DOCSLIB.ORG

Itchen Stoke Estates

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Itchen Stoke Estates IN THE MATTER OF THE WATER RESOURCES ACT 1991 AND THE INQUIRY INTO AN APPLICATION BY THE ENVIRONMENT AGENCY TO RENEW ITS ABSTRACTION LICENCE RELATING TO THE CANDOVER ABSTRACTION SCHEME AND TO FOUR OTHER ABSTRACTION LICENCES ON THE RIVER ITCHEN AND THE RIVER TEST PLANNING INSPECTORATE REFERENCES: RSA/WR/00016/17/18 A STATEMENT OF CASE BY THE HON. MARK BARING AND THE HON ZAM BARING ON BEHALF OF THE BARING FAMILY of THE GRANGE ESTATE, NORTHINGTON. 1) Introduction Our family have been riparian owners of much of the Candover Brook for a number of generations. We are extremely concerned about the decline in its environmental condition resulting inter alia from over- abstraction and fully support the Environment Agency as regards the extent of and causes for the deterioration. However, in our view the best safeguard for the future health of the stream and compliance with the obligations of its SAC status would be the permanent decommissioning of the existing abstraction infrastructure to prevent its ever being used for any purpose in the future. To the fullest extent possible we intend to use our position as landowners to resist the installation of the pipeline through our property which would be required to continue abstraction from the Candover borehole. Further to this overall position on the Candover Scheme we would like to raise a few more points on all the licences under inquiry which we believe have not been touched upon in the representations made by both Guy Linley-Adams on behalf of the Salmon and Trout Conservation and WWF UK, and by Martin Burton on behalf of the Upper Itchen Initiative, both of which we strongly support and commend to you. 2) Statutory duty of Southern Water We are exasperated by Southern Water’s unconscionable dismissal of their environmental legal duties and Corporate responsibilities in this case. They choose either to wilfully neglect or trivialise the weight they attribute towards their environmental duties wholly in favour of their duties to supply water to society. OFWAT considers ‘resilience’ to include environmental sustainability, but the company interpret this without balance or measure. Their ‘least cost’ model is out of step with emerging abstraction policy from Government, OFWAT guidance and the law. In particular we object to Southern Water’s ‘special conditions’, whereby they appear to accept licence changes so long as they have no bearing on their business, but require special conditions to be written into the licences to over-ride those licence changes when they actually effect the company. Unethical as that approach to environmental protection is, it is especially unacceptable given the company are a ‘competent authority’ as defined in Regulation 6(1) of the Habitats Regulations. Southern Water may argue their position FOLLY HILL, ITCHEN STOKE, ALRESFORD, HAMPSHIRE SO24 9TF TELEPHONE: 01962 779668 Email: [email protected] on the Itchen and Candover licence changes at this Inquiry is justifiable on purely their commercial and corporate business plan, but it is incompatible with and contradictory to their statutory role under the Regulations. The special conditions are unlawful and ridiculous. The company’s approach is irresponsible and negligent of their duties. To highlight through this Inquiry their failure to honour their environmental duties would help the wider water sector wake up to that need and might even make the Secretary of State examine the case for creating an independent authority to oversee and determine the management of the nation’s water resources rather than leaving the exploitation of this precious resource in the hands of private companies who at times are bound to be conflicted. 3) The proposed operation of the Candover Scheme We also find fault with Southern Water’s approach to the Inquiry regarding their proposed operation of the Candover licence. It appears to us that the company are wishing to evade due process and obtain de facto permission or even explicit authorisation for their proposal through the Inquiry process. Southern Water sketch out their proposal and invite the Secretary of State (SoS) to somehow instruct the Agency to grant that scheme. We are not sure if the SoS has such powers, but either way he must not do that. This Inquiry is no substitute for the due process of applying for and justifying a new abstraction licence – there is no Environmental Impact Assessment nor application of the tests of the Habitats Regulations to the proposal; there is no planning permission, permit to discharge, or public consultation. As land and river owners we have explicitly informed Southern Water that we object to their proposed use of the licence and construction of a pipeline across our land. Southern Water do not even own the licence. In fact, there are almost no details at all, just ambiguous ambitions, none of which are sound reason for the Agency to not change their own licence at this time. If you are minded to recommend that the SoS upholds Southern Water’s objection to the licence changes we urge you to ensure that a strong distinction is made between over-riding the Agency’s licence changes on technical grounds (whatever those could be?) and inadvertently endorsing Southern Water’s vague proposals for their scheme. The two things are very different. Indeed, we argue that Southern Water’s proposals for the licence and the scheme are outside the scope of this Inquiry altogether. 