Some of these cookies are necessary to make the site work. We’d also like to use optional cookies to help improve your experience on the site. You can manage your optional cookie preferences below. Using this tool will set a cookie on your device to remember your preferences. Your preferences can be changed at any time.
For further details, see our Cookie Policy and our Privacy Policy
Essential cookies enable core functionality such as page navigation and access to secure areas. The website cannot function properly without these cookies; they can only be disabled by changing your browser preferences. Third party functions such as Google Search and Analytics will not be enabled.
Performance settings enable you to use the Google Search engine on our website and help us to improve our website by collecting and reporting information on its usage (for example, which of our pages are most frequently visited).
Being a commuter who travels out of Fareham to work each day I can safely say that the queues of traffic both inbound and outbound is horrific - At peak times it often takes 30 minutes to get from junction 11 to the Tesco roundabout. This is exacerbated by the endless queues in both directions along the M27 from Portsmouth to Southampton (and onward to the M3) at peak times and often during the day. My daily commute from Fareham to South Winchester regularly takes approx an hour each way to travel 22 miles. I have not seen anything in the supporting documentation that would be a feasible solution to this situation. The FBC council history on traffic solutions is abysmal - for example the number of time the roundabout & junctions around the station & Gudge Heath Lane areas have had to be reworked at a huge cost to the tax payer prove that the council are incompetent of providing realistic workable solution to traffic issues. The overall plan (excluding Welbourne) show around 8000 properties being added to the local area over the next 20 years. The increase in traffic issues that will bring the town and surrounding areas to a stand still and the additional pollution element is enough for me to object against the building of further housing in the local area.
PO16
With all the existing houses and the proposed site, this function would be very busy. A large section of north Wallington to {not know} is already used for parking.
PO16
"HA20 North Wallington/Standard Way 21 Dwellings 1.Site over Fresh Water Aquifier (note nearby dumping station) Depth and extent and advice from water company required. 2.Extreme noise/pollution from M27 100 metres to north 3. Access to site difficult except through Wallington village. ""Rat Run"" through village to be avoided at all costs. Alternative via Broadcut/Standard Way through busy industrial estate. 4.No public transport. Nearest bus stop opposite Cams Hall or Fareham bus station"
Anonymous submission
"The need to assess the likely effect of increased traffic along North Wallington, which is only a narrow country lane, has already been identified. The road is already being used as ""rat run"" by commuter traffic to avoid the Delme roundabout at peak hours. Increased development on this site will make the situation worse. Car use would also be increased by residents wishing to access local amenities. There is no public transport and Wallington's well identified traffic problems would only be exacerbated. Close proximity to the M27 and the heavily used Standard Way brings problems with noise and air pollution. Have studies been conducted to ascertain whether acceptable standards will be breached. It is understood that the proposed development is over the aquifer structure of Maindell Pumping Station which runs diagonally across the site. The Water Company will presumably have something to say about this. Wallington Village, through the efforts of its residents and with the help of the local authority, has managed to retain its character and appeal. There are only 4 ""green"" spaces left in the village these proposals will see 3 of them disappear. It is no wonder that village residents see these proposals as something which must be resisted if they are to maintain their quality of life."
PO16
The horses field-0.87 (21 dwellings) Noise and pollution. Living in The Heights we presently have a constant drone from M27, slightly changed according to wind direction. It is impossible to sleep in summer with open windows (double glazed) because of noise from M27 , especially motor bikes. This is before Welbourne! We were promised no more housing in village- Westbourne cover it all. You take your life in your hands in trying to access north Wallington with speed of traffic from Pinks Hill. We would never get out of village!
PO16
Any housing built here would subject residents to an unacceptable level of noise pollution as well as harmful NO2 and CO2 airborne pollution. Any access to the site would have to be either on the downhill side of Standard Way, currently a 60mph speed limit with traffic (often large commercial vehicles) approaching from a 'blind' bend or via North Wallington. This would cause considerable distress to the existing residents adjoining the site and those living opposite in Riverdale Cottages. There is no current public transport provided to this end of the village, thus increasing the need for the reliance on cars and add to the existing traffic problems in the congested village area. There are no footpaths between Riverside Avenue and the junction with Standard way. Motorists currently take little notice of the existing 20mph speed limit, making it dangerous for pedestrians. The current site offers an open space for absorption of NO2 and CVO2 gasses from the M27 motorway.
PO16
Serious road safety issues as very busy from Broadoak existing units. Plus difficult pedestrian access via North Wallington. (No pavement for big part). More building and concrete at this point would cause more water to cottages at river edge that already have problems with flooding. Plus not much green left for existing residents.
PO16
This proposed development would increase the traffic either through Wallington Village or the T junction of North Wallington and Standard Way which already has traffic problems due to heavy industrial traffic from the nearby industrial estate. This is an isolated site with no public transport nearby and with no local amenities. . The site being close to the M27 would suffer from noise and air pollution. Wallington already suffers from high amounts of industrial activity and to lose one more open space would detract from the character of the village.
PO16
This is a green site currently a field bordered by trees. It is extremely close to the M27. It provides a breathing space absorbing noise and pollution between the houses in Wallington and the motorway. It is on a slope, close to the low lying river Wallington. A group of cottages, river side cottages lie next to the river and already vulnerable of flooding. A development would mean that the ground would no longer absorb rain water which would run off into the river and increase the risk of flooding. The field is bordered by standard way, along which travels heavy traffic to and from the large industrial estates. One of the other sides is bordered by North Wallington, which is a narrow lane with a dangerous blind bend. Neither road has a pavement. Construction would be above aquifers a valuable source of water which would have to be closely monitored.
