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

H1 - Strategic Housing Provision

Object

HA2 Newgate Lane South, Peel Common 475 Given the continuing issues with traffic both out of and into Gosport, a development within close proximity of the congested areas seems ridiculous. I am a home owner in Gosport and would strongly consider moving out of the area should more homes continue to be built and therefore traffic increases, as would, I'm sure, many home owning tax payers. Building homes does not solve the issues Gosport, Fareham and the surrounding areas has. The houses deemed to be 'affordable' are not such for the low earners who need help to buy. Nor will they benefit those who do not, be it they chose to or simply cannot work. Schooling and doctors are a huge issues with continued developments, although it is likely Bridgemary will be able to take senior pupils, the smaller (Infant, junior and primary schools) in the surrounding area clearly do not have capacity. Nor do the overflowing and crowded doctors surgeries!

PO12


Object

The number of proposed houses for Fareham have not taken in to account the complete lack of infrastructure and facilities. In addition, the unacceptably high level of buildings will destroy the habitat of wildlife permanently.

Postcode not provided


Comment

The housing crisis/homelessness is not being addressed. Affordable housing is not affordable for people on benefits, living in hostels, or on people’s sofas. Too much building is about profit and not enough about housing those in need. Not enough provision re GP surgery’s and school places. Not enough consideration on the natural environment, pollution, habitats etc.

PO16


Comment

Have you considered all these houses you want to build, the schools and the doctors, and all the extra traffic in Cranleigh Road. The field you want to build on is home to many wildlife, look around Portchester, plenty of other green fields to build on. Hands off Romsey Road. Portchester is a village, you are trying to turn it in to a town. Our road Cranleigh is already overloaded with cars and huge lorries. You may not be aware that we have no drains in our road, we are often flooded. The road cannot take more and more traffic.

PO16


Comment

All these are ‘technically’ greenfield sites and should remain as such. In the FBC area there are hundreds of derelict buildings and sites that are all ‘Brownfield’ and should be used first, e.g. Wickham House school – now derelict. All the schools in Portchester are full – siblings are being sent to Titchfield and Fareham and some mothers/fathers do not drive. The surgeries cannot take any more patients. The road infrastructure in Portchester already cause huge jams almost all the time. QA Hospital cannot deal with any more really sick patients. It is all a madness. Portchester does not want to be lost as a village. If all this development goes ahead this built up area will be from Portsmouth to Southampton.

PO17


Comment

All these are ‘technically’ greenfield sites and should remain as such. In the FBC area there are hundreds of derelict buildings and sites that are all ‘Brownfield’ and should be used first, e.g. Wickham House school – now derelict. All the schools in Portchester are full – siblings are being sent to Titchfield and Fareham and some mothers/fathers do not drive. The surgeries cannot take any more patients. The road infrastructure in Portchester already cause huge jams almost all the time. QA Hospital cannot deal with any more really sick patients. It is all a madness. Portchester does not want to be lost as a village. If all this development goes ahead this built up area will be from Portsmouth to Southampton.

PO17


Object

I am very worried the children are being deprived of natural open spaces. Local habitat for natures creatures. The amount of cars, queues can be ridiculous now the roads cannot cope, they wear away with pot holes. I always thought the North of England was the crowded area. But when visiting these areas there is so much open space. Also the north could do with industry to revive them. Is it really necessary to build everything in the South. Travelling from Winchester to Fareham there is so much building being made it is changing the face of this beautiful area. The shops have changed to cheap and nasty – scruffy.

Anonymous submission


Comment

Too many houses. Impact on roads, schools, childcare and health services. Can't get an appointment for ill husband would need another surgery.

SO31


Object

Congested Fareham !!! Try driving in rush hr a 10min journey takes 40 min and that's without an accidents or additional housing. expensive , empty and unreliable buses.

Anonymous submission


Support

I have two adult children and their partners still living at home in a 3 bed house. Build affordable housing in all of the areas. 150k – 200k. Remember 2 working adults earning 25k each = 50k year x 3 – 150k mortgage. 2 new nurses or (doctor) – (unsure of word) cannot afford a house in Fareham. We need better access and facilities to the parks and country that remains after the build.

PO16


Object

I have lived in Warsash approx. 4 years and although I understand the need for extra housing my personal view on this proposal is it should be rejected. The fact is that there are only two main roads in and out of Warsash and the roads are already under too much pressure. it is bad enough now! you are ruining an area of beauty and is totally ridiculous! 1/ The roads and infrastructure cannot cope 2/ The development will totally overwhelm the residents and village and it is difficult enough now to get a doctors appointment and school place. 3/ The development will take away the village identity.