4) Southern Water’s inconsistent position Southern Water’s approach is inconsistent and irrational. They say they conditionally accept the Agency’s licence changes but actually, seek to negate the licence changes by using ‘special conditions’ when they are inconvenienced by them. They say they also accept that they will need to secure drought orders/permits in the short term while alternative sources are secured through the WRMP. That is the Agency’s position. But the company’s position is conditional that the licences incorporate all of the elements that the drought order/permits would seek to secure. In effect, the company want it both ways – drought provisions built into the licences whilst committing to seeking the exact same provisions though drought orders/permits. The fact is that drought orders/permits over-ride licence conditions, so what is in the licence should not matter if the company are truly committed to the drought order/permit route. But they seek to reduce their risks to zero at the expense of the environment. The drought order/permit provisions expressly allow the company to secure their needs but in a structured and managed way. To incorporate the exact same provisions into a licence would be negligent. FOLLY HILL, ITCHEN STOKE, ALRESFORD, HAMPSHIRE SO24 9TF TELEPHONE: 01962 779668 Email: [email protected] In the same, inconsistent, vein they say their WRMP will secure alternative sources by 2027 at vast expense. But they seek to spend the intervening period carrying out further investigations to inform decisions in 2027 as to the sustainability of the licences that the Agency have already determined are unsustainable. In effect, the company are seeking to put off the ‘crunch’ decision that is before this Inquiry, to 2027. So, in reality they do not accept the Agency’s licence changes, despite saying so several times and, by 2027 the alternative sources should be coming on-line – at great cost. What value would these investigations make to the process of determining the sustainability of the Candover and Testwood licences, if at the same time the company have just completed (as great expense) construction of alternative sources? The co-incidental timeline makes a mockery of the company’s commitments. This tactic appears to expose the inconsistency between the company’s commitment to securing long-term solutions and yet further procrastination. 5) Shortcomings in the Environment Agency’s protection of the Itchen Special Area of Conservation and Site of Special Scientific Interest a) Habitats Regulations and the River Alre In their assessment of the existing Candover Abstraction Scheme licence, the Agency identify that the cone of depression extends to affect the headwaters of neighbouring catchments, including the River Wey and Dever. It also includes the River Alre, which itself is part of the River Itchen SSSI and SAC. The Agency’s technical assessment (Report No.1) says “Once the scheme has been turned off, the lowering of groundwater levels caused by its use results in a reduction in flow in both the Candover Stream and some of the surrounding watercourses - namely the Rivers Dever (in the River Test catchment), and River Wey (in the River Thames catchment), and Alre (upper Itchen catchment). The largest impacts on flows tend to be whilst flows are rising as a result of natural recharge but reductions in peak winter flows are also likely. Depending on how much the scheme has been used and how rapid the natural recharge has been, small scale impacts can persist during the Spring and Summer following use of the scheme and in exceptional conditions, very small impacts can persist for longer than a year. The scale of impact varies, ranging from a maximum reduction in flows of up to 50% in the upper Candover Stream; 10-20% in the middle reaches of the Candover Stream, 5-10% for the lower Candover Stream; and for the River Alre, River Dever and River Wey between 5 to 30% reduction in river flows, reducing after a few months to typically less than 2% for the duration of up to 12 months.” That risk to the Alre and other watercourses is repeated several times throughout the Agency’s technical assessments. We strongly support the Agency’s decision to reduce the licence to a magnitude that means the cone of depression will no longer affect any of those catchments.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • South East River Basin District Flood Risk Management Plan 2015 - 2021 PART B: Sub Areas in the South East River Basin District
