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

HA9 - Heath Road, Locks Heath

Object

I find it incomprehensible that Fareham Council is considering putting even more housing into an already saturated area. The Locks Heath residents over the past 3 years have had to put up with huge developments at Coldeast and Strawberry Fields with further development proposed near Raley Rd and Warsash. The roads are grinding to a halt despite your so called 'road improvements' the local schools are full with St John the Baptist school now a two form entry and Locks Heath now I believe to be a four form entry along side this other schools are also full. There has been no infrastructure put in place, like doctors, new roads etc. surely you have a council have a duty of care to your existing residents, they are finding it increasingly difficult to get doctors appointments this will only get worse with a further increase in population. Heath Rd is an already busy road how will it cope with extra traffic. What about the wildlife? every single available green space is being eaten up by housing. Locks Heath used to be a pleasant place to live not anymore. Shame on you Fareham Council.

SO31


Object

There are too many houses in this area for the road and amenities structure. The Warsash/Locks Heath/Park Gate are is fast becoming a car park.

SO31


Object

Resident of Raley Road. With plans of 2 large housing developments in a short distance what are the plans for distributing school catchment area placements, and also the additional traffic to an area that already is at stand still most mornings?

SO31


Object

Heath road can not cope with the volume of traffic. There are already extensive queues each morning to get on to Locks Road. Local infrastructure can not support this number of houses

SO31


Object

Clearly not a great idea as this will apply severe pressure on current, already stretched infrastructure such as GPs, schools, roads etc. Further consideration needs to be given to the effect of adding more houses on traffic congestion which is becoming of a central London feel. I moved out of London to enjoy a better life and this proposal is ruining it.

SO31


Object

Again I object to this development because of the stress it will put on the already overloaded schools, doctors and roads in the area.

SO31


Object

I am a teacher [redacted] and I can see first hand how stretched we are becoming, as well as other local schools. We do not have the amenities and infrastructure to support the new development which is being proposed. The roads are already busy enough during peak times and the addition of new houses will make this much worse. Warsash used to be a small village, it is now becoming a town, stretched to its limits.

SO31


Object

As with my objection to the Greenaway proposal there is simply not the INFRASTRUCTURE to support the addition of more housing to the area. The doctors surgeries are fit to burst and the roads are congested at all times. I have not got children so am unable to comment on whether there are sufficient school places but I would imagine not. This is another example of Fareham Borough Council's greed and lack of appreciation for the residents which fund it. More green space removed - less wildlife.

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

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


Support

Close to shops – Locks Heath. Closer to station and GPs than Greenaway sites should focus on housing for older people here – i.e. who don't need cars. Road is not too busy, unlike Brook and Barnes 'Lanes'!! Have not seen actually plans but shame to lose Genesis Centre – can't they leave that as a community centre? Locks Heath car parking already full especially at weekends. Don't know what they'll do without the overflow carpark.

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

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

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

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 think this site would be better used for open space / play facilities to compliment Locks Heath Centre. There are very limited facilities close by for younger children. If housing is a necessity, perhaps a comprimise of fewer houses and a leisure facility could be considered?

SO31


Object

There is too much traffic on the roads and pavements at present to support further building on the road. The schools and surgeries will not cope and the impact on adjoining roads will make it unsafe for all. The main junctions on the a27 and m27 do not cope with traffic at the moment and we need to rethink the location of affordable housing schemes.so that those who buy have a safe environment to live in. Creating houses and making life dangerous for the occupants and those who already live there should not happen. Please rethink.

SO31


Object

I would like to object to this development plan

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 70+ 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

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.

