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).
Fareham cannot cope with more infill. We have too much pollution, too much congestion. Stop this nonsense.
PO14
This area around Fareham is being bombarded with house building, now the Fareham plan is suggesting that greenfield sites are built on. We will be joined to Southampton and Portsmouth at this rate. There is no additional infrastructure, the traffic in the area has increased, the doctors, schools and dentists are all under pressure. There are no additional local shops. Where on Southampton road can you fit 400 dwellings.
PO14
I am extremely concerned about the number of new properties proposed in the local Titchfield Common area - the increase in traffic to already congested roads and junctions, the lack of additional school places available and the additional pressure this will place on already busy health care provision across all ages. The significant increase in population without an increase in recreational facilities will impact the health of the community and increases in pollution as a result of increased car use will also be to the detriment of the most vulnerable.
PO14
I do not want houses built here. Roads are already congested to the point where I am considering a life of benefits rather than the fatigue of daily travel. Services are also stretched, are you aware that there are no spaces for an NHS dentist anywhere local and a docs app takes 5-6 weeks. Parking on nearby roads is ridiculous. Why do you insist on building in already congested areas?
PO14
I have no real reservations over getting new housing on this site, HOWEVER This is going to put even more pressure on the road traffic at peak times trying to get over the main roundabout to Whiteley and onto the M27 (eastbound). Please consider coupling with a new route into Whiteley, OR alleviate the traffic build up by introducing a new M27 eastbound on-ramp from the south of the motorway. This Roundabout is already becoming a real problem in the area.
SO31
I choose this as the first area of development that I wish to comment on, however these comments apply to all the proposed development by Fareham Borough Council. Sadly it seems that the planners have no idea of the current problems that need to be addressed prior to any further development whatsoever. Already the roads are overcrowded, the schools full and doctor's surgeries unable to cope. Any additional development is irresponsible and should not be considered until the current infra-structure is improved. The area called HA1 is apparently due to have 1500 new dwellings which means 3000- 4000 more vehicles and the roads are unable to cope now so how can this be a realistic proposal? The additional pollution of vehicles sat in queues is sufficient reason alone to reject the entire plan out of hand. Please see sense.
SO31
Particularly with respect to HA13 & HA19 , Hunts Pond Road has already has massive recent development with the huge estate at the southern end. The road is already very busy & the sites are the last green areas in the whole of this long & busy road. With regard to all the proposals I do not see any new surgeries, School facilities, it already takes 3 - 4 weeks to get an appointment with a GP. No more houses without extra facilities PLEASE.
PO14
May I start by thanking the Fareham Planning Dept for their visit to Titchfield church yesterday afternoon and their detailed explanation of the strategy which helped clarify a number of points. Regarding this proposed build I would like the planners ensure that any access to the site should be via Segensworth and not onto the Southampton Road. Considering the major work nearing completion of the A27 any new roads or additional traffic lights for cars or pedestrians will produce possible traffic congestion and defeat what hopefully the new road layout was planned to achieve. My second concern is local amenities ie schools, doctors surgeries and public transport. I see no available schools that can be got to without use of a car, similarly doctors and public transport seems very limited. If these points are addressed I believe the area is certainly ideal as an appropriate infill.
PO14
Closer to main roads – including upgraded A27 and motorway. Closer/ easier to most jobs. Already built up and roads, so not spoiling precious virgin greenfield land. But why not put most houses at Daedalus – where you are putting 6000 new jobs? Put people closer to employment makes sense! Congested roads already – no care for anyone or the environment. If you must build in Warsash – why no on the allotments – which you own? You get the money.
SO31
Having reviewed the new Draft Local Plan for Fareham noting 1500 dwellings to be located in Warsash and Titchfield Common area we wish to protest against this proposal. When the new housing development next door to our property in Peters Road was build no extra infrastructure was included, i.e. extra provision for schooling/doctors. Some of the land was sold by the developers to a private concern i.e. Greenacres Road housing was built. – the residents of which have decided to use Peters Road as their parking area causing problems to existing residents when exiting their homes as it is very difficult to exit safely between 2 parked cars as the view is obstructed. We are given to understand that nothing can be done about it and if we in turn decide to park in Greenacres Road we will be fined £200. We suggest therefore all aspects of the proposed plans for housing in this area are looked in to more carefully. Brook Lane already is much busier especially at peak times as is Peters Road and the A27 is already congested at times with the new housing being built. This used to be a pleasant place to live in and although we may have to contend with new developments as time moves on, thought should be given to what you are creating long term.
Postcode not provided
This development will see hundreds more cars in an area that is already congested and dangerous to travel through on a daily basis. We simply do not have the infrastructure locally to deal with the number of houses being proposed and the number of cars they will bring.
SO31
These comments are made on behalf of the owners of the Roabann site, the southern most section of HA3 The proposed allocation is welcome and supported. An outline housing layout has previously been submitted to the Council as part of the local plan process. This illustrates how the site could be laid out to provide suitable housing together with access from Southampton Road and to the sites to the north. Development on this land could progress at an early stage. It is therefor necessary to ensure that any impediments to providing a link road to Segensworth Road do not create an unjustified barrier to the site coming forward. The plan attached to Appendix E does identify potential access options onto Southampton Road. To provide consistency with Appendix E it is requested that sub paragraph c) of HA3 be amended as follows: Primary highway access for the majority of the site shall be focused on Segensworth Road in the first instance, with Southampton Road to be used where access to/from Segensworth Road is not possible, use of the existing access points in the southern section of the site will also be acceptable, subject to consent from Highway Authority:
The proposals suggested development at an increased density. It is acknowledge that this could provide some 56 units on the Robann site
Anonymous submission
This looks more suitbale for housing with ready access o the new sly widened and improved A 27. It is also already developed I bleive and semi industrial retail so not spoiling the precious greenfield land.
