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

HA7 - Warsash Maritime Academy, Warsash

Object

As a resident of Newtown Road I am already subjected to a busy road. With the proposed building of a further 100 homes at the end of the road, I would anticipate a road network that is falready at stetching point to be horrendous for the current residents. Newtown Road is a leafy and wildlife filled road including roaming deer, badgers and foxes. I would hope the proposed plans would include more traffic calming measures (the current speed bumps do not work!). I would also hope that the proposed homes utilise the current buildings to their maximum potential so there is no change to the overall look of the street. In conclusion I accept homes to be built on currently land with buildings but 100 is too many. I would hope planning into the layout including gardens/parks is a priority.

SO31


Object

As per my previous comments on HA1 - this must stop now

SO31


Object

If 100 new homes are built on this site, it means 200 cars will try and use Newtown Road which is already difficult to negotiate because of all the parked cars. It will cause total gridlock and probably ambulances will not be able to get through.

SO31


Object

Don't ruin our sea walks and recreation space. The area is too full of people already.

SO31


Object

This road is already very busy. Construction traffic will cause huge problems. Parking locally is already a huge problem and the amount of traffic in rush hour along this road is bad enough. WE have inadequate medical and school services to support more development locally. Warsash is a village and It is rapidly becoming a town.

SO31


Object

I object to all these houses planned. It will increase the already busy roads. The morning traffic queues fine brook and Barnes lane so add another few 100 cars and it'll be even worse! School and doctors are full so I can't see how the local network can support all of this. Please reconsider the plan!

SO31


Object

I have two main concerns about this development. My first is that I feel that the transport links to it are too poor. The road is in a poor state, and links to the Warsash road roundabout are already enormously congested at rush hour. Another 100 houses could mean another 200 or more cars. Any additional car 'load' in the village needs to be considered jointly with any other proposed development scheme in Warsash, and not singly. Secondly, we have no A level facility in the Warsash area.Why not use this site to fill this gap? Provided that good parking measures are included so that the lives of local residents are not made a misery. Finally, please do not put any additional housing into the area without providing more doctor's surgeries, and dental provision. It is a nightmare getting an appointment for either in this area. Also, please don't build housing and expect Academy school Hook with Warsash to expand to increase provision for infant children, they are not interested. Any proposal which includes driving the children out of the area MUST consider increased load on our roads.

SO31


Object

I choose this as the first area of development that I wish to comment on, however these comments apply to all the proposed development by Fareham Borough Council. Sadly it seems that the planners have no idea of the current problems that need to be addressed prior to any further development whatsoever. Already the roads are overcrowded, the schools full and doctor's surgeries unable to cope. Any additional development is irresponsible and should not be considered until the current infra-structure is improved. The area called HA1 is apparently due to have 1500 new dwellings which means 3000- 4000 more vehicles and the roads are unable to cope now so how can this be a realistic proposal? The additional pollution of vehicles sat in queues is sufficient reason alone to reject the entire plan out of hand. Please see sense.

SO31


Object

One hundred homes are going to add further congestion to our village - more people means more cars means more strain on our local services. These will not be homes for local people as I would imagine the asking prices will be far outside the reach of a normal working family on an average wage. Please also see my comments regarding H1 . The burden of housing should be spread right across the borough to keep our village a village- and spread the traffic trying to reach to the M27

SO31


Object

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

SO31


Object

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

SO31


Object

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

SO31


Object

No commen given

SO31


Object

What advantage can more homes in this area which is so short of facilities now? I.e. schools, doctors etc apart from adding more traffic to already very busy roads.

SO31


Object

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

PO14


Object

I understand the need for more homes and also that the Maritime Academy is a suitable brown field site and therefore, my objection is not to building here, but to building such a large number of homes. Newtown Road is already busy, and the area is surrounded by a protected nature reserve. 100 homes on this site feels excessive and not in keeping with what is already in the area. Half that number of homes or less would feel like a far more appropriate development size for this location and would allow far more of the green space in this important area to be protected as well as meet some of the housing requirements.

SO31


Object

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

SO31


Object

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

SO31


Object

Newtown road will not cope with more traffic. Driving or cycling is already dangerous enough with cars parked all,the way down. Please no more which will just add to the traffic getting on to the a27.

SO31


Object

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

SO31


Object

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

SO31


Object

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

SO31


Object

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

SO31


Object

It is sensible to use the site for residential purposes, but 100 dwellings is far in excess of what would be appropriate for the area. Newtown Road is not designed to cope with the heavy traffic flow that this number of residences would produce, and developers rarely provide sufficient parking now which means Newtown Road will become congested with parked cars. The site should be developed with a small number of large high quality houses, in keeping with the other properties on the western side of Newtown Road.

SO31


Object

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

SO31


Object

Having reviewed the new Draft Local Plan for Fareham noting 1500 dwellings to be located in Warsash and Titchfield Common area we wish to protest against this proposal. When the new housing development next door to our property in Peters Road was build no extra infrastructure was included, i.e. extra provision for schooling/doctors. Some of the land was sold by the developers to a private concern i.e. Greenacres Road housing was built. – the residents of which have decided to use Peters Road as their parking area causing problems to existing residents when exiting their homes as it is very difficult to exit safely between 2 parked cars as the view is obstructed. We are given to understand that nothing can be done about it and if we in turn decide to park in Greenacres Road we will be fined £200. We suggest therefore all aspects of the proposed plans for housing in this area are looked in to more carefully. Brook Lane already is much busier especially at peak times as is Peters Road and the A27 is already congested at times with the new housing being built. This used to be a pleasant place to live in and although we may have to contend with new developments as time moves on, thought should be given to what you are creating long term.

Postcode not provided


Object

I am not opposed to housing on this site in general but I do think 100 homes is too many. High density housing will not be in keeping with the other development along the West side of Newtown road. This area is coastal and abuts Hook with Warsash nature reserve. It should therefore be developed in a sympathetic manner. If 100 homes are put on this site then there is the problem of lack of infrastructure. Many more children unable to attend local schools. Increased road congestion. Lack pf medical provision, etc. I would also object most strongly of there was any plan to demolish the Coast Guard cottages. They form an important part of the Warsash historical heritage.

SO31


Object

Again the volume of traffic generated by 100 new dwellings at the bottom of Newtown road will produce a chaotic dodgem car situation for those of us living on Newtown. Will parking for all new homes be provided should the site get approval ? That it itself, should be a priority.

SO31


Object

Newtown road is unsuitable for this amount of increased traffic into the village, resulting in more congestion on Barns Lane and the A27

SO31


Object

Please refer to my comments on site HA1

SO31


Object

Same reasons as objections for HA1

SO31


Object

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

SO31


Object

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

SO31


Object

"I am an ex-student of the Maritime Academy[redacted] with some of my grounds boarding the collage. I own several marine companies in the area, and I am a [redacted]. I am a member of Warsash Sailing Club and sit on the Hamble River Management Committee. [redacted] so know the area well. I love Warsash and I don't want to live anywhere else, which is why I want to protect it from losing its village feel, which will happen with all the proposed development in the area. I understand that the Academy is changing, which is sad but necessary as I understand it. I understand that some buildings on site are listed which is helpful in limiting the changes. However, this is a site that has defined Warsash and Newtown Road for over 70 years as a collage, and longer as HMS Tormentor when the Navy was training Landing Craft operations, so it has historical and economical significance to Warsash. It boarders important wildlife habitats (especially on the waterside) and accommodates a great many beautiful trees (under TPO) within the grounds. Therefore, in the interests of the local people, the very nature of the ""village"", the historical significance and important local Flora and Forna, it is imperative that any development is kept to a minimum and undertaken with upmost care and attention. I will work with the Warsash Residents Association, and our own Kingswood House Residents Association to object to any development that is proposed outside the existing floor space already occupied by existing buildings, or higher than existing buildings. However, I would be minded (personally) to support a development that provided residential development within the existing building footprints, and in-line with the style and size of existing buildings along the west side of Newtown Road. The number of dwellings is less important to me, but I think 100 is too many. Newtown Road already has parking restrictions and speed calming humps due to historical parking issues. It is vital for local support, that any new development provides for properly adequate parking and retains the green areas currently enjoyed around the Academy site, including pathway access to the river. This is never going to be an area for first time buyers, so please remember that housing is also required for financially established people and families. I will be objecting strongly to HA1 development around Greenaway lane as this is green agricultural land that must be retained, and represents an unmanageable increase in population in the area. I acknowledge however, that HA7 is replacing an existing entity with an established head count so I am prepared to consider supporting a sensible development that retains the look at feel of Newtown Road and our important village of Warsash."

SO31


Object

It is absurd that the Council thinks that this is a suitable site for mass development: 1) The road systems are creaking with the current level of traffic at peak times. There is major traffic congestion getting to the A27 and the M27, as well as on the A27. This starts building up from 07:30 in the morning. Walking around the Warsash area to get to the local school is dangerous as there is so much traffic and no pedestrian crossing. Warsash is on a peninsular bordered by water on 2 sides. It would not be physically possible in many places to make the roads wider. In addition to the danger and inconvenience casued by the traffic congestion, the air pollution from the traffic needs to be taken into consideration as well. 2) The local school is full. If the school was to be made bigger in time this would be to the detriment of the school as facilities, such as communal areas and sports fields would need to be developed. In the mean time families would need to travel to schools further away which would mean more traffic/pollution. 3) There is no GP in Warsash. It already takes weeks to get an appointment at the Locks Heath GP. Putting more strain on these GP Practises would pose an unacceptable health risk to Warsash residents. 4) Why is this not being considered for 6th form education? There is no provision for this locally in an area that is constantly growing (without this mass development!). There must be more suitable sites where infrastructure can be readily expanded and with easier access to the motorway, such as the Newlands site or Welbourne. Warsash should not be destroyed because Fareham Borough Council has not been able to make better, more suitable plans within a timeframe.

