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

HA11 - Raley Road, Locks Heath

Object

ditto previous comments

SO31


Object

Where are we expecting the residents to park, it's already a busy parking area that gets incredibly congested taking a lot of the parking requirements for the school as none is provided on site. Any building in that area would add to the pressures we are already facing and cause danger to both parents and children during the building works. Our doctors surgerys are at crisis point and more residents will only add more pressures. The development is to butt on to the local park leading to overlooking of local children's play areas. I'm sure there will be talk of a financial contribution to the area but that never seems to materialise and alleviate any our local issues.

SO31


Object

There are already too many houses and cars within the local area. Schools and doctors' surgeries are full. Access to the site appears to be from Raley Road and this will add to the traffic on this once quiet residential road. As it is, with the increasing numbers of houses being built in the area, there is far too much traffic in the area. This road is used by parents with young children walking to school and additional traffic will only cause more hold ups, pollution and pose a safety threat to those young children. A number of people park their cars on Raley Road and walk their children to school from there as the Warsash Road is so busy, more houses will mean this road will be congested for longer.

SO31


Object

I live in Crescent Road which is next to Raley Road. The land earmarked for development is a wonderful place full of trees and wildlife, why oh why does every parcel of land have to be built on? Raley Road is very busy morning and afternoon because of it's proximity to Locks Heath Infant and Junor schools, it is used for parking and is an absolute nightmare to drive down during these times, putting in an access road will only make the road more dangerous and the extra cars which will then come from the development will only add to that!!

SO31


Object

The much housing being built locally

SO31


Object

I live in Raley Road which is already used as a car park, what are the plans for new properties and facilities?! New properties have less space especially for things like parking, where are all the extra cars going?! Also in the Locks Heath school catchment how is an already over subscribed school going to be supported?! Are already local residents that bought specifically on location going to suffer in the long run?!

SO31


Object

Please keep this as green land. It's full to bursting in Warsash already.

SO31


Object

On a regular basis emergency vehicles would not be able to get up and down Raley Road. It would not be safe to add more houses to this road. As residents of Raley Road, we are regularly subjected to road rage, cars mounting the pavement, beeping horns, speeding and stand still/blocked traffic. Raley Road is relatively narrow so a row of cars parking along it makes it single lane with vehicles trying to drive in both directions. Driving home from work in Gosport at 2.30pm I have to drive up Locks Road to come down Raley Road or it takes 10-15 minutes to get through. Even coming down the road I sat for 7 minutes just below Danehurst (at the top of the road) waiting for cars to come up from the bottom. My son waited 10 minutes to try and get out of our drive and go down the road this morning and in the end had to drive up the road (the wrong direction!).

SO31


Object

We don't have enough surgeries, schools and parking for any more housing in the area.

SO31


Comment

Having been a resident in Raley Road for the past 32 years and living directly opposite the proposed site for an additional 49 dwellings I would urge the Council to visit when parents are either dropping off their children for school in the morning or collecting them in the afternoon. Leaving my home in a car between 0820 and 0910 in the morning during term time is quite simply dangerous. We have put gravel across our drive to try and alert parents and children to our trying to drive out onto the road. If I dare to want to return home between 1445 and 1545 I am faced with cars parked all the way down the road (on the same side as the proposed site) and cars trying to drive up Raley Road at some speed sometimes making it impossible to reach my home. The looks I receive from parents and carers who are using our road as a parking area when they realise I want to actually turn into my own drive are not pleasant! I would urge the council to consider putting single yellow lines down Raley Road from the site of the new development to Warsash Road to prohibit parking during school times if the proposed development goes ahead. The development will clearly bring an increase in traffic both pedestrian and vehicular and there is quite simply an accident waiting to happen - and potentially children's lives at risk.