SO31
I object to all development proposals in the Fareham Borough
SO31
Significant increase in housing will impact greatly on traffic, not only in the western wards but also on the main junctions to the M27. Already there is difficulty getting in and out of Warsash at peek times. There has been a noticeable increase in congestion since the recent strawberry fields development. More cars using cut through to get to key junctions. Due to more cars, walking to school is getting more difficult to cross roads. Increased pollution from increased numbers of vehicles. Loss of countryside will have a detrimental affect on lost habitats. More hard surfaces will impact on water drainage. Local amenities already have full car parks. Schools are close to capacity and doctors surgeries are stretched.
Postcode not provided
Significant increase in housing will impact greatly on traffic, not only in the western wards but also on the main junctions to the M27. Already there is difficulty getting in and out of Warsash at peek times. There has been a noticeable increase in congestion since the recent strawberry fields development. More cars using cut through to get to key junctions. Due to more cars, walking to school is getting more difficult to cross roads. Increased pollution from increased numbers of vehicles. Loss of countryside will have a detrimental affect on lost habitats. More hard surfaces will impact on water drainage. Local amenities already have full car parks. Schools are close to capacity and doctors surgeries are stretched.
SO31
when we brought our house in Fareham it was a lovely place to live. Countryside & coast, now we have to fight out way down country lanes ( Try Pook lane at 8.30am) down the A27 along the M27. Fareham has become a traffic nightmare we don't need all these houses. You have Whitley , Knowle and the dreaded Welborne. We keel trapped I a concrete jungle, dictated to by the volume of traffic as to when we can go out. Why should we build more & more to accommodate the millions of new comers let in by last government uncontrolled migration. Put the existing residents of Fareham just we don't need these hundreds of houses here . Ensure the houses youre building in the town centre are low cost or low rent (even Council houses)- now there's an idea.
PO16
[redacted]. Already too much pressure on local services with no additional services planned.
PO14
None of the proposals address increase in road traffic in the immediate vicinity None of the proposals address doctor's surgeries and schools being over subscribed None of the proposals address shortage of public transport links in the immediate vicinity None of the proposals include any extra facilities for cyclists or pedestrians (e.g. shared cycle paths)
PO14
With the upgrade of the A27 from Park Gate to Titchfield to a full dual carriageway (2 lanes in both directions) and the existing speed limit of 40MPH, we believe it is paramount that any access to the proposed development does not exit on to this carriageway, the same as there is for the retail park opposite. At the North end of the proposed site access can be made available into Segensworth Road near to the existing roundbout. We also believe that there is a need to relook at the egress of large articulated lorrys from Segensworth East industrial estate though this area given the difficulties of these vehicles turning through the traffic lights at the junction of Witherbed Lane and Segensworth Road.
PO15
"Objection to Planning Application based on contradiction of the NPPF and Draft Plan, and objections to provisions contained in the draft plan. My objections are presented separately for the NPPF and Draft Plan. And are specifically objections to sites : HA1 - North and South of Greenaway Lane, Warsash - 700 dwellings HA3 - Southampton Road, Titchfield Common - 400 dwellings HA7 - Warsash Maritime Academy, Warsash -100 dwellings HA9 - Heath Road, Locks Heath- 71 dwellings HA11- Raley Road, Locks Heath- 49 dwellings HA13- Hunts Pond Road, Titchfield Common- 38 dwellings HA14 -Genesis Community Youth Centre, Locks Heath - 35 dwellings HA15 -Beacon Bottom West, Park Gate -30 dwellings HA17 -69 Botley Road, Park Gate -24 dwellings HA19- 399 – 409 Hunts Pond Road, Titchfield Common- 22 dwellings I write in connection with the above planning application. I have examined the plans and I know the sites well. I looked at EV13 (Background Paper: HOUSING SITE SELECTION), which states: "The purpose of this paper is to explain, in broad terms, the processes undertaken to inform the selection of housing sites for the Draft Fareham Local Plan 2036" (Draft Plan)" I have also read through the referenced paragraphs from the ""National Planning Policy Framework"" (NPPF). I have experience of financing provision of sustainable residential communities in other areas of the country with their own acute issues. Based on the above research and experience, I object strongly to the development of these houses in the identified locations. These sites generally, and HA 1,3 and 7 specifically, are in contradiction of both the "NPPF" and the "Draft Plan". It is certain that the local communities and the Fareham borough do need provision of additional sustainable development of various infrastructures including more residential accommodation. Unfortunately the sites identified in this Draft Plan plan fails to deliver a sustainable solution in certain of its discrete communities and lets down those communities represented. With respect to the Draft Plan Objection : I don't believe that the sites proposed adequately address the needs recognised in H2: Provision of Affordable Housing and I don't believe that Sites such as HA1,3 & 7 have considered adequately aspects of Policy H4: where Adaptable and Accessible Dwellings Development proposals for all new dwellings shall provide: I do not argue that it has been ignored, but that minimum lip service has been paid to the extent that the provisions noted entirely fail to achieve the goals intended for H4. a) at least 15% of all new dwellings at Category 2 standard; and b) on schemes of over 100 dwellings (gross), at least 2% of private housing and 5% of affordable housing, shall be provided as wheelchair accessible Category 3 properties. Schemes exclusively for flatted development will be expected to comply with the criteria as much as is physically possible before lifts would be a requirement" Objection: I object to the revisions of H4 identified in the Draft Plan. Further with respect to HA 1,3&7 it appears that H4 does not adequately reflect the requirement that " Further new older person and specialist accommodation will be required during the Local Plan period. Such provision can help people to downsize and free up family dwellings for others. The precise amount and type of specialist and older person accommodation required will depend on a range of factors including the choices of individual people and households.( of which I see no reference in HA1,3 or 7) Evidence in the Housing Evidence Overview Paper (2017) outlines some of this need which, where possible, has been addressed through specific allocations included in this plan and provision to be provided at Welborne" Further accommodation to address identified need would be acceptable in principle subject to Policy H5". Objection : I believe this fails to address the issues in the localities represented by the sites I have objected to, and specifically not in respect of HA1,3 and 7. This is in itself evident that FBC appreoach Warsash as a general dormitory and not as a discrete community as is required. The Draft Plan is very Fareham central centric in the division of benefits and provision of the Sustainable aspects of the plan, unfortunately the surrounding community developments' including these to which I am objecting, do not bear the same level of attention to Sustainability Planning. The Warsash, Park Gate, Titchfield communities are discrete settlements where development proposals should be considered very carefully: Objection : I believe that the Draft Plan and the sites I have specifically objected to fail in respect of Policy SP1: Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development "When considering