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

HA1 - North and South of Greenaway Lane, Warsash

Object

I wish to comment on the Fareham Borough Council Plan 2036 which involves the area of the Warsash Ward which and the proposed housing which is unbalanced for the area and should be shared elsewhere in the Borough. Warsash is part the Western Wards is a peninsula of Fareham Borough Council any new housing will put extreme pressure on the local services such as schools, doctor's surgeries displacement of wild animals such as deer and badgers also severe road congestion in Warsash the A27 at Park Gate. The proposed idea for 700 dwellings off Brook Lane towards Lockswood Road will also add at least another 1400 vehicles which will contribute extra carbon pollution into the atmosphere and very unhealthy for those who suffer asthma type symptoms. The population increase in the area would be around 15 to 20%. During the morning and evening peak times there is about 600 cars in an hour which pass through Brook Lane during schools days and we have Brookfield Community School which has around 1700 students and they walk and from the school from Warsash Village. During non-school days the count is around 400 cars, This has been calculated by the local Speedwatch community team, and any further development will add traffic problems when approaching the Warsash Village, the A27 at Parkgate, Salisbury Green, and St Margaret's Roundabout, and then on to the M27 The number of vehicles reaching the already congested pinch points along Brook and Barnes Lanes, specifically at their junction with the A27, plus adding to the rush hour queues covering pretty well the whole length of the A27. The local infrastructure is already stretched to capacity. The proposed plan provides no additional resources such as schools, doctors or dentists. It is difficult to see how the existing local facilities could possibly cope with this increase in demand. The main roads into the area such as Warsash Road, Brook Lane and Barnes Lane are not to standard to handling ever daily increase of traffic and have not been properly maintained for years and there should be some pinch points or mini roundabouts to slow the traffic down. The Western Wards area such as Warsash, Locks Heath, Parkgate and Sarisbury Green have a similar structure system to Gosport & Hayling Island which puts a strain on traffic flow in and out of the area. The Victory Hall, is fully occupied during the week and would find it difficult to accommodate any new users arising from these developments. To cope with this a new village hall would have to be built to currents standard would be in the region of £2million based on the figures on Porchester Community Centre. The Fareham plan should be looked again, and needs to be balanced. 700 houses is not acceptable for Warsash and there are many more green spaces suitable for housing especially in the Titchfield area especially Posbrook Lane and South of Hunts Pond Road/Warsash Road, Crofton area near the new Stubbington bypass which they seem to missed out, and could to equate the Fareham Borough Council's housing needs. I agree that Fareham BC must have a structure plan otherwise we will have thedevelopment chaos they have in Eastleigh BC, but this plan is floored it is unbalance developments planned for Fareham Borough which is centred on Porchester & Warsash and should be shared to other green sites in the area. I would like to point out the maps on the FBC 2036 which is printed in the reports have printed in white text. Are they trying provide a smokescreen to bluff the residents other the finer points? Cllr Sean Woodward pointed out on Radio Solent that the residents of 85 and over is increasing, but they may have difficulty reading the maps on the plan

SO31


Object

There is already enough housing in Warsash. The difficulty in obtaining a GP appointment or getting parked on a Saturday to do a good shop I dicates this. Traffic for those who work full time is becoming an increasing problem. The character of the village will be damaged beyond repair with this level of building as well as the current local infrastructure not being adequate to support further housing.

SO31


Object

A ridiculous number of houses are proposed here... 700 on what are already busy roads, very congested at rush hours and busy at other times. There are no school places for the 1,000 plus children who would probably be living here, and the local doctors surgeries are all full, as are the dentists. Parking is already difficult if not impossible in Warsash and Locks Heath, especially at busy times. There is nothing for kids to do in Warsash - bored teenagers are already causing criminal damage and disturbance for existing residents on a regular basis. . They dont want to walk along the river and most don't want to play in parks. They want activities like the cinema. There is no public transport. No bus service and the nearest train station is Swanwick. The ONLY housing suitable here would be sheltered housing for elderly people, with a minibus service linking them to the station and shops. There is a local community hospital which has no bus service and very under-used.

SO31


Object

It should not be here at all Locks Heath as usual is getting dumped on. We on Locks Heath are already straining at the seams no schools places a fortnight to see the doctor and traffic bottlenecks. You state in 3 Refining Points...5 avoids sites that rely on significant infrastructure delivery where timing of the works and/or funding are beyond the control of the site promoter/developer. But an extra 700 homes In HA1 will exacerbate the existing problems ,no developer will pay for doctors or schools& health & education authorities are skint. Policy INF2 Development will ne permitted where it does not demonstrate a severe cumulative impact on the operations , safety or accessibility to the local or strategic highways networks. The section of Brook lane between the Hospital and the junction with the M27, which would appear to be the main access route, is the only place in fareham where I have to get off and walk on the pavement as the road is too narrow for drivers to overtake me safely. All provisions of the infrastructure is either vague or missing altogether, how are the people coming to H1 N&S of greenways lane going to get out? where are the children going to get to school? how are they going to get medical treatment? What has happened to the implementation of POLICY INF1-Infrastructure Delivery? Development proposal will be required to provide and contribute towards the delivery of new or improved . Planning will be granted where it can be clearly demonstrated that the new improved infrastructure will be delivered at a rate , scale and pace taking account of phasing on larger schemes to meet and requirements arising from the development unless the nature of the provision is better provided off-site and where appropriate, the council will be required to provide this infrastructure as of development proposals. Alternatively this must be secured by planning obligations and.....

SO31


Object

There are far too many houses being proposed for such a small village, traffic in the area is bad enough already without adding what would almost certainly be another 14-1500 extra cars into the area, congestion in Brook Lane is appalling during rush hour!! Brookfield is full as are all surrounding infant/Junior schools, we currently have to wait at least 2 weeks for a routine Doctors appt! Wildlife currently lives on parts of the land, what's going to happen to them? The council needs to listen and take not of residents concerns.

SO31


Object

Although I realize that this is a prime site for redevelopment I am very concerned with the effect on local traffic which will be caused by the addition of several hundred cars. The junctions of Barnes Lane and Brook Lane with the A27 are already gridlocked between 7.30am and 9am and again between 5.00pm and 6.30pm. This is also the case for junctions 9 and 8 of the M27. The existing infrastructure is already overstretched and cannot cope with any traffic increase.

SO31


Object

For anybody to consider building this many homes on green land is a terrible environmental decision. The decrease in habitat for nature including large mammals will be devastating together with the increased traffic on a busy road. Over the past 10 years it is already becoming a struggle to work in Southampton for anybody living in Warsash/Locks Heath area with travel times increasing and a bus/train system that can be described at best as awful. Travel into Southampton on a standard day can take up to 1-1/2 hours with the same expected on the return journey. I would anticipate that an extra 1000 cars joining the flow will cause severe bottlenecks at the Sarisbury Green junction with the A27 and also at the Park Gate junction as well. The plans appear to be the easy way out and provide no creative thinking - there are a lot of unused industrial/retail spaces that can be better utilised. This is a lovely space currently - please do not destroy it!

SO31


Object

Warsash already had 43,359 residents compressed into a a very small area. All green field sites are fast being sucked up for housing and it is changing the vibe of the community. Dr. Surgeries are already pushed to the maximum, and emergency appointments have been fielded to the new community hospital which does not work, trying to get to see a doctor is near impossible now. I ended up with a chest infection because I was only able use a phone service at the hospital that was abrupt and too efficient there was no care involved that you would get from your doctor this has been set up because of the pressures of patents on surgeries in the area. Brookfield secondary is already a very large at capacity an additional 700 dwellings could bring upwards of another 1000 children and this is not including the other 700 developments proposed in Warsash. In total the whole proposed dwellings that could bring in an additional 4000 people into the what is still being call a 'village' this will bring at least another 1000 cars! onto roads that are so over stretched already. This is not including the housing that seems to have already been granted onto the Bursledon Hill this will make getting into the centre of Southampton a nightmare in a couple of years time. I already have to leave home at 7.30 am putting my children into extra childcare to get to work for 9.00 am due to the pressure of congestion. While I agree that Warsash will obviously have to take some of the dwellings to reach the number required by the government in the Borough putting that many houses in one place will change the whole workings of the community and it will not longer be the place that it is now. I am concerned that reason there are so many proposed in Warsash is because it is seen as affluent and property developers can make more money but ultimately this many houses in such a small space will destroy flow of the community it will become aggressive due to over crowding and the pressure that this will put on the amenities in the area. At the moment Warsash is barely hanging on to the beauty of its surroundings this development will rape the remaining green fields that are left separating upper areas of the community. I for one will be moving out of the area if approval for this many houses is granted.

SO31


Comment

I am not opposed to building more homes, but where they are going is the problem. Warsash area you are pretty much blocked in for getting to the M27, Bridge Road south side you have four roads leading to it and they get blocked up every weekday morning and evening. Doctors, as with most of the country two weeks for an appointment. Schools, are there enough. As i said i am not opposed to building more homes but please sit back and think of the roads, doctors and schools and make sure that the developers include all the infrastructure need to make this work for the people who live here, and those wishing to move here.

SO31


Object

I would like to register my strong opposition to this proposal. There is no justification for changing this green belt land to suitable for housing. It provides a necessary buffer to the beautiful village of Warsash and is a haven for wild life. Had it not been for the failure to develop Wellbourne in a timely manner we would not even be having this debate. The council has to take the prime blame for this failure, having given insufficient focus to the drifting time frame and late serving of a compulsory purchase order. And I have yet to see a case put forward as to why Wellbourne cannot be developed to its maximum by 2036 - surely you just engage more builders ? There are many reasons why this proposal for 700 homes should be rejected. Residents strongly object to it, the council should listen and act as our representatives. On a new development such as Wellbourne the required infrastructure is built within the development EG: roads, parking, schools, doctors etc. With an infill such as this proposal none of this will occur, under current rules it will not even be considered until after building is complete and then there will be an evaluation to see if there are problems with traffic etc. That is to late, the problems should identified now and since they cannot be addressed for the foreseeable future they are sound reasons for rejection of the current Local Plan proposals for this area and pending planning applications. Because as it stands the roads in and around Warsash are already congested, village parking is currently inadequate, schools cannot absorb any increase in pupils, there is no doctors in Warsash, nearby practices are struggling under the current population workload, and current bus services are inadequate to meet many transport needs. Reading through the draft Local Plan it is obvious that this is not a geographically balanced plan, and clearly needs a re-think. Welbourne was and still remains our strategic response to more housing in an area already to densely populated area. If Wellbourne cannot meet all of the anticipated needs then find an additional out of town site and develop it properly like Whitley. Don't impose infill housing that residents do not want and which will spoil Warsash.

SO31


Object

Warsash cannot cope with another 700 dwellings. Schools are full, waiting times at doctors are unacceptable and roads are already busy. There is no infrastructure to support these new houses

SO31


Object

There is just not enough space facilities or infrastructure to support these houses 1400 plus people 1400 cars the doctors are already full to busting there will be gridlock on the smaller local roads god forbid there is an accident emergency services won't get through- warsash is a village not a town and needs to remain so / choose a place like whiteley where there is space to build the new doctors and schools needed warsash is just too small

SO31


Object

Far too much housing being built

SO31


Object

I moved to Warsash because it was a nice quiet village. In the 15 years I have lived here I struggle to get a Dr appointment now, the schools are over subscribed and the A27 and M27 which are the only routes in or out are already far too busy for the amount of traffic. Please no more!!

SO31


Object

Keep the green land please. This community cannot support any more people. Schools and doctors are already full to bursting.

SO31


Object

The villages of warsash/locks Heath have changed dramatically in just the 10 years I have lived here. It seems it is very much shifting from a village with a good blend of housing and businesses, open spaces, agricultural land and woodland. Over the last few year we have started to see housing estates filling the large empty spaces and smaller scale developers buying up properties with larger gardens to flatten them and build multiple dwellings. These smaller developments are gradually happening all over the area - no doubt to capitalise on the higher house prices and maximise every spare bit of land. Local infrastructure is already stretched so why on earth would we want to do away with the green space/ agricultural land that define the beatiful village of warsash - we are just selling out, please someone act on behalf of your constituents and stop this madness. We have to prtotect what is left, the proposals essentially are one more step to turning the entire warsash/locks Heath/ tichfield / sarisbury green/ park gate area into one big housing estate......why? Stop it now please.

SO31


Object

If 700 homes are built on this site it means that at least 1400 more cars will have to use the already inadequate roads in this area. It takes half an hour to reach the A27 from Warsash Village let alone reaching the M27. Also if 100 homes are built in the Maritime College that means 200 cars trying to use Newtown Road which is already difficult to negotiate with so many parked cars. It will mean total gridlock.

SO31


Object

Comment referenced to HA1 specifically, but applies to a number of developments. There is insufficient highway capacity in and around junctions 8-9 of the M27 (including warsash, Titchfield, Park Gate, Segensworth, Whiteley etc) to cope with existing traffic volumes (as recognized by the relevant authorities in their proposed road improvement to junction 9 of the M27 which have not been completed despite the dates included in the plans). Until the M27 capacity issues are resolved (including the impact that places on the minor roads in and around the junctions referenced above), it is not practical to increase new residential housing numbers. The Council has failed to adequately propose a plan for mitigating the existing traffic issues let alone deal with increased problems created by these new homes. Until the existing issues are resolved, no planning applications should be granted. As well as the impacts on local residents (existing and proposed new) from increased congestion, no analysis or consideration has been provided on the impact on the local economy of lost productivity and reduced trade, the noise pollution implications for the local community, or on the adverse health effects of further air pollution, especially on areas close to schools and outdoor recreation areas

SO31


Object

It's our breathing space. Let us breathe please.

SO31


Object

The sheer number of homes proposed to be built on the Greenaway Lane sites is simply unsustainable. The impact on local roads will be crippling, especially at peak times, and the infrastructure of the surrounding area is insufficient to cope. Local schools, doctors, dentists etc are already over subscribed with waiting times suffering so the increase of people to the area will cause chaos and should be considered dangerous. Without a seriously robust plan in place to deal with these concerns the sites should remain green areas.

SO31


Object

The proposed sites are just too big, Warsash is a village, roads are already congested in rush hour adding all these extra houses with the associated vehicles is madness. Doctors surgeries are full schools are over subscribed the whole area will be put under breaking point. We have already gone through a period of developments, Coldeadt, Peters road, off Warsash road why do planners think it is a good idea to increase this to such a ridiculous level. Warsash will change for ever the very reason we moved here in the first place will be gone. I can see no option but to move away should the plans go ahead. Make more areas like Wellbourne where all the infrastructure is put in to support it instead of over stressing already over populated areas.

SO31


Object

I appreciate there is a need for housing in the borough but I'm very concerned about this proposed development. Its the sheer scale that worries me. 700 houses. 1400 extra cars, maybe more. The roads here are already struggling to cope. Of particular concern is Brook Lane and the already inadequate roundabout at its junction on the A27 at Park Gate. There will be a massive increase in the local population (did I read somewhere 30% ?) and all the extra children will need schooling. Where ? Finally, this is the last bit of land that separates Warsash from the rest of the urban sprawl that is Park Gate, Titchfield Common and Locks Heath. In my opinion, the loss of this countryside will be a tragedy. Certainly, Warsash will no longer be a village.

SO31


Object

Too many houses for such the area in terms of strain on transport education and health services 800 odd houses only acceptable if transport and other services updated Also if we need more affordable housing why put them in the most expensive ward. house builders are profit motivated which is not necessarily producing the best outcome for residents of FBC FBC should use their power to control this profit motivated distribution of housing based on services available and transport links instead of average house prices at the ward level the proposed house volume in this area suggests average house price is a strong determining factor in the placement of 800 in greenway lane area Ideas to help: FBC can look to new junction types instead of roundabouts as proven by many USA authorities FBC should look to other sites to share the required 3300 by the Fareham area to the benefit of residents not housbuilers net profit

SO31


Comment

"Appendix C Page 219 Draft Development Framework The picture on this page shows framework for access and footpaths. I refer to the South East Corner where a ""soft 1.2 m footpath"" is shown exiting onto Warsash Road. This is along the existing privately owned track (approx 3m wide). [redacted]. We note that the legend shows part of this section of the lane has been included in the plans as ""habitat to be protected/incorporated/enhanced"" The ""soft 1.2 m footpath"" is shown along the entire length of our property. This cannot be permitted as access to the proposed development. We do not wish to maintain any access north onto the development. Access to the development must be via Lockswood Road. A footpath should be provided along the western side of Lockswood Road Similarly the current planning application from Bargate Homes shows a footpath from the west via our property and onto Warsash Road. This cannot be permitted. Our property is the only house on Warsash Road which faces towards the new development all the others back onto it. We therefore believe there should be a wider buffer. There is a small area, with a Tree Protection Order, in the SE corner of the Bargate proposal . This area should be extended [redacted] ""habitat to be protected/incorporated/enhanced"". This small section is currently shown in pink as ""promoted residential development""."

SO31


Object

While I broadly support the other proposals for additional housing and employment within the Western Wards the proposals for 700 homes north and south of Greenaway Lane should not be included within the local plan until after the traffic issues on Barnes Lane, Brook Lane and the stretch of the A27 from Segensworth Roundabout to Swanwick Marina are fixed. During peak AM times it is not uncommon for the traffic to be completely nose to tail from the A27/Brook Lane Roundabout right up to the Swanwick Lane/A27 traffic lights. Traffic also frequently queues from the Brook Lane/A27 roundabout right back to the Brook Lane/Lockswood Road roundabout as well as back along Barnes Lane. The addition of an additional 1000 homes in the Western Wards on top of the existing ongoing smaller scale developments should not go ahead until these peak time issues are fixed.

SO31


Object

The local area has no resources to support this development. Our roads are already at a standstill during rush hour heading towards the A27. Some comment has been made about schools. However, there is insufficient medical care to support the number of people who would be occupying 700 properties. 2 new play areas will not be adequate for the number of young people in the area. The youth centre in Locks Heath has gone. The residents of the village want to live in a village not a town.

SO31


Object

Local surgeries, roads and schools are at capacity. 700 homes = 1000-1400 cars on already choked roads. Living south of the south of the A27 and M27 already means arterial travelling presents impossible delays at the best of times, let alone if weather or a traffic hold up on the M or A27 has a catastrophic knock on effect, This is too many people and cars for the area to sustain

SO31


Object

This proposed development will negatively effect the lives of thousands of people. Warsash is a peninsular and there are only 2 roads in and out of the village. These roads are already too busy with cars driving too fast and accidents happening. The infrastructure cannot cope with more cars and the local amenities (school and doctors) cannot cope with more people. This development needs to be done on a site that has better access.

SO31


Object

I have examined the plan and I know the sites well. I wish to object strongly to the development housing in this location. Warsash is a dispersed village where development proposals should be considered very carefully: infilling could ruin the character of the village while estate development would overwhelm it. The protection of Warsash's visual, historic and archaeological qualities is important to the quality of an area and the way it functions. The proposed siting of the development is particularly ill-considered: it completely surrounds Greenaway Lane. The land sits outside of the Defined Urban Boundry. It includes a mix of green fields (many of which are classified as countryside), greenhouses and also working agriculture land providing employment. Most access roads will be onto Brook Lane, which is already over-run with traffic. The infra-structure in this area is already overstretched. There is no access to Warsash Village from the South (River Hamble) and the East (Hook Village).

SO31


Object

I have examined the plan and I know the sites well. I wish to object strongly to the development housing in this location. Warsash is a dispersed village where development proposals should be considered very carefully: infilling could ruin the character of the village while estate development would overwhelm it. The protection of Warsash's visual, historic and archaeological qualities is important to the quality of an area and the way it functions. The proposed siting of the development is particularly ill-considered: it completely surrounds Greenaway Lane. The land sits outside of the Defined Urban Boundry. It includes a mix of green fields (many of which are classified as countryside), greenhouses and also working agriculture land providing employment. Most access roads will be onto Brook Lane, which is already over-run with traffic. The infra-structure in this area is already overstretched. There is no access to Warsash Village from the South (River Hamble) and the East (Hook Village).

SO31


Object

With the number of houses going in in this development there is no added infrastructure being built to cope with the stress on roads, which is already ridiculously high. There are no allocations for more doctors, dentists or schools. You cannot just add houses into an already over populated area without adding the infrastructure to support it.

SO31


Object

[redacted] I can see first hand how stretched we are becoming, as well as other local schools. We do not have the amenities and infrastructure to support the new development which is being proposed. The roads are already busy enough during peak times and the addition of new houses will make this much worse. Warsash used to be a small village, it is now becoming a town, stretched to its limits.

SO31


Object

The current road infrastructure can not cope with the high volume in cars , particularly as it's passed a high secondary school which is already crazy/dangerous at arrival and home times. Park gate already becomes gridlocked to join m27, schools and doctors can also not cope in the current stituation as it is ! You need to seriously rethink this site to a more accessible area .

SO31


Object

The community cannot support new housing of this size. The surgeries are already full and appointments are difficult enough to get as it is. The roads are already extremely congested at peak times. There is simply not enough space to improve the infrastructure to support such a vast housing area. Some of the local schools are already oversubscribed. Without building a new school or vastly increasing the capacity of current schools the area cannot cope.

SO31


Object

Area too built up, not enough schools or doctors surgeries to meet this demand.

SO31


Object

Far too many houses are proposed for this area of Warsash ,the Dr's are busy enough as it is without adding more patients to their lists,the schools too are pretty much full. It is a wonderful green field site and we need some open space in the area,not having every blade of grass built on !!

SO31


Object

There is no way that Warsash can support such a development, this is not about preserving little old Warsash it is about common sense, and thinking about the basics over just throwing up houses. Roads, doctors surgeries and schools, no one want she to live in a place where they can not get their child into a school, can not get to the doctors (this is already the case with the current situation) and can't actually get around because the roads are gridlocked. Please show some foresight and think about this other than spotting a piece of land that is green and throwing houses on it.

SO31


Object

I object to all these houses planned. It will increase the already busy roads. The morning traffic queues fine brook and Barnes lane do add another few 1000 cars and it'll be even worse! School and doctors are full so I can't see how the local network can support all of this. Please reconsider this plan!

SO31


Object

there are to many houses being built and not enough doctors,schools and dentists to accommodate these new builds,warsash is a village we Will lose this if you continue to build new homes. also the proposed building of homes in brooklane is a major issue for the wildlife .

SO31


Object

The addition of 700 houses in this space is going to be massively detrimental to local residents for three reasons: 1) the numbers are disproportionate to the size of our village. We are a small village with small local roads, the Warsash road roundabout which joins Brook Lane to Warsash Road is already difficult for buses to navigate, and is is hard to imagine the disruption to local traffic when another 700-1400 cars are added into this mix, plus another 100-200 from the Newtown Road allocation at the Maritime Academy. If our village is allowed to turn into an urban sprawl we will all suffer from loss of air quality and loss of our relatively safe village life. Bicycles are already at risk on Warsash Road and Brook Lane because of volume of traffic and there have been many local accidents recently. 2) Many of us chose to live here because Warsash is an attractive and quiet village with green spaces, wildlife, nature reserves and good air quality. To squeeze in another 700 houses in this site, and expect wildlife to conveniently relocate to the green strip in the middle is simply ridiculous. Once we allow this level of overbuilding, Warsash will never again be the attractive wildlife haven it is now. There are deer, badgers, and foxes on this site, as well as many species of birds. It is incredibly unfair on the people who chose to live in Greenaway Lane because of these very benefits, that they should be destroyed, simply because it is easier for FBC to build several large estates than a larger number of smaller estates which are less damaging to the local residents. 3) FBC representatives, at our local CAT meeting, informed us that the Council prefer not to allow housing development projects which rule out green spaces between existing areas. This however, is exactly what they would be doing on the Eastern side of Brook Lane, allowing Warsash and Sarisbury Green to become an indistinguishable urban sprawl. I am a realist, with a 25 year old son who would like to be able to buy his own house. I realise that new houses have to be built, and this is important. However, they should not be built at the expense of destroying the quality of life of a whole village, and turning their roads into a nightmare traffic scenario of urban congestion. Houses should be built in the Warsash area in a way which doesn't damage our way of life and our village. I would support a development of 200 houses at one of the Greenaway Lane sites on this basis. I feel that Newlands Farm would be a more appropriate site for the remaining 500-600 houses proposed overall in Warsash. The addition of a further 100 houses at Maritime Academy would also be a traffic nightmare coming out onto the Warsash roundabout from Newtown Road, and then again from Brook Lane to Park Gate.

SO31


Object

We have major concerns that the road infrastructure on Brook Lane from Bridge Road down to Warsash is already unable to cope with the volume of traffic at rush hours, by adding a further 700 homes this issue will be exacerbated. Also the issue of pressure on local GP surgeries and the schools in the area (which are typically oversubscribed) is a concern. Having read the proposals in more detail, we are alarmed to discover there are badger setts and protected trees in the development area and that the council still believes this is an appropriate area to build housing on.

SO31


Object

I object to the proposed development as the area does not have sufficient infrastructure in place and we would be losing more of our last remaining green spaces. Local primary/infant and junior schools are already oversubscribed and with only one secondary school in the area there would not be enough school places for our children. This would force our children to travel further to school and add to the already congested roads. The local traffic congestion in the area has got noticeably worse over recent years and and a development of this size would add to the problems. Local doctors surgeries are already stretched beyond there limits. More houses need more doctors surgeries, local road improvements and more school places and once again no plans for this appear to be in place. Finally we would be losing more of our much loved green spaces. Wildlife would be losing their natural habitats. Our local wildlife need our last remaining green spaces. Our children need green spaces to explore. We are a collection of villages in this are, we do not want to merge into one and become a city.

SO31


Object

This proposal will have a massive impact on the area if it goes ahead. Additional housing will mean additional traffic on roads that are already gridlocked during rush hour and even less chance of getting a doctors appointment when needed. Building houses without improving the infrastructure will lead to massive problems in Warsash and surrounding areas.

SO31


Object

I have lived in Warsash for nearly 24 years and I would say that my quality of life has deteriorated over that time in the context of travel (within the area and trying to get out of the area), medical provision (trying to get an appointment with a GP) and shopping (try getting into Locks Heath centre on a Saturday morning). I am now seriously considering leaving this area, particularly in light of FBC's Draft Local Plan 2036 and the potential impact of the proposed new housing developments. I have selected HA1 in order to provide my comments, however, my comments are generic and applicable to all the potential development sites in the Western Wards that are to the south of, or adjacent to the A27. This includes HA1, HA3, HA7, HA9, HA11, HA13, HA14, HA15, HA17 & HA19. FBC is pursuing a policy of new housing development within existing developed areas either on brownfield or new greenfield sites. However, this policy is fundamentally flawed given the size of developments and the number of proposed dwellings (some 1469 in total) within the developments listed above. The existing road infrastructure is already severely overstretched, namely the M27, A27 and the roads that feed into the A27 including Barnes Lane, Brook Lane, Lockswood Road, Locks Road, Hunts Pond Road and the Warsash Road. Adding a further 1400 plus homes will introduce between 1400 and 2800 additional vehicles trying to access the A27 and the M27 at junctions 9 or 8. This will result in already overcrowded roads grinding to a halt at 'rush hour' times. In particular, the A27 between Windhover Roundabout in the west and Park Gate in the east has no, or very limited scope for widening or improvement. I propose that FBC should abandon this incremental development policy and consider the following strategic approach to the need for new houses to 2036 and beyond, as this problem is only going to get worse in the future: Start with improving the transport infrastructure by making the M27 a full 4 lane motorway for its entirety between Southampton (J3) and Portsmouth (J12). Make M27 Junction 10 a full on/off Junction to service the proposed Welborne Development. Improve access and exit routes at M27 junctions 8 and 9. Consider adding a new junction(s) between 9 and 10 to service New housing developments to the north of the M27 as follows: As stated above, there is very limited scope to improve the road infrastructure to the A27 or its feeder roads in the Western Ward. However, there is great potential to provide the required new housing and the necessary new road, schooling, shopping and medical infrastructure to the north of the M27 corridor at either Welborne, Whiteley or both. Indeed, adopting this strategy could provide the solution for future housing requirements well beyond 2036. Effectively, the whole area between Whiteley and Welborne could be designated for development. Admittedly this area is currently a greenfield site, however, FBC is already considering using greenfield sites e.g. HA1. A new junction on the M27 could be added as J10A to service such a new development. This strategy could be implemented incrementally in phases as required: Enhance the proposed Welborne Development with additional houses to the west of the existing proposed site. Developing the Whiteley Development to the east of the existing site. In summary, adopting this strategy of development to the north of the M27 corridor will provide a future proof solution for additional housing requirements well beyond 2036 without adversely impacting an already overcrowded and overstretched infrastructure in the existing Western Wards.

SO31


Object

We live in an already overbuilt up area. All local doctors surgeries are struggling with number of patients ? Same with local schools and pupil numbers Roads around this area are already very busy and getting onto the A27 to go anywhere out of Warsash is a problem. Together with the other intended developments in the Fareham borough Council area concerns are voiced over not enough police presence- the current level of police presence is already stretched. While I appreciate housing is needed in Hampshire, Warsash and the surrounding area don't seem to be the ideal place

SO31


Object

This is Insane, schools are at peak, dentists, doctors are at peak, and the roads up to the A27 (especially on Brook lane) are ridiculous at peak times already. not to mention the roads into Bursledon. Adding this many dwellings (to be honest anything more than 50) without addressing the very real issue of how do people get to the motorway is madness. with proposals like this, you are creating another village within an already stressed infrastructure. I am all for adding more homes, but please don't ignore peoples lives after they have bought the new properties. Being in a position where everyone has to head north to go anywhere, means that on average of at least 1 car per dwelling ( and I am being very conservative) this will have a crippling effect on the area during peak times. Either couple this with significantly improving access (and throughput due to Whiteley traffic) to the M27, or create enough jobs (like an entire business park) lower than bridge road to accommodate the new arrivals.

SO31


Object

There simply is not the infrastructure to support any more housing in this area. The doctors surgeries are fit to burst - the roads are congested almost every day - this is pure greed to put more housing into an already over populated area. This will also be removing some vital green field areas which will have a detrimental effect on the local wildlife which has already had much of it's habitat taken thanks to the Peters Road (Strawberry Field estate).

SO31


Object

800 houses in this area will lead to increased traffic for residents which is already at critical levels with regards to accessing the A27. Are new schools planned? The primary schools are already over subscribed in the area and the only available secondary is Brookfield and this is also at capacity. A new secondary school is desperately needed in the Western Wards and adding 1500 houses overall is only going to increase this need. If it is planned it should be built before housing or at the same time to avoid the situation in Whiteley where a promised school has never materialized.

SO31


Object

I'd like to object to the large number of houses intended for this site. The main reason for objection is the strain this will put on local facilities, in particular traffic, schools & GP surgeries. As a resident of Warsash, I am affected daily by the very heavy traffic in both directions on the A27 and M27 locally and on all roads leading to these main arteries. I can see nothing in the proposal that addresses this. In addition, local GP surgeries already have signifcant wait times when needing medical support and I'm concerned this will only deteriorate with the additional housing.

SO31


Object

I strongly object to this development taking place. The Strawberry Fields development has already increased the traffic in the area and taken away green space and homes for wildlife. Traffic in the area is awful without the addition of 100's more houses, the doctors surgeries cannot cope with the volume of patients now and where would the increase in children go to school??

SO31


Object

Schooling and traffic will be greatly affected. In turn more funds will be needed for road maintenance and increased infrastructure for the demands of the increased population in the small area.

SO31


Object

Local infrastructure cannot cope with this additional housing. FBC will undoubtedly benefit from additional council tax revenue and Section 106 payments - and will hopefully use this funding diligently to try and mitigate the pressures put on local communities. However, the main concern here must surely be the negative impact on quality of life in these affected areas. The Warsash/Locks Heath and general Western Wards area is becoming more and more urbanised. People didn't, and don't, move here because they want to settle in a densely populated urban environment, with local services fully subscribed and traffic a complete nightmare.

SO31


Object

This development is totally out of proportion with Warsash as a settlement area. Whilst I accept the need for development through HA3-19 this is a step too far. The local infrastructure cannot cope with a development of the size.

SO31


Object

Traffic chaos, doctors already full and Brook Lane and Lockswood Road will be unable to cope with resultant large number of cars. Surely better access could be found nearer M27 I.e. From Whiteley and surrounding area of M27 resulting in better and quicker access to Southampton and Fareham etc. Wildlife too will be affected.

SO31


Object

The infrastructure to support this development has not been sufficiently considered in my opinion. Barnes Lane and Lockswood Road are already extremely busy - especially around rush hour. It can take 30 minutes from my home in Hewetts Rise to Park Gate - totally unacceptable for a journey of two miles. 700 houses on a development will mean 1400 cars on our already congested roads. There is also the problems for schools (Brookfield is already at capacity) and doctors already heavily subscribed, with longer waiting times if you can even get an appointment. It should also be considered that Warsash will no longer have its own identity- as this development will link it to Locks Heath, Sarisbury Green and Park Gate. One large heavily dense area - no longer boasting green fields, and woodlands. I also cannot see how this can be affordable homes for young local people, with a minimum deposit of approx £50k , how are our young adults ever to get on the housing ladder. Flats are not the answer, homes large enough to house young families and with adequate parking and gardens are necessary. We do not need another 700 homes in our already over populated village.

SO31


Object

Warsash is a village by name and village by nature. I object to the proposed development for the following reasons: 1) Health and safety - increase in traffic, lack of crossing facilities, more pollution as more people having to use cars. 2) Impact on wildlife - Warsash has everything from deers to foxes to a wide range of birds. Where will all these animals go? This development will severely damage wildlife and their habitats. Something that can't be replaced. Endangered species such as slow worms. 3) Roads - Serious lack of infrastructure. Already takes at least 20 mins in rush hour to reach A27. Extra cars from this development will cause more pollution, as more cars will be sat in traffic trying to reach A27. Clogging of central Warsash as only one exit from Greenaway Lane. 4) Education - Where will the extra children in the area go to school? Currently significant waiting lists for existing primary schools. Similarly, Brookfield only has capacity for current feeder school class sizes. Extra children will have to travel out of area, again creating more pollution. Older children also need to travel out of area to reach college/tertiary education, again adding to pollution. 5) Flood risk - there is predominantly clay soil in the area. Where is all the water going to drain off with all the extra concrete? Close to flood risk area at bottom of Lockswood Road, which could extend with all the extra concrete. 6) Health facilities - doctor surgeries in the area are stretched to capacity. Also, no NHS dentist as waiting list when I last spoke to them was 8 pages, so they weren't adding new people to waiting list. 7) Removal of green/recreational space - this area is used for walks, dog walking and so on. Will have to travel further (potentially using cars, which again adds to pollution). 8) Impact on the character of Warsash - Warsash is a village and the facilities it has reflects that. It is steeped in character and history which will be ruined by turning it into an urban area. Equally, noise pollution will go up. 9) Impact on existing properties - likely to devalue existing properties around Greenaway Lane, and reduce the desirability of Warsash which will again affect existing house prices. 10) No clear boundaries between areas - will remove a clear divide between Warsash and Locks Heath. 11) Other developments - FBC are already agreeing to multiple dwellings on large plots (Church Road and the new Hartley Gardens), so this will push the housing numbers in the area even higher. 12) Already significant new housing developments within a few miles - by the Windhover Roundabout in Bursledon and Boorley Green. If looking at areas for development, I would suggest Whiteley, as it has a good amenities, traffic connections and plans to increase school capacity and also build a secondary school.

SO31


Object

Warsash is a village by name and village by nature. I object to the proposed development for the following reasons: 1) Health and safety - increase in traffic, lack of crossing facilities, more pollution as more people having to use cars. 2) Impact on wildlife - Warsash has everything from deers to foxes to a wide range of birds. Where will all these animals go? This development will severely damage wildlife and their habitats. Something that can't be replaced. Endangered species such as slow worms. 3) Roads - Serious lack of infrastructure. Already takes at least 20 mins in rush hour to reach A27. Extra cars from this development will cause more pollution, as more cars will be sat in traffic trying to reach A27. Clogging of central Warsash as only one exit from Greenaway Lane. 4) Education - Where will the extra children in the area go to school? Currently significant waiting lists for existing primary schools. Similarly, Brookfield only has capacity for current feeder school class sizes. Extra children will have to travel out of area, again creating more pollution. Older children also need to travel out of area to reach college/tertiary education, again adding to pollution. 5) Flood risk - there is predominantly clay soil in the area. Where is all the water going to drain off with all the extra concrete? Close to flood risk area at bottom of Lockswood Road, which could extend with all the extra concrete. 6) Health facilities - doctor surgeries in the area are stretched to capacity. Also, no NHS dentist as waiting list when I last spoke to them was 8 pages, so they weren't adding new people to waiting list. 7) Removal of green/recreational space - this area is used for walks, dog walking and so on. Will have to travel further (potentially using cars, which again adds to pollution). 8) Impact on the character of Warsash - Warsash is a village and the facilities it has reflects that. It is steeped in character and history which will be ruined by turning it into an urban area. Equally, noise pollution will go up. 9) Impact on existing properties - likely to devalue existing properties around Greenaway Lane, and reduce the desirability of Warsash which will again affect existing house prices. 10) No clear boundaries between areas - will remove a clear divide between Warsash and Locks Heath. 11) Other developments - FBC are already agreeing to multiple dwellings on large plots (Church Road and the new Hartley Gardens), so this will push the housing numbers in the area even higher. 12) Already significant new housing developments within a few miles - by the Windhover Roundabout in Bursledon and Boorley Green. If looking at areas for development, I would suggest Whiteley, as it has a good amenities, traffic connections and plans to increase school capacity and also build a secondary school.

SO31


Object

We do not need anymore houses in Warsash. There are not enough services to accommodate this amount of people I.e schools, doctors, road network, road safety. Crime rates also on the increase already in the area (no police ever nearby. The area is saturated already.

SO31


Object

This area is becoming saturated with new developments. There are no new services being introduced like doctors, local amenities. The area is built like a village and cannot cope with this level of development. Please reconsider what damage this will do to our local area

SO31


Object

The infrastructure cannot take that volume of houses. There is a queue of traffic as early as 0700 in the morning from Brook lane, Barnes Lane onto the A27. It can take 10-15 minutes to get from Holly Hill onto an already congested A27. Schools, Doctor surgeries and a hospital need to be considered before more development. I moved to Warsash as it was a village, this is no longer so and many locals are moving away

SO31


Object

I understand developers want to build in excess of 700 new homes either side of Greenaway Lane. They have already built hundreds to the west of Lockswood Road. To allow the 700 plus would be absolute madness. The roads in this area, where I live, are already horrendously busy and not just at peak hour. Seven hundred more homes equates to at least 1400 vehicles, probably 2000 people, all wanting to use the services, doctors, schools etc that are already jam-packed thanks to no thoughts whatsoever from the council re infrastructure. I, like most people around this area, would say enough is enough. We need less traffic, less people not more and our green areas are disappearing before our eyes. Please FBC, refuse any further permission before it's too late!

SO31


Object

No thought ti impact of 1000 new homes on warsash increasing population by 30%, impact on doctors surgery waiting times for the ageing population already 3 weeks for an appointment. Impact of traffic by up to 200 extra cars travel on local roads , no plans for traffic calming on Lockswood road and Barnes lane, nothought to taking last bit of green space to north of warsash, no thought to local residents by spreading over more of the 200 sites you identified just an easy decision solve over 50% of your problem in one go and get some money from developer to boot, no thought to warsash look and feel as a village as Strawberry fields dev proves. So i disagree withe proposal and withdraw my support from Fareham borough council as a result of this proposal.

SO31


Comment

I would like to know what considerations have been undertaken in relation to the increased pressure on the A27 and Junc 9 traffice routes which are already extremely busy and struggling to cope with the weight of the traffic during peak times. Also in relation to schools, the area is already over subscribed for school places, with a proposed increase of approximately 1500 dwellings in this and the surrounding ward area will there be a new school and is the secondary school capable of the managing the increase in demand..? Whiteley was supposed to have a secondary school by now and that has not happened so the children from there are having to be accommodated at schools in the western wards area.

SO31


Object

Infrastructure currently cannot support the proposed level of housing. M27 at a standstill every norming , local roads also struggling. Doctors surgeries over subscribed.

SO31


Object

You have been building in this area for about 40 years. All the Strawberry Fields have now gone, the roads are grid locked and you want to build another 700 homes = 1000 extra cars. You must be mad!!!!

SO31


Object

Please can you remember that our opinion counts, this is our village, that should be important to you! We are a young family and intend on staying and bringing our family up here but it is incredibly upsetting to hear that our village as we know it and love, could be transformed in a sprawling metropolis that we cannot enter or leave because of traffic!! Please, Please be sympathetic....

SO31


Object

I disagree with building more homes in this area. Infrastructure is under pressure now not enough schools for all ages, doctors, dentists etc. These homes will increase pressure on everything including roads which cannot take traffic now. What advantage will these homes give to this area?

SO31


Object

Particularly with respect to HA13 & HA19 , Hunts Pond Road has already has massive recent development with the huge estate at the southern end. The road is already very busy & the sites are the last green areas in the whole of this long & busy road. With regard to all the proposals I do not see any new surgeries, School facilities, it already takes 3 - 4 weeks to get an appointment with a GP. No more houses without extra facilities PLEASE.

PO14


Object

Whilst I am not against local development and realise that this has to happen, I do object to the shear quantity of housing being planned on this site. Local infrastructure is already creaking, school places are full, doctors surgeries are full and the roads are dangerous. Warsash Road has some extremely narrow pavement sections with no hope of widening them and yet the plan is to put 700 more houses into the area. Our area is already more developed than the national average so please leave some green space for us to enjoy.

SO31


Comment

Thank you for distributing the Fareham Local Plan 2036 and the opportunity of contributing to the consultation. I have some general points to make and questions regarding future development in general but as I live in Warsash my points can be viewed as directly relating to the developments around the Peter's Road area. Firstly, Warsash is already a bottleneck. I don't attempt to leave the village between 7 and 9 am or return between 5 – 7pm. - How are you going to plan for the resultant increased traffic from these two very large developments? - Has consideration been given to emissions (very topical at present) The draft plan speaks of 'work towards encouraging road improvements and creating classroom spaces'. - What sort of road improvements? New roads? Improved surfaces? Additional cycle paths (currently desperately needed). - How will you address access to the area to negate the bottleneck effect? The draft plan speaks of 'work with the NHS to encourage timely provision of improved access to healthcare' and 'creating classroom spaces'. - How will you encourage improved access to healthcare? It takes 6 weeks to obtain a doctor's appointment now? - How will you create classroom spaces? Will there be adequate parking within school grounds? Will you discourage parents from driving their children to and from school? The plan speaks of 'proposing policies that will protect existing open spaces and/or create new, protecting Fareham as a green borough'. - Green space and access to wildlife is vital for mental health and welling in all ages, children to the elderly. It encourages the young to care for the environment, gives lonely people and those with other mental and physical issues access to fresh air and exercise whilst seeing other people. - Will there be sufficient green space within these developments? - What other accessible social amenity provision is proposed for the enlarged population of Warsash? In the plan it states that 'FBC expects developers to provide suitable recreational space alongside housing proposals'. Will the developers be held to this at development stage? Will there be heavy penalties for defaulting? There is much talk at present about affordable housing. How many of these homes will fall into this category? And how long will they remain 'affordable'. Once an affordable house is sold on it is sold at the current market price, taking it out of the affordable market. How will you ensure that the developer will deliver the promised (assuming there are some) affordable homes? High penalties? How will you maintain the supply of affordable homes? Regarding the development of brownfield sites, could consideration be given to total redevelopment of older, 'tired' areas (demolition and rebuild), guaranteeing current residents a home in the new, enlarged development if they want it? One of the first statements in the plan is 'responsibility to have robust local plan to control development in the interests of residents'. The key words in this statement for me are 'robust', 'control' and 'in the interests of residents'. It also recognises that 'affordability is an issue', and 'changes in demographics impact on housing numbers'. I recognise the need for new homes and, at the moment, I love Warsash. Please make certain that the planning is robust, controlled and in the interests of residents, current and future.

Postcode not provided


Object

"Dear Sir/Madam I wish to object to the above planning application on the following grounds: -Traffic congestion -Ecological impact -Local Infrastructure Currently, traffic congestion getting into and out of Warsash is at a critical level. During rush hour it can regularly take anything up to 30 minutes to get onto the A27 at the top of Barnes Lane, and this is only if there are no incidents on the M27. Adding another 1000 odd cars to this bottleneck would have a significant impact; adding to the congestion and the pollution created by large volumes of slow moving vehicles. More locally around the proposed development site, that particular stretch of road between the Warsash roundabout and the entrance to the proposed development on Brook Lane is already severely compromised as cars park on the right hand side of Brook Lane, restricting the flow of traffic at all times of the day. Huge delivery lorries have to navigate this stretch in order to make deliveries to the local Coop and car garages. Everybody can see that this area is an accident waiting to happen. Many children walk or cycle to the local primary and secondary schools and are already having to negotiate this dangerous bit of road, and any further vehicle increase will only exacerbate the problem. Many of the village children are already forced to cycle on the pavement as the roads are already deemed too dangerous. It is important to note that this area is designated as ""Countryside"" and is outside the Defined Urban Boundary (DUB). The reason these areas are so named is to prevent the creation of over urbanised towns where there are meant to be villages. This development would effectively create a ribbon development between Warsash and Locks Heath, rather than respecting the definition between the two villages. Residents are aware that Bargate Homes knows about the badger sett in the middle of this proposed development and are concerned that all the activity and noise associated with a development of this size will endanger the badgers, which are a protected species. Other species that are found in our village, such as bats, slow worms and dormice will also be endangered, and our local deer population will be disturbed by losing another area of safety between our roads. Warsash is a country village and the loss and depletion of our wildlife would be irreparable. Not one of the supporting documents to this proposed development suggests a solution to how this developments will affect our local infrastructure. Our local primary school is already over subscribed, and as such, any children would be forced to attend a school in either Locks Heath, Sarisbury Green or Park Gate. This would add even more car journeys at peak times in the village. Our local Doctors' surgery at Brook Lane can no longer accept new patients from this area of Warsash, and new patients are directed to Titchfield Surgery, a 15 minute drive away. Yet more traffic! The local infrastructure is already at bursting point, and adding another 700 homes, would surely cause more disruption. I also wish to highlight that Fareham Borough Council is committed to proceeding with the huge development at Welbourne in order to meet its local housing and planning obligations and therefore does not need such a large and undesired development in a village like Warsash. We should be made to pay for the fact that the council was unable to complete this development on time. "

SO31


Object

Warsash cannot support this volume of houses and cars. This area is gridlocked at peak times and (also very frequently other times) trying to access the A27 & M27. Warsash is being relentlessly destroyed by the existing volume of properties being built. This is creating a knock on effect, because it is deemed a popular area it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. Parking now is nigh on impossible. Doctors surgeries are up to 4 weeks waiting, schools bulging at the seams. Quality of life is being eroded it appears there is no care for we residents and protection of cherished UK areas. There are hundreds of sites throughout the UK that would bring great benefits to those communities and attract considerable investment particularly if rates were reduced, cancelled or suspended and tax incentives. These areas could also become popular and become self generating. Can our Government stop destroying our assets and in full British spirit create others in other parts of the UK. These pressure developments must stop and allow our locally elected Councillors deal with local areas.

SO31


Comment

1. The proposed 700 houses here will put further pressure on already congested road systems and in particular the Park Gate roundabout / Main A27. 2. Doctors Surgeries are already overstretched with unacceptable waiting times and a further surgery needs to be built and adequately staffed in this area. Both these issues needs to be addressed BEFORE further development is granted.

SO31


Object

This will take a lot of green field aeay from the area. A lovely peaceful part of warsash. Where will these families be schooled and what doctors have space around here?

PO14


Comment

There is no mention of provision for increased need for medical infrastructure. At this proposed development there will be 700 dwellings with a probable average of 3 in the household, thus increasing the population by approximately 2100. This is in addition to the Strawberry Fields development in the same area. The Lock Road doctors surgery was closed and patients reallocated to surgeries in Brook Lane and Whiteley. These surgeries along with the Lockswood surgery are already overcrowded and waits for appointments unreasonable. The same goes for national health dentists. There should be specific requirements for provision of medical facilities within the plan. This comment is relevant for the whole of the Development Plan.

SO31


Object

Warsash is bounded on the South by the sea and on the West by the Hamble river so access has to be from the East or North. To the North Sarisbury and Park Gate are already high density areas with roads struggling, and at times failing, to meet current demands. (particularly the Barnes lane and Brook lane connections to the A27) which are now totally blocked at rush hours, beyond this the Whiteley M27 junction is failing to cope, as is the A27 in general. No further traffic load on Brook Lane/ Barnes Lane could be tolerated without Major infrastructure work as far as the M27 junction at Park Gate, new lead on/ off roads Etc. ,which there is simply not the space available to accommodate. An A27 relief road to the East linking From the proposed Development via. Lockswood road to Prelate road may help, but would not be easily achieved, and if this were done access would have to be the East and not into Brook Lane, which can patently accept no more load at rush hours. The project is developer led and current connections into Brook Lane, although probably less costly than into the Lockswood road are totally impractical. The Lockswood road is in itself currently under utilised, but would only serve to speed up traffic joining the existing Park Gate bottleneck. Therefore A development to the North of the A27 would be far more practical as the connection to the M27 would be easier, The new Botley bypass would ease traffic to the North Etc. Etc. I do no know what research has been done into, School, medical, and other facility improvements in Warsash to cope with the increased numbers, I doubt little! As The positioning of the Brook Lane proposed development is so obviously WRONG on the access question, I can have no confidence that other requirements have been considered. What it boils down to is developers read the government plans, acquired or took options on the sites in Brook Lane and put in proposals, The council saw this as an easy option to fill their quota, and rather than looking honestly into the access situation, which is almost impossible to solve, incorporated the Brook Lane sites into their plans. If this Development goes ahead, Warsash will end up like Hamble, a village which is totally compromised by blocked access. Should the Council fail to see That the Brook Lane site is a non-starter, then I have two pleas, all infrastructure, particularly roads must be completed before any building is allowed on the site, as the building traffic alone will be sufficient to jam up the existing roads and absolutely no building traffic is allowed to park on Brook Lane, recent minor building work has amply shown that this clogs up Brook Lane to a totally unacceptable extent.

Postcode not provided


Object

This is taking away more green site in Warsash The roads are too busy through the village as it is There is not enough spaces at the local school, Hook with Warsash primary and Brookfield Secondary Doctors appointments are hard to get Dentists appointments are also hard to get I get that you need to build more houses, but there needs to be a huge hike upwards in infrastructure to accommodate this I'm not telling you anything new, but I think there are many other places these houses could be built. At the end of the day they will be built in the Greenaway lane areas, we are just putting off the inevitable. But ask yourselves this question.......would you want to live in Warsash then?????

SO31


Object

There is simply not the infrastructure to support this many new houses. We are already over subscribed from a healthcare perspective and the roads are too busy. Not to mention the school situation, the current schools are fit to burst with no additional land for building new classrooms.

SO31


Object

As a long term resident of Warsash having moved to the village in 1967, I feel your proposals concerning the development of 700 houses to the North and South of Greenaway Lane will not only put an intolerable burden on the already overstretched resources within the local area, but I also feel your proposals will be the final nail in the coffin of the Warsash environment that has hitherto been an oasis of semi rural calm surrounded on all sides by an increasing urban sprawl.

SO31


Comment

Ensure there is sufficient off street parking to meet the needs of the occupants and visitors . With push & limited public transport in this area even one bed houses have two cars.

SO31


Object

This land sits outside the Defined urban boundary and includes a mix of green fields, countryside, greenhouses and other land. There are currently applications for 700 houses in total on this site which is just ridiculous. The village cannot support this level of further housing or residents. The roads are already at capacity as are the doctors, dentists and schools, and there is a distinct lack of other amenities. The proposed entrance to one of the sites would be extremely dangerous to the residents of Thornton Avenue. This number of houses will also mean a significant increase to the numbers of cars in the area and requiring parking. There is quite simply not enough space for this number of additional residents. The development will result in detriment to sites of nature conservation and will result in a significant loss of open space in Warsash, Any houses that are built will not be of an affordable level and it is questionable where all of these people will come from as there are so many new build sites locally and only a finite number of buyers. From the proposed 3000 new dwellings for the whole of Fareham approximately half are located in Warsash. This is totally unfair and will spoil the quiet village character of this charming village. The application should be rejected in its entirety.

SO31


Object

The size of the proposed development appears excessive when compared to proposed development elsewhere within the plan The application makes reference to insufficent primary school places and funding - the provision of adequate infrastructure such as school places, GP spaces, extra Police, Ambulance services etc should be put in place ahead or at the same time as the development and not as an aspirational follow on, which there is little confidence would be delivered. The plan does not take into account the current traffic issues on the A27 to and from Burlesdon Roundabout and to and from Junction 9 and into Park Gate at rush hour. The developments are proposed to protect green boundaries elsewhere by eradictaing green boundaries here - that is not a coherent policy that is fair to all residents. The development is proposed because of delays in progressing building at Wellbourne, yet the land ownership issues have been resolved so why is there not a focus on rapid development along with the infrastucture that makes Wellbourne a really positive solution for the area?

SO31


Object

This area of land is just about the last bit of Green Belt separating Warsash and Locks Heath/Sarisbury. The whole area is serviced by the A27 and it's feeder roads, these are now over capacity during peak times, everyone has to drive north before going east of west, Swanwick bridge is a major bottleneck and both M27 junctions are beyond limits. And this is before the full impact of the Strawberry Fields development is taken into account. With most households operating 2 vehicles for work, school runs etc it will add well over 1,000 return journeys per day on the local roads. All the schools in the area are at capacity, some with twice the applications they can take, therefore it will mean transporting children to outlying schools, also increasing traffic and inconvenience for pupils. Patients are already having difficulty getting appointments at local surgeries within a week or so, this will put extra strain on the local NHS facilities. Without sounding NIMBY, these proposals will put an unacceptable strain on the whole community in the Western Wards and should be negated

SO31


Object

To whom it may concern Re: Planning Applications relating to Fareham Local Plan 2036 After attending the meeting at Warsash Victory Hall on Friday 10th November 2017, I was asked to forward my comments to the Council by Friday 8th December 2017. These are my comments. [redacted] for over seventy years, during which time I have seen many changes to the area. In the 1940's it was mainly strawberry fields and very few houses, now it has grown into a very busy area with many houses and a large population. During this period Brook Lane has been upgraded to include footpaths and a main drainage system in the 1950's/60's. The road has not been modified in any way to cope with the increase in modern day traffic. Accidents, although uncommon have resulted in three deaths [redacted] and a number of serious accidents. These have been due to the twisty nature of the road and blind bends. The development designated "North and South of Greenaway Lane" for some 700 homes will only exacerbate the situation further. As there are four developers requesting planning permission for this tract of land, I will comment on each individually. Re: Planning Application P/17/0746/OA – Taylor Wimpey The new planning application by Taylor Wimpey does not take into consideration any of the problems mentioned above. At the preview meeting, I was advised that the exit would be at the bus stop and when asked where the bus stop would be relocated I was advised "further down the road". This, of course would bring it very near to a blind bend – no thought to the road conditions. At a later date it was suggested that the bus stop be moved further up Brook Lane, above Barnes Lane – one slight problem, that part of Brook Lane is not on a bus route!! As an alternative I suggested that the exit should be via Brookside Drive and a roundabout formed at the junction of Brook Lane, Barnes Lane, Brook Avenue North and Brookside Drive. This was met with derision as the roads did not meet at a point and there was insufficient room. I reminded them that before the road layout was modified in the 1960's they all met at one point. Their reply was "not within our remit" - not very helpful. As I understand it, Brookside Drive is a Private Street but also a Public Road similar to Brook Ave (North & South) this means that Fareham council are not responsible for its upkeep. Using Brookside Drive as an exit would have three advantages. First, to make a decent exit at a roundabout from the development. Second, to enable a more realistic exit to be made from the proposed adjacent development of 180 dwellings by Foreman Homes P/16/0959/OA, thus negating the necessity for a second entrance two hundred yards further on which again is on a dangerous stretch of Brook Lane. Thirdly, Brookside Drive could be used as a link between the Taylor Wimpey site in Peters Road and the above two sites. This would allow pedestrian and cycle access parallel to Brook Lane towards Warsash. The only problem that I see is getting the parties to agree to work together. This is for the benefit of the community not their corporate account. It would also allow the road to feed into Lockswood Road which would alleviate some vehicle congestion. One issue that has not been discussed, is the brook or stream that runs alongside Brook Lane and from where the Lane gets its name. This was piped down Brook Lane in the 1960's and exits under the road at Brook Ave (South). It runs at various levels throughout the year and meets the Hamble River after running through the copse in Brook Ave. As the piping runs across any exit under Taylor Wimpey's application, the piping would need to be reinforced to meet the weight of vehicular access. Surface water flooding, I understand, is already occurring as a result of the Peters Road development. Therefore, thought should be given to this concern. Re: Planning Application P/17/0845/OA – Foreman Homes Ltd The new/repeat planning application by Foreman Homes, again, does not take into consideration any of the above problems in Brook Lane. At the preview meeting, I was advised that the exit would be in the middle of a double bend, one being blind, this entrance is very narrow and when asked what they intended to do, the comment was "we will widen it" – no thought was given to the road conditions, their only requirement was to get vehicles in and out. From an interest point of view, the property opposite this proposed entrance has already been refused permission for construction of an entrance onto Brook Lane as it was deemed too dangerous As an alternative I suggested that the exit should be via Brookside Drive and a roundabout formed at the junction of Brook Lane, Barnes Lane, Brook Avenue North and Brookside Drive. This would require co-operation between Foreman Homes, Taylor Wimpey and Fareham Council. It was met with an emphatic "No" as this was "outside their remit". Obviously, there was no thought or interest outside building their houses and keeping their shareholders happy. Similarly, as their development extends to Greenaway Lane, a community road through the Taylor Wimpey site could be continued through the Foreman Homes development, across Greenaway lane, onto the next tract of land and exiting onto Lockswood Road. I had understood that this was the original purpose for Lockswood Road. Re: Planning Application P/17/0752/OA – Bargate Homes Again, the planning application by Bargate Homes does not take into consideration any of the above problems re the exit onto Brook Lane. At the preview meeting, I was advised that the exit would be near the bend in the road, above, and almost opposite Thornton Ave. I asked how this would be achieved and was told that the road would be widened to accommodate Keep Left signs and a central reservation. As this is on a bend, it would require extensive roadworks and widening to make the junction safe, who will pay for this? Based on the 140 homes proposed, this could mean an additional 560 vehicle movements per day. As I understand it, this will be the only vehicular exit from the estate so no other exit is available to relieve the pressure on Brook Lane. Again, the extension of a community road through the Taylor Wimpey and Foreman Homes developments would enable traffic to also be diverted to Lockswood Road. Re: Planning Application P/17/0998/OA – Land & Partners Ltd The planning application by Land & Partners Ltd, again, does not take into consideration any of the above problems relating to Brook Lane. From the site map I see that one exit would be near the bend in the road almost opposite Thornton Ave. No mention as to how this would be achieved has been made – it would require Brook Lane to be widened at that point, which is not possible. A standard exit could cause serious congestion. Based on the 185 homes proposed, this could mean an additional 740 vehicle movements per day. Although there is a second vehicular exit from the estate on to Lockwood Road it is positioned near a bottle neck on the site and would not be suitable for large volume traffic, therefore, the main vehicular pressure would be on Brook Lane. Whereas, with a little thought, more use could be made of the exit into Lockswood Road. I note that, with this latest application, every piece of available land, bar one parcel (which I understand is already earmarked for development), within the boundaries of Brook Lane, Warsash Road and Lockswood Road has been put forward as a potential building plot. This will obviously destroy the ethos of the whole area and Warsash will lose its identity. From an amenities perspective no thought has been given to the extra burden that would be put on the public services i.e. Doctors, Dentists, schools and public transport. These, I understand, cannot withstand further increases in population. It would be necessary for Fareham council to fund a new village centre to cope with these increases. Sadly, I do not think the money is available! It would seem that everyone, including Fareham Council, is divorcing themselves from this vital area. A final comment that I would like to make is on the total number of houses with planning applications proposed for Brook Lane: Land & Partners Ltd 185 homes P/17/0998/OA Bargate Homes 140 homes P/17/0752/OA Taylor Wimpey 80 homes P/17/07746/OA Foreman Homes 185 homes P/16/0959/OA Further development Greenaway Lane 110 homes Plus, a further 100 homes at the Maritime Academy This would give a potential increase of 800 homes within a one mile stretch of Brook Lane. This does not include the existing Taylor Wimpey site a further half mile away in Peters Road, and the Cold East site where a further 600 houses are at present under construction. This gives a possible final total of 1400 houses in a 1.7 mile stretch of Brook Lane. On the basis of two cars per household this could involve an increase of up to 5600 car movements per day. Bearing in mind that Brook Lane is not scheduled for any upgrades it would a great burden on an old road. At the moment, at peak times, large traffic build ups occur at all the exits to Warsash i.e. Barnes Lane, Brook Lane and Locks Road and any additional increase could cause gridlock. A final thought, in 2011 the census gave a figure of 7183 persons living in Warsash. That figure could rise by 3500 to 10,500 if these developments are allowed to take place. A population rise of just over 50%. This would not be sustainable.

SO31


Comment

The Council needs to find space for new homes but to propose over 600 new homes in this section of Warsash is unacceptable. The most obvious affect will be the amount of extra traffic pouring into Brook Lane, some heading to the A27 and M27 which is already gridlocked at certain times of the day. Then there is the affect on parking at the Locks Heath Centre and other amenities. Why the Highways Division seems to accept this situation is beyond me. When other proposed developments are taken into consideration, Warsash will be overwhelmed and lose its character as a pleasant place to live and bring up families. The number of proposed homes needs to be reduced by at least 40 to 50% to make the situation just bearable.

Comment

Apart from the affect of up to 600 new homes on these proposed sites, up to 700 new homes in total including the Maritime College, infrastructure in Warsash will also be affected adversely. We do not have enough Doctor's surgeries and waiting times for appointments is far too long. Schools are oversubscribed and more children in the area will mean more school runs in cars out of the Warsash area thus aggravating traffic congestion. Roads in Warsash are already congested due to on street parking and will only get worse. The number of accidents will increase; children will be hurt.

SO31


Object

I would like to protest against the proposed development of that area next to Greenaway Lane. I live in Locks Heath - Warsash area since 2003 and have witnessed a huge increase of trafiic and pressure on all the local infrastrutire including the schools and doctors surgeries. this area is already overpopulated, and A27 and M27 are at the state of grid lock even outiside the rush hour. The roads are choking! In the last 4-5 years so many new houses were build wthout any consideration of the local infrastructure, as if developers are blissfully unaware that every new home will potentially create minimum 2-3 more cars on our roads that are already full. I wonder if any of the councellors ever drive during the rush hour locally, if they did they would have changed ther mind! I do not think that we need more houses in Warsash or Locks Heath/ Park gate. If these green sites will be built over our future generation will have no green spaces to enjoy. I was under the impression that creation of the new town north of Fareham would address most teh housing need in the area. I woudl have liked to strongly object to the new housing also at HA1, HA9, H11 and H14 sited but that will need another form.

SO31


Object

I only moved to the area just over a year ago. [redacted] I travel every day from Warsash to Southampton, Portsmouth and surrounding areas and the sheer volume of traffic can be horrendous. If there are any issues on the motorways, those issues have an immediate impact. Just getting out of Warsash and onto the A27 can be a nightmare! Only this morning (15/11/17) I left at 8 am for a 9.30 am service at Southampton Crematorium as I anticipated that the roads would be busy. I only arrived there with a couple of minutes to spare and no time to prepare when I got there. If I had not arrived on time (and there was a real risk that I would not), the family would have had no funeral and no chance to say goodbye to their loved one in the way that had been planned and expected....there would not have been another opportunity. The roads in, out of and through Warsash simply cannot accommodate any increase in traffic and the proposed development would render the roads near gridlocked on a regular basis. There are also potential issues with increased pollution, noise and the detrimental effect on amenities, inevitable rise in class sizes leading to impaired teaching and learning and the increased pressure on health facilities that are already overstretched.

SO31


Object

There are sufficient properties in this area already to cause significant congestion during rush hours (morning and evening). An increase in development beyond those already in progress only furthers this inconvenience to all those living and working in this area. Strong consideration must be given to develop sites where the increase in traffic that results from each development (always expect a minimum of 2 extra cars per dwelling and often up to 4 extra cars over a 10 yr period per dwelling) will not impact on the current traffic density. Sites which are not directly adjacent to dual carriageways and motorways ought to be rejected simply for this reason. Further reasons would include a lack of capability of the current infrastructure in the area, namely health services (already beyond maximum capacity throughout the region, let alone the specific area), schooling (already beyond capacity in the area for both primary and secondary education with increasing caps on spending, quality of education of children in the area will continue to drop) and supply (shops are already at their limit with no viable option to increase the amount of shops in the area to accommodate increased population).

SO31


Object

We are overcrowded stop more housing being built, and stop more vechicals and their polution .

SO31


Object

I fully understand the need for more housing especially as we would like to be able to buy our own property within warsash in the next couple of years but I do have some serious issues with the strain this will put on local roads, Doctors, dentists and schools. As a resident [redacted] I often sit in traffic for well over an 45mins to make the short journey to work for in Funtley. With the additional housing not only in warsash and locksheath but Funtley and Fareham I imagine this journey will only increase! With a young daugher we already feel the strain at lockswood surgery waiting weeks for a doctors appointment. We also have to face the real prospect of her not being able to get into a local school in the area we have lived along with our families for over 40 years. In addition to all of this taking away valuable local facilities such as the genisis centre and local green areas [redacted] for more housing is just another way of ripping the heart out of a lovely area and turning it into a wasteland of housing, cars and very little else!

SO31


Object

I think it's a very sad and dangerous time for warsash if this goes ahead. Warsash is a small village which already has busy road surrounding it, these road and very dangerous at school times and evening rush hour. Several accidents already reported this year involving children. Schools and doctors can't manage as it is

SO31


Object

I would like to object on the grounds that traffic is already congested enough getting,out of warsash on to the A27 and that schools and doctors surgeries will not cope with anymore residents .

SO31


Object

"Please reconsider the planning for this area, we are all ready stretched to maximum in schools, doctors surgeries and dentists. The road infrastructure cannot cope with the amount of traffic we already have let alone any more. The wild life have become displaced as their territory is sliced up by developers which means they are becoming more of a hazard on our roads. The geography of our location is such that Warsash is in a ""corner"" we can only exit the area on two sides unlike other much better housing development locations. I am pretty sure the reason why housing companies are keen to develop in Warsash is because they can charge a much higher price for their properties compared to somewhere like Fareham, it doesn't take a genius to work out that a certain amount of pressure and financial incentive is being offered to Fareham council and its councillors to make this planning go through."

SO31


Comment

The infrastructure of the area is no where near the standard needed for this size of development. The road traffic is overrun, parking is impossible, the local schools are overflowing. As well as this it is also the councils obligation to preserve wildlife and green spaces. By developing the proposed areas you are not fulfilling those obligations and are letting down the residents and wildlife who we share the area with.

SO31


Object

Over the years we have been assured that the Western Wards would not become a massive housing estate and that it was essential that green areas acting as buffer were to be the aim, this is now seems to be out as the panic to provide new homes has become the goal. Just how are the local roads in warsash going to cope with the increase in traffic in the early mornings & evenings as people have to work and drive home, The increase now causes long tails of cars on the move at these times. Will they find the bus service adequate, doubt it? Where are the next generation of children going to find places of existing local schools. 3 weeks to wait to see local doctor is now the norm, how long in the future.

SO31


Object

I wish to strongly object to the proposed development HA1. The village of Warsash simply does not have the capacity or infrastructure to accommodate 700 more dwellings. The high level of traffic both on the roads and access into and out of the village are already a huge problem. As is the problem of cars parked along brook lane. There are also the problems of the schools, doctors surgeries and shops.

SO31


Object

The continuation of the { unknown word word} of Warsash ! Brooke Lane and Locks Heath road are already packed with traffic at peak times which means extra pollution for the environment . Entering Warsash now is not easy with cars parked on the approach to the round about over the roads are simple not able to take all the extra traffic, these developments will bring crossing the roads by the car parks not easy now , let alone if the traffic increases even more so, apart for all of this there is no more dentist , doctors, schools etc IE infrastructure it should be completely objected not to mention the proposal for college in Newtown Road.

SO31


Object

A ridiculous number of houses/ flats proposed here. Especially those with sole access onto Brook lane. Busy and tricky functions of Barnes lane and brook avenue. Both entrances. Not clear who will be able to access Greenaway lane. Traffic congestion already a problem at Brookland/ Barnes Lane awkward junction/ 3 way with Brook avenue. Have seen several actual and near accidents. Who will live in these houses? Nothing for teens/ young people in Warsash – already some vandalism/ criminal damage and littering. If you must put houses here, then only Bargate – better layout and closer to urban settlement and shops and bus stops. Definitely no more Taylor wimpy i.e near strawberry fields – horribly dense and red brick and urban – no green spaces and too busy.

SO31


Object

Warsash is a village, with some green spaces, these houses will spoil all that we have known here for 45 years. The roads just are not built to take all traffic, every house =at least 2 cars. The traffic is nose to tail at all times during the day not just rush hour morning and evening. How are any of us going to get anywhere? Concern for our children and young people, will they be safe walking to and from school? The noise level of all the cars, how will the emergency services get through to help any of us in need. The lack of infrastructure IE doctors,schools,dentist, hospital etc. Building more houses round the district centre, the parking here is really busy now, will more car parks be built.? Our green spaces will be no more. I was lead to understand the building of Welborne would solve most of the new houses needed in the area, seems now both are required

SO31


Object

I would like to lodge my objection to the 800 house development planned next to Greenaway lane in Warsash Ward. This development will completely overload the already 'at capacity' amenity systems such as Doctor surgeries and schools, not to mention the already busy traffic routes in and out of this area. .

SO31


Object

Building on this greenbelt area of Greenaway Lane is going to have serious detrimental effects on the local area and I strongly oppose the Local Plan outlined as HA1. 1. Lack of infrastructure: There is currently extensive congestion on the local access routes to and from Warsash. [redacted] and commute to Portchester daily. During 'Rush Hour' the journey times have exceeded 45 mins to access the M27 from the village. Likewise in the evenings my commute slows around the access roads to Warsash due to congestion. Train services do not provide a suitable and cost effective alternative and the cycle ways are minimal and non-existent to be able to cycle to work in a safe manor. Building the proposed dwellings will only add to the pressure of the local roads and byways to unmanageable levels and will cause gridlock in the area. The increased congestion will reduce emergency service response times to the area and will increase airborne pollution. I suggest improving and investing in the area cycle lanes and access to train services in the area at current levels of congestion. 2. Wildlife: The area surrounding Greenaway Lane is an area of wildlife refuge from the residential areas surrounding it – building on Greenbelt land is the wrong option for this 'peninsular' which is hemmed in by the coast to the south, river to the west & A 27 /M27 to the North. There are few areas of wide open space left within the Warsash area for wildlife to flourish. Habitats will be destroyed with this development. 3. Lack of Services: All the local services are currently working at maximum capacity. I struggle to book a GP appointment in the same month I require and I'm a healthy adult, I dread to think of the service provision in the local area for elderly, young and vulnerable patients. Adding dwellings will seriously detriment the service provision. I someday hope to raise a family in the village and therefore access to schools is an important issue for me. I feel the schools in the local area are already at maximum capacity and my children will surfer as a consequence of the additional building in and around Warsash.

