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).
Over 100 dwellings are earmarked for these two sites. What proposals are there to considerably enhance and upgrade the highway access. Roads in the vicinity are well over 100 years old and little more that single carriageway, totally inadequate aready.
PO16
Close to town centre and employment sites. Good infrastructure. No significant impact on wildlife.
SO31
Being a commuter who travels out of Fareham to work each day I can safely say that the queues of traffic both inbound and outbound is horrific - At peak times it often takes 30 minutes to get from junction 11 to the Tesco roundabout. This is exacerbated by the endless queues in both directions along the M27 from Portsmouth to Southampton (and onward to the M3) at peak times and often during the day. My daily commute from Fareham to South Winchester regularly takes approx an hour each way to travel 22 miles. I have not seen anything in the supporting documentation that would be a feasible solution to this situation. The FBC council history on traffic solutions is abysmal - for example the number of time the roundabout & junctions around the station & Gudge Heath Lane areas have had to be reworked at a huge cost to the tax payer prove that the council are incompetent of providing realistic workable solution to traffic issues. The overall plan (excluding Welbourne) show around 8000 properties being added to the local area over the next 20 years. The increase in traffic issues that will bring the town and surrounding areas to a stand still and the additional pollution element is enough for me to object against the building of further housing in the local area.
Postcode not provided
I played as a child on Pinks Hill and Military Road. I picked up lots of historical artifacts from here ( since lost) I am sure when the motorway slip road was built it was through an old historic site, but in those days previous gyrotech instruments were not used & so just demolished. I would prefer to know everything possible done to see if there is anything there.
PO16
"HA8-Pinks Hill Wallington (80 dwellings & employment) 1. Same problem with subsoil as HA20 but possibly worse in view of much steeper slope. 2.Access either via Pinks Hill (un-adopted road) or Broadcut and Standard Way. Both routes already very busy with HGV's and commercial vehicles serving Fort Wallington and the waste recycling centre to the north of the site.. 3.Site faces very busy dual carriageway leading to junction 11 of M27. Noise/pollution screening very difficult due to slope of site. During rush hour this carriageway is often gridlocked for several hours which worsens vehicle pollution. 4. Noise/smells liable from waste recycling site whenever wind is from north/north west (approx. 30% of time) 5. No pavements in Pinks Hill, Military Road, or Eastern End of Standard Way . All pedestrian/cycle traffic can only safety exit area via Wallington village (inconvenient) 6.No public transport serves the area. No other amenities. 7.Essential to avoid ""Rat-Run"" through Wallington village via Military Road and Drift Road (see questionnaire for explanation of alternatives) 8.Development would reduce separation zone between Fareham and Downend. Note References to ""rat-run"" through Wallington village (already very congested) refers to alternative options for vehicles to access A27 (East and West) and A32 (North & South) Vehicles must either use Pinks Hill and junction 11 of M27 (3 sets of light) then Delme roundabout (more lights), or take a 2 mile detour via Broadcut and Standard Way. Neither is likely to be used if a short cut through Wallington is allowed."
Anonymous submission
The site is completely unsuitable from an access point of view. It is not an adopted highway and it is difficult to see how pedestrian access could be achieved given the intensity of heavy goods traffic. At one point the road is so narrow that vehicles have difficulty in passing. How would residents access local amenities without a car? Noise and fumes from Junction 11and from the motorway slip road have already been identified as being at unacceptable levels. This proposal will exacerbate the situation. Traffic pressures are already immense in Wallington village, the M27 and surrounding areas. These proposals would add to the unfolding nightmare scenario. I object most strongly to this proposal.
PO16
Pinks Hill - 533 HA8 (80 Dwellings) Access to Wallington village would be impossible. Dangerous now with speeding cars, large lorries from industrial estate. Pinks Hill is not an adopted highway. Very narrow road, no pavement, limited visibility & dangerous meeting heavy traffic at night. More than once pushed into hedging to allow traffic to pass.
PO16
when we brought our house in Fareham it was a lovely place to live. Countryside & coast, now we have to fight out way down country lanes ( Try Pook lane at 8.30am) down the A27 along the M27. Fareham has become a traffic nightmare we don't need all these houses. You have Whitley , Knowle and the dreaded Welborne. We keel trapped I a concrete jungle, dictated to by the volume of traffic as to when we can go out. Why should we build more & more to accommodate the millions of new comers let in by last government uncontrolled migration. Put the existing residents of Fareham just we don't need these hundreds of houses here . Ensure the houses youre building in the town centre are low cost or low rent (even Council houses)- now there's an idea.
Postcode not provided
I am most concerned about the future to housing in Military Road and Pinks Hill in Wallington. I believe this area cannot support more housing. The affect on the local environment will be catastrophic. The affect on the tree line, that Fareham Council has been do adamant to preserve will be affected by the reduction in the water table. Already trees are dying in the East Hill area and in particular Pinks Hill, the strata lends itself to major subsidence. The area around Military Road and Pinks Hill help to maintain the air in which we need to breath. Building in these places will have a devastating affect on our lives and those of our children. There is an abundance of wildlife in the vicinity that will be affected, and these things are part of our children's inheritance because Welborne has been buggered up, there is no reason to side and spoil this part of Fareham. The infrastructure of the roads certainly cannot cope with additional cars etc using the area. There are lots of alternative around the town, couch as empty sops that can be compulsory purchased and turned into housing. If the council wants to do something useful, the pull down the well understand Civic Building and build a block of flats in its place. The Council id frightening me, historically, as they are likely to mess up Fareham , again. And Fareham has a history I the last 50yrs of giving its people what they don't want. I recall the problems over the Woodlands of off Military Road, That was forced through and killed of an important Woodland and pond , and now that is an area deprived from local residents enjoying the amenities.I pass through Romsey frequently and see the area has been ruined by housing estates built without breathing space. We this to happen in Fareham.
Postcode not provided
Noise from slip road and air pollution not good for housing. Water flow would be more problematic in Delmi roundabout area in heavy rain. Any extra building in this area would be detrimental to Wallington because of traffic, noise, sewage inadequacy and especially with flood risk affecting Wallington as Welbourne will cause much more run off water and once again reducing green environment for existing residents.
PO16
This site functions as a separation zone from the M27 and traffic and pedestrian access would be difficult to construct. Access to Wallington Village would be difficult and increase the travel problems through the village and onto the A27 which is difficult enough as it is.
PO16
At present this is a green breathing space ( one of the few left in Wallington) between the housing in Wallington and the access road to the motorway. It absorbs noise and pollution. There are no pavements along Pink's Hill Road from the industrial estates to the junction with the access road, and there is heavy traffic. The road is constricted in places.
