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).
I am worried about the extra traffic in this area as locksheath free church has been given the go head to expand
PO14
I do not believe this space is suitable for 38 'dwellings'. The plot is tiny, 10 'dwellings' would be more suitable (parking space etc). I'm objecting to this because the Hunts Pond Road is already extremely busy and difficult enough to cross. 38 dwellings could equal at least 38 additional cars using the road (if you allow 1 per dwelling) - if you factor for 2 cars per dwelling it would be 76! gasp! The proposed plot opens out onto an already busy main road and is right next to a thriving family church, playing field and a nature reserve. Please consider adding this land to the nature reserve, designating it as a village green, or adding it onto the playing field for everyone to enjoy. It would be lovely to see this land as nature reserve and left for deer and other wildlife!
Postcode not provided
This is a known local spot to see bats flying at night (I don't know the species).
PO14
As this is the last green space and there have already been 400+ houses further down Hunts Pond Road I object to this proposal. There is no infrastructure, the doctors is one of the largest in the area, no shops and schools are under pressure. Bearing in mind the LHFC is possibly going to build on land that floods this does not bode well for flooding. I was under the impression the horses field was HCC property.
PO14
Too many houses, not enough thought into how people will actually get to work. All the amenities are at their limit already.
SO31
I am extremely concerned about the number of new properties proposed in the local Titchfield Common area - the increase in traffic to already congested roads and junctions, the lack of additional school places available and the additional pressure this will place on already busy health care provision across all ages. The significant increase in population without an increase in recreational facilities will impact the health of the community and increases in pollution as a result of increased car use will also be to the detriment of the most vulnerable.
PO14
Hunts Pond Road is already too busy with traffic. The additional housing proposed throughout the region will only make matters worse. Facilities such as GP surgeries, dentists, etc are already full to bursting. What is being done to ensure provision of sufficient facilities?
SO31
I do not want houses built here. Roads are already congested to the point where I am considering a life of benefits rather than the fatigue of daily travel. Services are also stretched, are you aware that there are no spaces for an NHS dentist anywhere local and a docs app takes 5-6 weeks. Parking on nearby roads is ridiculous. Why do you insist on building in already congested areas?
PO14
Hunts Pond Road is now heavily built up with many side roads and driveways entering the road on both sides. It is a fairly narrow road with narrow pavements, and is well used by many pedestrians walking to the shops in Park Gate and Locks Heath and to the school in Admirals Road. The speed limit is 30mph however there are no reminders of this along the whole road. Recent efforts to slow/calm traffic do not work particularly well, and the majority of traffic regularly exceeds the speed limit. I object to more houses being built along Hunts Pond Road as the increase in traffic will materially affect the safety and wellbeing of the existing residents. It is very difficult to exit driveways with the amount and speed of the traffic which will only increase with more building around the area. At present the tailback of traffic heading west along the A27 from Whiteley and the M27 exit at rush hour causes a bottle neck at the roundabout at the top of Hunts Pond Road. This causes many motorists to use the back roads in Titchfield and Hunts Pond Road being such a long road would benefit from having some sort of restriction, either one way or from stopping traffic from entering at one end or the other.
SO31
Particularly with respect to HA13 & HA19 , Hunts Pond Road has already has massive recent development with the huge estate at the southern end. The road is already very busy & the sites are the last green areas in the whole of this long & busy road. With regard to all the proposals I do not see any new surgeries, School facilities, it already takes 3 - 4 weeks to get an appointment with a GP. No more houses without extra facilities PLEASE.
PO14
This is an already very busy road. Parking is a nightmare as cars park all down Netley Road for the dentist, football and allotments. More houses will increase traffic and parking needs
PO14
I have just bought a house directly opposite where this development is proposed. I already have to deal with the possibility of the church expansion. This road cannot deal with any more traffic. We are also losing too many green spaces which is unfair on the existing community.
PO14
Having reviewed the new Draft Local Plan for Fareham noting 1500 dwellings to be located in Warsash and Titchfield Common area we wish to protest against this proposal. When the new housing development next door to our property in Peters Road was build no extra infrastructure was included, i.e. extra provision for schooling/doctors. Some of the land was sold by the developers to a private concern i.e. Greenacres Road housing was built. – the residents of which have decided to use Peters Road as their parking area causing problems to existing residents when exiting their homes as it is very difficult to exit safely between 2 parked cars as the view is obstructed. We are given to understand that nothing can be done about it and if we in turn decide to park in Greenacres Road we will be fined £200. We suggest therefore all aspects of the proposed plans for housing in this area are looked in to more carefully. Brook Lane already is much busier especially at peak times as is Peters Road and the A27 is already congested at times with the new housing being built. This used to be a pleasant place to live in and although we may have to contend with new developments as time moves on, thought should be given to what you are creating long term.