SO31


Object

I have in the past expressed my concern over any new houses being built in or around the Warsash area. I am unable to make the meeting at Victory Hall on 10th November so wanted to re-iterate my feelings:- Since moving to Warsash ten years ago, the area has seen too many properties being built. It has lost its charm and appeal. The roads cannot cope with any new added volume of vehicles getting to and from junctions 8 & 9 of the M27. In fact, the M27 can be far worse than the M25 now and every day on Wave 105 Junctions 9-5 are always mentioned. Parking in the Locks Heath Centre is getting far worse. Doctors waiting times are now ridiculous as they try to cope with the volume of patients. Schools will not be able to cope. All the green space will be taken which will impact on the poor wildlife. Please, please, please do not allow any more homes to be built in the Warsash, Locks Heath, or Park Gate areas. I appreciate we need more homes, but maybe completely new areas need to be considered with new amenities, schools & doctors surgeries if necessary. If feel very saddened by the changes that have already taken place and indeed with any possible new homes planned, and we are even considering moving if more houses are built in or near the village.

SO31


Object

Warsash does not have the infrastructure to support any more houses. Doctors' surgeries and schools are full to bursting. Access into the village is already severely impacted by the large developments at Cold East and Peters Road, and the new developments on the A27 to the west of Swanwick will increase traffic enormously on the A27. The character of the village will be completely ruined by large scale housing development of the type proposed. Warsash should not be penalised because the construction at Welbourne has been mismanaged and is running behind schedule.

SO31


Object

I moved to Warsash 3 years ago from the centre of Southampton with my young children to gain a better quality of life. At that time Warsash offered a village which was not over populated, excellent schools that were the right size for the village offering great opportunities, a sense of community, amazing support groups for young families, plus many more benefits. Since then, we have seen the development of Strawberry fields. This has undoubtedly effected the amount of traffic on the roads especially towards the A27 and around the locks Heath shopping centre (which only has 4/5 parent child parking spaces) and increased waiting times at the GP surgery and Pharmacy in the centre. I would religiously take my little one to the Sovereign centre to a play group which offered a great opportunity to meet new parents and get the support needed. This closed. I currently take my boys to the genesis centre weekly to attend another play group which I am now told will be developed on. Where will the existing parents and new parents of the new 700 homes go? There will certainly not be a venue big enough to cater for all the parents (nor do I want one) My eldest will be starting school next September and since discussion of the new development I am at a loss as to which school to send him to. Hook with Warsash is currently a two form entry (60 children) With an additional 700 homes added to their catchment, if only 50 children from the proposed development went there they will require further building works which will consequently disturb their studying. Continuing on from this, what about Brookfield school? This is already a huge school with a large catchment. I don't see any mention of a new secondary school being developed? We are trying to educate our children about local wildlife and teaching them that we have a responsibility to protect it. We regularly see deer, fox and other woodland creatures around the area which will of course disappear if this development is approved. There are countless more things such as flooding, air pollution and a general lack of amenities that need to be considered before ANY further building work is carried out. I beg of you, pleased act responsibly.

SO31


Object

Whilst the plan for the whole of Warsash and the surrounding are is quite detailed the provision for infrastructure and services is nothing more than aspirational. To go with the plan for housing a detailed costed and financed plan is required so that there is assurance that the infrasturcure and services can grow with not just the houses planned but the piecemeal developments that have taken place in the area over the years. This is necessary because: The Warsash/Locks Heath area is bounded on two sides by water with access to and from the major road infrastructure on two sides only. There are effectively three roads accessing the A27 all of which are hugely congested at rush hours and many other times during the day. Adding in excess of 800 new houses will probably add close on 1600 additional cars all regularly using already congested roads. The local primary schools are fully subscribed so there is no spare capacity for the residents of all these additional houses. Local public transport is already totally inadequate with only an hourly bus service and the only train service on the other side of the A27. There is therefore little choice for commuters but to use their own cars. Whilst it is appreciated that the Local Authority is under pressure from Central Government to provide more housing the current plan will do no more than add congestion and misery for all local residents.

SO31


Object

The roads in this area are already far too busy. They are dangerous with a high level of pollution. The roads are often gridlocked and this would only get worse. There is no opportunity to widen these roads or build new ones. The plan is misleading, you can not realistically approach Warsash from the south through Hook Park. Really the only access to Warsash is Brook Lane and Warsash road. A small village that is bordered the entire west side by a river can not have the infrastructure to support an additional 700+ houses. There is no new employment offered in the immediate area meaning at least 1000 more commuters. There are no cycle lanes or passes to commute safely to segensworth or Whiteley without car. I have witnessed a cyclist get knocked off their bike at segensworth and wonder how many more accidents need to happen. We were told a large percentage of over 85s live in the area so why build more family homes and attract more families to an area with no employment? Maybe warden controlled flats and retirement apartments are needed. The River Hamble is of huge historical importance and should be protected. The wildlife of the River Hamble should be assessed thoroughly for existing effects of pollution before 1400+ more cars join the area. Not realise too late that it can't survive. The Greenaway Lane area is the green belt to separate Warsash from Locks Heath. Why can't this be protected like the stubbington gap? The Locks Heath centre is already full to bursting. The Warsash car parks are full, the Tesco store on Warsash road is often the cause for gridlock as 100s of people already use it to the maximum.

SO31


Object

The local infrastructure can not support more housing. There are no more surgeries, schools etc The roads are already heavily congested and cannot support more housing

SO31


Object

After attending the meeting at Warsash Victory Hall on Friday 10th November 2017, I was asked to forward my comments to the Council by Friday 8th December 2017. These are my comments. I have been resident at [redacted] for over seventy years, during which time I have seen many changes to the area. In the 1940s, it was mainly strawberry fields and very few houses, now it has grown into a very busy area with many houses and a large population. During this period Brook Lane has been upgraded to include footpaths and a main drainage system in the 1950s/60s. The road has not been modified in any way to cope with the increase in modern day traffic. Accidents, although uncommon have resulted in three deaths (one outside my house) and a number of serious accidents. These have been due to the twisty nature of the road and blind bends. The development designated "North and South of Greenaway Lane" for some 700 homes will only exacerbate the situation further. As there are four developers requesting planning permission for this tract of land, I will comment on each in individually. Re: Planning Application P/17/0746/OA – Taylor Wimpey The new planning application by Taylor Wimpey does not take into consideration any of the problems mentioned above. At the preview meeting, I was advised that the exit would be at the bus stop and when asked where the bus stop would be relocated I was advised "further down the road". This, of course would bring it very near to a blind bend – no thought to the road conditions. At a later date, it was suggested that the bus stop be moved further up Brook Lane, above Barnes Lane – one slight problem, that part of Brook Lane is not on a bus route!! As an alternative, I suggested that the exit should be via Brookside Drive and a roundabout formed at the junction of Brook Lane, Barnes Lane, Brook Avenue North and Brookside Drive. This was met with derision as the roads did not meet at a point and there was insufficient room. I reminded them that before the road layout was modified in the 1960a they all met at one point. Their reply was "not within our remit" – not very helpful. As I understand it, Brookside Drive is a Private Street but also a Public Road similar to Brook Ave (North and South) this means that Fareham council are not responsible for its upkeep. Using Brookside Drive as an exit would have three advantages. First, to make a decent exit at a roundabout from the development. Second, to enable a more realistic exit to be made from the proposed adjacent development of 180 dwellings by Foreman Homes P/16/0959/OA, thus negating the necessity for a second entrance two hundred yards further on which again is on a dangerous stretch of Brook Lane. Thirdly, Brookside Drive could be used as a link between Taylor Wimpey site in Peters Road and the above two sites. This would allow pedestrian and cycle access parallel to Brook Lane towards Warsash. The only problem that I see is getting the parties to agree to work together. This is for a benefit of the community not their corporate account. It would also allow the road to feed into Lockswood Road which would alleviate some vehicle congestion. One issue that has not been discussed, is the brook or stream that runs alongside Brook Lane and from where the Lane gets it name. This was piped down Brook Lane in the 1960s and exits under the road at Brook Ave (South). It runs at various levels throughout the year and meets the Hamble River after running through the copse in Brook Ave. As the piping runs across any exit under Taylor Wimpey's application, the piping would need to be reinforced to meet the weight of vehicular access. Surface water flooding, I understand, is already occurring as a result of Peters Road development. Therefore, thought should be given to this concern. Re: Planning Application P/17/0845/OA – Foreman Homes The new/repeat planning application by Foreman Homes, again, does not take into consideration any of the above problems in Brook Lane. At preview meeting, I was advised that the exit would be in the middle of a double bend, one being blind, this entrance is very narrow and when asked what they intended to do, the comment was "we will widen it" – no thought was given to the road conditions, their only requirement was to get vehicles in and out. From an interest point of view, the property opposite this proposed entrance has already been refused permission for construction of an entrance onto Brook Lane as it was deemed too dangerous. As an alternative, I suggested that the exit should be via Brookside Drive and a roundabout formed at the junction of Brook Lane, Barnes Lane, Brook Avenue North and Brookside Drive. This would require co-operation between Homes, Taylor Wimpey and Fareham Council. It was met with an emphatic "No" as this was "outside their remit". Obviously, there was no though or interest outside building their houses and keeping their shareholders happy. Similarly, as their development extends to Greenaway Lane, a community road through the Taylor Wimpey site could be continued through the Foreman Homes development, across Greenaway lane, onto the next tract of land and exiting onto Lockswood Road. I had understood that this was the original purpose for Lockswood Road. Re: Planning Application P/17/0752/OA – Bargate Homes Again, the planning application by Bargate Homes does not take into consideration any of the above problems re the exit onto Brook Lane. At the preview meeting, I was advised that the exit would be near the bend in the road, above, and almost opposite Thornton Ave. I asked how this would be achieved and was told that the road would be widened to accommodate Keep Left signs and a central reservation. As this is on a bend, it would require extensive roadworks and widening to make the junction safe, who will pay for this? Based on the 140 homes proposed, this could mean an additional 560 vehicle movements per day. As I understand it, this will be the only vehicular exit from the estate so no other exit is available to relieve the pressure on Brook Lane. Again, the extension of a community road through the Taylor Wimpey and Foreman Homes developments would enable traffic to also be diverted to Lockswood Road. Re: Planning Application P/17/0998/OA – Land & Partners Ltd The planning application by Land & Partners Ltd, again, does not take into consideration any of the above problems relating to Brook Lane. From the site map, I see that one exit would be near the bend in the road almost opposite Thornton Ave. No mention as to how this would be achieved has been made – it would require Brook Lane to be widened at that point, which is not possible. A standard exit could cause serious congestion. Based on the 185 homes proposed, this could mean an additional 740 vehicle movements per day. Although there is a second vehicular exit from the estate on to Lockwood Road it is positioned near a bottle neck on the site and would not be suitable for large volume traffic, therefore, the main vehicular pressure would be on Brook Lane. Whereas, with a little thought, more use could be made of the exit into Lockswood Road. I note that, with this latest application, every piece of available land, bar one parcel (which I understand is already earmarked for development), within the boundaries of Brook Lane, Warsash Road and Lockswood Road has been put forward as a potential building plot. This will obviously destroy the ethos of the whole area and Warsash will lose its identity. From an amenities perspective no thought has been given to the extra burden that would be put on the public services i.e. Doctors, Dentists, schools and public transport. These, I understand, cannot withstand further increases in population. It would be necessary for Fareham council to fund a new village centre to cope with these increases. Sadly, I do not think the money is available! It would seem that everyone, including Fareham Council, is divorcing themselves from this vital area. A final comment that I would like to make is on the total number of houses with planning applications proposed for Brook Lane: Land & Partners Ltd 185 homes P/17/0998/OA Bargate Homes 140 homes P/17/0752/OA Taylor Wimpey 80 homes P/17/07746/OA Foreman Homes 185 homes P/16/0959/OA Further development Greenaway Lane 110 homes Plus, a further 100 homes at the Maritime Academy This would give a potential increase of 800 homes within a one mile stretch of Brook Lane. This does not include the existing Taylor Wimpey site a further half mile away in Peters Road, and the Cold East site where a further 600 houses are at present under construction. This gives a possible final total of 1400 houses in a 1.7 mile stretch of Brook Lane. On the basis of two cars per household this could involve an increase of up to 5600 car movements per day. Bearing in mind that Brook Lane is not scheduled for any upgrades it would be a great burden on an old road. At the moment, at peak times, large traffic build ups occur at all the exits to Warsash i.e. Barnes Lane, Brook Lane and Locks Road and any additional increase could cause gridlock. A final thought, in 2011 the census gave a figure of 7183 persons living in Warsash. That figure could rise by 3500 to 10,500 if these developments are allowed to take place. A population rise of just over 50%. This would not be sustainable.

SO31


Object

the development proposed for Warsash at this site and the Maritime Academy and the mother sites in the Wetern Ward is irresponsible. The infrastucture is already stetched to the limit and the and if the proposed developments go ahead it will cause dangers to life whilst causing chaos there would be complete gridlock on the roads stopping any emergency services and creating lethal pollution. The doctors are already stretched to the limit. The schools are already bursting at the seams. My wife and I love the countryside and taking long walks. But the blind protection of greenfield sites is too high a price to pay by the great bulk of the population. This country has millions of acres of open land and it would not reduce this intolerably if a small fraction was used for new housing. The Wellbourne site is some relief but it keeps being delayed and is not enough. There must be a drastic reduction in the plans for Warsash

SO31


Object

This proposal is ridiculous. Where is the infrastructure going to come from? Local schools are already crowded. It is already hard to get doctors appointments. The roads are already congested at peak times - all the roads out of Warsash back up every morning and all join the A27 which is choked. If there is insufficient schooling in the area then parents will be obliged to drive there children to schools outside of the area, adding to the chaos. This area of land was formerly agricultural, with market gardening and greenhouses. The fact that it has been allowed to become overgrown and derelict should not be a reason for building on it. It could be made highly productive again, providing jobs and food for the local area.

SO31


Object

I object to the plan for Western wards in general . The new housing projected for Locks Heath ,Warsash and surrounding areas will only add to high levels of congestion we already suffer in these areas. We are almost grid-locked at times, and many people comment about insufficiency of local services such as doctors and schools etc. The additional cars on the roads in the area will add to the levels of pollution and frustration as people travel around the area.

SO31


Object

Having been to the CAT meeting at Victory Hall, Warsash I better understand the coustraints which the council work & the concern about losing control to central government but...... the roads out of warsash up to the A27 & then the M27 out already at gridlock mornings & evenings. How on earth could they cope with 700+100 new dwellings out of these roads, it simple wont work.

SO31


Object

Whitely is already growing into a small town with housing , shopping and entertainment facilities .Whilst I appreciate it comes under Winchester Council, could not Fareham and Winchester work together to build more houses on the surrounding land. Public transport could be linked to Swanwick station by trams or electric rail, thus avoiding the already congested A27

SO31


Object

The local infrastructure cannot support an extra 700 families in this development, especially with the other proposed 100 homes at Warsash Maritime academy and all the other smaller developments in the area. There has been a lot of new development here already and the schools, doctors surgeries and roads are already under incredible strain. Has there been a traffic study done to evaluate how an extra 1500 cars will affect the minor roads they will all have to drive on to get up to the major roads? It is completely unfeasible. I understand that there is a requirement for additional housing. I also understand that the developers stand to make bigger profits by building in this area where house prices are higher than in other more suitable areas with far better road links and public transport facilities. Please do not destroy all our countryside and village status.

SO31


Object

The local area can not cope with this amount of housing. The area next to it has already been developed and the schools, doctors and roads are at bursting point. It will change the character of the area as it acts a buffer between urban sprawl. The roads are awful already and it will have an adverse affect on the current residents quality of life.

SO31


Object

Brook lane and surrounding areas are gridlocked daily making my daily commute to a local docotors surgery now 35 minutes which really should take no longer than 15, I do cycle some days but sadly this is also becoming a hazard place for bikes. Further homes and traffic would make this worse. Also as a nurse in a local surgery where are these new residents looking to go for care as surgeries around are already above patient numbers and stretched beyond belief. Also as a local parent of a child who attends a school in this area would like to understand where any additional children are likely to go with a number of already over subscribed schools? I have many friends who are within catchment of local schools who have had to take their children to schools well out of, their own catchment area. I think roads and local amenities need to be correctly assessed before any large scale building plan is approved. I have grown up in this area and must say it's becming very sad seeing all the green space we do have now turning into concrete jungles. I would be interested to also see plans for schools and services and how this will also be approached, rather than a money making exercise for home builders and councils. I currently object to these plans until I can see a clear plan moving forward of local roads and service improments for a new large scale development of this size.

SO31


Object

This development will join Warsash village which has been a distinct village for over 200 years with Sarisbury and Locks Heath. Why is Warsash not considered a separate village and have green spaces separating it from other more recent communities in the Western Wards, unlike other villages in the borough like Stubbington? The roads out of Warsash to the A27 are inadequate and already congested without an additional 1400 vehicles. Cycling or walking is not an option as most people would be commuting to Southampton or Portsmouth or beyond for work. The existing roads are narrow and congested to safely cycle to the station. The A27 tails back to the Windhover roundabout during peak times and cars accessing A27 from Barnes Lane in the morning rush hour tail back to Holly Hill on some days. The area will be gridlocked with the extra cars and pollution levels will be intolerable. The council already admits that there is insufficient primary schooling in the area. The secondary school is also full. Without extra schools being built BEFORE extra housing, the situation will become critical. There are insufficient doctors' surgeries in the area. Waiting times for routine appointments are up to 4 weeks already without extra housing in the area. The proposed area is home to wild deer. With the proposed development, they will lose their last remaining habitat. There should be more development in areas of the borough where roads and infrastructure has been improved. Proposed sites should be spread more evenly throughout the borough and not concentrated in the area with the worst infrastructure, lack of schooling etc.

SO31


Object

The proposed number of houses will bring a large number of children into the area who will need to go to school. Brookfield is a large school already too small for the catchment that it covers. My worry is that my children will have to travel to gosport or Fareham to go school. You have to wait 2 months for a doctors appointment already, how is this surgery going to cope with this influx of extra people. The increased pollution will increase the chances of our children developing asthma. The ecosystems existing in this area will be damaged. Wildlife will be forced to move elsewhere, which will unsettle ecosystems in this area.

Object

The proposed number of houses will bring a large number of children into the area who will need to go to school. Brookfield is a large school already too small for the catchment that it covers. My worry is that my children will have to travel to gosport or Fareham to go school. You have to wait 2 months for a doctors appointment already, how is this surgery going to cope with this influx of extra people. The increased pollution will increase the chances of our children developing asthma. The ecosystems existing in this area will be damaged. Wildlife will be forced to move elsewhere, which will unsettle ecosystems in this area.

SO31


Object

I am objecting to this proposal on several grounds. The current proposals to concentrate such a huge development into this area is completely disproportionate. This will destroy the feel of this semi-rural area and will upset the lives of the many residents including myself. The current traffic situation is already extremely bad and access in and out of the area is gridlocked a lot of the time. No improvements regarding access onto the A27 are likely to have a significant effect and the addition of perhaps another 1000 vehicles is unthinkable. Local amenities are also already very stretched. If more houses have to be built they should be spread in such a way as to lessen the impact on any single area and we need to do whatever we can to maintain our valuable green spaces. The proposal to concentrate such a huge number of houses into one area to save costs is simply unfair to local residents and devastating to the area and wildlife

SO31


Object

The proposed sites are a mix of greenfield space including working agricultural land and greenhouses already providing employment. The suggestion that Warsash can absorb another 700 houses is madness. The local road infrastructure cannot be expanded and the routes along Brook Lane and Lockswood Road up to an already congested A27 are already at bursting point much of the day. 700 houses will bring 1400 commuter journeys as there is not enough employment opportunity locally to support such an influx and this will put an intolerable burden on both local roads and the A27 Warsash is a Village not a Town and does not have enough provision for school places and doctors surgeries as it is without creating more pressure. This development is in the wrong place. Expansion should be concentrated North of the M27 where there is more available land and space to develop the transport and social infastructure.

SO31


Object

This proposal on a large site is for too many houses (700 homes) or even 2698 on the chart published recently. The impact on the local environment (including wildlife) will be considerable. Traffic volumes and pollution will increase beyond reasonable measure and the road system is not adequate to bear a huge number of additional vehicles such a proposal would bring. If some development is needed then it should be for far less housing and take into account public open space and facilities as well as existing nhs provision in the area in addition to schools. On planning grounds such a huge development is out of character with the village nature of the area and inappropriate in the extreme.

SO31


Object

I am concerned about the size of the potential development and the impact on the local area. An additional 700 dwelling will mean a significant increase in traffic through Brook Lane and the surrounding area. Congestion is already an issue at peak times as most look to use the A27 or M27 as a commuter route. On the flip side, outside of rush hour, there is also little currently in the way of traffic calming and many motorists seem oblivious to the 30 miles per hour limit in what is a built up area with schools and parks in close proximity. More motorists may well increase the risk. I would also have concerns whether there is the capacity to support the overall total increase, circa 1500, in terms of schooling and health care. Waiting times at the local Locksheath doctors surgery are already excessive. Parking for schools and local amenities is also a concern. Are there plans to increase in line with the inevitable demand. For example Church Rd is already dangerous at school opening and close times as parents cars park on both sides of a narrow road, often on the pavement.

SO31


Object

I wish to object, in the strongest possible terms to the proposed development of 800 houses in our lovely village. 800 houses, means at least1600 extra cars...if each family has the average 2 children...2,400 extra people(probably more) where is the provisions for that influx?? You cannot just throw this at us and hope for the best. The roads out of here and back in at night are tailbacked every day...there are not enough school places as it is, doctors dentists are full to bursting. Then there's the wildlife...poor things are being squeezed out of existence...it is shameful, especially in this day and age, that we have such disregard for our fauna and flora.

SO31


Object

No more traffic problems please, there is no work in Warsash so any new development would mean new residents would have to drive to work thereby increasing the already existing queues joining the A27 or worse still driving through the village centre. We chose to live in this what was a relatively unscathed area, please do not wreck our and our grand children's health with even more poor air quality and traffic. Improve the local Doctors surgery availability or at least write to them to ask what they are proposing should there be any more future unwanted development. How about an area between Peak Lane and Stubbington to build on which has better links to the M27 especially now all the improvements are being carried out to the A27 and which would not infuriate so many locals. I understand that this was proposed in the past but was not deemed to be suitable. Please look at this again.

SO31


Object

Traffic is frequently gridlocked in this area. The only way out from here is via the A27 which cannot be improved through Park Gate and is often at a standstill especially when there's a problem on the M27 which is always happening .This is not only time wasting / money wasting and extremely frustrating it also causes a lot of pollution. Southampton is the most polluted city is Fareham going to have the reputation of MOST polluted borough ? We try and encourage people to walk or cycle but how can we do that if its not safe !! Local roads cannot be made wider . They are already struggling with the huge delivery vehicles. There's not going to be a load more jobs in this area which means all the extra people coming to live here will be having to drive to get to work ------- more pollution more accidents more stress related illnesses !!!!!

SO31 6


Object

Do not need anymore housing in this area

SO31


Object

This proposed development of 700 houses will have significant negative impact on local infrastructure. We do not have enough space in our schools. Our doctors surgeries will not be able to cope with the influx of additional houses/people. We do not have enough space in the village for what will inevitably result in additional car park spaces being required. The additional traffic will cause serious delays in and around the local area in what is already congested. Has any thought been given to this? I also fail to see what the logic could be for concentrating such a large development in a small and currently delightful village. Why so many in such a small area? Surely there must be other sites which could cope with additional houses being built, rather than trying to cram all 700 solely into Warsash.

SO31


Object

The current infrastructure will not be able to cope with the number of houses proposed and is very limited with regards to what can be done to improve this. In addition, the area in question is sensitive in terms of wildlife and landscape; badgers and bats occupy this area which are protected species, not to mention all of the other animals that live here. The village of Warsash would no longer exist in its current form - there would be no gap between Warsash and Sarisbury and the village itself would be lost. I do not understand why Warsash has been selected as the most suitable place to build; there are more suitable areas with better infrastructure, for example the areas north of junction 10 of the M27. I strongly oppose these plans and am shocked and sorely disappointed by the fact that they are even being considered.

SO31


Object

I wish to register my objections to the amount of housing proposed as part of Draft Local Plan in the Western Wards due to the recognised over capacity of infrastructure and services. It is also the removal of the last strategic gaps between settlements.

SO31


Object

I wish to register my objections to the amount of housing proposed as part of Draft Local Plan in the Western Wards due to the recognised over capacity of infrastructure and services. It is also the removal of the last strategic gaps between settlements.

SO31


Comment

The Western Wards seem to have a significant number of proposals. It would be a shame to lose all green space in the area, please consider spreading the housing requirements more evenly, for example by utilising the area between Peak Lane & Ranvilles Lane.

SO31


Object

"The number of houses proposed to be built, 700, is excessive for the area. Warsash has already seen many new developments and their impact on the area. The roads and infrastructure, in particular the local doctors, community nurses are struggling to cope. Seeing a GP or nurse is difficult, with a long wait if you need to see a named doctor. This is particularly important for my elderly father , who lives with us, as continuity of care for the elderly is known to be beneficial, waits of 3-4 weeks at Lockswood surgery are common. [redacted] to cross Warsash Road, this is increasingly difficult and dangerous with speeding cars and lorries. It is common to have to wait in excess of 5 minutes to cross the road safely. I work [redacted] and my journey to work is regularly in excess of 1 hour 30 minutes. This will increase again with all the new building on the A27 making reaching the motorway even more difficult, 40 minutes on 3 days last week alone. I should add that I leave home at 9.00am to miss the worst of the ""rush hour"". The volume of new houses will only increase the numbers of cars on the local roads. The Centre at Lockswood cannot cope on a Saturday with the number of visitors, there is already regularly insufficient parking, particularly for the elderly who need a ""blue badge"" parking space. I would urge you to consider the detrimental effect of another 1500 cars on the local area, as this will have an adverse effect on all age groups."

SO31


Object

I object due to amount of vehicles adding to the already congested and polluted roads. Already long waiting times for GP appointments, NHS dentists. It can take 30-40 mins to access A27 and M27. Months waiting for routine GP appointments. Unable to access urgent appointments can lead to A&E visits. Loss of green space leading to loss of boarders between villages, towns and cities. Impact on local wildlife.

SO31


Object

I object to the this planning application very strongly. The area behind Greenaway Lane is a natural separation between Warsash and locks heath. Lots of animals are seen in this area, deer, foxes, badgers bats there natural habitat would be ruined. The area will become one big sprawl of housing, people need green space for their well being. The areas roads have become increasingly congested and public services at breaking point. To add yet more housing into the equation is madness. There has to be a better place to build, of course there is but the developers want Warsash as they believe they can get top money for them. All that is happening is that Warsash is rapidly becoming not such a great place to live!

Postcode not provided


Object

Any development in this area should not take place until there is evidence that school places, doctors surgeries and GPs to be in them, recreational facilities both indoor and out, transport links and other infra structures including jobs are available This applies to all the aspects of development in the Western Wards.

SO31


Comment

The prospect of more traffic from up to 700 new homes is alarming, all funneling into Brook Lane. Barnes Lane and Brook Lane connect to the A27 and I consider those two junctions already dangerous. Highways do not seem very concerned. I realise we need more new homes and could accept a reduction of say 40%, otherwise Warsash will be overwhelmed.

Comment

Warsash is still village - like in that our roads are narrow. Increasing traffic by building up to 800 houses will cause problems for existing residents and incomers alike. We already have problems with on - street parking. We lack GP services - it is difficult to get an appointment quickly. Local Schools are over - subscribed. The primary school in Church Road is full and Church Road is gridlocked twice a day as it is. More traffic/car journeys will be highly dangerous.

Comment

Up to 800 houses being built will cause the wildlife to disperse into other areas - Roe deer are becoming a menace on the roads. No more urban sprawl please!

SO31


Object

I have already made comment on HA7 and would be prepared to consider an appropriate and sympathetic development of that site as it replacing an existing head count of people. However, HA1 is a proposal to develop some of the last remaining GREEN - AGRICULTURAL space left in the area. These are the strawberry growing fields that made the whole area prosperous and separated the beautiful villages of the area. We have already lost the majority of farmland to developers and if we lose this as well, Warsash is no longer a village and we lose its identity completely. Recent developments in the area have made huge changes to traffic and wildlife that has been heart-breaking to see. Every day becomes a traffic battle that is steadily getting worse, and we can clearly see much wildlife we are displacing by the number of road kill animals we see, not to mention the regularity of seeing deer running down a busy road because its old resting spaces have been built on. I have lived in Warsash for 25 years and the changes have been devastating to the Village I fell in love with. [redacted]. I cross the M27 twice and most days I see endless queues of traffic and if I switch on my Sat-Nav, I see all the RED traffic lines in the area. [redacted] we don't have enough parking for them all. I have to leave home two hours earlier than I need to, to get to meetings outside the area, only to arrive far too early and have nothing to do. How much wasted time does that represent over a year, caused purely by impossible traffic? We don't even have suitable Broad Band on Solent Way (Whiteley) and are forced to look at alternative (very expensive) solutions whilst huge efforts seems to go into ensuring every household has superfast broadband so they can download a movie in 30 seconds. Where is the support for business in the area? If I want to book a doctors appointment I will be lucky to get one inside a month and my wife and daughter have to go to a different surgery completely because mine wont take them on. We have friends recently moved to Warsash and have to travel to Hamble every days because the local school is full and cant take them in. The are around Warsash has had endless developments forced on it and we are about to lose any identity. However, the most important fact is that the area does not have the infrastructure to accommodate this many new homes and this cannot be resolved by resurfacing a road or re-working a roundabout. The A27 is regularly jammed up and the M27 is almost always jammed up, especially around J8 & J9 and the Eastleigh Airport / Train station turn off. I understand that new houses are needed but we MUST be realistic and understand the catastrophic implications that over development will have. [redacted].

SO31


Object

"It is absurd that the Council thinks that this is a suitable site for mass development: 1) The road systems are creaking with the current level of traffic at peak times. There is major traffic congestion getting to the A27 and the M27, as well as on the A27. This starts building up from 07:30 in the morning. Walking around the Warsash area to get to the local school is dangerous as there is so much traffic and no pedestrian crossing. Warsash is on a peninsular bordered by water on 2 sides. It would not be physically possible in many places to make the roads wider. In addition to the danger and inconvenience casued by the traffic congestion, the air pollution from the traffic needs to be taken into consideration as well. 2) The local school is full. If the school was to be made bigger in time this would be to the detriment of the school as facilities, such as communal areas and sports fields would need to be developed. In the mean time families would need to travel to schools further away which would mean more traffic/pollution. 3) There is no GP in Warsash. It already takes weeks to get an appointment at the Locks Heath GP. Putting more strain on these GP Practises would pose an unacceptable health risk to Warsash residents. 4) Environment/Village. The land around Greenaway Lane provides a strategic green space keeping Warsash as a village and providing ""lungs"" for the people who live around the area. There is wildlife there and the trees provide oxygen. Developers have already started removing these trees, even those with protected status. This is unacceptable! 5) My understanding is that this land had a classified, protected status as a green belt. It should not be developed There must be more suitable sites where infrastructure can be readily expanded and with easier access to the motorway, such as the Newlands site or Welbourne. Warsash should not be destroyed because Fareham Borough Council has not been able to make better, more suitable plans within a timeframe."

SO31


Object

I object to the proposed development due to the increased numbers of cars that this will see on our local roads. Warsash Road is already extremely busy during peak times particularly when children are travelling to school. Brook Lane is already extremely dangerous and school children already struggle to cross these roads when travelling to school. There have been petitions for years about a safe crossing across Warsash Road but there is still no facility for this. This development would see at least 2000 additional cars on our local roads which are already dangerous and difficult to cross. In my role as [redacted]. One of our local pubs has generously provided a 'park and stride' facility in their car park however this actively encourages pupils to cross Warsash Road at one of the busiest times of day and this development will lead to it being even busier. HCC are also planning to remove our crossing patrols people making it even more dangerous for our children. How can I actively encourage children to walk to school when I know that they lives will be put at even more risk with these local developments?

SO31


Comment

This site for erection of 700 houses means an average of 4 person all needing to get to work or schools. As a council we must expect you to organize some bus routes especially in the light of increasing global warming and the increase on our village of some 600/700 cars on average. You simple cannot leave the responsibility to us to sort out.

SO31


Object

I completely object to this over-development of the area. If other developments of the infrastructure ie schools, surgeries, improved roads etc. we're in place then by all means start building more houses. We cannot move (by road) in this area as it is, this will increase traffic no-end bringing chaos and misery especially in rush-hour. The M27 and south of it is at a standstill nearly every morning. All of the developments across the M27 corridor including HA1 are going to contribute towards this traffic misery which will not get any better even with 'improvements' to the motorway. Do not let these plans go ahead.

SO31


Object

There is already a shortage of parking space for local schools and local shops, local schools have insufficient places to accommodate the catchment area, so I fail to see how the area can accommodate another 700+ dwellings . Access to the A27 and M27 motorway is also likely to be severely impacted particularly with the new developments planned for Bursledon. I fail to see how any thought has been given to these plans.

SO31


Object

Current infrastructure cannot support this development - schools, doctors, roads. Is is already too dangerous for my son to walk to school because the traffic along Brook Lane and Warsash Road is so heavy, making it difficult to cross those roads, let alone even more traffic which will make it worse. The A27 and M27 traffic in the mornings and evenings is so heavy that a journey that should take 20-25 minutes takes up to an hour, again becoming even worse if this proposed development goes ahead...

SO31


Object

The roads and services in the area cannot cope already. So many new dwellings will affect everyone. Please don't just tick the boxes - listen to the people who live and work locally. HA7 Please do not overfill this site!!

SO31


Object

Horrified at this, I object for the following reasons As the land is outside the Defined Urban Boundary , to build upon it would be against the councils own policy. The land also forms part of the natural barrier which separates the local settlements This should also be a reason to protect it which is also part of the Councils own policy. This land is a mix of fields and agricultural businesses which should be supported in order to maintain jobs and revenue . The local infrastructure can't support it, roads, schools, public services, drainage. Considerably to damaging the environment. Adverse effect on the landscape and village character of Warsash. This creeping urbanisation and loss of green space will ruin the rural look and feel of the village. I wont be able to get to work, wile its developed, because of construction disruptions, when it finished I wont be able to get to work because of Tom, Dick and Harry coming out of there nice new town houses on to Brook lane.

SO31


Comment

There is a lot of land doing nothing , but will employment be offered eg nurseries ? Warsash Road motores ltd there is already queues of cars waiting to join a27. Is there enough infrastructure in place. Gennusis centre is being used so the area should be left for community purpose instead of housing.

SO31


Object

Traffic is a major problem at the moment leading onto the motorway goodness knows how much more of a problem it will be with so many houses being built. Lockwood road has got worse over the last two years and will eventually become gridlocked. There are no plans for additional doctors surgeries which again results in a huge problem. The schools are oversubscribed already. The wildlife including deers and badgers will be disturbed and die out. More houses will cause so many problems within this area and it is very worrying.

SO31


Object

We do not have enough space in our doctors surgery's and schools for yet more housing! We are already struggling in this area to get an appointment, and people moving to the area cannot get their children in to any of the local schools. Unless new schools and doctors surgery's are built, i do not see how this area will cope. The amount of traffic has increased significantly over the years, more houses being built is going to make that much worse. No more houses should be built unless there are schools and doctors being built first to accomodate them.

SO31


Object

Traffic - lack of schools - cannot get a doctor's appointment now - not enough doctor's or dentists. Not enough parking available at the Locks Heath Shopping Centre. Roads are a nightmare - trying to get onto the motorway from junctions 9, 7 AND definitely 8.

SO31


Object

"Whilst it is acknowledged that this site is suitable for development, the proposed numbers (700) are far in excess of what can be accommodated within the existing highway network, with education provision lagging well behind at best. The current road network is stretched almost to it's limit as any journey along Brook and Barnes Lanes at peak times shows (and the clue is in their name - 'Lane!'). These roads were constructed to accommodate traffic of an era 50 years ago. Once out onto the A27, the traffic crawls from Segensworth (J9) through to Windhover at J8. We are now talking about adding possibly 1600 cars to the problem. The roads simply will not cope and more misery will be caused to those going about their daily duties. The FBC justification document for this site states that, "".......shall provide off-site highway improvement and mitigation works"". There are absolutely no mitigation measures that can take place on these roads as Brook and Barnes Lanes are tight single carriageways for large parts and the A27 cannot be widened. Minor junction changes are all that can be improved at the A27 / Barnes Lane and A27 / Brook Lane junctions, but these can only be cosmetic. Is it not unreasonable to expect the highways authority to submit as part of this draft plan, what mitigation measures they propose? This eliminates doubt and creates transparency and confidence that the proposal has been thought out. Moving to education provision. There are 4 main Primary / Infants / Junior schools locally and whilst not a legal obligation, parents do not unreasonably expect their children to be taught in their catchment or close to catchment school. These 4 schools are full and catchment families were turned away in September. HCC's formula suggests that 200 places will be needed for the Warsash cluster alone, irrespective of the Locks Heath / Park Gate proposals. The local Academy Hook-with-Warsash cannot take any more and is unable to build out and are concerned about their inability to be able to offer places to catchment children. The education authority have a responsibility to provide a school place but not necessarily in catchment and it has been suggested that transport will be provided to bus Western Wards children out to Fareham and / or Whiteley. Try and imagine parents, who now refuse to park and ride or walk to school, taking their children out to the nearest bus stop at 7.45 or 8am each morning and putting their 4 or 5 year old on a bus - it will not happen. What will happen is that they will drive their children out of area, so adding to the traffic chaos! Once again, is it not unreasonable for the education authority to address this issue as part of the draft plan and indicate whether they would provide extra accommodation at a local school or provide spaces and transport out of area. If the former, then what are the trigger points that will generate the new accommodation i.e. 50 occupied homes will generate 2 ready-to-use classrooms etc etc. Residents are being asked to live with the major issues that this house building will generate without information on what mitigation measures will be taken. These general, ""Mitigation measures will be taken"" statements are not acceptable. In any event, the SHLAA (Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment) requires a specific co-ordinated 'single' development that will require the 5 current proposals (but almost a single one) to be considered simultaneously so the Highway / Education authority presumably know the content of this document so should be in a position to give specific proposals and indicative timings. I refer back to my opening comment that the principal of development on this site is sound and not opposed, it is the sheer volume of housing that is. 1,000 homes will eventually be built on this land bordered by Peters Road / Lockswood road, Brook Lane and Wasasah Road, absolutely eye-watering and unsustainable. My 2nd submission under a separate heading, deals with alternative sites for consideration."

SO31


Object

I object to the huge number of new dwellings planned. This is a predominantly commuter area, with existing congestion substantial problems for A27 and M27 access. There is no effective plan to manage the addition of so many economically active households' traffic to and from the cities.

SO31


Object

We have had an enormous amount of development in this area in the past few years yet there has been no increase in the number of schools, doctor's surgeries, etc, although we have had a health/leisure centre. We cannot keep adding to the population of this area without considering these things. Also the roads are now getting increasingly busy, causing queues to get out on to the A27 the only route out of the area. All traffic goes north from here because there is no other option! Street parking is now very much more common, making it difficult to cross roads safely. Building on this land removes the only substantial green break between housing clumps. There is little distinction between local areas because there is very little remaining of the undeveloped land around us, completely changing the character of our area.

SO31


Object

This area is outside the planning of urban area and is also part of coast and countryside With wildlife habitat That will be destroyed such as badger sets at least 4 Bats and owls Hedge hogs that are now endangered The traffic and pollution is contrary to health and well-being to all residents: Site lines of traffic is unsafe at crossing of entrance to proposed site at Brook Lane Loss of employment that still exist on this site

SO31


Object

Lack of local infrastructures to cope with increased demands (e.g. school places, GP surgeries). More traffic, and roads are congested at the moment... Environmental impact.

SO31


Object

Beautiful Warsash can't support all the new houses that are planned. The necessary infrastructure isn't in place or planned either. Schools, roads and doctors surgeries will all be needed to support these dwellings.

Anonymous submission


Object

I would like to formally object to the recent 2036 Draft plan (HA1), which puts forward a 700+ housing development to the North and South of Greenaway Lane. Whilst I understand that national housing shortages has led to significant Government pressure for all councils to find appropriate sites, we are in danger of sacrificing the quality of life for many existing and future residents who benefit from the limited green and open spaces still left in otherwise densely populated areas. On Greenaway Lane we have significant dogwalkers, and wildlife including deer, foxes, bats and abundant bird life, which make it a recreational destination for many of the village residents. For Warsash Village, but also for any development south of the M27, we are uniquely limited in our capacity to absorb further traffic and infrastructure burdens, by nature of a) being a peninsular and b) already having dense housing which does not allow for relevant and scalable infrastructure investment to cope with additional demand. I state this in the context of Strawberry Fields, Cold East Way and other recent developments which have added significant housing into existing infrastructure over the last few years, and you will be familiar from other comments on the adverse impact this has had on schools, traffic, and social services. To summarise a few key areas: a) Congestion on the roads is already unacceptable at peak times and many roads in the area suffer from permanent on road parking, making for poor driving visibility and increasing congestion, and pollution, further. This is already a safety issue for children going to the local school. b) Primary & Secondary school places are oversubscribed, with several local residents unable to get places despite living within catchment areas, which then further adds to traffic burden elsewhere. c) Whilst I know FBC is not responsible for Doctors surgery provision, it must be within a wider planning remit or general duty of care on developments of this scale to ensure adequate requirements would be provided. I understand it is difficult for any council to meet the demands of Central Government, but we cannot continue to sacrifice the quality of life and opportunity for green space to absorb such large infill developments, as it changes the nature of the towns and villages which created the demand in the first place. I strongly feel that any development needs to be large scale but separate to existing high density areas, akin to new towns which can provide new schools, hospitals, roads, shops and provide green space in these areas for the benefit of their new residents. This does mean that my alternative position would be to move into Greenfield sites, and north of the M27 corridor. Whilst this by nature is costlier, my experience is that developers often support the cost of this additional infrastructure, and it makes far more sense if, as the Government suggests, we have an almost insatiable appetite for housing which is unlikely to subside in many decades.

SO31


Object

I wish to express my objections to the above proposed site. I don't believe the extent of proposed building in the Warsash ward (including this site) is appropriate for the infrastructure (or the nature of the area). As a council i think you need to be looking for solutions that not only provide housing but aim to provide good quality of life to those moving into the area and those already living in the area. Families need access to Doctors/ Dentists/ Schools/ Beavers/ Swimming lessons/ Gymnastics etc etc - I'm sure an extra 700+ homes in Warsash could be built and serviced but what about the quality of life. It shouldn't be a great struggle to get access to these resources. The safety of the (current and) future proposed roads is my main concern. As a mum of two young active kids who cycle/ walk around Warsash every day i don't see existing road traffic control in place suitable for young families to travel safely around, let alone the capacity to provide safe streets with an additional 700 householders on the road and the heavy vehicles required to build such housing. Please take into consideration that Brook Lane not only provides the only road for everyone trying to get to the motorway but also provides the only road for those of us trying to use healthy means of travelling to Holly hill for the sports centre/ woodland/ playing fields.

SO31


Object

Primarily, there is absolutely nowhere near enough infrastructure for this kind of development in Warsash. Further, there is no room to create the infrastructure in order to increase capacity. The school, the GP and the roads are some of the many examples where Warsash is not an option for this. The pollution is another concern, even more so given that Southampton has just been ranked equally as bad for pollution as London. I'm struggling to get my head around the fact that this size of a development is being seriously considered for Warsash. I understand that there is a huge housing issue nationwide, and to deny that houses need to be built is unrealistic, but for example Newlands and Welbourne are far more desirable locations for this kind of development. Like Hamble, Warsash is at the end of the road and an effective peninsula with one road in and out, and one only needs to look at how much of a mess the traffic and schools are over there to know that its madness to do the same here.

SO31


Object

This proposal will devastate the village of Warsash. The local road network cannot sustain the additional traffic. Local roads are already very busy and getting children across Warsash Road on the school run every morning is already problematic and this is only likely to get worse with the addition of a large number of dwellings in the proposed areas. The fields which are proposed for development are a local wildlife haven and we regularly see deer, rabbits, hedgehogs, owls, buzzards and other large raptors in the area. There is an abundance of small birds and other animal life there which will be displaced and this will reduce their visibility in the local neighbourhood. Local amenities are also at their limits and the addition of thousands of new homes will put additional pressure on schools and other services. If there is no extension to local schools, then there will be a significant impact upon local roads as parents take children out of catchment to Whiteley and other locations, which will add further pressure to the roads, notwithstanding the environmental impact of the additional cars. The local area is already 36% developed. It is my view that this new proposed addition will have significant, negative environmental, socio-economic and community impacts which I cannot see can possibly be justified. The loss of so much suburban natural environment to development can only possibly be detrimental and I am resolute in my opposition to it.

SO31


Object

I object to this as I believe the following:- 1) The infrastructure will not cope with the influx of people and cars to this area, which is already at capacity - being on a peninsula will simply cause congestion. 2) There is link to an increase in road traffic with more accidents or deaths of the local road with pedestrians, cyclists and other cars. 2) The local green spaces for foxes, deers, badgers, owls and bats will further have a reduction in their numbers and be driven out of the spaces they occupy and eventually killed on the roads - another great score for humanity, and another loss for creatures under our protection. 3) Pollution will generally affect the aged and children population; Southampton is already 11 cities with one of the worse pollution in the UK causing asthma in young children, amongst other health issues. 4) Furthermore this will merge Locksheath with Warsash and remove any green space between the locations. Think there is more options on the Newlands and Welbourne, to facilitate the council to meet their housing targets.

SO31


Object

I would like to formally object to this planning application for a number of reasons. The proposed developments are inconsistent with the Core Strategy Policy CS6. The Development Strategy, which seeks to "prioritise development within the defined urban settlement boundaries" and the Governments National Planning Policy Framework which states that "Planning should… encourage the effective use of land by reusing land that has been previously developed (Brownfield land), provided that it is not of high environmental value" Policy DSP7; New Residential Developments Outside of the Defined Urban Settlement Boundaries, also states "there will be a presumption against new residential developments outside of the defined urban settlement boundaries" The Local Plan Part 3 – Development Sites & Policies says of New Residential Development Outside of the Defined Urban Settlement Boundaries that "exceptions may be made for the conversion of existing buildings, one of one replacement of existing dwellings or where there is a proven requirement for a new dwelling to support an agricultural worker's employment requirements to live in close proximity to their place of work. The proposed new development are not replacement dwellings nor conversions, nor necessary for agricultural work, in fact they are taking jobs away in agriculture from the local area. Therefore, I do not believe they meet the criteria for exceptions. In addition I would object as the propose development due to its size and scale would result in an unacceptable loss of and impact on the following areas: Strategic break - Loss of strategic break between Warsash & Locks Heath thus destroying a local community. Countryside – The land is designated as Countryside and should not be lost to development as there are plenty of brown field sites in Fareham that should be developed first. Furthermore, many of the sites closer to Fareham Flooding – This is a major risk for Brook & Greenaway Lane as the proposed site slopes towards both roads is currently countryside so absorbed, if this land it turned into housing the water that currently drains swamp both roads. Local Services - Pressure on local services is already at breaking point, the proposed plan is for extra homes which will naturally bring a large number of additional children to the area but the local primary schools are already oversubscribed and at maximum capacity. They are also already large enough: so without additional investment in schools, namely the inclusion of both new primary and secondary schools, the local infrastructure cannot support the development. Local Medical Centres are also full. Traffic congestion - Today the local roads cannot cope with the current traffic and some key areas are already at maximum capacity so if such numbers of further houses are built it will lead to increased massive local congestion, which is shown by the long delays already at Brook Lane and Locks Heath Road every morning/evening. There will also be increased risk of accidents as these are the roads used by school children to and from Brookfield. Development – The site plan is not in keeping with local area i.e. it doesn't have off street parking for 2 cars, it doesn't have wide roads and it doesn't have green vergers & trees etc. Play areas? Open spaces? Wildlife passages??? Increased pollution from car fumes. Increased light pollution. Loss of wildlife, currently the land supports various types of bats, barn owls who use it for hunting, deer, etc and the loss of this land will put them under increased pressure to survive. Not enough consideration has been made for wildlife - even just the inclusion of wildlife passages, particularly given that this is just one proposal amongst many in this immediate area that do not seem to have communicated with each other or the council and together, they will reduce any remaining green spaces around Warsash to an absolute minimum. Warsash is not well linked with Fareham centre and as such, areas to the north of Fareham, which have access to more schools and motorway links, are far more appropriate as developments for Fareham, rather than submerging a village under such increased development that any features that allow for a village status are lost; any remaining green breaks with surrounding townships are lost and yet no infrastructure is included in this, or any of the other similar local developments, that will allow the area to absorb them without it causing substantial difficulties in all areas of schools, surgeries, traffic, and other services required by the community.

Anonymous submission


Object

I would like to formally object to this planning application for a number of reasons. The proposed developments are inconsistent with the Core Strategy Policy CS6. The Development Strategy, which seeks to "prioritise development within the defined urban settlement boundaries" and the Governments National Planning Policy Framework which states that "Planning should… encourage the effective use of land by reusing land that has been previously developed (Brownfield land), provided that it is not of high environmental value" Policy DSP7; New Residential Developments Outside of the Defined Urban Settlement Boundaries, also states "there will be a presumption against new residential developments outside of the defined urban settlement boundaries" The Local Plan Part 3 – Development Sites & Policies says of New Residential Development Outside of the Defined Urban Settlement Boundaries that "exceptions may be made for the conversion of existing buildings, one of one replacement of existing dwellings or where there is a proven requirement for a new dwelling to support an agricultural worker's employment requirements to live in close proximity to their place of work. The proposed new development are not replacement dwellings nor conversions, nor necessary for agricultural work, in fact they are taking jobs away in agriculture from the local area. Therefore, I do not believe they meet the criteria for exceptions. In addition I would object as the proposed development due to its size and scale would result in an unacceptable loss of and impact on the following areas: Strategic Gap - Building on this site loses the remaining green space between warsash and the Hook with Warsash Nature Reserve, the buildings will have considerable impact on the area of outstanding interest upon which it borders. Countryside – This site is one of a small remaining open areas of landscape in and around the village of Warsash, which are all being squeezed out of the immediate area - particularly as this is one of a number of similar sites. There are plenty of brown field sites in Fareham that should be developed first. More worryingly, this particular site is home to a wide variety of wildlife; owls, bats, deer etc. Their natural habitats are being squeezed into smaller and smaller areas, with no through natural 'wildlife passageways' and this site is one of a number of sites in and around Warsash that will further impact on this. The noise, traffic and light pollution will also impact considerably. Flooding - this area is already known to be liable to flood. Local Services - Pressure on local services is already at breaking point; the proposed plan for extra homes will naturally bring a large number of additional children to the area - but the local primary and secondary schools are already oversubscribed and at maximum capacity. They are also already large enough: so without additional investment in schools, namely the inclusion of both new primary and secondary schools, the local infrastructure cannot support the development. Local Medical Centres are also already full. Traffic congestion - Today the local roads cannot cope with the current traffic and some key areas are already at maximum capacity, so if such numbers of further houses are built it will lead to increased massive local congestion, which is shown by the long delays already at Brook Lane and Locks Heath Road every morning/evening. This proposed site will increase significantly the traffic through a road system that is already over capacity, and without the space to enlarge roads. There will also be increased risk of accidents as these are the roads used by school children to and from the local schools, walkers, local residents in general. Development – The site plan is not in keeping with the local area i.e. it doesn't have off street parking for 2 cars, it doesn't have wide roads and it doesn't have green vergers & trees etc. Play areas? Open spaces? Wildlife passages??? Increased pollution from car fumes. Increased light and noise pollution - both of these significant issues for concern in this particular area Loss of wildlife; currently the land supports a wide variety of wildlife. In and around Warsash and Locks Heath there has already been so much over development that wildlife natural habitat has been increasingly marginalised to a worrying degree; the loss of this land will put them under increased pressure to survive. Not enough consideration has been made for wildlife - even just the inclusion of wildlife passages, particularly given that this is just one proposal amongst many in this immediate area that do not seem to have communicated with each other or the council and together, they will reduce any remaining green spaces around Locks Heath and Warsash to an absolute minimum. Warsash and Locks Heath are not well linked with Fareham centre by public transport and as such, areas to the north of Fareham, which have access to more schools and motorway links, and are far closer to Fareham itself are far more appropriate as developments for Fareham, rather than submerging a village under such increased development that any features that allow for a village status are lost; any remaining green breaks with surrounding townships are lost and yet no infrastructure is included in this, or any of the other similar local developments, that will allow the area to absorb them without it causing substantial difficulties in all areas of schools, surgeries, traffic, and other services required by the community.

SO31


Object

The proposed development should completely gridlock Warsash. The traffic trying to access the A27/M27 is at a standstill now, the addition of somewhere around a thousand more vehicles is utter madness. The non- existence of any plan for support services, doctors/schools shows that the plan for this development is utter madness.

SO31


Object

This will cause chaos in the western wards area with not enough facilities and amenities already

SO31


Object

Excessive amount of housing. Increased noise and pollution levels. Increased crime rate. Loss of green spaces, this is designated countryside. Doctors and schools already overstretched. Traffic at ridiculous levels already. Loss of wildlife. Diminishing quality of life for existing residents.

SO31


Object

I find it incredible that with the trafic caos on the local roads, shortage of schools and doctors in this area and no dentists that 700 plus homes can be planned to go into this area. There is no supporting structure to allow the growth like this. Where will all the school children go? How we will we get a doctors appointment when we cant even get one now and have to wait 2 to 6 weeks? What allowance for hospital is there? The enviromental impact of congestion will rise 50 fold due to the extra hold ups on top of the current issues which still arernt adressed after Strawberry Fields was built. The 2 islands and increased paths do not allow more traffic, which speeds down Lockswood Road now over the 30 limit. Its too much in one area, smaller would be better and more controlled. Why isnt this building being done at Welbourne? Thats where the council promised it would go. Use more brownfield sites like the old Court building in Fareham and old shops like the Post Office. Come on save us some green space for our health and well being and to keep our wildlife, after all they have a right too!

SO31


Object

This proposal for 700 dwellings is preposterous, in an area where there is already over-congestion, not enough school places and not enough Dr. surgeries. This area, together with HA3, HA9, HA14 and others are in an area that is particularly busy at all times of day and this will just serve to make it worse. This level of development will bring the entire area to a standstill - I live locally and am distraught at the amount of development that is being allowed in Locks Heath. Every road now has cars parked all over them, and it frequently takes me 20 minutes to reach Junction 9 in the mornings - a distance of 1.5 miles! Brook Lane is bumper-to-bumper from 07:00 and remains so for the majority of the early morning. Strawberry Fields has just made this issue worse and continued development at the expense of agricultural land, community open space and quality of life for those already living here under huge levels of frustration, is just not good enough - the council should start listening. Your draft local plan is very, very short on evidence (it uses in the main the government guidelines, which are too generic. I hope this process gets to the specifics and brings some sense to this over-developed area) and hardly considers the impact on schooling, surgeries and the utter frustration being felt by the local community here in Locks Heath, Park Gate and Warsash. The report is heavy on housing needs (un-evidenced in my opinion) and employment, but how does this meet your stated objectives to protect open areas, community spirit etc..... May I suggest that government guidelines are not the 'be-all and end-all' - do what is right for the people in this borough and not blindly follow what you are told.

SO31


Object

We object to this for the following reasons - Warsash is in danger of becoming overdeveloped and losing the whole character of Warsash Brook Lane is an extremely busy road already , children are walking and crossing it daily to get to school. The village cannot take more cars. We are losing the gap between Warsash and Sarisbury/Locks Heath. Warsash will cease to be a village and will just become a large housing estate. There is no infrastructure in place the schools have waiting lists and we have to wait at least a month to get a doctor's appointment. We are losing our green spaces and natural habitats for foxes, owls, deer and bats. Newlands Farm is a much better area to build on with the least impact on the surrounding area

SO31


Object

For Warsash Village, but also for any development south of the M27, we are uniquely limited in our capacity to absorb further traffic and infrastructure burdens, by nature of a) being a peninsular and b) already having dense housing which does not allow for relevant and scalable infrastructure investment to cope with additional demand. I state this in the context of Strawberry Fields, Cold East Way and other recent developments which have added significant housing into existing infrastructure over the last few years and the adverse impact this has had on schools, traffic, and social services. To summarise a few key areas: a) Congestion on the roads is already unacceptable at peak times and many roads in the area suffer from permanent on road parking, making for poor driving visibility and increasing congestion, and pollution, further. This is already a safety issue for children going to the local school. b) Primary & Secondary school places are oversubscribed, with several local residents unable to get places despite living within catchment areas, which then further adds to traffic burden elsewhere. c) Whilst I know FBC is not responsible for Doctors surgery provision, it must be within a wider planning remit or general duty of care on developments of this scale to ensure adequate requirements would be provided. I understand it is difficult for any council to meet the demands of Central Government, but we cannot continue to sacrifice the quality of life and opportunity for green space to absorb such large infill developments, as it changes the nature of the towns and villages which created the demand in the first place. I strongly feel that any development needs to be large scale but separate to existing high density areas, akin to new towns which can provide new schools, hospitals, roads, shops and provide green space in these areas for the benefit of their new residents. This does mean that my alternative position would be to move into Greenfield sites, and north of the M27 corridor. Whilst this by nature is costlier, my experience is that developers often support the cost of this additional infrastructure, and it makes far more sense if, as the Government suggests, we have an almost insatiable appetite for housing which is unlikely to subside in many decades

SO31


Object

The current infrastructure in Warsash is unable to cope with more houses. Primary schools are at capacity and the only secondary school in the Western Wards nearly so. Increasing the number of homes will result in students having to make longer journeys to school with the resultant increase in road traffic and possible safety concerns. Reducing the number of children who can walk to school is not a good public health message. Our local roads are at capacity, especially the A27 and it's junctions with roads leaving Warsash. Our GP services have already had to reduce the number of appointments available due to a lack of GPs and this matter will not be resolved any time soon. Longer wait times to see a doctor result in longer times to diagnosis and treatment - again, an unacceptable public health message in the 21st century. Please do not put these homes on this site - there are other sites such as Newlands which would be better suited to supply the housing needs of Fareham.

SO31


Object

The proposed development presents a number of significant issues to the local area and residents: 1. Increase in traffic within an area already congested during peak travel times. 2. Hazardous traffic conditions with higher density of traffic also resulting in higher pollution due to vehicles. 3. Adverse impact on the wildlife in the area. 4. Impact on local businesses affected by the traffic congestion and increased travel times. 5. Insufficient local infrastructure to support an increased population. The areas being consider are natural green belt and developing in these areas will merge the villages of the area destroying the local community identities.

SO31


Object

This amounts to severe and unsustainable over development to the detriment of Warsash residents. The infrastructure particularly local roads will see a significant addition of motorised traffic. This will increase levels of pollution and impact negatively upon air quality. Already a 'rat run' for those motorists who wish to avoid the A27 between Titchfield gyratory , St Margarets Lane roundabout and the A27 Park Gate, Brook Lane and Barnes Lane will see a very significant increase in motorised traffic. This will serve to increase the dangers to pupils of Brookfield School and Sarisbury Junior School. The junction of Barnes Lane and Bridge Road at Sarisbury Green, already a high risk junction for vehicles turning right, will become even more hazardous. It is morally wrong of Fareham Borough Council to expect the village of Warsash to absorb this deluge of development when there is a far more suitable option of Newlands

SO31


Object

I wish to object to this planning application on the grounds that there is not the infrastructure to cope with the proposed development and that the area will become gridlocked particularly in rush hour when so many people need to get on to the A27. Looking at the local plan I can see that provision has been suggested for providing increased places for junior school aged children but there is no mention of placements for secondary school aged children and Brookfield is already very full. There is also insufficient health provision in the area and there does not seem to be provision for the builders to provide any financial contribution to NHS England for increasing GP surgeries. There is also mention in the plan of improving access onto the roads but already the A27 is usually a steady crawl during rush hour and whilst it may be possible to control traffic congestion on the local roads, there is no provision for improving the A27.

Postcode not provided


Object

Does it have to be this many..More cars, more pollution. Traffic already at a snails pace trying to get on to A27. Schools already at full capacity both primary and secondary.. Using space on school sites for temporary classroom deprives children of space to play and take part in sport. Surgeries and hospitals already finding too many people to cope with in a reasonable time. So there we are....bad air...no sport or play in schools.... even longer waiting times for surgeries and hospitals...................IS THIS WHAT WE WANT FOR OUR CHILDREN..... Solent City was always the plan regardless of what the people want.

SO31


Object

I am very concerned at the disproportionate allocation of housing In Warsash that will completely over whelm a small village. It is difficult enough NOW to get a appointment with the local doctor surgeries and the situation will deteriorate even more with much greater demand, the refirement of GP's and the national shortage of GP's. Our roads area already poor state, here in Warsash and will become far worse with a much greater influx of traffic road noise and will increase the risk of death and injuries to young children and elderly people.

SO31


Object

I wish to object to the above planning application as the Western wards area is already overwhelmed with vehicles and could not possibly take anymore traffic. The lack of infrastructure, doctors, schools, means that the area could not possibly cope with thousands of more people. The strategic gap between villages is being eroded. Accept the Newlands Farm proposal!

SO31


Object

700+ houses have been allocated in 5 developments on Greenaway Lane site Warsash.

PO13


Object

I wish to object to the above planning application as the Western wards area is already overwhelmed with vehicles and could not possibly take anymore traffic. The lack of infrastructure, doctors, schools, means that the area could not possibly cope with thousands of more people. The strategic gap between villages is being eroded. Accept the Newlands Farm proposal!

SO31


Object

The sheer size of the proposed developments at Greenaway Lane is quite simply wrong and should not be allowed to go ahead in its present form.

PO13


Object

The whole concept of the suggestion that Warsash can accommodate an increase population of 30% is absurd from infrastructure, cluction, medical points of view. The situation currently is unacceptable . Another example of the stupidity of this currant government locally as to one decision of council smacks of nimbyisn!!

SO31


Object

I wish to object to the above planning application as the Western wards area is already overwhelmed with vehicles and could not possibly take anymore traffic. The lack of infrastructure, doctors, schools, means that the area could not possibly cope with thousands of more people. The strategic gap between villages is being eroded. Accept the Newlands Farm proposal!

SO31


Comment

This land should stay as a green field site. It is classified as country site and will impact on the environment. There is already a problem accessing the A27 and M27 from this area with large delays during rush hour. Further impacting on the pollution already being emitted by the present queues of traffic. This draft plan already includes 8 more areas that will generate 669 of dwellings which will almost double with the amount proposed of Greenway Lane. Both Brook Lane and Barnes Lane have a excessive amount of traffic as the only two roads accessing the A27. Until the road infrastructure is improved, extra lanes put on the M27 ( It can take half an hour to get off the M27 already). There are not enough surgeries or space within the existing surgeries to accommodate more patients. There are not enough school spaces or teachers for more students. Porstmouth Hospital QA has closed wards, cancelling all elective surgery, because of excess demand. Do we really want to exacerbate an already overextended infrastructure?

SO31


Object

Not suitable for anything like 700 Homes. Brook Lane and Barnes Lane and associated side roads already heavily congested at peak periods and no school places or local jobs so everyone living In these houses would be adding to the existing congestion. Many accidents and near misse already. Plus two nursing homes on Brook lane either side of the proposed access points are shot of parking already, and need MORE not less parking for ambulances and visitors and staff.

SO31 SO31.


Object

Maybe the Council and developers could take a leaf out of this article and consider the wildlife etc.

SO31


Object

Too many houses proposed for the local infrastructure to support

Anonymous submission


Object

"""I wish to register my objection to the amount of housing FBC have included in its draft local plan in the western wards especially the North and South Greenaway Lane development this will overwhelm the local areas due to the lacking infrastructure and the removal of strategic gap of green space between the local settlements."""

SO31


Object

"""I wish to register my objection to the amount of housing FBC have included in its draft local plan in the western wards especially the North and South Greenaway Lane development this will overwhelm the local areas due to the lacking infrastructure and the removal of strategic gap of green space between the local settlements."""

SO31


Object

No infrastructure to support the extra 1600 cars this development will generate. We already have totally gridlocked roads which will only get worse. Last week alone on two consecutive mornings you couldnt get to the A27 because of traffic incidents, causing delays of up to an hour to travel from Warsash to Park Gate. The distribution of homes needs to be more fairly spread across the borough.

SO31


Object

I would like to object to the proposed development. I cannot understand why you would want to develop this site. There are so many reasons why this is a poor decision just looking at the priorities set out on page 18 of the draft plan 2036. 1. Its a green field site (priorties 1 and 2 - maximise and prioritise brownfield sites) 2. It will completely fill the natural boundary between Warsash and Locks Heath (priority 9 - Minimises any detrimental impact to settlement coalescence) (priority 10 - Provides a sensible and logical urban extension with the ability to provide and maintain a defensible urban edge following development) 3. There is currently (and projected forward) insufficient primary school capacity in the vicinity of the site. Financial contributions from the development to support this will therefore need to be provided (draft plan page 136). (Priority 5 - Avoids sites that rely on significant infrastructure delivery where the timing of the work and/or funding are beyond the control of the site promoter/developer). 4. The access to the M27 from Warsash is limited to Brook Lane/Barns Lane which are already extremely busy at peak times. With no plan for additional jobs or infrastructure in the Warsash area all the new residents will be traveling to and from workplaces and shops by private vehicle. (Priority 13 - Considers the accessibility of sites (i.e. access to key services and shops) to minimise the reliance on private vehicle use). I could go on and on. All I can see from reading this document is mitigation after mitigation for the endless reasons why this is a bad site to develop, there is no mention of why this is a good site, or what benefits it will bring to the local community . The only conclusion I can come to is profit for the development companies ie. houses cost the same to build wherever you build them but you can sell them for a lot more in Warsash. I urge you, please don't give in to pressure from the development companies, decide where is the best location for development based on your priorities and what's best for the Borough. Warsash is one of the nicest, most characterful villages in Fareham, please don't ruin it for the sake is developer profits.

SO31


Object

Hi, I would like to object to the development of the Western Wards in the Local Plan. Over development in these areas...would cause endless damage to the environment for the foreseeable future. The amount of air pollution that would be caused by well over a thousand cars within a relatively small area, could impact on peoples' health and possibly raise lung related diseases and asthma.. Our road structure does not allow for any real changes to take place, thus unable to accommodate all the cars in these new developments. Just adding even more chaos to the present difficulties. Habitat of wild life is very precious... Green open spaces with clean air is imperative for all ages for their well-being. If Welborne hadn't been delayed for so long. The council could possibly of built nearly enough homes for their Local Plan and may be wouldn't be looking at The Western Wards for so much development. Which really isn't the fault of the people who live here...Should we have it imposed on us because of this? I personally don't think so.

SO31


Object

The proposed development will put an extortionate amount of pressure on the infrastructure of Warsash which is already under a huge amount of strain in terms of traffic, education and health. Warsash is on a peninsula and during peak times the current volume of traffic causes an extreme amount of delays and pressure on current residents simply trying to get to their places of work. An extra 800 houses will be a minuimum of 800-1600 cars being added to an already over stretched area. Brook Lane which is the route used by school children to walk to their secondary school is already very busy and accidents have occurred over the last year. The character of Warsash and the impact on local wildlife will be destroyed by this overdevelopment. I am sickened and saddened that this over development is even being considered.

SO31


Object

I fully understand that there is a housing shortage in the UK and that councils are being pressured into building large volumes of housing. I attended the Friday meeting at the Victory Hall in Warsash and heard first-hand the proposal and justification for site HA1. I agree Warsash ward needs to take it share of housing to help meet the demand, but it is clearly taking a disproportionate amount with 700 North and South of Greenaway Land and 100 at the maritime college. I understand that large developments such as the 700 houses allow for improved infrastructure over smaller piecemeal developments but in this case, there is no improvement to infrastructure that can be made. The offer of traffic lights at the top of Barnes Lane isn't going to cut it. Yes, the council reported they had carried out traffic surveys and that the road could handle the additional traffic but at what point does common sense prevail. The council should not hide behind traffic survey numbers and say that the roads can cope, when clearly everyone in the area already has significant issues getting outside of the A27 every rush hour. Warsash is a peninsula, we are sided by water on two of four sides and there are only two real roads in and out; Warsash Road and Brook Lane. There is no infrastructure improvement to these two road or the local A27 that can possible support the additional of a 1/3 increase in the population of Warsash. The theoretical numbers might stack up for road capacity, school and infrastructure but at some point, common sense needs to prevail and the number of proposed houses be reduced. The only concept I can see would work would be a fast cat ferry service from the maritime college to Gosport, Portsmouth, Cowes and Southampton. We already have a significant traffic, school and surgery capacity issues and without any further development this is already unacceptable. A new strategic development North of the M27 would make far more sense, where infrastructure could be designed accordingly, allowing for growth and inclusion of open green spaces, rather than creating these supper high density housing areas, which is what Warsash will become. I also found it worrying from the meeting at the Victory Hall to hear that the 'the developers would all be locked in a room until they have devised a plan that worked for the site'. To me this is totally wrong. The people of Warsash should define what the developers can build, defining facilities, open areas and play grounds with support from the council.

SO31


Object

There is not the infrastructure, existing or proposed, that can support this amount of new dwellings in the local community. It is already a struggle to get a doctors appointment, a strain on the local schools and traffic at an impasse during peak travel times. Alternative locations have been suggested for builds in-between existing communities and closer to the town centre where new schools & doctors etc. would be more suitably accommodated and keep the traffic towards existing easy motorway access points.

PO14


Object

There is not enough infrastructure to support these new houses and tge traffic on the major and minor roads is already very bad without adding numerous extra houses. The m27 is also very clogged and even getting onto it by 7am doesn't mean you won't be sat in traffic. Building on green spaces and filling up every space avaliable doesn't seem well thought out. What about school places, drs surgeries and the roads.

SO31


Object

The houses will have too big of an impact on infrastructure such as doctors and schools. The local roads cannot cope with the current traffic let alone 1000+ more cars. The wildlife living on that land have few places to go. This is the last green space between locks heath and warsash. Please do not co time with the plans.

SO31


Object

I strongly object to this over development of the area. We need these green spaces to support wildlife. Warsash is s quiet village and why I chose to buy my own house here after living here most of my life! Schools are struggling to cope woth numbers as it is. Hook with Warsash is the main School for Warsash and siblings were turned away the year before last! Getting a doctors appointment is like gold dust and the traffic on local roads is ever increasing. Warsash does not want more schools etc it wants no more houses! I live and work in Warsash with my own small business I object.!