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

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

SO31


Object

I would like to formally object to this planning application for a number of reasons. The proposed developments are inconsistent with the Core Strategy Policy CS6. The Development Strategy, which seeks to "prioritise development within the defined urban settlement boundaries" and the Governments National Planning Policy Framework which states that "Planning should… encourage the effective use of land by reusing land that has been previously developed (Brownfield land), provided that it is not of high environmental value" Policy DSP7; New Residential Developments Outside of the Defined Urban Settlement Boundaries, also states "there will be a presumption against new residential developments outside of the defined urban settlement boundaries" The Local Plan Part 3 – Development Sites & Policies says of New Residential Development Outside of the Defined Urban Settlement Boundaries that "exceptions may be made for the conversion of existing buildings, one of one replacement of existing dwellings or where there is a proven requirement for a new dwelling to support an agricultural worker's employment requirements to live in close proximity to their place of work. The proposed 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: Strategic Gap - In-building on this site will further reduce any natural breaks between Warsash and Locks Heath and loses any remaining open green areas around the already overbuilt community of Locks Heath. Countryside – This site is one of a small remaining open area of landscape, which are all being squeezed out of the immediate area - particularly as this is one of a number of similar sites. There are plenty of brown field sites in Fareham that should be developed first. Furthermore, many of the sites are closer to Fareham centre, more accessible to Fareham and less intrusive to already overbuilt areas. Local Services - Pressure on local services is already at breaking point, the proposed plan for extra homes which will naturally bring a large number of additional children to the area - but the local primary schools are already oversubscribed and at maximum capacity. They are also already large enough: so without additional investment in schools, namely the inclusion of both new primary and secondary schools, the local infrastructure cannot support the development. Local Medical Centres are also already full. Traffic congestion - Today the local roads cannot cope with the current traffic and some key areas are already at maximum capacity, so if such numbers of further houses are built it will lead to increased massive local congestion, which is shown by the long delays already at Brook Lane and Locks Heath Road every morning/evening. This proposed site will increase significantly the traffic through a road system that is already over capacity, and without the space to enlarge roads. There will also be increased risk of accidents as these are the roads used by school children to and from the local schools. Development – The site plan is not in keeping with local area i.e. it doesn't have off street parking for 2 cars, it doesn't have wide roads and it doesn't have green vergers & trees etc. Play areas? Open spaces? Wildlife passages??? Increased pollution from car fumes. Increased light pollution - 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 variety of wildlife in a small area that is already over built and which has reduced wildlife natural habitat to a worrying marginalised space; the loss of this land will put them under increased pressure to survive. Not enough consideration has been made for wildlife - even just the inclusion of wildlife passages, particularly given that this is just one proposal amongst many in this immediate area that do not seem to have communicated with each other or the council and together, they will reduce any remaining green spaces around Locks Heath and Warsash to an absolute minimum. Warsash and Locks Heath are not well linked with Fareham centre by public transport and as such, areas to the north of Fareham, which have access to more schools and motorway links, and are far closer to Fareham itself are far more appropriate as developments for Fareham, rather than submerging a village under such increased development that any features that allow for a village status are lost; any remaining green breaks with surrounding townships are lost and yet no infrastructure is included in this, or any of the other similar local developments, that will allow the area to absorb them without it causing substantial difficulties in all areas of schools, surgeries, traffic, and other services required by the community.

