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

HA26 - Beacon Bottom East, Park Gate

Object

I feel we have problems getting out of Beacon Bottom during busy periods, also the roads are just too busy for any more multi housing which brings more traffic in the area. I would like to see traffic lights used at the end of Beacon Bottom on a sensory system as we have suffered with the Whiteley traffic and more will make it worse.

SO31


Object

I refer to the above draft local plan and in particular the proposal HA15 for 30 houses at Beacon Bottom West and Proposal HA26 for a further 5 houses at Beacon Bottom East. I find your proposed plans extremely concerning and deeply worrying for a number of reasons. All of Beacon Bottom and the immediate surrounding houses will be of a similar view about the effects of additional housing will have on them and the environment It is my understanding that the land you are proposing to build on is currently classed as countryside. As you are no doubt aware, there are restrictions on activities and developments that might affect a designated or protected area, for example building new houses or roads. This includes areas next to as well as in those areas. Also, Beacon Bottom has an ancient holly hedge at its northern side which with the very narrow road gives the appearance and actuality of a traditional English country lane. The building of houses along the northern side will inevitably destroy this hedge and the character and appearance of both the road and area – totally against the terms of SP5. Beacon Bottom is a narrow country lane where vehicles can only travel in one direction at a time – there is not enough road width for even the smallest vehicles to pass each other. We already have a number of cars parked continually outside our houses on a daily basis, which causes problems. An additional 35 to 70 cars created by the proposed developments HA15 and HA26 trying to negotiate this section of road each day will be chaotic. All residents of Beacon Bottom and the Beacon Estate already have to queue to exit onto the Botley Road and turning either right or left is difficult whatever the time of the day, and can be incredibly dangerous – I had an accident myself several years ago at this T Junction. Also, the Botley Road will be getting even busier with the 2 new developments that are currently being built by Chuchill Homes and Alpine homes, let alone the other development on the point of Bridge Road and also the new dwellings planned for Whiteley. It will be an absolute nightmare for traffic in the area. The proposal will also impact facilities –there are a lack of doctors and dentists surgeries now so with more proposed houses and families this will make matters worse. There are a significant number (which is an understatement) of new builds already taking place within Park Gate and its surrounding areas which should more than suffice the Council's requirements, therefore, I believe it is completely unnecessary to develop this rare green countryside area which currently divides the villages of Park Gate and Swanwick. I hope that you will reconsider and remove these proposals from the Local Plan 2036.

Object

I refer to the above draft local plan and in particular the proposal HA15 for 30 houses at Beacon Bottom West and Proposal HA26 for a further 5 houses at Beacon Bottom East. I find your proposed plans extremely concerning and deeply worrying for a number of reasons. All of Beacon Bottom and the immediate surrounding houses will be of a similar view about the effects of additional housing will have on them and the environment It is my understanding that the land you are proposing to build on is currently classed as countryside. As you are no doubt aware, there are restrictions on activities and developments that might affect a designated or protected area, for example building new houses or roads. This includes areas next to as well as in those areas. Also, Beacon Bottom has an ancient holly hedge at its northern side which with the very narrow road gives the appearance and actuality of a traditional English country lane. The building of houses along the northern side will inevitably destroy this hedge and the character and appearance of both the road and area – totally against the terms of SP5. Beacon Bottom is a narrow country lane where vehicles can only travel in one direction at a time – there is not enough road width for even the smallest vehicles to pass each other. We already have a number of cars parked continually outside our houses on a daily basis, which causes problems. An additional 35 to 70 cars created by the proposed developments HA15 and HA26 trying to negotiate this section of road each day will be chaotic. All residents of Beacon Bottom and the Beacon Estate already have to queue to exit onto the Botley Road and turning either right or left is difficult whatever the time of the day, and can be incredibly dangerous – I had an accident myself several years ago at this T Junction. Also, the Botley Road will be getting even busier with the 2 new developments that are currently being built by Chuchill Homes and Alpine homes, let alone the other development on the point of Bridge Road and also the new dwellings planned for Whiteley. It will be an absolute nightmare for traffic in the area. The proposal will also impact facilities –there are a lack of doctors and dentists surgeries now so with more proposed houses and families this will make matters worse. There are a significant number (which is an understatement) of new builds already taking place within Park Gate and its surrounding areas which should more than suffice the Council's requirements, therefore, I believe it is completely unnecessary to develop this rare green countryside area which currently divides the villages of Park Gate and Swanwick. I hope that you will reconsider and remove these proposals from the Local Plan 2036.

