Disastrous Planning by LibDem Council

I shall be developing this theme over the next few days because I'm absolutely incensed by the totally incompetent planning decisions by the LibDem run Eastleigh Borough Council. It is my strong opinion that they are not fit to run the council and only do so becasue they have hidden the facts from the electorate for many years.

As Conmservatives we strongly dispute these decisions:

1. the decision to build 1,400 houses on Boorley Green golf course - a greenfield site
2. the decision to build 1,300 houses on Stoneham Park, another greenfield site that surveys have determined only has the capacity for 300 homes
3. the decision to borrow some £40 million pounds to purchase the loss-making Aegeus bowl for the council tax payer.
4. the even crazier decision to spend £12 million on moving the Civic Offices into the town centre which, to make matters even worse, has virtually no parking.

These crazy decisions must be reversed as they will all be very detrimental to the town and borough of Eastleigh.

More on this shortly.

Maria Hutchings on Eastleigh Planning

This is what Maria Hutchins, the Conservative Parliamentary Representative for Eastleigh told the full Eastleigh council meeting last night:

“We will protect our greenfield sites”

“No more building on green areas”
“Saving our greenfield sites”
These are just some of the mantras that have been posted through our letterboxes in the form of Councillors’ and candidates’ literature.

And yet many of those Lib Dem councillors are pushing forward a local plan for 9,400 houses, of which 50% will swallow up green areas in this constituency.

Green areas, in our communities, that are our pride and joy, heritage and future.

Liberal Democrat Councillors are adamant that they will concrete over Stoneham Park, a legacy planned and designed by Lancelot 'Capability' Brown in the 1770s; Botley, an historic village that obtained a charter for a market from Henry 111 in 1267, a village in which people have settled since at least the 10^th century.

 Yes, we need housing. But surely the overriding questions must be:

a)     Do we really need 9,400 houses?

b)    Has Eastleigh Borough Council carried out the consultation with the public in a transparent, informed and fair manner?

c)     Does the local plan protect our greenfield sites?

d)    Who will buy these properties in the current economic situation?

e)     Do we have the infrastructure; the roads, the schools, the water-waste system etc.?

f)      Will our strategic gaps be maintained, particularly with Southampton?

g)     Will there be enough local employment for the new residents?

h)    Is this housing really for local people?

i)       What of the effect on the environment, the flora and fauna?

j)       Can the roads cope with some 15,000 more cars?

k)     How is it that Eastleigh Borough Council is planning to build on Woodhouse Lane when Conservative-run Hampshire County Council has categorically stated that it is NOT selling the land for 1,000 houses? Does this mean that the Local Plan must be started from scratch?

l)       How can Eastleigh Borough Council proceed with this plan when a leaflet sent to some 53,000 households had only a 3% return of some 2,000?

m)  When the head of planning Tony Wright (quoted in the Daily Echo) said that Allington Lane was his preferred site over Boorley Green that has been chosen. Does that mean that Eastleigh Borough Council can just ignore the professional opinion of its head of planning?

Speaking to residents on the doorsteps and looking at survey results presented by local action groups it is evident that all these questions need to be answered.

People are angry that they haven’t been properly consulted. That some have had an opportunity to have their say on Allington Lane and Boorley Green. But how can it be right to pit two disproportionately sized communities against each other? And why was there not the appropriate consultation on Sundays Hill, Hedge End and Stoneham Park?

           

Speaking of transparency, if there was a “computer glitch” at the Council (as reported on Eastleigh News this week), so that many respondents to the original consultation were not informed of the final date for objections, Is it appropriate that the Council will not extend the date for final objections?                        

This is an ill-thought-out plan. It has NOT been properly consulted upon and is misleading, particularly when some of the land for consideration is not up for sale.

Lib Dem-controlled Eastleigh Borough Council has concreted over our allotments, our communities and has run a severely flawed consultation.

We must fight this travesty of a plan. Make sure that housing is truly for local people, front-line workers, the armed forces and those who have strong family links in Eastleigh.

These Lib Dem Councillors said they were against the SDA proposed for building 6,000 houses and yet once the regional spatial agreements was scrapped by this Conservative-led Government they put a plan for 9,400 houses on the table, 50% on greenfield sites.

Local councillors are here to represent the people.

Boorley Green Golf Course and Stoneham Park to be built on

At a full Eastleigh Borough Council meeting this evening Lib Dem councillors voted overwhelmingly to concrete over Stoneham Park, by building 1,300 houses on it and to build 1,400 houses on Boorley Green Golf Course.

