skip navigation
MyAccount
Mobile Site
Full Site
Accessibility
Contact Us | MyAccount
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z


Home
Pay for it Apply for it Report it Latest News What's On

You are here: Home / Planning / Local Plan / Responses

EV11 - Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA)

Comment

Land South of Oakcroft Lane: Site ID 1341

Large Format Response Ref0027


Object

Egmont: Site ID 2890 Evidence base relating to the SHLAA

Site should be discounted for the following reasons:- Access to this site is via a private road. Right of way to an intensified housing development is not established and will be disputed by road owners. 24 Houses would be totally out of character with the surrounding area. Actual yield would be much lower. Site is designated countryside. Site borders Holly Hill Local Nature Reserve.

Object

Cawtes Reach field: Site ID 3012 (evidence base relating to the SHLAA

Site should be discounted for the following reasons: Access to this site is via a private road, right of way to residential development on the site is not established and will be disputed by road owners. Site is located next to Holly Hill Local Nature Reserve.

SO31


Object

Egmont ID 2890 (not on the plan, relates to SHLAA)

Site should be discounted for the following reasons - Access to this site is via a private road.. Right of way to an intensified housing development is not established and will be disputed by road owners. 24 houses would be totally out of character with the surrounding area. Actual yield would be much lower. Site is designated countryside. Site borders Holly Hill Local Nature reserve.

Object

3012 - Cawtes Reach field

Site should be discontinues for the following reasons: Access to this site is via a private road, right of way to residential development on the site is not established and will be disputed by road owners. site is located next to Holly Hill Local Nature Reserve.

SO31


Comment

The Entire Document

Dear Fareham Borough Council [redacted] the comments regarding the Local Plan come from an organisation which takes great pride in helping to create a pleasant and sustainable environment in which to live. As an organisation we have no objections to the overall plan. It would seem the 400 units planned for Southampton Road would be the ones that would most affect the village, they are certainly the closest. They will certainly impact on schools and health provision within the immediate area, something we are sure you will be aware of. On examination the 700 or so houses planned for Warsash are much more likely to affect village residents. At the present time the traffic coming from the Warsash Road and using Common Lane/Coach Hill and Bridge Street to get onto the Titchfield Road and on to Gosport/Lee/Stubbington and Daedalus cause a considerable increase in traffic flow during the morning and evening peak times. This brings a particular problem for children coming from the Bellfield Estate and crossing Coach Hill attending the Primary School. We have not had a crossing patrol person for the last year and County funding for these looks likely to be cut due to budget restrictions. We would ask that any major development in Warsash takes note of this and developers/planners move towards funding traffic calming measures in this area. One suggestion the Trust did put to Richard Jolly at the consultation meeting held in the village was to create a 'No Right Turn' from the Warsash Road into Common Lane similar to the one from Cartwright Drive along Segenswortrh Road leading to Fontley Rd/Mill Lane. Drivers would then be encouraged to take the 'New' dual carriageway A27 and the planned Stubbington Bypass to reach the southern work areas of the borough. This of course would mean co-ordinating with HCC as the roads/transport authority. We applaud the idea of maintaining as far as is possible the Meon and Stubbington strategic gaps. Our support for the New Country Park in the Titchfield Abbey conservation area will no doubt go some way to keeping them in place We would also like to put on record that the 86 units being built at Friary Meadow as part of the Country Park 'Quid Pro Quo', along with the major housing development in Titchfield Park should certainly be regarded as the wards contribution to the overall Fareham housing allocation. As a result we are against any further housing projects within the village, as we believe FBC should be as well. It would certainly go against the coalescence policy you have in place and is once again likely to use green field sites which should stay that way in order to retain the unique adjacent conservation areas of the Village itself and the Abbey.

PO14


Object

EGMONT : Site ID2890

Access to this site is via a private road. Right of way to an intensified housing development is not established and will be disputed by road owners. Site designated as countryside.

Object

Land at Brook avenue Site ID 3050

Access to this site is via a private road. Right of way to a residential development is not established and will be disputed by road owners. 49 houses would be totally out of character with the surrounding area. Site is in designated countryside. Site of importance of nature conservation to the south of site.