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

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

As a local resident who regularly uses the cut through from Harvey Crescent that comes out onto Raley Road opposite the propsed development I am very concerned about the potential number of houses and the access roads into the proposed development. I walk through here every day on my way to Locks Heath Infant and Junior Schools and Raley Road, along with Warsash Road are already danger hotspots with current traffic levels before increased traffic from new houses and the building works traffic. Cars regularly park up on the kerb blocking the pavement and have to weave through the tightest of gaps to get up and down the road. The access from Raley Road onto Warsash Road is dangerous at times with poor visibility and very narrow pavements. I notice also in the proposed plans it says that there will be access onto Locks Road, another extremely busy road. I cannot see in the plan how this can be achieved as there is no way through currently. My children's safety is my prime concern and I already fear for them when I have to walk along Warsash Road during busy times with the narrow pavements and lack of school crossing service. Raley Road is less dangerous but not by much, please consider children's safety when looking at this proposal.

SO31


Object

This road is congested with parking for local schools and more houses means more cars and possibly children to educate in overcrowded schools and doctors surgeries.

PO14


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

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

Questions: Where will the children go to school? Does this include new schools to be built? As it is the schools in this area are over subscribed. There is very little parking near Locks Heath junior school not to mention the ridiculously narrow pavement leading from Rally Road. What doctors surgeries will these homes be going to?

SO31


Object

The proposed access will severely increase traffic to the already over used road. At all times there are cars parked on both sides of the road, the visibility of pedestrians is already impaired, at school times the road is used by parents to pick up and drop off at the local school and at this time the road is swamped with children and cars, this is the busiest time of day for workers and the prposed access is right in the middle of that, this will increase traffic and create an increased danger to children, pedestriams and drivers. The housing will increase the need for schools and doctors adding pressure to what is already at breaking point. The wildlife of "bats, deers, slowworms" that occupy the green section will be effected. The houses will look directly into the windows of the houses adjacent. The trees will be cleared removing a spacious open green area which is tranquil.

SO31


Object

While I have no objection to the site being used for housing, the proposal to have the estate traffic coming through Raley Road is not feasible. Raley Road is rather narrow and it is now difficult to navigate the road especially when children are taken and leave school, parents parking their cars in the road. At such times it would be impossible for emergency services to get through.

SO31


Object

Raley Road is already too narrow to allow extra traffic particularly at School dropping off times when it is very difficult to drive down it. Also we have our health to think about with cars waiting to join the busy A27.

SO31


Object

Raley Road is far too narrow to have anymore cars coming out on to it .It would be extremely dangerous for the children walking to and from Locksheath School .

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 have grave concerns regarding the proposed number of houses to be built on this site. The road is already unnegotiable several times a day and the pavements are narrow. The surrounding roads and junctions will not cope with the extra traffic and it will not be safe for pedestrians and vehicles alike. The proposed building in the whole area is insufficiently provided for in school's medical facilities and general infrastructure. Please think again on these plans for the sake of the villages.

SO31


Object

I would like to object to this amount of development in our area

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 more 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

We have had considerable development in Warsash/ Locksheath area already and yet no increase in doctor's surgeries, schools etc. Local residents have to wait for cancellations to see a doctor or queue at the surgery in order to get an appointment when they release the next block of dates for booking. The schools must be full to bursting already! The situation for people living further South in this area means they are experiencing much greater traffic congestion because of the developments, also the shopping facilities at the Lockswood Centre are getting increasingly busy because of the increase in population we have, it is getting increasingly difficult to find a parking space at the centre. We need these things addressed if we are to have to take on the burden of any further development in this area.

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

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 areas for new development at present provide an area of green and a break in the building of houses that now cover most of the areas around Locks Heath. In addition I would object as the proposed development due to its size and scale, particularly when taken into account with all of the other piecemeal planning applications, would result in an unacceptable loss of and impact on the following areas: Strategic Gap - In-building on this site will further reduce any natural breaks between Warsash and Locks Heath and loses any remaining open green areas around the already overbuilt community of Locks Heath. Countryside – This site is one of a small remaining open area of landscape, 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. Furthermore, many of the sites are closer to Fareham centre, more accessible to Fareham and less intrusive to already overbuilt areas. Local Services - Pressure on local services is already at breaking point, the proposed plan 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 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. 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 a variety of wildlife in a small area that is already over built and which has reduced wildlife natural habitat to a worrying marginalised space; 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.

