Barton Farm RSS Feed


Barton Farm remains in firing line, says Winchester council chief

1:57pm Friday 30th September 2011 in Barton Farm Photograph of the Author By Andrew Napier

Council leader: George Beckett Council leader: George Beckett

IT’S not over! The battle for Barton Farm will continue, a council chief has warned.

On the day Secretary of State Eric Pickles appeared to kill off the controversial 2,000-home plan by developer Cala Homes, Winchester’s council leader George Beckett yesterday cautioned campaigners against celebrating victory.

Cllr Beckett said the council must still address the issue of where much-needed homes should go. He added that he faced the dilemma of placing 4,000 new houses in the Winchester city district over the next 20 years.

He said: “This is not a ‘saving of Barton Farm’, because it is not saved. It’s quite clear the planners can’t ignore Barton Farm. No-one should conclude that Barton Farm has been defeated.

“As a community we have to decide where we want these houses to go. We need a public debate as to how we are going to deal with it.”

Gavin Blackman, chairman of the Save Barton Farm Group, agreed.

He said: “This is a battle won and not the war. No doubt Cala will appeal in whatever way they can.

“If the decision does go back to the city council I’m convinced they will allow development. It is a victory for today but whether it will be a victory tomorrow, I very much doubt.”

Mike Emett, development director of Cala Homes, said no decision had been made on an appeal as he was still digesting the decision details.

He said: “We are disappointed. The decision leaves open the issue of how Winchester is going to address its chronic under-supply of housing.”

It emerged yesterday that Mr Pickles’ decision was based on the need to promote “localism”. He said the Cala Homes scheme was “balanced and sustainable... that meets the needs of its local area” but that the final decision must rest with Winchester City Council. Cala had appealed over the council’s initial refusal and the planning inspector backed Cala before her decision was overruled yesterday by Mr Pickles.

The Government decision letter said: “Government has made it clear that its intention is to return decision-making powers in housing and planning to local authorities.”

Preservation watchdogs, the City of Winchester Trust, welcomed the decision. In a statement it said: “The development was not only premature but designed with unsustainable and extravagant use of precious countryside.”

See next week's Hampshire Chronicle out on October 6 for 'what next for Barton Farm'?

Comments(8)

rogerslade says...
2:16pm Fri 30 Sep 11

Why do we need 4000 more homes?This is the policy of the previous government. Winchester is already creaking at the seams and does not have the infrastructure for an increase in population nor can it be provided. If Hampshire does need more housing, which I doubt, let Basingstoke, Portsmouth and Southampton make provision.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

rogerslade says...
2:20pm Fri 30 Sep 11

As an addendum to my previous comment would anybody lay money on George Beckett applying for planning permission on his 10 acre nursery?

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

Yves1977 says...
3:58pm Fri 30 Sep 11

Winchester does need the houses. Without these homes the city will just get older and older. Barton Farm should have been built years ago. unfortunately the local politicians displayed collective cowardice because of the vocal minority of the Save Barton Farm group. Incidentally when was your house built Mr Slade? 1950s, 60s? 70s? What was there before? Oh, fields was it?

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

winchres says...
10:30am Sat 1 Oct 11

I totally agree with Mr Slade. I thought Councillor Beckett’s government has scrapped the housing numbers as they could not be substantiated, just a figure plucked out of the air from the previous government and we know how good they were with figures. His government are also looking at other ways of dealing with people who really can not afford their own home and need a government subsidised property, such as, moving out when you can afford to, freeing it up for another starter, or only have the property for a few years whilst you save up to buy or earn more money. Allegedly, the man who produced Reggae Reggae sauce who is now a millionaire is still living in his Council house on a reduced rent!

I look at the estate agents in Winchester and there seem to be loads of properties not selling, why would we need more.

I also thought that Councillor Beckett’s government was promoting using the amazing amount of vacant properties before promoting any development, especially on green belt and in a part of the South that has already been over developed and can not cope with its population in terms of employment, schools and roads. Why don’t the Council do something with their offices in Chesil Street which have been vacant for years now. Could fit loads of social housing in there and it would be sustainable because the residents would not need cars to get into Winchester.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

mjh says...
12:04pm Sat 1 Oct 11

I agree with Roger Slade and the previous correspondent. WCC needs to get the many houses owned by absentee landlords and rented by students back to their previous use - as family homes rented to those in social need. Many if not most purchasers in Winchester do not work here - perhaps we need restrictive covenants like those in the Peak District where only those who have worked there for two years can buy. The infrastructure (trains cars buses etc.) cannot cope with 4-6000 additional people implied by 2000 extra homes, many of whose occupants work elsewhere (especially if the police HQ closes and RHCH merges with Basingstoke); have you tried getting along Easton Lane to the various trading estates recently? The LDF is more of the usual rubbish perpetuated by George Beckett et al, who probably thinks Cala will get planning permission eventually. I have lived in Winchester since 1978, and the centre certainly has gone downhill in that time.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

rogerslade says...
3:37pm Sun 2 Oct 11

In reply to Yves1977 (afraid to publish your name?) why do we need more houses? You do not put forward a case for more.