development proposals, the Council will take a positive approach that reflects the "presumption in favour of sustainable development" contained in the National Planning Policy Framework. When appropriate the Council will work constructively with applicants to find solutions that enable proposals to be granted permission wherever possible, and to secure high quality development that improves the economic, social and environmental conditions in the area………….." Objection : With respect to HA1 specifically, my objection includes the determination that the entire list of sites not only fails to address SP7 "requirement to Create places that encourage healthy lifestyles and provide for the community through the provision of leisure and cultural facilities, recreation and open space and the opportunity to walk and cycle to destinations" but goes as far as misleading in its reference to some open play area space and provision to cross the road which covers up an entirely inadequate provision in both cases and exacerbates the problems for cyclists and pedestrians, and relates to the road and safety of children walking or cycling to school. I find Appendix C: Draft Development Framework - Development Allocation HA1 (North & South of Greenaway Lane, Warsash) to be entirely un convincing in respect of this and other areas of objection. Objection : I note well and object to the Employment Policy section, there is No "E" for the communities represented in the site plans to which I object. No local employment issues are considered within those discreet community settlements, adding to the obvious conclusion that they are being considered as dormitory developments in contravention of key policies identified. I would be able to support site development proposals that are aimed at meeting identified settlement needs, of which there are many, but not those reflected by these sites in this Draft Plan. Objection Draft Local Plan : I object also to E5, which protects Boatyard business except in the case where it can be represented as uneconomic. I object to the watering down of protection implied by this provision, Key Strategic Priorities: Both the overall Draft Plan and the specific site proposals fail to meet a number of stated Key Strategic Priorities. Objection : In respect to the references to settlement definition, this is then broadly disregarded or seemingly misrepresented in both plan and site descriptions. The needs of local business in the discrete communities so defined is ignored and only addressed as a general and seemingly Fareham central oriented manner. Objections below can be read to note that they jointly and severally contribute to evidence that the Plan fails in satisfying KSP's 1,3 and 7 most specifically, but the other sites generally in respect of the site objections noted above. 1. Address the housing and employment needs by the end of the plan period in an appropriate and sustainable manner, creating places people want to live or where businesses want to locate. 2. In the first instance maximise development within the urban area and away from the valued landscapes and spaces that contribute to settlement definition (SP 6 notwithstanding and particularly SP6 failure to address community definition in the communities affected by the sites specifically objected to in this submission) 7. Create places that encourage healthy lifestyles and provide for the community through the provision of leisure and cultural facilities, recreation and open space and the opportunity to walk and cycle to destinations. Sustainability Planning : (SP) Objection : Entirely insufficient evidence or justification is contained within any of the above proposals with respect to the sustainability issues and benefits to the discrete communities that I have referenced. Passing references are made to lack of current provision in schooling and infrastructure, and requirements for the schemes to "contribute" to that development. However no integrated or sustainable accounting or plan is proposed that identifies the needs that should be critically planned to 2036 and costed accordingly. For example the sites identified do not disclose the extent to which sites (or combinations of sites) can contribute to the site selection priorities / refining points within the plan itself. One specific example being Selection Priorities / Refining Point 7. I cannot find any evidence presented for the requirement that they "Cumulatively and individually lessen the impact on traffic whilst delivering the new homes. Maximises opportunities for the cumulative highway impacts to be addressed". I note that a number of other Selection Priorities / Refining Points have not been properly addressed either. o It is not possible to review the Draft Policy or Sites named herein and assess the suitability of any or all of them wit"
SO31
I am writing in relation to the consultation on some of the proposed allocations of land for housing in the Western Wards in the draft Local Plan 2036, ie on the land north and south of Greenaway Lane in Warsash (HA1) and on Southampton Road in Titchfield Common (HA3). I have spoken to many local residents in these areas and received correspondence from them about their valid concerns about the proposed development. They are worried about the impact of the development on the local road network, health and education services. [redacted] Whilst I understand and support the need for additional housing in Fareham, due to increased demand from more people choosing to live in our beautiful area, more people living longer and more people living alone, it is important that local peoples' voices are heard. This consultation is a vital part of that process. Regarding the proposed development site in Warsash, I am concerned about the impact on the local roads of 700 new homes. The main access to these sites would be via Brook Lane and Lockswood Road. These roads are busy roads which are already experiencing a high volume of traffic and the impact of more houses would most certainly add to the traffic problems. The site on Southampton Road would primarily be accessed via Segensworth Road which already experiences a high volume of traffic. I would urge that any allocation of this site for development must be accompanied with appropriate access and road upgrades to accommodate the extra pressure and I request information as what action FBC will take in this regard? Many local people are concerned about the impact on local school resources and GP services. I would urge caution and proper planning of additional school places to support increased demand. And finally, the natural woodland in the area is precious and clear guidance should be taken from Natural England on how to conserve the natural environment as much as possible. I trust that these views will be taken into account in the Plan process
PO16
We wish to object to the above planning application as we feel that there is enough building work going on in or around Warsash to cause the current infrastructure to become overloaded as it is. Our particular concern is that in conjunction with the planned construction of housing at Brook Lane, there are several hundred new homes being built at Coldeast, further South of Greenaway Lane, Strawberry Fields and several smaller plots. These combined with the very high number of houses being built in Eastleigh Borough along the A27 and Hamble Lane will severely overload the local infrastructure (roads (particularly at rush hours) schools, surgeries, parks, social amenities etc,) which is already stretched to the limit! In addition services such as sewerage, water supply, electricity and (we suspect) gas are reaching similar limits. We therefore consider that this application should be denied until such time as the Council can ensure that the issues above can be satisfactorily resolved. Furthermore, we gather from the 'InTouch' magazine for Warsash that housing development in Warsash is being used to alleviate the poor planning that the Council has carried out for the Wellborne site and that we appear to be being used to help achieve targets that were apparently ill conceived in the first palce. We do not agree with our village being used as such a scapegoat!