Anonymous submission


Object

Wildlife Affective pollution Traffic is a nightmare now Pollution Peak times would be doubled - A27 is so busy takes 30 mins to 1 hour to get through to Fareham Not affordable

PO16


Object

I am writing to object to the strategic plan for housing in the Western Wards. The plans fail to take into account the extreme stress which is already apparent in this area and indicates that the infrastructure is already at breaking point. The principal issue is that of road capacity which has already been exceeded and for which further development will be seriously detrimental to the quality of life in the area. It is clear that existing development is already far in excess of the national average for an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and that further development is likely to destroy that designation and the overall character of the area. I appreciate that access to health services and schools' capacity is the responsibility of other agencies but is of course materially significant to current residents. It is not an answer to say that these aspects will be dealt with later; there is always a lag in the provision of such services which always seem to be playing catch-up, usually unsuccessfully, leading to a much impoverished quality of life for existing residents. This is simply unacceptable and need to be built in to an plans at the outset, which they have not been in this local plan. The scope for improvement to roads is very limited and wholly inconsistent with the plans for extensive building. For this reason alone, the proposals for strategic housing provision in the Western Wards are totally impractical: I object most strongly to this aspect of the draft plan. Further reasons are set out below: 1. Traffic in this area is already at a gridlock not only during peak hours but also at other times. The Segensworth roundabout and junction 9 of the M27 are frequently clogged beyond reasonable capacity. 2. There is a limit to the improvements that could be made to major roads and motorways will try and ease congestion but essentially Warsash and Locks Heath are bounded by water on two sides and so access and egress are only possible via the A27 travelling east or west. The capacity of this road cannot be increased and local access roads such as Brook Lane, Osborne Road, Warsash Road and Barnes Lane cannot be widened. 3. Warsash specifically is on a peninsula and the only roads in and out are Brook Lane and Warsash Road. Emergency vehicles will be unable to ensure safe response times. During rush hour it is likely they will not have space to get to their destination and the consequences will be catastrophic. 4. Fareham is presently in trouble for poor air quality due to the amount of rush hour traffic. As the number of cars increases in the Western Wards, there will be more cases of asthma, lung disease and related illnesses. 5. Doctors, schools, hospitals and emergency services are already stretched to breaking point. Brook Lane, Lockswood, Jubilee and Whiteley surgeries struggle to cope with the amount of patients they have. The wait for routine appointments is unreasonably excessive and the waiting time at the surgery can often be unacceptably long. Emergency appointments are becoming harder to book as there are not enough doctors or capacity. The very young, elderly and chronically ill are already vulnerable and bearing the brunt of this. If 700 additional dwellings are built, these overstretched surgeries will be at crisis point. There will be an increased need for care homes, for which there is just no space putting residents' health at risk. 6. Warsash is an area of outstanding natural beauty and home to varied flora and fauna. The draft plan requires the green-field land identified as the defined strategic gap from neighbouring villages to become an area for development. 7. Residents have the right to breathe clean air, have facilities, space and sufficient infrastructure and the assurance that emergency vehicles have access and can meet response times in life threatening situations. We genuinely fear for the health and safety of people in the Western Wards.

SO31


Support

Fareham Local Plan 2036 (Regulation 18 Draft) thank you for consulting the Council on your Regulation 18 consulation draft local plan and which takes account of the Duty to Co-operate. With regard to the plan's proposed housing provision for Fareham Borough of 11,300 net additional dwellings 2011-2036, whilst noting that this exceed the figures for Objectivity Assessed Need (OAN) within the PUSH Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) (April 2016 update) of 10,500 for 2011-2036, and that identified within the PUSH Spatial Position Statement (SPS) of 10,460 by 2034, I confirm that the Council has no objection to the proposed housing provision. Your intention to provide flexibility, provide greater certainty that the housing number will be met, and to incorporate the accelerated delivery effectively brought forward by the PUSH SPS are understood and supported. The Council has no comment to make on the remainder of the draft local plan and nor wishes to request a specific meeting at this stage. However, we wish to continue to engage with you, working proactively and positively through PUSH, in the context of the need for the effective collaboration in the sub-regional planning of South Hampshire and in line with the Duty to Co-Operate.

SP10


Object

Strongly object to the number of houses proposed for Western Wards and Fareham Borough in general. The infrastructure can’t cope. Drs surgeries are already full plus more than they can ever cope with. Roads are full t9 capacity and schools are not able to manage a large influx of young people.

SO31


Object

Councillor Woodward mentioned at the Warsash meeting that I attended that there were benefits to be gained in allowing larger developments in terms of the contributions that could be levied on the developers towards community improvements, ie schools, highways, health service. My suggestion would be that all developers building more than 1 house on a plot should be required to pay a charge into a community ‘pot’ to cover improvements needed as a community expands ,if this was paid as a set fee per house and based on number of bedrooms (ie expected capacity) regardless of the size of the development, then there would always be funds from which CCGs HCC and Highway agency could pull from as required.

