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 land is a valuable set of countryside and should be kept as open land so that future generations can enjoy it.
PO16
After attending the CAT meeting at Portchester school. The impression I got was that the Council had already made their decision regarding the Romsey Avenue development. some of the questions asked were reasonable, but the answers given always related to other agencies, such as Hampshire Highways and Environmental Agencies, which had no representatives there to answer the questions. There is a safety issue regarding the school children and traffic in and around Beaulieu Avenue. My fear is that this development will be rushed because it is cheapest and easiest.
PO16
This is active farm land that supports wildlife such as Brent geese, deer, foxes and badgers. There is poor access to the site with the roads already being crowded and dangerous. The schools are all over subscribed and no local infrastructure to support this. Beaulieu ave is very dangerous for cars.
PO16
The local roads and infrastructure cannot support this planned development. Plus loss of wild life habitats.
PO16
I object to the proposed housing development on land adjacent to Romsey Avenue
SO45
I regularly drive to the A27 via Romsey Avenue and Beaulieu Avenue. There is already a considerably high level of traffic coming from the A27 onto Beaulieu Avenue and Romsey Avenue during the school runs to Wicor Primary School. As cars are currently able to park along one side of Beaulieu Avenue, it's poses a blind corner for cars approaching from the Quintrel Avenue direction when turning into Beaulieu Avenue. If the planning decision were to be granted, the road structure would need to be reviewed to include Beaulieu Avenue with possible widening at the junction with Romsey Avenue. If this isn't going to happen then I can see there will be an increase in the number of collisions, whether it be cars vs. cars or worse still pedestrians.
PO16
Good Afternoon: Would very much appreciate if you could please include my 'Protest and Objection Comments' (as listed below) to the Proposed Development of the land to the rear of Romsey Avenue? I will be very much involved with all of the problems if this development goes ahead and understand I am still in time to post my objection but would very much appreciate if you could kindly confirm that I am in fact not too late to post my objection. MY CONCERNS AND PROTEST REGARDING THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAND TO THE REAR OF ROMSEY AVENUE Again, and the same as my last protest - I very strongly object to any more additional properties being developed in this area since we are already immensely over populated in all respects also with very limited medical centres and other essential facilities and services not to mention the lack of placement for new pupils at the THREE local schools. I am also very concerned with the horrendous parking situation in this area with an immense number of cars permanently parked on our incorrectly built narrow roads and also where some residents do not have garages for their cars or even a driveway all of which necessitates single line traffic in all directions causing havoc, chaos and sometimes dangerous situations especially when parents drive in from other local areas to drop off and also collect their children from the Wicor Primary School. My other main concern is for the WILDLIFE that desperately need the only last green pasture that remains in this area which these greedy developers intend to impact on with complete disregard for the survival of our already diminishing wildlife who are desperately struggling to survive. We need our wildlife including the natural environment for our own survival so I hope this is also taken into positive consideration. Thank you.
PO16
Dear Sir/Madam, Regarding Romsey Avenue Field proposal in Portchester, Fareham We are all becoming aware of Foreman Homes proposed development in the Romsey Avenue field. I went to the open meeting in the Roundabout hotel , and clearly they hadn't done their research and homework well, and were blatantly using deception as part of their tool. Firstly, the photo they issued of Beaulieu Avenue was taken on a wide angled camera to make it look wider than it is, and there wasn't a single car in the photo! Beaulieu Avenue currently is a nightmare to drive through, and yet this is the access road for the new development. The traffic department has underestimated the amount of cars, because with 250 proposed houses, (more being added later in phase two), on top of the Cranleigh Road site now being developed in the field NEXT to the Romsey Avenue site, this adding another 200 cars, there are going to be an extra estimated 700 cars going through this already almost impossible road. The corner of Beaulieu and Romsey will become a gridlock. The access is extremely poor into this proposed development, and there is no other alternative access. Safety for anyone, but especially the MANY school children that cross the road at that point is going to be extremely compromised. Why do we have to wait for a fatality until notice is taken? With the proposed building of more housing on the other side of the A27 at Winnow Farm. Portchester is going to be a driving catastrophe. This simply hasn't been thought through. Developing the field for housing behind Romsey Avenue will destroy the environment for the wildlife of badgers, deer, Brent geese, and slow worms that live there. It will also destroy forever, the unique nature of Portchester, and simply turn it into a concrete jungle, deeply affecting the quality of life for the residence of a wide area. This is top agricultural land, and with Brexit happening, we need all such available land. The fields south of Romsey are a national treasure and should not be touched. Foreman Homes were also deceptive in their written advertising, as they declared that local amenities were available such as schools, shops and medical centre. The fact is that the local schools are full. Children in Romsey Avenue can't even get into Wicor School! Residents have to wait at least three weeks as it is now for an appointment at the doctors, and the nearest shop is a small coop to which they would have to drive, causing immense mayhem in the tight road leading to it, again necessitating going back into Romsey Avenue. The infrastructure simply isn't there for this proposed development, and it cannot be created due to physical restrictions. The proposed new development would not add any new employment whatsoever. Please can I appeal to your wise judgement and humanity to step in and help put a stop to this insane proposal. With many other developments going on or about to start in Fareham, it seems ludicrous to even allow the Romsey Avenue field or any field around it to be considered for development. With Cranleigh Road being developed, there simply is not the capacity for human life with its massively increased traffic to be crammed into this whole area. Cranleigh is bad enough for this area, without imposing additional housing on the Romsey Avenue site.
PO16
Local schools will be overloaded, increase of numbers and parent drop off points , causing untold chaos. With children moving -traffic flow - no wardens to control this problem. Public transport will be suffering with HA4 site being outside convenient service. The schools will have to expand-extra faculties no mention has been made for these extra pupils. We Residents were informed way back in 2005 that the Knowle area would cater for the area allocation -a big let down by local council. No other green belt or brown field site need not be considered !!! During building on these plots where will be the monitoring -safety- accessibility-welfare of the children & residents alike. How many of these homes will accommodate young local & searching for 1st homes. Expensive homes will bring in residents from outside area defeating the need of local people.
PO16
The impact on the Portchester infrastructure will be disastrous to the local roads, school places, doctor's appointments, wildlife and residents. Traffic in and out of both Romsey Avenue and Cranleigh developments will be via Beaulieu Avenue and Hatherley Crescent. Both are narrow residential roads never designed to take the high volume of today's traffic. Hundreds of additional vehicles from these two developments attempting to travel along these roads will create a complete traffic gridlock and make life a misery for local residents, emergency services will have great difficulty accessing the area. The palliative solution to change the traffic light sequence at the A27/ Downend junction will not improve the situation and could adversely affect the safety of the pupils and pedestrians crossing the roads at this junction. Currently at peak times the traffic on A27 between Portchester and Fareham is at a standstill, an increase in traffic volume from this, and other proposed developments will aggravate this serious problem, increasing the already unacceptable levels of air pollution which this borough is currently experiencing. Local doctor's surgeries are already struggling to provide the required service to their patients. A waiting time at the Westland's Medical Centre of 3 weeks for a routine appointment to see a Doctor is the norm. The proposed increases in the population from Downend Road/Romsey Avenue/ Cranleigh developments will place a crippling burden on our already stretched medical resources. Before any proposal is even considered all infrastructure issues should be addressed, costed and fully resolved. The Developers should be made to contribute to the investigation/studies and implementation of all necessary changes.
PO16
The impact on the Portchester infrastructure will be disastrous to the local roads, school places, doctor's appointments, wildlife and residents. Traffic in and out of both Romsey Avenue and Cranleigh developments will be via Beaulieu Avenue and Hatherley Crescent. Both are narrow residential roads never designed to take the high volume of today's traffic. Hundreds of additional vehicles from these two developments attempting to travel along these roads will create a complete traffic gridlock and make life a misery for local residents, emergency services will have great difficulty accessing the area. The palliative solution to change the traffic light sequence at the A27/ Downend junction will not improve the situation and could adversely affect the safety of the pupils and pedestrians crossing the roads at this junction. Currently at peak times the traffic on A27 between Portchester and Fareham is at a standstill, an increase in traffic volume from this, and other proposed developments will aggravate this serious problem, increasing the already unacceptable levels of air pollution which this borough is currently experiencing. Local doctor's surgeries are already struggling to provide the required service to their patients. A waiting time at the Westland's Medical Centre of 3 weeks for a routine appointment to see a Doctor is the norm. The proposed increases in the population from Downend Road/Romsey Avenue/ Cranleigh developments will place a crippling burden on our already stretched medical resources. Before any proposal is even considered all infrastructure issues should be addressed, costed and fully resolved. The Developers should be made to contribute to the investigation/studies and implementation of all necessary changes.
PO16
Madness traffic just one way in and out of Beaulieu Ave, accidents with occur on the A 27
PO16
Lack of infrastructure, roads, schools and GP surgeries with no room of expansion, recruitment
PO16
I went to the CAT meeting at Portchester Community School on 25th October and there were several inconsistencies in the information given. It was also presented as though it was already decided. However, it is a highly unsuitable site for the number of homes suggested and I cannot understand how anybody can think it appropriate with the access limitations and the road congestion already experienced by residents. It is clear that there are some tricks going on to alter figures. The traffic counters put in place to monitor traffic were only in place during the half term holiday when there is less heavy traffic. Had they been in place during school time a very different picture would emerge. The A27 is already over congested and the pollution this is causing is significant. I know of an adult whose health is being compromised by this so our children are likely to be adversely affected by further pollution. We are not just talking about a few cars here but a high number with no exit except along already congested roads. The current exit for this development is proposed to be a small service road which is an access road for a few garages and a field. How anyone could possibly think this a suitable route I don't know. The pollution caused by cars sitting waiting to get out onto Romsey Avenue will be high at a time when children are passing it to two schools. There is Cams Hill School in one direction as well as Wicor Primary School in the opposite direction. Having mentioned the two schools I fear for the safety of children going to school past this access road. They are encouraged to use bikes and scooters and it is highly likely that children will be involved in accidents there. It is already difficult to leave the area by car at school start and end times as parents try to get their children to school and then get to work. If this were magnified by the cars from the number of houses proposed also trying to get out to work etc. we will all be in danger at these times as we try to access the congested A27. Since the area proposed is surrounded by housing and the sea to the south there is no where else for traffic to emerge. This will have an impact on the quality of life of the people already living in this area and a knock on effect on all of Portchester. This proposal is detrimental to the quality of life of all residents and should not be allowed.
PO16
Portchester and the surrounding area is in desperate need of additional homes. There is an entire generation of people unable to settle or start a family. These people are already in the area, already registered with doctors and already using the infrastructure. A number will already have children in local schools and commute to work on local roads. Development does not have to decimate wildlife or open spaces, if done right it can enhance urban wildlife and provide open spaces for those who wish to access them.
PO16
We are all becoming aware of Foreman Homes proposed development in the Romsey Avenue field. I went to the open meeting in the Roundabout hotel , and clearly they hadn't done their research and homework well, and were blatantly using deception as part of their tool. Firstly, the photo they issued of Beaulieu Avenue was taken on a wide angled camera to make it look wider than it is, and there wasn't a single car in the photo! Beaulieu Avenue currently is a nightmare to drive through, and yet this is the access road for the new development. The traffic department has underestimated the amount of cars, because with 250 proposed houses, (more being added later in phase two), on top of the Cranleigh Road site now being developed in the field NEXT to the Romsey Avenue site, this adding another 200 cars, there are going to be an extra estimated 700 cars going through this already almost impossible road. The corner of Beaulieu and Romsey will become a gridlock. The access is extremely poor into this proposed development, and there is no other alternative access. Safety for anyone, but especially the MANY school children that cross the road at that point is going to be extremely compromised. Why do we have to wait for a fatality until notice is taken? With the proposed building of more housing on the other side of the A27 at Winnow Farm. Portchester is going to be a driving catastrophe. This simply hasn't been thought through. Developing the field for housing behind Romsey Avenue will destroy the environment for the wildlife of badgers, deer, Brent geese, and slow worms that live there. It will also destroy forever, the unique nature of Portchester, and simply turn it into a concrete jungle, deeply affecting the quality of life for the residence of a wide area. This is top agricultural land, and with Brexit happening, we need all such available land. The fields south of Romsey are a national treasure and should not be touched. Foreman Homes were also deceptive in their written advertising, as they declared that local amenities were available such as schools, shops and medical centre. The fact is that the local schools are full. Children in Romsey Avenue can't even get into Wicor School! Residents have to wait at least three weeks as it is now for an appointment at the doctors, and the nearest shop is a small coop to which they would have to drive, causing immense mayhem in the tight road leading to it, again necessitating going back into Romsey Avenue. The infrastructure simply isn't there for this proposed development, and it cannot be created due to physical restrictions. The proposed new development would not add any new employment whatsoever. Please can I appeal to your wise judgement and humanity to step in and help put a stop to this insane proposal. With many other developments going on or about to start in Fareham, it seems ludicrous to even allow the Romsey Avenue field or any field around it to be considered for development. With Cranleigh Road being developed, there simply is not the capacity for human life with its massively increased traffic to be crammed into this whole area. Cranleigh is bad enough for this area, without imposing additional housing on the Romsey Avenue site.
PO12 6
Please reconsider this development. The roads are already extremely busy on the A27, especially around Cams. Schools and local services ie. Doctors are already stretched and having 250 homes will put added pressure throughout the Portchester area.
PO16
Moving the Badger is not helping wildlife. There will be be over 300 more cars, and Romsey Avenue cant cope with it, you haven't thought about the schools or doctors surgery. You are building on agricultural land. Don't forget we are an island.
PO16
the roads are narrow for the volume of traffic to come the school is full, and the waiting for a doctor will only get longer and it will destroy the village feel of portchester
PO16
Increased traffic on small local roads . especially the access road. Including heavy goods traffic during building process. Schools cannot take any more pupils and no room to build more classrooms. GP appointments waiting will increase. A great deal of wildlife depend on the farmland for their daily food. So will therefore be destroyed forever.
PO16
It is with alarm that we note the proposed changes to our area. 1.A new development seems foolhardy and ill conceived as it relies for future success on an infrastructure, school and medical capacity that does not exist. 2.The past years have seen a growth in the number of cars per house in Romsey Ave and such would be the congestion in this narrow cul de sac that residents have been forced to turn their lawns to car parks. This does not bode well for a further growth in vehicle numbers which would mean significant changes to access in this already crowded area. 3. The proposal would deprive this area of a natural habitat for some of our wildlife, fresh air and sense of space; all of which are necessary for the collective well being of us all.
PO16
Throughout Portchester it is suggested that around 624 new houses could be built. All Portchester Primary schools have a waiting list. I have read no plans for new schools in this area. Tacking on temporary classrooms to existing purpose built schools would adversely affect the quality of education in the area. Therefore, where are the extra school aged children going to go for a school place? New housing should not be shoehorned into small green spaces in an already crowded environment which suffers from frequent traffic congestion, etc.
PO16
As a resident of [redacted] we would like to voice our concerns for the proposed development of land south of Romsey ave. We feel this would have a HUGH impact on the area as with no infrastructure in place to cope with i.e. Schools in the area are already FULL. Doctors are at bursting point. Roads are chock-a -block now let alone adding to it, Beaulieu Ave would become a MAIN ROAD & our road Hatherley Crescent would become a RAT RUN. As with cars trying to access A27 heading EAST would use Hatherley Crescent & when it is school run time it will be very dangerous for children & parents especially outside Wicor primary school, access from A27 into Beaulieu Ave at busy times would become very dangerous with extra volume of traffic. THE GREEN SPACE BETWEEN PORTCHESTER & FAREHAM WOULD BE GONE FOREVER, WITH A HUGE IMPACT ON WILDLIFE. THE ABOVE POINTS WILL BE SEVERELY TESTED WHEN THE PROPOSED CRANLEIGH RD DEVELOPMENT STARTS.
PO16
Objection to Development site HA5 Romsey Avenue. Dear Sir/madam, I strongly object to the proposed housing development on the land to the South of Romsey Avenue. I believe this plan is completely floored for several reasons in this letter I will focus on highways and the single access to the proposed site. 1. Access to the proposed site is completely inadequate. This small road would have up to possibly 500 cars coming out at rush hour in the morning and returning at rush hour in the evening. (Added to the already heavy traffic flow from other local roads) At the same time children will be making they're way to and from school. Safety hazards!! springs to mind!!! During the school run this road is already very busy with many children on their way to Cams (some on bikes) and also children traveling in the other direction to Wicor. It would be waiting for an accident to happen. 2. The 500 plus vehicles that would come out of the small and only access road to and from the proposed housing development, would then add to the already heavy congested A27 at peak times. Traffic would come out of the Access road and turn left into Romsey then right into Beaulieu. Beaulieu Avenue has residents vehicles parked to one side and there is only enough room for one vehicle to pass by at any one time. This small stretch of road would be completely gridlocked at peak times and with an increase in traffic flow the hazards to children both walking and on bikes would also increase. 3. During heavy rain Romsey Avenue floods at the junction with Beaulieu Avenue as all the rain flow runs off the A27 down towards Romsey Avenue. In cold icy conditions this junction becomes very dangerous and I have personally had a car written off because a large HGV was unable to stop due to black ice on the road as the vehicle was coming down Beaulieu Avenue. Again an increase risk of safety to all residents and children. 4. The access road to the proposed site is to narrow . If Highways decide to restructure the surrounding roads by widening,or adding double yellow lines this will not solve the problem. One access road for 250 plus houses is ridiculous. This development needs to be reconsidered. Land south of Romsey is not a suitable development site.
PO16
Sometimes the traffic is so bad that it can take 40 mins to get from Oysell gardens to Fareham roundabout, if I'm lucky I can turn right up Downend road and travel 13 miles out of my way via Wickham to get there! And the council want to add another 225 homes on a field that suffers with flooding, is full of wildlife and is now going to have a possible 500 extra cars? utter madness! As I can see it the only viable routes to and from this site is via Romey avenue and/or Cranleigh road. Both these roads are very small residential roads and have a high number of parked cars on them due to lack of garage space and personal parking areas. The fact that there are 3 schools within walking distance will add to the danger of all those extra cars both physically for the walking children and possible health issues like high concentrate of fumes hanging around the built up homes. Are the council going to widen the Beaulieu road and junction to allow easy access to Portchester road, will they be compulsory purchasing homes or land to make this possible. Where are all the extra people going to go to the doctors? the schools are full, where are the children going to go to school? if out of the area then even more schools runs and added traffic at peak times. This proposal is utter madness and should be blocked, Welbourne is the only viable area and that should have gone through by now, these local areas must not be built on as soon there will be no green space between Portchester and Fareham town, we will all be living in a city, breathing in muck all day every day.
PO16
The infrastructure cannot support further housing in this area. The roads are not suitable, a majority of traffic will head straight to the A27, I work less than 5 miles away and must allow 30 mins to get to fareham train station due only to volume of traffic. The doctors are both full and there is no capacity at either local school.
PO16
The volume of traffic at the moment already makes it almost impossible for me to leave my driveway during rush hours. A new housing development on Romsey Avenue will increase the flow of traffic heading towards Portchester Village to an unacceptable extent. The local GP surgery in Portchester is also at the limit of the number of new patients it can accept (I am confident this is correct because I often talk to patients and newcomers to the area). I also understand that local schools are at their limit of how many new children they can accept. Also, I object strongly to the loss of green fields that support local wild life. Once these fields have gone, they will never be replaced. Finally, I would like to ask why 700 of the proposed new homes on greenfield sites have been assigned to Portchester. This is completely unacceptable.
PO16
I am objecting to the proposed development of additional housing on farmland. I do have concerns over whether either of my sons will be able to get a foothold on the housing ladder so I do understand the governments desire to embark on a massive house building programme to meet these future needs. However, any plans , I feel, must meet the following criteria A) be affordable to first time buyers, not those already well established or to be snapped up by prospective landlords . B) must be supported by adequate infrastructure C) not negatively impact on existing communities that cannot support additional rises in local population with existing services. I was therefore, heartened to see FBCs proposal for Welborne, a flagship Garden Town. A blank canvass, a new community, with schools, doctors surgeries and other infra structures designed to support the new town. I am therefore disappointed to learn , that although Welborne is designed to meet the needs of local housing for the foreseeable future, delays in it's development have meant that precious land ( agricultural and wildlife supporting) is being considered for development to prop up theses requirements. I am not a nimby . I am not a traffic expert. I am not a health expert nor a spokesperson for Natural England. I am only a resident and mother who can see the Impracticalities of building on this land and the consequences it will have. It is agricultural land. The farmer has cultivated on the land every year I have lived here. Brent geese, deer are often seen feeding on the land. The proposed entrance is through a narrow farmers gate. It would not support the traffic increase, neither would Romsey Avenue, Beaulieu Avenue , which currently both have to be navigated with care due to on street parking. At peak times , traffic congestion from Cams Mill Roundabout backs up to Beaulieu Avenue. Where will all these cars go ? What will the subsequent impact in air quality be in the area- particularly on hot sunny days. What impact on our children walking back from Cams and Wicor ?Not to mention the safety implications as they have to navigate a busy junction. What about access to schools and doctors surgeries for these new additional residents. Combine this with the other proposed developments in Portchester , we are looking at approx 624 additional houses. It is not sustainable with current resources and as I have mentioned I am not an expert but I do have common sense! Stick to Welborne, push through Welborne, do whatever it takes and sell this flagship new community as an example to other councils. The people of Fareham will thank you for it and will reflect in the way we view our councillors when it comes to voting time.
PO16
Road safety all around want be able to cope, It is already dangerous in nearby roads when Wicor Schools is shouting and ending its day where do Foreham homes suggest 225 more cars go? Wicor school is full, where will the children of the people who buy these houses go? their parents will take them to other schools which will cause even more congestion. The A27 will be grid locked all day as the infrastructure of the road system will not be able to cope. Portchester needs small, affordable houses for our young people We do not need people from other areas coming in with more cars clogging up the roads. Infrastructure must be agreed and sorted out before building more houses. What does the council propose to do about our area od SSI, the wildlife and our green spaces, use the brown spaces already identified rather than ruin our coastal wild life area. All new housing In Porchester, affordable and have sufficient infrasture to cope with it. Why should Portchester and Warsash take all housing needs to Fareham
PO16
We wish to lodge our objection to this development as we feel it will adversely impact on the local community due to: 1. Increased traffic/parking difficulties in an area already quite congested. 2. Impact on local schools which are already at almost full capacity 3. Disruption to people's home life/privacy due to heavy plant vehicles & prolonged building works 4. Loss of already disappearing 'green spaces' 5. Impact on already stretched local health services
PO16
With the quantum of housing proposed being broadly consistent with the indicative site capacity the increase in local and commercial traffic this will incur will make an already serious situation far worse. Just this morning 20/11/2017 it was impossible to get out of Beaulieu Avenue on to the A27 to get to work. I understand the primary highway access shall be focused on Romsey Avenue which joins on to Hatherley Crescent. This section of Romsey Avenue already bears commuter traffic from the Ideal homes and Sturgess developments built in the 1950s and 1960s, Wicor School traffic and that of families trying to get to Cams Hill School as well as commuter traffic joining the M27 where traffic backs up from the Delme Roundabout back to Birdwood roundabout and that is on a good day. It can back up to Beaulieu and beyond even without an additional 250 homes being proposed. The creation of a loop road on the site with pedestrian and cycle crossing points will only add to the chaos and pose an increased safety risk particularly for the elderly and very young. The Field access off Romsey Avenue is very narrow and barely able to accommodate pavements and two way traffic which will spill into Romsey and Beaulieu Avenues. In addition any incidents on the M27 results in traffic diverting on to the A27 bringing already congested roads to a standstill. This proposal of another 250 houses will stretch the goodwill of Beaulieu Avenue residents who currently park along one side of the road already to allow a better flow of traffic. If this goodwill to its local neighbours is lost, which seeing all the placards displayed at the moment seems highly likely and understandably so a risk of accident and injury is almost inevitable. Community services will also be insufficient to support the new occupants. GP appointments already run at 3 weeks and schools are full to capacity with funding cut in real terms. Air quality is already a problem for Fareham Council on their own say so. This health risk will increase all the while Portchester is expected to absorb more than 25% of the new build in Portchester.
PO16
"I am extremely unhappy to see that Romsey Avenue has been included in the draft Local Plan. This land is close proximity of Portsmouth Harbour SPA and has been used for Brent Geese and wading birds. Deers, Badgers and various other animals use this land. It is used as cereal land by the farmer and we should not be letting good agricultural land go to development when there is other areas in the Fareham BC which are not farmed on. The farmer is even there right now (21/11) ploughing the field this surely should not be developed on? At the Cranleigh Road appeal it was said that land next to Cranleigh Road should be protected and not lost also. Why is Fareham Borough not listening to this advice? Fareham BC defended the Cranleigh Road development for over 30 years. The council obviously lost this land at the appeal. But surely all your objections as a Council still stand?? Then why are Fareham BC willing to let even better agricultural land go to development which also holds even more wildlife etc? Birdwood Estate had 120 houses and a roundabout was needed to cope with the extra cars. Why is Romsey with 225 homes being proposed not having a roundabout also or any additional infrastructure? The A27 just cannot cope with this much development. Doctors and schools cannot cope with this development all of the development in Portchester will see children going to Wicor School this cannot happen! I see other areas that have been objected by Council that were put forward for development have been said ""no"" too because of access to road but Romsey Avenue has terrible access and with far more houses developed but has been put into the local plan why is this? I do feel the other sites in Portchester should not happen but they seem to have better roads to cope then this field. I believe that Romsey Avenue should be removed from the Local Plan without further delay and a more suitable area not in Portchester should be brought forward. I hope that all my valid points will be looked at and how strongly Romsey Avenue is being objected the Planning Department show that residents do still have a voice. Thank you."
PO16
With the houses agreed on the Cranleigh site additional housing will bring an awful amount of traffic. The amount of traffic has increased considerably over the last year alone, and this is without extra housing being built nearby. I can wait ages to just drive off of my driveway. In addition to this, are additional school places going to be allocated? With additional teachers needed? How about the doctors? I think this amount of houses on this site is ridiculous, Portchester is going to be the size of Portsmouth if this is allowed to carry on!!!!! Additional houses brings additional people which brings a possible increase in crime, school places, doctors appointments being needed, cost of repair to roads which will be over used for for the amount of cars they were originally built for. This is already a fairly built up area, why add more!!!!
Postcode not provided
I wish to make clear my objections to this proposed development in the strongest terms. This proposed development is on what is clearly very productive class 2 agricultural land, which should be protected. The land is an important habitat for all kinds of wildlife and should be protected for wading birds and Brent geese under the SPA even though the current status is as an uncertain feeding ground, pictures of Brent geese in the fields are widely available, as are pictures of deer and evidence of bats and badgers. As important as it is to build new homes, this site will present very clear access and traffic issues. It is currently impossible for residents in Beaulieu Road to park on both sides of the Road, and even with cars parked on one side of the Road the flow through Beaulieu is slow and constricted. This road has always had a limited vehicle weight limit of 7.5 tonnes and it is hard to imagine how site traffic will be able to navigate this road safely, when once they reach the junction with Romsey Avenue they have to make a left turn and then an almost immediate right turn between two houses to access the proposed entrance to this development. With the number of school children leaving these Roads as pedestrians and cyclists there are grave safety concerns. Currently at Peak times the Portchester Road (A27) is nose to tail between the condor roundabout and the Delme Roundabout. If built 225 houses in a modern scenario is likely to produce at least a further 500 cars, even more now that many grown up children stay at home longer. These 500 plus cars are going to have to exit the development between two existing houses turn left into Romsey and then immediately right into Beaulieu and then queue in the Road while waiting to join the Portchester Road. A roundabout was build for the bird estate which has only half the number of houses, yet it is impractical to build a roundabout at the end of Beaulieu in the Portchester road to allow this traffic access. This traffic will be sat waiting to join already queuing traffic on the A27 adding to the pollution levels currently being suffered by residents in the area, the borough is already facing issues with air quality in other congested areas yet the local plan isn't taking any cognizance of these facts, this is going to be exacerbated by even more traffic should the Downend Road development at Winnham Farm also proceed.
PO16
I am concerned that to build 250 houses on this site will have a huge impact on the infrastructure in the area. I envisage at least 2 adults per house with the average of 2 children occupying these houses which would total around 500 adults and 500 children. This is in addition to the number of residents increase on the nearby accepted Cranleigh road of 120 houses. This increase will put pressure on the Doctors surgeries of which there are only two in the Portchester area and the schools to support this increase. The traffic from this site is only one way to go through the current farmed gate and out onto the A27 via Romsey avenue and Beaulieu avenue. Beaulieu avenue is already a congested road with one side being taken up with parked cars which only allows traffic to flow one way at a time. Therefore the extra cars this site would produce would bring more congestion to the area resulting in more pollution from car exhausts to the air quality. The extra traffic would also add to the already congested A27 into Fareham Town at peak times. There needs to be more information from the council as to how the infrastructure impacts are to be implemented before considering the proposed plan.
PO16
I object to the proposed development due to the impact it will have on the character of the neighbourhood with the extra traffic generation which will impact on the roads that struggle to cope with the existing traffic. Access to site is unacceptable as with cars already parking on Beaulie Ave, Romsey Ave and Hatherley Crescent makes things awkward to navigate the area and more traffic will make highway safety a problem. There will also be a major impact on the schools and doctors surgeries in the area which don't seem to cope with the current numbers of residents. Also the environment and wildlife will suffer with extra pollution and loss of habitats.
PO16
You are destroying the village and the wellbeing of the people. There are plenty of homes for sale in Portchester – and plenty of derelict properties which could have a new lease of life. Why build on green space? I have taken living in Portchester for granted. I thankfully enjoyed a childhood where I could roam around the fields, woods, cycle on my bike and walk to school listening to the birds singing and watching the deer in the distance. This is why I moved my family back to Portchester - to enjoy what I experienced. To say that others could enjoy the same experience when the new houses are built – will not be true. It will never be the same place again. It will become a crushed and dirty town. To say I am sad about the proposal for more housing is an understatement. It actually brings me to tears. The noise of traffic will elevate, the air will be thick with car smog and the wildlife will no longer be spotted. I know this as fact - as it has happened already. The traffic is so bad along the A27. Most evenings, I have to park my car in the Birdwood Grove or in the Causeway and walk to Shearwater in order to get home. I collect my car later in the evening when the traffic has dissipated. It took 2 years to get my daughter into Wicor and we are in the catchment area. They are full. I have zero faith in democracy which is evident every time the people's objections get rail-roaded. I do not even want to live in Portchester anymore. It has been my home, solace and community for 40 years. It is now to be a dirty, busy, overcrowded, polluted town. Schools cannot accommodate (and even if children from outside the catchment were omitted – it would still be too many). Doctors surgeries – I have to wait 4 weeks for an appointment Air pollution increased! Traffic increased to tremendous levels which is dangerous, noisy and unhealthy. Wildlife destroyed! Ancient land destroyed! All these points cause frustration and anger. Who would want to live hemmed-in to their neighbours?
PO16
I'd like you to be in my house at school times, the traffic is terrible to get in and out, I get abuse if I want to get in or out my drive. Are you going to make another road other than Hatherley Drive? I am already worried for the safety of the children walking along the pavements and trying to cross the road. If here are already cars and lorry's parked how will the emergency services get through? All the extra cars would impact and could cause a further risk to life! Its already an issue without the extra cars.
PO16
I object to proposed site due to lack of access. unsafe for h g v drivers around school and residential area. lack of parking . A27 already jammed rush hour traffic. environment issues wildlife will be affected. schools will be over crowded already difficult to get a doctor appt mire residents will make it worse.
PO16
There is not safe access in or out of this site. The amazing wild life that is reliant on this plot, such as geese will be a real loss to this area.
PO16
I would like to view my objections to the Romsey Avenue Developmemt. Portchester Road which is an exceptionally congested road at rush hour, through out the night cars and heavy goods vehicles already race down the road where there is no traffic calming or speed limiters, this causes noise pollution, air pollution and prevents my family from getting across the road easily both on foot or by car. At this time you already cannot hold a conversation on my front drive because of the heavy traffic noise. The school children at Cams will be in even more danger when crossing this road. Drs appts are already not available for over 3 weeks and this will hinder us even further. Portchester and Fareham are joined by boundaries and are two busy areas for traffic passing through. Please do not develop one of the few areas left of natural beauty and congest our drs, schools and roads even more. Thank you for you attention .
Postcode not provided
The recent confirmation of development there is bad enough, but the Romsey Avenue plan is beyond ridiculous as far as infrastructure is concerned. There are so many problems with this sight being developed. ACCESS!! 1.For all vehicles to have to go through that tiny access road. 2.To then travel along Beaulieu Ave to reach the A27. 3.The only alternative is to use Hatherley Crescent as a 'rat run' 4.In doing this they would have to pass the gates of Wicor Primary school. In my opinion this would mean it would be 'an accident waiting to happen'! 5.This area south of the A27 is FULL already. INFRASTRUCTURE!! Where are all these families going to the doctors, school, hospital etc.? These facilities are already full in this area. The roads CANNOT COPE. Please let common sense prevail and think twice about all the planned development in the Portchester wards.
PO16
The current road structure in and immediately around the proposed Romsey Avenue housing development cannot sustain this number of houses. The safety on these roads, especially around the school, will be jeopardised. As an average, each new house is likely to have two cars of which all have to eventually enter the A27. At peak times the A27 between Portchester and Fareham is already gridlocked with existing unacceptable levels of pollution, this of course will significantly increase. At these times, the misery and harm from the virtually stationary traffic is incalculable. The local Doctors Surgeries are already unable to cope, with the existing waiting time for an appointment at 4 weeks. With a further likely 1500 plus local residents, there will be no chance of getting an appointment for what could be months. Those with immediate concerns will ultimately go straight to QA Hospital. The destruction of wildlife habitat for all the proposed developments on green field sites in Portchester is shameful - and heartbreaking.
PO16
"I heavily object to this site being developed now and in the future. Romsey Avenue should be removed from the Draft Plan as Condition No. 5 from the Inspectors Report from the Cranleigh Road appeal states that: ""No housing development including gardens and roads shall take place to the west of the hedgerow running north to south through the site as shown on Drawing No. 01 Rev W- Illustrative Site Plan"". This means that the land adjacent Romsey Avenue should not be developed on so the destruction of the local environment is contained within the Cranleigh Road development to limit further devastation and negative impacts on the safety of residents, school children, ecology and the wellbeing of the community. In addition, Romsey Avenue and Downend Road East are the only two sites within the Draft Plan that are subject to an Environmental Impact Assessment. The ecological significance of this area is well established and focus should be given to alternative sites which are less destructive. It is not uncommon to see newts, slow worm, badgers, deer, foxes, Brent Geese, Canadian Geese, skylarks and wading birds in and around the farmland. I am very concerned about the increased level of traffic, and in particular, the safe commute of children to Wicor School. The school is already at capacity and has a waiting list for new entrants. I receive newsletters from Wicor and a reoccurring complaint is from residents to the school around the level of vehicles that park in the surrounding areas. It is not sustainable to substantially introduce more children and associated vehicles to this school. This is in addition to people commuting to work from the proposed development. The trip generation (shown in the Transport Summary Note) estimates that 164 vehicles will make a journey during rush hour from the 250 dwellings. This is likely to be much more if there is an average of 2 cars per dwelling. The report states that this was acceptable for the Cranleigh appeal however, the access for the Romsey development is through Beaulieu Avenue and this is no comparison as cars are parked on the road for the entire length from the A27 to the site entrance. Access to Beaulieu Avenue from the west of the A27 is via a central reservation that can only accommodate 3-4 vehicles. Any more vehicles would result in a blockage along the A27. The traffic survey equipment that was laid down across Romsey Avenue was only present for one week during the October half term and this will only represent a biased view of the traffic and should not be used. I often witness road rage during peak periods as the majority of residents between the A27 to the proposed site entrance do not have driveways and park on the street, meaning that there are limited passing points. When the refuse lorries are present during rush hour there is nowhere to go and it is gridlocked. If double yellow lines are proposed along the access route, this will only result in these resident vehicles parking further down Romsey Avenue, and on road parking is already at capacity. I went to the public consultation with Foreman Homes and they openly said that they will develop a scheme that will maximise their profit and they have little interest in our community or ecology. I am in communication with my neighbours and they all received the same, blatant, message from Foreman. They have no interest in sustainable development and this could prove damaging to the local area. It is already difficult to get a routine appointment at Westlands doctor surgery within a 2 week period and I have waited for up to 2 hours previously for emergency appointments. The proposed development offers no improvements to the local area in terms of infrastructure, economy, schools, healthcare and employment. There are no added benefits. This is not sustainable development. The acceptance to develop on the Cranleigh plot is so disappointing. Approval to develop on the Romsey plot, and all other surrounding areas, is catastrophic and the devastation in this area should be limited to consider the impact this has on the safety of residents, school children, ecology and the wellbeing of the community."
PO16
"The absurdity of sanctioning the development whilst the WELLBOURNE DEVELOPMENT is still in progress suggests that the Council is panicing. The adverse effects of congestion on the A27 is already aseriopus problem and the developments at Downend and Romsey avenue will simply stiffle movement on the A27. These plans are ill conceived and demonstrate the reality that the council is engaged in ""knee jerk"" planning totally indifferent to the adverse effects that such development will have on the local environment, health services or ecology."
PO16
All the local primary schools are full and have waiting list for places, Fareham Borough councils own prediction for surplus capacity in schools for Portchester for 2018 is 12%. There are no schools places for primary aged children 2014 figures from office for national statistics show Fareham as Britain most dependent town, 1500 would be using the A27.
PO16
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
Now where near enough infrastructure to cope with anymore housing.
PO16
I am appalled this site is even considered for developments. The roads-Beauilie Ave/ Hatherely Crescent simple will not cope with this it is bad enough { not known} especially at schools times, it is also already difficult to get doctors appointments. This needs to be completely reconsidered and abandend. NO thought or CARE has been given to the residents at all you simple do not care sort out WELBOURNE 1ST.
PO16
what retail? I have not seen any plans for shops. transport will only be wasted - people have cars and use them. an extra bus here and there will only add to the conjestion. from 4pm to 7pmthe traffic along a27 is almost at a standstill. without adding the cars trying to get out of cranleigh rd and romsey/beaulie ave. how can all the pollution that is going to be created is not good for the natural environment. please leave portchester as a village not just an extension of fareham.
PO16
Destruction of environment, to many cars on already congested junctions. Not enough schools places & not enough doctors.
PO16
I see a situation of there not being enough Doctors in the areas and not enough spaces in the local schools for children coming. There is no talk of any course for this. Traffic coming from the A27 coming into Beaulie are will be a major hazard.
PO16
With an average waiting time of 2 to 3 weeks for a routine appointments at both Porchester surgeries, the potential pressure on the two surgeries which would be brought about by this increase in population is of great concern. All the local primary schools are full and have waiting lists for places there would be no school places for primary aged children.
PO16
I object to development to Romsay Ave & wickham Farms as this will be detrimental to Traffic flow green spaces facilities. impact on doctors, dentist, schools, hospital Wild life Health (additional Exhaust fumes) Loss of grade 1 agriculture ground
I object to development to Romsay Ave & wickham Farms as this will be detrimental to Traffic flow green spaces facilities. impact on doctors, dentist, schools, hospital Wild life Health (additional Exhaust fumes) Loss of grade 1 agriculture ground
PO16
I object to development to Romsay Ave & wickham Farms as this will be detrimental to Traffic flow green spaces facilities. impact on doctors, dentist, schools, hospital Wild life Health (additional Exhaust fumes) Loss of grade 1 agriculture ground
PO16
"1-Housing ! many schemes have NO genuinely affordable properties,and those which do exist are bought by ""by to let "" investors depriving many of their First steps on the ladder. 2- Housing needs: today airbus and Honda have been explaining to parliament that they may have to exit the UK because of uncertainty relating to Brexit, with many multi national companies in the area in the same situation, who can say what housing needs are until the times of Brexit are known."
PO16
1- Increased traffic-Portsdown Hill rd is already busy & winnham Farm traffic will only exacerbate this. 2- Romsay Ave will have to be accessed from A27 and surrounding roads, increasing danger, noise and nuisance in a residential area. 3- Portchester Infrastructure cannot support these developments - putting further pressure on Fareham recourses. 4- I am concerned about additional traffic using Shear water Ave to access the facility ( dog walking area) , it can be dangerous and busy at times with existing people using it.
PO16
Portchester 's habitats are being destroyed for all this new housing, its dangerous! The green parts that are left are being destroyed! Porchester is already too busy on the roads and will be an added strain on police , schools and other services.
PO16
I object to any development of land at Romsey Avenue and Winham Farms Fields. This is in regard to the detrimental affect on: 1) Transport Issues 2) Lack of green space 3) Lack of school, doctors facilities 4) Additional traffic 5) Impact on wildlife 6) Danger to vulnerable members of society (children/elderly) 7) Loss of Grade 1 agricultural 8) Detrimental effect on vast majority of Portchester residents
PO16
Portchester has enough housing already. The roads cannot take any more traffic and most importantly we must conserve the wildlife on these sites.
PO16
There is a lot of wildlife on this field. If all fields are used where are they to go. The schools and doctors are full to capacity. How can they take on more students/patients? The roads are already very busy and this will add to the chaos. The road system for this development is ridiculous. One way in and out onto an already very busy road with a bend where everyone goes round it on the wrong side. Where this new road is going car will not be able to stop without problems when vehicles are entering or exiting this site. There seems to have been very little though given to the situation of the road into and out of the new build. On road in and out with 120 homes! The road is a busy one with cars, lorries, buses and coaches and on match day our road is clogged up by cars parking where they can. I understand the need for new housing but please there are a lot of open spaces that would accommodate this without cramming an already busy village where schools and doctors are overcrowded. I am not a wildlife enthusiast but I do enjoy seeing it. Where are the deer's and birds going to go? We are losing our open spaces.
PO16
no money allocated for extra schools places needed, No money allocated for extending present schools to accommodate extra children . All roads rear to take new housing areas will be jammed with cars going to & from schools, roads are already very busy at schools opening/closing times congestion will be paramount. Parking of cars outside new homes & nearby roads will cause further congestion of the neighborhood. No Provision for new surgeries or expansion of existing surgeries. These surgeries are already at bursting point, WHERE will new home owners go when they ill.? Why is Portchester & surrounding areas of grass and farmland green sites being targeted for housing which will destroy wild life/natural habitats/ open spaces. Once gone they will never return. Residents of Portchester were not consulted or even informed of local plans. This is not good practice . we as residents, deserve the right to be fully informed /consulted & allowed to offer their opinions before any plans are drawn up.
PO16
Draft Local Plan – The Portchester Civic Society's Response The Portchester Civic Society is struggling to agree with the draft plan for proposed housing developments at Romsey Avenue, Winnham Farm East and Moraunt Drive. These are all greenfield sites and we would be going against our Constitution if we agreed to these sites being developed. However, we do realise there is a need for housing, especially affordable properties. Our problem is the high quantity allocated to Portchester, which will struggle to cope unless the infrastructure is first put in place. Roads, doctors' surgeries, schools, etc. are already at capacity and pollution is rising. In addition the impact on wildlife on these sites must be fully investigated before any development is allowed.
Anonymous submission
Have you considered all these houses you want to build, the schools and the doctors, and all the extra traffic in Cranleigh Road. The field you want to build on is home to many wildlife, look around Portchester, plenty of other green fields to build on. Hands off Romsey Road. Portchester is a village, you are trying to turn it in to a town. Our road Cranleigh is already overloaded with cars and huge lorries. You may not be aware that we have no drains in our road, we are often flooded. The road cannot take more and more traffic.
PO16
All these are 'technically' greenfield sites and should remain as such. In the FBC area there are hundreds of derelict buildings and sites that are all 'Brownfield' and should be used first, e.g. Wickham House school – now derelict.
PO17
Roads are insufficient to support existing traffic in Downsend area, also along A27 into Fareham. I do nor se any improvement for existing traffic {not known} (800-900 + 1600-1800 weekdays) so what is envisioned for additional traffic resulting from these developments. eastern approach to Fareham will be brought to a stand still !!!!
PO16
This development along with the other Portchester developments would cause an excess addition to an already congested road network in this area. With Traffic built up from the Delme Roundabout back to Condor Avenue and beyond the traffic on the A27 becomes a car park at peak times now. With up to 500 extra cars (well over 1000 with all the Portchester developments) using this road, the congestion would be completely horrendous The schools in the area would not cope with the extra 1500 or more pupils from all 3 sites (that is a 50+ classroom school !!) The Doctors surgeries would not cope with the extra 3000 or more patients ( they cannot recruit new doctors now !!) We all know houses need to be built, but surely that was why the concept of Wellborne was so good in that it would have its own schools and doctors etc to cope with peoples needs and also give near direct access to the M27. Why has the Wellborne development been so watered down when it would have covered all the local housing needs??. Could it be the developers did not want to put in the infrastructure ?? I object very strongly to all the Portchester developments and ask that you seriously reconsider your strategies and consider the lives of the current populace
PO16
I am aware that many objections have been made concerning this site. The areas of concern are many and varied, in particularI I wish to raise the issue of traffic conjestion and the consequential increase in air pollution. The A27 is already a very busy road and the number of additional vehicals which will now flow through residential roads will add to the congestion. In particular these additional vehicals will without doubt be stationary whilst waiting to join the A27, thus causing greater air pollution than moving traffic. The Government is not meeting targets for air pollution and this development can only make matters worse. It is my belief that there should be no further housing development within a five mile radius of the Knowle Hospital site untill such time as all of the develpoment of Wellborne is complete.
PO16
This development of this area has not taken into account the infrastructure of Schools, Doctors and Transport. All of these are full as it is and 3/4 bedroom houses will only add to this congestion further. The Greenland is also the dividing line between Fareham and Portchester and should be left as this otherwise the name of historical Portchester should be changed to Farchester
PO16
The development at Romsey Avenue is planned on a site that is designated Grade 1 Agricultural land. It is an important feeding area for migrating Brent geese, which appear within days of the crop being harvested. It is also home to deer, foxes, badgers, small rodents which are food for the hunting birds, and also skylarks – there have been nests in the field for as long as we can remember. The one road in-and-out for all the new traffic via Hatherley Crescent and Beaulieu Avenue is completely unacceptable, as at the moment residents park their cars on only one side of the road, but this still does not allow two vehicles to pass each other, leading to queues on the A27. The increase in traffic onto already congested roads will lead to further chaos at the Delme Roundabout at peak times. In the past it has taken us some 30/40 minutes to get from our house west-bound to the M27, a distance of a little over a mile and a half. There is already a growing 'rat-run' used by east-bound traffic on the A27 via Cams Hill, The Causeway and The Thicket to avoid the traffic lights at Down End Road. The schools in the area are already over-subscribed, as are the Doctors surgeries. The hundreds of extra vehicles will also lead to higher air pollution, at a time when the Government is trying to get us all to 'go green'. Portchester cannot take any more traffic!
PO16
The development at Romsey Avenue is planned on a site that is designated Grade 1 Agricultural land. It is an important feeding area for migrating Brent geese, which appear within days of the crop being harvested. It is also home to deer, foxes, badgers, small rodents which are food for the hunting birds, and also skylarks – there have been nests in the field for as long as we can remember. The one road in-and-out for all the new traffic via Hatherley Crescent and Beaulieu Avenue is completely unacceptable, as at the moment residents park their cars on only one side of the road, but this still does not allow two vehicles to pass each other, leading to queues on the A27. The increase in traffic onto already congested roads will lead to further chaos at the Delme Roundabout at peak times. In the past it has taken us some 30/40 minutes to get from our house west-bound to the M27, a distance of a little over a mile and a half. There is already a growing 'rat-run' used by east-bound traffic on the A27 via Cams Hill, The Causeway and The Thicket to avoid the traffic lights at Down End Road. The schools in the area are already over-subscribed, as are the Doctors surgeries. The hundreds of extra vehicles will also lead to higher air pollution, at a time when the Government is trying to get us all to 'go green'. Portchester cannot take any more traffic!
PO16
I live on [redacted] and the volume of traffic at the moment already makes it almost impossible for me to leave my driveway during rush hours. A new housing development on Downend Road East will increase the flow of traffic heading towards Portchester Village to an unacceptable extent. The local GP surgery in Portchester is also at the limit of the number of new patients it can accept. I also understand that local schools are at their limit of how many new children they can accept. Also, I object strongly to the loss of green fields that support local wild life. Once these fields have gone, they will never be replaced. Finally, I would like to ask why 700 of the proposed new homes on greenfield sites have been assigned to Portchester. This is completely unacceptable.
PO16
"Strongly object as from the CAT meeting 25th Oct 17 this plan breaks No2 object of ""Not Joining Portchester to Fareham. The plan has not ben investigated by all departments involved properly IE: environment, highways, access wildlife etc. The plan is flawed from the start. 1-Brent and other Geese, waders and other birds are protected and use this land south of Romsey Ave every September to feed as part of the Migration. 2- Deer and other wildlife use this land, I have photos which I passed onto Robert Tutton. 3- Land is class 2 agricultural and has been continuously farmed for food for more than 40 yrs. 4-The headmistress of Wicor Primary schools has already protested over Cranleigh Road development as they and other local schools are FULL. 5- Many children from both Wicor and cams school walk and cycle along the Romsey Ave and Beaulieu road, the so called access to the site every school day. They are already a RAT run so with construction and new users ac accident is highly likely to occur. 6- Parking on Romsey and Beaulieu is already an issue. Where are all these cars supposed to park as many households have 2 to 3 cars per house. 7 - Health centers in Porchester are already over stretched with an ageing population housed in Portchester. It takes an average of 2/3 weeks to see ones own Doctor. 8- Welborne garden village development to build good houses with proper infrastructure has progressed with Buckland development ltd having exchanged contracts on the Aquistion of Dean Farm which means they are the major land owners for the development, this means Fareham Borough council has progressed this development to such a stage thay any other development in the Fareham area should not be allowed on ""Green Field Sites"". 9- Cams Hill school class size are already high. quote [redacted] 10- Foreham Homes the developer cannot be trusted, They have already been caught out with their so called traffic measuring research by measuring the traffic in Romsey, hatherley Rd and other roads nearby over ""School Holiday"" time. Nick walker was able to find this out after the equipment was seen during this period. They also broke their licenses period by many days. Foreman homes are only in this development to make money no thought has been given to the consequences to the local people who will have to live with this forever, if it was allowed to go ahead."
PO16
There is a lack of infrastructure including schools, doctors and access to and from the proposed new development. The development will result in approximately 500 extra cars through a little entrance to what was a farmers field. This will make access to the A27 virtually impossible a lot of the time. The additional pollution of cars stuck in traffic waiting to get onto the A27 is a massive concern to me!
PO16
I wish to object because of the lack of infrastructure on these new proposed developments. At the moment you have wait 3 weeks or more to see a doctor and the extra people will only make matters worse. Traffic is already gridlocked and this is already causing pollution. The schools are full to capacity already. There is also the issue of some areas in Portchester being within the Bedenham blast area.
PO16
The entrance to this site is too small. The traffic will be horrendous as it is already a problem in this area. The pollution will be greatly increased because of the queuing - this will impact on the health of the community in Portchester. I cannot understand how they would come up with this plan it just seems foolhardy to me! The field is full of Brent Geese which land every year and should not be disturbed for the sake of a housing estate which would be better placed elsewhere. This is a green field and up to this year has been growing corn and of local natural beauty, in my opinion it should be kept for this use. The doctors are full and cannot cope already and neither can the schools.
PO16
The loss of natural habitat and species of animals that are being disturbed is not acceptable. The wildlife and its habitat have been established for many years. The need for this type of farmland will be essential in the post Brexit era when we need to grow more of our own food. Also the protected Brent geese which are on the red list. The number of cars (at least 500) will add to the already congested roads, the size of the roads are not big enough to cope. The local services are not ready to cope with the extra people this will bring to the area. It concerns me that these houses will not end up affordable and will not be offered to local people. It concerns me that there may be a domino effect where if we lose this green space we will continue to lose green spaces from Portsmouth to Southampton!
PO16
This is the most practical location for the houses to be built in Portchester
PO16
when we brought our house in Fareham it was a lovely place to live. Countryside & coast, now we have to fight out way down country lanes ( Try Pook lane at 8.30am) down the A27 along the M27. Fareham has become a traffic nightmare we don't need all these houses. You have Whitley , Knowle and the dreaded Welborne. We keel trapped I a concrete jungle, dictated to by the volume of traffic as to when we can go out. Why should we build more & more to accommodate the millions of new comers let in by last government uncontrolled migration. Put the existing residents of Fareham just we don't need these hundreds of houses here . Ensure the houses youre building in the town centre are low cost or low rent (even Council houses)- now there's an idea.
PO16
It takes nearly 3 weeks now to get a non emergency appointments. My drive is blocked most days from people picking up kids from Wicor schools. People now use our road as a Rat run from the A27 top cranleigh Rd. We need a bigger between Portchester band Fareham.
PO16
We live in [redacted] and the proposed road access for both Cranleigh Road/Romsey Avenue are totally inadequate both for construction traffic and the proposed number of houses. The junction of Cranleigh Road/Cornerway Lane will be totally chaotic. People who already live in this area are being penalised for development. When football matches occur at weekends, traffic access to Cranleigh Road and Wicor Rec is totally chaotic and with the increase in local traffic with this development it is totally inappropriate to burden present residents even more. The increase pressure on local schools and medical centres is totally inconsiderate and local MPs and Councillors have let us down totally.
PO16
Along with other development sites adjacent to the A27, the consideration given to the chaos to traffic is inadequate. The traffic situation between Portchester and Fareham is appalling with regular gridlock potential and actual events and the addition of a probable figure of 300+ more vehicles attempting to access the A27 at rush hour times beggars belief. There is no room for improvement to the nightmare that the A27 has become and this planned development, along with the others now being considered because of the failure of the council to manage the Wellborne development properly, will adversely affect the living quality of the current residents. The Romsey planned development will also adversely affect the wildlife in the area. It is noted that the farmer has specifically not carried out the normal planting this year - Brent geese and other birds would normally move to the Romsey field when usual crops are planted - especially at high tide etc.
PO2
I am very concerned about the additional traffic that will be created with the additional homes being built. Traffic is already very busy at peak times and also the schools and doctors are also full to capacity.
PO16
Development allocation HA5 – Romsey Avenue, Portchester I OBJECT to this site being included in the Draft Local Plan for the following reasons: Infrastructure ROADS – Portchester should not have to bear the brunt of so much extra housing when no thought whatsoever has been given to road improvements to a road system that is already overloaded and is in gridlock situation, especially now that the Cranleigh Road (HA6) site has been given planning permission for 120 houses. SCHOOLS – All the Portchester primary schools are filled to capacity, and again there is no provision for all the extra children that this development would bring
PO16
1/ Object because of access to Quintrel Avenue via Beaulieu Ave particularly because of elderly/retired people living in area & access of ambulance as roads are too narrow with parking. 2/ This space is providing a habitat for the wildlife which has been hounded out of Cranleigh road development - so where will it go now? 3/ A27 is crowded with vehicles already and diabolical when problems on M27. 4/School is full so where will children be educated. 5/ Doctors surgeries all full with long waits for appointments and they try their best to fit us in. 6/The air quality will be so much poorer with the increase in volume of vehicles - not everyone owns an electric car. 7/Planning to build far too many houses in the village of Portchester causing us to lose our identity - such an historical area
PO16
I am objecting to the loss of the green field site, the uprooting of the wildlife, deer, badges, geese etc that are popular in the area. I also object to the road entrance to the site mainly Beaulieu Avenue which gets congested especially at school time. If the parking of cars is removed, where are the cars going to go. The congestion round Wicor School is bad at the best of times and I worry regarding the safety of the school children. The school, doctors and dentist are bursting at the seams. Unless it is urgent we can wait three weeks to see a doctor. Portchester is a historic village but we are gradually growing more and more and losing our boundary with Fareham.
