Councillors booed at Bishopstoke planning meeting


Angry Bishopstoke residents booed their councillors last night after the go-ahead was given for a new housing estate in the village.

Around 280 objections had been received by the council and over 100 locals crammed into the council committee room to try and persuade the area committee to kick out plans for 85 new homes.

But a presentation by planners made it clear they considered there were no valid reasons to refuse outline planning permission and recommended councillors to vote for it despite the local opposition.

The new estate will be on greenfield land bordering Church Road and Breach Lane.

Planners stressed there was an urgent need for housing in the borough and the new development would provide 30 much needed social houses – this number was described as ‘disproportionate’ by one resident while another argued that the overall number of houses should be reduced to 45.

Planners said the council was falling behind in its requirement to provide new housing stock.  The estate when built, would bring the total number of new homes in Bishopstoke to 260 when taken together with the retirement village being built at the former Mount hospital site.

Planners also warned that the 10,140 housing target in the local plan may have to be revised upwards due to rising demand for housing in the area.

Residents told the local area committee members that there aren’t enough at local schools or doctors surgeries and that the extra traffic would bring even more congestion to Bishopstoke roads but the objections were systematically knocked down by the planners despite heckling from residents.

One officers’ suggestion that there would be no more than 40 extra vehicles on the road at peak times was met with ironic laughter, as was the assertion that existing GPs would be able to cope with extra patients – several villagers shook their heads in disbelief.

Not in dispute was the lack of school places but planners said the county were already looking at possibilities including the expansion of existing schools – although some doubts emerged as to whether this could be achieved.

A representative for the developers said that they would provide £300,000 for new traffic measures and also money to support local schools.

Furthermore, 1.2 hectares of land set aside for an allotment, a community orchard and leisure use would be handed over to the parish council.

But a resident told the members ‘We don’t want an allotment at the cost of more houses’.

Cllr Anne Winstanley, who is also Chair of Bishopstoke parish council, said that while she sympathised with the protestors she represented all of Bishopstoke residents including those in housing need and would vote for the proposal – at which point she was booed.

Cllr Des Scott – who also sits an Fair Oak parish councillor upset some by describing the plan as ‘small beer’ and added that he thought it was ‘good’ due to the level of developers contributions and their proposed provision of community  facilities.

After the meeting an audience member angrily harangued Cllr Scott.

When Cllr Scott said:

“I would give my right arm for a Chickenhall Lane link road“

an audience member replied

“Well do it.”

Mike Thornton- who is also a Bishopstoke parish councillor as well as a borough councillor and Eastleigh’s MP – spoke strongly in favour of the development and passionately defended the need for more social housing.

This was quietly listened to (parliamentary debate is honing his public speaking skills) but he lost the audience when he appeared to suggest protestors were being selfish and he was heckled towards the end of his speech.

Thornton reiterated the points raised by the planning officers – that refusing an application after a recommendation on no defensible grounds would likely result in an immediate appeal from the applicants which they would win, resulting in costs.

Indeed, in 2008 the council lost a planning appeal over a proposed development at Wildern Mill at a cost of £145,000.

Residents were clearly feeling frustrated and one resident approached the chair to complain “You are not listening to us” but the vote to permit outline planning permission was passed unanimously.

All committee members were present except Cllr Angela Roling.

  43 comments for “Councillors booed at Bishopstoke planning meeting

  1. david
    November 14, 2013 at 11:07 am

    Absolute disgrace these councillors are a joke. Must be getting commission from developers. Clearly dont give a damn for those they are meant to represent. What’s that word that rhymes with “anchors”?

  2. Andreas
    November 14, 2013 at 11:17 am

    Gotta agree with David on this one; I, and many of my friends and neighbours, are not convinced by the councils plans or arguements for such large scale development. There clearly is some CONDEM or FIBDEM agenda driving this or more cynically money.

    The whole area is in desperate need of new roads, schools and other infrastructure. This should be adressed first not after thousands of houses are built. I am not convinced by this need for social housing either; if roofs are needed why build homes equivalent to those owned by those of us who earn them? Seems that swanky new office block could have been turned into flats instead?

    Shame on the FIB dem oligarchy, roll on May

  3. Anne Romaine
    November 14, 2013 at 11:38 am

    Should point out that Bishopstoke Parish Council objected to the development. It’s a shame those Borough Councillors who are also Parish Councillors didn’t listen to residents at all

  4. James Plaisted
    November 14, 2013 at 11:47 am

    Something needs to be done about these people with their hidden political agendas, keeping these things as quiet as possible, ignoring objections and making money off the back of development (isn’t a councillor making money from selling his land?).

