Council loses appeal against Hamble development

Lowford protest

Protestors at the enquiry earlier this month

A Bursledon Parish Councillor has called for the Planning Inspectorate to be scrapped and planning decisions left to local authorities after a planning inspector allowed permission for 150 new homes to be built west of Hamble Lane.

Builder Taylor Wimpey appealed to the inspectorate after the borough council refused planning permission for a development that local groups said would erode the strategic gap and cause traffic congestion in what is already an air quality management area.

But the planning inspector has ruled that building can go ahead because, he said, the council’s claim to have a five-year housing of 3447 supply was “unduly optimistic” and that the emerging local plan – yet to be adopted – did not ‘carry weight’.

The inspector also said he thought that a developer contribution of over half-million pounds toward improvements to the Tesco Windhover roundabout would help reduce queuing times.

The application was allowed subject to conditions to mitigate environmental impacts.

Bursledon Parish Councillor Jane Rich who had campaigned against the development said in a statement:

“Unaccountable government inspectors should not be able to over-ride the decisions of elected councillors who have be called to account at the ballot box.

“Every local council on the Hamble peninsula objected to housing at Hamble Lane, as did Eastleigh Borough Council.

“We were badly let-down by Hampshire County Council that once again refused to object to Hamble Lane’s traffic.   That’s just what happened when they backed turning Hamble Airfield into a gravel pit for 15 years.”

The inspector did not award costs against Eastleigh Borough Council.

Inspector’s decision is here

  25 comments for “Council loses appeal against Hamble development

  1. Matthew Myatt
    April 30, 2014 at 2:45 pm

    The council’s claim to have a five-year housing plan of 3447 supply was “unduly optimistic” and that the emerging local plan – yet to be adopted – did not ‘carry weight’.

    Is this what we have all been saying. The planning inspectorate does not need scrapping, it’s the five year plan that needs scrapping and a real plan be put in place.

    FibDems, shot with their own arrow and letting down the Borough and good people within.

    Incompitant and unfit for office.!

    • May 1, 2014 at 5:44 am

      Couldn’t agree more……next political party please! This one’s broken.

  2. Keith House
    April 30, 2014 at 3:36 pm

    The Inspector was quite simply wrong on the five year land supply as history will prove. Jane Rich is right to call for genuine localism and the scrapping of an Agency that puts major planning decisions in the hands of one individual who cannot be held to account by local residents or even MPs.

    • Matthew Myatt
      April 30, 2014 at 11:42 pm

      “They Don’t Like It Up E’m”

    • May 1, 2014 at 5:58 am

      Genuine localism? Like you really agree with that! Botley, Fair Oak & Horton Heath ring any bells?

  3. April 30, 2014 at 5:53 pm

    I think its the comment that “elected councillors who have be called to account at the ballot box.” that reveals the real problem here.

    Houses are being placed where it is felt there is least damage (or most advantage) electorally, rather than where it is actually most appropriate to build them…

    We need to take the politics out of planning, somehow…

  4. Rosie
    April 30, 2014 at 7:00 pm

    As history will prove in this case, our local Lib Dems are wrong, not the Planning Inspector.
    The Lib Dems continue to protect scruffy fields off Hamble Lane, in order to retain the unnecessarily-large gap between Bursledon and Southampton Council boundary (for political reasons, and at the expense of destroying most of Bursledon’s last remaining countryside and wildlife corridors – ie, the site adjacent to Manor Farm Country Park and BU1/BU2(Providence Hill and Blundell Lane/Bridge Road).
    I understand that, when the previous Local Plan was drawn up, the then Planning Inspector said Hamble Lane site(s) should be future reserve building space – being of poorer quality and more suitable for housing development than the BU1/BU2 ancient meadowland which lies between the Bursledon Windmill and Old Bursledon Blundell Lane/River Hamble Conservation areas. Yet the Lib Dems chose to ignore that when drawing up their controversial new Draft Plan and sneakily moved Bursledon’s “urban” boundary to include the Windmill/River Conservation area countryside.
    Our local Councillors are supposed to act objectively and listen to ALL Bursledon’s recognized Groups and residents. Instead, they have ignored not only individuals who attended Village Hall presentations (instead, presenting the developments in partnership with the developer as a “fait accompli”)but also over 100 Bursledon households who make up the Bursledon Rights of Way and Amenities Preservation Group (BROWAPG). BROWAPG formally opposed the BU1/BU2/Providence Hill/Blundell Lane applications. Yet these are now being fast-tracked through Planning by the Lib Dems who encouraged their preferred developers to submit planning applications in advance of Local Plan approval and, eg, over the Christmas period (when the EBC Planning portal was unavailable for comments for several days at least prior to the early Jan deadline …). Many Bursledon residents are still unaware that this fast-tracking is happening, especially the latest Providence Hill application where leaflets are supposed to have been delivered to approx 100? homes but many directly-affected residents have not seen them.
    In view of the Planning Inspector’s recent decision, the Providence Hill/Blundell Lane Conservation areas’ ancient countryside developments are now no longer needed to make up the housing quota. These applications should therefore be cancelled/withdrawn so that the Lib Dems can then live up to their continually-quoted claims of “Protecting Bursledon’s countryside”.
    As for Localism, surely that is supposed to mean local people involved in decisions from the bottom up, not the Lib Dems pushing through their own agenda from the Borough Council down – destroying Bursledon’s best countryside and ignoring any non-Lib Dem councilors, local Groups like BROWAPG which comprise many local households, or individual residents who don’t agree with them?