PO16
Site totally unsuitable for development due to existing safety pedestrian issues which would be exacerbated with the addition of more traffic
PO16
I object to development on this site for two reasons: Access - pedestrian access to public transport and community / town facilities access are remote. People will be more likely to use cars which only access the site via Broadcut. This road is already heavily used by local business traffic roundabout and is already dangerous and difficult to cross for local residents wishing to shop at Sainsburys. Flooding - the environment agency have been actively containing - at considerable expense - the River Wallington, which floods frequently. This spills into the village, but also into Broadcut, cutting access to those businesses whose livelihood depends on constant road access. This includes Fareham Council deport and the waste transfer business at Fort Fareham. This development will significantly increase rainwater runoff into the river with consequent misery of further flooding. Wallington continues to see 'creeping' development of housing, additional properties recently being built in Wallington Shore Road and Delme Drive. What are seen as 'gaps' on a map to be 'coloured in' with houses are, in fact, the final pieces of treasured open space for a community which occupies a small space surrounded by major roads and industry. Please keep our final remaining pieces of open space as countryside.
PO16
We strongly oppose to the planned developments, both housing and employment. we have concerns with regarding the local infrastructure and how it would cope with the increased local & new 127 houses. [redacted] Drift Road has been dug up every yr (4 times) to repair the already overloaded water pipes. Wallington has a long history of flooding and the WVCA have worked tirelessly with the council to reduce the risk of impact of this. These plans undermine this work, as we cannot see it possible that the flooding will not worsen as a result of the planned build.
PO16
Same comments relate to Both proposals Additional traffic and access to both sites will be difficult and detrimental, Noise and pollution associated with additional traffic Water Run off, causing problems for the river
PO16
This site is currently a boundary and buffer between the housing in North Wallington and the very busy M27 motorway. Its use would have grave pollution issues, both noise, and airborne pollution. Your proposal is for primary access via North Wallington, along a narrow and un-widenable road with current traffic difficulties, to the busy, fast-moving and heavily overused junction with Standard Road. There is limited access by foot and there are no bus routes in the area making pedestrian access difficult to a relatively isolated site. It is also perilously close to the Water Meadows which are zone one and two flood areas and the Maindell Pumping station, both of which I fell will require further examination before this could go ahead.
PO16
Pinks Hill HA8 SHLAA 1998 incorporating SHLAA 1352 Military Road HA16 SHLAA 27 SHLAA Gauntletts field North Wallington and Standard Way HA20 SHLAA 324 SHLAA Sites allocated for housing and development [REDACTED] OBJECT Comment: Currently Wallington is a semi-rural village with a unique identity and separate to the nearby Fareham Town Centre and Portchester urban sprawl. Defining this unique community is the strip of open land and fields that constitutes the proposed development land. This open land provides a buffer to the noise and air pollution from Junction 11 and the M27 motorway and is used as an open space by residents and visitors, also providing an open green backdrop to the Wallington Conservation Area and Water Meadows. The green land holds surface water that regulates river levels during spates; protecting downhill/downstream dwellings from flooding. The houses and businesses directly adjacent to the land are unique older properties including Riverdale Cottages, Fort Wallington battlements, WW2 machine gun emplacement and pumping station/cottage. Developing the sites proposed will infill the area which defines Wallington as a separate semi-rural village, apart from the Fareham Town Centre and Portchester urban areas. Developing this land will cause Wallington to become part of a homogeneous urban sprawl intersected by the trunk roads and motorway but without clear definition. This will destroy the rural boundary of Wallington and the village will lose its identity and sense of community. Development will cause the loss of open space enjoyed by villagers and visitors and will have an adverse affect on residents' wellbeing. By its magnitude and elevated location on the hill slopes, the development will have an overbearing and intrusive impact on the existing homes and businesses on the northern edge of the village and will have a detrimental effect on views and privacy. The character of the village and especially the local/adjacent neighbourhood will be negatively impacted by this out-of-scale proposed development. All other houses in the vicinity are individual or small clusters of unique cottages. The proposed development will intrude on the adjacent conservation area/water meadow views and this special amenity will be affectively lost to residents and visitors. The area of proposed development is trapped between existing dwellings and the motorway; construction and access will negatively impact the lives of neighbouring residents. Construction will add unbearable levels of disruption, noise and pollution. The already busy narrow local roads of North Wallington, Military Road and Pinks Hill will become highly congested and the small amount of on-road parking will become oversubscribed – many of the older existing properties do not have the option to create off road parking. There is not the local roads, pavements and infrastructure to support the construction stage of the development, nor is there the option/space to develop the infrastructure to accommodate construction. The construction site will cause surface water to flow down the hill towards the river Wallington and increase the risk of local flooding to existing homes. The developments if built will be adversely affected by motorway noise and air pollution. Development will cause the loss of the strip of 'green lung' that helps protect local residents from the impact of motorway noise and air pollution. The already congested roads of North Wallington, Military Road and Pinks Hill will not be able to support the additional traffic caused by the new dwellings. Current on-road parking adjacent to the North Wallington/Pinks Hill horse field will be lost. Lorries and traffic from the Standard Way industrial estates will create an unacceptable risk to the new residents. The development will cause surface water to wash directly towards the river and existing homes, increasing flooding.
PO16
c) NORTH WALLINGTON & STANDARD WAY (HA 20) – 21 Houses • This ill – conceived Housing Site, is level with and a mere 150 metres from, the M27; the resultant Noise Levels and Carbon Monoxide levels (Previous J11 comments refer) make the Site entirely unsuitable for Housing. (The Daytime @ Nightime Db requirements for Residential development close to Motorway Noise are perfectly clear (PPG 24 refers) (WORTHY OF NOTE – is the fact that in their Proposals for Welborne, Buckland Development Ltd, decided not to build any Housing within several THOUSAND Metres of the M27.) • The Main Aquafer Supply pipes to the Portsmouth Water Pumping Station @ Maindell, North Wallington run diagonally across the Site and provide the main water supply to Fareham!. • Access to the Site – It is very difficult to see how access could be constructed for this Site; other perhaps than a direct access to Standard Way at the very top of the site. Given that the section of North Wallington leading to the existing junction with Standard Way is a country lane with no pavements, then additional traffic from this site onto this junction, would be highly unwelcome. • The site, which is 100% ALC Grade 2 quality, is relatively isolated and without amenities. There is no public transport and car useage is therefore likely to be high. • A sloping and prominent Greenfield site at the edge of the Village, any development would dominate existing dwellings that have been there for hundreds of years (ie: Riverdale Cottages)
PO16
The proposal to build on this site is, in my view, ill-conceived for the following reasons: the increase in traffic will most likely cause even greater congestion at the M27/A27 intersection and the small winding roads around the village will be unable to support the inevitable increase in cars seeking to use alternative routes into and out of Wallington; Wallington has seen a number of new developments in recent years to suggest that it has borne its fair share of FBC's perceived burden; are FBC intent on 'starving' the area of its last few remaining areas of green space? Finally, I recall that local politicians have previously suggested that part of the rationale for developing Welborne was to alleviate the pressures on local green and brown sites; our council is elected to represent the interests of its residents and should be doing all they can to resist Government pressure to further develop what is clearly an already overdeveloped area already, as the regular bouts of congestion seen on both the M27 and A27 will attest to.