SO31
Fareham borough does need additional sustainable development of its infrastructure and that includes more residential accommodation. Unfortunately the sites identified in this Draft Plan plan fails to deliver a sustainable solution in certain of its discrete communities and lets down those communities represented. With respect to the Draft Plan Objection : I don't believe that the sites proposed adequately address the needs recognised in H2: Provision of Affordable Housing and I don't believe that Sites such as HA1,3 & 7 have considered adequately aspects of Policy H4: where Adaptable and Accessible Dwellings Development proposals for all new dwellings shall provide: I do not argue that it has been ignored, but that minimum lip service has been paid to the extent that the provisions noted entirely fail to achieve the goals intended for H4. at least 15% of all new dwellings at Category 2 standard; and b) on schemes of over 100 dwellings (gross), at least 2% of private housing and 5% of affordable housing, shall be provided as wheelchair accessible Category 3 properties. Schemes exclusively for flatted development will be expected to comply with the criteria as much as is physically possible before lifts would be a requirement" Objection: I object to the revisions of H4 identified in the Draft Plan. Further with respect to HA 1,3&7 it appears that H4 does not adequately reflect the requirement that " Further new older person and specialist accommodation will be required during the Local Plan period. Such provision can help people to downsize and free up family dwellings for others. The precise amount and type of specialist and older person accommodation required will depend on a range of factors including the choices of individual people and households.( of which I see no reference in HA1,3 or 7) Evidence in the Housing Evidence Overview Paper (2017) outlines some of this need which, where possible, has been addressed through specific allocations included in this plan and provision to be provided at Welborne" Further accommodation to address identified need would be acceptable in principle subject to Policy H5". Objection : I believe this fails to address the issues in the localities represented by the sites I have objected to, and specifically not in respect of HA1,3 and 7. This is in itself evident that FBC approach Warsash as a general dormitory and not as a discrete community as is required. The Draft Plan is very Fareham central centric in the division of benefits and provision of the Sustainable aspects of the plan, unfortunately the surrounding community developments' including these to which I am objecting, do not bear the same level of attention to Sustainability Planning. The Warsash, Park Gate, Titchfield communities are discrete settlements where development proposals should be considered very carefully: Objection : I believe that the Draft Plan and the sites I have specifically objected to fail in respect of Policy SP1: Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development "When considering development proposals, the Council will take a positive approach that reflects the "presumption in favour of sustainable development" contained in the National Planning Policy Framework. When appropriate the Council will work constructively with applicants to find solutions that enable proposals to be granted permission wherever possible, and to secure high quality development that improves the economic, social and environmental conditions in the area………….." Objection : With respect to HA1 specifically, my objection includes the determination that the entire list of sites not only fails to address SP7 "requirement to Create places that encourage healthy lifestyles and provide for the community through the provision of leisure and cultural facilities, recreation and open space and the opportunity to walk and cycle to destinations" but goes as far as misleading in its reference to some open play area space and provision to cross the road which covers up an entirely inadequate provision in both cases and exacerbates the problems for cyclists and pedestrians, and relates to the road and safety of children walking or cycling to school. I find Appendix C: Draft Development Framework - Development Allocation HA1 (North & South of Greenaway Lane, Warsash) to be entirely unconvincing in respect of this and other areas of objection. Objection : I note well and object to the Employment Policy section, there is No "E" for the communities represented in the site plans to which I object. No local employment issues are considered within those discreet community settlements, adding to the obvious conclusion that they are being considered as dormitory developments in contravention of key policies identified. I would be able to support site development proposals that are aimed at meeting identified settlement needs, of which there are many, but not those reflected by these sites in this Draft Plan. Objection Draft Local Plan : I object also to E5, which protects Boatyard business except in the case where it can be represented as uneconomic. I object to the watering down of protection implied by this provision. Key Strategic Priorities: Both the overall Draft Plan and the specific site proposals fail to meet a number of stated Key Strategic Priorities. Objection : In respect to the references to settlement definition, this is then broadly disregarded or seemingly misrepresented in both plan and site descriptions. The needs of local business in the discrete communities so defined is ignored and only addressed as a general and seemingly Fareham central oriented manner. Objections below can be read to note that they jointly and severally contribute to evidence that the Plan fails in satisfying KSP's 1,3 and 7 most specifically, but the other sites generally in respect of the site objections noted above. 1. Address the housing and employment needs by the end of the plan period in an appropriate and sustainable manner, creating places people want to live or where businesses want to locate. 2. In the first instance maximise development within the urban area and away from the valued landscapes and spaces that contribute to settlement definition (SP 6 notwithstanding and particularly SP6 failure to address community definition in the communities affected by the sites specifically objected to in this submission) 7. Create places that encourage healthy lifestyles and provide for the community through the provision of leisure and cultural facilities, recreation and open space and the opportunity to walk and cycle to destinations. Sustainability Planning : (SP) Objection : Entirely insufficient evidence or justification is contained within any of the above proposals with respect to the sustainability issues and benefits to the discrete communities that I have referenced. Passing references are made to lack of current provision in schooling and infrastructure, and requirements for the schemes to "contribute" to that development. However no integrated or sustainable accounting or plan is proposed that identifies the needs that should be critically planned to 2036 and costed accordingly. For example the sites identified do not disclose the extent to which sites (or combinations of sites) can contribute to the site selection priorities / refining points within the plan itself. One specific example being Selection Priorities / Refining Point 7. I cannot find any evidence presented for the requirement that they "Cumulatively and individually lessen the impact on traffic whilst delivering the new homes. Maximises opportunities for the cumulative highway impacts to be addressed". I note that a number of other Selection Priorities / Refining Points have not been properly addressed either. It is not possible to review the Draft Policy or Sites named herein and assess the suitability of any or all of them