Some of these cookies are necessary to make the site work. We’d also like to use optional cookies to help improve your experience on the site. You can manage your optional cookie preferences below. Using this tool will set a cookie on your device to remember your preferences. Your preferences can be changed at any time.
For further details, see our Cookie Policy and our Privacy Policy
Essential cookies enable core functionality such as page navigation and access to secure areas. The website cannot function properly without these cookies; they can only be disabled by changing your browser preferences. Third party functions such as Google Search and Analytics will not be enabled.
Performance settings enable you to use the Google Search engine on our website and help us to improve our website by collecting and reporting information on its usage (for example, which of our pages are most frequently visited).
Environment This area of land is at present designated as “Countryside” and should be maintained as such, IAW with the present Local Plan. There should be no changes to this designation until after this Draft Local Plan has been fully ratified by the Secretary of State etc. If plans to build are allowed before this ratification it makes a mockery of all of this consultation and a disgraceful waste or taxpayers money. If the Draft Local Plan goes ahead, the last pieces of the green, the lungs of Fareham, will be changed to concrete forever and never come back. Fareham will not be a nice place to live at all. The future is looking black and the Council must see its obligation to resist this frenetic call to build, build, build. 4. Access to the proposed site. The road bridges and their constraints on Funtley road, leading to this proposed housing site make this a totally untenable project. Unless the Council are proposing to rebuild the three bridges, four with the railway bridge? I think not! The bridges to the West are very narrow (one way) and dangerous for cars, more so for cyclists and pedestrians. There are height restrictions on the old railway bridge too. There is no mention of this issue in any Transport Plan! The bridge to the East on Funtley Road is also very narrow, with bad visibility and dark at night. There is also a weight restriction on this bridge. Accident near misses on all these bridges, with cars, trucks and especially public transport buses are common, due to the poor approaches. Again, there is a lack of this serious issue in the draft plan, in fact the plan is suggesting that there will be SIX exits onto this piece of road (in about a mile, how dangerous is that!!. The new planned junctions out of their proposed building area into Funtley Road will also be dangerous. Vehicles leaving Roebuck Avenue entrance already have regular difficulties with constrained vision when joining Funtley Road. Also, the Roebuck junction has had to cope with large articulated trucks, miss-using Satnavs, and having to turn around due to the height restrictions of the bridge to the west. If this new junction were to be built it could also be used by large trucks to turn. These poorly designed accesses, at present and in the future, would also cause difficulties for emergency vehicles for both entering and exiting these estates. 5. Flooding. This village is named “Funtley” which means “Grasslands with Springs”. The whole area around the village is on a very high-water table! The present adjacent house owners will confirm this problem, and can provide proof of flooding. Any new building here will exacerbate and possibly cause even more flooding to the existing Funtley Road, and Roebuck estate houses. . The rain water floods from the fields to the South of the road, where the old football pitch used to be, accentuated over the last few years by the landowner dumping huge amounts of soil in this area raising the ground level substantially. This new dumped earth is also believed to have made the ground to the South much more unstable. Other plans have proposed using the water ditches immediately to the North and South of the proposed site to help clear this water. Where would these ditches take the water? From historically monitoring this area, excess water can build up quickly on this site in very wet weather. Therefore, the houses at the proposed site would also flood! Fareham Borough Council dug a pond on the meadow immediately to the North of this site only a few years ago. It was meant to stop the flooding in the area but has only lessened the risk. In most winters it fills up fully and spills over into the culvert running right alongside the proposed building area. This water does not flow away easily but spreads out, joining the water flooding down from the high ground to the South. This will flood the proposed building site and Funtley Road. Ecology. Building here will cause environmental issues as wildlife, including, Dormice, Bats, Deer, will be inhibited from their natural routes and feeding. Also, the Ecological report from Reside does not mention Rats, these are prevalent in this area due to the water channels and pond close to the north of the site. It is thought they would increase with the building of more houses and ditches causing more infestations than now in this area. Cars etc. Residents will have many cars and will use them; this plan underestimates the number of vehicles that could be on the site and the journeys residents would make both for work and recreation. The traffic