SO31


Support

I understand and support the need for the country to provide more housing, with a particular emphasis on 'affordable' housing. Given the disappointing delays in the Welborne development, I believe the Council has done well to identify sites which meet the current target. It is however, essential to retain the 'breathing space' and resources for wildlife represented by the Strategic Gap and I believe there shuld be no further encroachment by housing than that shown in the plan.

PO14


Object

Dear Sir, DRAFT LOCAL PLAN Fareham Constituency Labour Party wish to OBJECT to the whole Draft Local Plan as we consider it would be detrimental to living standards within the Borough. In our opinion the plan should be taken back and reconsidered as a priority. We believe that this plan goes against the accepted concept that any major new housing development should be within the Welborne New Town. The policy of the Council up until the present has been that Welborne would safeguard our green open spaces and strategic gaps. The Draft Local Plan flies against this established policy and introduces the threat of development to many areas originally designated to be kept as open space. Our submission is that the Draft Local Plan should be reconsidered to review how the Welborne development could be brought forward more quickly as a means of safeguarding green open areas within the Borough. We see that the government has just allocated £275,000 towards the next stage of Welborne. This should be used to help accelerate the Welborne development. We cannot comment on each individual proposed development within the Draft Plan as we think the only way forward is for a full reconsideration. However our main views are: • Accelerate the Welborne New Town development • Seek more brownfield sites within Fareham’s urban area • No development on major greenfield sites • Any development should have the appropriate infrastructure • Seek to develop as little greenfield sites as possible We believe the failure of the Council Leadership to implement the new Welborne Development on time means that our much needed open spaces in urban areas of the Borough are now under threat. Without a new look at the Draft Plan many greenfield sites in the Borough will be lost for ever.

PO16


Object

My impression of this is that it is heavily biased to meeting the Government targets for housing development! Town planning in its original intention has become secondary . My local opinion is that with the increase of traffic, brought on by approaching 1000 new properties (dwellings) in the Portchester and Wallington areas. The A27 and particularly the Delme Roundabout will be totally inadequate for the traffic. Please start with traffic flows and decide how much increase this area will take, then decide how many developments.

PO16


Object

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Local Plan 2036. In summary we wish to object to object to every single plan to develop new houses in this area particularly in Locks Heath. I cannot find anything in the plan which improves the local infrastructure to support the growth of houses. The M27 at Junction 9 has queues back at least a mile at peak periods and the junction at Segensworth and Park Gate have tail backs as the traffic has no where to go. We are full please no more. The same comments as before until you provide a plan to reduce the traffic in Park Gate, Locks Heath and surrounding areas I will contain to object to increased housing and development. You have only to observe the traffic jams at Junction 9 and right along the whole of the A27 to see that there is a lack of infrastructure. It can only get worse. We are full-please no more. We need more open space and parks.

SO31


Object

There is an apparent failure to allocate the provide new private housing for independent single adults. Whilst I would accept that provision has been made for elderly single adults, I do not think there is adequate provision for working age independent single adults. Some 25% of the population are single. Independent sgle adults have difficulty entering the property market when available property has been designed for families as they do not in general have income or finance to purchase a family home. There needs to be an allocation of new private housing for working age independent sgle adults . Where for example is there bed-sit accommodation for sgle people os sgle bedroom flats. A failure to provide new private housing for independent sgle adults has in my opinion caused a chain effect throughout the properity market leaving many of the sgle people living in Fareham in detress. On visiting a new housing site near the college, I found that all lower houses remained. I think this further confirmation that the housing allocation mix is not correct.

PO14


Object

I have worrying concerns regarding the future plan for building of houses in Portchester. The current pressures on the infrastructure will not be able to cope with the proposed 700 houses, having lived here for some 20 years, the need for new housing is obvious with the current changes to population. However reading the plan it does seem weighted in some areas and not others. I think the Council should rethink and give more time and discussion to the general public to have a more organized say instead of trying to ram rod it through.

PO16


Support

Council house building program

Postcode not provided


Comment

You are proposing to build about 700 homes around the Portchester area. This without any thought to the impact on infrastructure = schools, roads, access to doctors etc – traffic on the A27is already awful at peak times, traffic jams all the way up to the Delme roundabout and also on Down End Road leading to the A27. Pollution in Fareham is at a high, impacting on the health of our children and elderly people especially who are weaker. Before proposing a site allocated to housing you should have a detailed plan, on what you are proposing in terms of infrastructure, ie. budget & that will be allocated. How many more doctors, teachers and school places have been budgeted for – where is the money coming from? Will the new housing developments benefit the people living in Fareham or will people from other areas flock to Fareham in which case our young people will not benefit. What happened to the Welbourne project???