Object

EV11- Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA)

Access to this site is via a private road. Right of way to residential development on the site is not established and will be disputed by road owners

SO31


Object

We write in support of the comments made by 18 Sea Lane, Points 2,3,4 and 7 reflect our view. Points 5 and 6 expand our previous comments

"Housing Development: Sea Lane, Hill Head. Reference: Draft Fareham Local Plan 2036. (Appendix A to FBC Executive Briefing Paper dated 9 October 2017. Development Allocation HA25. SHLAA Ref. 1394 1. Whilst it is accepted that housing development is an appropriate use of the Sea Lane site it is requested that the following points be taken into account. 2. The site allocation notice (HA52) indicates that ""The quantum of housing proposed (i.e. 8 houses) is broadly consistent with the indicative site capacity."" However, this statement runs counter to the report's stated Design approach. Specifically, Para 10.4 of the Plan makes clear that ""Particular regard should be given to the scale, density, massing, height, landscape, layout, spaciousness, materials and access of new development in relation to neighbouring buildings and the local area more generally. Innovative or original development styles and design will be encouraged; however this should not be to the detriment of high quality, valued local distinctiveness or the wider character of the area."" 3. There are only 6 houses and one bungalow on Sea Lane. Thus, to build 8 houses in a relatively small plot at one end of the Lane would be very much out of keeping with the rural ambiance of the area and would run counter to the aim of preserving local distinctiveness. 4. Taking into account all aspects of the design policy, the proposed building density should be reduced to a more appropriate number. 5. Sea Lane is rustic in nature and thus popular, and well used by, walkers and cyclists. For this reason, maximum retention of the existing trees and hedges should be made a priority condition of planning consent. Such emphasis on retention would be supported by FBC's Policy on Natural Environment (NE1) concerning Landscape. The Policy's objectives include the statement that ""development proposals must respect, enhance and not have severe adverse impacts on the character or function of the landscape that may be affected, with particular regard to (inter alia) natural landscape features, such as trees, ancient woodland, hedgerows, water features and their function as ecological networks."" Para 9.10 also highlights the importance of conserving ""hedgerows and trees (veteran and mature)"". 6. Primary highway access to the site is currently envisaged as from Sea Lane but maximum retention of the existing hedgerow and mature trees, in accordance with the policies outlined above, would be afforded by mandating that primary highway access shall be from Stubbington Lane. 7. In summary, unsympathetic development of the Sea Lane site would be undoubtedly be highly damaging to the local distinctiveness and inherent character of the area, which FBC has pledged to maintain. Therefore FBC is urged to amend site specific requirements a) and b) of Development Allocation HA52, in accordance with the points made above. LOCAL PLAN PART 2 Housing Site H13 at Sea Lane, Stubbington As residents of Sea Lane we would make the following observations: 1. The plan gives preference to access from Sea Lane by extending its width and a continuation of the footway. MAIN OBJECTIONS: There is no indication of the width extension required but it is assumed that it would be sufficient to allow 2 cars to pass each other. Extension of the footway would add some 1.8M. The current vehicle width restriction is 2M and a rough guess would indicate increasing the road by 3-4M this increase would involve removing existing trees and bushes which would run counter to providing protection to the natural environment and destroy the rural nature of the entrance from the north of Sea Lane. There could be a reduction of the size of the site by anything up to 5%. It is assumed that the preference for a Sea Lane access is in some way designed to avoid additional vehicles accessing Stubbington Lane directly from the site. The reality is different. The main users of Sea Lane are the residents and delivery vehicles. They go north to access Stubbington Lane and then go to Stubbington or Lee-on-the-Solent. Vehicles from the proposed site would do the same and access Stubbington Lane in exactly the same way. A Sea Lane access would have the same result as a direct access on to Stubbington Lane except it would have all the disadvantages listed above. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS In creating a 2-lane road, it would, it is assumed remove the current width restrictions on vehicles. However unless Sea Lane is widened for its full length there would still be a problem beyond the Sea Lane site. There is a tendency for some vehicles approaching Sea Lane from Monks Hill to ignore turning right onto Crofton Avenue and to proceed up Sea Lane and then turn right onto Stubbington Lane. The current width restrictions discourage this because of a bottleneck at the junction of Sea Lane it will encourage more traffic to use it. The construction of a single-dwelling (Portland House) caused considerable disruption to residents and through traffic because of delivery vehicles, sub-contractors, vehicles etc. Providing access to the proposed new site via Sea Lane would be much worse. 2. The plan acknowledges that access to and from Stubbington Lane would be feasible. Given the disadvantages and costs of providing access in Sea Lane without any benefits, preference must be given to a Stubbington Lane access if the plan proceeds. -We are not aware of any bus lay by adjoining the Sea Lane site."