SO31


Object

This development will see hundreds more cars in an area that is already congested and dangerous to travel through on a daily basis. We simply do not have the infrastructure locally to deal with the number of houses being proposed and the number of cars they will bring.

SO31


Object

Please consider the access road size, it really won't cope with this much traffic. We live next door but one to the college and feel this amount of dwellings is completely ridiculous for this area, especially as its a dead end so access is restricted.

SO31


Object

There is already a shortage of parking space for local schools and local shops, local schools have insufficient places to accommodate the catchment area, so I fail to see how the area can accommodate another 100 dwellings . Access to the A27 and M27 motorway is also likely to be severely impacted particularly with the new developments planned for Bursledon. I fail to see how any thought has been given to these plans.

SO31


Object

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

SO31


Object

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

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

SO31


Object

Impact on environment of the coast and country site will be eroded Change to the buildings will not adhere to the strict listed building restrictions

SO31


Object

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

SO31


Object

Where are these children going to go to school? Where are these families going to travel to go to see a doctor?

Anonymous submission


Object

I wish to express my objections to the above proposed site. I don't believe the extent of proposed building in the Warsash ward (including this site) is appropriate for the infrastructure (or the nature of the area). As a council i think you need to be looking for solutions that not only provide housing but aim to provide good quality of life to those moving into the area and those already living in the area. Families need access to Doctors/ Dentists/ Schools/ Beavers/ Swimming lessons/ Gymnastics whatever it is - I'm sure an extra 700+ homes in Warsash could be built and serviced but what about the quality of life. It shouldn't be a great struggle to get access to these resources. [redacted] . i feel the current volume of traffic with the existing traffic control insufficient, which would only worsen with increased traffic volume. The completely in effective speed bumps of Newtown Road where i live and where the above new building site is proposed are just one example. The new bumps not only fail to slow traffic but more often than not just encourage cars to swerve towards the pavement in an attempt to manoeuvre round them. I dread to think what this would be like with 100 additional households to serve and the heavy vehicles required to complete the build. The proposed site also seems too close to an area so rich in wildlife (have the resident deer family on Newtown Road been considered).

SO31


Object

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

SO31


Object

I object to this as I believe the following:- 1) The infrastructure will not cope with the influx of people and cars to this area, which is already at capacity - being on a peninsula will simply cause congestion. 2) There is link to an increase in road traffic with more accidents or deaths of the local road with pedestrians, cyclists and other cars. 3) Pollution will generally affect the aged and children population; Southampton is already 11 cities with one of the worse pollution in the UK causing asthma in young children, amongst other health issues. This would probably be more suite to a local 6th form colleague as this is all in infrastructure in place and reduce the carbon footprint for people leaving the area.

SO31


Object

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

Anonymous submission


Object

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

SO31


Object

The proposed development should completely gridlock Warsash. The traffic trying to access the A27/M27 is at a standstill now, the addition of somewhere around 200 more vehicles is utter madness. The non- existence of any plan for support services, doctors/schools shows that the plan for this development is utter madness.

SO31


Object

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

SO31


Object

I wish to object to the 100 houses planning to be built on this site. As a resident of Newtown road for 30 years, I have already seen substantial development without the infrastructure to enable it. I have had several accidents on my property due to speeding traffic down Newtown road, which i believe was instrumental in the introduction of the speed bumps. However the new replacements are far to shallow and cars regularly speed down the road in excess on the 30 mph limit. The average house has 3.2 cars nowadays and I personally don't think the road can deal with that kind of traffic. The local schools are already fit to bursting, the local doctors already take 3 weeks to get an appointment. I have had 16 house built within a stone's throw of my property in the last 10 years, another 100 will be devastating. There are several protected tree's that have already been cut down, land that was homes for wildlife built upon. My little village is turning into a suburb . May as well join Southampton and Portsmouth into a massive 'Solent City' for all the difference it will make. Plus due to less local businesses, many people are forced to travel and the junctions 8 to 9 of the M27 are already an accident hotspot. Build some services before building more houses. Warsash has a ridiculous amount of houses planned already, more needs to be done to accommodate this.

SO31


Object

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

SO31


Object

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

SO31


Object

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

SO31


Object

A further 100 have been allocated at the Maritime College in Warsash. The total of 800+ houses represents in excess 30% of the FBC requirement . This is inequitable. Warsash will be transformed from a delightful residential village into an area of urban sprawl. Recognizing the need for houses in the borough please give serious consideration to reducing our share to say 12% ie 300 houses, 100 at the maritime academy and further 200 at the greenaway lane site.

PO13


Object

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

SO31


Object

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

SO31


Object

As per my previous comment - no infrastructure to improve the roads to take the extra traffic. By the very nature of their names Brook Lane and Barnes Lane are just that with no space to widen or improve them

SO31


Object

I would like to object to the development of the Warsash Maritime Academy. I find it quite unbelievable that you would consider Newtown Road to be a suitable main access into a 100 house development. Long sections of Newtown Road are effectively a single lane due to the number of cars parked on the road. The amount of traffic is already a problem, hence the need for the present traffic calming measures, therefore the increasing the traffic will have a hugely detrimental affect to the residents of Newtown Road.

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

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

SO31


Object

I have already commented on the Greenaway proposals but my comments apply just as much to the Newtown Road proposals and the many other plans for this area. As I said the proposals are totally irresponsible and unworkable. Thetraffic situaytion is near gridlock at several times of the day and will be far worse if the plans go through. Emergency vehicles will be unable to reach people in danger of dieing or fires that are out of control. The effect on people trying to get to and from work let alone the retired population trying to get to hospitals or shops is awful. Then there are the doctors, where it takes weeks to get an appointment which has to be limted to 10 minutes. The schools that are bursting at the seams. There is masses of land in this country which could be used if Government were not so doctrinaire and biased in favour of great landowners. It really is unfair and unworkable, even downright dangerous, to keep stuffing more houses into already overcrowded areas

SO31


Object

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

SO31


Object

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

SO31


Comment

I just hope there will be enough parking places for the residents and visitors should this application be approved. Again there will be another 150+ cars using the local roads

Anonymous submission


Object

Too many proposed houses for Warsash and lack of schools and Doctors Surgeries in the area.

SO31


Object

The development proposed at the Warsash Maritime Academy concerns me for the following reasons: 1. This location has only one access road - Newtown Road. This is already a busy road, with many cars parked along the road. 2. With the volume of homes proposed this could mean over 100 new cars on the roads. These roads would include Greenaway Lane, Brook Lane and Barnes Lane. These roads haven't been built to bear this additional traffic and are currently already grid locked during rush hour making access to the A27 and M27 increasing difficult. This will only get worse with additional cars on the road. Fareham is the most car dependent town in the UK and without decent access to bus and train services this is only going to get worse. 3. On Brook Lane there is Brookfield Senior School where there was recently an incident involving a car and a school child. This road will become much busier and our children will still have to make their way to and from school using this road that doesn't currently provide enough safe crossing provisions. 4. There are no crossing provisions in the village or on any of the busy roads. Cars fly up and down all the local roads, including Osborne Rd, Warsash Rd and Brook Lane. There is no care for the safety of residents, particularly our children. 5. All the local primary schools are full, where will all the children in these new homes be expected to go? Extending the schools means the children will lose valuable outside space, is this really what Fareham Borough Council are about? First they lose fields and outside space that keeps the air clean and less polluted and then they lose their playing fields and playgrounds at school too? 6. The Dr's are currently a nightmare, getting a routine appointment takes 6 weeks, what impact will more residents have on this? We'll have a healthcare function that is unable to cope and what impact will that have on the health of residents? 7. What impact will all these houses and additional cars have on air pollution - we should be protecting our local area, the wildlife, our children and the health of everyone in it, not destroying it to try and meet housing quotas. 8. What about quality of life? As a council will you be providing quality of life? By putting building work in a location that will require masses of materials to be driven down roads that aren't able to handle the traffic there will be a constant stream of delays on the road, temporary traffic lights needed and some residents will constantly be witnessing lorries and traffic jams right outside their houses. There have to be better sites that won't have such a damaging impact on the local residents and the village of Warsash.

SO31


Object

The roads cannot cope with the additional traffic this build will cause - nor can the local infrastructure

SO31


Comment

Can't believe there is space for 100 dwellings (unless they are to be flats) With parking space for all the cars. (You are not allowed to park along most of Newtown Road) The Doctors surgeries are already full and schools will find it difficult to cope.

SO31


Object

Newtown Road is already overcrowded with cars parked and one is unable to drive along it without stopping several times to let traffic pass. How much worse will it be when at least 200 extra cars (if not more0 a day are travelling back & forth along the road. I think this will be dangerous if allowed to proceed. Also because of the speed bumps-not good for the people or the cars bodies.

Anonymous submission


Object

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

SO31


Object

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

SO31


Object

I strongly object to the number of houses planned , there is no infrastructure planned for the amount of houses. Roads are congested already. Schools over subscribed. Surgeries struggling with the amount of people they have to see now. The proposed Fareham Borough Council plans and the huge development being built at the moment- Hamble Lane, manor Farr development, A 27 near Windover roundabout -all building is too much for the roads to cope with.

Postcode not provided


Object

Concerns regarding traffic- Volume and parking. Possible relocation of a telephone mast to a more residential area? Satterws club

Anonymous submission


Object

Proposed 100 dwellings would be too many for access along Havelock Road. Roundabout junction with Brook Lane etc. would not cope safely with increased volume of traffic.

