New Community North of Fareham
Options Consultation

In this consultation will be asking you to comment on masterplanning and other options for the New Community North of Fareham.

What are Masterplanning Options?

These are options for the development of the new community. The Masterplanning Options do not provide a detailed layout, but show the broad location of uses on the site, including homes, workplaces, schools, district and local centres and areas of open space e.g. parks.  They try to balance what we would like the new community to be like, with constraints on the site such as the High Pressure Gas Pipeline.  The details in the options maps you will see are not fixed at this point and can change. You can find out more about the Masterplan and what has influenced the different Options here.

What is in this survey?

In this survey we will ask you to comment on 4 masterplan and accompanying transport options for the New Community.  You will see advantages and disadvantages for each of the options and a map showing how they could look.  Towards the end of the survey you will be asked which masterplan option you prefer.

You will also be asked questions about the following:

· Location of the new district centre
· Location of the secondary school
· Other possible options for the New Community
· Green open spaces
· Energy generation
· Water  

You can open the options consultation document which may help you compare the different options when you work through the survey.

What will you do with my answers?

What you tell us will help us to develop a first draft of the Area Action Plan (also called a ‘Preferred Options Draft’). This will be published for consultation this coming Winter.

Please remember to click submit at the end of the survey to send us your answers.

Masterplanning Option 1

Provides around 6,650  to 7,250 new homes (at an average density of between 35 to 38 homes per hectare) and between 80,500 to 87,700 sq m of employment floorspace, mostly adjoining Junction 11.  New access route from the A32 to Junction 11.

Advantages

· Locating most of the employment development at Junction 11 frees up land west of the A32 for housing development.
· Opportunity for high quality and well-landscaped employment uses.
· Spreads additional traffic between Junctions 10 and 11.
· Potentially the best option for ensuring that sufficient jobs are provided to reduce commuting and  encourage ‘self-containment.’
· Broadly consistent with the Core Strategy.

Disadvantages

· Potential environmental and landscape impacts of development around Junction 11.
· Majority of employment is set away from the housing so would not be as well integrated into the community as in other options.
· High costs involved in developing the Junction 11 link road.
· Traffic from development has effects on two M27 motorway junctions.

Transport Option 1

This Transport Option supports development around Junction 11 with a new link road connecting the A32 to Junction 11.  This solution will require improvements at Junction 11 to cater for the extra traffic. Improvements would also be needed at Junction 10 to manage additional traffic flow and improve road safety.  The Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Eclipse service would follow the new link road and connect the new housing with the new employment development at Junction 11.

Advantages

· Overall containment within the new community will be high due to the mix of land uses and extent of employment land.
· This solution will reduce the importance of the existing A32, as traffic will divert onto the new link road, which may allow for the possibility of turning this into a local road, rather than a major route as at present.
· The new link road would improve access to the M27 for traffic travelling west towards Southampton via Junction 11.  At present it is not possible to travel westwards from Junction 10 without first travelling to Junction 11 to gain access to the westbound carriageway.

Disadvantages

· The new link road would be expensive; with potentially significant environmental impacts so it would need to be carefully managed.
· Providing the principal access to the new community via Junction 11 will create significant traffic impact at a single point on the road network, making it more difficult and costly to manage potential impacts on the surrounding network when compared to a more dispersed access solution.
· The greatest impacts are likely to be highest on the M27 and A27, although potential impacts on other roads would also need to be mitigated. The nature of these works will be determined by further traffic modelling.

Masterplan Option 2

This option has the same land-uses as Option 1, but there is no new link to Junction 11.

Advantages

· Easier to bring forward employment and create jobs more quickly  as no new road is required.
· Reduces the infrastructure costs for the development to help ensure other community facilities can be provided.
· The employment area at Junction 11 would still be linked to the rest of the new community by Bus Rapid Transit.

Disadvantages

· The employment area at Junction 11 could potentially operate as an isolated employment site.
· The lack of connection between the residential and employment areas may reduce self-containment and may increase car trips overall.
· This option is still likely to require improvements to both Junctions 10 and 11.
· The extent of the land that is available east of the existing A32 is to be confirmed.

Transport Option 2

This Transport Option is the same as Option 1  but without a link road to Junction 11.  Capacity at Junction 10 would need to be improved, possibly making this an ‘all-moves’ junction, which allows traffic movement in any direction. This would overcome the current lack of a westbound movement at that junction. Further work will need to be carried out to work out the best way to design this new junction.  Without all-moves capability at Junction 10, traffic heading west (and coming from the west) would need to use Junction 11 to turn around which might have a significant impact on the operation of the M27.  Improvements might still be necessary at Junction 11 to allow for the additional traffic generated by  the new community.

