Inland Homes wants to build 350 homes on the former Meridian site in Southampton

The former Meridian television studios in Southampton are subject to plans for 350 homes

The former Meridian television studios in Southampton are subject to plans for 350 homes

First published in Hampshire Business Hampshire Chronicle: Photograph of the Author by , Political reporter

COULD it be third time lucky for plans to rejuvenate Southampton’s derelict former Meridian television studios?

A developer has launched the latest plans for hundreds of new homes on the prime site, near the Northam Bridge.

Inland Homes’ plan is the third blueprint for the site in seven years, after two previous schemes collapsed.

The developer wants to build up to 350 homes there and create new public access to the Itchen riverside.

For decades it was the home of local television news as ITV contractors, Southern, then Southern Television and Meridian, were based there.

But in 2008 the bulldozers moved in to knock down the buildings after a controversial £4.5 billion merger between Carlton and Meridian owners Granada resulted in a decision to close the site, with the loss of 175 jobs.

Since then, Surrey-based Oakdene Homes bought the seven-acre site and planned to build a £100m complex containing 500 apartments, commercial space and a 27-storey tower.

But Oakdene went into administration in 2009, and the Royal Bank of Scotland’s commercial property wing West Register then took over the site.

West Register had drawn up plans for 250 homes, a ten-storey residential tower and 400 sq m commercial and leisure floorspace, but that was shelved and now Inland Homes have bought the site.

As well as 350 one, two, three and four-bedroom apartments, the firm will include commercial space in its plans.

Mark Gilpin, planning director at Inland Homes, said: “We are delighted to have the opportunity to develop this gateway site for Southampton.

“We are conscious that the city council and community have seen successive developers bring forward schemes that have not been delivered. We are determined to produce a high quality residential-led development that will unlock opportunities along the River Itchen and deliver strategic flood defences for Southampton.

“This development will be sympathetic to the character of the local built environment and will provide a high quality landscaped area and enhance public access to the riverfront.

“Inland Homes is committed to working with the local community. This is an important site and local people need to know that this development will enhance the area. Residents will have the opportunity to comment on the proposals at a public exhibition by July and we intend to submit a planning application in late September.”

Discussions between Inland Homes and the city council are now ongoing, with the percentage of units that will be affordable housing yet to be decided.

Labour council leader Simon Letts welcomed the news, saying: “Our preference is to maximise the amount of housing that goes on this site and therefore we will be in discussions with the developer to ensure that the plans that come forward allow us to do that because this is an ideal site for housing.”

Comments (38)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

5:05am Tue 17 Jun 14

bigfella777 says...

That will be fun trying to get out of there in the morning. No right turn at union road lights, Northam road at a standstill and the level crossing constantly on red. Ridiculous place for housing.
That will be fun trying to get out of there in the morning. No right turn at union road lights, Northam road at a standstill and the level crossing constantly on red. Ridiculous place for housing. bigfella777
  • Score: 23

6:29am Tue 17 Jun 14

issacchunt says...

Surely it has to be more student flats?
Surely it has to be more student flats? issacchunt
  • Score: -3

7:52am Tue 17 Jun 14

elvisimo says...

bigfella777 wrote:
That will be fun trying to get out of there in the morning. No right turn at union road lights, Northam road at a standstill and the level crossing constantly on red. Ridiculous place for housing.
Brownfield site. Walk to work. Perfect for housing. What would you build there?????
[quote][p][bold]bigfella777[/bold] wrote: That will be fun trying to get out of there in the morning. No right turn at union road lights, Northam road at a standstill and the level crossing constantly on red. Ridiculous place for housing.[/p][/quote]Brownfield site. Walk to work. Perfect for housing. What would you build there????? elvisimo
  • Score: 27

8:38am Tue 17 Jun 14

loosehead says...

You have a level crossing then the main road so not a good place for housing but the Snow dome.Ice Rink & rowing club facilities would be ideally suited here.
You have a level crossing then the main road so not a good place for housing but the Snow dome.Ice Rink & rowing club facilities would be ideally suited here. loosehead
  • Score: 14

9:05am Tue 17 Jun 14

tootle says...

And just where are the children going to be going to school? That will come as a surprise to the Council - again.
And just where are the children going to be going to school? That will come as a surprise to the Council - again. tootle
  • Score: 10

9:06am Tue 17 Jun 14

soton_cyclist says...

I think this would be better used as a park and ride location.
I think this would be better used as a park and ride location. soton_cyclist
  • Score: 7

9:18am Tue 17 Jun 14

one in a million says...

At last, houses being built where they should be, on brownfield sites. Take note Eastleigh Borough Council.
At last, houses being built where they should be, on brownfield sites. Take note Eastleigh Borough Council. one in a million
  • Score: 19

9:19am Tue 17 Jun 14

Datarater says...

bigfella777 wrote:
That will be fun trying to get out of there in the morning. No right turn at union road lights, Northam road at a standstill and the level crossing constantly on red. Ridiculous place for housing.
It's a ridiculous place for a level crossing.
[quote][p][bold]bigfella777[/bold] wrote: That will be fun trying to get out of there in the morning. No right turn at union road lights, Northam road at a standstill and the level crossing constantly on red. Ridiculous place for housing.[/p][/quote]It's a ridiculous place for a level crossing. Datarater
  • Score: 5

9:19am Tue 17 Jun 14

Poppy22 says...