PO16
Location is unsuitable due to serious pedestrian safety issues plus proximity to motorway would mean unacceptable noise levels for any residents on this site
PO16
"This site poses two principal problems which affect its potential users and the occupants of Wallington Village. Firstly access: for pedestrians, access to town/community facilities and public transport on foot will only be possible via a shortcut through Pallant Gardens. There are no footpaths at all on Pinks Hill or Military road. Pedestrian workers already park, cycle and motorbike through the short path ""gap"" between Pallant Gardens and Military road to get to the industrial workplaces in Fort Fareham and Fareham heights. Car access via Pinks hill only leads to the motorway. Access to other directions for commutes to employment (Fareham, Gosport, Portchester, Titchfield) must be made via the Broadcut roundabout (""Sainsburys""). This is already heavily used by industrial estate traffic (many of the businesses sustain or depend on vehicle use) and as a result is already dangerous and busy, particularly at the crossing point from the village to Sainsburys near the ""Poundstretcher"" business. Secondly flooding: the River Wallington frequently floods. The Environment Agency have spent considerable sums of money to contain the problem but it will not go away. Increased run off from sites such at these will specifically affect the Delme Arms roundabout which ALREADY floods from the run off from Pinks Hill and the access ramp to the A32/M27. This directly affects residents and has backflooded Broadcut businesses too. Please keep this important piece of open space free from development."
PO16
We strongly oppose to the planned developments, both housing and employment. we have concerns with regarding the local infrastructure and how it would cope with the increased local & new 127 houses. In the 4yrs we have lived on Drift Road it has been dug up every yr (4 times) to repair the already overloaded water pipes. Wallington has a long history of flooding and the WVCA have worked tirelessly with the council to reduce the risk of impact of this. These plans undermine this work, as we cannot see it possible that the flooding will not worsen as a result of the planned build.
PO16
There is problems with access and pollution which will be generated throughout the village, plus water run off problems for the river.
PO16
Same comments relate to Both proposals Additional traffic and access to both sites will be difficult and detrimental, Noise and pollution associated with additional traffic Water Run off, causing problems for the river
PO16
This site is wholly unsuitable for housing. I am concerned that access to the area is via unadopted roads, a steep narrow hill or via the village. Links from the area to the village are difficult by road or car, with no pavements, narrow roads or bus links, leaving the area isolated. To link it by foot to Wallington would need an over-bridge as the road would be excessively busy. It currently provides a boundary between a very busy motorway link-road and Wallington village, providing isolation from noise and pollution. I have concerns that housing in this area would be excessively polluted from both noise and airborne pollution. The area is one similar to the downland areas of Portsdown Hill and is ecologically unsound for housing.
PO16
Pinks Hill HA8 SHLAA 1998 incorporating SHLAA 1352 Military Road HA16 SHLAA 27 SHLAA Gauntletts field North Wallington and Standard Way HA20 SHLAA 324 SHLAA Sites allocated for housing and development [REDACTED] OBJECT Comment: Currently Wallington is a semi-rural village with a unique identity and separate to the nearby Fareham Town Centre and Portchester urban sprawl. Defining this unique community is the strip of open land and fields that constitutes the proposed development land. This open land provides a buffer to the noise and air pollution from Junction 11 and the M27 motorway and is used as an open space by residents and visitors, also providing an open green backdrop to the Wallington Conservation Area and Water Meadows. The green land holds surface water that regulates river levels during spates; protecting downhill/downstream dwellings from flooding. The houses and businesses directly adjacent to the land are unique older properties including Riverdale Cottages, Fort Wallington battlements, WW2 machine gun emplacement and pumping station/cottage. Developing the sites proposed will infill the area which defines Wallington as a separate semi-rural village, apart from the Fareham Town Centre and Portchester urban areas. Developing this land will cause Wallington to become part of a homogeneous urban sprawl intersected by the trunk roads and motorway but without clear definition. This will destroy the rural boundary of Wallington and the village will lose its identity and sense of community. Development will cause the loss of open space enjoyed by villagers and visitors and will have an adverse affect on residents' wellbeing. By its magnitude and elevated location on the hill slopes, the development will have an overbearing and intrusive impact on the existing homes and businesses on the northern edge of the village and will have a detrimental effect on views and privacy. The character of the village and especially the local/adjacent neighbourhood will be negatively impacted by this out-of-scale proposed development. All other houses in the vicinity are individual or small clusters of unique cottages. The proposed development will intrude on the adjacent conservation area/water meadow views and this special amenity will be affectively lost to residents and visitors. The area of proposed development is trapped between existing dwellings and the motorway; construction and access will negatively impact the lives of neighbouring residents. Construction will add unbearable levels of disruption, noise and pollution. The already busy narrow local roads of North Wallington, Military Road and Pinks Hill will become highly congested and the small amount of on-road parking will become oversubscribed – many of the older existing properties do not have the option to create off road parking. There is not the local roads, pavements and infrastructure to support the construction stage of the development, nor is there the option/space to develop the infrastructure to accommodate construction. The construction site will cause surface water to flow down the hill towards the river Wallington and increase the risk of local flooding to existing homes. The developments if built will be adversely affected by motorway noise and air pollution. Development will cause the loss of the strip of 'green lung' that helps protect local residents from the impact of motorway noise and air pollution. The already congested roads of North Wallington, Military Road and Pinks Hill will not be able to support the additional traffic caused by the new dwellings. Current on-road parking adjacent to the North Wallington/Pinks Hill horse field will be lost. Lorries and traffic from the Standard Way industrial estates will create an unacceptable risk to the new residents. The development will cause surface water to wash directly towards the river and existing homes, increasing flooding.
PO16
• Access to this site is a particularly difficult issue: ? Pinks Hill is a Sub - Standard Private Rd (Owned by FBC), whose width is restricted at the mid -point by a listed WW2 Pill Box. The road was built to facilitate HGV's from the nearby Industrial Estates and those in Standard Way, North Wallington, to access the M27. The road is currently very heavily used by HGV's; It is a dangerous road that Local Residents tend not to use if they can avoid it!. ? Exit down Pinks is via a very sharp (Sub Standard) bend, which provides access to the M27/J11 Slip Rd. (NB: Current Highways legislation does not allow ANY such access to Motorway Junction Slip Roads. Accordingly, it is highly unlikely that Highways England would countenance any changes/so called "improvements" to the present access. ? An Exit Left from the Site down Pinks Hill ONLY leads to x 1 destination (M27/J11) – there are NO other options. ? An Exit Right from the Site, towards Standard Way, leads to a 1.5 mile access road through the Standard Way Industrial Site. • According to the FBC proposal for this Site, a Pedestrian Crossing across Pinks Hill is of particular importance; an intriguing proposition and one which demonstrates a complete lack of understanding as to the site itself. Specifically: ? There are NO pavements on Pinks Hill, nor on the adjoining part of Standard Way. In similar vein, both Military Rd @ Drift Rd are narrow Country Lanes/Drifts and neither of which have any pavements, with pedestrians perforce having to walk on the road itself. ? Accordingly, it is interesting to surmise as to exactly where the so called "Pinks Hill Pedestrian Crossing" will terminate, let alone what purpose it would serve!! • The sloping site enjoys views of x 6 lanes of J11 Slip Road, with perhaps occasional glimpses of the increasingly congested J11 and Delme roundabouts. • More worrying however, is FBC's proposal to site housing in such close proximity to a Carbon Monoxide blackspot (J11), despite having recently received a Govt directive to address this precise issue. • In summary, Pinks Hill is an entirely unsuitable location for Housing; it is an isolated site with absolutely no facilities, no access to Public transport and particularly difficult access.
