Objections: Local Plan Update 2021 to 2040 Draft for Regulation 18

Unique Reference Number: 
BSGD-C6-LPU23-964
Status: 
Submitted
Author: 
Anonymous Respondent
No. of documents attached: 
3
Author: 
Anonymous Respondent

Comments

Policy SPS5.10: Overton Mill, Overton

Policy box, Figure or Paragraph Number: 
Object

I object to the Local Plan proposals for Overton Mill particularly on the grounds of:

 

- The site being unsuitable for Gypsy and Traveller communities.

- The unsustainable SWR train service through Overton.

 

The local plans have a clear focus on sustainable travel. However, you make no provision for sustainable public transport in Overton. The current South Western Railway (SWR) service through Overton is already unsustainable. Your Local Plan is therefore contradictory. Your contradiction needs to be rectified. 


Recommendation: You lobby South Western Railway to improve their Overton & Whitchurch service offer. 


Your draft plan states: " Recognising the council’s declared Climate Emergency, the council will work in partnership to promote a safe, efficient and convenient transport system. " Ensure that the development will not have a severe adverse impact on the local highway network. " Promote transport choice, through improvements to public transport, to provide a genuine alternative to the car. " Through improvements to rail connections to the wider area.


However, in the associated ‘Draft Infrastructure Delivery Plan’ (Basingstoke and Deane (b), 2024) the supporting table (T57 through to T59) states that rail improvements to the Overton line are only ‘desirable’ at best, with an uncertain timescale of ‘long-term’ and are ‘not needed to support the LPU’. This is in total contradiction to your main local plan. 
I whole-heartedly reject the notion that improvements to the Overton rail service are ‘not needed’. The peak Overton to Waterloo commuter services (0640, 0719 and 0750 weekday departures) are already dangerously overcrowded. It is entirely normal for commuters boarding at Overton (or Whitchurch) to have to sit in baggage racks or to stand all the way to London (1 hour) in cramped vestibules. There are obvious health and safety consequences of sitting amongst heavy luggage, or in baggage racks not designed for humans, or standing for an hour in cramped conditions. In addition, South Western Railway (SWR) are failing to deliver on their own passenger charter and the Office of Rail and Road (ORR) legal obligation to provide safe journeys – in the event of a fire on-board there is currently no space to safely move to another carriage as advised. 


SWR already place an unreasonable expectation on their commuters.
The current SWR service through Overton is already unsustainable. The proposed housing developments at Overton (and earlier along the line at Whitchurch and Andover) will compound unsustainability. The new housing developments are always marketed as being commutable to London, so significantly more passengers are guaranteed. 


I have raised overcrowding dangers with South Western Railway on a regular basis. SWR have no plans to significantly increase the capacity on this line even in the long term. 


The unsustainable SWR train service through Overton therefore can’t support this Local Plan. Commuters will be forced to drive. This will go against your Local Plan commitment to ‘Ensure that the development will not have a severe adverse impact on the local highway network’.

Infrastructure Delivery Plan

Document/Chapter/Policy: 
Policy box, Figure or Paragraph Number: 
Object

I object to the Local Plan proposals for Overton Mill particularly on the grounds of:

- The site being unsuitable for Gypsy and Traveller communities.

- The unsustainable SWR train service through Overton.

 

Supporting table (T57 through to T59)

The local plans have a clear focus on sustainable travel. However, you make no provision for sustainable public transport in Overton. The current South Western Railway (SWR) service through Overton is already unsustainable. Your Local Plan is therefore contradictory. Your contradiction needs to be rectified. 


Recommendation: You lobby South Western Railway to improve their Overton & Whitchurch service offer. 


Your draft plan states: " Recognising the council’s declared Climate Emergency, the council will work in partnership to promote a safe, efficient and convenient transport system. " Ensure that the development will not have a severe adverse impact on the local highway network. " Promote transport choice, through improvements to public transport, to provide a genuine alternative to the car. " Through improvements to rail connections to the wider area.


However, in the associated ‘Draft Infrastructure Delivery Plan’ (Basingstoke and Deane (b), 2024) the supporting table (T57 through to T59) states that rail improvements to the Overton line are only ‘desirable’ at best, with an uncertain timescale of ‘long-term’ and are ‘not needed to support the LPU’. This is in total contradiction to your main local plan. 
I whole-heartedly reject the notion that improvements to the Overton rail service are ‘not needed’. The peak Overton to Waterloo commuter services (0640, 0719 and 0750 weekday departures) are already dangerously overcrowded. It is entirely normal for commuters boarding at Overton (or Whitchurch) to have to sit in baggage racks or to stand all the way to London (1 hour) in cramped vestibules. There are obvious health and safety consequences of sitting amongst heavy luggage, or in baggage racks not designed for humans, or standing for an hour in cramped conditions. In addition, South Western Railway (SWR) are failing to deliver on their own passenger charter and the Office of Rail and Road (ORR) legal obligation to provide safe journeys – in the event of a fire on-board there is currently no space to safely move to another carriage as advised. 


