Hampton Park II to go ahead after review plea fails

10:23pm Wednesday 3rd October 2012 in News By Morwenna Blake

A 500-HOME development on a Greenfield site in Salisbury looks set to go ahead after a last ditch attempt to pursue a judicial review failed.

Residents and councillors had pinned their hopes on the review after communities secretary Eric Pickles overturned a planning inspector’s decision that Barratt Homes should not be allowed to go ahead with Hampton Park II.

Ron Champion, chairman of Laverstock and Ford Parish Council, said the parish was “bitterly disappointed” and “incredulous”

at the decision of Wiltshire Council not to pursue the review.

He said: “The residents of this parish feel very let down by Wiltshire Council, where a decision has been made out of political and financial expediency and not from concerns for local opinion.

“Our residents are becoming cynical with Wiltshire Council and beginning to believe their views count for very little.”

The land was originally earmarked for a golf course in the 1990s, when people moved in to homes at Hampton Park, and they say this agreement should not be broken.

Protestors say Hampton Park II will destroy the gap between Salisbury city and the rural settlement of Ford, and if homes are built, it should not be anywhere near as many as has been agreed.

In the decision letter issued by Mr Pickles last year, he said the need for affordable housing outweighs other considerations and he is satisfied the gap separating Ford from Salisbury would be maintained.

Councillor Bill Moss, who represents the Bishopdown ward on Wiltshire Council, said: “This decision is terrible.

“The developers promised originally that this would be a golf course, and they have broken that promise.”

A spokesman for Wiltshire Council said: “We sought independent legal advice and were advised not to pursue a judicial review.”

Cllr Moss said he will be meeting with Salisbury MP John Glen next week.

After Mr Pickles overturned the decision, Mr Glen wrote to him to say his constituents had been left “very frustrated by the gap between the promises of localism and what they now perceive as a hollow reality”.

Mr Glen was made Mr Pickles’ parliamentary private secretary in the recent government reshuffle.

Comments(11)

Capricorn 1 says...
6:46am Thu 4 Oct 12

So Mr Glen, are you going to resign your position as PPS to Mr Pickles?

Tory talk of 'localism' is a meaningless phrase.

Report this post »

IanMcL says...
1:39pm Thu 4 Oct 12

The above article is factually incorrect.

The Strategic Gap, so fiercely defended by the two communites, separates Ford and Hampton Park, both within the Parish of Laverstock & Ford.

The parish boundary with Salisbury is between Hampton Park and Bishopdown Farm (which was also in the L&F Parish and hopefully will be again).


The defence of the Strategic Gap is ongoing. Residents will contest any reduction in speed on Pearce Way (time to rename that!) and highlight the many deficiencies of the development, which sneakily got permission.

We will send them homeward to think again!

Report this post »

IanMcL says...
2:01pm Thu 4 Oct 12

Come to think about it...is the Journal suddenly a Tory paper?

As the Wiltshire Councillor for Ford and a Labour one at that, why only ask a Conservative Cllr for a comment on a Conservative decision?

No one bothered to contact me about my residents! It was largely Ford residents who swelled the ranks of the planning committee audience recently. They care greatly that Wiltshire Council, Alexander Pearce's Trust (landowner) and Barratt Homes...but not for locals conspired to ruin that which was promised as agriculture or golf only.

To give John Glen his due, he has represented us in Parliament on this issue.

Report this post »

AndrewM says...
3:36pm Thu 4 Oct 12

Presumably the people of Ford don't feel confident enough of success to seek a review themselves. Why should the rest of Wiltshire's council taxpayers feel more confident? As for a strategic gap, nearly all of Ford was built from scratch in the 20th century as a housing estate with a suburban layout and designs...it's hardly an historically significant settlement with its own identity and character to protect. Salisbury and Wilton, or Salisbury and Britford, maybe.

Report this post »

IanMcL says...
4:29pm Thu 4 Oct 12

Ford or Winterbourne Ford to give its full name is much older than New Sarum.

It has a beautiful, restored mill, some historic housing, a conservation area for the unigue WW1 Airfield, a Roman Road and some open farmland. All ingredients which separate it from its urban junior neighbour. Above all, it currently has peace.

Report this post »

AndrewM says...
5:38pm Thu 4 Oct 12

But Winterbourne Ford was never a settlement, it's just where the Romans crossed the river. Without the modern housing estate of the Merrifield Road/Green Lane area, there would be nothing near to the proposed development. Should this estate be given special protection, even though it was itself built on the back yard of a farm so recently? Where are the facilities that make it an independent, cohesive community?

Report this post »

Champers says...
10:32pm Thu 4 Oct 12

But the residents of Ford were promised by Salisbury DC and backed up by a deed by the landowner that the strategic gap would be protected. As Ron Champion said, a promise is a promise. It is irrelevant how old the settlement is, this is about countryside being lost forever. Ford is about to absorbed totally as there are plans to build on the airfield side too. We are becoming the new Swindon.

Interestingly, Mr Pearce the landowner lives in a lovely, large secluded, historical house with a beautiful view over open countryside with a high wall protecting him from nasty things like planners who might want to spoil his bit of Wiltshire countryside. I expect it would really upset him if one of us 'plebs' put in a planning application for 500 houses at the bottom of his drive.

Report this post »

tiggs61 says...
10:19am Fri 5 Oct 12

well i think its an utter disgrace them going back on what they have said but thats salisbury for you. your commuity for you is against you.

Report this post »

Praetor says...
8:51pm Tue 9 Oct 12

The main objections to the proposed housing development should be: lack of infrastructure - where will the potentially over 1000 junior children go to school? I think only an infant school is planned. How will London Road cope with additional traffic - over 500 cars trying to go through the low railway bridge/enter Salisbury when the road is already frequently at a standstill in rush hours? Where will the 500-1000 teenagers congregate in the evenings? Who will pay for the additional policing required?

Report this post »

Dr S Brule says...
11:51am Wed 10 Oct 12

Praetor;

On those grounds, nothing would ever get built. Presumably you are aware that the population is rising, and I also presume that you have the benefit of living in your own home. Many people don't. In terms of who will pay, I would expect that will be covered in the section 106 agreement.

Report this post »

Champers says...
5:08pm Wed 10 Oct 12

Laverstock and Ford PC are not NIMBYs, they are taking virtually all the development going on in Salisbury in one parish, that's a HUGE amount of building! They were agreeable to taking the HP2 allocation of houses at Longhedge (next to the A345 main route) to preserve the Strategic Gap but that was rejected. Why?

Report this post »

click2find

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