PO16
My comments apply to development at Pinks Hill, Military Road, North Wallington and Standard Way. Wallington has a distinct character and it's important that this is preserved. I'm also concerned about the lack of infrastructure in the proposed areas; the roads are inadequate for the number of cars which will use it and there's a safety issue regarding pedestrians in the lack of pavements. Being in close proximity to the motorway I also worry about the noise and emissions pollution the residents of these new homes would face.
PO16
The proposal to build on this site is, in my view, ill-conceived for the following reasons: the site provides valuable soakage during spells of heavy rainfall; the increase in traffic will most likely cause even greater congestion at the M27/A27 intersection and the small winding roads around the village will be unable to support the inevitable increase in cars seeking to use alternative routes into and out of Wallington; Wallington has seen a number of new developments in recent years to suggest that it has borne its fair share of FBC's perceived burden; are FBC intent on 'starving' the area of its last few remaining areas of green space? Finally, I recall that local politicians have previously suggested that part of the rationale for developing Welborne was to alleviate the pressures on local green and brown sites; our council is elected to represent the interests of its residents and should be doing all they can to resist Government pressure to further develop what is clearly an already overdeveloped area already, as the regular bouts of congestion seen on both the M27 and A27 will attest to.
PO16
This is a large site that does not appear to have access for the amount of increased traffic that will result. Building houses and roadways on this large site will greatly increase surface water runoff and so increase the likelihood and severity of flooding at the A27 roundabout and Wallington Shore road. IT will also increase flooding on the approach road to the A27 which already has large amounts of runoff from the hill during rainfall. Keeping a field or wild area here will help soak up rainfall and release water in a more controlled fashion.
PO16
No comment provided
PO16
This area has historic problem of subsidence and water cascading down DRIFT Rd from the wateral springs . This development, potentially, would have a serious impact on houses down Drift Rd and below Military Rd/Drift Rd. Military Rd simply do not have room for pavements and cycle paths, and to make entry one way only would cause huge problems for services vehicles and residents alike. I strongly subject to this proposal based on the above and the huge impact on area because of access and increased traffic.
PO16
Wallington village, the river and the existing industrial / commercial sites of Standard Way and Fort Wallington reside at the last leg of the Wallington Basin, through which vast quantities of water can flow after short periods of heavy rain. So any proposal to build on the open fields in the latter part of the Wallington Basin, where this plot resides, will have a highly negative impact on the flood risk to the Wallington village environs. Essentially, the balance of flood risk hangs delicately in the area, meaning that the plans for Welborne will be effected: 1. Any building work in Wallington will have to be factored into the anti-flood measures and other data for the proposed building of Welborne, which will surely further delay the beginning building of in Welborne. Locals will be given a route to make a valid objection regarding the effects of Welborne upon the latter part of the Wallington Basin. 2. Any building work in Wallington will also undermine all of the work done by the Environment Agency, as they will have to re-calculate all of the data concerning the levels of flood protection offered by various kinds of work, meaning that all planning will have to be resumed from the start again. December 2012 was a period of heavy rainfall where the river came to within just a few centimeters of the top of the flood defence walls (See http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-20803312/flooding-wallington-river-levels-prompt-emergency-evacuation). May 2013 also had high water which did not make the headlines because it occurred in the middle of the night. Continued building on the Wallington Basin tips the balance in favour of water flowing into the river ever more quickly, making the risk of flood far higher. This means that it would be unreasonable act of incredible folly and ignorance to build upon the open land in Wallington, as this resembles a fraction of the soak away which previously existed in the area. At what point does local government stop heeding the interests of the local populace? Will those who might accept these building proposals be around to answer the critics if the Wallington area floods in future? Or the directors of the building companies? I very much doubt it. Yet those who live here will have to live with any ill-fated and unwise decisions that they make.
PO16
Pinks Hill is an isolation zone from the M27 isolating noise and pollution from the motorway. The road is unadopted without pavements and busy with heavy speeding traffic now. There are enough vehicles in the area already without creating more. No more houses are needed around Wallington. We are a village and don't want to become a town.
PO16
How can Wallington cope with more traffic on its very narrow roads some with no footpaths so you have to walk in roads. And it is almost impossible to pull out on to the Delme roundabout at certain times of day.
PO16
In full agreement of the WVA's comprehensive evaluation of the three sites and concur with bullet points 1 to 7
PO16
I object to this development on 2 grounds. Firstly ; any increased run off into the river Wallington will raise the risk of flooding to homes at risk of flooding in the village on North Wallington and Wallington Shore Rd. The Environment Agency has already pointed out in respect of the Wellbourne development that there can be NO additional water run off in to the Wallington river as a result of development. The very few remaining green spaces above the river in the village, currently drain slowly into the catchment. Additional roofing, hard standing and roads, resulting from development, will speed the run off and contribute to increased risk of flooding at the bottom of the hill . Secondly: increased flow of traffic along Wallington Shore Road will adversely affect safety of children and less agile residents needing to cross to go up to town and to travel on foot and on bikes to Cams School on the council recommended route to school.North Wallington underpass of the M27 is a fairly safe route out to the country for cyclists compared with other options, but increased traffic {from any housing development }down Drift Rd and Pinks Hill Standard Way will make this more dangerous at a time when the council should be encouraging safe cycling.
PO16
Housing on this site will cause additional run off of surface water into the River Wallington. The Environment Agency has plans in an advanced state to better cope with existing river flows and tidal flooding in Wallington Village. As advisor to The Environment Agency on the Wallington Flood Defence Improvement Scheme with 35 years of data and experience of village flooding issues. I object to the project on the grounds that it can only exacerbate an already fragile situation. Foul water sewers in the village are already at full capacity with sewage being discharged into Wallington Shore Road in times of flood. Further housing will add to this problem.
PO16
The Narrow roads in this Village cannot cope with more cars etc, we only have a few facilities for employment we have no transport facilities, except 1 bus on a Monday leaves at 10 and returns 12, this has a {not known} of being taken away. Parking facilities would also be jeopardized even more. Our housing facilities cannot want another n127 dwellings. My comments from page I apply to all 3 sites. My Original comments apply to all 2 sites, I agree with all comments submitted by WVCA on all these sites.
