Domesday Book village is up in arms as new owner of £585,000 historic cottage applies to bulldoze it in favour of 'modern, bland new-build' homes
Eric Abbott has also hit out at new owners of the property he lived in for more than 60 years after claiming they only sold it on the condition that it would be lived in by a family.
Almost a thousand people have now signed a petition to stop the development in Swanmore, Hampshire, and 200 objections were written during the public consultation period for the plans.
New owner Simon Smith has submitted an application to Winchester City Council to demolish the house and build two two-storey modern houses with four bedrooms each, parking for three cars and gardens.
Neighbours think that the new build won't fit in well with the character of the village, and will cause traffic problems on an already busy street which is around the corner from a primary school.
Houses on the street cost an average of £800,000, and some buildings in Swanmore - which is mentioned in the Domesday Book - date back to the 16th or early 17th centuries.
Villagers received flyers about the petition against the redevelopment, which has 931 signatures, through their letterboxes.
The flyers said that the cottage, known as Hiawatha, is being 'flattened' and replaced with 'two modern, bland new-builds'.
Former company director Mr Abbott, 94, raised his family in the property with his wife Peggy. It was sold after being put on the market last year for £585,000.
In an objection he wrote against the planning application, Mr Abbott said: 'As the previous owner of Hiawatha I was totally dismayed to see the change of heart of the new owners attempting to destroy Hiawatha and replace with totally unsuitable houses.
'I instructed the estate agent to ensure my wonderful house was only sold to a family who would love it like I did and not destroy it.
'The estate agent assured me that he had made this clear to the new owners and that they had agreed it to be their forever home which is all I ever wanted for another family to love it like I had for the last 64 years.
'It seems they lied and were buying Hiawatha for financial gain.
'I had been offered to sell to many builders and I declined as this house is part of history, it was there before Chapel Road was even made.
'I would never have sold it had I known this was their intention and they knew that.
'There is an ancient well that in the deeds demands that it should be operable for future water shortages in the village and this was a legal requirement.
'I believe Hiawatha was built in the 15th century it is a beautiful flint cottage which should not be replaced with two identical new builds.
'I feel it should remain standing and let the slow worms, birds, bats and many other species carry on living as they have been for many years.
'I strongly object and do hope that this does not go ahead it would be a great shame to the wonderful village of Swanmore.'
David Hughes, 63, lives nearby and hopes he's not a 'nimby' for wanting the house to keep its character.
The scientist said: 'I put in [an objection] saying I wasn't very keen on it, hopefully not from a nimby point of view.
'If we're not careful, we'll have a lot of new houses here.
'It's an unusual-looking house, it breaks up some of the monotony of the architecture.'
The villager admitted that he was surprised 'how many other people were that bothered about it'.
Swanmore local John Allen thinks that the council like the idea of the demolition because replacing the house with two houses will bring in more council tax.
The 79 year old retiree said: 'The council like it, wouldn't it, more council tax, more money, that sort of thing.'
Paraphrasing film producer Samuel Goldwyn in reference to Mr Abbott's agreement with the new owners, he said 'a verbal agreement isn't worth the paper it's written on'.
'He should've got it done legally,' he said.
A middle-aged female neighbour who wanted to remain anonymous said she had signed the petition against the redevelopment.
She said: 'I don't think it's the prettiest building in the village, but my main concern for it is if they put two properties in it.
'The road is already abused enough with traffic, I know there's three bedrooms [in each house].'
'As we all know, if you've got three teenagers moved in all of a sudden you haven't got enough parking.'
An elderly female neighbour who also didn't want to be named said that it's 'bad' that the new owners didn't honour the agreement not to demolish the house.
'That's pretty poor, actually, I think,' she said.
'I mean, they knew what they were going to be doing with it - that doesn't seem very honest.'
Ash Bennett, Mr Abbott's former neighbour, a 54 year old air traffic controller said: 'I've lived here 18, 19 years.
'I was aware when they sold the house, I didn't know until more recently about what was going to happen to it.
'I didn't follow it closely, but my understanding was that there was an agreement it wasn't going to be knocked down and developed, it would be renovated which isn't what they wanted to do.
'Personally speaking, I would rather they wouldn't knock it down.'
The father of three added that the house needs 'a lot of work'.
He said: 'I went in it 18 years ago, nothing much has been done to it since.
'My understanding is it would require a lot of work to it.'
On the planning application, Historic England said that there is no evidence to indicate that the building predates the 19th century - it is believed to have been built between 1840 and 1868.
It said: 'The building does not illustrate an important aspect of the nation's history, nor does it have the historic associations with nationally important individuals, groups, or events, which might give it historic special interest.'
A decision is due to be made about the planning application on July 18.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
41 minutes ago
- BBC News
Woodside Ferry Terminal set to reopen in autumn after delay
The reopening of a ferry terminal in Wirral has been pushed back to autumn due to site at Woodside had been due to open this summer but a representative of Liverpool City Region Combined Authority said: "Unfortunately, delays in manufacturing off site has resulted in this being pushed back until autumn 2025."They said the authority was "working closely with the contractor to minimise these delays by increasing resources".The upgraded terminal would be ready to welcome the new £26m Mersey Ferry, due to be launched by the summer of 2026, they added. The terminal closed in 2022 before work started on a £8.6m scheme to transform the Council is also investing millions of pounds on changes to the waterfront around Woodside and nearby Hamilton Square, along with plans for a new U-Boat museum, the Local Democracy Reporting Service include new cycle lanes and walking the longer term, a masterplan includes the building of 1,700 homes, two new hotels, major leisure facilities and an outside event space looking out onto the River Mersey. Listen to the best of BBC Radio Merseyside on Sounds and follow BBC Merseyside on Facebook, X, and Instagram. You can also send story ideas via Whatsapp to 0808 100 2230.