numbers will be accentuated by the expected huge growth in local traffic as Welborne grows. . This has been proved in an independent traffic survey, 1000 vehicles use Funtley Road during the peak times every week day!! Public transport. The cost of bus travel into Fareham is £350 for an adult a year! Not a great incentive to go by bus! The buses are rarely used now and are a safety issue locally on our narrow roads. There is only one bus an hour each way, including peak periods, the buses stop running at 1900 weekdays and 1630 on Saturday. No buses at all on Sunday Subsidence There have been cases of subsidence in the Roebuck estate and this could well effect some of the buildings that are proposed. All on clay and near water movement areas.Also the comments above, regarding the landowner dumping thousands of tons of soil and hardcore onto this grassland, may yet cause subsidence on the South side of Funtley Road
PO15
I viewed the exhibition in the shopping centre last week and noted the areas proposed for development. I have two general objections and one about HA10 specifically. The first is the fact that we are continuously pressured to fit more and more people into a finite amount of space. I realise that that has more to do with national government policy but we shouldn't be complacent about it. The second is the promise of improved infrastructure which all too often becomes an afterthought, a low priority item which is not given the priority it deserves. That's why I object to the developments in HA10 Funtley Road South, Funtley. This is in a narrow country lane used by pedestrians, cyclists, and horse riders from the several nearby stables in both Funtley Lane and in Fontley Road. If you're in a vehicle you have to be very careful using Funtley Lane, Fontley Road, and Titchfield Lane as you never know who or what is round the many blind bends. I work from home as much as possible but have to commute twice a week. My route takes me through this area and it is in near gridlock at peak times due to the size of the roads and the T junctions at either end of Segensworth Road. I beggars belief why an industrial park was given planning permission in Fontley Road. The largest type of articulated lorries use it and the HGVs are often occupying too much of the road forcing opposing traffic into the verges. In Funtley there is the narrow bridge over the railway with flimsy white railings on one side. I doubt construction vehicles for new houses will be allowed to use it so that means all the traffic is going to come and go from the north, down those same narrow and congested roads. If you upgrade the infrastructure first you will destroy the character of a rural area. Vehicles already drive too fast along it. If you don't then it's going to be hell for the people who live nearby and use it. For these reasons HA10 Funtley Road South is NOT a suitable area for new houses. It's a rural area that gives breathing space for the urban areas to the south and east. If anything, traffic calming schemes, weight restrictions, and fly-tipping prevention measures should be added.
PO16
Being a commuter who travels out of Fareham to work each day I can safely say that the queues of traffic both inbound and outbound is horrific - At peak times it often takes 30 minutes to get from junction 11 to the Tesco roundabout. This is exacerbated by the endless queues in both directions along the M27 from Portsmouth to Southampton (and onward to the M3) at peak times and often during the day. My daily commute from Fareham to South Winchester regularly takes approx an hour each way to travel 22 miles. I have not seen anything in the supporting documentation that would be a feasible solution to this situation. The FBC council history on traffic solutions is abysmal - for example the number of time the roundabout & junctions around the station & Gudge Heath Lane areas have had to be reworked at a huge cost to the tax payer prove that the council are incompetent of providing realistic workable solution to traffic issues. The overall plan (excluding Welbourne) show around 8000 properties being added to the local area over the next 20 years. The increase in traffic issues that will bring the town and surrounding areas to a stand still and the additional pollution element is enough for me to object against the building of further housing in the local area.
PO16
when we brought our house in Fareham it was a lovely place to live. Countryside & coast, now we have to fight out way down country lanes ( Try Pook lane at 8.30am) down the A27 along the M27. Fareham has become a traffic nightmare we don't need all these houses. You have Whitley , Knowle and the dreaded Welborne. We keel trapped I a concrete jungle, dictated to by the volume of traffic as to when we can go out. Why should we build more & more to accommodate the millions of new comers let in by last government uncontrolled migration. Put the existing residents of Fareham just we don't need these hundreds of houses here . Ensure the houses youre building in the town centre are low cost or low rent (even Council houses)- now there's an idea.
Postcode not provided
The construction of additional properties in this location would cause further safety hazards on Funtley Road. The road is narrow and with no footpath for pedestrains to walk on. This would be particulary dangerous for unacompanied children. Furthermore it will have an adverse effect on the enviroment and countryside.