    South East River Basin District Flood Risk Management Plan 2015 - 2021 PART B: Sub Areas in the South East river basin district March 2016 Published by: Environment Agency Further copies of this report are available Horizon house, Deanery Road, from our publications catalogue: Bristol BS1 5AH www.gov.uk/government/publications Email: [email protected] or our National Customer Contact Centre: www.gov.uk/environment-agency T: 03708 506506 Email: [email protected]. © Environment Agency 2016 All rights reserved. This document may be reproduced with prior permission of the Environment Agency. Contents Glossary and abbreviations ......................................................................................................... 5 The layout of this document ........................................................................................................ 7 1 Sub-areas in the South East river basin district .............................................................. 9 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 9 Flood Risk Areas ......................................................................................................................... 9 Management catchments ............................................................................................................ 9 2 Conclusions, objectives and measures to manage risk for the Brighton and Hove Flood Risk Area..........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Using High-Frequency Phosphorus Monitoring for Water Quality Management: a Case Study of the Upper River Itchen, UK
    Environ Monit Assess (2020) 192:184 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-020-8138-0 Using high-frequency phosphorus monitoring for water quality management: a case study of the upper River Itchen, UK Gary R. Fones & Adil Bakir & Janina Gray & Lauren Mattingley & Nick Measham & Paul Knight & Michael J. Bowes & Richard Greenwood & Graham A. Mills Received: 16 July 2019 /Accepted: 5 February 2020 # The Author(s) 2020 Abstract Increased concentrations of phosphorus (P) in distinct locations in the upper River Itchen (Hampshire, riverine systems lead to eutrophication and can contribute UK) between May 2016 and June 2017 to identify the to other environmental effects. Chalk rivers are known to main P species (including filterable reactive phosphorus, be particularly sensitive to elevated P levels. We used total filterable phosphorus, total phosphorus and total par- high-frequency (daily) automatic water sampling at five ticulate phosphorus) present and how these varied tempo- rally. Our filterable reactive phosphorus (considered the biologically available fraction) data were compared with Electronic supplementary material The online version of this the available Environment Agency total reactive phospho- article (https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-020-8138-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. rus (TRP) values over the same sampling period. Over the trial, the profiles of the P fractions were complex; the : G. R. Fones (*) A. Bakir major fraction was total particulate phosphorus with the School of the Environment, Geography and Geosciences, mean percentage value ranging between 69 and 82% of University of Portsmouth, Burnaby Road, Portsmouth PO1 3QL, UK the total P present. Sources were likely to be attributable to e-mail: [email protected] wash off from agricultural activities.
    [Show full text]
  • Streams, Ditches and Wetlands in the Chichester District. by Dr
    Streams, Ditches and Wetlands in the Chichester District. By Dr. Carolyn Cobbold, BSc Mech Eng., FRSA Richard C J Pratt, BA(Hons), PGCE, MSc (Arch), FRGS Despite the ‘duty of cooperation’ set out in the National Planning Policy Framework1, there is mounting evidence that aspects of the failure to deliver actual cooperation have been overlooked in the recent White Paper2. Within the subregion surrounding the Solent, it is increasingly apparent that the development pressures are such that we risk losing sight of the natural features that underscore not only the attractiveness of the area but also the area’s natural health itself. This paper seeks to focus on the aquatic connections which maintain the sub-region’s biological health, connections which are currently threatened by overdevelopment. The waters of this sub-region sustain not only the viability of natural habitat but also the human economy of employment, tourism, recreation, leisure, and livelihoods. All are at risk. The paper is a plea for greater cooperation across the administrative boundaries of specifically the eastern Solent area. The paper is divided in the following way. 1. Highlands and Lowlands in our estimation of worth 2. The Flow of Water from Downs to Sea 3. Wetlands and Their Global Significance 4. Farmland and Fishing 5. 2011-2013: Medmerry Realignment Scheme 6. The Protection and Enhancement of Natural Capital in The Land ‘In Between’ 7. The Challenge to Species in The District’s Wildlife Corridors 8. Water Quality 9. Habitat Protection and Enhancement at the Sub-Regional Level 10. The policy restraints on the destruction of natural capital 11.