Anonymous submission


Object

The proposed development should completely gridlock the traffic trying to access the A27/M27. The traffic is at a standstill now, the addition of even more vehicles on the narrow road Has not been thought through. The non- existence of any plan for support services, doctors/schools shows that the plan for this development is utter madness.

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

The increase in traffic on the local roads, particularly Raley Rd, Warsash Rd and Locks Rd will increase the risk to pupils and families who attend Locksheath Junior School The roads are saturated at school time as it is. The pavements are a dangerous place at these times .

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

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

Locks Heath is already overbuilt & overcrowded, I object to all proposed site evelopments in the Fareham area, schools, doctors, roads are already overstretched more developments will only make things worse. Junction 9 of the M27 is unable to cope with congestion at peak times, every where is ridiculously congested. The borough is extremely untidy, hedges need cutting back, roads need repairing, adding more developments only adds to all these problems.

SO31 6


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

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

I strongly object to this over development of the area. We need these green spaces to support wildlife. Locks Heath is overdeveloped as it is Schools are struggling to cope with numbers as it is. Getting a doctors appointment is like gold dust and the traffic on local roads is ever increasing. We do not want more schools etc we want no more houses! I live and work in the local area with my own small business I object.!

SO31


Object

I hereby wish to bring to your attention the potential high risk of flooding [redacted]. We and our adjoining neighbour have seen an erosion to banks and loss of land due to the increase of water flowing through the stream at the bottom of our garden, due to additional discharge of storm water drainage upstream. Since purchasing the property in the year 2000 we have noticed a steady increase in the flow and depth of surface water in the stream which eventually discharges through a 1500mm diameter culvert running under Fleet End Bottom. My concern is that the capacity of the stream has been reached and that any further discharge of surface water upstream would have a detrimental effect of our land.

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 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

There are potentially 49 houses ear-marked for this relatively small site. I wish to raise the following concerns: 1. Increased traffic to an already congested area particularly around school times, alongside lorry parking outside of Tesco. 2. Evidence of Badger set 3. Evidence of Pippistrelle bats activity, potential roosting site in several trees on this site. 4. Planning is usually granted to large developers who build a uniform design, not enhancing the environment or promoting a sense of community, i.e Strawberry Field, Bridge Rd, where there are rows and rows of uniform brick and concrete. No sign of dwellings such as the small development in Barnes Lane which actually enhanced the area, taking the place of an old MOT garage. To summarise: We need to build housing and especially affordable housing, but do first time buyers not deserve to be living in a development which enhances the sense of community and environment? Where is the consideration of wildlife corridors which enable to us to live somewhere which is healthy, promotes well being and provides some thought into how we share our environment with the little wildlife we have left? Could this be considered for all the proposed development sites?

SO31


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

I object to the building of these houses . The roads can not cope with the extra volume of traffic and the pollution it will cause . The wildlife will have nowhere to go . The Doctors surgeries are so busy I had to wait 2 weeks for a appointment. The schools are full .

SO31 9


Object

"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. People who live in Raley Road also park on the road throughout the day and night time. The addition of a further 49 houses in HA11 with access onto Raley Road will only add to the congestion. 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. 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

Another thoughtless idea. Raley road is very busy at school time with the drop off and collection of children. The space would be better used as a car park to alleviate the severe congestion that already occurs. If the development proceeds where will the contractors vehicles park? The safety of young children are being put at risk. In addition Raley Road is not particularly wide with uncontrolled parking that makes navigation difficult. The Police do not enforce the highway code so the situation will be unacceptable The issues regarding Doctors, School places, Road infrastructure in the area are continually ignored by all

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 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

As discussed previously we simply do not have the infrastructure to support all these houses, hardly any public transport links etc.