At last, putting to good use this site that has sat wasted for years now. The ideal place and opportunity to build affordable (truly affordable for first time buyers or singles/couples, not just "social" housing) for people working in Southampton who can then use public transport to get to work. Hope they look at what London is doing regarding building small "pod"-type cheap housing as that would be ideal to maximise the housing on the site and get an awful lot of people onto the property ladder, or downsizers who can no longer get the mortgages they want and work in town so want to live close to town. I was really annoyed when I saw yet more student flats being built to attract in more non-local people into the area, instead of providing housing for locals, so the Council really need to make sure this site provides affordable housing for locals and not just expensive riverside flats or only social housing.
At last, putting to good use this site that has sat wasted for years now. The ideal place and opportunity to build affordable (truly affordable for first time buyers or singles/couples, not just "social" housing) for people working in Southampton who can then use public transport to get to work. Hope they look at what London is doing regarding building small "pod"-type cheap housing as that would be ideal to maximise the housing on the site and get an awful lot of people onto the property ladder, or downsizers who can no longer get the mortgages they want and work in town so want to live close to town. I was really annoyed when I saw yet more student flats being built to attract in more non-local people into the area, instead of providing housing for locals, so the Council really need to make sure this site provides affordable housing for locals and not just expensive riverside flats or only social housing. Poppy22
  • Score: 10

9:21am Tue 17 Jun 14

Positively4thStreet says...

soton_cyclist wrote:
I think this would be better used as a park and ride location.
That would get my vote,and perfect for St.Mary's too.
[quote][p][bold]soton_cyclist[/bold] wrote: I think this would be better used as a park and ride location.[/p][/quote]That would get my vote,and perfect for St.Mary's too. Positively4thStreet
  • Score: 8

9:32am Tue 17 Jun 14

sotonboy84 says...

soton_cyclist wrote:
I think this would be better used as a park and ride location.
Don't be silly! Southampton City Council don't do things for the long term benefit of the city, they do things to fund their bank accounts. With the amount of flats that are always being built in the city, it does make you wonder that with this huge increase in council tax, why does council tax still rise?

But, I agree housing is the best option here so brownfield sites are used over building on the countryside so at least any housing here would reduce some of the need for housing in the local plan.

I don't quite agree with the amount of flats though, maximising the amount of dwellings should not be the goal, emphasis should be on the quality of life for the inhabitants so houses with gardens as well as communal gardens for some flats should feature.
[quote][p][bold]soton_cyclist[/bold] wrote: I think this would be better used as a park and ride location.[/p][/quote]Don't be silly! Southampton City Council don't do things for the long term benefit of the city, they do things to fund their bank accounts. With the amount of flats that are always being built in the city, it does make you wonder that with this huge increase in council tax, why does council tax still rise? But, I agree housing is the best option here so brownfield sites are used over building on the countryside so at least any housing here would reduce some of the need for housing in the local plan. I don't quite agree with the amount of flats though, maximising the amount of dwellings should not be the goal, emphasis should be on the quality of life for the inhabitants so houses with gardens as well as communal gardens for some flats should feature. sotonboy84
  • Score: 17

9:38am Tue 17 Jun 14

sotonboy84 says...

Poppy22 wrote:
At last, putting to good use this site that has sat wasted for years now. The ideal place and opportunity to build affordable (truly affordable for first time buyers or singles/couples, not just "social" housing) for people working in Southampton who can then use public transport to get to work. Hope they look at what London is doing regarding building small "pod"-type cheap housing as that would be ideal to maximise the housing on the site and get an awful lot of people onto the property ladder, or downsizers who can no longer get the mortgages they want and work in town so want to live close to town. I was really annoyed when I saw yet more student flats being built to attract in more non-local people into the area, instead of providing housing for locals, so the Council really need to make sure this site provides affordable housing for locals and not just expensive riverside flats or only social housing.
But as we're not in one of the most expensive city's in the world, who would want to buy a small "pod" style rabbit hutch?!
[quote][p][bold]Poppy22[/bold] wrote: At last, putting to good use this site that has sat wasted for years now. The ideal place and opportunity to build affordable (truly affordable for first time buyers or singles/couples, not just "social" housing) for people working in Southampton who can then use public transport to get to work. Hope they look at what London is doing regarding building small "pod"-type cheap housing as that would be ideal to maximise the housing on the site and get an awful lot of people onto the property ladder, or downsizers who can no longer get the mortgages they want and work in town so want to live close to town. I was really annoyed when I saw yet more student flats being built to attract in more non-local people into the area, instead of providing housing for locals, so the Council really need to make sure this site provides affordable housing for locals and not just expensive riverside flats or only social housing.[/p][/quote]But as we're not in one of the most expensive city's in the world, who would want to buy a small "pod" style rabbit hutch?! sotonboy84
  • Score: 6

10:09am Tue 17 Jun 14

Hampshire Corn and Bread says...

