit from the employment opportunity and investment? I guess it all comes down to profit, not any sense of obligation to the community. In any case, would we really need these homes if we hadn't had an open door policy on immigration for the last 15 years? I don't think anyone has an issue with immigration when the newcomers are self sufficient and add to the economy, but the problem is that we have brought in millions who need social housing and benefits because they are unemployable. Forgot any claims of NIMBYism, this is going to be the pattern from now on unless the government get a grip on who has a right to social housing.

Absolute, utter nonsense. All the immigrants I know/see have one thing in common, they all work. Hard. And a **** sight harder and longer hours than any social housing residents who are quick to claim an inability to work, yet able to pump out kids in handfuls. Wake up and smell the coffee, over population issues are well and truly home bred!