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).
This area should be left as green space also the road situation out of this area is not able to cope with traffic already here without putting more stress on roads. if houses need to be build they should be north of fareham and should have to build a road network which is capable of taking traffic.
PO13
Execellent idea, there is a need for more housing and this area only extends an existing estate.
PO13
The area cannot take any more people! Not enough school spaces, GP appointments. Road access is just starting to improve for Gosport, if you put more houses, it means more cars and we will be back to square one again! The area is highly populated already, services will not be able to keep up with the demand and our children will suffer! Schools are struggling as it is!
PO13
I object to this draft plan for the building of so many new housing without the infrastructure to support an increase in the gosport population. i just wanted to add my objection to the list. I would love to hear from the person who gave the nod to this, to see why he/she thinks it's a good idea. I would also like to know where this person lives. There is planning for Gosport to have a m&s and another drive through fast food junk place. How about schools, nurseries, doctors, dental?
PO12
As a local resident I'd like to register my concern about this proposal for a new housing estate, primarily due to the increased traffic in the vicinity which will add to the congestion to Newgate Lane. Even now the congestion in Newgate Lane causes backlogs to Rowner Road. Drivers will regularly use the surrounding residential roads to try to avoid the traffic jam causing far heavier traffic in these residential roads than they are designed to take. With the additional road users which will inevitably come with this proposed housing estate, the congestion is bound to be significantly increased and will greatly exacerbate the situation and become a real problem.
PO13
Before any additional housing is even thought about Market Quay Roundabout needs a bypass. The A32 and Newgate Lane are already way beyond capacity and additional housing will add to traffic and pollution. Schools, doctors and dentists are also over capacity and the nearest A&E hospital is via the already mentioned Market Quay roundabout.
PO12
As this proposal seeks to impact Gosport residents their opinion should be considered - will particular reference to the increased traffic proposed via Tukes Avenue both directly and via Brooker Lane. Any additional traffic should be diverted via the Stubbington bypass not adding to Gosport's already over-stretched roads
PO13
The building of this new housing estate will have a major impact on the traffic in Bridgemary and flow onto the A32 if you allow traffic access onto Brookers Lane and Tukes Avenue. If you allow access to the new Newgate Lane then it will cause hold-ups on that road, defeating the object of building it. Before any development takes place the traffic issues getting in & out of Gosport and South Fareham, i.e. a dual carriageway road should happen first. Why isn't the new Newgate Lane that is being built a dual carriageway? What are the plans to cater for the extra burden on the already overstretched Doctor's surgeries and the like. This plan is simply about grabbing more money in Council Tax, it gives no consideration to the existing residents.
PO13
The proposed use of the land to build up to 475 dewllings is with the current clogged roads systems, is ludicrous, I live in Tukes avenue it's about 30 to 40 minuets drive into Fareham at peak times now, one minor break down or accident, gridlock, cues at Fort Brockhurst, the so called road improvements at Newgate lane have caused chaos in the Asda industrial estate for all businesses, and the roundabout at the Lee on the Solent end have just made more tail backs, you put traffic lights there, four cars and it blocks the Newgate road to Fareham, same problem at market way roundabout, that's where a flyover is needed, so Gosport traffic does not have to stop, how anyone can think that even 200 new houses is a good idea at that location, beggars belief, each house, minimum one car, and what about, school placement, doctors, dentists and so on.
PO13
I note that there are two (2) access points shown on Fareham's Draft Development Framework Plan as 'Potential Secondary Access Options'. Whilst I appreciate that these two 'Potential Secondary Access Options' will facilitate access to two nearby schools, doubtless some families with school-age children will be living on the new development, they also cause a risk of further loading of traffic on the already over-loaded A32 Gosport to Fareham Road. What mitigation is planned to ensure this does not occur please? I also note the northern 'Potential Secondary Access Option' may require a compulsory purchase order to acquire land (currently with a home thereon). What discussions have you already had and what agreements have you already in place, if any, with Gosport BC please in connection with the abovementioned... (a) potential negative impact on the A32 road; (b) compulsory purchase of land within Gosport BC boundary; (c) the HA2 proposed development in general. Currently, without knowing, the answers to (a), (b) and (c) above I would need to register an objection to this proposed development. I hope you are able to provide answers to my four (4) questions above that would enable me to withdraw my objection.
PO12
There are enough problems in Gosport without Fareham Council adding to them. Building this large estate is bad enough in itself to add to the congested area, of traffic to get out and in to Gosport. Alas, it adds insult to injury for housing on Fareham Council land will have vehicular access through the Bridgemary neighbourhood, where it is now bad enough to get out of and join the main road. Surely, with all the improvements to Newgate Lane, it would be fairer to let all the proposed estate to have vehicular access to it rather than burdening us with the problem.
PO13
The planned development will increase traffic in an area that already has a high traffic congestion and the work currently taking place to improve this will be wasted. Throwing money away. The houses are not needed, the open land and green space was once protected and should still be. I heavily object to the planned development, over crowding and more congestion in an area that already suffers. More cars, more pollution more traffic, less parking, Safety in the area reduced from higher traffic flow, increased RTAs increased crime.
PO113
No Infrastructure for this- the roads cannot cope with even more traffic !! getting our of Asda at Collingwood is already a nightmare & traffic is sometimes virtually nose to tail along the Fareham road at weekends, let alone during rust hr. With 475 new homes , occupants will need to register with doctors & the Bridgemary surgery is already straining to cope with existing patients -it takes 3 weeks to be able to see your Doc!! If this development goes ahead , Gosport will come to a stand still.
PO13
The A32 is bad as it is without putting more on to it we must get more traffic moving local as it will come to a stand still.
PO13
I Object to the new houses being built, we can not cope with the traffic coming through our area already & Tukes avenue is already a past road with over crowding of parking £9.5m on a road that will not benefit users is a huge mistake, but to build another 475 Houses adding at least 960 cars to access road is Ridiculous.
PO13
The development will affect mostly Gosport residents yet the revenue will go to a fareham. The area cannot sustain the number of cars as it is, yet you choose to build more houses. You propose to build more GP surgeries etc, but there arent the actual GP's to man these surgeries. And the impact on QA, which is regularly at high alert, will be massive. What provision will you make to support QA? What about schools? Classrooms are already at capacity, with most schools having at least 30 children in every class in every school year from Infants to Senior school. What about play parks for children to enjoy? We are being forced to 1 area - Alver Valley - yet FBC doesn't pay to maintain this. The amount of traffic trying to get out of Lee & Gosport already takes a long time. All you'll do is force more traffic in the roads over a longer period and affect the pollution in the area. You can't even get out of Asda nowadays either, so far from the weak argument of more jobs, who will create these extra jobs except for the actual contractors whilst the build is in progress? And these houses won't be affordable. They'll start at £200k for a small house, like in the Daedalus estate, and very few people can afford that. It's just greed, just like IFA2. Only rich people who already have equity in their homes will afford these houses. Not enough will be affordable or social housing, and you'll just create a huge divide. The area doesn't need more houses. It's needs the new roads that are being built to support the amount of traffic that currently uses the roads, not more housing and thus more cars. Disappointing FBC that you'll make another huge decision that will only affect Gosport residents.
PO13
There are far to many houses in the area the traffic is already awful to get into and out of gosport. Even with the new road asda takes hours to get out of with the build up of traffic. You have already destroyed a wildlife area building the new road. You will be causing more pollution no wonder more children are sick these days and you don't have the Drs facilities to look after all these new people from the houses. Not enough schools for the area either.
PO13
I am writing to express my strong opposition to Fareham Borough Council's proposal to put an access road by the side of my house and garden following publication of plans for 475 houses in the Newgate South area in the horse fields behind my garden. There are several reasons for my objections. The main reasons I purchased my particular house that I could settle and make my own was that it had a private and enclosed back garden where I could hang out my washing and enjoy the peace in my spare time with my dog and where as a single professional woman I could feel safe and secure. These plans not only make my neighbours homeless, but open up the side of my house and garden making mine a corner house on 2 main roads. Thus taking away my privacy, making me feel vulnerable and by opening it up, exposing me to additional noise, and exhaust fumes from both sides of my property. I would not feel safe and secure as I do at present, as the general public would be able to walk down the side of my property, throw their litter into my garden or even access my property from the exposed boundaries. My back door opens up to the side, which poses another security and privacy issue. I would like to know what would be done to the water supply and drainage from my outhouse toilet. My outhouse also adjoins the outhouse of the property you have proposed to demolish. The house that you propose to demolish is not only next door but is extremely close to mine, the noise; dirt and dust I would endure are unacceptable living conditions to experience. I feel Fareham Borough Council have violated my basic human rights. Protocol 1, Article 1 Protection of property. Noise from road traffic should not intrude upon a person's home. I have a right to peaceful enjoyment of my property. There are safety aspects to the use of my driveway as it is situated on an already busy road, with this access road I would further need to negotiate a junction next to my drive whilst trying to join the already sometimes queuing traffic. Traffic already queues down Tukes Avenue to exit the Gosport area. The fact that the road narrows by my driveway for an accessible crossing for the school is also a major concern. Not only do I have reasons as explained in this letter for my objection, other concerns are the way this has been handled so far by Fareham Borough Council. I cannot believe that the people this immediately affects were not consulted before publishing details. The Town and Country Planning Development Management Procedure Order 2015 states in point 15.4a (ii) by serving notice on any adjoining owner or occupier. (b) by publication of the notice in a newspaper circulating in the locality in which the land to which the application relates is situated. The only reason I found out was through Gosport Borough Council having the decency to inform residents from the already published consultation. The maps on lampposts have only just been displayed (I have only seen a map on one lamppost near the park), which seems to be the only part of the consultation that has been lawfully abided by. We are statutory consultees! Statutory consultees on applications for planning permission – adjoining landowners. Statutory Consultees Requirement set out in law to consult a specific body, who are then under a duty to respond providing advice on the proposal in question. Any consultation required by a direction – where there are further, locally, specific statutory consultation requirements as set out in a consultation direction. www.gov.uk/guidance/consultation-and-pre-decision-matters It is most upsetting for the residents who may lose their homes and / or secure and safe surrounding boundaries. If this project does or doesn't go ahead, Fareham Borough Council have already left home owners in a state of panic and fear and with their property values affected. For example, one neighbour who was thinking of moving to a retirement home, fears nobody will want to buy his property and is suffering from a feeling of entrapment with a house that stood well in the property market prior to this publication. I feel this is all for a rushed project, that has not had careful consideration with so many implications for private homeowners whose investments have now been greatly affected. Please understand the stress and upset you have caused not only from the plans, but in the manner this has been dealt with for which I am considering taking legal action. I have added some other valuable points I wish to make: Environmental issues after development completes: • More traffic, exhaust fumes. • More traffic, more congestion. It can take anything from 20 minutes to 1 ½ hours for an 8 mile commute to work in present conditions. • Traffic already queues down Tukes Avenue in rush hour past the local school. • Increased noise level due to increased inhabitants and increased vehicles. • Increased chance of flooding with over development on the land and nowhere for it to drain. This land regularly floods, I was under the impression it was unsuitable land to build on. • Increased litter issues. Environmental issues during development: • Noise levels with diggers, demolition and heavy building equipment. • Large vehicles needing continual access on already busy roads. • Poor air quality due to construction and demolition. • The dirt and added litter issues from the site. Safety issues: • The proposed access road comes out opposite a primary school and next to the crossing. The road narrows for the pedestrians to cross from the property that will be next to the proposed access road. • Increased traffic with extra access routes spilling out near the primary school. • Increased traffic trying to use the access roads to cut through when traffic queues come to a standstill for people trying to exit Gosport / Fareham in busy times. • More issues for residents with increased traffic and population with criminal damage to vehicles, property. Insurance premiums will also increase. Local residents have recently been targeted. Effect on local community • Woodcot Primary schools 198 children aged 4-11 years, with increased housing, how can they accommodate more? • Bridgemary School accommodates 240 Secondary school aged children, how can they accommodate more from a new development? • Bridgemary Medical Centre already struggles to provide primary care services to the local community. • Fareham Road Dental Surgery already serves a wide community base, can it cater for more NHS patients?
PO13
"I am a resident of Peel Common, Brookers Lane. The construction of 475 houses on the proposed land will significantly impact upon the traffic on Newgate Lane and surrrounding roads. The construction of the new Newgate Lane (South) will not ease any congestion due to the choke points further north. Brookers Lane is already used as a ""rat run"" and the proposed construction will significantly increase the volume of traffic, noise, dirt and reduce air quailty. Furthermore there will be a negative impact on local schools and surgeries which are already overloaded."
PO13
I feel that such a large development, potentially nearly the size of the existing Peel Common community, would have a detrimental effect on Peel Common and its residents for a variety of reasons. Currently Peel Common feels like the western edge of Gosport, but placing a new development as proposed would eliminate the boundary between Fareham and Gosport that is currently maintained here. It would also mean building on a greenfield site. The proposed main entrance to the development seems likely to contribute further to congestion on Newgate Lane - obviously there have been recent changes to this road, however the sheer volume of traffic means it still takes a long time to go North/South most times I use the road. Roundabouts on this road (as the main entrance would be) lead to long delays leaving retail areas. The proposed secondary road entrances do not seem suitable for the existing housing estates that are already present. The area around Brookers Lane, for example, has a lot of on-road parking which narrows the road to one lane, and adding more passing traffic could exacerbate the potential for collisions and delays. The problem can be especially bad around school start and end times, and these inevitably come with a lot more children and parents crossing the road. There's also the possibility that Brookers Lane and other roads would become a rat run, with traffic passing through the proposed development for a shorter route between Fareham and Gosport compared to using the B3334. General congestion in the area is already bad with most commuters heading towards Fareham and further, so an increase in the number of residents is likely to increase this congestion, with the associated increase in pollution, effects on resident wellbeing and impact on the economy. I feel that if any large development is required it would be better placed north or west of the A32/Newgate Lane delays and the bottleneck through Fareham at Quay Street. I feel there would also be an impact on the sense of community in general character of the Peel Common estate.
PO13
I have concerns over the infrastructure from this site. I understand that one of the proposed roads off of the new development will connect into Brookers Lane. This will vastly increase the through traffic on the peel common estate for people wishing to travel to both Fareham & Gosport. This could lead to increased traffic past Peel Common school, which already sees very high volumes of traffic at school times & disruption due to the number of cars trying to park. The traffic out of the Peel Common estate in the mornings is already at breaking point. Sometimes taking 40 minutes to make a 5 minute journey. This is true when trying to access Rowner Road or Which Lane via Tukes Avenue. Both routes out of the estate would not be able to cope with a potential 700+ ( averaging 1.5 cars per household) more vehicles using these roads during rush hour. Why is there no proposed link out onto Newgate Lane to take traffic out onto the major routes straight away. Surely this needs to be a consideration with the amount of money that is being spent on easing the traffic issues we already have in this area.
PO13
Fareham cannot cope with more infill. We have too much pollution, too much congestion. Stop this nonsense.
PO14
I would like to lodge a protest at this proposal as I consider that once again (as with IFA 2) Fareham council are solving their issues by riding roughshod over the views and lives of Gosport residents. People who choose to live here will further increase the already shocking traffic issues as well as availing themselves of already limited local services such as schools, doctors and dentists.
PO13
In the plans to build 475 houses off Newgate Lane totally inappropriate ! not enough schools, doctors, or open spaces for a huge increase in population, thus land is a lung for Peal Common & Bridgemary and a wildlife haven, also traffic & Parking problems would worsen with so many more houses. The fields are used for football, dog walking etc, these must be more brown field sites to be used.
PO13
I read some of the proposed ideas in 'plan 2036' that Fareham council see as the way ahead in order to meet 'housing needs' of the future for their district. This area of proposed housing does not take into account the increase of new residents traveling to and from work nor does it improve the local air quality, accessibility for residents already living 'locked' in Gosport. The development of the Daedalus site is already having a detrimental affect on the local area roads which have reduced Broom lane and Shoot lane to rat runs for those wanting to visit or work there. Adding over 1500 houses both north and south of Newgate Lane negates any benefit that building the Stubbington Bypass would provide, it also adds another hurdle for any Gosport residents wishing to travel out of the peninsular. Any proposed roads leading from HA2 that go south into Tuke's avenue or Carisbrooke only add increased pressure at Wyche lane or Gosport road leading to Stubbington. Again there is a failure of Fareham council to take into consideration of the residents of Gosport by piling more housing on the border without addressing access. To put this bluntly this area is FULL, no more new site for houses go and build north of the M27 or better still north of the M4.
PO13
Development in this area will have a negative impact on the residents in Bridgemary & Gosport as a whole. The A32 is already gridlocked & I fail to see how the new Newgate Lane South Road will help traffic congestion as it will be single carriageway as is the existing road. The problem of traffic congestion on the A32 & Newgate Lane lies solely with the Market Quay. The roundabout simply isn't fit for purpose. Further housing development in this area will make the situation worse. The construction of the Stubbington Bypass will only assist drivers heading towards Southampton. It will do nothing to ease peak time congestion for drivers going to/coming from Portsmouth. In addition local infrastructure is inadequate to cope with further development on the Fareham/Gosport boundary. GP surgeries in Gosport can't cope as it is & I understand those in Fareham aren't fairing much better.
PO12
As a Gosport resident I strongly object to any additional housing that places further traffic onto Gosport Roads. Bad enough if these properties were to add to problems on Newgate lane but the proposal to have access to these properties through Tukes Avenue in Gosport is not acceptable. It is disgusting that this appears in the Fareham Local plan, which without vigilance of some Gosport residents, could have slipped nicely under the radar, when the most damaging effect of this development would transfer to Gosport residents, not Fareham residents (aside from ecological effects and I'm afraid I have no confidence in assurances that correct ecological assessments will be carried out). The A32, and both Wych Lane and Tukes Avenue as tributaries onto the A32 should not be subjected to such additional volumes of traffic. All of these roads are heavily congested, especially at peak times. I would be forced to join any organised protests aimed at disrupting any such development of an access road onto Tukes Avenue I feel so strongly about this.
PO12
We are furious that the long awaited relief the Newgate Lane with completion would have given to the long suffering residents of Gosport will be lost by the building of 475 houses off of the road. This will result in another bottle next reduction in the flow at the main access round about on the new relief south section.That bottle neck will almost certainly result in residents of the new estate to use secondary access proposed at Brookes lane and Tukes avenue. This breach of the strategic gap is unacceptable and would lead to a worsening of the already frustrating congestion suffered by residents of Bridgemary trying to travel out of the areas for work every day. What local services such as surgeries, schools and shops would these new residenys use. No we say a bad Idea!!!
PO13
The services in Gosport and Fareham are already stretched enough as it is. With hundreds of houses being proposed this will put more strain on our already stretched schools, doctors, police force, dentists and hospital and health care. Not to mention the traffic. Adding more cars to the area means potentially more vehicles on the roads. This adds to he increasing pollution issue on the A32, the increase in time and difficulties for emergency services and an increase and frustration for commuters. I strongly object to the housing developments being proposed!!
PO13
With the extra housing being proposed the increase in traffic could be near 1500 cars and yet we are all being provided with less services from the council while they are increasing the council tax this coming year. Therefore until the traffic congestion which causes pollution (is this monitored at the moment?), GP,s / NHS health care is improved as QA is failing all the time. Improve or provide new Schools, better Public transport, improved infrastructure (i.e. water supply, electricity). Consider carefully conservation issues and the legal obligations surrounding this important area, and the green space between Fareham and Gosport is maintained. All these important issues should be taken into consideration and Local Fareham councilors who are making these ridiculous decision's, whilst being paid fortunes by public taxes, come and see for themselves what this broken system is doing to the local voters.
PO130YN
Do not build any more houses in any Fareham area that will have a direct impact on the residents of Gosport. Yet more houses will inevitably clog up the roads in and out of Gosport. Before any houses are build, build all the necessary infrastructure to cope with ALL the proposed houses in Fareham and Gosport.
PO13
"What has happened to the green belt / strategic gap between Fareham & Gosport. I have lost count of the amount of money that has been spent to try and improve access to & from the Gosport Peninsula, finally a new ""relief"" road is built to replace the not fit for purpose newgate lane, and blow me down, before the new road has even been built 450 houses are planned adjacent to it. The new roads still have ""bottle necks"" at the Fareham viaduct, so nothing will improve ..... i am however hopeful that the Stubbington bypass to the motorway may help. I do not understand the mentality of having an access road opposite a junior / infant school...... purely an accident waiting to happen, Tukes avenue is already an extremely busy residential area, this will get only worse as these houses and associated vehicles are added. My family already have difficulty in booking Doctors and dental appointments, where on earth are these (potential 1000+ people) going to register?"
PO13
I live right next to the proposed area and as a first time buyer one of the massive selling points was the peace and quiet of the location of my property. If more houses are built this will lead to the area being more built up with parked cars and traffic, Which it can't even deal with as it currently stands. There is no positive outcome to this proposed build and the thought of it potentially happening makes me very upset and angry to the point I would probably sell up and move. It's disgusting.
PO13
The traffic is bad enough getting out of tukes avenue and carisbrook road already without adding more housing just adding to the traffic and congestion in the area
PO12
The roads and infrastructure cannot support additional housing. The bottleneck at Fareham will still exist, despite the additional works to Newgate Lane. There is no local hospital and local Dr surgeries are already oversubscribed. The housing plan needs some drastic changes to take this into consideration
PO12
No more housing
PO12
Getting out of Gosport is hard enough without the extra traffic this development will bring.
PO12
I wish to object to The development plan between Fareham & Gosport, between Newgate Lane and Tukes Ave. where 475 houses are scheduled to be built on. Don't we have enough traffic on these roads already, not to mention the additional traffic going to the Daedelus plans. I live in Tukes Avenue; when Newgate lane is blocked due to roadworks, accident or whatever, my road becomes a solid car park. My hopes are NO to the new estate in Newgate Lane.
PO13
Unless the infrastructure is vastly improved the surrounding roads would not cope with the increased traffic.
PO6
Will you be building a new school too? Or doctors surgery? Where will the wildlife go? I have live on Tukes Avenue for 22 yrs and my house backs onto the proposed site, I know this is a haven for wildlife. Also I have problems parking outside my house sometimes now, this will only get worse.This is a bad idea!
PO13
I must object very strongly about the proposed action, are roads locally are full to capacity with cars already, to build houses along with more cars is absolutely ridiculous, the working people of our area and further into Gosport are having an arduous journey every day back and forth to work as it is, to put more cars on the roads in our area would be suicide. I am urging you to strongly reconsider your thoughts on this matter.
Postcode not provided
As a Lee on the Solent Resident our road systems already full to capacity how on earth do Fareham Council think that all those homes will not cause a major problem to existing homes and services is unbelievable
PO13
I would in principle support the new housing proposed west of bridgemary , assuming its affordable and that there is no vehicle link from bridgemary (ie tukes avenue) to the new estate . there would be some concern this could become a rat run through to the new peel common road. At present Tukes avenue is poorly managed as a route, is badly policed at times allowing for antisocial vehicle behaviour with young drivers. anything else that makes this worse is not acceptable
PO13
This site is in the strategic gap which is supposed to provide protection under planning rules. I would hate to see this beautiful open space built on- destroying habitats for existing wild life. Additional housing built here would only cause increased traffic and parking problems for local existing residents and possible future flood damage to existing properties, as the land often floods in wet weather, if you build there where will that water go?
PO13
I have several objections No 1 Newgate Lane at peak traffic times gets blocked. With the number of new houses you propose it will be terrible to drive along. No 2 Our green spaces are getting less and less why not build on the old airfield? No 3 Your proposed road entering Tukes Ave by the school will be dangerous. People who live in Tukes Ave on the west side will have no fields behind them just an housing estate.
PO13
Dear Sir / Madam, I am writing to express my strong opposition to Fareham Borough Council's proposal to put an access road by the side of my house and garden following publication of plans for 475 houses in the Newgate South area in the horse fields behind my garden. There are several reasons for my objections. The main reasons I purchased this particular house that I could settle and make my own was that it had a private and enclosed back garden where I could hang out my washing and enjoy the peace in my spare time with my dog and where as a single professional woman I could feel safe and secure. These plans not only make my neighbours homeless, but open up the side of my house and garden making mine a corner house on 2 main roads. Thus taking away my privacy, making me feel vulnerable and by opening it up, exposing me to additional noise, exhaust fumes from both sides of my property. I would not feel safe and secure as I do at present, as the general public would be able to walk down the side of my property, throw their litter into my garden or even access my property from the exposed boundaries. My back door opens up to the side, which poses another security and privacy issue. I would like to know what would be done to the water supply and drainage from my outhouse toilet. My outhouse also adjoins the outhouse of the property you have proposed to demolish. The house that you propose to demolish is not only next door but is extremely close to mine, the noise; dirt and dust I would endure are unacceptable living conditions to experience. I feel Fareham Borough Council have violated my basic human rights. Protocol 2, Article 1 Protection of property. Noise from road traffic should not intrude upon a person's home. I have a right to peaceful enjoyment of my property. There are safety aspects to the use of my driveway as it is situated on an already busy road, with this access road I would further need to negotiate a junction next to my drive whilst trying to join the already sometimes queuing traffic. Traffic already queues down Tukes Avenue to exit the Gosport area. The fact that the road narrows by my driveway for an accessible crossing for the school is also a major concern. Not only do I have reasons as explained in this letter for my objection, other concerns are the way this has been handled so far by Fareham Borough Council. I cannot believe that the people this immediately affects were not consulted before publishing details. The Town and Country Planning Development Management Procedure Order 2015 states in point 15.4a (ii) by serving notice on any adjoining owner or occupier. (b) by publication of the notice in a newspaper circulating in the locality in which the application relates is situated. The only reason I found out was through Gosport Borough Council having the decency to inform residents from the already published consultation. The maps on lampposts have only just been displayed (I have only seen a map on one lamppost near the park), which seems to be the only part of the consultation that has been lawfully abided by. We are statutory consultees! Statutory consultees on applications for planning permission – adjoining landowners. Statutory Consultees Requirement set out in law to consult a specific body, who are then under a duty to respond providing advice on the proposal in question. Any consultation required by a direction – where there are further, locally, specific statutory consultation requirements as set out in a consultation direction. www.gov.uk/guidance/consultation-and-pre-decision-matters It is most upsetting for the residents who may lose their homes and / or secure and safe surrounding boundaries. If this project does or doesn't go ahead, Fareham Borough Council have already left home owners in a state of panic and fear and with their property values affected. For example, one neighbour who was thinking of moving to a retirement home, fears nobody will want to buy his property and is suffering from a feeling on entrapment with a house that stood well in the property market prior to this publication. I feel this is all for a rushed project, that has not had careful consideration with so many implications for private homeowners whose investments have now been greatly affected. I have added some other valuable points I wish to make along with the photos I have referred to on my enclosed documents. Please understand the stress and upset you have caused not only from the plans, but in the manner this has been dealt with for which I am considering taking legal actions. Yours Faithfully, Miss Charlie Wells Environmental issues after development completes: • More traffic, exhaust fumes • More traffic, more congestion. It can take anything from 20 minutes to 1 ½ hours for an 8 mile commute to work in present conditions. • Traffic already queues down Tukes Avenue in rush hour past the local school. [Redacted]• Increased noise level due to increased inhabitants and increased vehicles. • Increased chance of flooding with over development on the land and nowhere for it to drain. This land regularly floods, I was under the impression it was unsuitable land to build on. • Increased litter issues. Environmental issues during development: • Noise levels with diggers, demolition and heavy building equipment. • Large vehicles needing continual access on already busy roads. • Poor air quality due to construction and demolition. • The dirt and added litter issues from the site. Safety issues: • The proposed access road comes out opposite a primary school and next to the crossing. The road narrows for the pedestrians to cross, this is from the property that will be next to the proposed access road. • Increased traffic with extra access routes spilling out near the primary school. • Increased traffic trying to use the access roads to cut through when traffic queues come to a standstill for people trying to exit Gosport / Fareham in busy times. • More issues for residents with increased traffic and population with criminal damage to vehicles, property. Insurance premiums will also increase. Local residents have recently been targeted. Effect on local community • Woodcot Primary schools 198 children aged 4-11 years, with increasing housing, how can they accommodate more? • Bridgemary School accommodates 240 Secondary school aged children, how can they accommodate more from a new development? • Bridgemary Medical Centre already struggles to provide primary care services to the local community. • Fareham Road Dental Surgery already serves a wide community base, can it cater for more NHS patients?
PO13
I am writing to you to register my formal opposition to proposal HA2, the proposed development of 475 homes on Gosport's border, adjacent to houses on the western side of Tukes Avenue and Pettycot Crescent. As Member of Parliament for Gosport, Lee-on-the-Solent, Stubbington and Hill Head, I know full well the huge pressures on local infrastructure, including roads, housing, schools GP surgeries and hospitals. This proposal threatens the strategic gap between Gosport and Stubbington and I believe it is vital that we protect this land as a stretch of countryside that keeps communities distinct and prevents urban sprawl, whilst providing valuable green space to the local community. While acknowledging that we desperately need new houses, they should first and foremost be built on brownfield land, not green spaces, which are increasingly few and far between in the Solent region. I strongly urge Fareham Borough Council to maintain this area as a strategic countryside gap, as outlined in the previous Local Plan. Furthermore, developing 475 at this site would create excessive pressure on our already overburdened roads, the difficulty of getting in and out of the Gosport peninsula is infamous and adding so many more cars to the local roads would be entirely unfair for residents, particularly my constituents in Bridgemary. This development would negate any infrastructure works that have been planned and will cause the local infrastructure issues to become extremely unmanageable. Additionally, I am further concerned about the pressures that this development would further put on our already full schools, Dental Practices and GP Surgeries. Finally, I am also very disheartened to hear that the residents of 165 and 167 Tukes Avenue were unaware that their houses were mentioned in this document with proposals to demolish their houses stating "to accommodate a 6m highway with 2m footways and some landscaping." I sincerely hope you take my views into consideration upon deciding whether to keep HA2 in your Local Plan.
PO12
The point of building the new newgate lane South section was to reduce the number of exits/entrance points to make the traffic flow better. By adding housing to the side of this new road you are reducing the benefit and putting further pressure on an already congested route. Also those residents will not be able to leave the estate during periods of heavy traffic thus having a similar problem to that of Asda now. Whilst they may have a traffic light controlled junction, if traffic is grid locked in the preferred direction of travel they will not be able to leave the site. You are unlikely to gain access through to the back of peel common as this would create 'rat runs' that would ruin such an estate therefore without a school the housing will generate a number of 'round trips' increasing cross flow traffic negating the new road benefits. Housing is better positioned away from main road routes to allow traffic to naturally dilute into the road network during busy periods.
PO12
Absolute madness. 475 new homes, possibly up to 950 cars fighting to get out of wytch lane / fareham road. The junction of tukes ave / wytch lane is bad enough in the mornings now and by bringing 2 more roads from the develpment out onto carrisbrooke rd and tukes ave by a school is totally not very well thought out. It will be total gridlock with cars trying to get out of tukes ave and in turn onto fareham road every single day. Why are the roads from the proposed development going out onto the new road replacing newgate lane. That's the funny, thing lets build another 475 homes without upgrading the infacstructure. Doctors and Schools in Gosport at full stretch. The hearest hospital as in QA at full stretch. If Fareham want to build more houses do it where it is not going to effect Gosport people quiet so bad. The A32 is a joke and things can only get worse.
PO13
Gosport is far to built up already before new houses are built hospitals/doctors and schools should be thought about they are already stretched to breaking point, we also have the matter of the roads it currently takes on average an hour to get out of Gosport in rush hour and at least the same or longer to get back in, then we have the parking issue with most households having up to 3 cars the streets are littered with parked cars which causes even more traffic around the housing estates
PO13
There is a suggestion for 450 extra dwellings, 3 bedrooms , my objection is the fact there is no infrastructure provision in place at all, no extra GP surgery,Schools, these are already running at extra capacity where are these extra families supposed to school their children and the Gp surgeries are already overstretched . Unless this is put in place at the same time they will have nowhere to go. The field proposed is farmland and one of the only green spaces left for Brent geese in the winter , deer, barn owls , voles where are these supposed to go , and not to mention the increased traffic capacity on a road in and out of Gosport which is grid locked at peak times and none peak times. This is an ill thought of proposal and definitely should be put elsewhere I live directly behind this field and we were assured by town planners that when the new road was built that would be an end to the development as it was a working farm , so what has changed ?
PO13
I would wish to object most strongly to that part of your Draft Local Plan which proposes to develop up to 475 homes between Newgate Lane and Tukes Avenue in Gosport. This is in violation of existing planning rules due to the proposal to destroy the Strategic Gap between Fareham and Gosport. The proposal to allow entry to this site via Brookers Lane and Tukes Avenue would place additional traffic demand on local roads in Bridgemary as well as increasing the levels of pollution locally. Your proposal to gain entry to this site by demolishing existing houses opposite Woodcot School can most certainly not be allowed. This is already causing distress to residents living in the area and the safety of children and young people using both Woodcot School and the Key Education Centre must be of great importance. If this proposal were to go ahead, most of the residents at this development would be car owners who would no doubt gain access to this part of Fareham via Quay Street Roundabout and Gosport Road. This area is already heavily polluted and I understand that your Council are urgently looking at proposals to reduce these pollutants or otherwise face heavy fines. Additional housing in the southern part of Fareham will not help this matter. I read of no proposals within the document for health provision and with the nearest doctors surgeries at Bridgemary, Stubbington and Lee-on-the-Solent already heavily subscribed with patients. Queen Alexandra Hospital is having difficulty in coping with patient demand particularly within its Emergency Department and that is without all of the new developments, including this proposal for Newgate Lane, that are being suggested within Southern Hampshire. The area concerned between Newgate Lane and Tukes Avenue is arable land supporting reptiles and bats as well as overwintering birds and should therefore be retained in situ. The proposed development cannot be allowed in order to ensure that the Strategic Gap between Fareham and Gosport as well as the biodiversity that it provides are fully maintained.
PO13
"I object most strongly to this proposed development on the basis that in the event of traffic jams, accidents etc. in Newgate Lane, residents living in this new development will use Tukes Avenue as a ""rat run"" through to the A32 to get to Fareham. There is already a major problem with Tukes Avenue and Wych Lane being used as a rat run to avoid hold-ups along the A32 Gosport to Fareham. Bridgemary cannot cope with anymore traffic in these areas, minor accidents have already been recorded and local police have been asked to carry out speed checks at Tukes Avenue. Residents parking in Meadow Walk have now become a problem with workers from Asda and surrounding outlets etc. using it as a short cut to work, thus avoiding Newgate Lane. This proposed new development can only cause additional problems to Meadow Walk ad associated roads."
PO13
Secondary access to new housing via Tukes Avenue Our road has a number of elderly people needing to park outside our houses. Extra cars parking in the road will harm that. Increased traffic is a danger to the safe play areas for children along the road who at the moment enjoy the open plan green areas beside our residential road. What Happened to the strategic gap between Fareham and Gosport? Nothing is safe from pollution and large roads unless you can afford high housing prices.
PO13
Loss and open green spaces (Environment) Already to must traffic trying to get off Gosport pemnsula - Knock off effect with Ambalancs trying to get to QAH!! Insufficient support services already = Policing social services, Doctors, surgeries, Dentist.
PO13
[redacted]. Not only is this notorious for speeding when not bottleneck but any plans for housing behind Asda will cause even more traffic & only one way to get out.