Anonymous submission


Object

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: Strategic Gap - In-building on this site will further reduce any natural breaks between Warsash and Locks Heath and loses any remaining open green areas around the already overbuilt community of Locks Heath. Countryside – This site is one of a small remaining open area of landscape, which are all being squeezed out of the immediate area - particularly as this is one of a number of similar sites. There are plenty of brown field sites in Fareham that should be developed first. Furthermore, many of the sites are closer to Fareham centre, more accessible to Fareham and less intrusive to already overbuilt areas. Local Services - Pressure on local services is already at breaking point, the proposed plan for extra homes which will naturally bring a large number of additional children to the area - but the local primary schools are already oversubscribed and at maximum capacity. They are also already large enough: so without additional investment in schools, namely the inclusion of both new primary and secondary schools, the local infrastructure cannot support the development. Local Medical Centres are also already full. Traffic congestion - Today the local roads cannot cope with the current traffic and some key areas are already at maximum capacity, so if such numbers of further houses are built it will lead to increased massive local congestion, which is shown by the long delays already at Brook Lane and Locks Heath Road every morning/evening. This proposed site will increase significantly the traffic through a road system that is already over capacity, and without the space to enlarge roads. There will also be increased risk of accidents as these are the roads used by school children to and from the local schools. Development – The site plan is not in keeping with local area i.e. it doesn't have off street parking for 2 cars, it doesn't have wide roads and it doesn't have green vergers & trees etc. Play areas? Open spaces? Wildlife passages??? Increased pollution from car fumes. Increased light pollution - 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 variety of wildlife in a small area that is already over built and which has reduced wildlife natural habitat to a worrying marginalised space; the loss of this land will put them under increased pressure to survive. Not enough consideration has been made for wildlife - even just the inclusion of wildlife passages, particularly given that this is just one proposal amongst many in this immediate area that do not seem to have communicated with each other or the council and together, they will reduce any remaining green spaces around Locks Heath and Warsash to an absolute minimum. Warsash and Locks Heath are not well linked with Fareham centre by public transport and as such, areas to the north of Fareham, which have access to more schools and motorway links, and are far closer to Fareham itself are far more appropriate as developments for Fareham, rather than submerging a village under such increased development that any features that allow for a village status are lost; any remaining green breaks with surrounding townships are lost and yet no infrastructure is included in this, or any of the other similar local developments, that will allow the area to absorb them without it causing substantial difficulties in all areas of schools, surgeries, traffic, and other services required by the community.

Postcode not provided


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: Strategic Gap - In-building on this site will further reduce any natural breaks between Warsash and Locks Heath and loses any remaining open green areas around the already overbuilt community of Locks Heath. Countryside – This site is one of a small remaining open area of landscape, which are all being squeezed out of the immediate area - particularly as this is one of a number of similar sites. There are plenty of brown field sites in Fareham that should be developed first. Furthermore, many of the sites are closer to Fareham centre, more accessible to Fareham and less intrusive to already overbuilt areas. Local Services - Pressure on local services is already at breaking point, the proposed plan for extra homes which will naturally bring a large number of additional children to the area - but the local primary schools are already oversubscribed and at maximum capacity. They are also already large enough: so without additional investment in schools, namely the inclusion of both new primary and secondary schools, the local infrastructure cannot support the development. Local Medical Centres are also already full. Traffic congestion - Today the local roads cannot cope with the current traffic and some key areas are already at maximum capacity, so if such numbers of further houses are built it will lead to increased massive local congestion, which is shown by the long delays already at Brook Lane and Locks Heath Road every morning/evening. This proposed site will increase significantly the traffic through a road system that is already over capacity, and without the space to enlarge roads. There will also be increased risk of accidents as these are the roads used by school children to and from the local schools. Development – The site plan is not in keeping with local area i.e. it doesn't have off street parking for 2 cars, it doesn't have wide roads and it doesn't have green vergers & trees etc. Play areas? Open spaces? Wildlife passages??? Increased pollution from car fumes. Increased light pollution - both of these significant issues for concern due to the unprecedented level of development in this area Loss of wildlife; currently the land supports a variety of wildlife in a small area that is already over built and which has reduced wildlife natural habitat to a worrying marginalised space; the loss of this land will put them under increased pressure to survive. Not enough consideration has been made for wildlife - even just the inclusion of wildlife passages, particularly given that this is just one proposal amongst many in this immediate area that do not seem to have communicated with each other or the council and together, they will reduce any remaining green spaces around Locks Heath and Warsash to an absolute minimum. Warsash and Locks Heath are not well linked with Fareham centre by public transport and as such, areas to the north of Fareham, which have access to more schools and motorway links, and are far closer to Fareham itself are far more appropriate as developments for Fareham, rather than submerging a village under such increased development that any features that allow for a village status are lost; any remaining green breaks with surrounding townships are lost and yet no infrastructure is included in this, or any of the other similar local developments, that will allow the area to absorb them without it causing substantial difficulties in all areas of schools, surgeries, traffic, and other services required by the community.