PO16
Housing and pathways built on this site will increase the severity of water runoff into the river, This river has previously flooded due to severe water runoff and this development will make matters worse. This site contains numerous chalk downland flora species including Orphys Apifera. This site provides an open green space between the motorway and properties in wallington.
PO16
No comment provided
PO16
Wallington village, the river and the existing industrial / commercial sites of Standard Way and Fort Wallington reside at the last leg of the Wallington Basin, through which vast quantities of water can flow after short periods of heavy rain. So any proposal to build on the open fields in the latter part of the Wallington Basin, where this plot resides, will have a highly negative impact on the flood risk to the Wallington village environs. Essentially, the balance of flood risk hangs delicately in the area, meaning that the plans for Welborne will be effected: 1. Any building work in Wallington will have to be factored into the anti-flood measures and other data for the proposed building of Welborne, which will surely further delay the beginning building of in Welborne. Locals will be given a route to make a valid objection regarding the effects of Welborne upon the latter part of the Wallington Basin. 2. Any building work in Wallington will also undermine all of the work done by the Environment Agency, as they will have to re-calculate all of the data concerning the levels of flood protection offered by various kinds of work, meaning that all planning will have to be resumed from the start again. December 2012 was a period of heavy rainfall where the river came to within just a few centimeters of the top of the flood defence walls (See http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-20803312/flooding-wallington-river-levels-prompt-emergency-evacuation). May 2013 also had high water which did not make the headlines because it occurred in the middle of the night. Continued building on the Wallington Basin tips the balance in favour of water flowing into the river ever more quickly, making the risk of flood far higher. This means that it would be unreasonable act of incredible folly and ignorance to build upon the open land in Wallington, as this resembles a fraction of the soak away which previously existed in the area. At what point does local government stop heeding the interests of the local populace? Will those who might accept these building proposals be around to answer the critics if the Wallington area floods in future? Or the directors of the building companies? I very much doubt it. Yet those who live here will have to live with any ill-fated and unwise decisions that they make.
PO16
Any properties on the 'horses field' would be an impossible increase in traffic going through North Wallington. The speed it goes through now is unacceptable even though 20MPH is written throughout along the road. It already is dangerous to walk along with no pavements until [Rivermede]. Noise and pollution is another problem too as, when building Clifton Mews the drainage there was a problem. it is understood that there are caverns under the [Maindele] pumping station near the junction of Standard Way and North Wallington. The traffic along Standard Way is fast and heavy. Flooding is another problem in the area. Just leave our village as it is.
PO16
Wallington – the jewel in Fareham's crown, living and being associated with the village for over 50 years, I have seen the village and life slowly eroded by new housing developments with no far seeing thought into the future, I appreciate the need for housing, isn't Welbourne enough. Traffic through the village is at a premium with no thought for speed (even the locals), the run off down Pinks Hill after the development causing traffic problems. More traffic through the village roundabout Hotel roundabout problems. This village was here before Fareham, you have erased it away over the years. Wallington Way, before public protests there other routes that planners had put through with the motorway build, this area was water meadows for the village. Sainsbury, Poundland developments Grade II listed properties removed, money certainly talks, again water meadows for the village. Clifton Yard Brewery Brickworks developments more added congestion for the village with Shez Box houses. Fareham as a whole seems intent on making the move towards 'Solent City' a reality. Many of us believed this 40 years ago, what a reality this has become, for once say NO we don't want it. Respect and understand what Fareham has and regard it as FAREHAM'S JEWEL IN THE CROWN.
PO16
How can Wallington cope with more traffic on its very narrow roads some with no footpaths so you have to walk in roads. And it is almost impossible to pull out on to the Delme roundabout at certain times of day.
PO16
In full agreement of the WVA's comprehensive evaluation of the three sites and concur with bullet points 1 to 7
PO16
I want to object on 2 grounds. First.Any increase of run off into the river Wallington will further threaten houses on Wallington Shore Rd and North Wallington ,already at risk of flooding. The Environment Agency has already said ,in respect of Wellbourne, that there is to be NO increased run off into the catchment as a result of that development.This would hold equally true of any development above or alongside the river in the village itself.Increased roofing,hardstanding and road surfaces all shoot water rapidly into the river whilst the current green spaces hold the water and release it gradually. Secondly: Increased traffic along Wallington Shore Rd and North Wallington. Already suffering congestion at Drift Rd this is a school route approved by the council for cycling and walking to Uplands and Cams Hill schools. It has to be crossed by nearly all residents on foot as their route to town or shopping. For children and less agile residents it will increase danger. This is also the only fairly safe route{compared with other options} for cycling out to the country under the M27 at the underpass at North Wallington. Any increase on this route and the Pinks Hill/Standard Way will increase danger to the very large number of cyclists who use this route.
PO16
As a member of The Environment Agency's Wallington Flood Defence Improvement Scheme I object to this building proposal on the grounds that increased run off from building at this location will aggravate the already dangerous situation regarding the potential flooding of properties in North Wallington & Wallington Shore Road. The River Has No More Capacity. A Scheme, devised over the last three years, to help alleviate some of the flooding potential is in the final stage of preparation. All this good work must not be jeopardised by filling every available green space. In times of fluvial spate and during tidal flood episodes, raw sewage is already discharged via the manholes into Wallington Shore Road. The Sewage System is already beyond full capacity, so further development in this area should not be contemplated until these issues are properly addressed.