Lib Dem Council leader Cllr Keith House admitted that he knew nothing about golf and led his councillors to approve plans to wreck both Boorley Green and Stoneham Park with a vote of 37 for and 5 against.  The ramifications of this will be enormous. 

The public gallery was filled with representatives from Boorley Green and Botley - plus a smattering from the Aviary Estate beside Fleming Park protesting about the Stoneham Park development - and the first impression I had was that of Nimbyism, simply becasue the council gave just two alternatives for the construction of 1,400 houses: Allington Lane and Boorley Green.  Allingotn Lane was quickly deemed unsuitable due to the impossibility of improving the road, so it just left Boorley Green, whose residents were naturally totally opposed.

Maria Hutchins, the Conservative parliamentary representative for Eastleigh, contested the need for a total of 9,400 new houses to be built in the borough and you can read her full speech in a separate post.  She, like the Conservative councillors, said it would be possible to build 4,700 houses on brownfield sites and those would be sufficient for the housing needs of the borough.  She criticised LibDem councillors for saying that our green spaces should be protected but then giving approval for them to be concreted over.

Cllr Godfrey Olson, said "We should be listening to the people who have elected us.  I don't believe in building on greenfield sites.  Recreational facilities are diminishing so this should be looked at in the light of what local people say."  He went on to say that there are currnetly 1,464 empty properties in the borough, which could be put into use.  There is a 5% turnover of property in Eastleigh out of a total of 52,500 units, so houses are constantly being recycled.  The 2011 census showed that the Borough of Eastleigh has a population of 125,000 people.

Cllr Judith Grajewski also said that the councillors had a responsibility to listen to the views of the residents.  With reference to Stoneham Park, local roads are already at 104% capacity.  "I try to visualise what this can be like," she said.  Those of us who have had to drive this route regularly have apretty good idea of what it's like and know that any more traffic along Passfield Avenue, Chestnut Avenue, and Stoneham Lane would cause complete gridlock.

All the residents who spoke and the Conservative councillors stressed that the consultation process had been too hurried.  Cllr John Caldwell, a former mayor, said it was a rushed, tight timetable with litle time for consultation and they all pleaded for an extension.

The Lib Dems then tried to demolish their arguments, Cllr House effectively blaming the government when he said that developers were already queuing up to put in planning applications so the Borough had to put its own plan into effect as soon as ;possible.  He said the government inspector wouldn't accept that the Conservatives' proposla of 4,700 houses built on brownfield sites - as he said they needed to over plan rather than under plan.

"Planning is an art, not a science," Cllr House said.  He then accused Cllr Olson of building 6,000 houses on greenfield sites to the north of Hedge End in 10 years when he led the council, making Hedge End lopsided.  The Lib Dem plan, on the other hand would not be lopsided as they would build to the North-east of Hedge End!!  To my mind, that would make the town even more lopsided.

Cllr Dan Clark, Lib Dem, attacked Cllr Olson, who had spoken of the need for recycling houses - thus providing rented accommodation, for owning houses that he rents out which, of course, reduces the housing need.  He then criticised Maria Hutchins for not supporting children who are growing up in the borough. 

What is abundantly clear to me is that this council meeting was like any other under Keith House.  Everything is decided beforehand and the electorate are treated with disdain.  Some years ago, a planning meeting was held regarding the building of the Waitrose in Chandler's Ford.  A petition against the development was signed and presented to the council and, just like this meeting, the hall was full of residents protesting that the location of the store was inappropriate.  But the Lib Dems said " We are Lib Dem councillors and we know what you need, " and the store was built. 

It's a lovely store but causes considerable traffic congestion at times.

This from Jeremy Bentham (1748 - 1832) could easily apply to Keith House:
The fool had stuck himself up one day, with great gravity, in the King's throne; with a stick by way of a sceptre, in one hand and a ball in the other: being asked wht he was doing he answered "reigning". Much of the same sort of reign, I take it would be that of our Author's (Blackstone) Democracy.

This is another one from Jeremy Bentham:
The greatest happiness of the greatest number is the foundation of morals and legislation.

There will be a consultion on the Eastleigh Plan, of which this is part, that will start on 17th August and continue until mid October, so we are going to fight its impracticalities. 