SO31


Object

Infrastructure not in place

SO31


Object

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

SO31


Object

1. Traffic in this area is already at a gridlock not only during peak hours but also at other times. The Segensworth roundabout and junction 9 of M27 are frequently clogged beyond reasonable capacity. 2. There is a limit to the improvements that could be made to major roads and motorways will try and ease congestion but essentially Warsash and Locks Heath are bounded by water on two sides and so access and egress are only possible via the A27 travelling east or west. The capacity of this road cannot be increased and local access roads such as Brook Lane, Osborne Road, Warsash Road and Barnes Lane cannot be widened. 3. Warsash specifically is on a peninsula and the only roads in and out are Brook Lane and Warsash Road. Emergency vehicles will be unable to ensure safe response times. During rush hour it is likely they will not have space to get to their destination and the consequences will be catastrophic. 4. Fareham is presently in trouble for poor air quality due to the amount of rush hour traffic. As the number of cars increases in the Western Wards, there will be more cases of asthma, lung disease and related illnesses. 5. Doctors, schools, hospitals and emergency services are already stretched to breaking point. Brook Lane, Lockswood, Jubilee and Whiteley surgeries struggle to cope with the amount of patients they have. The wait for routine appointments is unreasonably excessive and the waiting time at the surgery can often be unacceptably long. Emergency appointments are becoming harder to book as there are not enough doctors or capacity. The very young, elderly and chronically ill are already vulnerable and bearing the brunt of this. If 700 additional dwellings are built, these overstretched surgeries will be at crisis point. There will be an increased need for care homes, for which there is just no space putting residents' health at risk. 6. Warsash is an area of outstanding natural beauty and home to varied flora and fauna. The draft plan requires the green-field land identified as the defined strategic gap from neighbouring villages to become an area for development. 7. Residents have the right to breathe clean air, have facilities, space and sufficient infrastructure and the assurance that emergency vehicles have access and can meet response times in life threatening situations. We genuinely fear for the health and safety of people in the Western Wards.

SO31


Object

Hello, I am writing to strongly object to the proposed building on the maritime academy .as the traffic would cause a big problem including traffic jams and even more pollution.

SO31


Object

I am objecting to the development of the houses. The roads are not built to take this volume of traffic. The roads are already stretched to their limit. The schools are full. The doctors surgeries can't cope now , I had to wait 2 weeks to see a doctor! Building on greenfield sites will affect the wildlife .

SO31 9


Object

I strongly object to the development of Warsash Maritime Acadamy. Newtown Road is extremely busy already and housing on this site would clog the road and surrounding area,

SO31


Object

Development is in an area where access will be determined by limited capacity of adjoining link roads. Southampton Water & River Hamble are restricting factors. Local roads take traffic up Brook Lane or along Warsash Road which are already overloaded. Significant congestion on all roads as traffic seeks to move off the peninsula. Local schools already full. Area is abundant with wildlife & social space which will be at significant risk from this development.

SO31


Object

"I disagree with the addition of 100 homes onto this site for the following reasons : - The current infrastructure arrangements (even with new proposed upgrades post development) will simply be unable to cope with the significant increase in car usage. Commuters currently struggle during peak times to exit/enter the village and join the M27 and A27 road network. No upgrades can be made to enlarge or improve the roads between the A27 and M27 to the site. More house building will deliver more cars, delivering increased travel times for commuters and of course an increase in noxious fumes for all current residents. - No additional school places or surgery provision will ensure that more cars are required to take school children/patients in these developments to their educational facilities/surgeries daily. Increasing pollution and congestion on our already busy roads. The government's and local authority building plans should be delivering more ""homes"" not just houses. Homes that have well thought out infrastructure, educational and health facilities around them. They have a responsibility to ensure that future homeowners have reasonable access to work, healthcare and educational facilities. None of which are being planned to be provided in this location."

SO31


Object

The current infrastructure cannot support the additional 100 properties for this site. Newtown road is already a major problem, not being constructed to regulations to allow 2 passing cars plus parked vehicles , this is already a safety issue for residents without potentially another 2 hundred cars using the road daily. Local services, doctors, schools etc cannot currently cope with the population without adding additional strain to the existing residents wellbeing and performance of the facilities, doctors appointments are already on a 4 week timeline. Maybe the developers should be adding to these schemes additional doctors surgeries and schools to be funded partially by their profits, planning consent not given until these issues are agreed and satisfied by local residents. These additional infrastructure and services should be put into place prior to houses being allowed to be built whilst the developers have an incentive and interest in building yet more houses. Whilst people need homes there needs to be some thought for the residents and the additional burden that is incurred in the governments panic to build additional houses without the thought for the surrounding infrastructure and services.

SO31


Object

This site in combination with other proposed sites in Warsash will overwhelm the local infrastructure. The site would be better kept as an educational facility - to provide lacking A level education or as an alternative school for the growing population. The river side location means development here will not provide any affordable housing. The community will not benefit in any way from developing this site with exclusive waterside homes.

SO31


Object

100 homes on this site is ridiculous. Again, Warsash village can't cope with development on this scale. The infrastructure can't sustain it. This borders nature reserve and should be developed with cautious consideration to the environment with tasteful housing suitable which will blend in with the environment and not put too much pressure on schools, surgeries and the roads. Further development should be focused inland where road improvements can be made.

SO31


Object

Where will the residents of this proposed development park their cars, send their children to school, register with a doctor etc etc? The infrastructure is already stretched, for our children's sakes, stop just building and start planning PROPERLY!

Anonymous submission


Object

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

SO31


Object

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

SO31


Object

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

SO31


Object

I protest for the following reasons. The access to the Academy is via Newtown Road. It is difficult to make progress down this road at the moment. With the influx of cars the site will produce it will make it impossible for residents of this area. It is almost impossible to make a doctors appoitment at the moment. The influx of traffic will cause unwelcome pollution. The area of Warsash suffers badly at peak times from congestion.

SO31


Object

I strongly object to the proposal to build an additional 100 homes in Warsash Maritime Academy. Along with the other Warsash development in Greenaway Lane, the additional 800 homes will increase the size of the village by one third!! This will totally change the village. Whilst I appreciate new homes are needed, they need to be more evenly spread out. The infrastructure in Warsash cannot cope at present! These rural roads cannot cope with the current level of traffic, there are already constant traffic jams and resulting pollution, it is almost impossible to get a doctor's appointment and the local schools are oversubscribed. If they go ahead, these plans will make Warsash a much less nice place to live.

SO31


Object

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

Postcode not provided


Object

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

SO31


Object

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

SO31


Object

As per my comments on site HA1 regarding overcrowding, poor road network, traffic congestion poor air quality having a negative effect on people's health and well being. Poor school provision children will have to travel outside of the area. GPsurgeries already oversubscribed with GP leaving their surgeries due to stress. Warsash will become a concrete jungle liable to flooding causing the death of wildlife habitats and areas in which to walk for leisure both of which help support mental and physical health. The sheer number of proposed dwelling is untenable and unfair for such a small area which is 50% surrounded by sea and relies solely on the A27 which cannot be developed for access.

SO31


Object

This planned development will simply add to the traffic congestion that will arise from HA1 as well as put extra strain on the schools and doctors surgeries .

SO31


Comment

This site will be priceless to live in. It is immediately adjacent to the hamble river and Southampton water with views of both together with easy access. There are also wonderful views to Calshot, the Solent and the Isle of Wight. The site will be very desirable to live in and the price of properties will reflect this. The type of properties should carefully chosen because what ever properties should be carefully chosen because what ever is built it will become a very expensive property area. Due consideration to parking either on each property or parking areas. I believe that more expensive houses should be built on this site because whatever the starting price the value of these properties will rise rapidly and a lower starting price will allow those who can afford it, will want to purchase these properties, and if they do applications for extensions and alterations etc. will soon appear. This in turn will affect the traffic on Newtown Road long after the initial construction and previous demolition. I do not object to the site being built on but I do believe 100 homes are too many being built in the first place. The other negatives are the usual, but very important ones - Doctors, Surgeries, Dentists, School Places, Traffic congestion, parking and quality of life for all residents of Warsash. Please also remember that Newtown Road is relatively narrow and with the added traffic could cause problems.

SO31


Comment

[redacted]. We are directly affected by the loss of the maritime centre from this site as past negotiations with the council resulted in existing road restrictions removing the facility to park anywhere near our house (we have no driveway or hardstanding) and instigated an in perpetuity parking agreement with the maritime centre. This would need to be addressed with the developers of the site and the council going forward as not to do so would render this property and the three other properties in the terrace unsaleable which I'm sure you will agree is inequitable and untenable. In theory developing the site for residential use would meet the councils objective to enhance the local environment and it would certainly not impact on the character of the village as the proposed Greenaway site would catastrophically do so, however, I do have some reservations as to the nature and extent of the proposed dwellings, and the impact of 100 extra households on the residents of this road. There are approximately 140 houses on Newtown Rd so 100 houses represents an approximate 75% increase not only in properties but in noise and traffic impact on the local residenst which I believe is disproportionate and inappropriate. Whilst currently staff and students come and go from the site the disturbance is not year round and is confined largely to business hours. A noise study would need to be instigated and appopriate acoustic considerations taken into account as currently noises from the bottom of the site carry on the coastal breezes straight to the opposite properties. I note that the plan is for dwellings of up to four stories, whilst the existing college does have some building to this height they are imposing and out of character with the area. To replace them with buildings of a similar height would be particularly inappropriate as many of the current buildings have never had a residential purpose and do not impinge upon the privacy [redacted]. Why compound historical poor planning decisions with further planning decions unsympathetic to the area, far better surely to correct and enhance. I would suggest three stories max be far more appropriate and not directly overlooking current residents and a significant reduction in the number of properties. My other concerns relate to the impact of a large build on the wildlife in this area bordering as it does a nature reserve and the risk of spreading japanese knotweed. Large stands of japanese knotweed are clearly visible along the bottom perimeter of the college site bordering the footpath during its active season. Given the prolific nature of this plant it is not unreasonable to suggest that it may exist within the proposed development site and as such a thorough survey of the land during the active season should be undertaken before this project is green lighted. In summary I have very very many concerns about this area being developed however I appreciate some houses need to be built ( although lets not kid ourselves for one second that any will be affordable housing) and this site is the lesser of two evils in terms of impact upon the village as a whole when considering the proposed devlopment north and south of Greenaway Lane. In an ideal world this site would make a lovely retirement complex, the residents would be able to take advantage of (slightly) more affordable housing and the impact on local school and roads would be less than in working /school attending households. I feel if permission is given that the developers will need to be particularly sympathetic about the positioning of properties to maintain the privacy and outlook of current houses and that the properties fit in with the immediate local enviornment. In particular [redacted] the parking restrictions throughout the village. Many will be redundant if the college isn't operating and only serve to push all the traffic towards the school which is rather counter productive in terms of safety.