PO13
I object to extra buildings due to ongoing uses with traffic coming in and out of Wych Lane to get to Fareham/Gosport Rd. The area in question is a nice peaceful area pop with dog walkers & children & familys and its nice only SAFE play area is our immediate area. No more traffic please another accident last weekend does someone have to be killed.
PO13
I have been a resident of the above address for the past 54 years and over that course of time I have worked at many locations out-side of the borough. During this long period of time the traffic problem has deteriorated with no sign of any improvement. This is until recently when the count council decided to build a new road alongside Newgate lane, this was I presume to lighten the load on the Gosport road and Bridgemary estate roads. With respect, I realise that with many more local authorities you are required by law to improve your housing numbers, but by building so close to the Gosport/ Fareham, boundary you are taking advantage of infrastructure that has been put in place by Gosport Borough Council and transferring your traffic problems to GBC plus its local schools, health centres and much more. With respect, I would suggest that your borough has a surplus of land to the north of the town and has road infrastructure in place. Why would any organisation willingly exacerbate an ongoing problem? Finally, to publicly say that several houses will be demolished in Bridgemary to make access for this estate is at the least very insensitive and with no prior consultations insulting to all councillors and residents of Gosport. I hope with hindsight you will rethink the roughshod and totally unprofessional manner in which you as a council have behaved.
PO13
I wish to object to the plans to build 475 houses and to demolish some houses in Bridgemary in order to accommodate roads coming through from the state to Tukes Avenue. I believe it is proposed that these houses should be built in the strategic gap between Gosport and Fareham, which I very much object to. We need to preserve green spaces as much as possible. This area is crowded enough already and the roads like Tukes Avenue and Wych Lane are far to busy and congested without adding any more traffic to them. Both roads are used as ' rat runs' to and from the A32 and even more traffic will add to the current dangers.
PO13
Newgate Lane & Turkes Ave are already very, very congested with Traffic ( not help by the new traffic lights outside HMS Collingwood). With the development of Daedalus site Newgate Lane and surrounding area cannot cope with any additional traffic that these 475 houses will create.
PO13
There should be no loss of the strategic gap. Access to Tukes Av, should be for pedestrian only. Proposed vehicle access to Tukes Avenue, junction will be opposite school entrances. Rush hour traffic, coinciding with children entering school, often queues from this location to Wych Lane and A32. This road also takes traffic from Rowner Road via Carisbrooke Road. There would be much increased air pollution due to exhausts from slow and stationary vehicles. Enforced sell of 2 properties could cause occupants undue distress if they cannot be relocated in the local area. Because of the proposed limited car parking planned for the new builds there is the potential for on street parking to spill onto Tukes Ave and neighboring roads if vehicle access is made available. Robins, Gold & green finches, blackbirds and sparrows that visit feeders in my garden, nest in the hedgerows on the proposed areas for building. This disturbance would decimate the habitats.
PO13
There should be no loss of the strategic gap. Access to Tukes Av, should be for pedestrian only. Proposed vehicle access to Tukes Avenue, junction will be opposite school entrances. Rush hour traffic, coinciding with children entering school, often queues from this location to Wych Lane and A32. This road also takes traffic from Rowner Road via Carisbrooke Road. There would be much increased air pollution due to exhausts from slow and stationary vehicles. Enforced sell of 2 properties could cause occupants undue distress if they cannot be relocated in the local area. Because of the proposed limited car parking planned for the new builds there is the potential for on street parking to spill onto Tukes Ave and neighboring roads if vehicle access is made available.
PO13
There should be no loss of the strategic gap. Access to Tukes Av, should be for pedestrian only. Proposed vehicle access to Tukes Avenue, junction will be opposite school entrances. Rush hour traffic, coinciding with children entering school, often queues from this location to Wych Lane and A32. This road also takes traffic from Rowner Road via Carisbrooke Road. There would be much increased air pollution due to exhausts from slow and stationary vehicles. Enforced sell of 2 properties could cause occupants undue distress if they cannot be relocated in the local area. Because of the proposed limited car parking planned for the new builds there is the potential for on street parking to spill onto Tukes Ave and neighboring roads if vehicle access is made available.
PO13
No more houses should be built in Gosport until the heavy flow of traffic is resolved.
PO13
There would be no demarcation between Gosport & fareham I think it would be dangerous for the roads access to go into Turkes Avenue this would be opposite Woodcot Primary school. This road is also quite often congested - the mornings as traffic queues to get into Wych Lane/A32. Why can't Fareham houses access roads be -Fareham?
PO13
I think that the roads need to be addressed before any new houses are built in Gosport. It already takes way too long to get in and out of Gosport and I am fed up of wasting valuable hours sat in traffic. The new houses will also have a detrimental effect on school places, doctor surgeries and dentists.
PO13
We have too much traffic down Turkes Avenue and Wych Lane as it is . If these houses are built it could mean up to between 400 and 600 more cars on the local roads. We need Gosport Borough Council to stand up and speak up for the residents of Gosport against these houses.
PO13
It is very disappointing to understand that the local Government is allocating more open spaces for housing in an overpopulating area where residents are already squeezed and roads and access is problematic. I am not sure who and why or if these people who make these strategic decisions live in the area. Is it because the land is cheap to purchase and already situated within an area of local housing? Everywhere you go, if you live local is totally overpopulated, shops full and roads are gridlocked. Geographically it's totally madness to build these and poor decision making. I can remember the good times before congestion building started to occur. Out of Gosport and Fareham, in new towns what you leave is there legacy!?
PO13
I would like to object most strongly to that part of your draft local Plan which proposes to develop up to 475 homes between Newgate lane & Turkes Ave in Gosport. This is in violation of existing planning rules due to proposal to destroy the strategic gap between Fareham & Gosport. to allow entry to this site via Brookers lane & Turkes Ave would place additional traffic demand on the local roads in Bridgemary as well as increasing the levels of pollution locally. Your proposal to gain entry to this site by demolishing existing houses opposite Woodcot school can most certainly not be allowed. This is already causing distress to residents living in the area and safety to children and young people using both Woodcot school and the key education centre must be of great importance. This proposal were to go ahead, most of the residents at this development would be car owners who would no doubt gain access to this part of Fareham via Quay street roundabout and Gosport road. This area is already heavely polluted and I understand that your council are urgently looking at proposal to reduce these pollutants or otherwise face heavy fines. Additional housing in the southern part of Fareham will not help this matter.
PO13
I am writing to you to strongly object to building 475 houses in the strategic gap that has always ben a green belt for a reason. How can Fareham Borough Council have the right to demolish houses in Gosport Borough Council. I am sure that if any normal person would start to build houses on this belt Fareham Borough Council would strongly object to this. How on earth do you think that traffic is going to cope as now it takes an hour to get into and out of this area. You are not considering to build any new hospitals, schools, doctor surgeries or dentists. Also where are the jobs going to be. Where are all the Deer and reptiles going to go, I hope not in my or anyone else's gardens as they need to go somewhere.
PO13
Lots of improvements are being made to the roads in this area. It is close to new employment sites There are lots of cycle paths in the area making it safer to commute by bike for people. It would easily be possible for people to commute by bike to Fareham or Gosport from here. A positive in terms of reducing pollution. Good access to sixth form college/equivalent. The area can be accessed from all directions.
SO31
infrastructure, road systems will not be able to cope with the amount of vehicles commuting in and out of this area. road systems in this area are already stretched to breaking point.
PO13
Access in to Tukes Avenue and new build Houses. The roads out of Gosport and back in are already rammed with traffic so building another 475 houses is only going to add to the situation. Something needs to be done to assist with the flow of traffic and I don't think Gosport should build any more houses.
PO13
I would wish to object to the proposal in your draft local plan to develop land between Newgate Lane and Tukes Avenue with housing. This land forms part of the strategic gap between Gosport and Fareham and helps to differentiate the two boroughs. Road traffic going out of Gosport and Southern Fareham is already at saturation point at peak periods and additional local traffic through Bridgemary can only be to the detriment of local residents. The idea to demolish two houses opposite Woodcot School in order to gain access to part of the proposed site should not be allowed. I hope that you will re-think this part of your draft local plan.
PO13
Enough is enough! This proposed residential development is in direct contradiction to the Borough Council's own stated policy stated below: Policy CS22 Development in Strategic Gaps Land within a Strategic Gap will be treated as countryside. Development proposals will not be permitted either individually or cumulatively where it significantly affects the integrity of the gap and the physical and visual separation of settlements. Strategic Gaps have been identified between Fareham/Stubbington and Western Wards/Whiteley (the Meon gap); and Stubbington/Lee on the Solent and Fareham/Gosport. This development would place what remains of the strategic gap within Fareham housing and not between settlements as intended. Furthermore,this follows on directly from the re-routing of Newgate Lane South which delivers no significant improvement to traffic flow given that there is no additional lane capacity and relies purely upon a lack of junctions along it length. In approving this work, Hampshire County Council's document includes the following:6.27 The site lies within the Meon Strategic Gap. Policy CS22: Development in Strategic Gaps of the FLP: Part 1 states that development proposals will not be permitted where they significantly affect the integrity of the Gap and the physical and visual separation of settlements. The ES states that as a result of additional traffic creating both audible and visual disturbance to the tranquillity of the local area the setting of the area would be influenced by increased built form. However, the ES states that the development will not introduce any uncharacteristic elements into the landscape as highways are a feature of the surrounding area as well as being present in the Strategic Gap area. There would be an impact on the Gap however the alignment of the road is such that adequate open space is retained either side of the route. Some of this open land also benefits from a level of protection as a result of being playing fields. The proposal is therefore considered not to significantly affect the integrity of the Gap or the physical and visual separation of settlements and would be in accordance with Policy CS22: Development in Strategic Gaps of the FLP: Part 1 and Policy R/OS2: Strategic Gap of the adopted GLP. 6.54 The fragmentation and loss of land within agricultural holdings has been assessed within the ES. The conclusion is that due to the amount of land required to construct and operate the by-pass the proposed development would have a negligible residual effect on one agricultural holding. 6.55 The Local Planning Authority has taken into account the economic and other benefits of the BMV land in accordance with paragraph 112 of the NPPF. The alignment of the proposed route is the result of an iterative design process which has sought to avoid and mitigate impacts associated with the development and it is regrettable that implementation of the scheme would result in the loss of or fragmentation of the agricultural land identified above. 7.1 It is considered that the proposal would be in accordance with the Fareham Borough Local Plan Part 1 (2011) & Part 2 (2015) and the Gosport Borough Local Plan Review (2006) and emerging draft Gosport Borough Local Plan (2011-2029). The development would result in a reduction in traffic congestion on highway routes to and from the Gosport peninsula supporting economic development and regeneration within the sub-region and would contribute to the development of a high quality and sustainable integrated transport system for the Boroughs. It would not significantly affect the integrity of the Meon Strategic Gap, result in significant impacts on flora and fauna, lead to the loss of playing field or result in an increased flood risk and would be acceptable in terms of highway safety. The proposal would however result in a significant increase in noise levels at seven properties in the short-term and one property in the long-term. The increase in residential properties in this area would place additional strain on the infrastructure and services currently provided and my comment would be incomplete if it did not reflect that the adverse affect of this development would be felt purely by the residents of your neighbouring boroughs.
PO13
We live in the peninsula which at certain times of the day is a nightmare with congestion traffic. There is no infrastructure in place for more houses at present there is a 4 week wait for an appointment with our GP, what is going to happen when we have got even more people living nearby ?At the moment Kent Road is a rat rum with vehicle short cuts
PO13
As we live in the peninsular it can become a very busy through Fareham at certain times of the day, not to forget that the council are looking to axe the school crossing patrols at all of the schools. This in itself should be a worry for the number of schools in the whole of Bridgemary. The estate is already busy whatever the time of the day. There is not enough parking for residents and speed limits need to reduced . All in all there is not enough infrastructure to cope with the demands needed for anymore houses. The one big thing that seems to have been forgotten ancient maps show we live on a Flood Plain.
PO13
The existing local plan conforms to the requirement of a strategic gap between settlements (Gosport and Fareham). The new draft local plan simply tags the new houses onto Gosport and ignores the policy of a gap between the two towns. The new houses require access and this will be to the detriment of the Gosport residents of Peel Common and Bridgemary. In peak traffic times the rat run of cars will saturate the roads namely Carisbrooke Road and Brookers Lane. This will aggregate further the safety and high pollution levels that already exist. The proposal to build the new houses is a Fareham Borough initiative aimed at solving their current house building requirements. Fareham Borough Council appears to have no consideration for a neighboring local authority. Controversial decisions that affect Gosport residents should include discussions and agreement with Gosport Borough Council.
PO13
We object strongly to the proposed housing in the Greenaway Lane of warsash as outlined in the local plan, reference the meeting held in the victory hall , warasah , om Friday 10th November. We have laid out below our primary objection. Excluding Welborne the proposed greenfield housing development have not been spread across the Borough but have been concentrated in the west, and disproportionally large amount of this in Warsash. The Greenaway Lane site proposed development is close to the centre of the village, and will exacerbate the already chaotic overcrowded of the roads in the area. Because of the geography of Warsash there are only two roads in and out of the village, Brooke lane and warsash Road. At present, for an extended period in the mornings and evenings these roads cannot cope with the current population, so any major development that adds to this situation is totally unacceptable. The A27 between Segensworth roundabout and Park Gate, is currently a bottle neck with queueing traffic for most of the day. This situation will be made worse by this proposed large new development, and there appears to be no plans to correct the situation. Comments were made at the meeting about significant road development and the duelling of the A27 between Fareham and the M27. This will not help the Warsash situation, as the roundabout at the holiday Inn (a very recent development) is a nightmare. Getting onto the roundabout from Warsash road is a real problem. ( By the way the roadworks which are under the way on the A27 are asking too long and adding to the Traffic problems, For most of the time there appears to be very few workers actually on the site) No solution was proposed to the other currant infrastructure problems of schools and Medical Facilities which are going to be made worse. Today Brookefeild school is full and in order to get a Doctor appointment we have to wait 3 weeks, (some of us now even have to travel to Whiteley) Finally, it was very disappointing at the meeting to hear that our representatives were not proposing a consolidated infrastructure plan, included housing, industrial development. roads, schools and medical facilities. We have no problem with new housing developments as long as they are proportionating to the area and are part of a comprehensive plan which addresses all of the serious infrastructure issues which we have today. The plans which were presented just to make a bad situation in the Warsash area worse. Is it too much to ask that these matters should all be handled together, not just insolation. The proposal as it was presented is totally unacceptable.
SO31
We are writing to you with regards to the plan which we saw on a Lamp-post! on our way to the Local shops! We have enclosed a template document which we downloaded to outline our concerns, however we have had several more than we could add on the template - to summarise our concerns below: - lack of infrastructure - shops, schools, doctors, dentists. The people of Fareham, Bridgemary already are not supported by their schools, doctors, dentists, pharmacists. How will more housing help this situation. I urge you to drive to Asda on a Saturday where you can enjoy being trapped in the carpark because the roads are blocked, how will housing help this. - open spaces/ parks. Not only will we have less natural beauty on our door step. You will be destroying many oak trees, Habitat for wildlife to name but a few: deers, pheasants, foxes, badgers, woodpeckers, hawks. With our every growing population why would building a town on farm land be a good idea. When good prices are so high. - flooding - what will happen to my garden when the flood waters are pushed to the Tukes Avenue boundary. Every year for many months the fields flood like a lake, which council will improve the area to combat the 3 months of floods? - Our family environment - what will happen to our quality of lifestyle when the houses are being built. Already weekend noise, smells, dust, are annoying from the road development. But we never raised concerns before, because we thought we would benefit from it in the long-term but actually being over-looked by so many houses to is the start of a nightmare. - Traffic crisis - Already the roads cannot cope with the volume of traffic heading out towards Fareham via duct. How will more houses help this, during the past few weeks I have been caught up in the 'stand still' traffic at Newgate Lane several times because of the large vehicles blocking the road. if this is whats to come with more traffic from builders on newgate lane. I may have to give up my job in Cosham. I know my hand written letter is not the most well written document, but I'm sure you can fully understand the meaning. Should you wish me to clarify my comments please make contact with me. I have forwarded our concerns in this letter to: - Gosport Borough Council - Hampshire County Council. As well as yourselves as we feel that not only our Borough Council should take our concerns and questions seriously, but also our County Council should be supporting us also. Our questions: Schools, will Bridgemary now have to accommodate these additional families as quite frankly Woodcot Primary School struggles now as a 1 year intake. How many of the Councillors/Mayors who signed off the road knew of the housing proposal to pay for the road? Is this all 'lip service'. As from our windows we can see gaps in the fencing where the road boundary is. Which worringly match up to the proposed road map created for the new houses, and why build a roundabout if the traffic is only for south bound traffic? Emergency services are already stretched and with most health care being at QA. How are you going to protect the lives of the people living south of Fareham viaduct. As well as police all the unrest from rowdy residents who have no where to go is driving us out of the town will be impossible and there half-broken park at the back of Asda's to accommodate 2000 people, new housing and old housing. I have a direct question for Cllr Woodward, in your 'Fareham Today' article, pg.2 2nd to last paragraph you say that 'if we do not take control of this issue developers will put pressure on us to force buildings into areas that we will all find *unpalatable*. I ask you please, what does that mean? Areas of wealthy conservative members? Or just does it mean next door to your home? I must admit some of the facts and figures which is the basis of your document are unclear in the document. I hope that my questions will be answered and concerns put forward to the Consultation team. I like forward to your response.
PO13
We would wish to object most strongly to that part of the Draft Local 'Plan which proposes 475 homes between Newgate Lane and Tukes Avenue in Gosport. This is in violation of existing planning rules due to the proposal to destroy the strategic gap between Fareham and Gosport. The proposal to allow entry to the site via Brookers Lane and Tukes Avenue would place additional traffic demand on local roads in Bridgemary as well as increasing the level of pollution locally. Your proposal to gain entry to this site by demolishing exisiting houses opposite Woodcot School can most certainly note be allocation. This is already causing distress to residents living in the area and the safety of children and young people using both Woodcot School can most certainly not be allowed. This is already causing distress to residents living in the area and the safety of children and young people using both Woodcot School and the Key Education Centre must be of great importance.
PO13
We would wish to object most strongly to that part of the Draft Local 'Plan which proposes 475 homes between Newgate Lane and Tukes Avenue in Gosport. This is in violation of existing planning rules due to the proposal to destroy the strategic gap between Fareham and Gosport. The proposal to allow entry to the site via Brookers Lane and Tukes Avenue would place additional traffic demand on local roads in Bridgemary as well as increasing the level of pollution locally. Your proposal to gain entry to this site by demolishing exisiting houses opposite Woodcot School can most certainly note be allocation. This is already causing distress to residents living in the area and the safety of children and young people using both Woodcot School can most certainly not be allowed. This is already causing distress to residents living in the area and the safety of children and young people using both Woodcot School and the Key Education Centre must be of great importance.
PO13
The ongoing and proposed road improvements are insufficient to improve the current peak time traffic issues in Fareham/Gosport and on the M27, A32, M3, A3. These problems must to be solved before any major house building in the area, obviously this should also extend to precision for schools, doctors, and other infrastructure local to specific proposed developments. on Peel Common Area. 1 - During consultation for the building of the new road (newgate lane south), residents were assured this was only to ease congestion, and no new housing was planned in the area. With construction under way, I can see access to the 'proposed' development is being put in place.
PO13
It is impossible to negotiate Newgate lane NOW, there is no infrastructure to support these new houses. Hampshire council make a big mistake with the new bus route and the dual carriageway in Newgate Lane without makinh it worse. BAD MISTAKE can take 2hrs to get out of ASDA now what will it be like with more houses there
PO13
Housing at Newgate Lane will add more chaos to the internal roads and the A32 is nearly at a standstill now in rush hour it takes me 20 minutes to reach the A32 now from a ¼ mile living in Wych Lane. Employment sounds good till you realise the impact of yet more traffic in getting to Daedalus East and West. New main roads need to be built first. Not to even think about the natural Environment Newgate Lanes improvements, are a complete waste of time & money. It has created more traffic jams than before. Why don't the Councils get together and build a new road across the Creek to link up with Portchester & Portsmouth instead of keeping trying to cram more into a lost cause of the A32
PO13
No way of accommodating extra traffic already over piopulated
PO13
"I wish to object most strongly to your plan proposing the development of up to 475 homes between Newgate Lane and Tukes Ave in Gosport. 1-It would destroy the strategic gap which is home to manner of wildlife including , birds and even bats. 2-The proposed vehicle access to Tukes Ave is opposite two school entrances which would doubt , affect the safety of the children attending these schools. 3- Tukes Ave during rush hr is heavily congested as it is. Traffic from Rowner road via Carisbrooke road causes queues and tailbacks making it extremely difficult and at times down right dangerous for people living in the immediate area and side roads to join this queue, in order to get to their place of work. requires destination. For those living in Morris close, getting out is virtually impossible as they contend with queues of traffic with Wych Lane also. If your plans go ahead then even more traffic can be expected and add to that the ""rat-running"" from yet another source ie: Newgate Lane to Tukes Ave, then it would impossible for any locals to move. 4- Increase in pollution, We already have more than is acceptable due to queues of slow moving/Stationary vehicles during rush hour. 5-On Street parking could become a problem as new residents find there is insufficient parking facilities on your proposed site. The overspill onto Tukes and neighboring roads will undoubtedly to locals . 6- Our local surgeries are already heavily subscribed and struggling. We wait on average 2 weeks or more for an appointment to see a GP. More residents in need of health provision. Longer waiting times and more stress for already stressed locals. I was born and have lived in Bridgemary for over 70 years. I am extremely concerned as to the adverse effects your plans will have on the community here as a whole."
PO13
My objection to this is that the traffic infrastructure is not suitable for this development. Newgate Lane is already running over capacity, the new Newgate lane will not sufficiently alter this as it is only being rerouted not increased. Adding on, as an estimate another 600 cars would be ludicrous and further increase the journey times for the people living further down on the peninsula. The proposal to add access for Brookers lane would not eliminate this issue but rather make it worse as this would make the Bridgemary , Peel Common and new development in to a rat run for the traffic so increasing the risk of accidents on all estates. Until the issue of being able to bypass Fareham Viaduct for traffic heading east on the M27, ie all the people working in Portsmouth, is resolved then I believe no more house building should take place on the peninsula. Increases in traffic would also I feel further dissuade business's from coming to the area, ie Daedlus given the journey times to get too and from it
PO13
Please pass on the the Planning Department my strong objections to the above proposal. I can't understand how such a proposal can be published without any prior consultation with Gosport Borough Council or with the owner occupiers whose properties are earmarked for demolition. The main two roads in and out of Gosport are Newgate Lane are the A32 which are both at full capacity. Even with the road improvements under construction in Newgate Lane, surely this will only improve the current traffic problems, it will certainly not solve them. I am NOT against house building and progress. However, this development is in the wrong place and is not wanted.
PO13
I wish to register a complaint against the proposed housing development on Newate Lane and demolition of Tukes Avenue houses to provide access to Bridgemary. 1. Tukes Avenue is already stretched to capacity with resident parking, overwhelmed often with the volume of traffic passing through to gain access to 2. 2. Fareham Road. Any link from Newgate Lane will render the avenue gridlock at peak times with traffic from other areas using it as a short cut. Infrastructure locally barely copes with the current population level, there does not appear to be extra provision on the Fareham side, putting further strain on Stubbington. 3. Emergency services in Gosport may well be compromised due to further population and higher traffic levels, it is currently almost impossible for their vehicles to make a path through the traffic on narrow roads. 4. Boundary. I object to the existing boundary being breached by roads, Bridgemary is part of Gosport and should remain separate. [redacted]. Thank you
PO13
Dear Sir, Once more your council is proposing another inappropriate development which will along with Mailings Farm and the outrageous interconnector plans will only add to the misery of Gosport residents. With insufficient infrastructure, currently and nothing (to my knowledge) planned to support another 470 dwellings what possible justification is there, please let me stop you there before referencing the need for many hundreds of thousands of houses to support demand! Where is the work locally for all these additional citizens and what skill sets will they offer? I formerly wish to register my objection to this development.
PO13
Where are all the schooling and shopping facilities for housing development going to be What routes and roads direction is traffic to travel to & from? Total distraction of open spaces & woodland. How are people going to live in affordable housing when all the properties are 3+4 bedrooms.
PO16
We object to this proposal to build 475 houses and to demolish houses in Tukes Avenue to allow access to this new estate. Not only will these houses be built on the strategic gap but the impact on traffic which is already badly congested will be horrendous. There is a school by the proposed access road and extra cars there will be dangerous. In addition this will put more pressure on doctors surgeries and schools etc. in the Gosport area which are already overloaded.
PO13
The proposed development sits within the strategic gap and no longer offers any demarcation between Gosport and Fareham boroughs thus allowing the two settlements to coalesce into one conurbation. A majority of the residents of these new proposed properties will most likely live and work outside of Gosport, Lee on the solent and Stubbington and will therefore commute to work out of the peninsula, whilst there are plans to increase employment opportunities on the old airfield site, this additional employment will not be sufficient to cover the requirements of the residents of the proposed development. The proposed access onto the new Newgate Lane road will potentially add a further 1000 vehicle movements per day onto this road, this new road was not intended to increase traffic capacity but to improve the flow rate of the current level of traffic. Adding a further 1000 traffic movements and installing an additional access point onto the new road will therefore negate any of the traffic flow movements this construction was intended to achieve. The other prposed access onto Brookers lane will only add further traffic congestion to a road structure in Peel Common and Bridegmary that was designed and built in the 1950s and 1960s and was never designed for today's traffic movements let alone that of the future. With the addition of these extra vehicle movements the proposed development will bring, this will put further pressure put on the emergency services (Ambulance, Fire & Police) to reach the extremities of Lee on the solent, Peel Common, Rowner and Bridgemary. The proposed development shows no allowances or consideration for resources such as schools or medical centres, with the development being so close to boundary of Gosport and access proposed into Gosport is the expectation that the new residents would utilise these facilities in Gosport rather than travelling across the strategic gap to use the resources in Fareham borough The proposed development will remove further valuable farm land from the UK and as we get closer to Brexit the Government has already stated that the UK will need become more self sufficient agriculturally. I appreciate the need to build more housing for the UK's ever growing population, however, this proposal is short sighted and will negate any of the long term benefits of the new investment made into improve traffic flow in Newgate lane. I would urge FBC to reconsider re-locating this development to the eastern boundaries of Stubbington where the additional traffic would be able to take advantage of the new Stubbington bypass and also retain the strategic gap which is so important in maintaining demarcation of the borough and valuable open spaces.
Postcode not provided
The infrastructure at the moment is not supporting the volume of traffic so more houses will only make it worse.
PO13
The proposed estate of 475 houses will add congestion to the local roads including Newgate Lane which will negate the initiative of the Newgare Lane bypass. It will also aggregate further the safety and high pollution levels which already exist. The housing proposal enables Fareham to meet it's housing target but loads Gosport with with major infrastructure problems including impact to their schools, doctors play areas and open space. Fareham Borough Council should include discussions and agreement with Gosport Borough Council where there are controversial decisions that affect Gosport residents. Finally, the existing local plan conforms to the requirement of a strategic gap between Fareham and Gosport; this proposal ignores this and simply tags the new houses onto Gosport.
PO13
I have lived in this area for 35 years but am seriously considering moving out of gosport due to the traffic. This proposal will just make matters worse. In addition, we are already oversubscribed with the doctors surgerys and schools.
PO13
a. Building here removes the green area that acts as gap between Gosport and Fareham. b. The current road improvements to Newgate Lane and Peel Common Roundabout are meant to improve the chronic road congestion in this area but the building of 475 new houses will not just nulify those improvement, it will make the situation worse than it was before the improvements. c. As a Gosport ratepayer, I object to having this size development within 100s of meters of my estate without any representation on your planning committee. Further, Fareham council have already been repremanded by the government body for the way they buldozed the Power Converter through and I have little trust that they will act any better in this matter. d. The residents will be looking to Gosport as the closest area, to provide schools, doctors, leasure areas etc, etc. Facilities that I as a Gosport ratepayer will be expected to fund, again with no representation on the planning committee who will made the decision. e. I appreciate that Fareham have housing targets to meet but there are other green areas in Fareham that can be considered. Loading Gosport, already a deprived area of Hampshire, with Fareham's infrastructure problems and expecting this high area of unemployment and low paid jobs to pay for it is grossly unfair and morally objectionable.
PO13
Building more houses on an already crowded peninsular will inevitably cause more traffic chaos. Earlier 'improvements' to the northern section of Newgate lane have not been successful. The new section may improve the traffic flow marginally for existing homes and businesses in the area, so adding 475 houses, each with a least one car, will almost certainly cancel out any benefit gained. In a recent report Gosport was shown to already have a very high built density. The current green site alongside Newgate Lane provides a much needed break between built-up areas. Adding a large development will virtually close the gap between Gosport and Fareham making them a single entity spanning the peninsular from the Solent to above the M27. How can this be justified? The area will have a higher built density than parts of London.
PO13
I object to more houses in this vacinity, traffic and travel is so bad already and also schools over filled and doctors unable to see you quickly due to demand. There is no way we can have more people in the area. The housing proposal enables Fareham to meet its housing target, however causes loads of added problems and infrastructure issues.
PO13
This development would only add to the already serious congestion for those current residents travelling North on Newgate Lane (even when the new road development is complete) and on the A32. The problem is most apparent at the Quay Street roundabout in Fareham, where traffic queues are already intolerable. The housing development should only be considered in conjunction with some serious road improvements to address this bottleneck.
PO13
The existing plan conforms to the requirement of a strategic gap between settlements (Gosport and Fareham). The new draft local plan puts the housing onto Gosport's boundary ans ignores the policy of a gap between towns. The development will require doctors, schools, play area's and open space's and this burden will fall on Gosport. Also the local infrastructure will be put under further strain.
PO13
This proposed site is too close to the Gosport/Fareham boundary and makes no allowance for the strategic gap between the two local authority areas. It appears that Fareham council have no intention of providing the necessary infrastructure to support the proposed development relying on Gosport to provide the necessary school places, medical facilities etc. Any development on this site should also involve the opinions and have the agreement of Gosport Borough Council if it will have any impact whatsoever on their facilities.
PO13
This proposal enables Fareham to meet its housing target but loads Gosport with major infrastructure problems. The impact of this development will only be felt by Gosport residents and not Fareham. The road infrastructure is already totally overloaded and cannot cope withe the current volumes of traffic despite improvements to Newgate Lane. The increase in housing will only add to the already chaotic congestion when getting in/out Gosport.
PO13
Brookers Lane has roadside residential parking which will effect the flow of traffic and access to any new proposed houses.Additional traffic and rat runs will impact safety, particularly at the crossroads at Brookers Lane and Carisbrooke Road where a number of accidents have occurred over the years.
PO13
The new houses require access and this will be to the detriment of the Gosport residents of Peel Common and Bridgemary. In peak traffic times the rat run of cars will saturate the roads namely Carisbrooke Road and Brookers Lane. This will aggregate further the safety and high pollution levels that already exist.
PO13
No consideration given to the implications of this development: 1. Increased traffic to the area particularly affecting the A32 Fareham Road and the feeder roads to it which cannot cope already to the existing traffic pressure. 2. Inevitable extension of the time required to access the Queen Alexandra Hospital from this peninsula. This is time critical in an emergency. 3. Degrading of the quality of life for residents in high density development; more having to share the existing facilities. I,e, local shops, recreational areas, schools, medical provision and infrastructure. (No mention made of improving these.) 4. What funding required will fall to Gosport Borough Council to provide?
PO13
The existing local plan conforms to the requirement of a strategic gap between (Gosport & Fareham). This new draft will simply tags on new houses to Gosport, ignoring the policy of a gap between the two Towns, we already have been hoodwinked including this so called government of ours, in letting you The Fareham Borough Council ride roughshod over objections to allow the building of the electricity fiasco at HMS Daedalus, and not asking for permission from The Government, who is so weak they said don't do it again, and here we are with you building houses on to Gosport, where so much traffic has caused hardship, which the new road system agreed by Hampshire County Council, will no longer help as it does now. You intend to encroach on to Gosport Borough, building roads into Gosport and also threatening to knock down Gosport housing to do so, we are at this time overloaded with houses in Gosport to the max, causing enough problems in getting out of our peninsular let alone you trying it on again, something needs to be done this time and stop your bullying. .
PO13
The proposal to build the new houses is a Fareham Borough iniative aimed at achieving their current house building quota. Fareham Borough Council appears to have no consideration for a neighbouring local authority. Controversial decisions that affect Gosport residents should include discussions and agreement with Gosport Borough Council. The new houses require access and this will be to the detriment of the Gosport residents of Peel Common and Bridgemary.This will saturate the roads with traffic that is not designed for such levels. Will compromise safety and decrease the quality of life for local residents.
PO13
Dear Sir/Madam - I would appreciate it if the following comments could be passed on to those concerned. Regards and thanks Jason Gray 1. The existing local plan confirms to the requirement of a strategic gap between Gosport and Fareham - the proposed plan does not 2. The access required by the residents of the new estate will be to the detriment of residents in Peel Common and Bridgemary 3. The 475 house estate will impact the current local facilities provided by Gosport and will have a high impact on its infrastructure 4. Ongoing discussions need to have the input of those concerned within Gosport Borough Council
PO13
The proposed HA2 plan is situated in a strategic gap in place between Fareham and Gosport. The position of this development will overwhelm the local infrastructure in the Gosport controlled areas of Peel Common and Bridgemary as the vast majority of the area to the north (Fareham controlled) is commercial land with no schools, doctors or other important requirements for a development of this size. The traffic issues for the already saturated area will be aggravated even further, with access roads to the proposed development adjacent to two schools(Peel Common and Woodcott), increasing both safety, pollution and congestion issues.
PO13
The strategic gap between the two boroughs should be maintained and there should be no link to across this into any part of the borough of Gosport. This will have a detrimental affect on the traffic in the area which has never been fully addressed by either Council over the last thirty years. Local existing facilities cannot cope with increasing housing and this area should be fully addressed. Gosport should not be liable for supporting this outrageous plan to flood our area with additional housing for the benefit of Fareham Council coffers. Newgate Lane is already over saturation point with traffic. At peak times this is a major environmental issue due to exhaust fumes from stationary traffic. The new arrangements at Peel Common roundabout are going to give limited improvement. As with the planned IFA2 decision at Daedalus, this has a greater detrimental effect on Gosport residents than Fareham's residents. Strongly object to this proposal.
PO13
The new houses access will be a detriment to residents of Peel Common and Tukes Avenue and Bridgemary. Roads will be saturated. The effects of the planned development will affect Gosport not Fareham. Local infrastructure of schools,doctors will be inadequate.
PO13
These new houses will require access and this will be to the detriment of the Gosport residents of Peel Common and Bridgemary. In peak traffic times the rat run of cars will saturate the roads especially Carisbrooke Road and Brookes Lane. This will increase high pollution levels that already exist.