On the walk to work theme, how about a balance with some small start-up industrial units & housing similar to Anchorage Park .
On the walk to work theme, how about a balance with some small start-up industrial units & housing similar to Anchorage Park . Hampshire Corn and Bread
  • Score: 4

10:23am Tue 17 Jun 14

elvisimo says...

sotonboy84 wrote:
soton_cyclist wrote:
I think this would be better used as a park and ride location.
Don't be silly! Southampton City Council don't do things for the long term benefit of the city, they do things to fund their bank accounts. With the amount of flats that are always being built in the city, it does make you wonder that with this huge increase in council tax, why does council tax still rise?

But, I agree housing is the best option here so brownfield sites are used over building on the countryside so at least any housing here would reduce some of the need for housing in the local plan.

I don't quite agree with the amount of flats though, maximising the amount of dwellings should not be the goal, emphasis should be on the quality of life for the inhabitants so houses with gardens as well as communal gardens for some flats should feature.
The council don't own this site so as long as it falls within planning policy they have no say. West Register own it - the bit of RBS that deals with toxic loan book. The emphasis will be on turning a profit from the site.
[quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]soton_cyclist[/bold] wrote: I think this would be better used as a park and ride location.[/p][/quote]Don't be silly! Southampton City Council don't do things for the long term benefit of the city, they do things to fund their bank accounts. With the amount of flats that are always being built in the city, it does make you wonder that with this huge increase in council tax, why does council tax still rise? But, I agree housing is the best option here so brownfield sites are used over building on the countryside so at least any housing here would reduce some of the need for housing in the local plan. I don't quite agree with the amount of flats though, maximising the amount of dwellings should not be the goal, emphasis should be on the quality of life for the inhabitants so houses with gardens as well as communal gardens for some flats should feature.[/p][/quote]The council don't own this site so as long as it falls within planning policy they have no say. West Register own it - the bit of RBS that deals with toxic loan book. The emphasis will be on turning a profit from the site. elvisimo
  • Score: 4

10:36am Tue 17 Jun 14

From the sidelines says...

soton_cyclist wrote:
I think this would be better used as a park and ride location.
Park and Ride sites are better on the outskirts of town, rather than being 90% of the way into the centre, for reasons that are ... obvious.
[quote][p][bold]soton_cyclist[/bold] wrote: I think this would be better used as a park and ride location.[/p][/quote]Park and Ride sites are better on the outskirts of town, rather than being 90% of the way into the centre, for reasons that are ... obvious. From the sidelines
  • Score: 15

10:58am Tue 17 Jun 14

Beer Monster says...

Is nobody demanding an ice rink? I'm shocked
Is nobody demanding an ice rink? I'm shocked Beer Monster
  • Score: 3

10:59am Tue 17 Jun 14

dango says...

elvisimo wrote:
sotonboy84 wrote:
soton_cyclist wrote:
I think this would be better used as a park and ride location.
Don't be silly! Southampton City Council don't do things for the long term benefit of the city, they do things to fund their bank accounts. With the amount of flats that are always being built in the city, it does make you wonder that with this huge increase in council tax, why does council tax still rise?

But, I agree housing is the best option here so brownfield sites are used over building on the countryside so at least any housing here would reduce some of the need for housing in the local plan.

I don't quite agree with the amount of flats though, maximising the amount of dwellings should not be the goal, emphasis should be on the quality of life for the inhabitants so houses with gardens as well as communal gardens for some flats should feature.
The council don't own this site so as long as it falls within planning policy they have no say. West Register own it - the bit of RBS that deals with toxic loan book. The emphasis will be on turning a profit from the site.
It says West Register sold the site to Inland Homes, so WR don't own it.
[quote][p][bold]elvisimo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]soton_cyclist[/bold] wrote: I think this would be better used as a park and ride location.[/p][/quote]Don't be silly! Southampton City Council don't do things for the long term benefit of the city, they do things to fund their bank accounts. With the amount of flats that are always being built in the city, it does make you wonder that with this huge increase in council tax, why does council tax still rise? But, I agree housing is the best option here so brownfield sites are used over building on the countryside so at least any housing here would reduce some of the need for housing in the local plan. I don't quite agree with the amount of flats though, maximising the amount of dwellings should not be the goal, emphasis should be on the quality of life for the inhabitants so houses with gardens as well as communal gardens for some flats should feature.[/p][/quote]The council don't own this site so as long as it falls within planning policy they have no say. West Register own it - the bit of RBS that deals with toxic loan book. The emphasis will be on turning a profit from the site.[/p][/quote]It says West Register sold the site to Inland Homes, so WR don't own it. dango
  • Score: 4

11:10am Tue 17 Jun 14

elvisimo says...

dango wrote:
elvisimo wrote:
sotonboy84 wrote:
soton_cyclist wrote:
I think this would be better used as a park and ride location.
Don't be silly! Southampton City Council don't do things for the long term benefit of the city, they do things to fund their bank accounts. With the amount of flats that are always being built in the city, it does make you wonder that with this huge increase in council tax, why does council tax still rise?