    [Show full text]
  • The Transport System of Medieval England and Wales
    THE TRANSPORT SYSTEM OF MEDIEVAL ENGLAND AND WALES - A GEOGRAPHICAL SYNTHESIS by James Frederick Edwards M.Sc., Dip.Eng.,C.Eng.,M.I.Mech.E., LRCATS A Thesis presented for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy University of Salford Department of Geography 1987 1. CONTENTS Page, List of Tables iv List of Figures A Note on References Acknowledgements ix Abstract xi PART ONE INTRODUCTION 1 Chapter One: Setting Out 2 Chapter Two: Previous Research 11 PART TWO THE MEDIEVAL ROAD NETWORK 28 Introduction 29 Chapter Three: Cartographic Evidence 31 Chapter Four: The Evidence of Royal Itineraries 47 Chapter Five: Premonstratensian Itineraries from 62 Titchfield Abbey Chapter Six: The Significance of the Titchfield 74 Abbey Itineraries Chapter Seven: Some Further Evidence 89 Chapter Eight: The Basic Medieval Road Network 99 Conclusions 11? Page PART THREE THr NAVIGABLE MEDIEVAL WATERWAYS 115 Introduction 116 Chapter Hine: The Rivers of Horth-Fastern England 122 Chapter Ten: The Rivers of Yorkshire 142 Chapter Eleven: The Trent and the other Rivers of 180 Central Eastern England Chapter Twelve: The Rivers of the Fens 212 Chapter Thirteen: The Rivers of the Coast of East Anglia 238 Chapter Fourteen: The River Thames and Its Tributaries 265 Chapter Fifteen: The Rivers of the South Coast of England 298 Chapter Sixteen: The Rivers of South-Western England 315 Chapter Seventeen: The River Severn and Its Tributaries 330 Chapter Eighteen: The Rivers of Wales 348 Chapter Nineteen: The Rivers of North-Western England 362 Chapter Twenty: The Navigable Rivers of
    [Show full text]
  • Setting the Context 11
    PART 2: SETTING THE CONTEXT 11. SITE ANALYSIS 11.1 Introduction 142 11.2 Planning context 142 11.3 Site location 144 11.4 Topography, hydrology & geology 148 11.5 Landscape & visual character 152 11.6 Existing landscape features & green infrastructure 154 11.7 Existing movement network 156 11.8 Existing facilities 158 11.9 Historic environment 160 11.10 Existing utilities and infrastructure 161 11.11 Site analysis 163 11.1 Introduction 11.2 Planning context This section outlines the physical site features and issues The extensive planning context for Welborne is set out in members of the public, and a set of high level development that have influenced and shaped the masterplanning and the Planning Statement which accompanies this DAS and principles. Policy CS13 also stipulates that an Area Action design process, primarily within the site’s red line boundary, is submitted as part of this OPA. As such, this section only Plan (subsequently the Welborne Plan) will be produced but with reference to any contextual issues and features seeks to provide an overview of the key planning documents to guide planning permission for between 6,500-7,500 outside of it that have bearing on the design response. which have shaped our proposals in terms of their design dwellings. and access. These include strategic policies, development The topics that are covered in this chapter are as follows: management policies and other material considerations. Fareham Local Plan Part 3: The Welborne Plan (2015) ■ Planning context; The Development Plan This entire part of the Local Plan is focused on the North ■ Site location; The Fareham Local Plan Part 1: Core Strategy (2011) Fareham SDA, which was subsequently named the Welborne provides the strategic direction for the site and provided ■ Topography, hydrology and geology; Plan.