without this information. Both contain platitudes and broad intentions, but are very short on evidence of the work required to support the proposals. I suggest that the Policy and Site plan is a product of rushed work that does not benefit from appropriate review of : The discrete communities are not designed to be dormitory communities, the road and related services infrastructure is not planned or updated to meet such a purpose, yet the Draft Plan clearly treats these areas as if they were. Access to the A27 during morning rush hour is at a crisis point in terms of road congestion, and also ( for example) offers a very high level of pollution along the main routes along which children walk and cycle to school. I do not see any pollution studies for the locations related to the sites objected to. Much of the commentary under INFRASTRUCTURE in clauses 11 etc do not relate to these projects or communities. I believe 11.30 to be unobserved in relation to these sites or included in the Suitability planning, or the impact of health and safety on the community. I cannot support any planning that does not address with any specificity the health of the community. Fareham is presently in trouble for poor air quality due to the amount of rush hour traffic. Bring another 3000+ cars in to the already congested roads of the Western Wards and there will be more cases of asthma, lung disease and related illnesses. Local roads such as Brook Lane, Osborne Road, Warsash Road and Barnes Lane cannot be made wider, they were built to service the traffic and community of small villages and the resulting influx of 3000+ cars in such a small square area will lead to more accidents. Already there are black spots on Brook and Barnes lane where parking on bends and corners creates safety issues for cyclists. Warsash specifically is on a peninsular and the only roads in and out are Brook Lane and Warsash Road. Emergency vehicles will be unable to ensure safe response times - during rush hour it is likely they will not have space to get to their de
SO31
We object to this development due to the lack of infrastructure in the area - roads, schools and doctors surgeries - to cope with such an influx of new residents.
SO31
This area cannot cope with more traffic or people it is at dangerous levels. The pollution is getting worse and the noise from the a27 is really affecting the people who live here the traffic is a complete state and more houses, people, traffic will have a negative impact on the quality of lives of local residents. build it in Winchester which is under the national average on built on land. Where as Fareham is many times over.
This area cannot cope with more traffic or people it is at dangerous levels. The pollution is getting worse and the noise from the a27 is really affecting the people who live here the traffic is a complete state and more houses, people, traffic will have a negative impact on the quality of lives of local residents. build it in Winchester which is under the national average on built on land. Where as Fareham is many times over.
Anonymous submission
"I am writing to object to the number of homes proposed at each of the sites HA1, HA7, HA9, HA11, HA14, HA15, HA17, HA26, HA3,HA13,HA19 in the Draft Local Plan. Having read the National Planning Policy Framework which talks from the offset very clearly about Sustainable development, ensuring better lives for ourselves and future generations as well as looking after our natural environment to promote both our own well-being and and that of a diverse wildlife habitat. Every paragraph of the NPPF is at contradiction to the selection of sites listed above for so many homes. Paragraph 6 clear states "The purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development", having seen first hand the development known as Strawberry Fields the idea that 700 homes on this site would be sustainable is hard to believe. Paragraph 7 talks about the need for three dimensions of sustainable developments, these three dimensions being economic, social and environmental roles. Highlighting that the plans should contribute to "building a strong, responsive and competitive economy" including "by identifying and coordinating development requirements, including the provision of infrastructure" that is "protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment" whilst is "accessible local services that reflect the community's needs and support its health, social and cultural well-being" Warsash is a peninsular with finite resources to support infrastructure. It has a small and vertical economical offering due to the waters edge on two sides and most employment opportunities are out of the borough requiring use of the M27 motorway or north of the A27. Public transport services are limited, the nearest train station has limited reach for travelling north of the county or London, often requiring a change at Southampton or Fareham. However particular consideration should be given to the local roads and the A27. The main roads around and supporting HA1 will be Lockswood road and Brook Lane both extremely busy roads already. Brook lane whilst wide at the southern end becomes very narrow towards the northern end where a very large (1800 pupils) secondary school is located. Ironically the only way to increase the width of Brook lane along this stretch of road would be to remove houses counteracting against the desired effect. Hampshire Country Council have admitted on various planning applications that all three junctions onto the A27 would be over capacity with any development however neither Hampshire County Council or Fareham Borough Council appear to have demonstrated how this over capacity could be addressed. The area is also under resourced in the provision of health care and school places both of which have very little scope for expansion. The land allocated in the proposal is also the last space keeping settlement identification for the historic village of Warsash. Paragraph 8 goes on to say that all three dimensions must be considered together further strengthening the objection to this site selection. Paragraph 9 goes on to talk about "making it easier for jobs to be created in cities, towns and villages" and "improving the conditions in which people live, work, travel and take leisure" which I believe I have already demonstrated would not be the case with a housing estate of 700 in the proposed area. Paragraph 10 then says "Plans and decisions need to take local circumstances into account" which again I believe strengthens my objection, Warsash has special local circumstances in the fact it is a peninsular with two roads in and out. Access is heavily restricted and boundaries on two sides are finite defined by ever raising waters edge. Paragraph 37, 72 and 162 talk specifically about education and the need for a Local Plan to minimise journey lengths and resolve key planning issues before applications are submitted and specifically Local planning authorities should work with other authorities and providers to assess its ability to meet forecast demands. I don't believe this has been demonstrated or is even deliverable for sites listed above. I could go on with the NPPF which outlines a need for planning to empower the people and communities to ensure rural areas such as Warsash are left with more then just housing, but creating healthy, inclusive communities that have the right mix of high quality housing supported by sustainable transport, communication infrastructure that are facilitating social interaction. I also spent time reading Fareham Borough Council own requirements for site selection when it comes to the choice of sites listed above. I looked at EV13 (Background Paper: HOUSING SITE SELECTION), which states: "The purpose of this paper is to explain, in broad terms, the processes undertaken to inform the selection of housing sites for the Draft Fareham Local Plan 2036" I have also associated referenced paragraphs from the ""National Planning Policy Framework"" (NPPF) However, looking at the list of ""Refining Points"", I find nothing but contradiction in the selection of these sites: 1. Maximise any developable brownfield opportunities inside the existing urban area. These are not brownfield sites. 