PO16
Unsuitable site from an access point of view, especially pedestrian access. Health issues of noise pollution, sound pollution issues.
PO16
The following factors make this site questionable for development: The current site provided separation from both the A32/M27 and industrial site from residential areas. It helps to reduce noise pollution with tree and natural hedge barriers. The access road is ' Private' and will require significant upgrading to accommodate the additional traffic caused by new homes and industrial units. Wallington will loose its separation from other conurbations. Access for new residents to the village by foot or car will be problematic. With four proposed sites in Wallington, traffic control and roads will be a necessity.
PO16
Firstly, my understanding is that this area was designated a green buffer zone, and would not be developed. Secondly, transport infrastructure in this area is totally unsuitable, unless major Pinks Hill and Drift Rd are totally unsuitable for further traffic and pedestrians and cyclists, particularly children getting to Cams Hill school have no facilities al all at present, unless these dangers can be overcome these developments are not suitable.
PO16
Objection to the proposal Road access and accessing local facilities is problematical, especially serious for pedestrians, with heavy lorry traffic a regular feature. This would require additional car journeys through an already congested village environment, which, in places is single car passage. Potential issues with adoption of a road, which, with adoption, would need serious remodelling to enable ease of access to the site. Potential health issues with a recycling centre within a few hundred metres of dwellings, especially with NE winds. Given the downland nature of the site, it should be seen as a nature corridor around the village, with access to the wider countryside beyond.
PO16
Access and Traffic Drivers other than those wanting to join the motorway are likely to go down Drift Road rather than right round Standard Way. Drift Road is mostly narrow and has blind bends. There is no pavement. The 20mph speed limit is frequently ignored. The road is already hazardous to pedestrians, cyclists and drivers. An additional 26 houses represents a potential increase in the volume of traffic of about 65%, exacerbating the danger as well as increasing the volume of traffic along North Wallington and Wallington Shore Road. Land Quality The instability of the land at the top of the hill in Wallington is well known to those who live there, as are the vagaries of the water run off, both above ground and below. In episodes of heavy or prolonged rain flooding can occur in Military Road. If Gauntletts field is built on its water retention effect would be lost. I would urge that a comprehensive hydrological and geological survey be carried out. Potential house buyers should be warned of the risks. Access/Traffice Unless they wish to join the motorway link road, drivers leaving the area are likely to go along Military Road and down Drift Road. Drift Road narrows and has blind bends. There is no pavement. The 20mph speed limit is often ignored. It is already hazardous for all road users. This development would further increase the danger. Noise Despite the screening from vegetation, the noise from motorway traffic is very noticeable in many parts of Wallington. At such close proximity to the link road the noise would be overwhelming. I suggest therefore that this site is unsuitable for residential use.
PO16
For all sites : Wallington is a village & priced accordingly. Adding the additional housing will reduce the value of all our properties, will increase parking issues and traffic. The fields and greenery are part of the charm of this area and you will be reducing this aspect. There is already a high volume of traffic from the industrial area further down. The noise from these areas is currently only just acceptable and on occasions unacceptable. Living in an industrial area is not what I pay my higher rates for. Also personally I would not want to live that close to a motorway, the noise from my property is only just acceptable. Traffic on Pinks Hill is already busy enough and its often deemed a 'race track' by some users. I wouldn't want to see this increased. Last year I rescued a swan from Pinks Hill increased traffic would have meant the end of the swans life.
PO16
Accessibility problems. Very dangerous on foot & all journeys by families would have to be by car. The site is also too close to the motorway which would make the homes subject to noise and air pollution.
PO16
Not a good idea for more employment premises, its right on a hill on a bend – opposite an already sited industrial/office space. Traffic consistently speeds up this hill so introducing more vehicles is nuts – an accident waiting to happen. Also access to and from this area is limited and already overused for the type of road. Pinks Hill leading up to it is very dangerous already and once again I have seen accidents here and many near misses, joining the dual carriageway at bottom of Pinks Hill is also inadequate. Coming from the other direction past Sainsburys is also overloaded at present. The whole of Wallington is NOT designed for cars and is currently at breaking point without adding more. A most ridiculous area to consider for housing. The road is already a nightmare with big industrial lorries speeding up and down the hill. It is ludicrous to even contemplate bringing more cars in and out of Wallington. I've lived here 20 years and seen many incidents involving cars in Drift Road. The wall outside our house was demolished when a car collided with it and there have been numerous occasions when big lorries have become stuck in Drift Road and police have been called to assist them backing up all the way. Military Road is not designed for cars and indeed I have known several accidents on the bend [redacted]. There are no pavements here so even walking is dangerous and its only one lane wide. It is just mental to think the road from Military Road/Drift Road can accommodate more vehicles. Once again totally stupid plan to place houses on this junction. The road into Wallington cannot cope with the cars currently using in and there are often case of road rage here on this junction when residents by the river have to leave their cars parked to the side of the road and two directions of traffic also have to use the road and again – no pavements for dog walkers or pedestrians. Wallington cant cope with the number of cars at the moment without adding more. Access in and out of the village is already very dangerous with all the cars that park in front of the cottages facing river which only allows one direction of traffic – not two! The road is also prone to flooding during winter and high tides. Standard Way is currently a nightmare during the week when the burger man parks his van and then that whole side of the road is choccablock with big lorries and again the road is only big enough for one direction of traffic – I've seen many near misses on this road from the corner in question up to Loc'N'store, so only an idiot would encourage more people and more cars.
PO16
Location is not suitable for pedestrians, in an area that already is finding it difficult to cope with traffic, noise. Pollution levels must be a concern. Unsuitable site, implication of flooding due to numerous springs. Roads narrow, have no pavements and already have enough vehicles transitting through, both Pinks Hill and Military Road and indeed the whole Wallington village. Pinks Hill and Standard Way are used by heavy lorries and commuters to M27, the junction at North Wallington and Standard Way is already overloaded. North Wallington is being used as a car park for those working in Fareham or Industrial Park. Pedestrian safety has to be considered, also on noise and air pollution. Anymore development around the village will have detrimental effects on safety of pedestrians, pollution levels would be exacerpated in an area that already has a waste transfer station. There are few green spaces left in and around the village.
PO`16
Unsuitable access by road or pavement. Possible unstable ground for building houses due to previous disturbance.
PO16
Access will be via Pink Hill, a private road without a footpath and narrow. Coming out cars will use routes through the village, already congested. Standard Way has no footpath and is used by heavy lorries. The noise from the motorway access and Fareham overpass will be intolerable. The access roads are all private roads, narrow and with no footpaths. Several lorries have stuck and cranes have had to be used to clear them. The site is full of springs and water runs off in wet weather. A few years ago, after rain a small stream ran down the hill, [redacted] then down to the Shore Road causing flooding. Now the ramp and land across the road will make the flooding worse when it happens again. Built on, no water will be absorbed. Another 50 cars using the roads through the village.