With reference to Stoneham Park,

we are joining these people to do all we can to save it before it's too late.  This cricket pitch is under threat:

1,300 houses on Stoneham Park is compleely unsustainable and the Council doesn't even own all the land.  It hoping that the owners of the land will take advantage of the dramatic increase of its value once it has planning permission will persuade the owners to sell.

Meanwhile, Hampshire County Council has said the land will only sustain 300 houses. 

I look forward to getting support for our campaign to save both Stoneham Park and Boorley Green.

Trustee Savings Bank Enforced Sale

Yesterday the news broke that the European Commission has compelled LloydsTSB to sell 632 branches to Cooperative Bank as it was deemed that Lloyds had become too big due to its acquisition of Halifax Bank of Scotland, but what no-one mentions is that the chancellor of the exchequer of the day - Gordon Brown - lent very hard on Sir Victor Blank and Eric Daniels, who were heading up the bank at the time, to purchase HBOS.

This purchase then led LloydsTSB into their current difficulties, making a government bail out necessary.

As a customer of LloydsTSB I was angry with Gordon Brown at the time and now I am annoyed with the EU for forcing this sale. One of the few advantages of this merger – a bigger branch network – is being stripped away on their order.. No wonder the Co-op is picking up these properties at the sort of knock-down price and easy terms you would expect from a forced vendor.

The Telegraph says the following: By the time the deal is complete, more than 3m of Lloyds’ personal accounts will be transferred to the Co-op. Of course, those who strongly oppose the deal can vote with their feet and switch their accounts to any bank they like – even Lloyds – but this will mean considerable nuisance. That’s why, for example, you are statistically more likely to get divorced than to change banks.
So customers, many of whom are also – like your humble correspondent – shareholders in Lloyds, have good reason to feel disgruntled about the deal. While it might sound like mere snobbery, it would be unbusinesslike to overlook the obvious question: how many of Lloyds’ core customers in Middle England will be pleased to pull out a Co-op cheque book or credit card?
On a brighter note, some of the nicest people I know bank with the Co-op and its long-standing commitment to ethical banking has certainly separated it from the pack, demonstrating you can do well by doing good. They have certainly done so with this deal. Co-op also has better customer satisfaction ratings than Lloyds, although its current account pays no interest and its cash individual savings account (Isa) yields a dismal 0.5pc.
Even after a 1pc uptick in Lloyds' share price today, this feels like the latest in a series of decisions taken way over the heads of the bank's customers and shareholders which will prove bad for our wealth.

There are two lessons to be learnt from this debacle:

1. Labour can never trusted with our finances.
2. We need to come out of the European Union.

Parking in the Town Centre

Do you remember when parking was free for the first half-hour in the centre of Eastleigh?  Now we have to pay 60p just to pop into a shop for something and there are parking wardens waiting to swoop on us and give us a ticket even if we're a minute or two late back.

When I was shopping the other day the shopkeeper said this is what her customers are always on about.  The Eastleigh Partnershop would like all parking after 3pm to be free, because this is the time schools come out and it would encourage mothers to come into town with their children.  It would  boost the trade of the 47 eateries as well as the possibility of reversing the trend of shop closures.  At the last count there were 33 empty retail premises.

However, this would be very expensive, as although parking revenue isn't supposed to be seen as an income stream, but should be ploughed back intothe local economy, the council relies on it.  I understand that next year the business rate income will be repatriated to local councils, so it will be easier for a parking strategy to be planned, along with a reassessment of the rate itself to encourage shops to open. 

In the meantime, I am pushing for the first 30 minutes to be free once again, as this would encourage more short term parking and stimulate the economy.  However, I realise that I'm very much a lone voice unless I can get your support.

Charity bags again

Remember these?  I thought our notice on the door saying "No More charity Bags" had stopped them - but No!  the same people - Dreams Come True - left us their bin liner:







so here it is, inside out and partially filled on top of our black bin.  We had been doing it for some time before we put our notice out but I do find it really useful to go round the house with this free binliner and empty all the bins.  It's just the right size.   (There was an excellent comment about this as a result of my last post on this subject, but I have made this a new post in order to show the photos and name the culprit.  Does anyone know who they are?  I'm afraid the cover is now in our Black bin!)

A word of warning regarding bins:
Our next door neighbour has a contractor in to replace their front door and work on their porch, but he didn't realise the green bin was for Green - or recyclable - waste, so he filled it with ordinry waste.  This is because in Southampton they do it sort of back-to-front.




































































I thought the