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 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
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 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
Too many houses stretches at GPS and long waiting lists for schools and not enough green area
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
These plans are not well thought out, it will ll add more cars to the roads around locks Heath, park gate, sarisbury green. The roads that are already a nightmare! It would also mean more people to school and doctors that are already full! If your going to build it then you need more Doctors and schools in the area!
SO31
This road is already under too much pressure and taking away more green spaces is unfair on those of us already living in the area What are these new people going to do with demand high on schools, roads, NHS services You cannot physically create space that doesn't exist
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
"[national grid response] National Grid has appointed Amec Foster Wheeler to review and respond to development on plan consultations on its behalf. We are instructed by out client to submit the following representations with regard to the current consultation on the above document. National Grid owns and operates the high violatage electricity transmission system in England and Wales and operates the Scottish jigh voltage transmission system and enters the distribution networks at high pressure. it is then transported through a number of reducing pressure tiers until is if finally develovered to our customers. National Grid own four of the UKs gas distribution networks and transport gas to 11 million homes, schools, and businesses thourhg 81,000 miles of gas popelines within North West, East of England, West Midlands and North London. To help ensure the continued safe operation of exisiting sites and equipment and to facilitate the future infrastructure investment, National Grid wishes to be involved in the preparation, alteration and review of plans and strategies which may affect our assets. Specific comments -proposed sites crossed or in close proximity to National Grid infrastructure: Electricity Transmission HA19 399-409 Titchfield Common (our reference ET152) Please see enclosed referenced ET152 at Appendix1. The proposed residential site is crossed by a National Grid high voltage electricity transmission line. National Grid prefers that buildings are not directly beneath its overhead lines. This is for two reasons, the amenity of potential occupiers of properties in the vicinity of lines and because National Grid needs quick and easy access to carry out maintenance and it's equipment to ensure that it can be returned to service and be available as part of the national transmission system. Such access can be difficult to obtain without inconveniencing and disturbing occupiers and residents, particularly where properties are in close proximity to overhead lines. National Grid seeks to encourage high quality and well planned development in the vicinity of its high voltage overhead lines. Lane beneath and adjacent to the overhead line route should be used to make a positive contribution to the development of the site and can for example be used for nature conservation, open space, landscaping areas or used in a parking court. National Grid in association with David Lock Associates has produced a ''sense of place"" guidelines, which look at how to create high quality development near overhead lines and offers practical solutions which assist in avoiding the unnecessary sterilization of land in the vicinity of high voltage overhead lines. Potential developers of the sites should be aware that it is National Grid policy to retain our existing overhead lines in-situ. The relocation of high-voltage overhead lines will only be considered for projects of national importance which has been identified as such by central government. The statutory safety clearances between overhead lines, the ground, and built structures must not be infringed. To comply with statutory safety clearances the live electricity conductors of National Grid's overhead power lines are designed to be a minimum height above the ground. Where changes are proposed to ground levels beneath the existing line then it is important that changes in ground levels do not result in safety clearances being infringed. National Grid can, on request, provide to developers detailed line profile drawings that detail the height of conductors, above ordnance datum, at a specific site. "
WA16
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 comment is related to the large number of development sites in the area which collectively create a lot of pressure on services. My 4 year old recently had to wait 5 weeks for a non emergency appointment at jubilee surgery in Titchfield and as a result has been referred to hospital with a 2-3 month wait for an appointment. I've waited 6 weeks for a non emergency appointment with a doctor. I also had to wait over 2 months for a local dentist consultation. Local services are already stretched and as I understand no new provision is planned. This concerns me greatly.
PO14
There have been enough houses built on hunts pond road which is not a major road and is hard enough to navigate along as it is There is a school and a few minor shops that cannot sustain further development
PO14
Planning also need to take responsibility on whether the infrastructure can cope with another 330 homes on Hunts Pond Road. I have lived in Titchfield Common for the last 30 Year's, the traffic hs increased dramatically. A typical journey to work and back in Cosham takes me 30 minutes, that's 8 minutes on the motorway, 5 minutes getting off, the remainder is getting on or off am/pm. The schools in this area are full, and as far as I'm aware there are no plans for one, or additional doctors or dentist surgeries. Be responsible FBC!
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
"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 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, and in the instance of this Objection, HA19, which shares some of the specific objections I have made to HA 13. HA 19 + 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 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. Sustainability Planning : (SP) Objection : Entirely insufficient evidence or justification is contained within any of the above proposals with respect to the sustainability issues and benefits to the discrete communities that I have referenced. Passing references are made to lack of current provision in schooling and infrastructure, and requirements for the schemes to "contribute" to that development. However no integrated or sustainable accounting or plan is proposed that identifies the needs that should be critically planned to 2036 and costed accordingly. For example the sites identified do not disclose the extent to which sites (or combinations of sites) can contribute to the site selection priorities / refining points within the plan itself. One specific example being Selection Priorities / Refining Point 7. I cannot find any evidence presented for the requirement that they "Cumulatively and individually lessen the impact on traffic whilst delivering the new homes. Maximises opportunities for the cumulative highway impacts to be addressed". I note that a number of other Selection Priorities / Refining Points have not been properly addressed either. o It is not possible to review the Draft Policy"
SO31
This area of Titchfield Common is already stretched to the limits, and the green space left is a fraction of what it was. There are not enough schools, GPs, etc
PO14
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
Large Format Response - Ref0043
SO23
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
Large Format Response - Ref0071
Anonymous submission
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.
Large Format Response - Ref0015
PO14
Large Format Response - Ref0083
SO51
Back to Top
How to get here