SO31


Object

Warsash does not have the infrastructure to support this many houses down Newtown road. The way the map has been designed is extremely misleading as Hook Park Road is not a viable access point to the bottom of Newtown Road!! The traffic is already horrendous in this area and for Newtown Road to support another 100+ cars will be dangerous. The roads aren't built for this volume of traffic and there are no plans to try and improve the roads to the A27 (only minor changes would be possible). The schools are full - the only secondary school is Brookfield and when I left 6 years ago there were about 34 pupils per class which makes things difficult for the teacher and the pupils. It took me 4 weeks to book in a doctors appointment that fitted in with working full time - the strain on the doctors surgeries in this area is ridiculous. I know that houses will be built as there is a greater profit margin in this area but I sincerely hope that the number of houses will be lowered. It would make more sense to build houses closer to the new Stubbington bypass that is being built.

SO31


Object

Insufficient Road access - Newtown Road is a small road, with cars parked on it, and speed bumps. It is not adequate for 100 more dwellings. Most people will elect to use a car to access any facilities (school, doctor, shops etc,) since any of these are a long way from the development. It's not just the 100 in HA7, it's the 700 in HA1 as well (see my comments there) that will add to an already overcrowded road system (see any Warsash road accessing the A27 at rush hour). Nature reserve nearby - additional noise/pollution will affect it. Overall: reduction in quality of life for residents and insufficient infrastructure!

SO31


Object

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

SO31


Object

to whom it may concern, we would like to object about the proposed housing in Newtown road, 100 houses would require at lease 3 parking spaces per house plus extra spaces for visitor, doctor and ,ambulances the road leading out of warsaw to the a27 and M27 are one lane and it would create a bottle neck effect trying to exit Warsash. there are not enough spaces at the schools to accomodate 100 to 200 children. so new schools will have to be built. There are not enough doctors surgeries to take on extra patients. we feel very strongly about our village, and would like to keep it a village, quiet, full of wildlife, houses being built are not affordable hoses for the elderly, or students . building hoses nearer the M27 would make it easier to access the motorway and not block our roads.

SO31


Object

An additional development in Newtown Road would create so much more traffic in this already overcrowded area. The surgeries are full to capacity as are the schools. What was a lovely riverside village is fast becoming an urban sprawl

SO31


Object

The proposal to build the number of houses, specified in your plan, on the Warsash Maritime Academy site, is ridiculous, ill conceived and potentially suicidal. Already, Newtown road is, in practice, a single lane road, due to the present volume of traffic, and excessive on road parking. It has no potential for road widening and you are proposing to double, or treble, the number of vehicles permanently using it in the future, WITHOUT EVEN CONSIDERING THE CONSTRUCTION VEHICLES, which will be involved in the building process. Think again!

SO31


Object

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

SO31


Object

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

SO31


Object

Newtown road cannot cope with the amount of additional traffic generated by this proposal. Within the planned development there MUST be sufficient parking allowed for each property - at least 3 spaces off road. There are not sufficient places at local schools and although recognised no plan is outlined for where children from this development and other Warsash developments will be educated. The pressure on local health services is also not addressed. Has any check been carried out to ensure water pressure can be maintained given the 800 properties proposed for Warsash. Objections: Building on river frontage. Lack of parking Lack of school and health facilities. Road network in and out of village.

SO31


Object

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

SO31


Object

I wish to register the same comments and objections for this site as we're made for Greenaway Lane site

SO31


Object

This is an area which will create more traffic within an area that already has parking issues. Double yellow lines in Newtown Road. Where will the cars park when the houses/flats are built? As the development most probably will not provide parking spaces outside the properties being built.

SO31


Comment

"The New Draft Fareham Plan proposes that 2698 new homes will be built in the Western Wards, in addition to the 6000 at Welborne. This equates to 35,000 more residents. Current infrastructure will not be able to cope. Roads, traffic, schools, medical facilities will all be put under enormous pressure. 100 new homes are earmarked for the Warsash Acadamy site. I propose that the plan to build 100 more houses, should be abandoned. Instead, the site should be retained as an educational establishment, but should become WARSASH TECHNICAL COLLEGE. Prospective students who wish to pursue a career as tradesmen, technicians or engineers in the building, engineering, science, and technology disciplines, should be encouraged to sit an entrance examination at the age of 13. Academic courses should follow the NVQ, BTEC, HNC,HND route, with Skill of Hand training given top priority. After 3 years, the students should be sufficiently well qualified to move on into apprenticeships, and continue with their studies towards a degree if desired. If you train a young person, in a ""skill of hand"" discipline - you provide them with the opportunity to make a living. You know it makes sense."

SO31


Object

I would like to formally object to the context of the recent Draft Fareham Local Plan 2036 and specifically (HA2), which puts forward a 100 housing development to the Maritime College site. I think it is unreasonable and unfair to expect Warsash to take such a vast number of properties that together with the 700 homes proposed at Warsash, increase the village population by up to a third. The Councils process for selecting Greenfield sites for development had as part of its criteria, adequate local infrastructure and highways provision. Warsash is struggling to cope in both these areas and it is difficult to understand why these current proposals would meet the criteria to be considered. The village of Warsash does not have the infrastructure to cope with this level of proposed development, Warsash, Locks Heath, Park Gate is already congested at peak periods. The Strawberry fields and Cold East developments have already added to this congestion and the further addition of up to 800 homes will significantly worsen an already demanding situation. The road network is at a gridlock during peak hours and since the new Strawberry Fields, Hunts Pond and Coldeast developments it has doubled the time for people to get to work. Improvements on major roads and motorways will try and ease congestion but this would not be satisfactory, as residents will struggle to get to these major roads. The local doctor's surgeries are already stretched to breaking point. Further potential 2,500 new patients will only increase the significant pressure that GPs are under. Whilst I know FBC is not responsible for Doctors surgery provision, it must be within a wider planning remit or general duty of care on developments of this scale to ensure adequate requirements would be provided. School places are oversubscribed, with several residents unable to get places despite living within catchment areas. If the plans go ahead there will be hundreds of children needing school places and the reality is provision lags way behind demand. Warsash is a rural location home to precious wildlife such as badgers, bats,owls, foxes and deer. The greenfield land proposed as the area for development also provides a defined strategic gap from neighbouring villages. Residents have the right to breathe clean air, have facilities, space and sufficient infrastructure. Whilst I understand that national housing shortages has led to significant Government pressure for all councils to find appropriate sites, we are in danger of sacrificing the quality of life for many existing and future residents who benefit from the limited green and open spaces still left in otherwise densely populated areas. The area specified has significant wildlife occupation and this development would lead to the destruction of this wildlife and a significant impact on residents. I submit these comments in the hope that the council will review the current draft Fareham Plan and reconsider the impact that the proposed scale of increase in houses will put on local roads, schools and medical provision.

SO31


Object

We all know that there is nationwide shortage of housing but it seems up and down the country that councils have been given the task to meet a quota in order to tick the box that they have done their bit towards meeting government targets. The problem is that all too often the herd of elephants in the room are the lack of joined up thinking, the lack of infrastructure, roads, doctors, schools etc. In the light of this it is difficult to be positive about the idea of any large scale building in our local area. There has been little evidence of any extra services or infrastructure improvements in any of the building developments that have taken place in the last few years from Burlsedon, all the way through to Park Gate, Locks Heath, Sarisbury and Warsash. On a recent trip back from Bursledon, I realised that was no real green space until the trees around the Locks Heath Centre, it seemed that every green space had been filled with new housing developments. Add to that all the small developments shoe-horned in to peoples back gardens it was all very depressing. Enough is enough now, we need to keep some open spaces for so many reasons. Warsash offers a sanctuary to locals but to many others beyond its borders, who want to enjoy the lovely walks along the coast along its lovely common, woods and lanes. I am concerned that any housing developments will increase road traffic, pollution and air pollution and do not feel the local council and Government are adequately addressing these serious issues! I object to the quantity of housing proposed on the Warsash Maritime site and urge the council to look at a greatly reduced quantity of dwellings there. As has become apparent, Fareham Borough Council are powerless to do anything about infrastructure issues, as councillors point out, issues around schools are down to Hampshire C.C., while Government cuts to council budgets impact public transport and other local services. The more housing built, the more cars and the worse air pollution will be. Fareham is the most car dependent town in the UK. Portsmouth and Southampton rank high in the worst cities in the UK for poor air quality. The Western Wards is smack in the middle and pollution does not stay outside of the bubble! At the recent CAT meeting in Warsash, not once did the planning officer mention concerns about air quality and health when he talked about criteria for planning proposals. I am against any large scale building in the Western Wards area, I feel this way because: 1) I am extremely concerned about the impact this will have on increased road traffic. 2) That increased road traffic will increase congestion, and subsequently increase air pollution. 3) That little concern has been placed on these issues 4) That infrastructure issues, and services are already inadequate and will not be sufficiently increased to meet the demand 5) That up and down the country the same issues apply. The Government needs to adapt an holistic approach, look at providing jobs across the country, not just in the South. The government need to look at infrastructure and services across the country. 6) The South is turning into one big car park, making getting around miserable, and ultimately having a significant impact on the health of its residents!