PO16
The Narrow roads in this Village cannot cope with more cars etc, we only have a few facilities for employment we have no transport facilities, except 1 bus on a Monday leaves at 10 and returns 12, this has a {not known} of being taken away. Parking facilities would also be jeopardized even more. Our housing facilities cannot want another n127 dwellings. My comments from page I apply to all 3 sites. My Original comments apply to all 2 sites, I agree with all comments submitted by WVCA on all these sites.
PO16
Access ability again problematic-heavy lorries and industrial park traffic already an issue Pedestrian access difficulty with no pavements through the Village of wallington. No public transport nearby Noise and air quality issues of existing M27
PO16
There would be considerable concern about additional traffic movements onto an already busy junction, with fast moving traffic along Standard Way and village traffic using that point to access both the motorway slip road and the A32. equally, it would increase traffic through the village itself, if the need is to access the Roundabout Hotel roundabout. Given the increase in traffic generated by the use of the industrial areas at the end of Riverside Avenue, accessing this roundabout, without traffic controls, could become impossible. There is no current footpath access from the proposed site and Riverside Avenue, nor would this be an option in the future, given the nature of that area. Pedestrians would be required to either take the risk of walking North Wallington without a path, or taking the longer route through the industrial estate. As with other proposed sites in Wallington, this area can be seen as part of a wildlife corridor, especially with the river and the water meadow close by.
PO16
Due to traffic already having difficulties in leaving the village by the Delme roundabout a very high percentage of villagers and pub visitors leave by the North Wallington/Standard Way junction. Coupled with vehicles from both Standard Insurance Industrial site and the Fort Wallington Site this has become a very busy and at times quite testing junction. By its very isolated situation anyone living on the proposed site would need transport thereby increasing the flow of traffic and exacerbating the already difficult problem of parking. Surely the Wallington Village has already got more than its fair share of offices and industrial premises. We are almost completely surrounded by them. To leave the village during 'rush hour' is already a problem with most roads gridlocked. To add to the problem is insane. It seems sites are appraised in isolation with no regard to the village to which they are to adjoin. If you take away these few remaining buffer zones then the Wallington Village is in danger of losing its identity and will become another charmless addition to the Fareham conurbation.
PO16
Access again is an issue, it is difficult to envisage how pedestrians access can be safely assured. North Wallington has traffic issues already, particularly commercial vehicles and a shortage of parking. Would this development further affect detrimentally the drainage, waste water & flooding risks already present in North Wallington? Can assurances be given that it would not adversely affect the area? I further believe that the historic area which is subject to a preservation order, should not have new developments within it, which are unsympathetic to the existing houses.
PO16
Not a good idea for more employment premises, its right on a hill on a bend – opposite an already sited industrial/office space. Traffic consistently speeds up this hill so introducing more vehicles is nuts – an accident waiting to happen. Also access to and from this area is limited and already overused for the type of road. Pinks Hill leading up to it is very dangerous already and once again I have seen accidents here and many near misses, joining the dual carriageway at bottom of Pinks Hill is also inadequate. Coming from the other direction past Sainsburys is also overloaded at present. The whole of Wallington is NOT designed for cars and is currently at breaking point without adding more. A most ridiculous area to consider for housing. The road is already a nightmare with big industrial lorries speeding up and down the hill. It is ludicrous to even contemplate bringing more cars in and out of Wallington. I've lived here 20 years and seen many incidents involving cars in Drift Road. The wall outside our house was demolished when a car collided with it and there have been numerous occasions when big lorries have become stuck in Drift Road and police have been called to assist them backing up all the way. Military Road is not designed for cars and indeed I have known several accidents on the bend including one involving my daughter. There are no pavements here so even walking is dangerous and its only one lane wide. It is just mental to think the road from Military Road/Drift Road can accommodate more vehicles. Once again totally stupid plan to place houses on this junction. The road into Wallington cannot cope with the cars currently using in and there are often case of road rage here on this junction when residents by the river have to leave their cars parked to the side of the road and two directions of traffic also have to use the road and again – no pavements for dog walkers or pedestrians. Wallington cant cope with the number of cars at the moment without adding more. Access in and out of the village is already very dangerous with all the cars that park in front of the cottages facing river which only allows one direction of traffic – not two! The road is also prone to flooding during winter and high tides. Standard Way is currently a nightmare during the week when the burger man parks his van and then that whole side of the road is choccablock with big lorries and again the road is only big enough for one direction of traffic – I've seen many near misses on this road from the corner in question up to Loc'N'store, so only an idiot would encourage more people and more cars.
PO16
Location is not suitable for pedestrians, in an area that already is finding it difficult to cope with traffic, noise. Pollution levels must be a concern. Unsuitable site, implication of flooding due to numerous springs. Roads narrow, have no pavements and already have enough vehicles transitting through, both Pinks Hill and Military Road and indeed the whole Wallington village. Pinks Hill and Standard Way are used by heavy lorries and commuters to M27, the junction at North Wallington and Standard Way is already overloaded. North Wallington is being used as a car park for those working in Fareham or Industrial Park. Pedestrian safety has to be considered, also on noise and air pollution. Anymore development around the village will have detrimental effects on safety of pedestrians, pollution levels would be exacerpated in an area that already has a waste transfer station. There are few green spaces left in and around the village.
PO`16
Access will be via Pink Hill, a private road without a footpath and narrow. Coming out cars will use routes through the village, already congested. Standard Way has no footpath and is used by heavy lorries. The noise from the motorway access and Fareham overpass will be intolerable. The access roads are all private roads, narrow and with no footpaths. Several lorries have stuck and cranes have had to be used to clear them. The site is full of springs and water runs off in wet weather. A few years ago, after rain a small stream ran down the hill, through the garage of 12 Delme Drive, then down to the Shore Road causing flooding. Now the ramp and land across the road will make the flooding worse when it happens again. Built on, no water will be absorbed. Another 50 cars using the roads through the village.