SO31


Object

As a resident of Raley Road that will most definately be affected by the proposed build, I wish to register my personal strong objection. I have no desire to have my garden and my property grossly overlooked by housing at the rear of my house, at present we overlook the field at the back where you propose building, and I don't want my privacy taken away. The land at the back is home to much wildlife habitat that will be destroyed, we currently have the pleasure of deer, foxes, badgers, and a whole host of bats, birds including nesting kestrels, sparrowhawks to name but a few. I understand that this land is also subject to flooding and therefore question where the water will drain to With regard to Raley Rd itself, In the last 2 years HCC has taken away the much needed lollipop man at the end of Raley Rd/Warsash Rd, the children now have to walk along the unsafe narrow pathway, the traffic that continues to park down our road twice daily parks over double yellow lines, across driveways, and has on numerous occasions mounted the kerb and driven up the paths in order to pass by, this has caused many pedestrians to scatter, an additional road entrance of Raley will only add to the already dangerous traffic congestion. I will also add that there are regular disturbances up Raley Rd during weekend nights within drunken and wayward pedestrians that cause damage to our properties and vehicles,out front, I do not wish to feel unsafe with new housing at the back of the property. Whilst I understand the need to add more property, the government need to look elsewhere. The local school, doctors and social infrastructure is way beyond capacity and is barely accessible to current residents, the government need to look at improving the infrastructure before building and housing more people.

SO31


Object

The infrastructure can not support the proposed level of housing

SO31


Object

This small site is important for a lot of local wildlife and should be retained as a green space.

SO31


Object

Any further development of housing in Raley Road will put additional strain on existing services in this area. Until better roads are provided in and out of Locks Heath along with more Doctors surgeries and schools no further development in this area should be allowed. We never got the planned schools and facilities that were promised in the 1960/70's Western Wards plan so to cram in more houses before any infrastructure is provided is just going to make life even more difficult for residents. We moved here in the 1980's from Fareham - still waiting for the new secondary and junior schools that were proposed to be built!

SO31


Object

The proposal for the additional 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 extend the urban sprawl that has already occurred in the area with the loss of individual characteristics.. - 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


Comment

Although I object to all proposed development in Locks Heath Warsash & all surrounding area, this objection is because there is no plan for the infrastructure to support all the extra housing, people children cars roads etc, the area is struggling as it is, queues everywhere for everything, how will Doctor Surgeries Schools, hospitals road cope, this is a huge concern for the area, please no more housing till the community is supported with essentials.

SO31 6


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


Object

There has been no serious thought regarding the infrastructure and how 2000+ additional cars on here local roads are going to cope let alone local schools,doctors surgery .....there is simply no room! We need to be building more schools,doctors surgerys,more amenities and additional roads that will benefit the area before we can accommodate a massive influx of people way before 900+ new house are even considered to be built.

SO31


Object

 

Anonymous submission


Object

This area is already heavy with traffic, especially peak travelling times. If incident has occurred on motorway the area becomes congested and gridlocked. No provision for extra school places, doctors & dentists.

SO31


Object

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. I am concerned that any housing developments will increase road traffic, pollution and air pollution and do not feel the local council and Government are adequately addressing these serious issues! I object to the quantity of housing proposed on the Warsash Maritime site and urge the council to look at a greatly reduced quantity of dwellings there. 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. I am against any large scale building in the Western Wards area, 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 need to look at infrastructure and services across the country. 6) The South is turning into one big car park, making getting around miserable, and ultimately having a significant impact on the health of its residents!

SO31


Object

[redacted] my property directly backs on to the proposed development. I have some objections to this proposal:- 1) Most importantly of all, Raley Road is used by parents for the school pick up/drop off. The extra traffic generated by this proposal would compromise child safety along this road. The road is already exceptionally busy at these times. 2) Raley Road maintenance. The road is already full of pot holes and is extremely uneven. Prior to any development the road would need a complete overhaul, and a maintenance schedule put in place to ensure the state of the road does not continue to deteriorate. 3) Wildlife. There are deer living in the space assigned, which I regularly watch with my children. Taking this habitat away is not desirable. There are also Great Crested Newts on the land, which are endangered. The view from the back of my property (moved in October 2015) was a selling point of the property and a property search showed no planning permission. Should this go ahead, I would be seeking compensation for the loss to the value of my property. 4) Schools. The local school is already over-subscribed. Provision of schooling would be required PRIOR to the development being approved.