PO16
The site is unsuitable for access. Pedestrian access would be difficult and not safe. Noise and airborne pollution would be very bad. It has no pavement or public transport close by. Access to the rest of the village is very difficult whether on foot or by car.
PO16
Our village of Wallington is already sandwiched between a very large industrial estate and the motorway. The fields adjacent to the M27 in Pinks Hill in question, provide a much needed small green isolation area for noise and pollution, between the motorway and our village. There are not many green spaces left in Wallington, which has been encroached upon over the past 60 years with industrial and road development. I should know, as generations of my family have lived in Wallington for well over 100 years. Pollution is of massive concern. The motorway runs adjacent to Wallington, and Pinks Hill provides the only protection and isolation zone. More houses, industrial units and more traffic replacing this green buffer zone is totally unacceptable. Also, to add residential housing to a road (Pinks Hill) which is small, winding, non-pavemented, and is already extremely busy with Suez and other large industrial HGVs frequenting it, this makes it extremely unsuitable in terms of access, and will cause further traffic on the already unsuitably busy road. Consequently, obvious concerns are also raised over the safety of this proposal. In fact, it is difficult to imagine how pedestrians could safely cross Pinks Hill with the heavy industrial traffic on this tiny road, without the total reconstruction of the road and road network. Pinks Hill is simply too unsuitable, unpractical and dangerous to be further developed. In addition, Wallington already has reached a capacity for traffic through the village. The narrow road that runs through North Wallington is already at capacity in terms of traffic and parked cars. More residential or/and industrial development will only compound an existing problem.
PO16
I object to the developments proposed for Pinks Hill in Wallington for a number of reasons. Firstly, it is a protective barrier to the noise and other forms of pollution produced by the increasingly busy M27. Is it fair to even propose houses for people next to the motorway? I don't think it is fair for current residents to be exposed to the pollution when the barrier of trees has been removed. I am also concerned about the eradication of green land within Wallington, which is drastically reduce its 'village' feel. Can it really be called a village any more if all these plans within the area get the green light? Is that an image the council would wish to protect; that it destroyed Wallington village? What about the wildlife in this area as well? I have seen deer on numerous occasions for example. Thirdly, the infrastructure of the local roads are not going to be able to withstand such developments in my opinion. Pinks Hill already can be quite dangerous with large vehicles accessing the Industrial estate, and sometimes, it has to be one vehicle at a time. Neither Pinks Hill nor Military Road have pavements either, and this will not be safe for future residents moving in to this area if we are going to increase the traffic flow. There will be no local transport links either? Finally, I am concerned about the water table being affected by further developments within Wallington, and the impact this might have on increasing the risk of flooding within the local area.
PO16
I strongly object to the proposed housing development on Pinks Hill in Wallington Village. I have huge concerns over the number of houses proposed in relation to the safety of the road. The lane is not an adopted highway and therefore is not designed for heavy use. In parts of this lane, only one vehicle can safely fit down it. I struggle to see how it will support potential new residents. There is no infrastructure for pedestrian access on this lane. It would need serious adaptations to make the road safe for pedestrians and two way vehicles with the addition of a pedestrian crossing and paths to provide adequate safety to access to the proposed site. I struggle to see from the plans how this provision would be implemented in a reasonable way to ensure the safety of all residents. Furthermore, pedestrian access would need to be improved along the route of North Wallington to provide realistic access into Fareham town to local schools and doctors. As it is, the road of North Wallington cannot be widened. There is a river one side and houses the other. On some parts of North Wallington it is almost impossible to walk with a pram on the path-I have tried! If the proposed houses are implemented, and according to your draft plan you are anticipating families as a play area has been recommended if the site goes ahead, there will be a huge increase in pedestrians requiring access. This cannot be overlooked as it would be a huge safety issue if pedestrian access is not considered. Secondly, I object based on noise levels the new residents would receive in the proposed site. The local draft plan does not specify how noise levels may be mitigated to a satisfactory level due to the proximity of the A27 and M27. I struggle to see how present noise levels would be acceptable under building regulations. In addition to this, pollution from A27 and M27 are going to have huge impacts on the residents at the proposed sites. With added cars around the site I am concerned that the pollution levels will rise and could never be brought within imposed limits. Surely FBC will be penalised if pollution levels increase rather than decrease, particularly around such key areas? The trees currently on the proposed site also act as a noise barrier to current Wallington residents. i request evidence that replacing these trees with dwellings will not impact negatively on noise levels within the village.
PO16
The assessment down plays the unsuitable of the site from a access point of view. The road is not an adopted highway and it is hard to see how pedestrian access could safely be achieved without an overbridge, given the intensity of heavy goods tyraffic. Also there is no obvious way to cater for any large scale domestic traffic without extensive modification. It has no pavement, it is derestricted and there is no public ytransport rout close by. Access to the rest of the village is highly problematical whether on foot or by car.
PO16
Road access and safety on already heavily congested roads. Concerned about air and noise pollution Another development will put pressure on local amenities, Harrison School and the Health Centre particularly Flood risk is high less ground to soak rain water and more concrete creating run offs into Wallington
PO16
The access roads are not suitable for additional development in this location. Pedestrians will be placed at high risk due to lack of any local amenities combined with intense heavy goods traffic. Further development and use of the Pinks Hill slip road will lead to the damage and destruction of the WW11 pillar box at the road side.
PO16
Access to this site is problematic both on foot or by car and existing roads too narrow to for the provision of footpaths. The proximity of this site to the M27 would result in unacceptable noise levels and airborne pollution level which I doubt could be overcome. Building on this site would cause harm to the character of existing settlement of Wallington. The number of dwellings proposed for Wallington is a third as many houses as there are at present.
PO16
Due to the main access road forcing traffic to the motorway Wallington village will become the main access route for any development on this site. The road infrastructure is not suitable for development being made up of unadapoted roads that provide no pedestrian access. This site is not accessible to Fareham without travelling either via Wallington village or standard way industrial site both of which already suffer from excessive traffic.
PO16
This currently green space at the edge of Wallington viallage provides a buffer between the the M27 and dual carriage way. Vehicle access could not be brought up to a safe level with single track private road to pinks Hill. The site is not connect to Fareham Town centre forcing traffic through Wallington Village which requires traffic claiming or Standard way - carrying speed HGV's / industrial site vehicles. There is no pedestrian link to the rest of the village/town centre with no footpath - posing serious risks to residence and forcing vehicle usage adding to air & pollution There is no amenities to sustain the increased population in Wallington village with no school provision, public transport links & is isolated. This would increase vehicles usage through Wallington village as a rat run / standard way/ pinks hill / drift road which already can not cope with the volume /speed. The run off after/drainage from the site would increase the existing flood risk.