SO31


Comment

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

SO31


Object

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

SO31


Object

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

Object

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

SO31


Object

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

SO31


Object

I have been a Warsash resident for all of my 73 years and have lived immediately opposite the Maritime Academy for the past 15 years. Whilst I understand the need to develop the academy site when it transfers it's operations to Southampton, my concern is that 100 dwellings will be too many for Newtown Road, which is in effect a one-way street. As residents, we are aware of the issues caused by volume of traffic and parking on this already congested road. In addition to this, there is no provision for additional schools or doctors surgeries (I currently have to attend the Whiteley surgery and wait for up to 3 weeks for an appointment) I know that this objection is very much a waste of time, as it's already a done deal, but therefore I sincerely hope that residents are consulted in the number and type of dwellings to be built here.

SO31


Object

WARSASH Please see my objection to the following planning applications. HA7 - Warsash Maritime Academy, Warsash- 100 dwellings. My reasons for my objections to this development are as follows. 1) As a regular commuter who has to drive on the M27 and M3 the Warsash area is already gridlocked from 7.00 AM and during peak hours. Since the new Strawberry Fields, Hunts Pond and Coldeast developments it has doubled the time for people to get onto the A27 and M27. Currently, residents are not able to actually join the major M27 due to the excessive local road congestion in less than 30 minutes! Local roads such as Brook Lane, Osborne Road, Warsash Road and Barnes Lane cannot be made wider, they were built to service the traffic and community of small villages and the resulting influx of 2,000+ cars in such a small square area will lead to more accidents and a totally unacceptable journey for anyone trying to leave Warsash in the morning or returning in the evening. We need the council to properly monitor local traffic flow. Warsash specifically is on a peninsular and the only roads in and out are Brook Lane and Warsash Road. Emergency vehicles are already unable to ensure safe response times - during rush hour it is likely they will not have space to get to their destination. The consequences could be fatal. 2) The local area is already presently in trouble for very poor air quality due to the amount of rush hour traffic and pollution from ships in Southampton water. Warsash cannot cope with another 2,000 cars and there will be more cases of asthma, lung disease, and related illnesses. Doctors, schools, hospitals and emergency services are already stretched to breaking point. If the plans go ahead there will be hundreds of children needing school places which are not available. 3) Child safety: Children walking or cycling to Brookfield already face a perilous journey due to the amount of traffic on Brook Lane. The dangers will increase hugely and without question this will lead to a fatal road accident due to a further 4,000 cars driving thru the village over 24 hours. 4) Local Surgeries: With Brook Lane, Lockwood, Jubilee and Whiteley surgeries struggle to cope with the number of patients they have. They wait an unacceptable amount of time for routine appointments often over two weeks. Emergency appointments are becoming harder to book as there are not enough doctors or time. The very young, elderly and chronically ill are already vulnerable and bearing the brunt of this - add another 1,500 homes with 6,000 residences and these overstretched surgeries will be at crisis point. 5) Care Homes: There will be an increased need for care homes, for which there is just no space. Residents' health will be at risk and possibly their lives? Common sense needs to prevail rather than Fareham Borough Council trying to overdevelop a small village to gain building grants from developers. 6) Warsash is a place of outstanding natural beauty and home to precious wildlife such as badgers, bats, and deer. The Greenfield land proposed as the area for development also provides a defined strategic gap between neighboring villages. Residents have the right to breathe clean air, have facilities, space and sufficient infrastructure and the assurance that emergency vehicles have access and can meet response times in life-threatening situations. Fareham borough council have a legal responsibility to look after the health and safety of people in Warsash and the Western Wards and I strongly urge the council to reconsider the proposed application due to the points I have raised above. I have historically supported a conservative council and MP however if the over the development of Warsash were to go ahead I will remove my personal support for the conservative party in future.

SO31


Object

I have serious concerns about this development. This is an area of national significance in terms of bird life along the shoreline. More people (particularly with dogs) walking along the shoreline could have a catastrophic effect on the fragile ecosystems. I have seen many dogs, let off leads by their owners, chase wading birds trying to feed, making them take to the air. People are ignorant of just what an effect this has and how much time birds have to spend feeding to replace the energy used in taking flight. As a minimum, there should be some publicity about this on the nature reserve notice boards and maybe dogs should have to be kept on leads along the shore. This would be restrictive for dogs and their owners, but they should not take priority over the natural wildlife.

SO31


Object

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

SO31


Object

Newtown Road unable to cope with more Housing, local services, e.g., school, doctors surgeries, at capacity. Parking difficult, speed limits not observed.

Postcode not provided


Object

This proposal for the building of 100 houses on riverside land will have a hugely detrimental impact on the area for existing residents, and negatively affect the quality of the amenity (i.e. the banks of the River Hamble) which is accessed by many people both from within and outside the borough. It is a unique place to enjoy the river, wildlife and green space that it offers. It will be 'smothered' if 100 houses are built, something that would spoil the enjoyment of this unique location forever.

SO31


Object

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

SO31


Object

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

SO31


Comment

The site requirements should include protection and or enhancement of the view from the River Hamble.

SO31


Object

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

SO31


Object

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

SO31


Object

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

SO31


Object

My concerns about HA1 apply almost equally here. In addition I would note that the traffic flow for students coming to the Maritime Adademy at peak times would likely have been in the opposite direction to that of residents of the proposed development, so the development would increasae exisiting traffic flow issues. The proposed development will also add to the problem of lack of school places locally in a way which students at the Maritime Academy did not do, due to their age.

SO31


Object

Inadequate infrastructure Schools already at capacity Roads already struggling with volume of traffic GP surgery full Site floods A threat to wildlife

SO31


Object

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

SO31


Object

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

SO31


Object

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

SO31


Object

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

SO31


Object

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

SO31


Object

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

SO31


Object

The proposed development, due to its size and scale and also with awareness of all of the other proposed developments in the area, will impact in an unacceptable way on the following areas: 1. Countryside – The land is currently a place of education bordering onto a nature reserve and at the end of a small quiet road. Such a number of houses so close to the coast and nature reserve would impact dramatically on this area in a number of ways. 2. Flooding – This is a major risk for Brook & Greenaway Lane as the proposed site sits along reed beds and the flow of land is downhill; furthermore the impact of so many concrete surfaces here could destroy these reed beds and coastline. 3. 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. 4. 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. This site has only one main road which feeds into a small roundabout in Warsash, with no space to enlarge. There are may pedestrians here and already it is becoming increasingly dangerous. The area is effectively a peninsular with only limited roads to access the area. Traffic is already a significant problem, often gridlocked every morning and evening; there is finite space so limited opportunity to enlarge roads to cope with more traffic. Emergency vehicles will be unable to ensure safe response times. There are limited jobs in the area so these houses would be for people who would then need to travel to work, further increasing this problem. 5. 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. This is of particular concern so close to the Hook-with-Warsash Nature reserve. 6. Increase in light pollution. Likewise, so close to the nature reserve this will have a significant negative impact on the surrounding area. 7. Loss of wildlife; this is an area of natural beauty and this site is home to many species in the greenery around the maritime buildings. IT is now recognised that more than 1 in 10 of the UK's wildlife species are now threatened with extinction; the Uk's endangered insects and creatures' numbers have dropped by 2/3 since the 1970s. Further, the loss of this land will result in further fragmentation of wildlife through being limited only to the remaining open spaces. There are many sites that are more suitable than Warsash and the Western Wards, such as Newlands Farm. We also request that FBC look at SHLAA Ref 3127 and the surrounding area of Fareham north and east of the town centre. This appears to be a prime location as it already has direct access to the motorway and easy access to the public transport links in Fareham town centre and three senior schools. The area between Peak Lane and Ranvilles Lane, north of Stubbington was indicated as a prime area for development and was even prepared for development with additional drainage put in recently. 700+ properties would fit in this area easily without impinging apron the Fareham / Stubbington separation "gap" that the council now prioritise as important (it is a shame that the Warsash / Locksheath / Parkgate / Sarisbury Green separation area seems of no concern). The additional benefits of the Peak Lane area were actually given by Councillor Woodward during his presentation, 1) Stubbington is going to have a multi-million by-pass built which, 2) leads onto the Daedalus site which, we are informed, is going to be a major area of employment. Properties will be near a new by-pass and near a place of employment.

SO31


Object

The proposed development, due to its size and scale and also with awareness of all of the other proposed developments in the area, will impact in an unacceptable way on the following areas: 1. Countryside – The land is currently a place of education bordering onto a nature reserve and at the end of a small quiet road. Such a number of houses so close to the coast and nature reserve would impact dramatically on this area in a number of ways. 2. Flooding – The proposed site sits along reed beds and the flow of land is downhill; furthermore the impact of so many concrete surfaces here could destroy or damage these reed beds and the coastline. 3. 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. 4. 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. This site has only one main road which feeds into a small roundabout in Warsash, with no space to enlarge. There are may pedestrians here and already it is becoming increasingly dangerous. The area is effectively a peninsular with only limited roads to access the area. Traffic is already a significant problem, often gridlocked every morning and evening; there is finite space so limited opportunity to enlarge roads to cope with more traffic. Emergency vehicles will be unable to ensure safe response times. There are limited jobs in the area so these houses would be for people who would then need to travel to work, further increasing this problem. 5. 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. This is of particular concern so close to the Hook-with-Warsash Nature reserve. 6. Increase in light pollution. Likewise, so close to the nature reserve this will have a significant negative impact on the surrounding area. 7. Loss of wildlife; this is an area of natural beauty and this site is home to many species in the greenery around the maritime buildings. IT is now recognised that more than 1 in 10 of the UK's wildlife species are now threatened with extinction; the Uk's endangered insects and creatures' numbers have dropped by 2/3 since the 1970s. Further, the loss of this land will result in further fragmentation of wildlife through being limited only to the remaining open spaces. There are many sites that are more suitable than Warsash and the Western Wards, such as Newlands Farm. Also SHLAA Ref 3127 and the surrounding area of Fareham north and east of the town centre. This appears to be a prime location as it already has direct access to the motorway and easy access to the public transport links in Fareham town centre and three senior schools. The area between Peak Lane and Ranvilles Lane, north of Stubbington was indicated as a prime area for development and was even prepared for development with additional drainage put in recently. 700+ properties would fit in this area easily without impinging upon the Fareham / Stubbington separation "gap" that the council now prioritise as important (this site further reduces any separation for Warsash / Locksheath / Parkgate / Sarisbury Green). With the proposed Stubbington multi-million by-pass leading onto the proposed Daedalus site as a major area of employment, properties here will be near appropriate road networks and a place of employment.