SO31


Object

I have already made my objections known on line but would like to repeat that the proposed building of 700 houses in this area would impose severe restrictions on traffic, add to the load already borne by local surgeries, overload our existing Secondary and Junior schools and, heaven alone knows what all these extra houses would make on the local water table and drainage. I would also like to say that, if we suffered a national emergency, none of us would be able to get out.

SO31


Object

As Warsash residents we are extremely unhappy and concerned with the proposed development of HA1 and the impact it will have, if it goes ahead, on the surrounding area. Warsash will no longer be a village and there will be no division (or Strategic Gaps as I believe it is referred to) between Warsash, Park Gate, Locks Heath, Titchfield Common etc - all this area will merge into a massive urban sprawl particularly if the Western Ward proposed areas are all developed (Beacon Bottom, Heath Road, Raley Road and the Maritime Academy). We strongly believe that the area CANNOT cope with the increased volume of vehicles, not only in Brook Lane and Lockswood Road but spilling out onto the A27, Junction 9 and the M27. The road system struggles with existing traffic levels at peak times or if there is an accident on the Motorway or A27. The infastructure is also woofully lacking, DOCTORS, DENTISTS, SCHOOLS, and HOSPITALS are already overstretched to provide an adequate service to existing residents. What happens when you add several thousand more people requiring access to these services? Also the planners need to take into account demands additional housing will impose on water, sewerage, drainage, electricity, gas, phones etc.

SO31


Object

The seven hundred new homes on the two Greenaway Lane sites seems totally excessive. I have no objection to some new homes here, a lot of the land on these sites is just empty and does nothing, so build some new homes but far less than the proposed seven hundred.

SO31


Object

Having lived in Warsash for over 40 years I have seen it go from a smallish village to a thriving community that is now bursting at the edges. Until I recently retired I worked at QA Hospital at Cosham and because of my hours it was essential to be able to drive there. Before I retired it was getting more and more difficult to get to the M27 because of increased traffic in the mornings. I would often have to leave for work an hour before starting to ensure getting there on time. This is normally a twenty minute journey. If there was an accident on the motorway, traffic would divert off it onto the A27 going through Parkgate making a bottleneck at the roundabout at the end of Brook Lane, it was sometime gridlock with little hope of getting out. I had to make sure I listened to the local radio station to be aware of any problems before setting out. I have often turned around and diverted along Warsash Road, to the gyratory at Titchfield to the Wickham Road and gone via Wickham and over the back of Portsdown Hill. I retired four years ago I do not know what it is like now but I am sure it is no better. The increase of houses on the Greenaway Lane area would put a lot more pressure on this junction with a potential of a further 1400 cars all trying to get to work in Portsmouth, Fareham and even Southampton. A lot of lost working hours costing millions will result if these houses are built. This is just one reason. What about the schools that are all full in the area with no where to expand to. The Doctors surgery is another area, you often can't get an appointment for at least a week. Enough is enough. Thank you

SO31


Object

The huge number of houses will cause traffic chaos. The huge number of households will not be able to get school places, and even now, doctors surgeries patient lists are full. Warsash cannot sustain the size of this development.

SO31


Comment

As a resident of Barnes Lane, I object to the lack of infrastructure and the loss of greenspace separation of Warsash village from Park Gate & Sarisbury Green. ALL the doctors surgeries here are oversubscribed, Where will these 2000 new residents get medical attention.? Cannot the underused Hospital on Brook Lane be developed as a MEDICAL CENTER. Where are the average 2 children per household going to attend school. ?The schools are oversubscribed. In fact we are already overpopulated, there is no way the village can expand into the sea. Where are the average 3 cars per household going to to find access to the A27 & M27 during the rush hours. Barnes Lane & Brook Lane are gridlocked already any time there is a motorway problem. 500 people will be on the Country lanes,, for that is what our roads are down here,, driving their 2 or 3 children per household to the non-existant schools and then onto work from 8-9 am every morning. WARSASH AREA IS FULL. !!!!! Why are not ALL the brown field sites around Fareham being filled first? Why is the build developer-led and not designated by the local council. e.g. what is needed is appartments for starter homes, 1 or 2 beds, Low cost housing, again 2 beds. Why, why are these overpriced 3/4 luxury housing being allowed. What is needed to accomodate the surplusn population that has been allowed into the country is appartment blocks of 2-bed units -4 units along by 4 units tall. This would take up much less ground space. I would lime answer to this particular suggestion.

SO31


Comment

"We feel it is just too much, to take up areas either side of Greenaway Lane, as there is already housing development nearby, alongside Lockswood Road. It would fill in the last remaining green space in that area, stifling a large amount of wildlife, and the oppotunity for local people, especially children to see it. I have seen 2 dead Badgers and 2 dead Foxes in the local area in the last 2 weeks , I believe due to housing development. In addition, the extra traffic generated to leave Warsash/Locks Heath would also be impractical at Rush hour, at junctions Raley road, Lockswood Road, and Barnes lane . And so we propose a compromise , accepting that housing growth is inevitable, and so to build on the Northern half of this area, but leaving the Southern half for much needed nearby green space, with perhaps football pitch/leisure facilities, and free access/corridor for Wildlife. Reference Traffic, I should mention my daughter is already frequently late for college, using College transport on her way to Barton Peveril, from Locks Heath. Finally, we are in favour of seeing some affordable housing provided for younger people , and those on a lower income. The perception of Affordable housing seems mixed. These properties need to start at around £ 60,000 for a Studio flat, to be "" affordable "" and if the average price of a Fareham house is nearer £ 250,000, what use is that. the Developers need to be less greedy, to charge less and give everybody a bit more living space. This could pay for itself if people are not living on top of each other, give them larger rooms and a bit of green space . I believe there would be less stress in the household and that this should reduce mental illness, so costing less in medical treatment."

SO31


Object

Significant increase in housing will impact greatly on traffic, not only in the western wards but also on the main junctions to the M27. Already there is difficulty getting in and out of Warsash at peek times. There has been a noticeable increase in congestion since the recent strawberry fields development. More cars using cut through to get to key junctions. Due to more cars, walking to school is getting more difficult to cross roads. Increased pollution from increased numbers of vehicles. Loss of countryside will have a detrimental affect on lost habitats. More hard surfaces will impact on water drainage. Local amenities already have full car parks. Schools are close to capacity and doctors surgeries are stretched.

SO31


Object

Significant increase in housing will impact greatly on traffic, not only in the western wards but also on the main junctions to the M27. Already there is difficulty getting in and out of Warsash at peek times. There has been a noticeable increase in congestion since the recent strawberry fields development. More cars using cut through to get to key junctions. Due to more cars, walking to school is getting more difficult to cross roads. Increased pollution from increased numbers of vehicles. Loss of countryside will have a detrimental affect on lost habitats. More hard surfaces will impact on water drainage. Local amenities already have full car parks. Schools are close to capacity and doctors surgeries are stretched.

SO31


Object

I love in warsash and have done for nearly thirty years. There has been a lot of development in that time which has had a big impact on parking, increased traffic, a strain on doctors surgeries and schools etc. However in addition to these points it would be cruel to build on this area due to the wildlife that use it. Deer live in this area and have limited habitat left so this should not be taken away from them. Please also consider that a lot of people of warsash choose to live here as it is a quiet place. Overpopulating the area removes this quality. These plans are causing a lot of stress and upset in a normally amicable village. Please consider the people, families and wildlife living in warsash and do not build here.

SO31


Object

I live in Newtown Road and I can't understand how the roads and local facilities could possible cope with another 700 homes being built. I left home the other morning at 8.30 am and it took me forty minutes to get on to the M27 at junction nine simple due to the volume of traffic trying to join the A27. It is already very difficult to get to see a doctor within two to three weeks; haven knows what it would be like with another 700 homes up the road together, with the development of The Warsash Maritime College. There are many other suitable sites where homes could be built without clogging up the local roads and making live a misery for the good people of Warsash Please reject this development as I believe it is not feasible for the local roads to be able to cope with the extra number of cars.

Anonymous submission


Object

The inclusion of these two areas in the plan is, in our view, a totally disproportionate allocation of housing provision within Fareham borough. These 700 dwellings will be in addition to the recent developments at The Strawberry Fields, Peters Rd and Cold East, Brook Lane and the proposed 100 dwellings at the Maritime Academy. These developments will completely and for ever change the nature of Warsash from a village community to a housing conurbation stretching unbroken from Warsash centre through Locks Heath into Park Gate. The countryside elements and strategic gaps between settlements will have disappeared forever. Supporting infra-structure by way of health and education facilities may eventually be provided, but these services are already stretched beyond capacity. What can never be fundamentally improved are the highway and transportation links. Brook Lane and Barnes Lane are already peak time 'bottle necks' and further building will only severely worsen this situation. The Foreman Homes proposed development north of Greenaway Lane has a Brook Lane access so close to a road bend that serious accidents are an inevitability. We would urge the council to re-think the plan and to spread more evenly the housing sites throughout the Borough and perhaps give serious consideration to the Newlands site, south of Longfield Avenue, where it appears that additional services and road improvements are being incorporated.

SO31


Object

Too many proposed houses in Warsash and not enough schools and surgeries to cope with the increased population.

SO31


Object

We are already heavily populated. Please keep any green space that we have otherwise the area will resemble a concrete jungle. The infrastructure cannot cope with more homes as all the schools in the area are already full. The doctors surgeries in the area are at breaking point as they are all oversubscribed. The impact on traffic in the area will cause utter chaos.

Postcode not provided


Object

"There is a disproportionate amount of houses to be built here with no consideration for maintaining a high quality of life, environmental considerations, traffic, air quality, infrastructure or the character of the area. 11.13 You state that a safe transport network is vital. The transport network has not been considered. Two years ago when the M27 was shut, it took 6 hours for the school bus to return from Southampton as the roads were gridlocked. ( This is against the National Planning policy framework to be ""accessible and convenient, reduce need to travel and manage congestion."") As it is, leaving Warsash requires management of time and timing of the journey due to current congestion.) I have several times, not been able to drive out of Warsash due to the M27 being shut. 11.22 You want people to walk and cycle to work from Warsash? It is 30 minutes to the train station walking. There is no bus to the station. No one will walk, few will cycle. You will have 1400 more cars on the road and a massive increase in air pollution. This is an ill-judged and patronising statement. 11.39. Developers cannot meet this if there is an increase in cars. How can they ""positively contribute to the delivery of the councils air quality action plan"" whatever that is. The air in Warsash is disgusting already. On still days, car fumes hang in the air. Have you monitored it on the warsash road on a still day? 11.38. How can you minimise road transport emissions with an increase in cars. This is rubbish! You are contradicting yourselves. 11.48. How does planning to reduce carbon emissions coincide with a dramatic increase in the number of cars in Warsash? Again, rubbish! No consideration has been given in this plan for schooling, doctors, parking, congestion, infrastructure of the area, protection of habitats, including badgers/bats. No consideration has been given to the fact that Fareham has 38% of it's land built upon vs 8.8% for England and 4% for Winchester. Why is all the building being done here? No consideration has been given to the character of Warsash, it's history and it's community. This is a poor and ill thought out plan, and HA1 should not take place."

SO31


Object

The proposal is for far too many dwellings all of which will have at least one but probably two vehicles accessing Brook Lane and/or Locks Road. There will be more delivery vehicles if local congestion is so bad that internet shopping is the only option. Consideration does not seem to have been given to the overall impact this and the many other local planning applications will have on local roads, surgeries and school places. Please, please seriously reconsider a substantial reduction in the number of planned houses on this site. What about some more parkland & trees for the community. If families move into these properties they deserve to have their children schooled within walking distance; all new residents will need doctors & dentists, car parking at the shopping centre and to be able to actually commute to work. The intended Brook Lane access/exit is on a blind bend and it is fundamentally unsafe in view of the speed at which vehicles already travel on this road in both directions. One property (Kingfisher Cottage, Brook Avenue located opposite this intended access) was denied a Brook Lane gateway many years ago because of safety concerns - how can you possibly dismiss the safety factor with the plans before you now - potentially hundreds of cars exiting/entering on a blind bend? There are already hundreds more vehicles and lorries using this road now than 10+ years ago. Traffic congestion at Brook Lane/Barnes Lane, Barnes Lane/A27, Brook Lane/A27 during peak times can be appalling. Idle traffic every morning and the exhaust fumes are atrocious - in particular for our young people going to school - and will only deteriorate further if this over-development is permitted. There is no specific phased plan for an improved local infrastructure - roads, surgeries, schools, parking at our shopping centre - to accommodate hundreds of extra residents. Why not? It is surely the responsibility of those who plan not to allow uncontrolled destruction of the landscape, but to spread development in the region fairly and equitably.

Postcode not provided


Object

It seems very unfair for one site to bare such a large proportion of the areas housing needs especially when it is so illequipped to accomodate a further 700 poperties. 700 properties on the area proposed is far too many in my opinion. Concerns over increased road traffic have been mentioned time and again but it doesnt seem like anything can/is being done about this. Senior school places are already at capacity at Brookfield school and it has already been set this school cannot be extended any further - nor should it be expected to. There is no mention of what will be proposed to provide senior education for families in the area. Some development in the area is understandable but the size and density of this proposal given its location seems contradictory to a number of the councils criteria.

SO31


Object

I wish to object to the HA1 plan for 700 houses on this site for the following reasons. 1) Warsash Road Network: Having attended one of the recent CAT meetings it was made clear that there is no ability to make any improvements to the existing local Road structure. For this reason alone this site is inappropriate, our local roads can not take the additional 1000 plus vehicles. Access in and out of the local area is already at its limits. 2) Pedestrian Safety Issue: [redacted]. Warsash Road is already extremely busy, pavements are inappropriately too narrow in places and there's no room or scope to improve these. Trying to cross Warsash Road at any point of the day is dangerous, cars travel too fast and there are too many. Adding another 1000 plus vehicles to this seems completely inappropriate and another principle reason to reject this site. 3) Doctors Surgeries Insufficient Resource: Our local Doctors Surgeries are already under enormous pressure, getting appointments is very difficult. What was clear at the CAT meeting is that FBC have very little influence to change this so it seems unlikely that any new services will evolve. 4) School Places: Families with siblings already at local schools have not been able to get places in recent years and have had to send their children to separate alternative schools. Where are an additional 2-3 thousand children going to get school places. And if there was a plan to build a new school where would that go. 5) Green area, impact on Wildlife: There is going to be an impact on the many wildlife within that site, even with provision to avoid certain areas of the site to accommodate existing badger sets, the disruption to wildlife remains an issue. [redacted]. In Summary, the requirement to provide additional housing for a growing population simply can not come without additional infrastructure resources. The proposal to build over 1000 new houses in Warsash alone because the Welbourne site has failed to meets its original requirement is flawed. Other sites should be re-considered again.

SO31


Object

I see little evidence of the existing infrastructure being upgraded such as roads, schools and medical services to facilitate this house building program in the ward? When will their be firm plans in place for this? How are they going to cope with extra congestion on local roads? Why have the council failed in their planning strategy with the Wellbourne project so they are now going down this route?

SO31


Object

The development proposed both North and South of Greenaway Lane really concerns me for the following reasons: 1. The strategic gap between surrounding villages would all but disappear, making the area one large town. At the moment Warsash is a distinct village with its own history. 2. With the volume of homes proposed at around 700 new homes, this could mean over 1,400 new cars on the roads. These roads would include Greenaway Lane, Brook Lane and Barnes Lane. These roads haven't been built to bear this additional traffic and are currently already grid locked during rush hour making access to the A27 and M27 increasing difficult. This will only get worse with additional cars on the road. Fareham is the most car dependent town in the UK and without decent access to bus and train services this is only going to get worse. 3. On Brook Lane there is Brookfield Senior School where there was recently an incident involving a car and a school child. This road will become much busier and our children will still have to make their way to and from school using this road that doesn't currently provide enough safe crossing provisions. 4. There are no crossing provisions in the village or on any of the busy roads. Cars fly up and down all the local roads, including Osborne Rd, Warsash Rd and Brook Lane and it won't be long before there is a serious accident and adding potentially 1,400 cars to the roads will only make this worse. There is no care for the safety of residents, particularly our children. 5. All the local primary schools are full, where will all the children in these new homes be expected to go? Extending the schools means the children will lose valuable outside space, is this really what Fareham Borough Council are about? First they lose fields and outside space that keeps the air clean and less polluted and then they lose their playing fields and playgrounds at school too? 6. The Dr's are currently a nightmare, getting a routine appointment takes 6 weeks, what impact will more residents have on this? We'll have a healthcare function that is unable to cope and what impact will that have on the health of residents? 7. Where will the wildlife go that is currently residing in these sites? There are so many deer, badgers, bats and numerous other animals in these locations that will be driven out without anywhere to go because everywhere else is being built on. The local wildlife will be destroyed. 8. What impact will all these houses and additional cars have on air pollution - we should be protecting our local area, the wildlife, our children and the health of everyone in it, not destroying it to try and meet housing quotas. 9. What about quality of life? As a council will you be providing quality of life? By putting building work in a location that will require masses of materials to be driven down roads that aren't able to handle the traffic there will be a constant stream of delays on the road, temporary traffic lights needed and some residents will constantly be witnessing lorries and traffic jams right outside their houses. 10. what about the residents of Greenaway Lane and Brook Lane who will be subjected to building work for several years? Don't they deserve a higher quality of life? Many of them purchased homes with promises that those areas of land will never be built on and now they are being delivered a great injustice by FBC doing exactly what they promised not to do. There have to be better sites that won't have such a damaging impact on the local residents and the village of Warsash.

SO31


Object

The roads cannot cope with yet more housing in the area. This will make them too busy, and become dangerous for the children. The infrastructure too cannot deal with more housing.

SO31


Object

To put 700 dwellings on this land and have the exit onto Brook Lane seems crazy. Most families will have more than 1 car, so Brook Lane will become a nightmare in the rush-hours. Also the Doctors surgeries in our area are full to the brim already. Schools will not be able to cope. Do not ruin our lovely village.

SO31


Object

I strongly object to more houses, more people and more vehicles in an area that is struggling to cope with recent influxes of new houses as it is. It strikes me as utterly ridiculous and unworkable and the quality of life in Warsash and surrounds will dip considerably.

SO31


Object

700 hundred proposed houses in an already built up area. The infrastructure for these extra homes I feel has not been considered, transport, roads, drainage, schools, medical services. All that goes with an extra 700 households on this site and another 100 further down the same road.

SO31


Object

I object for the following reasons: 700 homes will destroy our local wildlife; fill our already busy and dangerous roads with more cars; cause excess noise pollution; there are no places in local schools; there are no plans for more doctors' surgeries or decent play areas; only 30% are affordable homes so this does not solve a problem; many cyclists have been injured on local roads as there are no plans for improved cycle paths; both walkers are cyclists are out in more danger; there are no plans to improve road crossing; will cause parking issues; increased air pollution; destroys quiet nature of village; no decent plans for community gardens or new facilities.

SO31


Object

The attendant increase in people and cars will lead to an unacceptable impact on the already over stretched local infrastructure, eg; traffic, doctors, schools, reacreation etc.

SO31


Object

I have lived in the area for over 35 years and have seen a massive overdevelopment of housing with little improvement to the infrastructure and facilities of the area and neighbourhood. Overcrowded GP surgery's resulting in an average two to four week await for an appointment, oversubscribed Schools, and Highways not able to take the current traffic loads let alone an increase. Loss of our green areas and destruction of our natural habitat and trees which would be required to house our already diminished existing wildlife. We cannot keep building on our green areas. We are already over developed in the Locks Heath, Titchfield Common and Warsash areas as noticed by the lack of sightings of birds, deer, bats, grass snakes, sloe worms, badgers, hedgehogs, foxes and many more. Enough is enough, we cannot continue in the destruction of our area.

SO31


Object

I have lived in the area for over 35 years and have seen a massive overdevelopment of housing with little improvement to the infrastructure and facilities of the area and neighbourhood. Overcrowded GP surgery's resulting in an average two to four week await for an appointment, oversubscribed Schools, and Highways not able to take the current traffic loads let alone an increase. Loss of our green areas and destruction of our natural habitat and trees which would be required to house our already diminished existing wildlife. We cannot keep building on our green areas. We are already over developed in the Locks Heath, Titchfield Common and Warsash areas as noticed by the lack of sightings of birds, deer, bats, grass snakes, sloe worms, badgers, hedgehogs, foxes and many more. Enough is enough, we cannot continue in the destruction of our area.

SO31


Object

The proposals in your plan would be a blight on the extensive areas involved

SO31


Object

Extensive development in an already congested area whilst easing a housing problem has many negative effects regarding overcrowding, lack of schools, doctors, dentists, severe traffic flow problems, lack of parking places. No facilities for children and fewer green areas, a total area disfigurement. Potential drainage problems. Why does new developments have to be squeezed into densely developed areas.

SO31


Object

Warsash is a quiet and peaceful village, chiefly due to the appropriate population density. As a resident of eighteen years while I was growing up I strongly object to this proposal which will bring unwanted traffic, noise and congestion to the area.

SO31


Object

The supportive infrastructure for this project seems lacking. We already have very marked difficulties with Primary Medical care facilities, education and traffic particularly accessing and leaving the A 27. This number of dwellings would increase the requirement to restablish a Warsash surgery. The current providers are already struggling with recent expansions in the area anddo not have the capacity or facilities for expansion.

SO31


Object

Extra housing and no additional amenities places extra strain on services, as well as having further negative impact on the local wildlife.

SO31


Object

I can see how another 800 houses can be built in Warsash, there is no new infrastructure for new roads or utilities. Doctors surgeries are over subscribed and the drains must be at capacity. I cannot believe there is any more room at Brookfield School and all the junior schools are at capacity. The roads are clogged in the mornings and evenings.

SO31


Object

The infrastructure can not support this development. Warsash Road and Brook Lane are already busy and can not be made wider. Already very difficult to get doctors appointment. Surgeries have closed down when we need more to be opened. It is already getting more difficult to get in and out of my drive as cars park all along the road and there are no pavements making it unsafe for pedestrians. The area had already had more than its fair share of new houses and can not cope with an additional 1000+ cars. Local shops and their car parks are already used to full capacity.

SO31


Object

I strongly object to the amount of houses proposed on this site. There is no infrastructure planned for that many houses. The plot show infrastructure like green spaces and badger conversation area but this is just looking at the building area not Warsash village. 700 houses could mean 1400 more cars , our local roads are congested already. The A27 is like a car park, M27 gridlocked at times. Hook with warsash school is a small school and hasn't got the capacity to take on more children. The school has a weekly waiting list now. The surgeries cannot cope with the amount of people they have to see now so increasing the number will make the problem worse.

Postcode not provided


Object

I object that the additional homes on this site due to the lack of any cohesive plan to support the additional population, schools, local shops, car parking at the centre, doctors surgeries, are already at full capacity and in addition local roads already experience significant delays at the points where roads meet the A27. Additional facilities and road improvements are required. The lack of any way of insuring reasonable social housing the preservation of green spaces in the area is also a concern.

SO31


Object

The amount of houses 2,698 is FAR TOO MANY FOR THE AREA!! Without a new primary school, 2 More G.P.'s and further infrastructure, the proposal is absurd!

SO31


Object

We have seen the draft local and for this area and would comment as follows. The character of this rural area, already at saturation point with numerous new developments around Bursledon, A27 and nearby will be changed considerable by the creation of an additional 1500 new dwellings. The Currant provision of medical facilities, school, roads and other infrastructure requirement's are likely to be inadequate for the increase I population (possible 5000) created by the new properties. Traffic around church Road, Lower church and hunts pond road is already congested at peak times and this situation can only become worse as even more attempts to join, or leave, the A27 and M27. Whilst everyone appreciates the need for more housing it essential that the housing is situated in the appropriate areas with easy access and departure routes. Titchfield common and its environs is not an appropriate area for these proposed developments mainly because of the likely traffic congestion, and even danger around the double roundabout at the junction of church road and lower church road . Please, please revisit these proposals to ascertain whether a more acceptable plan could be avoid the further detrition of a rural into an urban sprawl.

PO14


Object

We strongly object to this development. We are Warsash village residents living close to Hook with Warsash school and already experience traffic congestion and parking problems at drop off and pick up times. We feel that a development of this size would inevitably increase the number of children requiring school places at the Warsash school and increase traffic on the already busy local roads. The increase of residents would also impact on local services that are already under pressure. e.g. Doctors Surgeries, Dentists etc. We also believe such a large development would change the 'village' character and begin the urbanisation of this part of the Western Wards. We also strongly object to 'green spaces' being taken for development and the effect it could have on our wildlife.

SO31


Object

Concerns on impact further development will have on traffic , and local services especially primary schools. Currant area already subject to heavy traffic and parking difficulties at peak times.

Anonymous submission


Object

I object to the proposal for these developments for the following reasons. 1. Local congestion is currently at a critical level. The volume of traffic exiting Warsash on Barnes Lane and Brook Lane onto the A27 during peak periods is far beyond capacity resulting in huge delays and considerable local pollution of Nitrous Oxides, Carbon monoxide and particulate matter. The road network has been pushed beyond capacity with the recent developments in the area, namely adjacent to Lockswood Road and Peters Road. An additional 2000 extra cars and associated vehicle movements could not be sustained and will result in grid lock. This issue is compounded by the lack of local employment, shops and services and school places which would result in additional vehicle movements as people embark on the commute and school run. 2. The issue raised in point one would also exacerbate the wider congestion problem of the A27 , the M27 and all roads leading to and from. Currently the A27 is reliably stationary at the junction with Barnes lane at peak periods which would make any traffic control at this junction completely futile. The M27 is stationary on all but exceptional occasions during peak periods and this is before the completion of the developments on Hamble lane at Lowford, Swanwick Lane at Lower Swanwick, Bridge Road at Bursledon, Hamble Lane at Lowford to name only a few. In addition to this the local network will have to cope with the additional vehicles associated with the 6000 homes planned at Wellbourne. 3. School places. Local schools are currently over subscribed resulting in new residents being forced to drive children long distances and or displacing existing residents children and future children 4. Doctor surgery. Currently over capacity 5. Loss of habitat. This unique area home to some rare and endangers species, slow worms, door mice, bats and barn owls. In addition it supports the local insect and bird populations 6. Drainage. This will adversely affect draining in the area and may give rise to particular issues of flooding on Warsash road close to Victory Hall 7. The site is agricultural green belt and as such development on this land will result in the permanent loss of arable land and the urbanisation of the South coast between Southampton and Portsmouth. 8. Poor public transport and lack of employment in Warsash would result in exponential increase in traffic movements. 9. The Wellbourne development north of the M27 and the resultant 6000 homes was proposed on the basis that if permission was granted there would be no further development pressures within the borough and as such green spaces and agricultural land between respective villages would not be subject to development. 10. Other services such as waste water treatment, sewage, water and gas supplies.

SO31


Object

The volume of traffic at present time is very high at peak times. All exits north from Warsash lead on to the A27, making bottlenecks where they join. Parking on Brook lane is getting worse during the day. It is so difficult to find parking places at Brook Lane surgery at times. If more houses are built will this surgery be forced to take most of the 3-4000 new residents?. It's almost impossible to get a routine appointment there now. Where are the new surgeries in the plans for these sites?

SO31


Object

we do not want any new houses built here

SO31


Object

Our roads cannot cope with many more vehicles, let alone the additional pollution they will cause. May I suggest that members of the planning department attempt the same journeys as many of us do every morning. May I also suggest that a member of the planning department also visits Warsash and spends time crossing the roads - the existing traffic already makes it very difficult to cross especially with young children or for the elderly. Where is the evidence that we have a shortage of houses in Warsash? Our doctors surgeries cannot cope with anymore patients. Despite the recent launch of the GP Hub at FCH, GP surgeries are still stretched - at which surgery do you propose these new residents would be patients? We have very limited dental services in Warsash. Many residents are fortunate to be able to afford private dental care however which NHS dental surgery do you propose these new residents would be able to register with? The limited local green spaces for foxes, deers, badgers, owls and bats will further have a reduction in their numbers and by destroying their habitats they will be driven out of the spaces they occupy and eventually killed on the roads. I do appreciate that more people living in the village could help local businesses, however our infrastructure is not adequate enough for this potential huge influx of new residents. Our roads are in bad condition. With constant budget cuts from national government, clearly FBC/HCC cannot afford to maintain our roads with the existing traffic. This will only worsen if more houses are built and more vehicles are using the roads. Brookfield is already a huge secondary school. Where an earth do you propose any children who are resident in the new houses would go to school? Secondary schools outside of the area are also full and you cannot rely upon families being able to afford private education for their children. The Year R intake for 2017/18 has been lower for some schools than in previous years, this certainly is not the case further up the schools. How could you possibly fulfil the shortage of schools places in years to come. Again, you cannot rely upon families being able to afford private education for their children. Existing residents (many of whom are long standing), of Brook Lane and the surrounding roads will have worked hard (and most still are working hard) to have afforded their homes in the village of Warsash. Many will have chosen to purchase their home in its location based upon the environment surrounding it. This should not be destroyed by the development of new homes with no character which look the same as those being built across the UK. Has consideration been given to the fact that this new development could actually devalue the existing properties on Brook Lane? The builder themselves is not affected by any of the points raised above and each application has intentionally been submitted as land owners and developers know that Fareham Borough Council has to provide a certain number of houses within the borough. The land is outside the Defined Urban Boundary , to build upon it would be against the councils own policy. There are more suitable sites in other areas of the borough.

SO31


Object

I also object to the other western wards proposed development as the area is already a rush hour bottle neck and existing residents have to wait well over a week to see a doctor. Schools are over stretched and no plans are in place to deal with these matters. People choose to live in rural areas because they are just that - rural. Filling in all the gaps can only be detrimental to everyone but the developers.

SO31


Object

If more houses are built on this land,the roads, schools and doctors surgeries won't be able to cope, at the present Barns Lane Barnbrook Road and Brook Lane all ready struggle in the morning and evening with heavy traffic.

SO31


Object

I object to the planning of 700 houses to be elected in greenaway lane , Southampton is a city highly polluted, and does the council not take into consideration that this will increase pollution. Their is usually 2 cars per household that means another 1400 cars in my area, and when you are a pedestrian ,we finding getting across Warsash rd to catch a bus its like playing Russian roulette. Warsash is not a large area, but up to now its been a nice area, you have already built a large amount of housing in peters rd, there has been a number of large houses sold to builders and lots of houses have been built on their land, beginning to think they are breeding like rabbits. What has happened to Welborne ? houses should be built on the outskirts of Fareham not spoil lovely areas, which we would like left for the pleasure of our grandchildren we know you have plans for housing at the Maritime inst, we know you have got to provide housing for people but please think carefully about the amount of building in Warsash.

SO31


Object

The local roads cannot cope with the extra vehicles The doctors surgery's acnnot cope with the extra patients The schools cannot cope The traffic in Brook Lane at peak times is already bad Why are the access roads coming into Brook Lane and not onto the distributor road The last lot of building nearer Peters road were not permitted to come onto Brook Lane so why is this allowed Warsash is a village this is why we and our children have choosen to live here this would make it more like a TOWN why can't these sites be allocated nearer to motorways for ease of traffic movement No thoughts have been put into this plan for the people who already live here in a village setting

SO31


Object

The decision for the allocation of so many homes in this area is getting totally out of hand. The local residents have been completely misled over this sad affair and will now have to live with the consequences. The number of homes allocated to this area is totally out of character for the 'village' and disproportionate to the overall 'plan'. There is not the infrastructure available to support such a volume of homes and the comments from the highways department is just a joke. Having attended planning meetings, presentations and CAT meetings, the whole saga is looking more like a 'statement of fact' than a 'plan'. The exits from such a large site are ill defined and with the support from the highways department, will put undue strain onto an already busy and sometimes dangerous road. Having lived on Brook Lane, at the proposed exit from this site, we are aware of the issues that the highways department do not appear to see as problems. This site will impact on many current residents and to date we see no consideration for the these residents, in relation to building disruption or protection of their privacy. Having commented on previous planning applications for this site (which have been identical). The first being rejected, a duplicate suddenly appearing that matches this 'new plan'. This application followed aa appeal by the developer that was subsequently withdrawn as no longer required. What are the residents supposed to believe? On a personal point the proposed only exit from the site at the rear of my property is alongside our bedroom window. With the original application this was almost tolerable but not now. with this vast increase in the number of homes. This plan needs to be seriously revisited to reduce the huge number of homes proposed for this area.

SO31


Object

As a local resident I wish to object strongly to the size of this development. The local infrastructure will struggle to cope with a development of this magnitude. The increased traffic will place significant extra strain on a road network which which is already at capacity at peak times. Local schools will be unable to accommodate the large influx of new children into the area, and there will be a significant loss of green space and wildlife habitat. The proposed development is simply too large and will significantly alter the character of the area.

SO31


Object

To whom it may concern Re: Planning Applications relating to Fareham Local Plan 2036 HA1 North and South of Greenaway Lane Warsash Further to the comments in my letter dated 12th November, I now understand that planning permission as been applied for, for a further 37 homes in Greenaway Lane. This brings the total number of planning applications HA1 to five covering a total of 627 new homes. Plus, a further tract of land in Greenaway Lane allocated for 100 homes. These comprise: Land & Partners Ltd 185 homes P/17/0998/OA Bargate Homes 140 homes P/17/0752/OA Taylor Wimpey 80 homes P/17/07746/OA Foreman Homes 185 homes P/16/0959/OA [redacted] 37 homes P/17/1284/OA Greenaway Lane waiting application 100 homes This would give a potential increase of 727 homes exiting within a one mile stretch of Brook Lane. This does not include the existing Taylor Wimpey site a further half mile away in Peters Road, and the Cold East site where a further 600 houses are at present under construction. This gives a possible final total of 1327 houses in a 1.7 mile stretch of Brook Lane On the basis of two cars per household this could involve up to an increase of 5308 car movements per day. This is in addition to the volume of traffic currently using the road. Bearing in mind that Brook Lane is not scheduled for any upgrades it would a great burden on an old road. At the moment, at peak times, large traffic build ups occur at all the exits from Warsash i.e. Barnes Lane, Brook Lane and Locks Road and any additional increase could cause gridlock. Looking at it from a logistics point of view it would not be physically possible for, say, an additional 2000 cars to exit or enter the Brook Lane/Barnes Lane Junctions with the A27 in a time frame of two hours (7.00 to 9.00am and 5.00 to 7.00pm) particularly as the A27 at these times is already very busy. Each of the above applications has been taken in isolation with no thought to the overall traffic situation. It should be remembered that these are the only exits from Warsash as the South and West are bounded by water and that Warsash Road and Locks Road also finally lead to the A27. I understand that the possible total across these applications is well in excess of the quota for Warsash so I hope my above comments will be taken into account.

SO31


Object

700 dwellings would be far too high a density for local roads to cope. Access to the A27 and M27 is already a problem at peak times. Present schools would be under unacceptable pressure.

SO31


Object

The distribution oft sites within the borough dis proportionally weighted towards the Warsash ward. The Developments on Greenaway Lane would amount to disproportionate development of the Warsash Village. The Local Plan focuses development into a peninsular area which lacks the infrastructure and access to the M27 which can be provided at other sites and at the.Welbourne site. Although the development at Welbourne is delayed it should not force development which is of a less accessible nature. We also note that it was raised at the meeting that not all the development is gong to be completed at one time as the sites are in different ownership. Of course this make no difference to when the sites are built out. They will be built as fast as possible once the Local Plan is agreed and all site will developed as soon as they can. Having sites in difference ownership does not stagger development. The infrastructure will not be in place before the development as it relies on section 106 agreements. The viability appraisals from the developers will undoubtedly protest how Section 106 agreements either should not be provided on viability grounds or be reduced to their absolute minimum. The local area will then be playing catch up. It is not 'Planning' if you do it retrospectively. The application site also comprises predominantly Grade 1 and Grade 2 Agricultural Land; these are the best grades of Agricultural Land. Both national and local planning policy seeks to avoid the loss of the highest grades of agricultural land. The application site is upon land which is entirely outside the defined urban settlement boundary where there is an in principle objection to new residential development except in exceptional cases. None of the exceptions set out within the adopted policies have been claimed here. This in principle policy objection weighs heavily against granting planning permission. Furthermore, the nature of the proposed development would introduce built form and associated infrastructure, including lighting and planting which will affect the character of the landscape and visual amenity. The proposal would urbanise the existing site and affect its landscape character, appearance and function; The applications make reference to the walk able distances to schools and other facilities and how this will reduce the traffic movements. This of course is of little merit as few if any new residents will undoughtably use cars to access local facilities. The Local Plan focuses too heavily on the Warsash Ward. The developments represent a one third increase in the current wards built area. The development could be brought to nearer to the town center such as to the South of Rowans Way in Fareham. Development in this area has ample access to the A27 onto the M27. Proposal only concentrates on 'lovely new community with a heart of the estate being green space'. Brook lane and Lockheath road are not being addressed. The quality of space is not being improved to local residents Barnes lane and Brook lane are becoming very busy. Barnes lane being a wide road without any speed control measures encourages drivers to drive 40mph. This is becoming very dangerous. Barnes lane is a main rout for Salisbury Infant, Junior School and also Woodlands nursery. Walking on a narrow pavement with children where cars are exceeding 30mph is dangerous. This should be limited to 20mph. Pinch points with green planting, trees inserted into tree pits should be proposed to narrow the road and offer some screeing from noise and pollution to local residents. 700 houses will potentially add minimum 1400 cars. During the CAT meeting it was identified that that Brookfield secondary school has reach its limit for expansion. It mentioned that primary schools are easily to expand. We have attended open day viewings for Primary schools recently. All schools are struggling with main facilities due to historical expansions. As an example the Warsash and Hook Primary School currently has a hall which was designed for half of the pupils they currently have. Even if the school is expanded additional facilitates like hall, play, dining spaces are never added. This compromises children education by cramping them into smaller spaces (apart from classrooms which as a standard must be delivered on 55-60 m sq per 30 children classroom). Health provision in the area is unacceptable. It takes approx. 2 weeks to have an appointment for a 3 year old! Cities like Southampton offer appointments same or next day. This area is said to be family friendly- good provisons and great schools. This is visibly degrading. The site potentially divided into larger self build plots which would have less impact on the area. The council has an obligation from Central Government policy to deliver self build and custom build. This is a perfect area to deliver it. It is only beneficial from developers perspective to deliver max units as build cost vrs average price in this are leaves them with very generous profit margin (even after deducting CIL contribiutions and 106 agreement). Work & live units could be intruded to discourage traffic and local employment.

SO31


Object

The roads in and out of warsash Sarisbury green are to congested in the morning without more traffic.

SO31


Object

Infra structure not suitable to support Large development

SO31


Object

"We find this plan very disturbing and cannot believe Fareham council has drafted this proposal. The village of Warsash will no longer exist and become part of an urban sprawl.Developing on preserved ""Gap land"" is contrary to it's very existence.The density and size of the development is beyond comprehension, this will only add to the already overloaded infrastructure. Retaining this open space will benefit and encourage wild life enhancing the wellbeing of local villagers and future generations."

SO31


Object

UNsuitable development in terms of size. Overloaded schools. 3 week wait for doctors appointments and ever growing traffic. this proposal is ludicrous

Anonymous submission


Object

Fareham Local Plan 2036 Page 137 c) Primary highway access shall be focused on Brook Lane and Lockwood Road with Greenaway Lane only used to provide access for dwellings directly fronting onto Greenaway Lane. Application P/17/1284/OA [redacted] Far too many homes for this site, with the intention of opening up the closed off end of Greenaway Lane onto Lockwood Road. If Greenaway Lane was opened up it would be a risk to public safety. 4/5 houses on this site maximum. Please reduce the number of homes for Warsash, we accept we will have to take some but 800 is excessive, even half would still be too much. Newlands and Welbourne would be a much better alternative for large developments.

SO31


Object

I have huge concerns for the local infrastructure being unable to manage with the proposed numbers of houses on this site. Doctors, schools and most of all the roads. The traffic along Brook Lane at peak times (7.30am-9.30am) is incredibly busy, as is the traffic along Barnes Lane joining the a27 at Sarisbury Green. The addition of this volume of new homes will only exacerbate the issue. There are no crossings in the village of Warsash, and getting over Warsash Road, and Brook Lane is increasingly dangerous. Trying to collect a parcel from the Post Office sorting depot at the top of Brook Lane is just plain scary! The local senior school, at the top of Brook Lane, will surely need to expand in order to be able to take in the additional children needing secondary education? It is a big school as it is. Will this expansion be planned alongside the developments or as an after-thought? I choose to live in Warsash because it is a village. The 800 new homes will change that, for the worse.

SO31


Object

"I object to HA1 North and South of Greenaway Lane, Warsash - 700 dwellings and the following: HA3 - Southampton Road, Titchfield Common - 400 dwellings HA7 - Warsash Maritime Academy, Warsash -100 dwellings HA9 - Heath Road, Locks Heath- 71 dwellings HA11- Raley Road, Locks Heath- 49 dwellings HA13- Hunts Pond Road, Titchfield Common- 38 dwellings HA14 -Genesis Community Youth Centre, Locks Heath - 35 dwellings HA15 -Beacon Bottom West, Park Gate -30 dwellings HA17 -69 Botley Road, Park Gate -24 dwellings HA19- 399 – 409 Hunts Pond Road, Titchfield Common- 22 dwellings Traffic in this area including the A27 and the 2 access points to the M27 is already at a gridlock during and more recently outside peak hours. Since the new Strawberry Fields, Hunts Pond and Coldeast developments the delays have started earlier and finished later. Improvements on major roads and motorways may ease some congestion but residents will take longer and longer to get to these major roads. Our local roads such as Brook Lane and Barnes Lane cannot be made wider. They were built to service the traffic and community of small villages and now are at capacity. More houses equals more cars and inevitably more accidents with frustration and impatience being just 2 of the factors. Warsash specifically is on a pensinsular and our only roads in and out are Brook Lane and Warsash Road. I worry and am concerned that emergency vehicles will be unable to ensure safe response times. An increase in traffic can only reduce air quality which brings about health risks for all including those of our children who walk to school. Many of these are walking up Brook Lane to Brookfield at precisely the time of peak traffic congestion. This can only lead to more cases of asthma, lung disease and related illnesses. Already our surgeries in Brook Lane, Lockswood , Jubilee and Whitely do not have not enough resources. They wait an unacceptable amount of time for routine appointments (1 month plus) and often have very long waits when they get to there (30 minutes plus). Emergency appointments are becoming harder to book as there are not enough doctors or time. The very young, elderly and chronically ill are already vulnerable and bearing the brunt of this. Residents' health will be at risk and possibly their lives. Warsash is a place of outstanding natural beauty and home to precious wildlife such as badgers, bats and deer. The greenfield land proposed as the area for development also provides a defined strategic gap from neighbouring villages. Your plans will eliminate the green fields. The area in HA1 is, according to the current Local Plan, identified as ""beyond the defined Urban Settlement Boundary"". There has to other areas that should be included in the draft plan. I see more space at Newlands farm which would still allow a strategic gap. Your proposed plans eliminate the gap for Warsash. Why not also consider north of Fareham and SHLAA ref 3127?"

SO31


Object

There is no infrastructure in place for these houses. The roads are already jammed at rush hour trying to get on the motorway and this will make more problems. Also the local secondary school has no spaces left. Where will all the children go? Lots needs changing before more houses are put in!

SO31


Object

I think the proposal to build 700 homes in Warsash is outrageous. Warsash is a village community but with the development of this site we will merge with Sarisbury Green and Locksheath. Hook-with-Warsash Academy always has waiting lists and even making it a three form entry at Reception level, the school would have to be extended to create more classrooms all though the school. Traffic around dropping off and picking up children is terrible now so I can't imagine what it would be like if the school was made bigger. Buses no longer use Church Road as a route because of this problem. My house backs on to one of the fields and the amount of wildlife (deer, foxes, badgers) is wonderful. Any building would drive them away but where to? There is an historic strawberry storage shed in the field where there is a foxes den and there have been bats there and also a tawny owl. Surely this cannot be pulled down? Another huge problem is doctors. Warsash itself doesn't have a doctors' surgery and I have to go to Locks Heath Centre. Already waiting times for appointments are two weeks. With a potential of 1400+ people, doctors just will not be able to cope.

SO31


Object

I'm deeply saddened by the vast number of houses proposed. I am sympathetic to the need for more housing but whilst building homes to relieve the shortage the desires of the existing community must be considered too. Greenaway Lane is one of the few remaining roads in the village where residents can enjoy a walk, run, cycle or horse ride at the weekend. They find little traffic but leafy areas with views over fields and may spot deer, kestrels and other wildlife. Good for a sense of well-being, good for wildlife in a rapidly expanding built-up environment. Please don't take all of this away from the village. 700 new homes! A village cannot grow at this ridiculous pace. Brook Lane and Lockswood Road will be even more congested with cars heading to the A27 - and the A27 will probably become gridlocked with all the new development happening in the area between Junction 7 and 8 with the M27. Help

SO31


Object

Wildlife is precious to this earth - DO NOT KILL IT. Foxes, deers and vermin will be pushed out of their natural habitats and onto our streets. This is not fair. DO NOT destroy their habitats, they have a right to live there. We DO NOT need anymore houses, schools are overpopulated and children would have to travel. Approx extra 1600 vehicles on our roads is not safe or good for the environment. WE DO NOT NEED MORE HOUSES. They are also ugly and ruin the landscape. If need be, renovate existing buildings to make way for more people.

SO31


Object

We strongly oppose this particular site given that 1 It is currently predominately agricultural land and should remain so 2 There would be a loss of a strategic break between Warsash and Locks Heath 3 Given the massive amount of dwellings proposed the current infrastructure will not cope and is already struggling 4 This is currently designated countryside and will result in the loss of numerous forms of wildlife who have already lost their habitat 5 Whilst we accept the need for more dwellings this should be concentrated on current brownfield sites

SO31


Object

I think that it is completely inappropriate to plan to build further housing on this site, as well as around the Warsash/Locks Heath area. There is no local infrastructure to accommodate the additional housing, the traffic has increased dramatically since the last set of houses were built, and local residents have been suffering long enough from construction traffic and noice.

SO31


Object

Despite your plans stating that you are picking large sites so developers can add to infrastructure, if we are currently unable to attract doctors to this area, having brand new doctors surgeries will be pointless. The road system is also very heavily used and accessing the motorway or any other roads will become fruitless. Tonight, 30 Nov 2017, there was an incident on the motorway and the whole area and surrounding roads struggle to cope. Develop the Welborne 'town' first and see if that area manages the additional strains that will bring.

SO31


Object

Dear sirs, locally, i.e., titchfield common, park gate, locks heath, warsash, we have recently had many new houses built, i.e. Lynn Crescent and surrounding (off Hunts Pond Road) plus much infill of gardens, as this area once HAD large gardens. Fareham council has been happy to agree to all of this without restraint. I now ask you to show some restraint on the decimation of the Greenaway sites and drastically reduce the number of houses proposed and increase the amount of parking space and also green area/playing area in order to reduce the extra impact of increased traffic. Please consider a large pond for wildlife and more light wooded areas/hedging to enhance the enjoyment for ALL of the residents in the local area, and offset some of the pollution we humans are causing.

PO14


Object

Warsash is unable to support this number of additional houses. As it is the road system is gridlocked in the morning and evenings, and it will be impossible for people to get to work. My commute to Andover has trebled in time since I first lived in Warsash 25 years ago, with a large part of the time spent stationary in queues to get to or from the the main roads. With the constraints we have of only 2 crossings over the Hamble River - A27 and M27, any further housing in this area will just add to the enormous bottlenecks, and with more cars on the road will inevitable lead to even more accidents. It is already extremely difficult to get timely doctor's appointments, and with no provision for new surgeries the people of Warsash will not be able to get the level of service they need, with the most vulnerable suffering further.

SO31


Object

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 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


Comment

My previous comments apply to all areas.

SO31


Object

The proposed number of dwellings will swamp warsash with the likelihood of at least 1600 cars all exiting onto roads already clogged with traffic at peak times trying to reach A27/M27 to go to work. All the local schools are oversubscribed with children within the catchment area having to attend other schools which only adds to the traffic chaos. I am unaware of any plans to improve the road system and with all the new developments already under construction around the A27 there is no land left to either widen existing roads or build additional ones without demolishing existing housing. This would rather defeat the objective of providing additional housing. The doctors surgeries can barely cope with the patients they already need to look after and it is not uncommon to have to wait for 3 weeks to see a doctor for non urgent cases. To have to wait longer is unacceptable. Most of the proposed housing area has previously been used as nurseries so presumably good fertile land so why are we not encouraging cultivation of this land? With BREXIT we will need to be more self sufficient rather than relying on importing foodstuff from abroad, sometimes from halfway round the world. Parking within the village can be a problem already with cars being left in residential roads, blocking entrances and making it dangerous for current residents to exit their own driveways. With more cars the problems will only get worse. I recognise the need for housing but feel it should be spread more evenly around Fareham Borough with more thought given to traffic congestion and local facilities rather than what appears to have been 'there's a nice big area of green space - let's use that! I feel the greed of landowners and developers only goes to fuel the problem. Following the Consultation Period you will seriously consider revising the Plan and spread the proposed development more evenly. I also feel developers should be forced to develop land for which they already have permission but for whatever reason have not yet developed. I understand that these sites are not included in the overall housing numbers nor are all the other small infill plots which are springing up everywhere. Please save our village from urban sprawl where one community spreads into another

SO31


Object

"In the publication ""Fareham Today - Fareham Local Plan 2036"" on Page 10 it states ""...a Borough that residents can continue to be proud of and that meets local needs."". The local needs are: 1. Sufficient Doctors Surgery places - Currently there are NO Doctors appointments are available for the 3 week outlook at Brook Lane Surgery. 2. School places for both Primary and Senior pupils - Currently only ONE Senior school in the Western Wards. 3. The need for the reduction of traffic congestion across the whole of Warsash/Park Gate/Sarisbury/Locks Heath and Whiteley. NONE of the above key local needs are met by the Fareham Local Plan 2036. Clearly, the planning of new housing and the associated increase of population will only exacerbate the shortfall of our key local needs. Until these needs are addressed for the current residents the planning must include sufficient additional infrastructure and amenities as listed above."

SO31


Object

I am objecting to the devopment of houses in this area . There will be a increase in traffic . The roads are not built to take this volume of traffic . Schools are full already and are turning people away , which will cause even more traffic as children will be travelling to other schools . The Doctors surgeries cannot cope with anymore patients . My self having to wait 2weeks to see a doctor . Also how can the water and waste from all these new buildings cope . There will be a impact on the wildlife , where will they go . ?

SO31


Object

traffic, utilities, school places, parking, doctor surgeries

SO31


Object

school places, traffic on roads, utilities, doctors surgery places, parking at Locks Heath centre, shops busy

SO31


Object

Parking to shop or do activities, traffic at peak times, utilities will not cope, not enough school places, no GP appointments

SO31


Object

No doctors appointments, traffic bad for emergency services, utilities will not cope under pressure, no green space for nature, animals in their habitat

SO31


Object

Hello, I am writing to strongly object to the above building proposal, as I believe the extra amount of traffic generated would cause terrible traffic jams and the added pollution problem. Also how will the doctors surgery cope? my wife and I are over sixty and of course this is something that worries us. And Of course the wildlife what will happen to them? Leaving areas amongst the houses for the dear to come in and out is ridiculous as the animals will never go through a housing estate,I think the developers are doing this to pretend they care. All in all I think the greenfield land should be left alone.surely there must be other sites with easier access to the the major roads. Maybe a new town with new schools ,hospitals and a doctors surgery.

SO31


Object

References: Ref. 1 - Fareham Local Development Framework Shaping Fareham's Future Core Strategy Adopted August 2011 Ref. 2 - Fareham Borough Authority Monitoring Report 2015 – 2016 Ref. 3 - Local Plan Viability Assessment Final Report Assessment completed May 2017 DSP16452 Ref. 4 - Fareham Draft Local Plan - Development Site Allocations Interim Transport Assessment Fareham Borough Council 24 October 2017 Ref. 5 - Draft Infrastructure Delivery Plan, 2017 The evidence for my objection has been obtained from the Councils own data. I have split it into sections: Transport, Employment, Education & Health Facilities Transport: Ref. 1 states "Coastal areas like Warsash have limited employment opportunities, resulting in high out-commuting". This is reinforced by Ref. 4 Section 2.1.1 which states "Roads where the V/C currently exceeds 100% in either the AM or PM peaks include Warsash Road". In the same section "V/Cs over 100% indicate demand exceeds both practical and theoretical capacity, with traffic congestion being very likely". The same document highlights safety concerns with repeated accidents on the main routes out of the area (Table 3-1, A27, Brook Lane and Warsash Rd) Table 4-1 and Section 4.3.3 shows that, although the majority of the houses are being proposed in the Western Wards, there are no plans to improve the road system in the area. Section 7.2.4 acknowledges this but admits the only remedy is "it may be appropriate to seek developer contributions towards accident investigation and/or remedial measures at these locations, in addition to, and to compliment any junction capacity improvement proposals." This does not sound like a plan but a hope. Employment: Ref. 2 Table 7 indicates that the employment prospects within the Western Wards are not on the Council's radar, indeed there is the serious prospect of the Maritime College closing down completely. This is a major employer in the area and will also have a significant effect on local employment through the local shops and restaurants as students disappear. Unless they are hairdressers, people will have to commute by car to work. Education: The only reference to dealing with the increased education needs as a result of this proposal is in Ref. 5 section 5.4 where it states "The Council has and will continue to liaise with HCC as the Local Education Authority to assess the needs and priorities for new school places provision in relation to the proposed preferred development strategy of the Draft Local Plan". This is worryingly vague considering the influx of families that are due in the area in the next 10 years. Health: As per education, the only reference to increased health care provision is given in Ref. 5 where it states an extensive assessment was carried out in 2015. This has obviously been superseded with the proposal so "The Fareham & Gosport CCG is currently undertaking a strategic study of health care sites in the Fareham area, with particular emphasis on the central area provision and will inform subsequent versions of the IDP". No mention of the Western Wards, there then! Summary Ref. 2 Table 1 clearly indicates that as late as November 2016 the council believed that the Welborne site was on track. There is no way that the Council has applied the same rigor to this new plan as that assigned to the Welborne site. The proposal is fragmented and will lead to a serious loss of quality of life, not just to existing but also any new residents of Warsash. It has clearly not been thought through. I oppose the proposals for the building of dwellings North and South of Greenaway Lane, Warsash.

SO31


Object

I strongly object to the mass development of this area. The village of Warsash cannot sustain such an overdevelopment of housing. There is no doubt that it would put an incredible strain on local services and infrastructure such as doctors surgeries, schools and the single carriageway roads that serve the area . As a peninsula there is limited access meaning that the roads are already clogged during peak travel times which can only be made worse by the proposed development.

SO31


Object

I strongly object to the mass development of this area. The village of Warsash cannot sustain such an overdevelopment of housing. There is no doubt that it would put an incredible strain on local services and infrastructure such as doctors surgeries, schools and the single carriageway roads that serve the area . As a peninsula there is limited access meaning that the roads are already clogged during peak travel times which can only be made worse by the proposed development.

SO31


Object

I would like to formally object to HA1, which puts forward a 700+ housing development to the North and South of Greenaway Lane. Traffic in this area is already at a gridlock during peak hours and since the new Strawberry Fields, Hunts Pond and Coldeast developments. It has doubled the time for people to get to work. Improvements on major roads and motorways will try and ease congestion but its not satisfactory as residents will not be able to actually get to these major roads.  Local roads such as Brook Lane, Osborne Road, Warsash Road and Barnes Lane cannot be made wider, they were built to service the traffic and community of small villages and the resulting influx of 3000+ cars in such a small square area will lead to more accidents. Schools are already stretched to breaking point.  If the plans go ahead there will be hundreds of children needing school places. New schools might take pressure off the overcrowded ones. However new schools take time and will come long after the influx of children. Children will then have to travel out of the area. Putting even more pressure on roads, during rush hour. All the local doctors surgeries struggle to cope with the amount of patients they have. They wait an unacceptable amount of time for routine appointments and often have very long waits when they get to there. Emergency appointments are becoming harder to book as there are not enough doctors or time. The very young, elderly and chronically ill are already vulnerable and bearing the brunt of this - add another 700 homes and these overstretched surgeries will be at crisis point.   Warsash is a place of outstanding natural beauty and home to precious wildlife such as badgers, bats and deer. The greenfield land proposed as the area for development also provides a defined strategic gap from neighbouring villages. Residents have the right to breathe clean air, have facilities, space and sufficient infrastructure. However we are aware that the council is under pressure from the government to build new homes. With this in mind, if the homes are to be built. The estates should be more in keeping with the local area. Larger houses, with front gardens and reasonable sized back gardens. Larger properties backing onto the existing properties in the area. More open spaces to enable the existing wildlife to move freely across the area, away from roads. Larger entrances to the estate to come off, of Lockswood Road. This road is a lot wider than Brook Lane, meaning it will cope better with the traffic implications than Brook Lane. Which has been shown with the Strawberry Fields estate. Regarding Greenaway Lane. All properties to be built on Lane to be facing directly onto the Lane with their own access (no shared drives). Properties to be built on Greenaway Lane to have large front and back gardens and different in design, to be in keeping with the current properties. The Lane to remain closed at the end by Lockswood Road. No pavements to be added to the lane.

SO31


Object

Roads already very busy with limited access. Water to south & west limits scope to improve road network which is creaking. Local schools full to capacity and also creating access problems ( Brookfield School) at peak times. Access to and from M27 already snarled up at peak times with significant danger at times with drivers taking risks through frustration. Increased risks regarding more traffic accessing Brook Lane. Provision of local facilities including schools and leisure already stretched. Risks of losing local wildlife habitat.

SO31


Object

The local infrastructure cannot accommodate the amount of houses being built. The roads are often gridlocked as it is.

SO31


Object

There has already been a large amount of development in this area which has already displaced local wildlife. This site is important for deer and other wildlife - further development would endanger the wildlife. Furthermore the infrastructure in the area such as schooling and medical facilities is already over stretched. Further development on this scale would also alter the character of the area significantly.

SO31


Comment

About time Warsash took some of the housing development that has been ongoing in the rest of the Western Wards for around 20(ish) years. Don't remember anyone rallying for the Western Wards until it affected Warsash. Traffic - not wanted in Warsash, but Warsash residents don't mind driving through the traffic in the rest of the Western Wards since they have built up.. Crossings - surely the allocation of crossings would be at the same % level as the rest of the developed Western Wards. There is a great need for more affordable housing in this area regardless of the affect it might have on local house prices. Believe it is better to build on free space already found within communities rather that to use up true green spaces.

Postcode not provided


Object

"Crescent road is already used as access between Raley Road and Lockswood Road, the addition of some 700 properties at HA1, north and south of Greenaway lane will further add to the congestion along Crescent Road, Warsash Road and Raley Road. Raley Road is already heavily congested at several times of the day. Parents taking children to and from Locks Heath Infant and Junior school park on Raley Road and on Crescent Road while they escort their children to the schools. [redacted]. The addition of a further 49 houses in HA11 with access onto Raley Road will only add to the congestion. The population increase resulting from the proposed development in the local plan will only serve to place more pressure on doctor and dentist practices in the area. There is no commitment in the plan describing how these pressures will be adequately managed. Indeed the reference to ""doctor"" appears only once in paragraph 8.2. Also, while the plan indicates some consideration of school facilities, there is no commitment to provide additional school places for the several hundred families who will be housed in the proposed developments. Without joined up planning and commitment from Hampshire County Council to deliver the necessary school facilities, existing classroom sizes will increase to the detriment of the education of the next generation. The proposed housing developments will only serve to reduce the quality of life to existing residents and provide no improvement in supporting services. I object to the proposed development for the reasons discussed above."

SO31


Object

In Warsash our village is already busy in the mornings with cars everywhere and with a possible 1600 more cars being produced by the 800 new dwellings it would make it hectic and a possible safety hazard for all the children walking to school in the mornings and with these new houses people would need to travel far because all local schools a full so i hope you have thought about these comments and would stop this site being built on.

Anonymous submission


Object

I live on the new Strawberry Fields development, adjacent to this proposed site and object for the following reasons... Locks Heath and Warsash cannot cope with any more extra traffic, the M27 and roads leading to it from Warsash are in virtual gridlock by 7:30 am during the working week. This development of 800 homes will create upwards of 1000+ extra vehicles on the already unacceptably crowded local roads. Pollution will increase dramatically... Children will have to travel out of the catchment area to go to school, creating even more traffic and putting extra stress on already overcrowded classrooms. There is not enough medical care available already in this area, this development will fundamentally be a health and safety hazard for all concerned... Wildlife will be adversely affected... Nothing about this development makes sense, it's an undertaking that will create nothing but misery for everybody Common sense needs to break out and fast!

SO31


Object

As a family with two young children, we are worried about the impact that these developments will have on the local area. The current local services supplied are stretched at best and inadequate at worst. The local schools are stretched, it is almost impossible to get an appointment at the local doctor's surgery, the local shops are at breaking point and the traffic is horrendous. I work in Southampton and my commute time has increased markedlly over the last 2 years or so and that is assuming that the motorway is running freely. If there is a problem with the M27 (not uncommon) the entire area is gridlocked. Several times I have turned round and given up going to work and taken a half day as holiday. Warsash is a small village with the ammenities to match. If those ammenties are to be increased (another junior school, another secondary school, doctors surgery, dentists, shops, more roads etc) then it may be ok. However, what is being proposed leaves no room for these improved ammenties. Its a crazy idea that will lead to chaos and will ruin the community. I also note that on your plan there is not one area highlighted as producing employment. Where are these extra people going to work? I assume most of these properties will be for people who commute with the problems that will cause!

SO31


Object

"We should like to start by fully supporting the views and objections to the number of dwelling allocated to this site as expressed in the Conservatives own newsletter (InTouch) for Warsash dated Autumn 2017. We attended the CAT meeting on 10 November when Councillor Woodward explained that the allocated sites were chosen on the basis of sites put forward by third parties - developers or landowners. This has resulted in an entirely unbalanced and unequal distribution of sites over the Borough with the Western Wards alone having to bear almost half of the 3000 extra new dwellings. We question therefore why the Council has not taken a more pro-active approach. Surely it was able with its considerable planning resources, knowledge of sites, their constraints and the individual housing needs of the various wards been able to put forward sites which would result in a fairer and more balanced distribution of sites over the whole Borough. A greater distribution of smaller sites (of at least 11 dwellings to meet affordable housing needs) would lead to less disruptive effects on roads, schools, GP surgeries etc, and only require smaller improvements/expansions of such facilities, paid for by developers' contributions. Such smaller sites should not significantly impair the protection of the important gaps between the major settlements. Whereas the inclusion of the site north and south of Greenaway Lane will lead to the building over of one of the few significant gaps left between Warsash and Locksheath. It states in the Fareham Today Local Plan Edition that ""Generally our long term strategy is to have fewer, larger developments that should bring additional community benefits for our residents."" Councillor Woodward sought to justify the allocation of HA1 on the basis that significant highway works would be undertaken to cope with the increased number of cars. But given that practically all traffic emanating from this site will be heading north towards the A27 and M27 no amount of works can prevent significantly increased congestion onto Brook Lane and Lockswood Road. He seemed to have no answer to the effect the development would have on the need for secondary education. Brookfield School is already at capacity so he suggested new students might have to travel to new schools at Welborne, thus putting even more traffic on the local roads. In conclusion we feel that the allocation of the 769 other dwellings for the Western Wards would be a much fairer distribution of the extra 3000 dwellings required and that HA1 should be omitted for the above reasons."

SO31


Object

Whilst accepting that more housing is required, I see no provision for improved access, education and medical facilities. Increasing the community by 800 dwellings, 1600 vehicles and an increased requirement of 600 school places goes to ignore the quality of life to the existing inhabitants of a very busy Warsash,also it says nothing of the future inhabitants. A very blinkered veiw demonstrating greed for more local authority revenue. For someone who has been supportive of the current governance of the area I would have to rethink where my support would be placed in future.

SO31


Object

"Firstly we should like to object to the inclusion of the above site in the draft Local Plan and agree completely with the views and objections as expressed in the Conservatives Newsletter InTouch of Autumn 2017. We attended the CAT meeting on 10 November when Councillor Woodward explained that the allocated sites had been chosen as a result of suggestions put forward by third parties - landowners and developers - which has led to a totally unfair and unbalanced selection of sites across the Borough and the allocation of nearly half the extra 3000 dwellings needed being sited within the Western Wards. The Council should have taken a more pro-active approach. Surely with its significant planning resources, its knowledge of possible planning sites, their constraints and the housing needs of each Ward, the Council could have put forward sites resulting in a much fairer and equal distribution across the Borough. A greater distribution of smaller sites (of at least 11 dwellings or more to ensure the provision of affordable housing) would lead to less disruptive effects on roads, schools, GPs Surgeries etc, and only require smaller improvements/extensions of such facilities paid for by developers' contributions. Smaller developments would also be less likely to harm important gaps between existing settlements. It is stated in the Fareham Today Local Plan edition that it is the Council's long term strategy to have fewer, larger developments that should bring additional community benefits for residents. Councillor Woodward sought to justify the size of the allocation of HA1 by saying it would require significant highway improvements. Given that nearly all traffic emanating from the site would be heading north along Brook Lane or Lockswood Road to get to the A27 and M27, no amount of ""highway improvements"" will be able to deal with the congestion an additional 700 dwellings will bring. He had no answer to the problems of providing additional secondary school places - Brookfield School is apparently at capacity so he suggested the additional students would have to attend new schools at Welborne which would only add to the traffic problems. In conclusion we object to the inclusion of HA1 in the draft Local Plan and consider the other 769 dwellings for the Western Wards would represent more than a fair share of the extra new dwellings required for the Borough."

SO31


Object

This area has already seen too much development. The schools and gps surgeries etc are already struggling to provide services. Furthermore wildlife including deer live on the green land you propose to destroy. Suggest brown sites rather than green sites be looked at and at a more modest scale for a more sustainable development plan.

SO31


Object

Whilst I am not against developing this land, the proposed density is out of keeping with the nature of Warsash village. The Boats estate development to the south is very successful and in demand so the new development should follow a similar model. Ie no more than 2 storeys and a building density that would allow approximately 400 homes. I understand the wards to the north are of a higher density but the urban feel of park gate should not be allowed to damage the village feel of Warsash. My personal preference would be for a green space to be reserved to help delimit the different areas though I hold little hope of that happening.

Postcode not provided


Object

"I disagree with the addition of 700 homes onto this site for the following reasons : - The current infrastructure arrangements (even with new proposed upgrades post development) will simply be unable to cope with the significant increase in car usage. Commuters currently struggle during peak times to exit/enter the village and join the M27 and A27 road network. No upgrades can be made to enlarge or improve the roads between the A27 and M27 to the site. More house building will deliver more cars, delivering increased travel times for commuters and of course an increase in noxious fumes for all current residents. - No additional school places or surgery provision will ensure that more cars are required to take school children/patients in these developments to their educational facilities/surgeries daily. Increasing pollution and congestion on our already busy roads. The government's and local authority building plans should be delivering more ""homes"" not just houses. Homes that have well thought out infrastructure, educational and health facilities around them. They have a responsibility to ensure that future homeowners have reasonable access to work, healthcare and educational facilities. None of which are being planned to be provided in this location."

SO31


Object

This proposed development would have a very serious impact on Warsash in terms of - 1) local schools already full 2) increased traffic on existing busy roads 3) Doctors / dentists 4) Destruction of wildlife habitat 5) Loss of green areas

SO31


Object

This proposed huge development would have a catastrophic impact on (i) local wildlife, (ii) the ability of GP surgeries to adequately deal with the influx of new patients, (iii) the ability of local schools to take in the new children, (iv) the local environment - in terms of the amount of increased traffic on the roads - with all the extra noise + pollution and consequent detrimental impact on health to local people that accompanies the building of so many extra houses. If the council agree to this proposal it would have a severe detrimental impact on the health and well being of local residents. The Fareham Borough counsellors have a duty to protect their residents from the severe impacts of this proposed development.

SO31


Object

HA1 - North and South of Greenaway Lane, Warsash - 700 dwellings HA3 - Southampton Road, Titchfield Common - 400 dwellings HA7 - Warsash Maritime Academy, Warsash -100 dwellings HA9 - Heath Road, Locks Heath- 71 dwellings HA11- Raley Road, Locks Heath- 49 dwellings HA13- Hunts Pond Road, Titchfield Common- 38 dwellings HA14 -Genesis Community Youth Centre, Locks Heath - 35 dwellings HA15 -Beacon Bottom West, Park Gate -30 dwellings HA17 -69 Botley Road, Park Gate -24 dwellings HA19- 399 – 409 Hunts Pond Road, Titchfield Common- 22 dwellings Traffic in this area is already at a gridlock during peak hours and since the new Strawberry Fields, Hunts Pond and Coldeast developments it has doubled the time for people to get to work. Improvements on major roads and motorways will try and ease congestion but its not satisfactory as residents will not be able to actually get to these major roads. Local roads such as Brook Lane, Osborne Road, Warsash Road and Barnes Lane cannot be made wider, they were built to service the traffic and community of small villages and the resulting influx of 3000+ cars in such a small square area will lead to more accidents. Warsash specifically is on a pensinsular 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. The consequences will be catastrophic. Flooding is inevitable especially with recent climate changes; residents in local back garden developments are already experiencing this. Fareham is presently in trouble for poor air quality due to the amount of rush hour traffic. Bring another 3000+ cars in to the Western Wards and there will be more cases of asthma, lung disease and related illnesses - all for the surgeries with not enough resources to treat. Doctors, schools, hospitals and emergency services are already stretched to breaking point. If the plans go ahead there will be hundreds of children needing school places. New schools might take pressure off the overcrowded ones - then the influx of new children will put it back on again. Children walking to Brookfield already face a perilous journey due to the amount of traffic on Brook Lane. Brook Lane, Lockswood, Jubilee and Whiteley surgeries struggle to cope with the amount of patients they have. They wait an unacceptable amount of time for routine appointments (1 month plus) and often have very long waits when they get to there (30 minutes plus). Emergency appointments are becoming harder to book as there are not enough doctors or time. The very young, elderly and chronically ill are already vulnerable and bearing the brunt of this - add another 1,500 homes and these overstretched surgeries will be at crisis point. There will be an increased need for care homes, for which there is just no space. Residents' health will be at risk and possibly their lives. Warsash is a place of outstanding natural beauty and home to precious wildlife such as badgers, bats and deer. The greenfield land proposed as the area for development also provides a defined strategic gap from neighbouring villages. 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.

PO14


Object

The proposal to develop this whole site so intensively is ill thought out. Local roads, doctors and schools are already over subscribed. In combination with the proposed maritime site in Warsash this would add 800 homes - I believe this would increase the population of this village by 25%. The local wildlife has already been sacrificed by building at Coldeast & Strawberry fields. Site HA1 is the last green gap between Locksheath and Warsash. Development here needs to be less intensive, using only part of this site. Leave the rest to the abundance of wildlife that already live here - deer, slowworms, bats - that the developers are already trying their best to move on. Homes in Warsash will not be affordable, the existing residents will suffer from the increased population and loss of countryside. The only winners are the developers. I can not understand why the Newlands development is not included in the draft local plan - that site offers 1000 homes with much better access to roads than Warsash can ever provide. In a much less environmentally sensitive area. Building a Newlands would be less detrimental to both the environment & existing local residents

SO31


Object

This proposed development is totally out of proportion with what the local infrastructure in Warsash can cope with. Schools are full as are GP surgeries. Roads are already clogged up from 7am to 9am and 4pm to 7pm each week day.