Advantages

· Option 2 is expected to cost less than option 1, although how much less depends on how Junction 10 would be designed.
· The absence of a new road means that there is  less of an environmental impact compared to  Transport Option 1.
· Traffic would access the development area at two separate points, rather than only Junction 11, which may help reduce the impact of the additional traffic by dispersing it over a wider area.
· New development to the east of the existing A32 would be better related to the adjacent open countryside without the separation of the major new A32 link road.

Disadvantages

· This solution would require significant improvements to both Junctions 10 and 11.
· Although walking, cycling and Bus Rapid Transit connections would be provided between the eastern and central part of the new  community, overall it would feel more divided and there is a significant risk that many working at the Junction 11 employment area would use cars to get to work, creating more car trips.
· The existing A32 would remain as a busy main route, removing the opportunity to make it a more ‘local street’.
· It is possible the existing A32 may require some work to overcome the impact of higher traffic flows and to enable connections between the main development and the smaller site to the east.

Masterplan Option 3

Provides around 6,300 to 6,850 new homes at an average density of between 35 to 38 homes per hectare. Provides 76,200  to 82,850 sq m of employment floorspace, with no development at Junction 11.

Advantages

· Less land required overall than in Options 1 and 2.
· Does not develop on the land with the greatest landscape and environmental sensitivity.
· Creates a good balance and closer links between new jobs and homes, allowing for a high level of self-containment.
· New development to the east of the existing A32 would be better related to the adjacent open countryside without the separation of the major new A32 link road.
· Broadly consistent with the  Core Strategy.

Disadvantages

· Junction 10 is likely to need major improvements to cope with the extra traffic.
· The extent of the land available to the east of the existing A32 is to be confirmed.
· The A32 would act as a barrier between the different sides of the community.
· With no new link-road, there would be no clear barrier to contain the development to the east of the A32.

Transport Option 3

Transport Option 3 focuses traffic on Junction 10 via the existing A32. As with the Transport Option 2, this will require substantial improvements to Junction 10 to enable west  facing movements on the M27.  There are various options for the design of  the improvements to Junction 10 and further work will need to be carried out to determine the best solution.  Some improvements may be required to Junction 11, but these are likely to be more minor than in Option 1.

Advantages

· Better access to the motorway for traffic wishing to travel west.
· The overall development is more compact, with no need to provide costly  road links between the main development area and land at Junction 11.
· Reduces traffic impacts on Junction 11 and there will be no impact on Portsdown Hill  which will remain unaffected by the development and associated traffic.

Disadvantages

· Providing the main access to the new community via Junction 10 creates significant traffic impact at a single point on the road network, making it more difficult and costly to manage potential impacts on the surrounding roads when compared to a more dispersed access solution.  
· The A32 will be a very busy road. As this option involves development on both sides of the existing A32, this may result in a divided community as the opportunity for transforming the road into a pedestrian friendly street would be greatly reduced.

Transport Option 3

Masterplanning Option 4

Provides around 5,400 to 5,900 new homes at an average density of between 35 to 38 homes per hectare. Provides 65,300 to 71,400 sq m of employment floorspace, with no development east of the A32.

Advantages

· Smaller, more compact development with no severance problems because it  is not split by the A32.
· Develops on the least land-area of all the options.
· Avoids developing on the land with greatest environmental and landscape sensitivity to the east of the existing A32.
· No problems with land availability.
· There will be clear boundaries to the development area.

Disadvantages

· Not consistent with the Core Strategy targets for homes and employment.
· Could lead to pressure to raise housing densities  and reduce open space to make up the numbers.
· There could be pressure to make up the housing shortfall on other sites in the Borough.
· Could affect  overall economic viability.
· More difficult to meet the need for affordable housing and infrastructure due to fewer homes in total.

Transport Option 4

The main feature of this Option is that development would be provided only to the west of the existing A32, resulting in a smaller development site. The transport solution would be similar to Option 3.

Advantages

· The reduced scale of the development would have less impact on the strategic and local road networks.
· The community is focused entirely on the west of the existing A32 which means that the community would not be divided by a main road.

Disadvantages

· The smaller scale of the development means that there would be less money paid by developers to help fund infrastructure needs.
· A smaller development might reduce the amount of retail and other services provided on-site, meaning more people would make trips off site to access those services.
· A smaller development may reduce the potential number of passengers on the Bus Rapid Transit and may make it unviable to extend this service to the new community.