SO31


Object

This proposal for 71 dwellings is preposterous, in an area where there is already over-congestion, not enough school places and not enough Dr. surgeries. This area, together with HA14 are in an area that is particularly busy with Locks Heath Centre traffic at all times of day and this will just serve to make it worse. I live locally and am distraught at the amount of development that is being allowed in Locks Heath. Every road now has cars parked all over them, and it frequently takes me 20 minutes to reach Junction 9 in the mornings - a distance of 1.5 miles! Your draft local plan is very, very short on evidence (it uses in the main the government guidelines, which are too generic. I hope this process gets to the specifics and brings some sense to this over-developed area) and hardly considers the impact on schooling, surgeries and the utter frustration being felt by the local community here in Locks Heath, Park Gate and Warsash. The report is heavy on housing needs (un-evidenced in my opinion) and employment, but how does this meet your stated objectives to protect open areas, community spirit etc..... May I suggest that government guidelines are not the 'be-all and end-all' - do what is right for the people in this borough and not blindly follow what you are told.

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 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

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

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

SO31


Object

There is not enough infrastructure to support these new houses and tge traffic on the major and minor roads is already very bad without adding numerous extra houses. The m27 is also very clogged and even getting onto it by 7am doesn't mean you won't be sat in traffic. Building on green spaces and filling up every space avaliable doesn't seem well thought out. What about school places, drs surgeries and the roads

SO31


Object

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

SO31


Object

see my comments on HA1 and 7

SO31


Object

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

SO31


Object

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

SO31


Object

I have lived in the area for over 35 years and have seen a massive overdevelopment of housing with little improvement to the infrastructure and facilities of the area and neighbourhood. Overcrowded GP surgery's resulting in an average two to four week await for an appointment, oversubscribed Schools, and Highways not able to take the current traffic loads let alone an increase. Loss of our green areas and destruction of our natural habitat and trees which would be required to house our already diminished existing wildlife. We cannot keep building on our green areas. We are already over developed in the Locks Heath, Titchfield Common and Warsash areas as noticed by the lack of sightings of birds, deer, bats, grass snakes, sloe worms, badgers, hedgehogs, foxes and many more. Enough is enough, we cannot continue in the destruction of our area.

SO31


Object

Infrastructure not in place to support it

SO31


Object

As my previous comment

SO31


Object

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

SO31


Object

I wish to object to the building of houses in this area . The volume of traffic. Not enough places at the schools . Doctors surgeries can't cope . Where will the wildlife go . How will the drains cope ?

SO31 9


Object

Roads already too busy especially at peak times.especially as traffic seeks to access M27. Drivers taking risks and breaching Highway Code especially on roundabout at Kams Palace. Cutting across traffic from wrong lane or circling roundabout as shortcuts to seek to avoid queues. Local roads are like slaloms because of on road parking.. Massive congestion during school runs.create danger. Local schools already full.

SO31


Object

Heath Road is a very busy road. The current Parking situation there is uncontrolled. Where will the contractors vehicles park? The Highway code regarding Parking in the area is not enforced which is leading to safety issues The land in question is one of the last places that could support natural wildlife in the Locks Heath area. This is environmental vandalism The issues regarding Doctors, School Places and general road infrastructure continue to be ignored by all. The area is completely choked

SO31


Object

I object to the proposed houses between Heath Road and Locks Heath Centre on inadequate infra structure and congestion on M27 and all intermediate roads. The Conservatives now need to be voted out.

SO31


Object

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

SO31


Object

"I 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 including Locks Heath) is currently proposed to receive a disproportionate allocation of new developments .. this particular one would have large negative impacts. These impacts include: 1. A huge pressure on area and connecting (to A27 and the M27) road networks. The roads in and out of the area are few and already at capacity at peak times. The increased traffic coming from these new developments would create logjam ..the roads are not built to take this volume of traffic: 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. 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 Park 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

Why bother continuing to call the place Locks Heath if you're all so determined to obliterate any remaining green space? Why not call it Mondeo Drive or something like that? Human Beings are not mere things to simply be stored somewhere; we have souls that require nourishment as well. This is quite apart from the fact, of course, that the whole area has already reached saturation point in terms of housing and the infrastructure (such as it is) cannot take it anymore.