PO13
Dear Sir/Madam Reference: - Fareham Borough Draft Local Plan – HA2 Newgate Lane South We write with respect to the Fareham Draft Local Plan (FDLP). We strongly object to the proposed large scale development of 475 houses. Our reasons are: The current Local Plan, we believe, currently confirms to the requirement of a Strategic Gap between the two areas (Fareham & Gosport). The new FDLP simply tags the new development onto Gosport and ignores the policy of having a gap between these two locations. The proposed secondary access will run through Brookers lane. We have already experienced an increase in traffic along this road. We are therefore concerned by the increased traffic, thus reducing the Health & Wellbeing of all those that use these roads. There are currently three schools within several hundred yards of Brookers Lane. The increased traffic can only impact on the safety of all the children that play around the area. It will become a less attractive and safe area to use and can only increase the noise, pollution levels and traffic levels on to the A32 & Newgate lane. We assume that a new Development of this size will require improved or new facilities such as Doctors Schools etc. Whilst the new development enables Fareham to meet its housing target will these new facilities be the responsibility of Fareham or will the problem become the responsibility of Gosport Borough Council? Thus leaving Gosport borough council with the various infrastructure problems. In summary whilst we are fully aware that new developments are required to meet the current housing shortage this new proposed development is a Fareham Borough Council Initiative. This along with the current IFA Project, implies that Fareham Borough Council have no consideration for the residents of Gosport and in particular Peel Common. We are very disappointed with this plan and feel that contentious decisions of this nature should surely include consultation and agreement with its neighbouring council in Gosport.
PO13
The proposal to build the new houses is a Fareham Borough Council initiative aimed at achieving their current house building quota with no consideration for the neighbouring local authority, this will affect local residence adding to the rat run of cars which will further saturate the roads adding increased pollution around the Peel Common area where I live along with the increased burden on the schools, doctors and surrounding areas. Massively object to the proposal as no doubt will affect the house prices in the area plus make the situation on the roads even worse then it currently is and will be with the new road being opened.
PO13
Newgate Lane is a very busy road now and with this new development it will only add more traffic and more pollution it seems there is no thought for the residents of Peel Common or Bridgemary as the estate roads will be used as a rat run we also are having problems with our infrastructure and Fareham borough council are going some way to the house quota but the burden will certainly fall on the local existing facilities provided by Gosport
PO13
The existing local plan conforms to the requirement of a strategic gap between settlements (Gosport & Fareham). The new draft local plan simply tags the new houses onto Gosport and ignores the policy of agap between the two towns. The new houses require access and this will be to the detriment of the Gosport residents again of Peel Common and Bridgemary. In peak traffic times the rat run of cars will saturate the roads namely Carisbrooke Road and Brookers Lane. This will aggregate further the safety and high pollution levels that already exist. Once again this area of Gosport/Fareham is being targeted by the Fareham council as they have already forced through building of a converter that NO ONE WISHES except the council. An Estate of 475 houses will need schools, doctors, play areas and open spaces which I believe will be laid at Gosport's' door. This housing proposal helps Fareham to meet its housing target but it loads Gosport with the infrastructure problems. With they way Fareham deals with there planning issues I expect that OBJECTION will be filled in the bin with same objections that was laid out over the ELECTICAL CONVERTER that is going to be pushed through and it will be affecting the same area once again THE PEEL COMMON ROUNDABOUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
PO13
I would like to object to this proposed development. The new houses require access and this will be to the detriment of the Gosport residents of Peel Common and Bridgemary. In peak traffic times, the rat run of cars will saturate the already heavy roads of Carisbrooke Road and Brookers Lane. This will only add to the pollution levels which already exist and endanger the pedestrians and cyclists even further.
PO13
A new housing estate will require access which will almost certainly be of detriment to residents of Peel Common and Bridgemary. The surrounding roads namely Brookers Lane the Drive the Parkway and Carisbrooke Road will become rat runs when they are already dangerous with parking on both sides of the roads limiting access. Any additional traffic will cause more delays and chaos especially at peak times and may lead to accidents around schools at start and finish times. It will also negate any recent 'improvements' made to Newgate Lane and Peel Common roundabout and will further destroy the strategic gap between Fareham and Gosport along with the environment and wildlife.
PO13
I wish to raise objections to the building of 475 houses adjacent to Peel Common. This is based on the following reasons. 1. The new Newgate Lane South is a long awaited road to ease traffic congestion (although this is debatable with a bottle next at Fareham still) yet the extra cars on the road from these houses will actually cause more congestion than the gridlock that we so often experience during rush hour especially. 2. There are not enough school places or doctors and dentist surgeries that would be required to cope with the extra demand. We are groaning at the seams as it is. 3.Development of businesses and jobs in Gosport and LOS will not attract people to the area due to the poor infrastructure 4. This development may go some way to fulfilling FBC housing requirements but Gosport and Lee on Solent will bear the brunt of the problems and so GBC need to have their say..if they already haven't. Gosport and LOS have so much to offer yet people often say they would love to live here but cant because of the traffic problems in the main....this is going to make that worse. Was this always the plan when the new road was agreed because its a big coincident if not!
PO13
This proposal will have no vehicular access to the borough of Fareham and instead will require that access will be directly into the borough of Gosport residents via Brookers Lane. It is a well known fact that The Drive and Brookers Lane are already a shortcut (Rat Run) from The Peel Common roundabout and Rowner Road to the A 32 and elsewhere. The access to and from the proposed development will only increase the volume of traffic through Brookers Lane which forms part of the Peel Common residential estate and can only lead to further concerns as to safety given that Brookers Lane is also an access road to a school complex. Fareham Borough Council seems to have no concerns about the established strategic gap currently existing but sees this as an opportunity to assist in fulfilling its required building quota whilst Gosport Borough Council will be required to take responsibility for providing the infrastructure required such as schools, doctors etc This would seem to be an highly irresponsible act on their behalf and I object most strongly.
PO13
I would like to strongly object to the proposed development of 475 houses on land between Newgate Lane and Bridgemary. These houses will require access that will no doubt involve making the quiet, residential streets of Peel Common and Bridgemary a great deal busier and more congested. Making the roads past our local schools more dangerous. The traffic at present is bad enough at rush hour with a 2 mile journey taking me on average 20-30mins. These new homes will also put a strain on local services, the schools and doctors are full enough and struggling at present to provide a good service. The pollution from Newgate Lane and Rowner Road will now be extended further into Gosport. Once again Fareham Council is not thinking of the residents of Gosport and how this planned development will affect their day-to-day lives.
PO13
I am objecting to the planned housing develpoment on land between Newgate Lane and Bridgemary, GOSPORT. This development will affect the residents of Gosport more than any from Fareham, so why Fareham Council have the decision I do not know! The roads are at gridlock now, there are too many cars on the roads around Newgate Lane South and every route is congested to the point of a crawl during rush hour and is increasing to more of the day as time goes on, If you build a housing development of approx 500 homes there is the potential for a further 1000 vehicles to need access via Newgate Lane or the quiet, residential roads of Peel Common and Bridgemary. Is Fareham Council planning on building any more schools/GP surgeries/amenities that these additional homeowners will require? I don't see any mention of that in the planning proposal.
PO13
[redacted]. I wish to object to the HA2 proposal contained within the Draft Local Plan (DLP) for the following reasons: 1. LAND DESIGNATION. The whole of the area identified as HA2 on the current Fareham Borough Council (FBC) Core Strategy (CS) is within the Strategic Gap (SG). Currently Policy CS22 of FBC's CS is committed to preserving the integrity of the SG. GBC's policies within its Local Plan also commits GBC to the preservation of the SG. The Partnership for Urban South Hampshire also supports the SG between Gosport and Fareham (Policy 15). I reject FBC's assertion that HA2 does not damage the SG, but merely moves it. This argument is based on the assertion that a 475 home development attached to the Borough of Gosport that has no physical, commercial or community attachment whatever to any other dwelling in the Borough Fareham is, therefore, separated. I disagree with this for two reasons: firstly, the SG identified in the local plans is more than a separation of settlements - it is a separation of communities. The gap at this location is a gap between Gosport and Fareham. If HA2 were to be agreed and the houses built then that would be the end of the SG between the communities; secondly, the land in question is currently designated as part of the SG. Any development on it would, by definition, be a development in the SG. 2. STRATEGIC GAP & IMPLICATIONS. FBC are currently considering a planning application for 1,027 houses at Newlands Farm, just half a mile from HA2 /PDF/planning/NewlandsMasterplan.pdf The 1,027 houses at Newlands Farm do not form part of FBC's DLP. It is, therefore, reasonable to assume that FBC intend to resist this application. Public pronouncements from FBC officers and members would indicate that the intention is to oppose Hallam Land's application at Newlands Farm because it is in the SG between Fareham and Stubbington. A willingness to acquiesce to housing in one part of the SG whilst simultaneously attempting to resist development in another part is, in my view, reckless and unsustainable. The Newlands Farm site is on the route of the Stubbington Bypass which has already received planning consent by HCC. HCC have also set aside £8 million for the Stubbington Bypass and central government has committed £25 million. The Stubbington Bypass is an essential component in the South Hampshire transport infrastructure scheme. The Stubbington Bypass is designed to deal with an existing transport infrastructure deficit as well as serve the vitally important Enterprise Zone at Daedalus - which itself has already received £56 million in public funds. HA2 will set an undesirable and dangerous precedent that will make a 1,027 home Newlands Farm development more likely. It is estimated that a development on this scale at Newlands Farm would create between 400 and 500 peak time vehicle movements. Along with the junctions, this would seriously threaten the viability and effectiveness of the Bypass. If the Bypass is not built, or is clogged with local traffic, then drivers will once again choose to use Stubbington Village as their preferred route. 3. ACCESS. Pages 222 and 224 (map) of the DLP explain where the proposed access points will be. Three are identified for the 475 dwelling HA2 development: (the new) Newgate Lane; Brookers Lane and Tukes Avenue. The Tukes Avenue access point has been the most controversial and the most contentious. It involves the proposal to demolish two residential properties in Tukes Avenue, Gosport - in my county council division. [redacted]. Brookers Lane is in my borough ward and county division. At its western end it is a no-through-road. It has been identified on FBC's DLP as a possible access point and is, with the loss of the Tukes Avenue option, one of only two remaining access points for a proposed 475 dwelling estate. Residents living near to this part of Brookers Lane are justifiably upset and angry. These residents are, like those of Tukes Avenue, Gosport residents and not Fareham residents. They are appalled that there was no prior notice from FBC before the publication of the DLP. Brookers Lane is, in my view, unsuitable for the kind of access envisaged by FBC in the DLP and I am totally opposed to it. Newgate Lane is currently under construction. FBC's DLP envisages a roundabout on Newgate Lane that will serve as an access point to the proposed new HA2 development. The road was not conceived or designed to facilitate a new 475 house development. The additional vehicles and proposed new roundabout will hinder the flow of traffic and have a detrimental effect on north/south journeys. The road was designed as part of a basket of overall infrastructure improvements that would serve the Daedalus Enterprise Zone and address the chronic issues associated with access and egress from the Gosport Peninsular. It was not designed to cope with a housing estate. Newgate Lane is currently the fifth busiest road in one direction and the eight busiest in the other direction in the whole of Hampshire. [redacted] 4. CONSULTATION. As previously sated, there was no prior consultation on the part of FBC with elected representatives or with residents - some of whom have experienced unnecessary stress and anxiety as a direct result of FBC's proposals. On 21st November I was advised by the Head of Planning at FBC that prior consultation had taken place at officer level between Fareham and Gosport councils. However, having had a chance to investigate this assertion I have found it not to be true. The Planning Section at Gosport Borough Council received a phone call from FBC 48 hours before publication. This is totally unacceptable and falls well below the standards expected from a local authority, especially given the extensive and aggressive nature of the assertions and assumptions contained within the DLP. It looks as though yet another apology is in order. As part of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) local authorities have a duty to cooperate in matters of such importance as local plans ( https://www.gov.uk/guidance/duty-to-cooperate ). FBC have failed to abide by this duty and I will be investigating to see what sanctions can be applied by the Department for Communities & Local Government (DCLG). 5. AIR QUALITY & ROAD SAFETY. Just yards from this proposed HA2 development are two notorious zones. The piece of road at the northern end of Newgate Lane in Fareham has amongst the highest nitrogen dioxide levels in Britain ( http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/15491537.Council_slammed_over___39_concerning__39__air_quality/ ). The A32 between Fareham and Gosport was revealed only last week as amongst the top ten most dangerous roads in Britain ( http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/15677524.REVEALED__Major_Hampshire_road_among_most_dangerous_in_the_country/ ). Any development on Newgate Lane would feed directly onto this road network. It is beyond irresponsible that any local authority would contemplate at this time altering their local plan to create even more pollution and even more traffic at this location. 6. COMMUNITY FACILITIES & OPEN SPACE. The HA2 proposal is predicated on ""piggy backing"" on Gosport Borough Council's existing open space, play areas and other community facilities. The DLP speaks of FBC's obligation to provide parks and outdoor sports facilities and identifies ""an existing LEAP at Tukes Avenue Open Space Play Area immediately to the north of the allocation"". The DLP also identifies the Brookers Field recreation Ground. Whilst I would accept the logic of including these provisions within the DLP, it would have been good practice to at least have a conversation with GBC first. As previously sated, no such conversation took place. SUMMAR"
PO13
There are neither the facilities (schools, shopping capacity or recreational capacity) to support the proposed development of 475 houses. All schools in the surrounding area are full to capacity and many such as Crofton School are over subscribed. ASDA is the obvious shopping facility, yet at certain times on the weekend it can take 30 minutes just to get out of the car park and the approach roads get gridlocked. In terms of transport links, Newgate Lane was expanded because there was too much traffic going through it. The situation has eased a little, but still bottlenecks on the single carriageway section to the Peel Common roundabout. Heading north and there are already issues turning right into Homebase/Pets at Home/Matalan. More traffic will add to the danger and it is easy to see cars stopping in the northbound dual carriageway waiting to turn right. And everyone is already aware of the traffic problems on the A32 into Fareham. Additional traffic heading north from Newgate Lane is only going to exasperate that problem. There is mention within the proposal of the further work to Newgate Lane South, but that will not address the issues on the A32.
PO13
I wish to object to the planning development of 475 homes between Newgate Lane and Tukes Ave in Gosport. This is in violation of existing planning rules doe to the proposal to destroy Strategic Gap between Fareham & Gosport. The proposal to allow entry to this site via Brooker land and Tues Ave would place additional traffic demand on locals roads in Bridgmary as well as increasing the levels of pollution locally. The proposal to gain entry to this by demolishing existing houses opposite Woodcot school can most certainly not be allowed. This is already causing distress to the residents living in the area and the safety of children and yung people using Woodcot school and the key education centre must be of great importance. If this development were to go ahead this would have a huge impact on the local schools, local housing values will decrease and volume of traffic will become worse. Also parking in Tukes Ave is already an issue due to household owning more than one car and influx of workers with child services in Kent road, that this would cause more problems for residents in tukes Ave
PO13
"My Husband and I strongly object to your inconsiderate proposal to build 475 houses on the green belt between Gosport & Fareham. Don't you think you are making over area bad enough by putting the awful 1F A2 sight in our area. Putting all these houses in our area is just not on. Put them in the Fareham area. Our doctors & schools cannot cope, already we have to wait 2/3 weeks for a routine doctors appointment. You are being most unfair on both future plans ""Fareham want all & give nothing"", come on Fareham be fair about this leave us our little bit of green space- would you like these two plans in your back yard- no you would not. Resident for 53yrs do not spoil it."
PO13
the new houses require e access and this will be to the detriment of the Gosport r esidents of peel common . in peak traffic times the rat run of cars will saturate the roads namely Carisbrooke road and brokers lane
PO13
My main concern is the high level of traffic affecting Tukes Avenue. Also schools, doctor's appts will also be affected.
PO13
Too much traffic. Too much polution. Population already too large for area. Save green belt as trees make oxegen support widlife more houses don't.
PO13
This plan will load Gosport with major infrastructure problems on top of It's current one this is solely for Fareham Borough to achieve its house building quota and does not take into the account at all the neighbouring community. The required access will be an absolute detriment to myself a current resident of peel common an all local residents to the area its a disgusting and appalling idea.
PO13
Please could someone find out how Fareham Council can build houses on the land that forms part of the green space and the strategic gap between the two boroughs. This will have no impact at all on the residents of Fareham but will be major problem for the residents of Peel Common and Bridgemary. We already have cars and large lorries using The Drive and Brookers Lane as a so called rat run, these roads were never designed to take this amount of traffic. Gosport Councillors will not agree to the access to and from this new estate to run through Tukes Avenue and Brookers Lane which will only increase the already heavy traffic using these routes. The alterations to the Newgate Lane roundabout have done very little to improve the flow of traffic even when the new cut through is opened. With this proposed new development, there will be even more traffic trying to access an already overloaded single carriageway, which is very often gridlocked for a good part of the working day. As a resident of Fulmar Walk/ Brookers Lane, the proposed possibility of opening up the cul-de-sac into an access road for the proposed new estate is, quite frankly, horrifying for the residents of Fulmar Walk. This road has been a cul-de-sac since the estate was first built, some 50+ years ago and, in our opinion, should remain so. As usual, it seems the residents of Gosport have very little say in what happens regarding the infrastructure of the borough, and Fareham Council plough on, regardless of the negative effect it will have on the people that actually have to live with these changes. An estate of 475 houses will need schools, doctors and other requirements will this fall on the already overloaded facilities of Gosport.
PO13
I strongly oppose this proposed new housing. I live off Brookers Lane, and feel this will have a detrimental effect on my family, our home, our neighbours, and surrounding area. I wish to object to these houses being considered or built. Also it angers me that this housing proposal enables Fareham to meet it's housing targets, but burdens Gosport and us residents with major access problems and more.
PO13
An estate the size of 475 houses will require schools,doctors play areas and open space. This burden will almost certainly fall on the local existing facilities provided by Gosport.
PO13
This housing proposal enables Fareham to meet its housing target but loads Gosport with major infrastructure problems.
PO13
I fully understand the requirement and need of Fareham Council having to build new homes to meet the Governments targets. However, the proposal of building 475 houses will lead to even more traffic congestion, which at the present traffic levels are at bursting point. This housing development will be at the detriment of Gosport residents, causing greater pollution levels, with the requirement to increase facilities such as schooling, medical and social facilities that will fall to Gosport Council to provide, which will be at the detriment to Gosport residents, who will ultimately have to fund these requirements. It is absolutely ridiculous and outrageous that again Fareham Council to propose another controversial planning application, with no consideration to the residents of Peel Common, Stubbington and surrounding areas that this new building project will ultimately have a massive negative impact.
PO13
The new houses require access and this will be to the detriment of the Gosport residents of Peel Common and Bridgemary. In peak traffic times the rat run of cars will saturate the roads namely Carisbrooke Road and Brookers Lane. This will aggravate further the safety and high pollution levels that already exist.
PO12
The new houses require access and this will be to the detriment of the Gosport residents of Peel Common and Bridgemary. In peak traffic times the rat run of cars will saturate the roads namely Carisbrooke Road and Brookers Lane. This will aggravate further the safety and high pollution levels that already exist.
PO12
How can anyone in their right mind propose to site houses on a road that is solid with traffic all day. I am a resident of Peel Common and i strongly object to these proposals coming from another borough That has no interest in our welfare.All these new roads will run through the centre of the estate and cause even more congestion. Yours disgustedly
PO13
Without any consultation with the people who will be severely affected by this development , Fareham council have decided in their arrogance to go ahead with their plan . This will badly affect all the services in the Bridgemary / Peel Common area including traffic . I very strongly object ..
PO13
Having lived in Brookers lane on the Peel Common estate for 41 years, we would like to comment & object to the new estate & road into Brookers lane & how will impact on our lives. We already have lots of traffic that turns from Rowner Road & The Drive for all the people getting to the other areas of Bridgemary. Also the roads get very busy at school times. The Peel Common Estate has always had lots of wildlife & birds, which would disappear should these plans go ahead. Fareham has lots of open ground behind Collingwood near to Stubbington/Peak Lane so why isn't this being used?? There is room there for more than 475 houses! We strongly object to these plans.
PO13
"As a resident of Gosport I feel that yet again FBC are being very selfish with the planing for the Newgate Lane HA2 housing development. Although being built on Fareham land, which is a green belt and also part of the strategic gap that exists between Fareham and Gosport, the impact on Gosport residents, especially those in Bridgemary, will be far greater than that on Fareham residents. The extra traffic from this estate will, at peak times, grid lock the roads and make exit and entry to Gosport a nightmare which will devalue the price and desirability of Gosport properties. At the moment using the shops, ASDA, Home Base, Lidle and others in Newgate Lane is a non event after 1500 due to near impossibility of being able to join the traffic flow. (Ask the shops how much their profits have dropped since the ""new improved"" road scheme has been in use). A far greater worry is the facilities, Doctors, Dentists and schools that will be required by possibly a 1000 new residents. Due to their close proximity to Gosport this is where they will go for these services. Putting even more pressure on a full and over stretched service. I understand the need for new housing and support it fully but these houses should be built on ""brownfield land"". "
PO13
Hello [redacted] . How can you take this consultant and the builders, seriously if they are in the habit of making the mistake of sending out the wrong proposal. Its really about time that you looked at what happens in Gosport. Every morning I have to leave me house by 6:30 to get to Portsmouth or I sit in a crawling traffic jam. Worse I prefer to wake late everynight because its worse coming back to gosport. Your council has already over burdened Newgate lane. The commercial aspects there are enough as it is, and what do you do ? Allow the Mod to improve their access to Collingwood, when lets be honest it would be more acceptable if they had created a new gate in the stubbington area. Hence I will not even shop in Newgate lane any longer. Whitely, though nothing to do with FBC, shows how planning goes wrong. To build a satelite town with no real access from the motorway. Does not make sense. The traffic jams this causes and frustration to drivers is overwhelming. Whiteley should have a direct route off the motorway so that people trying to access Parkgate or Fareham do not spend 20 minutes sitting on the motorway trying to get home everynight. In all honesty everyone agrees there is a need for housing. Why not Warsash or stubbington , anywhere where there is a possibility of creating infrastructure. Newgate lane is not really accessable, it already saturated. God forbid what will happen when Lee gets developed. Also what about schools and doctors ? Do you intend to build a new school too, or is the developer going to build cleverly like Persimmon does. Namely build 100 houses at a time and leave land empty, for a given time. Reason why, is that if only a certain amount is built at one time no recreation area is required. I know this as I worked for Persimmons. If you really want to improve Fareham and Gosport then get on with an easy access across the creek. I know I am not in the know of the full scale of future planning, but surely someone in your office must sit down and think. What is going on here. mind you 450 houses paying council tax sounds nice does it not ?
Postcode not provided
I should like to thank you and your fellow Councillors very much indeed for inviting me and Councillor Stephen Philpott along to the FBC to discuss with you the outcome of the meeting between the Council and the Site developers on 14 November. It was very kind of you and very much appreciated. You will of course, well understand the impact this proposal to demolish my home and no. 167 has had especially on me and my neighbours. As I understand the situation now, as I see it, and very much hope, is to reconsider this particular access site, which is very much appreciated, not only to me but to my neighbours as well. I should be very pleased if this letter form part of the Consultations required by Fareham to be received by 08 December. With many thanks to you and fellow Councillors,
PO13
the new houses require access and this will be to the detriment of of Gosport residents in peel Common and Bridgemary (including myself who lives in teal Walk Peek Common) In peak traffic times the rat run of cars will saturate further the already congested roads namely Carisbrooke Road and Brookers lane. This will aggregate further the safety and high pollution levels that already exist, never mind the noise levels and further delays on an already saturated unable to cope road structure.
PO13
We wish to object to your plan to build 475 houses next to our estate. This plan will produce new roads accessed only by roads going through our estate and cause a rat run for cars. Also the plan would produce at least 1000 cars (approx. 2 cars per house) which would have to use Newgate Lane or Wych Lane causing even larger bottle necks for residents of Gosport to get to Fareham and beyond. We feel that there is plenty of space for building housing towards the North of Fareham. Also we feel that Fareham Borough Council has no respect or consideration for the residents of Gosport.
PO13
Is it not enough to take a slice of Brookers Fields, replace the peaceful, rural. Woodcote Lane with a dissecting road and busy cycle track and decimate the nearby meadows with a strip of pointless pollution. 470 proposed homes will complete the devastation at the meadows, adding congestion, air and noisy pollution to a rare strip separating Fareham and Gosport. I take it there has been an assessment on the impact of this disastrous proposal on the Launa and Flora - no one is going to build them a home!
PO13
I strongly object to this plan, as you Fareham Borough Council, have not given a single thought in providing adequate access to this site. You plan to use the existing over crowded roads, schools and medical facilities provided by Gosport Borough Council. Did planners of Fareham Borough Council neglect to think of providing access to this site from the new Newgate Lane and thus avoid conflict with the residents of Peel Common and Bridgemary who will feel the full impact of this plan. It seems to me that Fareham Borough Council are always prepared to ride roughshod over Gosport residents to avoid upsetting your own affluent rent payers.
PO13
I strongly object to this plan, as you Fareham Borough Council, have not given a single thought in providing adequate access to this site. You plan to use the existing over crowded roads, schools and medical facilities provided by Gosport Borough Council. Did planners of Fareham Borough Council neglect to think of providing access to this site from the new Newgate Lane and thus avoid conflict with the residents of Peel Common and Bridgemary who will feel the full impact of this plan. It seems to me that Fareham Borough Council are always prepared to ride roughshod over Gosport residents to avoid upsetting your own affluent rate payers.
PO13
Dear sirs I would strongly object to the currant plans of Fareham Council in as much that they totally without respect for their Gosport neighbors. The plan to build yet another monstrosity such as this one you have given permission to on Daudalus Airfield. Is yet again another example of this This new house will reduce access which will be detriment of an already overcrowded road network. Not only will safety be compromised but the high pollutions has not been considered. A estate this size will require additional doctors, schools, play areas which as you will know are already under considerable pressure to local people and you want to add to this problem. Again I ask how many of your councilors live near this development and how is it affecting them?
PO13
I would like to register my objection to building of 475 houses adjacent to the Gosport boundary for the following reasons; I live on Brookers Lane and the access road to the estate will greatly increase the local traffic both in Brookers Lane and at the junction at Wych Lane and to the Rowner Road. Gosport has not enough doctors appointments and associated infrastructure. This estate can only make matters worse.
PO13
I object to Fareham Council building of 425 houses adjacent to Gosport, especially as the Access to the Estate will be from Tukes Avenue and Brookers Lane. The additional Traffic the Development would create will cause even larger queues and congestion which will negate the improvements to Peel Common Roundabout and reduce the potential benefit of the Stubbington By Pass. I further object to the fact that the residents of the Estate whilst paying their Council Tax to Fareham will be using Gosport's Schools and Doctors etc.
PO12
The existing local plan conforms to the requirement of a strategic gap between settlements (Gosport and Fareham) The new draft local plan simply tags the new houses onto Gosport and ignores the policy of a gap between the two towns. The new houses require access and this will be to the detriment of the Gosport residents of Peel Common and Bridgemary. In peak traffic times the rat run of cars will saturate the roads namely Carisbrooke Road and Brookers Lane not to mention The Drive which is already used as a cut through from the Rowner Road and is already like a major thoroughfare! This will all aggregate further the safety and high pollution levels that already exist. An estate the size of 475 houses will require additional schools, doctors, play areas and open space. This burden will fall on the existing local facilities provided and paid for by Gosport residents. This unfeasible proposal will enable Fareham Borough Council to meet it's housing target at the expense of Gosport Borough Council who would have to provide additional major infrastructure at their expense. The proposal to build the new houses is a Fareham Borough initiative aimed at achieving their current house building quota. Fareham Borough Council appears to have no consideration for a neighbouring local authority. Controversial decisions that affect Gosport residents should include discussions and agreement with Gosport Borough Council. This latest plan is a further insult to the residents of Peel Common and Bridgemary so close to the major upheaval that the new Newgate Lane re-routing currently under construction which has moved a very busy major road even nearer to our homes and will all be for no gain whatsoever if this proposal is permitted to go ahead.
PO13
Local area infrastructure is overwhelmed already. Traffic in and out of the area, school places, doctors, dentists will be impacted negatively, as will the lives of current residents. It will essentially create a conurbation, removing the gap between the Gosport/Fareham areas. It may allow Fareham to fulfil its quota of homebuilding, but burdens Gosport residents with the fallout from doing so.
PO13
It is already extremely difficult getting out of Gosport at the best of times. These extra houses will add to the burden already suffered by our congested roads. We do not have the infrastructure to cope with these additional households such as schools, doctors etc. Just when we think that things are possibly going to get better along Newgate Lane, Fareham planning decides it wants to build additional housing which will feed onto Newgate Lane. It already takes me between 30 and 60 minutes to travel 6 miles to and from Gosport and Portchester, which seems ridiculous.
PO13
The proposed development of the fields at peel common would be a complete disaster for the area.
PO13
The new houses require access and this will be detriment of the Gosport residents of Peel Common and Bridgemary. In peak times the rat run of cars will saturate the roads namely Carisbrooke Road and Brookers Lane. This will aggregate further the safety and pollution levels that already exist. An estate the size of 475 houses will require schools, doctors, play areas and open space. This burden will almost certainly fall on the local existing facilities provided by Gosport.
PO13
Building 475 new houses in a highly busy congested area would result in total breakdown of traffic as the infrastructure of the roads currently would not be able to handle it. It is the strategic gap between Fareham & Gosport which should be kept intact. There is various wildlife including deer which will be affected. The secondary access proposed for the site to Brookers Lane from Tukes Ave would be a major disaster as diverting more traffic into Gosport would lead to gridlock. The traffic coming out will still be feeding into Newgate Lane and it seems pointless to have a lane that will make people go around in circles. Parking is also major concern.
PO13
Traffic road infrastructure will not support additional homes.
PO15
This proposed site would increase the already over loaded car traffic on Newgate Lane area. It will also impact greatly on the already strained local infrastructure.
PO12
I object to the proposed housing development off Newgate Lane, I travel on part of Newgate Lane to work- the roads being frequently grid locked, as is the A32. With potentially 500/1000 extra cars on these roads and no significant road improvements, the roads can only become worse.
PO16
The Traffic congestion in and out Fareham is horrendous. I appreciate the roads imprakments will help but building more houses near Newgate Lane will effect any benefit from the improvements.
PO13
The road system is not able to cope with the current traffic without adding up to 1000 more vehicles. local services already at breaking point. Getting a doctors appointment is already too say the least very difficult. Fareham housing plans loads Gosport with high infrastructure problems and costs. The strategic gap between Gosport & Fareham should remain in place. School places are none existent. Will Fareham take all the children from the proposed housing estate into schools in their own catchment.
PO13
The existing local plan conforms to the requirements of the strategic gap between settlements (gosport and Fareham). The new draft local plan simply tags the new houses onto Gosport and ignores the policy of a gap between the two towns. We have already had to accept the Newgate lane re-route through this gap, the IFA 2 development and now this, its not acceptable to have 3 major developments in a mile area of The Drive, Peel Common in all a year. Why don't you look at developing the plenty of green spaces you have in other parts of your area. The new houses require access through Brokers Lane again this is totally unacceptable. The traffic to get out of Tukes Avenue, Carisbrooke Avenue and Wych lane is already over congested and saturated. Fareham have not proposed any infrastructure access from Newgate lane. Road access is from Brokers Lane. Clearly more houses in this area is totally unacceptable but to have the road infrastructure from Brokers Lane is nothing but madness to the Tukes Avenue areas. Even if access is provided via the new Newgate road, this is just another single lane road and does nothing to improve current traffic flow in that area as well. Getting in and out of Gosport is already very difficult with congestion. It can take over an hour to get from Rowner Road to the Tesco's roundabout and the proposed development will only increase the grid lock we already have in this area. Improvements to Newgate Lane will have no effect on the congestion in this area and will likely make it worse. People in Gosport need to get to work and all your doing is magnifying the traffic congestion in an already overcrowded area. This new estate will require a support infrastructure for the community including School, doctors, green field play areas. None of which are in this area, so again the burden will fall upon Gosport's local area adjacent to the development. This development may look good for Fareham but as a neighbour it has put the burden of infrastructure in the hands of Gosport the poorer neighbour. Which you are taking advantage of. In summary a blatant disregard for this area of Gosport and its community. 3 major development that have had very little impact on the residents of Fareham but 100% on Gosport, poor on you Fareham.
PO13
1. The existing local plan conforms to the requirement of a strategic gap between settlements (Gosport and Fareham). The new draft local plan simply tags the new houses onto Gosport and ignores the policy of a gap between the two towns. 2. The new houses require access and this will be to the detriment of the Gosport residents of Peel Common and Bridgemary. In peak traffic times the rat run of cars will saturate the roads namely Carrisbrooke Road and Brookers Lane. This will aggregate further the safety and high pollution levels that already exist. 3. An estate the size of 475 houses will require schools, doctors,( Stubbington Medical Centre is already not fit for purpose), play areas and open space. This burden will almost certainly fall on the local existing facilities provided by Gosport. 4. This housing proposal enables Fareham to meet its housing target but loads Gosport with major infrastructure problems. 5. The proposal to build the new houses is a Fareham Borough initiative aimed at achieving their current house building quota. Fareham Borough Council has no consideration for a neighbouring local authority. Controversial decisions that affect Gosport residents should include discussions and agreement with Gosport Borough Council. 6. This proposal by Fareham Borough Council on top of the IFA2 fiasco at Daedalus once again shows what a poor neighbour Fareham is to Gosport.
PO13
As a Gosport resident for 30 years I have waited patiently for improvement to links into and out of Gosport which have deteriorated markedly even over the past 5 years. I thought that the Newgate Lane South was the start of manna from heaven only to find that your avaricious, inconsiderate and greedy council in considering building houses along this new route which will take us back to square 1 again. Have any of the council tried to tried to drive out of or into Gosport recently?? How will this position be exacerbated when the new estate around Wickham is developed. This venture is ill-conceived at best. Please become realistic.
PO12
Regarding proposal of housing in fields between Negate lane and Tukes Ave Gosport. This is totally unacceptable. This is well needed green space that does not need another pottential 1000 vehicles and polution. Our house value will decrease due to the beautiful untouched views that was the reason into buying here. [redacted] the proposed construction would seriously effect her health. She sits and looks at the view as one of her only joys. There is plenty more I can add but will only do so if this development is taken forward.
PO13
"The existing local plan conforms to the requirement of a strategic gap between settlements (Gosport and Fareham) the new draft local plan simply tags the new houses onto Gopsprt and ignores the ""policy"" of a gap between the two towns. The new houses require access and this will be to the detriment of the Gosport residents of Peel Common and Brigdemary. In peak traffic times the rat run of cars will saturate the roads namely Carisbroke Road and Brookers lane .This will aggregate further the safety and high pollution levels that already exists. An estate of 475 houses will require schools ,doctors play areas and open space . This burden will almost certainly fall on the local existing facilities provided by Gosport. This housing proposal enables Fareham to meet its housing target ,but loads Gosport with further major infrastructure problems. The proposal to build the new houses is a Fareham borough initiative aimed at achieving their current house building quota. Fareham borough council appears to have no consideration for a neighbouring local authority.Controversial decisions that affect Gosport residents should include discussions and agreement with Gosport borough council As a resident who backs directly onto the planned area i feel that the character of the area will change peel common has always been quiet, extra houses will increase noise levels. As a resident there will be a loss of privacy and overlooking. also a loss of light as houses would be built towards the west blocking the sun As a resident there will be a loss of property value. Also wildlife would be affected ."
PO13
The new houses require access and this will be to the detriment of the Gosport residents of Peel Common and Bridgemary. In peak traffic times the rat run of cars will saturate the roads namely Carisbrooke Road and Brookers Lane. This will aggregate further the safety and high pollution levels that already exist.