But, I agree housing is the best option here so brownfield sites are used over building on the countryside so at least any housing here would reduce some of the need for housing in the local plan.

I don't quite agree with the amount of flats though, maximising the amount of dwellings should not be the goal, emphasis should be on the quality of life for the inhabitants so houses with gardens as well as communal gardens for some flats should feature.
The council don't own this site so as long as it falls within planning policy they have no say. West Register own it - the bit of RBS that deals with toxic loan book. The emphasis will be on turning a profit from the site.
It says West Register sold the site to Inland Homes, so WR don't own it.
correct so nothing to do with the council.
[quote][p][bold]dango[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]elvisimo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]soton_cyclist[/bold] wrote: I think this would be better used as a park and ride location.[/p][/quote]Don't be silly! Southampton City Council don't do things for the long term benefit of the city, they do things to fund their bank accounts. With the amount of flats that are always being built in the city, it does make you wonder that with this huge increase in council tax, why does council tax still rise? But, I agree housing is the best option here so brownfield sites are used over building on the countryside so at least any housing here would reduce some of the need for housing in the local plan. I don't quite agree with the amount of flats though, maximising the amount of dwellings should not be the goal, emphasis should be on the quality of life for the inhabitants so houses with gardens as well as communal gardens for some flats should feature.[/p][/quote]The council don't own this site so as long as it falls within planning policy they have no say. West Register own it - the bit of RBS that deals with toxic loan book. The emphasis will be on turning a profit from the site.[/p][/quote]It says West Register sold the site to Inland Homes, so WR don't own it.[/p][/quote]correct so nothing to do with the council. elvisimo
  • Score: 3

11:22am Tue 17 Jun 14

03alpe01 says...

Beer Monster wrote:
Is nobody demanding an ice rink? I'm shocked
Nah, we don't want two grand loss makers in our city thank you very much. We've already got the loss making Sea City Museum so imagine how much an ice rink would lose!
[quote][p][bold]Beer Monster[/bold] wrote: Is nobody demanding an ice rink? I'm shocked[/p][/quote]Nah, we don't want two grand loss makers in our city thank you very much. We've already got the loss making Sea City Museum so imagine how much an ice rink would lose! 03alpe01
  • Score: 6

11:24am Tue 17 Jun 14

03alpe01 says...

I'm not so sure about this. Traffic down there will be even more of a nightmare than it already is, especially with it being right next door to a level crossing. Surely football traffic will be taken into account in the planning process yes?
I'm not so sure about this. Traffic down there will be even more of a nightmare than it already is, especially with it being right next door to a level crossing. Surely football traffic will be taken into account in the planning process yes? 03alpe01
  • Score: 1

11:50am Tue 17 Jun 14

WalkingOnAWire says...

sotonboy84 wrote:
soton_cyclist wrote:
I think this would be better used as a park and ride location.
Don't be silly! Southampton City Council don't do things for the long term benefit of the city, they do things to fund their bank accounts. With the amount of flats that are always being built in the city, it does make you wonder that with this huge increase in council tax, why does council tax still rise?

But, I agree housing is the best option here so brownfield sites are used over building on the countryside so at least any housing here would reduce some of the need for housing in the local plan.

I don't quite agree with the amount of flats though, maximising the amount of dwellings should not be the goal, emphasis should be on the quality of life for the inhabitants so houses with gardens as well as communal gardens for some flats should feature.
If you want to understand the rise in council tax - 1.9%, so not exactly crippling - then look no further then the cut in central government's grant to Southampton. £148 per man woman and child in the city since 2010. Over the same period, Tory-run Winchester have lost only £28. Is that fair? I don't think so.
[quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]soton_cyclist[/bold] wrote: I think this would be better used as a park and ride location.[/p][/quote]Don't be silly! Southampton City Council don't do things for the long term benefit of the city, they do things to fund their bank accounts. With the amount of flats that are always being built in the city, it does make you wonder that with this huge increase in council tax, why does council tax still rise? But, I agree housing is the best option here so brownfield sites are used over building on the countryside so at least any housing here would reduce some of the need for housing in the local plan. I don't quite agree with the amount of flats though, maximising the amount of dwellings should not be the goal, emphasis should be on the quality of life for the inhabitants so houses with gardens as well as communal gardens for some flats should feature.[/p][/quote]If you want to understand the rise in council tax - 1.9%, so not exactly crippling - then look no further then the cut in central government's grant to Southampton. £148 per man woman and child in the city since 2010. Over the same period, Tory-run Winchester have lost only £28. Is that fair? I don't think so. WalkingOnAWire
  • Score: 7

11:58am Tue 17 Jun 14

soton_cyclist says...