    Eastleigh will soon become an urban sprawl with even worse roads, schools etc than the rubbish ones we have at the moment. It seems that, on the whole, our “representatives” dont give a damn.

  5. November 14, 2013 at 11:49 am

    Listening I’m sure, but in practice the decision had already been taken and was never in any doubt. This meeting was just going through the motions, with Councillors (and MP) being wheeled out to face the public, having to adopt thick skins and endure the barrage of criticism.

    Pointless exercise really…

  6. November 14, 2013 at 11:56 am

    You may have seen that the Government lost a High Court case on Wednesday, which declared Eric Pickles action of abolishing the top down housing figures illegal. The case was brought by a number of building companies who had advanced planning permission for some large scale housing developments before they were cancelled by Local Authorities using the Pickles decision.

  7. jenny
    November 14, 2013 at 12:17 pm

    and your point is “get smart”?

  8. November 14, 2013 at 1:24 pm

    Well until the idiots in Eastleigh STOP voting for the Fib Dems, this and more is what you will be rewarded with. Strange how councillor Rowling was not their.

    Look it’s really simple. There is a local election in May, don’t vote Fib Dem and tell your family, friends and people at the corner shop not to vote Fib Dem.

    The Fib Dems do not give a dam about local issues or local people, it’s about what’s in it for them. Read this story carefully..

    It’s about MONEY.!! Lots of money.

    • Anne Romaine
      November 14, 2013 at 2:46 pm

      No Borough elections next year in the two Bishopstoke wards. Wonder how many more planning applications will be permitted before the next lot of local elections in 2015

  9. Brian
    November 14, 2013 at 2:14 pm

    Where is UKIP in all this? Haven’t heard what their viewpoint is or from them since that muppet thornton was elected. Suprising really given that most of these houses wont be owned by local people at all.

  10. mm
    Eastleigh Xpress
    November 14, 2013 at 3:20 pm

    Cllr Martin Lyon is the Ukip Hampshire County Councillor for Bishopstoke and Fair Oak and he is also a Bishopstoke Parish Councillor.
    As Anne pointed out Bishopstoke PC objected to the application but I don’t know how he voted…yet

  11. Bobcat
    November 14, 2013 at 3:37 pm

    The roads can’t cope, the schools are already over subscribed, the locals are ignored again and Bishopstoke moves closer to Winchester. The tradgedy for me is that green space is lost, not Public open space but real countryside! Once that is gone it will never be replaced. It is sickening, especially when you look at the size of the Hardings Lane development and the pressures that will add to Stoke Park Woods and the local infrastucture! The more houses you build, the more people will migrate to these areas. Surely you can’t just keep on building!!!

  12. Jenny Rogers
    November 14, 2013 at 7:12 pm

    I come from Bishopstoke and now live in Devon, but the residents of Bishopstoke have my empathy as we are also being robbed of green spaces for nearly 1000 houses, without extra roads, or any infrastructure. It’s funny that builders can make offerings to local groups for get their planning through. In any other walk of life it would be classed as blackmail. What happened to the ‘big society’ David Cameron promised us?

  13. John Renard
    November 14, 2013 at 10:21 pm

    You ain’t seen nuthin yet, folks!

    Just wait until after 1st January, when the floodgates open fully and thousands more Eastern European immigrants pour into the UK seeking social housing and other benefits not available ‘back home’.

    Where will they live? No problem, our country has plenty more green fields to build on.

    Speak against it and you’re a ‘racist’.

  14. November 15, 2013 at 12:28 am

    What have done now-my reply was sent[

  15. kate
    November 15, 2013 at 9:25 am

    Well after the grid lock that was last night in Eastleigh I think we all know that the roads are way past capacity and the slightest incident (of a broken down bus) alongside other problems caused huge issues. It took me an hour to crawl from eastleigh college to Fair Oak!!

  16. Gavin
    November 15, 2013 at 9:35 am

    Thing is our council dont give a stuff – they should be insisting on infrastructure upgrades before even considering the monster house build plan – but I guess there is more £££ in houses than roads, schools etc.
    Eastleigh is a nightmare for traffic, I can walk to Eastleigh faster than the crawl from Fair Oak each day (maybe that is the FIB dems plan) Forget the buses they are expensive and stuck in the same jams.

    Everyone I know is fuming about this – roll on the elections in May… perhaps some “real” people can stand who will listen to residents concerns not mock them.

  17. Bruno
    November 15, 2013 at 9:59 am

    The arrogance and dismissal of their consituents viewpoints by these councillors is shocking.