    [Show full text]
  • 3C: Itchen Valley
    3C: ITCHEN VALLEY Valley floor in downland setting between Itchen Abbas and Ovington. Permanent pasture, numerous small woods and scattered individual trees, few hedges. Ovington – Clear chalk streams, oftenValley floor– Lower reaches urban There are numerous historic mills wooded banks. edge, pony paddocks and wooded and bridges – along the Itchen. (from ridge backdrop at Bishopstoke. SDILCA) Cheriton – canalised section of theItchen Valley Country park; sluice as Playing fields with poplar windbreaks Itchen on the left. part of restored water meadows. in Lower Itchen Valley. Hampshire County 1 Status: FINAL May 2012 Integrated Character Assessment Itchen Valley Hampshire County 2 Status: FINAL May 2012 Integrated Character Assessment Itchen Valley 1.0 Location and Boundaries 1.1 This character area includes the river valley floor and its sides which make up the visual envelope of the valley. The valley tops are defined approximately where there is a break/slackening in slope angle. The southern boundary is formed at the County/Southampton unitary edge. The upper most reaches of the valley follow three spring fed tributaries/headwaters, which join close to New Arlesford namely the Candover stream to the north, River Arle to the east and Cheriton stream to the south. 1.2 Component County Landscape Types Open Downs, Downland Mosaic Large Scale, Downland Mosaic Small Scale, River Valley Floor, Lowland Mosaic Medium Scale, Lowland Mosaic Small Scale, Lowland Mosaic Heath Associated, Settlement. 1.3 Composition of Borough/District LCAs: Winchester CC Eastleigh BC Upper Itchen Valley Broom Hill Farmland and Woodland Lower Itchen Valley Upper Itchen Valley Floodplain Lower Itchen Valley Floodplain Eastleigh Airport Itchen Valley Sports Pitches The extent of the valley sides is comparable with the two Itchen valley character areas in the Winchester assessment.
    [Show full text]
  • The State of England's Chalk Streams
    FUNDED WITH CONTRIBUTIONS FROM REPORT UK 2014 The State of England’s Chalk Streams This report has been written by Rose O’Neill and Kathy Hughes on behalf of WWF-UK with CONTENTS help and assistance from many of the people and organisations hard at work championing England’s chalk streams. In particular the authors would EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3 like to thank Charles Rangeley-Wilson, Lawrence Talks, Sarah Smith, Mike Dobson, Colin Fenn, 8 Chris Mainstone, Chris Catling, Mike Acreman, FOREWORD Paul Quinn, David Bradley, Dave Tickner, Belinda by Charles Rangeley-Wilson Fletcher, Dominic Gogol, Conor Linsted, Caroline Juby, Allen Beechey, Haydon Bailey, Liz Lowe, INTRODUCTION 13 Bella Davies, David Cheek, Charlie Bell, Dave Stimpson, Ellie Powers, Mark Gallant, Meyrick THE STATE OF ENGLAND’S CHALK STREAMS 2014 19 Gough, Janina Gray, Ali Morse, Paul Jennings, Ken Caustin, David Le Neve Foster, Shaun Leonard, Ecological health of chalk streams 20 Alex Inman and Fran Southgate. This is a WWF- Protected chalk streams 25 UK report, however, and does not necessarily Aquifer health 26 reflect the views of each of the contributors. Chalk stream species 26 Since 2012, WWF-UK, Coca-Cola Great Britain and Pressures on chalk streams 31 Coca-Cola Enterprises have been working together Conclusions 42 to secure a thriving future for English rivers. The partnership has focused on improving the health A MANIFESTO FOR CHALK STREAMS 45 of two chalk streams directly linked to Coca-Cola operations: the Nar catchment in Norfolk (where AN INDEX OF ENGLISH CHALK STREAMS 55 some of the sugar beet used in Coca-Cola’s drinks is grown) and the Cray in South London, near 60 to Coca-Cola Enterprises’ Sidcup manufacturing GLOSSARY site.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix 2: Plans & Programmes Review
    Appendix 2 HRA Screening Report: Winchester Draft Local Plan Part 2 Appendix 2: Plans & Programmes Review Regional South East River Basin Management Plan, December 2009. Document Details Potential impacts that could cause ‘in-combination’ effects The River Basin Management Plan describes the main issues for A Habitats Regulations Assessment of this plan has been carried out to the South East river basin district and highlights some key consider whether it is likely to have a significant effect on any Natura 2000 actions proposed for dealing with them set out in brief the sites. The assessment was undertaken by the Environment Agency, in actions the EA propose should be taken. The document sets consultation with Natural England. out detailed proposals for the next six years and beyond. The assessment concluded that the river basin management plan is unlikely Key actions for the Test and Itchen Catchment are: to have any significant negative effects on any Natura 2000 sites. The plan itself does not require further assessment under the Habitats Regulations. The Environment Agency will modify abstraction licences This conclusion is reliant on the fact that before any measures in the plan and discharge consents to ensure no adverse impact on are implemented they must be subject to the requirements of the Habitats the River Itchen Special Area of Conservation. Regulations. Any plans, project or permissions required to implement the Southern Water will improve sewage works at three measures must undergo an appropriate assessment if they are likely to a locations including Eastleigh and Millbrook to reduce levels have a significant effect.