SO31


Object

I would like to object to the current proposals at this site in Warsash. I understand and appreciate that more houses need to be built but the sheer number of houses proposed on this site is completely out of character with the village of Warsash which has a lot of individual character houses and nowhere near the density in such a small area. . I have grown up in the area and now live here with my young family and have seen the area change vastly in the last 31 years. This is understandable but the current proposals area such a massive shock that my beloved village will change into a sprawling mass of houses that will no longer have the charm and beauty that I have always loved and been proud of. The current proposals would have a huge impact on all the whole of the infrastructure in Warsash that can only just cope with the current level of housing and traffic. I know it is not the jurisdiction of FBC to have to think about but the GP surgeries and local infant and junior schools area already at near full capacity, I do not believe the historic figure of 0.25 children per household is representative either of how many children would actually be brought to the area. This area is a very family orientated area and therefore I suspect the figure being used will underestimate the influx into the area further placing more pressures on it. Due to the geography of the area with natural borders it is very difficult to be able to absorb such an increase in pressures as there is limited routes into and out of the village. The traffic to get out of the area as a whole can be very challenging at peak work times already without a huge increase of cars and traffic that will undoubtedly be a result. I am also very concerned about the increase in pollution levels in such a small place which we know has lots of negative effects not only on personal but environmental health. The fact the the green spaces that try to help to counteract these pollutants that we produce will be taken away will only further put strain on the area. As a resident of Newtown Road I already know how busy the road can be, I also know the character of the road. How anyone can think that 100 houses in the area of the Maritime college is in-keeping with the area completely astounds me! Have they even looked at the area or the road? Newtown road is not a through road. The number of houses actually on Newtown Road is about 150, how, therefore can an extra 100 in the small area proposed be in keeping?!! I ask you to look again at Newlands Farm as there is far more ability to improve the infrastructure there and maintain a strategic gap.

SO31


Object

This is an area of nature and beauty that should be conserved.

PO14


Object

To whom it may concern. I would seriously like to object to the draft plan and proposed destruction of Warsash and the surrounding area. In the words of Mike Ford, when he addressed the Executive members "this is a flawed and unsustainable, unfair decision. The Impact will be felt by local residents for years to come" This plan will ruin what is a beautiful village that has been heavily built on over the years and enough is enough. 800 new homes in total for Warsash and this HA7 is part of that number. in total there will be a minimum of 1600 cars, Approx. 2500K people potentially more, Which will increase the population by one third. Not forgetting the St. Peters road build and Strawberry fields which has heavily impacted on our village. Warsash has so many house being built in it and new sites are popping up what feels like every day. The roads are just a nightmare due to the increased heavy goods that are delivery and the site teams have absolutely no regard for current residents. Warsash is a beautiful village with a fantastic community which is beginning to feel the effects of the villages over build. 2449 people have signed a petition against this plan, 500 people turned out to march against this plan and many more wished to attend but unfortunately could not. How can a small peninsula village seriously cope with 800 extra homes and further more we will be affected by all the other builds in the Western Ward. This ward can't physically cope with the monstrosity and someone needs to put a stop to this. My main points are as follows 1. Traffic and Highways The HA7 will need to use a small road Called Newtown Road which was not built to cope with the current traffic nor the college in the first place. Warsash developments are all located on or around Lanes. They will be using Lanes to be able to access shops, houses, schools the daily commute. Newton Road leads to the Warsash Road which is very busy already and cant cope currently, it then will lead to lanes that were never built to cope with the current amount of traffic never mind the impact that will be placed on them when and if these houses are built. The names Barnes LANE, Brooke LANE and Greenaway LANE is telling you that these are country lanes that will not cope with the impact of all the extra traffic and heavy goods to service the area. Approximately 1000 extra cars on the roads each day will reduce this area to become more of a car park than it already is. The commute for current residents is very difficult as it is. We live near the Dibbles Road / Lockswood Road / Warsash Road roundabout and trying to cross Warsash Road on our walk to and from school is terrible. We are waiting for more than 5 minutes to have a break in the road to cross. We have changed routes, and gone along Warsash Road and that's just as bad to cross Lockswood Road. The pavement from this round about down to Church road are a disgrace and far too narrow. I have a four and six year old and I have to trust my six year old to walk in front as I can't hold her hand as the pavements are so narrow. Nothing can be done about this but it has got worse since the residents of St Peters road and Strawberry fields have moved in; 800 more houses and 1600 more cars and it will make it unbearable. No amount of lights and traffic control system is going to help with this, there is simply too much traffic that the proposed lights are just not going to be ineffective, you will be impacting these country lanes and making the current residents lives a living hell. May I draw your attention to the fact that in your Draft Plan document, point 1.36 states "the M27 does suffer from congestion, particularly at peak times" this is a nightmare at junction 8 and 9 continuously and this is going to get worse with the Manor Farm development at junction 8 and Whitely at junction 9. Segensworth can't cope already and nor can Whitely so adding these extra houses right on top of it is going to make it worse. It also states "The Borough has three train stations, providing connections to London and to the wider rail network", this is true however trying to get to them on the road infrastructure is a nightmare, especially at peak times. Not enough parking and no room to expand. So not really a viable option to give the new residents. I understand that this is nothing to do with FBC but it obviously is as it should all be planned in connection with your other partners. You can't add more houses without serious changes and joint up work to cope with it. 3. Pollution Currently we know the area has a poor air quality and that you as a council seriously need to address this. My children's asthma is getting worse and I can't help but think that the doctor is right in the fact that the air pollution is the cause of this. Having this extra traffic is going to impact this further and having lights onto the A27 is going to impact that too. The Environment needs to be strongly considered, we can't keep building on this area, we are at risk of flooding and that is only going to increase as we take away more and more natural drainage by building on it. 4. Employment FBC has said that it will bring jobs to the area, How? How in Warsash are you going to create jobs, there is no space! People have to commute to get jobs. There is an extremely poor transport system to support this. All this is going to do is drive people further afield to shop as they will get fed up of not being able to park at Waitrose and other shops in Locksheath or in the Warsash Village itself. These businesses need to maintain the customers not have them put off as they can't access it. 5. Schools and Higher Education This plan suggest that if we follow the calculations that each home will be 0.25 places for schools. That equates to 200 extra children, 7 extra classes to be added to local schools that are already a bursting point. The schools currently can't cope with the demand on them, never mind the lack of funds that they are trying to cope with. Our schools are losing the outdoor space that our children seriously need. Space that they need to run around in as we are losing our green spaces locally. Space due to the fact that we cram so many houses into one area that the gardens are too small for children to play in. Schools currently struggle with the size of the space and facilities within the school grounds. They are losing space to provide sports indoor and outdoor, this will impact on our obesity levels and health of children. All of our schools in this area are in built up areas and local residents are already complaining about the traffic, parking and people walking to access the school grounds. This is going to impact them further. We will have not enough senior school places and children will have to commute further to get to them which will impact on air pollution and traffic problems. College spaces are going to be lacking too. We will probably see more youths not working and not being able to get on the job ladder due to a lack of provision. 6. Health We currently struggle to access healthcare as it is at our GP's, dentist and hospitals. This is only going to get worse. We will have no extra provision and the GP's are currently at breaking point. People will suffer, people will receive worse healthcare and worse still staff at these surgeries and dentists etc. will continue to feel demoralised as they are put under more stress. In the draft plan document you mention older people, we have a reasonably high amount of retired persons within the area and these people will suffer they need more healthcare not less. I fully understand that this is not Fareham Borough Councils issue however it should be, it should be considered and be part of a joint force to protect your residents current and new. This should not be an afterthought or a thought that it's not our issues, it should be a partnership with the CCG. Two of the sights that are proposed are owned by Taylor Wimpey and Forman homes have had previous planning applications rejected due to the land being classified as countryside that is out of the defined urban boundary. Why now is this being used to plan on, why has the council changed their minds just to suit them? The strategic gap needs to stand firm to help communities. Some of this land was also so as agricultural land, so why now is that needing to be changed and legally can this be done. Current Warsash and Western Wards residents have been under the impression that Wellborne was going to protect us from this, but now we realise that this was just a smoke screen to your bigger plans. Wellborne I understand is behind schedule but surely it makes more sense to continue to invest time and money into making that work as it will be a better option and have a better impact on the area as a whole. It will have the ability to take new schools, GP's better access to onto roads and M27. It will help with pollution as traffic will floow better onto the revised M27. It will help keep the strategic gaps as it will have a greater gap between it and Funtly. Warsash is going to lose its strategic gap and we are just going to become victims of Urban sprawl. Newlands Farm is another prime location that I seriously think is being underestimated. They will have a fantastic gap even with all the houses. They will have a bypass and better use of the current road infrastructure, they will have better access to medical help, more schools and more job opportunities with the expanse of Daedalus expansion plan and other industrial areas that have seen significant growth in the last few years. They will also be closer to shops, Portsmouth and better highways. Why are these not being looked at as a better option than the grand total of 1000 extra homes being placed on Warsash (including St Peters road). I beg you to stop and think about this, even a reduction by 500 homes would be better than this plan. Lack of I

SO31


Object

Please see comments for HA1.