From the sidelines wrote:
soton_cyclist wrote:
I think this would be better used as a park and ride location.
Park and Ride sites are better on the outskirts of town, rather than being 90% of the way into the centre, for reasons that are ... obvious.
this is quite a way out of the centre of town and also has a dual carriageway to it. It will also offer a quick trip into town. Anything would be better than the mess that currently is the traffic problems we already have
[quote][p][bold]From the sidelines[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]soton_cyclist[/bold] wrote: I think this would be better used as a park and ride location.[/p][/quote]Park and Ride sites are better on the outskirts of town, rather than being 90% of the way into the centre, for reasons that are ... obvious.[/p][/quote]this is quite a way out of the centre of town and also has a dual carriageway to it. It will also offer a quick trip into town. Anything would be better than the mess that currently is the traffic problems we already have soton_cyclist
  • Score: -2

12:06pm Tue 17 Jun 14

sotonboy84 says...

elvisimo wrote:
dango wrote:
elvisimo wrote:
sotonboy84 wrote:
soton_cyclist wrote:
I think this would be better used as a park and ride location.
Don't be silly! Southampton City Council don't do things for the long term benefit of the city, they do things to fund their bank accounts. With the amount of flats that are always being built in the city, it does make you wonder that with this huge increase in council tax, why does council tax still rise?

But, I agree housing is the best option here so brownfield sites are used over building on the countryside so at least any housing here would reduce some of the need for housing in the local plan.

I don't quite agree with the amount of flats though, maximising the amount of dwellings should not be the goal, emphasis should be on the quality of life for the inhabitants so houses with gardens as well as communal gardens for some flats should feature.
The council don't own this site so as long as it falls within planning policy they have no say. West Register own it - the bit of RBS that deals with toxic loan book. The emphasis will be on turning a profit from the site.
It says West Register sold the site to Inland Homes, so WR don't own it.
correct so nothing to do with the council.
But city council planners have to approve the plans and if they didn't like them, they could find a away of encouraging a development that they did like.
[quote][p][bold]elvisimo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dango[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]elvisimo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]soton_cyclist[/bold] wrote: I think this would be better used as a park and ride location.[/p][/quote]Don't be silly! Southampton City Council don't do things for the long term benefit of the city, they do things to fund their bank accounts. With the amount of flats that are always being built in the city, it does make you wonder that with this huge increase in council tax, why does council tax still rise? But, I agree housing is the best option here so brownfield sites are used over building on the countryside so at least any housing here would reduce some of the need for housing in the local plan. I don't quite agree with the amount of flats though, maximising the amount of dwellings should not be the goal, emphasis should be on the quality of life for the inhabitants so houses with gardens as well as communal gardens for some flats should feature.[/p][/quote]The council don't own this site so as long as it falls within planning policy they have no say. West Register own it - the bit of RBS that deals with toxic loan book. The emphasis will be on turning a profit from the site.[/p][/quote]It says West Register sold the site to Inland Homes, so WR don't own it.[/p][/quote]correct so nothing to do with the council.[/p][/quote]But city council planners have to approve the plans and if they didn't like them, they could find a away of encouraging a development that they did like. sotonboy84
  • Score: 4

12:29pm Tue 17 Jun 14

Ronnie G says...

WalkingOnAWire wrote:
sotonboy84 wrote:
soton_cyclist wrote:
I think this would be better used as a park and ride location.
Don't be silly! Southampton City Council don't do things for the long term benefit of the city, they do things to fund their bank accounts. With the amount of flats that are always being built in the city, it does make you wonder that with this huge increase in council tax, why does council tax still rise?

But, I agree housing is the best option here so brownfield sites are used over building on the countryside so at least any housing here would reduce some of the need for housing in the local plan.

I don't quite agree with the amount of flats though, maximising the amount of dwellings should not be the goal, emphasis should be on the quality of life for the inhabitants so houses with gardens as well as communal gardens for some flats should feature.
If you want to understand the rise in council tax - 1.9%, so not exactly crippling - then look no further then the cut in central government's grant to Southampton. £148 per man woman and child in the city since 2010. Over the same period, Tory-run Winchester have lost only £28. Is that fair? I don't think so.
The reason for the crippling cuts to Southampton City Council grant funding is mainly due to lost capital receipts prior to 2010, combined with poor management of government funded local services, so instead of Central Gov paying SCC to fund services, Central Gov will pay the services direct. No more middle man.
[quote][p][bold]WalkingOnAWire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]soton_cyclist[/bold] wrote: I think this would be better used as a park and ride location.[/p][/quote]Don't be silly! Southampton City Council don't do things for the long term benefit of the city, they do things to fund their bank accounts. With the amount of flats that are always being built in the city, it does make you wonder that with this huge increase in council tax, why does council tax still rise? But, I agree housing is the best option here so brownfield sites are used over building on the countryside so at least any housing here would reduce some of the need for housing in the local plan. I don't quite agree with the amount of flats though, maximising the amount of dwellings should not be the goal, emphasis should be on the quality of life for the inhabitants so houses with gardens as well as communal gardens for some flats should feature.[/p][/quote]If you want to understand the rise in council tax - 1.9%, so not exactly crippling - then look no further then the cut in central government's grant to Southampton. £148 per man woman and child in the city since 2010. Over the same period, Tory-run Winchester have lost only £28. Is that fair? I don't think so.[/p][/quote]The reason for the crippling cuts to Southampton City Council grant funding is mainly due to lost capital receipts prior to 2010, combined with poor management of government funded local services, so instead of Central Gov paying SCC to fund services, Central Gov will pay the services direct. No more middle man. Ronnie G
  • Score: 2

12:44pm Tue 17 Jun 14

OSPREYSAINT says...