PO15
This is an inappropriate site for development.This site is in genuine countryside and is currently being used for equestrian activities which are appropriate to its setting. This site is demonstrably outside of the village envelope of Funtley. Whilst it is accepted that the proposed residential development north side of Funtley Road is whithin the village envelope and would represent limited infill the site to the south does not fulfil this function. The site to the south has a distinctic landscape value that is emphaised by the rising ground to the north as indicated in the photograph in Appendix G. The view of this landscape will be obliterated by development. Even by restriciting development to the area adjacent Funtley Road this form of development will cause irreversable harm to the sensitive landscape. The proposed greenspace pedestrian link does provide satisfactory mitigation for the loss of this landscape. The proposed residential development to east is is going have a significant impact on the ancient woodland SINC and a 15 m buffer is not adequate to mitigate this impact. On approaching Funtley from the west as one passes under the former railway bridge due the curvature of the road the view is of open landscape with the residential development to north of Funtley Road not so noticeable. The proposed development will forever change this prespective of the village of Funtley. This impact on the landscape is supported by the Council's SEA Report which records a strong adverse effect against the the SEA objective 3: To conserve and enhance the character of the landscape. It must be argued that the there strong sustainability arguments for not proceeding with this proposed allocation. Indeed this proposed allocation in the local plan would be contrary to the NPPF. Paragraph 109 states that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by: ?protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, geological conservation interests and soils; It is is important that Funtley retains its own identity there is a danger that the proposed level of development would start eroding that identity. The proposed developemnt has to be put into context with the propsed Welbourne development which will be very close to Funtley. It is therefore important that with the impending large scale development of Welbourne that further development in Funtley does not give the impression of continuous urban form with Funtley losing its identity as a distinct settlement. There is a concern that the proposed development will put more strained on the local highway network. Funtley Road is a narrow country road that is already being used a rat run. This is exacebated by Winchester City Council allowing further intensification of the industrial development in Titchfield Lane. A further 55 dwellings will increase the traffic generation on this road.The proposed access roads together with the access road to the proposed site north of Funtley Road would appear to be close together and I would be concerned about the highway safety of such an arrangement.
PO17
Drainage is not going to cope with any more development. Roads flood in winter already.
PO14
Description of known flooding and flooding concerns During heavy rainfall we constantly suffer flooding to our property and surrounding areas. Outside property numbers 29, 31, and 33 Roebuck Avenue, the shared driveway floods as water runs off of the Funtley Meadow. Fareham Borough Council in conjunction with Southern Water recently excavated a large pond hoping this would alleviate some of the issues. The pond quickly fills up as water runs into it from the land North of Funtley Road and the meadow itself causes our drives to flood. The meadow itself also becomes flooded and impassable during heavy rainfall and as the land is adjacent to the land North of Funtley Road then that field too becomes waterlogged in wet weather. Outside property numbers 29, 27 and 25, the road in Roebuck Avenue, regularly floods even with normal rainfall. This drains into the open ditch behind house numbers 29, 31 and 33 Roebuck Avenue. This ditch is very wet even in the summer months and full with water all of the winter months. On numerous occasions I have reported this to FBC and asked them to pump out the gullies. Once the drainage ditch is full our back garden becomes unusable due to the high water table and clay soil. The whole area is basically a belt of clay, before it was an abattoir site it was a clay brickwork factory. Any more water running into the ditch from further development will cause many more flooding issues and our houses at some point may be affected by flooding too. The flooding along Funtley Road. The whole area is made up of impermeable clay soil, hence the continual flooding of the road. There are many photographs available to show how the road floods in wet weather. One major concern is that the surface water on this road freezes in cold weather and is prone to black ice. There have been numerous vehicle accidents along this stretch of road due to black ice and flooding and it will not be long before there is a fatal crash here too.
PO15
"Funtley is already going to be affected by Welborne, which will be built virtually up to the village boundary. This is one of the last two green spaces in the village. Development in the area is at risk of flooding and increasing risk to more low lying properties on Funtley Road. Increased traffic on a road that is already a busy ""rat run"" even before Welborne is a reality. Lack of infrastrucure is also a concern"
PO15
we do not understand why this site has been proposed in draft local plan due to the topography of the land being extremely steep leading to a ditch alongside the country road which is full of water for most of the winter months, often flooding across the road. The land which was used as football pitches for many years was invariably too wet to use. By building on this land it will increase the likelihood of flooding issues. The whole area is very complex so careful consideration is required to the increase in flooding. This is an issue which affects many parts of Funtley as there are numerous springs associated with down stream flooding from the River Meon. Whilst Funtley has had a huge increase with development throughout the village, this part of the village has managed to help retain its rural character and sitting between the 2 bridges with the road still being a country lane makes it unsuitable to accept any further development.