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

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

Locks Heath is already over-built, there is hardly any space left. Further building in Raley Road will impact negatively on quality of life for local residents. Traffic is already at intolerable levels and will be made worse by the addition of 49 dwellings. I am concerned about Traffic - dangerous on Warsash Road near the junction to Raley Road Air pollution - from the cars generated by these new houses Quality of life - Locks Heath is semi rural, this development will have a negative impact on the atmosphere of the surrounding area. School places - the local school is already over-subscribed Medical services - it is impossible to get a doctor's appointment within a reasonable timescale.

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

Like already mentioned in my previous comment on the Greenaway Lane proposed development, two issues are at the forefront of my mind when objecting to the proposed local plan: - maintaining what's left of the character of the Western Wards, without letting it drift into a soulless semi-urban conurbation (think Southampton and its 'burbs) - acknowledging that the infrastructure can't cope with further developments; traffic on the A27 and its feeder roads at rush hour is horrendous; schools are oversubscribed or asked to grow even bigger (no wonder there's drug and anti-social issues around such a large secondary school); doctors' surgeries are unable to deal in a satisfactory way with the patients on their books. Enough already, thank you!

SO31


Object

I strongly object to the development of homes on the land at Raley Road 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. The impact to our Privacy to the rear of our property will be significant as the new homes will overlook our home, being higher up. 3. Drainage will be affected as the current area will drain down to Raley Road gardens - sever floods of past years have been mitigated by the channelling underneath but that accommodates existing flows, not another significant development. 4. School & Healthcare capacities are already stretched and there is no provision to increase School or Doctors surgery infrastructure - there must be! 5. Natural habitats will disappear for the birds, bats and mammals who live there - the dwindling population of creatures due to less places to live means that the suburbs will become bereft of nature - a fundamental source of knowledge and curiosity for our children. it is my opinion that the community would be better served by preserving what's left of the surroundings, making it a more enjoyable place to live and raise families, and concentrate on large new developments along the M27 where new schools and healthcare services can be built and populated to serve that community well, rather than infill on every spare piece of land, over stretch all services and infrastructure and ruin the quality of life for those who enjoy living here.

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

Dear Sir/Madam I wish to submit an objection to the planning proposals of HA11 (Raley Road) for several reasons. 1) Increase in traffic levels - The traffic in the surrounding area has increased during recent years due to several reasons, more housing, the development of Tesco express etc and this raises concerns over child and general pedestrian safety as there are schools very close nearby, Locks Heath junior school being the closest. The traffic into the local Tesco express already causes log jams and traffic queues (along with a few accidents). Increasing the number of houses in the area will inevitably make this situation worse. Parking in Raley road and the surrounding areas (especially during school pick ups) already causes traffic congestion and problems. Again the proposals will make this worse to unacceptable levels. 2) Wildlife protection - The area proposed for development is home to a wide range of wildlife most importantly, a badger set, bats, slowworms, owls and deer as well as a range of birds, foxes, small mammals etc. The proposed development would displace these animals and with the other nearby building site proposals (HA1, 3, 7, 9, 13, 14, 15, 17 & 19) would leave no habitat for this wildlife to survive on. Current developments in the area give little thought about linking areas for wildlife to move between in order to interact and survive. 3) Community and aesthetics The number of dwellings proposed allows for no sense of community/social interaction. The recent housing developments appear to based on maximising property developers profits rather than creating communities where people can interact. Along with this the design of these large developments is stark, bland and offers no aesthetic attempt to blend in with their surroundings. I hope you will take into consideration these points when considering the proposal.

SO31


Object

The traffic situation for links to Warsash are dreadful and as each new housing development is completed, the traffic increases. I have to travel to work in Southampton from Warsash before 7am and need to leave work around 4pm, but even then the roads are often in grid lock, from Windhover roundabout A27 down to Burseldon. The other routes on the M27 and rat runs are all just as bad. It takes over 1 hour to travel 10 miles each way. Also, the schools, doctors and dentists are all filled to capacity and the shops are inadequate for the number of residents already living here. This leads to a very unhappy population.