SO31


Object

Quite simply there is absolutely no infrastructure to support this development - the roads in and out of Warsash are already bursting at the seams , there are no spare school places, the doctors & dentist are completely full. Statements made by the council that these issues will be resolved will simply not be tolerated by local residents and I urge the council to stop these proposals before they gather any traction.

SO31


Object

The plan to build 700 homes here, which totals 1,500 new homes in the vicinity is devastating for this small community. The roads are gridlocked now, it's impossible to get a GP appointment and the schools are full. The local community is horrified that this area will be overwhelmed and ruined forever if anymore houses are squeezed in this area. There is ample room north of Fareham for any housing developments.

PO14


Object

I would like to formally object to the context of the recent Draft Fareham Local Plan 2036 and specifically (HA1), which puts forward a 700+ housing development to the North and South of Greenaway Lane. I think it is unreasonable and unfair to expect Warsash to take such a vast number of properties that together with the 100 homes proposed at Warsash Maritime, increase the village population by up to a third. The Councils process for selecting Greenfield sites for development had as part of its criteria, adequate local infrastructure and highways provision. Warsash is struggling to cope in both these areas and it is difficult to understand why these current proposals would meet the criteria to be considered. The village of Warsash does not have the infrastructure to cope with this level of proposed development, Warsash, Locks Heath, Park Gate is already congested at peak periods. The Strawberry fields and Cold East developments have already added to this congestion and the further addition of up to 800 homes will significantly worsen an already demanding situation. The road network is at a gridlock during peak hours and since the new Strawberry Fields, Hunts Pond and Coldeast developments it has doubled the time for people to get to work. Improvements on major roads and motorways will try and ease congestion but this would not be satisfactory, as residents will struggle to get to these major roads. Have the HCC statutory consultants on highways visited these roads during peak periods? They would then see the reality of the current traffic situation, as I believe unsurpsingly they have not raised any objections to the Fareham Draft Plan proposals regarding the Western Wards. The local doctor's surgeries are already stretched to breaking point. Residents wait an unacceptable amount of time for routine and emergency appointments as there are not enough doctors or time to meet existing patient requirement. Further potential 2,500 new patients will only increase the significant pressure that GPs are under. Whilst I know FBC is not responsible for Doctors surgery provision, it must be within a wider planning remit or general duty of care on developments of this scale to ensure adequate requirements would be provided. School places are oversubscribed, with several residents unable to get places despite living within catchment areas. If the plans go ahead there will be hundreds of children needing school places and the reality is provision lags way behind demand. Warsash is a rural location home to precious wildlife such as badgers, bats,owls, foxes and deer. The greenfield land proposed as the area for development also provides a defined strategic gap from neighbouring villages. Residents have the right to breathe clean air, have facilities, space and sufficient infrastructure. Whilst I understand that national housing shortages has led to significant Government pressure for all councils to find appropriate sites, we are in danger of sacrificing the quality of life for many existing and future residents who benefit from the limited green and open spaces still left in otherwise densely populated areas. This area is designated countryside and under FBCs development policies should be maintained as a strategic break, as defined by DUSBs (Defined Urban Settlement Boundaries). This application is outside of Fareham's current plan and these Greenfield site locations within Warsash are not suitable for development on such a large scale. The area specified has significant wildlife occupation and this development would lead to the destruction of this wildlife and a significant impact on residents. I submit these comments in the hope that the council will review the current draft Fareham Plan and reconsider the impact that the proposed scale of increase in houses will put on local roads, schools and medical provision.

SO31


Object

700 homes in this area is clearly not sustainable with current infrastructure - schools, roads and surgeries. This site is designated COUNTRYSIDE and should be part of the greenbelt which ensures wildlife thrives and residents maintain a decent standard of living. IF houses have to be built then limit the number. If, as the FBC suggests, housing is required for first time buyers and the elderly then build quality eco-friendly apartments and specialist retirement homes with a smaller footprint on the land. 700 is way too many. Take into account what Eastleigh BC is also buildng. Hamble Lane, Providence Hill, Bridge Road, Swanwick - we are hemmed in with development and the A27 already cannot cope. How can emergency services get through the traffic. What is the pressure on water and sewage systems. What about green spaces for existing residents. I have three teenage children, one of whom had to wait 4 months to get into Brookfield School. People have a right to be educated in their catchment. Most developments are not eco-friendly and are extremely unattractive - cramming in brick box after brick box. If you are going to allow the destruction of the environment then Developers need to come up with attractive, eco-friendly homes at the very least. This development is strongly opposed for its detrimental affect on wildlife, for the safety of youngsters using Brook Lane to make their way to school and further pressure on infrastructure. It must not be allowed to go ahead.

SO31


Object

The sheer number of houses would cripple local infrastructure, most critically GP capacity, school places and the road network, the latter of which is already under considerable strain during peak periods. I understand that there is a housing shortage in the area, and so some houses seem inevitable, but 700 feels far too excessive, especially given the neighbouring large scale Strawberry Field development over the past 5 years that has already removed green space and caused constant disruption along Lockswood and Peters Road. And if any number of houses are planned, then investment in local amenities and infrastructure should be completed first ahead of time, given that shortcomings have already been identified as known. Investment down the line will only lead to delays in fixing these problems.

SO31


Object

This development is far too large, it will have a huge detrimental effect on the area, there is no consideration for the amount of traffic it will produce. The whole of the Western Wards is edged by the Hamble River, Titchfield village and the A27. This means any development in the Western Wards, will mean all the traffic it produces will to leave via one road, the A27. The A27 cannot cope, it is currently having some improvements but this will be negated by this huge development. The lack of extra provision for schooling and healthcare also should be taken into consideration, currently a two week wait for a Doctors appointment, schools over subscribed, children this year starting school in Bursledon! Also the development would be destroying the natural village feel, Warsash has been lucky so far, it does still seem to have it's green gap, unlike villages, but unless you are local you would not know that Locks Heath, Park Gate, Sarisbury Green and Titchfied Common were all, at one time, separate. Not now, the infill has been relentless over the last 30 years, there is no definition any more, just a sprawling, traffic clogged mess. Keep Warsash a village, we've lost the others. I think we all agree that extra housing is needed but not so many in one area. Planners need to consider alternatives, logically north of the M27.

SO31


Comment

I'm not against the building of new homes in the area. Having lived in Warsash for 25 years and recently moved to a new build in Saisbury Green i have seen the area change greatly. My biggest concern with any new build on this scale is the infrastructure to support it. We need more places in schools and better access to GP's before any houses are built.

SO31


Object

The local infrastructure would be at breaking point if this proposed development is allowed to go ahead. I am also concerned that when my child is applying to Brookfield secondary school, places will be very limited we may be forced to travel outside of the local area. Local roads are already very busy at peak times and the possibility of another 700 cars in the area is not a good choice.

SO31


Object

The infrastructure is already overstretched, how does the council think that building another load of houses is a sensible option? They must be completely out of touch with the residents they're supposed to serve.

Anonymous submission


Object

There has been a vast amount of development in the area over the last few years. The is lack of infrastructure , the commute along the A27 is becoming impossible. The schools and GP surgeries cannot cope with the proposed development. There a fewer green spaces in the area , which, has affected the local wildlife deer and badgers. We are fortunate to have wildlife but unfortunately more are becoming displaced and sadly killed on the roads as there habitats are being sold to developers. There are more suitable alternatives in the fareham area. The western wards have been over developed, it is time to put and end to it.

SO31


Object

I wish to object to the extensive planned housing development and the impact it will have on the existing residences, local infrastructure and the negative environmental impact it will cause. The amount of increased traffic and all the associated problems including the obvious air pollution is unacceptable. The stress on the local infrastructure will have a further negative impact on the local community. It takes weeks to get a GP's appointment, schools are overcrowded, the roads are at standstill at rush hour and our local wildlife is having its habitat ripped up and destroyed. Whilst I understand the need for new housing developments, this excessive planned development does not consider the existing residences and the environmental impact. Warsash and the surrounding western wards are having every piece of land snapped up. Where there was a plot that had one house now has 2, 3, 4 or more. I have lived in the local area since 1995 and I have seen the continual erosion of space and the massive increase in the local pollution. Yes, we do need to build new housing which is sustainable and affordable housing but do it sensitively for the existing residences, the local infrastructure and the environment. Give us space to breath and enjoy where we live and bring up our children safely. Building such a vast number of homes across many separate plots within a few miles of one another is inappropriate and poor planning for the good of those who will live in that area. Significantly reduce the volume of housing on these plots and spread the loading across a wider area with infrastructure that can support the required developments.

SO31


Object

I do not oppose development in its entirety, however, the impact of this volume of new homes will be huge. The local school is an academy and can't be forced to grow, the infrastructure is already strained at peak times, the facilities already struggle and the open areas allocated for development are havens for wildlife. The disproportionately large number of houses will destroy the community feel of the village by increasing the population by 1/3 in one hit

SO31


Object

There is not enough infrastructure to support the amount of proposed development. We need more important basis for this...a new dentist, a doctor's, a school, etc, the area is already at capacity.

SO31


Object

This volume of homes planned is excessive for such a small village as Warsash and it would completely overwhelm / swamp the existing size and character pf the area. It is accepted that some gousing is need but this number and location is simply far too many for the existing infrastructure to be able t cope. Warsash, currently does not have a Doctors surgery in the village and this is required now and would absolutely essential ig any more housing is provided. Access roads would need to be upgraded to any site and the village generally.

SO31


Object

"I was extremely disappointed to hear Cllr S Woodward on South Today today (03-12-17) say that there is ""no question that these houses will be built"" (despite our community march today protesting the size of developments being proposed) - this implies that this consultation process is a sham and I would like to be reassured by FBC that ALL comments and suggestions on these proposals will be considered fairly and will feed into decisions accordingly. Warsash (with the Western Wards) is currently proposed to receive a disproportionate allocation of new developments .. this particular one (800 new houses in the centre of the village if the Maritime academy site is included) would have huge negative impacts on life for all current (and new) residents and wildlife in Warsash. These impacts include: 1. A dramatic and irreversible change to the character of what is still currently a hamlet village. It would increase the population of the village by more than 25% in one stroke. 2. A huge pressure on village and connecting (to A27 and the M27) road networks. The roads in and out of Warsash are few and already at capacity at peak times. The increased traffic coming from these new developments (potentially 1600 additional cars on roads) would create logjam ..the roads are not built to take this volume of traffic: That's why they are called Brook LANE, Barnes LANE and Greenaway LANE. The only options for improving the road network are minor cosmetic changes possible to the A27 and its junctions - this will not help with such a large volume increase. 3. All 4 local primary schools are currently at capacity and turn away children every year. The only school in the center of Warsash (hook with Warsash) does not have space to expand and is an academy (so I understand any decisions to expand are down to the governing board and can not be forced upon them). Are you going to send all children from this new development out of catchment? That would substantially increase (again) traffic on roads (see above) 4. This development would fill in the strategic gap between Warsash and Locks Heath (and Pare Gate if you take into account other proposals for development in this plan) - this goes against FBCs own local planning principals and reduces the quality of life for residents and has huge environmental impacts for the areas in question."

SO31


Object

I do not believe the local infrastructure can cope with the volume of propsed houses and that this will have a detrimental affect on community life within Warsash.

SO31


Object

The areas schools are full, the local GP provision is full to bursting point with difficulties in recruiting GPS. The M27/A27 exit 9 is queued back from Park Gate to the M27 every day and at J8 queued back to Bursledon every day - our roads are creaking at the seams. Please cut back the development by half. 700 homes is beyond the areas capacity. Use the remaining land for recreation and much needed additional community services please.

SO31


Object

I strongly protest at this proposal for the following reasons. Warsash is saturated with housing already. It is almost impossible to get a doctors appointment now! Traffic around the area is already at a standstill at peak times. Additional traffic caused by this huge development will increase pollution substantially. This is Greenfield land and should remain so for the benefit of the community.

SO31


Object

I oppose this plan as it will totoally change the village of Warsash. Whilst new homes are needed, it is unfair to increase the size of the village by one third!! The homes need to be spread out more evenly. This is a greenfield site and should remain so for the benefit of everyone. There is not sufficient infrastructure in the area to cope with such large scale building. Traffic jams are already a huge problem in the area, these are rural roads that cannot cope with the current amount of traffic, pollution will increase massively, doctor's appointments are already almost impossible to get and local schools are oversubscribed. If this proposal goes ahead you will be making Warsash an unpleasant place to live!

SO31


Object

I know this has been well documented already but the essence of my objection is that we do not have the supporting infrastructure to support growth of this Magnitude. Warsash is already oversubscribed! Roads - The roads at present cannot support the current weight of traffic let alone adding even more. As Warsash is a peninsula bounded by Nature reserves, The Solent and the river Hamble the only way out is north or East. All these roads are jammed up during commute times and once you get as far as the A27 you run foul of the all the traffic trying to avoid the long Traffic jams on the M27 towards Southampton (exacerbated by the big developments over at Bursledon). If trying to head east then you hit the Whitely traffic and then the Gosport traffic joining. I have heard the argument that by doing large infrastructure projects you get more development money but even if you had more money where will you build these roads. The only way would to resolve this would be to build new roads or expand existing. Both options would require removal of housing, which defeats the objective, and does solve the A27 / M27 issue. Schools - we only have one secondary school in Warsash which is oversubscribed and does not have a 6th Form requiring the children to adopt long journeys to further colleges and thus adding to traffic and long days for them. The Primary schools are also over subscribed. Doctors Surgery. Undersized, takes ages to get a regular appointment...... need I say more In summary Warash cannot support this development and in my opinion this plan has not been thought through to take into account all the factors required for a holistic housing plan. Transport links are essential to for the community to able to thrive and by implanting this plan you will get the Housing you need but strangle the community and significantly impact peoples Home / Work life balance.

SO31


Comment

It's always been clear to me that this area would eventually become housing. However, I consider the proposed density (700 dwellings) would not be sustainable in the current road network and I find it hard to see how the local roads could be adapted to serve the new housing, particularly as there will also be increased traffic in Newtown Road when the Maritime College site is developed. If more houses must be built here plans must include shopping and services, especially health services. There needs to be consultation with the NHS for improved health provision. A new health centre designated for Warsash is essential and should include NHS dentistry. There should be active consultation to make better use of the Fareham Community Hospital by making provision for a minor injuries unit and possible walk in GP services. Currently the closest units providing these are in Portsmouth, Southampton and Gosport. Houses must be built with adequate on-site parking for each residence. You only have to look at the new roads leading from Peters Road to see what happens when houses do not have allocated parking spaces. It would also be inappropriate to include any building above two storeys in the Warsash. area. Finally, it is important to retain some open and green space, even with a nationwide drive to build houses. The land north and south of Greenaway Lane is home to a large variety of wildlife, not just large mammals but insects and birds, all of which are essential to everyone's well being particularly as we are affected by the air pollution from Southampton port.

SO31


Object

Within Warsash we have already a major traffic problem with parking in Brook Lane, the road structure cannot take further traffic, I assume a member of the council has tried to exit Warsash in the rush hour, during this period of time it would be almost impossible for emergency vehicles to get into the centre of Warsash. It can be seen that by increasing the vehicle count we can only increase the problem.

SO31


Object

Please just stop it. This is ridiculous. The area has had enough already. It can't take anymore and it's not as though we haven't had our fair share of development.

SO31


Object

Having viewed the outline planning applications for Brook Lane and the planning display in the Fareham Shopping Precinct I want to object most strongly to these applications for the following reasons: I was surprised and disappointed to see 700 new homes are planned for the Warsash area. The housing plan shows all three developments leading out to Brook Lane, this road is already congested at peak times at the A27 junction, the area around Brookfield School, Barnbrook Road and Barnes lane at the Junction with A27. The infrastucture for schooling and health providers are already well stretched, in fact when we moved here in 1990 many classrooms at Locks Heath junior school were housed in Portacabins. There is pressure on the doctors surgery in Brook Lane with waits of up to two weeks for a routine appointment. There has to be a limit to the amount of traffic the local roads are able to take.

Postcode not provided


Object

I object to the Fareham Local Plan as it affects Warsash. Please pass on my comments to the relevant department. Reasons for my objection being, Roads are already reaching a total 'gridlock' status and the addition of Some 1600 vehicles from the proposed additional 800 homes will be untenable. Local schools are already full and additional local school places will be required. Prior to their provision extra vehicles will be on the roads taking children to schools outside the area thus worsening the traffic problems. Roads leading out of the area are NOW gridlocked at peak periods compared to only 10 years ago.

SO31


Object

I object to the Fareham Local Plan as it affects Warsash. Please pass on my comments to the relevant department. Reasons for my objection being, Roads are already reaching a total 'gridlock' status and the addition of Some 1600 vehicles from the proposed additional 800 homes will be untenable. Local schools are already full and additional local school places will be required. Prior to their provision extra vehicles will be on the roads taking children to schools outside the area thus worsening the traffic problems. Roads leading out of the area are NOW gridlocked at peak periods compared to only 10 years ago.

SO31


Object

While I am not opposed to new housing I think that Warsash has supported enough new housing with the Strawberry Fields development and smaller individual developments. Warsash is a village with limited access to the main road network more houses will create more traffic causing congestion and poor air quality, drivers will queue for a considerable time during working hours leading to frustration, anxiety and mental health problems. The GP surgeries are already oversubscribed with many local GPs leaving their practices due to over work and stress. The Fareham community hospital is already being utilised for the overspill of patients. The schools are full with little room for expansion, children from the new houses will have to travel to schools outside the area causing even more traffic putting pressure on the parents and taking away the children's independence. Over crowding will probably lead to disharmony and possibly the need for more police presence. Also the wildlife has no where else to go. Our village should not be concreted over as it will cause flooding and there will be too few trees to clean the air leading to respiratory problems especially in the young. The area will be a place to avoid buying a house as it will be all development with no infrastructure. Sure the land should be used but the proposal for so many houses is a beyond reason. If this does go ahead all the points above and more including public transport will need to be addressed by the developers. It appears to me that there is no joined up thinking between the council and all stakeholders as this plan is disjointed and unreasonable.

SO31


Object

We need solutions to the existing traffic problems along the A27 from the Segensworth roundabout (junction 9 of the M27) to the Hamble Tesco roundabout (junction 8 of the M27) BEFORE any large scale developments are built, where the resulting extra cars are going to impact on this length of the A27. We have not seen any plans to deal with the existing problems let alone to any future developments in advance. The proposed commercial development of Solent 2 will also impact on the same length of A27. Please make sure these matters are dealt with as condition of any future building permissions.

SO31


Object

I object on the grounds of the increased volume of traffic that this development will generate , particularly at peak morning and evening times . This development is south of the A27 and M27 which are the only real access roads . The additional traffic ( queuing ) will also increase the levels of vehicle emitted pollution. There is nothing in the Draft Plan with respect to how this aspect will be mitigated - a clear indication that nothing is considered possible . My second point is that this development will put major pressure on the already strained local doctors surgeries . The Whiteley surgery for example is already understaffed and finding it extremely difficult to recruit new doctors . The third point is that the local schools will simply not be able to cope with the potential numbers of children that will be resident in the area . In conjunction with HA7 this plan will fundamentally reduce the quality of life for everyone currently resident in the Warsash community .

SO31


Object

I object to the large number (700) proposed for this area within 2.5 miles. There have been several large developments within Coldeast approximately 250 homes. Lower Hunts Pond Road approx. 400 homes. Strawberry Fields off Lockswood Road and Peters Road approx. 250 homes. There is also the important matter of building infill. Knock one house down and build another 2, 3, 6 etc in its place. This type of construction is everywhere in the whole of the Western Wards and should be included in the quota to meet Government requirements. This increase in infill has increased since we were told a few years ago that Welborne would negate this! However, as you are well know, problems with the Welborne site caused several years delay and infill went ahead flat out. We in Warsash are now expected to have up to 700 more homes built basically in the centre of which was a village – Warsash! A strain i.e. on school places, Doctors surgeries, Dentists, traffic congestion and parking. All of these issues are very important. Warsash has a small car park in the centre and is often full as free parking is available for 24 hours now that cars are parking on lower brook lane. From the Centre of Warsash causing problems for buses and HGV's. I am not against development on this site but I feel that 700 homes is asking too much. I think a lower number should be built bearing in mind my earlier comments about the large amount of infill should be included in overall totals to present to Government. You will know the exact number but I guess it is quite a lot. As regards the areas in question I suggest that open spaces/ play areas are important also the possibility of a limited business or light commercial area. Also maybe a public car park with direct access to the village centre. I fear that Warsash and all of the Western Wards as well as Fareham Borough Council itself are going to end Portsmouth and Southampton. This was talked about many years. I hope that we can avoid that and keep some of our wonderful areas and villages without total saturation and infrastructure collapse together with our quality of life.

SO31


Object

The current large housing development plans are a contradiction to the Government's Environmental plans for a Green Brexit, where the protection of the countryside, hedgerows and habitat of wildlife is paramount. If swathes of countryside are to be sacrificed for housing, how is a Green Brexit going to be achieved? It's about time the Ministers responsible for making decisions got together and produced a cohesive plan for the future of our country which is a balanced approach to the challenges of a growing population and the need to grow food and increase dairy herds etc to feed said population. The proposed 800 new dwellings in Warsash will urbanise and over populate an area which is already straining at the leash with regard to traffic on the roads (people having to travel out of the area for work), insufficient GPs, overstretched demands on Hospitals, Dentists and insufficient School places across the whole of the education system.

SO31


Object

As a resident of Warsash for over twenty years I strongly object to the proposed allocation of some 700 houses North and South of Greenaway Lane. Infrastructure issues aside, and there are many, the council has a duty to protect and preserve the character of the preexisting settlement. To build to this extent with the village of Warsash will encroach on urban separation land and blend the existing village in with the new Strawberry Field development and Locks Heath. In fact Fareham Borough Council itself suggests that its focus and responsibility for the allocation of porposed housing sites within the plan is to protect and enhance the environment whilst delivering infrastructure; it is clear that 700 houses on this site and the will do neither and I would question strongly whether it is even possible to deliver the necessary infrastructure in a village which only has access from two directions, new roads cannot be built on water. The already huge secondary school would struggle to accomodate an influx of that size as would the primary school. There are other proposed sites near Junction 11/M27 that would be far better suited to mass housing development with good transport links and little preexisitng connurbations to impact on. In addition any houses built within Warsash ward are highly unlikely to meet the targets for affordable housing given the premium this area currently demands.

SO31


Object

Like everyone else in Warsash, I object to the over building of this once lovely area. Hampshire is fast becoming nothing but urban sprawl, roads that cannot cope with the traffic, pollution and destruction of wild habitat. Not enough schools. Not enough doctors surgeries and complete chaos. Listen to the people who live in Warsash and Hampshire. Make the politicians sit in the traffic jams created by bad planning. What once was a reasonable journey from Warsash to the other side of the river now takes almost an hour. Buses are not adequate for most journeys and the river taxis do not run after 5pm. The A27 is now just as busy as the motorway. And young people cannot afford the houses that are being built. More open spaces for the existing residents would be a much better option.

SO31


Object

As a resident of Warsash, already the area has congestion at rush hour periods. More housing would put pressure on the roads & lengthy delays for all. If there's an accident on the M27 or A27 the backlog affects all surrounding/ feeder roads. More homes would produce more traffic which would totally stagnate the area. Extra homes would overburden our local full schools & health systems - doctors, hospitals, dentists etc. There aren't enough shops & facilities for more homes in this area.

SO31 9


Object

700 houses on this site will put a huge pressure on the infrastructure in this area. The schools are already full to capacity, the secondary school is huge and the traffic at rush hour to get in and out of the area is often horrendous. Getting an appointment at a doctors is extremely difficult. How will the area be able to support all these new houses? Whilst we recognise that new houses are needed as this country has a housing shortage this would surely be better met by creating a whole community, like the proposed Wellbourne, with the facilities included.

SO31


Object

Warsash has grown immeasurably since we moved here 24 years ago. I understand the need to provide more homes but any site chosen has to satisfy itself on the provision of adequate roads, school, surgeries and the impact of an increased number of people, houses and cars on the overall local infrastructure. I struggle to drive out of Warsash to work in the morning, I cannot enrol in the local surgery and have to travel to Whiteley to see a Doctor and it is plain from the current volume of children that the area is at a reasonable level now. Warsash should take a share but only when the facilities and infrastructure above is funded and can be guaranteed and in my opinion is nothing like the 700 dwellings proposed, maybe 25% of this or this ancient village will be changed forever. I fundamentally object to this proposal as it stands - it is an ill considered and hasty reaction to Government policy that cannot be reversed once the commitment is made.

SO31


Object

I object to this proposal because Warsash is only a village and has a village infrastructure. There has already been a lot of development in Warsash and that causes difficulty in getting to the A27/M27. There are already long tailbacks when leaving Warsash trying to travel somewhere. By adding 800 new dwellings, tailbacks from the main A27 are likely to reach Warsash!! That will be an additional 1600 vehicles all trying to move around village roads. I have real concerns for the safety of schoolchildren walking and cycling to school when there are so many extra vehicles on the road. Pavements are narrow in many places and I am surprised that there hasn't been a serious accident already. With a possible 3200 extra people in Warsash what will be done to provide additional facilities and services? Doctors, dentists, schools, improved roads, bus services etc..?? No building should be allowed to take place until the infrastructure is properly addressed. It would be far better to make another Welbourne than to add to an already overcrowded village. At least infrastructure is fully considered and developers can contribute to the development of a suitable infrastructure. There are real environmental issues too. What about all the wildlife? What about additional pollution from all the extra cars? We have so few green spaces left in Warsash that to take away what's left will really ruin our area. Building needs to happen in the UK but please don't overpopulate an area that has a village infrastructure!

SO31


Object

Warsash does not have the infrastructure to support this many houses north and south of Greenaway Lane. The traffic is already horrendous and all these developments may add another 1600 cars to the area. The roads aren't built for this volume of traffic and there are no plans to try and improve the roads to the A27 (only minor changes would be possible). The schools are full - the only secondary school is Brookfield and when I left 6 years ago there were about 34 pupils per class which makes things difficult for the teacher and the pupils. It took me 4 weeks to book in a doctors appointment that fitted in with working full time - the strain on the doctors surgeries in this area is ridiculous. I know that houses will be built as there is a greater profit margin in this area but I sincerely hope that the number of houses will be lowered. It would make more sense to build houses closer to the new Stubbington bypass that is being built.

SO31


Object

We were told when Welborne was being proposed that if it went ahead there would be no further development in the area so why are you proposing development work in Warsash and not sticking to your word. Warsash and Locks Heath are full to capacity, we cannot get a doctors appointment for weeks, the traffic is becoming to a point of almost gridlock in the junction 9 area. There are not the school places or facilities needed. The quality of life for residents in the area is going to dramatically decline. The countryside is disappearing, there are much more suitable sites in areas which can cope better with the extra capacity and will avoid disrupting areas of beauty and wildlife. It is not a housing crisis which is the problem it is an immigration crisis!

SO31


Object

While I understand the need for more housing and that Fareham should take its fair share, the number of dwellings proposed for this site seems excessive. Any development must be sustainable and this is not. The density of the housing will be very high especially when allowances for open spaces/play areas and community facilities are taken into account. Also the road network, already under strain, will not cope to the north of the proposed development. The A27 at Sarisbury Church and the entire stretch at Park Gate are not adequate now with extensive queuing and not just during the morning and evening rushes. Finally there will be major problems with schools places, Doctors surgeries, local shopping facilities and the parking requirements of all three. We thought that the building of Wellborne was designed to stop the need for extensive new housing estates in the existing built up areas of Fareham. If even more housing is needed should the bulk of it not go the an expanded Wellborne so that it can be properly planned with all the facilities that it requires?

SO31


Object

The sheer volume of housing proposed is unreasonable.The infrastructure is not there to support it and there does not appear to be a robust plan to address this. Much of this land is classed as agricultural , and indeed the area incorporates actively working nurseries, the plan notes the demise of agriculture in the borough, this plan will diminish further. There are 3 areas within the HA1 plot that have access via Greenaway Lane , this is a rural narrow road and it would be unsafe and inappropriate to use this route. I specifically noted plot ID3046 for 40 houses, the residence that sits within this plot was only recently built and at the time of planning it was stipulated that the surrounding land was to remain as agriculture only - why has this now changed to suit the council ?

Object

Area HA1 - The sheer volume of housing proposed is unreasonable.The infrastructure is not there to support it and there does not appear to be a robust plan to address this. Much of this land is classed as agricultural , and indeed the area incorporates actively working nurseries, the plan notes the demise of agriculture in the borough, this plan will diminish further. There are 3 areas within the HA1 plot that have access via Greenaway Lane , this is a rural narrow road and it would be unsafe and inappropriate to use this route. I specifically noted plot ID3046 for 40 houses, the residence that sits within this plot was only recently built and at the time of planning it was stipulated that the surrounding land was to remain as agriculture only - why has this now changed to suit the council ? I note that there are areas within the borough where the nitrogen dioxide levels are above the legal limits and that the council has been tasked with improving the air quality , adding the proposed volumes of housing in Warsash and Portchester will only add to this problem. Whilst my comments have concentrated predominantly on the reasons why HA1 should not be included in its entirety, I would also like to make some comments to be considered should the reverse prevail. The traffic surveys included in the planning applications already submitted for these areas have identified that at peak times we have junctions that are already functioning at over capacity, this must be addressed. Safety of the Brookfield school attendees must be paramount, there have been a number of accidents in Brook Lane in the past year involving school children, to continue with these developments without considering this would be reckless and foolhardy. Could some consideration be given to improving the access to Swanwick Train Station, at present there is no direct bus route from Warsash to the station, I am sure addressing this would encourage better use of public transport. The plan suggests that developers restrict housing to 2.5 storeys , I would like to ask that this is limited to 2, a lot of the surrounding homes on Brook Lane are low level (1 or 1.5 storeys) anything higher will dominate the landscape and further ruin our lovely village.

SO31


Object

The sheer volume of housing proposed is unreasonable.The infrastructure is not there to support it and there does not appear to be a robust plan to address this. Much of this land is classed as agricultural , and indeed the area incorporates actively working nurseries, the plan notes the demise of agriculture in the borough, this plan will diminish further. There are 3 areas within the HA1 plot that have access via Greenaway Lane , this is a rural narrow road and it would be unsafe and inappropriate to use this route. I specifically noted plot ID3046 for 40 houses, the residence that sits within this plot was only recently built and at the time of planning it was stipulated that the surrounding land was to remain as agriculture only - why has this now changed to suit the council ?

SO31


Object

Too many houses in the plan! Insufficient road structure, both local to the proposed building area and in Warsash as a whole if the houses are built. Brook Lane is a small road (clue is in the name - Lane) and is already overcrowded to get onto the A27 in the mornings. Other ways out of Warsash are similarly overcrowded (in case you hadn't noticed, Warsash hasn't got many ways to get out). Insufficient schooling and medical facilities. INADEQUATE INFRASTRUCTURE. Reduction in quality of life for local residents. Feeling that whoever represents the people of Warsash don't care - viz Sean Woodward's comments in the press that the houses will be built anyway.

SO31


Object

I object to the proposed development as it is on green belt land and the area does not have the infrastructure for more homes

SO31


Object

We do not support the proposal to build 800 homes in the Greenaway Lane area.

Postcode not provided


Object

Warsash is a village community. Proposal HA1 is disproportionately large and out of keeping with the village setting. Over the last 40 years, the villages of Warsash, Hook and Sarisbury Green along with the larger community of Locks Heath have lost a substantial amount of green space to house building and they have become an increasingly large conurbation. Development of the site to the North and South of Greenaway Lane will contribute to the further expansion of continuous urban fabric to the detriment of those communities. Furthermore, the combined population of this area of South Hampshire is now that of a large town, or small city, yet the social infrastructure capacity remains more appropriate to the original collection of small villages. Parents are unable to secure their first choice of schools. Doctors and dental services are oversubscribed and it is no longer possible to obtain same day appointments; wait times for non-emergency consultations are several days. The road infrastructure is already inadequate for the existing population as evidenced by daily congestion on the local roads between M27 Jct 8 and Jct 9 around the rush hour period, and public transport facilities are minimal. The Fareham Borough Council area requires new affordable homes, but the people who will occupy those homes also require employment and local services. Development of existing brownfield sites close to the major centres of Fareham and Gosport is likely to better suit the needs of the population.

SO31


Object

The development areas north and south of Greenaway Lane are entirely outside the defined urban development boundary. This land is Grade 1 and 2 Agricultural land which should not be let go at this time. The area is poorly served by public transport, there being no railway station. The roads, including Barnes Lane, Brook Lane, and A27 from Bursledon and in an easterly direction are gridlocked at peak times, with no possibility of improvement, even if there were funds available. There is no employment locally, so all working residents, and possibly school parents, would have to commute by use of the already over congested roads. It was noted in the PUSH report that transport would act as the major brake on economic development in this area, and with commutes taking ever longer, productivity must suffer. Any hopes held by certain councillors that residents will be able to work from home have no basis in reality, and are no more than wishful thinking. The schools are already full, and small children would face being bussed or driven out of the area, adding to the congestion and pollution, and to the length of their day. Air quality is already poor along the coast from Southampton to Portsmouth, and opposite Fawley, and increased traffic will cause further deterioration, in addition to the loss of green space. Medical facilities are already stretched with waiting times to see a GP up to 4 weeks. Again, councillors may wish to see the local hospital utilised more, but it is not in their power to make this happen. The size of the development proposed for Warsash is out of proportion to the village, which will feel swamped. We already have a large development nearing completion in Strawberry Fields, which includes large numbers of flats, out of keeping in a rural area, and out of character for the village. While accepting that there may have to be some development of this space, it should be properly planned taking the needs of the village into account, which has already absorbed a great deal of development over the last 30 years and more recently. I would support a generously landscaped development of bungalows for older people on some of the land, which are much needed and which would not impact the roads to such an extent at peak times, or the schools. In order to keep some green space it would be good to have a community allotment, as the already extended village is greatly in need of something to draw people together. Ideally the land should remain agricultural land. If a large number of new properties is necessary in the borough, they should be sited at Peak Lane in Fareham, which has the roads (Stubbington bypass) the employment (Daedalus) and a huge strategic gap which could easily accommodated the development.

SO31


Object

The proposed development of 800 homes is not sustainable in terms of the capacity of the traffic network, local services and schools. The recent building of Strawberry Fields development has already resulted in a significant increase in traffic in the area, making access to the main arterial routes even more difficult than it was before, and resulting in increased traffic queues which is impacting on air quality. Junctions 8 and 9 of the M27 are already heavily used with queues onto and off of the motorway, access to this new development would put extra pressure on the motorway exit slip roads and queues through Park Gate in rush hour are already very slow. The public transport routes in this area are very poorly provided, the train service to and from Portsmouth using Swanwick station is inadequate, one train an hour, and to access the train station means a drive as it is 2 miles from Warsash village with payment for parking required. The bus service again is poor, slow and irregular. The village of Warsash was never designed to accommodate this level of development. The local schools are full and access to doctors is very difficult, waiting times for GP appointments are unacceptable. The new Community Hospital should at the very least have a minor injuries A&E department.

SO31


Object

I appreciate there is a need to provide new housing in the Fareham area and that Warsash has a part to play in the provision of these new homes. However, I believe the council is making a mistake in proposing that the village take what I consider a disproportionate number of new homes, for the reasons given below: Warsash is very much a village with limited infrastructure, or the room to put that infrastructure in place (e.g. narrow roads). Due to this and its size, the number of new houses appears disproportionate for the area and proposals elsewhere. This is particularly true if you also take into consideration the building of the other two nearby estates at Strawberry Fields and Coldeast; a further consideration is the number of 'independent' sites that have or are being developed, e.g. 10 houses have or are being built in Newtown/Hook Park Road in the last 2 years. If this is extrapolated conservatively, there could be another 100 houses built in the area in the next couple of years - where do these feature in the overall numbers? The roads are already busy and are not well suited for HGVs and buses - you only have to see them struggling at the Warsash mini roundabout. The building of 800 homes will lead to a significant increase in traffic, probably in excess of 1600 cars; this on top of the additional traffic at the two sites mentioned above. It should also be noted that many of the roads, Warsash and Newtown for example are covered with patches some of which are starting to deteriorate and this will only get worse over time with increased use and weathering. Whilst responsibility for roads rests with the county council, Fareham need to convince the people of Warsash that they have an infrastructure plan in place to address the current level of poor roads and those in the future. Schools in the area are at capacity. The chairman mentioned school expansion and the problem of A level students having to travel out of the area at the meeting in Warsash on 10 November 2017. There was not time for real discussion on these issues, however at least one of the local schools is an academy and cannot be told to expand and my understanding is that Brookfield has no plans to expand. The issues with schooling also impacts on the roads. Students are already being transported to and from school/college by bus, any increase in housing will exasperate the current situation. The chairman spoke about new medical facilities being part of the Welbourne project, however no additional medical facilities were mentioned in relation to Warsash. Routine appointments have to be made weeks in advance and again this situation will not improve if additional housing is built in the village without additional facilities being provided. The chairman emphasised the need to avoid coalescence within any new housing project was a key factor. However if the plan to provide housing either side of Greenaway Lane goes ahead there will be one big conurbation from the Warsash Road to the south, to the A27 in the north for the entire length of Brook Lane. The proposed sites are full of wild life (deer, badgers, birds) and these will disappear if green areas are not kept - this goes directly against the councils stated policy. It seems to me that the Newland Farm site offers a far better area to build a large number of houses. It's a bigger area overall, but it could still maintain large green areas - certainly far more than Warsash. It is also semi-rural and has the space to provide excellent infrastructure (wide roads and junctions), which Warsash will never be able to match.

SO31


Object

This will destroy the village -- too many cars /people and no plans for infrastructure !

SO31


Object

The infrastructure can not support the proposed level of housing

SO31


Object

to whom it may concern we would like to protest about the Greenaway site development for 700 houses. we feel this would put too much pressure on the small village roads as there would be 1,400 extra cars on the roads. Warsash already has issues trying to get out of the village onto the A27 and M27. this would create a bottle neck. There is also no infrastructure in place as we would need more schools to accomodate approximately 700 children. there would have to be more, or larger doctors surgeries also more doctors. Also the houses planned are NOT AFFORDABLE housing . what would pensioner, students and single people want with a three or four bedroom house. We feel very strongly about our village and really hope you could find land nearer the M27 which would make it easier for them to access the motorway and not clog up the small village roads yours faithfully Patrizia Carter

SO31


Object

I strongly object to the proposed development having lived in Warsash over 30 years and watched the town being turned from a quiet riverside area into what is becoming an urban sprawl. The roads are increasingly crowded, the doctors surgeries are at full capacity as are the local schools. A development of an additional 700 houses on Greenaway Lane would make access onto Brook Lane even more difficult and would be harmful to the character of this countryside location.

SO31


Object

I would like to say, firstly, that I have only just received a form through my door telling me that I have an opportunity to comment on yet another planned huge housing development for this area. It was posted through at 9:30 a.m this morning, 5 December 2017. On the form, it states that if as local residents we wish to comment on the 'Local Plan', we must do so by 8th December. It is a shame that these forms were delivered so late. People need time to construct their thoughts coherently and put these down in writing - especially on a matter as serious as this. I am retired, thus at least have the luxury of spare hours during the day. For people who are still working full time, and who will therefore not even see this form until this evening, they now have only TWO days (which actually is two EVENINGS, as they will be at work again tomorrow and Thursday) to formulate any sort of response. My own response is as follows: On behalf of myself and my partner (she lives at this address too, but cannot respond herself today, as she is at work), I would like to say that we are absolutely dismayed at the prospect of yet another huge piece of 'green' environment being destroyed for houses to be built. We are both vehemently opposed to this. The local area (Warsash/Locks Heath/Park Gate/Swanwick) has already seen a huge amount of building, in the past 18 months - two years alone. [redacted] my journey to work became more and more heart-breaking as I saw field after field after field being destroyed for hundreds of homes to be erected. My journey was from Locks Heath to Marchwood. [redacted] just to the M27 motorway (a journey of only four miles), in the past 18 months, the following land has already been destroyed - along with hundreds of trees, many of them very old, established oak trees: 1) Fields and trees adjacent to Peters Road, where the 'Petandra' Nursery used to be, have been destroyed to build a 'monster-estate'. This was a huge area with hundreds of trees. The number of animals and other wildlife who lost their habitats and/or their lives in this development does not bear thinking about. A huge number of oak trees have also been lost because of this development. To date, with the housing apparently completed, the developers are continuing to cut down oak trees along the stretch of Brook Lane which faces Coltsfoot Drive. Strangely, a) None of us as local residents can see WHY they need to be doing this and b) Nobody ever actually sees a tree being felled, despite a constant stream of traffic and pedestrians passing throughout the day and evening. Are they doing this in the dead of night?? 2) Fields and land in Barnes Lane were destroyed to build the Holly Hill Leisure Centre. Again, the effect on the natural environment and wildlife will have been massive. 3) The fields next to the Navigator pub on the A27 (Swanwick Lane) are now destroyed, and again are covered with, a huge number of dwellings. 4) Just a few yards further on, an absolutely massive development is in progress from Blundell Lane stretching right the way up the A27 to the Windhover roundabout, stretching as far as the eye can see across the fields (or what USED to be fields) on the Windhover side of the road. 5) Fields near Manor Farm Country Park have also been dug up for houses. All of 1-5 above are, as I have said, in the space of just four miles. This is a massive and dreadful destruction of countryside and wildlife. It would almost suggest that some years ago, a law was passed that prevented wildlife and green areas being touched, but that this had an 'end date' which once reached, prompted every developer in the country, along with every town planning committee, to turn up with picks, shovels and earth movers to dig up and build houses before anyone could raise an objection. As residents, tax payers and individuals who value wildlife and green spaces, we feel that more than enough land and wildlife have already been lost in this area in a frighteningly short space of time. We are absolutely opposed to this proposed new development North and South of Greenaway Lane, Warsash. If this number of new homes really are needed, then we have a population crisis, not a housing crisis.

S031


Object

I recognise that forecasts suggest more housing is built but there don't appear to be load of people in tents scattered around that are actively looking for homes..... This is a lovely green space within an area that is being increasing built upon on a peninsular that already is difficult to access and egress due to lack of infrastructure. Also given it took nearly 8 years for the play area at Admirals Wood (By Holly Hill Leisure Centre) to appear I have no confidence that the local amenities that are included will actually be built until the very last movement if at all - why not make the construction of local amenities the first things that will be built and then once developers have shown that they are committed to improving the community then let then start building houses?

SO31


Object

Like many in the area I am concerned about the large number of houses proposed for this site in addition to all the other developments locally. In particular doctors services are already insufficient - my family is registered with Brook Lane surgery and it is always very busy and difficult to get appointments. Only yesterday my husband tried to get a non-urgent appointment and was told to ask again on Friday as there were none available. A new doctors surgery must be part of the plan if it goes ahead. Also school places and traffic congestion are a worry. Can the one way cut through linking Longacres to the A27 near Argos be made two way? This would ease congestion through Park Gate in the evening rush hour as people could access Locks Heath and Warsash this way from the Segensworth Roundabout. I am not against new houses and know they are needed but the wider picture needs to be thought about too or insufficient school places and doctors, and traffic gridlock, will blight everyone's lives.

SO31


Object

The size of the development is absolutely preposterous given the size of the village and infrastructure it's based around! I know it seems like a tiresome subject, but, how will the current infrastructure take all the additional cars and where will all the additional children go to school? These might be points that everyone's raising, but they are a concern for all that live in the surrounding area! Surely someone has to look at infrastructure/schooling before the make a rash decision and a proper plan is made, rather than looking at an area of open space and saying "that'll do"?

SO31


Object

To build this number of houses with absolutely no development on infrastructure is a disgrace. Roads the area are already overloaded and this proposed development along with others, some of which are near completion around Swanwick and Bursledon, will just grind the area between M27 junction 8/9 to a halt. There seems to be no plan for where the extra school places will be found. How about spaces for Doctors appointments? Again nothing has been spoken of. Regards, Warsash Resident.

SO31


Object

I accept the pressure to build more housing. However, I wish to object strongly to the proposal of the development of houses in this location for the following reasons: Green breaks are so important to the character of the area and highly valued by residents The land is a very valued piece of countryside separating Warsash and Locks Heath It is neither within 'defined urban settlement boundaries' nor classed as 'a brownfield site'. - I understood (and was reassured by an FBC Councillor) that any new development should generally be prioritised to these types of areas and precious green space such as this should be the very last resort This Development Would have Adverse Effects on : the residential amenity of residents by reason of noise, disturbance, overlooking/loss of privacy and overshadowing other properties. the already overcrowded infrastructure in the area the distinction between Locks Heath and Warsash resulting in unacceptably high density /over-development of the area Increase the population of Warsash which is a small village by 23% wildlife (bats,deer and badgers regularly seen here) Traffic congestion is already a serious issue in Warsash, made worse by the slightest incident on the M27/A27. Inevitably this will make matters much worse. Traffic has nowhere to go as Warsash backs onto the river/sea Schools are already at breaking point with children having to go outside the area for education Doctors are stretched with Warsash residents having to commute to Whiteley. This puts the elderly/young at potential risk for timely treatment Alternative Site It is totally unacceptable to further and knowingly overload Warsash which is already at breaking point when Fareham Borouh Council has other options such as Newlands Farm that seem an all round better solution. Newlands Farm should be reconsidered - previously rejected for reasons of landscape sensitivity and preserving the strategic gap. Is Newlands Farm landscape sensitivity more inportant than the gridlock that will occur on all routes within Warsash that this extra pressure will cause, together with the unacceptable pressure on Warsash's facilities and children having to be educated outside of the area i.e. potentially Whitley/Fareham? The Stubbington strategic gap is huge - extra 700/800 houses would not significantly deplete the gap. - In fact Newlands infrastructure would benefit from road investment. This option seems to meet the criteria together with the fact that the Stubbington by-pass would pass through it. This would be joined up thinking I wish to object strongly to the development of these houses in this location. It is shameful that key issues that seriously effect the local community have not been considered.

SO31


Object

I would like to object to the current applications for this area. Whilst acknowledging that we need to take some of the burden of more homes surely it should not be at the expense of making it a less attractive area for current and new residents to live in. It is extraordinary that you would allow such density / number of houses to be built in an area that has seen a huge number of developments recently. This is putting the infrastructure at breaking point; schools, GP practices, roads/traffic congestion, local shopping areas, sewerage and water services plus wildlife sustainability. The local roads are already congested with few options to modify them to cope with such an increase in traffic. The A27 is very congested too so getting into and out of Warsash especially at peak times is already dreadful. Surely you should consider that Warsash's identity will be non existent by removing a green corridor between neighbouring areas such as Locks Heath and Sarisbury Green. We need a defendable edge to our village. The density of houses will not be in keeping with the surrounding environment. The area south of Greenaway Lane has special consideration re status to consider. I am sure it is a difficult decision for you when the Government is asking for so many extra houses to be built. Please look again at Newlands Farm. It was turned down partly for concerns over the stategic gap, but what gap will we have. I suggest that even with 700 homes built there, there will still be sufficient stategic gap plus ability to improve roads. You hope to have monies from developers for more school places, help extend Gp practices etc but I suggest this historically does not happen. As it took over 30 years to sort a swimming pool locally I have little confidence in the councils ability to sort this prior to any building.

SO31


Object

Although I appreciate the need for new houses the proposal to build another 800 new dwellings in this location is madness. Having moved to Warsash in 1991 I can confirm that the local schools were already full then. With no new schools planned where are all these new arrivals going to send their children for an education? Then there is the traffic problem, anyone who uses the roads around Warsash,Park Gate and Locksheath during peak times will tell you that we don't need any more cars clogging the roads.

SO31


Object

Warsash Cannot support the infrastructure needed

SO31


Object

"This area is already suffering with the strain of the lack of infrastructure that has not been provided from previous planning decisions. Until local roads are improved and new schools and doctors surgeries are provided no more large scale housing projects should be allowed. Everyday Warsash Road,Brook Lane,Barnes Lane and other surrounding roads are jam packed with cars trying to get in and out. Warsash Road and Brook Lane in particular are "" rat runs"" to cut through to Titchfield, Stubbington and Gosport. Its a constant stream of vehicles in the morning and evenings. Positioning a large housing development near to one of these roads will just add more traffic & social problems to our local area."

SO31


Object

The traffic plan can not accommodate the increase in vehicles belonging to the new home occupiers. The medical infrastructure can not cope as it is. Our Doctors surgery no longer accepts any urgent appointments. If the new homes are approved please don't allow a development similar to that built by Taylor Wimpey off Peters Rd. The houses are small and crowded into the site with no regard to the wider appeal of Warsash.

SO31


Object

I would like to object to this development. There has been too much development in the are already and the proposed development only make the situation worse. The proposed density is too high and the number of new dwellings is too high. With all the development in the area particularly between Warsash and the M27 The roads are already grid locked at busy periods and the schools and doctors surgeries are full. There is little or no employment in the area to support the development so everyone will have to commute to work in a car. The A27 and associated streets are already at saturation at busy periods. There are more appropriate sites to develop this density of housing. The only reason the development is being considered is due to the poor management of the council and its local plan to date. A bad situation only getting worse. \

SO31


Object

Increased traffic - cant cross road Doctors surgery appointments Destruction of village life Pressure on social services. Destruction of mature land - wildlife

SO31


Object

I strongly object to the proposed development at this site. The local area has already had much development with many new homes and the associated increase in population. This has already massively detrimental affected the area with huge increases in traffic on roads that cannot cope. Local schools,doctors and other services are hugely stretched and cannot cope plus the environmental effect on the area is already evident. Building so many more houses in this already congested area will only add to these issues. On top of is there will be destruction of yet more 'green' areas and the displacement /destruction of the wildlife that lives there,and that's without mentioning the removal of the ascetic and benefits to the local,population of actually having some open spaces. In summation I would hope that this proposed development would be rethought and some common sense applied to the actual need for it. Thank you.

SO31


Object

I strongly object to the proposed development at this site. The local area has already had much development with many new homes and the associated increase in population. This has already massively detrimental affected the area with huge increases in traffic on roads that cannot cope. Local schools,doctors and other services are hugely stretched and cannot cope plus the environmental effect on the area is already evident. Building so many more houses in this already congested area will only add to these issues. On top of is there will be destruction of yet more 'green' areas and the displacement /destruction of the wildlife that lives there,and that's without mentioning the removal of the ascetic and benefits to the local,population of actually having some open spaces. In summation I would hope that this proposed development would be rethought and some common sense applied to the actual need for it. Thank you.

SO31


Object

The development proposal is far too large for the environment it sits in. Warsash is a village that has already seen extensive development. Strawberry Fields has just been completed putting pressure on local schools and the road network. This new proposal is a step too far. The numbers are gigantic with no mitigation for its impact on the local infrastructure, amenities or wildlife. Why has Warsash been victimised in terms of such unsympathetic and extensive development?

SO31


Object

A proposal for an additional 700 dwellings on this site will have a major negative impact on the locality for a number of reasons: - As highlighted in previous planning applications for part of this site, the access roads are already at their capacity to maintain a reasonable traffic flow at off-peak periods. At peak periods the congestion on Warsash Road, Brook Lane, Barnes Lane and Lockswood Road trying to approach the A27 is already unacceptable as is the congestion on the A27 at these times. The addition of more vehicles from 700 dwellings would have a major detrimental impact on the environment and quality of life for residents. - Related to the congestion issues, it is inconceivable that any changes or improvements to the current road layouts in the area would significantly improve the situation. All the access roads to the A27 are residential in nature and no minor changes to the junctions will accommodate the higher volume of traffic. - There is little or no likelihood of there being a significant increase in the employment opportunities in the area, therefore most occupants would have to use the road system to reach their places of work. There is not an effective public transport network that could be used as a viable alternative and this would also exacerbate the congestion. - The 'filling in' of this space will effectively create a single urban sprawl that will leave Warsash and Locks Heath effectively as a single area with the loss of individual characteristics. - As outlined in previous planning applications, the area proposed is high quality agricultural land that should be kept for such use. - With regard to local services such as schooling and health, the current facilities are already overstretched and there is little in the proposal to ensure that the situation will not deteriorate further. The loss of one GP surgery in the area (Locks Road surgery that 'relocated' to Whiteley) had a significant negative impact on the accessibility of such services in the area and the facilities, even if upgraded, will be unlikely to provide an acceptable level of service.

SO31


Object

Although thought is being given to the pressure on roads and on the lack of available school places; no mention is made of how the present health services will be able to cope with the population generated by 700 houses. In addition it is not clear whether their will be provision for older members of the population ie provision of bungalows. From the plan it is not clear what land will be kept for the provision of an additional school.

SO31


Object

Greenaway Lane is popularly used by walkers and cyclists as a quiet route from east/west, between Warsash and Locks Heath. I realise that the plan intends this to remain to some extent but loss of the surrounding fields would detract from this pleasant cut through. I hope that this continue to be a 'safe' route for walkers, cyclists, children and dogs. The draft plan states that this development is in an area with 'insufficient primary school capacity' which would need to be addressed by developers. Schools in Locks Heath, Warsash and Sarisbury were at capacity when we moved to Locks Heath ten years ago and 700 further homes (in addition to other homes suggested on the draft plan for Warsash) would surely mean that a completely new primary school would have to be developed? The draft does not mention secondary schools. However, we were told when we moved here that Brookfield school had of necessity to give priority to children from Warsash, owing to transport difficulties. Ten years later the transport has not improved. More children coming from Warsash will make it harder for children elsewhere to get in to Brookfield so that they will have to go to Fareham or elsewhere. I believe that the Council should consider school capacity as a serious issue over this proposed development. The A27 and the roads to the A27 from Warsash direction are already very busy and have delays at rush-hours. Barnes Lane is narrow with a single narrow footpath and traffic has recently increased there with the building of Holly Hill Leisure Centre. Walking along here to Sarisbury Junior School is not pleasant, and the corners by that school on Barnes Lane make visibility difficult when cars are parked. The northern end of Brook Lane is slightly better but is still heavily congested at times with traffic backed down to the headland Drive roundabout, and is also a narrow road with narrow pavements. Warsash Road (for traffic going east) is not wide either. While cycling there a few weeks ago a car hit my handlebars with its wing-mirror. I am concerned that extra housing in this area will make these roads - which were not designed for as much traffic as they now have - extremely congested and more dangerous for pedestrians and cyclists. The public transport in this area is not good. It could be improved by a bus to the station at Swanwick. Our child attended [redacted] by public bus from Locks Heath, but owing to the changes in the timetable this does not now look viable. Owing to poor public transport the new housing will bring more traffic on roads that are not designed for the existing traffic, let alone a lot more.

SO31


Object

"1. The scale of the development is totally wrong for Locks Heath 1.1 Infrastructure We in Locks Heath already are straining at the seams - no school places, a fortnight to see a doctor, and traffic bottlenecks You state in 3. Refining Points : "".. 5. Avoids sites that rely on significant infrastructure delivery where the timing of the work and/or funding are beyond the control of the site promoter/developer. "", But an extra 700 homes in HA1 will exacerbate the existing problems; even if a developer makes a contribution, there will be delay before Hampshire and the health & education authorities will do anything. It is not in accordance with Policy INF2 (Transport) : ""Development will be permitted where it....Does not demonstrate a severe cumulative impact (causing demonstrable harm) on the operation, safety or accessibility to the local or strategic highway networks"".... The section of Brook Lane between the hospital and the junction with the A27, which would appear to be the main access route. is the only place in Fareham where I have to get off my bike & walk on the pavement because the road is just too narrow for drivers to overtake me safely. Heath Road will become even more of a 'rat-run' All provision of infrastructure is either vague or missing altogether - it is not enough just to have an umbrella policy (Policy INF1) stated as a 'cover-all', but for each major site, the infrastructure requirements and how they are to be provided should be specified. 2. Content of Draft Local Plan The authors of Sections 1-11 seem to be living in a different world to what is actually happening on the ground on major sites. There has in the past been a huge gap between the ideals and their application, with Developers 'winning on appeal'. If the role of the Planning Department is both to state the ideals and to enforce them, then how is it that the ideals seem to fly out of the window when subjected to the financial clout of the developers. Does it really all boil down to money ? Is it a 'lost battle' before you start and all you can hope for is a halfway compromise ? Surely it would help your cause to be more specific about the infrastructure requirements in Section 12 Development Allocations. You should not announce that there will be an extra 5000-odd people coming to Locks Heath without giving some indication of how their needs are to be provided, and how extra traffic will be accommodated. For each development site, it needs to be spelled out, not only that approval is conditional on developers contributing, but also on where & how that contribution is to be spent. It would be an indication of intention for both the public and the developers. It would also give you more clout at any future Planning Application Appeal."

SO31


Object

It is painfully obvious that any further housing in the above locations will add to the existing problems already occurring with Schools that are already over subscribed, roads which were never meant to carry the volume of traffic already using them and finally reducing open spaces for the variety of wildlife already robbed of the Coldeast site. Additionally our local Doctors Surgeries are bursting at the seams, for instance at my local surgery if one is requiring an appoinment you will be told non are available for a two week period. One is not allowed to make an appointment any further ahead so you are required to attend the surgery on a Friday at 12 noon to queue sothat you can book for three weeks ahead! I will also mention that the A27 West of Park Gate at peak times is a so congested that a journey which used to take 25 minutes into Southampton now takes 45 minutes plus on a good day. Recently coming home from Southampton it took 35 minutes to get from Windhover roundabout to my home in Sarisbury, this at 16.50 on a Monday, with good weather, and no incidents on the M27. This all before completion of all the new construction taking place on this corridor

SO31


Object

This preposterous idea for 800 new houses to the Warsash/Sarisbury/locks Heath areas. when it is impossible to get a doctor's appointment and roads are gridlocked and schools are under funded and are at breaking point we are currently in need of more important issues that need attention in this area and one is n ot making fat cat develops more profits and freeing up land because of government pressure .

SO31 7BP


Object

It was with dismay I listened to the comments from Sean Woodward, leader of Fareham Borough Council (FBC), after the news report from South Today (3rd Nov 2017), regarding the 'protest march' of local residents to the Western Wards housing plans in the Draft Local Development Scheme (LDS), in particular to the significant number of houses intended for the Warsash area. His implied suggestion that developers' financial contributions will 'solve' the inevitable serious traffic, school & NHS issues that will follow such a large number of new houses, simply underlined his, and therefore as FBC leader, the council's, deeply worrying lack of appreciation that allowing these current plans to progress, will forever devalue the quality of life for the hundreds of people who now live or may wish to live, in this area. He & all of FBC should remember they are paid from the public purse & even with pressures from HM Government e.g. the Planning Inspector, they should all listen to the public. The legacy of this LDS will forever mark the lives of people in this area. Without doubt the almost 1200 total new homes planned in this general area (West from Fareham), will create daily traffic congestion, delays & pollution problems that no amount of developer cash can solve, because whilst changes to J8 & J9 of the M27 may be possible, the built-up nature of many roads leading toward the A27 & M27 cannot be improved. In addition, schools, NHS services, green spaces, wildlife, leisure facilities, shopping & everyday simple living will become more congested, delayed, polluted and less attractive month-on-month as new houses become occupied. Look at the difficulties faced already by residents in Hamble & Gosport, their daily lives forever blighted by too many people coming from too many houses. I strongly urge all at FBC to listen to the people, review the LDS, and as a logical possible solution, introduce more houses into the Welborne development, rather than forever ruin the lives of many throughout the borough which seems, at least in part, to satisfy short-term pressure from Westminster, but will forever blight many lives long after the decision makers have retired.

SO31


Object

The local GP surgeries and schools are already full. How will they cope with the increase in population resulting from the proposed development of this area. Have the planners taken into account the large developments along the A27 from Bursledon Bridge to the Windover roundabout and the increase in traffic this will generate. The proposed development of HA1 will add to traffic congestion in this area.

SO31


Object

An extra 800 properties in this area equates approximately to a population increase by 25%. This is absurd as the current infrastructure can't cope already roads, motorways, and not forgetting doctors and dentist appointments all result in lengthy waiting times. Primary schools are oversubscribed as is Brookfield and the indication by Sean Woodward that children may have to travel further afield disgusts me. I would also like a public air quality reading taken for Warsash and Locks Heath in its current state and then add on forecasted pollution. Without all of the trees to clean the air and extra vehicles and boilers running, I am guessing it may be unacceptable. Plus the 800 properties doesn't really equate to 1600 vehicles it will be more given children grow up and wish to drive and many prospective purchaser's may already have teenager drivers. So it will be more like 2000+ And as you allow builders like Taylor Wimpey to ignore your parking plans a four bed property will have two parking spaces when it should have three according to your document located here https://www.fareham.gov.uk/pdf/planning/parkstd09.pdf

SO31


Comment

The peninsula geography of this area combined with existing over development and subsequent saturation of traffic mean that it makes no sense to add further housing and traffic to this area. I specifically refer to the PUSH Spatial Position document points 3.34, 3.35, 3.43, 4.2, 4.13 and ask for this site to be taken out of scope. The scope for making road improvements to assist traffic flow are extremely limited and we are already virtual prisoners in our own homes when an incident occurs at any point along the A27 and/or M27 between Junctions 7 and 10/11. Lots of traffic diverts from Fareham/ Gosport areas through Titchfield and then through Warsash. The impact of more traffic on physical and mental health coupled with loss of natural green spaces to walk through will actually make the area less attractive to live or work. The Newlands Farm site or areas closer to the motorway and public transport should be developed as they are not on a peninsula with water to the south and west.

Object

See comments already registered for this site proposal.

SO31


Object

Road, Schools, Dentists and Doctors are already stretched. It is simply not logical to build more and more houses in this small and compact area. A nature reserve or wildlife refuge would be more appropriate.

SO31


Object

Best summed up as Draft, should be titled spelt without the r= daft planning The change of land from green field site to possible brown field because 1. No infrastructure a. Doctors b. School c. Traffic But mainly because this is green field, where crops have grown for years and years, children played, but most of all because of Warsash's heritage , once lost, it will never be there for our children and their children

SO31


Object

 

Anonymous submission


Object

I realise some of my objections are probably being foisted on you by central government however I think you should represent us against clearly ridiculous central dictates. In the introduction of the plan you point out that Fareham Borough has 50% countryside, 50% urban, hence an associated large population in a small borough. Winchester has a ridiculously small urban % land use and yet only has to increase its housing by a similar proportion to Fareham. Hence your proposals in Fareham use up a significant % of the available countryside, as compared with Winchester Borough. Presumably Portsmouth or Tower Hamlets are even worse off. However, Winchester has already dumped on Fareham by expanding their housing significantly but in a tiny corner of their huge area - Whiteley. Whiteley keeps all the middle class and poor housing well away from Winchester city, puts all the infrastructure strain on Fareham. Extra traffic on M27, extra kids in Brookfield & other Fareham Upper schools, and Whiteley shopping centre utterly destroying the character of Fareham Town Centre partially because they have free car parking and Fareham doesn't. Against this background you are now proposing using some of the remaining green fields in Locks Heath to build 600 more new houses. Brookfield is already one of the biggest secondary schools in the country. So big that they are unable to provide lockers which forces children to carry books to and from school for 5yrs. There is good medical evidence that this is damaging to children. There is no decent 6th form college anywhere near. Most kids in the area spend 2hrs a travelling to and from 6th form college. Which brings me neatly to traffic. Despite all of the additional houses in Locks Heath, Warsash, Park Gate etc in the last 15yrs there has been no increase at all in public transport provision, road resilience or capacity. The latest large development in the area is not yet finished and the only infrastructure I can see the developers being committed to is a bike lane. That will really help the area to cope with another 600 families. Of note, this is only the second time I have ever written to the council. I work in the NHS which is being hugely under resourced, is starting to fail patients and as a place to work is worsening by the day. Please don't make our commute worse, our schools more crammed and concrete a few more of our fields. If new housing is needed on the South Coast then use brown field sites until gone and then tell Winchester Borough to fill 50% of their precious countryside. That should provide enough space for housing for the next 200yrs. Why the hell should I and my kids have to get into a car to drive to see a field?

SO31


Object

This site will produce more traffic in an area that is already heavily congested at peak travelling times.

SO31


Object

There have been far too many developments going up in the Warsash and Locks Heath areas including the new Strawberry Fields development. We were told that if Welborne went ahead there would not be any further developments in the area, this has not been the case. There is not the infrastructure in the area. The doctors surgery cannot currently cope and I cannot get them to answer the phone let alone book an appointment! The roads around junction 9 are totally blocked, always at a standstill, how can this be justified with no new school, doctors surgery or total re-design of the roads, it is a joke! The countryside in the area is being destroyed and can never be replaced. Try looking at other sites where there is more room on the roads and where there will be less damage to the wildlife, you are destroying our community.

SO31


Object

I would like to formally object to the context of the recent Draft Fareham Local Plan 2036 and specifically (HA1), which puts forward a 700+ housing development to the North and South of Greenaway Lane. I think it is unreasonable and unfair to expect Warsash to take such a vast number of properties that together with the 100 homes proposed at Warsash Maritime, increase the village population by up to a third. The Councils process for selecting Greenfield sites for development had as part of its criteria, adequate local infrastructure and highways provision. Warsash is struggling to cope in both these areas and it is difficult to understand why these current proposals would meet the criteria to be considered. The village of Warsash does not have the infrastructure to cope with this level of proposed development, Warsash, Locks Heath, Park Gate is already congested at peak periods. The Strawberry fields and Cold East developments have already added to this congestion and the further addition of up to 800 homes will significantly worsen an already demanding situation. The road network is at a gridlock during peak hours and since the new Strawberry Fields, Hunts Pond and Coldeast developments it has doubled the time for people to get to work. Improvements on major roads and motorways will try and ease congestion but this would not be satisfactory, as residents will struggle to get to these major roads. Roads are stretched to their limit and Brooke Lane, Barnes Lane and Greenaway Lane are roads not built for this volume of traffic.There are no options to improve these roads only minor changes to the A27 and its junctions. The local doctor's surgeries are already stretched to breaking point. Further potential 2,500 new patients will only increase the significant pressure that GPs are under. Whilst I know FBC is not responsible for Doctors surgery provision, it must be within a wider planning remit or general duty of care on developments of this scale to ensure adequate requirements would be provided. School places are oversubscribed, with the 4 local primary schools full up and local residents unable to get places despite living within catchment areas are travelling further afield to Whiteley and Fareham. Adding to an increased burden to the traffic and roads. Warsash is a rural location home to precious wildlife such as badgers, bats,owls, foxes and deer. The greenfield land proposed as the area for development also provides a defined strategic gap from neighbouring villages. Residents have the right to breathe clean air, have facilities, space and sufficient infrastructure. Whilst I understand that national housing shortages has led to significant Government pressure for all councils to find appropriate sites, we are in danger of sacrificing the quality of life for many existing and future residents who benefit from the limited green and open spaces still left in otherwise densely populated areas. This area is designated countryside and under FBCs development policies should be maintained as a strategic break, as defined by DUSBs (Defined Urban Settlement Boundaries). This application is outside of Fareham's current plan and these Greenfield site locations within Warsash are not suitable for development on such a large scale. The area specified has significant wildlife occupation and this development would lead to the destruction of this wildlife and a significant impact on residents. I submit these comments in the hope that the council will review the current draft Fareham Plan and reconsider the impact that the proposed scale of increase in houses will put on local roads, schools and medical provision. If houses are to be build in Warsash please please reduce the sheer volume and current proposals.