SO31


Object

I am writing to object strongly about the proposed developments at Beacon Bottom, Park Gate. The land between Beacon Bottom and the motorway is deemed to be countryside and applications have been refused before on these grounds. The traffic at peak times is appalling - especially trying to exit from Beacon Bottom onto the Botley Road. We can certainly do without the extra 50-7- cars that would arrive with the residents. I have lived at this address for 47 years and watched as Beacon Lane became Beacon Bottom and now - be-con-gested! Hands off our last remaining bit of countryside!

SO31


Object

Beacon Bottom is a thin windy road, with ancient hedgerows and trees, woods that host many different kinds of wildlife, and is a road that would not sustain more houses and cars. The traffic at the top of the road in the morning is terrible. I also feel that there is a real danger of serious accidents with around 70 extra cars accessing the new estate suggested on the road - cars come down the hill to a blind spot at some speed and there is no way of widening the hill part of Beacon Bottom due to houses being either side (there is no pavement to lose as it is). I feel Park Gate has been exhausted for housing; to the point where houses have been built behind existing houses in what was their gardens! Surely worth looking at some of the huge expanse of green space that takes up a huge portion of the UK.

SO31


Object

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. My daughter would not let my granddaughter go from their home in Whiteley to Brook Lane Senior School. Her worry was her crossing the road as Botley Road too busy. Has David McMahon's team done a risk assessment 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

On the grounds that parking and traffic will be increased in the area, which is already an issue for vehicles in Beacon Bottom - already the lane is often obstructed by people parking thus making large vehicle access and that for emergency vehicles impossible. Policies SP5, SP7 and NE1 seem to be compromised in this proposed development as well as in proposal HA15.

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 proposed development would result in an unacceptable 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.

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

We are concerned, a common feature of comments from local residents, about access from the former country lane which is Beacon Bottom if additional dwellings are constructed on sites HA15 and HA26. Unfortunately traffic loads on Botley Rd are already heavy for many parts of the day. These developments and HA17 would further saturate road capacity.

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. Access onto the Botley Road from Beacon Bottom would be made even more difficult and dangerous than under present conditions. 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 HA15 and HA17 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

I can not believe that there is a proposal to build houses ANYWHERE along Beacon Bottom. We already have an issue with traffic along Beacon Bottom as the road is not wide enough for 2 cars to pass, 1 always has to give way. The road is just not capable of taking more cars. It would be dangerous having lorries driving along the road to deliver supplies for building. The traffic in the area is an absolute nightmare and the congestion between Segensworth and Park Gate every evening is crazy ! I was born in Admirals Road when the area was strawberry fields and I could cry at how it is now. I know people need somewhere to live but we should ALL be able to live in an environment that can cope with the number of people and cars. At present I have cars parked outside my house because people who work in Park Gate have no where to park all day and so use my road, Beacon Way, as a car park. The car park in Park Gate is only short stay so they have to park somewhere. I tried to get a GP appointment last week and was told there were none for at least two weeks until the next lot of appointments will be released ! The area can not cope with the houses we already have and you want to build more ?! The infrastructure is just not there !! I honestly thought that I would stay in the area for the rest of my life but I am now feeling that maybe that won't be the case as I don't want to live in a town !!

SO31


Object

5 more dwellings at Beacon Bottom is a DISGRACE, this means could 10 more cars 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

With reference to the above draft local plan and in particular to proposal HA15 for thirty houses at Beacon Bottom West and HA26 for a further five houses at Beacon Bottom East. We appreciate that there is the need for further housing but the location chosen is highly unsuitable. We have a very narrow road with one way in and one way out. The entrance to Beacon Bottom is a bottle neck and the road serves the whole of the Beacon Estate. To get out onto Botley Road can take quite some time at the best of times and an extra at least 35-70 vehicles together with extra service trucks , visitors will only add to an already busy single ' country' lane. As it is, current residents park half way on the road and half way on the pavement. The proposed location is a wildlife haven with bats, owls, foxes and deer etc. All of their habitat will be lost. There is also the proposal to build behind the local village Inn public house which would also create further traffic onto Botley Road. The infrastructure is just not there!! Beacon Bottom and Botley road are only just coping now!!!! Please carefully reconsider the proposals as there is so much development going in the area already.