SO31


Object

All the points we have made regarding the proposed housing development adjacent to Locks Road apply to this area as well.

SO31


Object

The proposed development of 49 houses with an outlet onto Raley Road will greatly exacerbate the already restricted traffic flow caused by non resident parking especially during pick up and drop off times for Locks Heath infants and juniors school. 49 houses means 100 cars!!!!! The yellow lines at the bottom of Raley Road are not long enough to allow a reasonably safe time for cars entering from the Warsash road to avoid oncoming traffic on the wrong side of the road coming towards them. The cars are on the wrong side of the road due to a line of cars parked on the right hand side going up Raley Road. The lines in Fleet end Road are longer than those in Raley Road and yet both roads have the same problems, both are narrow and have a line of vehicles parked down one side. Residents at the lower end of Raley Road on the right hand side going up it, already face difficulty in exiting their driveways as vehicles are parked in a line up the road and they have to exit between parked vehicles.

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

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. Countryside – There are plenty of brownfield sites that should be considered before losing the few remaining green, open areas in this already densely overdeveloped area. 2. 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, particularly when considered with the other local proposed developments, in an area that has in recent years already been developed to near breaking point. 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. 3. Traffic congestion - Today the local roads cannot cope with the current traffic. Riley Road is already often impassable; more houses leading in and out of this space simply cannot be supported both in the immediate surrounds but in then gaining access to bigger roads. Traffic is already a significant problem in and around Warsash and Locks Heath, 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. 4. Significant impact on air quality through substantially increased pollution from car fumes. Fareham is already struggling with poor air quality and so many more cars in the Western Wards can only further this issue. 5. Increase in light pollution. 6. Loss of wildlife; 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. The loss of the few remaining open or undeveloped spaces will result in further fragmentation and reduction of wildlife by destroying habitat and reducing any corridors of movement further.

SO31


Object

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. Countryside – There are plenty of brownfield sites that should be considered before losing the few remaining green, open areas in this already densely overdeveloped area. 2. 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, particularly when considered with the other local proposed developments, in an area that has in recent years already been developed to near breaking point. 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. 3. Traffic congestion - This particular road is currently often impassable, with no means to allow for a greater flow of traffic in and out. Traffic is already a significant problem in this area, 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. 4. Significant impact on air quality through substantially increased pollution from car fumes. Fareham is already struggling with poor air quality and so many more cars in the Western Wards can only further this issue. 5. Increase in light pollution. 6. Loss of wildlife; 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. The loss of the few remaining open or undeveloped spaces will result in further fragmentation and reduction of wildlife by destroying habitat and reducing any corridors of movement further. 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

I would like to object to the current proposals at this site in Locks Heath. 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 area. I am 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. I also do not believe the infrastructure could cope with the proposed vast increase in houses on such a space. I also believe that Locks Heath actually has a deficit of Open Green Spaces, how, therefore, can FBC be considering building on the small amount of mature woodland left?!!! I appreciate more houses need to be built and that areas will need to be built upon but not the sheer volume of houses that are proposed for this site.

SO31


Object

"Planning Strategy & Regeneration Department of Planning and Development Fareham Borough Council Civic Offices, Civic Way Fareham Hampshire PO16 1 December 2017 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 this information. Both contain platitudes a"

SO31


Object

My main reason for this objection is simply - this area seriously can't cope with more, traffic, people, houses. Just look at the reasons for the objections on all the other proposed sites. This area is being ruined on every level, it's not big enough and it can't cope. This area has surely had it's share of development. Look at the faces on all the people sat in the same gridlock traffic everyday! Says it all. Ruined area, ruined lifestyles.

SO31


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. It seems like the local plan is to fill in any areas of green space in the area. 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

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 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

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

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

Large Format Response - Ref0081

SO31


Object

This space is a fantastic habitat for wildlife. The congestion in Raley Road at the beginning and end of the school day has to be seen to be believed and it is only a matter of time before there is a serious accident there. A proposed nearly 50 additional dwellings here with all the vehicles would cause many more problems.

Postcode not provided



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