Postcode not provided
If the housing is built within a specified time these will be financial implplisacations for locks heath tree church mowen woodland is ware
SO31
I wish to object to the above planning application as the Western wards area is already overwhelmed with vehicles and could not possibly take anymore traffic. The lack of infrastructure, doctors, schools, means that the area could not possibly cope with thousands of more people. The strategic gap between villages is being eroded. Accept the Newlands Farm proposal!
SO31
I wish to object to the above planning application as the Western wards area is already overwhelmed with vehicles and could not possibly take anymore traffic. The lack of infrastructure, doctors, schools, means that the area could not possibly cope with thousands of more people. The strategic gap between villages is being eroded. Accept the Newlands Farm proposal!
SO31
I wish to object to the above planning application as the Western wards area is already overwhelmed with vehicles and could not possibly take anymore traffic. The lack of infrastructure, doctors, schools, means that the area could not possibly cope with thousands of more people. The strategic gap between villages is being eroded. Accept the Newlands Farm proposal!
SO31
There is not enough infrastructure to support these new houses and tge traffic on the major and minor roads is already very bad without adding numerous extra houses. The m27 is also very clogged and even getting onto it by 7am doesn't mean you won't be sat in traffic. Building on green spaces and filling up every space avaliable doesn't seem well thought out. What about school places, drs surgeries and the roads. The A27 is also very bad and lots of quin traffic already
SO31
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.
PO16
Hunts Pond Road Titchfield Common Proposed site is the last natural Greenfield on Hunts Pond Road and should be merged with the adjacent sports field to give further facilities for locals. When sports field is in use parking is diabolical with traffic almost impossible and allocated parking for those using the facilities should ease the congestion and possibly allow the bus service down Hunts Pond Road to be reinstated. In wet weather site is prone to flooding.
PO14
HA1 - North and South of Greenaway Lane, Warsash - 700 dwellings HA3 - Southampton Road, Titchfield Common - 400 dwellings HA7 - Warsash Maritime Academy, Warsash -100 dwellings HA9 - Heath Road, Locks Heath- 71 dwellings HA11- Raley Road, Locks Heath- 49 dwellings HA13- Hunts Pond Road, Titchfield Common- 38 dwellings HA14 -Genesis Community Youth Centre, Locks Heath - 35 dwellings HA15 -Beacon Bottom West, Park Gate -30 dwellings HA17 -69 Botley Road, Park Gate -24 dwellings HA19- 399 – 409 Hunts Pond Road, Titchfield Common- 22 dwellings The over building of residential homes in the area has a major environmental and health affecting impact on an already heavy populated Western Ward .Traffic in this area is already at a gridlock during peak hours and since the new Strawberry Fields, Hunts Pond and Coldeast developments it has doubled the time for people to get to work. Improvements on major roads and motorways will try and ease congestion but its not satisfactory as residents will not be able to actually get to these major roads. Local roads such as Brook Lane, Osborne Road, Warsash Road and Barnes Lane cannot be made wider, they were built to service the traffic and community of small villages and the resulting influx of 3000+ cars in such a small square area will lead to more accidents. Warsash specifically is on a pensinsular and the only roads in and out are Brook Lane and Warsash Road. Emergency vehicles will be unable to ensure safe response times - during rush hour it is likely they will not have space to get to their destination. The consequences will be catastrophic. Flooding is inevitable especially with recent climate changes; residents in local back garden developments are already experiencing this. Fareham is presently in trouble for poor air quality due to the amount of rush hour traffic. Bring another 3000+ cars in to the Western Wards and there will be more cases of asthma, lung disease and related illnesses - all for the surgeries with not enough resources to treat. Doctors, schools, hospitals and emergency services are already stretched to breaking point. If the plans go ahead there will be hundreds of children needing school places. New schools might take pressure off the overcrowded ones - then the influx of new children will put it back on again. Children walking to Brookfield already face a perilous journey due to the amount of traffic on Brook Lane. Brook Lane, Lockswood, Jubilee and Whiteley surgeries struggle to cope with the amount of patients they have. They wait an unacceptable amount of time for routine appointments (1 month plus) and often have very long waits when they get to there (30 minutes plus). Emergency appointments are becoming harder to book as there are not enough doctors or time. The very young, elderly and chronically ill are already vulnerable and bearing the brunt of this - add another 1,500 homes and these overstretched surgeries will be at crisis point. There will be an increased need for care homes, for which there is just no space. Residents' health will be at risk and possibly their lives. Warsash is a place of outstanding natural beauty and home to precious wildlife such as badgers, bats and deer. The greenfield land proposed as the area for development also provides a defined strategic gap from neighbouring villages. Residents have the right to breathe clean air, have facilities, space and sufficient infrastructure and the assurance that emergency vehicles have access and can meet response times in life threatening situations. We genuinely fear for the health and safety of people in the Western Wards.