Anonymous submission


Object

Extra housing would mean loss of community facilities and open spaces- Use brownfield sites for development

EN7


Comment

Large Format Response - Ref0030

SO14


Comment

6.3.1. Policy H1: Strategic Housing Provision 6.3.2. Further to the concerns regarding the evidence base highlighted above [redacted] raise concerns with the stepped approach to the housing requirement proposed in this policy. Gladman suggest that this is simply a mechanism to minimise the back log in housing delivery and delaying the provision of much needed new homes. 6.3.3. The SHMA has identified an annual housing need and these homes are therefore needed now, it is not considered appropriate to deliver these homes later in the plan period. Further, this will likely lead to worsening affordability in the Borough directly conflicting with the objectives of the Framework to boost significantly the supply of housing and the governments objective to tackle the unaffordability of housing. 6.3.4. Gladman suggest that additional sites must be found and brought forward in the first five years of the plan to make up the current backlog that this stepped approach is seeking to push further into the plan period. The PPG is clear that any backlog should where possible be addressed within the first five years of the plan and reducing the housing target of the early years of the plan to minimise shortfall would not result in a sound plan. Any deference from this preferred approach will need to be accompanied by robust evidence by the Council, Gladman do not consider that the Councils current evidence base is sufficient to justify its decision.

CW12


Comment

Large Format Response - Ref0049

SO43


Object

Although I am happy to see Brownfield development within the Borough I strongly object to any Greenfield sites due to the lack of infrastructure. Roads are already grid locked during rush hour, pollution is high and Q.A. Hospital is at breaking point. We need to preserve our Green spaces for future generations.

PO16


Object

Your maps do not portray the correct size of the problem. The site shown at the Maritime academy is roughly the same size as that in Raley Road. 100 dwellings are proposed for one and 49 for the other. Also, the plans show much more “green” than there is. Getting on to the A27 already takes an age. If one must travel up the M3 there are accidents galore. Shopping in the Locks Heath Centre is difficult because of the parking (especially disabled) Warsash was a village and should remain so. What about deer, badgers, foxes, birds. I object to any more building in the area.

SO31


Object

I oppose the unbalanced number of site allocations for Portchester which would severely compromise the health of tis residents, there character and landscape, as well as a National Heritage listed site which currently attracts visitors from far and wide. Portchester is certainly not ‘urban’ and it merits the respect of its village status.

PO16


Support

Large Format Response - Ref0070

SO14


Object

The plan identifies a range of ‘brown field’ sites and the remaining undeveloped green spaces of suitable size in order to attract developers and builders with the aim of increasing the Borough’s housing stock. While the opportunity to improve or re-utilize buildings and land within the Town, subject to respecting environmental and townscape issues, is welcomed, the impact of losing ‘green spaces’ that may already provide benefits in different ways, rather than being regarded as merely potential building sites, deserve to be considered. Effectively giving prior outline planning permission through this process appears to obviate the full examination and assessment of each site, including the environmental impact on existing residents by exacerbating the poor situation which already exists in areas close to the road system causing, in particular, high levels of pollution and traffic congestion which the future Welborne settlement will certainly make worse. There is no doubt about the urgent need to provide more homes for people to buy or rent, but the way of meeting this demand is crucial and the failure of governments to adopt a policy aimed at satisfying the sensitivity needed when introducing new development, sadly, is lacking. Various opportunities are available to meet this priority, but rather than simply encouraging developers to opt for the easier solution of choosing virgin land, ‘brown field’ sites and vacant property should be the primary approach. [For example, the land between East Street and Tesco Supermarket in Fareham is ripe for development and provides an opportunity to house people in the heart of the Town while making a positive contribution to the townscape.] A sound Housing Policy is needed: The plan appears to have no specific target as to the range of people to be houses. No doubt some formula was used to calculate the number of units each area might be able to accommodate, but is silent as to the mix or form the housing should take. Has the Council identified the demand it is trying to satisfy, or simply leaving this for future developers to decide? If this is the case, then a developer’s profit motive could be at variance with the purchasing, or rental, resources of people expecting to find a home. Simply identifying every parcel of vacant land in the Borough with development potential is not ideal and avoids a legal system that has served the Country well since 1947. Sadly, it appears the approach now being adopted and encouraged by current UK Government policy must be seen as a backward step and unlikely to enhance existing Wallington Village locations.

PO16


Comment

Large Format Response - Ref0078

SO23


Comment

Large Format Response - Ref0052

PO12



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