PO16
Accessibility would be difficult as Standard Way carries heavy lorries and fast moving traffic heading for the M27 via Pinks Hill. The junction of North Wallington and Standard Way is already very busy and inadequate.
PO16
"Accessiblity to this site is hardly straightforward as Standard Way is unrestricted close-by, and carries large volumes of heavy goods vehicles and fast-movining industrial traffic. There is no pavement from Standard Way that links it to the rest of the Village in North Wallington, and the capacity to add a pavement from this point to join the pavement to the rest of the village (to the pavement at the bottom of Riverside Avenue) would not be possible, as it is a small, winding country lane which is impossible to widen. It also lies on the junction of a very busy road (Pinks Hill, and Standard Way, with the large volumes of fast-moving industrial HGVs constantly frequenting it). Any person who would believe that this field lies as part of the village and could easily be incorporated into it (both practically and for safety reasons) needs to open their eyes a little wider! Put simply, there is no way on earth that this site would provide a ""logical rounding off of the existing urban area""...There's no infrastructure (for example public transport links to the site) or any evidence to support a statement of this nature. In addition, Wallington already has reached a capacity for traffic through the village. The narrow road that runs through North Wallington is already at capacity in terms of traffic and parked cars. More residential or/and industrial development will only compound an existing problem. More traffic and less green space, in a village already sandwiched between a very large industrial park and a motorway is totally unacceptable."
PO16
I object to these proposals because I do not think the road network would cope with an increase in traffic. Already this area is heavily populated with large lorries (many who stay overnight on the roadside and during the day making it single file traffic to pass them) and to increase traffic would be dangerous. Pedestrian safety would therefore be at risk. There are no local transport links and this means more people would use their cars, again increasing the risk to pedestrian safety. Secondly, I feel the character of Wallington village would be seriously at risk if these proposals go ahead, for part of its appeal is its green surroundings, and if we eradicate these, we eradicate our village, and that is something I thought the council would fiercely want to protect. The green landscape and wildlife should be protected, and not wiped out. Thirdly, I believe we would be at greater risk of flooding the more people and houses we cram in to the village, as surely there would be increased run-off. I do not think the infra-structure of the village can cope with such an increase in the number of houses. Finally, the village would surely be more polluted with an increase in traffic within it, and a removal of its natural buffers to the M27 and surrounding areas.
PO16
This green field site sits on the corner of North Wallington and Standard Way. Standard way hosts heavy lorries and fast moving industrial traffic travelling to and from the M27. I strongly feel that safety to this site has been overlooked as the current road infrastructure is inadequate and unsuitable to support additional dwellings. Pedestrian access to the site would need large alteration, as would pedestrian access in the rest of the village. The current infrastructure in the village would not support additional dwellings for either car or pedestrian access and would need to be revised to make it a suitable route. Currently, there is a huge issue driving through the village safely. In most parts of North Wallington there is only room for one vehicle to pass at a time. With all proposed Wallington sites, the added traffic would increase the challenges making it unsuitable to support these dwellings. With other green sites proposed for development, it seems unnecessary to sacrifice yet further greenery in an already unsuitable area. Most of Wallington Village has just been made a conservation area. It seems ironic that months after it was made a conservation area, new builds which contradict the character and charm of the village are proposed to be dumped on us with no consideration to the protected characteristics of the village. School places are a huge concern with all proposed sites. there is already strain on our local schools and there has been no consideration as to how you will ensure current residents are not negatively impacted with school places.
PO16
"Pedestrian safety would be difficult to achieve since North Wallington has no pavements from the junction until Riversdide Ave junction and there is no public Transport route closy by. Far ffrom being connected and providing a ""Logical"" rounding off of the existing urban area this is a isolated location with no amenities, adjoining a country lane which cannot be widened ,. THis would simply encourage car usage and exacerbate the well-indenitifed traffic problems within the village. (There is no confidence that the 20mph trail speed limit has had ant effect)"
PO16
Road access and safety on already heavily congested roads. Concerned about air and noise pollution Another development will put pressure on local amenities, Harrison School and the Health Centre particularly Flood risk is high less ground to soak rain water and more concrete creating run offs into Wallington
PO16
We cannot imagine why anyone, especially residents with families, would want to live so close to the M27 with the traffic noise and pollution. The houses that are adjacent to the motorway were built well before it was constructed. Access through the village from Standard Way is already difficult because the road is reduced to single passing. Development would impact on the volume of traffic using this road in the long term and would create chaos whilst the houses are constructed.
PO16
I have strong objections to the proposal development at this site. This development would have a high adverse effect on the current residence. North Wallington Road is already above capacity. it was not designed for its current level of traffic and due to the river and existing properties cannot be extended. Traffic through this area should be restricted, not encouraged. This development will have a detrimental effect on the character of the surrounding neighborhood and nearby conservation zone.
PO16
There is no pedestrian access to this site and the road is too narrow from Riverside Avenue to continue the footpath along North Wallington to Standard Way. Currently the approach to this site is used as a car park (suggest a site visit during weekdays 9 - 5) so parking is going to be a problem. I believe the proximity of the site to the M27 would result in unacceptable noise levels on site for housing. Has noise levels been tested? The traffic up and down Pinks Hill from Standard Way consists mainly of very heavy large vehicles, which you would not want speeding past a residential area. Building on this site would cause harm to the character of existing settlement of Wallington. The number of dwellings proposed for Wallington is a third as many houses as there are at present.
PO16
The site is not suitable for additional housing due to the local road infrastructure and current traffic volumes. The site would also put additional burden on the flood plain and Wallington river. Increased volume of traffic through Wallington village as a main access route would be unsuitable and dangerous with no pedestrian access forcing car use to access.
PO16
This currently green space at the edge of Wallington viallage provides a buffer between the residential dwellings industrial park and busy road. Vehicle access would be unsafe via either the junction with North Wallington or from standard way which carries high speed cars and heavy goods vehicles. There is no safe pedestrian link to the rest of the village with no footpath along North Wallington to Riverside Avenue junction along the course of the River. This would increase vehicles usage through the village which already can not cope with the volumn /speed. The run off after/drainage from the site would increase the existing flood risk - with properties Riverdale cottage & the road along North Wallington to Riverside Avenue having flooded badly in recent years preventing vehicles from passing on this stretch.