2. Look positively at any developable brownfield opportunities outside of the urban area. As per point 1, these are not brownfield sites. 3. ""Consider and include regeneration and redevelopment opportunities inside the urban area"" FBC then make reference to Section 2 of the NPPF, in particular paragraph 23, which states: Planning policies should be positive, promote competitive town centre environments and set out policies for the management and growth of centres over the plan period. In drawing up Local Plans, local planning authorities should: recognise town centres as the heart of their communities and pursue policies to support their viability and vitality; define a network and hierarchy of centres that is resilient to anticipated future economic changes; define the extent of town centres and primary shopping areas, based on a clear definition of primary and secondary frontages in designated centres, and set policies that make clear which uses will be permitted in such locations; promote competitive town centres that provide customer choice and a diverse retail offer and which reflect the individuality of town centres; retain and enhance existing markets and, where appropriate, re-introduce or create new ones, ensuring that markets remain attractive and competitive; allocate a range of suitable sites to meet the scale and type of retail, leisure, commercial, office, tourism, cultural, community and residential development needed in town centres. It is important that needs for retail, leisure, office and other main town centre uses are met in full and are not compromised by limited site availability. Local planning authorities should therefore undertake an assessment of the need to expand town centres to ensure a sufficient supply of suitable sites; allocate appropriate edge of centre sites for main town centre uses that are well connected to the town centre where suitable and viable town centre sites are not available. If sufficient edge of centre sites cannot be identified, set policies for meeting the identified needs in other accessible locations that are well connected to the town centre; set policies for the consideration of proposals for main town centre uses which cannot be accommodated in or adjacent to town centres; recognise that residential development can play an important role in ensuring the vitality of centres and set out policies to encourage residential development on appropriate sites; and where town centres are in decline, local planning authorities should plan positively for their future to encourage economic activity. Warsash is very much not part of the town centre. The community is poorly serviced by public transport, and accessing the nightlife in Fareham town centre is impossible without private transportation. I do not remember the last time my family used Fareham town centre, due to other resoruces providing much better facilities, which are very much more accessible to us. 4. ""Achieves housing supply in the short/medium term in order to address housing need"" With reference to paragraph 47 in the NPPF, which states: To boost significantly the supply of housing, local planning authorities should: use their evidence base to ensure that their Local Plan meets the full, objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing in the housing market area, as far as is consistent with the policies set out in this Framework, including identifying key sites which are critical to the delivery of the housing strategy over the plan period; identify and update annually a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide five years worth of housing against their housing requirements with an additional buffer of 5% (moved forward from later in the plan period) to ensure choice and competition in the market for land. Where there has been a record of persistent under delivery of housing, local planning authorities should increase the buffer to 20% (moved forward from later in the plan period) to provide a realistic prospect of achieving the planned supply and to ensure choice and competition in the market for land; identify a supply of specific, developable sites or broad locations for growth, for years 6-10 and, where possible, for years 11-15; These sites may support family homes, but they are not sites that support the growth of children aged 6-10 or 11-15. I suspect most families moving into the area will need to travel out of the ward to access education, as neither Hook with Warsash nor Brookfield have the scope or ability to expand further. FBC have certainly not provided any evidence suggesting otherwise. 5. "Avoid further sites that rely on wider significant infrastructure delivery where the timing of the work and/or funding are be"
SO31
Dear Sirs, REPRESENTATIONS TO FAREHAM BOROUGH DRAFT LOCAL PLAN 2036 [redacted], we write to make representations to the current consultation on the Fareham Borough Draft Local Plan 2036 (DLP). Southampton Road, Titchfield Common The Council will be aware that Reside control land within the wider HA3 proposed allocation: Southampton Road, Titchfield Common. The site was submitted to the Council for consideration as a potential housing site in response to a call-for-sites exercise and was assessed as being suitable, achievable and available. Reside supports the conclusions of the SHLAA. Reside are in the process of preparing an outline planning application for the site. An Illustrative Layout, which draws upon technical work undertaken to date and the emerging policy in the DLP, has been prepared (appended to this letter). The Layout indicates capacity for 105 units. This is liable to change going forward as further work and engagement with the Council is undertaken. It is noted that the SHLAA assessment states that that the density yield is 240 dwellings at 55dph. However, this is based on the gross area, and does not account for the space lost to open space and ecological areas. The phased delivery of the site as suggested in the policy is welcomed; with the Reside element of the site representing a logical first phase of this development. Policy HA3 identifies the whole allocation as having capacity for 400 new homes. The Council is also proposing to bring the HA3 allocation (including our client's land) within the Urban Area boundary. Reside fully supports the amendment to the urban areas and the principle of the proposed allocation. Policy HA3 is supported by a Development Framework (Appendix E) which sets out a number of principles in relation to the site and sets out a plan showing the arrangement of land uses. 2 In order to ensure that the proposed allocation does not unduly constrain the development potential of the site we request several changes to the draft allocation policies, as set out below. These will enable the development potential of the site to be realised in terms of delivering housing, whilst taking account of key constraints. Each proposed allocation is considered below. Access Criterion c) indicates that primary highway access shall be focused on Segensworth Road in the first instance, with Southampton Road to be used where access to/from Segensworth Road is not possible. As part of the pre-application discussion with Hampshire County Council access to the A27 has been approved in principle. This is recognised in Appendix E as well as the SHLAA assessment for Reside's part (3044) of the allocation. As indicated in the public consultation and through discussions with local members, traffic directed to the A27 is preferable