PO14
1. Hunts Pond Road is already very busy, especially on Sunday, with parking from users of the recreation ground, allotment and free church. This will increase even further if the extension to the free church goes ahead. What 'off site highway improvements' are to be made to mitigate this additional traffic. 2. Building on this site will effect the local water table, what measures will be taken to mitigate the water levels on the allotment / playing field. Can HA13 be included in the site specific requirements for HA19 para f - 'Ensure adequate surface water drainage is provided on site and addressed through a drainage strategy'.
PO14
I wish to object to development on this site. This is the absolute LAST piece of NATURAL GREENFIELD in Hunts Pond Road. To build upon it would be detrimental and devastating to the whole area. In the past, Titchfield Common was well known for being a semi- rural area. With this last piece of green space concreted over , it will be the final nail in the coffin of Titchfield Common semi rural status and it will be considered to be another urban sprawl. 38 dwellings on this plot of land is a ridiculously high density of homes in such a small plot of land. Hunts Pond Road has already had a huge development of 330 houses completed in the last few years without a scrap of infrastructure ....unless you count a bus stop. Also it has absorbed the development of Fragorum Fields just off Prelate Way too, without any Infrastructure either. Where has the Community Infrastruture Levy been allocated in the Hunts Pond Road area ? What has the community gained from any previous building ? I can see no progress. According to your own Borough Policy one of your 5 aims is to : To ensure that development and management of housing contributes to a good quality environment and sustainable communities. How is this happening in Hunts Pond Road ? All along Hunts Pond Road there are already traffic calming blockades in place, suggesting that the road already is severely over loaded already. The road between Abshot road roundabout and Dimmocks Corner roundabout is almost impassable on a daily basis due to the nature of having only one side to pass on due to parked cars. This causes severely dangerous driving conditions so what is to be done about this before you add another 80 plus cars to the mix ? How is this a managing a quality environment ? The access to any new estate on site HA13 would cause serious damage to the trees currently bordering the site and any access point would be perilous as there is already 3 entrances in the near by vicinity including : Wellow Gardens and the entrance and exit to the new Church car park which is due to be built next to this site. Please consider other sites that have much better road accesses and sites that will have less impact on the current community. Please take a look again at the sites on the SHLAA Ref 3127. This has good road access, is close to the M27 and has access to good local schools. Also Newlands farm site with it's soon to be built new bypass and potential for a whole new school and pub offered to be built by developers. Also as you know, there is another site allocated for development along Hunts Pond Road which already has planning permission on. This site HA19 is a much better option, placed right next to the recently built Lynn Crescent (330 dwelling estate ). Access points have already been established so will not require destroying any trees or greenfield sites. Squeezing anymore large development into already struggling neighbourhoods really does no one any favours, except the developers. Thank you for your time.
PO14
I wish to object to housing development on this site. This is the last green field in Hunts Pond Road. It is currently used for horses and is classified as countryside so is technically outside the Defined Urban Boundary (DUB) I often see rabbits, foxes and evidence of other wildlife that use it as home. Titchfield Common is a semi- rural area and if this last piece of green space is concreted over, it will be mean the end of an era. The density of dwellings proposed for this site is very high ; 38 dwellings on this small plot of land is too many as well as all the cars and people it will bring to an already overloaded area. Hunts Pond Road has already had 330 houses completed in the last few years without any apparent infrastructure. Where has the money, the CIL, from the developers for the Lynn Crescent development been spent ? What has the community gained from any previous building ? Your own Borough Policy aim is to : To ensure that development and management of housing contributes to a good quality environment and sustainable communities. How is this happening in Hunts Pond Road ? There are already traffic calming blockades in place, which implies that the road already is severely over used. Between Abshot Road and Dimmocks Corner is almost impassable at times due to parked cars. This causes hazardous driving conditions already so what is to be done about this problem ? How is this a managing a quality environment ? Any access points on site HA13 would be dangerous as there are already 3 entrances close by including Wellow Gardens and the new Church car park exit/ entrances. Please consider other sites that will have less impact on the current community. Please take a look again at the sites on the SHLAA Ref 3127. This has good road access, is close to the M27 and has access to good local schools. Also Newlands farm site with its potential new bypass, new school and community facilities offered by developers. The other site along Hunts Pond Road which already has planning permission on is a much better option . This site HA19 is placed right next to the recently built Lynn Crescent (330 dwelling estate ). Access points have already been established so will not require destroying any trees or greenfield land.
PO14
This popular piece of land is used by dog walkers, local schools, archery club, various sports clubs and varied wildlife. With the recent housing developments south of Hunts Pond road and the planned expansion of the free church it is essential this field is preserved for the community to enjoy it. We will shortly have a desert island scenario to enjoy our leisure activities.
