Eastleigh is to have a new housing development for the fields along Chestnut Avenue & Stoneham Lane. One thousand, one hundred dwellings on 62 hectares [a hectare is 10,000 sq metres] or 153 acres. That is 18 houses per hectare or 7-8 per acre.
What will it be like, this new development?
Of course it will have to have “affordable” housing – that politically correct buzzword must be in every application.
Questions for new development
Will it have shops and schools? There will be 2000 children living there. Will there be a GP surgery, nursery, playgrounds and sports areas? Existing playing fields will have to under tarmac and houses. Encouraging, for those who will live there, are nearby woods, railway station, motorway, airport and supermarket.
For the rest of us, will it add something to the environment? Will there be some architectural delight, imagination, feature or uniqueness which will make it a pleasant place to be and to visit? We can do drains, mains services, cavity wall houses and roads. Can we do something aesthetically pleasing for a change?
Architects produce drawings and models which show two or three adults, a motor car, quite a lot of trees and ponds. But in the event there are thousands of people, many of them bored teenagers. There are cars, some households owning up to four. People have caravans, boats, trailers and some have to keep a Ford Transit in a space for a small car. Can the architects design for this?
Can roads be designed so that mothers can wheel pushchairs along the pavement without having to dodge lamp posts, road signs or bins on bin day? Can householders be encouraged not to plant hedges and shrubs that invade the pavement?
Can urban planners be more than urban crammers? I hope so.
Remember the idea of Solent City?
Is it time to resuscitate the idea of Solent City? This grand idea of the 1960’s was killed off by local civic pride of Portsmouth, Southampton and all the places between. From Romsey and Totton along through Southampton, Eastleigh, Bursledon, Hamble, Hedge End, Lee on Solent, Gosport through to Portsmouth and Havant could be part of a large conurbation to rival Birmingham and London. I do not think London would like it to happen.
Solent City now has a population of about 1.5 million. There are 3 universities and the area is the major maritime centre for the UK with its container port, cruise liner terminals, naval base, ferries and the National Oceanographic Centre. It has other industries including computing, oil refinery, and vigorous industrial estates dotted around engaging in research development and high value commercial activities. There is a healthy diversity of activity.
If Chandler’s Ford was part of Solent City and if we had a Boris Johnson character as a figurehead, what then? Westminster would pay court to us and listen more closely to what we had to say. Local transport would be better integrated. Smaller local authorities could be amalgamated easing pressure on the council tax.
On the other hand the civic and commercial rivalry between Southampton and Portsmouth might fade. Without competition Solent City might become a quiet and stagnant megapolis.
Wadjafink?
External links:
- Public Exhibition: Land South Of Chestnut Avenue, North Stoneham Park: Friday 12th December
- Land South of Chestnut Avenue Proposals & Plans: Highwood Group
- Streetlife: Proposed development for North Stoneham
- 1,100 new homes plan (From Daily Echo)
- North Stoneham Park – history, restoration, and threatened development
Related posts:
Public Exhibition: Land South Of Chestnut Avenue, North Stoneham Park: Friday 12th December
Land South of Chestnut Avenue: Consultation Ends Monday 23 March 2015
Land Off Castle Lane – North Baddesley – Proposed Housing Development
Chandler’s Ford Changes. What’s Your View?
A Playground Of Concrete And Cranes
Can the planners recognise that many households have more than 1.5 cars (the allocation, I believe, for the recent new developments in Eastleigh) and provide adequate parking space? Can they recognise that, as well as the card of residents, some people like to receive visitors from time to time. These visitors need somewhere to park. The argument that the reduced number of parking spaces is “to discourage car usage in the urban area” is bogus. if I can’t park my car where I live, I might just as well drive it in to the town centre.
I am not “pro car” per se. I am just realistic. If household have two cars, there needs to be enough space for every household to park two cars – plus space for the occasional visitor. if cars can be parked safely at home, people are more likely to leave them at home and walk. If someone needs a transit van for their work, they need to park a transit van at home in the evenings.
We have cars and a conurbation cannot function without them. Planners persist in trying to deny the obvious.
Eastleigh has become unrecognisable – this proposed area of development I thought was protected? I grew up around this area, very sad indeed!
We do not have the infra-structure for yet more housing… it’s madness.
You’re right. I hadn’t got round to say what a pity it is to be building on this historic parkland. I’m sure it wasn’t that long ago that the council “refurbished” the former Stoneham Park to make it a more accessible open space. And where are the sports grounds going to go?
It is always easy to say we need to find a balance between development and environment. Do we need more houses here? If yes, due to immigrants (easy targets: immigrants of certain colours and regions) and overpopulation, we need affordable houses, to help settle people and help them climb the property ladder.
A few of my friends have been renting and paying at least half of their salaries to rent. They have a secure job, but without any inheritance or enough saving, have been unable to afford a little house in Eastleigh.
When you think of the plight of these young, hardworking people, and think of the environment issues, could you and I find a better solution? I certainly can’t.
I’m wondering if you could put up your suggestions to the developer? I’m sure they still welcome suggestion as the consultation only took place a few days ago.
I’m not sure that the “build more houses to make them affordable” or “build some affordable houses” arguments actually work (or at least have much effect). I need to have a think about the economics of the housing market and will get back to you…
Playgrounds, sports fields, allotments, parks, and fallow ground are all important features of life – somewhere one can go with friends or to be alone and to take some form of exercise, somewhere for children to explore and play. These spaces are not valued enough in our society.
For every sports ground that is dug up, another should be provided nearby.
I live in the Knightwood area of Chandler’s Ford. When I was a boy I can remember this whole area as fields/farmland and used to enjoy cycling the lanes in the summer. Whilst I was not resident in that area (I was however quite close by) at the time that the plan for development was proposed (presumably by TVBC) I can imagine that there was the same vein of commentary suggesting that it was too large, would have a negative impact on infrastructur e and was an unwelcome loss of green space.
The development was finished some 11 or 12 years ago and has obviously matured over that time. I believe that I can say that it is a thoroughly pleasant place to live with pedestrian paths, cycleways and woodland all contributing positively.
My point is that whilst we bemoan the loss of green space and raise negative comments about new developments that (fearing the worst) may stress infrastructure, there are plenty of examples where 10 years on, developments have matured and our original fears have not ben realised. Our public servants, whilst they don’t get everything right, deserve some credit for this I think.
Homes have to be built somewhere. The lack of housebuilding and the decimation of affordable stock via the ‘Right to Buy’ scheme introduced by Mrs Thatcher many years ago leave our youngsters today with no prospect of home ownership until they are in their 30’s or 40’s and push private rents through the roof.
New towns will inevitably contribute but that won’t be enough. Whilst the easiest option is just to say ‘build them somewhere else’ and to complain about Councillors, I think we have a social responsibility to accept that green spaces within existing boroughs will be put under increasing pressure.
Drove through Four Marks today and noticed that there are still new houses being built there. Everyone’s house was not there at some time and the locals must have been deprecating these new buildings.
“Have you seen that new cottage? They are putting that new-fangled thatch on the roof. It’s made of reeds from a pond. Can’t see that being better than grass sods.” Or “I can’t believe they are putting toilets on the inside of those new houses.” Or “What a waste of space building those houses with a garage; those people will never be able to own a car.” Plus ca change…