PO13
Being a Peel Common resident we strongly object to Fareham Borough Councils actions regarding this proposal. The Gosport area is already suffering from lack of Medical access, (4 weeks before an appointment), volume of traffic, schools etc and the additional housing proposal can only make these problems worse. The proposel will make local traffic in Brookers Lane and Carisbrooke Road even more of a problem than it already is. Fareham Council is once again ignoring already established and agreed plans, i.e. the strategic gap between housing areas for Gosport and Fareham and with the proximity to Peel Common the onus will be placed entirely onto the Gosport Council. Members of the Fareham Council seem to adopt an attitude of pushing plans through with a total disregard for the effect on local areas. Has Fareham Council discussed this proposal with Gosport Council? It would appear that this Proposal allows Fareham Council to meet it's housing target but to the detriment to the infrastructure of Gosport.
PO13
The Peel Common Residents Association (PCRA) wish to register an objection to the Fareham Draft Local Plan 2036 - proposed residential allocation policy HA2 - Newgate Lane Reference A Fareham Draft Local Plan 2036 (DFLP). Reference B Fareham Borough Council Report to Planning Committee - 15/11/17 Reference C Fareham Landscape Assessment update – SHLAA Reference D PCRA Objections 1 to 4 May I draw your attention to the underscored items from the above references. Reference B Report to Panning committee – Introduction paragraph 14 This report provides detail of Paragraph 14 of the NPPF which clarifies what is meant by the presumption in favour of sustainable development for decision-taking, including where relevant policies are "out-of-date. For decision-taking this means: Where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, granting permission unless: Any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole. Report to Panning committee – Introduction paragraph 31 Development Sites and Policies. "Where it can be demonstrated that the Council does not have a five year supply of land for housing against the requirements of the Core Strategy additional housing sites, outside the urban area boundary, may be permitted where they meet all of the following criteria: i) The proposal is relative in scale to the demonstrated 5 year housing land supply shortfall; ii) The proposal is sustainably located adjacent to, and well related to, the existing urban settlement boundaries, and can be well integrated with the neighbouring settlement; iii) The proposal is sensitively designed to reflect the character of the neighbouring settlement and to minimise any adverse impact on the Countryside and, if relevant, the Strategic Gaps iv) It can be demonstrated that the proposal is deliverable in the short term; and v) The proposal would not have any unacceptable environmental, amenity or traffic implications." Peel Common Resident Association Objections Objection 1: There will be an adverse impact outweighing benefits. Reference B Paragraph 1 - granting permission unless: Any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole. The proposal is contrary to this guidance and the example from the NPPF guidance be genuinely plan-led, empowering local people to shape their surroundings, with succinct local and neighbourhood plans setting out a positive vision for the future of the area. Should this development go ahead the problems it brings will simply replace the current house building predicament with other equally major problems. This new development is to be piggybacked onto the edge of an existing estate and requires access to all the amenities situated in that area. Residents will require manoeuvrability around the area where there is simply no room for change. Bus routes will be hard to plan leading to the necessity of using own transport and leading to further problematic traffic congestion and pollution. This proposal has already been subject to controversy over the 3 access points. It is fair to say that, Fareham Borough Council has been lax in their due care and diligence regarding the planning comments, to demolish houses in Tukes Avenue in order to facilitate a northern entrance. The population in this area are now living in apprehension as to where this northern access is to be placed. The other 2 planned access points are Brookers Lane and the new southern Newgate Lane. Again the Brookers Lane access is problematic in that it is used generally by dog walkers and the public who take advantage of the open surrounding area that is Brookers playing field. To subject Brookers Lane road with through traffic would clearly be a backward step and impose a major adverse affect on the residents around the area. The 3rd proposed access point on the new southern Newgate Lane will simply undo any advantage that this new road is supposed to provide. The number of vehicles that 470 houses bring to this road will have a major adverse affect and cause yet more delays at either end of this road. PCRA Objection 2: The proposal cannot be well integrated. Ref B Paragraph 31 - ii) may be permitted where they meet all of the following criteria: The proposal is sustainably located adjacent to, and well related to, the existing urban settlement boundaries, and can be well integrated with the neighbouring settlement; The proposal is at odds with the guidance. This is a Fareham development but its integration will be into a neighbouring none related community. The neighbouring local authority Gosport will be required to absorb this influx of population and provide a depth of co-operation that from past experiences, Fareham has never been known to reciprocate. Residents on the proposed estate will need schools, doctors and recreational facilities and other amenities. The 470 houses, is a significantly large volume but cannot justify the inclusion of new schools nor Health Centres and the required facilities will have to be provided from those already in existence. This means increased classroom space and increased patient care for local doctor practices. There will also be a need to accommodate the increase in school traffic which is currently a major problem. The two schools at Peel Common, which will undoubtedly be earmarked for attendance by children from the new houses, cannot cope adequately with the current school run situation as it is and further school run vehicles can only exasperate the situation. PCRA Objection 3: The proposal will reduce the existing Strategic gap Ref B Paragraph 31 - iii) may be permitted where they meet all of the following criteria: The proposal is sensitively designed to reflect the character of the neighbouring settlement and to minimise any adverse impact on the Countryside and, if relevant, the Strategic Gaps The existing Strategic Gap is relevant and is importantly described in Reference B - Fareham Landscape Assessment (SHLAA). Chapter 4 - LLCA 8.2 – Peel Common and Alver Valley. As a whole, this area is of high sensitivity primarily on account of its critical role in preventing the coalescence of the urban areas of Fareham, Bridgemary, Lee-on-the-Solent. The narrowness of the gap between development at Peel Common and the edge of Bridgemary means that this area has a particularly vital role in maintaining physical, visual and perceived separation and even a limited amount of development in the 'wrong' place, particularly along the main roads that enclose the southern part of the area, could threaten the integrity of the gap. The Report to Panning committee (Reference B) gives advice and guidance on the weight of strength added to the decisions regarding the importance of a strategic gap. The Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) update (as copied above) provides a very clear message and its guidance is deemed to have a weight of strength to show the importance of the strategic gap. PCRA Objection 4: The proposal will increase traffic congestion and pollution. Ref B Paragraph 31 – v) be permitted where they meet all of the following criteria: The proposal would not have any unacceptable environmental, amenity or traffic implications The housing proposal is again at odds with the guidance. It is with some certainty that road congestion and pollution will increase should this proposal come to fruition. Newgate Lane is a main road artery used between Gosport and Fareham. It has long been notorious for its traffic jams and the blocking of freely moving traffic in and out of both Gosport and Fareham. It has taken over 30 years to address the problem and only recently been subjected to road improvements that have partially overcome the problem. Other future improvements such as the Stubbington by-pass are planned to alleviate the traffic situation but a housing estate of 470 will without doubt set back the longed for traffic solution to this lifelong problem. Together with the traffic problem it has been recognised that the air pollution has been at a nationally unacceptable level. A housing estate of 470 houses can and will most certainly provide yet further traffic for this road and also add to the many and varied vehicle rat runs within the existing community road structures. The recent Newgate Lane road improvements will be compromised and pollution levels will increase, not reduce. In Conclusion The Peel Common Residents Association recognises that Local Authorities have a mandate to provide new homes and there is a thin line to tread on selecting suitable sites. The HA2 housing proposal, has been chosen as viable by Fareham Borough Council despite in the past their opposition (justly) to any such developments in the strategic gap. The reasons for past refusals have covered a number of issues but one of the major conclusions has always been that the road infrastructure cannot possibly support any more traffic. The recent road improvements have eased the traffic situation but peak travel times are still challenging. For over 30 years the road users from Fareham and Gosport have suffered major traffic hold ups along the Newgate Lane road. It was always recognised that it would be sheer folly to provide a situation that allowed the volume of traffic to increase. It can be stated that this sentiment is still true in 2017. Houses may need to be built but in the proposed site, listed in the Draft Fareham Local Plan, current road improvements will be jeopardised and have a knock on affect on the access to the airport and the enterprise zone. The misery for daily commuters will increase and ironically this misery will be equally shared by the commuters from the proposed new houses.
PO13
Draft Fareham Local Plan 2036 – HA2 Proposal – Formal Objection 1. The Lee Resident's Association(LRA) supports the general provisions of the Draft Fareham Borough Councils(FBC) 2036 Local Plan(DFLP) in particular the statements of Development Strategy at para 3.15 and its recognition of NPPF guidelines but wishes to register a formal objection to the proposal of the Housing Allocation HA2, Newgate Lane South. 2. The LRA's objection to the housing development HA2 is on the grounds that it contravenes Fareham's own DFLP as follows: 2.1. SP6 – Development in Strategic Gaps Policy that specifies that: "Development proposals will not be permitted where they cause severe adverse harm to the physical and visual separation of settlements." This is equally valid under the current Local Plan where it is contrary to the Policy C22 as detailed later. 2.2 CF1 - Development proposals for new or extended community and leisure facilities within the urban area boundary, will be permitted where they: "c) Do not have a severe adverse impact on the strategic and/or local road network" It is unequivocal that HS2 will have a severe detrimental impact on the surrounding road network, roads already formally recorded as over capacity at peak periods. 2.3. INF2 - Infrastructure, Sustainable Transport (highway network issues) – Development strategy that should reduce the need to travel by motor vehicle through the promotion of sustainable and active travel modes. The development HA2 would completely contravene these sub-paragraphs of the policy: "a) Integrates into existing transport networks; and b) Does not demonstrate a severe cumulative impact (causing demonstrable harm) on the operation, safety or accessibility to the local or strategic highway networks; and d) Fully exploits network improvements which encourage the use of sustainable; and active transport modes, through the provision of connections to the existing infra-structure, or provision of new infrastructure through physical works or funding; and e) Mitigates impacts on the local or strategic highway networks arising from the development itself, or the cumulative effects of development on the network, through provision of improvements and enhancements to the existing network to accommodate additional traffic, or contributions towards necessary or relevant transport improvements". 2.4. INF2 – Infrastructure, Sustainable Transport (air quality issues) – Development strategy that should reduce the need to travel by motor vehicle through the promotion of sustainable and active travel modes. The development HA2 would completely contravene these sub-paragraphs: "g) Positively contributes to the delivery of the Council's Air Quality Action Plan by mitigating the effects of development on air quality within Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs); and h) Demonstrates good practice and principles of design, minimising emissions and contributing to the reduction of transport impacts on local air quality." 3. The HA2 housing allocation is also considered inappropriate development that will not only severely undermine the above stated policies it also contravenes NPPF guidelines, a prior Planning Inspectorate ruling and will cause demonstrable harm to the local community. The principal factors that denigrate the HA2 housing proposal are: 3.1 Complete disregard of Fareham current Policy CS22 governing Strategic Gaps established and agreed with other local authorities. Fareham's own plan states "development proposal will not be permitted either individually or cumulatively where it significantly affects the integrity of the gap and the physical and visual separation of settlements". This policy ruling was further supported by the Planning Inspectorate judgement on the current plan concluding that " ….the proposed road improvements would not justify a revision of the [SG] boundary". Without question HA2 will seriously harm the physical and visual benefits of the Fareham/Lee-on-the-Solent strategic gap at one of the narrowest points, already compromised by transport routes and IFA2. 3.2. HA2 will seriously undermine the principle for the construction of the Newgate Lane South relief road, currently designed as a single carriageway to afford un-encumbered traffic flows. It was not intended to service a new large housing development. The recently notified reduction to two access points for this large development is clearly insufficient. Being on opposite sides of the site the access roads will create a new and congested "rat-run" from Rowner housing onto the Newgate Lane relief road. Any additional junctions will just prove the already widely held view that HCC has just funded a relief road that Fareham has exploited to support a housing estate. 3.3. As HA2 is a large development that can only be serviced by road transport it will significantly increase road congestion and pollution in the already over capacity Newgate Lane, A27 and Lower Quay feeder routes. It will also compound existing congestion on roads serving the Fareham/Stubbington/Gosport peninsular. Since any alternative forms of transport can only be buses these will further aggravate congestion and pollution concerns. 3.4. The additional traffic congestion will impact on the success and further development of the Daedalus Economic Zone and further denigrate the quality of life for all those living south of proposed development site. 3.5 Fareham's own Infrastructure Proposals in the DFLP identifies the Gosport Road as an area requiring changes to comply with air quality standards. The HA2 proposal will further aggregate FBC's duty to meet air quality standards with significant increases in traffic through the construction phase and thereafter as all residential traffic will have to pass through the current pollution hot spots. 3.6 . The HA2 housing proposal does not address any of the current acute shortages in school places, health support, utility provision in the development area. These requirements will thus be borne by the adjacent community, a community that is served by Gosport Borough Council, not the proposing authority Fareham. It demonstrates a complete disregard for the requirements to co-operate with neighbouring Councils under the Localism Act 2011. This oversight is morally indefensible. 4. A further concern is that the DFLP mentions Daedalus site has the potential for further development, some of which is also in the Strategic Gap. Any further development in the Fareham/Stubbington/Lee-on-the-Solent strategic gap, an area already blighted by the IFA2 plan, will raise further concerns. 5. The LRA fully supports GBC response to the DFLP 2036 which amplifies many of the concerns outlined above and sincerely hopes this objection against the HA2 proposal leads to its removal from your 2036 Local Plan.
Anonymous submission
I wish to object to plans for 475 more houses off Newgate Lane.
Postcode not provided
I wish to object to plans for 475 more houses off Newgate Lane.
PO13
I wish to object to plans for 475 more houses off Newgate Lane.
PO13
I wish to object to plans for 475 more houses off Newgate Lane. I wish to object to any new road to this development of Tukes Avenue via Brookers Lane.
PO13
It.s Fareham's project and they appear to have no consideration for the people who live in Gosport. We will have to put up with all the extra traffic,also ,where do they think the extra facilities will appear from?
PO13
I wish to object to plans for 475 more houses off Newgate Lane. I wish to object to any new road to this development of Tukes Avenue via Brookers Lane.
PO13
I wish to object to plans for 475 more houses off Newgate Lane. I wish to object to any new road to this development of Tukes Avenue via Brookers Lane.
PO13
I wish to object to plans for 475 more houses off Newgate Lane. I wish to object to any new road to this development of Tukes Avenue via Brookers Lane.
PO13
I wish to object to plans for 475 more houses off Newgate Lane. I wish to object to any new road to this development of Tukes Avenue via Brookers Lane.
PO13
I wish to object to plans for 475 more houses off Newgate Lane. I wish to object to any new road to this development of Tukes Avenue via Brookers Lane.
PO13
I wish to object to plans for 475 more houses off Newgate Lane. I wish to object to any new road to this development of Tukes Avenue via Brookers Lane.
I wish to object to plans for 475 more houses off Newgate Lane. I wish to object to any new road to this development of Tukes Avenue via Brookers Lane.
Postcode not provided
I wish to object to plans for 475 more houses off Newgate Lane. I wish to object to any new road to this development of Tukes Avenue via Brookers Lane. My reasons for the objection are i) the loss of the strategic gap between Gosport and Fareham, ii) The extra traffic resulting from any development here, especially extra traffic through Bridgemary.
PO13
I wish to object to plans for 475 more houses off Newgate Lane. I wish to object to any new road to this development of Tukes Avenue via Brookers Lane. My reasons for the objection are i) the loss of the strategic gap between Gosport and Fareham, ii) The extra traffic resulting from any development here, especially extra traffic through Bridgemary.
PO13
I wish to object to plans for 475 more houses off Newgate Lane. I wish to object to any new road to this development of Tukes Avenue via Brookers Lane. My reasons for the objection are i) the loss of the strategic gap between Gosport and Fareham, ii) The extra traffic resulting from any development here, especially extra traffic through Bridgemary.
PO13
I wish to object to plans for 475 more houses off Newgate Lane. I wish to object to any new road to this development of Tukes Avenue via Brookers Lane. My reasons for the objection are i) the loss of the strategic gap between Gosport and Fareham, ii) The extra traffic resulting from any development here, especially extra traffic through Bridgemary.
PO13
I wish to object to plans for 475 more houses off Newgate Lane. I wish to object to any new road to this development of Tukes Avenue via Brookers Lane. My reasons for the objection are i) the loss of the strategic gap between Gosport and Fareham, ii) The extra traffic resulting from any development here, especially extra traffic through Bridgemary.
PO13
I am concerned about the amount of traffic that will be generated by putting a road through to Tukes Avenue. It is also a concern that this road will come out close to a school. What is the point of building a new road from Peel Common when you will be directing traffic away from it?
PO13
I wish to object to plans for 475 more houses off Newgate Lane. I wish to object to any new road to this development of Tukes Avenue via Brookers Lane. My reasons for the objection are i) the loss of the strategic gap between Gosport and Fareham, ii) The extra traffic resulting from any development here, especially extra traffic through Bridgemary.
PO13
I wish to object to plans for 475 more houses off Newgate Lane. I wish to object to any new road to this development of Tukes Avenue via Brookers Lane. My reasons for the objection are i) the loss of the strategic gap between Gosport and Fareham, ii) The extra traffic resulting from any development here, especially extra traffic through Bridgemary.
PO13
As [readacted] a large number of extra cars etc. coming onto Tukes Avenue near school entrances plus increased traffic getting out of Wych Lane and on to main Road causing extra pollution which is already bad according to reports fro council's. Why should Fareham housing be coming onto Gosports roads for us to maintain our roads.
PO13
I think this idea is ludicrous. We have enough problems with road networks, lack of school places and limited doctors available in the area. The additional cars that would be put on the road will obviously have an impact on the surrounding areas. It is not fun sitting along the A32 every morning/evening nose to tail, so extra cars are going to have a huge impact. Plus I believe the owners of these properties will end up parking on nearby streets, which are already full and cause conjestion and limited access to emergency services.
PO13
I wish to object to plans for 475 more houses off Newgate Lane. I wish to object to any new road to this development of Tukes Avenue via Brookers Lane. My reasons for the objection are i) the loss of the strategic gap between Gosport and Fareham, ii) The extra traffic resulting from any development here, especially extra traffic through Bridgemary.
PO13
Gosport has far too many problems already with building more houses making the traffic conjestion much worse. Fareham building houses and making their vehiclular access through Gosport roads is adding insult to injury.
PO13
NO to access from Bridgemary to the new estate.
PO13
I wish to object to plans for 475 more houses off Newgate Lane. I wish to object to any new road to this development of Tukes Avenue via Brookers Lane. My reasons for the objection are i) the loss of the strategic gap between Gosport and Fareham, ii) The extra traffic resulting from any development here, especially extra traffic through Bridgemary.
PO13
I wish to object to plans for 475 more houses off Newgate Lane. I wish to object to any new road to this development of Tukes Avenue via Brookers Lane. My reasons for the objection are i) the loss of the strategic gap between Gosport and Fareham, ii) The extra traffic resulting from any development here, especially extra traffic through Bridgemary.
PO13
I wish to object to plans for 475 more houses off Newgate Lane. I wish to object to any new road to this development of Tukes Avenue via Brookers Lane. My reasons for the objection are i) the loss of the strategic gap between Gosport and Fareham, ii) The extra traffic resulting from any development here, especially extra traffic through Bridgemary.
Postcode not provided
I wish to object to plans for 475 more houses off Newgate Lane. I wish to object to any new road to this development of Tukes Avenue via Brookers Lane. My reasons for the objection are i) the loss of the strategic gap between Gosport and Fareham, ii) The extra traffic resulting from any development here, especially extra traffic through Bridgemary.
PO13
The road infrastructure around the Gosport peninsula cant currantly manage the daily volumes of vehicles using it. To build 475 new homes advacent to the A32 could not deal with the traffic it will create is madness and very poorly thought-out by Fareham BC. We do not want this plan to go ahead, the roads, traffic are terrible already without more stress.
PO13
I wish to object to plans for 475 more houses off Newgate Lane. I wish to object to any new road to this development of Tukes Avenue via Brookers Lane. My reasons for the objection are i) the loss of the strategic gap between Gosport and Fareham, ii) The extra traffic resulting from any development here, especially extra traffic through Bridgemary.
PO13
I wish to object to plans for 475 more houses off Newgate Lane. I wish to object to any new road to this development of Tukes Avenue via Brookers Lane. My reasons for the objection are i) the loss of the strategic gap between Gosport and Fareham, ii) The extra traffic resulting from any development here, especially extra traffic through Bridgemary.
PO13
Parking and access directly opposite a school will be both dangerous and chaotic. This whole plan is merely a cheap option with access through Bridgmary.
PO13
[redacted] Referring to your recent communication regarding the proposed 'redevelopment of the land between Newgate Lane & Bridgemary. My personal view is that it is utter madness from any environmental viewpoint. Disregarding the problems that would evolve in respect of congestion, additional services, etc. etc. Planners appear (deliberately ?) to ignore the ecological impact. It is well known that the water-table in this area is quite high, (particularly at 'spring tides' - try controlling them - ) also the land where the 'development' is proposed Acts as a natural sponge. It is almost always soggy just below the surface and after even normal rainfall surface water collects before slowly dispersing through the numerous small ditches & rifes which serve the area. No piped drainage can replace the efficiency of the present 'natural' method. (There would be nowhere to pipe it to!) Yours in anticipation. But I am just a stupid 'old' man. No one will heed any views - however learned over the ages - unfortunately I will not live to see whether my fears for the future of this area will be realised - I can only pray somehow you all will be saved from modern beaurocracy and that 'common sense' (a non P. C. phrase) will prevail.
PO13
We bought 5 years ago due to location and lovely fields behind us. The transport infrastructure is already very heavy into/out of Gosport and I don't think it could cope. Parking is already getting difficult in Pettycot Crescent and I wouldn't appreciate it if it was made more difficult due to the new plans.
PO13
The impact of more cars using Nregate Lane and/or Wych Lane to gain access to the A32 will be intolerable to the many motorist who will be sat in traffic for 30/40 mins currently. Let alone the impact on air quality in our local area. The Strategic gap between Fareham and Gosport was put there for a reason , why change it.
PO13
We brought our house because of the fields behind & the strategic gap between Fareham & Gosport. We've had a new School built outside our front, now you want to build out the back I come home from work & have park else where , where are all the cars going to park now even the QA Hospital can't cope now & the roads are grid locked. Strongly Object .
PO13
I wish to object to plans for 475 more houses off Newgate Lane. I wish to object to any new road to this development of Tukes Avenue via Brookers Lane. My reasons for the objection are i) the loss of the strategic gap between Gosport and Fareham, ii) The extra traffic resulting from any development here, especially extra traffic through Bridgemary.
PO13
I wish to object to plans for 475 more houses off Newgate Lane. I wish to object to any new road to this development of Tukes Avenue via Brookers Lane. My reasons for the objection are i) the loss of the strategic gap between Gosport and Fareham, ii) The extra traffic resulting from any development here, especially extra traffic through Bridgemary.
PO13
I wish to object to plans for 475 more houses off Newgate Lane. I wish to object to any new road to this development of Tukes Avenue via Brookers Lane. My reasons for the objection are i) the loss of the strategic gap between Gosport and Fareham, ii) The extra traffic resulting from any development here, especially extra traffic through Bridgemary.
PO13
I wish to object to plans for 475 more houses off Newgate Lane. I wish to object to any new road to this development of Tukes Avenue via Brookers Lane. My reasons for the objection are i) the loss of the strategic gap between Gosport and Fareham, ii) The extra traffic resulting from any development here, especially extra traffic through Bridgemary.
PO13
I wish to object to plans for 475 more houses off Newgate Lane. I wish to object to any new road to this development of Tukes Avenue via Brookers Lane. My reasons for the objection are i) the loss of the strategic gap between Gosport and Fareham, ii) The extra traffic resulting from any development here, especially extra traffic through Bridgemary.
PO13
It has been stated the development will remove the 'strategic gap' between Fareham and Bridgemary which I fully endorse. However even worse the A32 and Newgate Lane are currently at full capacity with vehicular movement daily, any increase to this will put further strain to bursting point on the infrastructure. People and shoppers are already avoiding these routes to Gosport and Lee further housing pressure will undoubtedly impact on this also.
PO13
I wish to object to plans for 475 more houses off Newgate Lane. I wish to object to any new road to this development of Tukes Avenue via Brookers Lane. My reasons for the objection are i) the loss of the strategic gap between Gosport and Fareham, ii) The extra traffic resulting from any development here, especially extra traffic through Bridgemary.
Postcode not provided
What provisions are being made for Doctors & dentists & Schools. All these services are already stretched and your adding nearly 500 new houses. The area is already a traffic nightmare and this development is only going to add to these problems.
PO13
The roads around and through Tukes Avenue and Wych Lane, are already over crowded from 6.30 am until 10 am, it took me 15 minutes to travel 400 yards the other morning when I was trying to get to Q.A. hospital, so who ever thought of building all of these new houses has no idea what the roads around Bridgemary are like at the rush hours. Please think again.
PO13
Dear Sir/Madam, After the treatment of Fareham Council to the population of Gosport over eg. Jazz Concert, noise etc, , power plant on the airfield noise, etc, misuse of planning procedures etc. this housing plan should be cancelled immediately. The plan of Fareham is to get out of there problems making sure that they make money for themselves and make sure they do not get any complaints from their own population. The plan is designed to DUMP all the bad parts of the plan onto Gosport's population, that is cost of future school, doctors. pollution etc., while they sit back happy, fulfilled there requirements and taking all the council tax payments and using on themselves and NO come back to themselves. They have used the planning system for there own enrichment and are happy to let someone else to pay. The plan should be refused, to much traffic, pollution, more traffic delays etc, but if passed MUST be reduced in size and they take over the ownership of the on going costs of the housing and NOT the people of Gosport.
PO13
This proposed housing development will breach the strategic gap between Lee and Gosport . It will also put great pressure on Newgate Lane and also Tukes Ave which is already a Rat Run for speeding motorcars. I also notice there is no mention of more Schools or shops or surgeries to support the residents of these houses. This is a proposed development in the wrong place.
PO13
As a [redacted] I wish formally to record my objections to the proposed development of 475 homes under HA2 in the Draft Fareham Local Plan (DFLP) for the following reasons:- 1. Strategic Gap - The land within the strategic gap performs an important role in defining the settlement character of the area and separating settlements at risk of coalescence. The proposed depletion of the Strategic gap between Gosport and Fareham is in direct contravention of PUSH Policy 15 which states that such gaps should be strengthened, not diminished. The proposed strategic gap review is not consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework and sets a dangerous and reckless precedent for the Hallam Land application to build 1027 home at Newlands farm on the route of the Stubbington Bypass. This proposal to refine the Strategic Gap is ill-considered as it will have a severe adverse effect on local people particularly those within the Borough of Gosport. 2. Roads and Highways - The proposed development will at a stroke eliminate the benefits of the new road improvements adjacent to Newgate Lane dramatically adversely affecting traffic flow and significantly increasing congestion to the detriment of Gosport residents and the local economy especially the access to the EZ at Daedalus. The poor access to the proposed housing would result in significant increase in traffic on residential roads again severely to the detriment of Gosport residents. 3. Infrastructure - There is negligible information provided regarding the supporting infrastructure necessary for education, medical, public transport and community needs and facilities nor is there any provision to protect the amenities of existing residents in the vicinity all of which are vital matters for detailed consideration before the proposal is allowed to proceed any further. 4. Duty to cooperate - This proposal demonstrates an overwhelming failure by the FBC to take into account the dramatic impact of such on its neighbours, the local people living in the contiguous Borough of Gosport. Thus it is imperative that before the proposal proceeds further the FBC complies with its obligations under the Localism Act 2011 to cooperate with the Gosport Borough Council. Under the Planning Practice Guidance published on 6 March 2014: The duty to cooperate: Places a legal duty on local planning authorities, county councils in England and public bodies to engage constructively, actively and on an ongoing basis to maximise the effectiveness of Local and Marine Plan preparation in the context of strategic cross boundary matters. Is not a duty to agree. But local planning authorities should make every effort to secure the necessary cooperation on strategic cross boundary matters before they submit their Local Plans for examination. Local planning authorities must demonstrate how they have complied with the duty at the independent examination of their Local Plans. If a local planning authority cannot demonstrate that it has complied with the duty then the Local Plan will not be able to proceed further in examination. The duty to cooperate is separate from but related to the Local Plan test of soundness. Whilst the HA2 proposal may help to meet FBC housing needs it ignores and fails dismally and irresponsibly to take into consideration the adverse impact on the citizens of the adjacent Borough of Gosport as it will legally be required to do under its duty to cooperate.
PO13
1. Whilst I appreciate that more houses are needed I do not think the space proposed is acceptable. On 3 mornings this week (it is only Thursday) the queues heading for the main road into Fareham have extended almost to Kent Road (off Wych Lane) and also a huge queue in Tukes Avenue (towards Wych Lane). Another 475 houses in the area will only exasperate this problem. 2. The people living in Morris Close all contributed to have a mirror put on the (Hanover ?) Building (with their agreement) only to have it rejected by the highways agency. I fail to see how this mirror could endanger oncoming motorists.
PO13
Yesterday (30/11/2017) I could not get out of Asda Newgate Lane due to the volume of traffic. This is a regular occurrence. Also using Wych Lane to access A32 can take 20 mins or more, so building a further 475 houses between Newgate Lane and Tukes Ave with exasperate the situation. Both roads access Fareham via the quay Street roundabout- additional 400+ cars will greatly increase the pollution here. To propose to demolish two houses opposite Woodcot school and use to gain entry to the new site will increase the risk to safety of our children aand cannot be allowed. I strongly object to the proposal.
PO13
I am concerned about the increase of vehicles leaving and entering the houses estate once built. Parking will be a major issue in the surrounding roads due to the one parking space per household rules. With schools in Tukes Avenue I can see a safety issue if there is an increase of vehicles parking on Gosport roads from the Fareham estate. We will also see more delays getting in and out of Gosport if theses plans go ahead, not to mention the increased pollution in this area which will effect the children and elderly, the most vulnerable. This site area is arable land that supports many speces of reptiles, birds and bats. These plans from Fareham Council are causing considerable stress to us, the Gosport residents.
PO13
I wholly object to the proposed plans for 475 houses being built in the above referenced space. The area cannot cope with any more traffic and the idea of demolishing perfectly good homes to create a new roadway that nobody wants is ridiculous and immoral. There are not enough resources to cope with more housing and placing a junction opposite a primary school is completely silly! Let alone unsafe. This space is meant to be kept as a gap. Building on it and increasing the traffic is going against resident's wishes and is wrong.
PO13
This project would increase the traffic especially through Bridgemary, Wych Lane etc. Gosport is over crowded now with roads grid locked at peak times.
PO13
"this will allow even more traffi8c into Gosport and especially the Tukes Ave area which is already heavily congested and isa local ""rat run"", It will also affect parking in the area. It is wrong to build on the Strategic gap. fareham council has no regard for the people of Gosport."
PO13
The increase in traffic will be unbearable not only on Newgate Lane but the potential secondary access to Brookers Lane and Tukes Avenue. Even though we are on the border it still takes a good hour in the morning and evening to get in and out of Gosport.
PO13
I would like to object to this proposal on the grounds that this will close the strategic gap between Fareham and Gosport, as well as increasing traffic and pollution in an already densely populated and polluted area.
PO12
This development will completely undermine the road improvements that are currently being made to Newgate Lane. The local primary schools are unlikely to be able to support this many homes and where would the older children attend secondary school? Crofton is over subscribed now and the only other alternwould be Fareham Academy which will also be over subscribed if other local developments go ahead.
PO13
This proposed development would close the strategic gap between Fareham and Gosport. The proposal to have road coming out onto Brookers Lane and Tukes Avenue would simply add to the dangers faced on these already busy roads. Tukes Avenue, Wych Lane and the A32 into Fareham are already frequently clogged. Rowner Road leading into Newgate Lane is not much better during peak periods. There is a primary school in Tukes Avenue which would mean children facing even more traffic to get to school. There are two schools in Peel Common where much of the traffic to and from uses Brookers Lane; building 475 dwellings would simply increase the dangers faced on this road too. Where will the children from these 475 houses go to school? The local Primary schools are already over-subscribed. Where will they get medical help? The waiting times for doctors' appointments are already two to three weeks. If 475 houses do have to be built, then build them on the other side of Newgate Lane behind the existing houses in Newgate Lane rather than closing the strategic gap and making Gosport and Fareham indistinguishable from one another and increasing the urban sprawl.
PO13
Your proposed site for the development of circa 475 houses sits, as you know, right on the Gosport borough boundary. Access to and from this site would appear to be through Gosport roads onto Tukes Ave and Fareham Road. This area is already a 'choke point' for access to and from the Fareham Road, and a further 500 plus vehicles joining the daily queue would be totally unacceptable. Although I have only lived in Gosport for 5 years, my quality of life has deteriorated due to the continual building programme. Fortunately, I am retired and do not have to endure the daily commute through choking traffic fumes, but I feel for those who do! Having watched the IFA2 saga and the total disregard for over 1,100 residents who objected to the FBC proposal, I feel that my observations here will do little to alter the cavalier attitude of the decision makers at FBC. However, like many others, my senses will be finely tuned to any suggestion that another dirty tricks campaign will be initiated by FBC if they don't get their way? [redacted]
PO13
Traffic in this area is overwhelming now this project will only worsen the situation causing more fumes to be discharged thus inlreasing pollution. when the council cut the street grass the mess they leave is disgusting grass all over the path and road no weeds cleared from the gutters. I would be ashamed if I had a crew who left a job in this condition.
PO13
How can the government & council decided where to built and use a green belt that is supposed to be no building I object to using the allay way opposite the school as will be used for a rat run into newgate lane there is no room for parking now let alone 475 new homes. There are no Dr or dentist to take extra people, QA cannot accommodate the amount of people now let alone more. Bur obviously it seen to be that the government & council do excellent work on doing just what the public don't want.
PO13
475 Houses off Newgate Lane We feel this will have a huge effect on traffic and related issues through Bridgemary especially Tukes Avenue which is a busy fast road already. Also the views from our home is lovely at the moment, our garden and home is private which is a factor that drew us to this house, also the schools surrounding this area are already full where are the children meant to go.
PO13
The proposed 475 new homes would increase the already busy roads around Newgate Lane, Tukes Ave, Brookers Lane & Wych Lane. Not only busy roads and more cars to find car parking spaces but also pressure on local schools places, doctors and dentist . Will there be new school or doctors surgeries considered if the new houses are built?
PO13
I object to the whole thing it will ruin my property. I object to an access to Tukes Ave directly opposite a primary school and will increase parking . Most mornings the roads is blocked with traffic, re-think your proposal.
PO13
I would like to object to these plans as I feel this is going to overlook my property and be an invasion of our privacy. We already can hear more noise as the new road is being built on that land even though it is not open yet and no traffic is up and running on it. Pettycot Crescent is already to its limit with car parking as it is and Tukes Avenue and Wych Lane is bad enough now at peak times to join Fareham Road without additional traffic from 457 homes, let alone all the local amenities already at breaking point.
PO13
The work on Newgate Lane is 40 yrs late will we be expected to wait another 40yrs for the rest of the infrastructure to catch up. What plans are there to increase the flow of traffic in and out of Gosport. I don't see any evidence of making life easier for Gosport residents , only heartache of joining queues trying to get in and out of Gosport. How is building more houses in Newgate Lane going to make it easier getting in and out of Asda (Newgate Lane). I refuse to shop there anymore due to the problem. What plans are being made for surgeries, dentist (in very short ) supply at the moment and the increase of Hospitals because what we have now cannot cope with what is here at the moment let alone an increase.