PO14
This is a busy road which is struggling to cope with the huge amount of development on hunts pond road in recent years
PO14
None of the proposals address increase in road traffic in the immediate vicinity None of the proposals address doctor's surgeries and schools being over subscribed None of the proposals address shortage of public transport links in the immediate vicinity None of the proposals include any extra facilities for cyclists or pedestrians (e.g. shared cycle paths)
PO14
We wish to object to the above planning application as we feel that there is enough building work going on in or around Warsash to cause the current infrastructure to become overloaded as it is. Our particular concern is that in conjunction with the planned construction of housing at Brook Lane, there are several hundred new homes being built at Coldeast, further South of Greenaway Lane, Strawberry Fields and several smaller plots. These combined with the very high number of houses being built in Eastleigh Borough along the A27 and Hamble Lane will severely overload the local infrastructure (roads (particularly at rush hours) schools, surgeries, parks, social amenities etc,) which is already stretched to the limit! In addition services such as sewerage, water supply, electricity and (we suspect) gas are reaching similar limits. We therefore consider that this application should be denied until such time as the Council can ensure that the issues above can be satisfactorily resolved. Furthermore, we gather from the 'InTouch' magazine for Warsash that housing development in Warsash is being used to alleviate the poor planning that the Council has carried out for the Wellborne site and that we appear to be being used to help achieve targets that were apparently ill conceived in the first palce. We do not agree with our village being used as such a scapegoat! [redacted]
SO31
"Planning Strategy & Regeneration Department of Planning and Development Fareham Borough Council Civic Offices, Civic Way Fareham Hampshire PO16 1 December 2017 For the attention of case officer Dear Sir / Madam Reference: Objection to Planning Application based on contradiction of the NPPF and Draft Plan, and objections to provisions contained in the draft plan. My objections are presented separately for the NPPF and Draft Plan. And are specifically objections to sites : HA1 - North and South of Greenaway Lane, Warsash - 700 dwellings HA3 - Southampton Road, Titchfield Common - 400 dwellings HA7 - Warsash Maritime Academy, Warsash -100 dwellings HA9 - Heath Road, Locks Heath- 71 dwellings HA11- Raley Road, Locks Heath- 49 dwellings HA13- Hunts Pond Road, Titchfield Common- 38 dwellings HA14 -Genesis Community Youth Centre, Locks Heath - 35 dwellings HA15 -Beacon Bottom West, Park Gate -30 dwellings HA17 -69 Botley Road, Park Gate -24 dwellings HA19- 399 – 409 Hunts Pond Road, Titchfield Common- 22 dwellings And with specific reference to HA13, , this is the last greenfield left in Hunts Pond Road in Titchfield Common Hunts Pond Road has already recently absorbed an inappropriately large and poorly planned development of 330 dwellings at its bottom end, exacerbating the points of objection levied below. The road already requires multiple traffic calming blockades along it, and there is no possible way that more can be planned within the NPPF criteria or those proposed in the Draft Plan. The HPR between Abshot Road and Dimmicks Corner (Church Road) is often unnavigable and seems to be dangerous at certain times, yet this does not appear anywhere in evidence for this or the other new site proposals that it impacts, nor is any amelioration suggested by the Council for existing problems. To even contemplate the new site within the Draft Plan appears in my opinion to be negligent, and if the danger manifests then it will have been preventable. No new access is possible without destruction of mature trees and hedgerows, and would cause highway conflict with other nearby road access.. The density of this 38 site proposal is entirely inappropriate. All of these points above, combined with the threat to flora and fauna inform my site specific objections noted below . Given Titchfield Common and Locks Heaths positions so very low down in the Open Space Provision chart from FBC Openspace Study, I am surprised to find no evidence in any of those related site plans that suggest this is within guidelines. I write in connection with the above planning application. I have examined the plans and I know the sites well. I looked at EV13 (Background Paper: HOUSING SITE SELECTION), which states: "The purpose of this paper is to explain, in broad terms, the processes undertaken to inform the selection of housing sites for the Draft Fareham Local Plan 2036" (Draft Plan)" I have also read through the referenced paragraphs from the ""National Planning Policy Framework"" (NPPF). I have experience of financing provision of sustainable residential communities in other areas of the country with their own acute issues. Based on the above research and experience, I object strongly to the development of these houses in the identified locations. These sites generally, and HA 1,3 and 7 specifically, are in contradiction of both the "NPPF" and the "Draft Plan". It is certain that the local communities and the Fareham borough do need provision of additional sustainable development of various infrastructures including more residential accommodation. Unfortunately the sites identified in this Draft Plan plan fails to deliver a sustainable solution in certain of its discrete communities and lets down those communities represented. With respect to the Draft Plan Objection : I don't believe that the sites proposed adequately address the needs recognised in H2: Provision of Affordable Housing and I don't believe that Sites such as HA1,3 & 7 have considered adequately aspects of Policy H4: where Adaptable and Accessible Dwellings Development proposals for all new dwellings shall provide: I do not argue that it has been ignored, but that minimum lip service has been paid to the extent that the provisions noted entirely fail to achieve the goals intended for H4. a) at least 15% of all new dwellings at Category 2 standard; and b) on schemes of over 100 dwellings (gross), at least 2% of private housing and 5% of affordable housing, shall be provided as wheelchair accessible Category 3 properties. Schemes exclusively for flatted development will be expected to comply with the criteria as much as is physically possible before lifts would be a requirement" Objection: I object to the revisions of H4 identified in the Draft Plan. Further with respect to HA 1,3&7 it appears that H4 does not adequately reflect the requirement that " Further new older person and specialist accommodation will be required during the Local Plan period. Such provision can help people to downsize and free up family dwellings for others. The precise amount and type of specialist and older person accommodation required will depend on a range of factors including the choices of individual people and households.