    Their campaign literature which was shoveled through all our doorsteps when Mike “smarmy” thornton was elected has been clearly shown as LIES.

    I look forward to the next election and tearing some strips out of any brave FIB DEM who rings or steps onto my property.

  18. Benjamin
    November 15, 2013 at 10:15 am

    A number of similar arguments about the liklehood of more traffic, the schools being too small and loss of countryside were probably made by Bishopstoke residents in the 1970s and 80s when many of the houses in Bishopstoke were built. These points are nothing new and similar arguments are made about most housing schemes. The housing built in the 70s and 80s was to meet the needs of the growing population, which is again the theme here. Rather than complain, it’s better to be realistic. The solution is to ensure that roads are improved and school capacity is adequate.

  19. Anne Romaine
    November 15, 2013 at 7:03 pm

    After voting for the development in Bishopstoke it’s interesting to see that Mike Thornton MP is encouraging people to sign a petition saying NO to more houses on Hamble Lane. Double standards or what!

  20. Brian Norgate
    November 15, 2013 at 9:18 pm

    Funny how life is I remember in 2009 Sam Snook came up with some useful information about the then new sewage pipe laid for the proposed town of Allington, it is in the Allington brief so we asked written questions at full council over this,

    EBC officers showed us how it fitted into future property developments
    and why they supported the cost of inputting infrastructure, Sam was proved quite right so we asked a series of written questions

    Keith House replied to my written question, he stated verbally during full Council meeting there was a report which Anne Winstanley confirmed from Environmental health which ruled out some development along the Fair Oak Bishopstoke corridor because of problems associated with the sewage system..

    its a shame the report was not released for this or the BPAG association
    as today it could have helped the people understand why then the Libs turned down some development which they are now able to pass

    if Allington and Chickenhall link road had been built we would not be here now but as Keith House said Allington would be built over his dead body
    at another full council meeting yet they both appears to be on the latest draft local plan

    Now we are stuck with developments with less infrastructure than Allington and the Chickenhall link road, regardless EBC pent £435k of our money on it and we would have known the standards why the missing environmental report stopped some developments and allowed others in the same locality

    of course they still can release this report if it ever existed

  21. November 16, 2013 at 4:04 pm

    Sam Snook 16/11/
    Some of us know what happened at Allington Lane Keith! You closed the development and became the leader of the Council, do you remember!
    Sam Snook

  22. Pete Stewart
    November 16, 2013 at 6:44 pm

    Everyone is understandably angry.

    But don’t be blinded to the CAUSE of the problem – which is uncontrolled mass immigration of “cheap” EU labour.

    This will continue as long as you keep electing ConLib or Labour governments, both of which support EU annexation, open EU borders, mass immigration and mass house building.

    Their leaders have betrayed you all, including local politicians, activists, party members, voters and everyone in Britain, especially the 1,000,000 young unemployed thrown onto the scrap heap in the name of EU-globalism. How long will you tolerate their betrayal?

    The answer (however radical) is to join UKIP – and wait for a UKIP government. Only then can Britain leave the EU and we can jointly begin to repair the damage to Britain.

    Meanwhile be prepared for lots more house building. In practice, the developers can only be stopped on a point of law.

    • mm
      Eastleigh Xpress
      November 16, 2013 at 8:37 pm

      So how did Ukip vote at Bishopstoke parish council?

      • Pete Stewart
        November 16, 2013 at 9:06 pm

        UKIP Parish Councillor Martin Lyon is not on the planning committee so could not vote, but he spoke out against building these houses and he delivered leaflets as part of the local residents campaign. The Echo reporter took a statement from him on the day local residents had a walk of protest.
        It’s no secret that UKIP has always opposed the EU, open EU borders, mass immigration of “cheap” EU labour and the end result: Mass house building.
        I’d go further and say that unless one votes UKIP, it is not possible to oppose mass house building, because if one votes for either of the two main parties (ConLib or Labour) then one is aiding and abetting mass house building, because that is the open policy of those two parties.

        • mm
          Eastleigh Xpress
          November 16, 2013 at 9:51 pm

          Thanks for the info on Martin Lyon. Like the vast majority of people in Eastleigh I don’t read the Echo (which is why of course they have had to shut their Eastleigh office)

        • November 16, 2013 at 10:14 pm

          Hmm Hedge End Town Council standing orders allow any councillor to call in any decision of any committee to be debated and voted on at full council. Is that not the same in Bishopstoke?