    [Show full text]
  • Hampshire County Council Economy, Transport and Environment
    Hampshire County Council Economy, Transport and Environment Department The Castle Winchester Hampshire SO23 8UD Tel: 0845 603 5638 Fax: 01962 847055 www.hants.gov.uk No part of this document may be copied or reproduced by any means without prior written permission from HCC. Any advice, opinions or recommendations within this document; should be read and relied upon only in the context of this document as a whole, do not in any way purport to include any manner of legal advice or opinion, are based on the information made available to HCC at the date of this document and on current UK standards, codes, technology and construction practises as at the date of this document. No liability is accepted for any use of this document other than for the purpose for which it was originally prepared and provided. Hampshire County Council cannot accept responsibility for any use or reliance on the contents from this report by any third party. Maps are reproduced from Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office © Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. HCC 100019180 [2011]. Document Control Information Document Information Document Reference Draft Hampshire Local Flood Risk Management Strategy for consultation – Document 3 – LFRMS Action plan Document Revision - Report Status DRAFT Date 26/09/2012 Author Checker Approver Date of Next Review Contents 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Measures to achieve our objectives 1 1.2 Ward specific action plans 4 1.3 Ward summary 4 2 Ward specific action plans 14 Hampshire Local Flood Risk Management Strategy Document 3 – LFRMS Action Plan 1 Introduction 1.1 Measures to achieve our objectives 1.1.1.1 It will not be possible to deliver all potential flood risk management measures within the first phase of this Strategy, therefore we have developed a phased approach to implementation.
    [Show full text]
  • Numerical Modelling of the Impact of Groundwater Abstraction on River Flows ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
    Numerical Modelling of the Impact of Groundwater Abstraction on River Flows Environment Agency Science Report SC030233/SR1 British Geological Survey Report OR/08/017 Publishing Organisation: Environment Agency, Rio House, Waterside Drive, Aztec West, Almondsbury Bristol BS12 4UD Tel: 01454 624400 Fax: 01454 624409 ISBN Number: 978-1-84432-860-4 Product code: SCHO0308BNRV-E-P ©Environment Agency and NERC 2008 This report is the result of work jointly funded by the Environment Agency and the British Geological Survey, Natural Environment Research Council (NERC). All rights reserved. No part of this document may be produced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the prior permission of the Environment Agency and the British Geological Survey (NERC). The views expressed in this document are not necessarily those of the Environment Agency. Neither its officers, servants or agents nor those of the NERC accept any liability whatsoever for any loss or damage arising from the interpretation or use of the information, or reliance upon views contained herein. Dissemination status Internal: Released to all Regions External: Publicly available Statement of use This report describes the research into the impact of groundwater abstraction on river flows using numerical flow models. An approach for investigating such impacts is presented. The information within this document is for use by Environment Agency staff and others involved in managing water resources. Research contractor This document was produced under a joint Environment Agency (Science Department and British Geological Survey project by: C R Jackson*, M M Mansour*, A G Hughes* and P J Hulme** * British Geological Survey, Maclean Building, Crowmarsh Gifford, Wallingford, Oxfordshire OX10 8BB ** Environment Agency, Science Department, Olton Court, 10 Warwick Road, Olton Environment Agency’s Project Manager The Environment Agency’s Project Manager for this project was P J Hulme, Science Department.