( of which I see no reference in HA1,3 or 7) Evidence in the Housing Evidence Overview Paper (2017) outlines some of this need which, where possible, has been addressed through specific allocations included in this plan and provision to be provided at Welborne" Further accommodation to address identified need would be acceptable in principle subject to Policy H5". Objection : I believe this fails to address the issues in the localities represented by the sites I have objected to, and specifically not in respect of HA1,3 and 7. This is in itself evident that FBC appreoach Warsash as a general dormitory and not as a discrete community as is required. The Draft Plan is very Fareham central centric in the division of benefits and provision of the Sustainable aspects of the plan, unfortunately the surrounding community developments' including these to which I am objecting, do not bear the same level of attention to Sustainability Planning. The Warsash, Park Gate, Titchfield communities are discrete settlements where development proposals should be considered very carefully: Objection : I believe that the Draft Plan and the sites I have specifically objected to fail in respect of Policy SP1: Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development "When considering development proposals, the Council will take a positive approach that reflects the "presumption in favour of sustainable development" contained in the National Planning Policy Framework. When appropriate the Council will work constructively with applicants to find solutions that enable proposals to be granted permission wherever possible, and to secure high quality development that improves the economic, social and environmental conditions in the area………….." Objection : With respect to HA1 specifically, my objection includes the determination that the entire list of sites not only fails to address SP7 "requirement to Create places that encourage healthy lifestyles and provide for the community through the provision of leisure and cultural facilities, recreation and open space and the opportunity to walk and cycle to destinations" but goes as far as misleading in its reference to some open play area space and provision to cross the road which covers up an entirely inadequate provision in both cases and exacerbates the problems for cyclists and pedestrians, and relates to the road and safety of children walking or cycling to school. I find Appendix C: Draft Development Framework - Development Allocation HA1 (North & South of Greenaway Lane, Warsash) to be entirely un convincing in respect of this and other areas of objection. Objection : I note well and object to the Employment Policy section, there is No "E" for the communities represented in the site plans to which I object. No local employment issues are considered within those discreet community settlements, adding to the obvious conclusion that they are being considered as dormitory developments in contravention of key policies identified. I would be able to support site development proposals that are aimed at meeting identified settlement needs, of which there are many, but not those reflected by these sites in this Draft Plan. Objection Draft Local Plan : I object also to E5, which protects Boatyard business except in the case where it can be represented as uneconomic. I object to the watering down of protection implied by this provision, Key Strategic Priorities: Both the overall Draft Plan and the specific site proposals fail to meet a number of stated Key Strategic Priorities. Objection : In respect to the references to settlement definition, this is then broadly disregarded or seemingly misrepresented in both plan and site descriptions. The needs of local business in the discrete communities so defined is ignored and only addressed as a general and seemingly Fareham central oriented manner. Objections below can be read to note that they jointly and severally contribute to evidence that the Plan fails in satisfying KSP's 1,3 and 7 most specifically, but the other sites generally in respect of the site objections noted above. 1. Address the housing and employment needs by the end of the plan period in an appropriate and sustainable manner, creating places people want to live or where businesses want to locate. 2. In the first instance maximise development within the urban area and away from the valued landscapes and spaces that contribute to settlement definition (SP 6 notwithstanding and particularly SP6 failure to address community definition in the communities affected by the sites specifically objected to in this submission) 7. Create places that encourage healthy lifes"
SO31
"With the ever increasing population of the borough there will be an increasing demand for field sports facilities. This site is adjacent to existing sports pitches on the recreation ground. It would be an efficient and economic way of providing additional field sport capacity by extending the recreation ground into this site so they can be managed together and to provide off street parking for existing facilities as well as for any new facilities. This would have additional benefit of minimizing traffic congestion on Hunts Pond Road. On the site map this plot is designated ""Course Park"" but this name is not reflected in the name of the site on the heading. Why ?"
PO14
We do not need any more housing/construction in this area. This is a rural village setting that you are making into a large town, and it has not got the relevant infrastructure.
PO14
This is the last natural green open space in Titchfield Common & home to an abundance of wildlife. I strongly object to it being destroyed for housing!
