Public Policy Conjectures

The Ancient Capital of England and its part in the future of the Nation
Proverbs 29 v 18 Where there is no vision, the people perish.

Local Plan Review 2026-2044

This new 20-year plan review is under way.  The process has just started.  Shouldn’t we have a Vision for Winchester? 

Winchester is the ancient capital of England.  It was amongst the larger Roman cities after London, Verulanium  (St Albans ) and Colchester.  The largest in this neck of the woods was Silchester, north of Basingstoke.   But Winchester’s origins are older than this and still visible on St. Catherine’s Hill today. 

In the City’s 2,000 year history there have been only two, possibly three visions for the City, all three of them now 1,000 or more years ago!  

The first was the Roman vision at the time of the Claudian invasion of 64 AD .  This was for a City as part of a network of cities, roads and other settlements for the whole of Britain.  Winchester was planned for a certain size, situated in the level floor of the river valley.  To this end, the Romans moved the river to its present location, a bit higher and away from what is now the site of the cathedral.  They then built a walled city with the usual Roman characteristics. 

The second vision was that of King Alfred who in 890 AD decided to make the City his capital.   He also built a cathedral and two abbeys and rebuilt its defences. 

The third vision—-or perhaps a re-affirmation of Alfred’s vision— was that of William the Conqueror.  He also chose Winchester as his capital, built a castle and established his mint here. He also inaugurated a massive re-building of the cathedral and the founding of another abbey at Hyde, just outside the city walls. He also emphasised his decision by appointing his right-hand man, and half-brother, Odo, Bishop of Bayeux as Bishop of Winchester.

Thereafter the city generally prospered and became the city of today. 

This is my City, though I was not born here. It is our city.  It is precious to us.  But it is precious also to the nation. 

The City’s local plans have always focussed strongly on balancing the needs of growth and change on the one hand, and jealous guardianship of our outstanding heritage, on the other.  

But there has been no decades long or century-long vision for the City.  Consequently there has been no long term vision for any balance between growth and heritage.  This paper is a first attempt to produce such a vision. 

Winchester till the First World War 

The first walled and paved city was Roman.  This fell into ruins during the post-Roman invasions.  The City didn’t regain its Roman size till the medieval period and then began a slow growth until the Industrial Revolution. During the 19th century it grew substantially. The railways and small scale industry were significant, as were the barracks, on the site of the castle. Roger Brown’s wonderful model in the museum shows the bulk of Winchester in the 1870’s. But by then it had grown well beyond the Roman and medieval city walls and even beyond the medieval suburbs of Chesil Street  and Hyde.  By then also, the hospital and prison had been moved up the Romsey Road hill.   By the First World War, villas extended the City further to link with St Cross and further up Romsey Road. The Fulflood area adjacent to the station was also developed 

But the city was still basically recognisable to all its earlier inhabitants—all 1,900 years of them! 

The gradual mainly unplanned growth of Winchester in the last 100 years 

After 1918, much bigger changes happened and growth accelerated. There were several major reasons for growth. 

Firstly, some of the small holdings for horses at Olivers Battery during the war, were made permanent, beginning the slow development of that area for housing.  The City Council embarked on a programme of slum clearance and housing for poorer persons. In the 1920’s the lower Stanmore estate  was built for this purpose, with the intention of further development as needed.  Similarly an estate was built at Weeke and another at Winnall.

The county council  and city council both increased office space and employment for public services.

With the railway, Winchester became a dormitory town not only for railway executives at Eastleigh and commuters to Southampton, but also to London.

By 1950’s Winchester had one of the highest proportions of council housing in the country. 

Then came the new private sector estates such as Weeke, Kings Worthy, Olivers Battery, Badger Farm  and various others.  The latest of 2,000 houses is Barton Farm.

The city was heavily affected by new industry after the Second World War, latterly computing and other high tech.  Winchester became a part of the London/Bristol axis for high tech employment. 

Tourism grew greatly from the 1960’s as incomes, car-ownership and foreign travel increased. 

From the last years of the 20th century, the mechanism for this growth was actually Government housing targets—bringing employment, transport, public services in their wake.  But this was always Winchester’s share of national housing targets—it was not and still isn’t locally generated and calculated demand for more housing. 

It is a good question as to whether or not Winchester would have grown so quickly without these housing targets.  Or whether  pressure from developers would have doubled the size of Winchester without planning constraints? The latter does seem very unlikely during the last 20 or more years, when public and private sector house building has fallen to dramatically low levels.  

Pressures for growth or change in the future

Since national population growth seems to be slowing and could even reverse, then the whole idea of growth and expansion of the last 100 years is up for grabs.  We do not have a public national picture for this—though the ONS will have clear ideas for the next 20 or 30 years as the parents of those families are now alive, if only kicking.  

The City must be quite clear of its place in this national picture.

Net migration will also be key to this.  Sooner or later, the standard of living advantage of living here, rather than overseas, will change.  This has already happened in parts of eastern Europe, where it is no longer as attractive financially to live and work here, compared to say in Poland.  As incomes rise in the Far East, living and working in Britain will be less attractive.  This effect is much greater than it would have been if UK had had 2 % p.a. economic growth over the past 20 years.  