SO31


Object

"I write in reference to the proposed development (HA26) on Beacon Bottom. We strongly object to the development on any of the countryside land behind Botley Road and adjoining Beacon Bottom. It is, in our opinion, completely unnecessary to build on this land for any purpose, especially for housing. Building on any of this land will only further encourage urban sprawl. The proposed plans with add 70+ vehicles to Beacon Bottom, a road that is not fit for the volume of traffic. Botley Road can also not cope with the sheer volume of traffic in rush hour. I see wildlife such as Deer, Badgers, Bats, Mice and others on this land. Not to mention a huge population of slow worms and other insect life. These Eco-Systems would be destroyed. It will cause huge disruption to the area in terms of noise pollution and dust pollution. Local amenities including the Dr's surgery cannot cope with the population volume currently, let alone with all the extra residents. Furthermore, I strongly disagree with the councils decision to ""Selectively mail"" none of the residents on Beacon Bottom to make them aware of the proposed plans. With the planning being approved for Welborne Community I honestly see it complacently unnecessary to try and build on pointless plots of land. Leave our countryside alone! I trust this email will be directed to the Council Planning department."

Object

"I write in reference to the proposed development (HA26) on Beacon Bottom. We strongly object to the development on any of the countryside land behind Botley Road and adjoining Beacon Bottom. It is, in our opinion, completely unnecessary to build on this land for any purpose, especially for housing. Building on any of this land will only further encourage urban sprawl. The proposed plans with add 70+ vehicles to Beacon Bottom, a road that is not fit for the volume of traffic. Botley Road can also not cope with the sheer volume of traffic in rush hour. I see wildlife such as Deer, Badgers, Bats, Mice and others on this land. Not to mention a huge population of slow worms and other insect life. These Eco-Systems would be destroyed. It will cause huge disruption to the area in terms of noise pollution and dust pollution. Local amenities including the Dr's surgery cannot cope with the population volume currently, let alone with all the extra residents. Furthermore, I strongly disagree with the councils decision to ""Selectively mail"" none of the residents on Beacon Bottom to make them aware of the proposed plans. With the planning being approved for Welborne Community I honestly see it complacently unnecessary to try and build on pointless plots of land. Leave our countryside alone! I trust this email will be directed to the Council Planning department."

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


Comment

We have lived in Warsash for 37 years and watched the gradual erosion of green space and the consequential overloading of infrastructure and services. It is grossly irresponsible to place an unmanageable burden on health, educational and traffic facilities. Those elected representatives who fail to stop these developments will be treated with contempt and, hopefully. deselected.

SO31


Object

"Roads already at capacity with no room for significant improvement. Local schools are already full. Move is towards creating a ""Solent City"" in M27 corridor which is already overloaded. Development abuts significant development just to the west in Hamble Lane, Bursledon & Botley."

SO31


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


Object

Beacon bottom road to botley road junction cannot cope with the traffic of us residents as it is. Building more houses will only make it worse. Botley road is gridlocked most mornings and evenings as it is. Beacon bottom road also narrows to one and half car width gap on the bend between Future path nursery and botley road junction causing many near miss accidents by people who do not know the road. Also this stretch of road is used as a car park so there is always only single file traffic with no passing points. There is also no footpath at the opposite end of beacon bottom going up the hill which makes it dangerous to walk up and down to the woods entrance with the children and the dog. This needs to also be looked at as the number of cars using it will increese with more houses. So the whole road needs to be improved with widening, the addition of footpaths and a better junction with botley road before any more houses are even considered to be built in the area. Why is it that every tiny piece of green space is being built on in this area? Park Gate and the surrounding area used to be a lovely place to live but now it is being spoilt by over development. Will it never end? How are the roads, doctors and schools meant to cope with this ever increasing population when they are stretched to the limit already?! Also have you thought about the impact that over development has on our wildlife? Natural habitats are disappearing.

SO31


Object

I totally object to the proposed housing development off Beacon Bottom Park Gate, this will cause unlimited obstruction and chaos during the build and also have a major impact on traffic in and out of Beacon Bottom.