PO13
I wish to object to plans for 475 more houses off Newgate Lane. I wish to object to any new road to this development of Tukes Avenue via Brookers Lane. My reasons for the objection are i) the loss of the strategic gap between Gosport and Fareham, ii) The extra traffic resulting from any development here, especially extra traffic through Bridgemary.
PO13
I wish to object to plans for 475 more houses off Newgate Lane. I wish to object to any new road to this development of Tukes Avenue via Brookers Lane. My reasons for the objection are i) the loss of the strategic gap between Gosport and Fareham, ii) The extra traffic resulting from any development here, especially extra traffic through Bridgemary.
PO13
I wish to object to plans for 475 more houses off Newgate Lane. I wish to object to any new road to this development of Tukes Avenue via Brookers Lane. My reasons for the objection are i) the loss of the strategic gap between Gosport and Fareham, ii) The extra traffic resulting from any development here, especially extra traffic through Bridgemary.
PO13
I wish to object to plans for 475 more houses off Newgate Lane. I wish to object to any new road to this development of Tukes Avenue via Brookers Lane. My reasons for the objection are i) the loss of the strategic gap between Gosport and Fareham, ii) The extra traffic resulting from any development here, especially extra traffic through Bridgemary.
PO13
I wish to object to plans for 475 more houses off Newgate Lane. I wish to object to any new road to this development of Tukes Avenue via Brookers Lane. My reasons for the objection are i) the loss of the strategic gap between Gosport and Fareham, ii) The extra traffic resulting from any development here, especially extra traffic through Bridgemary.
Postcode not provided
I wish to object to plans for 475 more houses off Newgate Lane. I wish to object to any new road to this development of Tukes Avenue via Brookers Lane. My reasons for the objection are i) the loss of the strategic gap between Gosport and Fareham, ii) The extra traffic resulting from any development here, especially extra traffic through Bridgemary.
PO13
475 new houses off Newgate Lane As there are only two road in and out of Gosport, both of which are always congested, particularly at peak times, the idea of adding to the problem by building more houses is ridiculous. I suggest the Fareham Councillors in favour of this idea, take a trip to Gosport at peak time to realise how we cannot take any more traffic, on these two main routes. First priority improving the problem not building more houses.
PO13
I wish to object to plans for 475 more houses off Newgate Lane. I wish to object to any new road to this development of Tukes Avenue via Brookers Lane. My reasons for the objection are i) the loss of the strategic gap between Gosport and Fareham, ii) The extra traffic resulting from any development here, especially extra traffic through Bridgemary.
PO13
I object to houses being built on the site for the simple reason- The roads-diabolical even now. I would agree with the site being used for infrastructure projects IE Hospitals/Ambulances station/Walk in health centre and police Stations all situated in this centre of population. NO MORE HOUSING-The Roads are not fit for purpose now , lets stop Fareham rush to fill every available space with housing.
PO13
I wish to object to plans for 475 more houses off Newgate Lane. I wish to object to any new road to this development of Tukes Avenue via Brookers Lane. My reasons for the objection are i) the loss of the strategic gap between Gosport and Fareham, ii) The extra traffic resulting from any development here, especially extra traffic through Bridgemary.
PO13
I wish to object to plans for 475 more houses off Newgate Lane. I wish to object to any new road to this development of Tukes Avenue via Brookers Lane. My reasons for the objection are i) the loss of the strategic gap between Gosport and Fareham, ii) The extra traffic resulting from any development here, especially extra traffic through Bridgemary.
PO13
I wish to object to plans for 475 more houses off Newgate Lane. I wish to object to any new road to this development of Tukes Avenue via Brookers Lane. My reasons for the objection are i) the loss of the strategic gap between Gosport and Fareham, ii) The extra traffic resulting from any development here, especially extra traffic through Bridgemary.
Postcode not provided
I wish to object to plans for 475 more houses off Newgate Lane. I wish to object to any new road to this development of Tukes Avenue via Brookers Lane. My reasons for the objection are i) the loss of the strategic gap between Gosport and Fareham, ii) The extra traffic resulting from any development here, especially extra traffic through Bridgemary.
PO13
I wish to object to plans for 475 more houses off Newgate Lane. I wish to object to any new road to this development of Tukes Avenue via Brookers Lane. My reasons for the objection are i) the loss of the strategic gap between Gosport and Fareham, ii) The extra traffic resulting from any development here, especially extra traffic through Bridgemary.
PO13
I wish to object to plans for 475 more houses off Newgate Lane. I wish to object to any new road to this development of Tukes Avenue via Brookers Lane. My reasons for the objection are i) the loss of the strategic gap between Gosport and Fareham, ii) The extra traffic resulting from any development here, especially extra traffic through Bridgemary.
Postcode not provided
I wish to object to plans for 475 more houses off Newgate Lane. I wish to object to any new road to this development of Tukes Avenue via Brookers Lane. My reasons for the objection are i) the loss of the strategic gap between Gosport and Fareham, ii) The extra traffic resulting from any development here, especially extra traffic through Bridgemary.
PO13
I wish to object to plans for 475 more houses off Newgate Lane. I wish to object to any new road to this development of Tukes Avenue via Brookers Lane. My reasons for the objection are i) the loss of the strategic gap between Gosport and Fareham, ii) The extra traffic resulting from any development here, especially extra traffic through Bridgemary.
PO13
I wish to object to plans for 475 more houses off Newgate Lane. I wish to object to any new road to this development of Tukes Avenue via Brookers Lane. My reasons for the objection are i) the loss of the strategic gap between Gosport and Fareham, ii) The extra traffic resulting from any development here, especially extra traffic through Bridgemary.
PO13
I wish to object to plans for 475 more houses off Newgate Lane. I wish to object to any new road to this development of Tukes Avenue via Brookers Lane. My reasons for the objection are i) the loss of the strategic gap between Gosport and Fareham, ii) The extra traffic resulting from any development here, especially extra traffic through Bridgemary.
PO13
1. The new draft local plan and its housing proposal considerably reduces the strategic gap. The houses will appear to be part of the existing settlement however it will remove the gap between local communities. This is in contravention of the PUSH policy and the National Planning Policy Framework. 2. The new houses require access and this will be to the detriment of the Gosport residents of Peel Common and Bridgemary. In peak traffic times the rat run of cars will saturate the roads namely Carisbrooke Road and Brookers Lane. This will aggregate further the safety and high pollution levels that already exist. 3. An estate the size of 475 houses will require schools, doctors, play areas and open space. This burden will almost certainly fall on the local existing facilities provided by Gosport. It is noted with some astonishment that Fareham Borough Council have not approached Gosport Borough Council direct with their proposals. 4. The proposed development will at a stroke eliminate the benefits of the new Newgate Lane road improvements. It will adversely affect the traffic flow and significantly increasing congestion to the detriment of Gosport and Fareham residents. This increase in traffic will most certainly have a detrimental effect on the Enterprise Zone at Daedalus.
PO13
I wish to object to plans for 475 more houses off Newgate Lane. I wish to object to any new road to this development of Tukes Avenue via Brookers Lane. My reasons for the objection are i) the loss of the strategic gap between Gosport and Fareham, ii) The extra traffic resulting from any development here, especially extra traffic through Bridgemary.
PO13
I wish to object to plans for 475 more houses off Newgate Lane. I wish to object to any new road to this development of Tukes Avenue via Brookers Lane. My reasons for the objection are i) the loss of the strategic gap between Gosport and Fareham, ii) The extra traffic resulting from any development here, especially extra traffic through Bridgemary.
PO13
I wish to object to plans for 475 more houses off Newgate Lane. I wish to object to any new road to this development of Tukes Avenue via Brookers Lane. My reasons for the objection are i) the loss of the strategic gap between Gosport and Fareham, ii) The extra traffic resulting from any development here, especially extra traffic through Bridgemary.
PO13
I wish to object to plans for 475 more houses off Newgate Lane. I wish to object to any new road to this development of Tukes Avenue via Brookers Lane. My reasons for the objection are i) the loss of the strategic gap between Gosport and Fareham, ii) The extra traffic resulting from any development here, especially extra traffic through Bridgemary.
PO13
I wish to object to plans for 475 more houses off Newgate Lane. I wish to object to any new road to this development of Tukes Avenue via Brookers Lane. My reasons for the objection are i) the loss of the strategic gap between Gosport and Fareham, ii) The extra traffic resulting from any development here, especially extra traffic through Bridgemary.
PO13
I wish to object to plans for 475 more houses off Newgate Lane. I wish to object to any new road to this development of Tukes Avenue via Brookers Lane. My reasons for the objection are i) the loss of the strategic gap between Gosport and Fareham, ii) The extra traffic resulting from any development here, especially extra traffic through Bridgemary.
PO13
I wish to object to plans for 475 more houses off Newgate Lane. I wish to object to any new road to this development of Tukes Avenue via Brookers Lane. My reasons for the objection are i) the loss of the strategic gap between Gosport and Fareham, ii) The extra traffic resulting from any development here, especially extra traffic through Bridgemary.
PO13
I wish to object to plans for 475 more houses off Newgate Lane. I wish to object to any new road to this development of Tukes Avenue via Brookers Lane. My reasons for the objection are i) the loss of the strategic gap between Gosport and Fareham, ii) The extra traffic resulting from any development here, especially extra traffic through Bridgemary.
PO13
I wish to object to plans for 475 more houses off Newgate Lane. I wish to object to any new road to this development of Tukes Avenue via Brookers Lane. My reasons for the objection are i) the loss of the strategic gap between Gosport and Fareham, ii) The extra traffic resulting from any development here, especially extra traffic through Bridgemary.
PO13
I wish to object to plans for 475 more houses off Newgate Lane. I wish to object to any new road to this development of Tukes Avenue via Brookers Lane. My reasons for the objection are i) the loss of the strategic gap between Gosport and Fareham, ii) The extra traffic resulting from any development here, especially extra traffic through Bridgemary.
PO13
I wish to object to plans for 475 more houses off Newgate Lane. I wish to object to any new road to this development of Tukes Avenue via Brookers Lane. My reasons for the objection are i) the loss of the strategic gap between Gosport and Fareham, ii) The extra traffic resulting from any development here, especially extra traffic through Bridgemary.
PO13
I wish to object to plans for 475 more houses off Newgate Lane. I wish to object to any new road to this development of Tukes Avenue via Brookers Lane. My reasons for the objection are i) the loss of the strategic gap between Gosport and Fareham, ii) The extra traffic resulting from any development here, especially extra traffic through Bridgemary.
PO13
I wish to object to plans for 475 more houses off Newgate Lane. I wish to object to any new road to this development of Tukes Avenue via Brookers Lane. My reasons for the objection are i) the loss of the strategic gap between Gosport and Fareham, ii) The extra traffic resulting from any development here, especially extra traffic through Bridgemary.
PO13
I wish to object to plans for 475 more houses off Newgate Lane. I wish to object to any new road to this development of Tukes Avenue via Brookers Lane. My reasons for the objection are i) the loss of the strategic gap between Gosport and Fareham, ii) The extra traffic resulting from any development here, especially extra traffic through Bridgemary.
PO13
I wish to object to plans for 475 more houses off Newgate Lane. I wish to object to any new road to this development of Tukes Avenue via Brookers Lane. My reasons for the objection are i) the loss of the strategic gap between Gosport and Fareham, ii) The extra traffic resulting from any development here, especially extra traffic through Bridgemary.
PO13
I wish to object to plans for 475 more houses off Newgate Lane. I wish to object to any new road to this development of Tukes Avenue via Brookers Lane. My reasons for the objection are i) the loss of the strategic gap between Gosport and Fareham, ii) The extra traffic resulting from any development here, especially extra traffic through Bridgemary.
Postcode not provided
I wish to object to plans for 475 more houses off Newgate Lane. I wish to object to any new road to this development of Tukes Avenue via Brookers Lane. My reasons for the objection are i) the loss of the strategic gap between Gosport and Fareham, ii) The extra traffic resulting from any development here, especially extra traffic through Bridgemary.
PO13
I very strongly object to the building of any houses on this Strategic Gap. There are enough problems with traffic entering Fareham which the Stubbington by-pass will not resolve. There is a lot of mammals and birds which use that land such as deer, voles, bats and birds of prey. The pollution levels on some parts of the A32 already exceed safe levels there is also a conflict of interest as Councillor Woodward is chairman of PUSH who should be protecting the strategic gap.
PO13
Building new houses means well get more traffic on the roads. We have enough traffic on the roads as it is.
PO13
I wish to object to plans for 475 more houses off Newgate Lane. I wish to object to any new road to this development of Tukes Avenue via Brookers Lane. My reasons for the objection are i) the loss of the strategic gap between Gosport and Fareham, ii) The extra traffic resulting from any development here, especially extra traffic through Bridgemary.
PO13
I wish to object to plans for 475 more houses off Newgate Lane. I wish to object to any new road to this development of Tukes Avenue via Brookers Lane. My reasons for the objection are i) the loss of the strategic gap between Gosport and Fareham, ii) The extra traffic resulting from any development here, especially extra traffic through Bridgemary.
PO13
I wish to object to plans for 475 more houses off Newgate Lane. I wish to object to any new road to this development of Tukes Avenue via Brookers Lane. My reasons for the objection are i) the loss of the strategic gap between Gosport and Fareham, ii) The extra traffic resulting from any development here, especially extra traffic through Bridgemary.
PO13
I object to the building of so many new houses so close to the cooper bounbary, as the used to access the site from Tukes ave, Brooker Lane, all ready on most mornings I find that I can turn left out of Meadow walk onto Tukes ave, , if I need to get north of Fareham I (not known) some to my leaving time to drive to ma destination, will this no of houses what add, time infrastructure is being planned , doctors, school, shops? I ask if there is a real need to build this development , on top of Welborne, Portchester and Titchfield Park.
PO13
I wish to object to plans for 475 more houses off Newgate Lane. I wish to object to any new road to this development of Tukes Avenue via Brookers Lane. My reasons for the objection are i) the loss of the strategic gap between Gosport and Fareham, ii) The extra traffic resulting from any development here, especially extra traffic through Bridgemary.
PO!3
I wish to object to plans for 475 more houses off Newgate Lane. I wish to object to any new road to this development of Tukes Avenue via Brookers Lane. My reasons for the objection are i) the loss of the strategic gap between Gosport and Fareham, ii) The extra traffic resulting from any development here, especially extra traffic through Bridgemary.
PO13
I wish to object to plans for 475 more houses off Newgate Lane. I wish to object to any new road to this development of Tukes Avenue via Brookers Lane. My reasons for the objection are i) the loss of the strategic gap between Gosport and Fareham, ii) The extra traffic resulting from any development here, especially extra traffic through Bridgemary.
Postcode not provided
I wish to object to plans for 475 more houses off Newgate Lane. I wish to object to any new road to this development of Tukes Avenue via Brookers Lane. My reasons for the objection are i) the loss of the strategic gap between Gosport and Fareham, ii) The extra traffic resulting from any development here, especially extra traffic through Bridgemary.
PO13
I feel building this amount of houses and plans for road access will be a major disruption for our area affecting the schools and the roads along it, I have fears for children safety and the overall impact it will have on people living in the local area.
PO13
I wish to object to plans for 475 more houses off Newgate Lane. I wish to object to any new road to this development of Tukes Avenue via Brookers Lane. My reasons for the objection are i) the loss of the strategic gap between Gosport and Fareham, ii) The extra traffic resulting from any development here, especially extra traffic through Bridgemary.
PO13
I wish to object to plans for 475 more houses off Newgate Lane. I wish to object to any new road to this development of Tukes Avenue via Brookers Lane. My reasons for the objection are i) the loss of the strategic gap between Gosport and Fareham, ii) The extra traffic resulting from any development here, especially extra traffic through Bridgemary.
PO13
I wish to object to plans for 475 more houses off Newgate Lane. I wish to object to any new road to this development of Tukes Avenue via Brookers Lane. My reasons for the objection are i) the loss of the strategic gap between Gosport and Fareham, ii) The extra traffic resulting from any development here, especially extra traffic through Bridgemary.
PO13
I wish to object to plans for 475 more houses off Newgate Lane. I wish to object to any new road to this development of Tukes Avenue via Brookers Lane. My reasons for the objection are i) the loss of the strategic gap between Gosport and Fareham, ii) The extra traffic resulting from any development here, especially extra traffic through Bridgemary.
PO13
I wish to object to plans for 475 more houses off Newgate Lane. I wish to object to any new road to this development of Tukes Avenue via Brookers Lane. My reasons for the objection are i) the loss of the strategic gap between Gosport and Fareham, ii) The extra traffic resulting from any development here, especially extra traffic through Bridgemary.
PO13
I wish to object to plans for 475 more houses off Newgate Lane. I wish to object to any new road to this development of Tukes Avenue via Brookers Lane. My reasons for the objection are i) the loss of the strategic gap between Gosport and Fareham, ii) The extra traffic resulting from any development here, especially extra traffic through Bridgemary.
PO13
I wish to object to plans for 475 more houses off Newgate Lane. I wish to object to any new road to this development of Tukes Avenue via Brookers Lane. My reasons for the objection are i) the loss of the strategic gap between Gosport and Fareham, ii) The extra traffic resulting from any development here, especially extra traffic through Bridgemary.
PO13
I wish to object to plans for 475 more houses off Newgate Lane. I wish to object to any new road to this development of Tukes Avenue via Brookers Lane. My reasons for the objection are i) the loss of the strategic gap between Gosport and Fareham, ii) The extra traffic resulting from any development here, especially extra traffic through Bridgemary.
PO13
we are very concerned about the in crease In traffic, and extra parking in the area.
PO13
I wish to object to plans for 475 more houses off Newgate Lane. I wish to object to any new road to this development of Tukes Avenue via Brookers Lane. My reasons for the objection are i) the loss of the strategic gap between Gosport and Fareham, ii) The extra traffic resulting from any development here, especially extra traffic through Bridgemary.
PO13
I wish to object to plans for 475 more houses off Newgate Lane. I wish to object to any new road to this development of Tukes Avenue via Brookers Lane. My reasons for the objection are i) the loss of the strategic gap between Gosport and Fareham, ii) The extra traffic resulting from any development here, especially extra traffic through Bridgemary.
PO13
"I assume that involved members of Fareham Borough Council reside well away from the area in question. If they do happen to live in this area they will be aware of the traffic congestion situation, ie no longer a rush hour but congestion all day especially on the A32 which I realise is not directly in the area concerned but certainly comes into the equation.The situation is getting worse by the day because all the traffic on the A32 and Newgate Lane going north has to negotiate the dreaded ""market roundabout"". Ever since this has been remodelled it has caused chaos most of the day and can only get worse by the increasing amount of vehicles that travel between the Gosport/Lee/Stubbington area. The proposed 475 dwellings would be the final ""nail in the coffin"" . There is talk about improving the A32, this is impossible unless a completely new road connects to the existing just North of Gosport and leads directly on to the M27 which we all know will never happen. If Fareham needs these dwellings they should not be built directly on the Gosport boundary but well within the Fareham area."
PO13
I wish to object to plans for 475 more houses off Newgate Lane. I wish to object to any new road to this development of Tukes Avenue via Brookers Lane. My reasons for the objection are i) the loss of the strategic gap between Gosport and Fareham, ii) The extra traffic resulting from any development here, especially extra traffic through Bridgemary.
PO13
I wish to object to plans for 475 more houses off Newgate Lane. I wish to object to any new road to this development of Tukes Avenue via Brookers Lane. My reasons for the objection are i) the loss of the strategic gap between Gosport and Fareham, ii) The extra traffic resulting from any development here, especially extra traffic through Bridgemary.
PO13
I wish to object to plans for 475 more houses off Newgate Lane. I wish to object to any new road to this development of Tukes Avenue via Brookers Lane. My reasons for the objection are i) the loss of the strategic gap between Gosport and Fareham, ii) The extra traffic resulting from any development here, especially extra traffic through Bridgemary.
PO13
I wish to object to plans for 475 more houses off Newgate Lane. I wish to object to any new road to this development of Tukes Avenue via Brookers Lane. My reasons for the objection are i) the loss of the strategic gap between Gosport and Fareham, ii) The extra traffic resulting from any development here, especially extra traffic through Bridgemary.
Postcode not provided
I wish to object to plans for 475 more houses off Newgate Lane. I wish to object to any new road to this development of Tukes Avenue via Brookers Lane. My reasons for the objection are i) the loss of the strategic gap between Gosport and Fareham, ii) The extra traffic resulting from any development here, especially extra traffic through Bridgemary.
PO13
If the 475 houses are passed for construction this will have a divesting impact on local noise levels IE Traffic noise, also local amenities EG Doctors, schools would be unable to cope. I strongly object to any entrance to the new estate anywhere vin the Bridgemary IE Tukes Ave and Brookers Lane area as the traffic would be funulled into the North Wych Lane area onto the A32 which this area cannot sustain extra traffic.
PO13
I wish to object to plans for 475 more houses off Newgate Lane. I wish to object to any new road to this development of Tukes Avenue via Brookers Lane. My reasons for the objection are i) the loss of the strategic gap between Gosport and Fareham, ii) The extra traffic resulting from any development here, especially extra traffic through Bridgemary.
PO13
I wish to object to plans for 475 more houses off Newgate Lane. I wish to object to any new road to this development of Tukes Avenue via Brookers Lane. My reasons for the objection are i) the loss of the strategic gap between Gosport and Fareham, ii) The extra traffic resulting from any development here, especially extra traffic through Bridgemary.
PO13
I wish to object to plans for 475 more houses off Newgate Lane. I wish to object to any new road to this development of Tukes Avenue via Brookers Lane. My reasons for the objection are i) the loss of the strategic gap between Gosport and Fareham, ii) The extra traffic resulting from any development here, especially extra traffic through Bridgemary.
PO13
I wish to object to plans for 475 more houses off Newgate Lane. I wish to object to any new road to this development of Tukes Avenue via Brookers Lane. My reasons for the objection are i) the loss of the strategic gap between Gosport and Fareham, ii) The extra traffic resulting from any development here, especially extra traffic through Bridgemary.
PO13
[redacted] Effects on the area: 1-Increase Traffic by a primary schools. 2 Increase parking in the area & by the schools 3 You are going to create a Rat-Run between Tukes Ave & Newgate Lane. You are also going to set back traffic issues to the same state we were in prior to the Newgate lane improvements. There has also been no mention of increasing infrastructure, schools, dentist GPs Etc.... You should be pushing to develop housing away from already built up areas like Gosport, Fareham & Portsmouth, Funtley & Wickham for example
PO13
I wish to object to plans for 475 more houses off Newgate Lane. I wish to object to any new road to this development of Tukes Avenue via Brookers Lane. My reasons for the objection are i) the loss of the strategic gap between Gosport and Fareham, ii) The extra traffic resulting from any development here, especially extra traffic through Bridgemary.
PO13
[redacted] - right on the border of what has been up to now 'green belt' or strategic gap. The reason we bought this bungalow was that we had 'a field' - or open space separating us from the built up areas of Bridgemary and Newgate Lane. As I live in a bungalow, I do not even have an 'upstairs' view to alleviate what will inevitably be a claustrophobic development for us. To build on the land takes away all that 'fresh air space' and effectively 'boxes us in'. More houses means more people and more traffic - and roads around here - especially The Drive - are effectively 'no go areas' for local residents twice a day as parents park to bring or wait for children at the two schools. There cannot be a rationale other than political 'dogma' to build on this land which has already been infringed by the building of the Peel Common relief road. I wish to protest in the strongest terms at this apparent 'heavy hand' of Fareham Borough Council which only serves to blight the lives of those of us living on the Gosport side of the fence.
PO13
New housing at Newgate Lane /Tukes Ave will cause longer waiting queues of traffic on all roads in the area. Gosport Traffic cant move now in rush hour need to get councils together to build a new road across creek linking Portchester & Portsmouth to us.
PO13
I wish to object to plans for 475 more houses off Newgate Lane. I wish to object to any new road to this development of Tukes Avenue via Brookers Lane. My reasons for the objection are i) the loss of the strategic gap between Gosport and Fareham, ii) The extra traffic resulting from any development here, especially extra traffic through Bridgemary.
PO13
I wish to object to plans for 475 more houses off Newgate Lane. I wish to object to any new road to this development of Tukes Avenue via Brookers Lane. My reasons for the objection are i) the loss of the strategic gap between Gosport and Fareham, ii) The extra traffic resulting from any development here, especially extra traffic through Bridgemary.
PO13
I wish to object to plans for 475 more houses off Newgate Lane. I wish to object to any new road to this development of Tukes Avenue via Brookers Lane. My reasons for the objection are i) the loss of the strategic gap between Gosport and Fareham, ii) The extra traffic resulting from any development here, especially extra traffic through Bridgemary.
PO13
I wish to object to plans for 475 more houses off Newgate Lane. I wish to object to any new road to this development of Tukes Avenue via Brookers Lane. My reasons for the objection are i) the loss of the strategic gap between Gosport and Fareham, ii) The extra traffic resulting from any development here, especially extra traffic through Bridgemary.
PO13
This proposed development will require access, which will impact on the present residents of Peel Common and Bridgemary residents. At the same time here will be a need for extra school places, play areas and more Doctors, whilst also maintaining some open spaces. As you should well know, access to and from the Gosport peninsular is already a major problem. the new Newgate Lane and previous road/roundabout improvements are helping, at the moment, to alleviate this curse, but this proposed development, with at least one or two cars /household, will mean that we will be even worse off than previously. It appears to the residents of Gosport that Fareham Borough Council has no concern for its neighbouring local authority and just rides roughshod over any objections raised by Gosport Borough Council.
PO13
I wish to object to plans for 475 more houses off Newgate Lane. I wish to object to any new road to this development of Tukes Avenue via Brookers Lane. My reasons for the objection are i) the loss of the strategic gap between Gosport and Fareham, ii) The extra traffic resulting from any development here, especially extra traffic through Bridgemary.
PO13
Dear Sir/Madam 05/12/2017 This proposed development will require access, which will impact on the present residents of Peel Common and Bridgemary residents. At the same time here will be a need for extra school places, play areas and more Doctors, whilst also maintaining some open spaces. As you should well know, access to and from the Gosport peninsular is already a major problem. the new Newgate Lane and previous road/roundabout improvements are helping, at the moment, to alleviate this curse, but this proposed development, with at least one or two cars /household, will mean that we will be even worse off than previously. It appears to the residents of Gosport that Fareham Borough Council has no concern for its neighbouring local authority and just rides roughshod over any objections raised by Gosport Borough Council.
PO13
I wish to object to plans for 475 more houses off Newgate Lane. I wish to object to any new road to this development of Tukes Avenue via Brookers Lane. My reasons for the objection are i) the loss of the strategic gap between Gosport and Fareham, ii) The extra traffic resulting from any development here, especially extra traffic through Bridgemary.
PO13
I wish to object to plans for 475 more houses off Newgate Lane. I wish to object to any new road to this development of Tukes Avenue via Brookers Lane. My reasons for the objection are i) the loss of the strategic gap between Gosport and Fareham, ii) The extra traffic resulting from any development here, especially extra traffic through Bridgemary.
PO13
I wish to object to plans for 475 more houses off Newgate Lane. I wish to object to any new road to this development of Tukes Avenue via Brookers Lane. My reasons for the objection are i) the loss of the strategic gap between Gosport and Fareham, ii) The extra traffic resulting from any development here, especially extra traffic through Bridgemary.
PO13
I wish to object to plans for 475 more houses off Newgate Lane. I wish to object to any new road to this development of Tukes Avenue via Brookers Lane. My reasons for the objection are i) the loss of the strategic gap between Gosport and Fareham, ii) The extra traffic resulting from any development here, especially extra traffic through Bridgemary.
PO13
I wish to object to plans for 475 more houses off Newgate Lane. I wish to object to any new road to this development of Tukes Avenue via Brookers Lane. My reasons for the objection are i) the loss of the strategic gap between Gosport and Fareham, ii) The extra traffic resulting from any development here, especially extra traffic through Bridgemary.
PO13
I wish to object to plans for 475 more houses off Newgate Lane. I wish to object to any new road to this development of Tukes Avenue via Brookers Lane. My reasons for the objection are i) the loss of the strategic gap between Gosport and Fareham, ii) The extra traffic resulting from any development here, especially extra traffic through Bridgemary.
PO13
Most strongly object to the building 475 more new houses in off Newgate Lane. Gosport is a coastal town and there are only three roads out - Fareham, Southampton, Portsmouth, nothing to the south. The traffic is very heavy bad and these roads cannot cope with the existing traffic. The building of 475 houses will put strain on to these roads and the congestion will be unbearable and very difficult to cope with. Tukes Avenue in particular is totally unsuitable as a way out of Bridgemary to Fareham and Gosport. There are already times when this route is gridlocked so how can it take this extra traffic. Plus when new houses the car parking will be very bad worse of it as well. The Council needs to consider the needs of its rate paying residents. Our two sons lived in north of Rowner Road next road off Newgate and they are said object as well.
PO13
I wish to object to plans for 475 more houses off Newgate Lane. I wish to object to any new road to this development of Tukes Avenue via Brookers Lane. My reasons for the objection are i) the loss of the strategic gap between Gosport and Fareham, ii) The extra traffic resulting from any development here, especially extra traffic through Bridgemary.
PO13
I wish to object to plans for 475 more houses off Newgate Lane. I wish to object to any new road to this development of Tukes Avenue via Brookers Lane. My reasons for the objection are i) the loss of the strategic gap between Gosport and Fareham, ii) The extra traffic resulting from any development here, especially extra traffic through Bridgemary.
PO13
I object to the strategic gap being used for residential developments contrary to current planning policy and now proposed by Fareham Borough Council in their draft local plan, specifically proposal HA2 which would see the development of 475 houses and the demolition of houses in Bridgemary forcing more cars on to an already congested highway.
Postcode not provided
I wish to object to the plans for 475 more homes off Newgate Lane and object to any new road access to this development from Tukes Avenue via Brookers Lane. Reasons for this objection are: The loss of strategic gap between Gosport and Fareham and the extra traffic resulting from any new development here, especially extra traffic through Bridgemary.
PO13
I wish to object to the plans for 475 more homes off Newgate Lane and object to any new road access to this development from Tukes Avenue via Brookers Lane. Reasons for this objection are: The loss of strategic gap between Gosport and Fareham and the extra traffic resulting from any new development here, especially extra traffic through Bridgemary.
PO13
I wish to object to the plans for 475 more homes off Newgate Lane and object to any new road access to this development from Tukes Avenue via Brookers Lane. Reasons for this objection are: The loss of strategic gap between Gosport and Fareham and the extra traffic resulting from any new development here, especially extra traffic through Bridgemary.
PO13
I wish to object to the plans for 475 more homes off Newgate Lane and object to any new road access to this development from Tukes Avenue via Brookers Lane. Reasons for this objection are: The loss of strategic gap between Gosport and Fareham and the extra traffic resulting from any new development here, especially extra traffic through Bridgemary.
PO13
The access road between 143 and 145 Tukes Avenue comes out directly onto school crossing (this is congested already and a junior school) - local doctors are overloaded at present as is QA Hospital - and local roads are so congested it will be gridlocked. (the school is an infant school as well as junior - hence more parents cars picking up)
PO13
I strongly oppose the building of 475 houses in Peel Common. Firstly, there are far too many vehicles using local roads, secondly the land is prone to flooding during the winter months. Also Hampshire Council are not replacing the school crossing person at the Tukes Avenue/Kent Road junction, which with a bit more traffic using the road, the more likelihood of a child being killed or seriously injured.
PO13
I think the strategic gap is a good idea, who wants to live in a totally built up area with little or no green space ...... I might as well start getting up at 4am to get out of Gosport to go to work in the queue ?? or don't you care!! We can hardly get out as it is, 475 houses will mean 600 more cars at least, all trying to queue getting out of this place, it really is madness!! Utter madness .......
PO13
The Gosport paninsular can barely cope with the Gosport/Fareham traffic problem it already has. Building these houses will increase the traffic by at least 500 vehicles, many of which will be using the Wych Lane exit to the A32. The Bridgemary estate cannot cope with the current traffic problems, this will only increase the issue. Also this increased level of traffic will also have to pass Woodcot Junior/Infant school Any new housing should only be built where the road, school and doctor/hospital infrastructure could cope with the demand and this location is not it.
PO13
WE HAVE ENOUGH CARS ON THE ROAD, GETTING OUT OF GOSPORT IS A NIGHTMARE. SORT OUT THE A32 BEFORE ANYMORE HOUSING.
PO13
The strategic gap should be maintained as this is supposed to be protected land and should stay that way. Also Bridgemary and the surrounding areas are already struggling to cope with the traffic at present and this would make it much worse and the damage to the environment would be devastating for residents, wildlife and visitors to the area.
PO13
You're building a road to help with congestion. But yet you want to build 475 house that's a minimum of 950 cars. (2 cars a house) so what's the point in this new bypass it's just going to add to the problem. There are over 500 houses in gosport/Fareham area that are for sale, Not to mention for rent. Also getting a doctor or dentist will be hard they already at breaking point. Even if you build a new surgery gotta try and get a doctor to take it on. Same as a dentist, we have no hospital just a ridiculously silly walk in clinc that you sit for a minimum of 3 hrs for no matter what time of day. No ambulance station or police station. So they got to try get through the already heavily congested roads. In and out.You all need to think and take a long hard look. Is selling off 're landworth the money? Is it beneficial for those that live here? Will it make commuting harder? Will it help the NHS in our area? Will it help the schools that are at breaking point? Gosport/Fareham is a town NOT a city so stop trying to make it one.
PO13
I object to the building of 475 houses on the Carisbrook Road and Brookers Lane area.
PO13
We strongly object to the plans to build up to 475 new houses so close to the border with gosport in doing so ignoring the requirement for a strategic gap between our towns. as there are no other Fareham houses in the area the onus for new infrastructure will be forced onto Gosport in the same the electrical installation on Daedelus air field was forced on us. There will be a large increase in the volume of traffic the Newgate lane south undoing the advantages we hope to see after the road works have been completed and also through Bridgemary and Peel Common because of the probable need to approach the houses from the east side of the new buildings. This will increase the traffic and therefore pollution through these areas.
PO13
The idea to create a new estate between Newgate Lane south and Peel Common estate and Tukes Ave is just not right. The roads in this area ia already a rat run. To make a road from this estate into Brokers Lane is beyond belief. It just seems to everybody that all new housing is put in areas that affect everybody bar Fareham. What planet is your leader on.
PO13
I strongly object to Fareham building these 475 houses. Somewhere else must be found. If this proceeds it will mean that Gosport will need to be responsible for building the infrastructure to service these new homes. The extra traffic that will be will effect our estate traffic via Jukes Avenue, Carisbrook Road. The New Gate South will be taking extra traffic via Brookers Lane. Many millions of pounds have been spent on Newgate Lane and the Peel Common roundabout. Why not let our Council decide the best area for any new house development. They should know what is best to suit Gosport. There must be and are other reasons why these houses must not be built here.