PO16
Large Format Response - Ref0020
SO30
Large Format Response - Ref0024
PO16
80 Dwellings!!! Too much new traffic near a congested village. Concerned re effects on sewerage, drainage, access on dwellings below this site.
PO16
Again there is no safe pedestrian access and there is a WWII pill box hals way up it preventing road widening. Noise and pollution from the M27 slip road are also a big consideration. Currently its very dangerous road (which is also unadopted like Military Road) due to heavy lorries travelling to and from the two industrial sites it links to the motorway slip road.
PO16
I object to the proposed development of Wallington Village the proposed housing scheme will change the village aspect of Wallington, which is already over housed. I would rather pay more rates than have our village environment ruined. There are not enough jobs, nor health support nor schools to support an increase in the population. Drift Road & Military Road aspects enable Wallington to maintain a country environment. Building in Gauntlets Field will affect the water table. Trees are already dying south of the field and the Council was adamant that a tree line be maintained in Wallington. Pinks Hill is likely to invoke subsidence because of the clay soil and likely to affect the motorway slip road which Standard Way is already well used by heavy industrial traffic making either side of the road an awful place to reside. Fareham Council allowed "The Woodlands" development against harsh criticism. As such this development has denied people access to an important wildlife habitat.
PO16
Infrastucture- Wallington has narrow roads and an excess of vehicles using them, A 20mph limit is not adhered to and further traffic would only exacerbate the problems including access onto the Delme roundabout where vehicle pollution is excessive further developments will only serve to place greater strain on the existing power & drainage utilities. Flood risk and loss of open spaces need urgent consideration.
PO16
This site represents on e of the four proposed sites for developments in our village area. It represents a large proportion of the only green areas remaining with our boundaries. The accessibility to it and traffic disruption to Fareham as a whole cannot be ignored ! The site generally is not suitable for extra vehicles or a change in the landscape.
PO16
Road access problematical - pedestrian safety issues, increased traffic flow, flood risk from increased run - off and loss of green areas.
PO16
Roads access problematical- safety issues for both pedestrians, drivers,cyclist due to increased traffic flow. Run off water from this field into lower properties on Military rd are causing a flood of water down path ways now. Loss of green areas.
PO16
Concern regarding further flooding in wallington shore Rd increase traffic in Wallington and roundabout-already very difficult to negotiate Pedestrian safety in village + school children crossing round about.
PO16
Pinks Hill is totally unsuitable with regard to traffic a safe access. we are concerned about watershed, sewerage effect on the village. Are Drift Rd & Delme Drive under threat of becoming access roads? How would children get to school? Can Medical surgeries cope.?
PO16
Large Format Response - Ref0043
SO23
Pink Hill extremely narrow more lane than road {not Known} and hazardous of heavy lorries & vans from the fert Industrial estate, no pavements and increased foot fall of pededtrains. access to road would increase hazards because of increase in white van vehicles and general traffic from offices and from the industrial sites and villages already accesing Pink Hill for slip road for M27. Blind bends along Pink Hill standard way near misses when exiting Military Rd and industrial sites. Very large lorries from recycling plant, which are often parked up waiting entry. Water run off at present causes hazards and in winter if there is ice/snow road around becomes impassable. Increase in environment pollution and surrounding area already exist would only be exaserbited by new dwellings. Again wildlife needs to be protected along with some of the last remaining green space in the village. I wish you to add my comment to those of my neighbor who live in Eat Hill house Military rd and those from Woodlands and Hill croft.
PO16
Southern Water is the statutory wastewater undertaker in Wallington. Housing Allocation HA8 allocates 80 dwellings at Pinks Hill. In line with paragraph 162 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG), we have undertaken an assessment of our infrastructure and its ability to meet the forecast demand for the proposed development. That assessment reveals that additional local sewerage infrastructure would be required to accommodate the proposed development (involving making a connection to the network at the nearest point of adequate capacity). Southern Water has limited powers to prevent connections to the sewerage network, even when capacity is insufficient. Planning policies and planning conditions, therefore, play an important role in securing the necessary local sewerage infrastructure in parallel with the development. Specific policy provision would be in line with the NPPF. For instance, paragraph 157 of the NPPF states that Local Plans should 'plan positively for the development and infrastructure required in the area to meet the objectives, principles and policies of this framework'. Also paragraph 177 of the NPPF outlines that it is important to ensure that planned infrastructure is deliverable in a timely fashion. Accordingly, infrastructure and development policies should be planned at the same time in the Local Plan. Insufficient capacity is not a constraint to development as extra capacity can be provided. However, it is important to give early warning to prospective developers regarding the need for local sewerage infrastructure. Early warning will facilitate delivery of the necessary infrastructure as it can be incorporated early in the planning process. If the requisite infrastructure is not delivered, the sewers would become overloaded, leading to pollution of the environment. This situation would be contrary to paragraph 109 of the NPPF, which requires the planning system to prevent new and existing development from contributing to pollution. Accordingly we propose that the following criterion is added to policy HA8 (new text underlined): Planning permission will be granted provided that detailed proposals accord with the policies in the Local Plan and meet the following site specific requirements: [...] l) Provide a connection at the nearest point of adequate capacity in the sewerage network, in collaboration with the service provider.
BN2
Large Format Response - Ref0056
PO16
The access road is very narrow, is not an adopted highway, there is on site very close to the road. A WW2 listed pill box preventing road widening. This site is very close to a very busy entrance exit slip road system for the overcrowded junction 2 on the M27. Air and noise pollution are high now and will increase. Pedestrian access to the village is very doubtful. This is also a green field site.
PO16
Run off into River Wallington. Access to the rest of the village is highly problematical either by foot or car
PO16
This site is a small but important piece of downland which complements the land on the other side of the M27 link road and has rich flora including many orchids. It provides an important barrier between the heavy traffic on the link road (often queuing at peak times) and the village of Wallington, helping to reduce the noise and air pollution suffered by the residents. Also, the road which runs past it is already heavily used by vehicles from the Standard Way and Fort Wallington industrial sites and the route from it to the M27 is down a steep, single-track, private road. There is no public transport near to the site nor is it likely that any could be provided.
PO16
My concerns are loss of green space separating residential and industrial areas. Local wildlife occupy the proposed area including roe deer, owls, bats. Additional noise and air pollution, caused by traffic. Risk of change to natural water springs could cause flooding. This is one of 4 proposed sites for Wallington which will change its village character. We support the development of Welbourne on the basis that the green space within Fareham are protected. I would prefer to see Welbourne extended to meet the additional housing need.
PO16
Pinks Hill is also un-adopted and it is difficult to visualize safely pedestrian access could safely be achieved, given the amount of heavy goods, traffic and no pavements. The saturation of traffic in the Wallington environs is a problem to many residents and users and further numbers can only exacerbate the situation.