Location of the New District Centre

It is important that residents of the new community can meet their daily needs within the community, and without being forced to use a car.

There will be a new district centre which will provide shops, places to eat, local and community services. There will also be three smaller local centres within walking distance of the new houses.

The 4 masterplanning options all show the district centre in the same location.  However, there is flexibility in this and a number of options are available, as shown on the map that follows.

The new district centre could be located:

1.   Close to the existing A32 and to the employment areas to attract passing trade.

2.   At the corner of the Knowle Road and A32 but on the edge of the new community.

3.   Close to the Knowle Road but more central to the new community.

4.   More centrally located to improve accessibility for greatest number of new residents, but not near an existing route.

Location of the Secondary School

All of the masterplanning options include provision for a new secondary school to serve the new community. This may not be required in the early years of the development , but will need to be in a location where it can be built at the right time.

The map below indicates two options for the location of the secondary school. It will be important that the school is accessible to both the residents of the new community and also to existing residents. The new secondary school could be located:

1.   East of Funtley where it would benefit from existing pedestrian and cycle access from south of the M27

2.   East of the A32 where it would benefit from excellent road access from Fareham

Further Possible Variations

In addition to the options already presented, there are a number of other possible variations that could fit with any of the masterplan options. The effect of these would be to free-up further land for housing on the main part of the site and thereby reduce the overall land needed to meet the housing target set by the Core Strategy (6,500 to 7,500 homes).

1.   Making the park in the middle of the new community  10% smaller would allow an extra 50 homes  to be provided (see map below).

2.   Allowing the development of around 300 homes in the Knowle buffer, or using this land for the secondary school playing fields would free-up land elsewhere on the site and still retain a 150 metre buffer for Knowle (see map below).

3.   Reducing the size of the buffer around Funtley to 50 metres  would allow an additional 150 homes to be developed. This would depend on  work to ensure that the ‘Area of Ecological Importance’ was not damaged (see map below).

4.   Reducing the amount of employment floorspace in each option could increase the land available for housing.

5.   Raising the average density to 40 homes per hectare would increase the site’s  housing capacity by between 700 - 850 homes.

Masterplanning Options...Having your say

You have seen the options for the new community including where the secondary schools and district centres could go.  Taking this into account, which of the masterplan options do you think would be most suitable and why.

We hope that you will share your views with us and help us develop a first draft of the Area Action Plan for the new community.  

Masterplanning Option 1: Includes land at Junction 11 and provides 6,650 to 7,250 homes and 80,500 to 87,700 sq. m of employment space

Masterplanning Option 2:  Includes land at Junction 11 but no link road with the same level of homes and employment as Option 1

Masterplanning Option 3: Includes land east of the A32, but none at Junction 11 and provides 6,300 to  6,850 homes and 76,200 to 82,850 sq. m of employment space

Masterplanning Option 4: Includes land to the west of the A32 only and provides 5,400 to 5,900 homes and 65,300 to 71,400 sq. m of employment space

First Stage of a Green Infrastructure Strategy

This is the strategy that will establish the amount of open space in and adjoining the new community and how it might be used.

Green infrastructure is required to make the new community a ‘green and pleasant’ place, providing opportunities for formal and informal recreational activities.  It is also important to ensure that the new community does not damage the special wildlife areas in the locality by providing suitable alternatives within and near to the site

Formal open spaces

· Parks
· Children’s play spaces
· Playing pitches, and other sports provision
· Allotments

Informal open spaces

· Wildlife areas
· Informal play areas
· Dog walking areas
· Sustainable drainage or  wetland areas

Analysis of the existing landscape, both on and near the site, has been used to develop the strategy. This identified three distinct habitat types linking across the site known as ‘strategic habitat corridors’:

· The  first  corridor reflects the existing woodland habitat which  runs along the north of the site and links with the remnants  of the Forest of Bere

· The second picks up on the existing  grassy downland habitat  which runs through the centre of the site

· The third links the two river valleys with a wetland corridor which could include a series of ponds and a sustainable drainage system

Energy

The cost of energy is rising so the new community will have to be able to meet its energy needs in a sustainable and cost effective way. The Government will require all new homes to be ‘zero carbon’ from 2016, and all new non-residential buildings (e.g. offices) to be ‘zero carbon’ from 2019. There are a variety of ways of doing this and we are asking for your opinions on the three options outlined below.

Option 1: Site Wide Energy Generation

Renewable energy could be produced at one location on the site and distributed to each building through a local power and/or a district heating network.
 