Postcode not provided


Object

Site ID not provided

My general comment follows: I appreciate that Government policy is putting everyone between a rock and a hard space. However FBC did have the vision to create Welbourne. What I don't see is why the delay in sorting out the land ownership puts you behind in the house building timetable. Isn't just a question of increased building resources at Welbourne, rather than putting concrete all over green fields in the Western Wards with all the issues that will cause for the existing residents?

SO31


Comment

DUSB BOUNDARY RE LAND TO THE WEST OF ANCHOR HOUSE, WICOR PATH

Fareham Local Plan 2036 Defined Urban Settlement Boundary. Land to the west of Anchor House, Wicor Path, Portchester. 1. Planning Practice Guidance reminds readers that 'A policies map must illustrate geographically the application of policies in a development plan' and para.85 of the National Planning Policy Framework states that 'When defining boundaries, local planning authorities should…define boundaries clearly, using physical boundaries that are already recognisable and likely to be permanent; a boundary that does not satisfy that test is, by definition, 'unsound'. 2. Six years ago, para.5.146 of the Fareham Core Strategy recorded the Borough Council's promise that 'A review of the settlement boundaries will be undertaken in the site Allocations and Development Management Development Plan Document'. Para.1.11 of the local Plan Part 2: Development Sites & Policies confirmed that 'The Local Plan Review undertaken by the council will be comprehensive in nature, updating and reviewing the adopted Core Strategy, Development Sites and Policies and Welborne Plans, to form one Local Plan'. In response to objections to the draft plan, however, the Borough Council contended that 'Evidence studies, including the Strategic Housing Land Availability assessment and the Employment Land Review, have concluded that there are sufficient identified sites within the existing DUSBs to meet the Borough's development requirements… In view of this, it has not been necessary to review the DUSBs in the Development Sites and Policies Plan'. The 'geographical illustration of policies' required by Planning Policy Guidance is not simply a matter of numbers; it must provide a clear basis for the application of policy. Despite the promise recorded in 2011, Fareham Borough Council has not reviewed settlement boundaries and has allowed historic anomalies to be carried forward. The time has now come for the Borough Council to undertake the long-promised review of the settlement boundary inn Portchester. 3. In the southeast corner of Portchester, Inset 12 of LPP2 shows Wicor Path linking Bayly Avenue with castle street. The western boundary of the Portchester (Castle Street) Conservation Area follows a line of mature trees to the west of Portchester House. Land to the north of Wicor Path is shown within the DUSB together with houses and an office on the south side but the boundary arbitrarily passes east-west through the rectangular parcel of land that lies to the west of Anchor House - while the parcel is just 28 metres deep, but the northern part is within the DUSB, the southern part is not. It is obtuse for Fareham Borough Council to be satisfied that the northern part is within DUSB, the southern part is not. It is obtuse for Fareham Borough Council to be satisfied that the northern half is urban area but contend that the southern half should be treated as countryside. In reality, there is not a physical feature between the northern and southern parts to justify the DUSB boundary between them. 4. Approaching the site from the East, Wicor Path is characterised by brick/flint boundary walls, outbuildings, offices and houses. It's built – up character has increased with the erection of a two – storey house ('Wicor Oak'). To its west, Anchor House is a chalet – bungalow that also faces north to the Path, behind a two – metre wall. Approaching from the west, one passes the long wall – with – railings of the Roman Grove Cemetery. The line of mature trees that defines the western boundary of the Conservation Area turns east along the south boundary of the objection site but the DUBS boundary does not follow it. The DUBS boundary should follow the tree-lined boundary along the south boundary of the site, as it is readily recognisable and likely to be permanent. 5. One should not accept a contention by Fareham Borough Council that the Defined Urban Settlement Boundary was purposefully drawn east-west through the middle of this site; there can be little doubt that its alignment was through accident, not intent - it was a drafting error, an oversight. The opportunity is now presented to correct drafting error that was made before adoption of the Fareham Borough Local Plan Review sixteen years ago; it should not succeed into the Fareham Local Plan, to continue to confuse until 2036. As (despite representation relating to the draft plan October 2012) the Borough Council has doggedly refused to review any of the DUSB boundaries, it is necessary to again request amendment of the DUSB boundary on Inset 12 insofar as it relates to this site ie for the DUSB boundary to pass along the southern boundary of this site, rather than arbitrarily through its middle. The proposed DUSB alignment, using a physical boundary that is already recognizable and likely to be permanent, is shown on the attached sketch-plan.