to routing through Segensworth Road. In light of the above, we suggest reference to Segensworth Road access should be downgraded. The location of the access and egress to the A27 should also be amended to correlate with the proposals on the submitted Illustrative Layout, which have been designed and located to serve parcels north and south of the Reside land Housing mix Appendix E sets out a potential housing mix for the site. This is considered to be too prescriptive and will be challenging to achieve given the numerous land interests. The final housing mix will need to take account of need and market demand at the time as required by PPG (Paragraph: 003 Reference ID: 2a-003-20140306). The most appropriate housing mix will not remain static, and in terms of demand is better judged by the site developer. The plan should not seek to fix this through the development framework policy; this section should be deleted. Contributions Criterion j) sets out the infrastructure to be funded by development within the allocation site. It is unclear whether this list relates to funding through CIL and/or Legal Agreement. Greater clarity is required. The Council's current Regulation 123 would suggest that bullets 2 and 4 may be more appropriately funded through CIL. This is confirmed through recent correspondence received by the Local Education Authority in relation to another site in the Borough (see appended). Pedestrian and Cycle Network It is noted that discussions with local members have indicated a preference for a link to the south to the existing crossing, which will provide better access to local schools. The Illustrative Layout provides for links to land to the south within the site, where the link to the existing crossing can be provided. Discussions will continue with HCC regarding the potential improvement to at grade crossing for the Segensworth roundabout. The potential for the central crossing as indicated on the Development Framework is considered unnecessary, given the location of key service within Park Gate and school to the north, and further school to the south of the site. Aside from the retail units on the opposite side of the A27, there is relatively little immediately the west of her site. Ecology It is noted that the SHLAA indicates the presents of badger of and bat on the site. Survey work has been undertaken in respect of the site, which can be shared with the Council. This has confirmed that there are no bats roosts associated with the site. Foraging and commuting bats largely confined to the site boundaries. There is also potential for breeding birds toward. Vegetation retention and enhancement will ensure no impact on birds and bats Survey have revealed Common reptile in grassland habit typically 3 toward site edged. A reptile habitat area is shown on the Illustrative Layout. There is no evidence of badgers, great crested newts or dormouse within the site. Draft Local Plan Policies In addition to commenting on the proposed allocation of the Upper Site we wish to comment on several draft policies which could impact upon bringing the allocation forward for development. These policies are: • H1: Strategic Housing Requirement • SP7: New Residential Development in the Countryside • INF1: Infrastructure Delivery Strategic Housing Provision Policy H1 sets out a requirement of 11,300 net additional dwellings to be delivered within the 24 year plan period between 2011/12 – 2035/36. Our client welcomes the review of the local plan and recognition by the Council through the DLP that housing requirements must be increased substantially from the low base in the Core Strategy if it is to meets identified housing needs. However, there is a concern that the HA1 requirement is too low. The recently published Government consultation on Local Housing Need suggests increases to the housing requirement for the Borough from 452dpa (average) as set out in DLP, to 531dpa as per the Government requirement (not including any duty to co-operate uplift). Although this proposal is still at consultation stage, it is important that the Council is aware of its implications, and the potential for further supply to be identified to meet needs. The DLP should be sufficiently flexible to meet this uplift should the Government take the proposals forward. Policy H1 set out a stepped housing requirement which is summarised below: • 300 dwellings per annum for 6 years (2011/2012 – 2016/2017) • 420 dwellings per annum for 4 years (2017/2018 – 2020/2021) • 620 dwellings per annum for 10 years (2021/2022 – 2030/2031) • 324 dwellings per annum for 5 years (2031/2032 – 2035/2036) Notwithstanding our concerns regarding whether the overall housing requirement is adequate, we are unconvinced that justification for this phased delivery as set out in the plan is adequate. For the first 6 years of the plan, the requirement falls short of OAN (420dpa). The OAN is then planned to be met in subsequent 4 years. The phased requirement delays the short term delivery, and is not supported by any phasing in the SHMA. Housing need that is not met in the first 6 years of the plan (2011/2012 – 2016/2017) will not be picked up until year 10 from the DLP start date (i.e. 2021/2022 – 2030/2031). The NPPF seeks to boost significantly the supply of housing delivery. It does not advocate delays to housing delivery through local plans. The Government is clear that the delivery of new homes in the short term is crucial. As recognised in the Housing White Paper List of Proposals: Step 2 homes must be built faster. The approach taken in the H1 fails to recognise this policy agenda. 4 The implications of this approach on the delivery of affordable housing is also concerning. The majority of new affordable housing stock will be brought forward in conjunction with market housing. It is important that the Local Plan does not push back planned housing delivery and exacerbate the affordable housing delivery problem in the Borough. This is particularly important given that the Council has failed to meet its Corporate Target for affordable housing (84 dpa) to date, which is itself significantly below identified need of 175 – 385 dpa. Consistent under delivery has led to a significant backlog of affordable housing when considered against the Council's own evidence on affordable housing need. The delivery expectations of the Council for Welborne have been inaccurate. Appeal inspectors have consistency considered the Council's assumptions regarding delivery to be unrealistic. Using the anticipated development trajectory for Welborne as a basis for reducing short-term requirement is therefore not a robust planning approach. Providing the requirement as a simple annual average across the plan period would be a more practical and positive approach to plan making, in line with the NPPF. New Residential Development in the Countryside The policy sets out a presumption against new residential development outside of the urban area. However, the policy is inflexible as it does not provide guidance as to approach to be taken by the Council in determining applications for ho
SO14
Large Format Response - Ref0043
SO23
Large Format Response - Ref0043
SO23
Southern Water is the statutory water and wastewater undertaker in Titchfield Common. Housing Allocation HA3 allocates 400 dwellings at Southampton Road. In line with paragraph 162 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG), we have undertaken an assessment of our infrastructure and its ability to meet the forecast demand for the proposed development. That assessment reveals that there is underground 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. Accordingly we propose that the following criterion is added to policy HA3 (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: [...] l) Provide future access to the existing underground infrastructure for maintenance and upsizing purposes.