Datarater wrote:
bigfella777 wrote:
That will be fun trying to get out of there in the morning. No right turn at union road lights, Northam road at a standstill and the level crossing constantly on red. Ridiculous place for housing.
It's a ridiculous place for a level crossing.
Yes the answer is to close down the railway line, it's not as if it gets a lot of use is it?
[quote][p][bold]Datarater[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bigfella777[/bold] wrote: That will be fun trying to get out of there in the morning. No right turn at union road lights, Northam road at a standstill and the level crossing constantly on red. Ridiculous place for housing.[/p][/quote]It's a ridiculous place for a level crossing.[/p][/quote]Yes the answer is to close down the railway line, it's not as if it gets a lot of use is it? OSPREYSAINT
  • Score: 4

2:09pm Tue 17 Jun 14

elvisimo says...

sotonboy84 wrote:
elvisimo wrote:
dango wrote:
elvisimo wrote:
sotonboy84 wrote:
soton_cyclist wrote:
I think this would be better used as a park and ride location.
Don't be silly! Southampton City Council don't do things for the long term benefit of the city, they do things to fund their bank accounts. With the amount of flats that are always being built in the city, it does make you wonder that with this huge increase in council tax, why does council tax still rise?

But, I agree housing is the best option here so brownfield sites are used over building on the countryside so at least any housing here would reduce some of the need for housing in the local plan.

I don't quite agree with the amount of flats though, maximising the amount of dwellings should not be the goal, emphasis should be on the quality of life for the inhabitants so houses with gardens as well as communal gardens for some flats should feature.
The council don't own this site so as long as it falls within planning policy they have no say. West Register own it - the bit of RBS that deals with toxic loan book. The emphasis will be on turning a profit from the site.
It says West Register sold the site to Inland Homes, so WR don't own it.
correct so nothing to do with the council.
But city council planners have to approve the plans and if they didn't like them, they could find a away of encouraging a development that they did like.
It doesn't matter if they don't "like" them. If it falls within their LP framework then there is not a lot they can do about it. They can kick and scream about things they would like to see that will of course not be financially viable. The developer just goes straight to appeal which bypasses dodgy councillors and is dealt with by the government.

Cant see that the site lends itself to anything else. Park and Ride - Park and walk more appropriate, much too central.
[quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]elvisimo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dango[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]elvisimo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]soton_cyclist[/bold] wrote: I think this would be better used as a park and ride location.[/p][/quote]Don't be silly! Southampton City Council don't do things for the long term benefit of the city, they do things to fund their bank accounts. With the amount of flats that are always being built in the city, it does make you wonder that with this huge increase in council tax, why does council tax still rise? But, I agree housing is the best option here so brownfield sites are used over building on the countryside so at least any housing here would reduce some of the need for housing in the local plan. I don't quite agree with the amount of flats though, maximising the amount of dwellings should not be the goal, emphasis should be on the quality of life for the inhabitants so houses with gardens as well as communal gardens for some flats should feature.[/p][/quote]The council don't own this site so as long as it falls within planning policy they have no say. West Register own it - the bit of RBS that deals with toxic loan book. The emphasis will be on turning a profit from the site.[/p][/quote]It says West Register sold the site to Inland Homes, so WR don't own it.[/p][/quote]correct so nothing to do with the council.[/p][/quote]But city council planners have to approve the plans and if they didn't like them, they could find a away of encouraging a development that they did like.[/p][/quote]It doesn't matter if they don't "like" them. If it falls within their LP framework then there is not a lot they can do about it. They can kick and scream about things they would like to see that will of course not be financially viable. The developer just goes straight to appeal which bypasses dodgy councillors and is dealt with by the government. Cant see that the site lends itself to anything else. Park and Ride - Park and walk more appropriate, much too central. elvisimo
  • Score: 2

2:50pm Tue 17 Jun 14

Lone Ranger. says...

The site really is only suitable for housing and it is the most practical use available.
.
We are in dire need of housing throughout the City .... Just get on and build them ....
The site really is only suitable for housing and it is the most practical use available. . We are in dire need of housing throughout the City .... Just get on and build them .... Lone Ranger.
  • Score: 0

3:10pm Tue 17 Jun 14

Rob444 says...

Southampton council could,if it had the will, take over the site (or part of it) using compulsory purchase and build a multi-storey car park for use as a park and ride scheme.
Southampton council could,if it had the will, take over the site (or part of it) using compulsory purchase and build a multi-storey car park for use as a park and ride scheme. Rob444
  • Score: 2

3:53pm Tue 17 Jun 14

03alpe01 says...