  5. April 30, 2014 at 7:30 pm

    I think the Borough has all had enough of the Fib Dem bull$h!t. One minute localism matters to Cllr House and the next he and his party are screwing us over. He and his party didn’t care when they decided to urbanise Botley, Fair Oak and Horton Heath against the locals desires.

    I’m not sure even the lies and half truths in Fib Dem hocus Focus can save your party now.

    Wouldn’t it be ironic if House beats House because of the over developments of houses.

    There is a reason why Lib Dems wont be winning here!

  6. mm
    Eastleigh Xpress
    May 1, 2014 at 8:50 am

    We were warned that planning inspectors would lean toward allowing development – and they are.

    If you read the inspectors decision you will note he says he thinks the ongoing appeal for a judicial review into the Boorley Green development will fail and it makes you wonder if there is any point in resistance.

    I have a feeling this development in Hamble Lane would have happened regardless of what party was running EBC,

    • May 1, 2014 at 10:29 am

      Only because of the excessive numbers identified in the SHMA which Cllr House assisted with. He also pointed out that previous (massive) development may not be indicative of future development trends.

  7. Botley Voter
    May 1, 2014 at 9:37 am

    The route cause of this problem is the failure to have seemless Local Plans, that are worked up, consulted on, INSPECTED by an INDEPENDENT INSPECTOR, approved and adopted, ready for the start of the published plan period.
    Failure to do this allows a window (in Eastleighs case a very big widow) that allows premature hostile planning applications.
    This will be the THIRD local plan that has not been seemless in Eastleigh.
    Most councils I understand mange to make their plans seemless, why cannot Eastleigh?
    If Eastleigh had gone with the Allington Lane option that can easily take 5,000 homes that would meet the 5 year supply need as was pointed out I understand by the then Planning Policy and Design Manager in 2011 to EBC we would not be in this mess.
    The plan would be in place abeit late.

    • Keith House
      May 1, 2014 at 9:45 am

      This comment misunderstands the current planning system. Most councils do not have adopted site specific Local Plans. The Inspectorate is looking at housing delivery, not at Plans. If the Council had opted for building on the floodplain at Allington (not clever!) it would not be able to take may housing units into account its 5-year supply as most of the delivery would be in the 2020s, so its position would be worse, not better. This point was made in the papers from planning officers to the Council on a number of occasions.

      • Botley Voter
        May 1, 2014 at 11:45 am

        According to the EA maps Allington Lane is no more at risk than Dowds Farm or Boorley Green!

      • Botley Voter
        May 1, 2014 at 3:38 pm

        So you are saying Local Plans don’t matter?
        If an adopted plan is in place as per NPPF rules then the inspector is guided by the adopted policies in that Local Plan..true?
        But housing numbers do.
        And Localism is only for the Council not residents?

        • Keith House
          May 1, 2014 at 3:45 pm

          Local Plans certainly do matter: but on housing supply issues the NPPF and NPG give greater weight to 5 year supply issues. These trump the Local Plan.

  8. Botley Voter
    May 1, 2014 at 11:55 am

    Oh and Allington Lane did not flood during this years terrible winter. Boorley Green did and keeps doing so, and the golf course was unplayable due to flooding on the course. Boorley Green is a fluvial 3 flood risk area!

  9. Keith House
    May 1, 2014 at 12:03 pm

    The Allington Lane site, if substantially developed, extends westwards towards the Itchen tributaries. The water flow in this area this winter was substantial, as could be witnessed further up near The Hub at Bishopstoke.

    • Botley Voter
      May 1, 2014 at 3:08 pm

      Oh I see so the proposed development for employment in the Local Plan ar Riverside will flood or cause flooding then?
      Smart move.

      • Botley Voter
        May 4, 2014 at 8:30 am

        Violates NPPF para 99

  10. Botley Voter
    May 1, 2014 at 3:59 pm

    Right, so if EBC had its Local Plan 2011-2029 adopted and in place with a adequate 5 year housing land supply such as Allington Lane that was the planners preferred site and was the MDA preferred site, on Jan 1st 2011 we would have been protected from the current land grabbing and premature planning applications?

    • Matthew Myatt
      May 1, 2014 at 6:33 pm

      Keith (Vote for Me) House, can not be trusted with a single fact or statement. His makes things up and spouts them as if they were fact without knowing the true details. If you need proof of this, have a look at this classic clip of Mr House, being caught out on the BBC. Do voters in Eastleigh really want more of this..???

    • Keith House
      May 1, 2014 at 9:25 pm

      See my earlier comments on Allington: it could not make a significant contribution to a 5 year supply even if developable, which it isn’t. The failure of the Botley judicial review (again) also makes some of these points.

  11. Botley Voter
    May 1, 2014 at 11:30 pm

    Nail on the head I think! I can hear a pin drop!!!

  12. May 2, 2014 at 12:10 am

    This planning application for the hamble area will probably be followed by two others, and I expect they will both be allowed through on appeal for the same reasons, Eastleigh xpress is right this happens who ever is in charge.

  13. Botley Voter
    May 2, 2014 at 8:03 pm

    Rubbish. A responsible council would ensure 5 year land supply and a Local Plan would have been in place on Jan 1st 2011. Not expose the borough to land grabbing as they have.
    Lib Dem controlled EBC delude themselves.

Comments are closed.