SO31


Object

Planning and air quality We all know that there is nationwide shortage of housing but it seems up and down the country that councils have been given the task to meet a quota in order to tick the box that they have done their bit towards meeting government targets. The problem is that all too often the herd of elephants in the room are the lack of joined up thinking, the lack of infrastructure, roads, doctors, schools etc. In the light of this it is difficult to be positive about the idea of any large scale building in our local area. There has been little evidence of any extra services or infrastructure improvements in any of the building developments that have taken place in the last few years from Burlsedon, all the way through to Park Gate, Locks Heath, Sarisbury and Warsash. On a recent trip back from Bursledon, I realised that was no real green space until the trees around the Locks Heath Centre, it seemed that every green space had been filled with new housing developments. Add to that all the small developments shoe-horned in to peoples back gardens it was all very depressing. Enough is enough now, we need to keep some open spaces for so many reasons. Warsash offers a sanctuary to locals but to many others beyond its borders, who want to enjoy the lovely walks along the coast along its lovely common, woods and lanes. Beyond this the South is already creaking at the seams, it becomes more and more built up, the roads can't cope, because the South is where work is more available! Meanwhile the poor old North play second fiddle. It is down to our Government to encourage companies to invest in the North to increase job opportunities but it does not stop there. We are rightly concerned about the strain on our local services and infrastructure but go to the Midlands, go the North for example and you will see a much worse picture in many areas. Broadband is a joke, poor or no mobile phone signal, limited dual carriageway, nominal public transport. Doctors are advertised for but posts are not filled because no-one wants to work in an area with such poor services. Back to our local area then. As has become apparent, Fareham Borough Council are powerless to do anything about infrastructure issues, as councillors point out, issues around schools are down to Hampshire C.C., while Government cuts to council budgets impact public transport and other local services. The more housing built, the more cars and the worse air pollution will be. Fareham is the most car dependent town in the UK. Portsmouth and Southampton rank high in the worst cities in the UK for poor air quality. The Western Wards is smack in the middle and pollution does not stay outside of the bubble! At the recent CAT meeting in Warsash, not once did the planning officer mention concerns about air quality and health when he talked about criteria for planning proposals. Having read a number of reports and articles over the years on air quality including: Defra's Air Quality Improvement Draft Plan 2015, local council air quality improvement plans, as well as scientific studies into the effects of poor air quality, they all agree that road traffic is the dominant source of air pollution, particularly bad being articulated HGVS and diesel cars. Science is showing a link between air pollution and impaired children's lung function, fumes and particles are a cause of lung damage. Research is now emerging which suggests that the impact of air pollution go beyond asthma and other respiratory disease as well as heart attacks and strokes, lung and bladder cancers and neurological degeneration. Defra say that: "A cleaner, healthier environment benefits people and the economy. Clean air is vital for people's health and the environment, essential for making sure our cities are welcoming places for people to live and work now and in the future, and to our prosperity. Our ambition is to make the UK a country with some of the best air quality in the world". "Transport is a key part of almost everything we do, as individuals or businesses, and its impacts are much wider than air quality. As such it is essential we take an integrated approach. By the careful choice of measures, recognising the economic impact and value, we can delivery much broader benefits alongside air quality including reducing CO2 emissions and congestion and improve productivity". It was interesting to read the attached leaflet on Air Quality produced by Fareham Borough Council (see extracts below): http://www.fareham.gov.uk/pdf/licencing_and_inspections/Airqualityleaflet.pdf "It's a problem air pollution could be contributing to as many as 50,000 deaths per year in the UK. If you shared this health impact out across the whole population it would mean that poor air quality would be shortening everyone's life by about 7 months (air quality: A follow up report-Environmental Audit Committee 2011)" "It's affecting our health, particularly that of our children. Nowadays the main cause of poor air quality is road traffic fumes; the signs of poor air quality are less obvious and its effects on health are more subtle. Instead of dozens of people suddenly falling ill with respiratory or heart failure on certain 'bad air' days, poor air quality now affects hundreds of people all year round…" "People don't generally have much choice about whether or not they breathe dirty air. Those living near major roads are most affected by pollution; but even people living where the air is cleaner are exposed to pollution when using the roads, whether they drive a car or get around by cycling or walking". All councils have local transport plan in one shape or form to deliver improvements in air quality to help mitigate the impacts of traffic. All talk about a shift towards public transport, greening up buses, walking and cycling, promoting cleaner vehicle tech, car clubs, park and rides, some propose cheaper public transport. Apparently in Fareham Borough, there are plans to enhance road networks which may help, but it is the sheer volume of traffic that is the main issue. Traffic congestion is already a problem in the area, more housing will only exacerbate that issue. (It is nothing to see 3-4 cars in each household these days.) Transport plans become little more than paper exercise if there is not the money to implement them effectively. Public transport is highlighted as one of the answers to cutting down car use. While I am aware that Fareham B.C. are working on greening up buses, there is little evidence of bus routes being increased in fact far from it. Over the twelve years that I have lived in the area, I have experienced first-hand a number of cuts in bus services. When writing letters to Fareham and Hampshire Councils the response is that due to Government cuts to council budgets they have been forced to withdraw bus subsidy funding, therefore more bus routes are axed or reduced. Of course we all know that evening bus travel is an absolute joke. What is needed is serious investment in public transport but without ultimately Government funding this looks unlikely to happen. When investment happens it can make a significant difference e.g. in some areas of the country commuter shuttle buses are common, meaning that cars can be left at home and commuters can hop on a bus close to their home, easily getting to their local railway station (that would be amazing in the Western Wards, but unfortunately pigs can't fly). Infrastructure and land use planning – air quality New planning developments need to be sensitively planned to ensure that they do not add to, or cause, significant air quality issues. According to The National Planning Policy Framework 2012, air quality should be considered early in any development so that mitigation measures can be developed where necessary. There was absolutely no mention of concerns about air quality from the planning officer at the CAT meeting at the Victory Hall. He seemed more concerned in emphasizing the importance of whether the plans would be financially viable for the property development companies (i.e. how much profit will they make). The National Planning Policy Framework, provides a Framework within which local people and their accountable councils produce their own distinctive local and neighbourhood plans which reflect the needs and priorities of their communities. Air quality considerations are firmly embedded within national policy which includes strong protections to safeguard people from unacceptable risks from air pollution. The Framework is clear that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by preventing both new and existing development from contributing to or being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by, unacceptable levels of air pollution. New development should be appropriate for its location, taking proper account of the effects of pollution on people's health. The Framework also includes policies on promoting sustainable transport, including priority to pedestrians, cyclists and have access to high quality public transport facilities. Although my contribution may be somewhat long winded, my main point is that I am against any large scale building in the Western Wards area, particularly the most substantial proposal of 700 dwellings on Greenaway Lane. I feel this way because: 1) I am extremely concerned about the impact this will have on increased road traffic. 2) That increased road traffic will increase congestion, and subsequently increase air pollution. 3) That little concern has been placed on these issues 4) That infrastructure issues, and services are already inadequate and will not be sufficiently increased to meet the demand 5) That up and down the country the same issues apply. The Government needs to adapt an holistic approach, look at providing jobs across the country, not just in the South. The government

SO31


Comment

"The plan to build 800 new houses in Warsash is not good idea. A sensible urban would determine Warsash is not able to sustain this volume of housing. The population of Warsash will increase 30%. Site HA1 Greenaway Lane is Greenfield Agricultural Land. setting aside water , gas electricity and drainage the infrastructure of roads, schools and medical surgeries are at or near maximum today. Access to A27- The present traffic volume from warsash to the A27 via Barnes Lane and Brook Lane is intolerable enough and slows access to the A27. Then add the traffic flow on the A27 creating more delay when coming from Warsash. A survey of 24.11.2017 quoted drivers loose up to 6 min per mile due to traffic jams"",. There fore the 3 miles from warsash to access the A27 adds a min of 18 mins delay plus actual travel time at 30mph equivalent to 6 min making a total of 24 min to drive 3 miles. And what is the wasted fuel doing to the environment? Hampshire CC highways have not objected to the plan. Seems a lack of skills to properly assess this matter. Historically they staffed this very well. But digital tech in planning and design(modeling) conducted from a desk remote from the site gives a false picture of the true conditions. Those who advocate this plan should experience living in Warsash today. The risk Assessment will conclude the location of Warsash and road system is not sustainable and will decide the FBC draft local plan for Warsash cannot be approved. Location- The Location and geography of Warsash must be understood. The boundary and geography of Warsash must be understood, The boundary to the west is River Hamble and to the south Southampton Water. Compare this to an inland site village or town, which is surrounding by 360 degrees of land. Physically has only 90 degrees of available land. The balance is 270 degrees of water. Consequently access to Warsash is by two roads only Brook Lane north and Warsash road east. The Draft proposal is not sustainable and experience shows the traffic in Warsash has got worse over the last 10yo 20 yrs. Conclusion- the geography of warsash is physically constrained and limited with two roads The majority of the proposal land is dedicated green field. Schools And Medical centres are near max A population increase of 30% Roads blocked and access to A27 and M3 totally affected The plan for 800 new houses is totally wrong for this small village Please listen to the residents of Warsash who know the facts, I am against FBC draft plan for 800 houses in Warsash."

SO31


Object

I can accept the need for more housing in Fareham but this number of houses in a small "village" is out of balance. Houses here are never the affordable housing mentioned by the media etc. Building this many houses would put too much pressure on already overloaded facilities/services. 1) Roads. The only way out of the village is North or East ( Water to West and South) . The only improvement suggested by Councillor Woodward was traffic lights at the top of Barnes Lane. These will not improve the flow of the already congested A27. I accept there is little than ca be done to dramatically improve the roads so thing the only option is to stop increasing the load. None of the employment proposals are close to this site so if 800 houses were built there will be 800+ more people trying to get to their work all of who will have to cross/join the A27 or exit via Tichfield/Stubbington to get on the new link. 2) Schools- Hopefully more could be built before the already crowded local ones are swamped or children have to travel out of area. 3) Doctors. I heard no plans for new surgeries but the waiting time for routine appointments is already over three weeks. Hopefully people who move into the new housing will be young and fit . 4) Utilities. This was not raised at the meeting I attended but will Gas/Water/Phone=Broadband/drains and Sewers be able to cope. Given the patchwork development ( several firms building on the one area) I am also concerned that the green corridor mentioned may not materialise . We already see deer flushed from local wild land onto roads as more green s lost this is only going to happen more.

SO31


Object

There is insufficient infrastructure in existence or planned to support this development. Road capacity is insufficient. There is no extra parking space available close to local shops. Medical facilities are inadequate to support a community of this size. Schools within walking (or reasonable driving) distance could not absorb the likely increase in children. Moreover, should this development go ahead, there will be no available land on which to provide these extra facilities. Whilst the building on green space is of concern, I am aware that I have no access to this land at the present moment anyway, so am scarcely being deprived of anything. However, if any development is to take place, it should include doctors' surgeries, schools, off-road visitor parking and some green space.

SO31


Object

Dear Sirs, HAVE YOUR SAY Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this matter. (HAI) l. Road traffic will continue to increase leading to more pollution, road hazards and accidents. 2. Further over loading of schools, playing fields and medical provision. 3. Infrastructure overload: a) storm damage, particularly global waring resulting in increased rainfall runoff. b) Foul drainage & treatment must be increased - just tipping it into the river (as is already done) is not an option. c) Water resources need boosting. d) Cables, pipes and other services will have to be considered along with road improvement. In mitigation, the building of high-rise flats instead of scattering the dwellings all over the fields would allow continued provision of playing fields and recreation facilities. _Parking underneath the flats will also save space. Most of the above problems would still apply, however and this once beautiful area risks to continue to be seriously degraded.

SO31


Object

I object the development on North and South of Greenaway Lane, Warsash. I wholeheartedly believe that if approved the development would have a detrimental effect to the village community, to the wildlife and to air quality. In the past few areas there already have been significant developments in the area. These are : Strawberry fields, Coldeast, Hunts pond road. This has contributed to the traffic problems. Traffic in the area is already extremely bad. In some days it takes 1.5 hours on 30 minute journey and on most days this journey takes at least an hour. The roads in the area were designed to cope only with small amount of village traffic. There is no scope to widen those roads. So the extra cars that the development would bring would worsen the situation drastically. Doctors, schools and emergency services are already stretched. Schools are full and some are oversubscribed. Most children walk or cycle to Brookfield school and there have already been some collisions with children and cars. Bringing more cars to the area would greatly increase the risk of these accidents. Residents already wait unacceptable amount of time for doctor appointments (in some cases over a month). NHS are under pressure to save money so there is no way that extra doctors will be available. More resident will mean that more doctors time is required and some people who really need to see a doctor will suffer (elderly, vulnerable adults, children). With the amount of traffic that will be on roads emergency services will struggle to get to the area. There is very little police presence in the area and Police are under pressure to save money. There won't be any extra police presence in the area. So just by nature of the fact that there will be a lot more people the crime will increase. The quality of air will worsen. Residents have a right to breathe fresh air , live in a safe community, have facilities and green space around them, have assurance that in need the emergency they will be able to get to them. I fear for the future and Health and Safety of current residents of Warsash. What about the wildlife that made their home in the area of proposed development? There are dears, badgers, foxes, rare birds as well as vast quantity of other animals and insects. Where will they go? Any human being has a responsibility to care about the planet and the society where they live. Fareham Borough Council has a corporate social responsibility to residents of its borough to care about them, respect their wishes and interests, give the community right to live in safe, sustainable area, children the right to learn and walk to school and to feel safe. It also has a responsibility to the wildlife and nature to give them right to flourish!!!

SO31


Object

I wish to object to this development on the grounds that an additional 700 houses will increase the pressure on local facilities i.e roads, surgeries and schools which are already stretched to breaking point. I have lived and worked in the area for over 30 years and note with dismay the volume of traffic leading up to the A27 from local roads and the length of time it now takes to get a GP appointment (several weeks rather than several days). I believe this ceaseless drive for additional housing without consideration of the infrastructure needed to support it or the impact on local residents is irresponsible. Warsash used to be a pleasant enclave surrounded by green fields and is rapidly becoming a concrete jungle. I believe it is time for space for this volume of development to be found elsewhere. Warsash has already accepted more than its fair share and an additional 700 houses,1400 cars on the roads and 1400 children for the local schools is just too much.

Object

Dear Sirs I wish to object to this development on the grounds that an additional 800 houses will increase the pressure on local facilities i.e roads, surgeries and schools which are already stretched to breaking point. I have lived and worked in the area for over 30 years and note with dismay the volume of traffic leading up to the A27 from local roads and the length of time it now takes to get a GP appointment (several weeks rather than several days). I believe this ceaseless drive for additional housing without consideration of the infrastructure needed to support it or the impact on local residents is irresponsible. Warsash used to be a pleasant enclave surrounded by green fields and is rapidly becoming a concrete jungle. I believe it is time for space for this volume of development to be found elsewhere. Warsash has already accepted more than its fair share and an additional 800 houses,1600 cars on the roads and 1600 children for the local schools is just too much.

SO31


Object

OK add more housing because of the need for housing , but what about schools, doctors surgery spaces, if you add thousand more houses what about more schools & doctors facilities road structure ? what about the environment? why is the housing proposed in Funtley near a river where it is Flood plane ? it floods down Funtley is you need to know and insurance for flood protection expensive.

PO16


Object

Roads and schools in this area are already at capacity with insufficient plans for improvement. This planned development will have a serious detrimental effect on the local infrastructure.

SO31


Object

We wish to strongly object to the development referred to above. Whilst we appreciate that all councils are under pressure to approve an element of new housing in their areas, the size and intensity of this proposal when all the other developments in the area are taken into account is concerning and in our opinion too large and completely out of proportion to the locality. If this proposal goes ahead it will clearly have a dramatic impact on traffic, and there will be no scope to significantly improve the road network to cope with what has to be a dramatic increase in vehicle movement. There will also be a significant impact on local services such as schools and doctors, given there are no apparnet plans to improve existing services or build new ones. The Council has to look to the future but has a duty of care to its existing residents. This proposal is not in the interests of us, the residents. Clearly The Council will benefit from raising addition tax but that will not benefit existing residents. We hope The Council will act responsibly and reject this proposal, thus taking its duty of care to its residents seriously.

SO31


Object

Off course we do need some affordable housing in this area, but the number of housing in this area is far to much. Mainly the increase of traffic on already over crowded roads, also the pressure on schools and Doctor's surgeries.

SO31


Object

I wish to object to the proposed over development of Warsash, please consider the impact that it will have on those who live in and visit the area. Over the past 15 years there have been numerous housing developments which has already caused a massive increase in traffic congestion and stress on local services. For those who have to commute to work the roads to the A27 are currently gridlocked, leaving for work early is an option for some, but not for the many who have school age children, another large development in the area will make the bad road situation even worse. Schools and GP services are already over stretched, where will these children be found a school place? It takes approximately 3 weeks to get an appointment to see a GP, what will happen with all these new residents. Please look carefully at the impact of this proposed development and consider a different option.

SO31


Object

This is ridiculous and poorly thought out. There is no infrastructure to support these houses, roads are already gridlocked at rush hour, the doctors surgeries in the area cannot cope or recruit, the schools are full and there are no dentists taking NHS patients. This whole plan is suspicious - either the council is trying to inflate its income through more council tax revenue or someone on the council is corrupt - there is no logical reason why this plan would have been devised. The voters in your area are speaking - nearly 1,500 have signed a petition so far and they will have long memories. You are there to represent the people that live in the area and their democratic voice - not the builders and their massive profits who don't even live here.

Anonymous submission


Object

Not enough schools/ doctors to take the amount of people who will live in this development.

SO31


Object

Are you having a laugh! The roads are busy enough as it is, any more houses means more cars, the roads are not suitable for more traffic, also wildlife will suffer, if you go ahead with this we will be leaving this area, please understand this is not a good plan, we have enough houses in Warsash and surrounding area already, you are going to ruin this lovely place, please have a rethink because this is not a good idea and we as a family strongly object to this.

SO31


Object

The decision to build 800+ new homes in the Warsash area is unreasonable, unsustainable and unfair. It will increase the village population by almost 1/3 without making any provision for adequate local infrastructure or highways provision. The local roads, medical facilities, schools are not coping with the population growth at its current rate, an additional 800+ houses will be unsustainable and create a truly unpleasant place to live. 800+homes in Warsash will introduce 1000 – 150-0 extra vehicles to an already crowded area. 1000+extra vehicles travelling along Barnes and Brook Lanes at peak times to access the A27 and J8/9 of M27 cannot be considered a safe or reasonable proposal. There doesn't seem to have been any consideration of the effect the additional volume of traffic will have on the local area. This is not a proposal that meets local needs. Reading through the Fareham Today plan for 2036 I can find no mention of the impact of traffic on the local area or any proposals to mitigate this impact. Fareham borough Council's own brochure states that the population in 2036 will consist of 31% over 65s and yet there is no concrete plans to introduce additional doctors surgeries with the 800+ extra houses. It is already extremely difficult to arrange an appointment with a doctor, this proposal will only compound the problem. This proposal will result in a crowded, unpleasant, unsafe place to live that does nothing to meet local needs.

SO31


Object

Our lovely village is already suffering from high levels of traffic, our local schools and Doctors surgeries are struggling with the huge amount of people trying to use the facilities. Brook lane and the surrounding roads are already congested during rush hour due to the volume of traffic trying to exit Warsash and other local areas, by adding another 700 houses to the area this can, and will, only get worse.

SO31


Object

"The proposal to build 700 new dwellings will push the local infrastructure beyond breaking point. Due to existing dwellings, it is impossible to amend the access roads to and from Warsash, which are already totally gridlocked for hours every morning and evening; an additional 1600 vehicles will make any travel during the traditional ""rush hours"" impossible. Coupled with this, the level of noise pollution and the risk of road traffic incidents will increase significantly, resulting in Warsash becoming an increasingly dangerous place for our children to grow up. It is already incredibly difficult to access local GP and medical services and the proposed increase in dwellings will result in thousands of new residents, which will in turn result in a poorer health service for all residents. Removing the last green space that separates Warsash from surrounding villages will ultimately result in the loss of Warsash's identity as a village in its own right. This development proposal endangers the health and way of life for everyone residing in Warsash and must not be allowed to progress."

SO31


Object

Without an increase in roads and parking facilities there will be a lot of problems. If you travel around the area most roads have many cars parked on them which causes problems when driving down them which can be dangerous.

SO31


Object

I would like to ask the council to reject the proposal to build 700 dwellings on this part of Warsash. This land is a valuable green oasis and to build over it would be a significant loss to the quality of the environment in this area. The road junctions are already over capacity for many hours of the day and to add 700 more homes would be madness. The pollution levels of queuing traffic must already be quite high and adding more vehicle movements would only make it worse. Please look again at sites that have better access to road links that are currently being upgraded or in the road building programme.

SO31


Comment

Traffic, road junctions With an additional 800 properties in Warsash (and no additional work) then, in order to mitigate the inevitable peak time traffic chaos and delays, major redesigns of road junctions will be necessary. It will be pointless and a waste of public money to tinker with junctions. For meaningful redesigns of junctions to ensure traffic flows then major improvements will be essential at Sarisbury Green, Park Gate and Titchfield (in order to serve the proposed Daedalus commercial powerhouse). This will only be achieved satisfactorily in these areas by Compulsory Purchase of properties/land. It will be shameful of the Council, and a dereliction of duty, to proceed with the 800 properties with no serious regard to junctions -- pussy footing of junctions will not be the answer. Is the Council prepared to go ahead with Compulsory Purchasing? Water The current modus operandi of local developers in Warsash is to demolish one dwelling and then replace it with two, three or four; therefore even now the population of Warsash is growing by stealth. Locally this will be happening elsewhere. Warsash/Park Gate has recently had the large Strawberry Fields development. Looking further afield there is a very large new development at Boorley Green, and there will be many others around Eastleigh. At Bursledon, on both sides of the Hamble hundreds of houses and flats are being built. All these new dwellings plus the proposed 800 for Warsash amount to thousands (not just hundreds) of new local properties. Their occupants will equate to tens of thousands of people. Each and every occupant will require water for drinking, bathing/showering, washing up, washing clothes, other domestic purposes and flushing toilets. Tens of millions of litres of extra water will be required (possibly hundreds of millions). To meet this demand are there vast local untapped aquifers available? Will there be even further abstraction from the River Itchen? When the Itchen is reduced to a trickle will there be a desalination plant at the Hamble? Can existing water treatment plants cope with the new demand? Sewage Every new occupant will produce waste water and sewage -- 100% guaranteed; collectively tens of millions of litres. Can existing sewage plants cope? And will the millions of litres of sewage plant effluent be discharged into the Hamble where we may require a desalination plant for our drinking water? PS Incidentally, will Welborne require any water or sewerage facilities?

SO31


Object

The proposal to allow dense development of this land on this land (700 dwellings) is disproportionate, given the already substantial recent/current development of the land to the west of Lockswood Road/south of Peters Road, in comparison with 600 new homes proposed in central Fareham. Development closer to Fareham, rather than on the periphery of the Borough, would encourage the regeneration of the Town Centre and make good use of its existing excellent rail, bus and road links. Neighbouring Local Authorities, namely Eastleigh and Winchester, are also choosing to build at their extremities thus increasing the pressure on our local roads and other facilities. Planning Applications have been submitted in respect of this land before the outcome of this consultation is known and the Plan adopted. Any permissions granted, or allowed on Appeal, would make a mockery of the current process.

SO31


Object

I have been a Warsash resident for all of my 73 years and strongly oppose this plan. It has been ill thought out because the area does not have the infrastructure to support this volume of housing. It will require additional/bigger schools, doctors surgeries, dentists, etc. The roads are already over congested and will require major reconstruction to cope with increased traffic flow. Warsash is a place you have to 'go to' and not 'go through'. It is already a nightmare to get to the M27 at peak periods and I dread to think what it would be like with an additional 800 homes.

SO31


Object

This is an ill thought out land grab to try to compensate for the fact the local council planners have been unable to get their act together with the planned development at Welbourne. The local infrastructure will not support the additional homes on top of the thousands of homes recently built off of locks road and Brook lane, not to mention the new homes off Swanwick lane and the A27 PLUS the hundreds of homes already under construction on hamble lane. The A27 is already over capacity, especially with the constant accidents on the M27. The windover roundabout is a nightmare for local commuters. Have the council considered the additional traffic from all of the already consented sites within a 2 mile radius? It is not reasonable to attempt to build all of the council's required homes within such a small radius. There are plenty of alternatives within the wider area given that the immediate local area has already accommodated so many new homes already. Having moved from a new build development in hedge end, I would say that the estimate of 2 cars per home is a gross underestimate, with the addition of commercial vans and visitors parking (which is never accounted for), the number of associated cars for ALL of the developments in the area has not been properly accounted for.

SO31


Object

A major issue is the traffic in the area, vehicles from Gosport uses this route as a rat run to the A27 as well as Titchfield and other access points to the A27. The development in Gosport and lee-on-Solent, will put more traffic through this area. The proposed building in the Warsash area will also have a dramatic affect on the roads in the area. All of the access points to the A27 are greatly queued up at peak travel times and has progressively deteriorated. This of course is also affected by any road issues on the M27 and has caused grid lock in this area. Any development on this scale in this area will cause unacceptable issues for residents and road users including quality of life and the increase in pollution. It is worth noting that the A32 a prime route for leaving Gosport has been highlighted as in the top 10 most dangerous roads in Great Britain, The Warsash area is also a prime route for leaving Gosport and with the proposed ring road for Stubbington, traffic will be moved from that pinch point to the roads that access the A27 between Titchfield and Warsash and along with the development at Lee-on solent the potential for greater traffic issues is inevitable. The infrastructure in the area is not able to deal with the current demands of the area in relation to education, future facilities for health requirements cannot be assured as it is not within the power of the planning local authorities.

SO31


Object

I have been a Warsash resident for a number of years and have 2 children. It takes my teenage kids on average 1 hour 20mins on the school bus each morning to get to school and six form college and over 90 mins to get home on the late bus (in rush hour). With a clear road this journey takes 25 mins. In the morning the traffic can queue all the way back to Brookfield School from the A27 already - before anymore development. I cycle to work in Hamble but if I was to drive it would take up to an hour to travel the 10km. Segensworth Roundabout (junct 7) is gridlocked, as is the Hamble roundabout (junction 8) - I see this every day. There has been so much development both in Fareham Borough and just over the border in Eastleigh borough (1000s of houses currently being built near junction 8 of M27) that the roads simply cannot take it. Building all these houses will gridlock the area and be bad for the environment and health (through pollution). In addition the local surgery (Brook Lane) is now full and the schools are at bursting point. The infrastructure on the peninsulas of Hamble, Warsash and Gosport simply cannot take any more houses. The politicians have been elected to protect our local interests and this will hugely reduce the quality of life and have a negative effect on climate, business and quality of life. These house building plans would cause irreversible damage and we cannot afford to give up the only green spaces left simply in pursuit of an arbitrary number of new houses proposed by a National Government who have failed to control the Nations population through gross negligence (both political parties). The Borough Council needs to stand up to National Government or risk destroying all that is good about our local area. If not they will have to live with their cowardice for the rest of their lives - and face the resulting backlash in the local polls.

SO31


Object

These proposals reflect an approach to development which can only be described as philistine. No prior consultation with the general public. No awareness of the current situation ie: living in Warsash. No appraisal of the present (inadequate) infrastructure. No understanding of the parking difficulties experienced in the village No awareness of the traffic congestion encountered trying to access the A27/M27 No understanding of the present school places situation. No awareness of the medical facilities currently available. No appreciation of the uniqueness of Greenaway Lane. Will we really allow greed to wreck a beautiful lane?

SO31


Object

We strongly object to the proposals outlined in the draft local plan in respect of the above site for the same reasons as those we provided for the recently submitted (and withdrawn) planning applications in respect of these sites, namely: 1) The road network is already too busy. Every weekday morning there are particular traffic hot-spots at Sarisbury Green and Park Gate (where Barnes Lane and Brook Lane, respectively, join the A27), two of the main routes out of Warsash, which would become even worse if there were the additional volume of traffic suggested by this scheme. This would obviously impair the quality of life for the individuals currently living in the village as well as those being housed in new developments. The roads have very limited scope for widening or improvement. This also means a huge amount of car-users' and bus-users' time is wasted, every day, sitting in traffic jams which could very easily be prevented. 2) A further traffic-related issue will be the additional noise and local pollution created by circa 1600 additional cars accelerating away from the access roads to Brook Lane and/or Lockswood Road on a daily basis. We have young children and are concerned about the dangers arising on the local roads from such an increase in traffic, particularly in light of no proposals or plans for road networks or road safety improvement. 3) The proposed entrance to one of the planned sites (ie the current entrance to Rosemary Nurseries on Brook Lane) is located on what has already been deemed to be a dangerous bend in previous planning applications resulting in the rejection of vehicular access on this road. The original owners of our property (the front of which directly faces the proposed access road on Brook Lane) had a planning application for driveway access from Brook Lane rejected on the basis that additional entry and egress was deemed unsafe (to quote: "use of the proposed access would be likely to cause undue interference with the safety and convenience of users of the adjoining highway"). Given that traffic has only increased over the 15 or so years since this application, we would question why access on the other side of the road for hundreds of vehicles would be deemed safe given Fareham Borough Council rejected access for 2 - 3 vehicles for one property on this same bend! 4) As parents of young children, we would be hugely concerned at even more traffic travelling along the road, particularly since a great deal of the motorists who currently use it seem incapable at driving at or below the 30 mph speed limit. Our children will be walking to Brookfield School (assuming the school can accommodate our in-catchment children) by the time they reach 11 years old. The increased pollution and road safety issues which would arise if the draft local plan is played out in full cause us great concern. 5) We reject claims made by developers that this plan is in a sustainable location. It represents the eradication of the last areas of greenbelt land within Warsash; giving this scheme the go-ahead will mean the end of Warsash as a village with its own distinct character and feel; it will merely become part of a wider conurbation with Park Gate and Locks Heath. 6) The area is steeped in nature (we have had water voles in our garden near the planned northern site) and additional urbanisation of the area will drive such wildlife from its current habitat. We would point out that the water vole is fully protected under Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and as such is a priority conservation species. All local planning clearly needs to take this and other wildlife habitat issues into consideration. 7) There is likely to be a hugely detrimental impact on the local water course. The brook in Brook Lane runs through our garden, and storm drainage from certain nearby properties flows into this. During rainy periods the brook is susceptible to rising to significant levels. A substantially greater water flow into this brook caused by further development would inevitably lead to a marked increase in the risk of flooding for several properties that similarly have the brook running through their gardens, in addition to impacting the wildlife which thrives around this brook (see point 6 above). 8) The existing local infrastructure cannot cope with what would essentially be an additional large village within Warsash. For example, recent intakes at Hook-with-Warsash Primary School and Locks Heath Infant School have been over-subscribed resulting in children in-catchment having to travel outside of their area to attend school. Without any proposal for local infrastructure including schools and healthcare services this plan should not be approved. 9) The draft local plan appears to conclude that alternative locations for additional housing are not forthcoming. We would urge the council to consider alternative brownfield sites within the Borough and take into account the significant amount of recent development already undertaken within the village and its environs (e.g. Strawberry Fields). We recognise that some development of the proposed sites is inevitable over time however we feel the proposition in the local plan is not viable. The proposed number of dwellings is not supportable. The local access roads cannot sustain this influx and the entrance points to the proposed sites do not offer a safe highway solution. Local infrastructure has not been considered in drafting this plan. Considerably more green space and reflection on the standards of living for existing and future residents should be given to areas such as this if Fareham Borough Council is to maintain its 2017 status in the 'Top Ten places in Britain to raise Children' as per a Nationwide poll.

SO31


Object

WARSASH Please see my objection to the following planning applications. HA1 - North and South of Greenaway Lane, Warsash - 700 dwellings My reasons for my objections to this development are as follows 1) As a regular commuter who has to drive on the M27 and M3 the Warsash area is already gridlocked from 7.00 AM and during peak hours. Since the new Strawberry Fields, Hunts Pond and Coldeast developments it has doubled the time for people to get onto the A27 and M27. Currently, residents are not able to actually join the major M27 due to the excessive local road congestion in less than 30 minutes! Local roads such as Brook Lane, Osborne Road, Warsash Road and Barnes Lane cannot be made wider, they were built to service the traffic and community of small villages and the resulting influx of 2,000+ cars in such a small square area will lead to more accidents and a totally unacceptable journey for anyone trying to leave Warsash in the morning or returning in the evening. We need the council to properly monitor local traffic flow. Warsash specifically is on a peninsula and the only roads in and out are Brook Lane and Warsash Road. Emergency vehicles are already unable to ensure safe response times - during rush hour it is likely they will not have space to get to their destination. The consequences could be fatal. 2) The local area is already present in trouble for very poor air quality due to the amount of rush hour traffic and pollution from ships in Southampton water. Warsash cannot cope with another 2,000 cars and there will be more cases of asthma, lung disease, and related illnesses. Doctors, schools, hospitals and emergency services are already stretched to breaking point. If the plans go ahead there will be hundreds of children needing school places which are not available. 3) Child safety: Children walking or cycling to Brookfield already face a perilous journey due to the amount of traffic on Brook Lane. The dangers will increase hugely and without question this will lead to a fatal road accident due to a further 4,000 cars driving thru the village over 24 hours. 4) Local Surgeries: With Brook Lane, Lockswood, Jubilee and Whiteley surgeries struggle to cope with the number of patients they have. They wait an unacceptable amount of time for routine appointments often over two weeks. Emergency appointments are becoming harder to book as there are not enough doctors or time. The very young, elderly and chronically ill are already vulnerable and bearing the brunt of this - add another 1,500 homes with 6,000 residences and these overstretched surgeries will be at crisis point. 5) Care Homes: There will be an increased need for care homes, for which there is just no space. Residents' health will be at risk and possibly their lives? Common sense needs to prevail rather than Fareham Borough Council trying to overdevelop a small village to gain building grants from developers. 6) Warsash is a place of outstanding natural beauty and home to precious wildlife such as badgers, bats, and deer. The Greenfield land proposed as the area for development also provides a defined strategic gap between neighboring villages. 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. Fareham borough council have a legal responsibility to look after the health and safety of people in Warsash and the Western Wards and I strongly urge the council to reconsider the proposed application due to the points I have raised above. I have historically supported a conservative council and MP however if the over the development of Warsash were to go ahead I will remove my personal support for the conservative party in future.

SO31


Object

The development of these sites on the scale proposed will seriously impact upon the area and its residents. There will be increased traffic along Brook Lane and Lockswood Road, which will have a detrimental effect during the morning rush hour when trying to access the A27 and M27. Furthermore there is a lack of infrastructure and facilities (schools, doctors surgeries etc) to support more housing on this scale. Finally, what about the impact on wildlife and habitats? A few green corridors won't suffice - shy creatures won't stick around to live cheek by jowl with humans and will in any case be frightened away during the construction process. This area is designated countryside I believe? It should remain so.

SO31


Object

Having already lost many of the green areas around the Warsash vicinity and with the amount of building that has already taken place without any possibility of adding to the local infrastructure and access, this appears to unnecessary development. This area already has the traffic congestion of a large city. Many of the current residence will tell you that it is already unfeasible to commute into Southampton or Portsmouth. There is a lack of public transport and it can take several hours to do 8 miles it Southampton/Portsmouth by car, causing a lot of unnecessary pollution. This is not within reasonable commuter distance of these cities. Both these cities have large areas of under-utilised brownfield sites. Turning suburbs into cities dependant on cars is not the way to solve a housing shortage.

SO31


Object

"We are shocked and in utter disbelief that Fareham Council could even consider that over 800 new houses be built in Warsash is a viable proposition on so many levels. This is on top of the existing huge development known as the Strawberry Fields off Peters Road currently being built. Warsash is currently a distinctive and attractive small village community with a strategic gap separating it from neighbouring Locks Heath. The development proposed in this draft plan will completely erode the individual identity of Warsash and seriously adversely affect the quality of life of its residents. Warsash as we know it will be wiped out. There is no associated infrastructure proposed for Warsash in the draft plan and local schools, doctors surgeries, dentists, etc are already full to bursting. It is preposterous to build this number of dwellings with no thought given to these matters. Fareham Council must be insane to think this isn't a massive problem. There is no possibility for the required new schools, surgeries etc to be built in Warsash so it follows that Warsash is not the right place to build this disproportionately huge number of dwellings. Our objections are as follows: 1. The proposed number of dwellings equates (on a conservative estimate) to potentially an additional 1,600 plus vehicles. This is based on the fact that most homes with more than one adult will have two cars. This number increases if there are driver aged dependents living at home with their own cars. All this additional traffic for Warsash will be spilling out onto Brook Lane at various points, some of it onto Lockswood Road which already has the Strawberry Fields traffic joining it. From Brook Lane and Lockswood Road the traffic will travel in one direction or another and end up on the A27. The A27 is already overloaded and busy at all times of the day and with practically stationary traffic at peak times. A lot of this additional traffic will join the M27. This motorway is also already overloaded and reduced to a crawl at peak times. The joining and exit slipways are like car parks at the busiest times. It is noted that work on widening the A27 is being carried out at various points but these works are simply moving pinch points and snarl ups to different places and not solving any problems of traffic overload. The additional cars (remember probably in the region of 1,600 plus) from the proposed developments at Warash are a traffic management disaster. Additional traffic equals additional pollution, poorer air quality, traffic noise, danger to cyclists and pedestrians and a high risk of additional accidents. Many children use all of the local roads to walk or cycle to Brookfield Community School and other local primary schools and nurserys. Greenaway Lane itself is very much a country lane widely used by the residents of Warsash for cycling and walking away from the traffic. This will be taken away from them under the draft plan proposal for the land to the north and south of the Lane. As a lane it is also very narrow and will be unable to cope with any increase in traffic brought about by these proposals. There are refuge strips in front of many properties which are widely used by traffic to give the lane extra width. These strips have disappeared in places as people have extended their gardens down to the road, allegedly with the permission of Fareham Borough Council. 2. The land is currently designated COUNTRYSIDE and should not be lost to development through change of use. Warsash and neighbouring Park Gate, Locks Heath and Titchfield Common are for some inexplicable reason taking the brunt of Fareham Borough Councils drive for additional dwellings. The development land proposed for Warsash is infill. Councillor Sean Woodward is allegedly on record as stating that no infill will take place once Welbourne is approved which it has been. A further 3,000 homes are needed in addition but the proposed draft development plan has nearly 50% of these to be in the Western Wards with 27% of them to be in Warsash on infill land that is currently designated countryside. This is wrong and unfair on the residents of Warsash and neighbouring areas such as Park Gate, Locks Heath, Sarisbury, and Titchfield Common. 3. Education. There are no school places either primary or secondary in Warsash and no space on which to build the required new schools. 800+ dwellings will produce 400+ children of school age (based on 0.5 children per dwelling). There are waiting lists at all the primary schools in the local area. Brookfield Secondary School already has portacabins on its school field. Whiteley is still waiting for its promised secondary school years down the line. This state of affairs is unacceptable. This new undesired influx of children into Warsash will create yet more traffic as they are bussed or driven to schools in outlying areas presuming places can be found for them there. 4. Doctors and Dentists. Warsash residents already have to wait up to a month for a doctor's appointment and there is no continuity of care as you rarely if ever see the same health professional twice. These further proposed residents will heap further misery on the existing residents. These services are already at saturation point. 5. The proposed draft plan development will bring a large ""estate"" to Warsash which will not be in keeping with the housing density or type of housing that currently exists in this semi-rural village. These type of ""estates"" with flats and affordable housing will not maintain the leafy, wide streets and roads of Warsash and will be mass produced housing on narrow streets, to cram as many dwellings in as possible, with inadequate parking as can be seen at the developments already taking place in the local area. This will bring about an irrevocable and highly damaging change to the character of the village of Warsash and the surrounding area. There will be no going back. Warsash should not be buried under concrete and inappropriate estate type building. The inclusion of a defined percentage of affordable housing is a potential issue. It is by no means inevitable but this housing can and statistically does bring with it various social problems which would be unwelcome. 6. Would the sewers of Warsash be able to cope with the level of housing being proposed? Is Southern Water looking at the big picture here? Do we face years of our roads being dug up to upgrade sewers and who will pay for this? The developers? The same goes for the other services. 7. The proposed development brings with it a high risk of flooding in Warsash. The huge tract of land this size of development will swallows has been naturally absorbing rainwater for years. Once covered in concrete where will this water go? Flooding in Greenaway Lane, Brook Lane and the village itself will become a huge problem. There are already areas that flood during heavy rainfall. 8. The huge tract of rural countryside,included for development in this draft plan, will bring the loss of natural habitat for numerous species currently making their home there. This includes badgers (PROTECTED, including the setts (burrows) they live in under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992), deer, barn owls (PROTECTED by law - including their nest sites), bats (all bat species, their breeding sites and nesting places are fully PROTECTED by law), slow worms (PROTECTED under the Wildlife and Countryside Act. It is illegal to kill or injure the species), grass snakes (also PROTECTED under the wildlife and Countryside Act. They cannot be harmed), Stag Beetles (also PROTECTED, listed on Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act), lizards (also PROTECTED under the Wildlife and Countryside Act and also PROTECTED under the Bern Convention.), other reptiles, spiders and numerous species of birds. How does Farnham Borough Council under this draft development plan propose to ensure that each and every individual one of these species which are PROTECTED UNDER LAW and currently live freely on these tracts of land in Warsash are not disturbed, injured, harmed or killed during construction? Having an environmental plan that blithely announces that land will be set aside for wildlife does not even begin to ensure their protection under law during construction and after as this environmental land will also be used by humans. . The Construction of dwellings on this land is UNLAWFUL as there in no way Fareham Council can guarantee that none of these species will be disturbed, injured, harmed or killed. 9. Traffic pollution from this proposal has been noted but the harmful effects of light pollution also need to be considered. Light pollution has a wide range of negative effects on human health. Greenaway Lane, which will be affected to the north and south by the proposed development plan, is currently an extremely dark place at night due to being surrounded by countryside and poorly lit by streetlamps (a good thing). This will cease to be the case if these proposals go ahead which will disrupt the circadian rhythms, mess with melatonin levels and generally contribute to sleeping disorders of the population of Greenaway Lane. How can Farnham Borough Council support a plan that will directly affect the health of some of it's citizens (also Council Tax payers and voters in local elections)? 10. This draft plan for Warsash has no support in the community which is mounting a strenuous objection campaign. We STRONGLY OBJECT to this part of the Draft Development Plan."

SO31


Object

Please try to consider what an almost 30% increase in population to warsash will actually do to warsash and the surrounding area. I've lived in the area all my life (48 years) and had the discomfort of seeing every 'green space' built on. Now this area is busting at the seams and ready to burst! The area has had a huge amount of development and it's now full. Horrendous traffic is here already (my little 8 mile drive to Southampton is regularly over 1 hour) I sometimes ride in as it's quicker but the state of the roads make this very dangerous. My point is, warsash isn't big enough to be 30% bigger, the thought of it is dangerous, polluted, gridlocked, uncomfortable and unfair. We really want to enjoy where we live not endure it. Let's hope it's not too late.

SO31


Object

Local roads at capacity, parking difficult in village, Schools not able to cope with extra pupils. Services not sufficient for population. Doctors over subscribed.

Postcode not provided


Object

It is completely unreasonable to allow 700 houses to be built on the land by Greenaway Lane in Warsash. It will materially alter the character of the area, stripping out much valued 'green' space in an already congested borough. It will also create an unprecendented level of demand for schooling and healthcare in this area which is already under huge pressure. The roads are becoming increasingly congested, particularly the A27 and it will create a huge amount more traffic and pollution. Why can these houses not be built elsewhere? it simply isnt the right place for them.

SO31


Object

The proposed plan has not taken into account the negative impact it will have on local infrastructure and services. Local schools are already oversubscribed, health services stretched to the limit and roads are proving inadequate to cope with the current volumes of traffic. I accept that there is a need for more housing and if the proposed site is the only suitable one then so be it, but let's us have the infrastructure requirements and improvements first and not as is usually the case vague promises that they will follow. I am sure that there will be talk of making the developers provide the necessary improvements but experience shows that this never actually happens. One has only to look at the impact the Whitely development had on the M3 exit when access requirements were neglected. Another example of poor planning associated with the aforementioned development is school provision resulting in children being taught in temporary accommodation. Please do not repeat the same mistakes in Warsash. Infrastructure and services first, houses after.

SO31


Object

Dear Sir / Madame, I'm writing to formally object to the proposed development as detailed under HA1. I object under the following reasons: Ecological Impacts. This area is home to a number of protected species, including badgers, bats, owls, deer and Great Crested Newts. The Great Crested Newt and their eggs are protected by law and any such development on this land would require a licence from Natural England. To build on this land would be devastating to the local wildlife. Existing Infrastructure. The existing roads in and out of Warsash are already at breaking point. There have been fatal accidents in the immediate area. To reach the M27 from Warsash can take up to 30 minutes at rush hour. Adding potential 1600 cars to this will exacerbate this further, causing delays and potentially loss of life. Existing amenities Hook with Warsash School is already oversubscribed, as is Brookfield. Local children with siblings were unable to secure a place at a local school and adding another 700 houses will impact this further. The current doctor's surgery in Warsash and Whiteley both have waiting times of up to 4 weeks. They simply won't be able to cope with the additional strain.

SO31


Object

Building these houses will cause a huge strain on our village. I already have to wait 6 weeks for an appointment at my local doctors. That's without all these extra homes. The infrastructure won't cope. I am a teacher at a local school and I know that we are already over subscribed. Where will these children go to school? I don't think the plans have been fully thought about. We need to improve the resources before building more houses

SO31


Object

Too many new houses in warsash will cause massive infrastructure issues with transport, schools, doctors and dental surgeries. I understand that we need more housing but these plans show too many houses.

SO31


Object

I accept that more housing is needed and that they have to be built somewhere but to just build the proposed number of houses in an area that is already struggling to cope with current demand seems grossly irresponsible. No doubt the usual empty promises about improved services and infrastructure will be made but one only has to look at what has previously occurred in this and neighbouring areas to realise this will not happen. The policy seems to be to build the houses first and then engage in 'firefighting' after the event which inevitably leads to inadequate and poorly planned and executed solutions. Why not try something radical for a change and plan and implement the resources and infrastructure necessary to support the additional people and traffic before the houses are built? If you think I am wrong just visit Park Gate and Segensworth in the evening or try to get your child into a local school.

SO31


Object

"Whilst understanding that additional housing is needed, I also recognise that 800 extra dwellings and 1600 vehicles are going to stretch local resources to breaking point. Traffic queues and congestion are a familiar feature currently. We have to plan our journeys out of the village to make them tolerable. With additional vehicles inevitably the situation will become impossible. This will obviously not help the nations productivity. There is no solution to this as their is no scope to improve them. If we do not have school places locally this will create more travel problems and more problems for the workforce. The beauty of the area depends of the ""green lungs"" that provide a wildlife habitat. This will be severely jeopardised by the new plans. Warsash and the surrounding area has seen a rapid increase in house building recently and we have now reached a saturation point."

SO31


Object

When I leave for work I have to leave 1 1/2 hours before I start to make sure I get there after work the trip only takes 18 minutes. And if there is a accident on the motorway it can double. I have seen the traffic this year at the barns lane Brook lane junction. At a snail pace for a hour or so. The roads are already bad and there is no provision and no scope to make any of them bigger. There are now people parking on brook lane just up from the mini round about which has only started in the past 6 months. Very crowded. How is the current roads expected to cope with so many more houses.

SO31


Object

I object to the building of so many houses on countryside/agricultural land , taking away habitats of so many animals. Both motorway & 'A' roads at Bursledon & whitely can hardly cope now (especially at rush hour) - let alone with 800+ homes to be added in the area, each home probably having more than one car per household. This will add to pollution in and around the area. Light pollution will be added to also. Doctors surgeries & schools cannot cope now, I would like these to be much improved before anymore houses are built in the area. Not in character with cottages/other houses in immediate area - far too many box like houses in the area planned for development. Too many houses for the plot and location. Believe the tree's along boundary road may be felted, loss of green open space for wildlife. Every piece of green land about is being eaten up by planning proposals. The roads cannot cope with more traffic, not enough school spaces and doctors surgeries are overloaded already.

SO31


Object

I wish to object to the extensive planned housing development and the impact it will have on the existing residences, local infrastructure and the negative environmental impact it will cause. The amount of increased traffic and all the associated problems including the obvious air pollution is unacceptable. The stress on the local infrastructure will have a further negative impact on the local community. It takes weeks to get a GP's appointment, schools are overcrowded, the roads are at standstill at rush hour and our local wildlife is having its habitat ripped up and destroyed. Whilst I understand the need for new housing developments, this excessive planned development does not consider the existing residences and the environmental impact. Warsash and the surrounding western wards are having every piece of land snapped up. Where there was a plot that had one house now has 2, 3, 4 or more. I have lived in the local area since 1995 and I have seen the continual erosion of space and the massive increase in the local pollution. Yes, we do need to build new housing which is sustainable and affordable housing but do it sensitively for the existing residences, the local infrastructure and the environment. Give us space to breath and enjoy where we live and bring up our children safely. Building such a vast number of homes across many separate plots within a few miles of one another is inappropriate and poor planning for the good of those who will live in that area. Significantly reduce the volume of housing on these plots and spread the loading across a wider area with infrastructure that can support the required developments.

SO31


Object

I OBJECT to the proposed development of the area situated North and South of Greenaway Lane, Warsash. The current infrastructure cannot sustain the level of expansion generated by the proposed development. There is no room to expand the level of additional infrastructure required due to lack of space. My partner and I have lived in Warsash for 30 years and have witnessed the area change from a quiet semi-rural area with an abundance of wildlife to a busy suburb where wildlife has been forced from its natural habitat. Roads are already at capacity and the level of noise generated by existing traffic is at times intolerable. The proposed 'Local Plan ' will only exacerbate these situations.

SO31


Object

Sudden dramatic change to the ambience of warsash village. Based on recent partially completed development the density is far too great for the area. The percentage of new homes either built or proposed close to warsash centre compared with those existing Is to great and not in keeping. There has been no attempt to enhance Warsash with suitable design or planning. Providing suitable low density houses of good design that would be more suitable will "free up" lower cost houses for those requiring them. Our schools, doctors surgery's, roads, car parking, are all already stretched too much. There was a time when "Garden Town Planning" was considered the better way for all people to live rather than the earlier Victorian way. We are going backwards in this regard. The properties look different to those Victorian houses while they are new and with modern facilities but the principle is the same and when these properties are old they will be just old cramped living conditions compared with quallity old houses that mellow with age. Houses built today will last for 2 or 3 generations, we as a nation should be improving not spoiling are towns. A lot of damage was done in the post war years in the rush to build homes, it has been said that planners did more damage than the war itself. We should not be making mistakes now. There is rarely enough thought given to the future of our country and it's people as a whole who are being ignored by people with varied self interest that serve their own needs first.

SO31


Object

In terms of the aforesaid plan I strongly object to it. It would be not to strong to say the council are proposing to rape Warsash. Warsash is still a delightful village and to propose a high density development surrounding a beautiful rural Lane is nothing short of vandalism. I feel for the existing residents who's property values and way of life would be destroyed if the existing plan is adopted. I will not dwell on the infrastructure problems as these will be covered by others but rest assured the roads will soon grind to a halt and schools and doctors unable to cope. This need for extra houses has been thrust on the council by central Government in a piecemeal manner rather than a strategic country plan. Continuing to develop south of the M27 makes no sense and sites further north should be utilised in a manner which does not destroy villages like Warsash. In developing the current plan the council considered other sites which may or may not be more suitable, unfortunately that was two years ago and they chose to eliminate those sites without any consultation with residents. The recent consultation presented us with a fait accompli with just the opportunity to advise on trivialities such as football pitches being included in the new Greenaway Lane development. I urge the council to lobby the Government both directly and through our MP to modify their requirements for these extra houses. I understand the Governments panic on solving the housing problem is being mainly driven by immigration where something like 85% of new houses are need to meet the population being swollen by immigration. The Government needs to get a grip on immigration to mitigate some of this problem. I understand immigration is not an issue for local housing needs but it is still a factor in the constant call for additional housing being thrust on our council. I might just add that the council have no idea who wants these houses or where they will find work.

SO31


Object

The scale of this propose development is just too large for the Warsash locality which is already overwhelmed with new housing. This can only result in a further heavy burden on the local infrastructure, roads, surgeries schools et.c. which will consequently deprive existing residents of these services. The probable additional commuting traffic in and out of Warsash will become unsustainable with this large increase in dwellings.

Postcode not provided


Object

At the planning meeting held recently Mr Sean Woodward informed us that a major consideration by the Council was to ensure that the Westerwards had separate settlements. This proposed development greenfield site does just that and by building on it the village of Warsash would be no more. There would be no distinct separation between us and Locks Heath or Park Gate, therefore surely this is against the planning procedures. We were also told about major spending on road improvements in our area, however none of these improvements will affect our ability to get onto either the A27 or M27 from Warsash which is already heavily congested. It would make sense to build the houses in the same area as the road improvements as one is no good without the other. As for the school, which we have used throughout Primary with both our children, they are at capacity as are the doctors surgeries. We live just off Brook Lane, close to the village centre, and the roadside parking has become a major concern over the last couple of years. This will only be made worse with more cars in the village. This part of Brook Lane is a pinch point for cars and pedestrians, particularly children, a serious accident is only a matter of time. We fully realise these houses need to be built but surely they would be better in a place where they have more efficient local infrastructure able to cope with the increased population.

SO31


Object

This proposal is ridiculous! There is not sufficient infrastructure in place. The already extended Schools, gp practices, dentists, etc are already over subscribed. public transport isn't great and our roads can't cope. Besides which, I don't agree with anything being built on the little green space there is left. There is no consideration for the environment at all and the impact caused on wildlife. Whilst I recognise there is a need for more affordable housing, it is my understanding that there are a lot of unoccupied buildings and houses in the South East region which should be explored. This development is not affordable to many, so the issue of little affordable housing available in the Community still remains. I believe this proposal is NOT for the interest of the Community but for the benefit for a select few who will no doubt be lining their own pockets - It's all about the money - not the people!

SO31


Object

I am appalled that FBC is contemplating allowing a further 800 new dwellings on this site. Having lived in Locksheath for over 40 years the whole area is now swamped with housing, have you ever tried to get out of the area during the early morning rush, have you every tried to get a doctors appointment, what about the wild live that will be destroyed let alone the schooling difficulties. How can FBC even think of agreeing to further housing with these points in mind. You will be spoiling further an area that cannot cope. I guess as things are going you may as well agree to building right up to the Hamble River, along its banks so that there is nowhere to walk in the area at all. Shame on you FBC. Warsash is such a lovely village which will be completely spoilt by excess housing.

SO31


Object

I object to the proposed development as outlined and add my comment/reasons below. 1. Too many new dwellings proposed - while site may physically take 800 new dwellings the 'whole environment' no longer has capacity to support the extra, people, vehicles and commercial movements expected to be associated with the development. 2. The area already needs new Doctor's surgery as 2 existing practices overloaded. 3. The Locksheath development is already bursting at the seams from vehicles. 4. The local schools are already full 5. The Warsash centre is poorly served by roads which are inadequate for the traffic already using them. 6. The Wellbourne approval meets much of the needed growth for the future. My suggestions are for a radical rethink of the scheme. a) limit new housing to 200 units b) provide substantial Green open spaces as a social amenity, with facilities like the play area at Holly Hill, cycle Ways, woodland walks etc. c) provide a small commercial centre for additional facilities such as new Doctor's surgery, primary school and social purposes with minor retail outlets. d) improve Lockswood Road and ensure all access to the new housing and social facilities has to access via this route. e) provision of adequate parking for visitors.

SO31


Object

The Local Area Plan HA1 is by far the most significant proposal as regards Warsash itself, and, with HA7 included, means 800 new dwellings within the village. There is no provision for extra school places, surgeries, or shopping, etc, so the increase in traffic will be significant. Access to the M27 is currently via J9 and/or J8, and we all know that these routes are at their limit. Only a minor mishap on the M27 regularly results in grid-lock in the areas of Park Gate, Locks Heath, and Sarisbury Green. We all know that at this present time, the M27/M3 and their junctions requires drastic improvements to be able to cope at peak times. The Plan also includes Sites HA3, HA9, and HA11, adding a further 520 dwelling between Warsash and the main M27 corridor, excluding a few extra smaller sites, and continued in-filling that has been occuring for years. It is essential that the Fareham Local Plan is modified by drastically reducing the suggested expansion of Warsash, and looks to creating and building the overall infrastructure required, before creating more housing in any further development of the area.

SO31


Object

The volume of proposed housing, ie 700 more homes is unsustainable..........The road systems to access the A 27 , to leave the area for work during peak areas are already often gridlocked. Another 700 homes and the resulting extra traffic without the provision of better roads systems will make it unsafe.........emergency vehicles will have difficulty reaching people in their homes at these times. Single landeroads cannot cope with the existing traffic..........how will they cope with even more....potentially thousands more cars..... The resulting additional air pollution will create an even more unhealthy environment. The area already fails to meet European safety standards for air quality..............to allow this development and not consider this aspect can only be considered as negligent. .........drs.surgeries are already at full stretch....how can they accommodate these extra residents.... ALSO we need to retain prime agricultural land.........to feed our nation..........not build on it...........

SO31


Object

I have lived [redacted] for the last 26 years, during which time housing developments around the area have constantly been built, which is only to be expected. My two sons have bought houses within these developments, so I'm not one of the 'NIMBY' group. However recently with the continued development of the Coldeast site and the completion of the Strawberry Fields site, the traffic around the area especially Park Gate has become a nightmare for hours during the day. Getting out [redacted] has got a lot worse due to the additional traffic from Strawberry Fields, but then travelling up Lockswood Road to the roundabout with Brooke Lane, it becomes bumper to bumper all along Brooke Lane up to Park Gate, and as this is the main access route to get on the motorway for the majority of people going to work. There is also long queues from Segensworth roundabout to Park Gate in the afternoons, and this can be from around 2:30pm which is way before rush hour. All these cars are belching out noxious fumes which is not helping the local air quality or peoples health. This development of nearly 800 homes and possibly 1600 cars/vans is going to bring the local traffic to virtually gridlock conditions for many hours of the day, so causing even poorer air quality and even more health problems for the locals. As there seems to be no provision for extra Doctors/Dentists within this proposal, then getting a Doctors appointment will only get more difficult than it is at present. Basically this proposal will increase the number of houses and cars to roughly the same level as Coldeast and Strawberry Fields already has, it is just too much in this area, and the main transport route through Park Gate will be gridlocked. The proposal also doesn't provide any new school places, and there is already a projected shortage of Primary School places due to the recent developments, so this proposal is also going to make that shortage even worse.

SO31


Object

The impact of hundreds of additional residents in Warsash will destroy the village. Places at schools for children of all ages would be an issue along with doctors. The village could not cope with extra cars travelling up and down Warsash road and Barnes Lane.

Postcode not provided


Object

Housing Land Supply strategy and Potential loss of control of the Development We are obviously disappointed in the circumstances that led to this current rush of opportunist applications along Brook Lane and the impact of an overturned FBC planning decision at Cranleigh Road is having on the areas overall housing supply strategy. This is looks and feels like the 'tail wagging the dog' an opportunistic short-term response to developers. Not one guided by a well exercised, balanced strategic planning regime. In an area bounded on two sides by water, the importance suitable roads is parmount. Sites adjacent to the investment in road infrastructure in the borough appear to have been excluded? We can speak from experience of the consequence of increased housing in this area. [redacted]. I work in a small business in [redacted]. We both experience firsthand the stress and pressures of the community every day in different ways. The former district plan makes it clear the need for retaining a 'Green Gap' between Locks Heath and Warsash south of Greenaway Lane. Faced with a choice between working with the professional FBC planning team and a responsible promoter/developer or with a decision forced upon us by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. We would prefer the former to ensure we have a voice through local officers and elected members in making informed and mature planning decisions. Highway safety, traffic and noise Others better placed to feedback on the technical data and the impact on the local roads have commented on the traffic analysis information submitted. My experience and direct observation is that my journey time to Park Gate on a working day has more than doubled over the past few years. The traffic studies appear to confine themselves to the roads around the proposed development and how the significant increase in car numbers might be mitigated in these areas. This seems to miss the bigger point that the issue lies where roads meet A27 at the top of Barnes lane and Brook Lane. Often gridlocked in peak season between school holiday periods. For example, my journey to the top of Brook Lane now averages 20 minutes (I mile) an average of around 3 miles an hour. Turning to noise. The configuration of Brook Lane south of Greenaway Lane with solid, high walls and fencing on both sides of the road creates a localised amplification of traffic noise to the extent that I can nearly detect every vehicle type and size passing even through double glazed windows. Add to this our experience accidents and near misses on a regular basis along Brook Lane taken with the survey's evidence of excessive speeds, make the prospect of a significant increase in traffic from these three major housing developments very concerning. Layout and density of buildings Finally, the density design of housing height and layout approved at Strawberry Fields has damaged the area for both existing residents and the new homeowners alike. Please do not let this happen again. Short term, over development will damage one of boroughs historic and well-loved village environments, enjoyed by all.

SO31


Object

I have deep concerns about the number of houses proposed for building in this area. These centre on the following issues: • the increase in population of Warsash alone by 2400 people (35%) • the presence of 1600 more cars on our roads, turning an already severe traffic problem into prolonged gridlock in the rush hour periods • the complete lack of any undertaking to increase the number of school places, forcing parents to commute out of area for their children's schooling, further exacerbating the traffic problem • the complete lack of a commitment to ensure the provision of more doctors nearby, forcing people, including the elderly, to travel unreasonable distances to see a GP and to face even longer waiting times, which even today are beyond acceptable limits. I accept that you have to build more houses in Fareham but it is wholly unreasonable to make Warsash take the brunt of these, along with Portchester. 800 new homes are proposed for Warsash as well another 700 nearby, a completely unsupportable number. I thinkt the number of new homes built in Warsash should be greatly reduced, to 400 or fewer, and that the remainder be built on Newlands Farm. That location has the great advantage of having the Stubbington bypass built right next to it, so providing excellent connections to the A27, M27 and places to the east. This road network will have far more capacity than the already overloaded roads in the area around Warsash. In the worst case, if the government inspector overrides a decision by FBC not to allow the building of 700 homes between Lockswood Road and Brook Lane, I consider it vital that the five development proposals be combined (as you advocated at the CAT meeting) to create an integrated scheme with decent open spaces, proper infrastructure and well-engineered connections to the existing road network. This is the least the council could do for us in this horrendous scenario.

SO31


Object

The proposal to build two new estates of hundreds of dwellings, off Lockswood Road, in addition to the relatively new estate of Strawberry Fields, will overload the local facilities. It is already difficult to access GP services, the local schools are full and the area gets gridlocked as soon as there is any incident on the M27 causing traffic to be diverted. At present it can easily take twice as long to travel around this area at peak times than it does at other times - I won't say quiet times because there aren't any. I acknowledge the need for extra housing, but am greatly concerned that the locality will be swamped with this amount of development, and all residents disadvantaged by the expansion, unless sufficient additional services are included ahead of the time that crisis levels are reached.

SO31


Object

Warsash simply cannot cope with the proposed extra housing. The roads, schools and doctors surgeries just will not be able to cope. The area around Greenaway Lane is the last rural part of Warsash, and helps it retain its distinct identity, separate from Sarisbury Green and Locks Heath. The council should be imaginative and create a community green space here instead, or help support the local nurseries and the horticultural heritage of Warsash. This part of Warsash is loved for peaceful recreation. My family used to live on Greenaway Lane until last year and it was wonderful, and well used by walkers, cyclists, dog walkers, and horse riders. My family still live in Warsash and we have strong ties to the area. Please don't destroy Warsash with this huge amount of housing dumped in the last remaining green spaces.

SO22


Object

I vehemently oppose plans to build any number of buildings on this land. It is countryside, a beautiful habitat for many different species of wild animals including badgers, bats, deer, foxes and rabbits. Construction would devastate their homes and utterly ruin the area. I understand the government's need for new housing to cope with the ever expanding population of the country and also how this objection may come across as a 'not in my backyard' cry, but Warsash is dying from the number of new properties being built, losing green land at an alarming rate and making it look like any other boring, characterless commuter town. The village itself can't cope with the traffic increase this proposed plan would bring, nor can the local schools and doctor surgeries take the additional pupils and patients respectively. I am extremely concerned that Warsash is seen as a desirable place for developers to build huge new estates on wherever they can, it saddens me enormously that there is a possibility that, in time, one plan will be given the go ahead. I truly hope the area is given a break from the rapid expansion and the environment-killing pollution that would include. This is a beautiful part of a fast-declining area of Hampshire. Adding 700 new houses to one of the few green spaces left would end Warsash's status as one of the most charming, characterful historic locations around. I truly hope the plans are rejected.

SO31


Object

This area has done more than its fair share of building new houses. Warsash is now saturated with new build, causing problems for many local residents. To build more houses would mean local residents lives will be made a misery for the rest of their lives. Surely our feelings should be considered. Our MP and Councillors should be shouting through the corridors of Parliament to stop this irresponsible building proposal.

SO31


Object

Life for local residents has deteriorated greatly since the mass building of houses over the last 10 years. Increase in vibration, noise, pollution and a decrease in the quality of air due to the increase in traffic which at the moment is unbearable. Please stop this proposal.

SO31


Object

The massive housing development proposed on this site, and, to a lesser extent, the smaller developments planned in this area, will have a devastating effect on the local environment. Inadequate infrastructure, schools, doctors' surgeries, etc. can be remedied to a certain extent, but the increased number of cars on the roads which will inevitably occur as the population increases will cause even more problems than now - and local roads are already seriously overcrowded at certain times of the day. No matter how much main roads are widened, motorways improved, it is impossible to prevent the build-up of traffic on minor roads which feed the main roads, or which feed the feeder roads. This area is already too high in density of housing and population, and local, and national, planners should realise that there are limits to the development of any area - and this area has reached its limit. The inevitable increase in pollution caused by more traffic is just one, highly dangerous, result of the current development policy, and there are many more. I accept that we need more houses to be built, mainly lower cost, starter houses, not more expensive, 4 and 5 bedroom houses. However, much more care and thought needs to go into the planning process, taking all the potential problems into account before decisions are made.

SO31


Object

The proposed development would significantly alter the fabric of the area and amount to serious 'cramming' in what is a low-density area This development does not protect or enhance the local environment, including wildlife habitats. Equally highway safety will be compromised: through traffic generation, lack of road capacity and means of access. Causing conflict between pedestrians and cyclists. The Development does not contribute positively to making Warsash a better place for people to live in. Residents should have the right to enjoy a quiet and safe environment.

SO31


Object

I object to the development of both North and South of Greenaway Lane because: - it will adversely affect the identity of Warsash as a separate settlement by filling the gap between the recent development on Peters Road and the village centre - there is insufficient space to expand the infrastructure (roads, schools etc) to accommodate the total number of dwellings on this and the other sites proposed for the Western Wards. The development should be limited to the North of Greenaway Lane and the area South of Greenaway Lane designated as a protected habitat.

Comment

The suggested minimum width of the public open space and biodiversity corridor (15m) is inadequate. It should be a minimum of 30m The sports pitches should be provided with toilets, a pavilion / shelter and vehicle access in case of injury.

SO31


Object

Warsash has already seen significant development of green field sites in recent years and the existing infrastructure will not support the proposed additional housing. In particular, the additional traffic generated will compound the already very busy roads to the M27 and A27 which are the only routes for people working in the Portsmouth or Southampton areas or further afield. GP's surgeries and schools are also already very full. This development would fill in one of the last green spaces that provide a break between Locksheath, Sarisbury Green and Warsash village.

SO31


Object

"Revision to my earlier objection lodged: Planning Strategy & Regeneration Department of Planning and Development. For the attention of case officer Dear Sir / Madam Reference: Objection to Planning Application based on contradiction of the NPPF and Draft Plan, and objections to provisions contained in the draft plan. My objections are presented separately for the NPPF and Draft Plan. And are specifically objections to sites : HA1 - North and South of Greenaway Lane, Warsash - 700 dwellings HA3 - Southampton Road, Titchfield Common - 400 dwellings HA7 - Warsash Maritime Academy, Warsash -100 dwellings HA9 - Heath Road, Locks Heath- 71 dwellings HA11- Raley Road, Locks Heath- 49 dwellings HA13- Hunts Pond Road, Titchfield Common- 38 dwellings HA14 -Genesis Community Youth Centre, Locks Heath - 35 dwellings HA15 -Beacon Bottom West, Park Gate -30 dwellings HA17 -69 Botley Road, Park Gate -24 dwellings HA19- 399 – 409 Hunts Pond Road, Titchfield Common- 22 dwellings I write in connection with the above planning application. I have examined the plans and I know the sites well. I looked at EV13 (Background Paper: HOUSING SITE SELECTION), which states: "The purpose of this paper is to explain, in broad terms, the processes undertaken to inform the selection of housing sites for the Draft Fareham Local Plan 2036" (Draft Plan)" I have also read through the referenced paragraphs from the ""National Planning Policy Framework"" (NPPF). I have experience of financing provision of sustainable residential communities in other areas of the country with their own acute issues. Based on the above research and experience, I object strongly to the development of these houses in the identified locations. These sites generally, and HA 1,3 and 7 specifically, are in contradiction of both the "NPPF" and the "Draft Plan". It is certain that the local communities and the Fareham borough do need provision of additional sustainable development of various infrastructures including more residential accommodation. Unfortunately the sites identified in this Draft Plan plan fails to deliver a sustainable solution in certain of its discrete communities and lets down those communities represented. With respect to the Draft Plan Objection : I don't believe that the sites proposed adequately address the needs recognised in H2: Provision of Affordable Housing and I don't believe that Sites such as HA1,3 & 7 have considered adequately aspects of Policy H4: where Adaptable and Accessible Dwellings Development proposals for all new dwellings shall provide: I do not argue that it has been ignored, but that minimum lip service has been paid to the extent that the provisions noted entirely fail to achieve the goals intended for H4. a) at least 15% of all new dwellings at Category 2 standard; and b) on schemes of over 100 dwellings (gross), at least 2% of private housing and 5% of affordable housing, shall be provided as wheelchair accessible Category 3 properties. Schemes exclusively for flatted development will be expected to comply with the criteria as much as is physically possible before lifts would be a requirement" Objection: I object to the revisions of H4 identified in the Draft Plan. Further with respect to HA 1,3&7 it appears that H4 does not adequately reflect the requirement that " Further new older person and specialist accommodation will be required during the Local Plan period. Such provision can help people to downsize and free up family dwellings for others. The precise amount and type of specialist and older person accommodation required will depend on a range of factors including the choices of individual people and households.( of which I see no reference in HA1,3 or 7) Evidence in the Housing Evidence Overview Paper (2017) outlines some of this need which, where possible, has been addressed through specific allocations included in this plan and provision to be provided at Welborne" Further accommodation to address identified need would be acceptable in principle subject to Policy H5". Objection : I believe this fails to address the issues in the localities represented by the sites I have objected to, and specifically not in respect of HA1,3 and 7. This is in itself evident that FBC appreoach Warsash as a general dormitory and not as a discrete community as is required. The Draft Plan is very Fareham central centric in the division of benefits and provision of the Sustainable aspects of the plan, unfortunately the surrounding community developments' including these to which I am objecting, do not bear the same level of attention to Sustainability Planning. The Warsash, Park Gate, Titchfield communities are discrete settlements where development proposals should be considered very carefully: Objection : I believe that the Draft Plan and the sites I have specifically objected to fail in respect of Policy SP1: Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development "When considering development proposals, the Council will take a positive approach that reflects the "presumption in favour of sustainable development" contained in the National Planning Policy Framework. When appropriate the Council will work constructively with applicants to find solutions that enable proposals to be granted permission wherever possible, and to secure high quality development that improves the economic, social and environmental conditions in the area………….." Objection : With respect to HA1 specifically, my objection includes the determination that the entire list of sites not only fails to address SP7 "requirement to Create places that encourage healthy lifestyles and provide for the community through the provision of leisure and cultural facilities, recreation and open space and the opportunity to walk and cycle to destinations" but goes as far as misleading in its reference to some open play area space and provision to cross the road which covers up an entirely inadequate provision in both cases and exacerbates the problems for cyclists and pedestrians, and relates to the road and safety of children walking or cycling to school. I find Appendix C: Draft Development Framework - Development Allocation HA1 (North & South of Greenaway Lane, Warsash) to be entirely un convincing in respect of this and other areas of objection. Objection : I note well and object to the Employment Policy section, there is No "E" for the communities represented in the site plans to which I object. No local employment issues are considered within those discreet community settlements, adding to the obvious conclusion that they are being considered as dormitory developments in contravention of key policies identified. I would be able to support site development proposals that are aimed at meeting identified settlement needs, of which there are many, but not those reflected by these sites in this Draft Plan. Objection Draft Local Plan : I object also to E5, which protects Boatyard business except in the case where it can be represented as uneconomic. I object to the watering down of protection implied by this provision, Key Strategic Priorities: Both the overall Draft Plan and the specific site proposals fail to meet a number of stated Key Strategic Priorities. Objection : In respect to the references to settlement definition, this is then broadly disregarded or seemingly misrepresented in both plan and site descriptions. The needs of local business in the discrete communities so defined is ignored and only addressed as a general and seemingly Fareham central oriented manner. Objections below can be read to note that they jointly and severally contribute to evidence that the Plan fails in satisfying KSP's 1,3 and 7 most specifically, but the other sites generally in respect of the site objections noted above. 1. Address the housing and employment needs by the end of the plan period in an appropriate and sustainable manner, creating places people want to live or where businesses want to locate. 2. In the first instance maximise development within the urban area and away from the valued landscapes and spaces that contribute to settlement definition (SP 6 notwithstanding and particularly SP6 failure to address community definition in the communities affected by the sites specifically objected to in this submission) 7. Create places that encourage healthy lifestyles and provide for the community through the provision of leisure and cultural facilities, recreation and open space and the opportunity to walk and cycle to destinations. Sustainability Planning : (SP) Objection : Entirely insufficient evidence or justification is contained within any of the above proposals with respect to the sustainability issues and benefits to the discrete communities that I have referenced. Passing references are made to lack of current provision in schooling and infrastructure, and requirements for the schemes to "contribute" to that development. However no integrated or sustainable accounting or plan is proposed that identifies the needs that should be critically planned to 2036 and costed accordingly. For example the sites identified do not disclose the extent to which sites (or combinations of sites) can contribute to the site selection priorities / refining points within the plan itself. One specific example being Selection Priorities / Refining Point 7. I cannot find any evidence presented for the requirement that they "Cumulatively and individually lessen the impact on traffic whilst delivering the new homes. Maximises opportunities for the cumulative highway impacts to be addressed". I note that a number of other Selection Priorities / Refining Points have not been properly addressed either. o It is not possible to review the Draft Policy or Sites named herein and assess the suitability of any or all of them without"

SO31


Object

"Over the years, the Western Wards have taken far more than their fair share of the new builds and new developments in Fareham Borough Council. Not only is the local infrastructure creaking at the seams (think schools and GPs), it is also taking longer and longer to travel through rush hour (think environmental impact). The ""structured"" new developments like Coldeast and Strawberry Fields as well as the ongoing and epidemic land-grab through the approval of more and more back-yard developments have really brought the local infrastructure close to its knees. We are loosing the village feel of the area, and are in real danger of turning into another soul-less semi-urban conurbation (think Southampton's 'burbs). There is a reason developers want to build in the Western Wards - they can make more money per house. Enough is enough. Please stop!"