PO13
Once again you are up to your old tricks, I have had enough of your mercenary schemes. If you propose 475 houses to be sited fully on the boundaries of Gosport ( The current strategic gap-Green Area) , to fulfill your housing target, them shame on you. If the houses are built, do you really expect Gosport to sort out the infrastructure (access roads) schools, Dr surgeries and anything else that is needed, if you build these hoses it is your responsibility, NOT GOSPORT If Gosport have areas of new house, then let it be done by Gosport, where we have represention through our local councillor. I and many more residents have had enough of your bulling ways. Peel Common is a peaceful estate which we the residents are proud of, we do not want it to become ( in peak traffic times) the inevitable car rat run, this will aggravate further the safety and high pollution levels that already exist. I suggest you STOP riding rough shod over us. If anything you decide in future concerns Gosport I suggest you speak and listen to our Gosport Borough Councillors and residents
PO13
I would like to express my strenuous objections on the following grounds; The existing local plan conforms to the requirement of a strategic gap between settlements (Gosport and Fareham). The new draft local plan simply tags the new houses onto Gosport and ignores the policy of a gap between the two towns. The new houses require access and this will be to the detriment of the Gosport residents of Peel Common and Bridgemary. In peak traffic times the rat run of cars will saturate the roads namely Carisbrooke Road and Brookers Lane. This will aggregate further the safety and high pollution levels that already exist. An estate the size of 475 houses will require schools, doctors, play areas and open space. This burden will almost certainly fall on the local existing facilities provided by Gosport. This housing proposal enables Fareham to meet its housing target but loads Gosport with major infrastructure problems. The proposal to build the new houses is a Fareham Borough initiative aimed at achieving their current house building quota. Fareham Borough Council appears to have no consideration for a neighbouring local authority. Controversial decisions that affect Gosport residents should include discussions and agreement with Gosport Borough Council.
PO13
I strongly object to the proposed building of new houses and proposed necessary infrastructure next to New Gate Lane. It can only increase traffic pollution and congestion for local residents and schools in the area.
Postcode not provided
We are not in agreement as it will cause more traffic provided and delays in the rush hours. also, it is hard enough to get a doctors appointment now without additional residents. Perhaps the Councillors would like to move to Gosport to experience these problems.
PO13
The new houses require access and this will be to the detriment of the Gosport residents of Peel Common and Bridgemary. In peak traffic times the rat run of cars will saturate the roads namely Carisbrooke and Brookers Lane. This will aggregate further the safety and high pollution levels that already exist. An estate the size of 475 houses will require schools, doctors, play areas and open space. This burden will almost certainly fall on the local existing facilities provided by Gosport.
PO13
1. The existing local plan conforms to the requirement of a strategic gap between settlements (Gosport and Fareham). The new draft local plan simply tags the new houses onto Gosport and ignores the policy of a gap between the two towns. 2. The new houses require access and this will be to the detriment of myself and other Peel Common residents [redacted] and Carisbrooke Road becoming a gridlocked rat run. This will aggregate further the safety and high pollution levels that already exist. 3. The proposal to build the new houses is a Fareham Borough initiative aimed at achieving their current housing building quota. Fareham Borough Council appears to have no consideration for a neighbouring local authority made blatantly obvious by the recent crooked back door passing of the planning application for the IFA2 Interconnector on the former Daedalus airfield, another burden on the residents of Peel Common and surrounding areas. How many more controversial decisions do Fareham Borough Council need to make at the expense of Gosport residents before the Government intervene and put a stop to it?
PO13
An estate this size of 475 homes will required schools,doctors,play areas and open space.This burden will almost certainly fall on the local existing facilities provided by Gosport.It will also mean more traffic through Peel common.
PO13
I object to most of the above plan as it infringes on the agreed buffer zone along the Gosport boundary. I ask if there is a real need to infill this area, with this many houses as the road infrastructure is at best inadequate now I cannot on most days turn left onto Tukes Avenue from Meadow Walk to get to Fareham. I have to add at least half an hour to my leaving time to make sure of an appointment north of the A27. I thought it was accepted that with Welbourne being build it would remove the need to infill other areas. What provision has, if any been made to answer the hold up of the Quay Roundabout. I think any access to Bridgemary (Tukes Avenue) other than footpaths cycle ways will just close an already unacceptable situation with movement of major traffic out of the area. I think it would help if both sides of the new road were developed as Newgate Lane being the Western boundary. No provision seems to have been made for any essential infrastructure and for doctors, schools, shops or other employment units, so all this development will need people to leave this area for work, to shop etc. The doctors in the area are few and all seem to be oversubscribed. I would be surprised if Gosport has been (approved) of these plans for even more traffic will be generated when and if Haslar is developed and HMS Sultan is decommissioned later in 2020. I wonder why with the road situation that any development south of the Quay Roundabout is even being considered in fact any development south of the A27, Portchester, Titchfiled, Stubbington, all have inadequate road structures: ie roundabout (Delme Arms) slip road from M27 into Fareham. When there is a considerable area north of the area just waiting for development that could contain local amenities as industrial development. I look forward to hearing that the above site has been scrapped or at least reduced in size.
PO13
I object to the plans for new housing under the HA2 proposal due to the anticipated significant increase in traffic levels that will result from the planned housing. What sort of traffic surveys have been done along Newgate lane since the previous period of redevelopment ? It must of been noted that significant bottlenecks exist both north and south bound along Newgate lane. Northbound at the Longfield Avenue roundabout where two lanes from Newgate have to filter into one and also southbound after the traffic light by HMS Collingwood where again two lanes have to filter into one. The alternative of exit from the new housing via Tukes Avenue is a ridiculous idea, putting all that additional traffic through a residential area into the already established bottle neck of Wych Lane/Tukes Avenue.
PO12
Too many cars already trying to get into and out if gosport. Fareham borough council should consider areas not you g the a32 and newgate lane as the is congestion in and out most of the day now . The via duct at fareham is a bottle neck for traffic needing to travel South. There is plenty of green areas not near already congested roads in the borough
PO14
Whilst not being a Fareham resident but a Gosport resident the other side of Rowner Road this proposed development will have an adverse effect on us particularly in respect of additional private traffic volume on the Gosport/Fareham peninsula and the reduction of green space locally. Any proposed additional housing should be on brownfield sites but even then there is only so much that the Gosport peninsula can cope with. I appreciate that this area is within the Fareham boundary but as it is in such close proximity to Gosport any planning should really be dealt with jointly by both councils' planning committees and full plans be displayed in both council offices. It was only by chance that I saw an A4 notice taped to a lamppost on the pedestrian/cycle path connecting Tukes Avenue and Newgate Lane. This is not on!!
PO13
I am very concerned about an increase in population to the peel common area. This area is already very populated with two large schools and many houses. If a further 400+ houses were to be built, it would drematicly increase traffic through and around peel common. The area proposed, at present, creates an area free of traffic and noise which is greatly needed. we are already it would seem, going to be burdened by an electrical power station that will have potential risks. It is very important to have some green space. This green space parallel to newgate lane, needs to stay to protect me from increases in traffic/congestion/noise, caused by an increase in population your proposals would create. To summarise, Peel common and Bridgemary are allready very populated, with little green space. Your proposals would compleatly change the are for the worst. No regard for Gosport.
PO13
The new houses require access and this will be to the detriment of the Gosport residents of Peel Common and Bridgemary. In peak traffic times the rat run of cars will saturate the roads namely Carisbrooke Road and Brookers lane. The will aggravate further the safety and high pollution levels that already exist.
PO13
The access roads, Tukes Avenue and Brookers Lane, are not suitable to take the extra traffic from the development and this will also cause even more gridlock for traffic heading to Fareham.
PO13
The Peel Common, Bridgemary , Woodcot area is already overpopulated, with a great strain on resources, e.g. schools, medical services and roads. Although there have been road improvements over the last couple of years, implementing this plan will negate any benefits commuters may have noticed. Implementation of the IFA2 will also add to an already over burdened infrastructure. Gosport is a peninsula with no alternate commuting choices. Fareham is instigating this plan but not thinking clearly about the consequences of it. I feel Gosport and especially the Peel Common, Bridgemary And Woodcot communities will suffer and pay the price in their schools and medical services if this development is approved.
PO13
I wish to strongly protest regarding the above scheme. Your planning division have ordained that IFA2 should be built, now you want to build 475 dwellings. Having the Newgate south road being built. You now want to congest the area further. I'm a resident at Brookers Lane which is a car rat run already leading into Tukes Avenue / Carisbrooke Roads. Now you want to make the situation worse. The proposals include the need of infrastructure, access roads and facilities such as schools and doctors. Where do you propose to house them? The existing local plan conforms to the requirement of a strategic gap between settlements (Gosport and Fareham). The new draft plan simply ignores the policy of a gap between the two towns. THIS CAN NOT BE RIGHT! This is a total disregard between the two boroughs controversial decisions that affect Gosport residents should include discussions and agreement with Gosport Borough Council. My understanding for building the Newgate Lane South is to alleviate the traffic. Now you wish to move the congestion into Gosport Borough. PLEASE think again at your proposals.
PO13
For many years we in Gosport have had to put up with trying to get in and out of the area. We need the roads to be improved not made worse by adding more houses. Building 475 more properties in this area will put an increased strain on local services which will be an added burden on Gosport. Already our area has problems with Doctor/ Dental services plus the local schools are reaching over capacity. Of course none of this matters to Fareham. Once again Gosport has had to suffer at the expense of Fareham.
PO13
1. The existing local plan conforms to the require ment of a strategic gap between settlements (Gosport and Fareham). The new draft local plan simply tags the new houses onto Gosport and ignores the policy of a gap between the two towns. 2. The new houses require access and this will be to the detriment o f the Gosport residents of Peel Common and Bridgemary. In peak traffic times the rat run of cars will saturate the roads namely Carisbrooke Road and Brookers Lane. This will aggregate further the safety and high pollution levels that already exist. 3. An estate the size of 475 houses will require schools, doctors, play areas and open space. This burden will almost certainly fall on the local existing facilities provided by Gosport. 4. This housing proposal enables Fareham to meet its housing target but loads Gosport with major infrastructure problems. 5. The proposal to build the new houses is a Fareham Borough initiative aimed at achieving their current house building quota . Fareham Borough Council appears to have no consideration for a neighborin g local authority. Controversial decisions that affect Gosport residents should include discussions and agreement with Gosport Borough Council
PO13
OBJECTION IN RESPECT OF FAREHAM DRAFT LOCAL PLAN [FDLP] [redacted]. I wish to lodge the following Objections and observations in respect of the FDLP, so far as concerns the proposals for (a) HA2 and (b) Daedalus - and (c) the proposed SP6. 1. The failure by Fareham Planning Authority and/or Fareham Borough Council [FBC] to cooperate with GBC during the preparatory phase The process adopted by FBC through the pre-publication phase of this FDLP is fundamentally flawed by reason of the failure of FBC to consult or cooperate with GBC in respect of FBC's proposals for HA2 and Daedalus, and all matters relative to them. In its Introduction the FDLP states, at paragraph 1.24 "In preparing the Draft Fareham Local Plan 2036, the Council has complied with the relevant national and legal requirements applicable at this stage in plan preparation." This statement appears wholly incorrect. The proposals in relation to HA2 and Daedalus clearly have very significant implications for residents, land and business within the GBC boundaries, and for Gosport's economy as a whole. However, notwithstanding the provisions of the Localism Act 2011 and The Town And Country Planning (Local Plans) (England) Regulations 2012, and the plan-making directions of the NPPF (in particular paragraphs 178 – 181), FBC has failed to comply with its statutory obligation - quite apart from a moral one - to cooperate with GBC (by which I mean to engage constructively, actively and on an ongoing basis with GBC) in course of preparing the FDLP. There has been no engagement by FBC with GBC in connection with the build up of this FDLP. Thus, in publishing the FDLP, FBC has had no regard for GBC views, nor any understanding of the impact that the subject proposals would have upon the residents, businesses and economy of Gosport. I suggest that the subject proposals be withdrawn, and that FBC thereafter engages meaningfully with GBC in the aim of achieving, so far as is possible, a resolution of matters concerning HA2 and Daedalus that is acceptable to both Councils prior to FBC placing these for the first phase of public consultation. 2. The HA2 proposal conflicts with policy relative to the Strategic Gap CS22 of the Core Strategy within FBC current Local Plan provides that "land within a Strategic Gap will be treated as countryside. Development proposals will not be permitted either individually or cumulatively where it significantly affects the integrity of the gap and the visual separation of settlements. [My italics.] The construction of even a few houses within the HA2 allocated zone, let alone hundreds, would significantly affect the integrity of the Strategic Gap – indeed, (having item 3 below in mind) would have severe adverse impact on the whole purpose of the Strategic Gap. The justification for maintaining the Strategic Gap (indeed, for the FDLP to seek to enhance it so far as possible) remains as compelling as ever – and more so as the density of development increases over the years. It is notable that: a. The Partnership of Urban South Hampshire [PUSH] Policy 15 not only supports the establishment of the Strategic Gap but encourages strengthening of the Gap, as opposed to the reduction or diminishing of it. b. The current boundary was viewed and supported by a Planning Inspector in 2015. c. The Fareham Landscape Assessment (2017) incorporated a review of the Strategic Gap designation, including the HA2 zone, and stated (inter alia) " this area …. Performs an important role in respect of the primary purposes of the Strategic Gap ….. Even minor encroachment beyond existing settlement boundaries could have an adverse affect on these functions and the overall integrity of the landscape and Strategic Gap. It is recommended that the Gap boundaries remain unchanged." 3. It is wrong to include within the FDLP any change to the existing policy relative to Strategic Gaps which results (intentionally or not) in a lowering of the bar against future development within the Strategic Gap Interestingly - and worryingly - SP6 (at 4.37 on page 27) in the FDLP, concerning development in Strategic Gaps, states that "Development proposals will not be permitted where they cause severe adverse harm to physical and visual separation of settlements, settlement patterns and character of settlements in accordance with the Fareham Borough Landscape Assesment." If approved, SP6 would become capable of interpretation in such a way as to substantially reduce the criteria for allowing future development within the Strategic Gap. The current CS22 (see item 2 above) test applies specifically to "individual or cumulative development …" and bars against such development that " significantly affects the integrity of the gap ", as compared to the FLDP proposed SP6 merely bars development which causes" severe adverse harm ..." – ie no mention in SP6 of the integrity of the gap, and a huge difference between a development that significantly affects, and a development that causes severe adverse harm. Even were SP6 to apply, the imposition of HA2 within the Strategic Gap would represent a clear and unacceptable breach of this SP6. However, the point is that, SP6 should be withdrawn or otherwise redrafted to improve the level of protection of the Strategic Gap from future development, and at a level of protection no weaker than the safeguard that the Strategic Gap has under existing policies – and in alignment also with the policies of GBC. 4. HA2 - Roads and Access - Detriment to Residents and the economy of Gosport The proposed western access point to HA2 is predicated on the installation of a roundabout on the new Newgate Lane roadway that is currently under construction. This new road was never designed for such purpose, nor could carry the additional loading of the car-dependent residents of the HA2 development without significantly increasing congestion on one of the busiest roads in Hampshire, and increasing pollution levels in the northern end of Newgate Lane, already reported as suffering among the highest levels of nitrogen dioxide pollution in Britain. Of the other 2 access points on the east side of HA2, I note the proposal for the North East access point has been withdrawn most recently in circumstances embarrassing for FBC, and which therefore leaves just one remaining access point. The access provisions for HA2 are wholly inadequate, and inappropriate. Even if there were to be further provision made for access into the HA2 area, the scale of the HA2 proposal will (a) have a severe adverse impact for traffic flow and pollution on the new and existing parts of Newgate Lane, with the inevitable adverse knock on effect for the A32, and (b) would obviously result in significantly increased congestion on residential roads on the East side of HA2, all to the detriment of Gosport residents, to the detriment of access to the EZ at Daedalus, and to the detriment of the economy of Gosport at large. 5. HA2 - Infrastructure – the absence of a plan The FDLP is very 'light' (to the point of saying nothing much at all of any substance) as to FBC proposals for infrastructure necessary to support HA2, including for provision or enhancement of facilities to meet resulting community, medical, and education needs, public transport, protection of the environment and preservation of amenities for residents presently in that area. This omission from the FDLP is not surprising in light of FBC failure to engage with GBC in the pre-publication phase. Consultation on this aspect is therefore meaningless exercise until and unless FBC's full proposals are published. 6. Daedalus – the failure to cooperate and consult with GBC The DFLP has not taken into account the potential impact that proposals for the FBC part of the Daedalus site will have upon the part of the whole site that lies within the GBC boundaries, including the highly important Waterfront area. This represents a missed golden opportunity for the FDLP to have addressed the strategic cross-boundary matters concerning, and impacting upon, the Daedalus area as a whole – including the Waterfront. Collaboration by FBC with GBC in the pre-publication phase would surely have provided the obvious and best opportunity for these Councils to align so far as possible the policies of both FBC and GBC so as to maximize the benefits for both Fareham and Gosport to be derived from onward development and enhancement of the EZ and Daedalus area as a whole.
PO13
The new houses will require access and this will put mean more vehicles using the roads that are already congested. As the proposed site is close to the Gosport border, the nearest schools and doctors are in Gosport and that means that there will be overcrowinding in schools and the doctors surgeries will be struggling to keep up with the demand. Yet again Fareham council have put in plans to construct buildings on the Fareham/Gosport border without taking into consideration the effects that it has on our roads,schools and doctors.
PO13
I agree with Fareham Borough council and that of the Government with regards the urgent need to build affordable new housing. Whilst no one would want a housing estate to be built on their backyard, provided it is given appropriate planning consideration we should accept the majority if not all proposals. However, with regards HA2, it does read as if the site promoter has literally found an open space, looked for some type of access and subject to area size plonked various types of housing within it. There appears to have been no consideration for any type of infrastructure other than being totally reliant on its neighbouring council without any consultation and therefore I wish my objections to be considered during the future planning process. The statement with regards 'supporting evidence suggests that this intervention will not materially affect the performance of the new road with regard to its primary function of delivering unimpeded free flowing traffic north/south.' Is totally untrue, the current road is not fit for purpose, the improvements currently under construction will at best provide additional space for more cars to queue. Has the site promoter considered the impact of the build of IFA2 on the road infrastructure as well as the build of the new housing estate? Why has this evidence that the site promoter has, not been published to support its claim? The proposals also includes the requirement for access at the northern and southern end of the new estate. Following the publication that the northern option is no longer available, a replacement access point to the north of the development requires to be identified otherwise HA2 is flawed. The site provider suggests that the southern access would unlikely have any significant impact. Not entirely sure how this statement has been reached. Currently it is a dead end, to open it up would of course have an impact, particularly as there is no northern access. Should residents wish to head towards Gosport Town or the Gosport Ferry for Gunwharf, they would not go via the new Newgate Lane south road, but would utilise the Peel Common / Bridgemary estates, estates which are already blighted by the rat run of cars that use it during peak times. This will of course increase the pollution levels and the safety to those residents in Peel Common and Bridgemary and particularly children at Peel Common Junior and Infant Schools. To limit this, perhaps consideration of the Southern and Northern Access (when identified) points could focus on either access or egress, with careful consideration being given to the new estate roads to ensure another rat run is not created that would allow traffic to avoid using the Peel Common roundabout.
PO13
My Comments, which are to be considered as formal objections are essentially in respect to the proposed development of Housing Site HA2 (SHLAA ref 3133). Areas covered by my objections are applicable to; Infrastructure, Housing and the Environment (including traffic). Objections are as follows: 1. Effect on Traffic in Newgate Lane/A32 The plan provided shows a junction, off a roundabout, on Newgate Lane South to give vehicular access to the housing estate included in HA2. The Junction was not included in the original plans for the realignment of Newgate Lane South the objective of which was to improve Traffic flow and relieve congestion on the A32 within Fareham Borough… Paragraph 7.9 of the 2012 Local Plan Part 2 also stated that "should development of the site come forward without such improvements taking place it is likely to have significant adverse effect on traffic in Fareham including the town centre." Since there are also bus stops shown on the Newgate Lane South realignment you should be aware that these will also impede on traffic flow. In simple terms the money spent by HCC highways will have been wasted as the new alignment will be very little different to the old route other than that of the cars from the proposed new estate will be added to the equation. Back to square one, plus say 500 cars. 2. Effect on Traffic in Bridgemary/Peel Common Estate Gosport. The plan shows, and supportive text states, that Brookers Lane may be used to provide access to the Southern sector of the Development. It also shows a potential penetration of a road through or between houses into Tukes Avenue, Bridgemary, Gosport and The Drive, Peel Common Estate. These proposed or potential penetrations into Gosport Borough will enter Tukes Avenue adjacent to Woodcot Junior School and the Brookers Lane penetration is adjacent to Peel Common Junior School in The Drive. The will also give vehicular access to Gosport Borough Council road network and, I fear, will rapidly be identified as short cuts, by traffic of all descriptions, to avoid the traffic jams at Peel Common Roundabout. These "rat runs" through both the new estate and areas of Bridgemary/Peel Common increase hazards to children of Primary School Age at school openings and closing times and to all pedestrians throughout the day. These "Rat Runs" will have been created by design and presumably with the approval of Fareham Borough Council. The could be a first for any Local Authority. Council sponsored "Rat Runs". 3. The Fareham/Bridgemary Strategic Gap The draft of the FBC plan to 2036 includes comment on the Strategic Gap between Fareham and Bridgemary (SP6 paragraph 4.37), it states 'in order to prevent coalescence of urban areas and to maintain the separate identity of Settlements, Strategic Gaps are identified between the following areas; 1. Fareham/Stubbington and the Western Wards and 2. Fareham/Bridgemary, Stubbington and Lee-on-the-solent. Development proposals will not be permitted where they cause adverse harm to the physical and visual separation of settlements in accordance with Fareham Borough Council Landscape Sensitivity Assessment'. This Landscape Sensitivity Assessment cannot be found in the Draft Local Plan, nor could I locate it by the internet search. Thus I have no idea what criteria have been applied to this "sensitivity" assessment in relation to the reduction of the previous plan's strategic gap and the ridiculous 15 meter proposed. If this assessment exists, can I please have a copy together with the criteria used. It would appear that the intention of Fareham Borough Council is to merge, (coalescence) Fareham with Bridgemary, these are two distinct settlements. They seem to have forgotten the strategic gap in question is called, within their own Core Strategy, the Fareham/Bridgemary strategic gap. Government inspectors who have examined previous local plans produced by Fareham Borough Council have queried "whether or not the core plan policy for the strategic gap was sufficiently robust and have the appropriate criteria been used in the assessment? And were, proposed road schemes taken into account?" The Latest Fareham Borough Council plan has reduced the strategic gap by 15 metres (see annex D) clearly they were not robust enough. Point 47 of the previous plan inspectors reported that "I accept the Council's argument that the broad identification of Strategic Gaps in the Core Strategy can play a useful role in guiding its intended review of settlement boundaries. Furthermore, and with reference to the Governments localisation agenda, it is clear that there is strong support for preventing coalescence between identified settlements". The forecast for Peel Common (Estate) and Woodcot Primary Schools are perhaps misleading since they were based only on the demographic birth rates of these areas. You should note that: Woodcot catchment area includes Woodcot Self-build estate. Peel Common catchment area includes the Peel Common estate. Both these estates were built in the 1970s. Peel common Estate was a leasehold occupation development. These houses were attractive to young families because of the nature of the development and the lower prices. These original owners are now, approaching, pensionable age. Many are downsizing thus making these homes available to a younger generation of families with children of Primary School age. Thus, any predicted excess of places in these schools will be taken up by children of Gosport residents leaving very few, if any, places for the children living on the new estate (Fareham residents). This aspect was not included in HEA's forecasts. These were based only upon children born in previous years. I also note the phrase "The Developer has identified " occurs at least twice. The developer, is of course, interested in maximising his profits. I submit that Fareham Borough Council are happy to jump on the developer's bandwagon since it means that they do not have to provide the schooling aspect of the infrastructure required to support the development. [redacted]
PO13
"Page 3 missed accidently, see below - continuation of comment form [redacted] 4. Cooperation between Boroughs NPP framework documentation clearly defines the need for cooperation between Boroughs over the development of the Local Plans. Having spoken to a number of Gosport Councillors about the current plan proposed, I have been assured that Fareham Borough Council have not acted in any way which could be defined as formal cooperation, thus they have been negligent in their ""duty to cooperate"" as defined by the NPPF documentation. 5. Design Assumptions (Annex D) Design assumptions make no reference whatsoever to the provision of primary schools. It is therefore reasonable to assume that the intention is to utilize primary schools within Gosport/Fareham for the education of primary school age children on the new estate. I suspect that the omission is deliberate in order to lower infrastructure. It would also maximize the number of homes and incidently, profit for the developer. My examination of place at Primary Schools in the area shows; Fareham Crofton School in Stubbington, already oversubscribed (-1% availability) Primary Schools in North Gosport: Woodcot Primary School, situated towards the Northern end of Tukes Avenue in Bridgemary Holbrook Infants School situated in Wych Lane, Bridgemary, Gosport Bedenham Infant School, situated in Tichborne Way Peel Common School (in Gosport Central planning area) situated in The Drive (on the Peel Common Estate, part of Gosport. Confusion should be avoided the existing Peel Common Estate (within Gosports boundary) and Peel Common Settlement (which lies along the existing Newgate Lane south and is part of Fareham). The Local plan 2036 names the areas of Gosport which will be affected as Bridgemary and Woodcot with no mention of the Gosport Peel common estate. Current occupation levels in these schools 2012/16 forecasts updated for 2017 by Hampshire Education Authority (School places framework analysis) showed: a) Peel common estate primary schools (11 schools, 420 places). 420 spaces (equates to 2.64 places per school). By 2021 21% excess (equates to 8.1 places in school. b) North Gosport Primary Schools (3 schools 120 spaces) 12% spare places. Equates to 4 places per school. by 2021 30% excess (equates to 12 place per school). c) All schools are expected to experience an increase in numbers from Gosport over the next 10 years (based upon Gosport demographic data used by HEA) Overall this would give 20 places over 4 schools, 5 per school. Given the make up of the proposed houses I do not think is sufficient. [this comment to be wedged between end of paragraph referring to 'Point 47' and 'The forecast Peel Common estate'...]"
PO13
The fields behind Tukes Avenue & Pettycott Crescent are full of nature and wildlife. There is a problem with parking already on Tukes Avenue and adjacent roads and trying to get out of Bridgemary is already a nightmare. Having the access way behind my house as well, I don't want everyone parking there and using it as a short cut. I REALLY STRONGLY OBJECT.
PO13
The fields behind Tukes Avenue & Pettycott Crescent are full of nature and wildlife. There is a problem with parking already on Tukes Avenue and adjacent roads and trying to get out of Bridgemary is already a nightmare. Having the access way behind my house as well, I don't want everyone parking there and using it as a short cut. I REALLY STRONGLY OBJECT.
PO13
I strongly object to houses being built here on this land. There should be a gap between Gosport and Fareham. These new houses will require access, which I am told will be through Brookers Lane, which is near me. The traffic is already bad round this area and Carisbrooke road will be even worse if this happens. An estate this size of 475 houses, will require doctors, schools, play areas for the children etc. I am sure all of us ratepayers here in Gosport will end up paying for it all, not you lot in Fareham. Apart from all that, I am concerned about the wild life in the fields. We have deer there and they come up near where I live. What's going to happen to them and all the other wildlife in that area. Shame on you Fareham council.
PO13
1. The existing local plan conforms to the requirement of a strategic gap between settlements (Gosport and Fareham). The new draft local plan simply tags the new houses onto Gosport and ignores the policy of a gap between the two towns. 2. The new houses require access and this will be to the detriment of the Gosport residents of Peel Common and Bridgemary. In peak traffic times the rat run of cars will saturate the roads namely Carisbrooke Road and Brookers Lane. This will aggregate further the safety and high pollution levels that already exist. 3. An estate the size of 475 houses will require schools, doctors, play areas and open space. This burden will almost certainly fall on the local existing facilities provided by Gosport. 4. This housing proposal enables Fareham to meet its housing target but loads Gosport with major infrastructure problems. 5. The proposal to build the new houses is a Fareham Borough initiative aimed at achieving their current house building quota. Fareham Borough Council appears to have no consideration for a neighboring local authority. Controversial decisions that affect Gosport residents should include discussions and agreement with Gosport Borough Council.
PO13
1. The existing local plan conforms to the requirement of a strategic gap between settlements (Gosport and Fareham). The new draft local plan simply tags the new houses onto Gosport and ignores the policy of a gap between the two towns. 2. The new houses require access and this will be to the detriment of the Gosport residents of Peel Common and Bridgemary. In peak traffic times the rat run of cars will saturate the roads namely Carisbrooke Road and Brookers Lane. This will aggregate further the safety and high pollution levels that already exist. 3. An estate the size of 475 houses will require schools, doctors, play areas and open space. This burden will almost certainly fall on the local existing facilities provided by Gosport. 4. This housing proposal enables Fareham to meet its housing target but loads Gosport with major infrastructure problems. 5. The proposal to build the new houses is a Fareham Borough initiative aimed at achieving their current house building quota. Fareham Borough Council appears to have no consideration for a neighboring local authority. Controversial decisions that affect Gosport residents should include discussions and agreement with Gosport Borough Council.
PO13
1. The existing local plan conforms to the requirement of a strategic gap between settlements (Gosport and Fareham). The new draft local plan simply tags the new houses onto Gosport and ignores the policy of a gap between the two towns. 2. The new houses require access and this will be to the detriment of the Gosport residents of Peel Common and Bridgemary. In peak traffic times the rat run of cars will saturate the roads namely Carisbrooke Road and Brookers Lane. This will aggregate further the safety and high pollution levels that already exist. 3. An estate the size of 475 houses will require schools, doctors, play areas and open space. This burden will almost certainly fall on the local existing facilities provided by Gosport. 4. This housing proposal enables Fareham to meet its housing target but loads Gosport with major infrastructure problems. 5. The proposal to build the new houses is a Fareham Borough initiative aimed at achieving their current house building quota. Fareham Borough Council appears to have no consideration for a neighboring local authority. Controversial decisions that affect Gosport residents should include discussions and agreement with Gosport Borough Council.
PO13
1. The existing local plan conforms to the requirement of a strategic gap between settlements (Gosport and Fareham). The new draft local plan simply tags the new houses onto Gosport and ignores the policy of a gap between the two towns. 2. The new houses require access and this will be to the detriment of the Gosport residents of Peel Common and Bridgemary. In peak traffic times the rat run of cars will saturate the roads namely Carisbrooke Road and Brookers Lane. This will aggregate further the safety and high pollution levels that already exist. 3. An estate the size of 475 houses will require schools, doctors, play areas and open space. This burden will almost certainly fall on the local existing facilities provided by Gosport. 4. This housing proposal enables Fareham to meet its housing target but loads Gosport with major infrastructure problems. 5. The proposal to build the new houses is a Fareham Borough initiative aimed at achieving their current house building quota. Fareham Borough Council appears to have no consideration for a neighboring local authority. Controversial decisions that affect Gosport residents should include discussions and agreement with Gosport Borough Council.
PO13
Dear Fareham Borough Council , I object to the strategic gap being used for residential developments contrary to current planning policy and now propsed by Fareham Borough Council in their Draft Local Plan , specifically proposal HA2 which would see the development of 475 houses and the demolition of houses in Bridgemary forcing more cars on to an already congested highway. One of the areas worst congested roads - what are you thinking up? Getting to work or just shopping can be a real misery, NO MORE HOUSES PLEASE.
Postcode not provided
Although this land is in the Fareham Borough's area, all facilities that the housing would require are bound to fall within the Gosport areas of Bridgemary and Woodcot, i.e. Schools, doctors, access roads. It appears from the Draft local plan that the road improvements at Newgate Lane South are being put in place partly to aid access to this site, whereas the road improvements have been needed for a number of years to ease existing traffic conditions, and provide quicker access to and from the Gosport peninsula. This new housing estate will make congestion worse than before. If an average of 1.5 cars per house is calculated, this would mean over 700 cars needing parking, access, etc. This is a conservative estimate taking into account that some houses may have more than 2 cars, plus work vans that workers seem to take home now rather than leave at their workplace (including Hampshire County Council). Anyone travelling from Fareham to Gosport will note that traffic build up for the rush hour can start as early as 3pm. In the mornings traffic is queued back along Tukes Avenue to get on to the A32 Gosport Road - this will not be helped by the extra traffic from the new housing. No gap is provided between the Gosport and Fareham areas, which is going against council's own existing policy.
PO13
The proposal to build the new houses by Fareham Borough Council (FBC) must take consideration of those people directly affected by the said proposal, albeit they are not part of the FBC voting population. Planning takes place at local level to ensure that such plans take into account the views and concerns of local residents and tax payers, as clearly stated by national politicians and Government Ministers. Ignoring such local views (cf. the outrageous recent IAF2 decision) damages confidence in local democracy. The local roads adjacent to the proposed new houses are already extremely busy at peak times and during the School run times; in addition The Drive is double parked during the School day, partly due to lack of parking provision for Staff. There is currently regular illegal right-turning at the end of The Drive into Rowner Road, a site of regular accidents before the No Right Turn was introduced. Such issues are well known to Gosport Borough Council and our Councillors, and provides an example of why FBC must take account of the views of adjacent Gosport residents and elected officials. The considerable additional traffic flow from the proposed 475 houses will further saturate the local minor roads due to rat-running, in particular Carisbrook Road and Brookers Lane. Both of which are residential and not suitable for increased traffic column.
PO13
I have serious concerns regarding these proposals in terms of access from the Peel Common Estate. Brookers Lane is already a very busy road, with lots of on road parking making it often dangerous in terms of visibility of traffic. It already gets used often as a cut through with lots of cars regularly seen driving at great speed in close proximity to two local schools. I do not think it is suitable as an access point to this extensive housing development - which will only serve to increase these issues significantly.
PO13
1. The new houses require access and this will be to the detriment of the Gosport residents of Peel Common and Bridgemary. In peak traffic times the rat run of cars will saturate the roads namely Carisbrooke Road and Brookers Lane. This will aggregate further the safety and high pollution levels that already exist. 2. An estate the size of 475 houses will require schools,doctors,play areas and open space. This burden will almost certainly fall on the on the local existing facilities provided by Gosport. 3. This housing proposal enables Fareham to meet its housing target but loads Gosport with major infrastructure problems. 4. The proposal to build the new houses is a Fareham Borough initiative aimed at achieving their current house building quota. Fareham Borough Council appears to have no consideration for a neighboring local authority. Controversial decisions that affect Gosport residents should include discussions and agreement with Gosport Borough Council.
PO13
1. The new houses require access and this will be to the detriment of the Gosport residents of Peel Common and Bridgemary. In peak traffic times the rat run of cars will saturate the roads namely Carisbrooke Road and Brookers Lane. This will aggregate further the safety and high pollution levels that already exist. 2. An estate the size of 475 houses will require schools,doctors,play areas and open space. This burden will almost certainly fall on the on the local existing facilities provided by Gosport. 3. This housing proposal enables Fareham to meet its housing target but loads Gosport with major infrastructure problems. 4. The proposal to build the new houses is a Fareham Borough initiative aimed at achieving their current house building quota. Fareham Borough Council appears to have no consideration for a neighboring local authority. Controversial decisions that affect Gosport residents should include discussions and agreement with Gosport Borough Council.
PO13
Quite apart from the obvious physical infrastructure problems associated with 475 new houses and their residents, what about the effect that an additional 500+ vehicles, will have on the air quality adjacent to local roads? Does Fareham Borough Council have the authority to purposely cause the air quality of Bridgemary and Peel Common to deteriorate? This is highly doubtful and has this factor even been considered within the proposal? Additionally does Fareham Borough Council have the authority to purposely cause an undesirable change in the quality of life, for existing residents of Bridgemary and Peel Common? Fareham Borough Council and perhaps also Gosport Borough Council, really must consider more deeply the concerns of local residents. Does anyone within these councils have the gumption to challenge the supposed "Statutory Requirements" of central government?
