I read with a certain degree of incredulity of the response of Bloor Homes and the Lawn Tennis Association regarding this development and the inclusion of sporting activities as sweeteners to the city planners for permission for the irrevocable destruction of over half of the area of the existing green space of this site.

The response is full of "could include", "would be", "may", etc. Padel players from South America, somewhat irrelevant. Inclusion of an ice rink perhaps as ice hockey is very popular in Canada!

I walk past Oliver's Battery Recreation Ground twice a day where the parish council provides free tennis and basketball facilities for which there seems to be very little appropriate use. The artist's impression of the "lido" is hardly more than a domestic swimming pool. Winchester's own lido closed due to a lack of demand, albeit some years ago. On weekends, when we have a few summer days and visitors abound, the OBRG car park is full with an overspill of on-road parking. 

No mention of the extensive car parking required nor usage charges for the proposed sporting facilities. Perhaps public parking on the verges of Badger Farm Road and Romsey Road or even in front of the expensive houses of the development!

More importantly, no mention of the funding for implementation of the "sporting facilities" and a guarantee that this burden will never fall upon the local and city tax taxpayers.

Previous declarations of the developer included a "special needs" school. Are there that many prospective pupils within the catchment area that will not require motorised transport to add to the already heavy traffic congestion of this area?

What will be the demand that 1,000 new houses will make upon the engineering infrastructure of power (despite the promise of solar installations and ground source heat pumps), gas mains (despite current measures for an embargo), EV charging, media infrastructure, water supplies, rainwater and sewage drainage; perhaps down the hill to Hursley? 

Many schemes have been approved that initially included "sweeteners" that subsequently never developed or got included after the initial planning approval and build. The developer then proposing changes to the approval due to cost, ground conditions, lack of need, proposal to make a "gated community"; changes that never included an increase to build truly affordable housing at the expense of the number of grand £1 million mansions. 

I imagine that the WCC will ignore the obvious multi million pound per annum benefit of the additional council tax income that 1,000 homes will generate.

Many of these questions should also be posed in conjunction with the nearby Bushfield Camp development proposals.

Stuart Dyos,
Partridge Down,
Oliver's Battery,

Send letters by email to newsdesk@hampshirechronicle.co.uk or by post to Editor, Hampshire Chronicle, 5 Upper Brook Street, Winchester, Hampshire, SO23 8AL.

All letters and e-mails must include full names and addresses (anonymous letters will not be published), although these details may be withheld from publication, on request.

Letters of 300 words or less will be given priority, although all are subject to editing for reasons of clarity, space, or legal requirements. We reserve the right to edit letters.