PO16
Is it wise to build over 120 houses so close to the M27 when pollution is such a problem. Asthmatics. More pollution would be an issue for these dwellings also. 127 houses could mean an extra 254 cars. North Wallington could be a hazard to pedestrians and road users alike. The Delme roundabout is problematic as it is and the lack of road markings do not help the situation. It is already a free for all.
PO16
I object to building on this site due to problematical land drainage. Properties in Drift Road have been underpinned. As the site has numerous springs. Any interference with the water table has the potential to effect properties downhill to the site. Access via Military Road is difficult and additional traffic through the village would be undesirable. Concerned re the increased traffic through the village and effect on the water table and increased risk of flooding.
PO16
No comment given
PO16
"Water from Maindell pumping station is piped under this field. Again access is restricted plus its an area of wildlife habitat close to ""the water meadows"". Noise pollution from the motorway (M27) and pollution in the air should also be a consideration."
PO16
I object to the proposed development of Wallington Village the proposed housing scheme will change the village aspect of Wallington, which is already over housed. I would rather pay more rates than have our village environment ruined. There are not enough jobs, nor health support nor schools to support an increase in the population. Drift Road & Military Road aspects enable Wallington to maintain a country environment. Building in Gauntlets Field will affect the water table. Trees are already dying south of the field and the Council was adamant that a tree line be maintained in Wallington. Pinks Hill is likely to invoke subsidence because of the clay soil and likely to affect the motorway slip road which Standard Way is already well used by heavy industrial traffic making either side of the road an awful place to reside. Fareham Council allowed "The Woodlands" development against harsh criticism. As such this development has denied people access to an important wildlife habitat.
PO16
If 21 dwellings built here will there also be room for 42 parking spaces? 2 for each property ? Riverdale cottages park at the end proposed entrance to the site- they have no driveways. Where will they go to park if cannot park on the old road? It is already dangerous with parking on North wallington at this junction. It is right on a bend in the road. I assume (as with Clifton Mews In North wallington) that the council would want the development to be itself sufficient for all to park. However, Clifton Mews occupants have been allowed to by the council to obtain parking permits to park by our cottages on north wallington , was that intended when you allowed developers to build Clifton Mews? This has substantially reduced our parking on North wallington. We have recently had an atile 4 direction served on us where we have to preserve in the village old establishment structure & yet the council want to allow NEW housing, it doesn't make sense.
PO16
Road access problematical - pedestrian safety issues, increased traffic flow, flood risk from increased run - off and loss of green areas.
PO16
Road access a problem Safety issues foe all users Flood risk due to increased run-off loss of green areas.
PO16
Concern regarding further flooding in wallington shore Rd increase traffic in Wallington and roundabout-already very difficult to negotiate Pedestrian safety in village + school children crossing round about.
PO16
"we both agree and support the wallington Village community associations comments on the above proposed Site "" Horses Field"". Pollution Levels- At present the traffic is very loud from the motorway and if the Proposed ""smart motorway"" combines with increased traffic in Standard way/north wallington roads goes ahead the traffic will increase significantly. Pollution levels of particulate and nitrogen oxide are already at a high level and with the extra traffic and pollution from extra housing IE central heating gases will push up the levels even more not to mention further pollution from Wallington when it is eventually built. As I understand it the levels of pollution are not very good at present. Traffic& Parking- Over the last few yrs traffic In Strandway /North wallington has increased considerably-lorries visiting the recycling plant and fort wallington. The junction at Standard Way/ North wallington is becoming more dangerous because of this. Parking for existing residents is at a premium as we at River side Cottages can only park on the narrow north wallington rd. If houses are built on Horse Field oppersite us our fear is that our places will be taken up by visitors and others who cannot park in the proposed development. I would also comment that this area is new being used as a Rat Run to get to the motorway."
PO16
Large Format Response - Ref0043
SO23
One of the 4 sites remaining important and open spaces with in the conversation village of wallington and gap in place for the developed village which is surrounded by busy road, motorway & Industrail sites , increase in traffic on roads, into & through the village Standard way. Entry & Exit on all wallington is already at premium and traffic queues are already president , lorries park along Standard way up to north wallington junc, Fast moving Traffic along Standard & Pinks Hill already a hazard to pedestrians with blind bends and narrow roads. Increase in pollution & traffic noise for residents who already experiencing this and from the motorway as do all village residents. Please take into account and add my endorsement to the objections made by my neighbors in East Hill house , Miltary road and woodlands and Hilcroft. Id like to add a further comment- the proposed number of dwellings over all is considerable for each dwelling there a likely hood of at least 2 cars and in future this will double as it is common knowledge that people also have work vehicles the increase in traffic flow and wear a7 tear of roads & higways would be significant.
PO16
comment below: HA20: North Wallington and Standard Way Southern Water is the statutory wastewater undertaker in Wallington. Housing Allocation HA20 allocates 21 dwellings at North Wallington and Standard Way. 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. Accordingly we propose that the following criterion is added to policy HA20 (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: [...] k) Provide a connection at the nearest pointof adequate capacity in the sewerage network, in collaboration with the service provider.
BN2
This site is very close to the busy M27 motorway. Noise and air pollution must be at unacceptable levels. The road system at north wallington and standard way is already too busy. There is no provision now for pedestrians in north wallington. And there is no public transport nearby, car use will increase. 21 dwellings will probably result in at least 42 resident cars. Please note water supply pipes from the water pumping station at maindell run diagonally across this site! Again a greenfield site
PO16
Serious road safety issues. Increase of traffic down north Wallington. Natural drainage area. Reducing the green areas with Wallington again
PO16
The only feasible method of access for residents of this site would be by private motor vehicle and the roads are not suitable to carry more traffic, nor could their capacity to do so be increased. North Wallington is narrow and has no pedestrian pavement, nor has Pinks Hill which is single-track and carries many heavy goods vehicles. The traffic flow through North Wallington can already be slow and difficult and building on this site would make that situation significantly worse.