PO14
I wish to object to this green field being used for development. Having recently read your report on Open Spaces, it shows that green open spaces are already very limited in Titchfield Common. In fact it is almost at the bottom of the list in the whole Fareham Borough for having green open spaces. It has a very low suffiency/deficit per hectare rating and if this land was developed upon it would of course reduce the green open space even further. This field is in fact the last natural green field along Hunts Pond Road and it would be a great shame to have it concreted over. Currently it is used for keeping horses but is also home to many wildlife species. The land adjacent to this field is due to be made into a car park for the local church so there will already be a high impact to this small area. Any access onto the site would mean the demolition of mature trees and hedgerows , which would change the very nature of this area. Traffic along Hunts Pond Road is already a huge problem and it has traffic calming in order to help alleviate this. However there are points in the road where traffic has great difficulty in flowing freely which will not be helped by up to 70 or 80 more cars joining the problem . Please think again when looking for land for development .
PO14
I object to the proposed development of the houses in the Western Wards area as it stands for the following reasons; Education There are already not enough school places and I can't see how there will be sufficient places for the all the extra children that will be living in the new houses, we had to appeal to get our places and we had friends who's children had to go further afield. There is no space to build more schools and the current ones would require the building of extra classrooms on the playing fields, which I don't think they are allowed to do. This requires permission from the Dept for Education and would need the Minister to approve. This would take too long. Primary and Secondary Healthcare The increase in housing would place further pressures on the healthcare system which is already acknowledged as being under pressure, I have personally been waiting for appointments for several weeks and know this is a regular occurrence, how can it get better with about 4000 extra people in the area. The high level of elderly in the area will also continue to increase according to gov figures and this will place further pressure on the system. Also there appears to have been no effort to consult with the local CCG. Traffic Management The roads in Warsash and surrounding area are already under significant pressure at peak times. Even today at 3:40 it took 20 mins to get from Segensworth roundabout into Warsash. The increase of over 1,500 homes in the area would only increase this pressure and there is currently no space to increase the capacity on the A27. We keep hearing, "but more money coming in can go towards better roads" but where o earth can these roads go….after all the spare space has houses on it?? This will limit the potential for economic growth, stated in the plan as being a benefit. No one is going to want to come into the area if they are going to spend so long in traffic to get in and out. Conclusion This plan appears to have been put together as a result of FBC failing to deliver on the promised Welbourne development. The lack of evidence and failure to consult properly means that FBC has not fulfilled its statutory obligations and the plan should be reconsidered. Whilst I accept that there does need to be new housing built it needs to be proportionate and in line with what current infrastructure can cope with.
SO31
Hunts pond road cannot cope with more traffic the road is dangerous and unpleasant to live on already. The pollution is getting worse and the noise from the a27 increased capacity is really affecting the people who live here already. It nice to visit portsmouth for a break from the noise!!!!!!!the road is in a complete state, the traffic is a complete state. And there is already enough social housing. In this area. I thought the push vision was to evenly distribute. So build it in Winchester which is under the national average on built on land. Where as Fareham is many times over. No doubt it will be a close and all the houses will be sent down the bottleneck that is huntspond Road.
Anonymous submission
"I am writing to object to the number of homes proposed at each of the sites HA1, HA7, HA9, HA11, HA14, HA15, HA17, HA26, HA3,HA13,HA19 in the Draft Local Plan. Having read the National Planning Policy Framework which talks from the offset very clearly about Sustainable development, ensuring better lives for ourselves and future generations as well as looking after our natural environment to promote both our own well-being and and that of a diverse wildlife habitat. Every paragraph of the NPPF is at contradiction to the selection of sites listed above for so many homes. Paragraph 6 clear states "The purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development", having seen first hand the development known as Strawberry Fields the idea that 700 homes on this site would be sustainable is hard to believe. Paragraph 7 talks about the need for three dimensions of sustainable developments, these three dimensions being economic, social and environmental roles. Highlighting that the plans should contribute to "building a strong, responsive and competitive economy" including "by identifying and coordinating development requirements, including the provision of infrastructure" that is "protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment" whilst is "accessible local services that reflect the community's needs and support its health, social and cultural well-being" Warsash is a peninsular with finite resources to support infrastructure. It has a small and vertical economical offering due to the waters edge on two sides and most employment opportunities are out of the borough requiring use of the M27 motorway or north of the A27. Public transport services are limited, the nearest train station has limited reach for travelling north of the county or London, often requiring a change at Southampton or Fareham. However particular consideration should be given to the local roads and the A27. The main roads around and supporting HA1 will be Lockswood road and Brook Lane both extremely busy roads already. Brook lane whilst wide at the southern end becomes very narrow towards the northern end where a very large (1800 pupils) secondary school is located. Ironically the only way to increase the width of Brook lane along this stretch of road would be to remove houses counteracting against the desired effect. Hampshire Country Council have admitted on various planning