Rob444 wrote:
Southampton council could,if it had the will, take over the site (or part of it) using compulsory purchase and build a multi-storey car park for use as a park and ride scheme.
Why have a park and ride when you can have lots and lots of houses and flats? Plus, as has already been pointed out on here already it is far too central for a park and ride scheme. My only concern is the traffic.
[quote][p][bold]Rob444[/bold] wrote: Southampton council could,if it had the will, take over the site (or part of it) using compulsory purchase and build a multi-storey car park for use as a park and ride scheme.[/p][/quote]Why have a park and ride when you can have lots and lots of houses and flats? Plus, as has already been pointed out on here already it is far too central for a park and ride scheme. My only concern is the traffic. 03alpe01
  • Score: -3

4:02pm Tue 17 Jun 14

loosehead says...

WalkingOnAWire wrote:
sotonboy84 wrote:
soton_cyclist wrote:
I think this would be better used as a park and ride location.
Don't be silly! Southampton City Council don't do things for the long term benefit of the city, they do things to fund their bank accounts. With the amount of flats that are always being built in the city, it does make you wonder that with this huge increase in council tax, why does council tax still rise?

But, I agree housing is the best option here so brownfield sites are used over building on the countryside so at least any housing here would reduce some of the need for housing in the local plan.

I don't quite agree with the amount of flats though, maximising the amount of dwellings should not be the goal, emphasis should be on the quality of life for the inhabitants so houses with gardens as well as communal gardens for some flats should feature.
If you want to understand the rise in council tax - 1.9%, so not exactly crippling - then look no further then the cut in central government's grant to Southampton. £148 per man woman and child in the city since 2010. Over the same period, Tory-run Winchester have lost only £28. Is that fair? I don't think so.
Sorry but Labour have already said the 1.9% increase in council tax for each year for four years will be for council workers 1.9% pay rises so not really to do with cuts to the budget is it?
[quote][p][bold]WalkingOnAWire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]soton_cyclist[/bold] wrote: I think this would be better used as a park and ride location.[/p][/quote]Don't be silly! Southampton City Council don't do things for the long term benefit of the city, they do things to fund their bank accounts. With the amount of flats that are always being built in the city, it does make you wonder that with this huge increase in council tax, why does council tax still rise? But, I agree housing is the best option here so brownfield sites are used over building on the countryside so at least any housing here would reduce some of the need for housing in the local plan. I don't quite agree with the amount of flats though, maximising the amount of dwellings should not be the goal, emphasis should be on the quality of life for the inhabitants so houses with gardens as well as communal gardens for some flats should feature.[/p][/quote]If you want to understand the rise in council tax - 1.9%, so not exactly crippling - then look no further then the cut in central government's grant to Southampton. £148 per man woman and child in the city since 2010. Over the same period, Tory-run Winchester have lost only £28. Is that fair? I don't think so.[/p][/quote]Sorry but Labour have already said the 1.9% increase in council tax for each year for four years will be for council workers 1.9% pay rises so not really to do with cuts to the budget is it? loosehead
  • Score: 1

4:10pm Tue 17 Jun 14

loosehead says...

In the name of health & safety building housing this close can only be for the older generation.
maybe build a load of single flats or one bedroomed houses & allow council tenants in properties to large for their needs to move there then house families in the larger properties could be the way to go?
or have easy access to a river(water) for young children ( many times unsupervised) Also easy access to a level crossing then what happens if there's a fatality who gets blamed the railway?
In the name of health & safety building housing this close can only be for the older generation. maybe build a load of single flats or one bedroomed houses & allow council tenants in properties to large for their needs to move there then house families in the larger properties could be the way to go? or have easy access to a river(water) for young children ( many times unsupervised) Also easy access to a level crossing then what happens if there's a fatality who gets blamed the railway? loosehead
  • Score: 0

5:53pm Tue 17 Jun 14

Lone Ranger. says...

03alpe01 wrote:
Rob444 wrote:
Southampton council could,if it had the will, take over the site (or part of it) using compulsory purchase and build a multi-storey car park for use as a park and ride scheme.
Why have a park and ride when you can have lots and lots of houses and flats? Plus, as has already been pointed out on here already it is far too central for a park and ride scheme. My only concern is the traffic.
Yes you are correct ..... it is not a place for Park and Ride as these should be out of town so that people dont bring their cars anywhere near the city centre ....
.
[quote][p][bold]03alpe01[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rob444[/bold] wrote: Southampton council could,if it had the will, take over the site (or part of it) using compulsory purchase and build a multi-storey car park for use as a park and ride scheme.[/p][/quote]Why have a park and ride when you can have lots and lots of houses and flats? Plus, as has already been pointed out on here already it is far too central for a park and ride scheme. My only concern is the traffic.[/p][/quote]Yes you are correct ..... it is not a place for Park and Ride as these should be out of town so that people dont bring their cars anywhere near the city centre .... . Lone Ranger.
  • Score: -1

9:23pm Tue 17 Jun 14

Sussex Jay says...