PO13
I am writing to you to register my formal opposition to proposal HA2, the proposed development of 475 homes on Gosport's border, adjacent to houses on the western side of Tukes Avenue and Pettycot Crescent. As a Gosport Borough Councillor for the Peel Common Ward I know full well the huge pressures on local infrastructure, including roads, housing, schools, GP surgeries and hospitals. I believe it is vital that we protect the strategic gap between Gosport and Stubbington as a stretch of countryside that keeps communities distinct and prevents urban sprawl, whilst providing valuable green space to the local community. I fully understand that we desperately need new houses, however, I strongly believe that they should first and foremost be built on brownfield land, not green spaces, which are increasingly few and far between locally. Therefore, I strongly urge Fareham Borough Council to maintain this area as a strategic countryside gap, as outlined in the previous Local Plan. Furthermore, developing 475 homes at this site would exacerbate the excessive pressure on our already overburdened roads. The difficulty of getting in and out of the Gosport peninsula is infamous and adding so many more cars to the local roads would be entirely unfair for residents, particularly my residents in Peel Common. This development would negate any infrastructure works that have been planned and will cause the local infrastructure issues to become extremely unmanageable. Fareham were also identified within the government's NO2 plan as an area where nitrogen dioxide levels are projected to exceed national air quality objectives beyond 2021, adding this number of cars to your roads will only worsen these air quality limit breaches. I sincerely hope you take my views into consideration upon deciding whether to keep HA2 in your Local Plan.
PO12
I am strongly opposed to this proposal which threatens the strategic gap between Gosport and Stubbington and will cause further stress on our already over congested roads and local infrastructure. This development will increase the huge pressures on local infrastructure in Gosport, including roads, housing, schools GP surgeries and hospitals.
PO12
"I have several points I wish to be taken in consideration in relation to this plan: - The proposal to demolish homes in Tukes Avenue has been handled very badly (I believe Fareham Council are aware of complaints in this regard). Fareham Council have still not explicitly requested that proposers do NOT consider this option is of ongoing concern to affected residents. - The proposal to create access into Tukes Avenue could lead to severe impact on traffic if a link is created between Tukes Avenue and Newgate Lane, during peak times high volumes of traffic could ""cut through"" the Bridgemary estate to avoid congestion on the A32 / B3334. This would put high volumes of commuter traffic near several busy schools and have a serious impact on road safety. - This proposal would remove the strategic gap between Fareham and Gosport and, in doing so, open up the possibility of other controversial developments in other strategic gap sites. Development in the strategic gap would go against assurances given to local groups by Fareham councillors in the past, and open Fareham Council to pressure from developers to develop other such sites."
PO13
I am totally against this proposal to build houses on this piece of land. The new houses require access and this will be to the detriment of the Gosport residents of Peel Common and Bridgemary. In peak traffic times the rat run of cars will saturate the roads namely Carisbrooke Road and Brookers Lane. This will aggregate further the safety and high pollution levels that already exist. The construction of these houses would negate any benefit derived from the current improvement to the Newgate Lane road. In addition an estate the size of 475 houses will require schools, doctors, play areas and open space. This burden will almost certainly fall on the local existing facilities provided by Gosport.
Postcode not provided
This is yet another example of Fareham Borough Council's lack of consideration for the residents of Gosport. The existing local plan conforms to the requirement of a strategic gap between settlements (Gosport and Fareham). The new draft local plan simply tags the new houses onto Gosport and ignores the policy of a gap between the two towns. I strongly object to this proposal.
PO13
This housing proposal enables Fareham to meet its housing target but loads Gosport with major infrastructure problems. If Fareham Borough Council needs to build these homes then they should be positioned in an area where their existing facilities can provide the services that will be required.
PO13
I am an elderly resident of the Peel Common Estate and I'm extremely concerned about the likely increase of traffic through the estate as people use it as a rat run. As it is I struggle to get a doctors appointment at my local surgery and can only see this getting worse if the new houses are built here.
PO13
It is a very poorly thought out project without consideration to people living in the area concerns. I understand that not even the Gosport council had notice before the plans were drawn up.
PO13
The proposed development will be over-development placing additional traffic and services requirements on an area that already suffers severe congestion. This additional congestion will not be eased by the roadworks currently under construction as that simply 'moves the problem a few hundred yards up the road'. The congestion at the Railway arches at Fareham where the A32 and Peel common traffic meet has become worse and will increase on completion of the present Newstead Lane works. Immprvelemnts to the arches traffic management will be problematic and are unlikely to be achieved in time to assist with any further development south of Fareham. Ongoing and proposed development at the Daedelus site will also generate steadily increasing traffic that the proposed housing will worsen, potentially making business in the area uneconomic and discouraging new business opportunities. The general area south of Fareham is already fully developed and severe traffic and services problems already exist. Any new housing development required should be generally to the north.
PO13
I am writing to register my formal opposition to proposal HA2, the proposed development of 475 homes on Gosport's border, adjacent to houses on the western side of Tukes Avenue and Pettycot Crescent.[redacted], I am fully aware of the extensive pressures on our local infrastructure, including roads, housing, schools GP surgeries and hospitals. This proposal threatens the strategic gap between Gosport and Stubbington and I believe it is vital that we protect this land as a stretch of countryside that keeps communities distinct and prevents urban sprawl, whilst providing valuable green space to the local community. I accept that this country desperately need new houses, however they should first and foremost be built on brownfield land, not green spaces, which are increasingly few and far between in the local area. I strongly urge Fareham Borough Council to maintain this area as a strategic countryside gap, as outlined in the previous Local Plan. Furthermore, developing 475 homes at this site would exacerbate the pressure on our already overburdened roads. The difficulty of getting in and out of the Gosport peninsula is infamous and adding so many more cars to the local roads would be entirely unfair to residents, particularly Gosport residents. This development would negate any infrastructure works that have been planned and will cause the local infrastructure issues to become extremely unmanageable. I sincerely hope you take my views into consideration upon deciding whether to keep HA2 in your Local Plan.
PO12
Insufficient infrastructure to support such a development. With road access changes already in motion along Newgate lane there will become an isolated enclave of residents who, between 7am - 10am will find it almost impossible to travel north and the reverse journey from 4pm - 6pm will be log-jammed. Any new developments of this size need to be aimed north of the M27.
PO13
We wish to object very strongly against the draft local plan which proposes the development of 475 homes between Newgate Lane and Tukes Avenue. We understood when we bought our home that the fields behind us were protected and would not be able to be built on. The recent work to improve the roads to get in and out of Gosport from Fareham will have been a waste of time trying to improve traffic congestion, building 475 homes and most houses will have 2 cars will have a big increase on already congested homes. We object very strongly to access in and out of the proposed site from the Bridgemary/Gosport area. As well as your proposal of the service road next to our home being a cycle/pedestrian access to Newgate Lane as this will cause a lot more noise and disruption to our lives. We fully understand the need for more housing within Hampshire area but the proposed site on Newgate Lane is the wrong choice, due to an already big problem with traffic congestion and the sheer volume of traffic that use theses roads everyday already. We commute out of Bridgemary everyday to Portsmouth, a journey of 13 miles, this already takes nearly an hour on good days, this will increase drastically if these houses are built. Not to mention the extra pollution this will cause to the local area. There are other areas that you could look at or you could do redevelopment of areas that need knocking down and rebuilding.
PO13
I have concerns over the infrastructure in terms of the capability of the current existing and future planned roads and their ability to absorb the additional volumes of traffic which would be created with this development.
PO14
I object to this development as I don't think the local roads can cope with this many houses in one place. I would favour more smaller developments that would spread out the new housing. I understand there is a levy received when a development is bigger but I would rather see our roads not overstretched anymore than they are and our green spaces remain. Newgate Lane South is being constructed because it was thought that less turnings and entrances would make the traffic flow better but now the proposal is to build a housing estate onto it. I feel that Newgate Lane South was only constructed so these houses could be built which feels dishonest now. Newgate Lane is an awful road to have to travel down at the best of times without adding another 800 or so cars to the daily number. I do feel that any development needs to be north of the M27 to minimise traffic disruption. Smaller developments would spread the number along the m27 rather than clogging a few areas.
PO14
Dear Sir/Madam, We would like to know why Fareham Borough Council have the right to even propose to build on ground which is within the Gosport boundary? Our doctors' surgery (Brune Medical Centre) is already crammed as we now have to wait four weeks for an appointment! Also our hospital Queen Alexandra Hospital, is also full to the brim, (an example being just a few weeks ago), on the local news, there were ambulances queued outside with patients waiting inside them, to get into A and E, it was so full, and it is predicted the same thing may happen this Christmas, hopefully not, but it is a concern for us in the Peel Common Estate, as it has been stated in a newsletter we received a few day's ago, that Fareham Borough Council intend Gosport to provide NHS services for the 475 homes which they want to build close by. Not forgetting the schools in Gosport as well. We are against this proposal to build here in Gosport and wish they would build elsewhere basically in their own town of Fareham.
PO13
This development is in an inappropriate location for the following reasons: 1. ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC ON AN ALREADY CONGESTED ROUTE. The argument given by Hampshire County Council for the proposed new route for Newgate Lane South was to reduce the significant traffic congestion on the existing road. However,the site promoter intends to use the new road as the main point of access for this development. The public transport facilities serving Newgate Lane are extremely poor. Furthermore, there is a lack of employment opportunities on the Gosport/Fareham peninsula. This means that the residents of the new estate will predominantly use motor vehicles and therefore add to the severe traffic issues the area has, both in the morning and in the evening. For this reason, any housing development in the proximity of Newgate Lane should be avoided. 2. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT - FLOODING. The arable farmland and horse paddocks located between the existing Newgate Lane and Bridgemary are susceptible to widespread flooding in the winter owing the River Alver bursting its banks and the very high water table. Building such a large development is likely to impact on the existing residents of Newgate Lane/Woodcote Lane and, perhaps, the residents of Bridgemary. Given that climate change is on a trajectory that can no longer be stopped, building where flooding is a known problem is foolhardy. Furthermore, the site promotors claim that the occupants of the new housing can make use of Brookers Field for leisure purposes. This sports field also floods in the winter, despite having had a small fortune spent on it to alleviate the problem. The developers plan to keep the existing drainage ditches bordering the existing fields. Additional drainage ditches would need to be added if this development goes ahead. 3. LACK OF HEALTHCARE FACILITIES/SCHOOL PROVISION/COMMUNITY SPACE. In the proposal there is no provision for a health centre or an additional school. This is going place a substantial burden on existing facilities which is unacceptable. Stubbington Surgery is already in a critical state with patients having to wait weeks for an appointment. The community space provision is inadequate. The developers intend to make use of the already existing facilities of Brookers Field and those in Bridgemary. No doubt the residents of the new development will be getting in their cars, rather than walking, to use these facilities. 4. LOSS OF FARMLAND. This development will change the character of the area as the arable fields are removed. In the larger scheme of things - such as Brexit, climate change, etc., can we really afford to lose more farmland?
PO14
I oppose this development because no provision issuing made for new Drs Surgeries, nearest are overworked. The roads can't cope with extra traffic, it already takes 40 mins to travel from Gosport to Fareham, if access is allowed onto Tukes Avenue it is already backed up with traffic trying to get onto Wych Lane to get to Fareham at peak times.
PO13
I would like to strongly objecttothe part of your draft local plan which proposes to develop upto 475 houses/homes between Newgate Lane and Tukes Avenue in Gosport. I believe this is in violation of existing planning rules due to the propasal to destroy the strategic gap between Fareham and Gosport. The propasal to allow this site will place additional traffic demand and pollution on roads locally . This will also put pedestrians and cyclists /children going to to and back from local schools at even more risk due to the increased traffic generated from this ammount af propertys. If this propasal were to go ahead most of the residents at this development would be car owners who would no doubt be gaining access to this part of Fareham via the Key Street roundabout and Gosport Road. This area is already heavily polluted and I understand that your council are urgently looking at propasals to reduce these pollutants or otherwise may be facing heavy fines . Additional housing in the southern part of Fareham will only increase the pollution and will not help or be of any bebafit to this matter. I see of no propasals within the document for health provisions and with the nearest doctors surgeries at Bridgemary, Stubbington and Lee-On-The-Solent already heavily over subscribed with patients. The Queen Alexandra hospital is already having difficulty in coping with patient demand particularly in it's emergency department and this is without all these new developments , including this propasal for Newgate Lane ,that are being suggested within southern Hampshire. The land proposed for these homes is arable land supporting reptiles ,bats ,deer and overwintering birds and therefore should be retained. This proposed development cannot be allowed in order to ensure taht the Strategic Gap between Fareham and Gosport as well as the biodiversity that it provides are fully maintained.
PO13
The traffic problems in Carisbrook Road and Rowner Road are already a daily nightmare. This proposal would just add to it. These roads cannot take such an increase in the volume of traffic and the problems it will cause will be Gosport's not Fareham's. The land is part of a vital green space between Gosport and Fareham that is being nibbled away and which will soon be a single urban landscape. We have just lost a chunk to the IFA2 and the new stretch of Newgate Lane. Gosport's open space is very limited unlike Fareham's. There are lots of other areas in Fareham where housing would not create such dreadful problems for existing residents.
PO13
the existing local plan conforms to the requirement of a strategic green gap between settlements (Gosport and Fareham). the new draft ignores the policy of a gap between the two towns. saving the strategic green gaps was highlighted by the chancellor in the conservatives latest budget. the proposed almost 500 properties will have a detrimental effect on the whole of Gosport, traffic, facilities, pollution
PO13
[redacted] I wish to record my objections to the proposed development of 475 homes under HA2 in the Draft Fareham Local Plan (DFLP) for the following reasons:- 1. Strategic Gap - The land within the strategic gap performs an important role in defining the settlement character of the area and separating settlements at risk of coalescence. The proposed depletion of the Strategic gap between Gosport and Fareham is in direct contravention of PUSH Policy 15 which states that such gaps should be strengthened, not diminished. The proposed strategic gap review is not consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework. The proposal to move the Strategic Gap is ill-considered as it will have a severe adverse effect on people within the Borough of Gosport. 2. Roads and Highways - The proposed development will at a stroke negate the planned for benefits of the new road improvements on Newgate Lane South, adversely affecting traffic flow and significantly increasing congestion to the detriment of Gosport residents and the local economy especially the access to the EZ at Daedalus. The access to the proposed housing would result in significant increase in traffic on residential roads again severely to the detriment of Gosport residents. 3. Infrastructure - There is negligible information provided regarding the supporting infrastructure necessary for education, medical, public transport and community needs and facilities nor is there any provision to protect the amenities of existing residents in the vicinity all of which are vital matters for detailed consideration before the proposal is allowed to proceed any further. 4. Duty to cooperate - This proposal demonstrates an overwhelming failure by the FBC to take into account the dramatic impact of such on its neighbours, the local people living in the contiguous Borough of Gosport. Thus it is imperative that before the proposal proceeds further the FBC complies with its obligations under the Localism Act 2011 to cooperate with the Gosport Borough Council. Under the Planning Practice Guidance published on 6 March 2014: The duty to cooperate: This places a legal duty on local planning authorities, county councils in England and public bodies to engage constructively, actively and on an ongoing basis to maximise the effectiveness of Local and Marine Plan preparation in the context of strategic cross boundary matters. Is not a duty to agree. But local planning authorities should make every effort to secure the necessary cooperation on strategic cross boundary matters before they submit their Local Plans for examination. Local planning authorities must demonstrate how they have complied with the duty at the independent examination of their Local Plans. If a local planning authority cannot demonstrate that it has complied with the duty then the Local Plan will not be able to proceed further in examination. The duty to cooperate is separate from but related to the Local Plan test of soundness. Whilst the HA2 proposal may help to meet FBC housing needs it ignores and fails dismally and irresponsibly to take into consideration the adverse impact on the citizens of the adjacent Borough of Gosport as it will legally be required to do under its duty to cooperate.
PO13
Houses along Newgate Lane?? Well never saw that coming. When HCC decided to carve up mother nature and put down some marvellous aesthetic concrete in its place, we were assumed that this was to ease congestion on Newgate Lane by moving it 200 yards, and allowing it to congest at more or less the same point: Tesco viaduct R/about. Hurrah! We cried! We thought, rather cynically that FBC (and) HCC were wasting money on a drive to exterminate more trees and rare bats (because we know evil and wasteful to the environment they are) Now this new road is finished, we have since learnt (shock, utter horror) that there are plans for 375 houses to be built around the new road. Wow that planning, build a road to ease congestion then add congestion, smart, clever. Nowhere in the plans did I see a design for cars that turn into planes or a sky road to help all these residents get out. Now we have learnt there are to be "Magic" traffic lights, so traffic can move all the time, presumably through some sort of time displacement device, allowing constant traffic flow by diverting it across the 5th dimension, and exiting in Portsmouth. Why build houses in an area that is prone to congestion? And always will be? Planners and designers [redacted] of a Sugar Puff.
PO14
I do object to Fareham council trying to bully Gosport and their threat to build 475 houses on the gap between our boundaries. If they were going to plant 475 trees on the gap this would help the environment, 475 houses plus a possible 950 vehicles, I put vehicles because if it is anything like Peel Common quite a lot of vehicles will be transit vans.
PO13
Please find enclosed my comments on the Fareham Borough Council Local Plan 2036 consultation in respect of the following policies: Policy HA2 Newgate Lane South (support) Redrow Homes [redacted] support the general principle of the proposed allocation HA2 at Newgate Lane South for residential development of approximately 475 dwellings. The proposed allocation HA4 is held in three separate land ownerships, with the Daniels Family owning land as shown outlined red on the attached plan. Redrow Homes have a contract [redacted] to promote their land at Newgate Lane South with an option agreement in progress. Redrow Homes and [redacted] are committed to working collaboratively with the two other adjoining land interests included within the draft allocation to prepare a detailed Development Framework. The detailed Development Framework will be informed by shared technical consultants and will be used to guide future outline or full planning applications by the individual parties. This follows the approach indicated in the supporting text to HA2 which states; "The allocated land comprises a number of different site promoters, As such the Council has composed a Development Framework (Appendix D) for the site which sets out the rationale and approach for achieving a comprehensive and coordinated development that allows for excellent connectivity throughout the site and to the surrounding area, whilst allowing for development to come forward on a phased basis". The supporting text indicates that subject to preparation of and compliance with the overarching Development Framework the Council will accept separate planning applications allowing for phased delivery of the allocation. Redrow Homes seek clarification that this does in fact refer to separate planning applications being an accepted approach rather than the phased delivery of a single outline consent. As such Redrow supports the approach of working collaboratively to prepare an overarching Development Framework allowing each individual interest to bring forward separate planning applications. The Fareham Local Plan 2036 Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) (October 2017) confirms under site reference 3028 that the site is deliverable and as such represents a sustainable extension to Fareham justifying its allocation as a housing site in the Draft Fareham Local Plan. In accordance with the NPPF and footnote 11 Redrow can confirm the site is a deliverable greenfield site which is available, offers a suitable location for development and is achievable with the ability to deliver housing on the site within the next five years. Policy HA2 (A to J) Newgate Lane South (comment / objection) Whilst Redrow Homes support the principle of the allocation at HA2 we would request the wording of the specific requirements in part A to J of policy HA2 be presented so as not to be unduly restrictive ensuring the evolving scheme can respond to the recommendations of any future technical reports prepared in support of future planning applications. Policy HA2(j) and INF1 (comment / objection) Miller Homes do not object to the provision of the necessary infrastructure but seek clarity in the policy or supporting text that the provision of infrastructure will have regard to the tests as set out in paragraph 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010, specifically that they are: (a) Necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms (b) Directly related to the development (c) Fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development Paul Newman Land & Planning Consultant
DT10
Objection in respect of Fareham Draft Local Plan (FDLP) [redacted] I wish to lodge the following objections and observations in respect of the FDLP, so far as concerns the proposals for (a) HA2 and (b) Daedalus and (c) regarding SP6. The failure by Fareham Planning Authority and/or Fareham Borough Council to cooperate with GBC during the preparatory phase. The process adopted by FBC through the pre-publication phase of this FDLP is fundamentally flawed by the reason of failure of FBC to consult or cooperate with GBC in respect of FBC's proposals for HA2 and Daedalus, and all matters relative to them. In its introduction the FDLP states, at paragraph 1.24 'in preparing the Draft Fareham Local Plan 2036, the Council has complied with the relevant national and legal requirements applicable at this stage in plan preparation.' This statement appears wholly incorrect. The proposals in relation to HA2 and Deadalus clearly have very significant implications for residents, land and business within the GBC boundaries, and for Gosport's economy as a whole. However, not with standing the provisions of the Localism Act 2011 and The Town and Country Planning (Local Plans) (England) Regulations 2012, and the plan-making directions of the NPPF (in particular paragraphs 178-181), FBC has failed to comply with its statutory obligations – quite apart from a moral one – to cooperate with GBC (by which I mean to engage constructively, actively and on an ongoing basis with GBC) in course of preparing the FDLP. There has been no engagement by FBC with GBC in connection with the build up of this FDLP. Thus, in publishing the FDLP, FBC has had no regard for GBC view, nor any understanding of impact that the subject proposals would have upon the residents, businesses and economy of Gosport. I suggest that the subject proposals be withdrawn, and that FBC thereafter engages meaningfully with GBC in the aim of achieving, so far as is possible, a resolution of matters concerning HA2 and Daedalus that is acceptable to both Councils prior to FBC placing these for the first phase of public consultation. The HA2 proposal conflicts with policy relative to the Strategic Gap CS22 of the Core Strategy within FBC current local plan provides that 'land within a Strategic Gap will be treated as countryside. Development proposals will not be permitted either individually or cumulatively where it significantly affects the integrity of the gap and the visual separation of settlements. The construction of even a few houses within the HA2 allocated zone, let alone hundreds, would significantly affect the integrity of the Strategic Gap – indeed, (having item 3 below in mind) would have severe adverse impact on the whole purpose of the Strategic Gap. The justification for maintaining the Strategic Gap (indeed, for the FDLP to seek to enhance it so far as possible) remains as compelling as ever – and more so as the density of development increases over the year. It is notable that: a) The partnership of Urban South Hampshire (PUSH) Policy 15 not only supports the establishment of the Strategic Gap but encourages strengthening of the Gap, as opposed to the reduction or diminishing of it. b) The current boundary was viewed and supported by a Planning Inspector in 2015. c) The Fareham Landscape Assessment (2017) incorporated a review of the Strategic Gap designation, including the HA2 zone, and stated (inter alia) 'this area performs an important role in respect of the primary purposes of the Strategic Gap. Even minor encroachment beyond existing settlement boundaries could have an adverse affect on these functions and the overall integrity of the landscape and Strategic Gap. It is recommended that the Gap boundaries remain unchanged.' Is it wrong to include within the FDLP any change to the existing policy relative to Strategic Gaps which results (intentionally or not) in a lowering of the bar against future development within the Strategic Gap Interesting – and worryingly – SP6 (at 4.37 on page 27) in the FDLP, concerning development in Strategic Gaps, states that 'Development proposals will not be permitted where they cause severe adverse harm to physical and visual separation of settlements, settlement patterns and character of settlements in accordance with the Fareham Borough Landscape Assessment.' If approved, SP^ would become capable of interpretation in such a way as to substantially reduce the criteria for allowing future development within the Strategic Gap. The current CS22 (see item 2 above) test applies specifically to 'individual or cumulative development' and bars against such development that 'significantly affects the integrity of the gap', as compared to the FLDP proposed SP6 merely bars development which causes severe adverse harm – ie no mention in SP6 of the integrity of the gap, and a huge difference between a development that significantly affects, and a development that causes severe adverse harm. Even were SP6 to apply, the imposition of HA2 within the Strategic Gap would represent a clear and unacceptable breach of this SP6. However, the point is that, SP6 should be withdrawn or otherwise redrafted to improve the level of protection of the Strategic Gap from future development, and at a level of protection no weaker than the safeguard that the Strategic Gap has under existing policies – and in alignment also with the policies of GBC. HA2 – Road and Access – Detriment to Residents and the economy of Gosport The proposed western access point to HA2 is predicated on the installation of a roundabout on the new Newgate Lane roadway that is currently under construction. This new road was never designed for such purpose, nor could carry the additional loading of the car-dependent residents of the HA2 development without significantly increasing congestion on one of the busiest roads in Hampshire, and increasing pollution levels in the northern end of Newgate Lane, already reported as suffering among the highest level of nitrogen dioxide pollution in Britain. Of the other 2 access points on the east side of HA", I note the proposal for the North East access point has been withdrawn most recently in circumstances embarrassing for FBC and which therefore leaves just one remaining access point. The access provisions for HA2 are wholly inadequate and inappropriate. Even if there were to be further provision made for access into the HA2 area, the scale of the HA2 proposal will (a) have a severe adverse impact for traffic flow and pollution on the new and existing parts of Newgate Lane, with the inevitable adverse knock on effect for the A32, and (b) would obviously result in significantly increased congestion on residential roads on the East side of HA2, all to the detriment of Gosport residents, to the detriment of access to the EZ at Daedalus, and to the detriment of the economy of Gosport at large. HA2 – Infrastructure – the absence of a plan The FDLP is very 'light' (to the point of saying nothing much at all of any substance) as to FBC proposals for infrastructure necessary to support HA2, including for provision or enhancement of facilities to meet resulting community, medical and education needs, public transport, protection of the environment and preservation of amenities for residents presently in that area. The omission from the FDLP is not surprising in light of FBC failure to engage with GBC in the pre-publication phase. Consultation on this aspect is therefore meaningless exercise until and unless FBC's full proposals are published. Daedalus – the failure to cooperate and consult with GBC The DFLP has not taken into account the potential impact that proposals for the FBC p0art of the Daedalus site will have upon the part of the whole site that lies within GBC boundaries, including the highly important Waterfront area. This represents a missed golden opportunity for the FDLP to have addressed the strategic cross boundary matters concerning, and impacting upon, the Daedalus area as a whole – including the Waterfront. Collaboration by FBC with in the pre-publication phase would surely have provided the obvious and best opportunity for these Councils to align so far as possible the policies of both FBC and GBC so as to maximize the benefits for both Fareham and Gosport to be derived from onward development and enhancement of the EZ and Daedalus area as a whole.
PO13
Sean Woodward assured us, when working at HCC, the Newgate Road South was only to relieve congestion on the old road. A free flowing, no stops, no lights, as he said 'It's desperately needed' Now he has left HCC and now only works for FBC +PUSH, he wants houses. Us residents knew years ago that he had another motive behind the road. He, them, everyone denyed it. I smell a rat! How will housing relieve conjestion with an extra 200 house on Daedalus. Where are all the kids going to go to school? The schools are full! More houses on Newgate Lane will conjest the road more. Sean Woodward was in the News lately. 'Don't put 3500 house in Whitely, our surgery cant cope!' Is that because you live there Sean? What about our surgerys? We've got a 6 week wait for an appointment already. I do not trust Sean Woodward and feel the plans benefit Fareham and only to benefit him + his career. Too may interests in different areas, which is why I understand that he 'resigned' from HCC. When the proposals were going through for Newgate Lane he worked for HCC, FBC Leader + PUSH (is there anymore?) Putting houses in Newgate Lane is a terrible ides. I'm glad to see Gosport are against it.
PO14
I out rightly object to the proposal of building over 400+ additional houses to the site, who in their right mind would consider implementing another road as access onto Tukes Avenue opposite a School. It will become a greater rat run than it is already. With HCC cutting the crossing assistance from Tukes Avenue , it will surely lead to an accident if not the death of a child should any more cars use Tukes Avenue as a cut through. School places are already stretched across the borough ,Crofton school is massively over subscribed - where will families send their children - further a field, increasing traffic in the area. This will increase accidents, wear on the roads. This proposal is a joke, it will not be affordable who these days has £20/£30k saved for a deposit?? It is a disgrace.
PO13
No comments given.
Anonymous submission
There is enough housing already so the building of 475 new homes without the infrastructure in place will make peoples lives intolerable i.e. Increased congestion on the roads, lack of extra Doctors/schools, Green open spaces, increased pollution. No doubt the houses will be built and developers will make a lot of profit. I don't suppose the Leaders of the Council live nearby so what do they care.
PO13
Large Format Response - Ref0036
RG24
The road structure in this area cannot cope with existing amount of traffic, building another 400+ properties will only cause more accidents, congestions, stress to an already over crowded area, we need more open spaces to have recreational areas for children especially to stop them getting into trouble.
PO13
Object to further housebuilding on Peel Common (Newgate Lane South) The road system will not take any more traffic, even with the so called new bypass. Tukes Lane / Wych Lane is already not sufficient to take the amount of traffic in peak times.
PO13
The development will have a serious negative effect on local traffic increasing road usage considerably. Consideration could be given to closing Newgate Lane between Gosport Road and Palmerston Drive to allow only Gosport bound traffic to use Gosport Road from Fareham. No businesses or residences exist on this stretch so no direct access would be effected and access to / from the new development would still be possible via Longmynd Drive or Stubbington and Peel Common roundabout.
PO13
1. 475 houses potentially bring 800 cars to an already congested A32. Roads are not adequate to cope with current volume. 2. Schools in Peel Common are already oversubscribed and are taking pupils from Lee on Solent due to lack of infrastructure. 3. Invasion of the strategic gap! 4. Leader of Fareham council being PUSH head also (conflict of interest) 5. Proposed houses having access into Tukes Avenue and Brookers Lane! Queues form in these roads from 6.30am.
PO13
Most homes have 2 cars. That's 475 houses x2 = 950 cars. All trying to get out onto Tukes Avenue. The traffic on Tukes Ave / Wyche Lane at peaks time ie getting to work / school runs is ridiculous as it is now. Add all those extra cars and it will not move at all. Also you have a school in Tukes Avenue as well to consider the children's safety.
PO13
Tukes Avenue is already a rat run, calming measures in place not working. It will be more dangerous with extra roads in the vicinity
PO13
As one of our accesses is opposite our Junior and Infant Schools, I find it totally unacceptable and this will put more traffic on our roads. This has already had an increase sine Wych Lane Bridge was taken down. Brookers Lane is also a hot-spot for accidents, this will make it more so.
Postcode not provided
Object to further housebuilding on Peel Common Road system unable to cope with more traffic the whole area is gridlocked with traffic already.
PO13
I object to the strategic gap being used for residential developments contrary to current planning policy and now proposed by Fareham Borough Council in their Draft Local Plan, specifically proposal HA2 which would see the development of 475 houses and the demolition of houses in Bridgemary forcing more cars on to an already congested highway.
PO13
I wish to object to plan for 475 houses off Newgate Lane. I object to any new road access to this development from Tukes Avenue via Brookers Lane. My reason for this objection are: extra traffic resulting from any new development here, especially extra traffic through Bridgemary. We already have a parking problem outside our homes in Meadow Walk from Asda employers and customers.
PO13
I object to the strategic gap being used for residential developments contrary to current planning policy and now proposed by Fareham Borough Council in their Draft Local Plan, specifically proposal HA2 which would see the development of 475 houses and the demolition of houses in Bridgemary forcing more cars on to an already congested highway. How can Fareham Borough Council demolish houses in Gosport to creat a road coming out opposite an infant and junior school. This would create the most dangerous situation on an already busy road in Newgate Lane, it is in your Borough! In fact build your homes elsewhere.
PO13
I object to the strategic gap being used for residential developments contrary to current planning policy and now proposed by Fareham Borough Council in their Draft Local Plan, specifically proposal HA2 which would see the development of 475 houses and the demolition of houses in Bridgemary forcing more cars on to an already congested highway.
Postcode not provided
I object to the strategic gap being used for residential developments contrary to current planning policy and now proposed by Fareham Borough Council in their Draft Local Plan, specifically proposal HA2 which would see the development of 475 houses and the demolition of houses in Bridgemary forcing more cars on to an already congested highway.
PO13
I object to the strategic gap being used for residential developments contrary to current planning policy and now proposed by Fareham Borough Council in their Draft Local Plan, specifically proposal HA2 which would see the development of 475 houses and the demolition of houses in Bridgemary forcing more cars on to an already congested highway.
PO13
I object to the strategic gap being used for residential developments contrary to current planning policy and now proposed by Fareham Borough Council in their Draft Local Plan, specifically proposal HA2 which would see the development of 475 houses and the demolition of houses in Bridgemary forcing more cars on to an already congested highway. This area cannot cope with more cars/fumes etc. All this building is making Portsmouth to Southampton one big concrete jungle
PO13
I object to the strategic gap being used for residential developments contrary to current planning policy and now proposed by Fareham Borough Council in their Draft Local Plan, specifically proposal HA2 which would see the development of 475 houses and the demolition of houses in Bridgemary forcing more cars on to an already congested highway. Fields will flood with heavy rainfall.
PO13
I object to the strategic gap being used for residential developments contrary to current planning policy and now proposed by Fareham Borough Council in their Draft Local Plan, specifically proposal HA2 which would see the development of 475 houses and the demolition of houses in Bridgemary forcing more cars on to an already congested highway.
PO13
I object to the strategic gap being used for residential developments contrary to current planning policy and now proposed by Fareham Borough Council in their Draft Local Plan, specifically proposal HA2 which would see the development of 475 houses and the demolition of houses in Bridgemary forcing more cars on to an already congested highway.
PO13
We object to the strategic gap being used for residential developments contrary to current planning policy and now proposed by Fareham Borough Council in their Draft Local Plan, specifically proposal HA2 which would see the development of 475 houses and the demolition of houses in Bridgemary forcing more cars on to an already congested highway.
Postcode not provided
I object to the strategic gap being used for residential developments contrary to current planning policy and now proposed by Fareham Borough Council in their Draft Local Plan, specifically proposal HA2 which would see the development of 475 houses and the demolition of houses in Bridgemary forcing more cars on to an already congested highway.
Postcode not provided
We object to the strategic gap being used for residential developments contrary to current planning policy and now proposed by Fareham Borough Council in their Draft Local Plan, specifically proposal HA2 which would see the development of 475 houses and the demolition of houses in Bridgemary forcing more cars on to an already congested highway. FAREHAM AND GOSPORT IS CHOKED ENOUGH
Postcode not provided
I object to the strategic gap being used for residential developments contrary to current planning policy and now proposed by Fareham Borough Council in their Draft Local Plan, specifically proposal HA2 which would see the development of 475 houses and the demolition of houses in Bridgemary forcing more cars on to an already congested highway. I have been informed that this is signed and going ahead regardless. I hope this is untrue and not a back-handed deal.
Postcode not provided
We object to the strategic gap being used for residential developments contrary to current planning policy and now proposed by Fareham Borough Council in their Draft Local Plan, specifically proposal HA2 which would see the development of 475 houses and the demolition of houses in Bridgemary forcing more cars on to an already congested highway. Utterly stupid when traffic is at a gridlock each day trying to get in and out of Gosport now
PO13
Large Format Response - Ref0043
SO23
I object to the strategic gap being used for residential developments contrary to current planning policy and now proposed by Fareham Borough Council in their Draft Local Plan, specifically proposal HA2 which would see the development of 475 houses and the demolition of houses in Bridgemary forcing more cars on to an already congested highway.