PO16
a major responsibility of any council is to promote health and safety and quality of life of its residents. The residents of Wallington are already subjected to unacceptable levels of noise pollution from M27 and is also part of the disproportionately crowded Fareham (see recent BBC report). There are very few green areas remaining in Wallington. It is disappointing therefore to see that the update in January 2014 Housing Targets report is now overridden i.e. Gauntlets Field - site is situated outside the defined urban settlement boundary. Site is green field. Ditto for 0322 Pinks Hill and 0324 North Wallington, Standard Way. What is the reason for this? [redacted], executive member of health confirmed to me that DEFRA's desk top study has alleged that there are illegal levels of nitrogen dioxide between the top of the A32 and Junction 11 of the M27. FBC has been instructed by the Government to address the matter and FBC are installing 19 cameras at a cost of £94,000 in the area of Junction 11 to carry out feasibility study and report by March 2018. It seems therefore that no decision on infilling in Wallington can be made until at least the study is concluded and considered, as the problem, added to the noise pollution generally for M27, is not conducive to the good health and wellbeing of the residents in Wallington. The result is likely to be marginal either way and could be adversely affected by the additional traffic generated by Welbourne. I leave others to make very valid points about the remaining greenfield sites, now under threat, for absorbing apparently illegal levels of nitrogen dioxide, particulates, and other emissions, and problems of drainage and access which surely must be considered before proceeding with the allocation of additional housing development in Wallington. The point about pollution appears to have been ignored in the Fareham Local Plan 2036 Strategic Housing Land availability.
PO16
Whilst it is appreciated the Council is required by Central Government to produce a Local Plan 2036 identifying possible sites for development the following should be considered and resolved before submission. Traffic and pedestrian access The existing roads are narrow and many do not provide safe pavements for pedestrians and traffic is further restricted by parked cars. Access onto the Delme Roundabout from Wallington Shore Road is currently difficult and with the development of the Welbourne site traffic will increase. The location of schools relative to the proposed sites will cause children to use substandard roads and pavements and will be a safety hazard. Water and Sewage In the past few years rain water discharge from Gauntlet's Field has caused problems for property further down the hill and any development may increase this danger. When the Clifton Mews development was considered the existing sewage appeared to have insufficient capacity and any further increase in house numbers could cause major problems. If the proposed developments are allowed their effect on water discharge into the river Wallington should be investigated.
PO16
Currently Wallington is a semi-rural village with a unique identity and separate to the nearby Fareham Town Centre and Portchester urban sprawl. Defining the unique community is to strip of open land and fields that constitutes the proposed development land. This open land provides a buffer to the noise and air pollution from Junction 11 and M27 motorway and is used as an open space by reisdents and visitors, also providing an open green backdrop to the Wallington Conservation area and water meadows. The green land holds surface water that regulates river levels during spates; protecting downhill/downstream dwellings from flooding. The houses and businesses directly adjacent to the land are unique older properties including Riverdale Cottages, Fort Wallington battlements, WW2 machine gun emplacement and pumping station/cottage. Developing the sites proposed will infill the area which defines Wallington as a separate semi-rural village, apart from Fareham Town Centre and Portchester urban areas. Developing this land will cause Wallington to become part of a homogeneous urban sprawl intersected by the trunk roads and motorway but without clear definition. This will destroy the rural boundary of Wallington and the village will lose its identity and sense of community. Development will cause the loss of open space enjoyed by villagers and visitors and will have an adverse affect on residents' wellbeing. By its magnitude and elevated location on the hill slopes, the development will have an overbearing and intrusive impact on the existing homes an businesses on the northern edge of the village and will have a detrimental effect on views and privacy. By its magnitude and elevated location on the hill slopes, the development will have an adverse affect on the existing homes and and businesses on the northern edge of the village and will have a detrimental effect on views and privacy. The character of the village and especially the local/adjacent neighbourhood will be negatively impacted by this out-of-scale proposed development. All other houses in the vicinity are individual or small clusters of unique cottages. The proposed development will intrude on the adjacent conservation area/water meadow views and this special amenity will be affectively lost to residents and visitors. The area of proposed development is trapped between existing dwellings and the motorway; construction and access will negatively impact the lives of neighboring residents. Construction will add unbearable levels of disruption, noise and pollution. The already busy narrow local roads of North Wallington, Military Road and Pinks Hill will become highly congested and the small amount of on-road parking will become over-subscribed - many of the older existing properties do not have the option to create off road parking. There is not the local roads, pavements and infrastructure to support the construction stage of the development, not is there the option/space to develop the infrastructure to accommodate construction. The construction site will cause surface water to flow down the hill towards the river Wallington and increase the risk of local flooding of existing homes. The developments if built will be adversely affected by motorway noise and air pollution. Development will cause the loss of the strip of 'green lung' that helps protect local residents from the impact of motorway noise and air pollution. The already congested roads of North Wallington, Military Road and Pinks Hill will not be able to support the additional traffic caused by the new dwellings. Current on-road parking adjacent to the North Wallington/Pinks hill horse field will be lost. Lorries and traffic from the Standard Way industrial estate will create an unacceptable risk to the new residents. The development will cause surface water to wash directly towards the river and existing homes, increasing flooding.
PO16
As having been a victim of previous flooding I can attrust to the current inadequacy of sewerage which will only be made worse by more houses. Living by the sainsburys roundabout, the airborne pollution is already so bad it is frequently impossible to sit in the yard in the summer. So more traffic from Standard Way will make this area a positive health hazard. this area needs all the green lungs which still remain for the health of the village residents, 2 for it to retain some illusion of a rural area.
PO16
Pedestrian access and egress from this site would be unsafe. Standard way is used by large lorry access any M27 from industrial sites and has no pavements. It is also used by residents for car parking as there is not enough parking for existing residents. This is a relatively isolated site, linked to the rest of Wallington by a narrow lane crowded with parked cars on one side and subsiding into the river of the other. If people feel unsafe walking they will use cars and Wallington cannot cope further with traffic.
