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

HA17 - 69 Botley Road, Park Gate

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


Comment

My concern is safety. 60 proposed houses may mean 120 cars using Beacon Bottom. The road is a lane with footpath on one side. A possible 120 cars using Beacon Bottom to get onto Botley Road is unacceptable. As a walker, I will be worried about my safety using both roads. Botley is not easy to cross safety. [redacted] has a risk assessment been done regarding traffic use of both roads. How will heavy traffic manage to access the sites safely?? I have trouble getting a doctor's appointment as it is will plans be made to increase our doctors practice at Brook Lane? also can our schools cope with the increase of children requiring places?

SO31


Object

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

SO31


Object

Disruption to traffic and difficulties accessing and leaving Beacon Bottom. Barrier between motorway, villages etc. The noise and visual pollution in the area will thus be increased and the meadow and wooded/hedgerow areas destroyed meaning that habitats for plants and animals will be destroyed along with this. This is home to several bird and animal species which are already threatened in our area.

SO31


Object

I would like to formally object to this planning application for a number of reasons. The proposed developments are inconsistent with the Core Strategy Policy CS6. The Development Strategy, which seeks to "prioritise development within the defined urban settlement boundaries" and the Governments National Planning Policy Framework which states that "Planning should… encourage the effective use of land by reusing land that has been previously developed (Brownfield land), provided that it is not of high environmental value" Policy DSP7; New Residential Developments Outside of the Defined Urban Settlement Boundaries, also states "there will be a presumption against new residential developments outside of the defined urban settlement boundaries" The Local Plan Part 3 – Development Sites & Policies says of New Residential Development Outside of the Defined Urban Settlement Boundaries that "exceptions may be made for the conversion of existing buildings, one of one replacement of existing dwellings or where there is a proven requirement for a new dwelling to support an agricultural worker's employment requirements to live in close proximity to their place of work. The proposed new development are not replacement dwellings nor conversions, nor necessary for agricultural work. Therefore, I do not believe they meet the criteria for exceptions. In addition I would object as the propose development due to its size and scale would result in an unacceptable loss of and impact on the following areas: Strategic Gap - In-building on this site will further reduce any natural breaks between Locks Heath and Whiteley and further reduces some of the limited remaining open green areas around the already overbuilt community of Warsash, Locks Heath and Park Gate. 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 and secondary schools are already oversubscribed and at maximum capacity. They are also already large enough: so without additional investment in schools, namely the inclusion of both new primary and secondary schools, the local infrastructure cannot support the development. Local Medical Centres are also already full. Traffic congestion - Today the local roads cannot cope with the current traffic and some key areas are already at maximum capacity, so if such numbers of further houses are built it will lead to increased massive local congestion, which is shown by the long delays already at all local intersections and junctions 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 and noise 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 Park Gate, Locks Heath and Warsash to an absolute minimum. Warsash, Locks Heath and Park Gate 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.

Postcode not provided


Object

The quality of living for current residents will be impaired as a direct result of increased road traffic and air pollution.

SO31


Object

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

SO31


Object

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

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.

Postcode not provided


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

The objection is on the principle of the area being saturated by over development which in turn means, that the existing road network (principally the A27 Windhover to St Margaret's Lane Roundabout and beyond, and the Botley Road Park Gate through to Botley) already has difficulty in coping and is exasperated on a daily basis with accidents on the M27 which gridlocks the above mentioned area. The Doctor's Surgeries in this area are at bursting point with over whelming criticism from residents unable to access primary medical services within a reasonable time frame. The Local Schools are struggling with the finances to meet educational and care needs of existing pupil numbers. These comments are relevant also to sites HA24 and HA26 which would have the same issues; as would in general all the proposed development in the Western Wards area which all lead up to the A27 Park Gate/Botley Road and M27.

SO31


Object

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

Postcode not provided


Object

24 dwellings at Botley Road is asking for trouble, with the other proposals at Beacon Bottom this will chaos for drivers, its bad enough now. this means up to over a hundred more cars could trying to get onto the main road, as well as all the contractors vehicles. I bet the residents will have to use BROOK LANE SURGERY which can not deal with the number of people in the area as it stands. Can the local schools meet the demand? probably not!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

SO31


Object

Same comments as ha11

SO31


Comment

I am concerned at the potential for an additional 35 houses and the suggestion that access to these would be from Beacon Bottom. This is a narrow road. Towards the junction with Botley it narrows and you have to let cars pass singly. It has become much more difficult to turn right out of Beacon Bottom since the road from Whiteley was opened onto Botley Road. 35 houses has the potential for 70+ more cars trying to get out. Cars park on the road, effectively making this a single track road. It would be much better if these 35 houses had their own road either onto Botley Road or connecting somehow at the western side, towards Addison or Ironbridge Road. I am also concerned about how construction traffic will manage or disrupt access for residents on this narrow road. By the way, I only found out about this when the Conservative newsletter was delivered on 26 Nov, too late to attend any meetings. The special edition of Fareham Today was not delivered to my address. Why not?