applications that all three junctions onto the A27 would be over capacity with any development however neither Hampshire County Council or Fareham Borough Council appear to have demonstrated how this over capacity could be addressed. The area is also under resourced in the provision of health care and school places both of which have very little scope for expansion. The land allocated in the proposal is also the last space keeping settlement identification for the historic village of Warsash. Paragraph 8 goes on to say that all three dimensions must be considered together further strengthening the objection to this site selection. Paragraph 9 goes on to talk about "making it easier for jobs to be created in cities, towns and villages" and "improving the conditions in which people live, work, travel and take leisure" which I believe I have already demonstrated would not be the case with a housing estate of 700 in the proposed area. Paragraph 10 then says "Plans and decisions need to take local circumstances into account" which again I believe strengthens my objection, Warsash has special local circumstances in the fact it is a peninsular with two roads in and out. Access is heavily restricted and boundaries on two sides are finite defined by ever raising waters edge. Paragraph 37, 72 and 162 talk specifically about education and the need for a Local Plan to minimise journey lengths and resolve key planning issues before applications are submitted and specifically Local planning authorities should work with other authorities and providers to assess its ability to meet forecast demands. I don't believe this has been demonstrated or is even deliverable for sites listed above. I could go on with the NPPF which outlines a need for planning to empower the people and communities to ensure rural areas such as Warsash are left with more then just housing, but creating healthy, inclusive communities that have the right mix of high quality housing supported by sustainable transport, communication infrastructure that are facilitating social interaction. I also spent time reading Fareham Borough Council own requirements for site selection when it comes to the choice of sites listed above. I looked at EV13 (Background Paper: HOUSING SITE SELECTION), which states: "The purpose of this paper is to explain, in broad terms, the processes undertaken to inform the selection of housing sites for the Draft Fareham Local Plan 2036" I have also associated referenced paragraphs from the ""National Planning Policy Framework"" (NPPF) However, looking at the list of ""Refining Points"", I find nothing but contradiction in the selection of these sites: 1. Maximise any developable brownfield opportunities inside the existing urban area. These are not brownfield sites. 2. Look positively at any developable brownfield opportunities outside of the urban area. As per point 1, these are not brownfield sites. 3. ""Consider and include regeneration and redevelopment opportunities inside the urban area"" FBC then make reference to Section 2 of the NPPF, in particular paragraph 23, which states: Planning policies should be positive, promote competitive town centre environments and set out policies for the management and growth of centres over the plan period. In drawing up Local Plans, local planning authorities should: recognise town centres as the heart of their communities and pursue policies to support their viability and vitality; define a network and hierarchy of centres that is resilient to anticipated future economic changes; define the extent of town centres and primary shopping areas, based on a clear definition of primary and secondary frontages in designated centres, and set policies that make clear which uses will be permitted in such locations; promote competitive town centres that provide customer choice and a diverse retail offer and which reflect the individuality of town centres; retain and enhance existing markets and, where appropriate, re-introduce or create new ones, ensuring that markets remain attractive and competitive; allocate a range of suitable sites to meet the scale and type of retail, leisure, commercial, office, tourism, cultural, community and residential development needed in town centres. It is important that needs for retail, leisure, office and other main town centre uses are met in full and are not compromised by limited site availability. Local planning authorities should therefore undertake an assessment of the need to expand town centres to ensure a sufficient supply of suitable sites; allocate appropriate edge of centre sites for main town centre uses that are well connected to the town centre where suitable and viable town centre sites are not available. If sufficient edge of centre sites cannot be identified, set policies for meeting the identified needs in other accessible locations that are well connected to the town centre; set policies for the consideration of proposals for main town centre uses which cannot be accommodated in or adjacent to town centres; recognise that residential development can play an important role in ensuring the vitality of centres and set out policies to encourage residential development on appropriate sites; and where town centres are in decline, local planning authorities should plan positively for their future to encourage economic activity. Warsash is very much not part of the town centre. The community is poorly serviced by public transport, and accessing the nightlife in Fareham town centre is impossible without private transportation. I do not remember the last time my family used Fareham town centre, due to other resoruces providing much better facilities, which are very much more accessible to us. 4. ""Achieves housing supply in the short/medium term in order to address housing need"" With reference to paragraph 47 in the NPPF, which states: To boost significantly the supply of housing, local planning authorities should: use their evidence base to ensure that their Local Plan meets the full, objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing in the housing market area, as far as is consistent with the policies set out in this Framework, including identifying key sites which are critical to the delivery of the housing strategy over the plan period; identify and update annually a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide five years worth of housing against their housing requirements with an additional buffer of 5% (moved forward from later in the plan period) to ensure choice and competition in the market for land. Where there has been a record of persistent under delivery of housing, local planning authorities should increase the buffer to 20% (moved forward from later in the plan period) to provide a realistic prospect of achieving the planned supply and to ensure choice and competition in the market for land; identify a supply of specific, developable sites or broad locations for growth, for years 6-10 and, where possible, for years 11-15; These sites may support family homes, but they are not sites that support the growth of children aged 6-10 or 11-15. I suspect most families moving into the area will need to travel out of the ward to access education, as neither Hook with Warsash nor Brookfield have the scope or ability to expand further. FBC have certainly not provided any evidence suggesting otherwise. 5. "Avoid further sites that rely on wider significant infrastructure delivery where the timing of the work and/or funding are be"