Postcode not provided
I wish to object on the selection of this site for the following reasons: - Funtley already has 6500 homes planned on its doorstep. It is not a fair distribution of homes within the Borough to allocate even more in this area, on the western border of our village. - The western end of Funtley Rd always floods each year. This is despite a new pond being built in Funtley Meadow and ditches along the road to mitigate this risk. The Mean River cannot cope with the run off water from teh eixsting land, and it will be worse with homes built over the current fields. The homes along the road constantly have sand bags on the ready as the risk of flooding after rain is constant. - The residents of Funtley have already commented at a public consultation on the development of this area a few years ago. Their response was an over whelming 'no'. The plan has already been turned down once by the Council - so why should they now approve the site? Nothing has changed. My response to previous consultations has always been that if Welborne didn't go ahead, then I would consider this development as the risk of flooding would be less and we wouldn't be so hemmed in. However, now that Welborne is going ahead, I definitely don't feel this development should be allowed as well. - Traffic and the railway bridge cannot cope with further traffic. Funtley Rd is a country lane and was not designed to take the amount to traffic it currently does - let alone the traffic that would ensue if this development was built, in addition to the traffic expected from Welborne. It is already a rat run in the mornings and evenings. The bridge has a 3 ton limit and already has a worrying dip in it. It was repaired a few years ago, but it looks like it will need repairing again soon as the dip increases. We have had several accidents along Funtley Rd due to speeding and this will only get worse. There is a recreation ground with no crossing over the road, which is a danger to children crossing. - the site is currently green fields and should only be considered as a last resort over other brown field sites. It should be taken out of the Local Plan altogether as the number of houses it would contribute to the requirements is minimal, but it would have a disproportionate impact on the residents of Funtley, who yet again are being asked to accept development in their doorstep.
PO17
This is not a suitable site for development and should not be included in the plan. It is a greenfield site and should be kept as such. There are other far more suitable sites with better amenities, infrastructure and accessibilty than this one. The extent of the proposed development would completely change the local vicinity. It is currently a rural area and locating scores more homes would be massively detrimental to the existing community. The roads in the whole area, and especially immediately adjacent to the site, are liable to flood in heavy rainfall. Creating a development of this size, with so many impermeable surfaces would exacerbate these issues and would without doubt put existing properties at risk. There is a lack of public transport in the area meaning it is necessary to use a car; roads in the area would simply not cope with the volume of traffic this would create. Single carriageway bridges over the river and the railway were categorically not designed for this usage. Doctors and schools are at capacity and there is no provision made for the extra families that would need to be provided with these services should this site be included in the plan. I strongly object to the inclusion of this site.
PO15
I oppose the proposed development of housing site HA10 in Funtley, as totally unsuitable and unviable for development on the following grounds: 1) Downstream flooding. Site HA10 suffers from significant downstream flooding which flows down to Funtley Road and also along Funtley Road to River Lane and the small bridge over the River Meon. 2) Contaminated land. Illegal industrial dumping (site HA10). 3) Inadequate traffic infrastructure along Funtley Road between the two proposed housing sites. 4) Proximity to the motorway (site HA10) and the noise decibel level on this site. 5) Drainage. This is a problem in the wider context of Welborne in that no firm proposals have yet been submitted on how the proposed 6,000 new homes in Welborne plus the sites in Funtley will have their waste water adequately disposed of. 6) Local infrastructure. Whilst there is some provision in site HA10 for some local community facilities, it still does not address the fact the local doctors, dentists, schools, healthcare provision, main shopping facilities are several miles away in Fareham or Wickham, with minimal public transport available in Funtley. Whilst the local plan and the leadership of the council have stated they expect developer contributions towards local infrastructure, there is no guarantee that all these contributions will be spent in