SWR already place an unreasonable expectation on their commuters.
The current SWR service through Overton is already unsustainable. The proposed housing developments at Overton (and earlier along the line at Whitchurch and Andover) will compound unsustainability. The new housing developments are always marketed as being commutable to London, so significantly more passengers are guaranteed. 
I have raised overcrowding dangers with South Western Railway on a regular basis. SWR have no plans to significantly increase the capacity on this line even in the long term. 


The unsustainable SWR train service through Overton therefore can’t support this Local Plan. Commuters will be forced to drive. This will go against your Local Plan commitment to ‘Ensure that the development will not have a severe adverse impact on the local highway network’.

 

 

 

Policy SPS5.10: Overton Mill, Overton

Policy box, Figure or Paragraph Number: 
Object

I object to the Local Plan proposals for Overton Mill particularly on the grounds of:

 

- The site being unsuitable for Gypsy and Traveller communities.

- The unsustainable SWR train service through Overton.

 

You mention plans to ‘Provide for permanent Gypsy and Traveller pitches, proportinale [sic] to the size of the site’ at the Overton Mill site (Policy SP55.10). This site is unsuitable for Gypsy and Travellers pitches. 
From the Gypsy and Traveller perspective: It is well-documented that these communities face significantly poorer mental health than the average population (Cleemput, 2008). Research shows that sites in ‘fringe’ locations, particularly those in close proximity to railways or sewage works, are a source of significant distress for Gypsies and Travellers (Cleemput, 2008). This is due to parental anxiety about having to restrict children’s’ opportunities for safe play away from the caravans. And yet, Basingstoke and Deane is proposing siting this community next to a sewage works and railway line. 


Research also shows that Gypsy and Traveller mental health issues are further exacerbated by social isolation and loneliness – and so sites must be able to accommodate extended and extensive family groups regularly arriving (Cleemput, 2008). Further mental health issues are created by perceived forced assimilation within ‘regular’ housing communities, which are viewed as a threat to Gypsy and Traveller identity (Cleemput, 2008). And yet Basingstoke and Deane is proposing assimilating this community into a housing development, and in Overton – a village with a clear identity.


Research also shows that Gypsy and Traveller sites need to be away from noise (particularly railways) and for sites not to be hidden by mounds and barriers as some kind of threat or apology (Cleemput, 2008). And yet, Basingstoke and Deane is proposing siting this community 10 miles from Basingstoke, tucked away beyond the Overton village boundary, and next to a railway line. You are setting up the Gypsy and Traveller community to have significant mental health issues. 
From the Overton village perspective: Cleemput (2008) and others note that gypsies and travellers are significantly more likely to have a long-term illness, health problem or disability which limits their daily activities or work, and maternal health is significantly worse with a significantly higher number of miscarriages. The ‘Draft Infrastructure Delivery Plan’ (Basingstoke and Deane (b), 2024) makes clear that Watership Down Health care provision (H7) is already over capacity and that population growth will exacerbate this further. And yet Basingstoke and Deane is proposing encouraging a community with a disproportionally high degree of complex long-term illness into the village, placing unsustainable pressures on village healthcare.


Internal and external conditions on Traveller sites are hazardous, with ten percent of amenity blocks judged to be unfit for purpose, with vermin infestations, unsafe storage of LPG cylinders and lack of basic fire safety standards (Cleemput, 2008). The site is on the edge of the North Wessex Downs National Landscape, the Test Valley Valued Landscape, a Site of Special Scientific Interest (The River Test) and the Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC). And yet Basingstoke and Deane is proposing encouraging a community which is unable to protect these nationally and globally valuable environments. 


Further, I’d note that the Council has been somewhat dishonest in its public consultation events. You have failed to be transparent in your plan to include Gypsy and Travellers pitches.


From both the Gypsy/Traveller community perspective, and the Overton village perspective, the Overton Mill site is unsuitable for such development. 


Cleemput, P. V. (2008). Health Impact of Gypsy Sites Policy in the UK. Social Policy and Society, 7(1), 103-117.

Information

Unique Reference Number: 
BSGD-C6-LPU23-964
Status: 
Submitted
No. of documents attached: 
3