SO31


Object

The erection of 5 houses on this site is at best ill-conceived. The roadway leading to the site from Botley Road along Beacon Bottom is narrow preventing vehicles to pass each other in places, effectively a single track roadway. Since access to Whiteley opened from Botley Road the traffic on the road several times a day is very heavy. Emerging from the junction on Beacon Bottom onto the Botley Road is then at best difficult and at worst impossible, especially attempting to turn right towards Park Gate. With an additional 30 plus houses requiring access via this route the situation will only get worse.

SO31


Object

Strategic Policy SP5 - Development outside of the urban areas will be strictly controlled to protect the countryside and coastline from development that may cause adverse harm to its character and appearance. Development on the land North of Beacon Bottom will have an impact on the established ancient hedgerow and ancient woodland thus destroying the character and evident visual appeal. Strategic Policy SP7 - There will be a presumption against new residential development outside of the urban area. Residential development in countryside locations will be permitted in instances where it can be demonstrated:- d) It comprises one or two new dwellings which infill an existing and continuous built-up residential frontage, where: 1) The new dwellings and plots are consistent in terms of size and character to the adjoining properties and would not harm the character of the area; and 2) It does not result in the extension of an existing frontage or the consolidation of an isolated group of dwellings; and 3) It does not involve the siting of dwellings at the rear of the new or existing dwellings. Clause A, B & C do not apply. The following clauses will each be compromised by the development HA26:- Clause D1 – Existing properties on this stretch of Beacon Bottom comprise a substantial character detached property, a Bungalow (on the blind bend) to the west boundary, a paddock with stabling and a listed thatched cottage (c.1820) with outbuildings and a swimming pool in its midst. The housing proposed is not consistent in number or composition with the existing properties and would certainly harm the established character of this area. Clause D2 – The new dwellings will impact upon the isolated dwellings (see above) and extend the existing frontage Natural Environment Policy NE1 - Development proposals must respect, enhance and not have severe adverse impacts on the character or function of the landscape that may be affected, with particular regard to: a) Intrinsic landscape character, quality and important features; b) Visual setting, including to/from key views; c) The landscape as a setting for settlements, including important views to, across, within and out of settlements; d) The landscape's role as part of the existing Green Infrastructure network; e) The local character and setting of buildings and settlements; f) Natural landscape features, such as trees, ancient woodland, hedgerows, water features and their function as ecological networks. The proposal HA26 (and indeed HA17 and HA15) will have sever adverse impacts on both the character and function of the existing landscape along Beacon Bottom and all clauses A – F would be compromised. In particular the ecological networks under threat as per the report from The Hampshire Biodiversity Information Centre habitat survey of June 2011 must be revisited. In particular, High Risk with regard to Protected and Notable Species and Habitat (Ancient woodland). For example In the instance of the data provided on the 5 species of Bats recorded, tree felling would only be permitted under licence by Natural England. Development of land North of Beacon Bottom will have an impact on the ancient hedgerow and the wildlife it supports including (as reported by the RSPB) nationally declining species such as sparrows, starlings and song thrushes. Roads – Beacon Bottom is a narrow country lane with a sharp narrow bend. An additional 35 to 70 cars created by the proposed development HA26 coupled with HA15 will create an unsafe environment in addition to increased pollution levels from vehicles queuing in this already very congested area. Infrastructure – The proposed dwellings of HA26 will be below the level of the Beacon Bottom Sewer and will be unable to drain naturally to it.

SO31


Object

Trying to get out of Beacon Bottom in the morning out onto Botley Road is bad adding more transport to b/bottom is not good, plus the road is more like a lane , and is not suitable for the extra traffic that this would bring.

SO31


Object

I object until councils and the Government adopt an holistic approach to planning which includes real consideration for infrastructure, reducing road traffic, cutting air pollutiion, providing adequate services etc.

SO31


Object

This road is a Lane not suitable for building vehicle access. It is lined with historic hedgerows which support a wealth of wild life.

