Curbridge Preservation Society

See The Expected Flood Slideshow!!

****************

Press Release 11 August 2010

What will the Pub look like in 10 years?

So we are told the increased development of Whiteley to the North is to correct the problems caused by the original Whiteley planning...okay it might sort out schools by adding 2 new Primaries and a Secondary School...

...BUT...

...and it is, obviously, a big 'but'...the Transport and the modelled effects of the North of Whiteley Development...a staggering 1,546 extra traffic movements between 8.00 and 9.00 a.m. at Junction 9 M27 and 500 extra at the northern end of the A3051 (King's Corner)!!!

So the area's roads will all ‘grind to a halt’ virtually every day let alone when a traffic incident occurs on the M27…And the proposed development has a second exit onto the A3051 at Bury Farm to 'spew' traffic out before Curbridge adding further to the misery of the 50 residents… All at a terrible cost to the environment and great risk to the little old conurbation called Curbridge.

Curbridge residents were not even consulted by their PC before a rather mediocre, short and detail-less email expressing concern was sent out (available here). Now with the scrapping of the SE Plan (and before my computer stops working as Curbridge slides into the flood waters) perhaps the politicians can LISTEN.

Because, actually, there is no need for the Whiteley Way at all! In fact there is no need to develop Area 2!

With the TfSH (Transport for South Hampshire) interim report hinting, very clearly hinting, that there is no reason for a Botley by-pass, a previous requirement for the Whiteley Way to be completed…and all of the following is with an assumption of the Whiteley Way being a distributor road, which it won’t be…. We have the following:-

(Isn't it strange that this report wasn't finalised until after all the 'consultation' had been undertaken...? ed)

Delivering Strategies’ Winchester District Local Development Framework Transport Assessment (Stage 2 Report) Final Report for Winchester City Council, November 2009, Chapter 5, North of Whiteley:-

“5.4.3 The dominance of car travel is demonstrated, with 77% mode share (80% including passenger). In the base case, minimal bus trips are forecast, reflecting existing travel patterns. Forecasts are based on 2001 Census data. Trip internalisation has been assumed at 25% for all commuting trips, whilst retail trips to the local centre are entirely contained within Whiteley.

5.4.5 With additional development, there will clearly be impacts on the M27, as shown in Figure 5.1 – 636 vehicles in AM Peak to the east of Junction 9 and over 488 to the west. In addition, a further 422 will be using the junction to gain access to routes to the south adding to congestion here and at Segensworth Roundabout. Given the congestion already experienced here, this level of additional demand is unsustainable and will require significant mitigation.

5.4.6 Over 500 vehicles are forecast to use an extended Whiteley Way to the north in the AM Peak. In addition to SDA traffic and any other reassignment that may occur with motorists avoiding the M27 and southern part of the M3 where delays may occur.”

Read the report for all the planned chaos here:- WCC Transport Report and all the problems the extra traffic will cause for Whiteley

Protecting Our Environment

In mid-March 2010 a notice was put up in the Horse and Jockey about the formation of a North of Whiteley Development Forum that was to have its first meeting on 29^th March. The purpose of the meeting was to look at the future development of Whiteley up to 3000 new homes of which 40% would be ‘affordable housing’ (65% of which rented accommodation) and consultation about the opening of Yew Tree Drive.

 

We know we haven’t been consulted on this although it will probably affect our lives, the value of our property and the quality of life we have in a rural setting. Apparently that is our fault. That is correct, our fault because we didn’t ask the question. It doesn’t matter that we didn’t know what question to ask - or indeed if there was a question to be asked – it is just that we didn’t ask it…don’t you love transparent government!

 

Whiteley North Consulation:- There was [apparently - ed] a Public consultation on the Winchester City Council Preferred Option for Whiteley which took place in Whiteley on Mon 8th June 2009, Meadowside Leisure Centre (Room 3), Whiteley Way, Whiteley, PO15 7LJ  3pm- 8pm.  Over the 5 hours only 28 people bothered to turn up. (source here)

 

 

Voiced Environmental Concerns...

 

Hampshire and Isle of Wight Wildlife Trusts in the same letter to Winchester District Council of 2nd July 2009 state the following:

"3.0 Concerns over policy SH3 Strategic housing allocation - North Whitley

3.1 Policy SH1 (Strategy for South Hampshire Urban areas) has a vision for the South Hampshire urban areas to develop a series of new neighbourhoods/communities and states that this will be achieved through the provision of new communities including North of Whitely.

3.2 In addition to our comments above relating to the spatial distribution of the sites the Trust believes that the delivery of the 3,000 houses on the site allocated as North Whitley will not be able to be achieved without having a significant impact to the designated sites and protected species. New SINC information has emerged and this in our view needs to be taken into account in the strategic level assessments before being pushed down to the lower level of assessments at the planning application stage.

3.3 We believe that the constraints on this site with the adjacent Botley woods/ whitely pastures SSSI, Upper Hamble Estuary and Woods SSSI and the European designations of the Upper Hamble (Solent and Southampton waters SPA and Ramsar and Solent Maritime SAC) in addition to the numbers SINCs within the allocated site boundaries would make this difficult to deliver the 3,000 houses proposes within policy SH3 (Strategic housing allocation –North Whitley ).

3.4 The Trust does not believe that measures to avoid the harmful impacts and mitigate the local and wider impacts of the development will be able to overcome the significant constraints that this sites has."