PO16
a major responsibility of any council is to promote health and safety and quality of life of its residents. The residents of Wallington are already subjected to unacceptable levels of noise pollution from M27 and is also part of the disproportionately crowded Fareham (see recent BBC report). There are very few green areas remaining in Wallington. It is disappointing therefore to see that the update in January 2014 Housing Targets report is now overridden i.e. Gauntlets Field - site is situated outside the defined urban settlement boundary. Site is green field. Ditto for 0322 Pinks Hill and 0324 North Wallington, Standard Way. What is the reason for this? Councillor Trevor Cartwright, executive member of health confirmed to me that DEFRA's desk top study has alleged that there are illegal levels of nitrogen dioxide between the top of the A32 and Junction 11 of the M27. FBC has been instructed by the Government to address the matter and FBC are installing 19 cameras at a cost of £94,000 in the area of Junction 11 to carry out feasibility study and report by March 2018. It seems therefore that no decision on infilling in Wallington can be made until at least the study is concluded and considered, as the problem, added to the noise pollution generally for M27, is not conducive to the good health and wellbeing of the residents in Wallington. The result is likely to be marginal either way and could be adversely affected by the additional traffic generated by Welbourne. I leave others to make very valid points about the remaining greenfield sites, now under threat, for absorbing apparently illegal levels of nitrogen dioxide, particulates, and other emissions, and problems of drainage and access which surely must be considered before proceeding with the allocation of additional housing development in Wallington. The point about pollution appears to have been ignored in the Fareham Local Plan 2036 Strategic Housing Land availability.
PO16
No pedestrian access and busy road with lots of HGVs often turning in the road. Wallington cannot cope with extra vehicles trying to access 'short cut' via Military Road and Drift Road as both single lane and already problems with passing vehicles. Difficult turn at end of Drift Road larger vehicles get stuck. Increased noise already from industrial units could potentially make this worse than it already is.
PO16
Pinks Hill is an unsuitable site for 80 houses:- 1. Access problems. 2. Traffic problems. 3. Environmental! Air Quality/Noise. 4. This area part of strategic gap. 5. Extra strain on infrastructure.
PO16
There will be significant pollution of both air and noise both with the potential for detrimental health issues if proposed development were to proceed. The road infrastructure is at saturation now so perhaps major improvements are planned in conjunction with the proposed development? How safe would pedestrians be or how confident would they feel breathing toxic fumes and dodging heavy traffic. Also the water run-off into the river wallington and issues regarding other waste water and sewerage raise serious doubts about the water companies involved being able to cope with the increase inadequately.
Postcode not provided
Whilst it is appreciated the Council is required by Central Government to produce a Local Plan 2036 identifying possible sites for development the following should be considered and resolved before submission. Traffic and pedestrian access The existing roads are narrow and many do not provide safe pavements for pedestrians and traffic is further restricted by parked cars. Access onto the Delme Roundabout from Wallington Shore Road is currently difficult and with the development of the Welbourne site traffic will increase. The location of schools relative to the proposed sites will cause children to use substandard roads and pavements and will be a safety hazard. Water and Sewage In the past few years rain water discharge from Gauntlet's Field has caused problems for property further down the hill and any development may increase this danger. When the Clifton Mews development was considered the existing sewage appeared to have insufficient capacity and any further increase in house numbers could cause major problems. If the proposed developments are allowed their effect on water discharge into the river Wallington should be investigated.
PO16
Currently Wallington is a semi-rural village with a unique identity and separate to the nearby Fareham Town Centre and Portchester urban sprawl. Defining the unique community is to strip of open land and fields that constitutes the proposed development land. This open land provides a buffer to the noise and air pollution from Junction 11 and M27 motorway and is used as an open space by reisdents and visitors, also providing an open green backdrop to the Wallington Conservation area and water meadows. The green land holds surface water that regulates river levels during spates; protecting downhill/downstream dwellings from flooding. The houses and businesses directly adjacent to the land are unique older properties including Riverdale Cottages, Fort Wallington battlements, WW2 machine gun emplacement and pumping station/cottage. Developing the sites proposed will infill the area which defines Wallington as a separate semi-rural village, apart from Fareham Town Centre and Portchester urban areas. Developing this land will cause Wallington to become part of a homogeneous urban sprawl intersected by the trunk roads and motorway but without clear definition. This will destroy the rural boundary of Wallington and the village will lose its identity and sense of community. Development will cause the loss of open space enjoyed by villagers and visitors and will have an adverse affect on residents' wellbeing. By its magnitude and elevated location on the hill slopes, the development will have an overbearing and intrusive impact on the existing homes an businesses on the northern edge of the village and will have a detrimental effect on views and privacy. By its magnitude and elevated location on the hill slopes, the development will have an adverse affect on the existing homes and and businesses on the northern edge of the village and will have a detrimental effect on views and privacy. The character of the village and especially the local/adjacent neighbourhood will be negatively impacted by this out-of-scale proposed development. All other houses in the vicinity are individual or small clusters of unique cottages. The proposed development will intrude on the adjacent conservation area/water meadow views and this special amenity will be affectively lost to residents and visitors. The area of proposed development is trapped between existing dwellings and the motorway; construction and access will negatively impact the lives of neighboring residents. Construction will add unbearable levels of disruption, noise and pollution. The already busy narrow local roads of North Wallington, Military Road and Pinks Hill will become highly congested and the small amount of on-road parking will become over-subscribed - many of the older existing properties do not have the option to create off road parking. There is not the local roads, pavements and infrastructure to support the construction stage of the development, not is there the option/space to develop the infrastructure to accommodate construction. The construction site will cause surface water to flow down the hill towards the river Wallington and increase the risk of local flooding of existing homes. The developments if built will be adversely affected by motorway noise and air pollution. Development will cause the loss of the strip of 'green lung' that helps protect local residents from the impact of motorway noise and air pollution. The already congested roads of North Wallington, Military Road and Pinks Hill will not be able to support the additional traffic caused by the new dwellings. Current on-road parking adjacent to the North Wallington/Pinks hill horse field will be lost. Lorries and traffic from the Standard Way industrial estate will create an unacceptable risk to the new residents. The development will cause surface water to wash directly towards the river and existing homes, increasing flooding.
PO16
Pinks Hill with an entrance / exit road to the Motorway would have enormous consequences with pedestrian safety, health and pollution issues. Also to provide more industrial units into this very small part of Fareham, so completely surrounding Wallington with industry is nonsensical and unfair.
PO16
Access to the site will create major problems to pedestrians (no transport in the area). Road traffic needs major considerations as to where new toad work can be positioned and where traffic will be discharged. Wallington village is totally unsuitable to handle this type of development.
PO16
I found this a very narrow dangerous road with many huge lorries travelling in both directions. On occasion there are many pedestrians who put themselves at great risk in walking up Pinks Hill It is not an adopted road and it has no pavement. There are clearly major pedestrians safety issues here. In addition the likely significant increased traffic given the large number of dwellings proposed would bring this narrow road to a standstill.