PO14


Object

The increased traffic resulting from opening of Yew Tree drive has already caused problems for residents in Beacon Bottom when trying to turn onto the Botley Road in the rush hour. Additional housing in the number proposed for Beacon Bottom East and West developments will exacerbate this problem to an unacceptable level . A proposed access onto Beacon Bottom from the recent development of Hamble Heights care home was also criticised and plans withdrawn. There seems to be a policy of allowing development creep whilst making minor infrastructure changes to help reduce the effects but the truth is that traffic problems are never actually reduced and the resultant traffic levels then become the norm for yet another ' minor' increase. Local services including doctors, schools, dentists are similarly affected by the increased poulation. The Problem spreads like cancer as the years go by. What is needed are new developments in areas where roads, services, schools can be designed in alongside housing plans. Even such developments need maximum permissible levels specified from day one.

SO31


Object

I object to further traffic being directed onto Beacon Bottom which is already congested and has a pinch point near the Botley Road junction. This is also not an urban setting.

SO31


Object

We have a definite objection to these proposed sites for the following reasons, with the proposal for 35 houses to be built o n this site , with the great possibility of there being an extra to cars using the access road, which In places is only suitable for one car to proceed there will be safety issues both in and out of beacon Bottom. Botley Rd has also seen a large influx of traffic because of the air traffic control site, and also whiltley Business park, so it is becoming almost impossible to exit Beacon Bottoms at certain times of the day. People will therefore be taking risks to try & exit with the Nursery car sales, ironing business and other businesses also using Beacon Bottom, often with inconsiderate parking, It is an accident waiting to happen, Beacon Bottom will be very difficult to widen to cater for this extra traffic and will make life intolerable for the existing residents, many of whom work and will need to use this access road at Peak hrs of the day, I would ask you to reconsider this proposed site on health and safety grounds. I would also like to register a complaint as to the fact we received no information about these proposed plans through our door and was only brought to our attention at a very late date, which left us little time to register our objections. We missed the exhibition in Fareham, and the meetings which were held because of lack of notification, which leads us to believe that the local Authority were not being very frank with us , the resident of the Beacon eatste, we would like to suggest that a larger venue be used for any further meetings to avoid a ticketed situation.

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 Warsash and the Western Wards, such as Newlands Farm. Also SHLAA Ref 3127 and the surrounding area of Fareham north and east of the town centre. This appears to be a prime location as it already has direct access to the motorway and easy access to the public transport links in Fareham town centre and three senior schools. The area between Peak Lane and Ranvilles Lane, north of Stubbington was indicated as a prime area for development and was even prepared for development with additional drainage put in recently. 700+ properties would fit in this area easily without impinging upon the Fareham / Stubbington separation "gap" that the council now prioritise as important (this site further reduces any separation for Warsash / Locksheath / Parkgate / Sarisbury Green). With the proposed Stubbington multi-million by-pass leading onto the proposed Daedalus site as a major area of employment, properties here will be near appropriate road networks and a place of employment.

SO31


Object

"I 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

Southern Water is the statutory water and wastewater undertaker in Park Gate. Housing Allocation HA26 allocates 5 dwellings at Beacon Bottom East. 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 there is 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 criterion is added to policy HA26 (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 future access to the existing underground wastewater infrastructure for maintenance and upsizing purposes.

BN2


Object

As a long time resident of the Beacon Estate I fear that the plan to build 35+ residents at the Beacon Bottom site is totally minconstrued. The whole estate is accessed by a single narrow road from Botley Road (bottlenecked at the bend). It is difficult enough to exit and enter at times and with up to 70 enter vehicles using this one access road would be chaotic. I am totally opposed to this development and urge it to be abandoned. yours sincerely