BBC News
an hour ago
- BBC News
Durham County Council proposes capping council tax support
A local authority's plan to overhaul its Council Tax Reduction Scheme (CTRS) could lead to its poorest residents being required to pay more towards their County Council plans to make changes to its Local Council Tax Reduction Scheme (CTRS), which currently allows low-earners to apply for a discount of up to 100% off their councillor Nicola Lyons said the current scheme was one of the "most generous in the country" and the council was considering capping discounts as part of cost-saving efforts. Debt charity StepChange said it could not comment on specific policies, but it did not believe "reducing support for the poorest is the answer" to council funding pressures. Richard Lane, the charity's chief client office, said: "StepChange has called for the government to increase funding for council tax support to ensure councils can continue to offer residents with the lowest incomes 100% reductions. "Ultimately, unaffordable council tax bills lead to counter-productive debt collection and enforcement that harms the worst off and leads to higher health and social costs linked to problem debt." Council tax options The council said it was considering holding a consultation on four possible options for the CTRS first would allow residents to apply for a discount of up to 100% off their bills, depending on their remaining options would require residents to pay a minimum of 10%, 20% or 25% of their full county council said it was required to save £45m by 2028-29 to balance its books and CTRS currently costs more than £60m a year. It estimated the proposed change would save between £3.8m and £10.35m each year. The current system also requires residents' bills to be recalculated every time a change is made to their Universal Credit (UC) council said last year the average UC claimant received 11 council tax bills, which cost the council £175,000 in printing and postage. Reform UK recently took control of the authority and promised to carry out a Elon Musk-style review into "wasteful spending".Lyons said the county has "one of the most generous council tax support schemes in the country"."The changes to CTRS we are looking to consult on, would ensure we can continue to provide this much-need support, while taking into account the increasing financial pressure local councils are under," she said. "None of the potential changes would impact on pension-age households."If the council's cabinet approves the consultation, it will be carried out between 16 July and 23 September. Follow BBC North East on X, Facebook, Nextdoor and Instagram.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Starmer's Government is grossly naive about the threat posed by China
The Labour government's China policy is a shambles. It did not list China as a top threat under its new foreign-influence rules – even though the government admits that China has undermined Britain's economic security and engaged in espionage and acts intended to undermine democracy. The government's failure to apply these rules means that China, and China-controlled entities, do not have to register their activities with the British government. Those who lobbied against designating China as a top-tier threat argued that it would have a chilling effect on closer economic ties. The China lobby carried the day. It's part of a pattern that sees London determined not to offend China ahead of Keir Starmer's rumoured trip to Beijing later this year. 'China will continue to play a vital role in supporting the UK's secure growth,' David Lammy, the foreign secretary, said last week in a speech announcing the country's new engagement policy, the China Audit, tucked inside the UK's National Security Strategy. The government seems set on emulating the 'golden years,' when David Cameron and China's leader Xi Jinping shared a pint at a British pub, even as the danger posed by China grows more pronounced. 'Cooperate where we can, compete where we need to, and challenge where we must,' coos Labour, but there's little challenge. Why has Labour gone off the rails with its China policy? Starmer's background as a human rights lawyer and Labour's historical concern for human rights have fallen victim to a mistaken belief that China will somehow save the British economy. Starmer is right to focus on economic growth. But he's looking for it in the wrong place. Despite being the world's second-largest economy, China registers below France as a British trading partner, and remains an insignificant investor. China dominates trade between the two countries, with its almost £70 billion exports to Britain, more than double the £29.7 billion Britain sends to the People's Republic. Britain's exports to China fell by £3.8 billion, or 12 per cent, in 2024 and accounted for only 3.4 per cent of the country's shipments abroad. The EU and US made up 63.8 per cent of the total. The investment picture is even less promising, with Sino-British investments well under one percent of total investments. With its economy faltering under a sustained property crash, China hardly seems like the market of the future, notwithstanding the boasts of Rachel Reeves, who says she signed deals during a trip to Beijing in January that would bring an additional £600 million in benefits to Britain over the next five years. Britain has proven unwilling or unable to hold China to account for breaching its treaty obligations under the Sino-British Joint Declaration. Britain handed Hong Kong to China in exchange for a promise that the colony would enjoy its tradition of freedom and would be protected by the common-law system. China shredded that agreement. In the five years since Beijing imposed a vague and sweeping National Security Law on the city, nearly 2,000 people have been jailed on political charges. Newspapers have been forcibly shuttered, and the last remaining pro-democracy party this week announced it has been forced to disband. Jimmy Lai, a newspaper publisher and British citizen, remains in solitary confinement in Hong Kong, jailed for more than 1,600 days because of his commitment to free speech and his desire to uphold the values that Britain bequeathed to its former colony. British diplomats have not even been able to meet with Mr Lai to provide consular access. In London, officials prepare to approve a mega-embassy, China's largest diplomatic outpost in Europe, despite opposition ranging from London residents to US politicians. The irony is that this will do little for the economy all while undermining the very national security that it's designed to protect. During her trip to Beijing in January, Rachel Reeves published an opinion piece in The Times titled, 'Choosing not to engage with China is no choice at all.' That's setting up a strawman. No one is suggesting that engagement with China should be cut off. But engagement should uphold the British values of freedom, liberty, and the rule of law rather than rewarding China for its lawless behaviour.