SO31


Object

I have now spent numerous hours writing objection letters and studying planning documents, now I have come to the conclusion that we have returned to feudal times , where the serfs just put up ! apart from Robin Hood. It would appear that the die is already cast, so I post this comment /objection to the scale of the proposed development , which does not address the infrastructure issues which form most of the objections . Another major point is will these tracts of land purchased by developers ever belong to the householders or will they be leasehold ?,as publicised in other areas, especially Taylor Wimpey being named in these cases. Affordable should mean owning the land as well , not a lifetime income for the leaseholder ,who has bought from the developer . And to answer Shaun Woodward's question at the presentation of this plan in the Victory Hall Warsash , Yes I was born in the ' village' of Warsash and still live here , it looks like my days will end in the 'housing estate' of Warsash. Surrounded by the typical dwelling being built for the next generation , most important HIGH SPEED BROADBAND ,GAMES CONSOLES AND NO GARDEN

SO31


Object

The deadline has been stated as 8th December and so your help would be much appreciated please. In short, I have lived in Warsash for approximately 40 years. Whilst I appreciate the need for additional housing, my personal view about these proposals is that they should be rejected. The fact remains that there are only two main roads into Warsash and as matters stand, these roads are under too much pressure from increased traffic. I (like many other motorists) have to commute daily into Southampton and getting to / negotiating the A27 is already challenging. At times, my journey can take approximately 1.5 hours. A further 800 houses might equate to over 1600 cars at peak times. Surely, this is a matter of common sense? I therefore reject this application on the following grounds:- 1. The roads / infrastructure cannot cope. 2. The development will be overbearing for the existing community. 3. This development will take away the identity of Warsash as a village. Thank you for your assistance.

Postcode not provided


Object

The proposal represents development outside the defined urban settlement boundaries, filling in the green belt between Warsash and Locks Heath. It would adversely affect the landscape, character and appearance of Warsash Village, creating a suburban rather than a rural feel. Any such development would place unacceptable demands on an already overburdened social infrastructure and transport network, thus having a detrimental effect for existing and any new residents. We moved to Warsash ten years ago and greatly value the fact that it is a relatively small and unspoiled village. My immediate concerns are that the additional homes proposed will completely change the nature of the village, filling in green areas and placing unacceptable demands on the supporting infrastructure, including schools, doctors and transport networks. I also believe that the proposed development would be contrary to the following Policies from the Adopted Fareham Borough Core Strategy (CS) 2011, and the adopted Local Plan Part 2: Development Sites and Policies Plan (DSP) CS2 states that priority will be given to the reuse of previously developed land within the existing urban areas. Previously developed land is defined as "land which is or was occupied by a permanent structure and any associated fixed surface infrastructure." (Appendix 4 Core Strategy 2011) The proposed sites consist of rough grassland and the remains of former greenhouses. I consider that any development on this land would result in permanent loss of green belt land, thus changing the landscape and character of the village significantly. CS4 - Under this policy, habitats important to the biodiversity of the borough will be protected. Local residents have noted that species such as badgers, slow worms, foxes, barn owls and deer inhabit the site. As such, this site should not be allocated for development. CS5 - Under this policy the Council must promote a sustainable integrated transport network for the borough. Local congestion is already at an unacceptable level. In 2011, the M27 Junctions - 9,10, and 11 were highlighted by the Council as being above capacity at peak periods. (Para 4.64 of the Core Strategy) Since 2011, there have been a number of developments, including Strawberry Fields Estate at Lowford, Swanwick Lane and Bridge Road at Bursledon, making the congestion even worse. It was recently acknowledged by Bargate Homes (Para 10.8 of the Transport Assessment) that the roundabout at Brook Lane / Headland Drive / Lockswood Road is nearing capacity in the 2016 and 2022 models. This roundabout and indeed the A27 from Park Gate to Lowford is already under considerable strain during peak periods and this development will simply make matters significantly worse. Local schools are already over-subscribed, meaning that parents are forced to drive their children further afield to attend school. All these journeys contribute to peak time congestion, adding to the noise and pollution in the nearby area. Furthermore, families suffer as children are unable to attend their local school, making the establishment of friendships and a support network more difficult. Brook Lane is already an extremely busy road, with parked cars restricting the traffic flow. It is already dangerous to cross the road along Brook Land and by the shops in Warsash Road. Further development around Greenaway Lane can only put further strain on the transport networks. CS6 - This policy reiterates that the priority for development will be for the reuse of previously developed land, taking into consideration biodiversity/potential community value, character, accessibility, infrastructure and services of the settlement. Clearly the proposed development should not take place on this site. CS14 - This policy states that building developments on land outside the defined settlements will be strictly controlled to protect the countryside and coastline from development which would adversely affect its landscape, character, appearance and function. The proposed development of 700 homes would be totally out of character for a small village like Warsash. It would place an unbearable burden on already stretched amenities, which would be to the detriment of both existing and any proposed new residents. Properties should simply not be built in an area that does not have the facilities to support them. Paragraph 6.43 of the Core Strategy has already identified significant shortfalls of open space provision in this area. Such a development would result in further removal of open space and would erase any demarcation between Warsash and Locks Heath, creating a sub-urban rather than a rural area. DSP6 - In accordance with DSP6, there will be a presumption against new residential development outside the defined urban settlement boundaries as identified on the Policies Map. The proposed development area appears to be outside the defined urban settlement. Please do not place more of a burden on an already stretched infrastructure.

SO31


Object

It's a joke. Where will the deer and foxes that I see in the mornings going to live? Nowhere, they will die out! Where will the rainwater go that usually soaks into the fields. With all tarmac and concrete. Where will the children go to school? How will the cars get out of the area in the mornings, with probably two cars per property? Get a grip on reality!

SO31


Object

Fareham Local Plan 2036 ("the plan") In summary, the plan is defective for reasons more particularly set out below. 1.The proposed development at HA1 will breach Fareham Borough Councils ('FBC') the Plan Section 4 Strategic Policies: Policy SPF Development in the Countryside Policy SP6 Development in Strategic Gaps Policy SP7 New Residential Development in the Countryside 2.The Plan Section 4 Strategic Policy SP6 at para 4.36 ignores or fails to give sufficient weight to the proposed Stubbington bypass (work to commence in 2019) which will dissect the so-called Strategic gap Fareham/Stubbington and which south of the bypass could provide additional housing sufficient wholly or partly to meet the need of the Plan to provide 700 units (identified under HA1) meanwhile retaining the strategic gap north of the bypass. Indeed at the Plan Section 11 Infrastructure at para 11.45 the plan states that the bypass is not being provided with the intention of serving or facilitating additional new homes. This arbitrary statement is made without any supporting evidence or justification and without investigation of potential development abutting Stubbington. 3. Fails to take into account Multiple applications for housing development in HA1 made recently as 2016/17 rejected by FBC on the grounds of greenbelt intrusion and so as to prevent coalescence of urban areas Park Gate and Warsash (admittedly now subject to appeal) 4. The proposed development at HA1 will breach FBC's Vision and Strategic Properties: * in the Plan at para 2.7 as it will and has failed to ensure that infrastructure in the existing development has or will be delivered. Traffic congestion is already at an unacceptable level and will increase with HA1 causing pollution. * The Draft Development Framework for HA1 in Appendix C is arrived at solely by accepting that development there is unavoidable (to provide 700 units) and working backwards to formulate Appendix C. FBC has allowed development south of Peters Road in breach of its Strategic Policy SP6 causing coalescence of what was a greenbelt/strategic gap and has so far resisted further attempts to develop the area north and south of Greenaway Lane. Because FBC lost its appeal regarding development at Portchester (Cornaway Lane) it is unacceptable that it should now include HA1 to provide 700 units as a master of expediency in preparation of the Plan. The assumptions and key concept principles contained in Appendix C are wildly optimistic. HA1 will destroy such biodiversity that exists in the green corridor north and south of Greenaway Lane whilst exacerbating traffic congestion in Warsash, Brook Lane, Barnes Lane and Park Gate. No major road improvements are possible to alleviate the potential of an additional 700 cars. The congestion will increase pollution damaging the environment.

SO31


Object

Dear sir I am opposed to all the planned 700 houses north and south Of greenaways lane as this would increase the population Around warsash by at least 1400 people and an increase in traffic Of at least 1400 cars and vans. Also the schools are over crowded now? Would there be any more doctors and dentists to cope with the Extra people in the area? Also there would need to be some new roads to cope with the Extra traffic these houses would generate and what about all The wildlife in the area as they have a right to be here as well. The roads are in a poor state now and extra traffic would make Them worse.

Postcode not provided


Object

This would be disastrous to the local area for Warsash, Locksheath and Park Gate. Already the traffic is gridlocked at peak times and 800 more homes would mean at least 1200 more cars. The doctor surgeries are full to busting already..also schools are at capacity. How do you expect anyone to get around the area and live comfortably.

SO31


Object

It would appear from the plan that the Western Ward and Portchester area are taking the majority of the housing requirements. Over recent years the Western wards have seen housing development at Coldeast and South of Peters Road taking place without any road or transport improvements and any further house building in this area would greatly exassapate the already crowded area. Please let all wards take an equal share of the housing needs after Welbourne has been completed. When Welbourne was being discussed the Council stated that accepting the proposed new village the Boroughs housing needs would be taken care of for the next 20 years. However despite millions of rate payers money being spent the greenfield site remains house free, why?? Because central Government has increased its housing needs all the wards are now expected to make up the short fall due to Welbourne's delays. Because the necessary infrastructure is readily available at the ward sites (water, sewage, gas and electricity) it is likely that Welbourne will be left as green field land until all land in the borough is built on. *Please honour you pledge and build Welbourne first then if more housing is required start in the wards* As a resident of Locks Heath I cannot get a bus from the District centre to Whiteley and have to rely on my car which adds to more road traffic and for pollution. We all require a more reliable and frequent public transport system which serve all areas of the borough. Also we need services that run 'late at night'. One only has to look at Whiteley to see how much on road parking is occurring on our roads. Please restrict on road parking on all major roads such as Hunts Pond Road, Brook Lane, Locks Road, Church Road, etc etc. Thus allowing to flow easily. As frest water is very limited resource what action is FBC taking to ensure this vital resource is not wasted. (toilet flushing etc) All sewage mains must be upgraded to cover new housing estates.

SO31


Object

Why such a massive development in central Warsash where there are no plans to improve road capacity, already stretched to the limit, or to add more school places or medical facilities, when there are perfectly viable alternatives within the area, where all these can also be achieved. This seems to fly in the face of common sense and must border on planning lunacy

SO31


Object

The volume of housing is too large for the area already without adding 800 new homes. There is insufficient infrastructure in Warsash and Locks Heath. The number of cars will increase by over 1000, hundreds of new school places will be needed at all levels and the two doctors surgeries south of the A27 are oversubscribed. I see no plans to remedy this situation. No road improvements to exit onto the A27 are shown on the plans and the further access to the M27 is already at choke point at AM and PM rush hour. I object strongly to the plans for the housing.

SO31


Object

I strongly object to the development of homes on the land at Greenaway Lane for the following reasons :- 1. Traffic generated will add to already challenging levels, making the passage in/out of the area much harder and slower due to the sheer number of vehicles and number of junctions to navigate to reach the A27 and M27 - Resulting in having to leave home even earlier to reach work to avoid the traffic jams (in turn ruining the fabric of society as parents miss more family life!) and making the twice-daily school run along Raley Road even more perilous where parking is very tight, often abused and tempers fray as drivers struggle to pass through - resulting in risk to the children. 2. School & Healthcare capacities are already stretched and there is no provision to increase School or Doctors surgery infrastructure - there must be!

SO31


Object

Below are the sites that we are protesting about. HA1 - North and South of Greenaway Lane, Warsash - 700 dwellings HA3 - Southampton Road, Titchfield Common - 400 dwellings HA7 - Warsash Maritime Academy, Warsash -100 dwellings HA9 - Heath Road, Locks Heath- 71 dwellings HA11- Raley Road, Locks Heath- 49 dwellings HA13- Hunts Pond Road, Titchfield Common- 38 dwellings HA14 -Genesis Community Youth Centre, Locks Heath - 35 dwellings HA15 -Beacon Bottom West, Park Gate -30 dwellings HA17 -69 Botley Road, Park Gate -24 dwellings HA19- 399 – 409 Hunts Pond Road, Titchfield Common- 22 dwellings Traffic in this area is already at a gridlock during peak hours and since the new Strawberry Fields, Hunts Pond and Coldeast developments it has doubled the time for people to get to work. Improvements on major roads and motorways will try and ease congestion but its not satisfactory as residents will not be able to actually get to these major roads. Local roads such as Brook Lane, Osborne Road, Warsash Road and Barnes Lane cannot be made wider, they were built to service the traffic and community of small villages and the resulting influx of 3000+ cars in such a small square area will lead to more accidents. Warsash specifically is on a pensinsular 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. The consequences will be catastrophic. Flooding is inevitable especially with recent climate changes; residents in local back garden developments are already experiencing this. Fareham is presently in trouble for poor air quality due to the amount of rush hour traffic. Bring another 3000+ cars in to the Western Wards and there will be more cases of asthma, lung disease and related illnesses - all for the surgeries with not enough resources to treat. Doctors, schools, hospitals and emergency services are already stretched to breaking point. If the plans go ahead there will be hundreds of children needing school places. New schools might take pressure off the overcrowded ones - then the influx of new children will put it back on again. Children walking to Brookfield already face a perilous journey due to the amount of traffic on Brook Lane. Brook Lane, Lockswood, Jubilee and Whiteley surgeries struggle to cope with the amount of patients they have. They wait an unacceptable amount of time for routine appointments (1 month plus) and often have very long waits when they get to there (30 minutes plus). Emergency appointments are becoming harder to book as there are not enough doctors or time. The very young, elderly and chronically ill are already vulnerable and bearing the brunt of this - add another 1,500 homes and these overstretched surgeries will be at crisis point. There will be an increased need for care homes, for which there is just no space. Residents' health will be at risk and possibly their lives. Warsash is a place of outstanding natural beauty and home to precious wildlife such as badgers, bats and deer. The greenfield land proposed as the area for development also provides a defined strategic gap from neighbouring villages. 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


Object

700 new homes, in addition to the new Strawberry Fields development, will vastly overload local infrastructure, which is already under strain. Brook Lane and Barnes Lane are considerably choked at peak times, and I understand cannot be upgraded; they are the only real routes in and out from this development to get to the Motorway and A27. In combination with the other developments in this locality, it will also overload the schools (as a local school Governor I know these have no physical capacity to grow) and medical services. I have read the new Part 2 document, and heard Cllr Ford's comments at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9OKG6E8kbE&feature=youtu.be and would thoroughly endorse his wider comments and concerns about this site and the others in the locality. All these new homes are proposed to fill the gap in build requirement caused by delay in the Welborne programme. If the build rate at Welborne was increased, which should not be beyond the wit of man, I believe the need for much of the new proposals in this Draft Pt 2 document would disappear.

SO31


Object

There is not the infrastructure to support this development. Brookfield school already at capacity and children are bused to other schools GP surgery is full Roads are already very busy, it takes 30/40 to drive to junc 8 in rush hour already. No scope to improve the roads to ease congestion Destruction of green space and therefore wildlife habitat Site liable to flooding The strawberry field development also has these issues which were not addressed. Site still floods a stipulation of planning was to amend this and it was not carried out and a wild life 'corridor' was less than 1m in width which leads to a dead end. Devaluation of homes. People pay a premium to live in this area which will be devalued by development

SO31


Object

The Governing Body of Hook-with-Warsash C.E. Academy have a number of concerns regarding the proposed building within Warsash detailed in the draft Fareham Plan. We are currently a 2 form entry primary school with current pupil numbers of 420. This means we are full in all age groups. The plan states that a further 500 homes will be built within our catchment area which, under Hampshire County Council's projection of 0.25 pupils per home (1 in every four houses), suggests the proposed work could increase the need for a further 125 pupil places. The school does not currently have the capacity for any more pupils without a substantial influx of funding to create further classrooms. Beyond this the school was initially built for just 120 pupils (4 classes) in 1979. Since then a further 10 classes have been built but the basic infrastructure of the school has not been increased. We currently manage by having separate infant and junior assemblies and staggered lunchtimes as our hall capacity is not large enough to cater for the pupils we have. Increased pupil numbers would not only require extra classrooms but also an additional hall, and further improvements to modernise some of the existing facilities such as toilets.  Some of these aspects are already a major issue for the Academy and despite our identification of these and a number of grant applications to the DfE, we have so far been unsuccessful in achieving the additional funding necessary to be able to undertake this work. In addition to these issues we are greatly concerned by the increased traffic additional housing would cause. Church Road and the surrounding streets are already dangerously congested at school drop off and pick up times. This creates issues not only for us but also the residents in the local area. Increased pupil numbers will make this already difficult situation untenable. We encourage our children to walk to school whenever possible and engage in many schemes to promote this. Pupil safety is paramount and inadequate crossing areas in the surrounding roads has been an issue for a number of years. We have one lollipop lady stationed in Church Road. We believe that, with further proposed funding cuts, Hampshire County Council will cease to employ people to do this vital role in the near future. Again, with the prospect of increased housing and subsequently increased vehicles the safety of children coming to and from school will be jeopardised. As a result of all of these issues the Governing Body have grave concerns regarding the draft Fareham Plan and the potential impact on the school. We have not been consulted by either Hampshire County Council or Fareham Borough Council regarding the education requirements and consequences of the plan, nor does the plan contain a solution for these issues. Therefore the governing body is opposed to the plan.

SO31


Comment

Re: Representation on draft Local Plan, Western Wards I am writing in relation to the consultation on some of the proposed allocations of land for housing in the Western Wards in the draft Local Plan 2036, ie on the land north and south of Greenaway Lane in Warsash (HA1) and on Southampton Road in Titchfield Common (HA3). I have spoken to many local residents in these areas and received correspondence from them about their valid concerns about the proposed development. They are worried about the impact of the development on the local road network, health and education services. [redacted] Whilst I understand and support the need for additional housing in Fareham, due to increased demand from more people choosing to live in our beautiful area, more people living longer and more people living alone, it is important that local peoples' voices are heard. This consultation is a vital part of that process. Regarding the proposed development site in Warsash, I am concerned about the impact on the local roads of 700 new homes. The main access to these sites would be via Brook Lane and Lockswood Road. These roads are busy roads which are already experiencing a high volume of traffic and the impact of more houses would most certainly add to the traffic problems. The site on Southampton Road would primarily be accessed via Segensworth Road which already experiences a high volume of traffic. I would urge that any allocation of this site for development must be accompanied with appropriate access and road upgrades to accommodate the extra pressure and I request information as what action FBC will take in this regard? Many local people are concerned about the impact on local school resources and GP services. I would urge caution and proper planning of additional school places to support increased demand. And finally, the natural woodland in the area is precious and clear guidance should be taken from Natural England on how to conserve the natural environment as much as possible. I trust that these views will be taken into account in the Plan process

PO16


Object

My family and I have lived in Warsash for 13 years and i have worked here for 28. We have a number of concerns regarding the draft Fareham plan. 1. The infrastructure (roads, surgeries, schools) is already struggling to cope with the current population. An increase will make this situation untenable unless there is substantial investment in updating current facilities and providing new ones. [redacted]. In addition to this Brookfield is already a very large secondary school and I already hear many concerns from parents regarding the number of pupils who attend it. If the housing goes ahead it is questionable whether this school could grow much more. The only other alternative is to bus children to other schools which in itself is a worrying situation for many parents. 2. Access to and from the A27/M27 at peak times of the day is already heavily congested increasing journey times dramatically. As Warsash is on a peninsular there is little that can be done to increase access routes. 3. The safety of pedestrians, especially children walking to and from school, is already an issue. There are very few crossing points and many near misses have been witnessed. Increased housing will inevitably mean an increase in the number of vehicles using the roads and this will make our roads and pavements even more precarious. 4. Air pollution is high not only from traffic but also Fawley. Additional housing/vehicles will add to this issue. 5. Living opposite one of the proposed sites we frequently see deer and foxes in the fields. Their natural habitat will disappear if the planned building was to go ahead. 6. Affordable housing is crucial, but with the average house price in Warsash being in the region of £400,000 it is questionable whether the desired outcome will be achieved.

SO31


Object

I wish to object to this development on the following grounds Roads • Warsash is a peninsula – there are few roads in and out • Both the A27 and M27 are increasingly subject to delays as a result of traffic volume • There are few if no options for improving the roads Education • Impact on local schools – c. 200 children attending local schools which are at or near capacity • No local college provision – my daughter travels to Winchester, leaving at 06.50 in the morning and not returning until post 6pm with current traffic levels. I worry about the additional load this number of houses will bring Other Services • Our local GP surgeries are under enormous pressure today – adding another c.1500 people will increase this pressure Pollution levels • We are downwind of Fawley and we know pollution levels in Southampton are already high. I worry this will increase this issue Wildlife and green spaces • Warsash is a village, distinct from other local villages. Filling in the gaps will remove remaining green spaces and gaps between the villages. • We often observe deer, foxes and other wildlife in the village. I believe these will disappear with these buildings Existing plans • The western wards have already taken a substantial hit for building with a number of large new developments in the last few years. Some of these are still in build (e.g. A27 at Burseldon, Manor Farm, J8 South) and the impact on the local area has yet to be quantified. Agreeing this development will exacerbate the pressure on local services and roads. Alternative Options • Newlands Farm site is an alternative option – it's not clear why this is not under further consideration

SO31


Object

Another 700 houses!!! Absolute madness!! All the points we have previously made apply to this area. Getting onto the A27 from Brook Lane would just be a nightmare if this development goes ahead.

SO31


Object

We wish to object to the above planning application as we feel that there is enough building work going on in or around Warsash to cause the current infrastructure to become overloaded as it is. Our particular concern is that in conjunction with the planned construction of housing at Brook Lane, there are several hundred new homes being built at Coldeast, further South of Greenaway Lane, Strawberry Fields and several smaller plots. These combined with the very high number of houses being built in Eastleigh Borough along the A27 and Hamble Lane will severely overload the local infrastructure (roads (particularly at rush hours) schools, surgeries, parks, social amenities etc,) which is already stretched to the limit! In addition services such as sewerage, water supply, electricity and (we suspect) gas are reaching similar limits. We therefore consider that this application should be denied until such time as the Council can ensure that the issues above can be satisfactorily resolved. Furthermore, we gather from the 'InTouch' magazine for Warsash that housing development in Warsash is being used to alleviate the poor planning that the Council has carried out for the Wellborne site and that we appear to be being used to help achieve targets that were apparently ill conceived in the first palce. We do not agree with our village being used as such a scapegoat!

SO31


Object

To try and cram 700 homes into this stunning green location is not only wrong but criminal in my mind. This is a close knot community who treasure their green spaces. This has always been seen as a strategic gap between villages and keeps the village aspect. This insane and must be looked at. We're on a peninsular with one road to teh east and one road north - the rest of water. We implore you to reconsider and drastically cut the number of homes to a manageable number.

SO31


Object

The size of the development based on the number of homes is too much for the existing infrastructure. The pressure on the roads system would be unbearable not only in terms of congestion and delays but also the increased road safety risk. The expansion of the education service is indeterminate and in any case would result in increased class numbers to the detriment of existing residents. Medical provision would likewise not be automatically provided for and is subject to separate and market driven provision. Delays to waiting times at existing doctors' surgeries is a real possibility with all the negative results these would cause.

SO31


Object

I do not object to reasonable development in the area concerned per se provided the quality, density & style of housing is similar & sympathetic to existing properties in the area. However I do have objections as follows: 1. An additional 800 houses including Warsash Maritime Academy is just too many 2. So many existing facilities are inadequate - waiting times at my local surgery are 2-3 weeks for non-urgent issues; queues at the local post office can be extensive; we see very little in the way of a police presence in the area 3. However above all it is the traffic congestion in the area during rush hour "normally" but which becomes grid lock if there is any sort of traffic accident 4. But is the traffic congestion in the wider area that is particularly concerning one thinks of access from Warsash onto the A27 & M27, the traffic jams at the Windhover Roundabout, those also arising at the A27 Swanwick lane junction at shift change, also the road out to Whitely & around the Park Gate, Segensworth roundaboits 5. These extensive developments should not be even contemplated until the necessary, new schools, surgeries, major (not minor) improvements are built & proceed in lock-step with the actual house building. 6.If this is not done residents suffer with a poorer environment, longer travel times to & from work, & more frustration at delays iservices

SO31


Object

I wish to object to the proposal for these sites to be allocated in the local plan for housing on the following grounds: • Highways/Traffic congestion and pedestrians safety • Impact of the Local infrastructures, • Loss of landscape character and effect on neighbouring properties • Ecological impact and loss of habitat • Drainage and risk of flooding Whilst it is understood that we all have to take some of the share of the housing crisis, the village of Warsash has not got the infrastructures required to cope for such a large number of houses as currently being proposed as part of the new Fareham Borough Council (FBC) local plan. The Developer Contributions targeted by FBC for allocating and combining those sites in the Local Plan won't resolve transport, highways and school places provision issues, let alone shortfall of GP surgeries. The current local roads and roundabout are already at capacity. It is already a nightmare to access the A27 and the M27 at peak hours due to sheer volume of traffic that is queuing back onto Barnes Lane and A27 toward junction 8. There is limited to non-existent scope for expanding the existing local roads network to cope with additional traffic to be generated by 800 additional houses. Whatever traffic flow control scheme is put in place, together with widening of the A27 should this be an option, there will always be a bottle neck at both the river bridge and the railways bridge on Bridge Road. Commuting in an out Warsash is already challenging and will become a misery to all inhabitants of this area. The existing primary and secondary schools are at capacity too. The Developer Contributions won't address the fact that the Lock Heath School has already been expanded and has no space for further expansion. The Hook-with Warsash Academy has little scope for expansion without losing precious outdoor sport pitches space that is essential for the children education. This means that schools further afield will have to be expanded to take additional children from the development, resulting in additional traffic for school runs in and out of Warsash contributing even more to traffic issues. It would the same scenario in the event of any new school development. Local GP surgeries are already at capacity too. The current waiting time for a blood test at Lockswood surgery is two weeks already. How would they cope with more patients? Who will finance new GP surgeries, let alone finding new GP's? The current sewerage pumping station serving the village is at capacity too. Furthermore, allocation of greenfield site for housing will mean loss of landscape character for this area, loss of wildlife that, whatever mitigation measures are proposed by the developer, will not replace. Landscape character and existing wildlife will be lost forever.

SO31


Object

By building on those areas, you are taking away the spaces needed for people to breathe and live properly. The infrastructure cannot take any more, the traffic is increasing all the time and roads are constantly packed; the surgeries are full, as are schools. How many more children can you put in Brookfield which is already such a huge school??

SO31


Object

"I write concerning the consultation on the Draft Local Plan for Fareham, and in particular it's impact upon Warsash. The plan as written is unacceptable to many in Warsash including myself; my reasoning follows. I have lived in Warsash for over 30 years and have seen many green spaces developed for much needed housing, including Priory Park, the Boats Estate, and most recently ""Strawberry Fields"" on Lockswood Road. In none of these cases were there sufficient major objections from the community to those developments to cause such uproar and anger as the current proposals for Warsash in the Draft Plan. There is agreement that in general the country and this area needs additional housing and we have accepted the development of our green spaces to enable this over the last 30 years. Enough is enough. It is evident that the area has been developed enough already and although there is a need for housing in the Borough, Warsash and the Western Wards is not the place for it. I say 'evident' as demonstrated by the already overstretched health provisions, the overcrowded roads, and the overfull schools. Before taking each of these in turn, I make the following assumptions. There will be over 700 houses, meaning 1000 additional cars, even taking HCC figures at least 200 additional school places but probably 600, plus 2000 additional patients for already full surgeries. How can the area possibly cope? It cannot. The health provision overstretch is evidenced by the length of time to get routine appointments and the current disatisfaction with that situation. The future needs of our elderly population will increase without these additional patients requiring treatment. No provision is made in the plan to provide the necessary health infrastructure - to alleviate this. In fact the NHS CCG has, I believe, stated it has no objection to the Plan! This is unacceptable, and should be readdressed. This situation is further worsened by FBC stating that it is not their responsibility; just as it was not an FBC problem in regard to Welbourne, but was changed after further discussion. The traffic point is evidenced by the long delays and traffic congestion that already exist along all roads intersecting with the A27. This is made worse each time there is an accident or incident on the M27, when the A27 becomes the alternative commuter route. An additional 1000 cars would absolutely gridlock the area, especially those roads to the south of the A27. These roads cannot be improved to alleviate the intolerable situation that will result from these additional cars. HCC have further raised no objection to the additional traffic needs. Unbelievable, and needs readdressing. The situation regarding education provision is already obvious where each school in the area is full. There is already displacement of children from Whiteley resulting from inadequate education provision when those estates there were developed. The lessons may have been learned as the additional 3000 homes in North Whiteley will have the necessary schools provided as will Welbourne. Is it therefore unreasonable to ask where is the additional education provision for the already-full Western Wards in this plan? Once again FBC try to hide behind HCC saying that education is not their responsibility! Again an unacceptable position that needs readdressing. One reason given for placing all the housing in one area is that the funds the proposed developers are required to contribute as part of planning permission would be available to provide some infrastructure. This did not happen in Whitely, so this is unlikely in Warsash. Also, given that the houses cover all available space, where would this additional developer-funded infrastructure be placed? The sites now identified for development have previously been rejected as being protected 'green' sites. Although it is accepted that housing needs have increased, why do previous 'green' sites now change status. It has been suggested in Parliament that the borders of established towns be the best places to spread the additional housing needs, rather than remove green spaces within towns? So what are the alternatives - Reduce the impact upon the area, by allocating fewer houses in the plan, requiring that schools and medical facilities be an integral, essential and mandatory part of the Plan as it affects Warsash. I feel that the community would accept some further development if there were to be sufficient infrastructure improvements, and provision of this in the same timescale. Not as an afterthought when the needs becomes a problem, see the Whitely experience. The best and most acceptable alternative is to consider more suitable sites that have been previously rejected. The obvious locations being Newlands Farm, and Down End North East. Of these the former is most suited. The Stubbington by-pass, while still providing a strategic gap between Fareham and Stubbington, would provide excellent transport links to the M27 and locally to work location. The Newlands Farm plans from the proposed developer already include provision, I believe for education and health. Why was this site rejected? The reasons given seem unsupportable once challenged. If this site were to be included in the Plan the impact upon Warsash (and Portchester) could be lessened. Down End has similar attractions for transport as Newlands Farm, but I accept the links to M27 would be more costly. However it's close proximity to Welbourne would be attractive for health and educational needs. In summary, therefore, my objection to the Plan for Warsash, is based upon the lack of infrastructure to accommodate the obvious adverse impacts the additional housing would have on an area, which has seen much development already over the past 30 years and is now overstretched and totally unsuitable for the proposed increase in population. There are more suitable places in the Borough to place some additional housing and spread the impacts. Please reconsider the FBC Draft Plan, including a joint agency/council agreement on the provisions rather than separate inadequate responses only on areas of direct responsibility. "

SO31


Object

I object to this allocation on the following grounds: 1 - Potential flooding. There is a flood zone to the south east of HA1. 700 homes will create too much run-off to be contained by existing methods. 2 - Loss of amenity. The plan incorrectly shows no amenity land within the allocation boundary. Land is currently used by dog walkers, bird watchers, etc. 3 - Unacceptable increase in housing density compared to the existing developments. 4 - Traffic. 700 homes will, on average, generate 1400 new vehicles. Brook Road will become unacceptably congested at peak times. 5 - Environment: Currently the area is all valuable wildlife habitat with deer, bats, newts, and stag beetles. The development will destroy a wildlife feeder area to close by wildlife areas and Warsash Common.

SO31


Object

I am supportive of the need for a Local Plan and my comments below are focused on perceived anomalies within the Draft Local Plan centred around the Warsash and Locks Heath Areas. Unfortunately I cannot comment on other areas covered within this report. School places There is a lack of evidence that there has been sufficient consultation with Hampshire County Council regarding the significant increase in housing planned and how this particularly affects Education provision in the western wards. Hampshire's School Places Plan (HSPP) is valid until 2021 by which time the Local Plan will have been in force for four years. With established development interest in the areas identified around Greenaway Lane (HA1) and developments which have already commenced that were not reflected within the projections of that plan, adequate school place provision is at substantial risk. HSPP projects a 3% surplus in Western Ward secondary school places in 2021, without the additional pressure from the Local Plan proposals and the development sites recently constructed within the immediate area. North Whiteley Secondary School is noted as being required 2021 or later and so pressure on places in the northern section of the western wards is already critical. Although published in 2016 HSPP states that there are no Local areas under review. It also notes the anticipation of the Fareham Local Plan and that further consultation was expected at the time of publication. Its status as part of the evidence pack but without amendment to reflect ongoing consultation would indicate that this has not happened. Primary Schools around the Warsash Area are already at capacity for 2017, matching Hampshire's Projections (0% surplus Year R in 2016). The surplus of 16% projected for 2021 seems to be linked with North Whiteley but the detail is lacking with regard to this calculation. There is a net reduction for 'Year R On Roll' between 2016 and 2021 for Fareham West and/ North / Whiteley and yet other areas increase. With the affordable housing proposed within the Greenaway Lane (North and South) (HA1) and Warsash Maritime Academy (HA7) development area this calculation seems fundamentally flawed. Transport Fareham Borough Transport Statement notes significant congestion around the Warsash / Locks Heath peninsula during morning and evening peak periods. It also recognises the motorway congestion between J9 and J11 of the M27 and the knock on effect this has on the parallel A27 in that area. The Local Plan does not successfully show how this is to be improved or mitigated. The Local Plan for the Warsash Area shows increased cycle path network within the constraints of development areas. It fails to demonstrate how these link to the access hubs – Schools, shopping areas etc. The use of the terminology identifying the area as a 'peninsula ' is also interesting, demonstrating an understanding that the local transport network is challenging and restricted and yet the Local Plan makes no allowance to resolve this. Housing Density The reasonable approach of the Councils officers regarding sensible density within the development area of Greenaway Lane is noted and appreciated.

SO31


Object

I am supportive of the need for a Local Plan and my comments below are focused on perceived anomalies within the Draft Local Plan centred around the Warsash and Locks Heath Areas. Unfortunately I cannot comment on other areas covered within this report. School places There is a lack of evidence that there has been sufficient consultation with Hampshire County Council regarding the significant increase in housing planned and how this particularly affects Education provision in the western wards. Hampshire's School Places Plan (HSPP) is valid until 2021 by which time the Local Plan will have been in force for four years. With established development interest in the areas identified around Greenaway Lane (HA1) and developments which have already commenced that were not reflected within the projections of that plan, adequate school place provision is at substantial risk. HSPP projects a 3% surplus in Western Ward secondary school places in 2021, without the additional pressure from the Local Plan proposals and the development sites recently constructed within the immediate area. North Whiteley Secondary School is noted as being required 2021 or later and so pressure on places in the northern section of the western wards is already critical. Although published in 2016 HSPP states that there are no Local areas under review. It also notes the anticipation of the Fareham Local Plan and that further consultation was expected at the time of publication. Its status as part of the evidence pack but without amendment to reflect ongoing consultation would indicate that this has not happened. Primary Schools around the Warsash Area are already at capacity for 2017, matching Hampshire's Projections (0% surplus Year R in 2016). The surplus of 16% projected for 2021 seems to be linked with North Whiteley but the detail is lacking with regard to this calculation. There is a net reduction for 'Year R On Roll' between 2016 and 2021 for Fareham West and/ North / Whiteley and yet other areas increase. With the affordable housing proposed within the Greenaway Lane (North and South) (HA1) and Warsash Maritime Academy (HA7) development area this calculation seems fundamentally flawed. Transport Fareham Borough Transport Statement notes significant congestion around the Warsash / Locks Heath peninsula during morning and evening peak periods. It also recognises the motorway congestion between J9 and J11 of the M27 and the knock on effect this has on the parallel A27 in that area. The Local Plan does not successfully show how this is to be improved or mitigated. The Local Plan for the Warsash Area shows increased cycle path network within the constraints of development areas. It fails to demonstrate how these link to the access hubs – Schools, shopping areas etc. The use of the terminology identifying the area as a 'peninsula ' is also interesting, demonstrating an understanding that the local transport network is challenging and restricted and yet the Local Plan makes no allowance to resolve this. Housing Density The reasonable approach of the Councils officers regarding sensible density within the development area of Greenaway Lane is noted and appreciated.

SO31


Object

I object to HA1 for the following reasons: ROADS - I feel the 2 roads leading out of the village, which is a peninsula, are not adequate to cope safely with the extra traffic the proposed housing will create. Other sites are located much closer to the A27 and M27 transport links such as the land south of Longfield Av, Fareham, i belive its called Newlands Farm. STRATEGIC GAP - I feel the amount of houses proposed will close the gap between Warsash and Sarisbury Green to such an extent as to destroy their individual identities. INFRASTRUCTURE - The 700 extra homes will not be provided for by the local schools, doctors, etc. as they are already at capacity the schools should be built before the houses! Also the local shops will suffer as the parking is terrible in the day in the village as it is, will there be more parking? i dobt it.

SO31


Object

This development should not go ahead. There are far too many houses and the local infrastructure cannot cope. There are few roads out of the area and no scope to widen any of them; adding this many houses will just cause gridlock and misery for all residents.

SO31


Object

The proposals for 700 dwellings would result in severe problems in the Warsash area that the existing infrastructure is unable to cope with. There have already been many new dwellings constructed recently on the Wimpey site off Peters Road, the old hospital site in Park Gate, quite apart from numerous infill developments. Many houses are currently under construction in the Bursledon area, Hedge End, Horton Heath, etc. These are already resulting in major problems with the roads, schools, doctors, parking, etc. These 700 dwellings, together with 35 at the Genesis centre, 49 in Raley Road, 71 in Heath Road and 100 in Newtown Road would totally overload the local area with some 2,000 extra cars, 3,000+ extra people (including around 1,000 children). There would be gridlock on the local roads, unacceptable pollution, impossibility in accessing doctors, no places for school children, no parking, and loss of amenities, wildlife and loss of habitat. This area is currently zoned as Countryside in an area outside of defined urban settlement boundaries. In my opinion the site should remain for this usage and the development at Welborne should be constructed to take the required dwellings as that site can be provided with appropriate infrastructure. These proposed developments in Warsash would result in a dramatic increase in residents of around 30% which would result in intolerable traffic conditions, impossibility of accessing a GP and the need for new schools, etc. The only development that I would like to see would be a limited size community for older people to enable them to move from their existing houses to make way for younger families.

SO31


Object

The proposed developments are inconsistent with the Core Strategy Policy CS6. The Development Strategy seeks to "prioritise development within the defined urban settlement boundaries" and the Governments National Planning Policy Framework states that "Planning should… encourage the effective use of land by reusing land that has been previously developed (Brownfield land), provided that it is not of high environmental value". Policy DSP7: New Residential Developments Outside of the Defined Urban Settlement Boundaries, also states "there will be a presumption against new residential developments outside of the defined urban settlement boundaries". The Local Plan Part 3 – Development Sites & Policies says of New Residential Development Outside of the Defined Urban Settlement Boundaries that "exceptions may be made for the conversion of existing buildings, one of one replacement of existing dwellings or where there is a proven requirement for a new dwelling to support an agricultural worker's employment requirements to live in close proximity to their place of work. The proposed new development site will not be replacement dwellings nor conversions, nor necessary for agricultural work, in fact they are taking jobs away in agriculture from the local area. Therefore, I do not believe they meet the criteria for exceptions. In addition the proposed development, due to its size and scale and also with awareness of all of the other proposed developments in the area, will impact in an unacceptable way on the following areas: 1 Strategic break - Loss of strategic break between Warsash & Locks Heath thus destroying a local community. 2 Countryside – The land is designated as Countryside and should not be lost to development as there are plenty of brown field sites in Fareham that should be developed first. 3 Flooding – This is a major risk for Brook & Greenaway Lane as the proposed site slopes towards both roads is currently countryside; if this land is turned into housing the water that currently drains would swamp both roads and buildings. 4 Local Services - Pressure on local services is already at breaking point. Local primary & secondary schools are already oversubscribed and already substantially enlarged in the case of some primary and the secondary school. Without substantial additional investment in schools (although further enlarging would make them unmanageable or reduce their outside space too greatly), the infrastructure cannot support the development. Doctors' surgeries are full and struggling already to provide an adequate service. Such an influx of houses will stretch these to crisis point. There is no mention of further provision for care homes. 5 Traffic congestion - Today the local roads cannot cope with the current traffic so if this proposed development is allowed, even without considering the other numerous planning applications in the are, it will lead to massive local congestion. The area is effectively a peninsular with only limited roads to access the area. Traffic is already a significant problem, often gridlocked every morning and evening; there is finite space so limited opportunity to enlarge roads to cope with more traffic. Emergency vehicles will be unable to ensure safe response times. There are limited jobs in the area so these houses would be for people who would then need to travel to work, further increasing this problem. 6 Significant impact on air quality through substantially increased pollution from car fumes. Fareham is already struggling with poor air quality and another few 1000 cars in the Western Wards can only further this issue. 7 Increase in light pollution. 8 Loss of wildlife; this is an area of natural beauty and this site is home to numerous precious species. Currently the land supports barn owls who use it for hunting, the loss of this land will put them under pressure to survive; deer, badgers, bats and any other number of species. IT is now recognised that more than 1 in 10 of the UK's wildlife species are now threatened with extinction; the Uk's endangered insects and creatures' numbers have dropped by 2/3 since the 1970s. Further, the loss of this land will result in further fragmentation of wildlife through being limited only to the remaining open spaces. There are many sites that we believe the council should be looking at that are more suitable than Warsash and the Western Wards, such as Newlands Farm. We also request that FBC look at SHLAA Ref 3127 and the surrounding area of Fareham north and east of the town centre. This appears to be a prime location as it already has direct access to the motorway and easy access to the public transport links in Fareham town centre and three senior schools. The area between Peak Lane and Ranvilles Lane, north of Stubbington was indicated as a prime area for development and was even prepared for development with additional drainage put in recently. 700+ properties would fit in this area easily without impinging apron the Fareham / Stubbington separation "gap" that the council now prioritise as important (it is a shame that the Warsash / Locksheath / Parkgate / Sarisbury Green separation area seems of no concern). The additional benefits of the Peak Lane area were actually given by Councillor Woodward during his presentation, 1) Stubbington is going to have a multi-million by-pass built which, 2) leads onto the Daedalus site which, we are informed, is going to be a major area of employment. Properties will be near a new by-pass and near a place of employment.

SO31


Object

I object to the development of this site because: - the limited local roads, the schools and other infrastructure in and around Warsash cannot be increased sufficiently to meet the additional demand - there will be a significant loss of green space - there will be increased air pollution resulting from the additional static traffic at the A27/M27 junctions

SO31


Object

The proposed developments are inconsistent with the Core Strategy Policy CS6. The Development Strategy seeks to "prioritise development within the defined urban settlement boundaries" and the Governments National Planning Policy Framework states that "Planning should… encourage the effective use of land by reusing land that has been previously developed (Brownfield land), provided that it is not of high environmental value". In addition the proposed development, due to its size and scale and also with awareness of all of the other proposed developments in the area, will impact in an unacceptable way on the following areas: 1 Strategic break - Loss of strategic break between Warsash & Locks Heath thus destroying a local community. 2 Countryside – The land is designated as Countryside and should not be lost to development as there are plenty of brown field sites in Fareham that should be developed first. 3 Flooding – This is a major risk for Brook & Greenaway Lane as the proposed site slopes towards both roads is currently countryside; if this land is turned into housing the water that currently drains would swamp both roads and buildings. 4 Local Services - Pressure on local services is already at breaking point. Local primary & secondary schools are already oversubscribed and already substantially enlarged in the case of some primary and the secondary school. Without substantial additional investment in schools (although further enlarging would make them unmanageable or reduce their outside space too greatly), the infrastructure cannot support the development. Doctors' surgeries are full and struggling already to provide an adequate service. Such an influx of houses will stretch these to crisis point. There is no mention of further provision for care homes. 5 Traffic congestion - Today the local roads cannot cope with the current traffic so if this proposed development is allowed, even without considering the other numerous planning applications in the are, it will lead to massive local congestion. The area is effectively a peninsular with only limited roads to access the area. Traffic is already a significant problem, often gridlocked every morning and evening; there is finite space so limited opportunity to enlarge roads to cope with more traffic. Emergency vehicles will be unable to ensure safe response times. There are limited jobs in the area so these houses would be for people who would then need to travel to work, further increasing this problem. 6 Significant impact on air quality through substantially increased pollution from car fumes. Fareham is already struggling with poor air quality and another few 1000 cars in the Western Wards can only further this issue. 7 Increase in light pollution. 8 Loss of wildlife; this is an area of natural beauty and this site is home to numerous precious species. Currently the land supports barn owls who use it for hunting, the loss of this land will put them under pressure to survive; deer, badgers, bats and any other number of species. IT is now recognised that more than 1 in 10 of the UK's wildlife species are now threatened with extinction; the Uk's endangered insects and creatures' numbers have dropped by 2/3 since the 1970s. Further, the loss of this land will result in further fragmentation of wildlife through being limited only to the remaining open spaces. 9. Links to Fareham: there are very limited public transport links from Warsash to Fareham. It is not a natural or obvious area as satellite to the town centre, High house prices in the area ensures that a large development here is in the interest of developers. There are many sites that are more suitable than Warsash and the Western Wards, such as Newlands Farm. Also SHLAA Ref 3127 and the surrounding area of Fareham north and east of the town centre. This appears to be a prime location as it already has direct access to the motorway and easy access to the public transport links in Fareham town centre and three senior schools. The area between Peak Lane and Ranvilles Lane, north of Stubbington was indicated as a prime area for development and was even prepared for development with additional drainage put in recently. 700+ properties would fit in this area easily without impinging upon the Fareham / Stubbington separation "gap" that the council now prioritise as important (this site further reduces any separation for Warsash / Locksheath / Parkgate / Sarisbury Green). With the proposed Stubbington multi-million by-pass leading onto the proposed Daedalus site as a major area of employment, properties here will be near appropriate road networks and a place of employment.

SO31


Object

Hello probably not saying anything that hasn't already been said, but the proposed addition of over 800 homes in such a small village will put a strain on already over-stretched infrastructure and services. The plan shows the proposed development in orange, it should also show the ongoing developments in Peters Road, Lockswood Road and the recent development of the old hospital in Brook lane. Thousands of buildings, people and cars. But no new doctors surgeries, sewers, road improvements or schools. This is a crazy situation, especially as these huge developments, either side of Greenaway Lane, are all supposed to exit onto Brook Lane.

SO31


Object

There are already too many people on these roads The local schools are already full to capacity The wildlife areas where deer and other small animals live will be destroyed and yet again... HUMANS don't care as long as their pockets are getting deeper and fuller. This is a nice area to live at the moment. Anymore people and it will be over crowded and too busy.

SO31


Object

I would like to object to the current proposals at this site in Warsash. I understand and appreciate that more houses need to be built but the sheer number of houses proposed on this site is completely out of character with the village of Warsash which has a lot of individual character houses and nowhere near the density in such a small area. . I have grown up in the area and now live here with my young family and have seen the area change vastly in the last 31 years. This is understandable but the current proposals area such a massive shock that my beloved village will change into a sprawling mass of houses that will no longer have the charm and beauty that I have always loved and been proud of. The current proposals would have a huge impact on all the whole of the infrastructure in Warsash that can only just cope with the current level of housing and traffic. I know it is not the jurisdiction of FBC to have to think about but the GP surgeries and local infant and junior schools area already at near full capacity, I do not believe the historic figure of 0.25 children per household is representative either of how many children would actually be brought to the area. This area is a very family orientated area and therefore I suspect the figure being used will underestimate the influx into the area further placing more pressures on it. Due to the geography of the area with natural borders it is very difficult to be able to absorb such an increase in pressures as there is limited routes into and out of the village. The traffic to get out of the area as a whole can be very challenging at peak work times already without a huge increase of cars and traffic that will undoubtedly be a result. I am also very concerned about the increase in pollution levels in such a small place which we know has lots of negative effects not only on personal but environmental health. The fact the the green spaces that try to help to counteract these pollutants that we produce will be taken away will only further put strain on the area. Greenaway Lane I believe also has a special status to consider. Not only is it deemed countryside which is meant to be protected but it acts as a natural border between it and the neighbouring villages. There is an understandable and obvious concern re: wildlife which is facing ever increasing pressures but also building on this would obliterate this natural boundary giving Warsash no obvious identity. Given this was one of the reasons for rejecting Newlands Farm which, given the size of the gap there, would surely still leave a bigger gap than the non-existent one for Warsash with the level of housing proposed. I ask you to look again at Newlands Farm as

SO31


Object

My daily commute to work as already seen an extra 15-20mins increase time just getting out of Warsash and on to the motorway with the extra housing proposed for the area I can see that this would impact me a heck of a lot, therefore I would have to reconsider my job, but then jobs are hard to come by and wouldn't be an option. Wildlife is already decreasing and this is all down to housing development. Schools are already struggling and class numbers are at the max - in my opinion they are too large now! Please do not let this development happen it would ruin a lot of people's lives and wildlife.

SO31


Object

I strongly object to the level of housing in the general Warsash area and this application is outrageous... Already the roads cannot cope, the doctors surgeries cannot cope, the schools cannot cope WE CANNOT HAVE ANY MORE HOUSING HERE.

Postcode not provided


Object

1. The land is outside the DUB (Defined Urban Boundary) as the land is considered countryside. It is the last plot of open land separating Warsash from Locks heath. 2. There is a diversity of wild life reliant on this land including badgers, deer, bats, green woodpeckers, bats and a barn owl have been attempting to nest in the old strawberry barn (this barn is not shown on any of the proposed plans and is probably the only surviving structure linking Warsash to it's history of strawberry farming) The badger sets use this land to feed on and travel through. There is a badger run going through my garden the proposed development will ruining their environment and force them to cross an even busier Brook Lane. 3. The plans show at least 5 houses overlooking my rear garden and bedrooms giving my family a loss of privacy and increasing light, air and noise pollution. Fareham is already struggling to keep within the governments sar pollution standards. 4. In the morning and evenings the traffic is queued up from Warsash to junctions 8 and 9 on the M27 this will become worse with this proposed development. There are at least six other very large developments between Warsash and the M27 this can only increase the pollution levels that the government are trying to reduce. 5. Warsash is becoming a rat run for cars turning off the A27 down the Warsash road and up Brook Lane thus missing Sedgensworth roundabout and Park Gate. This goes past the entrance to the proposed development this is a safety issue. 6.Community services in Warsash are already over stretched the local doctors have a 4 week waiting time for an appointment, local schools can only accept more children by increasing class sizes against government policy. By building 800 more dwellings this will have a detrimental affect on every body living in Warsash. 7.The proposed high density housing is not in keeping with the existing character of Warsash it appears to be aimed at making maximum profits with no regard for the existing community or the future of the village. I strongly object to the proposed development. Fareham Borough Council have fails on there building plans for the new Welborne estate and Warsash is being used (devastated) because of there incompetence. Warsash cannot cope with another 800 houses 1600 more cars and another 2000 to 3000 more residents. Warsash is taking the brunt of FBC's incompetence they should reconsider all of the other sites or get the Welborne site back on track as the original plan.

SO31


Object

I object to the amount of proposed housing without any thought of infrastructure. There appears to be no provision for roads, schools, doctors, all of which are at breaking point in Warsash. A considerable amount of housing has already been carried out and with the Wellbourne development adopted is all the housing necessary in Warsash which will completely change the village status, have no strategic gap, harm wildlife and lose land considered countryside. This will also have a severe impact on those who need to compute to earn a living.

SO31


Object

The roads are built are not built to carry this extra traffic

SO31


Object

To whom it may concern. I would seriously like to object to the draft plan and proposed destruction of Warsash and the surrounding area. In the words of Mike Ford, when he addressed the Executive members "this is a flawed and unsustainable, unfair decision. The Impact will be felt by local residents for years to come" This plan will ruin what is a beautiful village that has been heavily built on over the years and enough is enough. 800 new homes (which includes the Maritime college), Minimum of 1600 cars, Approx. 2500K people potentially more, Which will increase the population by one third. Not forgetting the St. Peters road build and Strawberry fields which has heavily impacted on our village. Warsash has so many house being built in it and new sites are popping up what feels like every day. The roads are just a nightmare due to the increased heavy goods that are delivery and the site teams have absolutely no regard for current residents. Warsash is a beautiful village with a fantastic community which is beginning to feel the effects of the villages over build. 2449 people have signed a petition against this plan, 500 people turned out to march against this plan and many more wished to attend but unfortunately could not. How can a small peninsula village seriously cope with 800 extra homes and further more we will be affected by all the other builds in the Western Ward. This ward can't physically cope with the monstrosity and someone needs to put a stop to this. My main points are as follows 1. Wild life The proposed sight of Greenaway lane is natural beauty that offers an abundance of homes for our wildlife. We should be encourage this and educating future generations to care and allow the wild life space to breed and thrive. This is only going to show them that we don't care about the environment, trees, animals and birds. It is going to teach them that everything is disposable and that they can have everything that they want in life. Further building work on these amazing green fields are just going to drive our wildlife away. Our village is already over developed and the wild life are suffering for it. We need wildlife to help with our natural life cycles and they should not be forced out. My family and I love to see the deer, foxes and badgers and many other animals. 2. Traffic and Highways The Warsash developments are all located on or around Lanes. They will be using Lanes to be able to access shops, houses, schools the daily commute. These lanes were never built to cope with the current amount of traffic never mind the impact that will be placed on them when and if these houses are built. The names Barnes LANE, Brooke LANE and Greenaway LANE is telling you that these are country lanes that will not cope with the impact of all the extra traffic and heavy goods to service the area. Approximately 1000 extra cars on the roads each day will reduce this area to become more of a car park than it already is. The commute for current residents is very difficult as it is. We live near the Dibbles Road / Lockswood Road / Warsash Road roundabout and trying to cross Warsash Road on our walk to and from school is terrible. We are waiting for more than 5 minutes to have a break in the road to cross. We have changed routes, and gone along Warsash Road and that's just as bad to cross Lockswood Road. The pavement from this round about down to Church road are a disgrace and far too narrow. I have a four and six year old and I have to trust my six year old to walk in front as I can't hold her hand as the pavements are so narrow. Nothing can be done about this but it has got worse since the residents of St Peters road and Strawberry fields have moved in; 800 more houses and 1600 more cars and it will make it unbearable. No amount of lights and traffic control system is going to help with this, there is simply too much traffic that the proposed lights are just not going to be ineffective, you will be impacting these country lanes and making the current residents lives a living hell. May I draw your attention to the fact that in your Draft Plan document, point 1.36 states "the M27 does suffer from congestion, particularly at peak times" this is a nightmare at junction 8 and 9 continuously and this is going to get worse with the Manor Farm development at junction 8 and Whitely at junction 9. Segensworth can't cope already and nor can Whitely so adding these extra houses right on top of it is going to make it worse. It also states "The Borough has three train stations, providing connections to London and to the wider rail network", this is true however trying to get to them on the road infrastructure is a nightmare, especially at peak times. Not enough parking and no room to expand. So not really a viable option to give the new residents. I understand that this is nothing to do with FBC but it obviously is as it should all be planned in connection with your other partners. You can't add more houses without serious changes and joint up work to cope with it. 3. Pollution Currently we know the area has a poor air quality and that you as a council seriously need to address this. My children's asthma is getting worse and I can't help but think that the doctor is right in the fact that the air pollution is the cause of this. Having this extra traffic is going to impact this further and having lights onto the A27 is going to impact that too. The Environment needs to be strongly considered, we can't keep building on this area, we are at risk of flooding and that is only going to increase as we take away more and more natural drainage by building on it. 4. Employment FBC has said that it will bring jobs to the area, How? How in Warsash are you going to create jobs, there is no space! People have to commute to get jobs. There is an extremely poor transport system to support this. All this is going to do is drive people further afield to shop as they will get fed up of not being able to park at Waitrose and other shops in Locksheath or in the Warsash Village itself. These businesses need to maintain the customers not have them put off as they can't access it. 5. Schools and Higher Education This plan suggest that if we follow the calculations that each home will be 0.25 places for schools. That equates to 200 extra children, 7 extra classes to be added to local schools that are already a bursting point. The schools currently can't cope with the demand on them, never mind the lack of funds that they are trying to cope with. Our schools are losing the outdoor space that our children seriously need. Space that they need to run around in as we are losing our green spaces locally. Space due to the fact that we cram so many houses into one area that the gardens are too small for children to play in. Schools currently struggle with the size of the space and facilities within the school grounds. They are losing space to provide sports indoor and outdoor, this will impact on our obesity levels and health of children. All of our schools in this area are in built up areas and local residents are already complaining about the traffic, parking and people walking to access the school grounds. This is going to impact them further. We will have not enough senior school places and children will have to commute further to get to them which will impact on air pollution and traffic problems. College spaces are going to be lacking too. We will probably see more youths not working and not being able to get on the job ladder due to a lack of provision. 6. Health We currently struggle to access healthcare as it is at our GP's, dentist and hospitals. This is only going to get worse. We will have no extra provision and the GP's are currently at breaking point. People will suffer, people will receive worse healthcare and worse still staff at these surgeries and dentists etc. will continue to feel demoralised as they are put under more stress. In the draft plan document you mention older people, we have a reasonably high amount of retired persons within the area and these people will suffer they need more healthcare not less. I fully understand that this is not Fareham Borough Councils issue however it should be, it should be considered and be part of a joint force to protect your residents current and new. This should not be an afterthought or a thought that it's not our issues, it should be a partnership with the CCG. Two of the sights that are proposed are owned by Taylor Wimpey and Forman homes have had previous planning applications rejected due to the land being classified as countryside that is out of the defined urban boundary. Why now is this being used to plan on, why has the council changed their minds just to suit them? The strategic gap needs to stand firm to help communities. Some of this land was also sold as agricultural land, so why now is that needing to be changed and legally can this be done. Current Warsash and Western Wards residents have been under the impression that Wellborne was going to protect us from this, but now we realise that this was just a smoke screen to your bigger plans. Wellborne I understand is behind schedule but surely it makes more sense to continue to invest time and money into making that work as it will be a better option and have a better impact on the area as a whole. It will have the ability to take new schools, GP's better access to onto roads and M27. It will help with pollution as traffic will floow better onto the revised M27. It will help keep the strategic gaps as it will have a greater gap between it and Funtly. Warsash is going to lose its strategic gap and we are just going to become victims of Urban sprawl. Newlands Farm is another prime location that I seriously think is being underestimated. They will have a fantastic gap even with all the houses. They will have a bypass and better use of the current road infrastructure, they will have better access to

SO31


Object

The surrounding area of this proposed development is already suffering as a result of previous developments where the infrastructure has not been improved in line with the massive increase of houses built. The schools are full, the doctors surgeries are full to the point where when I tried to get an appointment this week I was told there was absolutely nothing available - emergencies only. There has recently been a very large development in Strawberry fields which is very close to this proposed development, the traffic has increased significantly to a point where Lockswood Road and Brook Lane are actually becoming dangerous. The number of cars trying to get in and out of such small access roads is utter madness and I fear accidents could potential be caused. The wildlife in the area has also been sadly affected. No where for badgers, deer etc to make home anymore, driving them into the more built up areas where unfortunately they struggle to survive. Whilst I understand the need for more housing, this area in particular has had more than its fair share so that is why I strongly object to this proposal

SO31


Object

There must be a full representative increase to local services such as GP availability and school places if a development of this magnitude were to take place. The local road system needs upgrading to reduce pinch points such as Seginsworth roundabout and Park Gate. The current one way cut through link road opposite FGF cafe should become two way. This will make a negative impact to current and future residents if these frankly necessary arrangements are not put in place at the same time - not just a loose commitment for the future.

SO31


Object

I have sent a letter of objection via email and the hard copy in the post to very strongly object to this proposed development and any development which will bring extra dwellings in the area as we are at saturation point already and the roads around our area are regularly becoming gridlocked during rush hour periods.

SO31


Object

This area is already over developed with far too little green space left. The recent development by wimpey homes on peters road has already destroyed much wildlife and created much more traffic than the local roads can cope with. In addition the impact on schools and doctors surgeries would be an issue.

SO31


Object

We would like to oppose this development in the strongest possible terms. This is over development of an area already under severe pressure on Roads and Schools. A 25% increase in housing is totally unacceptable and will effectively destroy what little areas there are which have not already been developed. We are not at all satisfied that this has been thought through and is just a quick fix to fill the gap arising from the delays to the proposals for Welbourne. In addition the Council's record in assuring that infrastructure requirements are funded by the developers does not lead to any confidence that such a proposal would go ahead without the necessary guarantees. In short this proposal should not proceed.

SO31


Object

At the moment out telephone exchange is apparently out of date and overloaded, our doctors are overloaded so that appointments take several weeks, our schools are overloaded so that local children are sent out of the local area on overloaded roads, and in particular the roads are overloaded so that working people experience huge delays when going to and from work. Although part of this problem for Warsash may be due to overload on the M27, much of the worst queuing is due to local congestion near and on the A27 between the Hamble Bridge (or Windover Junction) and Segensworth/Whiteley Junction. There are problems with getting on to the motorway in the mornings, and queues to get off in the evenings. It is not reasonable to embark on this development (and the Warsash Maritime Centre housing development) without proper planning and progress to deal with the infrastructure pressures which will result.

SO31


Comment

You may receive this or similar twice, as I pressed the wrong button !! I repeat my previous sentiments when commenting on proposed developments along Brook Lane, Warsash. The local roads, schools and surgeries are totally inadequate for any such development. All are already overloaded. It is quite pointless saying to talk of aims and good intentions but exactly how, in short words which I understand, will the necessary increase in schools and surgeries - both buildings and staff - come about ? I understand that much of that may be outside the influence of FUDC but there must be space in such a comprehensive plan for clear relevant statements and the representations made to other governing bodies. No doubt I have missed some of the important points in the document, however. Without repeating myself, similar comments apply to the other local proposals HA7 and HA9. I thank you for the opportunity to comment. May I add here comment on H10 - Gypsy etc sites. Will there be an income from the offering of such sites to the Gypsy etc community by way of rental or similar or will the Council Tax payer bear the costs associated with such sites ?

SO31


Object

Fareham borough does need additional sustainable development of its infrastructure and that includes more residential accommodation. Unfortunately the sites identified in this Draft Plan plan fails to deliver a sustainable solution in certain of its discrete communities and lets down those communities represented. With respect to the Draft Plan Objection : I don't believe that the sites proposed adequately address the needs recognised in H2: Provision of Affordable Housing and I don't believe that Sites such as HA1,3 & 7 have considered adequately aspects of Policy H4: where Adaptable and Accessible Dwellings Development proposals for all new dwellings shall provide: I do not argue that it has been ignored, but that minimum lip service has been paid to the extent that the provisions noted entirely fail to achieve the goals intended for H4. at least 15% of all new dwellings at Category 2 standard; and b) on schemes of over 100 dwellings (gross), at least 2% of private housing and 5% of affordable housing, shall be provided as wheelchair accessible Category 3 properties. Schemes exclusively for flatted development will be expected to comply with the criteria as much as is physically possible before lifts would be a requirement" Objection: I object to the revisions of H4 identified in the Draft Plan. Further with respect to HA 1,3&7 it appears that H4 does not adequately reflect the requirement that " Further new older person and specialist accommodation will be required during the Local Plan period. Such provision can help people to downsize and free up family dwellings for others. The precise amount and type of specialist and older person accommodation required will depend on a range of factors including the choices of individual people and households.( of which I see no reference in HA1,3 or 7) Evidence in the Housing Evidence Overview Paper (2017) outlines some of this need which, where possible, has been addressed through specific allocations included in this plan and provision to be provided at Welborne" Further accommodation to address identified need would be acceptable in principle subject to Policy H5". Objection : I believe this fails to address the issues in the localities represented by the sites I have objected to, and specifically not in respect of HA1,3 and 7. This is in itself evident that FBC approach Warsash as a general dormitory and not as a discrete community as is required. The Draft Plan is very Fareham central centric in the division of benefits and provision of the Sustainable aspects of the plan, unfortunately the surrounding community developments' including these to which I am objecting, do not bear the same level of attention to Sustainability Planning. The Warsash, Park Gate, Titchfield communities are discrete settlements where development proposals should be considered very carefully: Objection : I believe that the Draft Plan and the sites I have specifically objected to fail in respect of Policy SP1: Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development "When considering development proposals, the Council will take a positive approach that reflects the "presumption in favour of sustainable development" contained in the National Planning Policy Framework. When appropriate the Council will work constructively with applicants to find solutions that enable proposals to be granted permission wherever possible, and to secure high quality development that improves the economic, social and environmental conditions in the area………….." Objection : With respect to HA1 specifically, my objection includes the determination that the entire list of sites not only fails to address SP7 "requirement to Create places that encourage healthy lifestyles and provide for the community through the provision of leisure and cultural facilities, recreation and open space and the opportunity to walk and cycle to destinations" but goes as far as misleading in its reference to some open play area space and provision to cross the road which covers up an entirely inadequate provision in both cases and exacerbates the problems for cyclists and pedestrians, and relates to the road and safety of children walking or cycling to school. I find Appendix C: Draft Development Framework - Development Allocation HA1 (North & South of Greenaway Lane, Warsash) to be entirely unconvincing in respect of this and other areas of objection. Objection : I note well and object to the Employment Policy section, there is No "E" for the communities represented in the site plans to which I object. No local employment issues are considered within those discreet community settlements, adding to the obvious conclusion that they are being considered as dormitory developments in contravention of key policies identified. I would be able to support site development proposals that are aimed at meeting identified settlement needs, of which there are many, but not those reflected by these sites in this Draft Plan. Objection Draft Local Plan : I object also to E5, which protects Boatyard business except in the case where it can be represented as uneconomic. I object to the watering down of protection implied by this provision. Key Strategic Priorities: Both the overall Draft Plan and the specific site proposals fail to meet a number of stated Key Strategic Priorities. Objection : In respect to the references to settlement definition, this is then broadly disregarded or seemingly misrepresented in both plan and site descriptions. The needs of local business in the discrete communities so defined is ignored and only addressed as a general and seemingly Fareham central oriented manner. Objections below can be read to note that they jointly and severally contribute to evidence that the Plan fails in satisfying KSP's 1,3 and 7 most specifically, but the other sites generally in respect of the site objections noted above. 1. Address the housing and employment needs by the end of the plan period in an appropriate and sustainable manner, creating places people want to live or where businesses want to locate. 2. In the first instance maximise development within the urban area and away from the valued landscapes and spaces that contribute to settlement definition (SP 6 notwithstanding and particularly SP6 failure to address community definition in the communities affected by the sites specifically objected to in this submission) 7. Create places that encourage healthy lifestyles and provide for the community through the provision of leisure and cultural facilities, recreation and open space and the opportunity to walk and cycle to destinations. Sustainability Planning : (SP) Objection : Entirely insufficient evidence or justification is contained within any of the above proposals with respect to the sustainability issues and benefits to the discrete communities that I have referenced. Passing references are made to lack of current provision in schooling and infrastructure, and requirements for the schemes to "contribute" to that development. However no integrated or sustainable accounting or plan is proposed that identifies the needs that should be critically planned to 2036 and costed accordingly. For example the sites identified do not disclose the extent to which sites (or combinations of sites) can contribute to the site selection priorities / refining points within the plan itself. One specific example being Selection Priorities / Refining Point 7. I cannot find any evidence presented for the requirement that they "Cumulatively and individually lessen the impact on traffic whilst delivering the new homes. Maximises opportunities for the cumulative highway impacts to be addressed". I note that a number of other Selection Priorities / Refining Points have not been properly addressed either. It is not possible to review the Draft Policy or Sites named herein and assess the suitability of any or all of them without this information. Both contain platitudes and broad intentions, but are very short on evidence of the work required to support the proposals. I suggest that the Policy and Site plan is a product of rushed work that does not benefit from appropriate review of : The discrete communities are not designed to be dormitory communities, the road and related services infrastructure is not planned or updated to meet such a purpose, yet the Draft Plan clearly treats these areas as if they were. Access to the A27 during morning rush hour is at a crisis point in terms of road congestion, and also ( for example) offers a very high level of pollution along the main routes along which children walk and cycle to school. I do not see any pollution studies for the locations related to the sites objected to. Much of the commentary under INFRASTRUCTURE in clauses 11 etc do not relate to these projects or communities. I believe 11.30 to be unobserved in relation to these sites or included in the Suitability planning, or the impact of health and safety on the community. I cannot support any planning that does not address with any specificity the health of the community. Fareham is presently in trouble for poor air quality due to the amount of rush hour traffic. Bring another 3000+ cars in to the already congested roads of the Western Wards and there will be more cases of asthma, lung disease and related illnesses. Local roads such as Brook Lane, Osborne Road, Warsash Road and Barnes Lane cannot be made wider, they were built to service the traffic and community of small villages and the resulting influx of 3000+ cars in such a small square area will lead to more accidents. Already there are black spots on Brook and Barnes lane where parking on bends and corners creates safety issues for cyclists. Warsash specifically is on a peninsular 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 de

SO31


Object

Far too many houses for the areas infrastructure

SO31


Object

This is a strategic gap separating Warsash from Sarisbury Green. There is a great deal of wildlife living on the land. The proposed development would increase the population of Warsash by a third which is too much for the village to absorb without completely changing its atmosphere and semi rural nature. Traffic congestion at rush hours is already too high and hundreds more cars will exacerbate the problem. Air pollution from more cars will reduce quality of life for residents. Medical services are at crisis levels. We have to travel to Whiteley to see a doctor and have to wait weeks for an appointment. Access to the Southampton and Portsmouth hospitals in an emergency is worryingly slow in peak hours due to volume of traffic. This would be worse if the Greenway development went ahead. Moreover QA hospital cannot cope with the number of residents in its catchment and adding more homes to the area without increasing service capability at surgeries and hospitals will impact on the health, even lifespans, of residents.

SO31


Object

A poorly planned high density development, that does not consider it's impact on local roads and services, ie Doctors surgeries and schools. There will also be an environmental and health and safety issue regarding the additional emissions from this development and additional traffic affecting air quality. Reference studies on air quality in Southampton and surrounding areas which includes Warsash. If there are to be further developments in this area they should provide for buildings of the highest environmental and ecological standards. Also providing suitable open spaces and a less densely built development. With the number of proposed housing developments in Fareham Borough. The impact on air quality , road networks and services will be unsustainable.