I cannot understand the relevance of the question but, as regards my own house it was built in 1967 and it is one of four which replaced one property on the site.

My road has suffered huge backyard overdevelopment of very poor quality and we now have something like five times the number of dwellings compared with 10 years ago so you can't say that Winchester is not expanding. The remark about the City becoming older is rather fatuous as older properties tend to be devloped and replaced by numerous poor quality boxes yet again ruining the charm of this ancient site. Winchester has suffered dreadfully at the hands of developers over the years where preservation should have been the keynote but it is not too late to stop the rot.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

Breazy Bantam says...
12:21pm Mon 3 Oct 11

I agree with much of the above. It is not too late even though Cllr Becket believes he has absolute personal control it seems. What is there to stop the Council buying properties offered for sale then letting them as council houses? What is the Chronic shortage that is claimed to exist? What is required is not more building but greater utilization of the houses that exist already. The trouble with city planners is they lack the imagination to think small in proportion to what is really a very small city which planners seek to swamp with the Silver Hill Development totally out of proportion to its central location. There is no point in building houses on the outskirts that would generate increased demands for public transport as well as eating away at greenfield locations. The planners have already begun to despoil the South Downs National park by permitting development where it should not have been allowed in Twyford. The motive as always is profit and income for the council and landowners (of which I note George Beckett is one) not protection of the environment or sympathetic development. If development here is really needed. There is no point in building houses in Winchester district for people who have to travel somewhere else for their employment. There is much more to planning than dreaming up numbers of houses to be built to meet a theoretical need. It is nonsense to suggest those born in a particular place have a right to have a home there just as it is nonsense to suggest house ownership is the only route to having a home. As for the argument about older properties, there was a recent report that this country is building ever smaller houses which really are not fit for raising families in. They are barely adequate for single parent families or newly weds. There is more to planning than counting houses. Quality of life should be a consideration as well. As to delegating decision making powers to local people that should mean that local people are paid attention to which it is clear that they are not by the likes of George Bennet who appear believe their function is to go through the motions of consulting then stick to the plans they have made regardless. There needs to be an impartial assessment of these decisions all of which are costing time and money for council tax payers who have been disregarded. Only the planners and developers stand to gain from their misconceived desire to fulfill the doubtful need to make Winchester a clone of other big shopping centres.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

Breazy Bantam says...
12:23pm Mon 3 Oct 11

I agree with much of the above. It is not too late even though Cllr Becket believes he has absolute personal control it seems. What is there to stop the Council buying properties offered for sale then letting them as council houses? What is the Chronic shortage that is claimed to exist? What is required is not more building but greater utilization of the houses that exist already. The trouble with city planners is they lack the imagination to think small in proportion to what is really a very small city which planners seek to swamp with the Silver Hill Development totally out of proportion to its central location. There is no point in building houses on the outskirts that would generate increased demands for public transport as well as eating away at greenfield locations. The planners have already begun to despoil the South Downs National park by permitting development where it should not have been allowed in Twyford. The motive as always is profit and income for the council and landowners (of which I note George Beckett is one) not protection of the environment or sympathetic development. If development here is really needed. There is no point in building houses in Winchester district for people who have to travel somewhere else for their employment. There is much more to planning than dreaming up numbers of houses to be built to meet a theoretical need. It is nonsense to suggest those born in a particular place have a right to have a home there just as it is nonsense to suggest house ownership is the only route to having a home. As for the argument about older properties, there was a recent report that this country is building ever smaller houses which really are not fit for raising families in. They are barely adequate for single parent families or newly weds. There is more to planning than counting houses. Quality of life should be a consideration as well. As to delegating decision making powers to local people that should mean that local people are paid attention to which it is clear that they are not by the likes of George Bennet who appear believe their function is to go through the motions of consulting then stick to the plans they have made regardless. There needs to be an impartial assessment of these decisions all of which are costing time and money for council tax payers who have been disregarded. Only the planners and developers stand to gain from their misconceived desire to fulfill the doubtful need to make Winchester a clone of other big shopping centres.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

click2find

Most popular






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