PO16


Comment

The defined urban settlement boundary in Warsash.

Fareham Local Plan 2036 Defined Urban Settlement Boundary at 44 Thornton Avenue, Warsash. 1. It was evidently Fareham Borough Council's customary practice, when settling the Defined Urban Settlement Boundary (DUSB) around the substantially built-up area of Warsash on LLP2 Policies Map Inset 3, to include the rear garden areas adjoining residence within the DUSB; that principle was not however, consistently applied. Although land comprising the southern part of 44 Thornton Avenue enjoyed the benefit of planning permission FBC2369/7 ('Change of use of vacant land to private garden in connection with adjoining property') that had been granted in June 1987 and taken up, the land the subject of that beneficial consent was shown on Policies Map Inset 3 of Local Plan part 2 outside the DUSB. The consequence of that anomalous oversight is that, at such time as the owner of no.44 Thornton Avenue May come to present an application for development, it would fall to be considered under the negative policy provisions of Core Strategy Policies CS6 and CS14 rather than the positive presumption generated by LLP2 Policy DSP1. In the interests of consistency and equity, Fareham Borough Council is requested to amend the DUSB in respect of the southern part of the private garden of no.44. Thornton Avenue and include land the subject of permission FBC2369/7 within the urban area of Warsash, so that doubts are removed in respect of the fair and appropriate application of planning policy. 2. OBJECTION is raised to the alignment of the Defined Urban Settlement Boundary at the southern boundary of no.44 Thornton Avenue, as it does not incorporate permitted garden land within the urban area of Warsash. In order to ensure the correct and consistent application of planning policy, Fareham Borough Council is requested to amend the DUSB boundary in the manner shown on the attached plan. [Ref 0009 & 0010]

Comment

 

Large Format Response - Ref0009

SO31


Object

SHE ID 2890

My concern to this site is the access to it. I have young children and several occasions they have nearly been hit by cars driving to cawtes reach. The road is not safe for more homes & cars. Access to the site, no pavements or lighting. This road would not have suitable access for 24 houses. The road has already become unsafe to walk down with children as my children have nearly been hit by cars driving into cawtes reach!! Site should be discounted for the following reasons: Access to the site is via private road, right of way to residential development on the site is not established and will be disrupted by road owners. Site is located next to Holly Hill nature reserve.

SO31


Object

Cawtes reach filed site ID 3012

Site should be discounted for the following reasons: Access to this site is via a private road, right of way to residential development on the site is not established and will be disrupted by road owners. Site is located next to Holly Hill local nature reserve.

Object

EGMONT SITE ID 2890

Site should be discounted for the following reasons: Access to this site is via a private road Right of way to an intensified housing development and will be disrupted by road owners. 24 houses would be totally out of character with the surrounding area, actual yield would be much lower. Site is designated countryside. Site borders Holly Hill local nature reserve

Object

EV11- Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA)

Site should be discounted for the following reasons: Access to this site is via a private road Right of way to an intensified housing development and will be disrupted by road owners. 49 houses would be totally out of character with the surrounding area, actual yield would be much lower. Site is designated countryside. Site of importance of Nature Conservation to the south of site.

SO31


Object

CAWTES REACH SITE ID 3012

"(1)This site was submitted by developer for inclusion in local draft plan but being classed as 5 or less houses was not included in the strategic housing land availability assessment. However this site is via a PRIVATE STREET (Brook Avenue), right of way to residential development is not established and will be disputed by existing frontages whose properties front the road. (2) Site is located next to Holly Hill Local Nature Reserve. (3) This site, as stated by the developer when he developed Cawtes Reach, was to provide ""a defendable barrier to the countryside"". Why then has developer put it forward to be included in the Development Plan?"