PO16
Any development of the Horses field would destroy the 'edge of the village', the attractiveness of the approach to the village and the last remaining field on the shore road, it would look hideous! FBC having decided to ruin Fareham with Welborne now seem to be intent on ruining Wallington.
PO16
Volume of heavy traffic (and speed) using standard way which is constantly increasing. No foot path for pedestrians the fumes from the motorway traffic which is often stationery at rush hours, not unusual for it to be two hours twice a week with accidents. Houses built here would be unable to open their windows for the pollution. Broadcut is already heavily used due to the industry and as a pedestrian standing in the refuges now with the increased size and speed of vehicles makes crossing from Wallington village to Sainsburys a hazard. The roundabout for Wallington way from Broadcut is already inadequate and with the increase of size of industrial traffic which can barely get around if now how will that be solved. The roadway is breaking up. Another bottle neck along with the Delme roundabout!
PO16
The same objection is relevant again. TRAFFIC narrow roads trying to cope with industrial estate lorries etc plus residents trying to avoid already very difficult single lane traffic in Wallington Village. Having moved to Wallington in 1982 (I still live in the same house) – it is so obviously a changed place. Families now have 3-4 cars each per house, clogging up the roads as they don't use their steep drives ever!! The sound of traffic on the Wallingway has quadruples and traffic to and from Gosport is horrendous. More houses will make this already cramped village unbearable. The WVCA have studies the proposed development areas carefully and have made accurate and valid comments. I wholeheartedly agree with these objections and fully back them.
PO16
This site is fairly remote and most people would use cars to go to schools etc. There is a lack of pedestrian paths in north Wallington and heavy lorries and speeding cars travel down the hill past it. It is difficult often to get down N.W. because of parked cars and to access the Delme Roundabout in difficult and dangerous to cross lanes at most times of the day. Help is needed not more congestion!
PO16
This site is very near to the M27 resulting in a high level of pollution and noise. Increased traffic into North Wallington where there are no pavements would be very unwelcome. The Houses built on this site would overlook the dominate the old cottages opposite.
PO16
Accessibility to this site would, I am sure, prove difficult. Standard Way carries heavy lorries and many commuters travelling to the industrial park and back towards Pinks Hill and M27. Pedestrians along North Wallington could be put at risk from added traffic as there is no pavement until reaching Riverside Avenue. There are already traffic problems along North Wallington without added traffic. This area would be subject to air pollution being so close to the M27, also it would prove very noisy for residents.
PO16
• Loss of remaining green spaces will spoil the nature of the village • Increase to levels of traffic and safety concerns for travel through the village • Nearby cottages have no vehicle access and so park on this narrow road
PO16
This site is to near the M27 and suffers from extreme noise I pollution from motorway. Its above /near a water extrmellise point. Addational Traffic is going to {not Known} motor congestion in North Wallongton- Much of witch is single traffic duie to parking. Local sewage system wont cope with extra capacity it already fails regularly. Run off from sites will add to the river Wallington adding to river levels in what is awkwardly high flood risk.
PO16
Large Format Response - Ref0064
PO16
Large Format Response - Ref0062
PO16
Another green parcel of land that needs to be preserved road has very heavy use already traffic through Wallington would increase dramatically. Air and noise pollution is already high.
PO16
This ill-conceived housing site is level with and a mere 150 metres from the M27!! The noise and carbon monoxide levels make the site entirely unsuitable for housing. The aquafer supply pipes to the Portsmouth water pumping station at North Wallington run diagonally across the site and provide the water supply to Fareham!! Access to the site would be problematic. Given that the sector of North Wallington leading to the existing junction with Standard way is a country lane with no pavements then additional traffic from the site onto the junction would be highly unwelcome. There would be serious road safety issues here.
PO16
high traffic area, large lorries going through to waste disposal unit, a dangerous road for all who use it, narrow pedestrian access. Very close to the motorway and once again air quality issues, extra traffic and noise. when its gone, its gone.
PO16
Access to Fareham will be via Standard Way/Broadcut - A hazard to pedestrians, many people, especially towards the more northerly parts of Wallington, use Military road and or Pinks Hill to access the slip road onto Junction 11 of the M27. These roads cope with the traffic currently but the large number of houses proposed - with many new households using more than one car, would not be able to use these roads without problems cause on what are, effectively single carriageway routes. Widening would cause complete closure of them during the necessary works. This would impact current commercial traffic as well. The intent to build further housing in Wallington increases the impact to result from the Development at welborne. The river running through the village is vulnerable to conditions/activities upstream and during the severe flooding, vehicular traffic for many, is only possible in and out via Drift road and Military road, Pinks hill. The river supports a variety of wildlife , not just ducks and fish, that includes egrets and kingfishers at some times in the year. Pinks hill provides a green buffer between the village and M27 where nature can find refuge from human activity. Wallington residents have few facilities in the village, needing to travel into Fareham Town for Doctors, and other healthcare which will be very overstretched by Welborne where such facilities are not planned to be provided for until enough houses are built there, which will not be at the outset and could be several years. This also applies to schools.
PO16
North Wallington road is very narrow road with houses built directly against it all along its length. Residents living in these houses have already seen a huge increase in traffic caused by the riverside avenue development and standard way industrial site. This road is already dangerous and there for the additional off even more houses and even safety of current residents and also the increased noise is unacceptable. North Wallington road is to narrow to take more traffic. If there is an accident, the above prior information should be noted. Second objection to HA20 - North Wallington road is a narrow and at most times has a line of parked cars along the pavement line and also along the hedge line. Therefore to drive along this road you have to drive against the flow of traffic and move in and out in the few passing places. Remember if you come and view this during your 'day' working time you will have to see it's not too bad (during the day), However we have to use from 4pm onwards, so if you look and then see at 6pm you will see how busy it is at capacity. More cars using this road will ruin the point of the Councils last power grab with the changes to North Wallington housing regs. If you are that concerned about the colour my front door is painted, then be concerned with increasing the traffic too. .
PO16
Large Format Response - Ref0091
Anonymous submission
Large Format Response - Ref0085
PO16
Large Format Response - Ref0083
SO51
Back to Top
How to get here
