Plans for in and around Andover
The new town will inevitably grow, thanks to the proposed plans that in 20, 30 or even 50 years time it could be another Milton Keynes. There will no longer be any rural buffer between Andover, Basingstoke and Winchester.
Here are some questions and answers put to a local politition about the developments:
Q Why is building in this part of the countryside not the answer?
A Because it is simply not sustainable. The government as well as all of the main parties involved, except Eagle Star, agree that future housing settlements should be sustainable. We believe Eagle Star’s proposed new town is not. Even 9,000 houses, with over 20,000 people could not support sufficient schools, shops and employment to be self-contained. Inevitably there would continue to be further pressure for additional houses - the thin edge of the wedge. The result would be increased pollution from car travel to other towns and cities, loss of quality farm land and 5,000 tonnes of wheat production every year as well as the erosion of the rural buffer which today benefits all the people of Winchester, Basingstoke and Andover
Q So you do believe that greenfield site development is unavoidable within the current scope of the Hampshire County Structure Plan?
A The current proposed Hampshire Structure Plan allows for a total of 42,000 houses, plus a "reserve" of 14,000 if required up until the year 2016. In March 2000, in response to a report by a team of planning inspectors led by a Professor Crow, John Prescott announced government plans approving the building of 43,000 new homes every year for the next five years - meaning 860,000 new homes in the south-east counties during the next 20 years. Although the government has a target of 60% of these homes on brwnfield sites, - we believe that all other opportunities must be totally exhausted and therefore greenfield sites must only be selected as a last resort. Even then, we would prefer to see only relatively small parcels of greenfield land being granted planning permission, not vast tracts of the Hampshire Downs.
Q What are the hard facts like transport, employment, water?
A Hampshire County Council rightly wants to reduce travel by car. Zurich Eagle Star points to Micheldever Station as a reason for choosing the area for development, but can you imagine that thousands of new homeowners will use the train to go to Winchester, Basingstoke or London, even assuming a better service than today. Of course they won’t, they will use their cars.
A recent independent research report by The Babtie Group has forecast huge and somewhat alarming increases in traffic congestion on all the roads in the area. Additional traffic of this magnitude would inevitable mean increased pollution levels.
The Babtie report also showed that Zurich Eagle Star’s forecasts for employment generated by the new town were unsupportable, even if they provide small business units on site. Supposing the new town could sustain 50% employment for those resident, the remaining residents would still have to travel to and from work outside of the area. The area might also prove an irresistible attraction to people to move out of London and commute’ thus the area will inevitably become a dormitory town.
The economic implications of The Babtie Group’s conclusions could therefore be disastrous for adjoining towns like Andover, Basingstoke and Winchester.
Water will also be a major problem with supplies having to be carried up from the south by means of a new pipeline.
Is this what the county needs or is the government just seeking new money?
