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 strongly protest about the proposal to build 23 Houses on this piece of countryside ground. My detailed reasons are shown below; - Local Housing need. Fareham Borough Council appear to be in a state of panic about building houses, beware of building in haste! There should be push back against the PUSH figures. No one knows what will happen in the next two years, it will not be like the last 40. With Brexit, there may not be the need for houses and the figures estimated at this time!! Thousands of people are leaving Britain already and this will accelerate as Brexit approaches. At present Thousands of houses are planned to be built within about a mile of this application site, (Welborne) making this small house building scheme totally unnecessary. All effort should go into expediting the Welborne project. 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 the Draft Local Plan has been fully ratified by the Secretary of State etc. 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. Fareham Borough Council refused the Planning Application on this site before and nothing has changed. (Except the desperate "Draft Local Plan") Nothing environmentally at the site has changed. It should still be refused. See Para 1 above and Appendix 2 to this letter) Local Public Infrastructure. Hospital, Doctors Surgeries, education and highway infrastructures here and the surrounding area are under pressure now and this misery will be exacerbated by this planned building. As well as the 3500 new houses allocated in the Draft Local Plan. This will make it even worse, if it can get any worse, here and across Fareham. At least the planned thousands of houses at Welborne come with some new infrastructure money! 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 Fareham Borough 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. 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 Local Plan The new planned junction 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. Flooding. This village is named "Funtley" which means "Grasslands with Springs". The whole area around the village is on a very high-water table! This area Floods . The present adjacent house owners will confirm this problem, and have provided 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 Council believes that the area has a low probability of flooding, this is untrue as many residents can confirm. The rain water floods from the fields to the South of the road, 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. Do Fareham Borough Council propose 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. Surface Water Some Surface Water drainage plans aim to clear all of the surface water states there will be a "riparian rights to discharge". Does this mean the Council is to dig another pond? The plan is to use SUDS:, which means they hope it will soak away? To the north, this is a very wet area and if it is expected to soak into the drainage ditches this will not cope! FBC have already used this culvert to take excess water from the pond they dug to drain water from the meadow to the north and East of the Roebuck estate. The ditch cannot take much more as it floods now with heavy discharge from the existing pond. This does not seem to be a very adequate answer to the surface water problem. This therefore could possibly be a flawed plan. Foul Drainage. Does the Council plan suggests it is going to rout foul water drainage to the existing Pumping station (NE corner) and sewerage network. Although they may think that Southern Water claims this pumping station can cope, this pumping station has over the years suffered from overload, breakdowns and the backing up of sewerage in houses in Roebuck Avenue. It is believed "Southern Water" should possibly review this as it is still causing problems today!! The Flood and Water Management Team ( See Comment from Lead Flood & Water Management Team) This Hampshire County Council Report also appears to be unconvinced that the present plans for flooding, Foul Drainage and Surface Water are robust enough and have concerns. These comments should be taken seriously and is another reason for rejecting this whole plan. Hampshire Flood and water management has also called for a permanent maintenance plan/fund to be in place to support the necessary anti flooding infrastructure if any building goes ahead. The area will flood. Contamination This plan does not mention all ground and environmental issues in the near vicinity to the proposed site. It makes no mention of the Vast amount of waste topsoil/Hardcore that the landowner to the South of the Funtley road dumped on his fields