 

Celebrating Curbridge

 

 

 

 

Curbridge Preservation Society is constituted as a Civic Society

That's what we should be doing on this site - celebrating living in a rural area that has ancient woodlands that are SSSIs, and is sumptuously rich with incredible biodiversity, that sits at the upper reaches of the River Hamble (Special Area of Conservation) and has been a small but thriving agricultural community for many years.

We are under threat though from developers, Major Development Areas, and the irresponsible overdevelopment of South Hampshire.

In the area of Burridge/Curbridge (north of Whiteley) and nearby at Funtley they potentially want to build almost 11,000 houses creating 18,000 extra vehicles and approximately an extra 25,000 vehicle movements a day on roads that are already highly congested.

This is madness!

Did you know that effectively you will be 'Moving to Whiteley'???

Flood risk

See The Expected Flood Slideshow

Curbridge is at risk from flooding at the present time, let alone the situation if Whiteley is allowed to develop any further. Water run-off increases from the development of former agricultural land will have an effect on the water levels in the Cur/ upper reaches of the Hamble and increase the likelihood of flooding in areas which are already designated as floodplains. This shouldn't happen to our countryside. By the way we are the only people who have drawn attention to the FLOOD RISK. Even the Environment Agency ignored that problem during the 'consultative' process!

Why is Curbridge at Risk? - You may well ask! The upper reaches of the Hamble are tidal, very dependent on a high tide to fill up. At low tide the river used to be merely a trickle. There are also floodplains of grade 2 and 3a severity.

BUT (and this is another big BUT) Whiteley run-off goes into the feeding streams that lead down to Curbridge and the Hamble. With a high Spring Tide and rapid water run-off from heavy rain there are several of properties at a current risk of flooding as the water laps, literally, at their doors. It is not a matter of Tidal Flooding or Fluvial (rainfall) Flooding but when the two combine that Curbridge has a very particular problem, a very real problem.

If atmospheric pressure drops to 965 mBar then the water height can increase by 0.8m. Tide table heights are expressed for a standard atmosphere of 1013mBar, from that there is a correction that for each 1mBar drop in air pressure then tide height can rise (not fall) 1 cm. Those heights also relate to the lowest astronomically predicted local low water heights.

With more run-off from further developed greenfield land the water level will only increase and approximately half of the hamlet will be prone to flooding! Who will pick up those bills? Not insurance companies. One resident was quoted a £15,000 excess to be able to have flood cover!!

So on 12 August 2010 the river with a 4.77m tide and air pressure of 1017mBar (sotonmet.co.uk measured by ABP 1325hrs) the river looked like this (Click Here) as seen in the slideshow!

On 26 December 1999 the tide was the highest measured at Southampton 5.6m and the river 'under' the bridge would have looked approximately like this (Click Here too)!

In 2020 with a 0.1m rainfall event, the fast run-off from development, air pressure of 965mBar and climate change etc the bridge 'over' the river could look like THIS!!

We are told to expect a 1m water level increase in the next 100 years. And don't forget the South is sinking at a rate that could potentially double the increase in water levels. So the properties near the river in Curbridge will be put at significant risk from climate change.

To explain how we see the problem of this proposed development; 3,000 houses are potentially to be developed. On average a typical house has a 200sqm of hard surface per home – multiply by the 3000 homes and we get 600,000sqm (or 60 hectares) of hard surface on what was agricultural land.

Let’s say we get a 100mm of rain falling (i.e. a 0.1m rainfall event) coinciding with a rising high spring tide of 4.85m or even the highest tides of 5.60m – this creates 60,000 cubic metres of water that will be fast run-off. Its time of concentration (time between falling and entering the river) will be short, very short…Then add to this the same fast run-off from the already developed area of Whiteley (just the houses) of a further 60 hectares of hard surface, a further 60,000 cubic meters of water run-off giving a total of 120,000 cubic meters  - that is to say a block of water 300m long by 200m wide by 2m deep…in a pincer movement down both feeding streams...

View the 'master-plan' here but can anyone see a single flood control pond?

Further information on Winchester's biodiversity and other studies and published cabinet papers are available here

We need to stop the sprawl - that is not a party political slogan - if we are concerned about providing carbon offsetting/urban cooling with all the considerations about climate change we cannot needlessly destroy agricultural land and woodland.

Curbridge's Site Assessment Map
Curbridge's Site Infrastructure Map
Curbridge's Biodiversity Map
Curbridge's Historic Environment Map
Curbridge's Physical Environment Map
Curbridge's Site Assessment Matrix

What about Traffic Chaos??

 

 

Planning Policy problems

Hampshire and Isle of Wight Wildlife Trusts in their letter to Winchester District Council of July 2009 also continue with:

"Winchester District Core Strategy Consultation on the preferred options

1.1 The Trust believes that the preferred options core strategy is currently unsound for the following reasons :

• No Habitat Regulations Assessment (HRA) or Sustainability Appraisal (SA) to accompany the Core strategy

• No measures to ensure delivery of Green infrastructure and the protection of the European designated sites

• Lack of conformity to the recently published version of the SE regional plan

In addition the Trust has concerns in relation to the :

• North of Whitely development in its implications for loss of SINC habitat and its impacts on the Upper Hamble and Botley woods(Whitley pastures) SSSI"