Technologies that could deliver a site-wide approach include wind turbines or a combined heat and power (CHP) station which could be fuelled by either natural gas or biomass (chipped or pulped plant matter).

Advantages

- Achieves the greatest reduction in carbon emissions
- Low levels of maintenance for residents
- Low carbon heat and power always available

Disadvantages

- High upfront cost to the developer
- Residents have little choice about energy supplier
- Wind turbines - impact on the landscape
- Gas CHP – carbon emissions still relatively high
- Biomass CHP -  traffic/noise impact from deliveries

Option 2: Individual Building Energy Generation

Micro-generation technologies, such as solar panels and ground or air source heat pumps, could be installed in individual buildings. The energy produced can be used in that building or sold to the national grid.

Advantages

- Lower upfront cost to developer
- Lower power and/or heat bills for users
- Residents and users are in control

Disadvantages

- Not as effective at reducing carbon emissions
- Homeowner responsible for maintenance
- Possible impact on the appearance of buildings

Option 3: Energy Efficiency

Buildings at the new community could be built to very high energy efficiency standards. High levels of energy efficiency can be achieved with good insulation and double or triple glazed windows, high levels of airtightness, mechanical ventilation, and by positioning buildings to make the most of the sun. ‘Passivhaus’ is one approach to achieving very low energy buildings.

Advantages

- Lower overall cost to developer
- Will last for the lifetime of the house
- Lower heat bills for users
- No or very little maintenance needed

Disadvantages

- Likely to be the least effective at cutting carbon  emissions
- In most cases, heat and power still need to be supplied
- Less flexibility for adaptations to the building (e.g. home extensions may not be possible)

Water

It will be really important that water is used sustainably in the new community because:

· The new community is in an area of serious water stress.
· The water supply in this area comes mainly from groundwater. Taking too much water from the ground could lead to less water flowing into local rivers which are important habitats for plants and animals.
· Climate change could mean less rainfall in the future, particularly in the south-east.
All buildings at the new community will have a water meter which means that residents and businesses will pay for the amount of water that they use.

Sustainable water usage could be achieved at the new community through a combination of reducing and re-using:

Reducing Water Usage

A building’s water demand can be reduced by installing a range of water efficient fittings including:

· Low flush or dual flush toilets
· Low flow taps
· Low flow showers
· Smaller baths
· Water efficient appliances such as washing machines and dishwashers
· Efficient or waterless urinals

Re-using Water

Additional water savings could be made at the new community through water re-use. Three types of water re-use have been considered.

Rainwater harvesting: collection of water falling on building roofs

Grey water recycling: wastewater from relatively clean sources such as hand basins, baths and showers

Black water recycling: reuse of all wastewater after it has been treated

About you

Fareham Borough Council - Equality Monitoring

Fareham Borough Council is committed to providing people with equal opportunities and eliminate unfair discrimination, both in the provision of service and in our role as a major employer. We want to collect information about people so that we can tailor our services to meet their needs and also make sure that we are not doing anything that stops people from having access to services, jobs or opportunities, and will change our policies and practices if that is what we need to do.

We would be grateful if you would help us by completing the monitoring information on this form. Any personal information you give us is held securely and will be used only for council purposes in accordance with our data protection policy.  If you are still unsure, the "why should I answer these questions" leaflet on the 'have your say' page at www.fareham.gov.uk may help.

The Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and the Equality Act 2010 define a person as disabled if they have a physical or mental impairment, which has a substantial and long-term effect (i.e. has lasted or is expected to last at least 12 months) and has an adverse effect on the person's ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities.

Next Steps

The results of this masterplanning consultation will help us to develop a first draft of the Area Action Plan (also called a ‘Preferred Options Draft’). This will be published for consultation this coming Winter.

Following this consultation, we will take into account what you tell us about the first draft of the plan to produce a second draft, called a ‘Pre Submission Draft’. There will be a further opportunity to make representations on this second draft  in the Summer/Autumn of 2013.

The Pre-Submission draft Area Action Plan will then be considered at an ‘Examination in Public’ by an independent government inspector, in early 2014. Finally, after the Council has taken account of any changes recommended by the inspector, the Area Action Plan is likely to be adopted by the Council in mid 2014.

We anticipate that planning applications for the new community will be ready for submission to the Council at about the time the Area Action Plan is undergoing examination. Following submission, the Council will determine these planning applications in accordance with the policies within the adopted Area Action Plan and following this, the development work could commence, potentially in early 2015.

You can make a difference - join our E-Panel

Thank you for telling us what you think.  

Please remember to click submit