Funtley. In all likelihood these developer contributions will go into a general kitty to be spent across the borough and not specifically in Funtley, which would desperately need it, if these sites were approved as part of the local plan. 7) Environment and history. Funtley has always been recognised by Fareham Borough Council as a designated countryside area. Whilst there has been development in Funtley in the past, this has been on what were previously brownfield sites i.e. the tile and brickworks and the abattoir. With the approval of the Welborne Plan in 2015, these sites form part of the last green infrastructure in Funtley. The proposed sites will remove the last remaining semi rural parts of Funtley and inevitably change the whole character of the village from a desirable semi-rural community on the northern boundary of Fareham to an urban extension of the Fareham sprawl, with increased pressure on the local infrastructure. 8) Sharing the burden of development across the borough. The approval of the Welborne Plan in 2015, means that over a period of time there will eventually be a new community of about 6,000 homes and associated infrastructure on the northern boundary of Funtley. It was stated on many occasions by Fareham Borough Council that with the development of Welborne, there would be no further development in Funtley, which has always been previously designated as a countryside area by the local authority. The proposal of these two new sites HA10 and HA18 and the total of 78 proposed new homes would have, in my opinion, a very negative impact on our community, taking into account that we will have a new town the size of Petersfield on our northern boundary. I believe that North Fareham and Funtley and in particular, are taking the largest share of proposed development in Fareham Borough over the next few decades. I believe that the proposed additional 78 new homes in Funtley can be absorbed by the ‘urban bonus’ of brownfield site developments across Fareham Borough. I also note that the council have recently received a planning application for a proposed new development of up to 1,100 plus new houses on land to the south of Longfield Avenue, Fareham (planning reference p/15/1279/OA). This proposed development is not in the local plan. Whilst I’m not making any comment on the viability of this proposed development, I believe at the very least that the sites HA10 and HA18 in Funtley should be held in reserve until all of these very large planning applications have been decided upon.
PO17
Flooding risk , site based on undulating hill, development would impact the risk of flooding to the whole of roebuck avenue. Neighboring sites were rejected, this site should be treated equally.
PO15
Large Format Response - Ref0034
SO14
Infrastucture- Wallington has narrow roads and an excess of vehicles using them, A 20mph limit is not adhered to and further traffic would only exacerbate the problems including access onto the Delme roundabout where vehicle pollution is excessive further developments will only serve to place greater strain on the existing power & drainage utilities. Flood risk and loss of open spaces need urgent consideration.
PO16
Large Format Response - Ref0037
PO14
I write in response to the consultation for the Draft Local Plan 2011 – 2036 Paragraph 1.34 states ‘half of the Borough falls within the countryside, providing a well-established visual and physical separation between settlements ensuring a sense of place and reinforcing local distinctiveness. It also provides and protects special landscapes and biodiversity characteristics, as well as contributing to the quality of like and health of local residents.’ I live in Funtley and we are already saddled with the development of Welborne in LP3 adopted in June 2015. This development comprises of 6,000 dwellings, offices, warehouses, schools and a shopping outlet centre. To then read the draft plan and find that there is to be considered more buildings in Funtley Road near and opposite Stag Way estate is unbelievable. This area previously had a planning application in from Reside developments and it was withdrawn. The area is in open countryside and provides a well-established visual and physical separation between Funtley, the M27, and the houses in the Hill Park estate area. I consider that this area is well in line with your statement above. This new development now within the ‘call for sites’ will have a detrimental effect on the well-being of Funtley residents as we are being surrounded and swallowed up into the greater Fareham conurbation area. My objections to the sites in Funtley Road HA10 and HA18 area as follows; The area has a small operational railway bridge with traffic light control and a narrow old railway bridge not in use by Network Road heading to River Lane. Making the heavy goods vehicles carrying building stock an issue and putting extra strain on the infrastructure of the operational railway bridge, which