          • Sue Toher
            November 17, 2013 at 6:56 pm

            The outline application was discussed by Bishopstoke’s Parish Planning Committee on 23rd July and it was decided to object to it for a number of reasons. The minutes of that meeting went to the Full Council on 24th September, which Martin attended, and he voted with other councillors to accept those minutes. From that I take it that every Councillor who attended and voted agreed with the decision of the planning committee.

            • Pete Stewart
              November 18, 2013 at 9:39 am

              For the benefit of readers, it is helpful to distinguish between two different votes at meetings:

              a) Voting to approve a MOTION means the councillor suports that MOTION.

              Martin has never voted to approve any motion to build 85 houses on Breach Farm because he, along with the rest of UKIP, has always campaigned against mass housing developments.

              b) Voting to approve the MINUTES, merely means the councillor believes those minutes as a TRUE AND ACCURATE REPRESENTATION OF THE MEETING, not necessarily that he or she supports the motions passed at the meeting.

              Hope this helps clear up the confusion.

  23. November 16, 2013 at 8:30 pm

    Wait for a UKIP government? LOL I’ll be dead before that happens! Current forcast for next election – zero MP’s

  24. Pete Stewart
    November 16, 2013 at 9:07 pm


    How can you say that after the by-election result?

  25. Sam Snook
    November 16, 2013 at 9:30 pm

    Sam Snook 16/11/ 13
    Oh! I forgot about UKIP Peter.

    Did you know Nigel pays his wife £30.000 a year to communicate via emails for him.

    Why? Because dear Nigel does not know how use computers.

    ARE UKIP councillors are allowed to make comments on housing.

    UKIP’s sycophants, will be watching.


  26. November 17, 2013 at 8:08 pm

    In that case had he made his mind up in favour before the meeting?I didn’t think this was allowed.

    • John Renard
      November 17, 2013 at 10:27 pm

      Oh pianoman, that is so funny! You should have been at the Hedge End meeting to ‘debate’ the plans for extensive building on green fields in Hedge End / Botley. Councillors sat stony-faced (sometimes texting) for hours while residents made impassioned arguments. Then they simply voted in favour, as clearly they had intended (or been instructed) all along.

  27. Jake
    November 18, 2013 at 9:52 am

    UKIP ha ha ha!

    This shocking performance by those that are meant to represent us has just put another nail in the coffin for these politcically motivated sheep in my opinion, I will never vote for anyone who has a political affilation and will look for those who actually give a damn about local residents.

  28. Denise
    November 18, 2013 at 11:54 am

    Hear hear, its is about time those smug self serving FIB DEMS were taught a lesson and reminded who they are meant to serve.

  29. November 18, 2013 at 4:56 pm

    Sam Snook 18/11/2013

    Members of UKIP committed to reforming the party by exposing the corruption and dishonesty that lies at its heart. Only by removing Nigel Farage and his sycophants on the NEC can we save UKIP from electoral

  30. Pete Stewart
    November 18, 2013 at 10:10 pm

    UKIP is the ONLY party which can oppose mass house building without being accused of hypocrisy.

    UKIP has two rivals: ConLib and Labour. Leaders from both those parties are globalists and support mass immigration of cheap EU labour (hence mass house building). They cannot claim to oppose mass house building without being accused of stinking hypocrisy.

    The equation is simple:

    1 cheap labourer from eastern Europe
    = 1 unemployed British worker
    = 1 family displaced from the city into the borough
    = 1 new home to build.

    Our leaders have scrapped our national borders without our permission. They didn’t tell us because they knew we would not let them get away with it. The price of their treason is mass house building.

  31. mike
    November 19, 2013 at 10:01 am

    Sam Snook WTF???

  32. Louisa Mcgowan
    November 19, 2013 at 11:40 pm

    You may have seen that the Government lost a High Court case on Wednesday, which declared Eric Pickles action of abolishing the top down housing figures illegal. The case was brought by a number of building companies who had advanced planning permission for some large scale housing developments before they were cancelled by Local Authorities using the Pickles decision.

  33. peter coulton
    November 20, 2013 at 12:11 pm


    • November 20, 2013 at 1:05 pm

      Ignore it, its a spam comment I’ve just noticed the hidden link (which I have now removed)

  34. Pete Stewart
    November 20, 2013 at 6:58 pm

    Hi Sam,

    The time to promote Junius’ comment was 2008 when he first posted it on the web.

    Unfortunately he predicted that only be removing Nigel could UKIP avoid electoral oblivion.

    However after Nigel led UKIP to such phenomenal success in the County elections this year, surely nobody doubts that UKIP is on the verge of a MASSIVE electoral breakthrough.

Comments are closed.