and woodland. Why is this? Ecology. Building here will cause environmental issues as wildlife, including, Dormice, Bats, Deer, will be inhibited from their natural routes and feeding. Also, the plan 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. Rats may well be an issue in many areas of new build. In this plan. [redacted] as the information may be useful to him from a local resident's viewpoint? The plan postulates that residents would be persuaded not use their cars (or share), and many would cycle, walk or use public transport, especially to work. This is wishful thinking for the following reasons.: - • Cars etc. Residents would still use their cars; the transport plan underestimates the number of vehicles that will be on the site and the journeys residents would make both for work and recreation. The traffic numbers postulated will be accentuated by the expected huge growth in local traffic as Welborne grows. \most traffic numbers used today are incorrect. This has been proved in an independent traffic survey, please see:- Appendix 1 to this letter. 1000 vehicles use Funtley Road during the peak times every week day!! • Paths. Plans say that a pathway will be built going East to meet the one from Roebuck Avenue. Knowing the area, the ditch on that stretch (Needed desperately for drainage) would make this difficult and expensive to build. There is No mention of a pathway going West? (needed for Cyclists and Pedestrians to access the Bridleway, and roads to the East). Probably not planned, due to the lack of space to construct, the very narrow road under the old railway bridge, and the cost? This very dangerous access for pedestrians has not been highlighted in your plan. • Pedestrians. Residents would not walk to work/play. If they go West under the railway bridge is narrow and hazardous with no pathway now or planned. To go onto the Bridle way it is a steep climb and usually very muddy. Extremely difficult for people with small children and prams, also for the elderly or disabled. Or if you walk onto River Lane it is very dangerous for pedestrians with no path and is narrow. If they go East, the road leads into North Hill which is very steep indeed. Difficult for pedestrians, for prams, disabled and the elderly in normal weather conditions, and extremely dangerous and difficult with i
PO15
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
Traffic from industrial sites and Fort Wallington have narrow roads to share with proposed properties allowing these houses to be built, could lead to even more in the future.
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
THIS SITE IS UNSUITABLE FOR HOUSING - FLOODING , ALREADY EVIDENCED BY PHOTOGRAPHS AND VIDEO NO INFRASTUCTURE OR SERVICES ACCESS BY ROAD NOT ADEQUATE WILDLIFE SUCH AS DEER , WATER VOLES, WOODPECKERS AND SMALL BIRDS INHABIT THE ZONE BETWEEN ROEBUCL AND THE SITE COMPLETELY UNSUITABLE , AND UNNECESSARY WITH WELBORNE PROPOSALS.
PO15
The residents of Funtley have taken more than their fair share of houses. Any more housing will completely change the charm and beauty of this hamlet. The drainage struggles to cope with the volume of houses already there.
PO14
Description of known flooding and flooding concerns [redacted]. 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."
"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
As the local Ward Councillors, we cannot understand how this site has been included within the draft local plan as an application for this site was due to be refused in May 2017, however it was withdrawn just a few hours prior to the planning committee meeting. Nothing has changed to provide any further evidence to show that the site is now acceptable other than the boundary line in the new draft plan has been changed to include this site as it was in the designated countryside. The previous application in May was refused as contrary to policies including CS2, CS6,CS14 and DSP6. Flooding issues are of great concern in this area with residents experiencing water damage on a regular basis. Infiltration is unlikely to be suitable given the typical geology of this site. Despite the creation of SUDS by the Meadow this lower part of Funtley continues to suffer from flooding, with many properties along Funtley Road having sandbags outside their doors. The proposed site is directly off the country lane which sits between the 2 bridges making it very difficult for further traffic, it also takes out the last piece of countryside which is essentially rural in character. If this development was given permission it would significantly be adverse to the landscape and visual effects. Harmful to the local character of the surrounding area.