does have a weight limit, and the other disused railway bridge is narrow and on a blind bend. This would be the last bit of countryside left in Funtley and we wish it to remain so. We would like to keep some of local distinctiveness. You state in your Key Stategic Priorities on Page 12 at Para 2.7 ”2. In the first instance maximise development within the urban area and away from the valued landscapes and spaces that contribute to settlement definition”. If you build on these sites in River Lane you have, in our opinion, broken one of your basic commitments to residents. Funtley Road to River Lane floods especially in extreme rainfall. There is not adequate drainage and there is no infrastructure to prevent this drain off. Appendix Page 231 – the land South of Funtley Road is a gradient going upwards from the road to the motorway so when we have rainfall the water goes downhill and therefore into Funtley Road exacerbating the flooding potential of this road. Many properties along this road have sandbags at their properties through out winter and therefore this development is not conclusive to alleviating future flooding prevention. Para 4.31 “4.31 The countryside (i.e. areas outside of the defined Urban Areas) provides many positive aspects. On one hand it provides settlement distinction which has in some cases been protected more specifically through the identification of a Strategic Gap. Secondly, and separate to the gap issue, the open countryside often contains valued landscapes that can be sensitive to change or development. There are further considerations such as agricultural land value that may also need to be considered. The land south of Funtley Road meets the criteria above of being landscapes that can be sensitive to change or development as it has previously been classed as open countryside. Para 4.32 A key strategic priority of the Draft Plan is to focus development within the existing urban area and within specific site allocations that have been determined taking into account their sustainable merits (individually and cumulatively) and which accord with the Development Strategy and other evidence which supports the Local Plan. Both Para 4.31 and 4.32 are set to “contain development in an urban area”. This site is not in an urban area it is open countryside. Therefore to propose this site and even consider it goes against what you have quoted you will abide by in your Strategic Policies. Para 10.42 “The findings of the emerging PUSH integrated Water Management Study show that Peel Common Waste Water Treatment Works (WxTW) will receive increased flows of sewerage effluent from development in the Fareham Eat and West areas. Although no significant impact or deterioration is predicted due to future housing growth, the Peel Common WwTW will require improvements by 2025 to increase capacity in the WwTW and sewer network upgrages. This catchment is noted to have nitrate problems and catchment level nitrate measures area required now although it is also acknowledged that housing growth will not affect the scale of these measures.” With regards to this paragraph why wait till 2025. It is very concerning that there are current issues with the levels of nitrates now this should be acted on as a matter of importance – I find it quite disturbing that you as a body in FBC are looking at increasing housing numbers without proper infrastructure in place to cope with the addition of any more nitrates in the current overloaded system. Regarding the whole Draft plan – 1. There are too many houses being promulgated here it is clear there are 1500 or so on the waiting list for council property but really do we need 13,00 houses jobs are going, recently Palmer and Harvey and only today Toys R Us are on the brink of closing stores. 2. There are too few Drs within the Fareham area, to get a Drs appointment takes weeks and even FBC could not train even a couple of doctors by the end of this draft plan’s lifetime. 3. Our NHS is in a critical state with QA under special measures – Nurses are dwindling in numbers as the requirement is not a university degree. With only 975 beds at QA for a populous of 116,000 is beyond belief. Fareham deserve a fully operational 24/7 large hospital not some small cottage type unit that operates as and when it desires. 4. Our transport system is falling to pieces, gridlock is happening on a daily basis and there is not enough infrastructure in place currently to cope with Fareham residents now or for any projected housing in the future. 5. There is no guarantee forthcoming for the re-vamp of Junction 10 which Welborne in the LP3 requires – This will inevitably have a knock on effect to FBCs current calls for sites ahead of Welborne evening starting. 6. Our final statement is that the plan needs a total revisit or FBC drastically reduce the number of houses required excluding Welborne – it is not viable to the well being of Fareham’s residents in its current state.