Anonymous submission


Object

Traffic trying to get through Park Gate is at a standstill during peak hours, FBC seems to not recognise the fact that we are in a bottleneck here, between the A27 and the M27 the roads cannot cope with the amount of traffic at the moment never mind adding to the problem. The improvements that are currently being made to the A27 will only alleviate the problem, but not for long and certainly not if all the developments for the Western Wards go ahead. The very large development further down the A27 below Windover Roundabout, although outside the borough this extra traffic must also be taken into account, as it will also have a detrimental effect on the amount of traffic passing through, or trying to pass through, Park Gate. Also there has been no extra provision regarding schools and health care. Trying to get an appointment at my local surgery to be told there is a two week waiting list! Many of the local schools are oversubscribed and have I have heard some mums complain that their child has had to start school in Bursledon! FBC you need to reconsider the developments for West Wards.

SO31


Comment

Any development needs to be complementary to the area so there are still small breaks in housing to give that uncluttered green feel

PO15


Object

I am against any building until local/county councils and the Government adopt a much more holistic approach to planning. It is not good enough to identify land to build on! Air quality, infrastructure, real commitment to reducing road traffic, increasing public transport, providing sufficient services etc have to be part of any housing plan.

SO31


Object

The proposed development, with an 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 so if this proposed development is allowed, even without considering the other numerous planning applications in the area, it will lead to massive local congestion. Traffic is already a significant problem, often gridlocked every morning and evening; there is finite space so limited opportunity to enlarge roads to cope with more traffic. Emergency vehicles will be unable to ensure safe response times. There are limited jobs in the area so these houses would be for people who would then need to travel to work, further increasing this problem. 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 basing the majority of new builds for FBC in 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

This area cannot take more cars. All routes from this development to the A27 are congested at rushour and in most cases because people are queuing to get onto the A27 they pull out dangerously and without indicaitng. All junctions with the A27 need to be made safer before any further housing is built in this area but in particular the Botley Road and Hunts Pond Road entrances and the roundabout at their junction with the A27 roundabout and the roundabout where station road and brook lane meet the A27. Traffic flow along the A27 through Park Gate needs to be increased. The polution from queueing cars in this area is unacceptable and puts you off walking around the area.

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


Comment

Large Format Response - Ref0043

SO23


Comment

Southern Water is the statutory water and wastewater undertaker in Park Gate. Housing Allocation HA17 allocates 24 dwellings at 69 Botley Road. In line with paragraph 162 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG), we have undertaken an assessment of our infrastructure and its ability to meet the forecast demand for the proposed development. That assessment reveals that additional local sewerage infrastructure would be required to accommodate the proposed development (involving making a connection to the network at the nearest point of adequate capacity). Southern Water has limited powers to prevent connections to the sewerage network, even when capacity is insufficient. Planning policies and planning conditions, therefore, play an important role in securing the necessary local sewerage infrastructure in parallel with the development. Specific policy provision would be in line with the NPPF. For instance, paragraph 157 of the NPPF states that Local Plans should 'plan positively for the development and infrastructure required in the area to meet the objectives, principles and policies of this framework'. Also paragraph 177 of the NPPF outlines that it is important to ensure that planned infrastructure is deliverable in a timely fashion. Accordingly, infrastructure and development policies should be planned at the same time in the Local Plan. Insufficient capacity is not a constraint to development as extra capacity can be provided. However, it is important to give early warning to prospective developers regarding the need for local sewerage infrastructure. Early warning will facilitate delivery of the necessary infrastructure as it can be incorporated early in the planning process. If the requisite infrastructure is not delivered, the sewers would become overloaded, leading to pollution of the environment. This situation would be contrary to paragraph 109 of the NPPF, which requires the planning system to prevent new and existing development from contributing to pollution. Our assessment also reveals that there is existing underground wastewater infrastructure that needs to be taken into account when designing the proposed development. An easement would be required, which may affect the site layout or require diversion. This easement should be clear of all proposed buildings and substantial tree planting. Accordingly we propose that the following criteria are added to policy HA17 (new text underlined): Planning permission will be granted provided that detailed proposals accord with the policies in the Local Plan and meet the following site specific requirements: [...] g) Provide a connection at the nearest point of adequate capacity in the sewerage network, in collaboration with the service provider. h) Provide future access to the existing underground infrastructure for maintenance and upsizing purposes.

BN2


Object

1. We have had our share of houses being built large numbers of houses are still being built at Park Gate, Cold East, Whiteley and Botley Road. 2. Pedestrians unable to cross roads due to volume of traffic. 3. At Beacon Bottom cars already find it difficult to wait due to traffic. 4. Green belt needed for wild life. The large hedge at Beacon Bottom is home to many birds. It is also a buffer from pollution and noise from M27. 5. Park Gate has become one big traffic jam, we do not want even more traffic.

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. [redacted]. 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. [redacted]. 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

Large Format Response - Ref0081

SO31


Comment

HA17 [redacted] would be do-able if the access was restricted to Botley Road (an already increasingly busy road) but I understand that it would also include access via Beacon Bottom. Beacon Bottom is a narrow, restricted road giving the only exit from the adjoining roads Beacon Way, Close and Mount plus Llndway, Westbrook and Eastbrook Closes. The exit from this existing housing complex onto Botley Road can be problematical especially during rush hours. The addition of more housing funnelling more traffic into this small space would make this worse without some major road re-widening or even a roundabout (turning right out of Beacon Bottom towards Park Gate at times can be very difficult and also potentially dangerous).

SO31



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