SO31


Object

The infrastructure can not support the proposed level of housing

SO31


Object

I wish to object to the proposal to develop this land. We have already suffered an extensive loss of trees and natural habitat in this area. We do need to keep some green lung areas between the already developed housing estates. The local roads, schools and services are already overloaded so until we have infrastructure to support more homes no further development should be built in this area. Our local roads are gridlocked on a daily basis with long queues in and out every morning and evening. It would be better to extend building on the existing planned development at Welbourne or extend the provision for accommodation in the Town Centre of Fareham where bus and rail links are close.

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

Please register the same objection and comments for this site as we're made for Greenaway Lane and Maritime college sites.

SO31


Object

I wish to object to the above development for one reason,over use of the local roads because the size of existing roads.

SO31


Object

TO MANY HOUSES. NOT ENOUGH SPACE

Anonymous submission


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! As has become apparent, Fareham Borough Council are powerless to do anything about infrastructure issues, as councillors point out, issues around schools are down to Hampshire C.C., while Government cuts to council budgets impact public transport and other local services. The more housing built, the more cars and the worse air pollution will be. Fareham is the most car dependent town in the UK. Portsmouth and Southampton rank high in the worst cities in the UK for poor air quality. The Western Wards is smack in the middle and pollution does not stay outside of the bubble! At the recent CAT meeting in Warsash, not once did the planning officer mention concerns about air quality and health when he talked about criteria for planning proposals. I am against any large scale building in the Western Wards area, I feel this way because: 1) I am extremely concerned about the impact this will have on increased road traffic. 2) That increased road traffic will increase congestion, and subsequently increase air pollution. 3) That little concern has been placed on these issues 4) That infrastructure issues, and services are already inadequate and will not be sufficiently increased to meet the demand 5) That up and down the country the same issues apply. The Government needs to adapt an holistic approach, look at providing jobs across the country, not just in the South. The government need to look at infrastructure and services across the country. 6) The South is turning into one big car park, making getting around miserable, and ultimately having a significant impact on the health of its residents!

SO31


Object

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


Comment

The development at Heath Rd, 70 houses seems to be 'currently' reasonable, however, Heath Road/Peters Road has become a 'rat run' and cars speed at all times not just during peak hours. Any extra houses being built at Strawberry fields, Greenaway lane etc will continue to exasperate the situation. We seriously need calming measures all along Heath Road & Peters Road. I would also suggest a pedestrian crossing at the junction between Crescent road/Heath Rd South/Peters Rd for children/elderly crossing from Priory Pk/Crescent Rd to Brookfield School, accident waiting to happen! We need a new Drs Surgery in the area, Lockswood Surgery, Centre Way (Warsash?) has been full for over 10yrs? We despately need a new surgery in the area. Why can't a new surgery be based in the Fareham community Hospital?

SO31


Object

I've lived in the area all my life and had the discomfort of seeing every 'green space' built on. Now this area is busting at the seams and ready to burst! Horrendous traffic is here already and it's just going to get a lot worse. Everything in the area is now really struggling to cope (the roads can't cope, absolute chaos everyday) schools, doctors- not enough to cope. I guess the only people smiling will be the developers and land owners. I see the look of complete gloom and frustration from every car I'm stuck next to every morning, what was an attractive place to live is becoming not - rapidly!

SO31


Object

The Locks Heath area is already at breaking point in terms of traffic. Heath Road is a rat run and 70 more homes will make the situation worse - more traffic, more air pollution, more people unable to access doctors within a reasonable timescale, and more children unable to get a place at the local school. This area is one of the last remaining woodlands in Locks Heath. It provides a green lung which if lost would impact negatively on quality of life for nearby residents.

SO31


Object

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

SO31


Object

Another 70 dwellings are planned.........Heath road is already a rat run......with safety restriction of 20 mile per hour, added at the peters road, roundabout end........at night cars zoom along here. In the day time the adjacent Heath road south is regularly used by local residents as a school drop off zone for Brookfield school...........the road system cannot cope with another surge of traffic at peak times....the infrastructure locally, and in particular at the locks heath shopping centre is unable to cope with the parking demands of local residents........this area is over developed already.......WE do not need another 70 houses, we dont have enough drs. surgeries........or schools locally to cope with more residents..........the environmental issues of removing green areas for housing will only accentuate the below acceptable levels of pollution in the air............