PO17
Large Format Response - Ref0043
SO23
Dear Sir / Madam I write in response to the consultation for the Draft Local Plan 2011 – 2036 Paragraph 1.34 states “Half of the Borough falls within the countryside, providing a well-established visual and physical separation between settlements ensuring a sense of place and reinforcing local distinctiveness. It also provides and protects special landscapes and biodiversity characteristics, as well as contributing to the quality of life and health of local residents.” I live in Funtley and we are already saddled with the development of Welborne in LP3 adopted in June 2015. This development comprises of 6,000 dwellings, offices, warehouses, schools and a shopping outlet centre. To then read the draft plan and find that there is to be considered more buildings in Funtley Road near and opposite Stag Way estate is unbelievable. This area previously had a planning application in from Reside developments and it was withdrawn. The area is in open countryside and provides a well-established visual and physical separation between Funtley, the M27, and the houses in the Hill park estate area. I consider that this area is well in line with your statement above. This new development now within the “call for sites” will have a detrimental effect on the well-being of Funtley residents as we are being surrounded and swallowed up into the greater Fareham conurbation area. My objections to the sites in Funtley Road HA10 and HA18 are as follows:- • The area has a small operational railway bridge with traffic light control and a narrow old railway bridge not in use by Network Rail heading to River Lane. Making the heavy goods vehicles carrying building stock an issue and putting extra strain on the infrastructure of the operational railway bridge, which does have a weight limit, and the other disused railway bridge is narrow and on a blind bend . • This would be the last bit of countryside left in Funtley and we wish it to remain so. We would like to keep some of our local distinctiveness. You state in your Key Strategic Priorities on Page 12 at Para 2.7 “ 2. In the first instance maximise development within the urban area and away from the valued landscapes and spaces that contribute to settlement definition” If you build on these sites in River Lane you have, in our opinion, broken one of your basic commitments to residents. • Funtley Road to River Lane floods especially in extreme rainfall. There is not adequate drainage and there is no infrastructure to prevent this drain off. • Appendix Page 231 - The land South of Funtley Road is a gradient going upwards from the Road to the Motorway so when we have rainfall the water goes downhill and therefore into Funtley Road exacerbating the flooding potential of this road. Many properties along this road have sandbags at their properties through out winter and therefore this development is not condusive to alleviating future flooding prevention. • Para 4.31 “4.31 The countryside (i.e. areas outside of the defined Urban Area) provides many positive aspects. On one hand it provides settlement distinction which has in some cases been protected more specifically through the identification of a Strategic Gap. Secondly, and separate to the gap issue, the open countryside often contains valued landscapes that can be sensitive to change or development. There are further considerations such as agricultural land value that may also need to be considered. The land South of Funtley Road meets the criteria above of being landscapes that can be sensitive to change or development as it has previously been classed as open countryside • Para 4.32 “A key Strategic Priority of the Draft Plan is to focus development within the existing urban area and within specific site allocations that have been determined taking into account their sustainable merits (individually and cumulatively) and which accord with the Development Strategy and other evidence which supports the Local Plan. • Both Para 4.31 and 4.32 are set to “contain development in an urban area” This site is not in an urban area it is open countryside. Therefore to propose this site and even consider it goes against what you have quoted you will abide by in your Strategic Policies. • Para 10.42 ”The findings of the emerging PUSH Integrated Water Management Study show that Peel Common Waste Water Treatment Works (WwTW) will receive increased flows of sewerage effluent from development in the Fareham East and West areas. Although no significant impact or deterioration is predicted due to future housing growth, the Peel Common WwTW will require improvements by 2025 to increase capacity in the WwTW and sewer network upgrades. This catchment is noted to have nitrate problems and catchment level nitrate measures are required now although it is also acknowledged that housing growth will not affect the scale of these measures.” With regards to this paragraph why wait till 2025 It is very concerning that there are current issues with the levels of nitrates now this should be acted on as a matter of importance - I find it quite disturbing that you as a body in FBC are looking at increasing housing numbers without proper infrastructure in place to cope with the addition of any more nitrates in the current overloaded system. Regarding the whole Draft plan – 1. There are too many houses being promulgated here it is clear there are 1500 or so on the waiting list for council property but really do we need 13,000 houses jobs are going, recently Palmer and Harvey and only today Toys R us are on the brink of closing stores. 2. There are too few Drs within the Fareham area, to get a Drs appointment takes weeks and even FBC could not train even a couple of doctors by the end of this draft plan’s lifetime. 3. Our NHS is in a critical State with QA under special measures – Nurses are dwindling in numbers as the requirement is now a university degree. With only 975 beds at QA for a populus of 116,000 is beyond belief Fareham deserve a fully operational 24/7 large operational hospital not some small cottage type unit that operates as and when it desires. 4. Our transport system is falling to pieces, gridlock is happening on a daily basis and there is not enough Infrastructure in place currently to cope with Fareham residents now or for any projected housing in the future. 5. There is no guarantee forthcoming for the re-vamp of Junction 10 which Welborne in the LP3 requires - This will inevitably have a knock - on effect to FBC’s current calls for sites ahead of Welborne even starting!!!!! 6. Our final statement is that the plan needs a total revisit or FBC drastically reduce the number of houses required excluding Welborne - It is not viable to the well- being of Fareham residents in its’ current state.
PO17
Large Format Response - Ref0069
Anonymous submission
Back to Top
How to get here