SO31


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

SO31


Object

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

SO31


Object

Dear Sirs, I refer to the above draft local plan and in particular HA15 at Beacon Bottom West and HA26 at Beacon Bottom East. SP5 – Development outside of the urban areas will be strictly controlled to protect the countryside and coastline from development that may cause adverse harm to its character and appearance. Development on the land North of Beacon Bottom will have an impact on the established ancient hedgerow and ancient woodland thus destroying the character and evident visual appeal. SP7 – There will be a presumption against new residential development outside of the urban area. Residential development in countryside locations will be permitted in instances where it can be demonstrated: - d) it comprises one or two new dwellings which infill an existing and continuous built up residential frontage, where: 1) The new dwellings and plots are consistent in terms of size and character to the adjoining properties and would not harm the character of the area; and 2) It does not resilt in the extention of an existing frontage or the consolidation of an isolated group of dwellings; and 3) it does not involve the siting of dwellings by the developments HA15 and HA26: - Clause A, B, C do not apply. Clause D1 – Existing adjoining properties compromised by the developments HA15 and HA26:- Bungalow (on the blind bend) to the west boundary, a paddock with stabling and listed thatched cottage (c.1820) with outbuildings and a swimming pool in its midst. The housing proposed is not established character of this area. Clause D2 – the new dwellings will impact upon the isolated dwellings (see above) and extend the frontage of the north side of Beacon Bottom from No.24 to the Western Woods and bend in the road. Clause D3 – the new dwellings will be sited at the rear of existing dwelling. No. 24 Beacon Bottom. Natural Environment Policy NE1 – Development proposals must respect, enhance and not have severe adverse impacts on the character or function of the landscape that may be affected, with particular regard to: a) Intrinsic landscape, character, quality and important features; b) Visual setting, including to/from key views; c) The landscape as a setting for settlements; d) The landscape's role as part of the existing Green Infrastructure network; e) The local character and setting of buildings and settlements; f) Natural landscape features, such as trees, ancient woodland, hedgerows, water features and their function as ecological networks. The proposals HA15 and HA26 (and indeed HA17) will have sever adverse impacts on both the character and function of the existing landscape along Beacon Bottom and all clauses A-F would be compromised. In particular, the ecological networks under threat as per the report from the Hampshire Biodiversity Information Centre habitat survey of June 2011 must be revisited. In particular, High risk with regard to Protected and Notable Species and Habitat (Ancient tree felling would only be permitted under licence by Natural England. Development of land North of Beacon Bottom will have an impact on the ancient hedgerow and the wildlife it supports including (as reported by the RSPB) nationally declining species such as sparrows, starlings and song thrushes. Roads – Beacon Bottom is a narrow country lane with a sharp narrow bend. An additional 35-70 cars created by the proposed developments HA15 and HA26 will all be below the level of the Beacon Bottom Sewer and will be unable to drain natural to it. Apparently, Development HA15 would actually have a dwelling/dwellings built on top of the Land drains from No. 24's Septic Tank. Proposed developments HA15 and HA26 do not infill the existing urban area they extend it out into open countryside. It is completely unnecessary to develop this rare green countryside area which currently provides a natural and significant buffer between the villages of Park Gate and Swanwick and in the process destroy the existing character of the area. I understand to the West of Southampton a 'green' wall the Fareham community, already have a free nature made one on the land north of Beacon Bottom bordering the busiest stretch of the M27. Please reconsider and remove these two proposals from the Local Plan 2036.

SO31


Object

I wish to object to the proposed building of 5 houses in Beacon Bottom. At present the road is only access for 190+ houses – car sales – and children – nursery – laundry and rear of police station. It varies in width from 4.6m to 6m and would be inadequate for construction. Removal of a protected ancient holly tree hedge when the two gates at 14 beacon bottom were erected after part removal of hedging – on a Christmas eve – when able to contact our then councillor we were told it was a countryside barrier and should not have been removed. It also acts as a sound barrier from noise of motorway and railway. Any additional traffic using beacon bottom would escalate an already problem with Botley Road. The proposed sites are a habitat for bats, badgers, deer and various breeds of birds. At the present time being built in park gate botley road, No's 4-14 are 46 apartments. Not 16, are 18 houses and 3 blocks of flats. Total 30 and at the junction of station road/ middle road are 14 apartments with shops/offices? This exceeds the proposed figure quoted by 'in touch' leaflet. These small-scale developments do not qualify for Government infrastructure on our local community needs. Can the figure of 8300 houses required by Government 'experts' be challenged – we have become used to so called 'experts' being proved wrong in recent years. The MP for the Isle of Wight has backed his constituents and is not supporting the 6000 houses proposed for the Isle of Wight. Also dispute the proposed total housing number.

SO31


Object

Large Format Response - Ref0095

Anonymous submission


Comment

Large Format Response - Ref0165

SO30



Browse

Follow us

Facebook Twitter You Tube Flickr

Fareham Town Centre

View Fareham
Today online





Fareham Borough Council, Civic Offices, Civic Way, Hampshire, PO16 7AZ
Tel: +44 (0) 1329 236100 | Mobile Text/Photo: 07876 131415 | Fax: +44 (0) 1329 821770
Read page with Browse Aloud GOV.UK Get Safe Online