BN2
Dear Sir/Madam I write in the capacity as [redacted], who in 2016 purchased the Abbey Garden Centre in Titchfield. We have reviewed the emerging draft Fareham Local Plan 2036 ('the Local Plan') and we have taken advice from planning consultants Gillings Planning. The 11,300 new homes envisaged in the Local Plan will give rise to considerable levels of household expenditure on comparison goods, including of course, considerable expenditure on garden goods. Whilst we are supportive of the Draft Fareham Local Plan; we do wish to make the following comments. Garden centre provision in the Borough is, in our opinion, somewhat lacking. We note that considerable expenditure leaks out from the Borough to competing centres, including leakage to the Local Planning Authority areas of Winchester (to Garsons Garden Centre), to Eastleigh (Hilliers Garden Centre) and Southampton (To Haskins Garden Centre). Draft development allocations HA3 (Southampton Road, Titchfield Common) would further exacerbate the lack of garden centre retail provision in the Borough through the potential loss of Hambrooks of Titchfield. Expenditure data captured by companies such as Experian and Pitney Bowes has always shown a direct correlation between housing growth and expenditure on garden products. Expenditure on homes with a new garden to design, plant and furnish. Whilst the rise of e-tailing an e-commerce has taken its toll on our town centres; the garden centre industry remains a very 'hands on' retail experience. Shoppers still prefer to view products from plants, garden furniture, BBQs, Christmas Trees to planters in person. Shoppers are always in search of an 'experience' when they venture form their homes, and garden centre retailing has had to adapt to keep pace with changing trends and fashions. The small garden centre cafes of the past continue to evolve into restaurants, and the wealth and choice of plants has furniture, BBQs, trees, shrubs, machinery and equipment is greater than ever. Stewarts Garden Centres is proud of its history, not only for the fact that the business has remained within the same family for 260 years, but also for the way that the business has adapted to suit the ever-changing demands of its customers. Based on our considerable experience, we consider that there is a genuine and demonstrable need for an increase in the amount of garden centre retail floorspace in the Borough. The Abbey Garden Centre sits in an enviable central location in the Borough with excellent transport connections. The site is trading well, but is hampered by its legacy. The site is underused and can accommodate growth. The derelict glasshouses can be removed and the site developed to accommodate more floorspace, enabling the Borough to claw back expenditure leakage, reducing vehicle trips and helping to create a more inherently sustainable Borough. More importantly, the redevelopment of The Abbey Garden Centre presents tangible opportunities to enhance the setting of its environs, including Place House. We politely request that the Local Plan by modified to include: - Reference to the need for additional garden centre floorspace in the Borough during the plan period. - An acknowledgement that garden centre retailing is not a 'main town centre use' - An acknowledgement that the intensification of garden centre retailing at The Abbey Centre is acceptable in principle. We welcome the opportunity to meet with Officers of the Council to discuss our plans to redevelop The Abbey Garden Centre and how our plans can best support the Local Plan's ambitions.
BH23
These two sites propose a disproportionate amount of housing compared with other areas in Fareham. This is especially so when there has recently been the strawberry field development nearby. The proposals will add to the existing problems of traffic congestion in Brook Ave, barns lane and A27, which is already inaccessible at peak times. The land proposed is currently classed as 'countryside and should be maintained or used for spots/ play areas. Such a large housing development will have a negative effect on doctors and schools' facilities which are already under a considerable strain the land currently provides employment and produce.
SO31
Large Format Response - Ref0081
SO31
I completely object to the proposed new housing in Titchfield Common of 460 allocations, on the basis that current healthcare provisions are already inadequate and this development will put further pressure on to an ailing Jubilee surgery. Please refer to attached reviews of the surgery as evidence. I object to all housing proposed, outside of Welborne and the brownfield sites. No greenfield land should be used to keep the rural feel of a Hampshire town. More importantly the lack of infrastructure (road, medical, educational) is of serious concern in your proposals. You cannot build housing with no provision to support over subscribed GP surgeries and schools. You risk depriving the borough of these services and making Fareham and more unpleasant and unsafe place to live.
PO14
Large Format Response - Ref0092
SO23
Back to Top
How to get here