SO31


Object

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

SO31


Object

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

SO31


Object

A poorly planned high density development that does not consider its impact on the local roads and services. Not taking into account the environmental and air quality impact it will have on the local area. Any further developments should provide buildings to the highest ecological and environmental standards whilst providing adequate space between properties and open spaces.

SO31


Object

Having lived in Warsash for the past 15 years - [redacted]- we are currently living in Hook Park which is also connected via Newtown Road. In this coastal location, Newtown Road and Hook Park road are effectively dead ends which are already overly congested and suffering from parking problems. Adding potentially 200 cars on this one site will really damage existing access. It is also our view that roads, schools and primary services are already stretched to the maximum here and that this high level of increasing the local population will ultimately damage the quality of life for the existing population. We are against this development unless it is paired back to a more reasonable level

SO31


Object

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

SO31


Object

This site is not suitable for the density being proposed for future housing bearing in mind that part of the whole site has been retained by Solent University and also the listed building status on part of the site. Newtown Road is already extremely difficult access road and with the potential under the plan for probably another 200 cars. There are are issues with the site itself with Japanese Knotweed which could also be long term problem even the Maritime Academy have been trying to eradicate it. I am sure that the site could take a reasonable number of houses but not what is at present being proposed. The number f houses being proposed for the sites is just far too large and with no guarantee that anything will be done about the infrastructure including roads.9It is already nearly impossible to get onto the A27 without major delays at the busy times), the schools are already full to bursting with no plan for enhancement and by no means least the doctor surgery situation is already dire and would seem to only get worse without proper planning. There are already quite a few older people living in the Warsash area and the above points are a real worry to them. Finally the public transport situation has to be improved for any further development let alone this huge housing increase proposal.

SO31


Object

We firmly object to houses being built on this site. The infrasrure will not cope with the additional cars, and people this will bring.

SO31


Object

Too many houses - too many people - too many cars - will become very elitist area spoiling the local area.

SO31


Object

This is an area that could be used for something better than more housing. The village of Warsash is full, the last thing needed are more homes and more people. Once again this is all about the money without thought to the local population already living in an overbuilt area. Yes I object strongly to these plans.

SO31


Object

"Planning Strategy & Regeneration Department of Planning and Development Fareham Borough Council Civic Offices, Civic Way Fareham Hampshire PO16 1 December 2017 For the attention of case officer Dear Sir / Madam Reference: Objection to Planning Application based on contradiction of the NPPF and Draft Plan, and objections to provisions contained in the draft plan. My objections are presented separately for the NPPF and Draft Plan. And are specifically objections to sites : HA1 - North and South of Greenaway Lane, Warsash - 700 dwellings HA3 - Southampton Road, Titchfield Common - 400 dwellings HA7 - Warsash Maritime Academy, Warsash -100 dwellings HA9 - Heath Road, Locks Heath- 71 dwellings HA11- Raley Road, Locks Heath- 49 dwellings HA13- Hunts Pond Road, Titchfield Common- 38 dwellings HA14 -Genesis Community Youth Centre, Locks Heath - 35 dwellings HA15 -Beacon Bottom West, Park Gate -30 dwellings HA17 -69 Botley Road, Park Gate -24 dwellings HA19- 399 – 409 Hunts Pond Road, Titchfield Common- 22 dwellings I write in connection with the above planning application. I have examined the plans and I know the sites well. I looked at EV13 (Background Paper: HOUSING SITE SELECTION), which states: "The purpose of this paper is to explain, in broad terms, the processes undertaken to inform the selection of housing sites for the Draft Fareham Local Plan 2036" (Draft Plan)" I have also read through the referenced paragraphs from the ""National Planning Policy Framework"" (NPPF). I have experience of financing provision of sustainable residential communities in other areas of the country with their own acute issues. Based on the above research and experience, I object strongly to the development of these houses in the identified locations. These sites generally, and HA 1,3 and 7 specifically, are in contradiction of both the "NPPF" and the "Draft Plan". It is certain that the local communities and the Fareham borough do need provision of additional sustainable development of various infrastructures including more residential accommodation. Unfortunately the sites identified in this Draft Plan plan fails to deliver a sustainable solution in certain of its discrete communities and lets down those communities represented. With respect to the Draft Plan Objection : I don't believe that the sites proposed adequately address the needs recognised in H2: Provision of Affordable Housing and I don't believe that Sites such as HA1,3 & 7 have considered adequately aspects of Policy H4: where Adaptable and Accessible Dwellings Development proposals for all new dwellings shall provide: I do not argue that it has been ignored, but that minimum lip service has been paid to the extent that the provisions noted entirely fail to achieve the goals intended for H4. a) at least 15% of all new dwellings at Category 2 standard; and b) on schemes of over 100 dwellings (gross), at least 2% of private housing and 5% of affordable housing, shall be provided as wheelchair accessible Category 3 properties. Schemes exclusively for flatted development will be expected to comply with the criteria as much as is physically possible before lifts would be a requirement" Objection: I object to the revisions of H4 identified in the Draft Plan. Further with respect to HA 1,3&7 it appears that H4 does not adequately reflect the requirement that " Further new older person and specialist accommodation will be required during the Local Plan period. Such provision can help people to downsize and free up family dwellings for others. The precise amount and type of specialist and older person accommodation required will depend on a range of factors including the choices of individual people and households.( of which I see no reference in HA1,3 or 7) Evidence in the Housing Evidence Overview Paper (2017) outlines some of this need which, where possible, has been addressed through specific allocations included in this plan and provision to be provided at Welborne" Further accommodation to address identified need would be acceptable in principle subject to Policy H5". Objection : I believe this fails to address the issues in the localities represented by the sites I have objected to, and specifically not in respect of HA1,3 and 7. This is in itself evident that FBC appreoach Warsash as a general dormitory and not as a discrete community as is required. The Draft Plan is very Fareham central centric in the division of benefits and provision of the Sustainable aspects of the plan, unfortunately the surrounding community developments' including these to which I am objecting, do not bear the same level of attention to Sustainability Planning. The Warsash, Park Gate, Titchfield communities are discrete settlements where development proposals should be considered very carefully: Objection : I believe that the Draft Plan and the sites I have specifically objected to fail in respect of Policy SP1: Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development "When considering development proposals, the Council will take a positive approach that reflects the "presumption in favour of sustainable development" contained in the National Planning Policy Framework. When appropriate the Council will work constructively with applicants to find solutions that enable proposals to be granted permission wherever possible, and to secure high quality development that improves the economic, social and environmental conditions in the area………….." Objection : With respect to HA1 specifically, my objection includes the determination that the entire list of sites not only fails to address SP7 "requirement to Create places that encourage healthy lifestyles and provide for the community through the provision of leisure and cultural facilities, recreation and open space and the opportunity to walk and cycle to destinations" but goes as far as misleading in its reference to some open play area space and provision to cross the road which covers up an entirely inadequate provision in both cases and exacerbates the problems for cyclists and pedestrians, and relates to the road and safety of children walking or cycling to school. I find Appendix C: Draft Development Framework - Development Allocation HA1 (North & South of Greenaway Lane, Warsash) to be entirely un convincing in respect of this and other areas of objection. Objection : I note well and object to the Employment Policy section, there is No "E" for the communities represented in the site plans to which I object. No local employment issues are considered within those discreet community settlements, adding to the obvious conclusion that they are being considered as dormitory developments in contravention of key policies identified. I would be able to support site development proposals that are aimed at meeting identified settlement needs, of which there are many, but not those reflected by these sites in this Draft Plan. Objection Draft Local Plan : I object also to E5, which protects Boatyard business except in the case where it can be represented as uneconomic. I object to the watering down of protection implied by this provision, Key Strategic Priorities: Both the overall Draft Plan and the specific site proposals fail to meet a number of stated Key Strategic Priorities. Objection : In respect to the references to settlement definition, this is then broadly disregarded or seemingly misrepresented in both plan and site descriptions. The needs of local business in the discrete communities so defined is ignored and only addressed as a general and seemingly Fareham central oriented manner. Objections below can be read to note that they jointly and severally contribute to evidence that the Plan fails in satisfying KSP's 1,3 and 7 most specifically, but the other sites generally in respect of the site objections noted above. 1. Address the housing and employment needs by the end of the plan period in an appropriate and sustainable manner, creating places people want to live or where businesses want to locate. 2. In the first instance maximise development within the urban area and away from the valued landscapes and spaces that contribute to settlement definition (SP 6 notwithstanding and particularly SP6 failure to address community definition in the communities affected by the sites specifically objected to in this submission) 7. Create places that encourage healthy lifestyles and provide for the community through the provision of leisure and cultural facilities, recreation and open space and the opportunity to walk and cycle to destinations. Sustainability Planning : (SP) Objection : Entirely insufficient evidence or justification is contained within any of the above proposals with respect to the sustainability issues and benefits to the discrete communities that I have referenced. Passing references are made to lack of current provision in schooling and infrastructure, and requirements for the schemes to "contribute" to that development. However no integrated or sustainable accounting or plan is proposed that identifies the needs that should be critically planned to 2036 and costed accordingly. For example the sites identified do not disclose the extent to which sites (or combinations of sites) can contribute to the site selection priorities / refining points within the plan itself. One specific example being Selection Priorities / Refining Point 7. I cannot find any evidence presented for the requirement that they "Cumulatively and individually lessen the impact on traffic whilst delivering the new homes. Maximises opportunities for the cumulative highway impacts to be addressed". I note that a number of other Selection Priorities / Refining Points have not been properly addressed either. o It is not possible to review the Draft Policy or Sites named herein and assess the suitability of any or all of them without this information. Both contain platitudes a"

SO31


Object

Objection to the overall number in Warsash. It does seem to make sense to re-deveop this site but 100 homes seems rather a lot. People need space and decent gardens for good quality of life and 100 homes on this site seems excessive.