Postcode not provided
Dear sir please find my objection to the proposed site allocation Flooding Funtley road I quote from the Southern Water response to the Welborne planning application. The application details for this development indicate that the proposed means of surface water drainage for the site is via a watercourse. The Council's technical staff and the relevant authority for land drainage consent should comment on the adequacy of the proposals to discharge surface water to the local watercourse. The drainage route from Welborne will naturally drain to the bottom corner of the site and through a culvert under the railway line. This in turn flows through Funtley meadow, under the deviation line and onward to flow into the River Meon via the roadside culvert. The proposed drainage route for the north of Funtley site, will flow the same way when we have heavy rain. Already, the roadside culverts quickly overflow and the road becomes the route the rainwater takes, which then in turn backs up through the village causing flooding. Sandbags are a common sight through the winter outside properties on Funtley road. Traffic Funtley is a small village with a small country road running through it. It has a very narrow bridge which is traffic light controlled. The road is so narrow that buses have trouble negotiating the bridge and have to mount the curb to pass cars waiting at the other side of the lights. As the road is narrow and residents park on one side, cars exceeding the speed limit pass parked cars daily. This can be evidenced by the speed sensors data that was conducted recently. Planning policy Planning Policy - The development is outside the Urban Settlement Boundary and the land is designated countryside it therefore contravenes many of the Councils existing policies, for example, Policy CS 2, Policy CS 14 and DSP 6
Dear sir please find my objection to the proposed site allocation Flooding Funtley road I quote from the Southern Water response to the Welborne planning application. The application details for this development indicate that the proposed means of surface water drainage for the site is via a watercourse. The Council's technical staff and the relevant authority for land drainage consent should comment on the adequacy of the proposals to discharge surface water to the local watercourse. The drainage route from Welborne will naturally drain to the bottom corner of the site and through a culvert under the railway line. This in turn flows through Funtley meadow, under the deviation line and onward to flow into the River Meon via the roadside culvert. The proposed drainage route for the north of Funtley site, will flow the same way when we have heavy rain. Already, the roadside culverts quickly overflow and the road becomes the route the rainwater takes, which then in turn backs up through the village causing flooding. Sandbags are a common sight through the winter outside properties on Funtley road. Traffic Funtley is a small village with a small country road running through it. It has a very narrow bridge which is traffic light controlled. The road is so narrow that buses have trouble negotiating the bridge and have to mount the curb to pass cars waiting at the other side of the lights. As the road is narrow and residents park on one side, cars exceeding the speed limit pass parked cars daily. This can be evidenced by the speed sensors data that was conducted recently. Planning policy Planning Policy - The development is outside the Urban Settlement Boundary and the land is designated countryside it therefore contravenes many of the Councils existing policies, for example, Policy CS 2, Policy CS 14 and DSP 6
PO17
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
Despite clear evidence that this site is liable to flooding it is still in the plan. The environmental survey clearly states that part of the site is likely to flood. The runoff from this would clearly then be detrimental to the existing properties. I cannot understand why this greenfield site should be included when there are other sites that would be far more suitable. The roads in the area are not sufficient for extra traffic and the public transport is poor meaning that it is necessary to use a car, adding to the difficulties already faced by this community. Due to the proximity to Wellborne, residents had been assured this area would not be developed. This statement by the council needs to be followed through. I strongly object to this being included in the plan.
PO15
I oppose the proposed development of housing site HA18 in Funtley, as totally unsuitable and unviable for development on the following grounds: 1) Downstream flooding. HA18 suffers from significant downstream flooding which fills the ditch on the northern side Funtley Road. Funtley Road to River Lane and the small bridge over the River Meon also suffers from the subsequent downstream flooding of both sides of Funtley Road as well as the River Meon. 2) Contaminated land. Site HA18 has been used in the past for the burial of animal carcasses (site HA18) and suffered from foot and mouth. 3) Inadequate traffic infrastructure along Funtley Road between the two proposed housing sites in Funtley. 4) 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. 5) 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. 6) 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. 7) 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. Fareham Borough Council stated on many occasions 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 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, as per comments made on the current planning permissions. Ground liable to ground flooding, a pond was developed in the meadow to help manage the current issue, further development will just worsen the risk. The risk is also clearly shown on the government flood risk website. Road infrastructure, with single traffic lit bridge on the train line one side and a narrow road under the old train line bridge and the single lane bridge on River lane, this road infrastructure is not suited to support for further development.
PO15
Large Format Response - Ref0034
SO14
Large Format Response - Ref0037_a
Large Format Response - Ref0037_b
Large Format Response - Ref0037_c
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