PO13
I object to the strategic gap being used for residential developments contrary to current planning policy and now proposed by Fareham Borough Council in their Draft Local Plan, specifically proposal HA2 which would see the development of 475 houses and the demolition of houses in Bridgemary forcing more cars on to an already congested highway. I suppose the plans look OK to the Councillors that don't have to live with already clogged roads.
PO13
I object to the strategic gap being used for residential developments contrary to current planning policy and now proposed by Fareham Borough Council in their Draft Local Plan, specifically proposal HA2 which would see the development of 475 houses and the demolition of houses in Bridgemary forcing more cars on to an already congested highway. Sort out the roads in Gosport before anymore Housing, also get the infrastructure sorted out too.
PO13
We object to the strategic gap being used for residential developments contrary to current planning policy and now proposed by Fareham Borough Council in their Draft Local Plan, specifically proposal HA2 which would see the development of 475 houses and the demolition of houses in Bridgemary forcing more cars on to an already congested highway.
PO13
I object to the strategic gap being used for residential developments contrary to current planning policy and now proposed by Fareham Borough Council in their Draft Local Plan, specifically proposal HA2 which would see the development of 475 houses and the demolition of houses in Bridgemary forcing more cars on to an already congested highway.
Postcode not provided
I object to the strategic gap being used for residential developments contrary to current planning policy and now proposed by Fareham Borough Council in their Draft Local Plan, specifically proposal HA2 which would see the development of 475 houses and the demolition of houses in Bridgemary forcing more cars on to an already congested highway.
Postcode not provided
I object to the strategic gap being used for residential developments contrary to current planning policy and now proposed by Fareham Borough Council in their Draft Local Plan, specifically proposal HA2 which would see the development of 475 houses and the demolition of houses in Bridgemary forcing more cars on to an already congested highway.
PO13
Large Format Response - Ref0043
SO31
I/We object to the strategic gap being used for residential developments contrary to current planning policy and now proposed by Fareham Borough Council in their Draft Local Plan, specifically proposal HA2 which would see the development of 475 houses and the demolition of houses in Bridgemary forcing more cars on to an already congested highway.
PO13
I/We object to the strategic gap being used for residential developments contrary to current planning policy and now proposed by Fareham Borough Council in their Draft Local Plan, specifically proposal HA2 which would see the development of 475 houses and the demolition of houses in Bridgemary forcing more cars on to an already congested highway.
PO13
I/We object to the strategic gap being used for residential developments contrary to current planning policy and now proposed by Fareham Borough Council in their Draft Local Plan, specifically proposal HA2 which would see the development of 475 houses and the demolition of houses in Bridgemary forcing more cars on to an already congested highway. If this abhorent misuse of yet another green space goes ahead, why is the entry and exit not onto the 40 years late improvement to Newgate Lane or is this Mr Woodward thinking what ever he says goes, yet again.
PO13
I/We object to the strategic gap being used for residential developments contrary to current planning policy and now proposed by Fareham Borough Council in their Draft Local Plan, specifically proposal HA2 which would see the development of 475 houses and the demolition of houses in Bridgemary forcing more cars on to an already congested highway. We strongly object to the plan to have access through Bridgemary. Our roads can't take more traffic.
Postcode not provided
I/We object to the strategic gap being used for residential developments contrary to current planning policy and now proposed by Fareham Borough Council in their Draft Local Plan, specifically proposal HA2 which would see the development of 475 houses and the demolition of houses in Bridgemary forcing more cars on to an already congested highway.
Postcode not provided
I/We object to the strategic gap being used for residential developments contrary to current planning policy and now proposed by Fareham Borough Council in their Draft Local Plan, specifically proposal HA2 which would see the development of 475 houses and the demolition of houses in Bridgemary forcing more cars on to an already congested highway.
PO13
I/We object to the strategic gap being used for residential developments contrary to current planning policy and now proposed by Fareham Borough Council in their Draft Local Plan, specifically proposal HA2 which would see the development of 475 houses and the demolition of houses in Bridgemary forcing more cars on to an already congested highway.
Postcode not provided
I/We object to the strategic gap being used for residential developments contrary to current planning policy and now proposed by Fareham Borough Council in their Draft Local Plan, specifically proposal HA2 which would see the development of 475 houses and the demolition of houses in Bridgemary forcing more cars on to an already congested highway.
PO13
I/We object to the strategic gap being used for residential developments contrary to current planning policy and now proposed by Fareham Borough Council in their Draft Local Plan, specifically proposal HA2 which would see the development of 475 houses and the demolition of houses in Bridgemary forcing more cars on to an already congested highway. If this area has to be developed it should provide jobs.
PO13
I/We object to the strategic gap being used for residential developments contrary to current planning policy and now proposed by Fareham Borough Council in their Draft Local Plan, specifically proposal HA2 which would see the development of 475 houses and the demolition of houses in Bridgemary forcing more cars on to an already congested highway.
PO13
I/We object to the strategic gap being used for residential developments contrary to current planning policy and now proposed by Fareham Borough Council in their Draft Local Plan, specifically proposal HA2 which would see the development of 475 houses and the demolition of houses in Bridgemary forcing more cars on to an already congested highway.
Postcode not provided
I object to the strategic gap being used for residential developments contrary to current planning policy and now proposed by Fareham Borough Council in their Draft Local Plan, specifically proposed HA2 which would see the development of 475 houses and the demolition of houses in Bridgemary forcing more cars on to an already congested highway. Any other comments: This area already congested and polluted. Your job in the Fareham Council is to plan for ease and relative. This problem, not to increase it. Do the right thing and drop the plan.
PO13
We object to the strategic gap being used for residential developments contrary to current planning policy and now proposed by Fareham Borough Council in their Draft Local Plan, specifically proposed HA2 which would see the development of 475 houses and the demolition of houses in Bridgemary forcing more cars on to an already congested highway. Any other comments: To get out of Bridgemary now is a nightmare. What will it be like when all these houses are built and more congestion on them.. Schools, doctors and jobs are more important. Think of the bigger picture, it will be awful-DONT DO BUILDING ON OUR BOUNDARIES.
PO13
We object to the strategic gap being used for residential developments contrary to current planning policy and now proposed by Fareham Borough Council in their Draft Local Plan, specifically proposed HA2 which would see the development of 475 houses and the demolition of houses in Bridgemary forcing more cars on to an already congested highway. Any other comments: To get out of Bridgemary now is a nightmare. What will it be like when all these houses are built and more congestion on them.. Schools, doctors and jobs are more important. Think of the bigger picture, it will be awful-DONT DO BUILDING ON OUR BOUNDARIES.
PO13
We object to the strategic gap being used for residential developments contrary to current planning policy and now proposed by Fareham Borough Council in their Draft Local Plan, specifically proposed HA2 which would see the development of 475 houses and the demolition of houses in Bridgemary forcing more cars on to an already congested highway.
PO13
I object to the strategic gap being used for residential developments contrary to current planning policy and now proposed by Fareham Borough Council in their Draft Local Plan, specifically proposed HA2 which would see the development of 475 houses and the demolition of houses in Bridgemary forcing more cars on to an already congested highway. Any other comments: Gosport is already the most over populated places in the country. The traffic jams getting in and out on the A32 in the mornings and evenings is already a nightmare. Fareham Council should use up their own open spaces, Gosport has none left. Shame on you Fareham Council
Postcode not provided
I object to the strategic gap being used for residential developments contrary to current planning policy and now proposed by Fareham Borough Council in their Draft Local Plan, specifically proposed HA2 which would see the development of 475 houses and the demolition of houses in Bridgemary forcing more cars on to an already congested highway.
PO13
I object to the strategic gap being used for residential developments contrary to current planning policy and now proposed by Fareham Borough Council in their Draft Local Plan, specifically proposed HA2 which would see the development of 475 houses and the demolition of houses in Bridgemary forcing more cars on to an already congested highway.
PO13
Southern Water is the statutory wastewater undertaker in Peel Common. Housing Allocation HA2 allocates 475 dwellings at Newgate Lane South. 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. Our assessment also reveals that there is existing underground wastewater infrastructure that needs to be taken into account when designing the proposed development. An easement would be required, which may affect the site layout or require diversion. This easement should be clear of all proposed buildings and substantial tree planting. Furthermore, the site is within 400m of Peel Common Wastewater Treatment Works (WTW). Southern Water's concern is that the proximity of any 'sensitive' development to the WTW, such as housing, could have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of the site's future occupants arising from the WTW's essential operational activities. Such impacts may include odour from wastewater processing. It is therefore important that the layout of any development scheme at this site should be informed by an odour assessment, to ensure there is adequate separation from the WTW. Accordingly we propose that the following criteria are added to policy HA2 (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: [...] j) Provide a connection at the nearest point of adequate capacity in the sewerage network, in collaboration with the service provider. k) Provide future access to the existing underground wastewater infrastructure for maintenance and upsizing purposes. l) There must be adequate separation between Peel Common Wastewater Treatment Works and the development to allow odour dispersion on the basis of an odour assessment to be undertaken in consultation with Southern Water.
BN2
I wish to object strongly to the draft local plan proposed to develop 475 new homes at this site:- This is violation to existing planning rules of elimating the strategic gap between Fareham & Gosport. Any entrance to Tukes Av will lead to increase traffic and having Woodcots school and key education centre will be affected with dangers of traffic and pollution to children. The average time to get out of Tukes Ave during peak hours are 20min and this development will lead to having at least that time incoming to twice as much if not more . The area proposed for building support a wide range of animals and birds and destroying this habitat would be just terrible.
PO13
I object to the strategic gap being used for residential developments contrary to current planning policy and now proposed by Fareham Borough Council in their Draft Local Plan, specifically proposal HA2 which would see the development of 475 houses and the demolition of houses in Bridgemary forcing more cars on to an already congested highway. People have had enough time trying to drive to work outside Gosport Borough, eg. MOD & Civil Service workers among others. Fareham Borough Council can shelve its plans & leave our roads & green space alone. Typical beauroracy at the highest show case level. But out of Gosport.
PO13
I object to the strategic gap being used for residential developments contrary to current planning policy and now proposed by Fareham Borough Council in their Draft Local Plan, specifically proposal HA2 which would see the development of 475 houses and the demolition of houses in Bridgemary forcing more cars on to an already congested highway.
Postcode not provided
I object to the strategic gap being used for residential developments contrary to current planning policy and now proposed by Fareham Borough Council in their Draft Local Plan, specifically proposal HA2 which would see the development of 475 houses and the demolition of houses in Bridgemary forcing more cars on to an already congested highway.
Postcode not provided
We object to the strategic gap being used for residential developments contrary to current planning policy and now proposed by Fareham Borough Council in their Draft Local Plan, specifically proposal HA2 which would see the development of 475 houses and the demolition of houses in Bridgemary forcing more cars on to an already congested highway.
PO13
I object to the strategic gap being used for residential developments contrary to current planning policy and now proposed by Fareham Borough Council in their Draft Local Plan, specifically proposal HA2 which would see the development of 475 houses and the demolition of houses in Bridgemary forcing more cars on to an already congested highway.
PO13
We object to the strategic gap being used for residential developments contrary to current planning policy and now proposed by Fareham Borough Council in their Draft Local Plan, specifically proposal HA2 which would see the development of 475 houses and the demolition of houses in Bridgemary forcing more cars on to an already congested highway. We cant park near our house at the moment, do we really need another 1000 cars locally? I can commute from Petersfield to Fareham in 25 minutes, it takes 45 minutes from Fareham to Gosport.
PO13
I object to the strategic gap being used for residential developments contrary to current planning policy and now proposed by Fareham Borough Council in their Draft Local Plan, specifically proposal HA2 which would see the development of 475 houses and the demolition of houses in Bridgemary forcing more cars on to an already congested highway.
Postcode not provided
I object to the strategic gap being used for residential developments contrary to current planning policy and now proposed by Fareham Borough Council in their Draft Local Plan, specifically proposal HA2 which would see the development of 475 houses and the demolition of houses in Bridgemary forcing more cars on to an already congested highway. Putting more traffic into Gosport roads (already overcrowded) is not acceptable to sort out Farehams housing.
Postcode not provided
We object to the strategic gap being used for residential developments contrary to current planning policy and now proposed by Fareham Borough Council in their Draft Local Plan, specifically proposal HA2 which would see the development of 475 houses and the demolition of houses in Bridgemary forcing more cars on to an already congested highway.
PO13
We object to the strategic gap being used for residential developments contrary to current planning policy and now proposed by Fareham Borough Council in their Draft Local Plan, specifically proposal HA2 which would see the development of 475 houses and the demolition of houses in Bridgemary forcing more cars on to an already congested highway.
PO13
I object to the strategic gap being used for residential developments contrary to current planning policy and now proposed by Fareham Borough Council in their Draft Local Plan, specifically proposal HA2 which would see the development of 475 houses and the demolition of houses in Bridgemary forcing more cars on to an already congested highway.
PO13
I object to the strategic gap being used for residential developments contrary to current planning policy and now proposed by Fareham Borough Council in their Draft Local Plan, specifically proposal HA2 which would see the development of 475 houses and the demolition of houses in Bridgemary forcing more cars on to an already congested highway.
Postcode not provided
We object to the strategic gap being used for residential developments contrary to current planning policy and now proposed by Fareham Borough Council in their Draft Local Plan, specifically proposal HA2 which would see the development of 475 houses and the demolition of houses in Bridgemary forcing more cars on to an already congested highway. If this goes ahead - how many mature trees & hedgerows will be destroyed?
PO13
I am objecting to the proposal to build 475 homes along Newgate lane east. This will see a minimum of 800 vehicles to a road already destined to be gridlocked as soon as it opened. The infrastructure is not in place to cope with so many extra families and schools cannot cope with increasing numbers.
PO14
"We object to the strategic gap being used for residential developments contrary to current planning policy and now proposed by Fareham Borough Council in their Draft Local Plan, specifically proposal HA2 which would see the development of 475 houses and the demolition of houses in Bridgemary forcing more cars on to an already congested highway. Yet another like ""Alver Village"" rabbit hutches for houses and very little parking, absolute chaos breeds the criminal world! Affordable housing my foot! The only winners are council and the developers who should be shot!"
Postcode not provided
We object to the strategic gap being used for residential developments contrary to current planning policy and now proposed by Fareham Borough Council in their Draft Local Plan, specifically proposal HA2 which would see the development of 475 houses and the demolition of houses in Bridgemary forcing more cars on to an already congested highway.
PO13
I object to the strategic gap being used for residential developments contrary to current planning policy and now proposed by Fareham Borough Council in their Draft Local Plan, specifically proposal HA2 which would see the development of 475 houses and the demolition of houses in Bridgemary forcing more cars on to an already congested highway.
PO13
We object to the strategic gap being used for residential developments contrary to current planning policy and now proposed by Fareham Borough Council in their Draft Local Plan, specifically proposal HA2 which would see the development of 475 houses and the demolition of houses in Bridgemary forcing more cars on to an already congested highway.
PO13
I object to the strategic gap being used for residential developments contrary to current planning policy and now proposed by Fareham Borough Council in their Draft Local Plan, specifically proposal HA2 which would see the development of 475 houses and the demolition of houses in Bridgemary forcing more cars on to an already congested highway. Our roads are congested enough, without more houses, being built. Build houses in Fareham , not in Gosport. Thank you
PO13
I object to the strategic gap being used for residential developments contrary to current planning policy and now proposed by Fareham Borough Council in their Draft Local Plan, specifically proposal HA2 which would see the development of 475 houses and the demolition of houses in Bridgemary forcing more cars on to an already congested highway. The new road leading into Brookers Lane would converge on an already dangerous junction into Tukes Ave, and the other two new roads are opposite to two schools. My fear is that one of the roads would be the site entrance.
Postcode not provided
We object to the strategic gap being used for residential developments contrary to current planning policy and now proposed by Fareham Borough Council in their Draft Local Plan, specifically proposal HA2 which would see the development of 475 houses and the demolition of houses in Bridgemary forcing more cars on to an already congested highway.
PO13
We object to the strategic gap being used for residential developments contrary to current planning policy and now proposed by Fareham Borough Council in their Draft Local Plan, specifically proposal HA2 which would see the development of 475 houses and the demolition of houses in Bridgemary forcing more cars on to an already congested highway.
PO13
We object to the strategic gap being used for residential developments contrary to current planning policy and now proposed by Fareham Borough Council in their Draft Local Plan, specifically proposal HA2 which would see the development of 475 houses and the demolition of houses in Bridgemary forcing more cars on to an already congested highway.
PO13
We object to the strategic gap being used for residential developments contrary to current planning policy and now proposed by Fareham Borough Council in their Draft Local Plan, specifically proposal HA2 which would see the development of 475 houses and the demolition of houses in Bridgemary forcing more cars on to an already congested highway.
Postcode not provided
We object to the strategic gap being used for residential developments contrary to current planning policy and now proposed by Fareham Borough Council in their Draft Local Plan, specifically proposal HA2 which would see the development of 475 houses and the demolition of houses in Bridgemary forcing more cars on to an already congested highway.
PO13
We object to the strategic gap being used for residential developments contrary to current planning policy and now proposed by Fareham Borough Council in their Draft Local Plan, specifically proposal HA2 which would see the development of 475 houses and the demolition of houses in Bridgemary forcing more cars on to an already congested highway. We object to having another 475 houses built in an already congested Gosport, plus having to demolish houses Tukes Ave to achieve this . Its already a nightmare on our roads in Gosport without having hundreds of extra cars to add to the chaos.
PO13
We object to the strategic gap being used for residential developments contrary to current planning policy and now proposed by Fareham Borough Council in their Draft Local Plan, specifically proposal HA2 which would see the development of 475 houses and the demolition of houses in Bridgemary forcing more cars on to an already congested highway.
PO13
I object to the strategic gap being used for residential developments contrary to current planning policy and now proposed by Fareham Borough Council in their Draft Local Plan, specifically proposal HA2 which would see the development of 475 houses and the demolition of houses in Bridgemary forcing more cars on to an already congested highway.
PO13
We object to the strategic gap being used for residential developments contrary to current planning policy and now proposed by Fareham Borough Council in their Draft Local Plan, specifically proposal HA2 which would see the development of 475 houses and the demolition of houses in Bridgemary forcing more cars on to an already congested highway.
PO13
I object to the strategic gap being used for residential developments contrary to current planning policy and now proposed by Fareham Borough Council in their Draft Local Plan, specifically proposal HA2 which would see the development of 475 houses and the demolition of houses in Bridgemary forcing more cars on to an already congested highway.
PO13
We object to the strategic gap being used for residential developments contrary to current planning policy and now proposed by Fareham Borough Council in their Draft Local Plan, specifically proposal HA2 which would see the development of 475 houses and the demolition of houses in Bridgemary forcing more cars on to an already congested highway. This plan is ridiculous. We have enough difficulty in getting off the estate now. This will exacerbate the situation.
Postcode not provided
"I object to the strategic gap being used for residential developments contrary to current planning policy and now proposed by Fareham Borough Council in their Draft Local Plan, specifically proposal HA2 which would see the development of 475 houses and the demolition of houses in Bridgemary forcing more cars on to an already congested highway. Before any more housing is passed for build on the peninsula the transport infrastructure needs to be completed. But yet again we are going to be blighted by another 500-1000 vehicles on our already overcrowded road system. That area "" The Strategic Gap"" should be turned into a semi wild grounds for all to enjoy. Not for Mr Woodwards personal gratification. And [redacted]"
PO13
We object to the strategic gap being used for residential developments contrary to current planning policy and now proposed by Fareham Borough Council in their Draft Local Plan, specifically proposal HA2 which would see the development of 475 houses and the demolition of houses in Bridgemary forcing more cars on to an already congested highway.
Anonymous submission
We object to the strategic gap being used for residential developments contrary to current planning policy and now proposed by Fareham Borough Council in their Draft Local Plan, specifically proposal HA2 which would see the development of 475 houses and the demolition of houses in Bridgemary forcing more cars on to an already congested highway.
PO13
I object to the strategic gap being used for residential developments contrary to current planning policy and now proposed by Fareham Borough Council in their Draft Local Plan, specifically proposal HA2 which would see the development of 475 houses and the demolition of houses in Bridgemary forcing more cars on to an already congested highway. UTTER [redacted] MADNESS!
PO13
We object to the strategic gap being used for residential developments contrary to current planning policy and now proposed by Fareham Borough Council in their Draft Local Plan, specifically proposal HA2 which would see the development of 475 houses and the demolition of houses in Bridgemary forcing more cars on to an already congested highway. Just recently I read and saw on local TV about the authorities being concerned about the pollution of vehicles in the Portsmouth, Southampton, Gosport and Fareham areas. Surely with the proposal of building thousands of houses in these areas this would mean more vehicles on the roads resulting in even more pollution. Once again we can see large companies and developers cashing in. (that's no surprise) The roads are at breaking point now.
PO13
I strongly object to Fareham's proposal to build 475 houses on the border between Newgate Lane and Gosport. The plan ignores the policy of a gap between the two towns. The new houses will require access and will be to the detriment of Gosport residents of Peel Common and Bridgemary and in peak times will cause a rat run of cars and saturate the roads of Carisbrooke road and brokers lane. This will aggregate further to the safety and high pollution levels that already exist on estate the siege of 475 houses will require schools, doctors, play areas. This burden will certainly fall on the local facilities provided by Gosport, there just isn't enough doctors or schools to cope with this high demand. I suggest you build your houses elsewhere in Fareham and so provide the necessary facilities yourselves!
PO13
Has an impact assessment been carried out on critical supporting services for a marked population increase in this specific area? Most notably the availability of nearby clinics, hospitals, policing and fire services? It would seem that the nearest clinic for example is Bridgemary, which would be unable to cope with a sudden influx of new patients. What is the plan to deal with this?
PO13
The new houses require access and this will be the detriment of the Gosport residents. In peak traffic times the rat run of cars will saturate the roads namely Carisbrooke Road and Brookers Lane. This will aggregate further the safety and high pollution levels that already exist.
PO13
as a resident of Gosport who lives in the Peel Common area, I would definitely strongly like to oppose the building proposal of 475 houses which are planned. The way in and out of Gosport already has major traffic problems which would be greatly increased with all this building which is planned. You as a Council have not given any consideration of the effect of the extra traffic will cause with everyone who lives in this area. Brookers is a particularly narrow road with houses each side just about room for two cars to pass each other. So if anyone parks their cars outside their own house there would be an immediate traffic problem. I would also like to add that an estate of this number of houses needs to have its own Doctors Surgery an a school which can accommodate all the families who live there. I realize that these services are stretched everywhere, but it hardly seems fair that Fareham Borough Council will be collecting the rates from all the people who will be living there, and take the responsibility for providing these services and not let all this fall on Gosport.
PO13
I am writing to express my objections to the Fareham borough Council proposal to build 475 homes in Bridgemary, Fareham boundaries. I work in the mental health sector [redacted]. 1000 approx. people are are adding to our almost bursting case-load we do not have the staff or the funding for this extra amount of adults. Not to mention the impact on other services, schools, GP's, Dentists and the impact on the already packed roads. Not to mention the environmental impact on the surrounding area. You have already messed up our neighbourhood and environment with your new road. Enough is enough.
PO13
Enough is enough. There is already far too much traffic in Newgate Lane, and for those of us who live in Peel Common fine it difficult to reach the Portchester road and motor way, it can take anything up to an hour sometimes to travel 5 miles. This proposal will not effect Fareham, but will cause even more hold ups in Gosport. For those of us living closest to Newgate Lane the strategic gap is a necessity, not a luxury. Gosport is already one of the most congested towns in Britain this will only make matters worse. Fareham has already landed us with plans for monster eye sore in the shape interconnector project on the edge Fareham and Gosport boundary which no one in Gosport of the wants which will affect us far more that it will in Fareham.
PO13
The existing local plan conforms to the requirement of a strategic gap between Gosport and Fareham. The new draft local plan simply tags the new houses onto Gosport and ignores the policy of a gap between the two towns. Also it will cause major infrastructure problems for Gosport residents, who I realize are very low down on your consideration of trying to meet your housing target. There are many open areas in Fareham, build on one of these.
PO13
Yes, people do need houses to live in, of course but four hundred and seventy-five will require lots and lots of support. Schools, medical and dental facilities as well as access roads. So called "Muddy Lane" – The continuation of Brookers Lane running west. Just what do the planning and strategy officers of Fareham Borough Council think they are up to? I strongly recommend that Fareham Council think again.
PO13
I feel I am wasting my time and yours in writing this as Fareham Borough Council have shown themselves to ignore not only the opinions of over one thousand people against those of a small planning committee, but also their own local plan (ref, IFA2) on several occasions. However, I can but try to make FBC see sense about the proposed plan to build 475 houses bordering Bridgemary and Peel Common. The traffic in this area is already too much so adding several hundred new home owners' vehicles and resulting delivery and maintenance vans is an appalling decision. Will this development include truly affordable, decent designed housing, or will it be solely for higher income people? Will extra medical facilities, school etc be put in place as the outset? More building could lead to flooding – will drainage be properly considered? I ask these questions because I have little faith that any protest will be acknowledged by FBC planners. At the very least, reduce the number of dwellings!
PO13
Extra impact on A32 with no prospect of road improvements into Gosport
PO13
This is a ridiculous proposal given the amount of traffic and congestion already in the local area, our roads are already chock a block at peak times, and even now without this new housing proposal we find it hard to navigate a parking space in our own street. Also an increase in the danger to local children from Woodcot School.
PO13
[redacted]. If the building of 475 houses goes ahead, I have serious concerns about the increase in traffic, plus the impact on the local schools and medical facilities (which already appear to be stretched).
PO13
As a local resident I have serious concerns on the impact this development would have on traffic, medical facilities, local schools and general environment,. I cannot see how this already busy and stretched area can accommodate 475 new houses . I strongly oppose this development.
PO13
you cannot simply build 475 homes without the proper infrastructure in place to accommodate them. The very thought of allowing vehicular access via Tukes Ave is only going to compound an already horrendoue traffic issue. If you want to build proper access away from an area already struggling with parking and traffic issues. NO TO ACCESS VIA BRIDGEMARY AND THE CREATION OF A RAT RUN!.
PO13
Adding another 475 houses to a road that is already heavily congested is a ridiculous idea. The proposed exit road into Bridgemary will only add to local congestion and more traffic to roads that are already a rat run for people trying to miss the A32 and Newgate Lane issues. I strongly object to this project and urge the local authorities to move large projects like this one closer to motorways easing local traffic problems
PO13
This estate should not be built one the strategic gap between Fareham and Gosport. There should be no road access through to Bridgemary. Tukes Ave & Wych have heavily congested due to access to the A32 as it is. As these are no Doctors, dentist and schools in this part of Fareham it will mean that the residents if this development will have to loose the over stretched Birdgemary and rowner ammonites.
PO13
The roads in and out of Gosport and Fareham are already insufficient for the number of people living and working in the area. Add to that the disting lack of undeveloped land between Gosport and Fareham this development can only lead to more commuter problems, worse weekend traffic and more air pollution. Gosport needs regeneration; not to be abused by its only neighbour.
PO13
The Estate will encroach on the strategic gap between Fareham & Gosport. There should be no access for traffic into Bridgemary roads these are already heavily congested at peak times, due to the diffieulty of gaining access to the main A32 at its junction will Wych Lane , extra traffic from the development will make the situation much worse. There are 3 primary schools in this area, extra traffic will make it more dangerous for young children attending these schools. As Fareham have no doctor or dental practice pr primary schools in the area, the residents from development will have to use the already overstretched ameties of bridgemary & Rowners to the detriment of local Gosport residents.
PO13
TRaffic getting into and out of Gosport is cidiclaus we do not need more housing
PO13
The road structure on this peninsula is already at gridlock at peak times. I personally tried to leave the area when an incident happened. I was stuck in my car for 2 hours unable to leave on the Gosport Road, Newgate lane or Stubbington. Also, there is great difficulty to get a doctor or any other service. Please don't let more houses be built.
PO13
More green belt disappearing No infrastructure in place to support 475 families How many more cars will those houses produce on to already extremely closed road networks. An access road in Tukes Avenue opposite a junior and infant school – an accident waiting to happen.
PO13
Why build more housing between two roads that are already heavily congested? More strain will be put on existing services such as doctors and schools.
PO13
Traffic congestion is already appalling between the roads involved and would have a negative effect on the area
PO13
I have been a resident in this area for over 54yrs, and in that time I have seen huge increase in traffic in my area (Bridgemary) with that goes more parking in the roads and sidestreets, causing more congestion and danger to the public, walking and cycling, particular to small children , this development would just increase the congestion and parking and damaged to us all locally, I strongly object to this proposal, we must keep a green area in between Newgate Lane and Tukes Ave.
PO13
Local services already overloaded, traffic always a problem on the roads involved.
PO13
The Roads are already heavey congested and this will only compound the problem. Proposed access roads from Tukes Ave and Brooke Lane , Gosport -again heavily congested roads from 06.30, 7 days a week!!!!
PO13
This development is right on Gosport border. It will not affect anybody living in Fareham, only Gosport. I have lived in Gosport all my life and feel that over the yrs we are becoming one massive housing Estate. The A32 cannot cope as it is , there is no employment left in Gosport and we all have to travel out for work. We do not need an extra 475 plus cars joining us.
PO13
Do not think of building any houses in this area of Fareham/ Gosport gap until you have sorted out the horrendous road system!!! Also, how are a council of one town think of pulling town houses in another town to build on an access road??? Build a bridge over Fareham Creek ASAP and you will be halfway to solving your problem!!!
PO13
I object to the building of 475 house as it would increase the traffic and number of parked cars in an area which is already heavily congested and the new provided road is oppersite the school. Futhermore the size of such a build would impact adversely on the local Health service which is already under immerse strain. Finally the new housing Estate would {not Known}been belt which {not known} Gosport & Fareham.
PO13
This Project will. Increase traffic congestion on Newgate Lane , Tukes Ave,Brookes Lane , pellycot crescent. Cause parking problem on the above roads. Cause overcrowding/lack od spaces at local junior and secondary schools. Close the Strategic gap between Fareham and Gosport. Cause problems (considerable) for local medical centres. These are over subscribed already.
PO13
we don't need anymore houses in Bridgemary. The Roads are gridlocked mornings and evenings already.
PO13
I am led to believe that houses are to be demolished in Tukes Ave to facilitate access to the nre housing development proposed in Newgate Lane. Not only is this unaceceptable in the fact these are people who are Gosport residents but Wych Lane -Tukes Ave and the surrounding area are gridlocked with traffic already.
PO13
Strongly object to the use of Bridgemary roads to access Fareham housing-access should be via the new road being built
PO13
The proposed Eastern Access to this site leads into residential road that are already subjected to traffic standing in queues throughout the rush hour period through the working week. To channel more traffic into this congested area goes against common sense, and will add to pollution for the years and years. I am surprised that in these days of awareness of global warming, this proposal is even being considered.
PO13
First: this is arable land you intend building on. When you've already taken another field as a solar farm. Second: The intention of building an access road across the Bridgemary, Gosport border. This will equate to 700 – 1000 extra vehicles onto Bridgemary Roads, which are already gridlock, leading onto the gridlocked A32. In the rush hours, it's not unusual to have a 200-400-yard queue in Tukes Avenue and Wych lane fighting to get onto the A32. The same goes for the other end at the Carisbrooke traffic lights. Keep Fareham traffic on Fareham land.
PO13
What My Woodward my think he is doing Gosprt a favour by proposing to build 475 houses on our door step, In a strategic land gap ( which if anything should remain a natural area for all to enjoy). He and his counter parts would be putting a conservation estimate of 500/800more vehicles onto an already over waded road system. Even with the update of newgate lane and planned stubbington bypass the road system south of the M27 is at least 40yrs old behind todays requirement . No more houses until the infrastructure has been sorted out !!!!
PO13
I strongly object to housing being built on the above site. It is totally unacceptable to build within the strategic gap. We live on a relatively small peninsular, therefore 'Green' areas need to be preserved. Plus, access to the proposed development via Tukes Avenue is ludicrous. There are daily problems and hold ups on both Tukes Avenue and Wych Lane at peak times RE. access/entry to the A32 (reported daily via radio). Increased traffic would be inevitable. A disaster!
PO13
I object to the building of 475 houses are planned to be built off Nregate Lane. Traffic would increase around Bridgemary , Parking is already a problem in the area and a new Estate would increase this problem even more. Vehicles are left parked during the day by people walking to work along Newgate Lane instead of driving due to congestion in the area morning & night.
PO13
My objections are that the roads will not be able to handle extra traffic without causing even more problems than we already see on a daily basis plus where are the residents of houses going to get medical help/ schooling when we have over crowded surgeries and schools as it is in this area.
PO13
I strongly oppose the proposed development the infrastructure will impact on an already cramped area. No mention of extra GP/schools or community facilities.
PO13
we cannot get off Gosport now & as foe emergency vehicles getting in. Where they want to build these 475 houses is very wet land but a lovely walk way to Asda or just a stroll for locals , why not go north Fareham or Wickham where they can go straight onto the motorway.
PO13
Completely wrong for so many reasons and all being at the expense of Gosport residents. The proposed access road in Tukes Avenue opposite Woodcot school is complete madness, all the extra traffic and the likelihood of no school crossing patrols, this is an accident waiting to happen, plus the possible demolition of houses to make way for the road. Brookers Lane will not be able to cope with the extra traffic, it's bad enough now weaving in and out of cars, there is also an accident black spot when you get to the crossroads linking it to Tukes Ave, and Carisbrook Road. Then there is Wych Lane which is gridlocked every morning and anything there is an accident on the A32 or beyond. Being a Gosport resident, I am not happy that we will be bearing the brunt of all this. Environmentally with all the extra traffic (not everyone has a Hybrid car or an electric one). As the development would be on our doorstep it would be interesting to know where the nearest Doctors surgery and schools would be. I expect there's a good chance it could be our schools. Not everything is bad news though, well not if you live in Newgate Lane Fareham. The residents there will have no traffic (lucky people) once the new road opens, so I should imagine their house prices will go up. No doubt there's a chance our house prices will fall, as we'll be living in a residential area, but with all the traffic of a main road.
PO13
Large Format Response - Ref0052
PO12
As a resident of Peel Common, I would like to object to the proposal to build 476 houses near to the estate. 1. Fareham are going to build these homes, but it is us in Gosport who will have to provide all the associated services for them 2. Why can't the proposed access roads be constructed on the Newgate Lane side of the development, rather than the Bridgemary side as not to do this will significantly increase traffic levels near to us and probably create rat-runs, to say nothing about the general safety of children attending our local schools. 3. To add insult to injury, we will also have to put up with the IFA2 – which will be visible from our bedroom window. 4. Please accept our comments in the general spirit with which they are given (sensibly)
Postcode not provided
Large Format Response - Ref0099_a
Large Format Response - Ref0099_b
Large Format Response - Ref0099_c
Large Format Response - Ref0099_d
SO23
This will have a massive impact on the local traffic network and significantly effect residents of Gosport including Lee on the Solent and Peel Common as well as Bridgemary, and due to the increased traffic have a knock on effect on the bottle necks that happen already on a daily basis on Newgate Lane and also going through Stubbington. This is a preposterous idea in my opinion and the new relief road being built whilst I am sure is designed to ease some of this congestion will not have this impact at all as the increased volume in cars and traffic will engulf any planned benefit that the relief road was supposed to deal with. I OBJECT strongly to this plan
PO13
Large Format Response - Ref0087
PO12
Back to Top
How to get here