SO31


Object

"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 wit"

SO31


Object

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

SO31


Object

Lack of infrastructure to support the development plus this site should be retained as a green space. Destruction of mature trees will also be necessary.

SO31


Object

I strongly object to the development of homes on the land at Raley Road for the following reasons :- 1. Traffic generated will add to already challenging levels, making the passage in/out of the area much harder and slower due to the sheer number of vehicles and number of junctions to navigate to reach the A27 and M27 - Resulting in having to leave home even earlier to reach work to avoid the traffic jams (in turn ruining the fabric of society as parents miss more family life!) and making the twice-daily school run along Raley Road even more perilous where parking is very tight, often abused and tempers fray as drivers struggle to pass through - resulting in risk to the children. 2. School & Healthcare capacities are already stretched and there is no provision to increase School or Doctors surgery infrastructure - there must be!

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

I wish to object to this development on the following grounds Roads • 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 if all these proposals are endorsed • 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 • 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 have been residents in Heath Road South, Locks Heath for the last 33 years and we have already seen this area grow enormously in terms of new housing. We understand that there are plans to build another 154 houses in the nearby area in three separate developments. Seventy of these are to be built in the area adjacent to Heath Road. The local roads are already very congested at peak times, particularly where these roads join the A27. If there is an incident on the M27 resulting in closure of part of the motorway, Locks Heath becomes gridlocked. We are retired now but experienced this ourselves when we were working. With all the new housing that has already been built in this area there has been very little change to the main roads; only new roads in the developments. We would imagine that these proposed houses would have an average of two cars each. More houses would mean more children needing school places and more people needing medical facilities; both of these things seem to be running at capacity already. So many people already complain about the length of time it takes to get an appointment with a GP. What plans are there to make sure that these problems that already exist don't get any worse? So many residents in the Western Wards already feel that we do not get a fair return in services for the amount of council tax that the area generates. Litter and general maintenance of roads and footpaths is an example. I know this digresses a little but more people means more problems. Do we have to accept that the housing policy for the Western Wards is allowed to continue until the whole area is thoroughly spoiled?! We feel very strongly about this and will do whatever we can to make sure it isn't.

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! Chris and Cheryl Coote. 11 Warsash Road, SO31 9HW.

SO31


Object

By building on this green area, you will be taking yet again more of the wild space which we desperately need to breathe!!! The area is already over built, the infrastructure cannot take any more, surgeries are oversubscribed as are schools. And there are no plans to increase any of those. Certainly not to create any more roads that will take the traffic problems away. Building in this area has to stop!!!

SO31


Object

The proposed development, due to its size and scale and also with awareness of all of the other proposed developments in the area, will impact in an unacceptable way on the following areas: 1. Countryside – There are plenty of brownfield sites that should be considered before losing the few remaining green, open areas in this already densely overdeveloped area. 2. Local Services - Pressure on local services is already at breaking point. Local primary & secondary schools are already oversubscribed and already substantially enlarged in the case of some primary and the secondary school. Without substantial additional investment in schools (although further enlarging would make them unmanageable or reduce their outside space too greatly), the infrastructure cannot support the development, particularly when considered with the other local proposed developments, in an area that has in recent years already been developed to near breaking point. Doctors' surgeries are full and struggling already to provide an adequate service. Such an influx of houses will stretch these to crisis point. There is no mention of further provision for care homes. 3. Traffic congestion - Today the local roads cannot cope with the current traffic so if this proposed development is allowed, even without considering the other numerous planning applications in the area, it will lead to massive local congestion. Traffic is already a significant problem, often gridlocked every morning and evening; there is finite space so limited opportunity to enlarge roads to cope with more traffic. Emergency vehicles will be unable to ensure safe response times. There are limited jobs in the area so these houses would be for people who would then need to travel to work, further increasing this problem. 4. Significant impact on air quality through substantially increased pollution from car fumes. Fareham is already struggling with poor air quality and so many more cars in the Western Wards can only further this issue. 5. Increase in light pollution. 6. Loss of wildlife; It is now recognised that more than 1 in 10 of the UK's wildlife species are now threatened with extinction; the Uk's endangered insects and creatures' numbers have dropped by 2/3 since the 1970s. The loss of the few remaining open or undeveloped spaces will result in further fragmentation and reduction of wildlife by destroying habitat and reducing any corridors of movement further. There are many sites that are more suitable than Warsash and the Western Wards, such as Newlands Farm. Also SHLAA Ref 3127 and the surrounding area of Fareham north and east of the town centre. This appears to be a prime location as it already has direct access to the motorway and easy access to the public transport links in Fareham town centre and three senior schools. The area between Peak Lane and Ranvilles Lane, north of Stubbington was indicated as a prime area for development and was even prepared for development with additional drainage put in recently. 700+ properties would fit in this area easily without impinging upon the Fareham / Stubbington separation "gap" that the council now prioritise as important (this site further reduces any separation for Warsash / Locksheath / Parkgate / Sarisbury Green). With the proposed Stubbington multi-million by-pass leading onto the proposed Daedalus site as a major area of employment, properties here will be near appropriate road networks and a place of employment.