SO31


Object

The site should be retianed under education. There is currently no new allocation for secondary school. Brookfield is already expanded to its maximum capacity and it is the only secondary school in the area. New school could be placed in that location. Especially where so much new housing is proposed.

SO31


Object

No adequate infrastructure and site floods

SO31


Object

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

SO31


Object

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

Postcode not provided


Object

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

SO31


Object

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

SO31


Object

If this was to go ahead, the roads would need to be made profoundly safer.

SO31


Object

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

SO31


Comment

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

SO31


Object

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

SO31


Object

HA7 – Warsash Maritime Acadamy Permitted development to be limited to ensure that traffic in Newtown Road is no greater than it is today. All existing trees and vegetation between the lower and upper sites to be retained. All new dwellings on the upper site to be screened from the River Hamble.

SO31


Object

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

SO31


Comment

Large Format Response - Ref0043

SO23


Object

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

Postcode not provided


Comment

Southern Water is the statutory water and wastewater undertaker in Warsash. Housing Allocation HA7 allocates 100 dwellings at Warsash Maritime Academy. In line with paragraph 162 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG), we have undertaken an assessment of our infrastructure and its ability to meet the forecast demand for the proposed development. That assessment reveals that additional local sewerage infrastructure would be required to accommodate the proposed development (involving making a connection to the network at the nearest point of adequate capacity). Southern Water has limited powers to prevent connections to the sewerage network, even when capacity is insufficient. Planning policies and planning conditions, therefore, play an important role in securing the necessary local sewerage infrastructure in parallel with the development. Specific policy provision would be in line with the NPPF. For instance, paragraph 157 of the NPPF states that Local Plans should 'plan positively for the development and infrastructure required in the area to meet the objectives, principles and policies of this framework'. Also paragraph 177 of the NPPF outlines that it is important to ensure that planned infrastructure is deliverable in a timely fashion. Accordingly, infrastructure and development policies should be planned at the same time in the Local Plan. Insufficient capacity is not a constraint to development as extra capacity can be provided. However, it is important to give early warning to prospective developers regarding the need for local sewerage infrastructure. Early warning will facilitate delivery of the necessary infrastructure as it can be incorporated early in the planning process. If the requisite infrastructure is not delivered, the sewers would become overloaded, leading to pollution of the environment. This situation would be contrary to paragraph 109 of the NPPF, which requires the planning system to prevent new and existing development from contributing to pollution. Our assessment also reveals that there is existing underground wastewater infrastructure that needs to be taken into account when designing the proposed development. An easement would be required, which may affect the site layout or require diversion. This easement should be clear of all proposed buildings and substantial tree planting. Accordingly we propose that the following criteria are added to policy HA7 (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: [...] l) Provide a connection at the nearest point of adequate capacity in the sewerage network, in collaboration with the service provider. m) Provide future access to the existing underground infrastructure for maintenance and upsizing purposes.

BN2


Comment

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

SO31


Object

I am writing to formally object to the above Local Plan and the proposed 800 new dwellings for Warsash for all of the following reasons: THE LAND SHOULD NOT BE USED FOR ANY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT I believe that all of the land is question is outside the Designated Urban Boundary for any new residential development and therefore the land is subject to a " presumption against residential development". I also believe that the area of land should not all be designed as " brownfield" but is countryside and taking into account the nature and physical appearance of any proposed development this is not in keeping with the Council's own strategic plan; in particular the land should not be part of a strategic gap to prevent the coalescence of residential settlements or creeping urbanisation which would destroy the rural nature of the area and become detrimental to the community. ACCESS AND TRAFFIC CONCERNS: [redacted]. If any proposed development involves in traffic in Warsash that will create a serious road safety risk for all road users and for pedestrians because it will make the roads into and out of Warsash far too busy and will create an extremely dangerous roadway; access to and from Warsash is already extremely busy because of the new development at Strawberry Fields/Gallon Estates. I am also very concerned that more traffic pressure created by any new development on the local roads will involve increased volumes of traffic and the area will become gridlocked during the rush hour periods and considerable increase in journey times especially if there are accidents on the motorways or A27 as the area very quickly becomes gridlocked. Also the A27 really cannot cope with any extra traffic, the road is a nightmare during rush hour periods and is quite often now a car park. It now takes twice as long to get into and out of periods and is quite often now a car park. It now takes twice as long to get into and out of Southampton than it did when we first moved to the area in 2012 and any further vehicles will only add to this already difficult situation. LOSS OF NEIGHBOURHOOD IDENTITY Strategic gaps were recognised by the council in the Neighbourhood Development Plan but if the Local Plan is approved it will contravene the Council's stated objectives because the various new building developments will result in Warsash merging with Locks Heath and Locks Heath with Park Gate (question – should it become known as Warsash-Locks Heath or Warsash Park?). I suspect that the vast majority of residents in each community will be very much against the loss of community identity. I hope that those responsible for making the Local Plan decisions will agree that is vital to prevent any development that impact on the established rural village type communities of the existing residents in those communities. IMPACT ON WILDLIFE AND LOSS OF AMENITY I am greatly concerned that in rural or semi-rural areas there needs to be a visual separation between areas of residential development even on land that might be residential developments nearby (Strawberry Fields, Gallon Estates and Admiral Wood) which have already had an adverse impact on the community with the loss of wild life amenity and this is without the other smaller developments where large houses have been demolished and at least 4 new properties built of the land in and around the area. Since we have moved [redacted] we have been very impressed with the efficiency of Fareham Borough Council to respond to the concerns of residents and to recognise the importance of maintaining the rural habitat. I recognise that the Council is expected to consider future housing needs but since the developments of Strawberry Fields, Gallons estates and Admirals Wood, some of which I believe will not be completed until late 2018, I have been very surprised as to how those developments are already adversely impacting on the area. We have noticed a significant loss of wildlife in the area over the last 5 years. We regularly saw deer, kestrels, hawks and owls in the area but since those new developments have rarely heard or seen owls and now do not see deer or other wildlife; presumably they have had to move away from their natural habitat. If this planning application or any further large had to move away from their natural habitat. If this planning application or any further large scale planning applications by other housing developers are granted for this area I am very concerned that further wildlife will be lost completely and this will no longer be the village we moved into but a sprawling urbanization which is not acceptable or wildlife friendly. INFRASTRUCTURE The essential infrastructure in the area in question is already at breaking point at schools, GP, surgeries, hospitals etc, cannot cope with the requirements of the enlarged community already. If planning permission is given for the proposed 800 new dwellings any new residents will not be able to get their children in the local schools or to register at a local GP or dental surgery as people on the new estates are already experiencing difficulties in not being able to get their children into the local schools. None of the housing developers can genuinely claim (as they do state in sales brochures) that there are sufficient schools in the locality for the proposed new developments because it is not true.[redacted] Warsash and Locks Heath schools for over 3 years and because there were no spaces available she has to take them to a school in Fareham. ADDITIONAL EFFECT UPON ACCESS [redacted] [redacted]. The Local Plan will completely diminish our enjoyment of our home and increase the problems we are already experiencing when accessing to and from our own property. INFORMATION REGARDING THE RECENT DEVELOPMENTS AND ISSUES I HAVE ALREADY SEEN REGARDING INAPPROPRIATELY DENSE URBAN HOUSE DEVELOPMENTS. The recent large scale residential developments at Strawberry Fields, Gallon Estates and Admirals Wood together with all of the extra homes being built on residential land replacing one single property with two or more homes on one plot of land these are examples of residential scale development such as the 800 new dwellings would create serious additional traffic flow problems at peak times. I have seen that parking has now become a real problem in the roads in and around Strawberry Fields and Gallons Estates. It is also a real problem on the estate roads themselves as there seems to be a lack of provision for sufficie

SO31


Object

Whilst I am aware of the need for housing, the quantity of housed proposed in a relatively small area, opening out on to already busy road (ie Brook Lane and Locks Road) needs some tweaking. Proposed development in Newtown Road, plus all the infill adds to the increased of facilities (eg schools, doctors). Exits from the Warsash area to Fareham, A27, M27, etc are already blocked. Brook lane has a dangerous blind bend. The whole redevelopment scheme needs rethinking beyond just "how many houses can be built". As a pedestrian of advanced years, it is already quite worrying to cross roads in this area. Too much traffic often driving too fast.

SO31


Object

By proposing the development of 100 dwellings on the Warsash maritime academy site, it implies that there will be an increase in traffic movements up and down Newtown Road. These traffic movements will flow onto the already congested access onto the A27/M27 via Brook Ave, making an already difficult situation even worse. The academy site is next to a site of special scientific interest and any housing development should reflect the importance and position of the site. More housing will have a detrimental effect on doctors, schools which are already under considerable strain.

SO31


Object

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

SO31


Object

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

SO31


Object

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

New town road is not suitable to cope with the extra traffic with the proposed 100 house being built on the site as it would [unknown word] at least another 700 cars along newtown road.

SO31


Object

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

SO31


Support

Large Format Response - Ref0068

SO14


Object

Large Format Response - Ref0081

SO31


Object

Large Format Response - Ref0077

Postcode not provided


Object

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

SO31


Object

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

SO31


Comment

• Permitted development to be limited to ensure that traffic in Newtown is no greater than it is today. • All existing trees and vegetation between the lower and upper sites to be retained • All new dwellings on the upper site to be screened from the River Hamble

SO31



Browse

Follow us

Facebook Twitter You Tube Flickr

Fareham Town Centre

View Fareham
Today online





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