    [Show full text]
  • New Alresford Pocket Guide Warwick70
    An historic Georgian town THENEW ALRESFORD POCKET GUIDE WARWICK70 PLACES TO VISIT • SHOPPING GUIDE EATING OUT • COUNTRY PUBS • BEAUTIFUL WALKS Introduction handsome Georgian town, Alresford (pronounced A ‘Allsford’) is the perfect place to spend a weekend. Ideal for gentle strolling, there is plenty to see in the town and by its picturesque riverside. Voted Country Life’s ‘Favourite Market Town’ in the South East, Alresford is known for its specialist shops, old-fashioned inns, smart bistros and traditional tea rooms. It is also known as the UK’s capital of watercress farming and as the home of the Mid-Hants Steam Railway – the Watercress Line. Why not spend a weekend in Alresford to enjoy our beautiful town? Did you know? If you walk about 200 metres down Drove Lane you'll find the point used by tanks practising river crossings during World War II. 2 • THE NEW ALRESFORD POCKET GUIDE A brief history Alresford’s clear chalk streams have attracted people for many centuries with evidence of Neolithic, Bronze Age, Iron Age and Roman occupation on numerous sites in the area. Henri de Blois, brother of King Stephen and Bishop of Winchester, Did is credited with the idea of you know? There are actually two Alresfords, building the Great Weir or dam the original settlement of Old Alresford and designing the town of to the north of the river and the town of New Alresford to the south. New Novum Forum, which soon became New Alresford. He died Alresford is not as young as its name suggests, having been established before the completion of the as a new town by Bishop de Lucy project and Godfrey de Lucy, his during the Middle Ages.
    [Show full text]
  • (Old) Alresford (Old) Alresford
    (Old) Alresford (Old) Alresford 1.0 PARISH Old Alresford (Map 1) 2.0 HUNDRED Fawley 3.0 NGR 458610 133680 4.0 GEOLOGY Upper Chalk; River Valley Gravel 5.0 SITE CONTEXT (Map 2) The parish of Old Alresford (now including Godsfield) is c. 8km in length extending from the District boundary of East Hampshire in the north-east to the river Itchen at Itchen Stoke in the south-west. For much of its length the parish is c. 1.6km wide. The principal settlement is also known as Old Alresford (c. 70m AOD) and this is situated towards the south-west end of the parish, in the valley of the river Alre. The area is noted for its watercress beds and these can be seen to the west and to the south-east of Old Alresford. Just 1km to the south is the later medieval town of New Alresford but this is now administratively separate from the parent parish. 6.0 PLAN TYPE & DESCRIPTION (Maps 3, 4 and 5) Church & manor house + regular rows 6.1 Church & manor house The church of St Mary is probably C12 (or earlier) in origin but major rebuilding programmes in the C18 and C19 have left almost no evidence of the medieval building. The church stands upon a low knoll, a feature that suggests a pre-Christian or early Christian origin for the site. Less than 50m east-north-east of the church stands Old Alresford (manor) House. This building is C18 but it is on the site of a medieval predecessor. In an account of Old Alresford written in the C18 (Sumner, 192 : 335), GB Rodney tells of a tradition whereby the juries of the manorial Court Leet met at a certain spot in the garden of the House.
    [Show full text]