SO31
Already too busy
PO14
Large Format Response - Ref0043
SO23
Southern Water is the statutory water and wastewater undertaker in Titchfield Common. Housing Allocation HA13 allocates 38 dwellings at Hunts Pond Road. In line with paragraph 162 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG), we have undertaken an assessment of our infrastructure and its ability to meet the forecast demand for the proposed development. That assessment reveals that additional local sewerage infrastructure would be required to accommodate the proposed development (involving making a connection to the network at the nearest point of adequate capacity). Southern Water has limited powers to prevent connections to the sewerage network, even when capacity is insufficient. Planning policies and planning conditions, therefore, play an important role in securing the necessary local sewerage infrastructure in parallel with the development. Specific policy provision would be in line with the NPPF. For instance, paragraph 157 of the NPPF states that Local Plans should 'plan positively for the development and infrastructure required in the area to meet the objectives, principles and policies of this framework'. Also paragraph 177 of the NPPF outlines that it is important to ensure that planned infrastructure is deliverable in a timely fashion. Accordingly, infrastructure and development policies should be planned at the same time in the Local Plan. Insufficient capacity is not a constraint to development as extra capacity can be provided. However, it is important to give early warning to prospective developers regarding the need for local sewerage infrastructure. Early warning will facilitate delivery of the necessary infrastructure as it can be incorporated early in the planning process. If the requisite infrastructure is not delivered, the sewers would become overloaded, leading to pollution of the environment. This situation would be contrary to paragraph 109 of the NPPF, which requires the planning system to prevent new and existing development from contributing to pollution. Accordingly we propose that the following criterion is added to policy HA13 (new text underlined): Planning permission will be granted provided that detailed proposals accord with the policies in the Local Plan and meet the following site specific requirements: [...] g) Provide a connection at the nearest point of adequate capacity in the sewerage network, in collaboration with the service provider.
BN2
I object to this area being used for building houses. It is the last natural green field on Hunts Pond Road and the nature in this field is enjoyed by local residents. The roads around this are already busy enough without the extra traffic from 38 houses. We thought the Welborne plan was supposed to be providing all the extra houses in the area. This hasn't even been built yet and new areas are being proposed.
PO14
The piece of land identified for development next to the Locks Heath free church is the last piece of paddock land remaining on the long road. Wildlife and other plant species are being pushed out with a further 40 houses here. The 10 being build on lower Hunts Pond road, this could result in 100 extra cars. This is on top of all the other houses built on hunts pond road in the last 6 years. There is not the necessary infrastructure for more people on top of Locks Heath, Warsash developments in the 10 years.
PO14
Traffic volume and speed - the former needs to be considered in the content of Hunts Pond Road use by transit road vehicle frequency exceeding the 30 mph limit, further speed limiting roundabouts and humps needed. Utilities infrastructure - this needs upgrading. Will the delivery clear the cost? Responsibility to ensure this? The last remaining improved site will result in ecological benefit, this will be lost.
PO14
At the moments Hunts Pond Road is very busy with traffic and another 60 properties will only add to the problem also when I want to make an appointment with my doctor I have to wait up0 to 4 weeks this will only get worse. The infrastructure should be considered before any development taken. Also the local schools are full and this sort of development will only add to the problems. On these reason I strongly object to the proposed.
PO14
There is no infrastructure. Schools, doctor, dentist, etc existing already fail. The site is not suitable and regularly floods and water logs. The area of Hunts Pond rd., is high end and retirement housing, any new site should not be social or first-time buyer properties, but high end. Properties that reflect existing and not larger than single story. Hunts Pond rd is already seriously conjected and requires double yellow lines all along both sides a car parks built on football field as the football, church and allotment frequently block the road. Should the proposed go through the existing tree line along the road should be left to a depth at 10m from the path the should be rear or front access from hunts pond rd.
PO14
Large Format Response - Ref0071
Anonymous submission
Large Format Response - Ref0081
Large Format Response - Ref0081
SO31
I completely object to the proposed new housing in Titchfield Common of 460 allocations, on the basis that current healthcare provisions are already inadequate and this development will put further pressure on to an ailing Jubilee surgery. Please refer to attached reviews of the surgery as evidence. I object to all housing proposed, outside of Welborne and the brownfield sites. No greenfield land should be used to keep the rural feel of a Hampshire town. More importantly the lack of infrastructure (road, medical, educational) is of serious concern in your proposals. You cannot build housing with no provision to support over subscribed GP surgeries and schools. You risk depriving the borough of these services and making Fareham and more unpleasant and unsafe place to live. Refer to evidence
PO14
Large Format Response - Ref0092
SO23
Back to Top
How to get here