Object

Egmont: Site ID 2890 + land at Brook Avenue Site ID 3050

"These sites should be DISCOUNTED for the following reasons. (1) Planners need to be mindful that Brook Avenue is a private street. It is unadopted by FBC and that development and access of these sites would mean a radical change in the character of the land or it's identity as opposed to a mere change of the intensification of use. Any change would lead to a substantial increase or alteration in the burden of the existing frontagers. Right of way to an intensified housing development is not established and will be disputed by existing residents whose land fronts Brook Avenue. (2) These site are in designated countryside and borders Holly Hill Local Nature Reserve. (3) The number of houses proposed on both sites would be totally out of character with the surrounding area. I velive that both these sites would be downgraded to ""Discounted Housing Sites"" and no longer be included in the list SHLAA Status. Developable sites , but not preferred."

SO31


Comment

To whomever it may concern, Please find attached representations made to the Draft Fareham Local Plan regarding a parcel of land west of

Large Format Response - Ref0038

EC2A


 

Comment

See attached representations - Land West of Old Street, Stubbington

Large Format Response - Ref0041

Anonymous submission


Comment

Large Format Response - Ref0042

SO30


Comment

site 3017, site 1309, site 3036, site 1341

The proposed plan has rejected at least 4 other sites which would have better prospects than HA5 Romsey Avenue. Ref Swanwick site 3017, Ref Sarisbury site 3109, Locks Heath site 3036, and Stubbington site 1341.

PO16


Comment

Land at Hound Hill Farm

Large Format Response - Ref0050

SO31


Comment

ID 3050

Large Format Response - Ref0051

SO30


Support

Land south of Longfield Avenue SHLAA 3008

This site has not been allocated in the DLP 2036. I wish to challenge this decision to leave it out of the plan. it is able to deliver the criteria for a second development within the local plan and as directed by central government. This development will not be supported by a new road network, which is in place so the infrastructure of traffic has already been put in place. Developers have agreed to various support in the area for open space, school, medical, older persons living as examples. Employment is happening in the South of Fareham and this development would give homes to people so less travel and give homes to people so less travel and pollution. Healthier and safer environment. This site could support a large number of houses and most importantly a substantial number of affordable housing which is needed in the Borough. Building a community with proper infrastructure, community facilities and open space has a positive affect on people and wildlife. I would want this site put into the Draft local plan 2036.

PO16


Comment

Site 2890 Engiont Nursery

I would like to comment on Site 2890 Egmont Nursery, Brook Avenue that has been listed as 'developable'. I believe that this site should be listed as 'discounted'. In 2016, and again in 2017, this site has been the subject of planning applications to build 8 detached houses on the former nursery. The applicant maintained that the road was essentially urban in character but the site is in an area that is considered to be countryside. In 2002, an application to build two dwellings on the site (P/02/0417/OA), was refused and dismissed at appeal. The planning inspector concluded that the 'proposal would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the countryside…' The site adjoins Holy Hill and development would adversely affect the immediate area. The owners of the site have allowed the greenhouses and buildings to fall into disrepair. They should be compelled, using the power of the Town and County Planning Act 1990, to clean up the site so that the environment is not contaminated by the remaining detritus from the nursery. There is also the issue of access to this site. Brook Avenue is privately owned and maintained by the frontages, as one of the frontages, I would not wish to allow intensification of the use of the road or give any permission to upgrade the road.

SO31


Support

Land to the South and East of Rookery Avenue

Large Format Response - Ref0090

SO31


Comment

Large Format Response - Ref0089

EC2A


Support

Large Format Response - Ref0088

SO31


Comment

Land East of Newgate Lane - 3057

Large Format Response - Ref0107

SO30



Browse

Follow us

Facebook Twitter You Tube Flickr

Fareham Town Centre

View Fareham
Today online





Fareham Borough Council, Civic Offices, Civic Way, Hampshire, PO16 7AZ
Tel: +44 (0) 1329 236100 | Mobile Text/Photo: 07876 131415 | Fax: +44 (0) 1329 821770
Read page with Browse Aloud GOV.UK Get Safe Online