SO31


Object

The proposed development, with an awareness of all of the other proposed developments in the area, will impact in an unacceptable way on the following areas: 1. Countryside – There are plenty of brownfield sites that should be considered before losing the few remaining green, open areas in this already densely overdeveloped area. 2. Local Services - Pressure on local services is already at breaking point. Local primary & secondary schools are already oversubscribed and already substantially enlarged in the case of some primary and the secondary school. Without substantial additional investment in schools (although further enlarging would make them unmanageable or reduce their outside space too greatly), the infrastructure cannot support the development, particularly when considered with the other local proposed developments, in an area that has in recent years already been developed to near breaking point. Doctors' surgeries are full and struggling already to provide an adequate service. Such an influx of houses will stretch these to crisis point. There is no mention of further provision for care homes. 3. Traffic congestion - Today the local roads cannot cope with the current traffic so if this proposed development is allowed, even without considering the other numerous planning applications in the area, it will lead to massive local congestion. Traffic is already a significant problem, often gridlocked every morning and evening; there is finite space so limited opportunity to enlarge roads to cope with more traffic. Emergency vehicles will be unable to ensure safe response times. There are limited jobs in the area so these houses would be for people who would then need to travel to work, further increasing this problem. 4. Significant impact on air quality through substantially increased pollution from car fumes. Fareham is already struggling with poor air quality and so many more cars in the Western Wards can only further this issue. 5. Increase in light pollution. 6. Loss of wildlife; It is now recognised that more than 1 in 10 of the UK's wildlife species are now threatened with extinction; the Uk's endangered insects and creatures' numbers have dropped by 2/3 since the 1970s. The loss of the few remaining open or undeveloped spaces will result in further fragmentation and reduction of wildlife by destroying habitat and reducing any corridors of movement further. There are many sites that are more suitable than Warsash and the Western Wards, such as Newlands Farm. Also SHLAA Ref 3127 and the surrounding area of Fareham north and east of the town centre. This appears to be a prime location as it already has direct access to the motorway and easy access to the public transport links in Fareham town centre and three senior schools. The area between Peak Lane and Ranvilles Lane, north of Stubbington was indicated as a prime area for development and was even prepared for development with additional drainage put in recently. 700+ properties would fit in this area easily without impinging upon the Fareham / Stubbington separation "gap" that the council now prioritise as important (this site further reduces any separation for Warsash / Locksheath / Parkgate / Sarisbury Green). With the proposed Stubbington multi-million by-pass leading onto the proposed Daedalus site as a major area of employment, properties here will be near appropriate road networks and a place of employment.