SO31


Object

Quite apart from the additional pressure on surgeries (appointment time waiting is at ludicrous levels) and schools, the traffic issues are a major concern. It is extremely difficult to get in and out of the whole Locks Heath/Park Gate/Warsash/Sarisbury Green area at peak times due to huge traffic build up along A27 routes and the M27. This then also has a detrimental effect on air quality in the surrounding area. Not to mention the waste of fuel/stress of commuting. Any accidents on A27 or M27 cause enormous problems in this area due to the few exit routes, all leading to the same couple of roads. The knock-on effect for commuters from Gosport/Fareham/Stubbington/Titchfield will also be significant. Without improvements to all the road links, and additional surgeries/schools etc, adding so many new houses/occupants/cars to an area like this will be significantly detrimental to all the residents. Furthermore the disruption to the wildlife in these areas will be disastrous. There are many deer and other wild animals living in this habitat.

SO31


Object

My objection is not to housing development per se but to concentrating it all in this small corner of the borough and the high numbers of new homes being proposed. There are 3 main aspects to this objection 1. Traffic and air pollution - With the limitations on access due to the presence of the Hamble and the Solent on two sides this level of development will make the lives of present and future residents miserable. The likelihood of 1600 extra vehicles on local roads, not including delivery vehicles, is very likely to cause the kind of jams that happen on a daily basis on routes into Hamble village with its tail backs along the motorway at peak times. There are already problems with stressful traffic jams following the unprecedented development in the Locksheath, Warsash and Parkgate areas over the last 3 years and the attendant high levels of pollution of so many more vehicles are bound to have an impact on air quality and human health. The impact on both physical and mental well-being of both present and future residents does not seem to have been considered. 2. General infrastructure issues - lack of school places and doctor's surgeries in the area. These services are already under pressure and whilst it may be true that these issues are the responsibility of County Council and CCGs they are issues that should be dealt with before, not after, the greenlight has been given for development. 3. The impact on wildlife. Has the Council liaised with the local wildlife trust over this site? Developers have already started clearing hedgerows and cutting down trees and whilst I am aware that they have a right to do so, an environmental impact survey is urgently needed before any more valuable habitat is destroyed. There are certainly badgers and hedgehogs [both protected species] on the proposed site as well as our native roe deer and the ubiquitous fox and small mammals such as voles and shrews. There are Tawny Owls, bats and a large number different species of birds that nest in the area in the summer. Has anyone checked for sand lizards up there? At present all these creatures can move fairly freely between other small remaining patches of undeveloped land. The site itself forms the last remaining, important wildlife corridor between other small but significant refuges for wildlife in the area such as Warsash Common, the land behind Holly Hill and the land along the coastal and riverside strip. With this level of urbanisation this last remaing link will be lost and the impact will not only be on wildlife within the site but on wildlife trapped in other small areas of existing greenspace. The land set aside for wildlife, and the proposed wildlife corridors, on the possible plan for the site is inadequate to fulfill its intended function. Serious consideration should be given to the high level of impact on wildlife in the whole area that this development will have, not just on the wildlife within the site itself. I have not seen evidence that such an assessment has taken place.

SO32


Comment

My comment is that this proposed development along with HA9, HA11 and HA14 will result in 855 new dwellings. Many families now have two cars and the volume of traffic along Barnes Lane, Brook Lane, Lockswood Road, Locks Road and Hunts Pond Road means there are long delays to access the A27 at peak times. I don't see in the plan any proposals on how the proposed increase in traffic flow will be addressed.

SO31


Comment

This plan will have a significant impact on the local infrastructure. Whilst recognising the need for increased housing provision, I feel that the proposed number of dwellings and consequent population increase, is far more than the immediate area can reasonably cope with. I think that a more realistic approach should be adopted during the ongoing consultation process and a revised plan submitted.

SO31


Object

I wish to object to the HA1 plan for 700 houses, quite frankly the proposed plan is poorly thought out, unreasonable and unreasonable, local council and government plans threaten our entire way of life and seem to have no coherent reasoning or sense. All the excuses we hear from local officials is that they do not have a choice. This is of course absolutely unacceptable. 1) Warsash Road Network: Having attended a recent meeting, it was made clear that there is no ability to make any improvements to the existing local Road structure. For this reason alone this site is inappropriate, our local roads can not take the additional 1000 plus vehicles. Access in and out of the local area is already unacceptable 2) Pedestrian Safety Issue: Warsash Road is already extremely busy, pavements are inappropriately too narrow in places and there's no room or scope to improve these. Trying to cross Warsash Road at any point of the day is dangerous, cars travel too fast and there are too many. Adding another 1000 plus vehicles to this seems completely inappropriate and another principle reason to reject this site. 3) Doctors Surgeries Insufficient Resource: Our local Doctors Surgeries are already under enormous pressure, getting appointments is very difficult. What was clear at the CAT meeting is that FBC have very little influence to change this so it seems unlikely that any new services will evolve. The requirement to provide additional housing for a growing population simply can not come without additional infrastructure resources. 4) School Places: Families with siblings already at local schools have not been able to get places in recent years and have had to send their children to separate alternative schools. Where are an additional 2-3 thousand children going to get school places. And if there was a plan to build a new school where would that go. 5) Green area, impact on Wildlife: There is going to be an impact on the many wildlife within that site, even with provision to avoid certain areas of the site to accommodate existing badger sets, the disruption to wildlife remains an issue.[redacted]

SO31


Object

Please reconsider this decision. Schools are already oversubscribed, Brookfield currently has 1800 pupils. Junior and infant schools are also full. Increase in traffic getting into and out of the area, M27 is frequently queueing at peak times. Local wildlife will be destroyed, currently Badgers, Slowworms, grass snakes, deer, foxes, Owls all live on the proposed site. We have already had our share of new developments, with Strawberry Fields estate, and the huge estate being built along the A27/M27.

SO31


Object

As a coastal village similar to Hamble (which is a disaster of over development) - Warsash is effectively a dead end which is already stretched to the maximum. Roads, schools, shops and services simply cannot support this level of increased population without significant infrastructural improvements. Brook lane already has dangerous bottlenecks with on road parking both during the day and at night. We would support lighter development of this site but the proposal appears to be simply designed to maximise profits for the developer without any thought to the existing population.

SO31


Object

"I object to the proposal, it is another large development in an area that is struggling to cope with services i.e. Dr's Schools and infrastructure. A a parent I appreciate that there is a housing need but that must be supported in a planned and strategic way, not just build build build and cross your fingers that it will all sort itself out. It seems that Fareham Borough Council are quite happy to take the cash but very little of it is reinvested in the local area. I dare say the response would be ""we "" have just built a new recreation centre. That has taken many many years and is run by a private company i.e. not for the benefit if the residents i.e. some one else gets a cut."

SO31


Object

National & Local Planning Policies This potential development should be referred by our elected representatives to the highest levels within local & national government. The objections and well-founded comments by the majority of residents and their electorate must be given very careful consideration. Additional collective 800 homes in this area without significant investment in services and infrastructure would destroy a quality of life that has been gradually eroded over several decades. The Coldeast and Strawberry Fields developments have taken the area to a point that should not be surpassed. This goes well beyond the Western Wards plans developed in the seventies. The strategic urban buffer currently in place should be maintained. Any review by FBC that results in a change to the current policy should once again be referred to the highest elected national representatives. The delay in the planned sustainable urban extension at Welbourne is a major factor in this site being considered. The council should consider all possibilities in accelerating the building at Welborne. Overlooking & loss of privacy Currently our bungalow to the rear overlooks a field which we have maintained on a progressive basis since we moved in in 2006. We are understandably very concerned that any development will have a major impact. In the event that any development is permitted elected representatives will have a duty to ensure distances of any new properties must significantly exceed recognised distance, acknowledging the loss of the strategic urban buffer currently in place. Parking The potential increase in vehicles would add further to the parking issues that exist within the areas various amenities and services. The overflow parking that is gradually creeping up Brook Lane from the village centre is likely to cause a serious accident. Additional homes will result more cars needing to park in the village centre. The same issue occurs both in Park Gate and Lockswood Centre. At times, it is impossible to find a suitable and legal parking place in these centres. In the event that any development was permitted, it would be essential to include additional amenities and services including parking in all areas. This is likely to deter the commercial objectives of the potential developer but must be included. Highway Safety & Traffic The Transport Assessment and Travel Plan in one of the recent applications with its thousands of items of data, statistics and facts will have cost a significant sum to produce, demonstrating that the promoter and land owners see this as a key issue. Whilst this time and effort provides information for all interested parties to consider the resulting outcome can be presented in various way, depending on what perspective you take. What is clear is that almost 4000 vehicles use Brook Lane on a daily basis, with just over 3000 using Lockswood Road. (Please note that in Mayer Brown Noise Assessment Current Baseline Traffic Flows recorded as 7761 Brook Lane & 6233 Lockswood Road). Lockswood Road was always designed as a distributor Road for previous developments and is of superior quality and resulting safety to that of Brook Lane. From these figures, it is clear that every effort should be made to use Lockswood Road as access to any new development in the unfortunate event that this development moves forward. The automated Traffic Count records confirm that speeding at unacceptable levels already occur both in Brook Lane and Lockswood Road. In the event that a pedestrian and cyclist were hit at these speeds it would very likely be classes as a serious accident and potential cause severe life changing injuries or death. The council have a responsibility to manage and reduce this significant risk. Up until now it appears that the council act retrospectively by installing traffic calming measures after a death or serious injury on various local roads. Whilst one of the report details that 8 recorded accidents have taken place over the past 5 years in Brook Lane, this is far from the reality experienced by those residents living in the Lane. We understand from older residents that several fatalities and serious accidents have occurred before the 5 years covered. Maybe a longer period should be considered. The road at the top of Brook Lane which meets the mini roundabout with Lockswood Road is very dangerous. It appears to be too narrow and is in need of road markings. Several times an hour particularly at peak times, repeat offending speeding vehicles dangerously exceed the average 36/37mph. This results in a significant number of near misses and is very stressful for residents. I am quite sure a number of incidents are not recorded. Certainly, domestic animals are killed or injured. On a regular basis we have witness deer, badgers and foxes being killed or injured on the lane. Whilst the value of an animal's life should not be devalued, I guess that had these injuries and loss of life been recorded as human, it would change the view of those hoping to in increase the traffic on the already busy roads. The National Policy Framework and HCC's resulting policy to "Reduce Mange Invest". All this is very commendable and should be encouraged. Currently we do not see people at the bus stops queuing in numbers to use the services. Buses pass through the village and are usually significantly under occupied. It will be very unlikely that those occupying the potential new dwellings will use bus travel. What do the council plan to do to reverse this? Whilst an investment in the broadband network and speeds is to be welcomed, it is difficult to make a strong case on how this will impact on the transport and travel plans for those additional residents moving into a potential new development. Those working from home will still use the local roads even if it's ordering food for home delivery. The main uses of Brook Lane from a pedestrian perspective re the students of Brookfield School. Younger Children using the other Schools are usually taken via car. Older residents and those that are disabled do not use the paths. My brother in-law has used his wheelchair to travel from our home in Brook Lane to visit his parents in Garden Mews (Newton Road). The poor standard of the pavement results in him requesting help and support. Paths on not safe for the disable or elderly. An investment in this most basic of facilities should be made by the various developers or the council in the event that this development proceeds. It is clear that in recent years more people are using cycling as a leisure pursuit. This is all very good and should be encouraged but once again the investment in the roads and cycle parking needs to be made in all areas before any new and additional houses are built. It is clear that the existing roads have not been constructed for cyclists and are simply not safe enough. Increased speeding traffic increases that risk to cyclists and should be resisted. It should be welcomed that 40% of the proposed dwellings will be affordable. However, from a travel and transport viewpoint it will be unlikely that these new residents will be all walking, cycling and using public transport. Added to this the report details the trip count further confirming the increased volume of traffic onto the local road infrastructure. The detailed impact on the road and various sensitivity tests at key points only confirm what residents are already experiencing. At peak times, a relatively short local journey that should only take a few minutes can take up to three/four times that what is reasonable or has been experienced before Strawberry Field and Cost East sites. In the event that an accident occurs on the A27 or M27 the road systems become quickly gridlocked making it impossible to get around the area for business or leisure purposes. It is acknowledged that the council are investing in major roads and motorway junctions. Any new housing development should be in areas around these road improvements. A journey from 42 Brook Lane to Park Gate took 50 minutes the other morning this cannot be considered reasonable. Should this development proceed any access road would be best placed in the construction of a small roundabout opposite the entrance to Crofton/Thornton Avenue. This would have a positive effect of reducing traffic speeds both in and out the village. Noise If this scheme is agreed we would request that the developer completes the approved planting in the space allocated at the rear of our property together with any permanent brick walls or necessary acoustic fencing. This will help to reduce noise and disturbance during the construction process. Additionally, we believe it would significantly reduce noise and disturbance during operational hours if site barriers were erected either side of the new site entrance. These could be stepped back several meters to aid visibility for incoming and outgoing vehicles. Design, appearance and materials – Layout and density of building Whilst the planning statements and various supporting documents aim to suggest that the Design and appearance will respect the existing character of the local area this is blatantly incorrect on virtually every level. FBC will have a duty to challenge this and ensure that any development is in keeping with the property mix and character already in place in Warsash Road and Brook Lane in particular. In the event that a presumption of favour of sustainable development proceeds the open space should be expanded to at least half the site. The current amenity grassland should be included in any design. In the event this was to proceed we welcome the point well made in 6.4 of part 3 of the planning statement. Buffering of surround residential properties with landscaping and setting back of new dwellings will be vital essential requirement. The inclusion of 2.5-3 storey buildings should be challenged. This is clearly an attempt to increase

SO31


Object

There is insufficient infrastructure for 700 dwellings. The roads are already struggling with the existing traffic and there does not appear to be any means of improving this problem. The local schools are already full and this would, therefore, require more transportation to get children to other schools out of the area. Parents are already causing a great deal of chaos parking around the local schools in the morning and evenings. If there was an emergency, fire engines, etc. would struggle to get through the traffic at the moment particularly in Church Road and the surrounding roads. There does not appear to be any provision for sites for both a new primary/junior school and a new senior school which would be required. The doctors surgeries are struggling to cope at the moment often requiring several weeks prior knowledge of illness to obtain an appointment! We thought the whole idea of the new town outside of Fareham (Wellbourne) was to cover the Government requirement for housing in our area. We feel that another 700 dwellings to be built on agricultural land in Warsash is damaging to the environment, the loss of employment for the individuals who work on this land and in the businesses currently situated within the Plan's boundary appalling and the destruction of wildlife habitats is disgraceful. In conclusion, we feel that the new Draft Local Plan to include this development together with the others at HA3, HA7, HA9, HA11, HA13, HA14, HA15, HA17 and HA19 has been hastily put together without due consideration for the quality of life for existing residents or the residents of these new dwellings.

SO31


Object

I think this proposal is outrageous and the Council is totally failing in its duty of care to residents and must be held accountable. In addition to the environmental damage, the most serious threat is to safety with the amount of traffic now on Warsash Roads. The level of building is suffocating the community and this Council shows a total disregard for residents and is responsible for causing unstantiable pressure on schools, doctors and other local services.

SO31


Object

I hereby object to this planning application for the following reasons What is the infrastructure to support this large scale development ? We as a community are already over stretched in our area to meet the demands and requirements for existing residents who live in the village for Doctors surgerys and Schools which are full to capacity. Our roads are not built to take this volume of Traffic and with the thought of 1600 additional cars on the roads which it will be with this size development,it will be horrendous. These local roads are actually called Brook LANE , Barnes LANE and Greenaway LANE ! Not to become like a dual carriage way for commuting in and out of the village ! I can't see that there is any room for improvement on them and if so it would only be cosmetic changes and I presume that would be to the A27 and it's jucntions to help manage the congestion of this proposed large increase of population added to what we already have which is just horrific. I understand there is a need to develop in the western wards but looking into the size and scale of what is propossed it is grossly over proportioned for our village and infastructure.

SO31


Object

Real concerns about impact of this on local community. Already busy roads, full schools, problems getting appointments at doctors etc

SO31


Object

"According to Fareham Borough's Council's own figures, for the period 2011/2012 to 2016./2017, the Western wards have contributed to over 60% of the Boroughs new housing supply. The figures provided are: Dwelling Completions in Fareham Borough ""Western Wards"" 2011/12 to 2016/17 Ward Total Dwelling Completions (Net) Total Fareham Borough 1,859 Locks Heath Ward 39 Park Gate Ward 631 Sarisbury Ward 184 Titchfield Common Ward 238 Warsash Ward 54 Total Western Wards only 1,146 %age in Western Wards 62% The area covered by the Western wards is less than 40% and the draft local plan once again targets the Western wards. This level of increase is totally unrealistic, impractical and unsustainable. The infrastructure in the area is already on or above capacity and furthermore, and just as one example, the head of the FBC has publically admitted (CAT meeting Warsash) that it will be very difficult to expand schooling in the area. The addition of 1500 new homes in the Western Wards is ludicrous. Add to this the fact that less than 1 mile away, there are 550 new homes being erected on the A27 at Bursledon adding significant traffic to the already over capacity A27, where there is little or no option for creating more capacity on these roads. The village of Warsash is renowned for its sailing heritage and involvement in the 'D' Day landings. Should the elected council wish to be remembered for destroying Warsash and all its heritage and beauty, then this will be an irrecoverable action of such magnitude that the Councillors will be remembered forever but for the wrong reasons. Furthermore, there are significant policy's that are designed to prevent development on this scale. What impacts that the development would have on the character of the area? The areas proposed for development are Greenfield sites i.e. never been built on. The extreme numbers of properties proposed on these sites therefore would clearly have a negative impact. The Adopted Fareham Borough Core Strategy (CS) 2011, CS2 states that priority will be given to the reuse of previously developed land within the existing urban areas. Previously developed land is land which is or was occupied by a permanent structure and any associated fixed surface infrastructure. The definition excludes land that is or has been occupied by agricultural or forestry buildings or land in built up areas such as private residential gardens, parks recreation grounds and allotments. I would strongly argue that the land in question here is not previously developed, has remains of former greenhouses, trees and rough grassland. This permanent loss of greenfields will change the landscape and character of the village significantly. How the development may affect wildlife? CS4 Under this policy habitats important to the biodiversity of the borough will be protected. It is a known fact that ecological surveys have indicated that protected species including bats, badgers and reptiles are present at the site. In addition local residents have evidence that other species such as slow worms, dormice, foxes, barn owls, stag beetles and deer live on the site. A significant amount of natural habitat in Warsash has been lost in recent times following the development of Strawberry Fields Estate and Coldeast development. There is significant bat activity every evening at dusk over this wider area, as far as Lockswood Road. If any development were to be permitted on these proposed sites at Greenway Lane, then the considerations regarding preserving not only the bat's habitat but also food sources and environment are all clearly set out as legal obligations in policy. While I appreciate no specific detail or outline plan has been submitted for this site, as far as the local residents are aware, it's inclusion in the Council's outline plans are surely not in line with the clear policy, directives and law regarding the protection of these species. The policy advises to avoid sites where there are indications that the site will be unable to deliver a policy compliant development. Previous planning applications have already identified protected wildlife living on these sites. That will complicate any compliance from an ecology point of view. CS5 Under this policy the Council must promote a sustainable integrated transport for the borough. As many residents are aware, local congestion is already at a critical level. This is before the completion of a number of other developments. Strawberry Fields Estate, on Hamble Lane at Lowford, Swanwick Lane, Bridge Road at Bursledon to give a few examples. It is acknowledged by the Council that the connections at Junction 9, 10 and 11 of the M27 are identified to be above capacity at peak periods already. It should however be noted that this policy is dated 2011, and so the data will now be significantly outdated with even more traffic on the roads. It is also a known fact that the roundabout of Brook Lane, Headland Drive and Lockswood Road was nearing capacity in the 2016 and 2022 planning models. How can it then be claimed that the proposed development would have a negligible impact on the local highway network. According to the 2011 Census the number of cars has increased from 11 cars per 10 households in 2001, to 12 cars per 10 households in 2011. There is a general trend of more people owning more cars per household, and fewer households owning no cars. On that basis therefore, a development of 700 houses will without doubt lead to an increase in the amount of traffic in the local area. This will be even more significant as the local public transport networks are far from ideal and so residents will be more reliant on their cars to get around. Our roads are not built to take this volume of traffic. That's why they are called Brook LANE, Barnes LANE and Greenaway LANE. There are no possible options for improving the roads to a standard capable of dealing with this level of increase in traffic. Only minor cosmetic changes are possible to the A27 and its junctions. The dwellings currently being built from Swanwick Lane to Windhover Roundabout including Hamble Lane and Pylands Lane will also need to access the local roads & M27. The proposed developments in the plan will just add further to congestion. The local roads cannot cope with the current traffic so if the proposed numbers of houses are built it will lead to massive local congestion, which is evident by the long delays already at Brook Lane every morning/evening. All of the local car parks are already overflowing, including the local shopping car parks, Swanwick railway station and Southampton Parkway station car parks. It also means taking the train is not a viable alternative. Brook Lane is already an extremely busy road. Increasingly vehicles are regularly parked along the side of the road near Warsash Road end which restricts traffic flow as it is. Road filters and pedestrian crossings would ruin the character of the area. Furthermore I would argue that it is particularly dangerous for those coming out of Thornton Avenue/Crofton Way and turning right and Greenaway Lane turning right. Exiting the other nearby properties on Brook Lane will also become much more dangerous due to the increased traffic. CS6 Again this policy reiterates that the priority for development will be for the reuse of previously developed land, taking into consideration biodiversity/potential community value, character, accessibility, infrastructure and services of the settlement. As argued above, the site should not be seen as previously developed land. Furthermore the site has huge potential community value and as also mentioned above is home to a number of species of animals. Infrastructure in the village would be a huge problem. The village just simply isn't set up for huge developments like this. There is a lack of local employment, lack of shops and services, and both primary and secondary schools are currently over subscribed. Doctors surgeries and dentists surgeries are also both over subscribed and have long waiting lists. These sites will add nothing to the community infrastructure. Parking will be unallocated, meaning it will spill out onto our main roads. There is no provision for additional transport links in or out of the community, no provision for additional schools, doctors, or shops. This is a major flaw in the plan. CS14 This policy states that building on land outside the defined settlements will be strictly controlled to protect the countryside and coastline from development that would adversely affect its landscape, character, appearance and function. The development of 700 homes would be totally out of character for a small village like Warsash. It would ruin the quaint feel to the village and would overwhelm the limited existing amenities by bringing in so many new residents. This would be to the detriment of both existing residents and those proposed new residents. Properties should not be built in an area that does not have the facilities to support the residents. It is identified already that there are significant shortfalls of open space provision in this area. Such a development would only result in further removal of open space and would create a ribbon development between Warsash and Locks Heath that should remain two separate entities. DSP6 In accordance with DSP6 there will be a presumption against new residential development outside of the defined urban settlement boundaries as identified on the Policies Map. It is clear that the proposed site is very clearly shaded in green that according to the key means it is an area outside of defined urban settlement. I cannot see how any of the permitted exceptions can apply in this case. DSP15 This policy states that planning permission for proposals resulting in a net increase in residential units may be permitted where 'in combination' effects of recreation on the Special Protecti"

SO31


Object

I accept that Warsash has to accept its fair share of future housing but the Council in drawing up this plan have gone way over the top in the Warsash ward and it will be in grave danger of ripping the heart out of the village as it just becomes one great big dormitory area. The number f houses being proposed for the sites is just far too large and with no guarantee that anything will be done about the infrastructure including roads.9It is already nearly impossible to get onto the A27 without major delays at the busy times), the schools are already full to bursting with no plan for enhancement and by no means least the doctor surgery situation is already dire and would seem to only get worse without proper planning. There are already quite a few older people living in the Warsash area and the above points are a real worry to them. Finally the public transport situation has to be improved for any further development let alone this huge housing increase proposal.

SO31


Object

Infrastructure unable to cope with housing currently, even if you have exits on both Brook Lane and Lockswood Road it all ends up on Brook Lane eventually. All the exits on the M27 are too close together meaning that all traffic coming from South of the A27/M27 are all pouring onto very close junctions. Any housing built south of the A27 only has two ways to get out, north up to the A27 or East to Fareham along the Warsash Road, you cannot go south or west. Any small hold up, currently that could be something as innocuous as a parked car, can cause huge tailbacks. Making the M27 into 4 lanes will not help the situation when there is an accident etc. If you go west there are only three routes as they all require getting over the Hamble river. I cannot see how the infrastructure can be improved as you can't move the river. Running a business is not easy when the road infrastructure is so bad, this country has very poor productivity already and this is not helped by people constantly turning up late for work through no fault of their own when the roads are choked with traffic. I have done a survey on my own journey to work which is 7 miles and in the space of 1 week, the journey varied from 17 minutes to 52 minutes!!! Petrol consumption was appalling and I imagine pollution levels were sky high when the journey took 52 minutes with miles of idling cars. I believe that these big housing sites have to give money to improve the infrastructure, if it is anything like what has happened at Strawberry Fields, which looks like putting in a giant pavement and two crossings then that is useless when most people if not all drive a car! No help whatsoever. I also see that the demographic of Fareham is going very much towards a large proportion of the population being over 65, this would indicate that we need housing for the over 65's and older and I would hope that a large proportion of proposed housing in this development would be considered for this demographic. No doubt it will be full of 4 and 5 bedroom houses and not retirement and care type housing which looks like it will be needed more. You fly over this area and we are squeezed into the areas below the A27, there are acres and acres of land available to build on, people came to these areas years ago because they were nice to live in, they will become increasingly areas that people will not want to live in. Nothing ever seems very joined up with the NHS, infrastructure, Hampshire County Council, the Govt.

Postcode not provided


Object

We am really concerned about the plans to build 800 more houses in the locality. One of the reason we bought a house in this area in the first place was that it was not overcrowed and had some nice green areas... this proposals take all of that away. Devalues our houses, creates more congestion on the roads. It currently takes 30 mins in rush hour to get from Warsash to the motorway. The infrastructure is not in place to accommodate this number of houses and extra people.., it will impact schools: doctors: parking, will bring more crime and the list goes on. We firmly object to the scheme.

SO31


Object

I write in connection with the above planning application. I have examined the plans and I know the site well. I wish to object strongly to the development of these houses in this location. Warsash is a historical, dispersed village that should be protected and not engulfed within residential developments thats take away its unique identity. Area of Warsash = 3.59 sq mi (9.3 km2) Population (2011 Census) = 7,183 Proposed Development = 23.4% increase on the current population Development proposals should be considered very carefully. Infilling will ruin the character of the village while estate development will overwhelm it. The protection of Warsash's visual, historic and archaeological qualities is important to the quality of an area and the way it functions. Greenaway Lane is one of Warsash's oldest lanes and the surroundings are highly treasured by residents. The proposed siting of the development is particularly ill-considered as it completely surrounds Greenaway Lane. The land sits outside the Defined Urban Boundry. It includes a mix of greenfields (many of which are classified as countryside), greenhouses and also working agriculture land providing employment. Traffic Access roads will be Brook Lane and Barnes Lane. Brook Lane has a 2000 pupil school on it and Barnes Lane with a Primary school, Junior School and 2 pre-schools on it. These roads were built as country roads and no upgrading has ever occurred. They were not designed to take this volune of traffic and are now severely overstretched. Road/traffic congestion would get progressively worse and other amenities would be adversely affected. This is already an unacceptable issue in Warsash and at times is ridiculous. Any issue on the A27/M27 brings Warsash roads to gridlock. Inevitably this proposal will make matters much worse with the introduction of approximately 1600 extra vehicals. Wildlife We currently see deer, foxes, badgers and bats. - These would be wiped out. Infrastructure This is already overcrowded, with difficulties in getting to see GP's, access to schools etc. Local schools are already full and turning local children away. (This demonstrates current pressure within the area). This would mean approximately 600 children would need to travel out of the area creating even more traffic at peak times. Alternative Site It is unreasonable to overload Warsash when Fareham Borouh Council clearly has other options such as Newlands Farm, which crucially comes with a Health Centre, Primary School plus other facilities, together with no highway problems. This appears an all- round better and more sensible solution. Newlands Farm should be reconsidered based on the fact that it was previously rejected for reasons of landscape sensitivity and preserving the strategic gap. The gap is enormous and it is not so sensitive given that it is proposed a new road will be constructed through it !! Landscape sensitvity may have been a reason in previous years as there was no pressure to build in gaps or countryside, but this is no longer the case. Is Newlands Farm landscape sensitivity more inportant than the gridlock that will occur on all routes within Warsash that this extra pressure will cause, together with the unsustainable pressure on Warsash's facilities and children having to be educated outside of the area i.e. potentially Whitley/Fareham? The Stubbington strategic gap is vast. An extra 700/800 houses would not deplete the gap. - In fact Newlands infrastructure would benefit from road investment. This option seems to meet the criteria together with the fact that the Stubbington by-pass would pass through it. I wish to object strongly to the development of these houses in Warsash location. It is shameful and bordering on negligence that key issues have not been considered. Simple risk assessments undertaken at an early stage would have identified key impacts which should have stopped this type of proposal especially as FBC's own Current Local Plan is extant and until the adoption of a replacement Local Plan, all developments in the countryside should be refused.'

SO31


Object

I am objecting to the proposed development site in warsash north and south of greenaway lane which will consist of 700 dwellings.Our community has done more than its fair share on housing in resent years compaired to other parts of the borough. My main concern is the infrastructure to Warsash and the surrounding area where we are at breaking point with the roads leading onto the A27 /M27 which in itself is a massive problem. Other facility's i.e Schools, Doctors surgerys are at their limit and capacity. I understand that the main infrastructure (roads) are being upgraded in the East of our ward and you are proposing all the housing in the West of the Ward this does not make sense. This Green land in Warsash would be suitable for housing but the right amount to take a very weak infrastructure that we have. None of this I feel has been considered and if it has not correctly thought out,it just seems to be all about units and money.

SO31


Object

The traffic to get to any main commuter routes in and around the Warsash area is already terrible. I drive to Hedge End for Work, fought a 8 mike journey this on average takes me over an hour each morning and evening. At the weekend it takes less than 15 minutes. To add another 800 homes and therefore circa 1600 cars is ridiculous. The roads just cannot cope. In addition to this Wellborne is being built in Fareham, this is a huge number of new homes to cater for demand.

SO31


Object

Too many houses - too many people - too many cars - ridiculous.

SO31


Object

I have been a Warsash resident for over 35 years and I've been witness to the relentless building frenzy. Warsash has gone from being a village to just another soul less overbuilt suburb that is bursting at the seams, with cars, people and housing. The current infrastructure is failing to support the existing population; the proposed new builds will bring Warsash to a miserable standstill. Yes I object strongly to the proposed building.

SO31


Object

Transport infrastructure out of the area is already a nightmare. An area of natural local beauty being ruined by a desire to overpopulate is scandalous. The infrastructure and local facilities simply cannot cope with this demand

SO31


Object

Fareham Borough Council's Planning & Building Control website describes their role as follows:- "We are fortunate that the Borough is such a pleasant place in which to live and work. Making sure that continues is a careful balance between sensible development to meet our changing and diverse needs as residents and conserving the area's heritage and character. Effective planning – for now and for the future – is a key part of this. In this section of the website you can find out more about our work in this area and our services to help you". Those words are heart warming. The proposals in the Draft Local Plan are heart breaking. What impacts would the development have on the character of the area? The areas proposed for development are Greenfield sites i.e. never been built on. The extreme numbers of properties proposed on these sites therefore would clearly have a negative impact. The Adopted Fareham Borough Core Strategy (CS) 2011, CS2 states that priority will be given to the reuse of previously developed land within the existing urban areas. Previously developed land is land which is or was occupied by a permanent structure and any associated fixed surface infrastructure. The definition excludes land that is or has been occupied by agricultural or forestry buildings or land in built up areas such as private residential gardens, parks recreation grounds and allotments. I would strongly argue that the land in question here is not previously developed, has remains of former greenhouses, trees and rough grassland. This permanent loss of greenfields will change the landscape and character of the village significantly. How may the development affect wildlife? CS4 Under this policy habitats important to the biodiversity of the borough will be protected. It is a known fact that ecological surveys have indicated that protected species including bats, badgers and reptiles are present at the site. In addition local residents have evidence that other species such as slow worms, dormice, foxes, barn owls, stag beetles and deer live on the site. A significant amount of natural habitat in Warsash has been lost in recent times following the development of Strawberry Fields Estate and Coldeast development. There is significant bat activity every evening at dusk over this wider area, as far as Lockswood Road. If any development were to be permitted on these proposed sites at Greenway Lane, then the considerations regarding preserving not only the bat's habitat but also food sources and environment are all clearly set out as legal obligations in policy. While I appreciate no specific detail or outline plan has been submitted for this site, as far as the local residents are aware, it's inclusion in the Council's outline plans are surely not in line with the clear policy, directives and law regarding the protection of these species. The policy advises to avoid sites where there are indications that the site will be unable to deliver a policy compliant development. Previous planning applications have already identified protected wildlife living on these sites. That will complicate any compliance from an ecology point of view. CS5 Under this policy the Council must promote a sustainable integrated transport for the borough. As many residents are aware, local congestion is already at a critical level. This is before the completion of a number of other developments. Strawberry Fields Estate, on Hamble Lane at Lowford, Swanwick Lane, Bridge Road at Bursledon to give a few examples. It is acknowledged by the Council that the connections at Junction 9, 10 and 11 of the M27 are identified to be above capacity at peak periods already. It should however be noted that this policy is dated 2011, and so the data will now be significantly outdated with even more traffic on the roads. It is also a known fact that the roundabout of Brook Lane, Headland Drive and Lockswood Road was nearing capacity in the 2016 and 2022 planning models. How can it then be claimed that the proposed development would have a negligible impact on the local highway network. According to the 2011 Census the number of cars has increased from 11 cars per 10 households in 2001, to 12 cars per 10 households in 2011. There is a general trend of more people owning more cars per household, and fewer households owning no cars. On that basis therefore, a development of 700 houses will without doubt lead to an increase in the amount of traffic in the local area. This will be even more significant as the local public transport networks are far from ideal and so residents will be more reliant on their cars to get around. Our roads are not built to take this volume of traffic. That's why they are called Brook LANE, Barnes LANE and Greenaway LANE. There are no possible options for improving the roads to a standard capable of dealing with this level of increase in traffic. Only minor cosmetic changes are possible to the A27 and its junctions. The dwellings currently being built from Swanwick Lane to Windhover Roundabout including Hamble Lane and Pylands Lane will also need to access the local roads & M27. The proposed developments in the plan will just add further to congestion. The local roads cannot cope with the current traffic so if the proposed numbers of houses are built it will lead to massive local congestion, which is evident by the long delays already at Brook Lane every morning/evening. All of the local car parks are already overflowing, including the local shopping car parks, Swanwick railway station and Southampton Parkway station car parks. It also means taking the train is not a viable alternative. Brook Lane is already an extremely busy road. Increasingly vehicles are regularly parked along the side of the road near Warsash Road end which restricts traffic flow as it is. Road filters and pedestrian crossings would ruin the character of the area. Furthermore I would argue that it is particularly dangerous for those coming out of Thornton Avenue/Crofton Way and turning right and Greenaway Lane turning right. Exiting the other nearby properties on Brook Lane will also become much more dangerous due to the increased traffic. CS6 Again this policy reiterates that the priority for development will be for the reuse of previously developed land, taking into consideration biodiversity/potential community value, character, accessibility, infrastructure and services of the settlement. As argued above, the site should not be seen as previously developed land. Furthermore the site has huge potential community value and as also mentioned above is home to a number of species of animals. Infrastructure in the village would be a huge problem. The village just simply isn't set up for huge developments like this. There is a lack of local employment, lack of shops and services, and both primary and secondary schools are currently over subscribed. Doctors surgeries and dentists surgeries are also both over subscribed and have long waiting lists. These sites will add nothing to the community infrastructure. Parking will be unallocated, meaning it will spill out onto our main roads. There is no provision for additional transport links in or out of the community, no provision for additional schools, doctors, or shops. This is a major flaw in the plan. CS14 This policy states that building on land outside the defined settlements will be strictly controlled to protect the countryside and coastline from development that would adversely affect its landscape, character, appearance and function. The development of 700 homes would be totally out of character for a small village like Warsash. It would ruin the quaint feel to the village and would overwhelm the limited existing amenities by bringing in so many new residents. This would be to the detriment of both existing residents and those proposed new residents. Properties should not be built in an area that does not have the facilities to support the residents. It is identified already that there are significant shortfalls of open space provision in this area. Such a development would only result in further removal of open space and would create a ribbon development between Warsash and Locks Heath that should remain two separate entities. DSP6 In accordance with DSP6 there will be a presumption against new residential development outside of the defined urban settlement boundaries as identified on the Policies Map. It is clear that the proposed site is very clearly shaded in green that according to the key means it is an area outside of defined urban settlement. I cannot see how any of the permitted exceptions can apply in this case. DSP15 This policy states that planning permission for proposals resulting in a net increase in residential units may be permitted where 'in combination' effects of recreation on the Special Protection Areas are satisfactorily mitigated through the provision of a financial contribution. It is clear here that in the absence of a financial contribution or a legal agreement to secure such, the proposal would fail to provide satisfactory mitigation of the 'in combination' effects that the proposed increase in residential units on the site would cause through increased recreational disturbance on the Solent Coastal Special Protection Areas. Developers should not be able to buy their way to planning permission. It should be noted here that one developer has already cut down a number of trees from this site, and an emergency tree preservation order has been put in place. It should however be noted that the site looks significantly different now. Finally, it is also acknowledged that the potential for prehistoric to iron age archaeology is low to medium and potential for post medieval and modern archaeology is high. This is another factor that should be taken into account. National Planning Policy Framework Section 2 Planning policies should be positive, promote competi

SO31


Object

"Objection to Planning Application based on contradiction of the NPPF and Draft Plan, and objections to provisions contained in the draft plan. My objections are presented separately for the NPPF and Draft Plan. And are specifically objections to sites : HA1 - North and South of Greenaway Lane, Warsash - 700 dwellings HA3 - Southampton Road, Titchfield Common - 400 dwellings HA7 - Warsash Maritime Academy, Warsash -100 dwellings HA9 - Heath Road, Locks Heath- 71 dwellings HA11- Raley Road, Locks Heath- 49 dwellings HA13- Hunts Pond Road, Titchfield Common- 38 dwellings HA14 -Genesis Community Youth Centre, Locks Heath - 35 dwellings HA15 -Beacon Bottom West, Park Gate -30 dwellings HA17 -69 Botley Road, Park Gate -24 dwellings HA19- 399 – 409 Hunts Pond Road, Titchfield Common- 22 dwellings I write in connection with the above planning application. I have examined the plans and I know the sites well. I looked at EV13 (Background Paper: HOUSING SITE SELECTION), which states: "The purpose of this paper is to explain, in broad terms, the processes undertaken to inform the selection of housing sites for the Draft Fareham Local Plan 2036" (Draft Plan)" I have also read through the referenced paragraphs from the ""National Planning Policy Framework"" (NPPF). I have experience of financing provision of sustainable residential communities in other areas of the country with their own acute issues. Based on the above research and experience, I object strongly to the development of these houses in the identified locations. These sites generally, and HA 1,3 and 7 specifically, are in contradiction of both the "NPPF" and the "Draft Plan". It is certain that the local communities and the Fareham borough do need provision of additional sustainable development of various infrastructures including more residential accommodation. Unfortunately the sites identified in this Draft Plan plan fails to deliver a sustainable solution in certain of its discrete communities and lets down those communities represented. With respect to the Draft Plan Objection : I don't believe that the sites proposed adequately address the needs recognised in H2: Provision of Affordable Housing and I don't believe that Sites such as HA1,3 & 7 have considered adequately aspects of Policy H4: where Adaptable and Accessible Dwellings Development proposals for all new dwellings shall provide: I do not argue that it has been ignored, but that minimum lip service has been paid to the extent that the provisions noted entirely fail to achieve the goals intended for H4. a) at least 15% of all new dwellings at Category 2 standard; and b) on schemes of over 100 dwellings (gross), at least 2% of private housing and 5% of affordable housing, shall be provided as wheelchair accessible Category 3 properties. Schemes exclusively for flatted development will be expected to comply with the criteria as much as is physically possible before lifts would be a requirement" Objection: I object to the revisions of H4 identified in the Draft Plan. Further with respect to HA 1,3&7 it appears that H4 does not adequately reflect the requirement that " Further new older person and specialist accommodation will be required during the Local Plan period. Such provision can help people to downsize and free up family dwellings for others. The precise amount and type of specialist and older person accommodation required will depend on a range of factors including the choices of individual people and households.( of which I see no reference in HA1,3 or 7) Evidence in the Housing Evidence Overview Paper (2017) outlines some of this need which, where possible, has been addressed through specific allocations included in this plan and provision to be provided at Welborne" Further accommodation to address identified need would be acceptable in principle subject to Policy H5". Objection : I believe this fails to address the issues in the localities represented by the sites I have objected to, and specifically not in respect of HA1,3 and 7. This is in itself evident that FBC appreoach Warsash as a general dormitory and not as a discrete community as is required. The Draft Plan is very Fareham central centric in the division of benefits and provision of the Sustainable aspects of the plan, unfortunately the surrounding community developments' including these to which I am objecting, do not bear the same level of attention to Sustainability Planning. The Warsash, Park Gate, Titchfield communities are discrete settlements where development proposals should be considered very carefully: Objection : I believe that the Draft Plan and the sites I have specifically objected to fail in respect of Policy SP1: Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development "When considering development proposals, the Council will take a positive approach that reflects the "presumption in favour of sustainable development" contained in the National Planning Policy Framework. When appropriate the Council will work constructively with applicants to find solutions that enable proposals to be granted permission wherever possible, and to secure high quality development that improves the economic, social and environmental conditions in the area………….." Objection : With respect to HA1 specifically, my objection includes the determination that the entire list of sites not only fails to address SP7 "requirement to Create places that encourage healthy lifestyles and provide for the community through the provision of leisure and cultural facilities, recreation and open space and the opportunity to walk and cycle to destinations" but goes as far as misleading in its reference to some open play area space and provision to cross the road which covers up an entirely inadequate provision in both cases and exacerbates the problems for cyclists and pedestrians, and relates to the road and safety of children walking or cycling to school. I find Appendix C: Draft Development Framework - Development Allocation HA1 (North & South of Greenaway Lane, Warsash) to be entirely un convincing in respect of this and other areas of objection. Objection : I note well and object to the Employment Policy section, there is No "E" for the communities represented in the site plans to which I object. No local employment issues are considered within those discreet community settlements, adding to the obvious conclusion that they are being considered as dormitory developments in contravention of key policies identified. I would be able to support site development proposals that are aimed at meeting identified settlement needs, of which there are many, but not those reflected by these sites in this Draft Plan. Objection Draft Local Plan : I object also to E5, which protects Boatyard business except in the case where it can be represented as uneconomic. I object to the watering down of protection implied by this provision, Key Strategic Priorities: Both the overall Draft Plan and the specific site proposals fail to meet a number of stated Key Strategic Priorities. Objection : In respect to the references to settlement definition, this is then broadly disregarded or seemingly misrepresented in both plan and site descriptions. The needs of local business in the discrete communities so defined is ignored and only addressed as a general and seemingly Fareham central oriented manner. Objections below can be read to note that they jointly and severally contribute to evidence that the Plan fails in satisfying KSP's 1,3 and 7 most specifically, but the other sites generally in respect of the site objections noted above. 1. Address the housing and employment needs by the end of the plan period in an appropriate and sustainable manner, creating places people want to live or where businesses want to locate. 2. In the first instance maximise development within the urban area and away from the valued landscapes and spaces that contribute to settlement definition (SP 6 notwithstanding and particularly SP6 failure to address community definition in the communities affected by the sites specifically objected to in this submission) 7. Create places that encourage healthy lifestyles and provide for the community through the provision of leisure and cultural facilities, recreation and open space and the opportunity to walk and cycle to destinations. Sustainability Planning : (SP) Objection : Entirely insufficient evidence or justification is contained within any of the above proposals with respect to the sustainability issues and benefits to the discrete communities that I have referenced. Passing references are made to lack of current provision in schooling and infrastructure, and requirements for the schemes to "contribute" to that development. However no integrated or sustainable accounting or plan is proposed that identifies the needs that should be critically planned to 2036 and costed accordingly. For example the sites identified do not disclose the extent to which sites (or combinations of sites) can contribute to the site selection priorities / refining points within the plan itself. One specific example being Selection Priorities / Refining Point 7. I cannot find any evidence presented for the requirement that they "Cumulatively and individually lessen the impact on traffic whilst delivering the new homes. Maximises opportunities for the cumulative highway impacts to be addressed". I note that a number of other Selection Priorities / Refining Points have not been properly addressed either. o It is not possible to review the Draft Policy or Sites named herein and assess the suitability"

SO31


Object

I cannot believe you are even considering so many more houses in an area already at saturation point, not to mention up to an additional 1600 more vehicles on roads already crowded especially at peak hours. I understand the need for new houses, but why insist on cramming more into areas already 'full' including the schools, health facilities etc. There are other areas surely that can be utilised. I know we need to protect the countryside, but people also need space to breath. Would a couple of fields elsewhere really make that much difference?

SO31


Object

There are simply too many homes proposed for this site. It is not reasonable to believe that Warsash should have absolutely no part in further development, but it is not acceptable on this scale, 800 is simply too much! The proposed numbers need to be VASTLY reduced. At the recent CAT meeting held in Warsash the council stated that large developments were beneficial as it meant that usually better investment in infrastructure could be secured. Then why not develop the site at Newlands Farm as an alternative to 700 homes at Greenaway lane Warsash? The Newlands site is far larger, huge in fact, and even if developed with 1000 homes would still offer a strategic gap between stubbington & Fareham. Adding infrastructure to the Newlands site would be far simpler than trying to squeeze yet more development into Warsash plus would have good links to M27. The councillor at the CAT meeting also stated that Dadelus was really important in future development as a business centre. Again, surely this strengthens the case for putting homes at Newlands as it would be ideally situated fairly close to Dadelus... Also, the proposed site at Warsash would cause traffic chaos as you simply can't create further major roads out of the village. Traffic is already an issue for those commuting to work from Warsash. The schools in and around Warsash are already at full capacity and Doctors are extremely overloaded in the area.

SO31


Object

Pressure for development in the village is considerable, mainly for housing city commuters and not housing for local people, There is no need for this kind of open market, 'cram as many in as we can' development in this area. Warsash is a Semirural village and a development of this size (TOO MANY) would overwhelm it and ruin its character. The area is a green field, not an industrial wasteland and will have an adverse effect on the local wildlife and the community. Public transport is very limited in the area and the increase in traffic will be considerable, which is already extremely congested with traffic trying to get to the M27 motorway everyday.

SO31


Object

We (myself and husband) strongly object to the North South Greenaway site. I went to sign the petition this evening the 8th but it is closed. Outraged that we only received the leaflet about it in today's post (the 8th, the closing date). Reasons for objections are the lack of doctors, schools PLUS the terrible traffic. New leisure centre is great however will also become way too busy, already a struggle to get onto some classes. Already a huge amount of housing along bridge road, tesco bursledon and other areas. I dread to think what traffic will be like in years to come by adding 1500 homes in the western wards area.

SO31


Object

We wholly object to the plans to build 800 new dwellings. We only moved to Warsash 18 months ago, to Brook Lane. We had always loved the village life. The proposed building will cause the local roads to be a nightmare. Our road (Brook Lane) is already hard to pull out onto - it is simple ridiculous to expect 1600 more cars to be using it (let's face it, every family has 2 cars these days). The volume of traffic will cause issues with this road and also our trips down into the village and up to Sarisbury Junior School and the A27 which can already get gridlocked due to traffic. We do not have the capacity in car parks - I struggle to park to take my child for swimming lessons and today I wanted to shop at Waitrose and there were only a few car parking spaces left right up the top so I had to walk quitea distance. These are the local amenities that will be overcrowded not to mention the schools. It is a disgrace that such a massive development is planned and we oppose it. We are the residents of Warsash and we deserve a say in all this. Is someone getting a backhander on this one - wake up for goodness sake.

SO31


Object

Size/ Scale Proposed development is over ¼ size of the build-up area of existing Warsash. Other large scale development have forward masterplan that shows solutions for infrastructure: roads, schools. This scheme purely depends on contributions made by the developers. As a result the current residents will not see any benefits of such a development. It is too big and too rapid expansion without any forward planning and appraisal to adjacent area to proposed site. The site should be considered as a major development with overall masterplan for the Western Ward. No masterplan Following from the above, larger developments normally have masterplan created for the area including council's requirements including sustainability. No clear strategies for facilities are shown and analysis of improvements needed. Nothing above the standard. It is not clear what will be the requirement. Previous proposals submitted by developers shown sewers connecting to existing and the flow was regulated by attenuation. No clear sustainable drainage was shown neither other building envelope solutions (is Building Regulations requirements satisfactory for the council? please refer to other council aspirations like Exeter). What are the design aspirations? Is it going to be another generic housing scheme? -no improvements to road and infrastructure is shown -no health care provision is assessed -no school placement assessment; the document for Hampshire School Places has not been updated to show feasibility of the existing schools expansion -no traffic analysis; this should follow school assessment as if the parents are traveling to schools away where places are available, this will create further congestion *please not, we are currently driving 300 yards between our house and Woodlands nursery on Barnes lane as the pavement doesn't feel safe to walk on with cars speeding 40mph. There is not a lot of cars going less than that on Barnes lane. Speed control measures should be implemented on Barnes lane, there are 2 schools and one 2 pre-schools on that road. The Green lane proposal looks like a 'quick' ad hock solution to patch undelivered numbers in Welborne. No consideration for schools and other public facilities We have been viewing recently all Primary schools in the area. We have asked a question if the schools are willing and possible to expand. The answer was no in all cases. By providing additional classrooms the school loose footprint of their external space; unless junior provision can be built up on the first floor if building structure permits to do so. They struggle with hall space for dinning and PE as it is as most schools were already expanded through the years and reached maximum capacity. Children are crowded in those spaces and the quality of teaching suffers. Brookfield School already reached its maximum capacity. Where is the further allocation for secondary school placements? Waiting time at the local surgery is approximately 3 times longer than in a city centre of Southampton. It usually takes us min of 2 weeks to receive an appointment. This being family friendly area, those services should be more supported and more resolved before more units are proposed. Agricultural land lost The land was used for nurseries. Why this is not promoted as use. Council should have a broader approach, especially during current political change. Could funding be obtained by interested parties? There are many successful farms in the area, local produce should be encouraged especially where allotments are very limited. Ecology There is no real consideration of existing ecology. Mitigation strategy needs to be set by the council, this should be planned ahead before any developer puts in planning application. Other alternative sites Alternative site should be considered where new facilities could be provided or are more available. The Newlands Farm site (proposed around 1,027 dwellings) was rejected due to its landscape values but it contained all additional facilities: significant infrastructure improvements, flexible retail unit, health care, 2 form school, family pub, cricket wicket, bypass within application site including adjacent planting and green infrastructure, sports hub, care home, restaurant, country park with public car park. I know that part of those facilities are already in western ward however we do struggle with health care provisions and schools will not take more children and would need to be expanded. That is why I question the proposal presented by the council. Nothing else seems to be appraised apart from the site itself. This is why it is so controversial for all the residents. Southampton City Council is currently trying to extend their owned blocks of flats to deliver more housing. They also regenerate the housing estates and review potential small sites which promote anti-social behaviour like garage sites, usually located at the back of residential gardens. Office buildings are also appraised as these can be converted under permitted development. There is huge concern of losing open space or any green space. Summery National Planning Policy Standards sets standard for provisions for new dwellings, these provisions will not be met on the Warsash site. Newlands Farm should be reviewed one more time and other council owned sites as per Southampton's strategy to avoid any sensitive sites like Greenway lane getting through appeal system due to luck of undelivered units.

SO31


Object

Whilst I understand the need for more houses I object to the sheer number planned for the above site. Having 3 young children I really worry about their future in terms of schooling, healthcare and general living environment. Living in Warsash village, our children will have to negotiate crossing the already busy Warsash rd and walking up Brook lane when they are old enough to attend Brookfield, with the new development that could increase the cars on the local roads by approx. 1000. I worry about their safety when travelling to school, that's if they even get a place at that school with all the extra children that the new development will bring. They may end up being bussed past the school to North Whiteley. It just seems ridiculous to try to build this many houses in a residential area. I have no idea how the GP surgeries will cope, it is already very difficult to get an appointment with a GP. We moved to Warsash 10 years ago from Eastney, we loved the country feel about the village, the fact that you're still connected to the world but comfortably populated. It is so nice to be able to head out for a walk along Greenaway Lane, seeing deer and other wildlife in the fields. Where will all this wildlife go when all these houses are bulit? Please reconsider the scale of the development, if questioned could the council really put their hand on their hearts and say that they have planned the impact on the local infrastructure, or is this just a convieniently sized green area to build some houses? I would be interested to know.

SO31


Object

No adequate infrastructure to support this many dwellings

SO31


Object

Dear Sir/Madam I object to this HA1 development site for many reasons: 1) The size and scale of the whole site is disproportionate to the current size of Warsash village. With this new development , the population of the village will increase by up to 25% and currently there are no facilities or infrastructure to cater for these extra people. 2)Your own Borough Policy aim is to : To ensure that development and management of housing contributes to a good quality environment and sustainable communities. This development will not contribute to a good quality environment , it will be detrimental to the semi rural status of the village. Filling in the small Strategic gap between local settlements of Locks Heath, Sarisbury Green and Warsash. 3) The land North and South of Greenaway Lane is currently classified as either countryside and/or used for agriculture. Warsash has a rich heritage of strawberry growing and has had an agricultural nursery industry since the 19th century . This development would completely wipe out any remaining industry which would involve a loss of jobs and production of food/plants. To end such a key part of Warsash history would be tragic. 4) Following on from this, this land proposed for HA1 is situated outside the DUB (defined urban boundary ) In this past you have refused much smaller planning applications for a variety of reasons, many of these reasons are because the developments proposed were against your own Borough policies. I can't understand why FBC have changed the goal posts now ? 5) Local schools do not have the ability to accommodate potentially thousands of new children . Brookfield Secondary school and many of the local feeder schools are already at capacity and do not have the space in their grounds available to expand the buildings. Children would therefore have to be shipped out to other schools ,causing stress and inconvenience to them and increasing the traffic on the road. 6) Greenaway Lane is a country Lane, currently it has no pavements and generally has a very rural feel about it. By completely surrounding it by new dwellings , the very nature of this Lane would be completely changed forever. 7) Warsash is located on a peninsula with limited access routes. Currently these couple of routes are already stretched to almost breaking point, with queuing traffic at many local junctions with the A27. 8) Fareham already has a big problem with pollution caused by queuing traffic. With the number of cars that would undoubtably come with these houses, potentially 1400, the pollution levels will no doubt rise further. 9) Following on from point number 7& 8, any potential access points to the HA1 site would all seem to fall on Brook Lane which also in itself, a Lane . The traffic along this road will be beyond a safe and recommended level. Brookfield school is located on Brook Lane and already there have been many road accidents involving Brookfield school children who use this road to get to and from school. Approx 1400 cars will not improve the situation and there is no way to actually widen or improve the current road. A solution : Please consider other sites that have much better road accesses and sites that will have less impact on the current community. Please take a look again at the sites on the SHLAA Ref 3127. This has good road access, is close to the M27 and has access to good local schools. Also Newlands farm site with it's soon to be built new bypass and potential for a whole new school and pub offered to be built by developers, is an alternative choice. Or could a smaller number of dwellings be shared more equally around the Fareham Borough so the impact is felt less by single communities ? Never before has Warsash faced such a huge challenge to the very nature of its character and community. I do hope you take my points into consideration when making your decision about this HA1 site. Thank you

PO14


Object

I would like to object to the current applications for this area. Whilst acknowledging additional housing is required in the borough, and that all areas will need to shoulder some of the burden surely the local plan should not look to detract from the area for existing and new residents - there would be no green space! It is extraordinary that you would allow such density / number of houses to be built in an area that has already seen a huge number of developments recently (e.g Cold East, Strawberry Fields) as well as allowing significant amounts of infill with people selling part of their back gardens to developers to build multiple houses. The changes have taken the infrastructure to (or beyond?) breaking point; schools, GP practices, roads/traffic congestion, local shopping areas, sewerage and water services plus wildlife sustainability - we're so fortunate to have badgers and deer in the area but with the size of the proposed developments it seems like this wildlife is going to be squeezed and squeezed into a smaller and smaller area. The local roads are already congested and due to the local geography (with water on a number of sides) there are very limited options to modify them to cope with such an increase in traffic. On a good day, the congestion at peak times is poor, but an accident on the M27 brings the area to a halt as there simply are no other options to leave the area. This has got considerably worse over the five years since I have been a resident in Warsash which I'm sure is due to the recent significant development of the local area. The Boat Estate was a significant development for the area and provided a high level of housing, however it is scary to see the difference in the density of housing between the Boat Estate development when contrasted with Strawberry Fields which has been developed over the last year or two. With the proposed number of houses in the new developments it is difficult to see it being anything different which is just unsustainable. Surely consideration needs to be given to the identity of Warsash - with the scale and location of the developments the village identity will be non existent by removing a green corridor between neighbouring areas such as Locks Heath and Sarisbury Green. We need a defined edge to our village, and the density of houses will not be in keeping with the surrounding environment. The area south of Greenaway Lane has special consideration re status to consider. I am sure it is a difficult decision for you when the Government is asking for so many extra houses to be built, however please reconsider Newlands Farm. It was turned down partly for concerns over the strategic gap, so it seems perplexing that this site would be considered a viable alternative with not only the removal of a strategic gap, but the significant concerns over infrastructure and other factors highlighted above. I suggest that even with 700 homes built at Newlands there will still be sufficient strategic gap plus ability to improve roads.

SO31


Object

The infrastructure in Warsash is insufficient to cope with such a large number of new homes. Schools do not have the places for the children that will need them. The roads, already very busy, will become difficult to cross for vulnerable residents including children. Crossings will need to be built. The amenities and shops local to Warsash are also heavily subscribed causing congestion around the 'village centre' near the clock tower. Building such a large number of homes on the open land will alter the character of the parish and the environmental balance of the locality.

SO31


Object

I wish to object to this HA1 development site for the following reasons : -The size and scale of the HA1 development will increase the population of Warsash village by up to 25%. How can this be considered to be a sensible amount ? - Fareham is one of the most car dependent towns in England. One reason for this is the lack of facilities and shops which is clearly apparent in Warsash already. As it is a village there are only two small food shops , the Co-op and One stop. Therefore current residents must use their cars to drive to the nearby Locks Heath Centre or further afield to do any sort of larger shopping. This contributes to very large volumes of traffic on relatively small roads. Another couple of thousand cars brought in by this development would only exacerbate this problem further. - The land proposed for this development is currently classified as either countryside and is used for agriculture. Warsash has been strawberry growing for hundreds of years and this development would destroy this industry which would cause a loss of jobs and produce. This would be sad end to several hundred years of history. - Previous planning applications on this site have been turned down as they were were contrary to your own Borough policies. What has changed ? - Local schools will not be able to cope with such an influx of new children . Many do not have the space to expand. - Warsash has limited access routes. Currently these couple of routes are already jam packed , with queuing traffic at many local junctions on the A27 from the Segensworth Roundabout al the way to the Windhover roundabout . The potential of 1400 more cars will cause mayhem and dangerous conditions for everyone who uses the roads including : children, drivers and cyclists. The high number of houses which have just been recently built in the neighbouring boroughs, have not helped the current gridlock. - Please consider other sites instead of Warsash : The sites on the SHLAA Ref 3127 has good road access, is close to the M27 and has access to good local schools. This would be a better choice than building yet more houses on a peninsula with limited access. An alternative choice would be the Newlands farm site as it will have a new bypass to service a greater number if cars. A recent planning application has also offered to build a new school and a pub among other facilities. Houses plus infrastructure , surely a win win situation !

PO14


Object

I object to the proposed development of the houses in the Western Wards area as it stands for the following reasons; Fareham Borough Council has a statutory obligation to consult with the interested parties in relation to this plan. Whilst there is some evidence of consultation in terms of reviewing current documentation there are a number of areas where there is NO evidence of consultation, specifically; Education The Hampshire School Places Plan 2017-2019 is still operating on the assumption that the bulk of houses to be built by FBC will be in the new Welbourne Estate. The Hants School Places Plan currently makes NO provision for an increase in the provision of school places in ANY of the schools which will serve the new developments in Warsash, Titchfield, Locks Heath or Sarisbury. Any assumption that the new schools in the Welbourne will be able to provide the required places will see an increase in car journeys and require a review of associated environmental and traffic impact assessments. Answers provided by FBC that more infrastructure can be built within current school footprints is disingenuous. Under current Department for Education Guidelines "Disposal or change of use of playing field and school land Departmental advice for local authorities, maintained schools, special schools, academies and free schools" May 2015 states that authority is required from the Secretary of State for Education to change the use of land in schools and academies. Therefore any statement by FBC that it will seek have more classrooms on current playing fields or sports grounds will in all likelihood take a considerable period of time, well beyond the timelines of all current plans and certainly not in sufficient time to able to cope with the increased demand. Primary and Secondary Healthcare The Fareham & Gosport and South East Hampshire Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) "5 year Strategy for local health services" makes no reference to the impact that building approximately 3,000 new dwellings will have on the provision of healthcare services. The proposed increases in funding are based on assumptions relating to the Better Care fund rather than confirmed increases in budget. With the acknowledged increase in the ageing population this will place significant pressure on already overstretched services. Secondary pressures will be placed on Hampshire County Council as it seeks to provide an increased number of care packages for the elderly in order to free up bedspaces in primary care facilities such as hospitals. Again there is no evidence that any form of consultation has taken place with HCC as how they will address this in the face of limited budgets. Traffic Management The Hampshire County Council Local Transport Plan 2011-2031 (HCC LTP) makes no mention or reference to the importance of the A27 to the local economy. As well as being subject to the HCC LTP Fareham lies between the Local Transport Authorities (LTA) of Portsmouth and Southampton. There is no evidence that FBC has undertaken any form of consultation with any of the 3 LTA. The current design of the A27 provides little scope to cope with the increased traffic that would come with the increase in dwellings thereby limiting any perceived economic benefits or growth. Traffic levels in Warsash and the surrounding area are already poor during peak travel times and many young people walk to Brookfield School (in line with the government drive to increase activity and reduce childhood obesity). An increase in traffic will result in an increased risk to young people as they walk to school and an increase in pollution. Further work is required to assess the environmental impact such an increase in school travel will have. Conclusion FBC has singularly failed to deliver in its stated strategic aim to develop the Welbourne site. Assumptions made on the use of Compulsory Purchase Orders have been proved wrong and as a result FBC has been unable to develop the Welbourne site as quickly as planned. The solution to this failure appears to have been mad scramble to identify alternative strategic sites with no meaningful consultation as statutorily required. It is acknowledged that development is required however this should be based on cohesive and cooperative engagement with Hampshire County Council, Clinical Commissioning Groups and other critical service providers such as Police, Fire and Ambulance with reference to Government regulations and guidelines.

Postcode not provided


Object

This area cannot take more cars. All routes from this development to the A27 are congested at rushour and in most cases because people are queuing to get onto the A27 they pull out dangerously and without indicaitng. All junctions with the A27 need to be made safer before any further housing is built in this area but in particular the Botley Road and Hunts Pond Road entrances and the roundabout at their junction with the A27 roundabout and the roundabout where station road and brook lane meet the A27. Traffic flow along the A27 through Park Gate needs to be increased. The polution from queueing cars in this area is unacceptable and puts you off walking around the area. Greenaway lane is currently a spot where you can feel like you are not on the outskirts of a city. Please don't fill our green space with houses simply to meet Government quotas. The BC needs to challenge those quotas and stand up for its residents.

SO31


Object

Stop filling in all our lovely green open spaces !!! Building an extra 800 houses with exits onto brook lane is going to bring total gridlock to our area, rush hour is a nightmare already Where will all the extra school and doctor places be found ?? Welbourne has the go ahead ,along with the extra houses for whiteley, both areas have the infrastructure to cope with all the new builds

SO31


Object

"This housing proposal area does not offer maximum flexibility in choice of travel modes nor will it "" reduce the need to travel by motor vehicle "" , nor will it promote sustainable and active travel modes. Therefore it will contravene the Sustainable Transport Policy as set out by Central Government and as described in of the INF2 Sustainsble Transport Policy in the Draft Fareham Local Plan 2036. There is no evidence in the draft local plan to provide relief to existing traffic congestion which already exists in the Western Wards and which will be compounded by additional housing in area HA1. This contravenes central Government policy and Local Government policy to improve poor air quality."

SO31


Object

I'm becoming increasingly aware of the current local traffic trying to reach the a27 and m27 during rush hour periods of the day, more houses equals more cars and congestion. The site proposed on Raley road is of concern to me because the road is too narow to accept more traffic as it's already become a single lane road due to parking down one side. I'm also worried about the pollution from loss of green spaces and more houses/cars in the area. With more housing and residents in the area comes more children, schools in the area are already at a maximum, and with one child starting school next year it's already worrying that we may not get our preferred school due to the amount of children applying and this can only get worse for local residents. The current state of the gp surgery's in the local area can't handle the volume of patents at the moment let alone when more people will be moving into the area. In conclusion I don't feel the current infrastructure of the western wards can't handle the plans FBC has proposed and I object to all proposed sites in the area.

SO31


Object

I object to the proposed development of the houses in the Western Wards area as it stands for the following reasons; Fareham Borough Council has a statutory obligation to consult with the interested parties in relation to this plan. Whilst there is some evidence of consultation in terms of reviewing current documentation there are a number of areas where there is NO evidence of consultation, specifically; Education The Hampshire School Places Plan 2017-2019 is still operating on the assumption that the bulk of houses to be built by FBC will be in the new Welbourne Estate. The Hants School Places Plan currently makes NO provision for an increase in the provision of school places in ANY of the schools which will serve the new developments in Warsash, Titchfield, Locks Heath or Sarisbury. Any assumption that the new schools in the Welbourne will be able to provide the required places will see an increase in car journeys and require a review of associated environmental and traffic impact assessments. Answers provided by FBC that more infrastructure can be built within current school footprints is disingenuous. Under current Department for Education Guidelines "Disposal or change of use of playing field and school land Departmental advice for local authorities, maintained schools, special schools, academies and free schools" May 2015 states that authority is required from the Secretary of State for Education to change the use of land in schools and academies. Therefore any statement by FBC that it will seek have more classrooms on current playing fields or sports grounds will in all likelihood take a considerable period of time, well beyond the timelines of all current plans and certainly not in sufficient time to able to cope with the increased demand. Primary and Secondary Healthcare The Fareham & Gosport and South East Hampshire Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) "5 year Strategy for local health services" makes no reference to the impact that building approximately 3,000 new dwellings will have on the provision of healthcare services. The proposed increases in funding are based on assumptions relating to the Better Care fund rather than confirmed increases in budget. With the acknowledged increase in the ageing population this will place significant pressure on already overstretched services. Secondary pressures will be placed on Hampshire County Council as it seeks to provide an increased number of care packages for the elderly in order to free up bedspaces in primary care facilities such as hospitals. Again there is no evidence that any form of consultation has taken place with HCC as how they will address this in the face of limited budgets. Traffic Management The Hampshire County Council Local Transport Plan 2011-2031 (HCC LTP) makes no mention or reference to the importance of the A27 to the local economy. As well as being subject to the HCC LTP Fareham lies between the Local Transport Authorities (LTA) of Portsmouth and Southampton. There is no evidence that FBC has undertaken any form of consultation with any of the 3 LTA. The current design of the A27 provides little scope to cope with the increased traffic that would come with the increase in dwellings thereby limiting any perceived economic benefits or growth. Traffic levels in Warsash and the surrounding area are already poor during peak travel times and many young people walk to Brookfield School (in line with the government drive to increase activity and reduce childhood obesity). An increase in traffic will result in an increased risk to young people as they walk to school and an increase in pollution. Further work is required to assess the environmental impact such an increase in school travel will have. Conclusion FBC has singularly failed to deliver in its stated strategic aim to develop the Welbourne site. Assumptions made on the use of Compulsory Purchase Orders have been proved wrong and as a result FBC has been unable to develop the Welbourne site as quickly as planned. The solution to this failure appears to have been mad scramble to identify alternative strategic sites with no meaningful consultation as statutorily required. It is acknowledged that development is required however this should be based on cohesive and cooperative engagement with Hampshire County Council, Clinical Commissioning Groups and other critical service providers such as Police, Fire and Ambulance with reference to Government regulations and guidelines.

SO31


Object

We were totally shocked to hear of the 700 new homes in the last bit of green space in Warsash. We have a wonderful community here and the roads, schools, medical facilities simply can't cope. Why choose this area when you have a whole borough to select from? Please reconsider. Thank you

SO31


Object

I object to the proposed development of the houses in the Western Wards area as it stands for the following reasons; Education There are already not enough school places and I can't see how there will be sufficient places for the all the extra children that will be living in the new houses, we had to appeal to get our places and we had friends who's children had to go further afield. There is no space to build more schools and the current ones would require the building of extra classrooms on the playing fields, which I don't think they are allowed to do. This requires permission from the Dept for Education and would need the Minister to approve. This would take too long. Primary and Secondary Healthcare The increase in housing would place further pressures on the healthcare system which is already acknowledged as being under pressure, I have personally been waiting for appointments for several weeks and know this is a regular occurrence, how can it get better with about 4000 extra people in the area. The high level of elderly in the area will also continue to increase according to gov figures and this will place further pressure on the system. Also there appears to have been no effort to consult with the local CCG. Traffic Management The roads in Warsash and surrounding area are already under significant pressure at peak times. Even today at 3:40 it took 20 mins to get from Segensworth roundabout into Warsash. The increase of over 1,500 homes in the area would only increase this pressure and there is currently no space to increase the capacity on the A27. We keep hearing, "but more money coming in can go towards better roads" but where o earth can these roads go….after all the spare space has houses on it?? This will limit the potential for economic growth, stated in the plan as being a benefit. No one is going to want to come into the area if they are going to spend so long in traffic to get in and out. Conclusion This plan appears to have been put together as a result of FBC failing to deliver on the promised Welbourne development. The lack of evidence and failure to consult properly means that FBC has not fulfilled its statutory obligations and the plan should be reconsidered. Whilst I accept that there does need to be new housing built it needs to be proportionate and in line with what current infrastructure can cope with.