With climate change, hot summers in the south may prompt some families to move north. 

Providing so-called affordable housing is also a key policy for all governments, central and local. The need is particularly acute following many years of low house building of any kind.  The need is exacerbated by restrictions in council and social housing spending.  Meanwhile the need has increased because of the increased costs of home ownership and the increased rents in the private sector, such that they equal or nearly equal the costs of home ownership. 

There are other special needs that can be met by development, which may also bring job opportunities, particularly in high-tech.  

Transport is a particular problem of Winchester. The road and city layout is still Roman, designed 2,000 years ago, but now with radial extensions.  And the river valley cuts the City in half. Steep hills out of the valley add to the complication. Getting across the city is not easy.

But the terrain and historic City prevents any prospect of major change.  Movement on foot, cart and carriage, if not Roman in style, still rules Winchester transport systems. 

Any major transport improvement seems possible only on a South Hampshire scale, of which Winchester is only part. 

The next 100 years: Alternative visions for Winchester  

Continued expansion

The City could continue to develop as it has with incremental growth, with no decades-long vision or strategy, but at least with a 5 or 10 years strategy enshrined in a statutory local plan. So there is some limited strategic and a good tactical plan to which to work.

I doubt that Winchester will grow hugely in population size, because the national population does not look set to grow as it has in the past.  

So it could be argued that muddling through as in the last 100 years would work OK.

But, in that case current proposals for more housing are not just misguided, but wrong, as they have no convincing strategic basis, and are not defensible muddling through either. 

No growth 

An attractive 50 or 100 year objective would then be to preserve Winchester as a free-standing City, not much different in size from today, still surrounded by countryside, which vitally would include the countryside southwards to Eastleigh, the closest neighbouring urban area.  In other words: no growth.

No special pleading here for Winchester! 

There are 4 reasons why this is not special pleading for Winchester.

The potential damage of further growth, is a problem through-out the south-east region and elsewhere in the south.  It’s not just a threat to Winchester.  Besides, we have three major national policies which all promote the idea of development elsewhere. 

The first reason is overheating in the south.  We need a halt to development, at least in the south east   This is particularly an environmental issue of spread and density of development, of urban areas coalescing, of transport problems and congestion, and of over-use of leisure areas, particularly the coast and countryside. All these bring social and environmental costs, such as pollution, and water supply, which in turn impose financial and economic costs.   

I can’t imagine that Salisbury and Godalming, Tunbridge Wells and Canterbury are greatly attracted either, by the idea of significant growth.  I doubt also that Andover and Basingstoke and Horsham, who have had years of post-war growth, are just yearning for more.  Nor are the coastlines except where old seaside towns suffer from neglect.  And we have three major national parks to preserve and nurture.  

There are exceptions: areas of urban and rural poverty need investment and other help.  And everywhere, there is need for more affordable housing.  But apart from that, significant development is not obviously beneficial.  Besides, it is obviously damaging. 

Even less does the Winchester area need Micheldever new town, which also fills the gap between Basingstoke, and Winchester.  This fills in the ribbon development of urban settlement and towns from Southend in Essex to the Solent coast.  Worse, it would strengthen the urban barrier between the south-east and the rest of the country, making east-west communication south of the Thames even more difficult .  

Less still does the south need a new I million population city in East Anglia —a challenge to flooding and water supply as well.

So the south urgently needs restraint on development.

Secondly the nation needs to re-balance the entire country: that is to redress the north/south divide.  That has has been a concern since the 1920’s.  It was brought to the entire nation’s attention by the Jarrow Crusade of 1936.  But the in-balance is more complex than simply north/south. 

Moreover, combatting climate change is a major aim of the nation.  That points to development away from the south-east —for all sorts of reasons.  Living on the flanks of the Pennines or in the north-east or the north-east of Scotland could become very attractive with climate change.  

Fourthly, spending on climate change promotes economic growth. So says the OECD.  So we should double our spending on climate change, as one of the means of growing the economy—after 20 years of cutting spending in response to the destruction caused by the Bankers in 2008.  

No town or village or other settlement in the south or south-east should have to grow to satisfy national house-building and employment needs, if they should be located elsewhere.  What’s the sense in that?  Yet that is government policy in the local housing targets! 

Finally, a “No growth with exceptions” Local Plan is closer to likely population trends than continued expansion at the rate of the last 50 years or so. 

The Vision for Winchester in the Local Plan 2026 to 2044

The Vision, my Vision, is one of no significant population growth, nor other major development.  But it is also a Vision for more affordable housing and steps to meet the needs of special groups and areas.  Current statutory plans will also need to be respected.  

And as far as I am concerned—no development, no growth for the next 100 years! 

Continuing Winchester’s unplanned development trajectory of the last 100 years would be barbarous. 

© Philip Morgan 2026 Public Policy Conjectures All rights reserved