SO31


Object

I would like to object to the current proposals at this site in Locks Heath. I understand and appreciate that more houses need to be built but the sheer number of houses proposed on this site is completely out of character with the area. I am very concerned about the increase in pollution levels in such a small place which we know has lots of negative effects not only on personal but environmental health. The fact the the green spaces that try to help to counteract these pollutants that we produce will be taken away will only further put strain on the area. I also do not believe the infrastructure could cope with the proposed vast increase in houses on such a space. I also believe that Locks Heath actually has a deficit of Open Green Spaces, how, therefore, can FBC be considering building on the small amount of mature woodland left?!!! I appreciate more houses need to be built and that areas will need to be built upon but not the sheer volume of houses that are proposed for this site.

SO31


Object

I strongly object to this development as there is so little woodland left in the Locks Heath area and this will be detrimental to wildlife and the overall look of the area. Also living on Heath Road which is incredibly busy already I don't think further traffic on this road can be tolerated.

SO31


Object

Where are they going to park, especially during the school run where the Road is often a cause for arguments?

SO31


Object

A poorly designed high density development that will impact on the local roads and services. This will also impact the environment and air quality of the area.

SO31


Object

We object to this development due to the lack of infrastructure in the area - roads, schools and doctors surgeries - to cope with such an influx of new residents

SO31


Object

My main reason for this objection is simply - this area seriously can't cope with more, traffic, people, houses. Just look at the reasons for the objections on all the other proposed sites. This area is being ruined on every level, it's not big enough and it can't cope.

SO31


Object

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

SO31


Object

wish to object to this woodlands being used for development. Locks Heath is already in danger of being completely urbanised . In the recent FBC report on Open Spaces in Fareham , Locks Heath has one of the worst ratings for green spaces. If this land is concreted over it would of course reduce the green areas even further in Locks Heath which is against council policy. This mature woodland has been untouched for a very long time and has many species of wildlife living in it such as deer, fox etc. According to Natural England accessible natural greenspace standards , there should be at least 2 hectares of natural green space no more than 300 metres or a 5 minutes walk from home. This will not be the case in Locks Heath if this woodland is destroyed. Does Locks Heath really need anymore houses ? Only a few hundred metres away on Peters Road, hundreds of new homes have been recently built, not forgetting the houses on Locks Road and at Cold East. When will enough be enough ? Traffic in the area particularly along the A27 is already a huge problem In places it has great difficulty in flowing freely which will not be helped by between 70 to 140 more cars. People in the Western Wards all use the same road, school and local facilities, these are all under considerable strain. Please think again when choosing to build on this site at Heath Road . Other sites around the borough may be more suitable, for example, Newlands Farm near Stubbington. Thank you H Lucas

PO14


Object

Why on earth would anyone think that building housing which will put more traffic on Hunts Pond Road is a good idea.

SO31


Object

I'm becoming increasingly aware of the current local traffic trying to reach the a27 and m27 during rush hour periods of the day, more houses equals more cars and congestion. I'm also worried about the pollution from loss of green spaces and more houses/cars in the area. With more housing and residents in the area comes more children, schools in the area are already at a maximum, and with one child starting school next year it's already worrying that we may not get our preferred school due to the amount of children applying and this can only get worse for local residents. The current state of the gp surgery's in the local area can't handle the volume of patents at the moment let alone when more people will be moving into the area. In conclusion I don't feel the current infrastructure of the western wards can't handle the plans FBC has proposed and I object to all proposed sites in the area.

SO31


Object

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

SO31


Object

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

SO31


Object

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

SO31


Object

Large Format Response - Ref0081

SO31


Object

Large Format Response - Ref0081

SO31


Object

Large Format Response - Ref0092

SO23


Object

Large Format Response - Ref0084

SO31


Object

Again this old established woodland is a wonderful habitat for wildlife. Many of the trees have already been cut down. Traffic in Heath Road has increased since the Strawberry Fields development as many use this road as a rat run. I recognize the need for new housing, particularly affordable housing. I believe the draft plan proposes a disproportionate number of dwellings in our area. I understand that the Western Wards has absorbed 60% of new housing in Fareham Borough during the past 5 years and I think the council should think again about the large number of houses planned for our area in their draft plan.

Postcode not provided



Browse

Follow us

Facebook Twitter You Tube Flickr

Fareham Town Centre

View Fareham
Today online





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