PO16
I OBJECT to this site being included in the Draft Local Plan for the following reasons: All my comments are based on the TOTAL LACK of Infrastructure of even the PLANNING for Improved Infrastructure in Portchester by either Fareham Borough Council, Hampshire County Council or even proposed Developers, for both the Road network and the provision of school places. In reality NO ONE has got any idea what to do to fix or alleviate the problems that WILL occur, and it always seems that the problems raised are always the responsibility of someone else. All the Proposed Portchester sites (HA4, HA5, HA12) 624 Dwellings (This is on top of the Approved HA6 plan of 120 dwellings at Cranleigh Road) – this give 744 dwellings There are NO plans to do anything about the traffic congestion There are NO new Roads other than those integral to the planning proposals There is NO widening of the Roads The is NOTHING Only the developers may be asked to make a financial contribution The are NO Plans, as neither Fareham nor Hampshire Councils have any clue how to fix the problems. There is NOTHING in the Draft Local Plan to even suggest how these problems could be fixed The A27 westbound towards the Delme Roundabout is currently gridlocked morning and evening and often around midday It is common for the Gridlock to stretch back along the A27 as far as the Condor Avenue mini roundabout This Delme junction feeds directly on the Slip Road to the M27 Junction 11 which in itself is also totally gridlocked, particularly late afternoons at the finishing of school / work finishing times There are No New Roads nor any planned improvements Airborne Pollution The A27 between Portchester and Fareham has currently very poor air quality These 3x proposals for Portchester will add around another 1500 cars that would use the road and this will greatly increase air pollution. This is a serious health problem, for which Fareham Borough Council will be wholly responsible if it goes ahead with these plans. Portchester Proposed Developments Primary Schools All four infant / junior schools in Portchester are full. There is a Legal Limit of 30 children in the three Key Stage1 classes (YR,Y1,Y2) A recent parent who moved into Portchester with a Year 2 child was refused access to all 4 schools as they all had 30 per class. The nearest school with a place that Hampshire County Council could offer was Redlands Primary off Redlands Lane the other side of Fareham. The mother does not drive, HCC may pay for a taxi both ways every day, which we as the Council Tax payer will pick up. Mr Baird the Government Inspector who approved the Cranleigh Road development, in his report estimated that for the 120 dwellings at Cranleigh Road that this would require 31 primary and 22 secondary school places. Working on a pro-rata from his numbers in his report this will mean that the addition 624 dwellings would require: For Primary School 624/120 x 31 = 161 extra places For Secondary School 624/120 x 22 = 114 extra places These are both over and above the Cranleigh Road development school numbers According to Hampshire County Council Schools latest Strategic Plan for 2017 to 2021, the only plan for changes at any schools in the Portchester area is for 2 extra classes in Portchester Northern Junior School in 2019. This will give 60 extra places at Years 3, 4, 5, 6. These extra places are to accommodate children already in Years R, 1, and 2 and NOT for numbers over and above that from the proposed developments.. There are NO extra planned places in Years R, 1, 2, which according to the HCC Strategic Plan shows 0 places available by 2021 Secondary Schools The Winnham Farm and Romsey Avenue development proposals are in the catchment area of Cams Hill School. This school is always over subscribed Cams Hill School is its own Admissions Authority, so HCC cannot allocate pupils to Cams Hill These are no plans for Cams Hill to increase the pupil admissions number Portchester Comprehensive is the next nearest school. According to its Strategic Plan, HCC has currently NO plans to extend this school to increase the pupil admission numbers to accommodate the estimated additional 136 pupils that the proposed developments will bring.
PO16
Strongly object as there will be no longer be a gap between Portchester and Fareham. There doesn't seem to have been any proper investigation as regards to access, highways, wildlife etc. The land is class 2 agricultural and has been constantly farmed for many years. I thought it was government policy not to build on agricultural land. Each September brent geese use the field as part of their migration. These are protected birds. Wading birds, deer and badgers are also to be found on the field. Wicor school is already full as are other local schools. Romsey and Beaulieu Avenue are used by the children, walking or cycling to either Wicor or Cams Mills school. With more traffic it increases the chance of accident. Parking is already an issue as when the properties were built cars were smaller and therefore as cars are larger now their garages are too small so they have to park in the road. How will the large vehicles required whilst building the proposed properties be able to negotiate the corners from the cul-de-sac, Romsey Avenue, Beaulieu Avenue and the A27. This hasn't been thought out. With all the extra likely, 500 odd cars what effect will this have on the air quality as with the increased traffic most of the time, the cars will be waiting to get onto the A27. The doctors surgeries will be even more stretched causing the people to use Queen Alexandra hospital which is already under pressure.
PO16
There is not enough space and the local roads too crowded and the additional traffic this plan will bring. This is also going to cause extra congestion near the school. I am not aware of any traffic calming measures to provide child safety. The impact of the additional traffic and population in Portchester will markedly alter the feel and dynamic of the area. I am not aware of any additional policing, traffic calming, school or health care support for the influx of people. I am also objecting as I am concerned about emergency service access on the congested roads near the proposed development. Open land is also important to the well being of the area, providing recreation areas, wildlife habitat and natural tracks, I object to this being removed.
PO16
I consider the extra traffic combined with the extra pollution in an already polluted area would be unacceptable to myself as I suffer with breathing difficulties and also to the other local residents and their children. This particular site has been farmed for many years and is prime agriculture land. I cannot believe there are not other sites in the borough of grass land scrub and bramble that would be better than this site. At the moment I have to wait many weeks to see my doctor and as there are no new health facilities proposed with this development the situation will only get worse. I also feel that Portchester with an allocation of over 700 homes is being asked to take a disproportionate number of houses in this scheme.
PO16
As an elderly resident of [redacted] concerned about the heavy traffic and and the effect it will have on the air quality for myself and my grandchildren. As I need access to my local health centre I feel that that building over 700 houses in the Portchester area will place unacceptable demands on my doctors surgery as I already have to wait over 3 weeks for an appointment. I cannot believe there are not other sites that are not prime farm land that could not be used. As this field is also home to deer, badgers and brent geese do not see why Portchester has to lose all its green spaces.
PO16
I object to the proposed developments as they will fill in the remaining open spaces in Portchester. I do not believe that there is the infrastructure to support the increase in people. The A27 will be more grid locked. I was under the impression that Wellborne would meet the housing demands of the borough and I am disappointed that there now seems to be a free for all. Developments need to be carefully planned to provide a nice environment for people to live. I don't think any such thought is being given with these developments.
PO16
I am deeply troubled by the unsound planning decision to permit building on this field of Grade 1/2 agricultural land and the fact that it has very poor access to the road system in Portchester. Fareham already has problems with air pollution and allowing some 500 odd cars/vans to be located here with such poor access to the main road will only increase this problem. Also the only mitigation actions that I can see; stopping existing roadside parking, double yellow lines, inclusion of traffic lights etc will only pit neighbour against neighbour as car drivers will try and navigate these very restricted roads around Romsey avenue. I cannot understand how Romsey Ave was included in the draft plan as the other sites not included have much better possibilities for transport links than this site.
Reading the latest draft plan I notice that Romsey Eve is to be allowed to have 225 houses built upon this site. This and the other sites in Portchester amounts to some 700 houses in total. The last plan stated that Portchester could only take an additional 60 houses.. What has changed since this last plan was adopted - Nothing. This latest Draft plan is unsound because of the obvious lack of proper process in selecting the final sites to be included - Items such as Brent Geese, transport links, grade of farmland etc should have meant other sites within the borough should have been selected before Romsey Avenue. This will lead to the council being in danger of ridicule and embarrassment when the objections lead to a public enquiry over selection process.
PO16
This site has the best grade 1 farmland in the whole of Fareham, yet sites at Swanwick, Sarisbury, Locks Heath, Titchfield and Stubbington have been passed over, and these have poorer land for agriculture. It is national policy to develop brown sites first, anyway. The traffic chaos and gridlock both locally and on the A27 that would ensue from developing the Romsey site also make it an unsound plan. The feeling is that the Council have given up on the area because they lost Cranleigh due to bad management. We must keep this unique and strategic gap between Portchester and Fareham, deeply rich in ecological terms and home to so much wild life, including Brent geese, badgers, slowworms, bats and foxes, to name a few. The 2011 report said that only 60 houses should be developed in Portchester, yet you are planning 700, in an area where ALL the local primary schools are full, and the medical facilities are at breaking point. This plan has not been robustly thought through, and we ask that you take the Romsey site off the local plan, for the sake of sanity, and future generations, who will never forgive you for the folly of destroying this unique site.
PO16
The 4 sites allocated in Portchester and Fareham is significant at peak times. Fareham Borough Council should not have allocated 4 sites so close to this road.
PO16
Doctors, schools overloaded. Wildlife areas not enough. Traffic is horrendous now. Not affordable for first time buyers.
PO16
Wildlife Affective pollution Traffic is a nightmare now Pollution Peak times would be doubled - A27 is so busy takes 30 mins to 1 hour to get through to Fareham Not affordable
PO16
This is one of 4 sites in Portchester, all of which are greenfield, now allocated for housing. The proposed 700 new homes are within the area so bigger than the square mile and where road and services infrastructure is already under great pressure. The proposals increase pollution, worsen locals well-being and destroy important wildlife habitats. FBC are acting like bullies and thugs in allocating so much of the green space in Portchester to housing development.
FBC's pathetic attempt to appeal against building on this land, having successfully defended it for 30 years, is proof that there was always a plan to allow building here because FBC could not get its act over Welborne. Cranleigh Road, along with the other 3 sites in Portchester will increase pollution and adversely affect services that are already stretched beyond breaking point. Fareham already has one of the highest car users in the County. It can take 30 minutes to travel from Cornaway Lane to Fareham centre, a distance of 2.2km. An additional 700 homes with associated vehicles will grind this area to a stand-still. It can already take me up to 3 weeks to get an appointment to see a doctor. FBC are putting residents health and safety at risk and are clearly contemptuous of the well-being of the Portchester village residents.
PO16
1. Infrastructure including transport 2. Already schools are at max 3. Medical practice overloaded
PO16
1. The infrastructure in Portsmouth is unable to cope with the extra demands 2. Already schools are at maximum capacity 3. Medical practices are overloaded 4. Parking in roads now excessive ie Cranleigh
1. The infrastructure in Portsmouth is unable to cope with the extra demands 2. Already schools are at maximum capacity 3. Medical practices are overloaded 4. Parking in roads now excessive ie Cranleigh
PO16
Doctors waiting list is 4 weeks now for an appointment. Schools at bursting point. There will be no open spaces for people to meet or children to play. The wildlife area will be non existent especially for the wild geese that migrate here every year.
PO16
The 4 sites allocated in Portchester and Fareham is congested at peak times. The council should not have allocated 4 sites close to this road. There are not enough facilities for this amount of people The improvements planned for the A27 and the Delme roundabout will do little to improve the situation. There is no employment here now so where are these people going to work?
PO16
Totally unacceptable. 1) There is no way any meaningful Mitigation of Traffic can be initiated. Traffic from this allocation would feed onto the A27 which is already a nightmare to negotiate at peak times, with side roads would become mere rat runs. 2) Educational and Healthcare facilities expected to serve this housing allocation are already full or under strain and there is no realistic prospect of significant infrastructure coming forward. To say otherwise is just being dishonest. 3) Why should Portchester be the sacrificial lamb with regard to greenfield housing allocations when the same arguments being advanced in support of housing allocations within Portchester can equally be applied to sites which have not been allocated in other parts of the Borough. 4) The Draft Local Plan is unbalanced in that, it is completely unacceptable to allocate housing chiefly in only three key areas. Warsash Town Centre Portchester 5) Portchester is entitled to have a green buffer similar to other communities and this allocation plays an important part in giving character and essential openness to the area. This allocation is a major wildlife habitat, with Brent Geese actively using the site. There is a large number of deer with two major Badger Setts and countless of other wildlife species 6) With the loss of the field at Cranleigh Road, a dangerous precedent would be set for the other remaining fields if this allocation were to be allowed.
PO16
The road system is poor in this area. will the developers put Doctors and med services in this area as Westland Health centre is full up, you cant get an appointment now where will all the extraThe road system ion this area is very tight Moraunt drive & Wicormill lane is to narrow and with all the extra traffic will cause trouble, are there to be extra money for schools extention with all the extra children also extra Doctors will be required at Westlands Health centre. It is not easy to set get an appointment now , also sewage is not to good in this area, and what about the fire services in Porchester. childrenSwindells go to school
PO16
The proposed development at HA5 needs to be taken out of the local plan. This land is the only site in the plan of a grade one quality. To build on this land would be contrary to para. 112 of the National Planning Policy Framework. (NPPF) There are poorer quality land in Swanwick (Site 3017), Sarisbury (Site 3109), Locks Heath (Site 3036), Titchfield (Site 3060) and Stubbngton (Site 1341). There are several other sites within the plan with a lower grade quality of land than HA5. In the recent past Brent Geese have been seen on site HA5 and their habitat needs to be protected and is protected by Natural England. Other possible sites are The Newlands Farm Site Ref 3008, with planning for 1100 Homes on the land to the south of Longfield Avenue. This land is of grade 2 quality. The current infrastructure for building on this site already exists with the Stubbington by pass providing good road access. Includes a 80 bed care home, Health Centre, Primary School, Retail units and green spaces. Brent Geese are deemed to be uncertain in this area. For what reason have Fareham Borough Council discounted this site? Site HA5 Romsey Avenue has no infrastructure placed with the proposed development but this has been placed forward as a potential development. This makes no sense. A second site West of Newgate lane - ref 3129, 122 Homes planned on Farmland which is of grade 3 quality two grades lower than that of Romsey Avenue. Brent Geese are uncertain. Development in this area could be accommodated without significant effects on the landscape character. This site is suitable, it is available and. It is achievable. So why was it not included in the local plan? A third site is the Land south of Oakcroft Lane Ref 1341. 144 Homes planned on grade 2 land. (Lower than that of Romsey). If the development of HA5 goes ahead it will have devastating impact on Portchester. There will be a major increase of traffic flow on local roads. There will be the potential for more accidents involving pedestrians especially close to the access road to the site, including Romsey and Beaulieu. There will be an increase in traffic pollution. Present road infrastructure close to the proposed access for HA5 is unfit for purpose. If roads are to be modified by double yellow lines, loosing grass verges to make roads wider or made one way only, this will have a huge impact on local residents. There will be no parking for local residents which will in turn move the problem on of where to park, clogging up other roads. Access to the proposed site HA5 is completely inadequate. This small road would have up to possibly 500 cars coming out at rush hour in the morning and returning at rush hour in the evening. (Added to the already heavy traffic flow from local roads) At the same time children will be making they're way to and from school. During the school run the proposed access road together with Beaulieu Avenue and Romsey would be extremely busy with many children on their way to Cams (some on bikes) and also children traveling in the other direction to Wicor. This would be waiting for an accident to happen. The 500 plus vehicles that would come out of this small access would then add to the already heavy congested A27 at peak times. They would come out of the Access road and turn left into Romsey then right into Beaulieu. This road has residents vehicles parked to one side and there is only enough room for one vehicle to pass by at anytime. This small stretch of road would be completely gridlocked at peak times. During heavy rain Romsey Avenue floods at the junction the with Beaulieu as all the rain flow runs off the A27 down towards Romsey Avenue. In cold icy conditions this junction becomes very dangerous and I have personally had a car written off because a large HGV was unable to stop due to black ice on the road. What if a vehicle hit a child. The single access into the proposed development from Romsey Avenue is unfit for purpose. There is a key failure by Fareham Borough Council in the site being put forward for development. Common sense needs to be applied from Foreman Homes and Fareham Borough Council. Having one access in and out of the site is a cheap escape for developers. Road infrastructure needs to be addressed regarding access before the site is even put forward or placed on the local plan. Agricultural Land The land to the south of Romsey Avenue is Grade 1 agriculture land which is used annually for wheat of other crops. This should be protected or at the least be an absolute last resort to us as a development site, especially when there are other possible sites within the local draft plan which have a lower graded land. Wildlife/Natural Environment There is a wide range and variety of wildlife that use the field as part of their habitat such as deers, Brent Geese, Canadian Geese, foxes, badgers as well as bats, and smaller species such as sloe worms. Where will all this wildlife go? Does anyone care? Doctors Presently there is a two to three week waiting time to see your own Gp and the system is over subscribed by people. If the development is to go ahead will facilities for more people be increased? I have seen no plans! What if any plans have been looked at to cater for such a large increase in patients in what appears to be a failing GP service. Schools Schools in Portchester are already full with many local families not able to get siblings within the same school. Are any of the local schools in the portchester area due to be expanded to accommodate the influx of children the housing development will bring. This is another key factor which should of already been considered even before the site was added to the Local Draft Plan. In summary the land to the South of Romsey Avenue is not suitable for the development of 250 plus houses. It seems Fareham Borough Council is after a quick fix after a hastily and clumsy attempt at the Local Draft Plan. It seems a lot of very important points which will have a drastic affect on the surrounding area have been completely over looked, that's if they have even been looked at. An alternative site needs to be found as the proposed development to the south of Romsey Avenue has not had any serious considerations made about the fallout this development will bring. The development fails on many things such: 1. Single Access 2. Grade 1 farming land. (This should be used to develop as a absolute last resort) 3. Services, Schools already full, Gp's already over subscribed. 4. Wildlife protection 5. Pollution from more traffic. Fareham Borough Council need to remove HA5 from the Local Plan this site has not had the proper considerations made. It appears to be a quick botched up idea to get FBC out of a bad situation. This is Not a Sustainable Site. There in No Infrastructure to HA5. This is an UNSOUND PLAN
PO16
I wish to object to housing on the Romsey Avenue site and want it removed from the Fareham Local Plan 2036. As I understand it there was a detailed report about Portchester about 4 years ago which stated that Portchester could only support 60 more homes. This number has already been approved and more. Nothing has changed in Portchester since the report and it seems that the Cranleigh Road site was approved because Fareham Council failed to have a policy in place. It is clear that the council is using some underhand and unsound methods to get this plan approved. Firstly we attended the CAT meeting on 25th October where it was presented to us as a fait accompli so that we would feel it was pointless to object. Secondly we have noted the traffic counting equipment put out during half term week when the traffic and subsequent danger to children and delays for residents getting to work would be greatly reduced. Thirdly we are aware of measures which appear to be happening to try to make wildlife move away or even to kill some animals. Many objections were raised to the Cranleigh Road site but were not taken into consideration. I hope that this time objections will be listened to and, if necessary, there will be a public enquiry so that people are able to be heard. During the consultation process it has become clear that this site should not be included in the plan for several reasons: 1) This is grade 1 agricultural land and should not have been considered above other sites which are brownfield sites and of lower quality land. There are several sites which are in this category and not on the draft plan. Sites such as Swanwick (3017), Sarisbury (3109), Locks Heath (3036), Titchfield (3 060) and Stubbington (1341) should all be on the plan before even considering Romsey Avenue. It demonstrates the council's determination to push something through which does not follow national guidelines and as such is clearly unsound as a policy. 2) The Romsey Avenue site is of great importance as a feeding ground for Brent Geese and waders. It is close to Portsmouth Harbour and is necessary for these birds. This has been recognised by the government's own agency for demonstrating ecological importance of land and yet this council sees fit to ignore their findings and try to find a way round it. The other sites listed above do not have this importance to wildlife and yet they are not on the draft plan. 3) The impact of the extra traffic created by these extra homes will be significant. It will impact on the safety of schoolchildren who walk through to access two schools, one on either side of the access road to the site. The access road was never meant to take this level of traffic and is completely unsuitable for the heavy lorries needed for deliveries to the site. There will be a rise in the pollution suffered by homes such as my own when cars are waiting to pull out on to Romsey Avenue with their engines running. At peak times they will be sitting there for some time. Residents already time leaving home so that they can get out of the area when traffic is busy. It will be much worse with so many extra homes. Other sites mentioned would enable people to live nearer the sites where they will be working and help to ease the number of people needing to travel and not exacerbate it. Once this traffic arrives on the A27, already having issues for its capacity and the number of accidents, there is a clear correlation between this and the welfare of residents, particularly children from Cams Hill School who have to access the school from this road. There have been pupils knocked over and the school staff are already in evidence trying to keep their pupils safe. 4) There is already a lack of open space in Portchester and any strategic gaps are being eroded. The space along that side of Portchester is important for people's well-being. Children see the arrival of different species and the farming activity at various times of the year and it gives them a sense of the environment and the passing seasons. This pattern in their lives increases their mental health and adds to their sense of well-being. I have also heard a child say that Portchester is just rows of houses and this will be worse if all our open spaces are eroded. There are limited recreational facilities in Portchester and there has been no increase since the Fareham Core Strategy recognised a shortage of open space. It was stated that the village should not be used for significant housing growth. 4) There is already a lack of school places in Wicor Primary School and medical centres are beginning to struggle to cope with the demand. Having to build more infrastructure to cater for these extra people means even more land will have to be used. Whilst it involves more people moving in when sites where there was an industrial unit being used for housing, the numbers are fewer and not concentrated in one spot. Portchester cannot sustain this kind of development. It is clearly going against all guidelines to proceed with building on land on site HA5 Romsey Avenue and as such the draft plan is unsound.
PO16
We strongly object to this development plan for all the reasons already discussed by our local councillors. Such as loss of green space crucial for the wellbeing of the existing residents. A home and feeding ground for the local wildlife, which we have seen a lot of such as wading birds, geese, fox ,deer, badger, bats, and slow worms. High density of traffic as a cut through including more pollution from vehicles. Local doctors waiting time for appointments as these are already overstretched! Schools already full and safety of children getting to and from school. We can not stress enough how important these small pockets of land are, and should be saved from future development. We will become merged into a larger blob of land and will feel boxed in! Suffocating in the fumes and high light levels which is already an issue for our planet. We acknowledge the need for more homes in the near future but not at the expense and wellbeing of the existing residents. This will most definitely have a detrimental effect on our health if these plans were to go forward. The need for more housing is inevitable, but it needs to be methodically thought about and planned with infrastructure put in place. With our flora and fauna already under a great deal of stress this should also be considered with passion. Our voice needs to be heard and listened to not just pushed aside like the ignorance of the cranleigh site objections. The local residents should have a say in what needs to be protected in our local area. Once the opinion of outsiders to develop this land goes ahead there is no going back. Gone means Gone forever! No to cranleigh! No romsey development!
PO16
Infrastructure - No highways infrastructure to support this development has been thought properly. Cars/vehicles manoeuvring down Beaulieu Avenue to Romsey Avenue to get to the tiny access Road to the land south of Romsey Avenue would not be suitable for the proposed development. There is only room along one side of Beaulieu Avenue for parked cars and ongoing traffic queues up to get onto the A27. This proposed development for building 225 houses would create an extra 500 cars trying to get out onto Romsey Avenue and Beaulieu Avenue and these roads would not be able to cope with the extra traffic, extra noise for residents living in these roads and more pollution in the air would be created by these extra cars. The T Junction at the bottom of Beaulieu Avenue leading onto Romsey Avenue sometimes floods with heavy rain. This causes problems when cars/vehicles are trying to drive along these roads as well as parked cars. When it snows, these roads are very icy, we have had lorry's/vans skidding into parked up cars, along Romsey Avenue. The proposed plan is completely unsound.
AGRICULTURAL LAND - The field/land is ploughed every year for crops which is classed as grade 1 and 2 agricultural land. We need this land for crops to grow to feed the population and especially now that we are coming out of the EU in 2019. All the green sites and land should not be used to build houses. Let the wild life migrant there and use this land to plough crops. The field also floods when we have heavy rain/storms, water logged fields and very strong winds coming off the sea. Not a suitable location for building 225 houses on. The proposed plan is completely unsound.
PUBLIC SERVICES - There is always a 2/3 week waiting period to see a Doctor. This new development for 225 houses would cause an even longer waiting time to see a Doctor. Our local doctor surgeries are oversubscribed with existing patients wanting to see their own doctor. The local primary and secondary schools are full and this will be another reason not to build an extra 225 houses at the south of Romsey Avenue. The new residents moving into their new build would struggle to get their children into the local schools, as well as existing residents who are still struggling to place their children into the same schools as their siblings. The safety of children crossing these roads trying to get to school. You have parents with prams/pushchairs with toddlers by their sides, trying to cross Beaulieu Avenue dodging the oncoming traffic. Secondary school children riding their bikes to school weaving in and out of parked cars as well as moving traffic along Romsey Avenue. If these extra 500 cars are moving at the same time as the school run, there will be an accident involving a family, child getting to school by foot or bike and as well as local residents getting into their cars going to work or doing a school run. The proposed plan is completely unsound.
WILD LIFE - Where would all the wild life go if this development of 225 houses was granted to go ahead? There are Brent geese, Canadian geese, deer, bats, badgers, foxes, kestrels, sloe worms and other species living off the field, south of Romsey Avenue. The Council should reinstate it's Coast and Countryside policy, which appears to have been inexplicably removed from the Council's local plans. The loss of feeding grounds for Brent Geese and waders close to The Portsmouth Harbour SPA would be contrary to para. 113 of the NPPF. Land with relatively little ecological value in Swanwick (Site 3017), Sarisbury (Site 3109), Locks Heath (Site 3036), Titchfield (Site 3060) and Stubbington (Site 1341), should have been allocated but has been passed over. The local plan fails to demonstrate that sites have been subjected to a robust sequential test. The proposed plan in completely unsound.
PO16
I am totally against the proposal to build 250more homes off of Romsey Avenue. I have lived here for nearly 20 years, and it has increasingly become more and more difficult to get out of beaulieu ave, and this will get more so with more traffic from builders lorries never mind the increase in cars once the homes are built. You would have to put double yellow lines down beaulieu avenue as this road would be a nightmare to navigate and would cause even more congestion, it is already an accident hotspot, due to cars parked at the junction of Romsey and beaulieu Ave and people taking short cuts to wicor school. The local schools and Drs etc would not cope it's a struggle to get an appointment now. They are already building, the homes near cranleigh road. Portchester cannot cope with anymore residents.
PO16
I strongly object to Romsey Avenue being included in the draft local plan, and have a number of points to my objection. Point 1 - I hope to shortly be able to walk to school every day on my own, however the new development on the Romsey Avenue field will mean that I will now have to cross a very dangerous road on my way to school. Point 2 - I do not think that it is fair that we constantly look to develop the natural environment that is the home to many animals. I enjoy looking out of my window in the morning and seeing the deer playing in the field. In the evenings during the summer we are lucky enough to see bats from the field flying in our garden, and we have seen Badgers in our garden as well. My brother and I also like hunting for slow worms at the end of our garden, and occasionally we do get foxes right up by our patio doors. The Brent Geese are a rare but regular visitor to our field, but we should not just worry about the rare species but look after the environment for all animals! Point 3 - We have already lost the Cranleigh Road Meadow which is right next to my school, and we had may lessons observing the animals that use to live in that meadow which makes me really upset. Point 4 - My brother and I enjoyed watching the farmer ploughing the field and then harvesting it the autumn (although that is noisy and dusty), my Dad tells me that the field is a very important field for growing crops because it is a very good quality field. Point 5 - My Cat is a very active cat who spends lots of time in the field. I know that she chases and catches some of the animals, but that is nature at work. I am worried that with all the traffic and houses she will have less places to explore and is more likely to get run over. Point 6 - I am worried that more houses will mean more children. These children will need to go to school, and currently I don't see where they will fit at my school. If these children did come to my school we would need more classrooms, and those classrooms will need to go on our field, or on our playground which is not fair as I like playing sports on the field and on the playground. Point 7 - My classroom is already being affected by the Cranleigh Road development as the noise that it is making is very distracting and I find it hard to concentrate in class. If you want children to get an good education then we need to get rid of these distractions and worries. Point 8 - The traffic in Portchester is already a problem, I struggle to get to after school clubs like swimming and hockey in the evening because the traffic is backed up to our home. When all houses are built then I think the traffic will back up all the way to the center of Portchester. Already my Mum and Dad have to leave early in the mornings and return late at night to avoid the traffic and get to work on time. Point 9 - when I have children, I would like there to be some green spaces around us left for me to enjoy with them.
PO16
I would like to say how frustrated I am with the proposed development on the Romsey Avenue field. As an 8 year old I have lived next to the site all my life and I don't understand why it should be included for houses to be be built on it. I know that people need places to live, by equally we need places to grow food and play. I have a some specific worries that I would like to share and hope that someone will listen to them. Worry 1 - I don't like the fact that people are not listening to us, I go to Wicor School and we have already seen the field next to our school being cleared for houses. This almost makes me cry when I think about the animals that are now without a home. Worry 2 - I always look out the window in the mornings hoping to see the deer in our field, but recently they seemed to have disappeared. I have also been lucky enough to spot foxes and badgers in the field, and if we are really lucky we see bats in our garden on a summer evening. The frogs and newts come across from the field and spend time in our pond, and the butterfly's are always floating around. I feel very sad and annoyed that this will be lost forever once the houses come. Worry 3 - I have learned to ride bike, but mummy and daddy are worried that with more cars on the road it will be too dangerous for me to ride to the rec or the Salt cafe any more. Worry 4 - I am already finding the noise at Cranleigh Road distracting in my lessons, and that I won't do the best learning with lots of noise going on. Worry 5 - In the mornings I always enjoy my cereal before school. I know that the Romsey field grows cereal, and is very good at it, what happens if we build houses on all the fields that grow cereal? will I still be able to eat my breakfast every day? Worry 6 - I feel very sad when I think that when I grow up and have children that they will not enjoy the fields and the experiences that I have because they all been built on. Once we build houses and roads then they will never be fields again.
PO16
I accept that people need homes but the amount of proposed housing in Portchester will have a significant detrimental impact on the local community Infrastructure including access to local GPs and schools. The A27 is often jammed with vehicles and the amount of additional housing in Portchester will add to the congestion. Please reduce the local plans and focus on few sites for development.
PO16
We do need more affordable or council houses but the developers will not be building for that market, they will want to make a profit and they have no regard for the local community. One photograph that was taken for the Romsey Road development showed Beaulieu Avenue (a residential road) with absolutely no cars parked in the road and that is never the case? By submitting this photograph though the developer could say that by removing a few grass verges that road is perfectly capable of supporting the additional traffic for 120 houses. That road is used by school children going to Wicor and Cams and it only it has a small right turn access area off the main road coming from Fareham. Beaulieu Avenue cannot support the amount of traffic proposed, the traffic is never monitored at the busiest times and the fact that the traffic is gridlocked whenever there is an accident (which is often) is ignored.
Postcode not provided
The impact on the Portchester infrastructure will be disastrous to the local roads, school places, doctor's appointments, wildlife and residents. Traffic in and out of both Romsey Avenue and Cranleigh developments will be via Beaulieu Avenue and Hatherley Crescent. Both are narrow residential roads never designed to take the high volume of today's traffic. Hundreds of additional vehicles from these two developments attempting to travel along these roads will create a complete traffic gridlock and make life a misery for local residents, emergency services will have great difficulty accessing the area. The palliative solution to change the traffic light sequence at the A27/ Downend junction will not improve the situation and could adversely affect the safety of the pupils and pedestrians crossing the roads at this junction. Currently at peak times the traffic on A27 between Portchester and Fareham is at a standstill, an increase in traffic volume from this, and other proposed developments will aggravate this serious problem, increasing the already unacceptable levels of air pollution which this borough is currently experiencing. Local doctor's surgeries are already struggling to provide the required service to their patients. A waiting time at the Westland's Medical Centre of 3 weeks for a routine appointment to see a Doctor is the norm. The proposed increases in the population from Downend Road/Romsey Avenue/ Cranleigh developments will place a crippling burden on our already stretched medical resources. Before any proposal is even considered all infrastructure issues should be addressed, costed and fully resolved. The Developers should be made to contribute to the investigation/studies and implementation of all necessary changes.
PO16
"I am writing to register my objection to the proposed housing development in Romsey Avenue. Development of this site would mean the loss of some of the best agricultural land in this area .This site HA5 is comprised of both grade 1 and 2 agricultural land ,and this would be contrary to paragraph 112 of C.N.N.P.F There are other sites in the borough with poorer quality land,Swanwick (site 3017),Sarisbury(site 3109) ,Locks Heath(site 3036) ,Titchfield (site 3060), Stubbington(site 1341). Any of these sites could have been chosen but they were passed over which shows that they were not subjected to a robust sequential test. Brent Geese and waders inhabit this site and have done at least since 1982 when I moved here.I have watched them all sat in the field or honking away as they fly past our bedroom window for year after year .If this site was developed for housing it would be contrary to paragraph 113 of the N.P.P.F. LPA should set criterias based policies against which proposals for any development on or affecting protected wild life on geodiversity sites or landscape areas will be judged illegal. The other sites mentioned in the previous paragraph have much less ecological value and no geese but they were not selected. The increased volume of traffic on the current road network is making travel in the area very difficult . It means that the additional traffic generated by the Romsey Ave development will greatly increase the congestion on local junctions . It will also increase the possibility of more traffic accidents in the locality. It has been estimated that the HA5 development would generate approximately 900 daily traffic movements , with round about 100 during the AM PM peak hours .Most of this traffic would be towards the A27 along Romsey Avenue and Beaulieu Avenue. Developing this site would mean that these roads would be used for getting in and out of this site.These residential streets with on road parking were never built to accomodate such heavy traffic .School children trail along these roads walking and on bikes on their way to and from school .This development would make such journeys very dangerous and it must not be allowed to happen. There are comments in the N.P.P.F.about the importance of providing high quality open spaces for sports and recreation .This contributes to the health and wellbeing of the local community Paragraph 73"". There should be assessments made on the availability of such areas.As a result of this it was decided that parts of the borough had a shortage of public open spaces particularly in Fareham , Stubbington and Portchester and assurance was recorded that the village would not be expected to play a significant role in housing until 2026 . "" Education and Health The N.P.P.F para 72 says how important it is that there is a sufficient supply of school places to meet the needs of existing and new communities , and how the local authority should take a ""proactive positive and collaborative approach to meeting this requirement "". The Romsey Avenue development will put an even higher pressure on the local schools which are already full up .Wicor Primary School already has to deal with the new development going up in Cranleigh Road .The surgeries in Portchester are so full and although they try hard to accomodate all their patients another huge housing development would make it even more difficult to get an appointment . The residents around Romsey Avenue should have a greater say in the future of the land south of Romsey Avenue . I understand that there is a greater call for housing now to meet the housing shortage and FBC is under a lot of pressure , but it is important to choose the right sites and to do tests on the land and use careful consideration ,to ensure you choose the right place,ie not just choose a nice big flat site that fills in another gap and tidies everything up, especially if nobody can see it from the top of the hill . Objection It is an area of Grade 1 and 2 agricultural land. The traffic in such an area will engender round about 900 movements a day,which will increase traffic flows onto nearby junctions which are already the site of many traffic incidents and produce more pollution which will be harmful to the health of the young and old especially schoolchildren making their way to school ..It will make these residential streets very dangerous for cars and pedestrians 5 other sites were passed over in favour of HA5 ,sites with inferior agricultural land and lesser ecological value .I do not think any land has been subjected to any tests neither Romsey Avenue or the 5 other sites.""the sequential test of development has evidently not been applied "" I believe that this draft proposal is unsound .I ."
PO16
I understand that increased housing requirements in a short time scale have been forced on Fareham Borough Council by government policy, that all parts of the borough will have to share the pain, and that site selection will be a balancing act. Also, I am not in a position to criticise the broad sweep of the process, nor its general conclusions. However, I feel strongly that consultation should have occurred before the selection and discounting procedure, as any objection at this stage has extra layers of process and presumption to reverse. As a new resident of Romsey Avenue, I feel that its inclusion as a preferred site (HA5) is unsound because its preference over other sites is flawed in respect of at least two criteria: Agricultural land and Transport. This site is almost half-and-half Grades 1 and 2, whereas other apparently equally developable sites were Grade 3 but discounted, sometimes on nebulous grounds or unsupported assertions. In addition, no account was taken of the fact that permitting the site would leave two small disconnected fields which will be uneconomic to farm and so, likely to be allowed to turn to unattractive scrub (as happened at the Cranleigh Road site) in the hope of future development. As regards Transport, many other sites were airily discounted on the basis of poor access, often without obvious evidence. In the case of Romsey Avenue, no account has been taken (nor even mention made) of the fact that two narrow streets and three awkward junctions lie between the site and the main A27 thoroughfare. Two way traffic is impossible (unless all parking is prohibited), so that at peak times congestion will be severe. This will be especially important at times when many schoolchildren walk and cycle across the Beaulieu Avenue/A27 junction on their way to and from Cams Hill School. Also, Romsey Avenue itself has many children walking to/from Wicor School. For example, site 3130 (above Winnham farm, Grade 3) was eliminated purely on the basis of lack of access to Downend Road. However, the adjacent land (site 3030) is preferred, so why is it not possible to specify that access be granted via 3030? The council's declared (and laudable) preference is for larger sites so that developers can be made responsible for any required infrastructure improvements. However, instead of grouping 3030 and 3130, it prefers to develop Romsey Avenue where the developer benefits from the impossibility of improving an inadequate access. Naturally, the character of the area and landscape are important to me, but seem to be less so in this process, so I will only register my disapproval and objection. The Draft Local Plan should have specified that any development be subject to the (commendable) criteria in section 12.1 of the Landscape Assessment (EV40), and further subject to an independent Transport Assessment. Given these unsoundnesses, the decision to prefer the Romsey Avenue site should be reversed, or at the very least, reconsidered critically.
PO16
Roads becoming more dangerous with extra traffic movements approx. 900 per day. Children will need to be schooled outside of their catchment areas.
Farm Fields lost to housing currently growing cereal crops. More suitable sites incl. Locks Heath, Stubbington, Sarisbury Green.
Many species of wild life will be lost from the fields and at the shore line, these need to be protected, it's our duty.
PO16
My objections relate to: 1. Traffic congestion - the A27 and M27 are regularly at a standstill during peak traffic periods and any further residential developments in this locality will only contribute to the already unacceptable levels of traffic congestion, air pollution, road traffic accidents and related problems. 2. Emergency Services - the emergency services and local A & E facilities are at breaking point and additional pressure from an increased number of residents in the area will only add pressure to the already under resourced facilities. 3. Schools, Doctors and Dentists Practices are currently at full capacity, who will be able to serve these additional residents? 4. Wildlife and Ecology - the local indigenous and visiting wildlife will be very seriously impacted by this development
My objections relate to: 1. Traffic congestion - the A27 and M27 are regularly at a standstill during peak traffic periods and any further residential developments in this locality will only contribute to the already unacceptable levels of traffic congestion, air pollution, road traffic accidents and related problems. 2. Emergency Services - the emergency services and local A & E facilities are at breaking point and additional pressure from an increased number of residents in the area will only add pressure to the already under resourced facilities. 3. Schools, Doctors and Dentists Practices are currently at full capacity, who will be able to serve these additional residents? 4. Wildlife and Ecology - the local indigenous and visiting wildlife will be very seriously impacted by this development
PO16
The Roads are to narrow to support a new Estate. The access is used only for parking and to get into houses holders garages. The A27 main rd is already crowded and 900 extra houses will make it worse. Schools over loaded ad young children will be unable to go to school in Portchester, and have to go else where which is hard on children.
PO16
1 ,We object because the roads would not be able to cope with the amount of extra traffic cars and lorries etc,and the small road leading into this site is not wide enough to cope with the extra traffic this development would generate.Developing this site would cause an awful lot of pollution which is detrimental to the health of the young and old in the area .The amount of traffic in this area is bad enough already and the resulting congestion will result in even more traffic accidents . 2,The local schools are already full and have a waiting list,they already have to cope with the new development on Cranleigh Road which will soon be built. 3,We have only 2 doctors surgeries which are very stretched and people have to wait a long time for an appointment . 4,The wild life is great and it is good for the environment ,the field in question is a feeding ground for Brent Geese and wading birds , 5,This area is part of the Fareham Gap between Portchester and Fareham,which Fareham Borough Council said would not be built on for at least 25 years. 6,The sewerage system would not be able to take the extra amount involved in building this housing estate . 7,This site comprises of Grade 1 and Grade 2 agricultural land ,There are brown field sites in the borough which should be built on first . We need our agricultural land. Therefore I feel Fareham Council have not thought this Draft plan through sufficiently ,so we think this Draft Plan is unsound .
PO16
I have several substantial grounds for objecting to development on this site al of which lead me to believe this local plan is unsound and is not consistent with the national planning strategy and associated policies. 1. Development at Romsey Avenue is inconsistent with the current adopted local plan for the following reasons; (3.10) Portchester, Stubbington & Hill Head and Titchfield will play limited roles in accommodating future development. Portchester will strengthen the role of its district centre, providing additional retail facilities, protect its setting, its important historic heritage and its local economic role. The adopted local plan allows for around 60 dwellings in Portchester. How can local policy and strategy change so significantly to now recommend 700 dwellings in this area without additional infrastructure. The lack of recreation facilities in Portchester, contrary to para.73 of the National Planning Policy Framework. In 2011, para.5.17 of the Fareham Core Strategy recognised the shortage of public open space in Portchester and recorded assurance that the village would consequently not be expected to play a significant role in housing provision before 2026. The adopted plan identifies in (3.9) The Western Wards and Whiteley will accommodate growth which will be provided in association with improvements to local infrastructure provision. The Western Wards - Locks Heath, Titchfield Common, Warsash, Park Gate and Sarisbury will be a focus for housing, employment, sustainable transport and enhanced community facilities. No such infrastructure has been identified in the Portchester area which makes it unsuitable for the level of development planned. Development would therefor not be sustainable. The strategic objective (SO11) sets out to protect and enhance access to green infrastructure, the countryside and coast. Land south of Romsey Avenue is designated as countryside with the coastal zone to the south. Any development on the Romsey Avenue site clearly contradicts this strategic objective. 4.66 describes the strategy for the A27 and key junctions within the settlements of Park Gate, Fareham and Portchester will be to focus upon 'reduce and manage' measures, rather than physical capacity investment. This identifies a lack of land investment in infrastructure that could support any large developments in Portchester. 5.44 identifies and links the common sites of Portchester, Stubbington & Hill Head and Titchfield as 'settlements with their own individual character'. However, each of these centres plays an important role in providing local facilities and services to their communities. The policy (CS11) seeks to maintain the current role of these settlements and supports small scale proposals which will enhance the vitality of each community and protect the setting of the settlement as well as their natural, historic, biodiversity and cultural resources. This strategic statement is still relevant to these communities however Portchester has now been separated from the protected status of the other areas without consultation with the community, it is discriminated against and the unique character of Portchester has been totally disregarded within the draft local plan which is totally unacceptable. Building 700 homes in this area completely changes the character of the area and in unacceptable. To meet Strategic Objectives (SO1)and (SO11) the adopted plan strategy protects development in the countryside, stating it will be strictly controlled and will focus on meeting agricultural, farm diversification needs. The draft local plan is designed to completely remove agriculture as an industry from Portchester, this will be totally against the heritage, culture and character of the settlement and cannot be allowed. This is the finest agricultural land in the borough with a deep and rich biodiversity alongside the coastal zone and will be wanton vandalism on a huge scale. The draft local plan suggests such a substantial change to the character of Portchester as to be completely at odds with existing policies and strategies. There has been no meaningful community engagement to discuss such revolutionary change and cannot provide sustainable development within any definition and certainly not that of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). 2. The Cranleigh effect The successful appeal by developers at this site must not be used to re classify Romsey Avenue as an urban area and should be used instead to protect this area in the way that is consistent with FBC's stance over the previous 30+ years to development of this farm land and countryside. Cranleigh fell purely because FBC could not demonstrate an adequate housing land supply. There was nothing about the site that made it suitable for development it was just in the wrong place at the wrong time and the planning inspector acknowledged the quality of the agricultural land and the change in character. His displeasure in the council and its officers was clear, the victims of this are the residents, the school children and the extensive wildlife that inhabited this area of land. Romsey Avenue is not a natural extension of Cranleigh and the planning inspector recognised that there needed to be a buffer zone to protect the Cranleigh development from the farm land south of Romsey Avenue. The two sites are very different. Cranleigh has not been farmed in the 25 years I have lived here whereas Romsey Avenue has been farmed every single year. Development of Romsey Avenue agricultural land would lead to the coalescence of Portchester and Fareham communities and this is against the local plan strategy. It is not appropriate to develop on Romsey Avenue and it is certainly not sustainable to have both developments in the plan. Regretfully we accept the fate of Cranleigh but this does not make Romsey Avenue a suitable site indeed the reverse is even more true. Do not compound one failure with another. 3. Sustainability The Romsey Avenue development must be taken out of the draft local plan as it does not fit national (NPPF) sustainable development criteria which describes sustainability as; "Sustainable means ensuring that better lives for ourselves don't mean worse lives for future generations" "Sustainable development is about change for the better, and not only in our built environment" "In order to fulfil its purpose of helping achieve sustainable development, planning must not simply be about scrutiny. Planning must be a creative exercise in finding ways to enhance and improve the places in which we live our lives. The supply of new homes can sometimes be best achieved through planning for larger scale development, such as new settlements or extensions to existing villages and towns that follow the principles of Garden Cities. Working with the support of their communities, local planning authorities should consider whether such opportunities provide the best way of achieving sustainable development. In doing so, they should consider whether it is appropriate to establish Green Belt around or adjoining any such new development. ensure that established shops, facilities and services are able to develop and modernise in a way that is sustainable, and retained for the benefit of the community The presumption in favour of sustainable development (paragraph 14) does not apply where development requiring appropriate assessment under the Birds or Habitats Directives is being considered, planned or determined. Identify and protect areas of tranquillity which have remained relatively undisturbed by noise and are prized for their recreational and amenity value for this reason. Planning policies should sustain compliance with and contribute towards EU limit values or national objectives for pollutants, taking into account the presence of Air Quality Management Areas and the cumulative impacts on air quality from individual sites in local areas. Planning decisions should ensure that any new development in Air Quality Management Areas is consistent with the local air quality action plan Local Plans must be prepared with the objective of contributing to the achievement of sustainable development.33 To this end, they should be consistent with the principles and policies set out in this Framework, including the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Early and meaningful engagement and collaboration with neighbourhoods, local organisations and businesses is essential. A wide section of the community should be proactively engaged, so that Local Plans, as far as possible, reflect a collective vision and a set of agreed priorities for the sustainable development of the area, including those contained in any neighbourhood plans that have been made. Crucially, Local Plans should: ? plan positively for the development and infrastructure required in the area to meet the objectives, principles and policies of this Framework; ? be based on co-operation with neighbouring authorities, public, voluntary and private sector organisations; ? identify land where development would be inappropriate, for instance because of its environmental or historic significance; and ? contain a clear strategy for enhancing the natural, built and historic environment, and supporting Nature Improvement Areas where they have been identified. Meets household and population projections, taking account of migration and demographic change. There is nothing about the Romsey Avenue development that suggests it fits the national definition of sustainable. There are far more suitable sites not least Newlands Farm which has the appropriate level of infrastructure. I will elaborate further with regard to the impact on residents and the destruction on quality of life, community and the safety of school children. The target of 11,300 dwellings in the life of the new local plan period up to 2036 is far in excess of the needs of the population which is projected to grow by 13,000 in that same
PO16
a) Loss of prime agricultural land which will be needed especially as we are leaving the EU. This is a rare precious resource in Hampshire. b) Additional road congestion causing pollution concerns, and parking nightmare for residents of Romsey Avenue which is already choc-a-bloc as probability of Yellow Lines along Beaulieu Avenue to allow access to the site. c) Very narrow one-way access to site which at school and busy times will cause traffic jams, and additional traffic will be dangerous for local pedestrians. d) Loss of yet another green space and habitat for wild life.
PO16
The allocation of sites within the Draft Local Plan does not share the additional housing across the borough equally. Sites put forward by land owners were scattered across the borough. If the number of houses needed were spread equally across the 15 wards in the borough, each ward would take about 150 new homes. The allocation given to Portchester in this plan is over 700 homes. There was no public involvement in deciding what sites were ruled in or out. Other sites in the borough which consist of grassland and farmland have been rejected for reasons of ecological importance or landscape sensitivity. These appear to be no better or worse than the Portchester sites. The development at Winnham farm is on farmland, as is Romsey Avenue. Development on this land will not protect farmland as stated in the Natural Environment section of the plan (9.10). The vehicular traffic generated by the proposed development (c.900 vehicle movements a day, with c.100 movements during the am/pm peak hours) would be detrimental to highway safety at two junctions which already experience repeated road safety incidents (A27 west from Delme Roundabout and the A27 Portchester Road/Dore Avenue Roundabout), generate unacceptable environmental circumstances on residential side-roads which are unsuited for the purpose and pose a particular hazard for children walking and cycling to local schools. Another concern is the very narrow bridge on Downend Road. The traffic using this road includes ambulances going to and from QA hospital , not to mention heavy lorries and farm vehicles which exceed the tonnage indicated at the start of Downend Road. The situation is already very difficult for pedestrians and cyclists, and the possibility of hundreds of additional cars crossing the bridge will make it even more dangerous. In the Draft Infrastructure Delivery Plan it is stated that an additional capacity would be needed at existing GP surgeries in Portchester at an unknown cost and with an unknown source of funding. The waiting time at the local surgery is 3-4 weeks currently and the increase of approx 1,500 additional people (spread across all 4 sites) will only make it worse.
PO16
"It is true that Cranleigh Road was designated Agricultural Land Classification (ALC) Grade 1, however the inspectors ruling at Cranleigh was based on lack of 5 year land supply and he goes to lengths in his verdict to explain that this was not about suggesting it is fine to develop on ALC Grade 1!, this ruling was down to a technicality in FBC not doing its sums right on 5 year land supply correctly, and the inspector concluding that they should have been aware that they did not have enough. so how on earth is it we now face the Council not trying to protect this land like they did for Cranleigh over 30 odd years! Romsey Avenue has been farmed for the last 40 years plus - Cranleigh has not been farmed for many years - no doubt by design to make it easier to get planning permission, so why should the council decide that it is fine to just roll over on Romsey Avenue. Romsey Avenue has been designated as ""uncertain"", for Brent Geese, which Cranleigh was not, indeed Natural England talk about how valuable the Romsey Avenue site is, being adjacent to the SPA and very close to the water. It is a fact that Romsey Avenue is closest site to the water being proposed for development in the local plan. It is stated in the Brent Geese and Wader Strategy in 2010, that flat sites closer to the mean high tide level are more important as habitat for these rare birds and should be prioritised. The development at Cranleigh Road being given permission is a reason that Romsey Avenue should not be included due to the impact it will have in the infrastructure (or lack of) for a site of almost 400 houses (possibly as many as 550 depending on what is eventually granted at Romsey Avenue). The lack of any infrastructure no new schools, roads, doctors is madness when there is a developer who will put this all in hand at Newlands so a valuable bit of farmers land can be saved. Also with the police involvement with animals being seemingly hunted on this land or scared off then this should be delayed being put on any local plan until this has been fully and properly investigated. the amount of sites being proposed to Portchester when other areas have none is down right disgusting. I urge the local planners to exclude Romsey Avenue from the draft local plan"
PO16
The infrastructure and services in portchester cannot cope with all the additional homes being proposed
PO16
Because of its width and its emergence on a single-carriageway of the A27, Beaulieu Avenue is not a suitable access road. Its suggested use is in conflict with the policy of not having access to the A27 from any of the cul-de-sacs on the north side of Hatherley Crescent. Access should be either from Cranleigh Road or Condor Avenue.
PO16
The roads cannot support the level of traffic currently, the infrastructure is at saturating point. Quality of life will be affected significantly , wildlife will be affected.
Postcode not provided
The roads cannot support the level of traffic currently, the infrastructure is at saturating point. Quality of life will be affected significantly , wildlife will be affected.
Postcode not provided
There is no infrastructure in place for these additional houses. My granddaughter moving to catchment could only get a place in Wickham (10 yr old) as there are no current vacancies in Portchester or Fareham. How will they be able to accommodate all the extra children with these additional houses? The traffic is chockablock at the moment, access to the A27 is awful at the best of times and the extra people and cars will only make it worse. Its already difficult to get a doctors appointment we wait at least 2 weeks to see one. Emergency services use our road as a through road and it is increasingly busy which I feel will potentially cause risk to life with delays in getting through.
PO16
I strongly object to Housing site HA5 for the following reasons: 1. Total lack of infrastructure: The area cannot safely take on the increase in vehicles which would result from this proposal together with the site proposed north of the A27 at Downend Road and Cranleigh Road. Beaulieu Avenue and Romsey Avenue were not built for such traffic, there was a sign at the entrance to Beaulieu siting a 7.5 ton limit, it has mysteriously disappeared but I am sure the sign was in place a few years ago. These roads cannot cope with the traffic now, let alone the heavy construction vehicles which would produce a serious safety issue. I do hope it is not the council's or developer's intention to compulsory purchase the gardens of residents in Beaulieu Avenue as this would totally transform the look of the area detrimentally. Also, double yellow lines in Beaulieu and Romsey Avenues would not be a solution, there is nowhere for the cars to go. There would additionally be an issue for the access of emergency services. There is no proposal for a new primary school, Wicor has a waiting list so children would have to be found school places further away, consequently, more car journeys to school instead of healthy walking. (This is contrary to para.73 of the National Planning framework as there is a reduction in the choice of school places.) There is no proposal for a new health centre, Westlands is over-stretched, often we cannot make a routine appointment within the 3 week appointment window! 2. Loss of prime agricultual land: This land together with the site at Downend Road is grade 1 and 2, currently farmed for cereal production. We cannot afford to lose land of this quality, it feeds people and will become essential with Brexit. Why has poorer quality land in Swanwick, Sarisbury and Locks Heath etc., been passed over by the planning consultants, it beggars belief! The Local Plan is unsound as there is no evidence that sites have been tested extensively and even visited! 3.Loss of habitat for wildlife: When we are priviliged to live in a beautiful area we are custodians for the next generation and should be duty bound to protect it, the wildlife has as much right to it as us and need voices to challenge and speak on their behalf: The Brent Geese and Canada Geese have been visiting the field for many years, they arrive in July when the field is harvested to feed on the chaff and reunite. They usually stay here until mid autumn. (The loss of this feeding ground would be contrary to para. 113 of the NPPF.) Consequently, again the Local Plan is unsound. I have bats at the end of my garden which I am aware of at dusk on summer evenings. Deer usually pass by twice every morning but sadly there has been evidence of a hunter, although the police are aware and investigating, only 1 deer has been sighted lately. There is also a well established badger sett that has been in existence before my husband and I arrived here in 1991..we often see and hear the badgers. 4. Portchester's loss of identity: When the Inspector made comments following the unsuccessful Cranleigh Road appeal; He said that land to the west of the site was not to be developed! There would no longer be a gap between Fareham and Portchester, the latter loosing its individuality; the coastal view would be irreversibly spoiled. Consequently, the inclusion of this site, HA5, as a residential allocation is totally inconsistent with National Planning Policy, so the draft plan is unsound.
PO16
There is no infrastructure in place for these additional houses. My granddaughter moving to catchment could only get a place in Wickham (10 yr old) as there are no current vacancies in Portchester or Fareham. How will they be able to accommodate all the extra children with these additional houses? The traffic is chockablock at the moment, access to the A27 is awful at the best of times and the extra people and cars will only make it worse. Its already difficult to get a doctors appointment we wait at least 2 weeks to see one. Emergency services use our road as a through road and it is increasingly busy which I feel will potentially cause risk to life with delays in getting through.
PO16
My main concern is the lack of infrastructure that will be effected by all these extra houses. The issues with extra children impacting on the already full local schools. Families who require dental and doctors appointments. These services are already struggling to cope with the number of people newly arrived in the area so the situation can only get worse. The parking is an issue already as is the traffic locally. Exiting onto the A27 from Westlands Grove can sometimes take as long as 10 minutes at busy periods.
PO16
The knee jerk reaction with the failure of FBC to protect Cranleigh Road has resulted in the inclusion of the Romsey Avenue site in the FBC draft local plan. The reason it has been included is clearly in response to the fact Foreman Homes had already made available details of the proposed development of this site, link that with the un-minuted secret meeting FBC's Woodward/Cartwright and Evans had with Developers on Wednesday 1st November (this during the consultation period) shows this plan is deeply flawed and the outcome of the consultation cannot be relied upon to be just, legal or truly democratic. These three Councillors should have no further involvement in the Draft Local plan and should be removed from Planning at FBC altogether as they now have a conflict of interest. The Romsey Avenue site is made up of top quality mainly Grade 1 agricultural land, this again shows a failure of FBC planners to work within the National Policy Planning framework as this states 'local planning authorities should seek to use poorer quality land in preference to that of higher quality' however poorer quality sites such as Site 3060 Titchfield, 3109 Sarisbury, 3036 Locks Heath, 3017 Swanwick Lane and 1341 Stubbington have been discounted by FBC. Not only does the Romsey Avenue site offer high quality agricultural land it is an important feeding ground for Brent Geese and Wading birds as it is the boundary of the Portsmouth Harbour Special Protection Area. These supporting boundaries are functionally linked to SPA's supporting habitats and any development will undoubtedly destroy their integrity. Again, the above discounted sites have no records of Brent Geese and no link to the supporting structure of the SPA. The above discounted sites are all based on smaller numbers of dwellings spread out more equally around the Borough giving a wider option to people across Fareham to be able choose the area they prefer to live and also with a spread of a smaller number of dwellings (all above listed sites are around the 45 dwellings mark) this gives local schools, doctors surgeries and road networks a fighting chance of absorbing a smaller increase in local people. Whereas with the Romsey Avenue site of 225 dwellings (at least) coupled with the 120 to be built at Cranleigh this will have an adverse effect on the lives of the current communities in the area and will only offer already straining services and infrastructure to the proposed new housing sprawl. Building on this site will lead to the strangulation of adjoining agricultural land and will leave the farming of these sites being unviable and no doubt these will also be lost to housing. The inclusion of this site is unsound and far from consistent with national policy.
PO16
The building on this site should not be included in the local plan, it should be thrown out. The area is already saturated with cars and pollution. Schools will be oversubscribed and the current traffic infrasturture completely overwhelmed and It is not inkeeping with the local heritage. The people who live in the close viscinity of Romsey Ave and the surrounding roads will not only receive disrupted travel but damaged roads. The current and publicized poisoning of animals on these grounds is seriously dangerous not only to badgers, dear, rabbits, dogs and now children as of today when the first casualty has been reported. This site overlooks Wicor school and will affect the air quality, outside environment and learning of the local children.
PO16
"The proposal for Romsey Avenue absolutely needs to be taken out of the draft plan as it is completely unsound, specifically for the following reasons: 1. The Romsey Avenue field is 46% grade 1 and 53% grade 2 agricultural land. The best agricultural land in the Fareham area. No other site contained within the local plan matches this quality of land. Government policy clearly states that brownfield sites must be built on over greenfield sites. This field is actively used for growing crops at present. Other lower grade land MUST be and CAN be used instead. 2. This site is an area used by Brent Geese which have been spotted by residents this year. To build on this site and potentially stop these birds landing there is completely against the council's previous comments in the local plan part 2 2015 and the concerns raised by Natural England on 20th September 2017. The Brent Goose and Wader Strategy 2010 states that low lying flat land which is closer to water is the most suitable. Of all of the proposed sites and others not included the draft plan Romsey Avenue fits this criteria the most. 3. Portchester does not have the infrastructure to support such housing. It was previously reported in the Core Strategy 2011 that the Council did not expect Portchester to play a significant role in providing further planning over the plan period. The then SHLAA stated Portchester was only capable of providing around 60 dwellings. Absolutely nothing has changed within Portchester in the last 6 years which would mean that it could now cope with over 700 houses in the area. With a rising population, increased traffic and added pressure on local resources, the previous statement is now even more RELEVANT. The local schools, doctors and hospital cannot and will not cope with this increased pressure. 4. The traffic pressures on the A27 are already at bursting point. I drive down there every single day and sit in traffic leading from the roundabout at condor avenue all the way up to the Delme Road roundabout. An extra 900 plus cars in the area with potentially a 100 or so at peak time will be absolute chaos. Roads within Portchester have not been improved in over 40 years. An interim transport assessment by Atkins in October 2017 identified the Delme Roundabout and in the Portchester Road/Dore Avenue roundabout as likely to be impacted by the traffic generated by Portchester developments. One access point in Romsey Avenue to the development WILL NOT work. It would be very difficult for emergency vehicles to access which puts lives at risk. 5. YOU have a responsibility to promote sustainable development. This means protecting our natural environment which is essential for our well being. People need green space. Mental health is a major issue and not having regard for people's well being will negatively impact this. Building on this site is very likely to cause conflict within existing communities and with any new communities you try and wedge in between. You also have an obligation to review and assess air quality. There is limited current information on air quality in the Portchester area so I would question what your plan is to assess the current situation and the impact of 700 new homes. 6. The type of housing being proposed is not affordable sustainable housing. I am a young person still living with parents struggling to save for a house deposit and will certainly not be able to afford this type of housing. Including Romsey Avenue within the draft local plan does not put my faith in the council when it comes to this. In summary, I fully understand that housing is needed. Sustainable development should go ahead without delay - a presumption in favour of sustainable development, that is the basis of every plan and every decision. However, this type of housing and in this location is completely unsustainable. I quote from the council website ""The ultimate purpose of a Local Plan, once adopted, is to establish how much housing and land for employment will be needed and where it will go, alongside protecting and enhancing the environment and delivering infrastructure."" By including Romsey Avenue in the draft local plan you are completely contradicting yourself and going against Government policy. This plan is unsound and extremely concerning. You are our elected councillors and have a duty to represent our views and protects our interests. At this present time you are failing us and I find this very disappointing."
PO16
The infrastructure is already broken and this will only make it worse! The local schools are already full! The roads are already full! The doctors are already full! The dentists are already full! There will be no untouched land left for the animals to enjoy without human contact. The emergency services already struggle to get down the roads - there is potentially a risk to life already without adding additional people/cars. There are already several new housing estates being built on brownfield sites we simply cannot take any more. The pollution levels are already too high which has already been publicly stated. Further pollution could cause a risk to life expectancy. There used to be a strategic gap between Fareham and Portchester which is disappearing before our eyes. These sites contravene the NPPF ie agricultural land & SSSI's.
PO16
The infrastructure is already broken and this will only make it worse! The local schools are already full! The roads are already full! The doctors are already full! The dentists are already full! There will be no untouched land left for the animals to enjoy without human contact. The emergency services already struggle to get down the roads - there is potentially a risk to life already without adding additional people/cars. There are already several new housing estates being built on brownfield sites we simply cannot take any more. The pollution levels are already too high which has already been publicly stated. Further pollution could cause a risk to life expectancy. There used to be a strategic gap between Fareham and Portchester which is disappearing before our eyes. These sites contravene the NPPF ie agricultural land & SSSI's.
Postcode not provided
This proposed development( draft plan) is totally unsound . The loss of grade 1 agricultural land there are poorer quality lands found at titchfeild and Stubbington but these have been passed over ? Why ? The loss of feeding grounds for Brent geese and waders ! But other sites have been passed over at swanick saris bury lock sheath and titchfeild . Increased traffic and danger to residents through more traffic congestion , fumes etc as well as no movement for residential areas around the Romsey avenue area . The congestion is already huge on the a27. No school choices and too much pressure on local medical centres
PO16
The area is far too crowded already. The infrastructure is not in place to support this many new houses and cars. The Traffic during rush hr is horrendous already. This will damage the environment and reduce quality of life for those already in the area, Please STOP
Anonymous submission
Twelve years ago, living in Portsmouth, we decided to start a family but felt the city environment was not the most suitable for a young family. Portchester seemed to offer a perfect compromise between city and country. Now however, with the proposed developments on the Portchester Sites of HA4, HA5, HA6 and HA12, Portchester is at high risk of being turned into yet another urban sprawl, exactly what we tried to escape twelve years ago. There are also however, technical reasons why I strongly object to the development proposals, especially HA5. It is my belief that the draft local plan is unsound and that the criteria for assessing sites have not been applied consistently. • HA6 (which is already under construction) was originally rejected by FBC because 1. it failed to meet a large number of policies defined within the FBC's Core Strategy 2. it would result in the loss of Grade 1 and Grade 2 agricultural land The appeal was wholly focused on FBC's inability to meet housing quotas and not as it should have been, the unsuitability of the site. Now FBC seem to have given up on all their reasons for rejecting HA6 even though those reasons are even more critical on HA5. FBC appear to be going for the easiest options to meet numbers. Just because the land (Grade 1 & 2) is being made available for development, does not mean that it should be developed. • The land on HA5 is Grade 1 and Grade 2 and has been very productively farmed for the past 40 years. Para. 112 of the UK government's National Planning Policy Framework states that poorer quality land should be developed in preference to higher quality. Several sites with much poorer quality soil have been discounted from the local plan. • The increased number of vehicles on Portchester's main roads as a result of these developments will overstretch the network which currently struggles at peak times. The proposed access for HA5 via Beaulieu Avenue and Romsey Avenue is quite frankly ridiculous considering that it may carry 300+ additional cars and any from the HA6 site choosing to bypass the main roads. Beaulieu Avenue, Romsey Avenue and Hatherley Cresent are all narrow with unrestricted parking, allowing only one-way travel. School children from Wicor and Cams Hill use these roads and the added traffic can only greatly increase the risk of a serious accident. It is hard to understand why some proposed sites with much better access options than HA5 have not been selected for inclusion in the draft plan. • HA5 is rich in its range of wildlife that use the site. We have seen geese, frogs, toads, newts, slow worms, bats, badgers, deer, mice, hedgehogs, foxes and stag beetles living in or frequenting this site. Most of which are also currently being evicted from the HA6 site. The HA5 site is ~200m from the Portsmouth Harbour Special Protection Area which according to Natural England is also Ramsar and SSSI. Development of Site HA5 will directly contravene para. 109 of the UK government's NPPF. It would appear that para. 113 of the NPPF has not been followed by FBC. It is also interesting that site 31 was discounted from the draft plan (because of its close proximity to the SPA/SSSI) but HA5 was not. • The proposed Portchester developments, if they all went ahead could mean an influx of some 600+ children. The current educational infrastructure cannot accommodate this, I am pretty sure that it cannot accommodate the HA6 site alone. Developments should not be considered until the infrastructure has been boosted to accommodate such massive demands on it. Interestingly enough, other applications which included new school and care facilities were rejected. • The added population resulting from these developments would also overload the already stretched-to-breaking-point health services. Again substantial investment in the health care infrastructure should be committed prior to the commencement of any of these developments. • The green "gap" that exists between Portchester and Fareham (and includes HA5 and HA6) should be maintained. HA6 is already being developed which makes HA5 even more critical. HA5 is not the same as HA6 so the same rules cannot apply. It is not right or fair that the relatively small ward of Portchester West is being burdened with such a disproportionate share of the proposed housing developments. I also would like to enquire as to why the Newlands Farm proposed development has not been included in either the draft plan or the SHLAA. This one site should resolve FBCs housing shortage for years to come.
PO16
The allocation of sites within the Draft Local Plan does not share the additional housing across the borough equally. Sites put forward by land owners were scattered across the borough. If the number of houses needed were spread equally across the 15 wards in the borough, each ward would take about 150 new homes. The allocation given to Portchester in this plan is over 700 homes. There was no public involvement in deciding what sites were ruled in or out. Other sites in the borough which consist of grassland and farmland have been rejected for reasons of ecological importance or landscape sensitivity. These appear to be no better or worse than the Portchester sites. The development at Winnham farm is on farmland, as is Romsey Avenue. Development on this land will not protect farmland as stated in the Natural Environment section of the plan (9.10). The vehicular traffic generated by the proposed development (c.900 vehicle movements a day, with c.100 movements during the am/pm peak hours) would be detrimental to highway safety at two junctions which already experience repeated road safety incidents (A27 west from Delme Roundabout and the A27 Portchester Road/Dore Avenue Roundabout), generate unacceptable environmental circumstances on residential side-roads which are unsuited for the purpose and pose a particular hazard for children walking and cycling to local schools. Another concern is the very narrow bridge on Downend Road. The traffic using this road includes ambulances going to and from QA hospital , not to mention heavy lorries and farm vehicles which exceed the tonnage indicated at the start of Downend Road. The situation is already very difficult for pedestrians and cyclists, and the possibility of hundreds of additional cars crossing the bridge will make it even more dangerous. In the Draft Infrastructure Delivery Plan it is stated that an additional capacity would be needed at existing GP surgeries in Portchester at an unknown cost and with an unknown source of funding. The waiting time at the local surgery is 3-4 weeks currently and the increase of approx 1,500 additional people (spread across all 4 sites) will only make it worse.
PO16
We are desperately overcrowded in this part of Portchester / Fareham. If you keep in filling and building more and more none of us including new residents will have any quality of life. The traffic on the A27 every weekday is log jammed if you need to go East to West into Fareham. Extra houses and 2 extra cars per house will make this intolerable. Add in the air pollution and need for doctors and schooling and unless you reject this development our lives become intolerable. Think before you act.
PO16
Portchester is known for its Roman Castle and its green spaces where much wildlife and fauna have made their homes some of which are protected species. The castle and vast green spaces is what Portchester is renowned for destroying that will destroy its identity. The local coastal walks from the castle along past the golf course are a favourite frequent walk for us and I shudder at the thought of the threat to the landscape of so many new houses which will obliterate this. Points in addition to the above are as follows. • Schools The number of new pupils will put further pressure on the existing oversubscribed schools and remove any choice from parents as they will be forced to apply outside of the village for places. • Medical The GP surgeries are already struggling to meet their government objectives and the wait for a GP appointment is already up to as much as a month. • Traffic The new schemes will attract another 1500 cars which our local village roads will not be able to cope with along with the pollution level that they bring with them. • Agriculture The government recommendation is that urban developments should be built on brown fields and not grade 1 and 2 lands like we have in Portchester so this is contrary to the National Planning Policy. • Strategic gap Portchester is a special village with its own identity and to maintain this, it is vital that the strategic gap between it and Fareham is retained. Finally, in 2011, only 60 houses were recommended to be built in the village with a guarantee that there will be no additions to that figure till 2026. Nothing has changed by way of infrastructure or circumstances since then. The plan in its existing form is unsound and unsustainable and should be scrapped unconditionally.
PO16
Draft Fareham Local Plan 2036 I object to the plan and wish to submit my comments below regarding Housing Site HA5. Fareham Borough Council Key Strategic Priorities – MY OBJECTIONS to this strategy is after each numbered definition. 2. Is to maximise development within the urban area and away from valued landscapes and spaces that contribute to settlement definition. With plan HA5 has gone completely against this priority. It is not in the urban area, but on prime Agricultural Grade 1 farming land. This land should only be used as a very last resort. There are many other area's which your council has abandoned in your SHLAA document which are much lesser than Grade 1, and have by far more easily accessible transport options. Poorer quality land is available in SHLAA sites 3107, 3109, 3036, 3060 and 1341 which was passed over, which would more than supply the number of houses needed to replace site 207 Romsey Avenue Development. 4. To ensure that infrastructure is planned prior to development, and delivered at the appropriate points alongside development to meet the changing needs of the residents. With plan HA5 and HA4 there is not provision to increase the infrastructure within the Portchester Community, only a directive to developers to make a monetary contribution donation to the council, which we know in past contributions by developers has not gone towards improving the infrastructure services within the communities, and is just snaffled up by the council coffers. There will be not more school places in the already over sized classes. There will be no expansion to the already over stretched doctors within the community. There will be a reduction in the choices of schools that parents can send their children. 7. Create places that encourage healthy lifestyles and provide for the community through the provision of leisure and cultural facilities, recreation and open space. With plan HA5 and HA4 there is no regards to the community's healthy lifestyles with the addition of houses with will see almost 1000 extra vehicle movements every single day. That is not to mention the large amount of diesel pollution which will be generated by the construction vehicles needed over the many months to build the 225 houses of this development. The current road network is already jammed and causing severe delays on the roads in the area. This is leading to many local residents using large and expansive alternate routes to achieve their destinations. The local roads to access this development of 225 houses were never constructed to carry or receive the traffic that there will be. Also the destruction of community's open space by building on this Agricultural Grade 1 land. There are already large concerns regarding the air quality of the local area of which the council do not seem to be taking any notice off. With the addition of 1000 car movements a day, this can only exacerbate this problem to a great problem with nothing being done to reduce the current emissions. The increase in Roadside Nitrogen Dioxide will be far beyond safe levels, and not considered in the Fareham Air Quality Action Plan. Do not wait for the air quality to be bad and then monitor, estimate on current qualities and cease/cancel developments which you know will impact greatly on an already existing problem. There is already a significant delay to traffic at The Delme Roundabout, M27 Junction 11 and Eastern and Western Ways, where the recent changes to Western Way is a temporary fix until all these houses in Portchester are build. The council have not got to grips with the A32 southbound issue at all. The lack of recreations facilities in Portchester which is contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework, which the Fareham Core Strategy identified the shortage of public open space in Portchester and the village would not be expected to play a significant role in the housing provisions before 2026, but hopefully never in the Romsey Avenue development. The size of the roads and its junctions will not be able to cope with the excessive amounts of traffic this development will produce. The losses of on street parking for residents who live in the effected parts of the roads have not been taking into consideration. 8. Provide new housing which incorporates a mix of tenure, size and type to meet the Borough's needs and enable accommodation for all. In this plan HA5 and HA4 there is no provision for Social Housing, just a Developers wish to make as much money as possible from the more affluent members of society who can afford their own houses. 9. Protect and enhance the Borough's landscape features, valued landscape, biodiversity and the local, national and international nature designations. This proposed Draft Plan has also gone against this priority in which it intends to destroy the local and valued landscape, its biodiversity and its local natural designations, with destroying the habitat of the local wildlife of deer, badgers, foxes and birds. There is evidence that people are attending the local area to scare and kill off the local wildlife, and this has lead to calls to the police to show this. This is being done, I presume to the benefit of others. The loss of the feeding grounds for the Brent Geese and the wading birds that feed on this field which is close to the Portsmouth Harbour SPA and against the NPPF. Again sites 3107, 3109, 3036, 3060 and 1341 which was passed over. 12. Protect those things that are good and important to Fareham and its residents, businesses and visitors. Again you are failing in this is another priority you have failed to take into account if this Draft Plan is approved. By approving this development you will not be protecting the good and important things that the residents want. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Above is six Key Strategic Priorities that you, Fareham Borough Council have stated are have considered in formulating this Draft Plan, with my reasons which I believe you have failed each and every one. In 2011, only 6 years ago, regarding the Strategic Development, Fareham Borough Council stated that "The Council does not expect Portchester to play a significant role in providing further housing provision over the plan period. Also that the SHLAA identifies the settlement (Portchester), as capable of providing limited housing development (around 60 Dwellings) throughout. So again you have gone against your words. Lastly, I would like to draw your attention to the Communities and Local Government document – National Planning Policy Framework. The Ministerial foreword by Rt Hon Greg Clark MP which he states that the process should be a collective enterprise. Yet in recent years, planning has tended to exclude, rather than to include, people and communities. In part, people have been put off from getting involved because planning policy itself has become so elaborate and forbidding – the presence of specialists, rather than people in communities. I also draw your attention to their other document – Planning for the right homes in the right places: consultation proposals. The foreword to this paper is by Rt Hon Sajid Javid MP, Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. He states this consolation nobody likes indiscriminate, unplanned and unwelcome developments. But most of us are will to welcome new home if they're well-designed, built in the right places, and planned with the co-operation of the local community. To win support of local residents, we have to build homes people want to live alongside as well as in. In addressing both these documents, Fareham Borough Council Planning Department have thrown those guidelines and instructions out of the window. Your attempt at a consolation process held at the Portchester Community School where you were asked specific questions yielded no answers to those questions, and just fobbed off the community with you lack of answers. Your councils offering to 'Bend the Knee' to large developers who, apart from wanting to fill their pockets with gold coins, wish to destroy the boundaries of our village settlements, and to encase us in the larger towns within the council boundary, would of centuries ago seen you captured and taken to meet your maker. Your blatant disregard of the views and wishes of the communities within your borough shows your contempt for the electorate. The legacy of your ill conceived plans will be felt by generations to come if approved, but you will find out in the future that you are only bringing about the destruction of yourselves by being ousted from the seat of power. In final conclusion I believe that the HA5 – Romsey Avenue – Development Plan is totally UNSOUND
PO16
This site for development has major infrastructure issues with no suitable access to and from it. The roads that 400 plus cars will spill out onto is already a traffic bottleneck throughout the day and evening and when the A27 is closed or has problems which seems to be weekly, becomes the alternative route to use. Just recently there have been two accidents on this road involving cars not being able to get through the road easily. This also compounds the dangers for children and adults wishing to get to and from Wicor school along with going to the local playing fields. Beaulieu Ave is only accessible by one car at a time due to the residents parking their cars on one side of the road which they are entitled to do as most do not have off road parking and need to be there. Lorries struggle to get down here for delivery's as it is. This would be the main access to Portchester road and trying to turn right out of Beaulieu ave to this road is difficult and near impossible at rush hours so traffic will come to a stand still and block Beaulieu Ave up. Also I do not see how you are going to get the building supplies to and from this site if it is given a green light as stated it will be near impossible to get the lorries in and out of this access point. Then there is the problem of the supporting infrastructure of school places, doctors and also the issue of all the extra air pollution this will create. The school is at capacity so is there money for it to develop and how would it develop without losing its own green spaces. How are the developers going to support the doctors in the area as it is all ready a two week wait for a standard appointment ? All the above is on top of the problems that the Cranleigh rd development is going to bring which has some of the same issues regarding pollution, traffic, access, school places and local doctors resources. So for the above reasons I am against the development and living down Beaulieu Ave I do not want to live with my Avenue turning into a constant traffic nightmare with car pollution slowly killing my family and the family's in the area. Along with all the noise disruption and then the deterioration of the schooling and local amenities that wont be able to cope with potentially minimally another 800 people living in this small area trying to use the same resources and roads as before.
PO16
When I walk my dog in this area I have on occasion walked around the foreshore west of Wicor Recreation Ground and Cams Hall golf course. On these walks I have encountered geese and other water foul and even seen deer and pheasants. Building work has begun on the site by Cranleigh Road and have heard that there are plans to further develop along that area. It is my opinion that the development of this area around Romsey Avenue should not proceed, as the impact on the diverse wildlife will be devastating. I understand Portsmouth harbour is a protected area so it seems wrong that developments can occur on nearby habitats that are used by the same water foul that also use the protected area.
Postcode not provided
This site for development has major infrastructure issues with no suitable access to and from it. The roads that 400 plus cars will spill out onto is already a traffic bottleneck throughout the day and evening and when the A27 is closed or has problems which seems to be weekly, becomes the alternative route to use. Just recently there have been two accidents on this road involving cars not being able to get through the road easily. This also compounds the dangers for children and adults wishing to get to and from Wicor school along with going to the local playing fields. Beaulieu Ave is only accessible by one car at a time due to the residents parking their cars on one side of the road which they are entitled to do as most do not have off road parking and need to be there. Lorries struggle to get down here for delivery's as it is. This would be the main access to Portchester road and trying to turn right out of Beaulieu ave to this road is difficult and near impossible at rush hours so traffic will come to a stand still and block Beaulieu Ave up. Also i don not see how you are going to get the building supplies to and from this site if it is given a green light as stated it will be near impossible to get the lorries in and out of this access point. Then there is the problem of the supporting infrastructure of school places, doctors and also the issue of all the extra air pollution this will create. The school is at capacity so is there money for it to develop and how would it develop without losing its own green spaces. How are the developers going to support the doctors in the area as it is all ready a two week wait for a standard appointment ? All the above is on top of the problems that the Cranleigh rd development is going to bring which has some of the same issues regarding pollution, traffic, access, school places and local doctors resources. So for the above reasons I am against the development and living down Beaulieu Ave I do not want to live with my Avenue turning into a constant traffic nightmare with car pollution slowly killing my family and the family's in the area. Along with all the noise disruption and then the deterioration of the schooling and local amenities that wont be able to cope with potentially minimally another 800 people living in this small area trying to use the same resources and roads as before.
PO16
This site for development has major infrastructure issues with no suitable access to and from it. The roads that 400 plus cars will spill out onto is already a traffic bottleneck throughout the day and evening and when the A27 is closed or has problems which seems to be weekly, becomes the alternative route to use. Just recently there have been two accidents on this road involving cars not being able to get through the road easily. This also compounds the dangers for children and adults wishing to get to and from Wicor school along with going to the local playing fields. Beaulieu Ave is only accessible by one car at a time due to the residents parking their cars on one side of the road which they are entitled to do as most do not have off road parking and need to be there. Lorries struggle to get down here for delivery's as it is. This would be the main access to Portchester road and trying to turn right out of Beaulieu ave to this road is difficult and near impossible at rush hours so traffic will come to a stand still and block Beaulieu Ave up. Also i don not see how you are going to get the building supplies to and from this site if it is given a green light as stated it will be near impossible to get the lorries in and out of this access point. Then there is the problem of the supporting infrastructure of school places, doctors and also the issue of all the extra air pollution this will create. The school is at capacity so is there money for it to develop and how would it develop without losing its own green spaces. How are the developers going to support the doctors in the area as it is all ready a two week wait for a standard appointment ? All the above is on top of the problems that the Cranleigh rd development is going to bring which has some of the same issues regarding pollution, traffic, access, school places and local doctors resources. So for the above reasons I am against the development and living down Beaulieu Ave I do not want to live with my Avenue turning into a constant traffic nightmare with car pollution slowly killing my family and the family's in the area. Along with all the noise disruption and then the deterioration of the schooling and local amenities that wont be able to cope with potentially minimally another 800 people living in this small area trying to use the same resources and roads as before.
PO16
This site for development has major infrastructure issues with no suitable access to and from it. The roads that 400 plus cars will spill out onto is already a traffic bottleneck throughout the day and evening and when the A27 is closed or has problems which seems to be weekly, becomes the alternative route to use. Just recently there have been two accidents on this road involving cars not being able to get through the road easily. This also compounds the dangers for children and adults wishing to get to and from Wicor school along with going to the local playing fields. Beaulieu Ave is only accessible by one car at a time due to the residents parking their cars on one side of the road which they are entitled to do as most do not have off road parking and need to be there. Lorries struggle to get down here for delivery's as it is. This would be the main access to Portchester road and trying to turn right out of Beaulieu ave to this road is difficult and near impossible at rush hours so traffic will come to a stand still and block Beaulieu Ave up. Also i don not see how you are going to get the building supplies to and from this site if it is given a green light as stated it will be near impossible to get the lorries in and out of this access point. Then there is the problem of the supporting infrastructure of school places, doctors and also the issue of all the extra air pollution this will create. The school is at capacity so is there money for it to develop and how would it develop without losing its own green spaces. How are the developers going to support the doctors in the area as it is all ready a two week wait for a standard appointment ? All the above is on top of the problems that the Cranleigh rd development is going to bring which has some of the same issues regarding pollution, traffic, access, school places and local doctors resources. So for the above reasons I am against the development and living down Beaulieu Ave I do not want to live with my Avenue turning into a constant traffic nightmare with car pollution slowly killing my family and the family's in the area. Along with all the noise disruption and then the deterioration of the schooling and local amenities that wont be able to cope with potentially minimally another 800 people living in this small area trying to use the same resources and roads as before.
PO16
This absurd proposal for site HA5 Romsey Avenue, absolutely must be taken out of the councils local draft plan for reasons that it is unsustainable and unsound. My reasons for this will be outlined below. 1. The infrastructure around Romsey Avenue and surrounding areas is not sustainable and completely not appropriate for the amount of houses that you are hoping to build. The traffic on the A27 is already backlogged nightly from the delme arms roundabout all the way back past the Condor Avenue roundabout, the 900 extra cars that will come with these developments will put unimaginable strain on these roads as well as onto the daily lives of the residents and commuters who will be the ones to suffer. 2. With the infrastructure being so poor, the increase number of houses and vehicles that come with it will have a detrimental effect to the emergency services who already struggle to get their vehicles down the smaller side roads i.e. Beaulieu Avenue and Romsey Avenue. This will become almost impossible and therefore would put residents lives at risk, a significant factor to why HA5 should be taken out of the plan. 3. The land on this site is some of the best and most versatile agricultural land in country, with 46% of it being classified as grade 1 and 53% grade 2. I cant see for the life of me why land of this quality would even be considered for development ahead of lower graded land in the area. This land has been farmed for over 40 years providing an economy and jobs to the local area, even if the owner wanted to sell, this land should be given priority to other farmers who are wanting to carry on this tradition, not cowboy developers intent on defacing a landscape. 4. With our schools already FULL, new intakes are just not possible resulting in families having to drive further afield to take children to school. This once again puts pressure on our roads and with an extra 900 vehicle movements a day, gives an increase in the likelihood of crashes not only with other road users but with children and school goers. 5. The wildlife that is seen regularly in this area are one of the reasons the site and areas around it have become so popular with visitors and wildlife lovers alike. The chance to see wading birds like Brent geese, as well as deer, badgers and hedgehogs will be lost forever if this site is not thrown out of the local draft plan and will have a catastrophic effect on local habitats and the ecosystem. As a young resident of over 20 years to the local area, I am someone who is understanding to the needs of the growing and changing population and the desire for new housing, housing of which that I am currently saving for as a first time buyer. I firmly believe that this housing needs to be the correct type, by which I mean that suits first time buyers needs of realistic affordable housing. Putting in 4/5 bedroom dwellings certainly does not do this and is only there to line developers pockets. As of this time i honestly believe this site HA5 has only been put in the local plan because the planning and councillors saw the site as a quick fix to the housing numbers that are needed. With Cranleigh road site falling to the hands of the developers it was believed that this would to, however the two sites are completely different in what they provide and are used for. The site has not properly been researched and the council have FAILED to interact and communicate with local residents on this matter, something that it clearly states would happen. I currently have LOST ALL FAITH in the councillors and the ability to provide a sustainable and positive future for the portchester community.
PO16
Very concerned about the health of adults but especially children, due to traffic volume and air pollution caused by extra vehicle movements in locality. The extra traffic congestion on these fairly small, back roads will cause life-threatening hazards for pedestrians, cyclists as well as the current residents. Concerned about the pressure on the local schools and doctor's surgery which are already oversubscribed. Waiting lists/appointment times already incur a long wait. Concerned about the damage to an area of natural green space and the wildlife that would otherwise live there. Who in FBC is representing the wellbeing of the people who live in this neighbourhood?
PO16
As a resident who lives nearby to the proposed site, I believe that the local road system cannot cope with any additional traffic that will come with the building of a large number of houses on this site. At the moment the A27 into Fareham from the Cams school traffic light junction is usually gridlocked from 4:30 - 6:30pm every week day. Additional vehicles in the area will only make matters and pollution worse. It is important to conserve green areas and not allow Fareham and Portchester to merge into one another.
PO16
I wish to object to the inclusion of Romsey Avenue into your draft local plan. It has many many flaws and I will attempt to list as much as I can. It is quite clear from Fareham Borough Council's current local plan that it was deemed this area of Fareham/Portchester could only accommodate and offer sustainability to 60 dwellings. A conclusion that was reached by Fareham Borough Council Planners!!!!!!! Now only a few years later the same incompetent Planners are allowing nearly 700 dwellings to be placed in the same area. We have heard a resounding defeatist attitude from the Council, due to the loss of the Cranleigh Road Appeal and again your naive and incompetent planners, that the Romsey field is the same as the Cranleigh site so should be handed over to developers. This clearly shows how the Council have mis-interpreted the Inspectors decision and clearly not read his report as he stated the reason Cranleigh would not be protected is because FBC could not produce a competent 5 year land supply. Nothing more nothing less!!!!! It needs to be reminded to your un-knowledgeable planners that the Romsey Avenue site is in no way similar to Cranleigh Road. Romsey is a fully productive farming location and this land has been farmed for over 40 years. It is a 12.65 hectare site Cranleigh however was an un-farmed location and unfortunately was only a small 5.56 hectare parcel of land. With the loss of Romsey Avenue the two adjoining fields will also become un-farmed meaning a much larger area for development to creep in. Romsey also is a popular feeding ground for brent geese and other wading birds, Cranleigh sadly was not. THERE IS NO CONNECTION BETWEEN THE TWO AND IT IS AN INSULT THAT YOU THE COUNCIL AND YOUR PLANNERS ARE UNABLE TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN THEM. Please do remember you the Council lost Cranleigh due to incompetence please do not heap more of your incompetence on our communities by lumping them together, so show some character and backbone by removing Romsey Avenue from the draft Local Plan. This proposal shows you have failed in your due diligence in following the NPPF which clearly states a proper sequential test which should lead to brownfield housing stepping down to the use of poorer quality land in preference to that of a higher quality land in terms of greenfield sites. However your failing to follow the NPPF means you have discarded immediately lower grade land in favour of including the class 1 high quality area of Romsey Avenue. The discounted sites that need to be revisited and included in the draft local plan are as follows: Site 1341 Stubbington (144 dwellings) Site 3017 Swanwick (46 dwellings) Site 3109 Sarisbury (41 dwellings) Site 3060 Titchfield (40 dwellings) Site 3036 Locks Heath (49 dwellings). The Stubbington site aside there is no record of importance for brent geese and they are of grade 2, 3 and 4 of agricultural land classification. These smaller sites are more spread out throughout the borough giving a wider choice and would have far less an impact on their respective local communities than the 700 odd in this very small area to the East of Fareham. In recent history with the development of Condor Avenue (the Bird Estate) the exit from this site required a roundabout for vehicle access to be able to feed directly onto a double lane section in either direction of the A27. The proposed 225 houses at Romsey Avenue will be accessed by one small narrow road/lane which passes within a few meters of the front door of a family home. Traffic would then still have to traverse onto Beaulieu Avenue before reaching a single lane, in each direction, part of the A27. Equally cars moving from west to east who wish to turn into Beaulieu Avenue will then back up on the A27 as the turning zone only allows for two to three cars at any one time. The traffic generated will cause a large amount of congestion leading to frustration of road users and a huge danger and no doubt threat to life of the large number of Cams and Wicor school pupils who walk to and from school on a daily basis. Regarding schools this proposal is contrary to paragraph 72 of the NPPF as it would lead to reduction in choice of school places due to the already overloaded local schools (many already have waiting lists) not to mention adding pressure on local medical facilities again contrary to the NPPF. This continues to show the un-sustainability of the Romsey Avenue proposed development in your draft Local Plan. The interim transport assessment undertaken by Atkins in 2017 identified two junctions most likely to be impacted by the incremental traffic that will be generated by the proposed allocations and the junctions with repeated road safety incidents - A27 West Delme roundabout and A27 Portchester Road Dore Avenue roundabout. The Romsey Avenue allocation would have a material impact on junctions that already have significant capacity issues. I could go on and on about the un-sustainability of the proposed Romsey Avenue development in the draft Local Plan and every point of evidence would lead to the conclusion that the draft Local Plan is TOTALLY UNSOUND.
PO16
Objection to Fareham Draft Local Plan Written by [redacted] Date 08 December 2017 Introduction I wish to register my objection to the current draft local plan in the very strongest terms, and in particular the inclusion of the Romsey Avenue site as a site for development. As a resident I feel totally let down by the councillors and officers who from my point of view have "sleep walked" into an avoidable situation through lack of planning and foresight. This quite frankly rushed local plan is the culmination of a strategic planning function that has failed in its primary role and finds itself desperately attempting to deliver a 5 year housing supply that it failed to notice it did not have. This in turn is leading to a rushed local plan which is ignoring national planning framework guidance, is detached itself from residents and public and I believe will be found un-sound when it comes to be judged. Whilst I am by no means a professional in these matters I have tried to educate myself, and have sought professional advice to aid my understanding. The Process The process of a local plan is supposed to be accessible and as stated in the NFFP "allow residents back into planning". With over 60 documents to read and try to understand, many cross referencing each other I hardly think this could be classed as accessible. Many of these documents are hundreds of pages long, and full of planning "jargon". Why / how is this really making the process accessible? The idea that residents who wish to educate themselves need to read through all these reports in order to make sense of why decisions have been made is ridiculous. I have had to try and find my way through this process with much time and money spent on it, but I know that others are not engaging with it as it is just far too complicated, and the workings of local government are just a mystery. I am also appalled by the fact that the most important report in the process the SHLAA report – detailing all the sites bought forward and their reasons for inclusion or discounting, was not available to the Executive Committee in a finished form before they were asked to consider this plan on the 8th of October. I find it even harder to understand how only one of those councillors had actually requested or seen that report before that meeting. I am also not sure how said report was only made available to the public 3 weeks later in the same process - despite being requested under the freedom of information act. If you are going to propose a draft plan, then I think the report that contains so much of the reasoning that has gone into that plan needs to be available to the public when the consultation starts, and it clearly needs to have been completed by that point. This feels as though Fareham are trying not to make the process transparent. Which then leads me to believe that they are covering up the fact that they made an error in letting Welbourne drift along, and then a second error in not recognising their current situation in regards to land supply at the Cranleigh appeal. The obvious conclusion to this is that they are under severe time pressures, whilst trying to cover mistakes, and corners are being cut, processes not being followed and I believe this will eventually lead to the current draft plan being found un-sound. Housing numbers in Fareham There seems to be some dispute as to where the figure of 11,300 homes that need to be developed in Fareham over the period of the plan has come from. According to the Wellbourne Garden Village Demographic Report population of Fareham currently standing at about 115k is only predicted to grow to 130k by 2037 and increase of about 12%. Other reports published by FBC predict rises of 13k by the end of the new plan in 2036 We have to then assume that this growth will require single occupancy homes given the number of homes will almost match the increase in population, but this will surely not be the case so why do we need so many houses?. This needs to be questioned and explained fully to the public as surely the development numbers are far too much for the predicted population growth. It also appears that the Wellbourne figures were not originally included in the Fareham targets, many of the evidence based information suggests that up until 2015 these were separate projects and plans. At what point therefore did the 6000 homes that Wellbourne will deliver become integrated into the Fareham figures? Because the previously mentioned 11,300 homes seems far too much for the modest increases in population size that Fareham is expecting. Sustainable Development The NPPF, another document that I am starting to become increasingly familiar with, talks about sustainable development, and not making our world worse for future generations. It talks about improving our environment and how important that is for our wellbeing. As a father of two young children I feel this concern very directly. My boys, 10 and 8, who attend Wicor School have already seen the Cranleigh Road Meadow fall to development which was very frustrating and upsetting for both them and us, as well as many of the local residents. I also consider how the potential development at Romsey Avenue and the whole of Portchester might impact on our family. Concerns I have over my children's safety as they look to start gaining independence by walking to school and again when they start heading to Cams School as traffic starts to mount, and they will be in conflict with this extra traffic on roads that are not designed for the volume. Sustainable development we are told breaks down into 3 areas, Economic, Social and Environmental. With the Romsey Avenue site in particular I worry about the Social and Environmental implications and feel that the Local Plan will be found un-sound on these two alone. To expand on these concerns, with no additional infrastructure associated with this site, particularly roads, we will have a constant social conflict as residents both new and old end up at odds every day entering and exiting what is effectively a single road route through Beaulieu Avenue. The addition of this development will see over 900 additional vehicle movements a day, this will not be sustainable without incident. Agricultural Land This point really concerns me and probably comes under the Economic principle of sustainable development. Paragraph 112 of the NPPF states that "Local planning authorities should take into account the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile land . . . . Where significant development on agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, local panning authorities should seek to use areas of poorer quality land in preference to that of higher quality". The site at Romsey Avenue is identified as 46% ALC Grade 1 and 54% ALC Grade 2 in the SHLAA report. Urban Edge who were tasked with several if the evidence based documents included in the process, tell us that Hampshire is predominantly ALC Grade 3, with only 4.9% being Grade 2, and 0.4% being grade 1. How can we possibly claim that this plan is sound when Romsey Avenue, the only site with this quality of agricultural land included in the local plan when other sites of lessor quality are being left out? This site has also been farmed for many year, according to some of the longer lived residents in the road well over 40 years. The core strategy talks about sequential testing, and I am not sure this has been done in anyway as we appear to be developing the best and most versatile land first, and not last. We also see brownfield sites such as SHLAA site 3116 Cherry Tree industrial estate not being chosen in preference of new green field allocations. Wildlife Conservation and Environmental Paragraph 113 of the NPPF states that "local planning authorities should set criteria based policies against which proposals for any development on or affecting wildlife or biodiversity sites or landscape sites will be judged" The site at Romsey Avenue is designated as "uncertain" for Brent Geese – although residents have photographed Brent Geese on the site in 2017. Natural England tell us that as the site is located so close to the SPA, and that as it is relatively undisturbed by people as there are no rights of way through the site, it is considered to be very important as foraging grounds. The Brent Geese and Wader Strategy of 2010 identifies the importance of sites adjacent to the SPA and delivered criteria that they should be judged on, including flat areas of ground that are close to the water. The Romsey site is the closest site to the water to be labelled "uncertain", yet it has been preferred for development over other "uncertain" sites which according to the strategy are less important – again this must render the plan un-sound. In the Habitats Regulations Assessment for the Fareham Borough Local Plan 2036, under section 6, Assessment of Likely Significant Effects, both the Romsey and Cranleigh sites are mentioned in 6.4.3, 6.4.5 and 6.4.6 as likely to have significant impacts on the ecology and environment if there is development on these sites – there are only 5 sites in total from the entire plan that are mentioned in this context. Development Strategy Every housing authority is required to demonstrate how it will meet an appropriate share of the housing need in its housing market area. Paragraph 3.12 of the Core Strategy 2011 set one if it's "Strategic Objectives" as being "To deliver the South Hampshire Strategy in a sustainable way, focusing development in the Fareham SDA north of Fareham and Western Wards" The same strategy under paragraph 5.23 stated that "the Council does not expect Portchester to play a significant role in providing further planning provision over the plan period" The then SHLAA identifies the settlement as being capable of providing limited
PO16
I would like to raise my concerns regarding the draft local plan, and in particular with regards to the development to the south of Romsey Avenue. As a general point, the amount of housing that has been put into the draft local plan sounds over-inflated. The idea that we will build 11,300 homes for a projected 13,000 extra people by 2036 does not seem necessary. The census of 2011 indicated that the average household size is 2.36 across England and Wales. Therefore, even if there was only an average 2 people per household, we would only require 6,500 homes to house the 13,000 extra people, and we would avoid having to build on many Greenfield sites. The proposed development would result in the loss of the "best and most versatile" agricultural land. The Romsey avenue site in Portchester has a land classification of 46% grade 1, and 53% grade 2. To build on this land would be contrary to paragraph 112 of the National Planning Policy Framework. There is poorer quality land available for housing, upon sites such as Swanwick (Site 3017), Sarisbury (site 3109), Locks Heath (site 3036), Titchfield (site 3060) and Stubbington (site 1341). All of these should be considered in favour of the Portchester site. The land to the south of Romsey Avenue also provides a rich haven for wildlife. The land supports many rare and protected species, including particular Brent Geese and waders, hedgehogs, Slow worms, badgers, foxes and deer, which we have seen first-hand over the last few years we have lived in the area. The loss of these breeding grounds would be contrary to paragraph 113 of the NPPF. Again, there is other land with relatively little ecological value that should be considered in preference, including Swanwick (site 3017), Sarisbury (site 3109), Locks Heath (site 3036) and Stubbington (site 1341). The draft local plan fails to demonstrate that all these sites have been subjected to a thorough test. The next major issue for this site is traffic and access. The area between Delme roundabout and the Portchester Road/Dore Avenue roundabout is particularly busy especially at peak times and has repeated road safety incidents, especially with the schools nearby. The Romsey allocation (let alone other development in Portchester) would have a material impact on the junctions that already have significant capacity issues. It is likely that the Romsey avenue development would generate around ~900 vehicle movements per day, many of these movement would be along Beaulieu Avenue which is a road that was never intended to serve so much traffic. This would pose significant danger to the children and residents who use these routes when walking to school. The access proposed for the Romsey site is also not suitable. It insensitively intends to make use of a narrow lane right in-between two residential dwellings. The roads surrounding the site access are basically one-way streets as cars are parked along the kerbside. The whole of Beaulieu Avenue requires drivers to give way due to the narrow layout. It is one-in, one-out and is certainly not suitable for heavy vehicles. It had been suggested by the Highway agency that you could add permit only areas or double yellow lines in and around Beaulieu Avenue which may make the road more accessible but does not satisfy the demand for resident parking and will cause more issues. There could be a better option to use an access road from the south of the field. The proposed Romsey development also lacks anything that will add to local infrastructure. Portchester already lacks recreational spaces as stated in paragraph 5.17 of the Core Strategy (2011). Not only this, but the local school (Wicor primary), is already having to cope with the influx of children now that 120 extra homes due to be built at Cranleigh road. Consideration is also needed for more local Doctors and Dentist that would need to be catered for. The plan, to us, does not look like this has been thoroughly thought through. All developments in the local plan should be providing extra places, and widening the choice of local services that are available.
PO16
Objection to Fareham Draft Local Plan I wish to register my objection to the current draft local plan. I feel councillors and planners have totally failed in their role to best meet the needs of their community. The council made a fundamental error in their 5 year housing supply highlighted by the Cranleigh Road appeal and this plan is by consequence a rushed attempt to address this. I particularly wish to express my frustration over the fact that Romsey Avenue has been included in this plan. Cranleigh Road / Romsey Avenue It is evident that the council having lost the Cranleigh Road appeal see the development of Romsey Avenue a natural consequence of this. I disagree with this point of view and feel they are looking at what seems an 'easy' solution without truly believing it is the best option for Portchester. The council felt that Cranleigh Road was worth protecting and fought to prevent it from being developed for many years. Yes, they lost on appeal but lost due to errors in housing supply not because the land was not worth protecting. Or that development in the area and surrounding area was appropriate to meet the needs Portchester. Romsey Avenue is not and should never be a natural extension to the Cranleigh road build. It has been farmed for the last 45 years and has uncertain Brent geese. At the Cranleigh Road appeal the Inspector stated the size of that development would not affect the local residents but this can not be the case when combined with Romsey Avenue which is about three times the size, resulting a substantial impact for residents. The process lacks any form of transparency The council have suggested they are working towards involving the community in planning decisions.I find this completely ridiculous when to access any information you have to be able to read and try and understand over 60 different documents. Community meetings only served as a means for the council leaders to voice their opinions and hear but not listen to residents' concerns. Any specific questions regarding valid points/fears about housing in the area were given a response of that not us, its education, its highways or it's the responsibility of the developer or most frustratingly "oh that's in the detail." I find it unbelievable that a council should expect public support when they are unable to provide clear well thought out information that is easily accessible and can be understood by all. Previous local plan of 2011 totally contradicts this draft plan I find it difficult to understand how this plan can completely contradict a previous local plan that stated "the council does not expect Portchester to play a significant role in providing further planning provision over the plan period." I do not see what has significantly changed in the area in the last 6 years to change this. I can only assume again it is as a result of the council's own failings with its housing supply figures, the consequent lost Cranleigh Road appeal and the delay in Wellbourne. However how can Portchester which was previously only deemed suitable for around 60 more dwellings now be expected to sustain effectively some 700 or more homes without communities coming into conflict? Due to increased pressures as a result of traffic congestion, longer waits at doctors, less spaces in schools. Again I guess this is in the details!!! Sustainable development I do not see how this draft local plan offers any benefits for the community of Portchester. They are ruining our environment and destroying green spaces which are known to affect wellbeing in an area which was stated in the previous local plan as having "limited public open space." From looking at plans for proposed developments in the Portchester area, they do not even meet Fareham's need for diverse housing. The houses in Romsey Avenue appear to be mostly 3-4 bedrooms making them out of reach to those most in need of accessing the housing ladder. I feel the build at Romsey Avenue will personally affect my 2 boys who have already felt the despair at seeing Cranleigh road destroyed. I worry that they will no longer have the independence to walk to school due to the significant increase in traffic making the trip unsafe resulting in extra car journeys for us as a family. How can 'Newlands' a proposed development in the Stubbington area for 1000 houses come with details of a new school, doctors and country park. Yet Portchester developments which total approximately 700 homes, easily more should additional fields to the side of Romsey be allocated for planning as they can no longer be farmed and any windfall sites in the area have no specific information on developing infrastructure. How is this well planned sustainable development when there are no obviously stated community benefits such as good sized open spaces, community infrastructure and improvements to the environment? Including Romsey Avenue site in the plan demonstrates a lack of thought with regards to accessibility to the site. It has only one access in/off the site which and exiting to the A27 via Beaulieu Avenue which is currently difficult to negotiate especially during school hours. Agricultural land Romsey Avenue has been farmed for the last 40 years and is good quality agricultural land. How can this draft local plan be sound when it ignores the economic benefits of this land for farming, and allows other sites of lessor quality to be left out. Wildlife/Environmental I disagree with the draft local plan's statement that Romsey Avenue is 'low land sensitivity. ' It is rated as being highly important by Natural England who feel that development would have a significant impact on wildlife and the environment. I personally have had the opportunity to see an abundance of wildlife in the field including bats, slow worms, deer, shrews, Egrets and in February 2017 a Brent geese. Traffic There are already high levels of congestion on the A27 to access the motorway. This becomes gridlocked if anything happens on the motorway. Adding an extra 700 houses and potentially 2000 more cars with no significant changes to infrastructure will make this significantly worse. I believe Portchester has not seen any investment or major road improvements in the last 40 years but is expected to take more than its fair share of housing on this draft plan. Romsey Avenue /Beaulieu Avenue were not built to take the amount of traffic from the proposed housing. I cannot see how the current proposed single access in /out of the site is suitable for potentially 900 more car movements a day. To access the A27 cars will use Beaulieu Avenue, which has on street parking allowing for single traffic only. At peak times such as school drop off this route is already dangerous and often blocked. As I have a child with Asthma, I am also concerned about the increase in traffic and the affect this will have on air pollution in the area. His walk to Wicor and then Cams will consist of breathing in nothing but car fumes, effectively resulting in me adding to the difficulty by opting to drive him to school for his personal safety and health. I understand from residents meetings that FBC do not have an air quality monitoring station in Portchester and therefore have no baseline to assess the impact of these builds. I find this unacceptable. Education Again, it remains in my mind the councillors and planners 'hand washing' attitude at the community meetings with regards to Education. Simply saying it is not their concern is not good enough. Surely it should be as it is a major concern of any resident or future resident of Portchester with children. FBC have a duty to address these issues with developers and to prioritise sites were adequate infrastructure is part of the development such as Wellbourne and I believe Newlands. Again from residents own discussions with Hampshire Education Services the 700 additional homes in Portchester would need 240 primary school places and 120 secondary spaces not currently available in the area. Wicor School will already come under pressure from the Cranleigh Road development. It is a school with a rich environmental programme and is recognised nationally for this work. To succeed in this it needs it grounds and I fear a solution of building on the school grounds to make more space is 100% detrimental to the health, well-being of all present and future students. FBC will consequently be destroying the only remaining green field sites in our children's home environment but also the greenery of their school in an area already named as having little open public space. Conclusion I find this draft plan unsound and feel that Romsey Avenue in particular has only been included in this plan due to the Cranleigh Road appeal. It will allow a quick build and easy fix for a council who failed in calculating correctly its housing supply. I believe FBC have mistaken 'preferred option' for 'easiest option' and I feel that due diligence has not been paid in investigating the viability of Romsey Avenue field against other sites. The draft plan is a devastating blow for Portchester, we will become an urban sprawl with no identify separate of Fareham and with no additional infrastructure to make any of the developments sustainable resulting with communities in constant conflict. As the plan stands residents of Portchester would be better off without one.
PO16
The roads cannot cope with the additional traffic, there is no infrastructure to support the additional places required for school places, doctors, dentists etc. The roads surrounding the proposed sites are already gridlocked during school times and there are insufficient school places to cope with extra families. The site is a large wildlife habitat and the space between Portchester and Fareham town centre will be further eroded with such a large development.
PO16
Building on best quality agricultural land goes against NPPF guidelines. There will be a loss of feeding grounds for brent geese and wading birds. The proposed access road is inadequate for the potential volume of traffic. The roads are not wide enough for bi-directional traffic. The junction on the A27 is unsuitable which will lead to congestion and pollution in a residential area / school route. All of these factors will contribute to worsen the quality of life in the community therefore this draft plan is unsound.
PO3
"This is a green field site and housing should not be built on it. As this is a potential site, find a Brownfield site. Stop allowing more and more shopping outlets which often make the original Town/village almost close down. There does not appear to be any or very few small dwelling that are affordable. Any housing must also come with extra healthcare for people. The currant provision is under much pressure and shortage already. Work with clinical commissioning group and ensure a development contriution is received. Infrastructure-already crowded and will not easily cope with many extra people. Brown field site maybe available if/when SMR move from castle trading estate Portchester. Same reasons In addition far to large development for this area to support all the extra people need/health/transport ""Ect Etc"""
PO16
"1. Because of the loss of Cranleigh road to developers by inaction of FBC even greater work must be done to protect Romsey avenue. The reasons why FBC lost the appeal does not apply when creating a new local plan. 2. The work done by Urban Edge for FBC is woefully inaccurate they couldn't even get the population of Portchester right. Many of their statements for Romsey avenue, for example ""minimising carbon emissions and promote adaptation to climate change if Romsey avenue site is built upon will be positive"" so 500 cars trying to enter and exit the site with all the added stationary traffic and fumes from these cars will be beneficial....! this beggars belief. 3. In the Sustainability Appraisal and Strategic Environmental report at least 5 sites of lower quality farm land are available which contrary to government advice have been chosen over Romsey Ave which is grade 1/2. This proves the methodology used to select the final shortlisted sites is fundamentally flawed as a sequential test using government guidelines has not been followed. 4. Why is Romsey Ave site being allowed to be built upon when it means houses are nearer to the Armament Depot at Bedenham, surely this intrudes upon the safety area for blast protection. Remember one of the houses in Romsey avenue was destroyed when Bedenham had an accident some years ago. Has this been taken into account, it doesnt seem to have been. 5. Why is there no statement about a local gap for Portchester like there is for Stubbington. Government advice is to protect local communities. This proposal does not do that.? 6. This development is not in the public interest as it will mean drastic measures will have to be taken to stop cars parking in and around Beaulieu Ave. Neighbour will be annoying neighbour trying to park their car. This is contrary to Government guidelines. 7. The root of all this grab for land is the failure by FBC to have a provable 5 year supply of land for housing. Because of the haste in creating the new draft plan many, many matters contrary to Government guidelines have been used to select the housing sites. This means the whole draft plan is unsound and will in all probability mean that under scrutiny by the Government inspector the plan will be thrown out. Meaning massive embarrassment for FBC and a free for all for housing developers which is not in any way beneficial to the local population. and especially the brent Geese."
PO16
I am appalled at the way Fareham is trying to push through a local plan which is so clearly against all government guidelines and clearly unsound. Romsey Avenue is included in the local plan despite being the best and most versatile agricultural land and other sites which are not have been left off. The devastation to the local community in putting extra traffic on roads not designed for it and which are already difficult to use at various times of the day will be immense. The fact that the traffic was monitored during the school holiday indicates that the council is already aware of this and is trying to manipulate the figures. The loss of car parking will be huge. People didn't buy gardens to have to turn them into car parks. They are for children to enjoy. There have been no new recreational facilities put in place for children in Portchester and we value our gardens. People need cars for work. I would not be able to do my job without a car and nor would my husband. It is not just to get to work, it is an integral part of the job. Garages were not built to take the size of car we use and the size is also needed. Housing needs to be where jobs are being created so less travel is needed. Pollution in Romsey Avenue and Beaulieu will increase as cars have to wait longer to pull out onto side streets and eventually the A27. The A27 has already been assessed as being over used, particularly at the Delme roundabout, which would be very difficult to alter. The number of accidents on these roads is already considerable and is likely to increase. People using their cars to try to get children to school and then get to work on time are going to struggle. We are supposed to try to get people into work, not make it impossible for them. The danger to children accessing both Wicor and Cams Hill schools is a factor now and this will be made worse by a steady stream of traffic along Romsey Avenue. The A27 was made a single lane in each direction not too long ago. This has made things worse when trying to pull out from Beaulieu Avenue onto it as there is often no break in the traffic. There are currently no places for children at Wicor School. This will become far worse with the extra housing planned. I have had, in the past, to drive a child from the age of 4 until the age of 7 to Bridgemary to school until a place became available at Wicor and another child had to go to Harrison School for 5 years until he transferred to Cams Hill at 11. This creates a lot of unnecessary traffic and a lot of stress for people trying to juggle work and keeping their children safe. I know the effect on wildlife is going to be significant and this does impact on people's well being, particularly children. They watch the changing season's and, seeing the geese arrive, hearing them fly overhead, watching the combine harvester etc. give children a feeling of life continuing in a rich pattern. There are over 1000 referrals for children to Fareham and Gosport's child and adolescent mental health service every week, obviously for many different reasons, but we need to protect our environment to give people a chance of a healthy life. The stress caused by changing our environment so hugely will impact upon our ability to live in a cohesive community. There is already a lot of anger at the lack of consideration for our way of life which will not go away simply by approving such an unsound plan. I strongly object to this plan and, until other more suitable sites have been put on the plan and subsequently used, Romsey Avenue should be off the plan and not even considered. It shows lack of concern for people, the environment, the use the land is suitable for and the suitability of all surrounding roads and local infrastructure. The plan is clearly unsound and should never have been considered.
PO16
The government pledged to protect the environment. I would contend that the environment of Portchester is being devastated by over saturation of housing. Portchester is NOT an urban site, it has always provided a balance between natural habitat/shoreline and community housing. Soon the former will be a concrete wilderness and then urban decay sets it - with all that that entails – raised crime (with no adequate policing) no adequate places in the school/doctors surgery etc The biggest crime destruction of the beautiful shoreline, fields and woodland, when can people go to relax – breathe fresh air?? Where can children play naturally – not in hideous primary coloured play parks, they need wilderness – we all do! Then there is the obvious problem of the roads, the endless traffic, the grid-l;ock for at least three hours in the evening and early part of the morning – not to mention the fumes – the parking problems. Why do the greedy property developers lie about the existance of wildlife? Why does the council roll over, wake up Portchester we have reached saturation point.
PO16
I wish to object to the inclusion of Romesey Avenue, (HA5) in the strongest terms. The inclusion of this site is flawed from the outset. Due consideration has not been given to any essential aspects of the site, little consideration has been given to the wishes of residents, the environment or the larger community of Portchester. From the outset is is obvious that this site has been included because it happens to be adjacent to Cranleigh Road a site which has been given planning permission as a result of mismanagement by Fareham Borough Council. To explain my objection further I will itemize each point in detail, something that housing officers at Fareham Borough Council have failed to do. 1. The land proposed for development is grade 1 agricultural land. There is little of this quality land within Fareham Borough Council and its inclusion is contrary to paragraph 122 of the Nation Planning Policy.There has obviously been no robust sequential test as a number of other sites within the borough are more suitable. 2. The site is used by Brent Geese and other wading birds as a feeding area. The proposed area is close to the Portsmouth Harbour Special protection area and offers excellent resources for these birds. Including it in the planning proposal is contrary to paragraph 113 of the National Planning Policy. One wonders if Fareham Borough Council is aware of the existence of this National plan? 3.Anyone attempting to drive into Fareham along the A27 will have noticed that the density of traffic is often extreme. On occasion it has taken me over 45 minutes to get through the morass. The roads around the Romsey avenue site are narrow and often blocked by cars parked on either side of the roads. The inclusion of roundabouts onto the A27 have done little to minimize the build up of traffic into Fareham. Indeed children travelling to school at Cams HIll and Wicor face a daily problems crossing roads and breathing in toxic traffic fumes. Hampshire County Council is determined to reduce school crossing patrols, having already caused problems for parents with children at Red Barn school, where apparent lack of traffic deemed the crossing unnecessary. 4. Building on the Romsey Avenue site will not only put pressure of school places but also on local medical facilities. Wicor Primary School is full, there is often a waiting list for children wishing to enroll in Reception classes. If building goes ahead, reception children with siblings already at the school will find that there is no place for them. Parents will now have the undesirable task of dropping off their children at different schools each morning. This will not only cause trauma for the children concerned but also increase the volume of traffic on the roads. Doctor's surgeries in Portchester are already under pressure from an aging population an increase in the number of residents will only make this worse. 5. There is a lack of open recreational spaces within Portchester. This was recognised in 2011, paragraph 5.17 of the Fareham core strategy and recorded assurance that the village would consequently not be expected to play a significant role in housing policy before 2026. I see no reason why this policy has suddenly changed. As a governor at Wicor Primary school I find it difficult to understand how we are supposed to teach our children to value the environment, to respect wildlife when the local council seeks to destroy it. I would recommend that Fareham Borough Council rethinks their entire Local Plan giving due consideration to suitable sites rather than simply blocking in areas. Proper consultation with the local community is essential. Residents presently feel that the Fareham local plan has been foisted upon them.
PO16
There is inadequate infrastructure to support this building. The roads are overcrowded now, school, doctors & hospitals are oversubscribed. Open spaces are needed for air quality and wildlife needs protecting.
PO16
Other sites within the borough which consist of grassland, farmland, scrub, bramble or immature self seeded trees have been rejected for reasons of ecological importance or landscape sensitivity. These appear to be no better or worse than the Portchester sites. Radian Homes already have demonstrated an arrogance to the environment. In addition to the Environmental aspects of such developments on greenfield and farmland will not protect farmland as stated in the Natural Environment section of the plan (9.10) Congestion on roads, particularly on the A27 between Portchester and Fareham is significant at 4 sites so close to the road. Schools are over subscribed.
PO16
There is no more space, too many people, too many cars, not enough roads or facilities, ie doctors/schools etc
PO16
The Residents of Fareham did not have the advantage of an issues & options stage of public consultation before the draft local plan was produced & presented to them. It is good practice & many other local councils give their residents this opportunity. In the Natural Environment section it is stated that -development may be permitted where it can be demonstrated that protected & priority species & their associated habitats, breeding grounds & foraging area are protected. They are not being protected on the Portcehster sites at the moment despite continued complaints to Fareham Borough Council & There is no confidence that they will be protected in the future.
PO16
As Fareham is already one of the worst congested towns in the country. Would we not be better off solving traffic problems before introducing another 16,00 cars to roads that are already at a standstill.
PO16
Too many homes have been planned for Portchester. The sites are not spread evenly across the Borough. 750 homes is unacceptable for Portchester. Traffic is already at saturation point on local roads – all sites in Portchester Cornoway Lane, Cranleigh Road, Wicor Mill Lane, Westlands Grove etc A27 already congested at peak hours. No point in travelling from Portchester to Fareham after 3pm as traffic at a standstill and polluting the environment. There could be in excess of another 1500 vehicles if these applications get the go ahead. The doctors surgeries are already over subscribed with up to one one waiting lists. The sites put forward are all green sites. Not enough consideration has been given to the natural environment for wildlife and woodlands, hedgerows and open spaces. All sites are adjacent to SSS1 and Ransor sites. These Portchester sites are more environmentally important than other sites in the Borough that have been rejected for the very reason.
PO16
The site development allocation proposals are unevenly balanced towards Portchester. Portchester sites which are on farmland, grassland, and close proximity to Portsmouth Harbour SPA are allocated, yet other sites in the rest of the Borough have been rejected for these very reasons. Portchester is not 'highly urban' as Fareham BC states. It merits the presence of its current village status and to carry through all of these proposals in Portchester alone would severely compromise the character and landscape that Portchester currently provides.
PO16
I wish to object to the proposed housing site HA5 , Romsey avenue. Portchester. 1. 1. This site is grades 1 and 2 best and most versatile agricultural land. Why has the council proposed this site when poorer quality land is available in Swanwick(site 3017), Sarisbury(site 3019),Locks Heath(site 3036),Titchfield(site 3060),and Stubbington(site 1341)? I can find no evidence that these sites have been subjected to a robust sequential test before the Portchester site was chosen for consideration. 2. The loss of feeding grounds for Brent Geese and wading birds close to Portsmouth Habour SPA would be contrary to para. 113of the NPPF. The affore mentioned sites should have been concidered and subjected to a robust sequential test before the Portchester Romney Avenue site. As an ardent lifelong supporter of the RSPB I am dismayed by the councils total lack of vision of a future for our children which is more like an urban jungle than an ecologically friendly area. 3. Children in Portchester have a lack of recreational facilities, contrary to para. 73 of the National Planning Policy framework. What has happened to the Fareham Core Strategy, which in para 5.17 recognised the shortage of public open space in Portchester and recorded assurance that the village would consequently not be expected to play a significant role in housing provision before 2026? Is this yet another example of tories promising anything with popular appeal in order to get elected and subsequently reneging on their promises when it comes to searching for alternative sites for development, perhaps in their council controlled areas, rather than in Portchester? 4. The increased traffic problems on the A27 junctions in this area is already a major concern for Portchester residents. There are significant capacity and safety issues which the council proposal does not sufficiently address, showing a blatant disregard for the concerns of local residents, and this issue will also have a long term effect on the capacity of local schools and doctors surgeries to cope with the increased population in the village. I am dismayed that the council has put forward such an ill-considered plan and seems to be incapable of understanding the needs of our local community in Portchester or of coming up with a more acceptable plan which conciders the needs of this lovely village, which should be treasured as an asset to Fareham, not used as a dumping ground. The inclusion of Site HA5 as a residential allocation is unjustified and inconsistent with national policy, (especially paragraphs 7,72,73,112 and 113 of the NPPF) so the draft plan is unsound.
PO16
I object to those planned buildings. we do not have the Doctors to cope with the people living in these areas as it is. No room in the schools either. How will the QA cope. I drive home from Gosport everyday from work to [redacted], the traffic, build up is getting worse and I can often be found sitting in a traffic jam from the bird estate roundabout to my turning longer than it takes me to travel home from Gosport ferry. How Bad will this become with the extra houses.
PO16
We were told to support the Welbourne plan because it would mean all the smaller local developments would not be required. Now we are being told, just because Welbourne is now running late, all the smaller local developments have to go ahead regardless. We are being told the housing need is too urgent, and cannot wait for Welbourne. This is totally untrue. If this was the case, no house in Portchester would ever be on sale for more than 24 hours. A simple case of supply and demand. The additional pressures on local roads, schools, doctors' surgeries from these developments will bring misery to the lives of existing Portchester residents, and affect property values and quality of life. Our roads are clogged enough as it is. The residents of Portchester, and the other Fareham wards, should not be punished or have their home lives affected and properties devalued, simply because Welbourne is running late. The fact that Welborne is running late is not our fault, and we should not be expected to pay the price as a result. Hands off Portchester – wait for Welbourne!
PO16
I would like to object to the Plan Site HA5 – Romsey Avenue Development for the following reasons: 1. The land is Grade 1 Agricultural Land with the National Planning Policy Framework says that local planning should take into account the economic benefits of the most versatile land, and that local planning authorities should seek poorer quality land in preference to the land at the above site. This quality of land is also covered in the Natural England's view that lower grade of land should be used before the Grade 1 land, and supports the NPPF guidelines, which makes this plan FLAWED and should be removed from the local plan. 2. There is a total lack of acknowledgement and disregard of the above by Fareham Borough Council, as shown in the Fareham Borough Councils SHLAA to safeguard the Best Most Valuable land within the plan, especially the above site, and therefore makes it UNSOUND and should be removed from the Local Plan. 3. The Inspector for the Cranleigh Road site also stated that lower quality land should be used in preference to the higher quality land, and that the Cranleigh site was small and does not constitute as being a 'significant' development, where the above site will certainly be classed as such and the plan should be REMOVED from the Local Plan. 4. The Cranleigh Road site has not been farmed for the 24 years that I have lived here, and I have only seen horses grazing within this area. I have also been informed that there are Badgers and Foxes living and breeding on this site, as well as birds nesting within this area. Whereas the Romsey Ave site has been farmed for the 24 years I have been living in my home, and apart from the animals mentioned above, we have seen Brent Geese and Wading Birds using this field during those 24 years, which means that the destruction of this field for housing development will occur. 5. With Cranleigh Road site being approved and past by the Inspector, there will be a roundabout access into and out of the site. This site is serviced by a much larger and wider road, which was build with the heavy traffic in mind which gives access to industrial businesses beyond the development. This site will have 120 houses. The HA5 site is initially 225 houses which could rise to 550 houses dependant on what FBC grant, and this site will have in access of 900 vehicle movements every day along two small narrow roads, which were not constructed to take such large vehicles which will need to access this site to build that many houses or take that amount of traffic once the houses have been built. 6. The roads giving access to the site will cause great concern for the safety of children walking to both the Wicor Mill School and Cams Hill School, due to their size and structure. 7. The infrastructure within the immediate area of this HA5 Romsey Avenue development will not be able to cope with the extra people at the existing Doctors Surgery's which already are oversubscribed. The local senior and junior/infant Schools are already bursting in class numbers without the added children which this development will bring. There may well be a sum of money which the developers will give to Fareham Borough Council, but there is every likelihood that those addition monies will be spent in the areas that they are not meant for, and will go into the councils bucket for all funds. The roads in the immediate area are already blocked by the lack of alternative routes which see the A27 westbound from the Birdwood Estate to the Delme Roundabout already grid locked for at least one hour in the morning, and for three hours in the evening, making movement along these roads taking in access of one hour to travel less than half a mile. 8. We are well aware that the air quality in the Borough of Fareham area is excessive and ranks 23 in the league for poor air quality within the UK. These extra vehicles within the HA5 Romsey Avenue development will only add this area to the already high poor quality areas within the borough. There may well be several strategies that the council is looking at and have approved, which will fade away into no action since they were conceived, which was only to answer the boroughs bad placing within the league table, i.e. just paying lip service. The Fareham Local Plan Site Allocation Options provide 11 options. No of these options will be achieved as they are the total reverse effect that this HA5 Romsey Avenue Development will have on the area. Fareham Borough Council were involved in secret talks with local developers at a local hotel recently, and they have failed to report to the public what those talks involved. This casts very shady workings going on within the Borough Council, and its executive, planning and financial department heads who attended should be dismissed from holding any office within the council, and immediately suspended. The local plan is in every way UNSOUND, and should not be proceed with regarding the HA5 Romsey Avenue Development.
PO16
I am writing to object to the proposed development, primarily, of HA4 Downend Road East (Winnham Farm) and secondly, of HA5 Romsey Avenue and HA6 Cranleigh Road. The main reason for my objection is the lack of transport infrastructure to cope with the likely 1400 cars that these developments will generate in a very close area. I have little faith that any promises of improved transport infrastructure as part of these developments will actually help alleviate the traffic chaos that comes with living in the Fareham area. From what I have seen, projects to alleviate traffic problems merely paper over the cracks and give residents little value for money (eg Fareham Station area roadworks). The Delme roundabout approach from Portchester is chaos most mornings and evenings and any changes that could be made to it will surely be negated by the extra traffic trying to get in/out of Fareham and Gosport from all the other proposed developments. The junction at the Down End road and A27 traffic lights often backs up beyond the railway bridge to where the proposed entry to the Winnham Farm development is. The railway bridge is not wide enough should 2 LGV's meet, especially if a footpath is to be kept. The access onto the M27 at junction 11 from Boarhunt often has a traffic queue of 50 plus cars that barely moves between traffic light changes. This will become a prime route onto the M27 with these proposed developments. I have not seen any detail about how these problem areas will be improved, merely comments that the developers will contribute towards costs of improving transport infrastructure. I find it difficult to see how, with any amount of money, the current road system in these areas can be improved to accommodate this number of extra car journeys at peak times, especially when typically there are 2-3 days a week when an incident on the M27 or A27 already causes gridlock on the local roads. The area South/West of the M27 is quite frankly full. If housing is required make Wellbourne happen at its originally proposed capacity with proper access to the M27 at J10 and J11. Please don't make existing residents suffer further with a patchwork approach of squeezing in badly considered housing developments within an already broken transport infrastructure.
PO16
It is essential that Romsey Avenue is removed from the local plan which I consider to be flawed and not fit for purpose as it has failed to follow national guidance regarding the hierarchy of land using the sequential test. My evidence is listed below, Best and most versatile agricultural land. Relevance for HA5 Romsey Avenue. 1. Paragraph 112 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that "Local planning authorities should take into account the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land...Where significant development of agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, local planning authorities should seek to use areas of poorer quality land in preference to that of a higher quality." A local planning authority that does not follow the course expected by the NPPF evidently runs the risk that its emergent local plan will later be found to be 'unsound'. 2. Natural England recorded its view in March 2016 that "...LPAs, as part of their Local Plan process, should prioritise the use of lower quality land (ie non BMV) in preference to that of higher quality (grade 1, 2 and 3a) in line with para.112 of the NPPF...Fareham should ensure that they have sufficient detailed information to apply the requirements of the NPPF at the beginning of the local plan process, in order to provide the necessary evidence to underpin the Local Plan." ['BMV' is best and most versatile]. 3. In view of the priority accorded by the NPPF and Natural England to the utilisation of non-BMV land before the allocation of Grades 1, 2 and 3a for development, it is noteworthy (and a matter of concern) that the 'Key Strategic Priorities' set down in paragraph 2.7 of the draft Fareham Local Plan 2036 give no attention whatsoever to the conservation of the BMV agricultural land. As the conservation of BMV agricultural land is not a core intention of the draft plan, it is evident that the sequential test implicit in para.112 of the NPPF has not driven the allocation of development sites; the draft plan is fundamentally flawed in that regard. 4. SHLAA ref.207 'Romsey Avenue, Portchester' records that its Agricultural Land Classification is 46% ALC Grade 1, 53% ALC Grade 2. Detailed scrutiny of the SHLAA return show that several sites with lower agricultural quality (eg Site 1341 in Stubbington, Site 3017 in Swanwick, Site 3036 in Locks Heath, Site 3060 in Titchfield and Site 3109 in Sarisbury) have been discounted, while Site 207 has been allocated for residential development. 5. It is apparent that housing allocation HA5 off Romsey Avenue has been heavily influenced by the approach recorded by Inspector Baird in his determination of the 'Cranleigh Road' appeal in August 2017 – at paragraph 28 of his decision, he acknowledged that "...the use of poorer quality land should be used in preference to that of a higher quality ie apply a sequential approach...Here, given the appeal site extends to some 5.5ha, this proposal is not, in my view, a significant development where the sequential approach is engaged." There are two reasons why Inspector Baird's decision does not inevitably lead to the HA5 allocation – the Romsey Avenue site is much larger than the appeal site and thereby a 'significant development'; and the preparation of a local plan enables comparisons to be made between sites, whereas the appeal process does not. 6. The 'Key Strategic Priorities' set down in paragraph 2.7 of the draft Fareham Local Plan should recognise the need for a sequential approach to the development of the best and most versatile agricultural land and, as housing allocation HA5 Romsey Avenue has not resulted from the application of such a sequential approach, it should be deleted.
PO16
"Romsey Avenue is the highest quality productive agricultural land remaining in the borough and must be celebrated and protected for this reason it must be removed from the local plan. It is essential that FBC do not fall into a dangerous trap of making an assumption that as Cranleigh Road has fallen on Appeal that Romsey Avenue cannot be supported. Cranleigh failed on a technicality and incompetence as highlighted in the Appeal decision below; At the inquiry, the lpa provided an updated assessment of the deliverability of the disputed sites. However, the information provided on each site was limited and indeed the lpa's witness acknowledged that he did not have detailed information on the sites. The appellant's submission that the lpa's evidence regarding deliverability was based on, "…discussions with others about discussions with others" is an apt description. In my view, the lpa's evidence on deliverability relating to the LP 2 sites falls well below the threshold set by PPG in that it is neither robust nor clearly and transparently set out..... Whilst I acknowledge the lpa's commitment to the delivery of Welborne, on the evidence before me, it would appear that the potential to deliver a significant number of units towards the end of the 5-year period is optimistic. In light of these findings, I am unable to safely conclude that at least 315 units are capable of being considered as deliverable within the 5-year period. In this context, the lpa cannot demonstrate a 5-year supply of deliverable housing land. However, given my conclusions regarding the deliverability of the disputed sites, I consider the HLS would be marginally over 2 years. The sites are very different. The appeal refers to scale being relevant in the detail below; ""Whilst the development would be noticeable, it would be seen as a modest extension of the existing built-up development to the north and east and against the backdrop of the housing area to the south of Cranleigh Road and mature planting beyond. The visual impact of the development would be mitigated by the above factors and the degree of separation from Portsdown Hill. Views of Portsmouth Harbour would not be interrupted or obscured and the wide sweep of the panoramic views would be maintained. In this context, the visual impact of the development from these vantage points would be minor"". This test could not be applied to Romsey avenue which is 12.65 hectares compared with just 5.56 at Cranleigh and the 120 dwellings at Cranleigh are likely to be doubled in number on the Romsey site. This could double in time as the adjacent farmland becomes un productive and is picked off for development. This really is the thin end of the wedge and must be blocked now to prevent a total coalescence of Portchester and Fareham. Cranleigh Road field is totally within Portchester while Romsey Avenue field is predominantly in Fareham, it is FBC policy to protect settlement coalescence. Romsey is only residential to the northern border whereas Cranleigh is residential to the north, west and south. The Cranleigh development has a boundary condition imposed to keep development separated from the agricultural land of Romsey Avenue. Romsey Ave is an uncertain site for Brent Geese and Waders while Cranleigh does not have this rating. There is no way that any development at Romsey Avenue could be classed as anything but substantial and have a significant impact on the character and appearance of the landscape. Cranleigh was designated as having a modest impact. The imp[act on highways would also be substantially different in scale. Quality of access are also significantly different with a single 'stub' track access to Romsey compared with a tarmac road at Cranleigh. For these reasons the sites must not be treated the same. Cranleigh was in the wrong place at the wrong time as a planning application and could have been defended, as it always has been if only FBC had developed more brownfield accommodation and made better progress with Welborne. This failure must not lead to the very best and most valuable land in the borough being sacrificed."
PO16
I wish to object to the inclusion of the site HA5 – Romsey Avenue Development I have lived in my house in Romsey Avenue since I was born 24 years ago. Every year since I can remember, is that Brent Geese and other birds have landed and fed on the field to the south of our house. Every year we hear the geese flying over our hours and landing and feeding in the field. There are lots of other birds that land and feed on it as well. I have seen birds flying into hedges and bushes around the field which obviously means that they are nesting inside them. One of my favourite things to see in the field is the deer. Sometimes is only one, but on most occasions I have see at least two or three. If this development goes ahead, their habitat will be destroyed. I am also informed that there are badgers and foxes that have their homes in and around this field, which will also be destroyed when the building starts. Building houses on this field will mean that the habitat of these animals will be lost and that these animals will no longer exist. Surely this is not right. I am told that the field is of a high grade quality farming land which should not be built on, but use for crops for food as it very versatile to grow many things. If we leave the EU, we will need fields like this to grow our crops which will be cheaper than importing them. If this plan goes ahead it will see up to about 1,000 cars movements in my road a day. This will bring more noise, more toxic fumes, and more danger for the children that attend both Cams Hill School and Wicor Mill School. Romsey Avenue and Beaulieu Avenue is used extensively by children going in both directions to these school, thereby making it more unsafe with the volume of traffic that will use these two roads. This extra traffic will also cause much more pollution to the air in the local area, and the children walking will suffer more. With these houses being built if this site is included in the final plan, it will cause even greater problems with the extra people it will bring to the already overstretched doctors, schools and roads. Some of the classes at both the local school are already above the recommended numbers to be able to properly teach the children. The local doctors are stretched with the numbers they already have to take on, so adding more people to their numbers will make it even harder to get appointments. The roads around the A27 travelling west towards Fareham are already very busy, mainly in the mornings before and after school start times. Also in the late afternoon and early evenings from the start of the school runs until about 7pm most week day evenings. So if you add the extra cars from this site, it will be much, much worse. Again the air pollution in this area will be much greater. I believe that this plan HA5 Romsey Avenue Development should not go ahead.
PO16
You will destroy nature. You are killing nature. The field is used to make food for us. We won't be able to see the deer, foxes, badgers, rabbits, geese or birds, where will they go? My school is already full up, we had to be build some new classrooms last year, where will the children go?
PO16
Area marked covers whole field rather than up to No 58. Have seen Canadian and Brent Geese, deer and foxes. Cars are 1-2 per house, 3-5 at the weekend. Cams Hill children use road as a Rat Run. Have seen children on bikes cut the corner at Beaulieu. There is a brick wall at the end of Beaulieu with a number 67 blocking the view of Westbound traffic so you have to peep and creep. Local schools over subscribed, this would mean extra cars to take your children to schools further afield. Small access to field will cause a tailback like we have currently as cars wait to overtake parked cars. Rule 243 of the Highway Code- Do not stop or park opposite or within 10 metres of a Junction, except in an authorised parking space. Every day I am on the wrong side of Beaulieu trying to access Romsey Avenue. Assumed decrease in value of house due to view being lost. House on corner has been on the market for some time and still not sold. Hazards to health with coastal winds blowing dust from Building works will give rise to increased visits to an already over subscribed GP Surgery. Can be upto 3 weeks before you have an appointment at Westlands.
PO16
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 the land at Downend Road (HA4) and on Romsey Avenue (HA5). 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. 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. The recent Cranleigh Road appeal- which FBC did all it could to stop- was upheld by the Inspector but creates a worrying precedent for development in the area. Regarding the proposed development site on Downend Road, I am concerned about the impact on local roads of 350 new homes. A serious accident took place on Downend Road in March 2017, the road is used by heavy lorries when accessing the waste depot and cars and motorbikes race on this road- all causing a traffic hazard. If development goes ahead on Romsey Road, it is clear that the junctions at Delme Roundabout and the Dore Avenue Roundabout will be considerably affected by the 225 homes there. I urge that focus be placed on how the local roads might be upgraded to accommodate the extra traffic to the area. What is the Council doing to mitigate any safety risks and to enhance traffic flow? Many local people are concerned about the impact on local school resources and GP services too. 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
Can you please not take away our field and replace it with houses and cars. We have seen lots of animals and creatures in the field including geese, badgers, foxes and deer, where will these creatures go and live without the field?
PO16
"I have been a resident in [redacted] since 1999. I have lived here with my wife and have raised our children. Before this we lived in [redacted], so we know the area well. This area is a great live and to raise a family. However with this planned development this will affect the area. I say this because the impact that the development will have on the local schools, local GP surgeries and other facilities. This will also have an impact on the local highways, which is busy at it is. The proposed access point to the site is to be be Beaulieu Avenue then on to Romsey Avenue. However this is totally the wrong place to have an increase of traffic of approx 500 cars plus all the heavy site traffic beforehand. The junction is a bottle neck already and there will be serious problems with the influx of all this traffic which could result in a serious road traffic incident. This extra traffic would also have a diverse effect on the air pollution in Romsey Avenue and the surrounding road. I also object to the use of the proposed site to build the homes. This is high quality farming land which should be used to grow crops that would be used to feed us now and in the future for all generations. Romsey Avenue has been farmed for the last 40 years plus - Cranleigh Road, where planning permission has already been approved, has not been farmed for many years - no doubt by design to make it easier to get planning permission, so why should the council decide that it is fine to just roll over on Romsey Avenue Romsey Avenue has been designated as ""uncertain"", for Brent Geese, which Cranleigh was not, indeed Natural England talk about how valuable the Romsey Avenue site is, being adjacent to the SPA and very close to the water. It is a fact that Romsey Avenue is closest site to the water being proposed for development in the local plan. It is stated in the Brent Geese and Wader Strategy in 2010, that flat sites closer to the mean high tide level are more important as habitat for these rare birds and should be prioritised. In relation to the houses that are going to be build at Cranleigh Road and this site, would not be affordable housing for local residents, including my children, who would not be able to afford to buy a property on this site. This would have an effect on the younger generation of Portchester and I think this is a sad reflection on local goverment."
PO16
Roads are not suitable to accommodate 220 house traffic plus the cranleigh development. Also this site is of great importance to the local Solent waders society so have no idea why this field is even being considered . Birds have migrated here for over twenty years .
PO16
Dear Sir/Madam, I am writing to object to the proposed development HA5 – Romsey Avenue. The proposed site HA5 doesn't meet the criteria of the National Planning Policy Framework so the inclusion of this site in the local draft plan is not justified and it is unsound. The reasons for this are as follows: 1. The access road to the new proposed site HA5 coming off Romsey Avenue is not viable. Hatherley Crescent, Romsey Avenue and Beaulieu Avenue are residential narrow roads with parked cars along both sides. The area already gets grid locked every morning and afternoon during school drop off and pick up time. The route is extremely busy with local school children walking and cycling to and from Wicor School and Cams School. Both my children walk and cycle along Romsey Avenue and Hatherley Crescent to school every morning and afternoon. These residential roads and junctions haven't been built or designed for the increased amount of traffic that the proposed site HA5 and 250 extra houses will create. The proposed development will make Romsey Avenue, Beaulieu Avenue and Hatherley Crescent unsafe for school children walking and cycling to and from school. This development is not sustainable for the fact that it will be detrimental to the health and safety of local school children; inclusion in the draft plan is not sound because it doesn't comply with paragraph 7 of the National Planning Policy Framework. 2. The local and closest school to the new proposed site HA5; Wicor primary school is already oversubscribed with waiting lists for each year group and so there is not adequate local school places for the 250 new homes proposed by HA5. This is contrary to paragraph 72 of the National Planning Policy Framework which states that "The Government attaches great importance to ensuing that a sufficient choice of school places is available to meet the needs of existing and new communities." The council haven't taken this into consideration when including Romsey Avenue site HA5 in the local draft plan. Instead it would make more sense to develop on a site such as Newlands Farm which also had plans for a new school. 3. The Romsey Avenue Site HA5 has been classified as a valuable ecological site by Natural England and is adjacent to one of the designated Special Protection Area's for the borough. It is also the closest site to the sea included in the local plan. The site is classified as an uncertain feeding ground for Brent Geese which are regularly seen on the proposed site by local residents. Inclusion of this site HA5 in the draft plan contradicts paragraph 113 of the National Planning Policy Framework which states that "Local planning authorities should set criteria based policies against which proposals for any development on or affecting wildlife or biodiversity sites or landscape areas will be judged… Distinctions should be made between the hierarchy of locally designated sites so that protection is commensurate with their status and gives appropriate weight to their importance and the contribution that they make to wider ecological networks". Instead of including Romsey Avenue site HA5 in the local plan the council should have included sites that they have discounted that have much less ecological value and are not feeding grounds for brent geese; such as Titchfield (site 3060), Sarisbury (Site 3109), Swanwick (Site 3017) and Locks Heath (Site 3036). 4. The Romsey Site HA5 is agricultural land that has been farmed for the past 40 years. The Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment has classified the Romsey Avenue Site HA5 as 46% ALC Grade 1, 53% ALC Grade 2. Paragraph 112 of the National Planning Policy Framework states that "Where significant development of agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, local planning authorities should seek to use areas of poorer quality land in preference to that of a higher quality". The inclusion of Romsey Avenue site HA5 in the local plan doesn't comply to the above paragraph 112, and the council should instead have included poorer quality agricultural sites such as Titchfield (site 3060) ALC Grade 3, Sarisbury (Site 3109) ALC Grades 2 & 4, Swanwick (Site 3017) ALC Grade 2, Locks Heath (Site 3036) ALC Grade 3 & Stubbington (Site 1341) ALC Grade 2. For these reasons listed above I am objecting to the inclusion of the Romsey Avenue Site HA5 in the local draft plan and I am asking for the Romsey Avenue site HA5 to be removed from the local plan.
PO16
I am writing to object to the proposed development HA5 – Romsey Avenue. The proposed site HA5 doesn't meet the criteria of the National Planning Policy Framework so the inclusion of this site in the local draft plan is not justified and it is unsound. The reasons for this are as follows: 1. The access road to the new proposed site HA5 coming off Romsey Avenue is not viable. Hatherley Crescent, Romsey Avenue and Beaulieu Avenue are residential narrow roads with parked cars along both sides. The area already gets grid locked every morning and afternoon during school drop off and pick up time. The route is extremely busy with local school children walking and cycling to and from Wicor School and Cams School. Both my children walk and cycle along Romsey Avenue and Hatherley Crescent to school every morning and afternoon. These residential roads and junctions haven't been built or designed for the increased amount of traffic that the proposed site HA5 will create. The proposed development will make Romsey Avenue, Beaulieu Avenue and Hatherley Crescent unsafe for school children walking and cycling to and from school. This development is not sustainable for the fact that it will be detrimental to the health and safety of local school children; inclusion in the draft plan is not sound because it doesn't comply with paragraph 7 of the National Planning Policy Framework. 2. The local and closest school to the new proposed site HA5; Wicor primary school is already oversubscribed with waiting lists for each year group and so there is not adequate local school places for the 250 new homes proposed by HA5. This is contrary to paragraph 72 of the National Planning Policy Framework which states that "The Government attaches great importance to ensuing that a sufficient choice of school places is available to meet the needs of existing and new communities." The council haven't taken this into consideration when including Romsey Avenue in the local draft plan. Instead it would make more sense to develop on a site such as Newlands Farm which also had plans for a new school. 3. The Romsey Avenue Site HA5 has been classified as a valuable ecological site by Natural England and is adjacent to one of the designated Special Protection Area's for the borough. It is also the closest site to the sea included in the local plan. The site is classified as an uncertain feeding ground for Brent Geese which are regularly seen on the proposed site by local residents. Inclusion of this site HA5 in the draft plan contradicts paragraph 113 of the National Planning Policy Framework which states that "Local planning authorities should set criteria based policies against which proposals for any development on or affecting wildlife or biodiversity sites or landscape areas will be judged… Distinctions should be made between the hierarchy of locally designated sites so that protection is commensurate with their status and gives appropriate weight to their importance and the contribution that they make to wider ecological networks". Instead of including Romsey Avenue site HA5 in the local plan the council should have included sites that they have discounted that have much less ecological value and are not feeding grounds for brent geese; such as Titchfield (site 3060), Sarisbury (Site 3109), Swanwick (Site 3017) and Locks Heath (Site 3036). 4. The Romsey Site HA5 is agricultural land that has been farmed for the past 40 years. The Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment has classified the Romsey Avenue Site HA5 as 46% ALC Grade 1, 53% ALC Grade 2. Paragraph 112 of the National Planning Policy Framework states that "Where significant development of agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, local planning authorities should seek to use areas of poorer quality land in preference to that of a higher quality". The inclusion of Romsey Avenue site HA5 in the local plan doesn't comply to the above paragraph 112, and the council should instead have included poorer quality agricultural sites such as Titchfield (site 3060) ALC Grade 3, Sarisbury (Site 3109) ALC Grades 2 & 4, Swanwick (Site 3017) ALC Grade 2, Locks Heath (Site 3036) ALC Grade 3 & Stubbington (Site 1341) ALC Grade 2. For these reasons listed above I am objecting to the inclusion of the Romsey Avenue Site HA5 in the local draft plan and would like site HA5 to be removed from the plan.
PO16
The LA is suggesting allocating 700 new home builds within an area of approximately one square mile within the Portchester district. All of the proposed sites, including Romsey Road are green field sites. Portchester East only has a natural greenspace surplace of 8.5% and Sarisbury has 86.9% surplus The local plan therefore proposes an undue burden of new build allocation within Portchester. If the number of required new homes was spread equally across the 15 Fareham wards then each ward would have around 150 new homes whereas the plan is that Portchester has 700. Portchester retains its 'village' character despite the leader of the councils assertions that it is hardly a village when it is current comprises 6000 + homes. The LA clearly view the residents of Portchester with contempt. The Romsey Road development has to be taken 'in the round' along with the housing proposed at Moraunt Drive and Romsey Road. Increased congestion on already congested roads with the increased pollution it creates and stresses on overburdened public services will bring detriment to a place that retains its friendly outlook. Increasing urbanisation of this degree will result in damage to trees and wildlife habitats through air and noise pollution and increased pedestrian activity. Other sites in the borough which consist of grassland, farmland, scrub bramble or immature self seeded trees have been rejected for development for reasons of ecological importance or landscape sensitivity. They appear no better or worse than the Portchester sites. There are many children who walk to Cams and Wicor Primary and safety concerns must be an issue with the increased traffic needing to access the A27. It is already difficult to get a doctors appointent and the council themselves expect a shorfall of 12% of required primary school places in 2018. The total package of housing development in the Portchester Ward is outrageous and disproportianate to the other wards. The A27 during peak periods is a nightmare of slow moving traffic, with increasing pollution on the route into Fareham for pedestrians, cyclists and especially the youngesters attending Cams Secondary School. Fareham is already one of the most car dependent towns in Britain. 46% of households have 2, 3 or 4 or more cars. The potential of another 1500 cars needing to access the A27 will add an untenable additional burden on the roadspace of Portchester.
PO16
Twelve years ago we moved from a city to Portchester to start a family, feeling that it offered the perfect compromise between city and country. Now however, with the proposed developments on the Portchester Sites of HA4, HA5, HA6 and HA12, Portchester is at high risk of being turned into yet another urban sprawl, exactly what we tried to escape from. There are also however, technical reasons why I strongly object to the development proposals, especially HA5. It is my belief that the draft local plan is unsound and that the criteria for assessing sites have not been applied consistently. • HA6 (which is already under construction) was originally rejected by FBC because 1. it failed to meet a large number of policies defined within the FBC's Core Strategy 2. it would result in the loss of Grade 1 and Grade 2 agricultural land The appeal was wholly focused on FBC's inability to meet housing quotas and not as it should have been, the unsuitability of the site. Now FBC seem to have given up on all their reasons for rejecting HA6 even though those reasons are even more critical on HA5. FBC appear to be going for the easiest options to meet numbers. Just because the land (Grade 1 & 2) is being made available for development, does not mean that it should be developed. • The land on HA5 is Grade 1 and Grade 2 and has been very productively farmed for the past 40 years. Para. 112 of the UK government's National Planning Policy Framework states that poorer quality land should be developed in preference to higher quality. • The increased number of vehicles on Portchester's main roads as a result of these developments will overstretch the network which currently struggles at peak times. The proposed access for HA5 via Beaulieu Avenue and Romsey Avenue is quite frankly ridiculous considering that it may carry 300+ additional cars and any from the HA6 site choosing to bypass the main roads. Beaulieu Avenue, Romsey Avenue and Hatherley Cresent are all narrow with unrestricted parking, allowing only one-way travel. School children from Wicor and Cams Hill use these roads and the added traffic can only greatly increase the risk of an accident. It is hard to understand why some proposed sites with much better access options than HA5 have not been selected for inclusion in the draft plan. • HA5 is rich in its range of wildlife that use the site. We have seen geese, frogs, toads, newts, slow worms, bats, badgers, deer, mice, hedgehogs, foxes and stag beetles living in or frequenting this site. Most of which are also currently being evicted from the HA6 site. The HA5 site is ~200m from the Portsmouth Harbour Special Protection Area which according to Natural England is also Ramsar and SSSI. Development of Site HA5 will directly contravene para. 109 of the UK government's NPPF. Interesting that site 31 was discounted from the draft plan because of its close proximity to the SPA/SSSI but HA5 has not been. • The proposed Portchester developments, if they all went ahead could mean an influx of some 726 children. The current educational infrastructure cannot accommodate this, I am pretty sure that it cannot accommodate the HA6 site alone. Developments should not be considered until the infrastructure has been boosted to accommodate such massive demands on it. Interestingly enough, other applications which included new school and care facilities were rejected. • The added population resulting from these developments would also overload the already stretched-to-breaking-point health services. Again substantial investment in the health care infrastructure should be committed to prior to the commencement of any of these developments. • The green "gap" that exists between Portchester and Fareham (and includes HA5 and HA6) should be maintained. HA6 is already being developed which makes HA5 even more critical. I would be interested to know why the Newlands development has not been included in the plan and why it was not even in the SHLAA. It is obvious to me that it has perfect access with the new bypass, has plans for school and health services and should make a massive contribution to FBCs housing requirement for years to come. It is not fair that the majority of the housing burden be placed on Portchester, which as I have already mentioned has its infrastructure pushed to breaking already. We have already lost HA6 so HA5 should be protected, not considered as the next domino to knock over.
PO16
"I strongly object to the Romsey Avenue development being part of the local plan. I believe that the draft local plan has been hurried through without giving due care and attention to the considerations and potential consequences. I wish for Romsey Avenue to be removed from the said local plan for the following reasons: The Romsey Avenue field is listed as 46% ALC grade 1, this being of excellent quality and 53% ALC grade 2, in the SHLAA report, this therefore makes it quality land that should and must be treated as very important, as it is the best and most versatile land for farming. Romsey Avenue field should be removed from the local plan, with lower quality land identified and used for proposed developments in the local plan. Should the Romsey Avenue field not be removed then the plan runs the risk of being unsound, as paragraph 112 of the NPPF states that "Local planning authorities should take into account the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile land . . . . Where significant development on agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, local panning authorities should seek to use areas of poorer quality land in preference to that of higher quality". Romsey Avenue field has been farmed for the last 40 years plus. Being aware that Cranleigh has not been farmed for many years, it could be suggested that this was to potentially make it easier to get planning permission, so why should the council decide that it is all of a sudden it is fine to develop on farmland that continues to be farmed on. This farmland needs to be preserved in order to deliver future crops for food and non food uses. Impact on local infrastructure, including local surgeries and schools. Paragraph 72 of the National Planning Policy Framework states that "The Government attaches great importance to ensuring that a sufficient choice of school places is available to meet the needs of existing and new communities...Local planning authorities should take a proactive, positive and collaborative approach to meeting this requirement and to development that will widen choice in education." The development at Cranleigh Road being given permission is a reason that Romsey Avenue should not be included due to the impact it will have on the local infrastructure (or lack of) as the Cranleigh Road Development is going to have over 120 dwellings, which will have a huge impact on the supply and demand of school places. Should the Romsey Avenue development go ahead this will see a further 250 dwellings. Wicor School which will be the catchment primary school for both these developments and is already full and oversubscribed. Whilst it could be suggested that the school could be further developed in order to cater for the increase demand of school places, I struggle to see how this could happen in light of the fact that the boundary for the Cranleigh Road Development will directly adjoin the school's western boundary and so there will be little or no room for the development of this school. It is proposed that there will be a single road access point to the Romsey Avenue site, which is absolutely ridiculous and not viable at all. It is noted that Cranleigh Road leads onto Cornaway Lane, with a roundabout access at the top, is a much better access route than the single road access proposed in to the Romsey Avenue site via Beaulieu Avenue on to the A27 for twice as many houses. Both Romsey and Beaulieu Avenue, are small residential streets with on street parking. There is going to be a significant risk to the lives of children walking to and from the local schools with an increase of potentially 900 vehicle movements a day, 100 at peak times. Furthermore the increase in traffic is going to result in an increase in air pollution. This will be further compounded by the lack of highways infrastructure in Romsey Avenue, which will see high levels of stationary traffic for long periods as traffic approaches the junction onto the A27. Research shows that drivers are exposed to "dangerously high" levels of air pollution from traffic when stationary, according to according to a study led by the University of Surrey. I am aware that Romsey Avenue has been designated as ""uncertain"", for Brent Geese, which Cranleigh was not. Natural England talk about how valuable the Romsey Avenue site is, as its so close to the water. It is a fact that Romsey Avenue is the closest site to the water being proposed for development in the local plan. It is stated in the Brent Geese and Wader Strategy in 2010, that flat sites closer to the mean high tide level are more important as habitat for these rare birds and should be prioritised. It is imperative that we acknowledge the vital importance of local wildlife sites and cherish and protect such havens. "
PO16
My son and his young family live in [redacted]. The field, HA5 that is proposed for development is home to vast array of wildlife that I have seen myself. There are geese that use the field and return year after year. There are badgers, deer and slow worms by the dozen. It is a real haven for the wildlife. The loss of Cranleigh road is already having a big impact on the badgers and to build on HA5 as well would mean that the geese and badgers would have nowhere to go. My grandchildren tell me that their school has recently been extended but that their class still has more than 30 pupils. How can the local schools cope with the many many children that would undoubtedly move into the area? I am also very concerned about the additional traffic that will be in the area. My grandchildren are currently able to ride their bikes out on the street but I can't see how that will be possible if HA5 is developed. Incidentally, I cannot believe that the proposed access route will be suitable for such a large number of cars. It is a crime that Cranleigh is being built on but that should add more weight to the argument for protecting HA5.
PO6
"The Fareham Local Plan Core Strategy 2011 stated, ""The Council does not expect Portchester to play a significant role in providing further housing provision over the plan period. The SHLAA identifies the settlement as capable of providing limited housing development (around 60 dwellings)."" This development is for 225 dwellings so what has changed since 2011 to allow for this application? I believe this site is not sustainable, has inadequate infrastructure in place and is therefore an unsound plan for the following reasons:- 1. No highway infrastructure in place. Beaulieu Avenue and Romsey Avenue have kerbside parking that restricts two-way traffic and this will cause problems with the increase in traffic using these roads to gain access to the new development. 2. There are currently high levels of congestion along the A27 towards Fareham, the M27 junction and the A32 Gosport road which will be made worse with the increase of vehicles as a result of this development. 3. The increase in traffic will result in an increase in pollution from vehicle emissions. 4. There will be road safety issues. Wicor and Cams school children will be at an increased risk of danger from additional traffic and the increased number of school children using our paths and roads. 5. There is no infrastructure in place to accommodate more residents which will result in further pressure from already stretched GP surgeries to provide a sufficient service to an increased population. This will also apply to school provision for the increased number of children requiring school places in the local schools which are already over-subscribed. 6. This development will result in the loss of the most versatile, high quality agricultural land. Poorer quality land should be used for development. 7. The effect on local wildlife will be detrimental with the loss of feeding grounds for Brent Geese and waders. 8. The loss of public open space and recreational areas will be devastating to the area. This area in particular is a popular coastal walk which will be spoiled by the development. 9. Portchester will lose its individuality and identity as a village by gradually being joined up with Fareham, leading to an urban sprawl."
PO16
Romsey Avenue must be removed from the local plan it is not a sustainable development by any national or local definition. There is a clear and real safety risk with only one access point into the site.
PO16
"I am concerned regarding the Romsey Avenue Housing Site HA5 as I believe development on this land will create a significant threat to the quality of life for residents and communities living and working in Portchester and Fareham. There are several areas I am particularly concerned with particularly: wildlife, traffic and infrastructure. Fareham Borough Council have listed that they: 1. Listen and respond to customers 2. Recognise and protect existing communities 3. Enhance prosperity and conserve all that is good However, it appears that this items contradict the feelings of many in the community today. It also questions whether FBC can deliver on these values because of the density of the housing being proposed. There appears to be a direct conflict, particularly with items 2 and 3 above and to 'conserve all that is good' with what is defined as 'good' being contentious. in addition point 2 states ""The environment in which we live helps shape our experiences and the way we live our lives. We want to make sure that the things we enjoy today will still be around for future generations."" This appears at odds with the decimation of green open space in Portchester through intense building programmes. So what is 'all that is good' in Portchester? I believe it is the coastal areas, the SSSI and RAMSAR sites and the abundance of coastal birds - all of which will be at risk because of the proposed developments. If the possible loss of wildlife is looked into further, then FBC could be seen to be in conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework goals one of which states that planning systems should have an environmental role which contributes to ""protecting and enhancing our natural, bujilt and historic environment and, as part of this, helping to improve biodiversity (etc)."" The Romsey site has special significance (as I stated above) and value to wildlife which FBC is fully aware of as in the Local Plan part 2 2015 it states that 'Fareham Borough is internationally important wintering ground for Brent Geese, residents have recorded the Brent Geese on the Romsey Avenue field in 2017"". Natural England have also pointed out in their communications with you that they are ""concerned that the proposed development could have significant direct impacts upon the qualifying features of the aforementioned designated site."" Surely, these two last points show that not building on the Romsey site would be ""conserving all that is good"". In addition thousands of birds come to the Solent for the winter and there are three Special Protection Areas to safeguard them. Again this has been recognised and noted within the FBC plan and it recommends that where ""a negative impact on a SPA bird supporting site cannot be avoided or satisfactorily mitigated, planning permission is likely to be refused."" I believe you should listen to your own advice and surely realise that these areas add to the ""conserve all that is good"" Transport and infrastructure Traffic in and out of Portchester over the past 6 years has become heavier and heavier particularly along the A27 towards the Delme roundabout due in part to the increased traffic at Cams and further developments in and around Portchester. Journeys between Hatherley Crescent and the Delme roundabout now take on average 30 minutes at peak times. The proposed development at Romsey Avenue and subsequent increase in traffic would impact upon the large amount of children walking to Wicor Primary School and Cams Secondary Schools. I believe that this increase in traffic would pose a substantial increase in danger for these children. The ratrun of cars passing through Romsey Avenue and Beaulieu Avenue, both residential streets with on street parking, would again pose danger to children walking and cycling to school. The present volume of traffic is almost making commuting to work in Portchester untenable and the new developments will only make things worse. Education The local primary schools are already stretched to capacity with waiting lists for most. The current new classes being built will only serve the over demand already in place. Estimates suggest the Portchester development could require 240 primary school places and 120 secondary school places. There is limited capacity to expand the local schools and the solution for this would be for families to find places beyond Portchester adding to the overloading traffic infrastructure at peak times. Health QA is already listed as one of the worse performing hospitals with the publication of the new figures today (7.12.17). Doctors surgeries are stretched with a local GP stating that they could cope 'if all of their new patients were young and fit' - so not needing to see a doctor! In addition the priority nationally has been mental health and it is regularly published in the national press and medical journals of the positive impact of green space. Developing Portchester to the extent proposed in the draft local plan would seem to contravene point 3 as the ""prosperity of local communities"" would be diminished along with the retreating green spaces. In summary, I believe there are strong reasons for objecting to the inclusion of the Romsey Avenue Housing site HA5. In particulary: The loss of feeding grounds for Brent Geese (this is contrary to para.113 of the NPPF) The loss of 'best and most versatile' agricultural land. Increased traffic on A27 junctions with road safety issues The lack of recreation facilities (contrary to para.72 NPPF) Pressure on medical facilities According to the FBC draft Corporate Strategy ""Fareham continues to be a great place to live and work."" I am finding that I am able to contest this more and more as I sit in the traffic along the A27 night after night, as I listen to local communities bemoaning the retreating green space and that fact that their local council do not seem to listen to them (conflicting with point 1 above). Hopefully, FBC will start to listen to their residents and also supports the National Planning Policy Framework's guidance who are trying to ""allow people and communities back into planning""."
PO14
Ref: Fareham draft local plan site allocation options: Surely the UrbanEdge Consultant Check List, listing the likely outcome of Building on a farmed field, is a total error, even maybe a copy and pasted item from a different file or again maybe a guided answer sheet in line with answers that FBC planning have said they want to hear? For example - to conserve and enhance the character of the landscape? Answer:- Developing Romsey Avenue site will have a likely positive effect on this objective. Any right minded competent person would not think building 225 + houses on a field will conserve and enhance landscape. :- to minimise air, water and light pollution. Answer:- Developing Romsey Avenue site will have a strong positive effect on this objective. Any right minded competent person would not think building 225 + houses on a field will have a strong positive effect on minimising air, water and light pollution. :- to CONSERVE and ENHANCE biodiversity. Answer:- Developing Romsey Avenue site will have an UNCERTAIN OR MIXED effect on this objection. Any right minded competent person would know that building 225 + houses on a field will devastate biodiversity and trying to indicate it would be 'uncertain' is an absolute disgrace. :- to minimise carbon emissions and promote adaptation to climate change. Answer:- Developing Romsey Avenue site will have a strong positive effect on this objection. Any right minded competent person would know that building 225 + houses on a field will introduce at least 500 cars onto that field and 500 cars do not have a positive effect carbon emissions or promote adaptation to climate change. I feel even this small window of your consultation is an absolute failure and runs inline with your failure to follow a correct sequential test process. How much did the tax payer pay UrbanEdge to supply these disgraceful and condescending answers? We deserve a refund!! Primary school pupils would have given correct honest answers to the questions posed but it seems correct honest answers are not what the Fareham Planning Team have asked for. More evidence to show this draft local plan and site allocations on it are unsound.
PO16
The inclusion of Romsey Avenue field as a site for housing should be removed from the Local Plan for a number of reasons. 1. Agricultural Land The ALC of this site is stated as 46% Grade 1, 53% Grade 2, and therefore best and most versatile land. Other sites on poorer quality land such as Swanwick 3017, Sarisbury 3109, Locks Heath 3036, Titchfield 3060, Stubbington 1341 have been discounted and not included in the local plan, indicating that a sound Sequential test has not been applied. (Ref. para 112 of NPPF) 2. Traffic Issues An increase in traffic movements from this development along with those generated from the Cranleigh, Winnam and Mourant sites will have a detrimental effect on already congested A27 and the surrounding roads. Air quality will be decreased and likelihood of accidents increased. Access to and from the site will be via Beaulieu Ave, Romsey Ave and Hatherley Cres, which are narrow residential roads and busy now during peak times. 3. Wildlife Conservation Development will mean the loss of habitat for Brent Geese, as well as deer, badgers , foxes and field mice. 4 Infrastructure Development will increase the pressure on the Local schools and Doctor Surgeries. 5. Cranleigh Road The loss of Cranleigh Road on appeal should not mean that Romsey Ave can now be developed as an extension of the Cranleigh site. The 2 sites differ in size, land quality and also access .
PO16
The proposed road network in this area is highly unsuitable for this number of extra homes, it is already congested with traffic accessing Wicor primary in the immediately neighboring roads. The A27 is also regularly congested and would further increase the time it takes to drive into Fareham. Local schools are already full with waiting lists and there are long waits for routine appointments to see a Doctor.
PO16
We are contacting you with regards to the proposed development by Foreman Homes for 250 houses, (to begin with) on valuable agricultural land to the rear of Romsey Avenue. After the travesty that has led to the development adjacent to Wicor Primary School being given the go ahead (by that we mean that the developer seemingly was allowed to appeal until they got the decision that they wanted, from a planning officer with no local knowledge) We feel strongly compelled to raise massive concerns due to the negative impact that this proposed development will have on the local community and the local wildlife. With regards to the impact on the local community you just need to ask Wicor Primary School how many times that they have classes of more than 30 which is in conflict with Government guidelines. Our youngest son was in a class of 33 before he left for Cams Hill, this did not help his education at all. Are the developers offering to expand the school and employ more teachers to alleviate an already overstretched resource? we think not, as this will encroach on their profit margins. It does not take a genius to work out that 250 family homes in addition to the Cranleigh Road development will mean additional children in their hundreds competing for school spaces which are already at breaking point. These new homes will obviously also bring with them hundreds of new vehicles to the area. Where are the new roads going to be built to alleviate this added congestion? How will this improve road safety in the area? Just ask anyone from Portchester about the local roads, Fareham is virtually impossible to reach at busy times of the day due to the famously oversubscribed Gosport Road traffic. Planning Officers should come and have a look at the roads around Beaulieu Avenue and Romsey Avenue, they will see numerous cars parked within junctions which as it stands makes the possibility of a head on collision not only likely but in my opinion inevitable. How will the huge increase in traffic help this already dire situation? All we see is greedy developers looking to profit to the detriment of other people's safety. What about the increased pollution that these additional vehicles will bring? Will the developers be offering the new residents subsidies to purchase hybrid vehicles or will cases of asthma in our children and respiratory diseases in the elderly increase as the air quality worsens. I think we all know the answer to that question. Apart from the roads there are other local issues at stake, at the moment it takes weeks to get a routine doctor's appointment. It is obvious that this huge influx of people will need access to medical care so the impact on access to this vital resource for existing residents is only going to worsen which could have serious consequences for some people. In summary as far as the local infrastructure is concerned, Portchester is already at breaking point as far as road safety, traffic, education and healthcare, these developments offer no solutions only the prospect of worsening an already dire situation. Our other concerns are environmental concerns, the developer makes no secret that their aspiration is to expand further into this vital corridor of land if this phase is given the go ahead. We have a responsibility to protect this land for future generations. It has already been identified as prime agricultural land which is a diminishing national resource but this land provides a vital habitat for a large amount of wildlife. There are numerous bird species that rely on the land as a feeding or hunting ground, migratory birds such as Brent Geese and Canada Geese regularly use the field after harvest as a source of food. This land is home to numerous voles and mice which provide a food source for birds of prey such as Buzzards, Sparrowhawks and Kestrels, which were once a common sight but are sadly declining massively in numbers. We have regularly seen all of these species over the field. We have often seen Meadow Pippets, Woodpeckers, Partridges, Swallows etc, all of which rely on the fields as a source of food. We have also seen Weasels, Slow Worms,(a nature group recently counted the slow worms) Badgers, Deer and Foxes. This land which borders on to the waters edge is a vital habitat that is irreplaceable. We have a moral obligation to protect it for future generations. In summary we see this development as a very real threat to the people and nature of Portchester. It is up to us as a community to protect where we live for our families and for future generations. This proposed development is unsound, will bring nothing of benefit to the local community and only have a detrimental and devastating effect on the area. Why were more suitable sites discounted? Newlands Farm makes perfect sense, the proposed infrastructure which would include a school, a doctors surgery, a care home and a new bypass! We visited the Stubbington site which would have minimal effect on any nearby dwellings and is not valuable agricultural land. The proposed discounted sited site also has a main road for access so why was it discounted??????
PO16
"I wish to register my objection to this proposed development for the following reasons: 1. No highway infrastructure in place. Beaulieu Avenue and Romsey Avenue have kerbside parking that restricts two-way traffic and this will cause problems with the increase in traffic using these roads to gain access to the new development. 2. There are currently high levels of congestion along the A27 towards Fareham, the M27 junction and the A32 Gosport road which will be made worse with the increase of vehicles as a result of this development. 3. The increase in traffic will result in an increase in pollution from vehicle emissions. 4. There will be road safety issues. Wicor and Cams school children will be at an increased risk of danger from additional traffic and the increased number of school children using our paths and roads. 5. There is no infrastructure in place to accommodate more residents which will result in further pressure from already stretched GP surgeries to provide a sufficient service to an increased population. This will also apply to school provision for the increased number of children requiring school places in the local schools which are already over-subscribed. 6. This development will result in the loss of the most versatile, high quality agricultural land. Poorer quality land should be used for development. 7. The effect on local wildlife will be detrimental with the loss of feeding grounds for Brent Geese and waders. 8. The loss of public open space and recreational areas will be devastating to the area. This area in particular is a popular coastal walk which will be spoiled by the development. 9. Portchester will lose its individuality and identity as a village by gradually being joined up with Fareham, leading to an urban sprawl. 10. The Fareham Local Plan Core Strategy 2011 stated, ""The Council does not expect Portchester to play a significant role in providing further housing provision over the plan period. The SHLAA identifies the settlement as capable of providing limited housing development (around 60 dwellings)."" This development is for 225 dwellings so what has changed since 2011 to allow for this application?"
PO16
This site proposed for development in Portchester is on farmland. In the Natural Environment section of the plan (9.10) it is stated that "There are many other habitats which are of significant environmental amenity and ecological value within the Borough which should also be conserved and enhanced. These include habitats like: river valleys, road verges, individual important hedgerows and trees (veteran and mature), urban forests, parks and gardens, and farmland." Allocating this site does not constitute conserving and enhancing farmland. The presence of Brent geese on the site is well-documented and should in itself be a reason for it to be removed from the plan. As with the other two sites in Portchester access to the development is unsatisfactory. Traffic from the development would spill on to minor roads which are already congested at peak times. With Beaulieu Avenue and Hatherley Crescent being well-used walking routes to Wicor Primary School, the risk of accidents will be increased significantly. This site should not have been allocated.
PO16
Response to Draft Local Plan 2036 and Proposed Housing Site HA5 SHLAA ref 207 Romsey Avenue Fareham Draft Local Plan 2036 I wish to raise some general concerns regarding the draft local plan together with specific objections relating to Housing Site HA5, (SHLAA ref:207). I think the Local Plan, if realised represents a significant threat to the quality of life to many of the residents and communities living and working in the Borough of Fareham. I strongly urge the Borough Council to rethink the Local Plan. In his introduction on the PUSH web-site, Chairman Councillor Sean Woodward assures readers that "PUSH does not create the housing numbers or indeed the need for new homes…Individual planning authorities decide the numbers of new homes required through their local plans." This is reassuring and suggests that it is within the remit of the Borough Council to respond to pressure from communities in the Borough to reduce the number of sites and density of housing it proposes. Conflict with Corporate Strategy (2017-2023) The Borough's Corporate Strategy espouses 5 values, namely: 1. Listening and responding to our customers. 2. Recognising and protecting the identity of existing communities. 3. Enhancing prosperity and conserving all that is good. 4. Being efficient, effective and providing value for money. 5. Leading our communities and achieving change for the better. These values are underpinned by six priorities, the first being housing. This in itself raises a question about the ability of the Corporate Strategy to deliver on its 5 values. The amount and density of housing proposed in the Local Plan suggest that the Borough cannot deliver on its 5 values because the level of development proposed in the Local Plan directly conflicts with the values, particularly values 2 and 3. Value 2 states "The environment in which we live helps shape our experiences and the way we live our lives. We want to make sure that the things we enjoy today will still be around for future generations." (My emphasis). For a resident of Portchester, the Local Plan would appear to nullify this statement given the level of development, and the proposed locations effectively fail to recognise and protect Portchester's distinctive identity. Sustainable Development The National Planning Policy Framework states in the Ministerial Foreword that the purpose of planning is "to help achieve sustainable development," and that "Sustainable means ensuring the better lives for ourselves don't mean worse lives for future generations." The spirit and intention of the new Planning Policy Framework is clear. "Sustainable development is about change for the better, and not only in our built environment…Our natural environment is essential to our wellbeing and it can be better looked after than it has been…Planning must be a creative exercise in finding ways to enhance and improve the places in which we live our lives…This should be a collective enterprise…Yet, in recent years, planning has tended to exclude rather than to include people and communities…In part this has been a result of targets being imposed and decisions taken by bodies remote from them." The framework gives a clear steer on the importance of improving the lives of existing communities and protecting the quality and fabric of the natural environment. These are key tests which I believe the Local Plan fails to meet, particularly in relation to the proposed developments off Romsey Avenue. Wildlife The National Planning Policy Framework has three goals; one of these goals is for a planning system to have an environmental role which contributes "to protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment and, as part of this, helping to improve biodiversity (etc)." Paragraph 113 of the NPPF states that "local planning authorities should set criteria based policies against which proposals for any development on or affecting wildlife or biodiversity sites or landscape sites will be judged …Distinctions should be made between the hierarchy of international, national and locally designated sites, so that protection is commensurate with their status and gives appropriate weight to their importance and the contribution that they make to wider ecological networks.' The location of the Romsey site has a special significance and wildlife value which is well attested. For example: • Local plan part 2 2015 records that "Fareham Borough is internationally important wintering ground for Brent Geese, residents have recorded the Brent Geese on the Romsey Avenue field in 2017." • Natural England in their communications with FBC dated the 20th of September, point out:- "Natural England is concerned that the proposed development could have significant direct impacts upon the qualifying features of the aforementioned designated site." • The Brent Goose and Wader Strategy 2010 states:- Low lying flat land is most suitable. Land closer to high water –is the most suitable, the Romsey Avenue site is potentially the closest site to the mean high water mark being considered for development in the plan. Moreover the location of the Romsey site is close to the northern shore of Portsmouth Harbour itself an internationally important wildlife habitat – designated a RAMSAR site, a SSSI and a Special Protection Area (SPA). The close proximity of the Romsey Avenue site to the harbour creates an extension to this important wetland site and as such is well frequented by geese, waders and migratory birds. Wildlife do not recognise boundary lines drawn on maps. Tens of thousands of birds come to the Solent coast for the winter and there are three Special Protection Areas (SPAs) to safeguard them. Paragraph 4.40 of the Local Plan Part 2 (2015) records recognition that "Fareham Borough is an internationally important wintering location for Brent Geese and wading bird species, with several Solent coastal areas within and around the Borough designated as Special Protection Areas (SPAs)…Brent Geese and waders (SPA birds) are also dependent on a network of habitats providing feeding and roosting areas, outside of the SPA boundaries…These 'supporting sites' are functionally linked to the SPAs and adverse impacts to supporting habitats may affect their integrity…There is a presumption against development that adversely affects SPA supporting habitats…Such known sites of value have been defined and identified in the Solent Waders and Brent Goose Strategy (2010), including sites of 'important' or 'uncertain' value." Paragraph 4.43 states that "Where a negative impact on a SPA bird supporting site cannot be avoided or satisfactorily mitigated, planning permission is likely to be refused." There is a rich catalogue of fauna recorded on the field which includes such mammals as roe deer, badgers, foxes, rabbits, moles, stoats, bats, field mice and the nationally endangered hedgehog. There is an equally impressive list of birds, reptiles and amphibians including frogs, toads and two species of newt. The nationally rare stag beetle frequents the area. The ecological value of this stretch of coastal margin and creek is highly unusual in the Borough; perhaps unique and any development on the Romsey Avenue site would almost certainly have a series impact on the rich ecology of the area. Agricultural Land Paragraph 112 of the NPPF states that "Local planning authorities should take into account the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile land . . . . Where significant development on agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, local panning authorities should seek to use areas of poorer quality land in preference to that of higher quality." I understand that the land proposed for the Romsey Avenue site has and Agricultural Land Classification at 46% Grade 1, 53% Grade 2. Fareham Borough Council's advisors Urban Edge confirmed in their comments on the Spatial Context of the Local Plan in February 2016 that 'Hampshire as a whole is predominantly identified as Grade 3 agricultural Land (56.9%), with only 4.9% identified as Grade 2 and 0.4% as Grade 1. Natural England recorded its view in March 2016 that "…LPAs, as part of their Local Plan process, should prioritise the use of lower quality land (ie non BMV) in preference to that of higher quality (grade 1, 2 and 3a) in line with para.112 of the NPPF … Fareham should ensure that they have sufficient detailed information to apply the requirements of the NPPF at the beginning of the local plan process, in order to provide the necessary evidence to underpin the Local Plan." It seems there is a strong case for questioning the prioritisation of the site off Romsey Avenue as it would appear to be land considered to be of value for agricultural purposes, classed above the quality of land generally across the County. This certainly ties in with the rich wildlife that frequents the land; there is currently a healthy symbiosis between the farming management and existing wildlife. Transport and Highways Paragraph 2.21 of the Core Strategy 2011 states that "Fareham Borough has good access to the M27 however there are high levels of local congestion around the motorway junctions and well as along the A27 and A32/B3385 to Gosport." Fareham Local Plan 2036 Key Strategic Priorities, Point 4 is to ensure Infrastructure is planned prior to development. The interim transport assessment by Atkins Oct 2017 identified 2 junctions likely to be impacted by the incremental traffic generated by Portchester developments. • A27 Delme Roundabout • A27 Portchester Road/ Dore Avenue Roundabout. Portchester has had no major road improvements in over 40 years. The Romsey Avenue site will have a material impact on these junctions. • 900 vehicle movements a day, 100 at peak hours. • Access via dogleg through Romsey Avenue and Beaulieu Avenue. Both are residential streets with on street parking, and will basically be single traffic. •
PO16
As this development in Portchester is on farmland, the planned development in Portchester will not protect farmland as stated in the Natural Environment section of the plan (9.10). In the 'Natural Environment' section it is stated that - Development may be permitted where it can be demonstrated that: protected and priority species (i.a. Dear geese, Brent geese) and their associated habitats, breeding grounds and foraging areas are protected. They are not being protected on the Romsey Avenue site or, indeed, the Moraunt Drive site, at the moment despite continued complaints to Fareham Borough Council and there is NO confidence that they will be protected in the future. The negative impact on public health due to all developments planned in Portchester will be tremendous. This year the Environment Agency identified Fareham as one of 30 councils in the UK which have excessive levels of nitrogen dioxide. The dangers to health are well-documented. Children, the elderly and those affected by lung conditions are particularly at risk from this pollution. The three sites could produce another 1500 tcars along roads where a primary and secondary school are situated. Another important negative aspect is the increase in traffic volumes. In the Development Applications, the improvements planned for the A27 are stated as 'highway improvement and mitigations work to the junction of Downend Road with the A27 and the Delme Roundabout'. What does that mean? Filling the holes and applying a new layer or tarmac? This will do little to improve the situation. Even now there is total chaos every day at peak times on the A27, the Delme Roundabout, into Fareham and into Gosport. With an average of 2 cars per household, the new developments will hardly benefit the situation. Do the maths. A further aspect in this connection is that the Quality Impact Assessment advises that NO new health facilities are proposed as part of the development allocations in accordance with the advice from the relevant Clinical Commissioning Groups. With an average waiting time of 2 to 3 weeks for routine appointments at both Portchester surgeries, the potential pressure on the two Portchester doctor's surgeries which would be brought about by this increase in population is of great concern. The increase in population also has an impact on local schools. All the local primary schools are full and have waiting lists for places. Fareham Borough Council's own prediction for surplus capacity in schools for Portchester for 2018 is -12%. There would be no school places for primary aged children moving into the area. I find it hard not to get emotional about the loss of green spaces. I objected to the Cranleigh Rd development and it did not do any good. Every day I now have to walk or drive past a churned-up wasteland where there was once a habitat teeming with wildlife. As a Council you should defend the green spaces and habitats that you are entrusted with, not sell them off to the highest bidder because they are not yours to sell. They are for all the citizens in this area to enjoy. You should not hide behind the house building demands of central government, either.
PO16
This beautiful farmland that is still currently used for farming will be lost, forever!!! Once grade 1 farmland as good as this is gone, its gone forever! There are numerous other sites with lower grade land available as possible sites in the Fareham Borough, Locks Health site 3036, Titchfield site 3060, stubbington site 1341 to name but just a few that are currently not in the plan. This is not only important farming land, it is also an extremely important & significant feeding & wading ground for many wading birds & immigrating Geese, including Brent Geese, even skylarks nest on the field, all important parts of British wildlife. Again, as a council you must consider the less significant sites for wildlife of this importance, again the above sites mentioned as well as swanwick site 1341. Then we move onto traffic, air pollution & safety of school children in both directions. the increased traffic heading towards the delme roundabout as well as Dore Avenue & down end road becoming an even busier rat run to get to the top of the hill before we even look at hatherley crescent (with its tight narrow turn by the school which is already dangerous, & the single file traffic at beaulieu avenue & of course the impact to the childrens safelty on romsey, hatherley, beaulieu & cornaway with all this extra traffic. This is without considering the impact of the extra traffic, air pollution & impact on our already full schools & Doctors that the Cranleigh Development will have, so all these traffic checks & air pollution readings are not a true reflection as we will already have more problmes before we even start with these! A development at Romsey is categorically unsound, & I feel the council are really not taking these points into consideration fully or indeed looking at more sound alternatives to this site. The office of statistics back in 2014 stated figures to show that Fareham was the most car dependant town in the country, with a car-people ratio in the town 65 per cent higher than Portsmouth & 52 per cent higher than Southampton. We are also in the top 10 of the countries worse traffic jams (M27) (all sited from an article in the Telegraph 24 july 2014 - Fareham named as Britains most car dependent town) The Romsey site would clearly add to this issue as it is not walking distance to a train station as as a council the figures above clearly show that you are failing to consider traffic & air pollution & clearly have a documented history of getting it so very wrong! Fareham it is about time you stopped, thought, & listened carefully before raping our beautiful village to be nothing more that a gridlocked, polluted, miserable surburbia rather than a beautiful, community driven village for our future generations to enjoy. This site must be removed from the plan, it is not a sustainable site moving forward.
PO16
"I feel loosing the best ""grade 1"" and versatile agricultural land in fareham would be a big loss to the local farming industry. There are many other sites in this area which are a lower garde and have better infrastructure, swanwick (site3017),sarisbury (site3109), locks heath(3036), titchfield (3060) to name but a few. Especially newlands farm(site3008), which has a capacity for having ""1100 HOMES"" with all the infrastructure, to accommodate this Romsey has it got the space in our schools, health care & older roads for the volume proposed to accommodate. The wildlife at Romsey site is recognised as being significant regarding the wading birds, Brent & migrating geese, as well as badgers, bats, deer to name but a few, the loss of this would be extremely detrimental to this important British wildlife. Being someone who sits in rush hour traffic as I attempt to join the motorway each day, I can assure you we cannot stand another 500 plus cars tring to do the same! We will already have the addiction traffic that cranleigh will bring. The traffic from cranleigh will build up making impatient commuters use, hatherley & beaueui avenue as a rat run to the west bound A27, causing increased traffic to a high volume child area as kids walk to cams, Portchester school & wicor primary. This is an accident waiting till happen & Just one accident is one too many! I am fearful before you even consider Romsey site in this situation! so are you updating all our old roads before you chuck even more houses in the area? Safe places for our children & future children to place? Green areas? Schools, doctors, or is it a case of just get the houses in there & moan later about the traffic & air pollution for our future generations? Come on fareham council, you really can't believe that a site like this is a sound option can you.? Let me answer that for you, it is unsound, not sustainable & should be removed from the planning strategy."
PO16
Romsey Avenue Sustainable development NPPF states 'the purpose of planning is to help achieve sustainable development' Economic role Losing Romsey avenue field will have a direct impact on reducing cereal production and farming in Portchester, Fareham Hampshire and the UK as a whole and can never be reinstated. Once gone it has gone forever. There is no evidence that this development will strengthen the local economy or provide accessible jobs. Social Role This new development will not support a vibrant and healthy community. It will impact on the quality of life for local residents every day due to traffic flow and fumes, loss of open space, increased waits at local surgeries and hospitals, difficulty accessing education choices and risks to school children trying to negotiate increased traffic . Walking along the creek and seeing open countryside, enjoying the quietness and tranquillity improves the mental and physical wellbeing of many in Portchester .This area will be lost forever and this is in contrast to the NPPF which states 'Access to high quality open spaces and opportunities for sport and recreation can make an important contribution to health and welfare.' Site Allocations points 11 suggest that this development will help to create a healthy and safe community however this development will cause traffic delays for local residents which will increase stress and reduce mental wellbeing every day. It may also cause conflict between old and new residents in Bealieu Avenue, Romsey Avenue and the A27 which often backs up from the Delme Roundabout to the Birdwood estate and sometimes to Bealieu Avenue. Both Romsey Avenue and Bealieu avenue are residential streets with on street parking and often can only accommodate single file traffic. Residents need to reverse at times to allow others to pass and the staggered junction accessing the field from Romsey Avenue and Bealieu Avenue I believe will be unable to sustain large lorries delivering heavy equipment and supplies to the proposed development. The farmer doesn't even use this access route to the field. With increased traffic comes an increase in air pollution which will have a detrimental effect on the wellbeing of all residents. Local authorities have an obligation through Local Air Quality Management LAQM to review and assess air quality however the nearest monitoring point for PM25 is in Southampton and there are no NO2 monitoring stations in Portchester . I do not understand how Fareham Borough Council can claim that this development will create a healthy and safe community or have a positive effect on minimising carbon emissions and promote adaption to climate change or minimise air, water, light and noise pollution. So many of the points in the Site Allocation Options tick list are simply not true. It will put children in danger as they negotiate the route on Bealieu avenue and Romsey avenue Cams children heading west and Wicor children heading east. Crossing on the entrance to the field. This will not create a healthy and safe environment for our children. There are limited spaces in all Portchester schools and although there are many out of catchment children in all of these schools meaning there may be places in years R and 11 this means that many families will find themselves with children at two primary schools or two secondary schools and this will increase traffic and stress for children, parents and other road users at pick up times. Paragraph 72 of the NPPF states' The Government attaches great importance to ensuring that sufficient choice of school places is available to meet the needs of existing communities. It seems that there is not a proactive, collaborative or positive approach to solving this problem. There is a two week waiting list for appointments at the local surgery in West lands Grove and the chemist is always bursting to overflowing. I do not think that they have the storage facilities to cope with any more prescriptions generated by the new residents of Romsey field. Environmental Role. Romsey Avenue field is a Haven of wildlife including deer, badgers, foxes, Brent and Canadian Geese as well as slow worms, bats and other small mammals and birds which has been farmed for many years. The NPPF states 'Local planning authorities should take account of the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land'. Romsey Ave field is grade 1 and 2 agricultural land. The government do not want to loose these types of high grade agricultural land. In building on Romsey field the two fields either side of it will be lost to agriculture due to access issues. Urban Edge states that Hampshire is predominantly grade 3 land with only 4.9% at grade 2 and 0.4% at grade 1. NPPF recommends that lower quality land should be used in preference to higher quality. I t seems to me that this advice has been ignored in the case of Romsey Avenue. There are many other poorer quality sites which have been rejected in the local plan and Grade 1 and 2 land is scarce in Hampshire. Romsey Avenue Field is recorded by local residents in 2017 as supporting Brent Geese. The Brent Goose and Wader strategy 2010 informs us that, low lying flat, land which is closest to high tide is the most suitable habitat for birds to feed and roost. The Solent coast is an international Special Protection Area (SPA). Natural England advised Fareham Borough Council that they are concerned about the Romsey development which could have a direct impact on the qualifying features of this site. This advice seems to have been ignored by Fareham Borough Council as well as information from the Core Strategy (2011) which suggests that Fareham Borough Council recognises these effects and will work with PUSH to mitigate and appropriately managed development to prevent adverse affects on these sites. . Residents have reported lazer type lights on the field which we all feel is being used to deter Brent Geese and wading birds. Deer access the field on a daily basis and recently a hunter's chair was found on the same night as a suspicious man with two mastiff dogs was reported entering the field in the middle of the night. One of the deer has not been seen since. This has been reported to the Police. Several dogs have been reported to be vomiting after walking near the field. Residents are concerned that someone may be trying to destroy the wildlife possibly for profit although we can not prove this. There is evidence of a badger set on the field as well as foxes and slow worms. We have bats in our apple tree which we regularly see in the summer months feeding above our hedge. The opportunity for children to experience this type of wild life is being lost to future generations and many of the children in our street are really worried and saddened by the potential loss of habitat along with air quality these issues cross the boundaries of social and environmental impact for the children and adults of Portchester. The only winners here seem to be the developers and possibly the Council. The only positive to this site is that it could be developed quickly but all other framework and policy seems to have been ignored in choosing Romsey Avenue site in the local plan. Boxes seem to have been ticked and decisions made without supporting evidence. It appears to me that the local plan is neither sound nor positively prepared. Incorperating Romsey Avenue in the plan seems to have been a knee jerk reaction to the loss of Cranleigh Road becasue of a lack of a five year land supply. Counsellors and Fareham Borough Council planners seem to have linked Cranleigh Road to Romsey Avenue but in fact Romsey is currently farmed, it is grade 1 and 2 agricultural land, it does support Brent Geese and other wildlife, it will increase pollution and have an adverse effect on our community both aesthetically, environmentally and decrease our quality of life. It will affect infrastructure negatively including roads, schools and health care provision. Cranleigh is a smaller development and although it will impact on all of the above a smaller development is more easily absorbed into the community and was worth the council defending it for the past thirty years. I do not think that Fareham Borough Council have considered reasonable alternatives and have not chosen the most appropriate sites in Romsey field. The only positive is that it could be deliverable but that should not be the only objective and is in contrast with the government advice to build up rather than out. I believe that Fareham Borough Council should consider building higher in Fareham Town Centre where the very tall Council Offices have set precedence. Luxury Flats in the centre of Fareham would provide extensive views of the local area. I feel that any development in town centres should include underground car parking such as the Tesco building at Market way roundabout and maybe first and second floor. This will free up brown field sites which are the preferred option. Roof gardens would provide scenic open space. Any housing which are to be built on green field sites could be much more innovative using materials in context with the environment such as wood and living roofs which will reduce the environmental and aesthetic impact on local areas. Alternatively this land could be allocated as Green space to meet the Local Green Space as Core Strategy 2011 stated that Portchester had a shortage of public open space and that Portchester is not expected to play a significant role in providing further housing the then SHLAA identifies a maximum of 60 dwellings. I am trying to understand why this has now grown to 700 for the whole of Portchester. Combined with other proposed sites in Portchester 700 homes with out adequate infrastructure will have a serious detrimental effect on the safety and wellbeing of Portchester Residents From a safety perspective I was involved in a near miss a
PO16
I would like to make the following observations on the local plan regarding the Romsey Avenue potential development site. 1) Living locally although not in the roads primarily affected by potential traffic from the site, I do not understand how anybody could conceivably think that the access along Romsey and Beaulieu Avenue is viable for 200+ houses . That would potentially mean 800-1000 traffic movements along those road onto a busy A27. With cars parked in Beaulieu Avenue it is equivalent to putting 200+ houses at the end of a one way street. There is not even any means for that traffic to enter the A27 which will result in horrendous traffic queues. A peak times it will also cause backup of traffic turning right into Beaulieu Avenue from Fareham thereby backing up and potentially blocking the A27. How anybody could conceive of that as acceptable is beyond me. 2) The very limited access will undoubtedly force traffic bound for Portsmouth and Portchester along Hatherley Crescent and Hatherley Drive to avoid queues down Bea lieu Avenue . This will be incredibly dangerous with the entrance to Wicor Primary School on that junction. This is on top of any people carrying out 'Rat Runs' past the Wicor School due to the Cranleigh development. It will also put further strain on Cornaway Lane which is already under pressure from the additional 120+ houses in the Cranleigh Development. 3) I see that an aim of the plan is to promote developments which look to reduce traffic movements to a minimum. This site could not be farther from that objective, as the site is in the middle of nowhere half way between Portchester and Fareham. There are no local facilities in terms of shops, Doctors, Dentists and Schools which will require most people to use cars adding to the already busy A27. This seems to contradict Point 7 in your plan objectives, to try and reduce traffic impacts as this will increase the problem massively. Also there is no ability to carry out any traffic improvement to improve the access in any way given the constraints of the surrounding housing. 4) This development cannot be taken in isolation. We already have 120 houses planned for the Cranleigh development, some more along the end of Mourant Drive and the other large proposed site at Winham Farm.. The whole problem this will cause to the arterial roads and main roads such as A27 which are already under huge strain particularly at peak times plus side roads (used as rat runs) needs to be considered as a whole. It is my view that this would show you how it would effectively bring the A27 and the arterial roads such as Cornaway Lane to a standstill at peak times. 5) Surely providing a site with one small access is a recipe for disaster from a Health and Safety point of view. One small blockage and a major emergency would see a complete disaster for emergency vehicle access. 6) If I am correct in my understanding, in approving the appeal for Cranleigh development, the appeal chairman rstated in his view that no further development should be permitted to the West of the boundary of that development. Frankly if you have an appeal which was upheld (however unpalatable it may be to residents) then it seems totally illogical to ignore the conclusions and recommendations of that appeal. 7) The A27 Fareham bound leading up to the Delme Arms Roundabout is already often queued back to the roundabout with Condor Avenue at peak times. If we take 50% of the additional movements from the proposed development which is 200 added to that it will create huge traffic logjams at peak periods. 8) There is a large focus currently on traffic pollution and for reasons explained above we can be very confident that this proposed development would degrade the air quality even further than it already is past Cams School and the A27 in general with all the additional traffic movements.. 9) As I have already stated the site is as far from Facilities such as Doctors and Dentist as you can possible envisage. The local primary schools are already full and will get worse with further inflow from the Cranleigh development. The proposal is for a number of 'affordable houses' presumably for young families. I cannot conceive of a worse place to put them in terms of access to facilities. This seems to completely contradict the Aims outlined in Point 13 of your plan objectives. 10) The development would significantly reduce the break between Portchester and Cams (which most people consider as Fareham). Again this seems to contradict the aims of the Plan in Point 10 to maintain a defensible urban edge for Portchester. In summary I cannot conceive of a worse place to build 200+ houses away from many junior schools, with no local facilities and onto roads which are already overloaded, with access which is completely inadequate for the traffic proposed.
PO16
I would like to make the following observations on the local plan regarding the Romsey Avenue potential development site. 1) Living locally although not in the roads primarily affected by potential traffic from the site, I do not understand how anybody could conceivably think that the access along Romsey and Beaulieu Avenue is viable for 200+ houses . That would potentially mean 800-1000 traffic movements along those road onto a busy A27. With cars parked in Beaulieu Avenue it is equivalent to putting 200+ houses at the end of a one way street. There is not even any means for that traffic to enter the A27 which will result in horrendous traffic queues. A peak times it will also cause backup of traffic turning right into Beaulieu Avenue from Fareham thereby backing up and potentially blocking the A27. How anybody could conceive of that as acceptable is beyond me. 2) The very limited access will undoubtedly force traffic bound for Portsmouth and Portchester along Hatherley Crescent and Hatherley Drive to avoid queues down Bea lieu Avenue . This will be incredibly dangerous with the entrance to Wicor Primary School on that junction. This is on top of any people carrying out 'Rat Runs' past the Wicor School due to the Cranleigh development. It will also put further strain on Cornaway Lane which is already under pressure from the additional 120+ houses in the Cranleigh Development. 3) I see that an aim of the plan is to promote developments which look to reduce traffic movements to a minimum. This site could not be farther from that objective, as the site is in the middle of nowhere half way between Portchester and Fareham. There are no local facilities in terms of shops, Doctors, Dentists and Schools which will require most people to use cars adding to the already busy A27. This seems to contradict Point 7 in your plan objectives, to try and reduce traffic impacts as this will increase the problem massively. Also there is no ability to carry out any traffic improvement to improve the access in any way given the constraints of the surrounding housing. 4) This development cannot be taken in isolation. We already have 120 houses planned for the Cranleigh development, some more along the end of Mourant Drive and the other large proposed site at Winham Farm.. The whole problem this will cause to the arterial roads and main roads such as A27 which are already under huge strain particularly at peak times plus side roads (used as rat runs) needs to be considered as a whole. It is my view that this would show you how it would effectively bring the A27 and the arterial roads such as Cornaway Lane to a standstill at peak times. 5) Surely providing a site with one small access is a recipe for disaster from a Health and Safety point of view. One small blockage and a major emergency would see a complete disaster for emergency vehicle access. 6) If I am correct in my understanding, in approving the appeal for Cranleigh development, the appeal chairman rstated in his view that no further development should be permitted to the West of the boundary of that development. Frankly if you have an appeal which was upheld (however unpalatable it may be to residents) then it seems totally illogical to ignore the conclusions and recommendations of that appeal. 7) The A27 Fareham bound leading up to the Delme Arms Roundabout is already often queued back to the roundabout with Condor Avenue at peak times. If we take 50% of the additional movements from the proposed development which is 200 added to that it will create huge traffic logjams at peak periods. 8) There is a large focus currently on traffic pollution and for reasons explained above we can be very confident that this proposed development would degrade the air quality even further than it already is past Cams School and the A27 in general with all the additional traffic movements.. 9) As I have already stated the site is as far from Facilities such as Doctors and Dentist as you can possible envisage. The local primary schools are already full and will get worse with further inflow from the Cranleigh development. The proposal is for a number of 'affordable houses' presumably for young families. I cannot conceive of a worse place to put them in terms of access to facilities. This seems to completely contradict the Aims outlined in Point 13 of your plan objectives. 10) The development would significantly reduce the break between Portchester and Cams (which most people consider as Fareham). Again this seems to contradict the aims of the Plan in Point 10 to maintain a defensible urban edge for Portchester. In summary I cannot conceive of a worse place to build 200+ houses away from many junior schools, with no local facilities and onto roads which are already overloaded, with access which is completely inadequate for the traffic proposed.
PO16
Fareham Local Plan 2036. A. SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT. 1. The Ministerial Foreword to the National Planning Policy Framework states that "The purpose of planning is to help achieve sustainable development…Sustainable means ensuring that better lives for ourselves don't mean worse lives for future generations…Sustainable development is about change for the better, and not only in our built environment…Our natural environment is essential to our wellbeing and it can be better looked after than it has been…Planning must be a creative exercise in finding ways to enhance and improve the places in which we live our lives…This should be a collective enterprise…Yet, in recent years, planning has tended to exclude rather than to include people and communities…In part this has been a result of targets being imposed and decisions taken by bodies remote from them. Dismantling the unaccountable regional apparatus and introducing neighbourhood planning addresses this…In part, people have been put off from getting involved because planning policy itself has become so elaborate and forbidding – the preserve of specialists, rather than people in communities…The National Planning Policy Framework changes that…By replacing over a thousand pages of national policy with around fifty, written simply and clearly, we are allowing people and communities back into planning." 2. There are three dimensions to sustainable development that give rise to the need for the planning system to perform a number of roles: *an economic role - building a strong, responsive and competitive economy; ensuring that sufficient land of the right type is available in the right places and at the right *a social role – supporting strong, vibrant and healthy communities, by creating a high quality built environment with accessible local services that reflect the community's needs and support its health, social and cultural well-being; and *an environmental role – contributing to protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment and, as part of this, helping to improve biodiversity (etc). 3. In his introduction on the PUSH web-site, Chairman Councillor Sean Woodward assures readers that "PUSH does not create the housing numbers or indeed the need for new homes…Individual planning authorities decide the numbers of new homes required through their local plans." B. AGRICULTURAL LAND 1. Paragraph 112 of the National Planning Policy Framework states that "Local planning authorities should take into account the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land…Where significant development of agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, local planning authorities should seek to use areas of poorer quality land in preference to that of a higher quality." 2. The Agricultural Land Classification (ALC) system classifies land into five grades, with Grade 3 subdivided into 3a and 3b. The best and most versatile (BMV) land is defined as Grades 1, 2 and 3a, which is deemed to be the land which is most flexible, productive and efficient in response to inputs and can best deliver future crops for food and non-food uses such as biomass, fibres and pharmaceuticals. Land within the Welborne policy boundary to the north and south of the M27 is Grade 3B. 3. The 'Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment' (SHLAA) put the Agricultural Land Classification of Site 207 (Romsey Avenue, Portchester) at 46% Grade 1, 53% Grade 2. 4. Fareham Borough Council's advisors Urban Edge confirmed in their comments on the Spatial Context of the Local Plan in February 2016 that 'Hampshire as a whole is predominantly identified as Grade 3 agricultural Land (56.9%), with only 4.9% identified as Grade 2 and 0.4% as Grade 1. Natural England recorded its view in March 2016 that "…LPAs, as part of their Local Plan process, should prioritise the use of lower quality land (ie non BMV) in preference to that of higher quality (grade 1, 2 and 3a) in line with para.112 of the NPPF…Fareham should ensure that they have sufficient detailed information to apply the requirements of the NPPF at the beginning of the local plan process, in order to provide the necessary evidence to underpin the Local Plan." C. WILDLIFE CONSERVATION 1. Paragraph 113 of the National Planning Policy Framework states that 'Local planning authorities should set criteria based policies against which proposals for any development on or affecting wildlife or biodiversity sites or landscape areas will be judged…Distinctions should be made between the hierarchy of international, national and locally designated sites, so that protection is commensurate with their status and gives appropriate weight to their importance and the contribution that they make to wider ecological networks.' 2. Tens of thousands of birds come to the Solent coast for the winter and there are three Special Protection Areas (SPAs) to safeguard them. Paragraph 4.40 of the Local Plan Part 2 (2015) records recognition that "Fareham Borough is an internationally important wintering location for Brent Geese and wading bird species, with several Solent coastal areas within and around the Borough designated as Special Protection Areas (SPAs)…Brent Geese and waders (SPA birds) are also dependent on a network of habitats providing feeding and roosting areas, outside of the SPA boundaries…These 'supporting sites' are functionally linked to the SPAs and adverse impacts to supporting habitats may affect their integrity…There is a presumption against development that adversely affects SPA supporting habitats…Such known sites of value have been defined and idenitified in the Solent Waders and Brent Goose Strategy (2010), including sites of 'important' or 'uncertain' value." Paragraph 4.43 states that "Where a negative impact on a SPA bird supportring site cannot be avoided or satisfactorily mitigated, planning permission is likely to be refused." 3. Paragraph 4.44 of the Core Strategy (2011) stated that "The Council recognises that additional growth in the Borough, in combination with growth in neighbouring authorities, without appropriate management and mitigation, could lead to adverse effects upon the European Sites…It will continue to work with the other PUSH authorities to provide further certainty on likely impacts and the implementation of any necessary avoidance or mitigation measures…The Council has and will continue to support the Solent Disturbance and Mitigation Project and will work with partners in the sub-region to develop and implement a strategic approach to protecting European Sites…The Borough Council also supports the 2010 Solent Waders and Brent Goose Strategy and will continue to give suitable protection to identified important sites." 4. Fareham Borough Council's advisors Urban Edge reiterated the principle established by the Solent Waders and Brent Goose Strategy in 2010 that "DPDs in the Borough should seek to protect both currently important sites and sites which may become important in future years due to factors such as climate change, to ensure the overall availability of roosting and foraging sites does not decrease." [DPDs are Development Plan Documents]. D. RECREATION 1. Paragraph 73 of the National Planning Policy Framework states that "Access to high quality open spaces and opportunities for sport and recreation can make an important contribution to the health and well-being of communities…Planning policies should be based on robust and up-to-date assessments of the needs for open space, sports and recreation facilities and opportunities for new provision…The assessments should identify specific needs and quantitative or qualitative deficits or surpluses of open space, sports and recreational facilities in the local area." 2. Paragraph 5.17 of the Core Strategy (2011) stated that "There are parts of the Borough with shortages of public open space, particularly in Fareham, Stubbington and Portchester." E. EDUCATION 1. Paragraph 72 of the National Planning Policy Framework states that "The Government attaches great importance to ensuring that a sufficient choice of school places is available to meet the needs of existing and new communities…Local planning authorities should take a proactive, positive and collaborative approach to meeting this requirement and to development that will widen choice in education." F. TRANSPORT 1. Paragraph 2.21 of the Core Strategy (2011) states that "Fareham Borough has good access to the M27 motorway however there are high levels of local congestion around the motorway junctions as well as along the A27 and the A32/B3385 to Gosport, particularly at peak times." 2. The Interim Transport Assessment by Atkins in October 2017 identified the two junctions that are most likely to be impacted by the incremental traffic generated by the aggregated allocations (Portchester Downend East and Portchester South) and the junctions with repeated road safety incidents – A27 west from Delme Roundabout and the A27 Portchester Road/Dore Avenue Roundabout. The Romsey Avenue allocation would have a material impact on junctions that already have significant capacity issues. 3. It is likely that the Romsey Avenue allocation would generate c.900 vehicle movements a day, with c.100 movements during the am/pm peak hours. The vast majority of that traffic would be towards the A27 via the dog-leg of the site's access stub, Romsey Avenue and Beaulieu Avenue. These carriageways are residential streets with a busy on-street parking situation that restricts two-way movement for much of their length. Development of the Romsey Avenue site would require these roads to act as the primary link to and from the site and thereby support a substantial increase in traffic flow, a purpose and level of use for which they were never intended. Children attending Wicor Primary and Cams Secondary Schools pass along Romsey Avenue and a substantial increase in vehicle movements at the junction would pose
PO16
A. SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT. 1. The Ministerial Foreword to the National Planning Policy Framework states that "The purpose of planning is to help achieve sustainable development…Sustainable means ensuring that better lives for ourselves don't mean worse lives for future generations…Sustainable development is about change for the better, and not only in our built environment…Our natural environment is essential to our wellbeing and it can be better looked after than it has been…Planning must be a creative exercise in finding ways to enhance and improve the places in which we live our lives…This should be a collective enterprise…Yet, in recent years, planning has tended to exclude rather than to include people and communities…In part this has been a result of targets being imposed and decisions taken by bodies remote from them. Dismantling the unaccountable regional apparatus and introducing neighbourhood planning addresses this…In part, people have been put off from getting involved because planning policy itself has become so elaborate and forbidding – the preserve of specialists, rather than people in communities…The National Planning Policy Framework changes that…By replacing over a thousand pages of national policy with around fifty, written simply and clearly, we are allowing people and communities back into planning." 2. There are three dimensions to sustainable development that give rise to the need for the planning system to perform a number of roles: *an economic role - building a strong, responsive and competitive economy; ensuring that sufficient land of the right type is available in the right places and at the right *a social role – supporting strong, vibrant and healthy communities, by creating a high quality built environment with accessible local services that reflect the community's needs and support its health, social and cultural well-being; and *an environmental role – contributing to protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment and, as part of this, helping to improve biodiversity (etc). 3. In his introduction on the PUSH web-site, Chairman Councillor Sean Woodward assures readers that "PUSH does not create the housing numbers or indeed the need for new homes…Individual planning authorities decide the numbers of new homes required through their local plans." B. AGRICULTURAL LAND 1. Paragraph 112 of the National Planning Policy Framework states that "Local planning authorities should take into account the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land…Where significant development of agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, local planning authorities should seek to use areas of poorer quality land in preference to that of a higher quality." 2. The Agricultural Land Classification (ALC) system classifies land into five grades, with Grade 3 subdivided into 3a and 3b. The best and most versatile (BMV) land is defined as Grades 1, 2 and 3a, which is deemed to be the land which is most flexible, productive and efficient in response to inputs and can best deliver future crops for food and non-food uses such as biomass, fibres and pharmaceuticals. Land within the Welborne policy boundary to the north and south of the M27 is Grade 3B. 3. The 'Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment' (SHLAA) put the Agricultural Land Classification of Site 207 (Romsey Avenue, Portchester) at 46% Grade 1, 53% Grade 2. 4. Fareham Borough Council's advisors Urban Edge confirmed in their comments on the Spatial Context of the Local Plan in February 2016 that 'Hampshire as a whole is predominantly identified as Grade 3 agricultural Land (56.9%), with only 4.9% identified as Grade 2 and 0.4% as Grade 1. Natural England recorded its view in March 2016 that "…LPAs, as part of their Local Plan process, should prioritise the use of lower quality land (ie non BMV) in preference to that of higher quality (grade 1, 2 and 3a) in line with para.112 of the NPPF…Fareham should ensure that they have sufficient detailed information to apply the requirements of the NPPF at the beginning of the local plan process, in order to provide the necessary evidence to underpin the Local Plan." C. WILDLIFE CONSERVATION 1. Paragraph 113 of the National Planning Policy Framework states that 'Local planning authorities should set criteria based policies against which proposals for any development on or affecting wildlife or biodiversity sites or landscape areas will be judged…Distinctions should be made between the hierarchy of international, national and locally designated sites, so that protection is commensurate with their status and gives appropriate weight to their importance and the contribution that they make to wider ecological networks.' 2. Tens of thousands of birds come to the Solent coast for the winter and there are three Special Protection Areas (SPAs) to safeguard them. Paragraph 4.40 of the Local Plan Part 2 (2015) records recognition that "Fareham Borough is an internationally important wintering location for Brent Geese and wading bird species, with several Solent coastal areas within and around the Borough designated as Special Protection Areas (SPAs)…Brent Geese and waders (SPA birds) are also dependent on a network of habitats providing feeding and roosting areas, outside of the SPA boundaries…These 'supporting sites' are functionally linked to the SPAs and adverse impacts to supporting habitats may affect their integrity…There is a presumption against development that adversely affects SPA supporting habitats…Such known sites of value have been defined and idenitified in the Solent Waders and Brent Goose Strategy (2010), including sites of 'important' or 'uncertain' value." Paragraph 4.43 states that "Where a negative impact on a SPA bird supportring site cannot be avoided or satisfactorily mitigated, planning permission is likely to be refused." 3. Paragraph 4.44 of the Core Strategy (2011) stated that "The Council recognises that additional growth in the Borough, in combination with growth in neighbouring authorities, without appropriate management and mitigation, could lead to adverse effects upon the European Sites…It will continue to work with the other PUSH authorities to provide further certainty on likely impacts and the implementation of any necessary avoidance or mitigation measures…The Council has and will continue to support the Solent Disturbance and Mitigation Project and will work with partners in the sub-region to develop and implement a strategic approach to protecting European Sites…The Borough Council also supports the 2010 Solent Waders and Brent Goose Strategy and will continue to give suitable protection to identified important sites." 4. Fareham Borough Council's advisors Urban Edge reiterated the principle established by the Solent Waders and Brent Goose Strategy in 2010 that "DPDs in the Borough should seek to protect both currently important sites and sites which may become important in future years due to factors such as climate change, to ensure the overall availability of roosting and foraging sites does not decrease." [DPDs are Development Plan Documents]. D. RECREATION 1. Paragraph 73 of the National Planning Policy Framework states that "Access to high quality open spaces and opportunities for sport and recreation can make an important contribution to the health and well-being of communities…Planning policies should be based on robust and up-to-date assessments of the needs for open space, sports and recreation facilities and opportunities for new provision…The assessments should identify specific needs and quantitative or qualitative deficits or surpluses of open space, sports and recreational facilities in the local area." 2. Paragraph 5.17 of the Core Strategy (2011) stated that "There are parts of the Borough with shortages of public open space, particularly in Fareham, Stubbington and Portchester." E. EDUCATION 1. Paragraph 72 of the National Planning Policy Framework states that "The Government attaches great importance to ensuring that a sufficient choice of school places is available to meet the needs of existing and new communities…Local planning authorities should take a proactive, positive and collaborative approach to meeting this requirement and to development that will widen choice in education." F. TRANSPORT 1. Paragraph 2.21 of the Core Strategy (2011) states that "Fareham Borough has good access to the M27 motorway however there are high levels of local congestion around the motorway junctions as well as along the A27 and the A32/B3385 to Gosport, particularly at peak times." 2. The Interim Transport Assessment by Atkins in October 2017 identified the two junctions that are most likely to be impacted by the incremental traffic generated by the aggregated allocations (Portchester Downend East and Portchester South) and the junctions with repeated road safety incidents – A27 west from Delme Roundabout and the A27 Portchester Road/Dore Avenue Roundabout. The Romsey Avenue allocation would have a material impact on junctions that already have significant capacity issues. 3. It is likely that the Romsey Avenue allocation would generate c.900 vehicle movements a day, with c.100 movements during the am/pm peak hours. The vast majority of that traffic would be towards the A27 via the dog-leg of the site's access stub, Romsey Avenue and Beaulieu Avenue. These carriageways are residential streets with a busy on-street parking situation that restricts two-way movement for much of their length. Development of the Romsey Avenue site would require these roads to act as the primary link to and from the site and thereby support a substantial increase in traffic flow, a purpose and level of use for which they were never intended. Children attending Wicor Primary and Cams Secondary Schools pass along Romsey Avenue and a substantial increase in vehicle movements at the junction would pose a significant highway danger.
PO16
A. SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT. 1. The Ministerial Foreword to the National Planning Policy Framework states that "The purpose of planning is to help achieve sustainable development…Sustainable means ensuring that better lives for ourselves don't mean worse lives for future generations…Sustainable development is about change for the better, and not only in our built environment…Our natural environment is essential to our wellbeing and it can be better looked after than it has been…Planning must be a creative exercise in finding ways to enhance and improve the places in which we live our lives…This should be a collective enterprise…Yet, in recent years, planning has tended to exclude rather than to include people and communities…In part this has been a result of targets being imposed and decisions taken by bodies remote from them. Dismantling the unaccountable regional apparatus and introducing neighbourhood planning addresses this…In part, people have been put off from getting involved because planning policy itself has become so elaborate and forbidding – the preserve of specialists, rather than people in communities…The National Planning Policy Framework changes that…By replacing over a thousand pages of national policy with around fifty, written simply and clearly, we are allowing people and communities back into planning." 2. There are three dimensions to sustainable development that give rise to the need for the planning system to perform a number of roles: *an economic role - building a strong, responsive and competitive economy; ensuring that sufficient land of the right type is available in the right places and at the right *a social role – supporting strong, vibrant and healthy communities, by creating a high quality built environment with accessible local services that reflect the community's needs and support its health, social and cultural well-being; and *an environmental role – contributing to protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment and, as part of this, helping to improve biodiversity (etc). 3. In his introduction on the PUSH web-site, Chairman Councillor Sean Woodward assures readers that "PUSH does not create the housing numbers or indeed the need for new homes…Individual planning authorities decide the numbers of new homes required through their local plans." B. AGRICULTURAL LAND 1. Paragraph 112 of the National Planning Policy Framework states that "Local planning authorities should take into account the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land…Where significant development of agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, local planning authorities should seek to use areas of poorer quality land in preference to that of a higher quality." 2. The Agricultural Land Classification (ALC) system classifies land into five grades, with Grade 3 subdivided into 3a and 3b. The best and most versatile (BMV) land is defined as Grades 1, 2 and 3a, which is deemed to be the land which is most flexible, productive and efficient in response to inputs and can best deliver future crops for food and non-food uses such as biomass, fibres and pharmaceuticals. Land within the Welborne policy boundary to the north and south of the M27 is Grade 3B. 3. The 'Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment' (SHLAA) put the Agricultural Land Classification of Site 207 (Romsey Avenue, Portchester) at 46% Grade 1, 53% Grade 2. 4. Fareham Borough Council's advisors Urban Edge confirmed in their comments on the Spatial Context of the Local Plan in February 2016 that 'Hampshire as a whole is predominantly identified as Grade 3 agricultural Land (56.9%), with only 4.9% identified as Grade 2 and 0.4% as Grade 1. Natural England recorded its view in March 2016 that "…LPAs, as part of their Local Plan process, should prioritise the use of lower quality land (ie non BMV) in preference to that of higher quality (grade 1, 2 and 3a) in line with para.112 of the NPPF…Fareham should ensure that they have sufficient detailed information to apply the requirements of the NPPF at the beginning of the local plan process, in order to provide the necessary evidence to underpin the Local Plan." C. WILDLIFE CONSERVATION 1. Paragraph 113 of the National Planning Policy Framework states that 'Local planning authorities should set criteria based policies against which proposals for any development on or affecting wildlife or biodiversity sites or landscape areas will be judged…Distinctions should be made between the hierarchy of international, national and locally designated sites, so that protection is commensurate with their status and gives appropriate weight to their importance and the contribution that they make to wider ecological networks.' 2. Tens of thousands of birds come to the Solent coast for the winter and there are three Special Protection Areas (SPAs) to safeguard them. Paragraph 4.40 of the Local Plan Part 2 (2015) records recognition that "Fareham Borough is an internationally important wintering location for Brent Geese and wading bird species, with several Solent coastal areas within and around the Borough designated as Special Protection Areas (SPAs)…Brent Geese and waders (SPA birds) are also dependent on a network of habitats providing feeding and roosting areas, outside of the SPA boundaries…These 'supporting sites' are functionally linked to the SPAs and adverse impacts to supporting habitats may affect their integrity…There is a presumption against development that adversely affects SPA supporting habitats…Such known sites of value have been defined and idenitified in the Solent Waders and Brent Goose Strategy (2010), including sites of 'important' or 'uncertain' value." Paragraph 4.43 states that "Where a negative impact on a SPA bird supportring site cannot be avoided or satisfactorily mitigated, planning permission is likely to be refused." 3. Paragraph 4.44 of the Core Strategy (2011) stated that "The Council recognises that additional growth in the Borough, in combination with growth in neighbouring authorities, without appropriate management and mitigation, could lead to adverse effects upon the European Sites…It will continue to work with the other PUSH authorities to provide further certainty on likely impacts and the implementation of any necessary avoidance or mitigation measures…The Council has and will continue to support the Solent Disturbance and Mitigation Project and will work with partners in the sub-region to develop and implement a strategic approach to protecting European Sites…The Borough Council also supports the 2010 Solent Waders and Brent Goose Strategy and will continue to give suitable protection to identified important sites." 4. Fareham Borough Council's advisors Urban Edge reiterated the principle established by the Solent Waders and Brent Goose Strategy in 2010 that "DPDs in the Borough should seek to protect both currently important sites and sites which may become important in future years due to factors such as climate change, to ensure the overall availability of roosting and foraging sites does not decrease." [DPDs are Development Plan Documents]. D. RECREATION 1. Paragraph 73 of the National Planning Policy Framework states that "Access to high quality open spaces and opportunities for sport and recreation can make an important contribution to the health and well-being of communities…Planning policies should be based on robust and up-to-date assessments of the needs for open space, sports and recreation facilities and opportunities for new provision…The assessments should identify specific needs and quantitative or qualitative deficits or surpluses of open space, sports and recreational facilities in the local area." 2. Paragraph 5.17 of the Core Strategy (2011) stated that "There are parts of the Borough with shortages of public open space, particularly in Fareham, Stubbington and Portchester." E. EDUCATION 1. Paragraph 72 of the National Planning Policy Framework states that "The Government attaches great importance to ensuring that a sufficient choice of school places is available to meet the needs of existing and new communities…Local planning authorities should take a proactive, positive and collaborative approach to meeting this requirement and to development that will widen choice in education." F. TRANSPORT 1. Paragraph 2.21 of the Core Strategy (2011) states that "Fareham Borough has good access to the M27 motorway however there are high levels of local congestion around the motorway junctions as well as along the A27 and the A32/B3385 to Gosport, particularly at peak times." 2. The Interim Transport Assessment by Atkins in October 2017 identified the two junctions that are most likely to be impacted by the incremental traffic generated by the aggregated allocations (Portchester Downend East and Portchester South) and the junctions with repeated road safety incidents – A27 west from Delme Roundabout and the A27 Portchester Road/Dore Avenue Roundabout. The Romsey Avenue allocation would have a material impact on junctions that already have significant capacity issues. 3. It is likely that the Romsey Avenue allocation would generate c.900 vehicle movements a day, with c.100 movements during the am/pm peak hours. The vast majority of that traffic would be towards the A27 via the dog-leg of the site's access stub, Romsey Avenue and Beaulieu Avenue. These carriageways are residential streets with a busy on-street parking situation that restricts two-way movement for much of their length. Development of the Romsey Avenue site would require these roads to act as the primary link to and from the site and thereby support a substantial increase in traffic flow, a purpose and level of use for which they were never intended. Children attending Wicor Primary and Cams Secondary Schools pass along Romsey Avenue and a substantial increase in vehicle movements at the junction would pose a significant highway danger.
PO16
This area cannot support extra housing. The access to the site via Beaulieu Avenue is narrow with no room for expansion. School children frequent the area and It is already a bottle neck with traffic build-up at peak times. Extra cars along the A27 would be unacceptable as it can already take 50 to reach the other side of Fareham from the Seagull Roundabout. Wild life abound in and around the fields in question and their habitat needs to be protected. Schools and doctors' surgeries are already full to bursting and cannot take any more people.
PO6
This will have a dramatic bad effect on the environment and infrastructure if this development is allowed to go ahead. Traffic is already too busy, Hatherley Crescent is used as a rat run already for people cutting through to the a27. It will not be able to cope with all the extra traffic from Romsey development, school children will be at a much higher risk of being in accidents, many of them ride to school on bicycles and already have to cope with all the cars that are parked on the road. Getting out of beaulieu Avenue is a nightmare a5 the best of times and with peak times it will only get worse. Our schools are already full up and this will only put more pressure on them. The doctors surgeries are full and we have to wait sometimes three weeks for an appointment.
Postcode not provided
Fareham Local Plan 2036. Romsey Avenue Housing Site HA5. (SHLAA ref:207). OBJECTION is raised to Housing Site HA5 because: The Romsey Avenue field was always part of the Council's Strategic Gap, which was designated to prevent the area from becoming a continuous urban sprawl. This used to be a major factor in enabling the Council to win appeals on development at the adjoining Cranleigh Road site (now lost on appeal). A Local Gap should now be created to prevent the loss of identity of Portchester. The loss of this 'best and most versatile' agricultural land (grades 1 and 2 in this case) would be contrary to para.112 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Poorer quality land in Swanwick (Site 3017), Sarisbury (Site 3109), Locks Heath (Site 3036), Titchfield (Site 3060) and Stubbington (Site 1341) should have been allocated but has been passed over. The Local Plan fails to demonstrate that sites have been subjected to a robust sequential test. The Romsey site is an area which supports many species of wildlife, some of which are protected, the Council should reinstate its Coast and Countryside policy, which appears to have inexplicably been removed from the Council's Local Plans. The A27 is already overloaded in this area. There is no Highways Infrastructure to support Development in this area. If this site was used, there would be Increased vehicle movements on A27 junctions, with significant capacity issues and repeated road safety incidents (west from Delme Roundabout and at the Portchester Road/Dore Avenue Roundabout) and the residential streets (Romsey Avenue, Hatherley Crescent, Beaulieu Avenue) with kerb-side parking, that restricts two-way movement, for much of their lengths. There is only a tiny access into the site, which is used for parking and access to garages at the rear of 7 houses. There would also be a significant effect on the air quality with increased traffic movements. On Health and Safety grounds, with children walking to either Wicor School in one direction or Cams Hill School in the other direction and crossing that tiny access road, I feel that it will be an accident waiting to happen, so you have been warned !!!!! Schools are already oversubscribed, which would result in children from 5 years old, having to travel outside the Portchester area to attend schools. Doctors surgeries are also oversubscribed, therefore, if this area was used for Development the waiting lists to attend doctor's surgeries, would significantly increase!!! Residents place their trust in Councillo rs to deliver policies which protect sites such as Romsey Avenue from development and I can only feel that Councillors have had a "knee jerk" reaction to the Cranleigh Road loss and are using Romsey Avenue as an "Easy Option", instead of fully looking at other more suitable sites for Development. Conclusion. The inclusion of Site HA5 as a residential allocation is unjustified and inconsistent with national policy (especially paragraphs 7, 72, 73, 112 and 113 of the NPPF), so the draft plan is UNSOUND
PO16
Fareham Local Plan 2036. Romsey Avenue Housing Site HA5. (SHLAA ref:207). OBJECTION is raised to Housing Site HA5 because: The Romsey Avenue field was always part of the Council's Strategic Gap, which was designated to prevent the area from becoming a continuous urban sprawl. This used to be a major factor in enabling the Council to win appeals on development at the adjoining Cranleigh Road site (now lost on appeal). A Local Gap should now be created to prevent the loss of identity of Portchester. The loss of this 'best and most versatile' agricultural land (grades 1 and 2 in this case) would be contrary to para.112 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Poorer quality land in Swanwick (Site 3017), Sarisbury (Site 3109), Locks Heath (Site 3036), Titchfield (Site 3060) and Stubbington (Site 1341) should have been allocated but has been passed over. The Local Plan fails to demonstrate that sites have been subjected to a robust sequential test. The Romsey site is an area which supports many species of wildlife, some of which are protected, the Council should reinstate its Coast and Countryside policy, which appears to have inexplicably been removed from the Council's Local Plans. The A27 is already overloaded in this area. There is no Highways Infrastructure to support Development in this area. If this site was used, there would be Increased vehicle movements on A27 junctions, with significant capacity issues and repeated road safety incidents (west from Delme Roundabout and at the Portchester Road/Dore Avenue Roundabout) and the residential streets (Romsey Avenue, Hatherley Crescent, Beaulieu Avenue) with kerb-side parking, that restricts two-way movement, for much of their lengths. There is only a tiny access into the site, which is used for parking and access to garages at the rear of 7 houses. There would also be a significant effect on the air quality with increased traffic movements. On Health and Safety grounds, with children walking to either Wicor School in one direction or Cams Hill School in the other direction and crossing that tiny access road, I feel that it will be an accident waiting to happen, so you have been warned !!!!! Schools are already oversubscribed, which would result in children from 5 years old, having to travel outside the Portchester area to attend schools. Doctors surgeries are also oversubscribed, therefore, if this area was used for Development the waiting lists to attend doctor's surgeries, would significantly increase!!! Residents place their trust in Councillo rs to deliver policies which protect sites such as Romsey Avenue from development and I can only feel that Councillors have had a "knee jerk" reaction to the Cranleigh Road loss and are using Romsey Avenue as an "Easy Option", instead of fully looking at other more suitable sites for Development. Conclusion. The inclusion of Site HA5 as a residential allocation is unjustified and inconsistent with national policy (especially paragraphs 7, 72, 73, 112 and 113 of the NPPF), so the draft plan is UNSOUND
PO16
I completely object to this development. The existing infrastructure cannot cope with the existing volume of traffic; the roads are already congested and the A27 is regularly heavy with traffic and congested. There are no plans for new schools or doctors surgeries or any other social facilities to support the new residents in the houses. The development should not be allowed to go ahead as it is blatant over development and will result in loss of village amenity and green spaces.
PO16
Fareham Local Plan 2036. Romsey Avenue Housing Site HA5. (SHLAA ref:207). OBJECTION is raised to Housing Site HA5 because: The Romsey Avenue field was always part of the Council's Strategic Gap, which was designated to prevent the area from becoming a continuous urban sprawl. This used to be a major factor in enabling the Council to win appeals on development at the adjoining Cranleigh Road site (now lost on appeal). A Local Gap should now be created to prevent the loss of identity of Portchester. The loss of this 'best and most versatile' agricultural land (grades 1 and 2 in this case) would be contrary to para.112 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Poorer quality land in Swanwick (Site 3017), Sarisbury (Site 3109), Locks Heath (Site 3036), Titchfield (Site 3060) and Stubbington (Site 1341) should have been allocated but has been passed over. The Local Plan fails to demonstrate that sites have been subjected to a robust sequential test. The Romsey site is an area which supports many species of wildlife, some of which are protected, the Council should reinstate its Coast and Countryside policy, which appears to have inexplicably been removed from the Council's Local Plans. The A27 is already overloaded in this area. There is no Highways Infrastructure to support Development in this area. If this site was used, there would be Increased vehicle movements on A27 junctions, with significant capacity issues and repeated road safety incidents (west from Delme Roundabout and at the Portchester Road/Dore Avenue Roundabout) and the residential streets (Romsey Avenue, Hatherley Crescent, Beaulieu Avenue) with kerb-side parking, that restricts two-way movement, for much of their lengths. There is only a tiny access into the site, which is used for parking and access to garages at the rear of 7 houses. There would also be a significant effect on the air quality with increased traffic movements. On Health and Safety grounds, with children walking to either Wicor School in one direction or Cams Hill School in the other direction and crossing that tiny access road, I feel that it will be an accident waiting to happen, so you have been warned !!!!! Schools are already oversubscribed, which would result in children from 5 years old, having to travel outside the Portchester area to attend schools. Doctors surgeries are also oversubscribed, therefore, if this area was used for Development the waiting lists to attend doctor's surgeries, would significantly increase!!! Residents place their trust in Councillo rs to deliver policies which protect sites such as Romsey Avenue from development and I can only feel that Councillors have had a "knee jerk" reaction to the Cranleigh Road loss and are using Romsey Avenue as an "Easy Option", instead of fully looking at other more suitable sites for Development. Conclusion. The inclusion of Site HA5 as a residential allocation is unjustified and inconsistent with national policy (especially paragraphs 7, 72, 73, 112 and 113 of the NPPF), so the draft plan is UNSOUND
PO16
Fareham Local Plan 2036. Romsey Avenue Housing Site HA5. (SHLAA ref:207). OBJECTION is raised to Housing Site HA5 because: The Romsey Avenue field was always part of the Council's Strategic Gap, which was designated to prevent the area from becoming a continuous urban sprawl. This used to be a major factor in enabling the Council to win appeals on development at the adjoining Cranleigh Road site (now lost on appeal). A Local Gap should now be created to prevent the loss of identity of Portchester. The loss of this 'best and most versatile' agricultural land (grades 1 and 2 in this case) would be contrary to para.112 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Poorer quality land in Swanwick (Site 3017), Sarisbury (Site 3109), Locks Heath (Site 3036), Titchfield (Site 3060) and Stubbington (Site 1341) should have been allocated but has been passed over. The Local Plan fails to demonstrate that sites have been subjected to a robust sequential test. The Romsey site is an area which supports many species of wildlife, some of which are protected, the Council should reinstate its Coast and Countryside policy, which appears to have inexplicably been removed from the Council's Local Plans. The A27 is already overloaded in this area. There is no Highways Infrastructure to support Development in this area. If this site was used, there would be Increased vehicle movements on A27 junctions, with significant capacity issues and repeated road safety incidents (west from Delme Roundabout and at the Portchester Road/Dore Avenue Roundabout) and the residential streets (Romsey Avenue, Hatherley Crescent, Beaulieu Avenue) with kerb-side parking, that restricts two-way movement, for much of their lengths. There is only a tiny access into the site, which is used for parking and access to garages at the rear of 7 houses. There would also be a significant effect on the air quality with increased traffic movements. On Health and Safety grounds, with children walking to either Wicor School in one direction or Cams Hill School in the other direction and crossing that tiny access road, I feel that it will be an accident waiting to happen, so you have been warned !!!!! Schools are already oversubscribed, which would result in children from 5 years old, having to travel outside the Portchester area to attend schools. Doctors surgeries are also oversubscribed, therefore, if this area was used for Development the waiting lists to attend doctor's surgeries, would significantly increase!!! Residents place their trust in Councillo rs to deliver policies which protect sites such as Romsey Avenue from development and I can only feel that Councillors have had a "knee jerk" reaction to the Cranleigh Road loss and are using Romsey Avenue as an "Easy Option", instead of fully looking at other more suitable sites for Development. Conclusion. The inclusion of Site HA5 as a residential allocation is unjustified and inconsistent with national policy (especially paragraphs 7, 72, 73, 112 and 113 of the NPPF), so the draft plan is UNSOUND
PO16
the Romsey Avenue area is a complete fabrication. It is questionable whether the reviewers ever visited the Site or looked at it in any great detail over an appreciable amount of time. It is akin to Sports journalists that I have found reporting on matches and grading players' performances - it is clear they never attended the game at all as the reports are grossly inaccurate. I believe these inaccurate statements from the consultants have duped the Council into incorrectly selecting Romsey Avenue as a development site. Let me illustrate these preposterous findings:- 1) To provide good quality and sustainable housing for all: (Strong positive) - Rubbish - Should be Strong Negative - 4-5 bedroom houses for the middle classes 2) To conserve and enhance built and cultural history: (Neutral) - Rubbish - Should be Strong Negative - Destroy good agricultural land that has been part of the historic village of Portchester. 3) To conserve and enhance the character of the landscape: (Likely positive) - Rubbish - Should be Strong Negative - You will be obliterating the coastal landscape with an urban sprawl. 4) To promote accessibility and encourage travel by sustainable means: (Likely positive) - Rubbish - Should be Strong Negative -The road access is already chaotic and is a real health and safety issue. 5) To minimise carbon emissions and promote adaption to climate change: (Strong positive) – Complete Rubbish - Should be Strong Negative – How can 500 extra cars on an already saturated area with bad CO2 emissions already be a minimal pollution risk? 6) To minimise air, water light and noise pollution: (Strong positive) - Rubbish - Should be Strong Negative – See above and how can saturation of this area by more people over a quiet farm field be anything else than pollutive? 7) To conserve and enhance biodiversity: (Uncertain) – Rubbish – Should be Strong Negative - you are destroying the best grade crop producing land for god's sake !! 8) To conserve and manage natural resources (water, land, minerals and agricultural land materials): (Adverse effect) – Hooray, almost right, try Strong Negative - you are destroying the best grade crop producing land for god's sake !! 9) To strengthen the local economy and provide accessible jobs available to residents of the borough: (Neutral) – Should be strong negative – the developments do not offer any infrastructure improvement. 10) To enhance the vitality and viability of centres and respect the settlement hierarchy: (Neutral) – Should be strong negative – No infrastructure improvement offered. Residents have not been involved at all in Site selection. 11) To create a healthy and safe community: (Strong positive) - Should be strong negative – Extra cars, more air pollution, more car movements increased risk to safety for children going to and from school. Schools overcrowded, doctors overcrowded – There will be extremely bad feeling towards this estate if it is built – none of this bodes for a healthy community. Also the Inspectors Report from the Cranleigh Road appeal was LOST ON A TECHNICALITY because the Council had no plan in place. The Executive Council have been brain-washed in linking the Cranleigh Road and Romsey Avenue Sites on an equal footing – this is complete nonsense!! Differences are clear to see :- Cranleigh Romsey Grassland Agricultural Land 5.56 Ha 12.65Ha 120 Yield 228 Yield Residents N+E/S Residents North Only ALC 85% - 10% ALC 46% 53% Brent Geese – No Brent Geese – Uncertain Access – Cranleigh Road Stub Lane off road Modest ext of built area Significant ext of built area. REMOVE ROMSEY AVENUE FROM THE LOCAL PLAN – DON'T EMBARRASS YOURSELVES ANY FURTHER !!
Postcode not provided
Fareham Local Plan 2036. Romsey Avenue Housing Site HA5. (SHLAA ref:207). OBJECTION is raised to Housing Site HA5 because: The Romsey Avenue field was always part of the Council's Strategic Gap, which was designated to prevent the area from becoming a continuous urban sprawl. This used to be a major factor in enabling the Council to win appeals on development at the adjoining Cranleigh Road site (now lost on appeal). A Local Gap should now be created to prevent the loss of identity of Portchester. The loss of this 'best and most versatile' agricultural land (grades 1 and 2 in this case) would be contrary to para.112 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Poorer quality land in Swanwick (Site 3017), Sarisbury (Site 3109), Locks Heath (Site 3036), Titchfield (Site 3060) and Stubbington (Site 1341) should have been allocated but has been passed over. The Local Plan fails to demonstrate that sites have been subjected to a robust sequential test. The Romsey site is an area which supports many species of wildlife, some of which are protected, the Council should reinstate its Coast and Countryside policy, which appears to have inexplicably been removed from the Council's Local Plans. The A27 is already overloaded in this area. There is no Highways Infrastructure to support Development in this area. If this site was used, there would be Increased vehicle movements on A27 junctions, with significant capacity issues and repeated road safety incidents (west from Delme Roundabout and at the Portchester Road/Dore Avenue Roundabout) and the residential streets (Romsey Avenue, Hatherley Crescent, Beaulieu Avenue) with kerb-side parking, that restricts two-way movement, for much of their lengths. There is only a tiny access into the site, which is used for parking and access to garages at the rear of 7 houses. There would also be a significant effect on the air quality with increased traffic movements. On Health and Safety grounds, with children walking to either Wicor School in one direction or Cams Hill School in the other direction and crossing that tiny access road, I feel that it will be an accident waiting to happen, so you have been warned !!!!! Schools are already oversubscribed, which would result in children from 5 years old, having to travel outside the Portchester area to attend schools. Doctors surgeries are also oversubscribed, therefore, if this area was used for Development the waiting lists to attend doctor's surgeries, would significantly increase!!! Residents place their trust in Councillo rs to deliver policies which protect sites such as Romsey Avenue from development and I can only feel that Councillors have had a "knee jerk" reaction to the Cranleigh Road loss and are using Romsey Avenue as an "Easy Option", instead of fully looking at other more suitable sites for Development. Conclusion. The inclusion of Site HA5 as a residential allocation is unjustified and inconsistent with national policy (especially paragraphs 7, 72, 73, 112 and 113 of the NPPF), so the draft plan is UNSOUND
PO16
Strategic policies: SP1 fails as infrastructure and services have not been put in place. According to research done in 2011 Fareham how come 6 yrs later 700 are needed surely more services and facilities would be required as they were already full in 2011. SP5: The development of Crainleifg Rd dose not make Romsay an urban area. SP3: The Policy is supposed to support developments near work so therefore Newlands Farm being near the Daedlus strategic development site should be preferred. SP6: Building on Romsay Ave will join Porchester onto Fareham separate identify will be lost . Proper data does not appear to have been collated before putting forward the propsed plan, The plan is therefore UNSOUND.
PO16
Roads over load by approx. 900 vehicle movements, extra children will have to travel outside catchment area for schools.
Fields support many species of wild life and at shore line. It should be protected.
PO16
Roads overloaded by approx. 900 extra vehicle movements per day. Children will need to travel outside the catchment area for schools.
PO16
I strongly object to the Portchester development proposals, especially site HA5. I believe that the draft local plan is unsound because the criteria for assessing the individual sites have not been applied consistently and fairly • The land behind Romsey Avenue has been farmed for as long as I can remember. Surely this agricultural land should be protected? Para. 112 of the UK government's National Planning Policy Framework states that poorer quality land should be developed in preference to higher quality. From what I understand the site review process has eliminated many sites that have much poorer levels of soil quality. • The Cranleigh Road site, (which I see is now in work) was originally rejected and defended by FBC because 1. it failed to meet a large number of policies defined within the FBC's Core Strategy 2. it would result in the loss of Grade 1 and Grade 2 agricultural land FBC lost the appeal solely because of the inability to meet housing quotas and not as it should have been, the unsuitability of the site. Now FBC seem to have given up on all their reasons for rejecting Cranleigh Road even though those reasons are even more critical for Romsey Avenue. The easy option for FBC is to roll over to any offer by a developer. Just because the land (Grade 1 & 2) is being made available for development, does not mean that it should be developed and Romsey should not be the second in a row of dominoes. • I have witnessed first hand the rich range of wildlife frequenting the area south of Romsey Avenue. I know that Geese, deer and badgers use the field and given the close proximity to the Portsmouth Harbour special area, this field should be protected. I am led to believe that other sites were considered and rejected because of their close proximity to the Harbour special area so why has Romsey Avenue not been rejected? • The plan to build so many houses in the Portchester area is going to have a major impact on what is already an overstretched road network which can only increase the frequency of accidents in the area. The railings around the BP/The Swan roundabout seem to be permanently buckled as a result of vehicle accidents. There are also large numbers of children using these roads to get to and from school so the additional cars can only mean greater risk of child accidents. I also would like to enquire as to why a proposed development at Longfield Avenue has not been included in either the draft plan or the SHLAA. It strikes me that this one site could resolve FBCs housing shortage for years to come and includes the infrastructure to cope without impacting the current resources in the area, unlike Portchester.
PO6
"Good afternoon, Fareham local plan Romsey site Please take this as a formal objection to the Romsey site being in the Fareham local plan. I list some of the reasons why I object below - Site selection policy 1 - Romsey site is Agricultural Land Classification (ALC) Grade 1. It is not a brownfield site and so should not even have been considered. This type of land is important to Fareham and the country and once gone it will not come back. Site selection policy 8 - Romsey Avenue has been farmed for the last 40 years. As a result it will be high quality land with a range of wildlife on the site. We should not be looking to disturb this healthy balance. Site selection policy 8 - Romsey Avenue has been designated as ""uncertain"", for Brent Geese. Natural England talk about how valuable the Romsey Avenue site is, being adjacent to the SPA and very close to the water. It is a fact that Romsey Avenue is the closest site to the water being proposed for development in the local plan. It is stated in the Brent Geese and Wader Strategy in 2010, that flat sites closer to the mean high tide level are more important as habitat for these rare birds and should be prioritised. Site selection policy 13 - The access to Romsey Avenue is already difficult. Adding 350 houses with maybe an additional 700 cars (in 2014 it was noted in a Telegraph article that Fareham was the most car dependent town in the country). The local area cannot handle this many cars. If we then expand the scope to consider the A27 we find that traffic is already a nightmare and adding in 700 more cars (plus then the other potential sites in Portchester) we just increase pressure on an already broken infrastructure system. Site selection policy 5 - Clearly the executive committee have not been to Portchester in a while. Schools and doctors are under extreme pressure and adding that many houses could push them to breaking point. Schools already have waiting lists and the more we build up the worse it becomes. Generally the plan is poorly thought out and before we build more houses we need to consider how we support the currently population. I appreciate that houses need to be built but there is no point throwing up houses and pushing down the quality of life for current residents and potential new residents. Regards"
PO16
"Please take this as a formal objection to the Romsey site being in the Fareham local plan. I list some of the reasons why I object below - Site selection policy 1 - Romsey site is Agricultural Land Classification (ALC) Grade 1. It is not a brownfield site and so should not even have been considered. This type of land is important to Fareham and the country and once gone it will not come back. Site selection policy 8 - Romsey Avenue has been farmed for the last 40 years. As a result it will be high quality land with a range of wildlife on the site. We should not be looking to disturb this healthy balance. Site selection policy 8 - Romsey Avenue has been designated as ""uncertain"", for Brent Geese. Natural England talk about how valuable the Romsey Avenue site is, being adjacent to the SPA and very close to the water. It is a fact that Romsey Avenue is the closest site to the water being proposed for development in the local plan. It is stated in the Brent Geese and Wader Strategy in 2010, that flat sites closer to the mean high tide level are more important as habitat for these rare birds and should be prioritised. Site selection policy 13 - The access to Romsey Avenue is already difficult. Adding 350 houses with maybe an additional 700 cars (in 2014 it was noted in a Telegraph article that Fareham was the most car dependent town in the country). The local area cannot handle this many cars. If we then expand the scope to consider the A27 we find that traffic is already a nightmare and adding in 700 more cars (plus then the other potential sites in Portchester) we just increase pressure on an already broken infrastructure system. Site selection policy 5 - Clearly the executive committee have not been to Portchester recently. Schools and doctors are under extreme pressure and adding that many houses could push them to breaking point. Schools already have waiting lists and the more we build up the worse it becomes. Generally the plan is poorly thought out and before we build more houses we need to consider how we support the currently population. I appreciate that houses need to be built but there is no point throwing up houses and pushing down the quality of life for current residents and potential new residents."
PO16
Fareham is the most car dependent town in Britain, so it is important that houses are built where infrastructure can support them, and these houses are close to employment areas. This completely rules our Romsey Avenue site, and points clearly to Newlands Farm being developed.
PO16
"Hi there, I want to register my objection to the proposed Romsey Avenue development. In light of the Cranleigh Road development getting approval despite numerous objections, it feels a little like blowing in the wind, but I have seen no evidence of any plans by the council to address any of the infrastructure issues this development will cause. GPs and Schools in the area are already oversubscribed, and the roads into both developments are in no way suited to the additional volume of traffic that the developments will cause. The loss of the green spaces is also a factor in objecting, but by far the more minor one. Simply put, the existing infrastructure doesn't have the capacity to handle the additional development, nor is there any way additional school places can be found. There is nowhere a new school could be built, nor could teachers be found in the timeframe proposed. The EIA Screening Opinion filed in October highlights that there are likely to be serious impacts on the environment, and also ""that the development would generate 164 two way trips in the AM peak and 143 in the PM peak hour"". I drive/cycle/walk along Romsey Avenue every morning in order to drop my kids at Wicor Primary School, and there is no way on earth that road can support that increase in volume of traffic. Additionally, there are many children walking to and from school who are going to be in increased danger of a road traffic accident due to drivers frustration at being stuck in traffic and rushing to get to work. I trust the environmental, and infrastructure demands of this proposed development will all be fully accounted for by the council. "
PO16
Firstly I am disappointed as a resident of [redacted] that our household did not receive the special copy of Fareham Today, so we were unaware of the intended plans until a local parties leaflet was delivered. Secondly, the schools and medical facilities are already oversubscribed and we see not plans for supporting infrastructure to accompany any of the Portchester developments. Lastly, The A27 into and out of Portchester is already queued from 4pm each day and White Hart Lane which is already busy will have significantly increased traffic. We do not think the volume of houses is appropriate for Portchester and will have a detrimental affect at the planned levels.
Firstly I am disappointed as a resident of [redacted] that our household did not receive the special copy of Fareham Today, so we were unaware of the intended plans until a local parties leaflet was delivered. Secondly, the schools and medical facilities are already oversubscribed and we see no plans for supporting infrastructure to accompany any of the Portchester developments. Lastly, The A27 into and out of Portchester is already queued from 4pm each day and White Hart Lane which is already busy will have significantly increased traffic. We do not think the volume of houses is appropriate for Portchester and will have a detrimental affect at the planned levels.
PO16
Housing Site: HA5 SHLAA Reference: 207 Name: Romsey Avenue Proposed Use: Residential Location: Portchester Indicative Capacity: 225 dwellings Size: 12.6 ha Planning Status: Subject to EIA screening application (P/17/1068/EA) Council advice The Government has changed the way future housing needs are calculated and, by following its guidance, we have determined that more than 8,000 new homes must be built in Fareham between now and 2036. Welborne is a major new community being planned for the north of Fareham which will include up to 6,000 homes, workplaces, schools, green space, shops and local community services. New roads and utilities infrastructure will also be required to support the new community. However, this means Fareham are still short of 2000 homes. Comments Planning department, please would you submit these on my behalf. 1. As a former resident of [redacted] and still a local resident, I recall the results of the ammunition explosion at Bedenham armament depot pier on the 14th July 1950. All our back windows were blown in and replaced with steel framed type. The armament depot is still there but what happened to the moratorium on building houses opposite the pier; is there no further risk? 2. The narrow access to Romsey Avenue, a narrow road with many parked cars, is bound to be a problem for the 500 cars that will arrive with an extra 225 dwellings. The narrow Beaulieu Avenue will also be problematic and traffic lights will be required at both the junction of Beaulieu Avenue and the Portchester Road (A27) plus the junction with The Thicket across the road. The cost of these should be carried by the housing developer. Any financial contribution from the developers towards the delivery of the site highway improvement and mitigations works to the junction of Beaulieu Avenue with the A27 would be minimal, lodged in the Council accounts maybe and although ring fenced are very rarely enough for anything more than minor improvements. Health 3. The GP surgeries in the area are unable to cope with an influx of this size. Suggest that money is provided by the developers to bolster the limited funds of the local health authority which will assist towards expansion of facilities.
PO16
I have recently moved to [redacted]. I wanted to do this for many reasons; the beautiful view to the rear of the house is one of them. This land is a thriving habitat to all manner of animal, deer, foxes, brent Geese and numerous wading birds. Developing this land would completely destroy this valuable habitat. The Solent Waders and Brent Geese Strategy is very clear in saying that sites close to the Portsmouth Harbour SPA should be protected in favour of sites further from the water. Romsey Avenue is the closest proposed site to this Portsmouth Harbour SPA and as such should be protected in favour of other sites (Swanwick Site 3017, Sarisbury Site 3109, Locks heath site 3036, Titchfield site 3060 and Stubbington site 1341). Not taking this into account goes against paragraph 113 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and as such should be discounted from the local plan to ensure it is not found unsound. This Land is also currently farmed as it has been for the last 40 years. This land has agricultural land classification (ALC) of 1 & 2 and represents the 'best and most versatile' agricultural land in the borough. Sites 3017, 3109, 3036, 3060 and 1341 are all of poorer quality and as such developing this land would go against paragraph 112 of NPPF. It is also clear that the council has not followed protocol in creating this draft local plan as they have failed to apply a sequential test to sites in this regard and as such should be removed from the local plan to ensure it is not found unsound. The Romsey Avenue site is situated next to the Cranleigh Road development which the council fought hard to prevent as they did not believe it was a suitable site for development. The Cranleigh Road appeal was lost on the technicality that Fareham Bourough council (FBC) had failed to have a 5 year supply of housing to meet demand. This was seen as the overriding factor in the decision and therefore overruled all of the meaningful reasons against building the development that FBC had put forward. The Romsey Avenue development has all of the same reasons as Cranleigh Road did to support not being developed (and many more) and is a much larger development. The inspector also made comment that Cranleigh did not represent a significant development which Romsey Avenue clearly would. With the Draft local plan being put forward the issue of 5 year supply will be addressed and Romsey Avenue could be defended at appeal accordingly if necessary. In granting permission for Cranleigh Road the inspector said that no development or road should be built to the west of the hedge row at the western border of the Cranleigh Road development, by including Romsey Avenue in the draft local plan this goes against one of the conditions to Cranleigh being approved in order that Portchester and Fareham do not begin to Coalesce. As such Romsey Avenue should be removed from the draft local plan. With both Romsey Avenue and Cranleigh road developments being included in the draft local plan the impact on infrastructure would be completely unacceptable, traffic is already a dreadful blight on our community's life. For large parts of the day heading into Fareham is something that can take between 30 minutes and up to an hour to cover around a mile and a half, in fact I recently missed the start of the Fareham Christmas light switch on as the traffic from Portchester to Fareham on the A27 was so bad. Around the school run times access to the A27 from Beaulieu Avenue is terrible and traffic can stretch half way down the road, traffic is frequently cued around the corner of Romsey Avenue and Beaulieu Avenue as the roads are already unsuitable for the volume of traffic using them and the amount of cars parked on the streets, the traffic can only get through at all because the residents are considerate enough to only park on one side of the road. With the additional traffic from the proposed Romsey Avenue development this road system will be completely inadequate without major works. The alternative to this route will be to go right out the proposed development along Hatherley Cresent and past Wicor Primary schools gates which is already congested around school drop off and collection times. With the additional traffic and the number of school children walking to school in the road it is only a matter of time before an accident occurs. Around the proposed Romsey Avenue development schools are full, the healthcare centre has a waiting time of around 3 weeks for a doctor's appointment and QA hospital is currently ranked 130 from 133 hospitals in the country for hitting A&E waiting times. Recreational facilities are poor in the area and by FBC's own Core Strategy 2011 (current policy) Portchester can only cope with 60 new dwellings without additional facilities being built. Since this report no new facilities have been made available to our community but we are now being told that Portchester will be having hundreds of new homes. How can the council believe this to be an appropriate draft local plan when it goes against one of its other key policy documents? With Cranleigh Road and Windmill Grove being approved already it seems ludicrous that Romsey Avenue should be included in the draft local plan. I fully accept that new homes are required in the borough but Romsey Avenue seems to have been included instead of other seemingly more appropriate sites such as Swanwick Site 3017, Sarisbury Site 3109, Locks heath site 3036, Titchfield site 3060 and Stubbington site 1341. Another site which FBC seem to have completely omitted from the draft local plan is Newlands farm Site 3008. This site already has a planning application submitted, has the Stubbington bypass being built which would mitigate traffic concerns, a health centre, primary school, nursing home, retail units and green spaces all included in the plan. Such a large development with the large amount of infrastructure being put into place alongside surely offers a vastly superior option to cramming in 200+ homes in an area with infrastructure that is already beyond capacity. Including the Romsey Avenue site in the draft local plan goes against NPPF paragraphs 7,72,73,112 & 113. I believe that as a result of this the Romsey Avenue site should be removed from the FBC draft local plan as the inclusion of it may lead to the plan being declared unsound. Doing this would allow FBC to move forward with a suitable, sustainable plan for the whole borough.
PO16
Access roads to site unsuitable for extra volume of traffic if site building goes ahead. Have to wait 2-3 weeks for Doctors appointment now. What will it be like with new estates built. Wicor Primary school is over subscribed now! And the Cranleigh Estate has still to be built. Will the existing sewage, gas, electric and water supplies cope with the extra housing? With all this extra housing and the problems with global warming will the sea defenses be improved? And will the Council state that existing properties will not be at risk of flooding?
PO16
Fareham Local Plan 2036. Romsey Avenue Housing Site HA5. (SHLAA ref:207). OBJECTION is raised to Housing Site HA5 because: The Romsey Avenue field was always part of the Council's Strategic Gap, which was designated to prevent the area from becoming a continuous urban sprawl. This used to be a major factor in enabling the Council to win appeals on development at the adjoining Cranleigh Road site (now lost on appeal). A Local Gap should now be created to prevent the loss of identity of Portchester. The loss of this 'best and most versatile' agricultural land (grades 1 and 2 in this case) would be contrary to para.112 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Poorer quality land in Swanwick (Site 3017), Sarisbury (Site 3109), Locks Heath (Site 3036), Titchfield (Site 3060) and Stubbington (Site 1341) should have been allocated but has been passed over. The Local Plan fails to demonstrate that sites have been subjected to a robust sequential test. The Romsey site is an area which supports many species of wildlife, some of which are protected, the Council should reinstate its Coast and Countryside policy, which appears to have inexplicably been removed from the Council's Local Plans. The A27 is already overloaded in this area. There is no Highways Infrastructure to support Development in this area. If this site was used, there would be Increased vehicle movements on A27 junctions, with significant capacity issues and repeated road safety incidents (west from Delme Roundabout and at the Portchester Road/Dore Avenue Roundabout) and the residential streets (Romsey Avenue, Hatherley Crescent, Beaulieu Avenue) with kerb-side parking, that restricts two-way movement, for much of their lengths. There is only a tiny access into the site, which is used for parking and access to garages at the rear of 7 houses. There would also be a significant effect on the air quality with increased traffic movements. On Health and Safety grounds, with children walking to either Wicor School in one direction or Cams Hill School in the other direction and crossing that tiny access road, I feel that it will be an accident waiting to happen, so you have been warned !!!!! Schools are already oversubscribed, which would result in children from 5 years old, having to travel outside the Portchester area to attend schools. Doctors surgeries are also oversubscribed, therefore, if this area was used for Development the waiting lists to attend doctor's surgeries, would significantly increase!!! Residents place their trust in Councillo rs to deliver policies which protect sites such as Romsey Avenue from development and I can only feel that Councillors have had a "knee jerk" reaction to the Cranleigh Road loss and are using Romsey Avenue as an "Easy Option", instead of fully looking at other more suitable sites for Development. Conclusion. The inclusion of Site HA5 as a residential allocation is unjustified and inconsistent with national policy (especially paragraphs 7, 72, 73, 112 and 113 of the NPPF), so the draft plan is UNSOUND
PO16
Already, the development of housing in the western area of Portchester is at it's maximum for the roads to deal with. There will be increased traffic through Cornaway Lane and White Hart lane from the new estate of 120 houses off Cranleigh Road. The proposed development off Romsey Avenue is to be accessed from the main A27 via Beaulieu Avenue, which is basically a single file road due to on street parking in to Romsey Avenue, again single file due to on street parking and then through a little 'cut' between houses, again single file. The land has been used for agriculture for 40 years and should continue for that use, especially due to the wildlife including the Brent Geese. The pollution of the atmosphere will be increased if the building would be to go ahead. There are not enough school places in Portchester or availability at Doctors' surgeries to support the increase in population.
PO16
Fareham Local Plan 2036. Romsey Avenue Housing Site HA5. (SHLAA ref:207). OBJECTION is raised to Housing Site HA5 because: The Romsey Avenue field was always part of the Council's Strategic Gap, which was designated to prevent the area from becoming a continuous urban sprawl. This used to be a major factor in enabling the Council to win appeals on development at the adjoining Cranleigh Road site (now lost on appeal). A Local Gap should now be created to prevent the loss of identity of Portchester. The loss of this 'best and most versatile' agricultural land (grades 1 and 2 in this case) would be contrary to para.112 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Poorer quality land in Swanwick (Site 3017), Sarisbury (Site 3109), Locks Heath (Site 3036), Titchfield (Site 3060) and Stubbington (Site 1341) should have been allocated but has been passed over. The Local Plan fails to demonstrate that sites have been subjected to a robust sequential test. The Romsey site is an area which supports many species of wildlife, some of which are protected, the Council should reinstate its Coast and Countryside policy, which appears to have inexplicably been removed from the Council's Local Plans. The A27 is already overloaded in this area. There is no Highways Infrastructure to support Development in this area. If this site was used, there would be Increased vehicle movements on A27 junctions, with significant capacity issues and repeated road safety incidents (west from Delme Roundabout and at the Portchester Road/Dore Avenue Roundabout) and the residential streets (Romsey Avenue, Hatherley Crescent, Beaulieu Avenue) with kerb-side parking, that restricts two-way movement, for much of their lengths. There is only a tiny access into the site, which is used for parking and access to garages at the rear of 7 houses. There would also be a significant effect on the air quality with increased traffic movements. On Health and Safety grounds, with children walking to either Wicor School in one direction or Cams Hill School in the other direction and crossing that tiny access road, I feel that it will be an accident waiting to happen, so you have been warned !!!!! Schools are already oversubscribed, which would result in children from 5 years old, having to travel outside the Portchester area to attend schools. Doctors surgeries are also oversubscribed, therefore, if this area was used for Development the waiting lists to attend doctor's surgeries, would significantly increase!!! Residents place their trust in Councillo rs to deliver policies which protect sites such as Romsey Avenue from development and I can only feel that Councillors have had a "knee jerk" reaction to the Cranleigh Road loss and are using Romsey Avenue as an "Easy Option", instead of fully looking at other more suitable sites for Development. Conclusion. The inclusion of Site HA5 as a residential allocation is unjustified and inconsistent with national policy (especially paragraphs 7, 72, 73, 112 and 113 of the NPPF), so the draft plan is UNSOUND
PO16
Fareham Local Plan 2036. Romsey Avenue Housing Site HA5. (SHLAA ref:207). OBJECTION is raised to Housing Site HA5 because: The Romsey Avenue field was always part of the Council's Strategic Gap, which was designated to prevent the area from becoming a continuous urban sprawl. This used to be a major factor in enabling the Council to win appeals on development at the adjoining Cranleigh Road site (now lost on appeal). A Local Gap should now be created to prevent the loss of identity of Portchester. The loss of this 'best and most versatile' agricultural land (grades 1 and 2 in this case) would be contrary to para.112 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Poorer quality land in Swanwick (Site 3017), Sarisbury (Site 3109), Locks Heath (Site 3036), Titchfield (Site 3060) and Stubbington (Site 1341) should have been allocated but has been passed over. The Local Plan fails to demonstrate that sites have been subjected to a robust sequential test. The Romsey site is an area which supports many species of wildlife, some of which are protected, the Council should reinstate its Coast and Countryside policy, which appears to have inexplicably been removed from the Council's Local Plans. The A27 is already overloaded in this area. There is no Highways Infrastructure to support Development in this area. If this site was used, there would be Increased vehicle movements on A27 junctions, with significant capacity issues and repeated road safety incidents (west from Delme Roundabout and at the Portchester Road/Dore Avenue Roundabout) and the residential streets (Romsey Avenue, Hatherley Crescent, Beaulieu Avenue) with kerb-side parking, that restricts two-way movement, for much of their lengths. There is only a tiny access into the site, which is used for parking and access to garages at the rear of 7 houses. There would also be a significant effect on the air quality with increased traffic movements. On Health and Safety grounds, with children walking to either Wicor School in one direction or Cams Hill School in the other direction and crossing that tiny access road, I feel that it will be an accident waiting to happen, so you have been warned !!!!! Schools are already oversubscribed, which would result in children from 5 years old, having to travel outside the Portchester area to attend schools. Doctors surgeries are also oversubscribed, therefore, if this area was used for Development the waiting lists to attend doctor's surgeries, would significantly increase!!! Residents place their trust in Councillo rs to deliver policies which protect sites such as Romsey Avenue from development and I can only feel that Councillors have had a "knee jerk" reaction to the Cranleigh Road loss and are using Romsey Avenue as an "Easy Option", instead of fully looking at other more suitable sites for Development. Conclusion. The inclusion of Site HA5 as a residential allocation is unjustified and inconsistent with national policy (especially paragraphs 7, 72, 73, 112 and 113 of the NPPF), so the draft plan is UNSOUND
PO16
I object to Seafield being added to the local draft plan. My reasons are at present this site is classified as countryside and open space and should remain so. The access road via Moraunt Drive is totally unsuitable, the site is and has been for many years the home to a vast variety of wildlife and is one of the last sites of it's nature in Portchester. I object to all of these proposed developments on the basis that Portchester does not have the infrastructure to support any of these developments being added to the local draft plan. The schools are already at maximum capacity, the waiting list for doctors regular appointments is currently 2-3 weeks. The roads are at peak times already congested. If an accident happens on the motorway Portchester becomes gridlocked, so yes I object because we do not have anyway of improving the infrastructure at all.
PO16
Although I have highlighted this site we object to the Newland farm development also. We were told when attending a meeting on plans at Secondary School that no DOCTOR SURGERY OR EXTRA SCHOOLS TO BE BUILT. The only site getting infrastructure is the Downed road site. BOTH THESE AREAS ARE NOT SUITABLE LAND TO BUILD ON. YOU ALL KNOW THIS BUT DONT SEEM TO CARE, BOTH AREAS OF OPEN FIELDS WITH SPECIAL NATURE ISSUES. THIS LEAVES PORTCHESTER TAKING THE BRUNT OF ALL THE HOUSING THE COUNCIL NEED TO ACHIEVE TO SATISFY CENTRAL GOVERNMENT. INDEED PORTCHESTER IS TAKING A DIS PROPORTIONATE AMOUNT OF HOUSING AND LOOSING ALL OF THE GREEN SPACE FOR SUCH A SMALL VILLAGE. THE DOCTORS ALREADY HAVE 3 WEEK WAITING LIST OR MORE, THE TRAFFIC AT DOWNEND IS VERY HEAVY ALREADY WITHOUT THIS AMOUNT OF HOMES AND THE 2 OR 3 OR 4 PEOPLE OCCUPYING THEM. LET ALONE THE SCHOOLS WHO ARE FULL TO BURSTING NOW. . THIS PLAN DOESNT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT MOST OF THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN PORTCHESTER DO NOT WANT ALL THESE HOUSES BUILT HERE. WE OBJECT ALSO THAT THE CONSERVATIVE HEAD OF COUNCIL SEAN WOODWARD HAS A NOT IN MY BACK YARD ATTITUTE FOR HIS VOTERS AND HAS DONE SINCE APPOINTED. PORTCHESTER IS ALWAYS THE LAST TO BENEFIT FROM FUNDING TO IMPROVE OUR VILLAGE. THESE DEVELOPMENTS ARE PURELY GOING AHEAD AND I SUSPECT ANY OBJECTIONS NOT LISTENED TO PURELY BECAUSE WELBORNE HAS BEEN A TOTAL LET DOWN. IF WELBORNE WENT AHEAD THEN YOU WOULDNT BE LOOKING AT FILLING IN ALL THE GAPS THAT MAKE PORTCHESTER SUCH A LOVELY AREA TO LIVE. CONCENTRATE ON GETTING WELBORNE UP AND RUNNING AND NOT SPOILING THE ONLY GREEN AREAS WE HAVE LEFT.
PO16
I frequently visit the area of Romsey Avenue. They moved to the area because of the good schools, and beautiful field to the rear of their house. Having heard that this field is being put forward as a site for housing fills me with disgust. It is one of the only open spaces left in Portchester and is actively farmed. My Granddaughter loves seeing the abundance of wildlife passing by her window, by going ahead with this development you will be destroying part of her magical childhood. The school she is due to enroll for will be the main intake for the new development and I understand this school is already full, adding a substantial new development to its catchment is crazy. Whenever we travel to the area the worst traffic we encounter is invariably making our way back to junction 11 of the M27 via the A27, this is quite astounding as our journey includes the M1 and M25! Adding hundreds of extra cars will inevitably make this situation worse, and also add to the growing pollution problem that i understand Fareham has.
LU3
I visit my sons family who live in [redacted] regularly and could not believe when they told me the field to the rear of their house is being pushed for hosing by Fareham Council. The field is a wonderful open space with fantastic wildlife. My granddaughters 3rd word was deer due to the frequency of seeing them on the field. I understand that the field is classed as an important backup feeding ground for Brent Geese, my understanding was that sites like this are supposed to be protected. It is sad to think that this brilliant habitat is going to be lost forever just to help a developer make profits. There are so few open spaces like this one left and once they are gone they are gone forever. I have also noticed that the wildlife in the area has already been impacted by the disgraceful clearance of the Cranleigh Road site with no concern for the habitats on that site, by developing Romsey avenue field the nature in the area will be irreparably damaged.
LU3
1. Good agricultural land would be lost. 2. Roads are already congested and the addition of over 100 vehicles using Romsey Avenue and Beaulieu Avenue would create gridlock in those roads. During rush hour there is considerable congestion on the A27, especially from Shearwater Avenue to the Delme roundabout. The bulk of the additional cars would also feed into this road to access the M27, creating yet more delays and overcrowding. 3. Local GPs are currently overstretched. 200 more families/individuals would stretch their services to breaking point. 4. A similar problem would be created in local schools. Even if buildings could be extended the access would be exceedingly difficult.
PO16
After having worked and saved hard, my lifelong dream of living in Romsey Avenue became reality. I was then able to start a family and raise a child in desirable area with sought after schools and an abundance of wildlife. The detrimental affects a new housing site would bring to the area are inexcusable. The land to the south of Romsey Avenue is classified as grade 1 and 2 agricultural land and is intensely farmed for cereal crop as it has been for the past forty years. Other sites with poorer quality land have been dismissed from the local plan including site 3017 and 3109. The loss of this sustainable land would be contrary to intentions set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Not only would top quality agricultural land be destroyed but also land which supports habitats for many species including protected species. The loss of feeding grounds for Brent Geese and other wading birds conflicts with paragraph 113 of the NPPF. Out of all the sites proposed for development in the local plan with 'uncertain Brent Geese feeding grounds' Romsey Avenue is the closest to water as and stated in the 'Brent Geese and Wader Strategy 2010' should be given higher priority in order to protect these rare birds. Following various meetings with local councillors it concerns me greatly that the fate of Romsey Avenue seems to be linked to lost appeal to develop Cranleigh Road. Although this land lies directly alongside Romsey Avenue there are significant differences between the two sites including the fact that Cranleigh Road has not been farmed now for many years, Cranleigh Road was not identified as a site 'uncertain for Brent Geese' and the access in and out of the Cranleigh site is significantly more accessible than that proposed for the Romsey development. It was also stated by Inspectors that following the decision to develop Cranleigh Road that no further developments or roads should be built to the west of the hedgerow separating these two sites. In 2011 it was recognised within the Fareham Core Strategy that Portchester could only sustain 60 new dwellings due to the lack of recreation facilities and residents were assured that the village would not be expected to play a significant role in housing provision before 2026. No improvements have been made recreational facilties within that time and the fact that 700 homes have now been proposed to be built in Portchester is farcical. The lack of consideration given to the shortage of infrastructure to support this new development is deeply worrying. An already over-congested A27 simply could not cope with any additional traffic. Approximately 900 extra vehicle movements have been estimated daily from the proposed development. This would mean extensive adaptations to existing roads in order for them to cope with the increase in traffic. During school drop off and collection times cars queue along Beaulieu Avenue waiting to join the A27. A roundabout similar to one enabling access to the Birdwood housing estate would need to be built to allow traffic to access the A27 and prevent Beaulieu Avenue, Romsey Avenue and Hatherly Crescent coming to a standstill. These roads would also need widening to allow vehicles to pass safely. Currently cars have to park along the eastern side of Bealieu Avenue to allow traffic to run freely . This would have a damaging effect on existing residents as they would lose green verges outside their properties, be unable to park their cars along the road and would have to endure the cost of losing their front gardens to make way for bigger driveways. The suggested access route to the new development is a tiny road currently used to park no more than seven cars. This is totally unsuitable as an access point to a housing development for both new residents and workman. It would also pose a huge safety risk for the large number of school pupils who cross this road on their way to and from school. There is currently a weight limit on Beaulieu Avenue making it unsafe for heavy goods vehicles to use it to access the proposed site to build any new homes. Schools within the vicinity of the proposed site are already oversubscribed and would simply not be able to provide spaces for additional children. This would have serious consequences on family life as parents would have to travel long distances to take their children to schools out of their catchment areas. These additional car journeys would also have a damaging affect on the environment in an area where there are already serious concerns of the air quality. As a parent and a school teacher who has saved and moved to an area in order to send their child to a specific school it would be devastating if my child was denied a place because of over development in an unsuitable area. The local GP surgery currently has a three week waiting period for routine appointments. Such a significant increase in the number of patients would not only increase waiting times, cause a strain on medical practitioners but would also pose a serious health risks to residents. QA hospital is already at breaking point and regularly has a queue of ambulances unable to gain entry to the hospital. I understand that new homes are required within the borough but Romsey Avenue seems to have been included based on the fact it can be built on quickly rather than any logical thought going into infrastructure and the damage it will have on existing resident. There are seemingly more appropriate sites such as Swanwick Site 3017, Sarisbury Site 3109, Locks heath site 3036, Titchfield site 3060 and Stubbington site 1341. A glaringly obvious site which FBC have discounted from the draft local plan is Newlands farm -Site 3008. This site already has a planning application submitted, a new bypass being built which would mitigate traffic concerns, a proposed health centre, primary school, nursing home, retail units and green spaces all included within the application. Such a large development with the large amount of infrastructure being put into place alongside surely offers a vastly superior option to cramming in 200+ homes in an area with infrastructure that is already beyond capacity. In conclusion I strongly urge you to remove Romsey Avenue from the draft local plan as there are many other sites which are more suitable and would have less of a negative impact on existing residents. Many factors within the DLP are not in line with the NPPF and is therefore unsound.
PO16
I feel that Romsey Avenue is unsuitable for development due to the lack of infrastructure supporting the development and the unacceptable impact on residents currently living in an area which I frequently visit.. Access to the proposed development is very restricted. The suggestion that grass verges will be lost and parking restrictions introduced in Romsey Avenue is totally unfair on people who have struggled to afford properties in one of the boroughs more pleasant areas. The loss of grade 1 agricultural land is foolish at best and totally unacceptable in reality given that such little grade 1 quality land exists in Fareham. This land is currently intensively and successfully farmed. The proposed local plan has other sites far more suitable for development which have been rejected with little justification. This throws into doubt the whole draft plan process.
PO15
Objection Infrastructure Roads Severe impact on traffic volumes. Streets already busy with cars entering & leaving A27. Traffic is frequently snarled up on Beaulieu Avenue during peak and off-peak hours and particularly school run. It is already very hard to turn right out of Beaulieu Avenue onto the A27. At times, it is necessary to turn left and use the roundabout at Condor Avenue in order to travel eastbound. Narrow Streets lack capacity to handle the extra traffic generated. On-road parking by current residents in both Beaulieu and Romsey Avenues is generally fully utilised day and night, with cars parked along the whole length of both streets, leaving cars with nowhere to pull in. Drivers have to reverse towards oncoming traffic entering from the A27 - extremely dangerous, or back in to Romsey Avenue which has very compromised visibility beyond the splays. Cars, vans and lorries also mount the pavements and grass verges. Extra traffic will inevitably lead to accidents. Safety of all road and pavement users. Many children walk and cycle to and from the primary and secondary schools - there have been near misses between cyclists and cars. The road dimensions and layout are not designed to cope with the large volumes of vehicles. There is insufficient parking in the surrounding area for displaced vehicles. Extra traffic is likely to lead to people and especially children, getting injured, or worse. The current volumes of parked cars can delay and sometimes prevent vehicles from entering or leaving Beaulieu/Romsey Avenues and especially problematic for larger vehicles, which could include emergency vehicles. The increased traffic generated from a development may well lead to a complete inability for emergency services to access the current houses and any new development. Access via Hatherley Crescent is not viable as this is also subject to significant vehicle movements to and from Cornaway Lane, particularly at peak times and during the school run. The roads could not cope at all with construction vehicles accessing the site. The development will add to an already overloaded A27, which is experiencing ever longer delays and road incidents. Likewise, junction 11 on the M27 cannot cope with current traffic volumes, especially during peak hours - this was identified in the 2011 Core Strategy - nothing effective has been done to address this. No consideration of these issues or suggestions of adequate mitigation strategies provided in the draft local plan documents or subsequent communications from Fareham councillors or Fareham Borough Council officers. Schools Wicor Primary is heavily oversubscribed, as indeed are all schools in Portchester. As of October 2017 it had 28 children on the waiting list. A total of 143 children were waiting for a place in Portchester primary schools. Wicor is a popular school and often admits 2 extra pupils per class from Year 3 Key Stage 2. However, at least one of these Key Stage 2 classes currently has 36 children. There are minimum space requirements for school children - children cannot be accommodated in existing classrooms indefinitely. The school site is not large and options for physically increasing the size of the school is constrained as it is surrounded to the north, south and east by houses and soon, to the west as the Cranleigh Road field has been approved for development. In recent years, the school has not been admitting children from outside Hampshire County Council's boundary - confirmed by analysing the county council's own data regarding distance of last child admitted on its school admissions pages. It is facing increased admissions from the Cranleigh Road and Windmill Grove approved developments - generating a combined potential pupil yield of 41 places. Allowing a minimum of 225 properties to be built on the Romsey Avenue site will require provision for a pupil yield of an extra 68 children. Wicor Primary may have to increase its size by 25% to accommodate the extra children in its catchment area. Families moving to Portchester find it to gain a place in Key Stage 1 in Portchester as a mid-year admission and are routinely offered places in Gosport schools. Secondary - Cams Hill has already increased admission number from 210 to 240 pupils per year. As an academy, it cannot be forced to increase its intake by Hampshire County Council. No consideration of these issues or suggestions of adequate mitigation strategies provided in the draft local plan documents or subsequent communications from Fareham councillors or Fareham Borough Council officers. This is in direct conflict with paragraph 72 of the National Planning Policy Framework which states that "The Government attaches great importance to ensuring that a sufficient choice of school places is available to meet the needs of existing and new communities. Local planning authorities should take a proactive, positive and collaborative approach to meeting this requirement, and to development that will widen choice in education. They should: ? give great weight to the need to create, expand or alter schools; and ? work with schools promoters to identify and resolve key planning issues before applications are submitted." Medical The number of registered patients at Westlands Surgery is 10402. Appointment waiting times are 2-3 weeks. QA Hospital is also under increasing pressure and is has recently been found to be unable to meet acceptable waiting time targets - currently the third worst, nationally. There are no NHS dentists in Portchester. Whilst NHS choices indicates that there is availability in Fareham, upon further enquiry, it is found that lists for NHS dentists in and around Fareham are full, leaving patients to register with practices in Gosport or further afield. This makes for unnecessary, longer journeys, usually only possible by car, taking time away from employment/school etc and adding to pollution and congestion. The strain on existing medical facilities in and around Portchester is already evident and will be greatly exacerbated by extra housing. No consideration of these issues or suggestions of adequate mitigation strategies provided in the draft local plan documents or subsequent communications from Fareham councillors or Fareham Borough Council officers. This does not accord with the National Planning and Policy framework which states that plans must "take account of and support local strategies to improve health, social and cultural wellbeing for all, and deliver sufficient community and cultural facilities and services to meet local needs." Agriculture With almost half the land being grade 1 and the other half grade 2, the Romsey Avenue fields comprise the best quality and most versatile agricultural land available both locally and nationally. If this field is built on, the other fields to the west and south will no longer be viable for farming, leading to an even greater loss of the best quality land available for food production. Other sites, with poorer quality land should be developed before our best land. There are sites proposed in the local plan which have poorer quality agricultural land - such as no. 3017 (Swanick), no. 3019 (Sarisbury), no. 3036 (Locks Heath), no. 3060 (Titchfield) and no. 1341 (Stubbington). These types of sites should be prioritised for development, before our best land quality sites. Ecology The Romsey Avenue field supports a wide range of animal and bird wildlife. It is the closest site in the local plan to the Portsmouth Harbour Special Protection Area. Brent geese and wading birds can be seen by many of the houses which have a view of the water. Brent geese are seen on the field, as are other wading birds such as the Little Egret. In addition, the field is used for feeding and resting by migrating geese, Black Headed Gulls, Greater Black Backed Gulls, Herons, hawks, buzzards and a variety of garden birds. Animals such as badgers and foxes roam the fields and deer are regularly seen grazing. Slow worms are frequently found during the summer, as are newts, frogs and toads. The Romsey development reduces the availability of these feeding grounds. This does not meet the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework, paragraph 113, which states that "Distinctions should be made between the hierarchy of international, national and locally designated sites,24 so that protection is commensurate with their status and gives appropriate weight to their importance and the contribution that they make to wider ecological networks." There are sites proposed in the local plan which have poorer ecological land values - such as no. 3017 (Swanick), no. 3019 (Sarisbury), no. 3036 (Locks Heath), no. 3060 (Titchfield) and no. 1341 (Stubbington). These types of sites should be prioritised for development, before sites such as Romsey Avenue, which directly support vulnerable bird populations and more fragile ecological areas. Recreation It was stated in the Core Strategy 2011 (para 5.17) that there is a lack of recreation facilities and public open space in Portchester. Extra housing further reduces open space and intensifies use of what is left. Sufficient additional space cannot be created, therefore, this extra development goes against National Planning Policy Framework, paragraph 73 which states "Access to high quality open spaces and opportunities for sport and recreation can make an important contribution to the health and well-being of communities. Planning policies should be based on robust and up-to-date assessments of the needs for open space, sports and recreation facilities and opportunities for new provision. The assessments should identify specific needs and quantitative or qualitative deficits or surpluses of open space, sports and recreational facilities in the local area. Information gained from the assessments should be used to determine what open space, sports and recreational provision is required." Environm
PO16
The proposed development of Romsey Avenue is unsound for various reasons which seem to have been overlooked. Loss of top grade agricultural land which is currently successfully farmed. No highways infrastructure for a proposed development with very limited access. Thereby causing unacceptable impact on current residents. Loss of an area which supports many species of wildlife. Lack of recreational facilities in Portchester which has previously been reason enough to prevent development. Other sites in the borough have inexplicably been omitted from the plan. This demonstrates that the local plan has been contrived in a less than robust and thorough way.
PO15
The schools are full. The local plan does not have any information about how it will accommodate children living in Portchester. Parents moving to the area will not have a choice of schools and some farthest away in the catchment may not have any place at all. The national planning policy framework makes it a specific requirement to have sufficient school places and parental choice. The local plan fails in this regard. The roads surrounding the site are already overcrowded. On-street parking is full nearly all of the time. Access roads to the site are too small - cars will struggle, lorries will find it impossible and make the nearby roads very dangerous to drivers, but more importantly, pedestrians and cyclists. School children use these roads - their safety is being put at risk directly as a result of the extra cars and other vehicles using the roads. It is very difficult to get a GP appointment and impossible to find a local NHS dentist, or even one within reasonable travelling distance. Development of this site will negatively affect wildlife and birds, which use the field and nearby harbour waters. These areas should be protected, not damaged by more buildings and people disturbing them and destroying the habitat. I do not think this has properly been considered when choosing the sites to include in the local plan. Unless effective and timely mitigation is achievable, building so many houses on the field right at the back of the existing houses is probably going to cause bad feelings between residents, due to the strain on the extra traffic, noise and strain on services. The local plan states that the development will be positive for the area - the opposite could not be more true. I do not think this plan has been properly analysed in terms of impact and risk, with respect to including the Romsey Avenue site for development.
PO16
Before I proceed to write this objection, I would like you to note that [redacted] my future relies on your decisions.... I would firstly like to state that I think you all must be fair minded people with open views, otherwise you wouldn't be in the council so I hope you can see my point of view. I strongly disagree with building on our field. There is so much beautiful nature that would be destroyed by building houses and I don't even know where to begin with the amount of pollution and traffic all these houses would cause! Here's some quick maths: 250 houses = more than 500 cars which means much more traffic on Romsey avenue, Beaulieu avenue and the A27. I use these roads every morning and afternoon on the walk to and from school. Sometimes I can barely breathe because of the fumes. Imagine increasing the amount of those cars? Lots of children have asthma in this area, including me, which makes it so much more dangerous for us. All these school pupils travelling up this road are the next generation. Do we really want our next generation to have an unhealthy and polluted future? I would hope not. Before attending Cams Hill secondary school I was a pupil at Wicor Primary. The field next to Wicor (Cranleigh) had been waiting to be approved for thirty years! How much time has Romsey had? About 10 or 11 months roughly? I understand money and effort is an issued can't be spent on all these housing development appeals but the long term effect on the people of Portchester and Fareham will be very bad. It is in everyone's interests to not build these houses and over populate the area! I hope you can see that the children of Portchester and Fareham's opinions matter because we'll have to live with these decision probably for the rest of our lives... Thank you for taking the time to read this.
PO16
To Fareham Borough Council. I do think it's necessary to build new houses but only in the right areas. If we build on the field we will lose so much wildlife and schools, doctors and dentists would be packed. And if nobody wants to build on it except you why are you doing it? It seems unfair that we voted you in and you're doing the opposite of what we would like. Our street would be jam-packed and so would Fareham, [redacted] my future is based on your choice on how to build in Fareham.
PO16
The schools are full already imagine 200 extra children in the schools plus all the toddlers and babies that will soon grow up, it is horrendous that you think you can build all these houses with out schools, dentists and doctors to support the people in them. The roads will be full with 500 hundred extra cars also if you are spending all this time building these houses why aren't you spending your time building Welborne. An other thing is that where are all these people going to work? Even if you build all these houses have you thought about the what will happen to Fareham in the future, do you want a town of brick of fumes or a town of clean air and wildlife? The whole of Fareham relies on YOU to make the right decision for the people of Portchester and Fareham.
PO16
Complete lack of infrastructure to support additional housing. Portchester road/A27 from Portchester to Fareham is always so congested as to be unusable at certain times of the day. These would be the same times of day that the additional vehicles from proposed housing would need to access the M27, adding to existing gridlock does not make for good transport routes. There have been no suggestions of improvements to Schools (all over subscribed) Doctors (3 week waiting list for an appointment) and as mentioned roads. The attitude that seems to be in favour that Schools/Doctors/Roads are not within the remit of the council to fix is appalling, as in everyone knows these issues but chooses to ignore them as they feel they wont be held accountable. The proposal for the site access -the old farm entrance and then into Beaulieu Avenue is laughable - Beaulieu Avenue is already a congestion point with no two way traffic, and if it was double yellow lines where do you think all the cars there now will park? This can only add to congestion around the school causing more risks to schoolchildren with no safe place to pickup/put-down. The plan is unsound - there are other sites that have been passed over (e.g. Stubbington 1341) which is clearly a better choice but not included - why?
PO16
The core strategy of the National Policy Planning Framework states ' Local Planning authorities should take into account the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land ..... and local authorities should seek to use poorer land in preference to higher quality '. The classification of the Romsey Ave site is Grade 1 & 2, the highest classification. The Romsey Ave site has been considered the same as Cranleigh Rd site, claims that there is no choice are untrue and demonstrates poor understanding of the Cranleigh inspectors report and incompetent planning. The inspector sated it is not at all correct that highest grade agricultural land should be used for development and acknowledged the local infrastructure is not able to support the new homes. The Romsey site and Cranleigh site are not the same with regard to the following aspects:- Cranleigh is a relatively small site, not farmed for years, probably with the aim of helping planning applications. It has no record of Brent geese or waders. It does lead to Cornerway Lane with roundabout access to the dual lane section of the A27. Romsey 12.65 HA has been productively farmed for well over forty years. Recorded feeding ground for Brent Geese and Waders. RAMSAR/SPA boundary ' supporting site'. Access to the site for 500 plus cars via a small lane, meters from the front door of a family home. Traffic would then use Romsey Ave and Beaulieu Ave to turn on to a single lane section of the A27. Large numbers of school children from Wilcox and Cams Hill cross this access, with no improvement to the highway infrastructure children's lives and wellbeing are at risk. FBC stated at the hearing that the area has full schools, dangerous surrounding roads, oversubscribed GP surgeries and traffic pollution. Alternative sites of lower quality and better placed within Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment have lazily been discounted from the draft local plan; site 3017, Swanick has no geese ALC grade 2, 46 dwellings site 3036, Locks Heath has no geese ALC grade 3, 49 dwellings site 3060, Titchfield has no geese ALC grade 3, 40 dwellings site 3109, Sarisbury Green, no geese, grade 2 & 4 41dwellings site 1341, Stubbington, geese uncertain grade 2, 144 dwellings Using smaller sites more evenly distributed throughout the borough will give greater choice across Fareham and mean a more manageable impact on the local infrastructure.
PO16
The road infrastructure will not cope with the extra vehicles. All must go through Beaulieu avenue. With the development of cranleigh already approved, the schools and doctors already be oversubscribed. Finally the wildlife lost from cranleigh will have nowhere to go.
PO16
No infrastructure to support additional housing. No improvements to Schools/Doctors/Roads which are all at breaking point. Destruction of Grade 1 agricultural land when lower grade sites have been omitted. Its noted in the Core strategy that there is already a lack of open spaces in Portchester but it seems its ok to add more homes without addressing this? Why is there now no local gap? The Romsey avenue field should be identified as local gap. On the evening of writing this objection as accident has occurred at the Beaulieu Avenue/Portchester Rd junction, I am concerned that several hundred additional cars through this area will endanger Portchester's school children. The plan is unsound - there are other sites that have been passed over that are clearly better choices but not included - why?
Postcode not provided
Traffic levels are already too high. Schools are all over subscribed with no plans that will accommodate the proposed homes - where do the children go? More school runs to outside portchester. Cant get a doctors appointment now, let alone before hundreds of new patients are added - someone needs to be accountable for this situation and stop passing the buck! The site is in use by a variety of wildlife including endangered species. The access to the site is not suitable, does anyone truly believe it is? and having all these cars empty onto portchester rd will create chaos, congestion, poor (worse!) air quality and additional risk to children who need to use the route to Cams and Wicor schools. I believe the plan is unsound as I am aware more suitable proposals have not been included, and the traffic impact not given the attention/ownership it warrants.
Postcode not provided
Schools all over subscribed - no plans to accommodate the proposed homes. endangered species use the site including Brent Geese. Nobody taking responsibility for Schools and Roads - everyone saying its not me does not make the problem go away, trying to just shove homes in and leave the people of porchester to live with this lack of ownership is shocking. Traffic levels are already too high, journey from Beaulieu to Delme roundabout (to access M27) will often take more than 30mins. Someone walking could cover the same distance in 10mins. I believe the plan is unsound and the infrastructure needs to accommodate it given no consideration.
Postcode not provided
I object to the development on the following grounds: - Under developed infrastructure... schools, Medical facilities and the road infrastructure are unsuitable - Beulie avenue is already significantly over crowded at certain times of the day - Nature - We have geese, badgers and Deer seen regularly in the fields, the Brent geese stay regularly each year on their migration , which I believe is a protected environment. - The proposed development is within close proximity to already protected areas and will have a significant affect on said protected area
PO16
I would like to register my objection to HA5. Approval for building on this site has been rushed through due to the mistakes made in the planning of Wellbourne. The infastructure is not here to accomodate these homes and no future plans to create it have been proposed, at least none which have been remotely realistic or reasonable.The school places are not here, the doctors surgery does not have the room and the roads will be overwhelmed. In my opinion Beaulieu Avenue will be rendered deadly to schoolchildren trying to get to Cams or Wicor. Building on this site will leave us with no green space between Portchester and Fareham, effectively leading to the extinction of our village and our way of life. I was born in Portchester and lived there until I went away to university five years ago. I thought I would one day come back to raise a family of my own but at this rate I do not know what there will be to come back to. HA5 is also an incredibly important habitat for wildlife that needs to be conserved for future generations. We have Brent Geese, deer, bats, badgers and sloworms relying on that field for their survival. I implore you to reconsider this unsound plan and look at the Newlands Farm site that is far more prepared to survive the impact.
E14
This whole development plans for our area is an absolute NO NO. Our surgeries overloaded, as is schools. Traffic is a nightmare now, 740 more cars (or 1480) would cause CHAOS. Wildlife so affected by development. Emergency Services have trouble passing through traffic. The A27 is so congested now. Most housing will have 1 or 2 cars. What is classed as "Affordable". When 1 2 bedroom showing on Right Move as £299,000. Pollution is at High Level now, can only get worse. All sites within Portchester should be REJECTED. FBC & Planning have failed to support the community. Sad that our local wildlife will be gone! Community facilities not even thought about. FBC should leave Portchester out of the mass Development Plans. Asbestos and oil pipes have been noted in the past from MOD as being buried under Cranleigh site.
PO16
I'm writing to express my total opposition to the proposed housing development at Romsey Avenue. Hampshire County Council have just spent approximately 6.3 million pounds on a futile road widening scheme along The Avenue in order to improve traffic flow and now Fareham Borough Council are encouraging housing developments at Downend and at Romsey Avenue which will effectively choke off traffic on the A27 and cause massive amount of congestion. Evidently, little or no recognition has been given to the fact that traffic congestion on the A27 is already causing frequent tail backs from the Delme Roundabout to Beaulieu Avenue from any time from 5.00pm onwards. Currently it can take anything from between 20 to 25 minutes to travel the short distance from our home in Birdwood Grove to the Delme Roundabout and now the council is preparing to choke off traffic on the A27 at two critical points. Additionally, the council is sanctioning the erosion of green field, agricultural land and also damaging the ecology of the are whilst also demonstrating the inability to make adequate preparations for the impact on local social and NHS services. Much of the planning appears to be being made "on the hoof" by councillors whose political loyalties to central government cause them to ignore the feelings of the residents whose lives will be adversely affected by these hastily conceived plans. We were given many assurances in the wake of the Wellbourne development that this would effectively be the only development required to meet Fareham's growing housing needs, but evidently this was false, as was the suggestion that a doctor's surgery would be provided at the new development. As a consequence of the unreliability of statements emanating from FBC there is a growing recognition that FBC have often deliberately misled the general public and can not be trusted to respond to the democratic wishes of its residents. Expanding housing in the sort of ad hoc, ill conceived fashion now being developed by FBC demonstrates a complete disregard for the adverse impact such developments will make on residents living close to the proposed development and the effects of habitat destruction, pollution, traffic congestion and the overloading NHS services already in crisis within the borough. On the evidence of these schemes, it appears that FBC could not be trusted to "organise a piss up in a brewery" never mind run an efficient and above all honest Borough Council that is responsive to the needs of its citizens.
PO16
1. The houses are planned for an area with very narrow road access. 2. The extra vehicle movements will worsen the existing heavy traffic on the m27. 3. The process of building will put great pressure on existing roads due to vehicle movements, machinery, and materials. 4.There will be enormous extra pressure on schools, Doctors, and services. 5. It will mean the destruction of Grade 1 & 2 farm fields, which are currently farmed and should not be used for housing. 6.It will also threaten protected wildlife, which belongs near the coast. 7. There are 4 other more suitable sites: a)Swanwick site 3017 b) Sarisbury Site 3109, c) Locks Heath Site 3036 d) Stubbington Site 1341 8)So surely for the above reasons the plan is unsound?
PO16
My objection is as follows: 1. There is very little 'green space' left in the area as it is without concreting that which remains. 2. The road infrastructure is inadequate as it is and Welbourne as yet to rear its ugly head. Any further development will overwhelm the road layout. Downend Rd with its narrow rail bridge will cause problems for vehicles and pedestrians alike. 3. Medical facilities within the Portchester area are overstretched. QA hospital is nigh at saturation point without Welbourne let alone any other development. 4. The current schools would appear to have any spare capacity and no magic wand will cure that. 5. I am not convinced that the Portsmouth Water Company has additional reservoirs to satisfy future needs let alone extra houses. 6. The state of the drains in the area is at best poor and more houses will not improve matters. 7. The police in the area are stretched and more people having a demand on their services will not improve matters. 8. The comments re the police applies equally to the Fire & Rescue Service. 9. The residents were informed that with the Welbourne development would safeguard what green remained. This would appear to be a lie!! 10. The M27 has difficulty coping with the current loading so more houses (more cars etc) will not help. 11. Please wake up & listen to the electorate for once!
PO16
I understand that in their draft local plan Fareham Borough are proposing the development of over 200 homes on the field. I would like to object in the strongest terms to the proposal [redacted]. The traffic in the area around Wicor School, Beaulieu Avenue and Romsey Avenue is already extremely congested with parking on both sides of the roads and I fear for the safety of my grandchildren once they become more independent and are finding their own way to school both to Wicor and Cams Hill. The access to the proposed development is also ridiculously narrow, I understand even the farmer's vehicles don't use it, so how possibly up to 900 car movements a day are going to take place I do not know or how heavy vehicles such as Refuse vehicles will access the site. Further afield getting onto the A27 at the Delme Arms junction from Portchester can take up to 25 minutes at peak times and this will clearly only get worse if up to 700 homes are built in Portchester. I am also concerned that Wicor School is already oversubscribed and there appears to be no provision within the plan for improved infrastructure for schools, healthcare provision or new traffic measures. I understand that there are alternative options for the housing that is required that are far less damaging to the community. I think the Council should withdraw the plan and think again or at the very least remove Romsey Avenue.
PO12
Site HA5 is unsound and needs to be removed from the Draft Fareham Local Plan 2036. Loss of open space detrimental to the interests of many people. We need space and recreational facilities to sustain a healthy mind and body for the future of the community. In 2011 the National Planning Policy Framework para. 5.17 said there was a shortage of public open space in Portchester and this has not changed. This is an unsound draft plan to include grade 1 & 2 agricultural land when other sites of less quality have been discounted eg site 3017, 3109, 3036, 1341. The destruction of best and most versatile land, agricultural grade 1 & 2 in Romsey Ave would be contory to para 112 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). This land is used to grow crops to feed people and offers employment during various times of the year. Site HA5 as a residential allocation is unacceptable and inconsistent with NPPF and needs to be removed from the Draft Fareham Local Plan 2036. This site is a natural space adjacent to Portsmouth Harbour where the loss of feeding grounds for wading birds and especially Brent Geese would be another example of limiting nature and the suitable habitat. The birds use this site away from the public open space to feel safe to feed. The natural British wildlife in this space is abundant such as deer, badger, fox, wading birds, geese, slowworms, birds of prey. This housing development would not support the wildlife it would destroy it. If Fareham Borough Council had achieved the housing allocations of previous years and had not been incompetent implementing this policy sites such as HA4 and HA5 would not need to be in the Draft local plan. Fareham Borough Council need to build homes for single living, first time buyer, single parent homes, an older population, not five bedroom detached properties. Build for the future with sustainable living to help the environment and the welfare of the people. Build for a community not numbers. Housing design is not sustainable eg solar panels, water saving devices, public space. Types and design of properties not being shown to achieve national trends of smaller families, single ownership, elderly population. Why do we have to put people in blocks and not small plots of housing. Site HA5 is unsound and should be removed from the Draft Fareham Local Plan 2036. There has been no road improvement on the A27 to improve the movement of traffic at any of the main roundabouts. Pollution levels will be greatly increased and the increase of traffic along roads such as Beaulieu Ave, Hatherley Crescent will cause severe risk to children / public on roads never designed to take such dense number of cars. The possibility of the Emergency Services attending properties in this area will be greatly compromised. Site 3008 – land south of Longfield Ave Fareham has all the criteria for development but was not put into Draft plan – no grade 1 agricultural land – suitable infrastructure including roads, school, health – no environmental impact – keeps local gap Other sites more suitable in the local draft plan would be Swanwick 3017, Locks Heath 3036, Sarisbury 3109, Titchfield 3060.
PO16
Romsey Road is being compared to Cranleigh Road as the same it isn't: Cranleigh: Grade 2 land, uncultivated,120 homes, access through Cornaway Lane. Romsey: Grade1 land,actively cultivated for +40 years, 228 homes, access onto a tiny road in a residential street. No provision of thought for infrastructure: Roads: cannot be altered or expanded. Schools: full. GPs: full. Parking: where will Romsey residents and surrounding streets in particular Beaulieu Avenue park?
PO16
In 2011 Portchester was deemed manageable to take an extra 60 homes. In 2017 Portchester is being deemed acceptable to take an extra 700 homes. There is no provision for any further infrastructure. Roads are full. The Romsey site is being proposed to have its only access through a small residential street. What housing site can you name that has entrances through small residential roads? Brent Geese is deemed uncertain on this site and is actively cultivated land and has been for 40+ years.
PO16
Infrastructure has not been thought of- there is no provision in place. The roads are full. Traffic monitoring was done in half term! Residents of Romsey and Beaulieu park on the road. If you propose to yellow line it where do you think we will park. Air pollution-no stations for testing in Portchester. Noise pollution
SO32
Uncertain for Brent Geese Small unreasonable access through a residential street Schools/GPs full to bursting Safety for residents & school children
Postcode not provided
Uncertain for Brent Geese GP and schools full Increased traffic +500 extra cars through a tiny access road onto a residential street
SO32
This site is being pushed through only because Cranleigh Road has been accepted as suitable for housing- Cranleigh Road was accepted on a technicality. Romsey avenue is being classed as the same spot the difference: Cranleigh Road: Grade 2 land,4.56 space,120 homes, no Brent geese, not cultivated land. Romsey Avenue: Grade 1 land.12.65 space,228 homes, uncertain Brent geese, cultivated + 40 years and is still now! Air pollution; there is no stations in Portchester to monitor this with the closest station to test PN2.5 in Southampton! In 2011 Portchester was deemed manageable for a further 60 houses. 6 years later it is deemed manageable for a further 700- anyone can see this is totally flawed. There can be no provision of any infrastructure to the roads, schools, GP practices, retail and recreation- how can it when the village is already full???
PO16
This site is Grade 1 agriculturally cultivated land and has been for 40+ years. This site is uncertain for Brent Geese. This sites only access is through a tiny side road onto an already busy residential street with many existing houses that already have driveways for 1 car parking on the street. Where do you propose for us to park our vehicles?? there are no air pollution testing stations in Portchester. The nearest PN2.5 testing station is in Southampton. With community spaces and open spaces already limited this site will have a detrimental affect on its residents, wildlife and current infrastructure.
PO16
The land south of Romsey Avenue is grade 1 & 2 agricultural land classification. Central government rules are 'you should protect the best and most versatile land' which Romsey Avenue is. Poorer quality land in the area I.E. Swanwick (site 3017) and Stubbington (site 1341) should have been allocated but have been passed over which demonstrates the local plan 'fails' that sites have not been subjected to a robust sequential test and is unsound. The loss of land would be devastating to local wildlife including Brent Geese and Wading birds using the land as it is close to the Creek. In your local 'in touch' mag you used to say we need to save 'the strategic gap' between Portchester and Fareham so not to become an urban sprawl, we notice there is no mention of the strategic gap in your latest mag. Have you already made up your mind to build? The traffic between the Delme and Cornaway Lane is very busy now let alone if this development goes ahead, it will become very dangerous aswell at the junction entering Beaulieu Avenue from Fareham (A27) with this development to access the housing site HA5. The two way movement of traffic along Beaulieu Avenue, Romsey Ave and our road Hatherley Crescent will be very dangerous, Hatherley Crescent will become a main road making it dangerous for the children walking to and from local school's Wicor and Cams. THE schools are full THE doctors are full SO THE LOCAL DRAFT PLAN IS UNSOUND.
PO16
I question that Romsey Avenue is being compared to Cranleigh Road site. Cranleigh Road was approved due to a technicality because FBC messed the figures up over the 5 year land supply. Romsey Avenue is being pigeon-holed as the same type of land and it couldn't be more different: Cranleigh is grade 2 land of 5356 space for 120 houses. This land has been left dormant for many years and also has sufficient access onto the main road. Romsey is grade 1 land 12.65 space for 228+ houses. This land has been cultivated for 40+ years with Brent Geese landing here as uncertain. Romsey Avenue is a full to capacity residential street that simply cannot cope with 500+ vehicles.There is no provision or any mention from FBC of any infrastructure measures that will allow this site to be feasible. Romsey Avenue is a well established school run to both Wicor Primary and Cam Hill School. The amount of foot and vehicle traffic is already very busy. Note that you took monitoring traffic measures during half term. I put it to you that this was done because you at FBC already know this is an unmanageable site. No amount of yellow lines, traffic lights, shaving grass verges away from our street will make this if nothing else safe. The schools, GP surgeries, retail and recreation available are all full and you have nowhere to expand any of this in Portchester. You tell me what large housing development exits & enters through a residential street?? It is ridiculous
PO16
There is no highways infrastructure to support this development, the proposed access road is tiny, the A27 road is already busy and overloaded, if traffic is turning right into Beaulieu Avenue cars would be queuing on the A27 causing long tail backs. Schools are already full, children would have to travel further afield to other schools meaning more traffic. This would mean the loss of Best Farm land, farm fields/land is the best quality grade 1 and 2. The loss of best agricultural land would be contrary to Paragraph 112 of the national planning policy framework. There are other poorer quality land that should be allocated. This land is an area which supports wildlife for many species, or which some are protected. A local gap should be created to prevent the loss of character of the area, loss of identity of Portchester. [redacted] I feel now Hatherley Crescent will become a main road. The inclusion of site JA5 as a residential allocation in the Fareham local plan 2036 is unjustified, inconsistent with national policy, unsafe and therefore unsound.
PO16
FBC should be aware that they did not have enough land supply and have made mistakes with their numbers. Romsey Avenue is plain and simply unsuitable for what is being proposed: 500+ vehicles coming through a residential street on top of vehicle already doing so.. A grade 1 field that is still actively being cultivated and has been for 40+ years. Endangerment of wildlife. This site is 'uncertain' for Brent Geese. Noise and air pollution is a certainty for increase. Roads will be turned into car parks with nowhere possible to make them free flowing. The character of Protchester Village will be take away forever. The detrimental impact on Portchester. Residents will be put in real danger. The safety of school children will be at risk. Romsey Avenue is a very busy through route for Wicor Primary School. Note your traffic monitoring was carried out as you well know in a half term so your results will have been incorrect!
PO16
Children are the future and decisions for us. I walk down the lane and look across a field not a monstrosity. I see dear, foxes and bats all different birds visit. Our school is full and walking to school is scary with the amount of cars there are now. In the future we need to be happy. What would you prefer? Bricks or branches, dragonfly or drains, corn or concrete take a chance or take the blame, do not build on Romsey filed it will be gone forever. our schools are full. the roads are to busy and the doctors and hospital are at bursting point. To many cars will result in danger or even death if you continue to build houses that we do not need in the numbers you are trying to put in Portchester. my pictures show our dear and our migrating birds. If you build on our field you will be destroying animals and there natural habitat. You should not be allowed to do this. We need farm agricultural land for our crops and our food.
PO16
I am putting in writing my objection to the proposed development on the land of Romsey Avenue. I believe the land should continue to be used for farming. Over 200 properties is likely to put over 400 cars in a quiet residential area where children and parents walk to two local schools. This puts them in an unacceptable level of danger and will add traffic congestion and pollution detrimental to local residents and passes by. Too many cars queue going down towards Delme roundabout in Fareham by Cams school and more cars will make this problem worse. Getting along Romsey Avenue and trying to get out of Bealieu Avenue in the mornings is already an issue. I would like you to reconsider this development.
Postcode not provided
The field that has been submitted for the building of new housing has been use continuously farming and is classed as grades 1 & 2 and would be contrary to para 1 12 of the national Planning Policy Framework, there is poorer quality land in Swanwick(3017) and Stubbington (1341) why have these been passed over for Romsey? There is a lot of wild life in the field and it is a feeding ground for Brent Geese and waders close to Portsmouth Harbour SPA would be contrary to para 113 of the NPPF. Land with relatively little ecological value is Swanwick(3017) Sarisbury(3109 Locks Heath (3036 Titchfield (3060) and Stubbington (1341) has been passed over. This shows that sites have not been subjected to a robust sequential test. There would be an increase in traffic through Beaulieu Av, Romsey Ave and onto the A27. This is already a massive issue at certain times of the day. There is parking on residential roads and due to many houses not having drives. When queuing to turn right into Bealieu from the A27 there is only room for 3 ars max. this would cause major problems with traffic flow. Bealieu and Romsey are not geared up for substantial increase traffic especiall potentially 500 cars plus. The lack of facilities in Portchester will be a huge problem. There are not enough appointments in Doctor surgeries in the area currently this would be a massive problem with an extra 200 plus houses and would create up to 800 extra patience. School places are already at an all time high more housing will further impact this contrary to para 72 National Planning Policy Framework this already compromised with the Cranleigh Road development. Submission: The inclusion of site HA5 as a residential allocation is unjustified and inconsistent with national planning (especially paragraphs 7,72,73,112 &113) so the draft plan is unsound
PO16
I am putting in writing my objection to the proposed development on the land of Romsey Avenue. I believe the land should continue to be used for farming. Over 200 properties is likely to put over 400 cars in a quiet residential area where children and parents walk to two local schools. This puts them in an unacceptable level of danger and will add traffic congestion and pollution detrimental to local residents and passes by. Too many cars queue going down towards Delme roundabout in Fareham by Cams school and more cars will make this problem worse. Getting along Romsey Avenue and trying to get out of Bealieu Avenue in the mornings is already an issue. I would like you to reconsider this development.
PO16
I am writing to object to the land behind Romsey Avenue being developed for housing. It seems ridiculous to stop farming and build houses that will spew cars onto a quiet residential area that has parents and children walking to schools. The junction of Beaulieu Avenue to the main road can take minutes to leave with poor visibility to the right with children walking to Cams School. I believe this development would place too much strain on the local roads leading to more air pollution and a risk of more traffic congestion and accidents.
PO16
Wanting to build 225 odd homes at [redacted] Romsey Avenue does not make sense at all. How can a tiny access road be used for such a development. Romsey Ave and Beaulieu Avenue can be terrible to pass at the best of times. You plan to build right on someone's front door effectively. How can this be right why have you discounted more appropriate sites??? The area will already struggle with the traffic that your technicality failing on Cranleigh Road will create and now Romsey- Really you cannot be serious. At no point did the Cranleigh inspector mention or allow you to think that you can give up the Romsey field. THEY ARE NOT THE SAME. I am disgusted that Portchester is taking such a big chunk of housing. It has not been spread through the Borough why is this???? Whose Borough's are not conveniently being touched??? There are so so many wrongs as to why Romsey Avenue should not be in your draft local plan. You failed us as a Council for making sure huge mistakes on your 5 year land supply. CRANLEIGH being the scapegoat. UNSOUND PLAN
SO31
Ludicrous idea to allow 225+ houses to be built on grade 1-2 agricultural land. How can you allow this to happen after your negligence in the Cranleigh Road saga cost us this land. Your draft local plan is unsound. Do the decent thing and build on brown field
PO2
Paragraph 5.17 of core stategy (2011) " there are parts of the Borough with shortages of open spaces, particularly in Fareham, Stubbington and Portchester" ! Agricultural land of Grade 1 & 2 in combination with 'uncertain' status for Brent geese feeding grounds in support of the Portsmouth Harbour Special Policy Area. Any soundness test in line with NPPF will show the Romsey Avenue site as unsound. No infrastructure is planned to help improve the area in relation to building 700 homes in this area. 225 planned for Romsey Ave. " It's up to HCC Highways" is a poor weak answer from a poor planning team at FBC. Take responsibility and kick this from the local Plan.
PO4
Our field is a lovely site with a lot of nature to be seen. However if they build on it all the wonderful animals, birds, butterflies and insects will be gone. There will be a massive influx of cars causing more pollution in our air. Schools will be full. Traffic wil be worse e.g Gosport traffic and less places people can walk dogs and activities people do commonly.
PO16
The local plan should assume that top quality agricultural land is given high significance. It seems that the loss of the Cranleigh appeal has been taken into account as being a reason to assume development of adjoining fields. This is a false premiss. An appeal is different to a local plan, which must take government planning guidelines into account from the beginning. The appeal inspector allowed the appeal on the grounds of the site being small and of lower significance, the land was unused scrub and the council's lack of a 5-year land supply. He also said that allowing that appeal should not mean that adjoining sites are therefore vulnerable to development. There is a major difference in the way planning appeals and local plans are determined. The assumptions made by the council in its site allocation options statement are beyond parody., and appear to have zero relevance to the real world. I wonder whether qualified people were used to create these plans. There are certailnly good grounds for concluding that the local plan is not sound. 1.To provide good quality and sustainable housing for all Developing Romsey Ave site will have a strong positive effect on this objection++ 2. To conserve and enhance built and cultural history Developing Romsey Ave site will have no or neutral effect on this objective 0 3. To conserve and enhance the character of the landscape Developing Romsey Ave site will have a likely positive effect on this objection+? ?what? farm field v. housing estate 4. To promote accessibility and encourage travel by sustainable means Developing Romsey Ave site will have a likely positive + ?what? No school places no infrastructure, existing traffic jams 5. To minimise carbon emissions and promote adaption to climate change Developing Romsey Ave site will have a strong positive effect on this objective++ ? what? it takes a gallon of petrol to negotiate to Fareham 6. To minimise air, water light and noise pollution Developing Romsey Ave site will have a strong positive effect on this objective ++ ?what? See 3 above 7. To conserve and enhance biodiversity Developing Romsey Ave site will have an uncertain or mixed effect on this objective+/-Total and negative destroys valuable wild life 8. To conserve and manage natural resources (water, land, minerals and agricultural land, materials Developing Romsey Ave site will have a likely adverse effect on this objective-should be 3 negatives 9. To strengthen the local economy and provide accessible jobs available to residents of the borough Developing Romsey Ave site will have no or neutral effect on this objective 0 ?what? Jobs are at Lee on Solent, Portsmouth & Gosport 10. To enhance the vitality and viability of centres and respect the settlement hierarchy ?what? Developing Romsey Ave site will have no or neutral effect on this objective 0 Destroys local gap 11. To create a healthy and safe community Developing Romsey Ave site will have a strong positive effect on this objective ++ ?what ? Pollution, traffic, no school places no Doctor appointments. Ruins existing quality of life for residents
PO16
My objections are:- 1) The planning committee is offering this site for development without taking into consideration the land quality – the proposed Romsey Avenue development is made up of the best quality agricultural land – grades 1 and 2 – which has been farmed continuously for corn, maize for more than 40 years. This directly contravene paragraph 112 of the National Planning Policy Framework "Local planning authorities should take into account the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, local planning authorities should seek to uses areas of poorer quality land. Where significant development of agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, local planning authorities should seek to use areas of poorer quality land in preference to that of a higher quality. If the population is predicted to grow, then we will need all the high quality agricultural land for food production, be it directly or indirectly. Once the best land is built on, it is lost forever. We all, this include Fareham Borough Council members of the Planning Committee, need to do our best to reduce our carbon footprint. Keeping agricultural land for the purpose it is designed for will result in sourcing more food importation. As far as I can ascertain, the land at the proposed Romsey Avenue site is the only grade 1 agricultural land included in the Local Plan. The appeal inspector who dealt with the disastrous decision of Cranleigh Road, had made a clear and direct comment that "no housing development including gardens and roads shall take place to the west of the hedgerow running north-south through the site". Surely this must be adhered to, otherwise questions have to be asked as to the purpose of the existence to the appeal inspectorate. There are a number of sites consisting of poorer quality land, namely 017 – Swanwick, site 3109 – Sarisbury, site 3036 – Locksheath, site 3060 – Titchfield and site 1341 – Stubbington. I strongly believe these sites should have been allocated but have been passed over. It is my conviction that the Local Plane as it stands fails to demonstrate that all sites have been subjected to robust sequential test and the proposed site HA5 should be removed from the Local Plan. 2) The proposed number of dwellings planned for Romsey Avenue will directly result in increased traffic on A27 and roads leading to it, namely White Hart Lane, Beaulieu Avenue, The Thicket, Condor Avenue, Birdwood Grove, Sheerwater Avenue, Downend Road as already at present there are long delays in vehicles joining the A27 traffic from these roads. Should the proposed development go ahead it will without any doubt cause significant capacity issues with the A27. Currently, between 16:30 – 18:15 the traffic is often at standstill. I regularly travel from Romsey Avenue to Fareham and the journey from Beaulieu Avenue to the Roundabout Hotel roundabout takes anything between 20 – 35 minutes, a journey covering just 1 mile. I have witnessed several road rage incidents, safety issues and the queueing traffic has detrimental impact on the air quality. Fareham Borough Council is already in trouble for the air quality around the Gosport Road/Western Road interchange and the local plane as it stands will increase the pollution far beyond the current boundaries. To put more cars on this stretch of road is unimaginable and insane without major improvements to the current infrastructure. I am aware that the traffic in Romsey Avenue was monitored during a short 2 week period in October. This was carried out without any thought and I can only assume it was purely and exercise for the council to put a "tick" on their records that they have tried to establish the size of the current problem around Romsey Avenue and Beaulieu Avenue. The survey was conducted during a period of school half term when the traffic is reduced. I question the obtained results as in no way do they represent the true volume of traffic. 3) I urge the committee members to seriously consider the impact the proposed housing will have on the local wildlife and the loss of their habitat. The committee members must act responsibly and do their utmost to protect the local animals and birds. Not only because the proposed site is close to the Portsmouth harbour Site of Special Protection Area, but the proposal is contrary to paragraph 113 of the National Planning Policy Framework "Local planning authorities should set criteria based policies against which proposals for any development on affecting protected wildlife or geodiversity sites or landscape areas will be judged. Distinctions should be made between the hierarchy of international, national and locally designated sites, so that protection is commensurate with their status and gives appropriate weight to their importance and the contribution that they make to wider ecological networks". Regardless of the above, common sense must prevail, our wildlife, be it foxes, badgers, deer, brent geese – all; enrich our lives and the environment around us. WE ALL, including the members of the planning committee have the responsibility to preserve our nature and have duty to not rob our children and have the opportunity to enjoy the nature around us. We are only caretakers of the area where we live and do not have the right to destroy the environment during our lifetime without any thought of the future generation. Other sites as mentioned above, specifically site 3017, 3109, 3060 3036 and 1341 should have been allocated but have been passed over. I must again stress the Local plan fails to demonstrate that sites have been subjected to robust sequential test and site HA5 Romsey Avenue should be removed from the Local Plan. 4) Portchester area lacks sufficient recreation facilities, to include site HA5 Romsey Avenue confirms the actions of Fareham Borough Council directly contravenes paragraph 73 of the National Planning Policy Framework "Access to high quality open spaces and opportunities for sport and recreation can make an important contribution to the health and well-being of communities. Planning policies should be based on robust and up-to-date assessments of the needs for open space, sports and recreation facilities and opportunities for new provision. The assessments should identify specific needs and quantitative or qualitative deficits or surpluses of open space, sports and recreational facilities in the local area. Information gained from the assessments should be used to determine what open space, sports and recreational provision is required". Already, in 2011, the Fareham Core Strategy acknowledged there is a shortage of public open space in Portchester. The council reassured to community that Portchester would not be subject to significant housing provision before 2026. I would like to know what has significantly changed for the Council to go against this. 5) Sean Woodward during the open meeting on 9 October 2017 at 18:00 hours said "I categorically state that Welborne will happen and will provide around 6000 housing units". Fareham Today also clearly states that Welborne will happen. The fact that the development is not underway shows the weakness of the committee and its inability to deliver its promises. The Office of National Statistics predicts the increase in population in Fareham area of 8000 by 2017. The average family size according to ONS is 2.3 which means that around 3500 housing units will take care of this population increase. Even if we acknowledge that there is an increase trend in single occupations and reduce the average family to 1.3, 6000 housing units in Welborn will suffice. Rather than looking for additional sites Sean Woodward and his committee shouldbe more assertive with the developers and get Welborne underway now. It clearly demonstrates he and the committee members are unable to act up to their responsibilities and their suitability of remaining in the office must be now under threat. 6) The current situation at the local GP surgery is less than satisfactory, patients often have to wait two weeks before they can be seen by a doctor. Although the council is directly responsible for this area, they cannot ignore it and must cooperate with the relevant agencies who are responsible for providing medical care to the residents of Portchester. The councillors were elected by the community to represent them. The strong community spirit of the residents around Romsey Avenue should make the Council do all they can to encourage this and develop the even stronger bond amongst the residents. However, so far, they have failed to have any meaningful communication with the community and on the council's part there is total lack of empathy and understanding what the residents are going through. We have finite supply of land and the council must protect the existing community and its environment. If the Government imposes housing targets, which are not fulfillable, it is the members of the Council who have to speak for us and defend our position. We, the residents are not able to object to the Government direct, we totally rely on the members of FBC to represent us. They were elected by us and therefore must stand up for the community they represent and work with the Government to reach compromise. The migration figures recently published show fall in net migration and there is also question of the accuracy of the prediction relating to population growth. Local authorities should work with the Government to attract business and people to less populated parts of UK rather than try to accept the Government and try to accommodate everybody wishing to move south. That is not the answer, as I mentioned the supply of land is finite and we all must try to provide residents with enjoyment of the place where they live. I again make it clear that I urge the council to remove the proposed site
PO16
The inclusion of Romsey Avenue into your draft local plan is shameful. It goes against all government policy to build on grade1-2 agricultural land, stating this should be the last to be built on, we visit our daughter on a weekly basis and have always thought how wonderful it is to have land being used for the purpose of food growth. Portchester does not require 700 homes to be built, it cannot sustain tis amount of housing and I am appalled that you Fareham Borough Council could even include it in your plan. In 2011 you said Portchester could not take anymore that 60 houses, WHAT'S CHANGED? The loss of Cranleigh Rd was your error and you cannot allow another wrong to take place. Your draft local plan is UNSOUND and UNSUSTAINABLE. You need to go back to the drawing board on this and remove Romsey Avenue altogether
PO4
Increased traffic on the A27 junctions with significant capacity issues and repeated road safety incidents will only increase incidents and potentially create fatalities. Residential street will become congested especially around peak times (Romsey Ave, Hatherley Crescent & Beaulie Ave) and potentially become gridlocked. Schools are already oversubscribed, Primary school children will have to travel outside of the Portchester area to atten school & this in turn will create more traffic congestion whilst driving them there. The proposed local plan has rejected at least 4 other sites which would have a better infrastructure Swanwick (Site 3017) Salisbury (Site 3109) Locks Heath ( Site 3036) Stubbington (Site 1341) The land here also has relatively little ecological value.
PO16
I object to the Romsey Avenue development for the following reasons: The loss of best and most versatile agricultural land (grade 1&2) would be contrary to para.112 of national planning policy framework (NPPF). Poorer quality land in Swanwick ( site 3017) Sarisbury (site 3109) Locksheath (3036) Titchfield (3060) and Stubbington (1314) should have been allocated, but has been passed over. the local plan fails to demonstrate that site have been subjected to a robust sequential test. No highway infrastructure, overload onto the A27 you can't even get in to Fareham at the moment. Having an added 900+ cars coming out onto these roads would be ridiculous. Childrens lives will be put at risk, there are 1300 children that commute to Cams Hill school. Walking, riding having overload of traffic onto the A27 will add stress to drivers and could cause potential accidents. The tiny access that is proposed to be the entrance and exit to the development would be a danger to all residents. Wicor School children will be put at risk as many young children opt to walk and ride their bikes. Romsey Avenue filed was always part of the Councils strategic gap, which was designed to prevent the area from becoming a continuous urban sprawl. This used to be a major fact in enabling the Council to win appeals on development at the adjoining Cranleigh road site ( now lost on appeal). A local gap should now be created to prevent loss of identity of Portchester. Just because Cranleigh Road was lost, because of technicality should not provide a passport for Romsey Avenue Development.
PO16
The impact on wildlife, congestion on roads in between Wicor school and Cams Hill school , safety for children no. 1 priority. Doctors surgeries currently waiting 3 weeks for appointments. The highways will be overloaded with approximately 900 extra vehicles movements daily from the proposed development. The A27 highway is already overloaded in this area. Destruction of the top 3 quality ( grade 1 & 2 land ) farm fields for the use of one field for housing. These fields are intensively farmed at present for cereal crops. the government do not want to loose these to housing developments, Ref NPPF .
PO16
I would hate the development to happen so can it stop because I walk to school and I could get squashed PLEASE STOP!
Anonymous submission
Having lived in Romsey for more than 30 yrs and seen the huge build-up of traffic on the A27, I cannot see the possibility of properly another 500 vehicles exiting Beaulieu Ave at peak times. All vehicles using what Is, at the moment tractor access to the field is unimaginable. The number of children walking and cycling home along Beaulieu and Romsey Ave is already high. If you add proberly another four or five hundred extra vehicles, it spells a disaster waiting to happen. A lot of children will have to cross the A27 to get to schools, as Wicor primary is already over-subscribed. I realise we need more homes, but to build behind Romsey Ave would seriously disrupt and reduce the quality of life of the currant residents in the area. The Loss of top-grade farming land is surely unnecessary when there are more suitable sites available. Referring to the Urban Edge report produced for FBC To conserve and enhance the character of the landscape will have a likely positive effect What nonsense! How could that be possible anywhere? To Promote accessibility and encourage travel by sustainable means will have likely positive effect. With one small access road and the junction of Beauliue Ave with the A27! To Minimise carbon emissions will have a effect. That is with up to 1000 cars trying to access the A27, and queueing in this residential area!. To minimise air, water, Light pollution- a strong positive effect. It beggers belief that anyone could believe that building 225+ houses on farmland could do that!!! To conserve and manage natural resourses ( Land, materials and agriculture land)- a likely adverse effect. Likely?-20 odd acres of grade 1 farming destroyed forever! I fail to understand why the Newlands Farm site at Subbington is not being considered as an alternative site, with all its obvious attractions, namely:- 1 A bypass for access 2Existing roads, planned upgrades 3 A new primary school 4 Health centre 5 An 80 room care home 6 shops 7 pub 8 country park area 9 community centre with sport facilities 10 40 per cent affordable housing 11 close proximity to the new industril centre at daedlus, This lessening of travel tome to work would certainly reduce carbon emissions, I conclude that a good re-think is needed to discount what is currently a completely UNSOUND plan.
PO16
I object to the development for multiple reasons, one of which being the schools in the area that are already over subscribed. If any of the people moved to the area and wished to go to any of the schools they would have to attend schools outside of Portchester. Also some of the wildlife in the area is protected, meaning any attempt to develop the area would damage the environment. Thank you for reading this, and taking in what I have written.
PO16
I wish to object to this unsustainable development on the following grounds: 1. The location of the development being accessed through one narrow road has insufficient transport infrastructure for the number of homes. 2. Likewise, the local medical infrastructure is already over subscribed and unable to support the number of proposed dwellings, as frequently mentioned in national news. 3. And again the local education infrastructure is unable to sustain the increased populas proposed by this development. 4. Being close to Portsmouth Harbour S.P.A. It is impossible to say the development would not cause damage disruption to important wildlife in the area. I understand that sites that do not lack the infrastructure nor environmental impact, Swanwick (REF3017) Sarisbury (site 3109) Locks Heath (site 3036) Stubbington (site 1341), have already been rejected demonstrating that the proposed Romsey Avenue development lacks any merit and should be rejected also.
PO16
These are my very grave concerns on this proposed development. 1. No highways infrastructure to support this development. Tiny access which is used for parking and access to garages at the rear of 7 houses. Cars reverse into the access road regularly. 2. Highways overload with approximately 900 extra vehicle movements daily from the proposed development. The A27 highway is already overloaded in this area. 3. Schools already oversubscribed. children from 5 years will have to travel outside the Portchester area to attend schools. 4. Destruction of 3 top quality (grade 1 & 2 land) farm fields for the use of one field for housing. These fields are intensely farmed at present for cereal crops. The Government do not want to lose these areas to housing developments, ref N.P.P.F. 5.The proposed local plan has rejected at least 4 other sites which would have better infrastructure, ref Swanwick (site 3017) Sarisbury (site 3109), Locks Heath (site 3036), Stubbington (site 1341) 6. Romsey Ave field was always part of the Councils' Strategic Gap which was designed to prevent the area from becoming a continuous urban sprawl. This used to be a major factor in enabling the Council to win appeals on development at the adjoining Cranleigh Rd. site (now lost on appeal) A local Gap should now be created to prevent loss of identity of Portchester. 7. In view of the value of this site as an area which supports wildlife for many species, some of which are protected, the Council should reinstate its Coast and Countryside policy, which appears to have been inexplicably removed from the Council's Local Plans. 8. For all the above reasons, the present plan is unsafe and unsound should be reviewed. Whilst fully understanding the need for affordable housing surely the existing residents of this area should be given due consideration, especially in those nearest to the proposed site and the very narrow entrance to it. Is that safe It will instantly devalue all Romsey & Belview Ave & Hatherley Crescent, plus make them impossible to sell, who would want to live there??? Please think again at the full picture.
Postcode not provided
Building on this field will cause the local community to breakdown there will be a divided community. The council should be building on peoples lives not damaging the future. Every local housing authority is required to demonstrate how it will meet an appropriate share of housing need in it's housing market area and to plan positively for delivery of sufficient new homes. To support future prosperity in this area. This site will have no positive impact on the local area, it offers no employment opportunities. In fact the development of this site would discourage local people to want to work in the Fareham area due to the A27 traffic, therefore Fareham Town Centre would loose potential income. The proposed local plan has rejected at least 4 other sites which would have better infrastructure ref; Swanwick (3017) Sarisbury (3109) Locks Heath (3036) Stubbington (1341). For all of these reasons the present plan is unsafe and should be reviewed, this plan is unsound.
PO16
I object to the above for the following reason- This area supports wildlife for many species, some of which are protected work on the area of land adjacent to Wicor primary school has already been recently started taking land vital to wildlife. where does this wildlife go? The council does not have a coast and countryside policy which for some reason has been removed from the councils plans which I find very distrurbing and it must be resinstated. Damage to wildlife is also inacceptable. The schools are already over subscribed, there is now where to place the extra children in the area, young children will have to travel outside the Porchester area which is not acceptable. The Loss of breeding grounds for Brent Geese and waders close to the Portsmouth Harbour SPA would be contrary to para 113 of the NDPF. There are other sites in the local area with comparatiuley little ecological value(swanwick,salisbury, Lock heath Titchfield & subbington) but these have been passed over. Movement along Romsey Ave, Beauliue Av and the small road leading down to the proposed entrance to the development. Parking around Wicor primary school is horrendous when the children leave school in the afternoon. should more children be taken on at wicor school this will only become worse. As a parent myself who had a child at the school we many times has near misses with cars mounting the pavements to try and find a space to park while they pick up their child ( we always walk) or pulling out into the road into the paths of parentsnd children, more cars more chance of a serious accident. Increased pressure on local medical facilities- this seems to be the trend, to not seem to care about peoples health and well being, It is already almost impossible to get an appointment to see a doctor as there are not any slots available. There is no highway infrastructure to support this development. A very small access road which is currently used for parking and access of 7 housed. Reference NPPF, the government do not want to loose areas used for farming to housing developments do this con NPPF
PO16
SHLAA ref.207 'Romsey Avenue, Portchester' records that its Agricultural Land Classification is 46% ALC Grade 1, 53% ALC Grade 2. Detailed scrutiny of the SHLAA return show that several sites with lower agricultural quality (eg Site 1341 in Stubbington, Site 3017 in Swanwick, Site 3.36 in Locks Heath, Site 3060 in Titchfield and site 3109 in Sarisbury) have been discounted, while site 207 has been allocated for residential development. It is apparent that housing allocation HA5 off Romsey Avenue has been heavily influenced by the approach recorded by Inspector Baird in his determination of the 'Cranleigh Road' appeal in August 2017 – at paragraph 28 of his decision, he acknowledged that " …the use of poorer quality land should be used in preference to that of a higher quality ie apply a sequential approach …Here, given the appeal site extends to some 5.5ha, this proposal is not, in my view, a significant development where the sequential approach is engaged". There are two reasons why Inspector Baird's decision does not inevitably lead to the HA5 allocation – the Romsey Avenue site is much larger than the appeal site and thereby a 'significant development'; and the preparation of a local plan enables comparisons to be made between sites, whereas the appeal process does not. The 'Key Strategic Priorities' set down in paragraph 2.7 of the draft Fareham Local Plan should recognise the need for a sequential approach to the development of the best and most versatile agricultural land and, as housing allocation HA5 Romsey Avenue has not resulted from the application of such a sequential approach, it should be deleted.
PO16
schools already over subscribed, children from 5 yrs old will have to travel outside the Portchester area to attend school. The proposed local plan has rejected at least 4 other sites which would have better infrastructure, ref swanwick (site 3017) Salisbury (3109) Locl heath (3036) Subbington (1341). In view of the value of this its as an area which supports wildlife for many species, some of which are protected, the council should reinstate its coast and countryside policy which appears to have been inexplicable removed from the council local plan.
PO16
1. The council used the loss of adjoining Cranleigh Road appeal as a reason for development of prime farm land at Romsey Ave. This approach in incorrect. The Inspector of Cranleigh Road allowed the appeal because: a) It had become unused scrubland b)The site was small and of limited significance c) The Council had not identified a 5 year land supply. 2.Romsae Ave is totally different: This is a local plan, where land quality has a high significance. Loss of field also means the loss of 2 other fields of equal size A local plan is totally different from an appeal and the Council is often to criticism that it did not follow government criteria. Losing the Cranleigh appeal did not mean a free for all. 3.The local plan site allocation options were so laughable that it would qualify for TV. It stated that Romsey Ave development would have a positive effect on landscape, and would minimize carbon emission's. Look at the landscape Look at the A27 and Beaulie Ave This is a sick joke.
PO16
Romsey Ave field was always part of the councils strategic plan which was designed to prevent the area from becoming a continuous urban sprawl. This used to be a major factor in enabling the council to win appeals on development at the adjoining Cranleigh road site. A local gap should now be created to prevent loss of identity of Portchester. In View of the value of this site as a area which supports wildlife for many species, some of which are protected, the council should reinstate its coast and countryside policy,which appears to have been inexplicitly removed from the councils local plan.. No highways infrastructure to support this development,. tiny access which used for parking a=nd access to garages at the rear of 7 houses , cars reverse into the access road Regularly.
PO16
I object to this because for the following reason. The location of the development being accessed through a tiny narrow road. has no infrastructure for the amount of cars added (900+). The development would divide the community, impact on Wicor school already over subscribed . Local Medical practice and doctor surgeries have up to A 3/6 week waiting time. Wildlife for many species , some of which are protected would be lost forever. Loss of feeding ground for Brent Geese and waders. This draft plan is unjustified and inconsistent with national policy so the draft is UNSOUND. The council should not be development on agriculture land. The loss of wellborn school not give reason for this site to be in the local plan. Please review your site again this should not be excepted because the speed of the development is in place
PO16
1. I am very concerned about the loss of good agricultural land, why was the Titchfiled site not allocated? 2. I am concerned about the wildlife in particular the Brent Geese and Waders. 3. increased traffic which is already too much, effect on health as well as restrictions on roads ( Beaulie, Hatherley & Romsey). 4. Lack of recreation facilities. 5. No room in schools and medical Centre's. This development is unsound on the above points.