PO16
This open pasture land forms part of a separation zone on this Wallington site of M27 approach road. The other being on the Downend site. It serves as an isolation for noise and pollution from the multilane highway. Access to the site is problematic as it is un-adopted country lanes, one of which with another road is use constantly by heavy lorries and other industrial vehicles. access to the rest of Wallington and its supermarket would be difficult, almost impossible for pedestrian which would encourage car usage as a much larger scale than Wallington's road can cope with.
PO16
Pinks Hill is an unsuitable site for 80 houses: 1. Access problems 2. Traffic problems 3. Environmental/air quality/noise 4. in the area of the 'strategic gap'. 5. Extra strain on infrastructure.
PO16
Any development would spoil the omenity of the area and character of Wallington. It would also spoil the approach to the only remaining attractive approach to Fareham leading to the River wallington, and Cams Area. Wallington remains a village atmosphere, it will become a housing estate if this area and the others at Military Road and Horses Field (HA8) proceed. The infrastructure - roads, paths etc. are inadequate and again and development will spoil the area for existing residents.
PO16
If this building goes ahead will there be any affordable housing for first time buyers? What guarantee is there if business units are set up that they will employ sufficient people to make them worthwhile, or will they be used. Also, how will they improve the roundabout at Sainsbury and Wallington Way to facilitate the volume of extra traffic?
PO16
Extra traffic, cars, lorries and workmen will cause chaos in our village. Comments made by WVCA are accurate and have been thoroughly researched.
PO16
This is a green field site and unsuitable for housing. The roads are inadequate and there is no scope to improve them to a suitable standard. there is no pedestrian access or pavments. There are no facilities and no public transport.
PO16
This site would prove unsuitable. Half of the land provides a sensible separation zone on this side of the M27 approach road. Access to and from the village would prove difficult on foot or in a car. Pinks Hill has no pavement and is quite narrow. There is a wartime pill box on the side of the road which is of historic interest. Again, air and noise pollution could be a problem because of close proximity of a busy A27 and M27. Run off surface water again could be a problem for the River Wallington.
PO16
• Access is from an unadopted highway with no pedestrian parts. • These properties would be quite isolated and lead to greater use of cars in the area. • Traffic flow through congested narrow village streets would be increases leading to safety issues. • This area sense as a natural buffer for the noise and pollution of the slip road leading to the M27
PO16
The site is unsuitable, it has inadequate road access -single treck with limited access by poor function with Ship Rd. No public transport , No foot path on Pionk Hill. local swage system want cope with added requirements. 1.5mile distance to Fareham/M27 using standard ways will tur Drift road + military rd into a Rat Run.
PO16
Large Format Response - Ref0064
Large Format Response - Ref0064
PO16
Large Format Response - Ref0062
PO16
The pasture land forms a much more needed buffer, Wallington and the M27/A27 access to the site and noise, air pollution caused make it totally unacceptable. The pollution levels here are already over acceptable limits.
PO16
Pinks Hill is a substandard private land whose width is restricted of the mid-point by a listed world war two pill-box. The road is currently very heavily used by HGC. The sloping site enjoys views of 6 lanes of ill slip road. More concerning is FBC proposals to site housing in such close proximity to carbon monoxide black spot. Despite recently being told by central government to address the issue. In summer – Pinks Hill is unsuitable location, it is an isolated site with no facilities, no access to public transport and difficult to access.
PO16
Totally unsuitable, air quality already over the limit, not the place for housing or a play area. Up to date air quality tests are still to be done!!! Also this land is a buffer for existing homes. As well as a pollution this area also has a waste disposal operation with lots of large lorries using it, more risks. When it's gone, it's gone.
PO16
Access to Fareham will be via Standard Way/Broadcut - A hazard to pedestrians, many people, especially towards the more northerly parts of Wallington, use Military road and or Pinks Hill to access the slip road onto Junction 11 of the M27. These roads cope with the traffic currently but the large number of houses proposed - with many new households using more than one car, would not be able to use these roads without problems cause on what are, effectively single carriageway routes. Widening would cause complete closure of them during the necessary works. This would impact current commercial traffic as well. The intent to build further housing in Wallington increases the impact to result from the Development at welborne. The river running through the village is vulnerable to conditions/activities upstream and during the severe flooding, vehicular traffic for many, is only possible in and out via Drift road and Military road, Pinks hill. The river supports a variety of wildlife , not just ducks and fish, that includes egrets and kingfishers at some times in the year. Pinks hill provides a green buffer between the village and M27 where nature can find refuge from human activity. Wallington residents have few facilities in the village, needing to travel into Fareham Town for Doctors, and other healthcare which will be very overstretched by Welborne where such facilities are not planned to be provided for until enough houses are built there, which will not be at the outset and could be several years. This also applies to schools.
PO16
Large Format Response - Ref0066
Postcode not provided
The Fareham Borough Council Local Plan includes Core Strategic Policy CS4 which sets out a hierarchy of nature conservation designations and emphasises the importance of protecting these sites, habitats and species, including local wildlife sites and corridors which contribute to the wider biodiversity of the Borough. These measures stem from the Earth Summit at Rio deo Janeiro in 1992 and the UK Government's commitment to the convention on the Conservation of Biological Diversity leading to the adoption of the UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UK BAP). I wish to object to the method being adopted for considering future building sites in the Borough which fails to recognise this important environmental undertaking and is detrimental to any existing or potential value the land may have for wildlife. I have observed Common Bird's-foot-trefoil (Lotus corniculatus) along the grass verge of Military Road for example which is the larval foodplant of several butterflies, in particular the Common Blue (Polyommatus lcarus) which I have seen here. Other grass feeding butterfly species, of which 11 have been found in the Borough, are also present and what may appear to be insignificant patches of grassland are often habitats for them, especially if allowed to mature for overwintering butterflies such as the Small Skipper (Thymelicus sylvestris). These and other insects are a key ecological element and provide an important food resource for other wildlife. Furthermore, the sites help to form essential corridors for wildlife allowing many insect species to disperse and form metapopulations which can strengthen landscape-scale conservation. For these reasons I oppose development on the above sites. Erecting buildings on these sites could affect the water table by reducing the areas of land available for soakage in times of heavy rainfall and where spring water is evident, thereby, possibly adding to the risk of flooding in Wallington. The Council's proposals fail to mention topographical constraints such as the impact a development could have on sloping sites where roofs would penetrate the skyline and the incline create a greater visual intrusion demanding a scheme of high architectural quality, ideally avoiding pastiche. Furthermore, the proximity of the M27, Junction 11 and the south motorway link with noise and pollution generated by intensive traffic, will be a serious environmental concern for new residents living nearby which, to overcome, could mean higher building costs. I therefore oppose development on the above sites.
PO16
Large Format Response - Ref0083
SO51
Back to Top
How to get here