SO31


Object

"I am writing to object to the number of homes proposed at each of the sites HA1, HA7, HA9, HA11, HA14, HA15, HA17, HA26, HA3,HA13,HA19 in the Draft Local Plan. Having read the National Planning Policy Framework which talks from the offset very clearly about Sustainable development, ensuring better lives for ourselves and future generations as well as looking after our natural environment to promote both our own well-being and and that of a diverse wildlife habitat. Every paragraph of the NPPF is at contradiction to the selection of sites listed above for so many homes. Paragraph 6 clear states "The purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development", having seen first hand the development known as Strawberry Fields the idea that 700 homes on this site would be sustainable is hard to believe. Paragraph 7 talks about the need for three dimensions of sustainable developments, these three dimensions being economic, social and environmental roles. Highlighting that the plans should contribute to "building a strong, responsive and competitive economy" including "by identifying and coordinating development requirements, including the provision of infrastructure" that is "protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment" whilst is "accessible local services that reflect the community's needs and support its health, social and cultural well-being" Warsash is a peninsular with finite resources to support infrastructure. It has a small and vertical economical offering due to the waters edge on two sides and most employment opportunities are out of the borough requiring use of the M27 motorway or north of the A27. Public transport services are limited, the nearest train station has limited reach for travelling north of the county or London, often requiring a change at Southampton or Fareham. However particular consideration should be given to the local roads and the A27. The main roads around and supporting HA1 will be Lockswood road and Brook Lane both extremely busy roads already. Brook lane whilst wide at the southern end becomes very narrow towards the northern end where a very large (1800 pupils) secondary school is located. Ironically the only way to increase the width of Brook lane along this stretch of road would be to remove houses counteracting against the desired effect. Hampshire Country Council have admitted on various planning applications that all three junctions onto the A27 would be over capacity with any development however neither Hampshire County Council or Fareham Borough Council appear to have demonstrated how this over capacity could be addressed. The area is also under resourced in the provision of health care and school places both of which have very little scope for expansion. The land allocated in the proposal is also the last space keeping settlement identification for the historic village of Warsash. Paragraph 8 goes on to say that all three dimensions must be considered together further strengthening the objection to this site selection. Paragraph 9 goes on to talk about "making it easier for jobs to be created in cities, towns and villages" and "improving the conditions in which people live, work, travel and take leisure" which I believe I have already demonstrated would not be the case with a housing estate of 700 in the proposed area. Paragraph 10 then says "Plans and decisions need to take local circumstances into account" which again I believe strengthens my objection, Warsash has special local circumstances in the fact it is a peninsular with two roads in and out. Access is heavily restricted and boundaries on two sides are finite defined by ever raising waters edge. Paragraph 37, 72 and 162 talk specifically about education and the need for a Local Plan to minimise journey lengths and resolve key planning issues before applications are submitted and specifically Local planning authorities should work with other authorities and providers to assess its ability to meet forecast demands. I don't believe this has been demonstrated or is even deliverable for sites listed above. I could go on with the NPPF which outlines a need for planning to empower the people and communities to ensure rural areas such as Warsash are left with more then just housing, but creating healthy, inclusive communities that have the right mix of high quality housing supported by sustainable transport, communication infrastructure that are facilitating social interaction. I also spent time reading Fareham Borough Council own requirements for site selection when it comes to the choice of sites listed above. I looked at EV13 (Background Paper: HOUSING SITE SELECTION), which states: "The purpose of this paper is to explain, in broad terms, the processes undertaken to inform the selection of housing sites for the Draft Fareham Local Plan 2036" I have also associated referenced paragraphs from the ""National Planning Policy Framework"" (NPPF) However, looking at the list of ""Refining Points"", I find nothing but contradiction in the selection of these sites: 1. Maximise any developable brownfield opportunities inside the existing urban area. These are not brownfield sites. 2. Look positively at any developable brownfield opportunities outside of the urban area. As per point 1, these are not brownfield sites. 3. ""Consider and include regeneration and redevelopment opportunities inside the urban area"" FBC then make reference to Section 2 of the NPPF, in particular paragraph 23, which states: Planning policies should be positive, promote competitive town centre environments and set out policies for the management and growth of centres over the plan period. In drawing up Local Plans, local planning authorities should: recognise town centres as the heart of their communities and pursue policies to support their viability and vitality; define a network and hierarchy of centres that is resilient to anticipated future economic changes; define the extent of town centres and primary shopping areas, based on a clear definition of primary and secondary frontages in designated centres, and set policies that make clear which uses will be permitted in such locations; promote competitive town centres that provide customer choice and a diverse retail offer and which reflect the individuality of town centres; retain and enhance existing markets and, where appropriate, re-introduce or create new ones, ensuring that markets remain attractive and competitive; allocate a range of suitable sites to meet the scale and type of retail, leisure, commercial, office, tourism, cultural, community and residential development needed in town centres. It is important that needs for retail, leisure, office and other main town centre uses are met in full and are not compromised by limited site availability. Local planning authorities should therefore undertake an assessment of the need to expand town centres to ensure a sufficient supply of suitable sites; allocate appropriate edge of centre sites for main town centre uses that are well connected to the town centre where suitable and viable town centre sites are not available. If sufficient edge of centre sites cannot be identified, set policies for meeting the identified needs in other accessible locations that are well connected to the town centre; set policies for the consideration of proposals for main town centre uses which cannot be accommodated in or adjacent to town centres; recognise that residential development can play an important role in ensuring the vitality of centres and set out policies to encourage residential development on appropriate sites; and where town centres are in decline, local planning authorities should plan positively for their future to encourage economic activity. Warsash is very much not part of the town centre. The community is poorly serviced by public transport, and accessing the nightlife in Fareham town centre is impossible without private transportation. I do not remember the last time my family used Fareham town centre, due to other resoruces providing much better facilities, which are very much more accessible to us. 4. ""Achieves housing supply in the short/medium term in order to address housing need"" With reference to paragraph 47 in the NPPF, which states: To boost significantly the supply of housing, local planning authorities should: use their evidence base to ensure that their Local Plan meets the full, objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing in the housing market area, as far as is consistent with the policies set out in this Framework, including identifying key sites which are critical to the delivery of the housing strategy over the plan period; identify and update annually a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide five years worth of housing against their housing requirements with an additional buffer of 5% (moved forward from later in the plan period) to ensure choice and competition in the market for land. Where there has been a record of persistent under delivery of housing, local planning authorities should increase the buffer to 20% (moved forward from later in the plan period) to provide a realistic prospect of achieving the planned supply and to ensure choice and competition in the market for land; identify a supply of specific, developable sites or broad locations for growth, for years 6-10 and, where possible, for years 11-15; These sites may support family homes, but they are not sites that support the growth of children aged 6-10 or 11-15. I suspect most families moving into the area will need to travel out of the ward to access education, as neither Hook with Warsash nor Brookfield have the scope or ability to expand further. FBC have certainly not provided any evidence suggesting otherwise. 5. "Avoid further sites that rely on wider significant infrastructure delivery where the timing of the work and/or funding are be"

SO31


Object

The proposed increase is out of proportion for the local area which would cause excessive demand on already overstretched infrastructure such as roads, medical services and schools. Furthermore you are eliminating one of the last natural green areas of Warsash village and will turn the village into a suburban extension of Fareham, thus eliminating any character that Warsash has managed to retain.

SO31


Object

Too much traffic would be generated in this area. Schools, health services already insufficient.

SO31


Object

The current infrastructure cannot support this level of development. Regardless of the amount of money developers will contribute to FBC this will not go towards schools, GP's or Highway improvements. The increase in traffic to Brook Lane will cause pollution and will put lives of local school children at risk due to the nature of the road. This area of land has been chosen purely for greed purposes and will destroy the nature and characteristics of the area. Other areas in the borough are more suitable and with better road networks.

SO31


Object

"I wish to object to the proposals outlined in this planning application on the grounds of lack of infrastructure planning. According to the 2012 South Hampshire strategy: ""Sustainable communities depend on the presence of infrastructure serving the community – such as sustainable water supplies, greenspace, schools, community centres, libraries and waste recycling facilities. New and improved infrastructure is essential to redress existing shortcomings and to ensure that the new homes envisaged by this Strategy are part of sustainable communities, not soulless housing estates. The New Community North of Fareham and the urban extensions will have new infrastructure of their own, but new homes elsewhere are likely to make use of existing facilities, some of which may need expanding..... Local plans will identify infrastructure needs when they earmark areas for new development."" Nowhere have I seen or heard any credible strategic planning to deal with the acute problem regarding schooling, traffic gridlock, parking and access to doctors which this development will , without doubt, create. When these issues have been raised, the responses have been vague, namely that Hampshire County Council will have to find school places; there has been and will be improvements to the A27; and there are still places available at local surgeries. Whilst I am keen to create affordable housing to allow the next generation to move into our area, the number of dwellings is highly unrealistic given this lack of strategic planning for infrastructure. • Traffic According to the survey conducted by the applicant, the Brook Lane / A27 junctions are already approaching, if not at times exceeding, capacity at peak am and pm times. The proposed addition of houses in Park Gate , increasing traffic from Whitely and the Brook Lane development will gridlock both this and the Barnes Lane junction and no one has yet offered any plans to address this. Moreover it is difficult to see how these junctions could be improved. Added to this the fact that the new development would be very close to a major school with 1750 pupils arriving in the morning , many of them along Brook Lane -which has no cycle paths - and the extra potential 500 -1000 cars could have a dangerous as well as frustrating impact on traffic flow. Although I note that there is access onto Lockswood Rd, there is already a new development with access onto this road and extra traffic will not help this situation. Cycle paths have appeared along Lockswood Road – which is welcomed- make up a route from Warsash to Park Gate. However, children walking and cycling to school along Brook Lane – particularly those coming from Whitely and Park Gate – will be very vulnerableWe have already had 3 accidents in the past 2 years and I believe an acute increase in traffic without strategic planning will result in a serious accident. In addition, families with primary school children living in the new development or Strawberry Fields development would be unlikely to allow their children to walk to either Sarisbury, Warsash or Locks Heath schools on their own because of the danger of traffic and this would result in severe congestion around these schools. A school bus service – as there used to be – might address this problem , but the funding for this would need to be available. ?Local facilities Our local schools -both primary and secondary-are already at capacity. I note that the development falls within the catchment area of Sarisbury Junior School , which has a waiting list of 50 children this year. Indeed, there appears to be no spaces available in any of the local primary schools. Brookfield School is also at maximum capacity for classroom use with the number on role. In addition, waiting times for non-emergency appointments at local surgeries show that these are already overloaded. According to some local doctors, they have not been consulted about this development, which suggests lack of proper research into the true picture. Whilst the planning statement by the applicant seems to suggest that there is a reasonable capacity within the local surgeries and dentists, whereas the daily experience of local residents condradicts this. More local residents are tending to use the convenience stores in Warsash for day-to-day shopping and this is highlighting lack of adequate parking in the Warsash area, with more and more cars parked along the bottom of Brook Lane, further hindering traffic flow. ?Water and drainage Southern Water have indicated in their report that the public sewerage system does not have adequate capacity for the surface water disposal of the proposed development. This highlights the salient fact that Warsash has been built and developed as a village and not a small town. Therefore the key infrastructure -including drainage, roads , services and interconnected public transport -are at present inadequate to meet the needs of further major developments and require significant investment and careful stategic planning in order to accommodate them. ?Wildlife The land earmarked for this development is used by several protected species, including 8 species of bats. It also forms part of a migration route for a colony of badgers on land behind the Victory Hall and indeed, the planning application for the land behind the Victory Hall proposes to install underground pipes so that badgers can still migrate north -supposedly to the land in this application! Migration routes and connectivity essential to wildlife will therefore be difficult to achieve. Again, the 2012 South Hampshire Strategy states that: ""The intrinsic value of an individual site/feature is enhanced by it being part of a network with others. This makes it essential to identify, plan and actively manage networks of green infrastructure especially in areas undergoing large scale change. Linear features -rivers, road verges, recreational routes, hedges and river corridors – provide connectivity between green infrastructure assets. Such connectivity performs a variety of functions, notably enabling wildlife to move between areas."" My final objection is that I suspect that many of the houses in this development may well not end up in the hands of those who need housing. With the new pension regulations, which allow us to take our pensions as a lump sum, I can see many people using this as an opportunity to invest their money by buying a second property and renting it out. If the council does decide to go ahead with this development, I believe we need advance strategic planning of infrastructure , together with a financial breakdown of all that is needed to fund it , so that developers can be required to contribute substantial amounts to specific plans to ensure the quality of life of residents – new and old."

SO31


Object

We very strongly object to the astounding number of houses that are proposed to be built here. It is quite simply ludicrous and very irresponsible. The houses 'tick a box' of providing houses on government orders. However the infrastructure is not there to support it. The roads are already packed and busy and dangerous. They would only get worse. And therefore air pollution would also be negatively impacted. Schools are already at capacity. For the council to suggest it is 'ok' for children to go to a school out of their catchment, is unfair. It would also add to traffic and parental and child stress. Health services are also stretched to the limit. There does not seem to be joined up cohesive thinking between the council and developers alongside the health service, education and highway commissions. This is irresponsible. Greenaway Lane is also an area of beauty full of wildlife and insects. We as a community have a responsibility to protect it. It feels like every bit of green space is being filled with ugly cheap build houses. We are at risk of being one massive concrete jungle. Greenaway Lane also provides a strategic gap between its neighbouring wards. If the housing proposed went ahead Warsash would no longe be Warsash but be blurred with other areas. This is shameful when Warsash has such history and beauty. We have a responsibility to protect this! We also believe it is unfair that one small village should have to accept nearly half of the proposed dwellings in the local plan!!! Crazy!!! And also unsafe. It is being treated like simple housing infill. In fact, it seems more like town planning should be involved!! As the shear number proposed will impact on the local community and its infrastructure dramatically. We truely wish that FBC see sense. Also, there are so many housing developments appearing along the A27 without the infrastructure. Everyone will be using the same infrastructure and it will breakdown. Do local councils not talk to each other? Please do the right thing and at the very least dramatically scale down the proposed number of dwellings. Please respect Warsash as the beautiful village it is. Do not destroy it. Please.

SO31


Object

There is insufficient infrastructure to support this development.

Postcode not provided


Object

Too much traffic as it is in this are and schools already full. No infrastructure to support 300 new houses. Currently long waits for doctors appointments. Cannot see how the area would benefit in any way

PO14


Object

It is a ridiculous proposal to place more housing on a peninsular that is already grid-locked with traffic and to plan to add to that situation. No solution other than flying cars or a flyover would enable a better flow of traffic to and from the A27 and M27. Warsash is a village that has almost merged into Locks Heath and Sarisbury Green. Locks Heath will have no green (natural) space left between existing housing, with devastating impact on wildlife, trees and us. We like and need natural surroundings to promote our physical and mental health and wellbeing. Do not join all areas together into one large housing conurbation. Build to the north of the M27 and leave green natural areas (landscaped) for people and wildlife, in between the housing areas.

SO31


Object

There are too many new homes planned on this site, based upon the amount of traffic in and out of Warsash. That will mean another 1600 cars in and out in the morning. The impact these extra homes will have on traffic is enormous. Traffic already queues from Holly Hill Leisure Centre to the A27 every morning. The entire area will become grid-locked at 'Rush Hour' much like Whiteley. This will make getting to work and school for people in this area absolutely unbearable. I would rather this development went ahead than some of the other proposed developments, as it will have less impact on traffic in the area. Reason being, we already have students travelling in and out, so this development would not see a great change. I thought I should continue here, as I must say, that when there is an accident on the M27 these always back down to the A27, eventually into Locksheath on Brook Lane and Bannes Lane. On several occasions I haven't been able to catch my train from Swanwick to Southampton because I have been stuck in these jams. Another 700 homes with their residents trying to get out is a disaster waiting to happen. There will be grid-lock everywhere without some re-thinking of our transport policies. I must add that it is out of necessity rather than choice that I commute to Southampton daily for work.

SO31


Object

This is an additional encroachment on country side land off Brook Lane with a proposal to build 85 homes. This is in addition to the proposal to build on nother land adjacent under planning APPLICATION p/16/0959/OA for 180 homes… My objection applies to both proposals/applications as previously advised in my previous E-mail. This will mean yet another access road onto Brook Lane, this time very close to the junction with Barnes Lane-a danger spot even now. No requirement for additional housing in this area as we already have a huge Coldeast site and Strawberry fields (not yet complete) in the immediate vicinity. The New Welbourne development will more than take care of the extra need in this part of the Borough. Traffic already gridlocked at peak times in the mornings and access to the A27 and onwards to the M27 is blocked well down Brooke Lane and Barnes Lane both of which have schools and nurseries on them. There is also a hospital and surgery in brooke lane bit it is impossible to get there on time if one has an early morning appointment because of tail back of traffic endeavouring to get onto the A27 at park gate. Barnes Lane now also has a new leisure centre open-again attracting more traffic. The Doctors surgeries are all full-likewise the dentists. What provision has been made in this regard? The schools are also all at full capacity. Where all the children going to be educated without involving long distance travel and an even earlier start from home in the mornings plus the additional traffic this would involve on already busy roads? There will also be more impact on the Locks Health shopping centre with inadequate parking. There is a great variety of wildlife i=on this site which must be protected. These are my main objection all of which would impact on this lovely village as we know it. We do not want any more development on countryside land. In regards to this second application for the above development, my comments are the same as previous but I understand you wish these to be repeated for fir this second application. These is no requirement for more housing development in the Warsash area. We already have a new large development on Cold East site, Strawberry fields estate and Warsash rd end Hunts pond rd. These sires already contain a huge number of houses, flats etc, for which the area is not able to provide enough doctors,dentists or schools places. How arte hundreds of additional residents going to be catered for in this regard. More houses mean more cars! The roads are very busy at all times but especially at the beginning and end of the working days and at schools times. It is not easy to access the A27 or motorway junctions at these times because of the long queues. With more housing proposed these roads will become entirely grid locked and dangerous. The above proposal is just one of these put forward for Brook Lane irself which will result in three additional access roads on to this lane and several hundreds houses overall. It would appear that we residents will loose our remaining green spaces and live in a entirely built -up area. Warsash is a village and should stay that way. These areas under consideration for developments are wildlife havens at present and should remain so. The above proposal indicates an access road very close to the Brooke Lane/Brook Ave/Barnes Lane junction which will be very dangerous. As residents of brooke lane in this immediate area we already have great difficulty in exiting and accessing our properties due to volume of traffic. Often have to wait a very long time to actually drive out onto the road itself. As this is a bus route, there are also two bus stops which would be immediately adjacent to any new access road for the proposed development site. Are the developers proposing to move these or perhaps even put in a mini roundabout at the end of barnes lane? This planning application has been refused once so we need to ensure that it is also refused at this secong attempt. The New welbourne development should alleviate the necessity for all our gerrn buffer zones to become concrete jungles.

SO31


Object

Large Format Response - Ref0018

Anonymous submission


Object

It is not just about one site this impacts on whole area of Fareham as indeed it does strongly. If we don't agree & deal with it making very sure well have enough Health centres, drop in clinics for people with mental health issues, social issues easy access to Dr's & nurses more care work people like everywhere else. This have this big problem to local level housing for old, or disabled people. This must be done the hole of the borough of FAREHAM needs plans to make sure we all have as much as possible space, trees , vital services eg post offices, health centres, chemists, shops not more beauty parlours, take aways eg but sensiable needed shops, drop centrs to take load of doctors a lot of people are just lonely or do not know how to seek help, innovative housing pleasing the eye NO HIGH RISE.

PO14


Object

This area has been swamped with too many housing projects to the extent that the village and area have completely changed character. There are no places at the schools, presumably the in comers will want their children educated – there are never any appointments available at the doctors' surgeries – presumably the new comers will require a G. P. – The local roads are inadequate for the present traffic not with people meant to get out into a green area when so much land, once built on, will never return to being the lungs of an area. To require the builders to build to order with homes for starters and improve the facilities is laughable because it just doesn't happen. I was told that by putting a bike shed (which looks like a shed) there is no requirement for the builders to provide more than one parking place. In today's world that is just not going to happen and the cars just line the roads such as to make it impossible for access to emergency vehicles. Where is the sanity in all that, standing the accumulated extra cars? It is nigh on impossible to exit Brook Lane onto the M27 because of the volume of cars from Warsash- the local shops look local and the Locksheath Centre are at capacity and parking for shopping almost impossible. For a disabled 88-year-old and other less able bodied the situation is untenable. It boggles the imagination why when open spaces north of the A27 and at the military open space at Rowner it could not get overflow somewhere other than a small village area like Warsash where people have sunk their money to buy into a relatively peaceful area only to have it ruined by a planning dept. Where are the young

SO31


Object

Regarding all forthcoming development in the Portsmouth, Portchester, Fareham area, no mention seems to be regarding Hospitals care. It is unlikely that queen alexander hospital will be able to cope with thus influx of population. In my view another hospital will be needed, as most of these houses will be purchased by out siders and NOT local young people who cannoy afford to buy their own homes. Originally the plan was to leave a strategic gap between the M27 motorway and Kiln road, This is not now the case and I strongly object to the change

PO16


Object

HA1 – North and south of Greenaway Lane Development to be confined to the east site of this land. Two junctions to be provided on Lockswood Road: one north and one south of Greenaway Lane. Development boundary to be a north-south line east of the badger sets. Future of west side of HA1 to be discussed. It could be used for a community farm, a public open space, or a nature reserve. Much of the site is overgrown with bracken, bramble and young trees etc. These areas are already safe places for wildlife, including Roe deer. The National Planning Policy Framework sets out a strong government mandate to secure 'net gain for biodiversity'. The Hampshire & Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust has already secured space for a new nature reserve next to the development of 2,000 homes at Barton Farm near Winchester. Any shortfall of houses in HA1 will need to be made up somewhere else in Fareham Borough. A development of say 400 dwellings on the south side of Longfield Avenue Fareham would take up about 20 ha of farmland (based pro rate on 700 dwellings on 36ha on HA1)

SO31


Object

Objection is raised to the limitation of building heights to 2.5 storeys. The increase to three storeys would create interest in the streetscene and facilitate the provision of focal points. It would also allow for small blocks of flats.

PO14


Object

Is it wise to build over 120 houses so close to the M27 when pollution is such a problem. Asthmatics. More pollution would be an issue for these dwellings also. 127 houses could mean an extra 254 cars. North Wallington could be a hazard to pedestrians and road users alike. The Delme roundabout is problematic as it is and the lack of road markings do not help the situation. It is already a free for all.

PO16


Support

Dear Sir/Madam Representations on the Fareham Borough Draft Local Plan Consultation In respect of land adjoining [redacted], Swanwick 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Taylor Wimpey Strategic Land (Taylor Wimpey) welcomes the opportunity to comment on the Fareham Borough Council Draft Local Plan (DLP) and supporting evidence. 1.2 Taylor Wimpey has control over land adjoining [redacted] (site location plan attached) and is promoting this for an allocation for residential development in the emerging Local Plan. 2.0 Response to the draft Local Plan Policy H1, paragraphs 5.0 – 5.9, Table DA1, supporting evidence 2.1 Draft policy H1 of the DLP sets out a requirement for 11,300 net additional dwellings to be delivered in the Borough between 2011/12 and 2035/36, which is equivalent to 471 dwellings per annum. 2.2 The Council has derived its housing requirement from the PUSH SHMA (January 2014) including the Objectively Assessed Housing Need Update (April 2016) and the PUSH Spatial Position Statement (June 2016). The evidence base documents cover the authorities of South Hampshire. 2 2.3 The Push Housing Needs Update (April 2016) concludes that 116,400 dwellings are required in the sub region over the period 2011 – 2036. It identifies the Objectively Assessed Housing Need (OAN) for Fareham is 420 dwellings per annum. The PUSH Spatial Position Statement (June 2016) identifies provision for 104,350 dwellings over the period 2011 – 2034 within South Hampshire. This is significantly below the amount identified in the Push Housing Needs Update. The timeframe is also reduced to 2034. The Spatial Position Statement states that it is not possible at the strategic level to identify a distribution of new homes to fully meet needs without causing a significant adverse impact on other transport and environmental issues due to constraints including National Parks, countryside gaps, environmental designations and accessibility constraints. 2.4 The National Planning Policy Framework at paragraph 47 is clear that local planning authorities should use their evidence base to ensure that their Local Plan meets the full, objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing as far as is consistent with policies set out in the NPPF. Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) also identifies that local needs assessments should be informed by the latest available information (Paragraph 016 Reference ID 2a-016-20150227). We do not consider that there are identified constraints with the PUSH area and specifically Fareham which justify proposing a reduced housing target. 2.5 In addition the Objectively Assessed Housing Need Update is based on the 2012-based subnational population projections which are out of date. The 2014-based sub national population projections are available and these, or any more up to date evidence, should be used to calculate the OAN. An uplift should also be included in the OAN for affordable housing in addition to market signals in accordance with Paragraph 019 Reference ID 2a-019-20140306 of the PPG. As such we consider the existing uplift across the PUSH area as a whole, including Fareham, is too low. 2.6 The Fareham Local Plan Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) (October 2017) and the Fareham Council Background Paper: Housing Site Selection (October 2017) identifies sites with capacity in excess of the residual requirement identified by Table DA1 in the draft Local Plan demonstrating that Fareham Borough cannot be considered to be constrained which limits its ability to deliver housing in accordance with identified need given that it has additional available land to that which it has proposed for allocation. 2.7 The Duty to Cooperate should also be engaged to identify any shortfalls from adjoining authorities which Fareham Borough could assist in delivering. As shown above, the OAN is not proposed to be met in South Hampshire as identified in the Spatial Position Statement. This document should not be the place to reduce down any OAN, rather it should identify the full objectively assessed housing need for the South Hampshire Area and it is then for Local Authorities to determine their ability to accommodate the identified OAN. If they consider they are unable to, they should engage under the Duty to Cooperate to identify capacity in adjoining authorities. Therefore currently the Duty to Cooperate requirement has not been met. 2.8 Given the above we consider that the OAN figure for Fareham Borough should be higher than that proposed; being based on the most up to date evidence and engaging in the Duty to Cooperate. In additional to provide flexibility and competition in the market, the Local Plan 3 should identify further smaller sites for allocation, which can come forward early in the Plan period and ensure a consistent supply of housing in the Borough, particularly given that some sites, such as Fareham Town Centre, which is proposed to come forward for residential development, is not all available now and appears to depend on demolition of other buildings. The land adjoining Swanwick Lane, Swanwick is an entirely suitable site for a residential allocation in this context. 2.9 Taylor Wimpey is promoting land adjoining 60 Swanwick Lane, Swanwick for a residential allocation in the Local Plan. The site comprises approximately 2.5 hectares of land currently in use as grassland. It is bounded by residential dwellings on Swanwick Lane to the east, west and south, a fencing company and other commercial uses to the north west, and woodland and trees to the north and north east. The enclosed site Plan shows the site location. 2.10 The site was submitted to the Council as part of its Call for Sites and subsequently included in its Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) under site reference 3017 published in October 2017. The SHLAA identifies the site as a 'developable housing site' and as being available and achievable. Paragraph 3.18 states that a developable site is where it is "in a suitable location for housing development and there should be a reasonable prospect that the site is available and could be viably developed at the point envisaged" in accordance with the NPPF, paragraph 47, footnote 12. As such the Council has accepted that the site is in a suitable location for housing and it is both available and achievable. 2.11 Given the assessment of the site by the Council as 'developable' in the SHLAA it was taken forward to be assessed further in the Fareham Borough Housing Site Selection paper (October 2017). 2.12 The Housing Site Selection paper is written in two parts. Section 5A identifies sites proposed to be included in the draft Local Plan's preferred development strategy, and Section 5B identifies other potential developable housing sites. Paragraph 5.3 states that the sites in section 5B could have provided alternative allocations or could be the starting point should further housing sites be required in the future. 2.13 The land Taylor Wimpey is promoting at Swanwick Lane (ref 3017) is identified in Section 5B of the Housing Site Selection paper as a developable site and a suitable alternative location for development. The site assessment in the report identifies that the site has a reasonable SA outcome and that it is a developable site. It does identify that development could be out of character with the area and raises accessibility. These two points are discussed below. 2.14 Alongside the SHLAA, the Council has produced a Sustainability Appraisal and Strategic Environmental Assessment report (October 2017). The site at Swanwick Lane was appraised in this against 11 defined Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) objectives and scored at least neutral/no effect or better in six of the objectives and uncertain/mixed effects in three objectives. Likely adverse effects were identified for only two objectives related to conserving and enhancing the character of the landscape and promoting accessibility. 2.15 The site is located adjoining existing residential development on three sides with an extensive woodland to the north. As such the site is well contained and forms a logical location for development which would infill along the road frontage. Taylor Wimpey has submitted a preliminary Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment to the Council as part of pre-application discussions, which assesses the site as being relatively well contained with the surrounding blocks of woodland and tree hedgerows limiting the inter-visibility within the wider landscape. Development along the front of the site could follow the existing pattern and the form of development seen along Swanwick Lane in terms of dwellings set back in their plots facing the road. Development behind this would not extend any further than existing development to the north west and would be of a scale and density so as to provide a high quality scheme. 2.16 Given the contained nature of the site it is not visible in the wider landscape and would not impact on any designated landscape. The site also offers the potential to provide a large area of open space, landscaping and additional planting which would provide ecological and landscape benefits both visually and physically. As such Taylor Wimpey does not agree that there would be a potential adverse impact related to the character of the landscape which would make this site unsuitable for development. 2.17 In terms of accessibility, the site itself adjoins Swanwick Lane and provides good links and access to the surrounding transport network. The site lies approximately 2.1km west of Whiteley shopping centre and 1.4km north west of Park Gate District Centre. Swanwick Railway Station is approximately 1.2km to the south east of the site and Bursledon Railway Station 2km to the west. The site is 2km from of Junction 9 and 3km from Junction 11 of the M27 providing links to Southampton, Fareham, Portsmouth, Winchester and beyond. 2.18 The site is linked by Swanw

SO21


Object

I object strongly to the suggestion that 800 more homes can be built to the North and South of Greenaway Lane and in Newtown Road. Warsash has borne the brunt of development over the last few years completely altering the ethos of the area. Roads, especially Brook Lane and Barnes Lane have become congested for several periods of the day. Another possible 1600 vehicles together with the increase from the sites in Peters Road/Lockswood Road as yet unfinished would cause even greater problems. The schools and Doctors' surgeries are already full to capacity. It is usual to wait 3-4 weeks to see a doctor at Lockswood Surgery. Even if schools etc were enlarged, where are the extra teachers and doctors to come from when we are told they are already shortages of both? There are surely more suitable sites than these at the end of narrow roads that cannot be widened. There are sites such as Newlands Farm or land in St Margaret's Lane with much better access to the A27/M27. Now I turn to the status of the 2 sites in Brook Avenue currently classified as 'developable'. Brook Avenue is an unadopted private street. There are no pavements and poor lighting and drainage. Pedestrians have to walk in the road. We have already seen a big increase in traffic since the development of Cawtes Road and Yorkdale. The residents have responsibilities to road users and these would be an unacceptable escalation of these responsibilities if there was still more development. Therefore I feel that the status of these sites should be changed to 'discounted'.

SO31


Object

I find this form and procedure to be part of a con trick. If surveys haven't shown it to be folly regarding road amenities what use this form. You have problems enough with speeding traffic, why exacerbate them. 3 schools and several children's nurseries. How long before a death happens, will you then say lessons must be learnt.

SO31


Object

Of the proposed 3,000 new dwellings in FBC, around half (1500) have been allocated to the Western Wards; around 700 of which (approx. 25%) allocated to site HA1. This is an unfair imposition and I believe further development should be shared more fairly across the borough. Recent developments at Cold East, Strawberry Fields, together with the neverending infilling of every available space has resulted in an explosion of housing within the Western Wards and especially within the immediate area of Brook Lane. Infrastructure in all aspects – health, education, transport, is overloaded and cannot accept any further increase. This situation leads me to question if FBC has given significant consideration to the cumulative effect that all this will have on the Western Ward's community. The area north and south of Greenaway Lane was once considered a strategic gap and is the only space left separating Warsash from the urban sprawl of Western Wards. On page 12 of the draft plan (2.7 key strategic priorities) is one priority of FBC which states "--- in the first instance, maximise development within the urban area and away from the valued landscapes and spaces that contribute to settlement definition". Site HA1 is not an urban area. I believe the northern part of Greenaway Lane especially should be retained as a green open space and/or park, providing an important gap between Warsash and the Western Wards. An alternative site to take the housing proposed for HA1 is Newlands Farm where up to 1100 houses could be provided in an area of 114 hectares, as opposed to cramming 700 houses within a 36.21 hectares site. Housing would not need to be so over bearing and high in density, making a more pleasant environment within which to live. The strategic gap that FBC wishes to retain around Newlands Farm would not be significantly compromised and certainly the upgraded road system in that area would be infinitely superior to that of the over loaded traffic system that we in Warsash, and surrounding areas have to endure. Should FBC choose to continue its plan to develop the site HA1, careful consideration should be taken in planning the position of housing to try to retain a "rural feel". For example, instead of new housing fronting directly onto Brook Lane, hedging and trees could provide a barrier to the housing estate behind. An example of this can be seen in the Taylor Wimpey development near Tesco in Hamble Lane. Mature hedging obscures a view of the houses behind providing a welcome habitat for what little wildlife remains. The site HA1 proposed development contained within the Draft Plan is deeply unpopular, greatly resented and not wanted by the residents in the surrounding area. By re-considering some of the Newlands Farm site as a compromise and halving the proposed allocation of 1500 within the Western Wards would ease the burden on existing inhabitants.

SO31


Comment

Large Format Response - Ref0035

PO14


Object

3050,3126, 3110, 1005 The proposed building sites listed above will put huge pressure on the Sarisbury/Warsash area, which does not have the infrastructure to cope, either on roads, parking, schools, doctors or open space.

SO31


Comment

Large Format Response - Ref0039

BS32


Object

The local infrastructure of Warsash cannot cope with the size of this development neither the road systems, doctors surgeries, schools or shops have the capacity to cope.

SO 31


Comment

I am particularly concerned about the effect on infrastructure around this housing proposal. Particularly transport, traffic, medical facilities and schools. BROOK LANE AND BARNES LANE suffer ALREADY from high traffic levels, which cause many periods of congestion on the AND the A27 East and West when eventually joining it. I personally think that a great deal of thought and planning needs to be applied to infrastructure to cope with the large increase in people, cars, children and schools – BEFORE ANY HOUSING INCREASE IS CONSIDERED.

SO31


Comment

OBJECTION TO DRAFT LOCAL PLAN CONSULTATION – Warsash housing When I attended the recent public meeting in Warsash I was very distressed to hear that there are firm plans to site major residential developments on Brook Lane and the School of Navigation. The reason I am shocked is the traffic problem. There has been increasing difficulty every passing year with access to Warsash village and adding a huge number of extra cars travelling on these inadequate roads will be a disaster. Already the small access roads struggle to cope and Brook Lane and Barnes Lane are blocked with queues of cars from approximately 7 a.m. to 9.30 a.m. and 4p.m. to 7p.m. or later, and there are no alternative routes to the motorway. The M27 teems with traffic, nose-to-tail, all moving very, very slowly [ and using lots of fuel and polluting the atmosphere] not to mention greatly increasing journey times and stress. In particular, getting on and off the motorway at junction 9 is appalling and the subsequent congestion along the A27 is dire. What can the air quality be like? Dangerously polluted I imagine for those living along this route and beyond. Is the air quality here comparable to that around the M27? Has it been measured? As the greater part of this traffic problem is that cars are queuing up to join or leave the M27, another motorway junction between Hedge End and Park Gate might ameliorate the situation. Just adding extra lanes will have a limited effect. Whatever is decided – and I realize more housing needs to be built in the borough –the traffic problem will not go away and this is probably the only opportunity to prevent inevitable, insurmountable gridlock. And it almost goes without saying that there are insufficient school places available, too few doctors, oversubscribed recycling facilities and inadequate parking for shopping in Warsash village centre. Please act now to prevent an irreversible traffic and environmental catastrophe which we will all regret. [redacted]

Postcode not provided


Comment

Southern Water is the statutory water and wastewater undertaker in Warsash. Housing Allocation HA1 allocates 700 dwellings at North and South of Greenaway Lane. 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. Our assessment also reveals that there is existing underground water and wastewater infrastructure that needs to be taken into account when designing the proposed development. An easement would be required, which may affect the site layout or require diversion. This easement should be clear of all proposed buildings and substantial tree planting. Accordingly we propose that the following criteria are added to policy HA1 (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: [...] j) Provide a connection at the nearest point of adequate capacity in the sewerage network, in collaboration with the service provider. k) Provide future access to the existing underground water and wastewater infrastructure for maintenance and upsizing purposes.

BN2


Object

I am writing to formally object to the above Local Plan and the proposed 800 new dwellings for Warsash for all of the following reasons: THE LAND SHOULD NOT BE USED FOR ANY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT I believe that all of the land is question is outside the Designated Urban Boundary for any new residential development and therefore the land is subject to a " presumption against residential development". I also believe that the area of land should not all be designed as " brownfield" but is countryside and taking into account the nature and physical appearance of any proposed development this is not in keeping with the Council's own strategic plan; in particular the land should not be part of a strategic gap to prevent the coalescence of residential settlements or creeping urbanisation which would destroy the rural nature of the area and become detrimental to the community. ACCESS AND TRAFFIC CONCERNS: Access to and from Warsash will be a nightmare if 800 new dwellings are allowed to be built as proposed by the Local Plan. [redacted]. We now regularly see stationary traffic outside our home and often hear the sound of car hourns because of the time that it now takes for traffic to be able to enter or exit Brook Lane and this before any additional traffic resulting from the proposed 800 new dwellings. Brook Lane and Barnes Lane are ordinary rural lanes not main roads and the amount of traffic is already at saturation point during rush hour or at school start/finish times. They are lanes around this area for a reason, in that they are rural lanes and not main toads capable of taking the extent of traffic that is now using them and this without proposed 800 new dwellings and all of the extra vehicles that will need to use the lanes around here. If the Local Plan is approved there will undoubtedly be many more vehicles using Brook Lane/Barnes Lane causing further pollution, noise and extra congestion on what are already very busy lanes. Brook Lane is definitely not capable of taking extra traffic near to Brookfield School because at that point the lane narrows and the large amount of extra further traffic will undoubtedly give rise to greater risk of accidents. Barnes Lane junction with Brook Lane.Brook Avenue has become over the last 5 years very dangerous because of the amount of traffic that now uses the junction; there are no less than 4 roads which are close to a bend in Brook Lane. We have witnessed accidents at this junction and we find it very difficult to safely cross the roads outside our home particularly when trying to cross with our grandchildren because of the volume of traffic and the number of roads that are close to this junction. [redacted] regularly using the X5 bus which is often now late because of the extra volume of traffic and I have no double this this will be further exacerbated by any further housing development agreed in the Local Plan. Traffic build up in Barnes Lane when waiting to enter Brook Lane is now creating problems for us to be able to have unobstructed vehicular access to and from our own driveway. Regularly I see near misses because of the speed that the traffic enters Barnes Lane from Brook Lane. Also even when slowing and indicating correctly that we are entering our driveway, vehicles travelling behind are often driven close too close, and probably believe we are turning right at the nearby junction beyond our property with the result they have to take evasive action in order not to hit our vehicle when we are entering our own driveway. We live in daily fear that a serious accident may occur outside our property. Any further residential development in the Warsash area, especially the proposed 800 new dwellings will increase the amount of traffic using Brook Lane and Barnes Lane. If any proposed development involves in traffic in Warsash that will create a serious road safety risk for all road users and for pedestrians because it will make the roads into and out of Warsash far too busy and will create an extremely dangerous roadway; access to and from Warsash is already extremely busy because of the new development at Strawberry Fields/Gallon Estates. I am also very concerned that more traffic pressure created by any new development on the local roads will involve increased volumes of traffic and the area will become gridlocked during the rush hour periods and considerable increase in journey times especially if there are accidents on the motorways or A27 as the area very quickly becomes gridlocked. Also the A27 really cannot cope with any extra traffic, the road is a nightmare during rush hour periods and is quite often now a car park. It now takes twice as long to get into and out of periods and is quite often now a car park. It now takes twice as long to get into and out of Southampton than it did when we first moved to the area in 2012 and any further vehicles will only add to this already difficult situation. LOSS OF NEIGHBOURHOOD IDENTITY Strategic gaps were recognised by the council in the Neighbourhood Development Plan but if the Local Plan is approved it will contravene the Council's stated objectives because the various new building developments will result in Warsash merging with Locks Heath and Locks Heath with Park Gate (question – should it become known as Warsash-Locks Heath or Warsash Park?). I suspect that the vast majority of residents in each community will be very much against the loss of community identity. I hope that those responsible for making the Local Plan decisions will agree that is vital to prevent any development that impact on the established rural village type communities of the existing residents in those communities. IMPACT ON WILDLIFE AND LOSS OF AMENITY I am greatly concerned that in rural or semi-rural areas there needs to be a visual separation between areas of residential development even on land that might be residential developments nearby (Strawberry Fields, Gallon Estates and Admiral Wood) which have already had an adverse impact on the community with the loss of wild life amenity and this is without the other smaller developments where large houses have been demolished and at least 4 new properties built of the land in and around the area. Since we have moved into the area from our previous city/urban home in the West Midlands we have been very impressed with the efficiency of Fareham Borough Council to respond to the concerns of residents and to recognise the importance of maintaining the rural habitat. I recognise that the Council is expected to consider future housing needs but since the developments of Strawberry Fields, Gallons estates and Admirals Wood, some of which I believe will not be completed until late 2018, I have been very surprised as to how those developments are already adversely impacting on the area. We have noticed a significant loss of wildlife in the area over the last 5 years. We regularly saw deer, kestrels, hawks and owls in the area but since those new developments have rarely heard or seen owls and now do not see deer or other wildlife; presumably they have had to move away from their natural habitat. If this planning application or any further large had to move away from their natural habitat. If this planning application or any further large scale planning applications by other housing developers are granted for this area I am very concerned that further wildlife will be lost completely and this will no longer be the village we moved into but a sprawling urbanization which is not acceptable or wildlife friendly. INFRASTRUCTURE The essential infrastructure in the area in question is already at breaking point at schools, GP, surgeries, hospitals etc, cannot cope with the requirements of the enlarged community already. If planning permission is given for the proposed 800 new dwellings any new residents will not be able to get their children in the local schools or to register at a local GP or dental surgery as people on the new estates are already experiencing difficulties in not being able to get their children into the local schools. None of the housing developers can genuinely claim (as they do state in sales brochures) that there are sufficient schools in the locality for the proposed new developments because it is not true. I am aware that one parent has had the names of her 3 children registered at Sarisbury, Warsash and Locks Heath schools for over 3 years and because there were no spaces available she has to take them to a school in Fareham. ADDITIONAL EFFECT UPON ACCESS TO AND [redacted], pollution and noise directly outside our home, I am already experiencing really heavy traffic during early morning and afternoon as advised previously. The Local Plan will completely diminish our enjoyment of our home and increase the problems we are already experiencing when accessing to and from our own property. INFORMATION REGARDING THE RECENT DEVELOPMENTS AND ISSUES I HAVE ALREADY SEEN REGARDING INAPPROPRIATELY DENSE URBAN HOUSE DEVELOPMENTS. The recent large scale residential developments at Strawberry Fields, Gallon Estates and Admirals Wood together with all of the extra homes being built on residential land replacing one single property with two or more homes on one plot of land these are examples of residential scale development such as the 800 new dwellings would create serious additional traffic flow problems at peak times. I have seen that parking has now become a real problem in the roads in and around Strawberry Fields and Gallons Estates. It is also a real problem on the estate roads themselves as there seems to be a lack of provision for suf

SO31


Object

I am writing to formally object to the above Local Plan and the proposed 800 new dwellings for Warsash for all of the following reasons: THE LAND SHOULD NOT BE USED FOR ANY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT I believe that all of the land is question is outside the Designated Urban Boundary for any new residential development and therefore the land is subject to a " presumption against residential development". I also believe that the area of land should not all be designed as " brownfield" but is countryside and taking into account the nature and physical appearance of any proposed development this is not in keeping with the Council's own strategic plan; in particular the land should not be part of a strategic gap to prevent the coalescence of residential settlements or creeping urbanisation which would destroy the rural nature of the area and become detrimental to the community. ACCESS AND TRAFFIC CONCERNS: Access to and from Warsash will be a nightmare if 800 new dwellings are allowed to be built as proposed by the Local Plan. [redacted]. We now regularly see stationary traffic outside our home and often hear the sound of car hourns because of the time that it now takes for traffic to be able to enter or exit Brook Lane and this before any additional traffic resulting from the proposed 800 new dwellings. Brook Lane and Barnes Lane are ordinary rural lanes not main roads and the amount of traffic is already at saturation point during rush hour or at school start/finish times. They are lanes around this area for a reason, in that they are rural lanes and not main toads capable of taking the extent of traffic that is now using them and this without proposed 800 new dwellings and all of the extra vehicles that will need to use the lanes around here. If the Local Plan is approved there will undoubtedly be many more vehicles using Brook Lane/Barnes Lane causing further pollution, noise and extra congestion on what are already very busy lanes. Brook Lane is definitely not capable of taking extra traffic near to Brookfield School because at that point the lane narrows and the large amount of extra further traffic will undoubtedly give rise to greater risk of accidents. Barnes Lane junction with Brook Lane, Brook Avenue has become over the last 5 years very dangerous because of the amount of traffic that now uses the junction; there are no less than 4 roads which are close to a bend in Brook Lane. We have witnessed accidents at this junction and we find it very difficult to safely cross the roads outside our home particularly when trying to cross with our grandchildren because of the volume of traffic and the number of roads that are close to this junction. [redacted] using the X5 bus which is often now late because of the extra volume of traffic and I have no double this this will be further exacerbated by any further housing development agreed in the Local Plan. Traffic build up in Barnes Lane when waiting to enter Brook Lane is now creating problems for us to be able to have unobstructed vehicular access to and from our own driveway. Regularly I see near misses because of the speed that the traffic enters Barnes Lane from Brook Lane. Also even when slowing and indicating correctly that we are entering our driveway, vehicles travelling behind are often driven close too close, and probably believe we are turning right at the nearby junction beyond our property with the result they have to take evasive action in order not to hit our vehicle when we are entering our own driveway. We live in daily fear that a serious accident may occur outside our property. Any further residential development in the Warsash area, especially the proposed 800 new dwellings will increase the amount of traffic using Brook Lane and Barnes Lane. If any proposed development involves in traffic in Warsash that will create a serious road safety risk for all road users and for pedestrians because it will make the roads into and out of Warsash far too busy and will create an extremely dangerous roadway; access to and from Warsash is already extremely busy because of the new development at Strawberry Fields/Gallon Estates. I am also very concerned that more traffic pressure created by any new development on the local roads will involve increased volumes of traffic and the area will become gridlocked during the rush hour periods and considerable increase in journey times especially if there are accidents on the motorways or A27 as the area very quickly becomes gridlocked. Also the A27 really cannot cope with any extra traffic, the road is a nightmare during rush hour periods and is quite often now a car park. It now takes twice as long to get into and out of periods and is quite often now a car park. It now takes twice as long to get into and out of Southampton than it did when we first moved to the area in 2012 and any further vehicles will only add to this already difficult situation. LOSS OF NEIGHBOURHOOD IDENTITY Strategic gaps were recognised by the council in the Neighbourhood Development Plan but if the Local Plan is approved it will contravene the Council's stated objectives because the various new building developments will result in Warsash merging with Locks Heath and Locks Heath with Park Gate (question – should it become known as Warsash-Locks Heath or Warsash Park?). I suspect that the vast majority of residents in each community will be very much against the loss of community identity. I hope that those responsible for making the Local Plan decisions will agree that is vital to prevent any development that impact on the established rural village type communities of the existing residents in those communities. IMPACT ON WILDLIFE AND LOSS OF AMENITY I am greatly concerned that in rural or semi-rural areas there needs to be a visual separation between areas of residential development even on land that might be residential developments nearby (Strawberry Fields, Gallon Estates and Admiral Wood) which have already had an adverse impact on the community with the loss of wild life amenity and this is without the other smaller developments where large houses have been demolished and at least 4 new properties built of the land in and around the area. Since we have moved into the area from our previous city/urban home in the West Midlands we have been very impressed with the efficiency of Fareham Borough Council to respond to the concerns of residents and to recognise the importance of maintaining the rural habitat. I recognise that the Council is expected to consider future housing needs but since the developments of Strawberry Fields, Gallons estates and Admirals Wood, some of which I believe will not be completed until late 2018, I have been very surprised as to how those developments are already adversely impacting on the area. We have noticed a significant loss of wildlife in the area over the last 5 years. We regularly saw deer, kestrels, hawks and owls in the area but since those new developments have rarely heard or seen owls and now do not see deer or other wildlife; presumably they have had to move away from their natural habitat. If this planning application or any further large had to move away from their natural habitat. If this planning application or any further large scale planning applications by other housing developers are granted for this area I am very concerned that further wildlife will be lost completely and this will no longer be the village we moved into but a sprawling urbanization which is not acceptable or wildlife friendly. INFRASTRUCTURE The essential infrastructure in the area in question is already at breaking point at schools, GP, surgeries, hospitals etc, cannot cope with the requirements of the enlarged community already. If planning permission is given for the proposed 800 new dwellings any new residents will not be able to get their children in the local schools or to register at a local GP or dental surgery as people on the new estates are already experiencing difficulties in not being able to get their children into the local schools. None of the housing developers can genuinely claim (as they do state in sales brochures) that there are sufficient schools in the locality for the proposed new developments because it is not true. I am aware that one parent has had the names of her 3 children registered at Sarisbury, Warsash and Locks Heath schools for over 3 years and because there were no spaces available she has to take them to a school in Fareham. ADDITIONAL EFFECT UPON ACCESS TO AND FROM 4 BARNES LANE As I live close to the junction with Brook Lane any additional traffic is likely to bring about real misery for us with further traffic congestion, pollution and noise directly outside our home, I am already experiencing really heavy traffic during early morning and afternoon as advised previously. The Local Plan will completely diminish our enjoyment of our home and increase the problems we are already experiencing when accessing to and from our own property. INFORMATION REGARDING THE RECENT DEVELOPMENTS AND ISSUES I HAVE ALREADY SEEN REGARDING INAPPROPRIATELY DENSE URBAN HOUSE DEVELOPMENTS. The recent large scale residential developments at Strawberry Fields, Gallon Estates and Admirals Wood together with all of the extra homes being built on residential land replacing one single property with two or more homes on one plot of land these are examples of residential scale development such as the 800 new dwellings would create serious additional traffic flow problems at peak times. I have seen that parking has now become a real problem in the roads in and around Strawberry Fields and Gallons Estates. It is also a real problem on the estate roads themselves as there seems to be a lack of provision for sufficie

SO31


Object

Building these houses will put additional burden on roads that are already at capacity. The local schools are already full. Also the doctors surgerys are over subscribed. If this goes ahead It will be a nightmare for Warsash residents.

SO31


Object

Large Format Response - Ref0057

PO16


Object

Building these houses will put additional burden on roads that are already at capacity. The local schools are already full, the doctors surgeries are over subscribed. How soon before we are gridlocked? Warsash is not suitable for this amount of development.

SO31


Object

These two sites propose a disproportionate amount of housing compared with other areas in Fareham. This is especially so when there has recently been the strawberry field development nearby. The proposals will add to the existing problems of traffic congestion in Brook Ave, barns lane and A27, which is already inaccessible at peak times. The land proposed is currently classed as 'countryside and should be maintained or used for spots/ play areas. Such a large housing development will have a negative effect on doctors and schools' facilities which are already under a considerable strain the land currently provides employment and produce.

SO31


Object

I strongly oppose these developments. They are extensive, congested and impractical. 1. The possibility of approximately 1,600 cars in Brook Lane will exacerbate the present situation of congestion at junction with the A27. 2. When there is an accident on the M27, traffic moves to the A27, with resulting further congestion. 3. Inevitable difficulty for clear road for the Emergency Services 4. Public Services already stretched will be under great stress, and possibly unable to perform their service. Eg. Police, Doctors and Community Health services, Schools. 5. Congestion on the roads will lead to danger for cyclists particularly school children. 6. Parking difficulties in shopping centres will lead to further parking on the roads. 7. This proposed development is on countryside and agricultural land, with damage to wildlife and ecology. 8. Before development the land is cleared of trees and shrubs, but recent building has shown houses so congested on small plots, there is no space to replant. 9. This is a country area, but recent developments have shown congested housing, with little garden or Recreational area, or planning for allotments or playing fields. 10. Much of the recent housing has had no character, and so repetitive, it is more suitable for a town. Warsash is a country village.

SO31


Object

The number of houses allocated for this site (plus the Warsash academy) will place a huge pressure on road usage - it is already impossible to find parking spaces at all the local shops, Warsash co-op/one-stop. L/H District centre has no spaces at 11.30am on Saturday mornings. Whiteley only place to park early in the mornings, but is a no-go area for large parts of the day. Warsash Road leading to Titchfield whole length a danger zone for crossing etc. Schools - Brookfield has already had huge expansion during the last few years. Must have reached saturation and will impact on quality of schooling provided. Hook-with-Warsash was always an excellent 'village school' with all the appropriate ethics, providing a sound base to the education of children. This also would be diluted by greater expansion.

SO31


Object

As usual FBC have given very little information about these plans and in particular the CAT meetings. Publicity for meetings was minimal and venues far too small, hence extension to some meetings. As a long time resident in the area I feel this is done purposefully to minimise opposition. Opposing plans in last 40 years has been very unsuccessful – hence the mess we are in now. P.s. putting pamphlets in school bags was a good move. Doesn't help my age group, but good for family members. Out of 3000 extra new dwellings proposed for the whole of F.B.C approx. half were in Western Wards. I am writing to complain about the huge numbers of houses which will swamp the area, in particular Warsash. There are not the facilities to cope with these numbers. Doctors surgeries are full to over-flowing and dentists lists are full. Where are the extra school places for all these children both primary and secondary. If you build on all these sites there will be no available land for expansion of facilities. What provision for teenagers? You must give some thought to the quality of life for the residents. We do not want to live in a concrete jungle. All traffic from 700 houses in Greenaway to use Brook Lane and Barnes Lane. That is 1400 extra cars as a bus service traffic is on these roads all day and night. Can't stop with windows open. We are concerned about the junction and any infrastructure i.e. lights so we get fumes in the house from idling engines. Traffic is congested on the Barnes Lane/A27 Junction and Brook Lane/A27 Junction. Extra traffic will make this worse. When there is an accident on the M27 we have increased and queuing traffic in Barnes Lane junction with Brook Lane. More houses, more cars. Library – we have a very small, underfunded library in Western Wards – a large footfall. The extended coffee shop in Fareham appears to be larger than our whole library. Please spend some money on this wonderful facility, and give Fareham a rest from refurbishment.

SO31


Object

Currently Fareham is an attractive local area, the only real eyesore being the council offices which spoil the sky line. Parking is always difficult and your plans talk of building on a number of car parks and then building car parks. If these now parking areas are more than 3 stories high then you will totally destroy what is, in essence still a pleasant town. You should make more time and give more thought to digging down and provide underground parking. The alternative is to turn this Green and pleasant area into a massive housing estate, and the only area which might have a still has a bit of charm and character would just be a large concrete blob in the centre or slightly off centre of the old town. More thought needs to be given to this or we will end up with an area like Weymouth, where the built-up roads and areas around the actual town turn visitors away, this whole being so unattractive. Then it will be "Hard lick" Fareham. The number of homes being introduced is massive. What guarantees are there that this increase in houses will be for those Fareham residents on council waiting lists, and young people desperate for affordable housing. What guarantees are there that people will not relocate from London, Liverpool, and other large city's up north.

PO16


Object

I would object to any further development increasing the housing density in warsash, locksheath, park gate, sarisbury, titchfield common etc. The area simply can not sustain any more housing/traffic. I live on brook lane and work in Segensworth. Last week it took be over 45 minutes twice to drive the approx 1.5 miles. I regularly queue from outside brookfield school all the way up brook lane to get out at the roundabout in parkgate. The volume of traffic simply can not get through park gate. I would walk/cycle to work however i need my car during the day so this is impractical. people need their cars and the carry can not sustain any more of them. Traffic has been noticeably worse since the construction of strawberry fields near the proposed site.

SO31


Object

I would object to any further development increasing the housing density in warsash, locksheath, park gate, sarisbury, titchfield common etc. The area simply can not sustain any more housing/traffic. I live on brook lane and work in Segensworth. Last week it took be over 45 minutes twice to drive the approx 1.5 miles. I regularly queue from outside brookfield shcool all the way up brook lane to get out at the roundabout in parkgate. The volume of traffic simply can not get through park gate. I would walk/cycle to work however i need my car during the day so this is impractical. people need their cars and the carry can not sustain any more of them. Traffic has been noticeably worse since the construction of strawberry fields near the proposed site.

SO31


Object

Although I do appreciate the need for housing, the density for the proposed buildings without added provision for Doctors, schools, dentists etc is worrying. The number of trees being removed also will affect air quality with added pollution from all the extra cars. Wildlife sanctuaries like the Raley Road site are now becoming scarcer. Raley Road is already very congested at school times and an extra 49 cats at a minimum will prove a nightmare.

SO31


Object

The proposed development of 700 houses north and south of greenaway lane, warsash. There are no plans for no new roads to cope with another 1400 cars (maybe more). There any new plans for Doctors, Dentists to cope with the extra people. More schools would be needed to cope with the extra children! Also wildlife has the right to have Barnes Lane is already like a rat race peak time. The state of the roads are in poor conditions to cope with more traffic and I would assume that more traffic and out into Brook Lane which is gridlocked certain times of the day. If they are to build all these homes then all the basic infrastructure must be improved. Warsash is a village and should be kept that way. It takes a long time to get to a Doctors appointment now, more people will make that situation worse.

SO31


Object

I am totally opposed to large scale development at Warsash on the grounds of lack of infrastructure i.e. the roads. The number of houses proposed for Warsash and Locks Heath is totally out of proportion and will destroy the character and living conditions for existing residents. At peak periods the roads cannot cope with the congestion. The lack of schools, the primary and secondary schools are full to bursting. The limited medical facilities i.e. doctors with long waiting times for appointments. Limited local employment, meaning the new occupants will have to travel by car to work, therefore increasing pollution and congestion. Very limited facilities for young people which means they need to travel to Southampton or Portsmouth, therefore causing dissatisfaction and nuisance as we have already had in the Boats estate etc. As for the Government plans to provide housing for first time buyers, the cost of the land and the price of the housing in the area, is way beyond the means of those who are supposed to be targeted. All that new development does is push up the price of housing in this area, as has been shown with all previous development I.e. Locks Heath, and Whiteley. This proposal is purely politics to try and show that the Government and Local government are trying to address the problem without any logical or costed planning. Before any development goes ahead it would be appreciated by the residents if they could correct all the existing problems before they create new ones. Developers always promise but once they have permission, those promises never come to fruition.

SO31


Object

General Comments 1. It is apparent from recent and current development that planning consent and building regulations are granted to developments without due regard to local disruption during the construction period, and when these are brought to the attention of FBC they respond to say they are powerless to do anything or enforce any remedial action. Examples of issues are: a. obstructions in the road, contractor parking, lorries are being unloaded etc, b. debris (mud, gravel etc) dropped on the road and never cleaned away other than when it rains. END

SO31


Object

Large Format Response - Ref0079

SO31


Object

Large Format Response - Ref0081

SO31


Object

Large Format Response - Ref0077

Postcode not provided


Comment

"I would like to comment on Site 3050 land at Brook Avenue that has been listed as ""developable"". I believe that this site should be listed as ""discounted"". The site is in an area that is considered to be countryside. There have been two separate planning applications relating to sites along this road that have been considered by planning inspectors. The applications have both been dismissed. P/02/0417/OA and P09/0474/FP were for small developments of one and two dwellings but they were not allowed as they would harm ""the present semi-rural character of the area"". Site 3050 makes a significant contribution to the character of the road and the continuation of its current use as grazing should be upheld. Brook Avenue has great amenity value for residents in the locality. Many people use it to access Holly Hill and the Hamble River Footpath. To build houses on this site would destroy the quality of the experience they currently enjoy. There is also the issue of access to this site. Brook Avenue is privately owned and maintained by the frontagers. As one of the frontagers, I would not wish to allow intensification of the use of the road or give any permission to upgrade the road."

SO31


Comment

We should like to comment on the plan to build 800 new dwellings at the above site in Warsash. Although we fully understand that there is a great need to build new homes all over the country, we do believe that 800 new homes in our village is excessive. We Acknowledge that we must build some homes here but feel that this number would completely overwhelm this village because of the following reasons:- The impact on services, infrastructure and wildlife. The quality of life for all residents, both existing and new as a result of overcrowding of people and vehicles. The current roads and schools would be unable to cope with this many new people and cars. Also, there is no provision or space to improve existing roads or build new schools. No thought of type of environment we will leave for future generations. We therefore fell very strongly that the council should please drastically reduce the number of homes to be built on this site. We do home that our concerns will be considered most carefully. With thanks.

Postcode not provided


Object

I object to the proposed developments in the Warsash area for the following reasons: 1. Whilst the country needs more housing, Warsash is a village and circa 2,600 extra houses is too many. 2. There are not enough schools already so parents in the new housing will need to take their children to schools miles away adding more pollution and traffic. 3. There are not enough surgeries or doctors for the current population. Unless urgent, it currently takes me four weeks to book and appointment. 4. No space appears to be allocated for the building of schools. 5. No space appears to be allocated for the building of surgeries. 6. Traffic. Brook Lane is one of the main access roads. It is not a dual carriageway and it cannot be expected to handle the extra car journeys. Traffic on the A27 is already at a standstill early morning and after work. Add in parents taking children to school and people going to work will make matters worse. Ideally, there should be no vehicular access onto Brook Lane. 7. There are already long queues for the local recycling centres which are only open during working hours in the winter and for limited hours at weekends. 8. Extra car parking facilities are already needed in the Warsash shopping area.

SO31


Object

Large Format Response - Ref0013_a
Large Format Response - Ref0013_b

Postcode not provided


Object

There are far too many dwellings in the Warsash area now. This development will overload, already strained facilities, like schools, roads, doctor's surgeries etc

SO31


Object

I wish to comment about your responses to site 3050 and site 2890. Both of these sites relate to land at Brook Avenue Warsash. I note that you have categorises this as "Developable". There are some issues that I believe have not been taken into account. You say that exiting on Brook Avenue from the south is unacceptable but the north would be possible. However, Brook Avenue is a private road. The road is owned and maintained by the frontagers. We are advised that although the fact that this road has public access it does not change the rights and responsibilities of the frontagers. You say that "the accessibility of the site is one of the main concerns. The site would require careful consideration for pedestrian access and highway lighting." If footpaths and lighting were required along Brook Avenue I understand that it would not be possible to upgrade the road in any way without the permission of each and every frontager. I would not give permission. Given that there was opposition from a majority of frontagers to two previous applications for 8 houses at Egmont nurseries the suggestion of 73 properties on two sites served by this part of the road would I am sure mean that I am not alone. There is an even bigger issue of right of way. We are advised that a change of use of this land from agricultural to housing estate would require agreement from the servient owners as it would be both "a material change and a significant increase of the burden of the easement." I believe that this site should be reassigned to "discounted" as termed in your Housing Site Selection document and not "developable".

Postcode not provided


Support

Large Format Response - Ref0097

SO31


Support

Large Format Response - Ref0096

SO31


Object

I am obviously very aware of the planning application that has been made in Warsash and have been to the consultation meetings and residence meetings. The residents of Warsash including myself are extremely concerned over a number of factors including school places, increase in road traffic and the destruction of the wildlife. I would like to propose a possible plan that would perhaps ease a couple of the concerns held by the residents. My suggestion would be that the proposed land was used to build 1 and 2 bedroom bungalows for older residents, situated in a well thought out landscape considering the wildlife. I understand the need for family homes and affordable housing but this development may encourage older residents in the borough to down size encouraging a natural cycle of progression. This development would make no demands on local schooling and a lot less on road congestion due to less cars per household than a large family home that could consist of as many as 4 cars. I would suggest the development housed a surgery and a possible increase in the bus timetable. Given the choice the residents of Warsash would rather this development did not happen and the land be left for wildlife such as the deer, badgers, foxes and slow worms to live undisturbed. However, I understood from some of the meetings that the planning department were welcoming suggestions in order to get the best outcome for the area. I would like to hear your thoughts on this and how realistic this could be.

Postcode not provided


Object

Large Format Response - Ref0084

SO31


Object

The sheer volume of housing proposed is unreasonable.The infrastructure is not there to support it and there does not appear to be a robust plan to address this. Much of this land is classed as agricultural , and indeed the area incorporates actively working nurseries, the plan notes the demise of agriculture in the borough, this plan will diminish further. There are 3 areas within the HA1 plot that have access via Greenaway Lane , this is a rural narrow road and it would be unsafe and inappropriate to use this route. I specifically noted plot ID3046 for 40 houses, the residence that sits within this plot was only recently built and at the time of planning it was stipulated that the surrounding land was to remain as agriculture only - why has this now changed to suit the council ?

SO31


Comment

1 There will be built just over 1400 new dwellings, if the Plan is completed, 700 of which will be built in the area of Greenaway Lane shortly. These 700 dwellings will cause an additional 700 vehicles using the roads in the area at peak times with people commuting to work and undertaking the school run as public transport links in this area are poor. The roads are already at capacity during peak periods, especially where they connect to the A27 at Park Gate. The situation will worsen as additional dwellings are built and there is no spare space to construct additional roads. Having lived in the area for 40 years, I have seen the traffic chaos increasing as more dwellings are concentrated in an area that has insufficient transport infrastructure. The increase in vehicle traffic will lead to increases in CO2 & NOx emmisions, thus worsening the air quality for all residents. 2 It is unlikely that sufficient off-street parking allowance will be made in the new estates, this inevitably leads to further congestion on the road system as cars are parked on street. This has happened in the new estate off Hunts Pond Road. 3 Currently, all GP surgeries in the area are over-stretched. I use Jubilee surgery in Titchfield where an appointment for a routine appointment is subject to a 6 to 8 week waiting period. Additional patient numbers and the continuing fall in GP numbers will cause this situation to worsen. All this, while the community hospital at Coldeast remains under-used. 4 Schools in the area have class sizes of 30+ and this situation will worsen without the development of new schools and the burden for this provision will not be shouldered by the developer. 5 I understand the need for new housing development, given the poor provision allowed for by previous governments of all political persuasion, however, the dwellings required should be both sustainable and suitable for first-time buyers and those with limited income, such as nursing staff and teachers. Most of the development in the Western Wards to date has been to satisfy the upper end of the housing market. I have personal experience that current new house builds are of poor quality and to quote Lord Deben, house builders are producing 'crap'. The Council MUST ensure that new build houses meet standards for energy efficiency and ventilation and fully comply with Building Regulations - self certification does not work! Currently, with central government approval, developers are allowed to opt out of providing low-cost housing within a development if they merely state that their profits are put at risk - there seems to be no onus of proof. Developers are also adept at avoiding their Schedule commitments, how will the Council enforce the Planning & Building Regulations? In short, I can see little future for the Western Wards, our environment will degrade into one vast, traffic-locked 'sink' estate comprised of poorly-performing housing stock with bad local air quality, over-stretched medical services and over-crowded schools from which inadequately educated pupils will emerge.

Postcode not provided


Object

As a bit of background information, I am [redacted] of Vero Limited (a family run and owned business since 1957) which has been operating on part of the proposed Greenaway Lane development site. Originally conceived as a poultry farm it has evolved due to changing economics as a storage business providing much needed affordable storage to local businesses. We are also the biggest source of local employment in Warsash. I wanted to let the council know that I have no interest in being part of this intensive housing development which will surround my business on all sides. I agree with all the points the councillors raised in their most recent inTouch article and I am truly saddened at the thought of Warsash being irrevocably ruined forever by the sheer volume of housing proposed. The irony is my business is the only brown field site and the rest is prime greenbelt. The reality is the local farmers who own this land have long hit retirement age and are being lured by pound signs. Vero Ltd only recently gave up farming back in 2002 and has managed to find a commercially viable option which helps promote local businesses by allowing them access to door stop storage facilities at an affordable price without being tied into long-term leases. I believe a housing development of this nature flanking Vero Ltd on all sides will make our position untenable and leave us no option but to follow suit and regrettably sell up with the farmers. This would also include the loss of our brook lane site too and of course a source of much needed local employment and business. This country is facing an energy crisis and greenfield sites like this should be the last resort when it comes to housing development but be held back for solar farm projects given our favourable sunny climate here. Sadly, energy is not the hot topic on the political spectrum at the moment despite the government pushing electric car ownership but not the electricity needed to power them. This development smacks of panic house building with little regard for all the existing residents who have invested heavily in this area. Like everything, there is an eco-system and the sheer volume of this development will have serious repercussions. Warsash is a desirable and aspirational area to live and therefore home to many business owners (like myself) who provide much needed local employment which in turn brings prosperity to the area. As has been stated by many people including the local councillors themselves this area is really struggling with the current infrastructure on all fronts but to grow Warsash by a third is complete madness and one which will alienate the very people who have contributed so much. The development also seems to be at odds with the government's mantra of 'affordable housing', given that Warsash is one of the most expensive areas to live in the borough. This is also, reflected in the housing associations rents on the newish Strawberry Fields development; where a 3 bed-house costs £900.00 pcm to rent which is the current going rental rate for a small 3 bed house and reflects zero discount. The local estate agents will also testify to their being a plentiful housing stock both for rental and to buy. Affordable housing needs to be just that –'affordable' and that is not Warsash. It is a pity that the building of larger houses is obsolete due to the current political agenda, as Warsash certainly would benefit from more business leaders moving to the area to boost the local economy. I would implore the council to recognise that there needs to be housing stock at both ends of the spectrum and some recognition needs to be given that Fareham needs a desirable area like Warsash be kept desirable in order to attract entrepreneurs and business owners alike. Destroy that and you will destroy local jobs. But if the building of these new homes does go ahead then surely something has to be done to include commercial use in this development to reduce car trips? Currently, Brook Lane through to Titchfield is being used as a rat run to avoid the Segensworth roundabout and the congested A27. I was born and bred on Brook Lane and I've seen much development in my time but this proposal will be the tipping point for this village and for Vero Limited. As a last ditto - Green fields should be the last bastion until every brown field site has been explored/exploited.

SO31


Object

My main concern about this proposed development is the volume of houses and the effect this will have on wildlife, local schools, doctors' surgeries, dentists and roads. I can see many of the local roads being used as rat runs as residents attempt to join the A27 or M27. Air quality and pedestrian safety are also major concerns. Greenway Lane " has retained its rural lane origins and character" and is not designed for heavy vehicular access. Similarly Brook Lane is narrow, cannot be made any wider and is already congested at all times of the day.

Postcode not provided


Comment

• Development to be confined to the east side of this land. • Two junction to be provided on to Lockswood Road: one north and one south of Greenaway Lane. • Development boundary to be a north-south line east of the badger sets. • Future of west side of HA1 to be discussed: it could be used for a community farm, a public open space, or a nature reserve. Much of the site is overgrown with bracken, bramble and young trees, etc. These areas are already safe places for wildlife, including Roe deer. The National Planning Policy Framework sets out a strong government mandate to secure 'net gain for biodiversity.' The Hampshire & Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust has already secured space for a new nature reserve next to the development of 2,000 homes at Barton Farm near Winchester. • Any shortfall of houses in HA1 will need to be made up somewhere else in Fareham Borough. A development of, say, 400 dwellings, on the south side of Longfield Avenue, Fareham would take up about 20 ha of farmland (based pro rate on 700 dwellings on 36 ha on HA1).

SO31


Object

 

Postcode not provided


Object

 

Postcode not provided


Support

Large Format Response - Ref0166

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