PO16
1. Loss of grade one agricultural land - when there are lesser grade sites available. 2. Loss of feeding ground to Brent Geese and waders when there are other sites available? 3. Increase of traffic on A27 4. Lack of recreation facilities. 5. No school places and medical Centre's can't cope at present. Development is unsound
PO16
Housing: Proposed development will not provide homes for affordable housing Open Space: I am more than happy with the open space the filed provides with any housing. Natural Environment: Strategic gap required to keep Portchester as a village. This is the last pocket of true wild life in Portchester. It seems quite obvious that the filed has been ploughed later in the year to coincide with Brent Geese migration, I also hear rumors of Deer hunting & poisoning of wild life. Maybe the Council should be investigating if this is a criminal act. Transport: The traffic on the south side of the M27 is at breaking point as it is, maybe the planners should use there common sense and only build on the North side of the M27. There's plenty of fields on the North side. Other - Air Quality: I Suffer froma chronic lung disease which would be affected by poor air quality, will I need to move home for the sake of my health & who would foot the bill?
PO16
No infrastructure to support this development. Strategic gap needed to remain a village, not just a part of Fareham. If built it should be bungalows to cater for the people of Portchester. Transport a major issue getting out of Portchester at peak times.
SO50
I couldn't believe my ears when I was told that Fareham Council was even considering putting houses on the field south of Romsey Avenue. I thought what crazy people are these? The traffic is almost at a standstill now without adding hundreds more cars to the very narrow roads of Beaulieu Avenue and Romsey Avenue, where only one car at a time can pass. I walk to and from school along Beaulieu Avenue from Romsey Avenue every day, and it's a wonder a school kid isn't killed already. You add hundreds more cars trying to get through! I hope you realise a dead child's blood will be on your hands and conscience forever. It does make me wonder if there is money in it for the councillors, maybe a back hand from the builders, because building here on the Romsey site defies logic. No one with a human heart would even consider allowing this. Not only are children's lives at risk, but all the wild life that lives on the field. We have badgers and foxes actually come into our garden from the field, and we constantly see slowworms, and watch the deer in the field. We love watching the bats and Brent geese. What sort of future are you planning for us young people, when you are even considering taking our wonderful open farmland away, and ruining it forever? Once it is built on, it is gone forever, and we will grow up realising what crazy people planned our future in this area. You will go down in history as leaders that didn't think through these issues carefully. Please reconsider this mental idea, and take Romsey Avenue site off your plan, and build houses where the roads are easier, and kids can go to a local school instead of having to be driven miles and miles away.
PO16
Appendix to comments already made. It has come to my notice that there are other planning applications in the pipeline ie. Newlands Farm. Access is already there and there are proposed facilitiesfor care home, shops, public house and public space. it is close to Daedalus New Industrial Complex and Enterprise Zone for job prospects. There is NO strategic gap issue. NO agricultural land issue and NO environmental issues regarding wildlife therefore Newlands Farm is more sustainable than Romsey Avenue. There are none of these facilities for Romsey Avenue and those that are already under pressure which makes the Romsey Avenue application unsound.
PO16
I would like to let you know of my objection to the proposal to include site HA5 Romsey Ave in the local plan. The site proposed has been used for farming,. It is important we retain this site for agriculture because it consist of the best quality land grade1 and 2. The national planning policy frame work, paragraph 112 states that local authorities should seek poorer quality land in preference of higher quality land. There are other sites that should have been allocated (site 3017 Swanwick,3019 Sarisbury 3036 Locks heath,3060 Titchfield, 1341 Subbington) but these have been passed over. The local plans dose not demonstrate that sites have been subjected to a robust sequential test. The local GP surgery cannot cope with the numbers of patients it has on its book and I am often distressed when I have to wait as long as two weeks before I can see a doctor. The extra houses will put the surgery under considerable pressure and patients Health may suffer due to the delay in receiving medical help. What price can you justify for suffering?. The local schools are full and choice of schools is constantly reduced. I see many young children walking or riding to school on their bicycles and have has several incidents where the children escaped injury caused by traffic. The new development if it should go head will result in extra traffic and it is likely this will result in accidents to children. Surely even 1 child that gets hurt is too high price to pay. Even that the council is not directly responsible for provision of medical care and education, they must not ignore these crucial factores. The site has been a home to numerous species of native wildlife and migrating birds. to Take the habits away from deer, foxes, badgers, rabbits, migrating bird such as Brent geese would be unforgivable. How can we justify our actions to the future generations? Instead of destroying habitat we should be doing out utmost to treasure and hold onto what we have. When Cranleigh Road lost its appeal, the inspector stated that no development including roads a7 gardens should take place to the west of the hedgerow that runs north to south through the site. The committee should be putting its efforts in defending this condition rather that resigning the land to future development. There are other sites of relatively low ecological value should have been allocated but have been passed over (site 3017.3109,6036,3060,1341). I believe to include site HA5 Romsey Ave in the loac;l plan is unjustified and inconsistent with the national planning policy framework, namely paragraphs 7,72,73,112 and 113. The draft is therefore unsound and site HA5 should be removed from it.
PO16
I am concerned about the air quality and the detrimental effect it will have on my family & the people who live in Portchester. This is due to the increase in traffic the development will bring & the pollution from the traffic and construction. A family member in this area suffers from a lung disease & myself an autoimmune disease would be more susceptible to illness. Traffic congestion with the cars will only add to this. Destruction of farm fields for the use of housing, these fields have been intensively farmed at present for cereal crops. These should be kept especially now with the proposals from Brexit negotiations. This site supports wildlife of many species, some of which are protected. Brent Geese & Waders use this site along with Deer, which are seen regularly and Badgers.
PO16
1. No highways infrastructure to support this development. Tiny access road at present use for parking and access to rear of 7 houses. Cars reverse into road regularly. 2. Highways overload with approximately 900 extra movements daily with this development. The main A27 highway is already overloaded in this area. 3. Schools oversubscribed at present without the addition of this development. Children from under 5 years old will have to travel outside the Portchester area to attend schools.
1. This development on one large cornfield at present intensively farmed on Grade 1 and Grade 2 agricultural land will destroy farming on 2 adjoining fields, removing another 14 hectares of prime farmland. The government does not want to lose these areas to housing development. 2. The proposed plan has rejected at least 4 other sites which would have better prospects than this site. Ref. Swanwick (site 3017) Sarisbury (site 3019), Locks Heath (site 3036) and Stubbington (site 1341).
PO16
1. Romsey Avenue was always part of the Council's strategic gap which was designed to prevent the area becoming a continuous urban sprawl. This used to be a major factor in enabling the council to win appeals on adjoining Cranleigh Road site (now lost on appeal). A local gap should now be created to prevent loss of identity for Portchester. 2. In view of the value of this site as an area which supports wildlife for many species, some of which are protected, the council should reinstate its coast and countryside policy, which appears to have been inexplicably removed from the council's plan. 3. In its present form, the council's plan is not sound and should be sent back for review, and reappear without Romsey Avenue, which should be protected, as it always was.
PO16
Objections to proposed development on land rear of Romsey Avenue [redacted], and in that time the field behind us has been farmed with potatoes, cabbage, sweet corn, rape, but mainly with cereal crops. It has been a delight over the years to watch the changes during the seasons: the sowing, growing, harvesting, ploughing and hedge-cutting. Romsey Ave has always been a desirable residential road, with properties that rarely change hands. It has been a delightful place to live. In the "Sustainability Appraisal and Strategic Environmental Document" produced by "Urban Edge", the following statement were made: 1)To conserve and enhance the character of the landscape-developing the Romsey Ave site will have a likely positive effect on this objective On the contrary. The character of the landscape will be ruined. This land has been found to be the best quality agricultural land-in fact the best quality agricultural in the Borough. 2) To minimise carbon emissions, promote adaptions to climate change. Developing Romsey Ave site will have a strong positive effect on this objective. On the contrary. With the building of 225+ new houses proposed on the site, and probably double that number of vehicles, carbon emissions will increase substantially, especially with the traffic queuing to move on the already busy roads. 3)To minimise air, water, light and noise pollution. Developing Romsey Ave site will have a strong positive effect on this objective. On the contrary. With all the houses and extra people, this will have the opposite effect on pollution of air, water light and noise. 4)To create a healthy and safe community. Developing Romsey site will have a strong positive effect on this objective. On the contrary. The health centres and surgeries in the area already too busy, and getting a GP appointment can take weeks. As we all know, QA Hospital is already under severe pressure with the current population, without increased numbers to deal with. In addition-if this plan goes ahead-it will have a "splitting" impact on the community, with great resentment from the existing residents. Our field has been a source of delight with families of deer, foxes, and geese being regular visitors. I understand there are also badger setts, slow worms, bats and many other creatures. The loss of this habitat would be a disaster for the wildlife. This site is closer to the water than any of the other proposed sites in the local plan, and is a feeding ground for Brent geese and waders, and is therefore of great ecological value. Once this land is built on, the habitat is gone forever. The increased traffic on the A27 would be considerable-it is already quite unbearable during peak times, with tailbacks and ridiculously lengthy queues in both directions between Fareham and Portchester. Children walking or cycling to and from school will be in extreme danger from the traffic along Romsey Ave, as the only entrance/exit to the proposed site is extremely narrow, and there will be a huge amount of traffic trying to manoeuvre the small gaps between parked cars. This will be particularly horrific during the building process, with the heavy lorries, machinery etc. which will be in use. Doctors surgeries, already over-subscribed, will be pushed to breaking point. Schools in the area are already over-subscribed, and places will have to be found in schools further afield. This presents huge problems for parents with children attending different schools, and particularly for those parents who are working. The local Wicor Primary School will not be able to take the children from Cranleigh and Romsey Ave sites if the development goes ahead. Air pollution in Portchester is already poor, and there are no monitoring stations in the area. There are no surplus jobs in the vicinity, so more travelling will have to be done to reach employment in other areas, again causing more traffic problems on the A27. If there is ever an incident/accident on the M27, this affects the A27 considerably, with the additional diverted traffic. This is quite a regular event. With the Cranleigh Road appeal being lost-with the loss of more agricultural land-it would seem particularly important not to lose any more in the area. This appeal was lost not by the fact the inspector thought it desirable to build on high grade agricultural land, but because Fareham Borough Council failed to have a 5-year land supply in operation. In fact, permission for the Cranleigh Road development to take place is a good reason why the Romsey Ave site should NOT therefore be included in the Plan. The impact this would have on the lack of infrastructure would be disastrous. It would seem that FBC have not complied with the sequential test when choosing sites for proposed development. National Policy says that best quality agricultural land should not be used when there is lower grade agricultural land and brownfield sites available. It is hard to understand why other seemingly more suitable sites have been excluded from the Plan. The Newlands Farm Site in Stubbington, for instance, appears to have all the necessary viability for development. It has good existing roads, including planned bye-pass and upgrades, and the development plans include good infrastructure such as:- a new primary school, new health centre, retail units, 80-room care home, pub, country park area, and a community centre with sports facilities. There will also be employment opportunities at the Daedalus business centre-short distance away-therefore cutting down on travel time road pollution. Additionally, 40 per cent of the homes are being offered as "affordable housing". It would seem an ideal site to be included in the Local Plan, hence removing the need to build on other sites where there are no plans to put additional infrastructure in place , and where the subsequent safety and lifestyle of the current residents has obviously not been considered. I therefore maintain that this plan is UNSOUND, and should be re-assessed.
PO16
Fareham Council cannot keep building in Portchester on every bit of green it can find . There is no infrastructure for more homes. Doctors/ Dentists/schools etc are already full to the brim. Any planning put in for Romsey Avenue should be rejected. Just because the land has now had approval to build in Orchard Grove it just becomes a band wagon to build on every field. Welbourne is the answer if it ever happens. The amount of council tax payers money that has been spent already and not a brick laid is ridiculous. Get Welbourne built and leave Portchester alone. I already spend up to an hour getting to Fareham in rush hour from my house in Hatherley Crescent. More houses built means more cars and especially as we have a school in Hatherley Crescent which creates huge problems twice a day more cars would create even bigger problems. As a suggestion to the school problem perhaps the land at the main entrance could be flattened and tarmacked over for cars. this would remove a lot of the cars off the road. There is plenty of land over the hill which any greedy farmer would love to sell for houses. Leave Portchester alone. Sort Welbourne once and for all.
PO16
I wont to voice my objection against site HA5 Romsey Ave being put forward for housing development. This site is made up of the best quality agriculture land -grade 1and 2 – to include it in the local plan is contrary to paragraph 112 of the national planning policy framework which states that the local authority must take into account the economic and other benefits of the best agriculture land and must seek areas of poorer quality land in preference to that of higher quality. There is a number of other poorer quality sites available to the council, such as site 3017 -Swanwick, 3019- Sarisbury,3036-Locks Heath, 1341 Subbington,3060 Titchfield. These sites seem to have been passed over without proper assessment. The local Plan does not show that sites have been subjected to a robust sequential test and site HA5, Romsey Ave should be removed from the local plan forthwith. The site HA5 is used by a variety of wildlife and play an important role as feeling ground for may migrating bird, especially Brent Geese.It is close to Portsmouth harbour, Site of special protection area and wildlife often will spill over to site HA5 from Portsmouth harbour. There is land which has much lower ecoclinal value-site 3017 -Swanwick, 3019- Sarisbury,3036-Locks Heath, 1341 Subbington,3060 Titchfield. These sites should have been allocated but instead have been passed over. As Above the local plan fails to demonstrate that the site have been subjected to as robust sequential test and site HA5 should therefore be moved from the local plan. The A27 from Porchester to Fareham is already over its capacity and the road cannot cope with the current level of traffic. The Roads around the proposed site HA5 namely Beauliue Ave and Romsey Ave cannot accommodate an more cars along the kerb would provide a serious hazard and would restrict two-way movement. Pavements over front gardens is not long-term answer as this causes drainage problems and can lead to flooding. Portchester lacks open space which the residents could enjoy for recreational use and in 2011 Fareham core strategy promised that Portchester will not be included for any development until at least 2026. Instead of looking to build more dwelling in Portcester the council should be looking at improving the recreational facilities for Portchester residents. There is known difficulty in trying to arrange to see a doctor in the surgery covering Romsey Ave,Beaulieu Ave and Hatherly crescent. This problem will be exacerbated by the proposed development of Cranleigh Rd and needs to be urgently addresses. Schools places are under pressure and the choice of school is already very reduced which is contrary to Paragraph 72 of the national Planning policy frame work. I apprecate thus is not directly the responsibility of the council, but surely you cannot ignore this. In my view, to include the site HA5 Romsey Ave is in justified an inconsistent with national policy, namely paragraphs 7,72,73,112 and 113 of the NPPF and I state the plan is unsound.
PO16
The extra traffic in Portchester from hundreds of extra homes. Will add immensely to the pollution particularly outside school as the traffic creeps down to Delme roundabout it's bad enough now. There are many sites put forward for development on the other side of Fareham which have good road systems, and room for improvement.
PO16
NHS AND MEDICAL FACILITIES [redacted]. I have loved its location and proximity to the Portchester Centre and the coastal edge. I am saddened to learn that Portchester is now targeted to be inundated by up to 2000 extra residents through the inclusion of development land in Romsey Avenue, Winham Farm and Cranleigh Road. It has been increasingly difficult to get appointments at convieneient times. Often, I have to wait up to three weeks or longer to get an appointment which causes me to get anxious. The pharmacy is always crowded and I can see that the influx of new people to the area will only make these services worse for me and for other existing residents. There is no provision in the developments to assist the already overloaded NHS system. TRAFFIC AND AIR QUALITY I see at first hand the queues along the A27 at peak times and the congestion in and out of Beaulieu Avenue/ Romsey Avenue. We are lucky enough to have off street parking, but other residents will need to dig up their front gardens if parking on the road is restricted to allow access to the new development area. This is unfair on the residents and I can see accidents occurring with the massive increase in traffic. I attended Cams Hill School and have had to negotiate the route to school and back for years. I have seen accidents occurring during this time and I can see that this is likely to get worse with the increased traffic accessing Beaulieu Avenue and Romsey Avenue. There will be deliveries and service people accessing these routes as well as the new residents. There is no more room in this area to accommodate an extra 500+ cars. I am really concerned of the thought of more CO2 emissions and poorer air quality which is bound to lead to medical problems for many vulnerable people. I have seen substantial queues towards Fareham at peak times. All static traffic pumping out toxic fumes. ALTERNATIVES TO ROMSEY ROAD Newlands farm – Ref 3008 It is unbelievable that the Executive Committee has not included this site on the Local Plan as it provides everything to support the infrastructure in that area. The proposed developer has highlighted that they will deliver; 1100 Homes on land South of Longfield Avenue Agricultural use – Grade 2 Stubbington by – pass complete 80 Bed care Home A health Centre A Primary School Retail Outlets Green spaces Integrity of the strategic gap West of Newgate Lane – Ref 3129 Another site, right in the heart of Fareham and discounted from the Local Plan by the Executive Committee is site 3129. 122 Homes Provision Farm Land Grade 3 Development could be accommodated without significant effect on landscape. Traffic links in place WILDLIFE I have seen the Brent Geese over the fields at Romsey Avenue in late summer and Autumn, when they gather for feeding and roosting before they fly south. I also note the wading birds feeding on the land. I know there are other animals that frequent these fields including birds, badgers and even Deer. These habitats should not be destroyed. Allocating these fields for development breaks the natural strategic gap exists between Portchester and Fareham. These fields adjoin the Coastal Plain which, if allowed to be developed, is lost forever. I am told also that' external forces' are at play in trying to destroy this environment now, so that any Environmental or Conservation study to be conducted will show that there is negligible interference. To deliberately frighten, poison or even exterminate these animals and their habitat is criminal and the Council must not allow this sanctuary to be destroyed by the developers. Brent Geese most definitely utilise this field and to overlook sites that have 'No Geese' status is disgraceful. The strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) for the following sites which the local plan 'Discounted'; (i) Site 1341, Stubbington 'uncertain' (ii) Site 3017, Swanwick 'No Geese' (iii) Site 3036, Locks Heath 'No Geese' (iv) Site 3060 Titchfield 'No Geese' (v) Site 3109, Sarisbury 'No Geese' FARMING LAND: I know that the fields south of Romsey Avenue have been farmed for crop growing for almost 40 years. This has always been an excellent return for the farmers who have worked there. I note that Fareham Borough Council's advisors, Urban Edge, confirmed in their comments on the spatial context of the Local Plan in February 2016 that 'Hampshire is predominantly identified as Grade 3 agricultural land (56.9%), with only 4.9% identified as Grade 2 and 0.4% as Grade 1. The fields by Romsey Avenue have been classified as Grade 1 – Why on earth have they been selected when there are again other sites, discounted with a much lower grade classification. The council has failed to assess the Romsey Avenue land correctly. STRATEGIC GAP: By including Romsey Avenue for proposed development, the Council is breaking the agreement to keep a strategic gap between communities. When we came to Portchester it really was a village area with its own identity. If this land is built on then there is one great urban sprawl from Hamilton Road to the Delme Roundabout. The Executive committee have not involved the Communities involved in the selection process. They have failed to listen to the arguments aired by residents and have steam – rolled through this Draft Plan with no regard to the consequences of its implementation. It appears they have one agenda item to get, this approved and the knock – on effects to traffic, air quality, education, overcrowding, NHS services, environmental and conservation issues can be dealt with by another Government department. The evidence in the selection process of site 207 is completely flawed and any public inspector will undoubtedly agree that the Local Plan is unsound. Portchester should not be burdened with this housing allocation – sort Welbourne out and approve the Newlands Farm project which does address infrastructure. Romsey Avenue site 207 should be removed from the Local Plan.
PO16
Building houses on top grade farming is contrary to NPPF guild lines- it would also destroy land where in the 24 yrs living in Romsey Ave I have observed waters & Brent geese feeding in the winter. The fields, neighboring open spaces, woodland and harbor, constitute a unique habitat where it is possible to see a huge variety of bird species waders, divers, shore feeders, field garden & wood dwellers also raptors. It is amazing the site has survived considering the encroachment at its boundaries, the army of dogs on the recreation ground and land south of Birdwood grove, also a very noisy football club built on the edge of the field ( was it assessed for its impact on wildlife). There must only be just enough space for the birds to feel safe anymore encroachment would be an act of vandalism and destroy a treasure in the heart of the community,It is irreplaceable. Dogs on the field have chased the Canada geese away not to return, and the field has been ploughed riverine it unless for the waders & brent geese this winter. Repeating the planning failures of the past, building more and more houses on the narrow strip of land between the Hill and Harbour, will resolt in even more congestion on the A27. The Transport access for the site is inadequate. Parking-restricts the roads to one way for most of their length. Access to the A27 is restricted causing tail backs with engines fumes, a residential area will suffer pollution of main road proportions, the area is also a route for school children both walking and cycling. The Plan also causes problems for schools places and medical facilities. Filling in the gaps an building on the boundaries is a long known dead end from which many communities suffer. I thought the planning committee had grasped this with welborne,only to slip back into old and discredited ways. The NPPF guildlines state, planning must be a creative excersise to enhance and improve the places in which we live our lives. The Draft plan fails on all counts.
PO16
FBC quite clearly stated that with Welborne being built there would be no need to build on other sites, it matters not that Welborne may be late. In the current local plan Winnham Farm is designated as countryside and is outside of the urban fringe. This status should not be changed. The access proposed for Winnham Farm into Downend Road is totally unsuitable. To narrow the bridge in Downend Road and create a virtual footpath (as proposal by Miller Homes) is exceedingly dangerous for pedestrians. Also, to reduce each carriageway to some 2.4m is narrower than a parking space at the local supermarket. It also has a weight limit (bridge). When motorists realise that The Thicket is a convenient throughway it will become a rat run. Downend, namely The Thicket and The Spinney, is currently a very pleasant, quiet residential area, the proposed development of 350 houses on Winnham Farm will detroy this. It is exceedingly cruel to thrust this development on Downend. The increased traffic will cause untold mayhem on already heavily congested roads. FBC has not included any changes to the current infrastructure, eg: doctors, schools etc, as these are already stretched to their limit. To re-sequence the lights using the Puffin system (as proposed by Miller Homes) will have little impact on an already overloaded junction at Downend Road/A27. The congestion at the Delme Arms roundabout is already at crawling pace during peak times and will suffer further from any of the proposed housing developments at Winnham Farm, Downend Road, Romsey Avenue and Cranleigh Road.
PO16
Large Format Response - Ref0043
SO23
We object to this development because:- 1. The surrounding road will not cope with all the extra traffic. 2. The schools haven't spaces for large amounts of extra children. 3. Doctor surgeries are always busy, how are they going to manage. These problems never seemed to be addressed.
PO16
Dear sir/madam I'd like to register my objection to the Romsey Avenue development on the following grounds: The impact to the local area, it's wildlife, green space and environment will be high, an area of natural beauty that is often used by local schools and groups as an area of study and education. Additionally the impact to local infrastructure will also be great, the roads are already narrow and dangerous, school traffic clogs the surrounding roads throughout the day and the main roads leading to the M27 and Portchester centre are heavily congested. The Cams roundabout has regular 30min queues to join from Portchester road. Schools, Doctors surgeries and amenities are not sufficiently sized to accommodate the additional families and no extra provision is being made. The notion that these houses are 'needed' to support local growth is false, and none of the planned houses will fall into the 'affordable' home price bracket. Coastal sea view properties are not 'entry level' on the housing ladder. There are many other locations, that are not costal wildlife reserves that we could look to build on. We should be saving these spaces and building on large concrete inner city sites, instead of adding even more fast food outlets and coffee shops
Postcode not provided
I do understand the need for Fareham Council to build houses, but it is utterly evident that FBC have not gone about this logically. Fareham have three times the sites available more than they need, yet they choose to put the Romsey Avenue site on the draft local plan! This is top agricultural land. I know they have lost heart over Cranleigh Road, but that was classified as grassland with 120 yield in 5.56 hectares. The Romsey site is grade 1 farmland that has produced crops of 228 yield for over 40 years, in its 12.65 hectares. The size of Romsey field is enormous for farming compared to Cranleigh, yet the Council seem to be saying because they lost Cranleigh, (due to total incompetence of not having a 5 year plan), they won't oppose the Romsey site. Cranleigh was lost on a technical point. Romsey field is the closest to the coastal area, so should have the greatest protection. There are much better sites such as Newlands farm that has the infrastructure, school, medical centre and care home in its plan, BUT FBC have foolishly chosen to ignore the obvious site! The infrastructure cannot be put in place for the Romsey site; the local schools are completely full and the surrounding roads will become gridlocked. THE DRAFT PLAN IS UNSOUND. In 2011, the Council said that only 60 houses should be built in Portchester because the infrastructure simply wasn't there, and in that 6/7 years nothing has changed regarding the infrastructure, yet they now plan to build over 700 houses!! Where is the logic? Where is the common sense? I don't know what planet Urban Edge are on, but for them to say that building houses on the Romsey site would "enhance the character of the landscape" and "minimise carbon emissions….and noise pollution" is pure fantasy! How can they say that it would "create a healthy and safe community" when it is clearly going to endanger the lives of the residents, many of whom are children walking to and from school, having to cross Romsey Avenue and Beaulieu Road? At least they acknowledge it will have an adverse effect taking away prime agricultural land. This is an unsound plan, and Romsey Avenue site needs to be taken off the plan.
Postcode not provided
Southern Water is the statutory wastewater undertaker in Portchester. Housing Allocation HA5 allocates 225 dwellings at Romsey Avenue. 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 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. Accordingly we propose that the following criterion is added to policy HA5 (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: [...] i) Provide future access to the existing underground wastewater infrastructure for maintenance and upsizing purposes.
BN2
Roads will be required to take an extra 900 vehicle movements per day approx. children will have to travel school outside of catchment areas. Farem land will be destroyed to make way for housing grade I used for cereal crops. Other sites rejected when they are better than Romsey close IE Lockshealth, Sarisbury Green, Subbington.
Postcode not provided
Roads required to take 900 extra vehicle movements daily , Children will need to travel to schools outside the catchment area. Grade 1 town land growing cereal crops list to housing, Other site rejected but more suitable include, Lock Heath, Subbington, Sarisbury Green. The fields support wild life as does the shore Line these would be lost, they need protection.
PO16
Roads over loaded with approx. 900 vehicle movements extra. Children will have to travel outside catchment area foe schooling, Top quality farm fields destroyed for housing used for cereal crops. Other site rejected when they are better than Romsey Ave at Swanwick, Sarisbury, Lockheath & subbington.
PO16
Sending my objection to Romsey Avenue being put into the plan for new homes to be built as there is no sound infrastructure to support a whole new community in a very small village which is already struggling with traffic, school places and doctor spaces. Many thanks
Postcode not provided
Fareham is the most car dependent town in Britain. There is no acknowledgement or mitigation for this in the local plan. There is no possibility for major road infrastructure to access the Romsey Avenue development and so the transport system will not improve. Romsey Avenue must be disregarded and removed from the plan and be replaced by Newlands Farm which has a new road and is near large employment area at Daedalus. I object to the local plan and consider it unsound as it does not have an infrastructure plan and has failed to engage with the community and I object specifically to Romsey Avenue being in the plan. Please acknowledge this objection will be included.
Postcode not provided
1. The loss of 'best and most versatile' agricultural land (grades 1 and 2 in this case) would be contrary to para.112 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Poorer quality land in Swanwick (Site 3017), Sarisbury (Site 3109), Locks Heath (Site 3036), Titchfield (Site 3060) and Stubbington (Site 1341) should have been allocated but has been passed over. The Local Plan fails to demonstrate that sites have been subjected to a robust sequential test. 2. The loss of feeding grounds for Brent Geese and waders close to the Portsmouth Harbour Special Protection Area would be contrary to para.113 of the NPPF. L and with relatively little ecological value in Swanwick (Site 3017), Sarisbury (Site 3109), Locks Heath (Site 3036), Titchfield (Site 3060) and Stubbington (Site 1341) should have been allocated but has been passed over. The Local Plan fails to demonstrate that sites have been subjected to a robust sequential test. 3. Increased traffic on A27 junctions with significant capacity issues and repeated road safety incidents (west from Delme Roundabout and at the Portchester Road/Dore Avenue Roundabout) and residential streets (Romsey Avenue, Hatherley Crescent, Beaulieu Avenue) with kerb-side parking that restricts two-way movement for much of their lengths. 4. The lack of recreation facilities in Portchester, contrary to para.73 of the National Planning Policy Framework. In 2011, para.5.17 of the Fareham Core Strategy recognised the shortage of public open space in Portchester and recorded assurance that the village would consequently not be expected to play a significant role in housing provision before 2026. 5. Reduction in the choice of school places (contrary to para.72 National Planning Policy Framework) and pressure on local medical facilities. Submission The inclusion of Site HA5 as a residential allocation in the Fareham Local Plan 2036 is unjustified and inconsistent with national policy (especially paragraphs 7, 72, 73, 112 and 113 of the NPPF), so the draft plan is unsound.
PO16
1. The loss of 'best and most versatile' agricultural land (grades 1 and 2 in this case) would be contrary to para.112 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Poorer quality land in Swanwick (Site 3017), Sarisbury (Site 3109), Locks Heath (Site 3036), Titchfield (Site 3060) and Stubbington (Site 1341) should have been allocated but has been passed over. The Local Plan fails to demonstrate that sites have been subjected to a robust sequential test. 2. The loss of feeding grounds for Brent Geese and waders close to the Portsmouth Harbour Special Protection Area would be contrary to para.113 of the NPPF. L and with relatively little ecological value in Swanwick (Site 3017), Sarisbury (Site 3109), Locks Heath (Site 3036), Titchfield (Site 3060) and Stubbington (Site 1341) should have been allocated but has been passed over. The Local Plan fails to demonstrate that sites have been subjected to a robust sequential test. 3. Increased traffic on A27 junctions with significant capacity issues and repeated road safety incidents (west from Delme Roundabout and at the Portchester Road/Dore Avenue Roundabout) and residential streets (Romsey Avenue, Hatherley Crescent, Beaulieu Avenue) with kerb-side parking that restricts two-way movement for much of their lengths. 4. The lack of recreation facilities in Portchester, contrary to para.73 of the National Planning Policy Framework. In 2011, para.5.17 of the Fareham Core Strategy recognised the shortage of public open space in Portchester and recorded assurance that the village would consequently not be expected to play a significant role in housing provision before 2026. 5. Reduction in the choice of school places (contrary to para.72 National Planning Policy Framework) and pressure on local medical facilities. Submission The inclusion of Site HA5 as a residential allocation in the Fareham Local Plan 2036 is unjustified and inconsistent with national policy (especially paragraphs 7, 72, 73, 112 and 113 of the NPPF), so the draft plan is unsound.
PO7
1. The loss of 'best and most versatile' agricultural land (grades 1 and 2 in this case) would be contrary to para.112 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Poorer quality land in Swanwick (Site 3017), Sarisbury (Site 3109), Locks Heath (Site 3036), Titchfield (Site 3060) and Stubbington (Site 1341) should have been allocated but has been passed over. The Local Plan fails to demonstrate that sites have been subjected to a robust sequential test. 2. The loss of feeding grounds for Brent Geese and waders close to the Portsmouth Harbour Special Protection Area would be contrary to para.113 of the NPPF. L and with relatively little ecological value in Swanwick (Site 3017), Sarisbury (Site 3109), Locks Heath (Site 3036), Titchfield (Site 3060) and Stubbington (Site 1341) should have been allocated but has been passed over. The Local Plan fails to demonstrate that sites have been subjected to a robust sequential test. 3. Increased traffic on A27 junctions with significant capacity issues and repeated road safety incidents (west from Delme Roundabout and at the Portchester Road/Dore Avenue Roundabout) and residential streets (Romsey Avenue, Hatherley Crescent, Beaulieu Avenue) with kerb-side parking that restricts two-way movement for much of their lengths. 4. The lack of recreation facilities in Portchester, contrary to para.73 of the National Planning Policy Framework. In 2011, para.5.17 of the Fareham Core Strategy recognised the shortage of public open space in Portchester and recorded assurance that the village would consequently not be expected to play a significant role in housing provision before 2026. 5. Reduction in the choice of school places (contrary to para.72 National Planning Policy Framework) and pressure on local medical facilities. Submission The inclusion of Site HA5 as a residential allocation in the Fareham Local Plan 2036 is unjustified and inconsistent with national policy (especially paragraphs 7, 72, 73, 112 and 113 of the NPPF), so the draft plan is unsound.
PO6
1. The loss of 'best and most versatile' agricultural land (grades 1 and 2 in this case) would be contrary to para.112 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Poorer quality land in Swanwick (Site 3017), Sarisbury (Site 3109), Locks Heath (Site 3036), Titchfield (Site 3060) and Stubbington (Site 1341) should have been allocated but has been passed over. The Local Plan fails to demonstrate that sites have been subjected to a robust sequential test. 2. The loss of feeding grounds for Brent Geese and waders close to the Portsmouth Harbour Special Protection Area would be contrary to para.113 of the NPPF. L and with relatively little ecological value in Swanwick (Site 3017), Sarisbury (Site 3109), Locks Heath (Site 3036), Titchfield (Site 3060) and Stubbington (Site 1341) should have been allocated but has been passed over. The Local Plan fails to demonstrate that sites have been subjected to a robust sequential test. 3. Increased traffic on A27 junctions with significant capacity issues and repeated road safety incidents (west from Delme Roundabout and at the Portchester Road/Dore Avenue Roundabout) and residential streets (Romsey Avenue, Hatherley Crescent, Beaulieu Avenue) with kerb-side parking that restricts two-way movement for much of their lengths. 4. The lack of recreation facilities in Portchester, contrary to para.73 of the National Planning Policy Framework. In 2011, para.5.17 of the Fareham Core Strategy recognised the shortage of public open space in Portchester and recorded assurance that the village would consequently not be expected to play a significant role in housing provision before 2026. 5. Reduction in the choice of school places (contrary to para.72 National Planning Policy Framework) and pressure on local medical facilities. Submission The inclusion of Site HA5 as a residential allocation in the Fareham Local Plan 2036 is unjustified and inconsistent with national policy (especially paragraphs 7, 72, 73, 112 and 113 of the NPPF), so the draft plan is unsound.
PO16
1. The loss of 'best and most versatile' agricultural land (grades 1 and 2 in this case) would be contrary to para.112 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Poorer quality land in Swanwick (Site 3017), Sarisbury (Site 3109), Locks Heath (Site 3036), Titchfield (Site 3060) and Stubbington (Site 1341) should have been allocated but has been passed over. The Local Plan fails to demonstrate that sites have been subjected to a robust sequential test. 2. The loss of feeding grounds for Brent Geese and waders close to the Portsmouth Harbour Special Protection Area would be contrary to para.113 of the NPPF. L and with relatively little ecological value in Swanwick (Site 3017), Sarisbury (Site 3109), Locks Heath (Site 3036), Titchfield (Site 3060) and Stubbington (Site 1341) should have been allocated but has been passed over. The Local Plan fails to demonstrate that sites have been subjected to a robust sequential test. 3. Increased traffic on A27 junctions with significant capacity issues and repeated road safety incidents (west from Delme Roundabout and at the Portchester Road/Dore Avenue Roundabout) and residential streets (Romsey Avenue, Hatherley Crescent, Beaulieu Avenue) with kerb-side parking that restricts two-way movement for much of their lengths. 4. The lack of recreation facilities in Portchester, contrary to para.73 of the National Planning Policy Framework. In 2011, para.5.17 of the Fareham Core Strategy recognised the shortage of public open space in Portchester and recorded assurance that the village would consequently not be expected to play a significant role in housing provision before 2026. 5. Reduction in the choice of school places (contrary to para.72 National Planning Policy Framework) and pressure on local medical facilities. Submission The inclusion of Site HA5 as a residential allocation in the Fareham Local Plan 2036 is unjustified and inconsistent with national policy (especially paragraphs 7, 72, 73, 112 and 113 of the NPPF), so the draft plan is unsound.
PO16
1. The loss of 'best and most versatile' agricultural land (grades 1 and 2 in this case) would be contrary to para.112 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Poorer quality land in Swanwick (Site 3017), Sarisbury (Site 3109), Locks Heath (Site 3036), Titchfield (Site 3060) and Stubbington (Site 1341) should have been allocated but has been passed over. The Local Plan fails to demonstrate that sites have been subjected to a robust sequential test. 2. The loss of feeding grounds for Brent Geese and waders close to the Portsmouth Harbour Special Protection Area would be contrary to para.113 of the NPPF. L and with relatively little ecological value in Swanwick (Site 3017), Sarisbury (Site 3109), Locks Heath (Site 3036), Titchfield (Site 3060) and Stubbington (Site 1341) should have been allocated but has been passed over. The Local Plan fails to demonstrate that sites have been subjected to a robust sequential test. 3. Increased traffic on A27 junctions with significant capacity issues and repeated road safety incidents (west from Delme Roundabout and at the Portchester Road/Dore Avenue Roundabout) and residential streets (Romsey Avenue, Hatherley Crescent, Beaulieu Avenue) with kerb-side parking that restricts two-way movement for much of their lengths. 4. The lack of recreation facilities in Portchester, contrary to para.73 of the National Planning Policy Framework. In 2011, para.5.17 of the Fareham Core Strategy recognised the shortage of public open space in Portchester and recorded assurance that the village would consequently not be expected to play a significant role in housing provision before 2026. 5. Reduction in the choice of school places (contrary to para.72 National Planning Policy Framework) and pressure on local medical facilities. Submission The inclusion of Site HA5 as a residential allocation in the Fareham Local Plan 2036 is unjustified and inconsistent with national policy (especially paragraphs 7, 72, 73, 112 and 113 of the NPPF), so the draft plan is unsound.
PO7
Dear Sir /Madam I am contacting you today to put my objection across regarding the proposed Romsey Avenue Development. I disagree with this proposed planning for the reasons listed below: Increased traffic on the A27, this road is already a huge problem with the amount of traffic as it stands at the moment. It has taken me over thirty minutes before to just drive from Romsey Avenue to the Delme Roundabout . From 4pm the traffic starts to build up this will become much worse with extra housing and MORE cars on the road. Busier roads, more cars, more pollution and heavy goods vehicles constantly up and down Beaulieu Avenue and Romsey Avenue. 250 more homes but not enough school spaces. Doctor surgeries already over subscribed, have to wait over two weeks for appointment already. Local wildlife will be gone for good, deers , badgers, Brent Geese and other species. I hope you will take into account all the objections for this build from the residents of Romsey Avenue and the wider community.
Postcode not provided
Appendix to existing comments I have already made – SP1 – Fails on many issues, change for better, not forse for future generations – improve places where we live, ensure infrastructure and services built, early and meaningful engagement and collaboration with community. SP3 – Daedalus strategic development site – support development sites near work. SP5 – Development in countryside, development of Cranleigh does not make Romsey project an urban area. SP6 – Development in strategic gaps to prevent coalescence of urban areas and to maintain separate identity. Not permitted where cause is severe harm. Romsey Avenue Development fails on all these policies unsound plan. Differences between Cranleigh Rd and Romsey Avenue: *Cranleigh Rd*: Grassland/hedges 5.56 Hectares. 120 house Geese/Waders - no No access via Cranleigh – marginal land for farmed for many years, modest extension of built area. *Romsey Road*: Agricultural land. 12.65 hectares 228 houses Geese/Waders – yes Access – Significant problem, Land farmed for over 40 years significant extensions. Plan is being driven from above, not from ground upwards with proper inputs and data gathered to create a sustainable plan – plan is unsound.
PO16
1. Bridge over railway, Downend Road not wide enough for two vehicles and pedestrians challenge councillors to walk over with two passing vehicles 2. 350 homes, conservatively equates to 500 daily additional vehicle movements, all onto Downend Road 3. A27 Fareham from Portchester currently cannot cope with existing traffic. 4. Existing doctors and schools already at capacity 5. Queen Alexandra Hospital currently cannot cope and is land locked for any expansion 6. Whitely was originally being linked to Botley Road for housing yet shown or included in plan 7. Road junction A27 and Beaulieu Road, not suitable for additional possible 300 daily vehicle movements and cannot be altered in view of existing properties 8. Points 3,4,5 and 6 overleaf also applies 9. Current infrastructure cannot cope with an overall additional 700 homes in Portchester area. If any of sites approved it will not stop there and plans for additional sites will arise, putting even further pressure on area.
PO16
Porchester does not have the infrastructure to cope with the developments along with Cranleigh, Windmill and Seafield. The schools already have waiting lists for appointments. The roads are already congested with no way of making any improvements to cope with these developments.
PO16
The site is designated as 50% Grade 1 and 50% Grade 2 agricultural land. When the UK eventually leave the EU this land will be required to grow own crops. The environmental impact will be horrendous 249 houses are being proposed for this site with a potential of more than 500 more cars leaving Romsey Avenue and joining the already congested A27. This will cause more delays and more pollution. Again the wildlife is not protected. No infrastructure in the plans, where will the children go to school to an already full schools in Portchester. Out of 98 sites highlighted for development, only 36 sites have been included in the Local Plan – what reasons are given for 62 sites not thought to be acceptable for development that apply to the 3 sites in Portchester?
PO16
The A27 (towards Fareham) gets very congested and assuming most residents would be heading towards Fareham or the motorway this road would become even worse as would the air pollution. This is a natural green area and it would be to the detriment of wildlife if it was built on. The support structures aren't in place for these proposed developments. The Council have done a great disservice to the residents of the Borough when we were told the Welborne would fulfill their commitments.
PO16
As I understand that this land is classified as country and open space. On that basis, it should not have been included in the local draft plan. I have lived overlooking this site for 30 years and have walked my dog over this area 1000s of times and I have seen the abundance if wildlife. Further the infrastructure (Doctors, schools, dentist etc). Cannot support the development nor can this road's further this additional pollutions, due to increased traffic is a major concern. The Council have already said they need to reduce pollution on this development contradicts that statement, I strongly object to this site being included in the draft local plan. Further to my comments RE: Seafield and Moraunt drive, this same is objections would be comments here. I would add in support as I understand it this local schools have no spaces they have waiting lists and no real possibility of increase class rooms or having the teaching staff for those class rooms, where will the children of these families on those new developments go to school? 'Gosport?' which means more traffic, more pollution, more grid lock at peak times 'a nonsense' this last times I wanted to see my Doctor I had to wait 3 weeks! There must be other sites which would not cause overcrowding with better access and spaces to provide a school doctors surgery etc. If you are going to allow a development do it properly and full with plenty of planning in all areas including protection of Wildlife Brownfields first not greenfield sites first. I strongly object on every count.
PO16
This development far too big, and the situation will increase the traffic on the A27 to a huge extent. It is already difficult to get in or out of Portchester from 7am-9.30am + 4pm-7pm. There are no plans for new schools and the local schools are full. Also, this site is part of the green space for Portchester, important for agriculture + wild life. It takes away too much green space.
PO16
Portchester is known for its Roman Castle and its green spaces where much wildlife and fauna have made their homes some of which are protected species. This is what attracted me to the village and why I chose to make my home here more than 35 years ago. The local coastal walks from the castle along past the golf course are a favourite frequent walk for us and I shudder at the thought of the threat of the blight of the landscape of so many new houses which will destroy this. Points in addition to the above are as follows: *Traffic The new scheme will attract another 1500 cars which our local village roads will not be able to cope with along with the pollution level that they bring them. *Schools The number of new pupils will put further pressure on the existing oversubscribed schools and remove any choice from parents as they will be forced to apply outside of the village for places. *Agriculture The government recommendation is that urban developments should be built on brown fields and not grade 1 or 2 lands like we have in Portchester so this is contrary to the National Planning Policy. Medical *The GP surgeries are already struggling to meet their government objectives and wait for a GP appointment is already up to as much as a month. *Strategic gap Portchester is a special village with its own identity and to maintain this, it is vital that the strategic gap between it and Fareham is retained. *To conclude, in 2011, only 60 houses were recommended to be built in the village with a guarantee that there will be no additions to that figure til 2026. Nothing has changed by the way of infrastructure or circumstances since then. The plan in its existing form is unsound and unsustainable and should be scrapped unconditionally.
PO16
Portchester is known for its Roman Castle and its green spaces where much wildlife and fauna have made their homes some of which are protected species. This is what attracted me to the village and why I chose to make my home here more than 35 years ago. The local coastal walks from the castle along past the golf course are a favourite frequent walk for us and I shudder at the thought of the threat of the blight of the landscape of so many new houses which will destroy this. Points in addition to the above are as follows: *Traffic The new scheme will attract another 1500 cars which our local village roads will not be able to cope with along with the pollution level that they bring them. *Schools The number of new pupils will put further pressure on the existing oversubscribed schools and remove any choice from parents as they will be forced to apply outside of the village for places. *Agriculture The government recommendation is that urban developments should be built on brown fields and not grade 1 or 2 lands like we have in Portchester so this is contrary to the National Planning Policy. Medical *The GP surgeries are already struggling to meet their government objectives and wait for a GP appointment is already up to as much as a month. *Strategic gap Portchester is a special village with its own identity and to maintain this, it is vital that the strategic gap between it and Fareham is retained. *To conclude, in 2011, only 60 houses were recommended to be built in the village with a guarantee that there will be no additions to that figure til 2026. Nothing has changed by the way of infrastructure or circumstances since then. The plan in its existing form is unsound and unsustainable and should be scrapped unconditionally.
PO16
Large Format Response - Ref0063
PO16
Romsey Ave must be taken out of the local plan because it is unsustainable and unsound. The agricultural land proposed is grade 1 and 2 and at present is intensively farmed for cereal crops – the government is most insistent that these sites should not be used for housing if there are other options such as: Swanwick (site 3017), Sarisbury (site 3109), Locksheath (site 3036), Stubbington (site 3141). These should have been allocated but have been passes over presumably without a "robust sequential test". Surely, we should be trying to save land that is helping to feed our own population. Open spaces in Portchester seem to be disappearing and Romsey Ave field was always part of the strategic gap originally designed to keep the area from becoming a continuous urban sprawl. This was always a major factor in any development plans and having lost the Cranleigh Road appeal a local gap should now be created to separate Portchester from Fareham. We understand that in 2011 Fareham Core strategy recognised that Portchester could only accommodate a maximum of 60 houses and would not be expected to play a significant role in housing provision before 2026. The traffic congestion on the A27 junction with Beaulieu Avenue is already a nightmare at times and to reach Fareham via the Delme roundabout is a no go as far as we are concerned as pensioners after 3.p.m. on most days of the week. How this road would cope with another possible 750 vehicle movements daily is anyone's guess. The Thicket will become even more of a rat run than it is now and traffic will then be unable to access the A27 from there. How construction traffic is going to access the site via Beaulieu Ave and Romsey Ave defies belief – normal lorries and even large cars have difficulty turning into Beaulieu Ave from Portchester as the corner is tight and if any traffic is waiting to access the A27 drivers in Beaulieu Avenue have to reverse to allow the A27 traffic through. The proposed entrance to the site via Romsey Ave is even tighter with access to garages at the rear of 7 houses. No thought seems to have been given to any highway infrastructure This site is also an area which supports many wildlife species some of which are protected and the council should reinstate a coast and countryside policy which seems to have been removed from the plan. Local schools are oversubscribed – doctors' surgeries, pharmacies and QA hospital all struggle to cope with demand. Will we have enough renewable energy resources including water as river levels will surely dry up. There are also environmental issues here as those local school children who walk along the congested roads will be adversely affected by the extra traffic fumes and even more parents will use their cars – there has already been national concerns raised about infants in pushchairs. Having lost the Cranleigh Road appeal and with Welborne having stalled – in desperation FBC is trying to use Romsey Avenue to get out of a hole and placate Westminster! THE INCLUSION OF SITE HA5 AS A RESIDENTIAL ALLOCATION IS UNJUSTIFIED AND INCONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY – SO THE DRAFT PLAN IS UNSOUND.
Postcode not provided
Portchester cannot support more people. The increase in traffic, schools, doctors, water and sewage supplies and parking.
PO16
Large Format Response - Ref0060
PO16
Large Format Response - Ref0061
Postcode not provided
The proposed building land of Romsey avenue is virtually land locked with only one entrance from the site onto a short road. Meeting romsey at a junction, if turning left for A27 traffic must give way entering Romsey, then again when entering into beautiful lane to allow traffic in Beaulieu avenue, turning right (west) on the right of way. Traffic on the A27 and traffic from Fareha, waiting to enter Beaulieu avenue - will be dangerous - for all drivers - is this right?
PO16
I am deeply concerned with the proposed development of the site in Romsey Avenue. Hatherley Crescent, Romsey Avenue, Beaulieu Avenue just cannot take the extra amount of traffic alone this just cannot take the extra amount of traffic alone this would generate. Let alone the schools and Doctors. These roads are already very, very busy. Whilst understanding the need for more affordable housing to and from school. Whilst understanding the need for more affordable housing which is most suitable site for them. The area simply cannot take it. I also am told the field concerned had been deeply proved. Therefore taking away any feelings or shelter for the wildlife. This is deliberate and very underhand. Please consider existing residents who lives will be made more difficult. Sort out sites like Welborne first.
PO16
Large Format Response - Ref0104
Postcode not provided
Large Format Response - Ref0098
PO12
Large Format Response - Ref0093
SO31
I am writing to object to the proposed development, primarily, of HA4 Downend Road East (Winnham Farm) and secondly, of HA5 Romsey Avenue and HA6 Cranleigh Road. The main reason for my objection is the lack of transport infrastructure to cope with the likely 1400 cars that these developments will generate in a very close area. I have little faith that any promises of improved transport infrastructure as part of these developments will actually help alleviate the traffic chaos that comes with living in the Fareham area. From what I have seen, projects to alleviate traffic problems merely paper over the cracks and give residents little value for money (eg Fareham Station area roadworks). The Delme roundabout approach from Portchester is chaos most mornings and evenings and any changes that could be made to it will surely be negated by the extra traffic trying to get in/out of Fareham and Gosport from all the other proposed developments. The junction at the Down End road and A27 traffic lights often backs up beyond the railway bridge to where the proposed entry to the Winnham Farm development is. The railway bridge is not wide enough should 2 LGV's meet, especially if a footpath is to be kept. The access onto the M27 at junction 11 from Boarhunt often has a traffic queue of 50 plus cars that barely moves between traffic light changes. This will become a prime route onto the M27 with these proposed developments. I have not seen any detail about how these problem areas will be improved, merely comments that the developers will contribute towards costs of improving transport infrastructure. I find it difficult to see how, with any amount of money, the current road system in these areas can be improved to accommodate this number of extra car journeys at peak times, especially when typically there are 2-3 days a week when an incident on the M27 or A27 already causes gridlock on the local roads. The area South/West of the M27 is quite frankly full. If housing is required make Wellbourne happen at its originally proposed capacity with proper access to the M27 at J10 and J11. Please don't make existing residents suffer further with a patchwork approach of squeezing in badly considered housing developments within an already broken transport infrastructure.
PO16
I am a resident of [redacted], Portchester and I am strongly opposed to the planned development there. I would like to formally object to the Romsey Avenue development on the following grounds: The impact to the local area will be devastating. Wildlife, green space and clean air will be destroyed. Yet another area of natural beauty that is often used by local schools and groups as an area of study and education will be ruined by the continuing greed of private developers. Additionally the impact to local infrastructure will also be great, the roads are already narrow and dangerous, school traffic clogs the surrounding roads throughout the day and the main roads leading to the M27 and Portchester centre are heavily congested. The Cams Hill roundabout has regular 30min queues to join from Portchester road. Schools, doctors' surgeries and amenities are not sufficiently sized to accommodate the additional families and no extra provision is being made. The notion that these houses are 'needed' to support local growth is false, and none of the planned houses will fall into the 'affordable' home price bracket. Coastal sea view properties are not 'entry level' on the housing ladder. There are many other locations, that are not costal wildlife reserves that we could look to build on. We should be saving these green field spaces and building on large concrete inner city sites, instead of adding even more fast food outlets and coffee shops (Southampton Road, Port Solent). I urge you to reconsider the plans as they stand.
PO16
"I heavily object to the development of housing on the farm land adjacent Romsey Avenue, now and in the future. Romsey Avenue should be removed from the Draft Plan as Condition No. 5 from the Inspectors Report from the Cranleigh Road appeal states that: ""No housing development including gardens and roads shall take place to the west of the hedgerow running north to south through the site as shown on Drawing No. 01 Rev W- Illustrative Site Plan"". This means that the land adjacent Romsey Avenue should not be developed on so the destruction of the local environment is contained within the Cranleigh Road development to limit further devastation and negative impacts on the safety of residents, school children, ecology and the wellbeing of the community. In addition, Romsey Avenue and Downend Road East are the only two sites within the Draft Plan that are subject to an Environmental Impact Assessment. The ecological significance of this area is well established and focus should be given to alternative sites which are less destructive. This quota could be satisfied by the proposed development at Newlands which has a sustainable proposal for improving the infrastructure and services of the local area, which Romsey Avenue lacks. It is not uncommon to see newts, slow worm, badgers, deer, foxes, Brent Geese, Canadian Geese, skylarks and wading birds in and around the farmland. I am very concerned about the increased level of traffic, and in particular, the safe commute of children to Wicor School. The school is already at capacity and has a waiting list for new entrants. I receive newsletters from Wicor and a reoccurring complaint is from residents to the school around the level of vehicles that park in the surrounding areas. It is not sustainable to substantially introduce more children and associated vehicles to this school. This is in addition to people commuting to work from the proposed development. The trip generation (shown in the Transport Summary Note) estimates that 164 vehicles will make a journey during rush hour from the 250 dwellings. This is likely to be much more if there is an average of 2 cars per dwelling. The report states that this was acceptable for the Cranleigh appeal however, the access for the Romsey development is through Beaulieu Avenue and this is no comparison as cars are parked on the road for the entire length from the A27 to the site entrance. Access to Beaulieu Avenue from the west of the A27 is via a central reservation that can only accommodate 3-4 vehicles. Any more vehicles would result in a blockage along the A27. The traffic survey equipment that was laid down across Romsey Avenue was only present for one week during the October half term and this will only represent a biased view of the traffic and should not be used. I often witness road rage during peak periods as the majority of residents between the A27 to the proposed site entrance do not have driveways and park on the street, meaning that there are limited passing points. When the refuse lorries are present during rush hour there is nowhere to go and it is gridlocked. If double yellow lines are proposed along the access route, this will only result in these resident vehicles parking further down Romsey Avenue, and on road parking is already at capacity. I went to the public consultation with Foreman Homes and they openly said that they will develop a scheme that will maximise their profit and they have little interest in our community or ecology. I am in communication with my neighbours and they all received the same, blatant, message from Foreman. They have no interest in sustainable development and this could prove damaging to the local area. It is already difficult to get a routine appointment at Westlands doctor surgery within a 2 week period and I have waited for up to 2 hours previously for emergency appointments. The proposed development offers no improvements to the local area in terms of infrastructure, economy, schools, healthcare and employment. There are no added benefits. This is not sustainable development. The acceptance to develop on the Cranleigh plot is so disappointing. Approval to develop on the Romsey plot, and all other surrounding areas, is catastrophic and the devastation in this area should be limited to consider the impact this has on the safety of residents, school children, ecology and the wellbeing of the community."
Postcode not provided
Back to Top
How to get here