Build the houses and bulldoze the tower blocks around northam area and rehouse them there,try to improve the image of entering the city,or have a complex on there it b good for match days and also brings people to the other part of the city,a big tesco weatherspoons bowling alley some food outlets it make money in a less then well off area of soton,coyr!!!
Build the houses and bulldoze the tower blocks around northam area and rehouse them there,try to improve the image of entering the city,or have a complex on there it b good for match days and also brings people to the other part of the city,a big tesco weatherspoons bowling alley some food outlets it make money in a less then well off area of soton,coyr!!! Sussex Jay
  • Score: 2

11:35pm Tue 17 Jun 14

iow-is-red-and-white says...

soton_cyclist wrote:
From the sidelines wrote:
soton_cyclist wrote:
I think this would be better used as a park and ride location.
Park and Ride sites are better on the outskirts of town, rather than being 90% of the way into the centre, for reasons that are ... obvious.
this is quite a way out of the centre of town and also has a dual carriageway to it. It will also offer a quick trip into town. Anything would be better than the mess that currently is the traffic problems we already have
A dual carriageway with 30 mph limit, driving from the East of the city is excrutiating well before you reach Northam Bridge
[quote][p][bold]soton_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]From the sidelines[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]soton_cyclist[/bold] wrote: I think this would be better used as a park and ride location.[/p][/quote]Park and Ride sites are better on the outskirts of town, rather than being 90% of the way into the centre, for reasons that are ... obvious.[/p][/quote]this is quite a way out of the centre of town and also has a dual carriageway to it. It will also offer a quick trip into town. Anything would be better than the mess that currently is the traffic problems we already have[/p][/quote]A dual carriageway with 30 mph limit, driving from the East of the city is excrutiating well before you reach Northam Bridge iow-is-red-and-white
  • Score: 0

11:39pm Tue 17 Jun 14

Graeme Harrison says...

Beer Monster wrote:
Is nobody demanding an ice rink? I'm shocked
I demand that there's an ice rink built there.
[quote][p][bold]Beer Monster[/bold] wrote: Is nobody demanding an ice rink? I'm shocked[/p][/quote]I demand that there's an ice rink built there. Graeme Harrison
  • Score: 3

11:20am Wed 18 Jun 14

S Pance says...

Has anyone remembered this is contaminated land?

Not only was Meridian Studios built with tons of asbestos sound proofing but the concrete studio floors were laid on thick layers of tar/bitumen.

In addition, the land was reclaimed; tons of scrap from the dockyards (inc. Asbestos from ship boilers) was apparently dumped there.
Has anyone remembered this is contaminated land? Not only was Meridian Studios built with tons of asbestos sound proofing but the concrete studio floors were laid on thick layers of tar/bitumen. In addition, the land was reclaimed; tons of scrap from the dockyards (inc. Asbestos from ship boilers) was apparently dumped there. S Pance
  • Score: 0

4:14pm Wed 18 Jun 14

loosehead says...

S Pance wrote:
Has anyone remembered this is contaminated land?

Not only was Meridian Studios built with tons of asbestos sound proofing but the concrete studio floors were laid on thick layers of tar/bitumen.

In addition, the land was reclaimed; tons of scrap from the dockyards (inc. Asbestos from ship boilers) was apparently dumped there.
Doesn't that mean a costly clear up ? so not much chance of social housing then?
[quote][p][bold]S Pance[/bold] wrote: Has anyone remembered this is contaminated land? Not only was Meridian Studios built with tons of asbestos sound proofing but the concrete studio floors were laid on thick layers of tar/bitumen. In addition, the land was reclaimed; tons of scrap from the dockyards (inc. Asbestos from ship boilers) was apparently dumped there.[/p][/quote]Doesn't that mean a costly clear up ? so not much chance of social housing then? loosehead
  • Score: 1

8:50pm Wed 18 Jun 14

Funk Dr Spock says...

Gonna be bring even worse jams to the area I don't think the council will listen .Just look at the terrible mess they r creating in Woolston with the new "Woolston Ghetto Development" it was hard enough getting through the traffic before the work started ,harder now n when it's completed nobody will be going anywhere.The Northam development would just about break the cities back .Aswell as commuters the businesses will suffer as they will find operating costs will escalate due to increased delivery times etc etc .
Grow a brain cell Southampton council planning department n look at our road infrastructure first before allowing such ridiculous plans to go ahead.
Gonna be bring even worse jams to the area I don't think the council will listen .Just look at the terrible mess they r creating in Woolston with the new "Woolston Ghetto Development" it was hard enough getting through the traffic before the work started ,harder now n when it's completed nobody will be going anywhere.The Northam development would just about break the cities back .Aswell as commuters the businesses will suffer as they will find operating costs will escalate due to increased delivery times etc etc . Grow a brain cell Southampton council planning department n look at our road infrastructure first before allowing such ridiculous plans to go ahead. Funk Dr Spock
  • Score: 2

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree