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

INF1 - Infrastructure Delivery

Comment

I feel I must write and give my views on your latest "Local Plan". With the prospect of all the new housing demanded by the government in this area, in which I include Gosport, it is now time for both councils to join forces with our local M.P.'s and fight the government over their ridiculous claims that we have the space and infrastructure to support the huge amount of housing. I see no mention of millions of pounds from government for massive infrastructure improvements (except to our paltry bit of motorway). The roads around here, especially into and out of Fareham which is the major bottleneck will only be solved by by-passing Market Quay roundabout, or the 15 to 20,000 jobs that will be required to employ the new inhabitants. You cannot rely on other areas providing employment as they have a similar housing problem. It is not just the roads but public transport is going down hill rapidly, so the car is the only form of transport for the majority. Schools are pretty well full up, teachers are becoming a rare breed as are GP's so even if new schools and surgeries are built, how are they going to be manned? I was watching a news programme the other day which showed rows of boarded up houses in the northern cities, particularly Manchester, Liverpool and Birmingham, who are all screaming out for businesses so that they can stop their declining populations and decaying cities. I believe the government should concentrate their energies on those areas and leave the South to recover from the massive population increase it has suffered over the last decades. It has not only destroyed our country side, but also ruined it for existing residents. Most housing, even "affordable housing" in this area is now way out of range of anybody who is not earning a huge salary, and council housing, which is what is most needed, is still very low on the list of priorities. So, please, for the sake of everybody who lives in this area, don't you think now is the time to make a serious stand against Central Government and fight the ideas of faceless people who have no knowledge of and no interest in the wellbeing of the existing population? Now that we are about to leave the EU, demand for housing should start to drop as immigration is already reducing, so demand for housing should also slow down. I believe the earlier local plan provided more than enough future housing which even then would put a serious strain on local facilities. Remember, it is not just Fareham, but Gosport as well. To get out of Gosport it is Fareham you have to pass through, which compounds the problems for Fareham.

PO14


Comment

Housing: Will social housing be provided, if so what percentage, and will right to buy be available? A clause should be set so social housing stays, social housing forever.

PO17


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

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

Postcode not provided


Object

Have you thought this through . How are our schools, doctors, QA Hospital going to manage with the increase of all these houses and the roads, its bad enough now. You need a proper infrastructure plan.

SO31


Object

With the new village north of Fareham approved (16.00 house) why is there a need to built in strategic area with no infrastructure? With the constant queue of traffic out of Gosport (7 Days week) this build will add approx. another 1000 cars to these queues making all residents lives even more stressful. Cany Gosport object to access from Gosport roads. Is there a large financial incentive to FCC from government or local business to pass plans

PO13


Object

These sites are totally unsuitable for housing. The infrastructure is not in place. Doctors surgeries are already overstretched without these additional properties. The access roads are inefficient in size to allow the volume of traffic likely to be generated. The wildlife in the area is already being peeled away. Emergency services cannot achieve their response time, to do already gridlocked roads and this site would add to this already dire situation. Portchester's open spaces, thanks to this pathetic planning is slowly being swallowed up.

PO16


Object

"This infrastructure cannot take the impact on the roads, schools & doctors. The cars using Downsend Lane and then A27 into Fareham is already congested at many times of the day. The thicket & spinny will become a ""Rat Race"" for contrulson traffic & commutes avoiding the traffic lights."

PO16


Object

The Roads & railways bridges will not take the extra traffic. This will cause more problems for the Thicket being used as a Rat Race

PO16


Comment

The housing crisis/homelessness is not being addressed. Affordable housing is not affordable for people on benefits, living in hostels, or on people's sofas. Too much building is about profit and not enough about housing those in need. Not enough provision re GP surgery's and school places. Not enough consideration on the natural environment, pollution, habitats etc.

PO16


Comment

All the schools in Portchester are full – siblings are being sent to Titchfield and Fareham and some mothers/fathers do not drive. The surgeries cannot take any more patients. The road infrastructure in Portchester already cause huge jams almost all the time. QA Hospital cannot deal with any more really sick patients. It is all a madness.

PO17


Comment

Whilst accepting the need for more housing development in the Borough I would like the Council to take into consideration the following factors in the Western Wards area: 1. The inevitable increase in traffic in the Brook Lane/A27 area. 2. The inevitable increase in traffic in the Hunts Pond Road/Park Gate area. Both of which are already heavily congested at morning and evening rush hours. 3. The need for more school places at Primary and Senior levels. 4. The need for more doctors' surgeries. 5. The provision of cycle paths including cycle superhighways to be a condition of planning consent. 6. Improved public transport to reflect the increased population. (I do not have the time to walk to the nearest bus stop, catch a bus to Fareham station and then a train to London). I have no confidence that improvements to the existing infrastructure will be delivered at the rate and scale required to match the housing growth and will look to the Council to ensure that improvements come on stream as required and are not delayed. In particular I would like the provision of doctors' surgeries to be a condition of the granting of planning permission.

SO31


Comment

Despite the fact that you are attempting to provide another 8500 approx. homes by 2036, nowhere can I find any statement that you have considered the requirement for another hospital to cope with the future demand. Surely this must be taken into consideration because, at a conservative estimate, the homes alone will generate 24,000 additional potential patients, when hospitals are already reported to be working at their limit. The report in recent years that 22 Ambulances were queuing up outside the Queen Alexandra A&E department was undoubtedly indicative of the situation.

PO15


Comment

"my concerns are that the infrastructure will not be developed sufficiently and on time to meet the increase I population. healthcare, social care, schools, roads and public transport are already stretched. The draft plan starts ""We will work towards encouraging road improvements, creating miss room space, encouraging timley improves access to healthcare"" these are vague statements that never seem to be authorized."

PO16


Support

Need new houses

Anonymous submission


Comment

A27 Westwards. The improvements to the A27 – The Avenue west of Fareham – are a very welcome success already - though not yet finally completed. Traffic congestion from Quay Street Roundabout westward has been dramatically improved. Fareham-Gosport Southwards. What Fareham now needs – and is crying out for - is an improvement to the Fareham/Gosport Road from Quay Street Roundabout southward which is clearly stifling growth on the south side of the Borough – having ourselves clients interested in Faraday Park but clearly put off by its inaccessibility. Whilst FBC is seeking to promote a preference for public transport along this route, in practise this can hardly serve to replace the large volume of traffic currently using it. Stubbington By-pass. Whilst the proposed Stubbington by-pass will help traffic travelling westward from the south side of the Borough, this inevitably will seriously impact on the Segensworth/Whiteley roundabouts & the M27 motorway junction - all of which are currently seriously overloaded & in themselves already giving cause for concern - which does not appear to be being addressed. In turn this also will somewhat negate the further reaches of the current A27 road improvement works which terminate at the said roundabouts.

Postcode not provided


Object

I object to all new building in an already over built area that is struggling to support the current population. All infrastructure is suffering from the roads to the doctors to the hospitals/police/fire service. Our standard of living in the area is being slowly eradicated until there will be nothing left. Once gone is gone never to return. Brown site building only.

PO16


Object

In the draft infrastructure delivery plan, it is stated that additional capacity would be needed at existing GP surgeries in Portchester at an unknown cost and with an unknown source of funding. Schools are full to bursting and GPs are stretched. The roads around the areas are already busy without additional cars adding to the existing constant congestion.

PO16


Object

Stubbington area We strongly object to any new housing on the planned site, I work in Havant and it already takes an average of 45min to get just the 7 miles to work. Getting out of Fareham and in particular this estate is getting harder by the week. Yoy cannot just keep building houses and not build recourses to support them! I OBJECT!!!

PO13


Object

1. Infrastructure including transport 2. Already schools are at max 3. Medical practice overloaded

PO16


Object

1. The infrastructure in Portsmouth is unable to cope with the extra demands 2. Already schools are at maximum capacity 3. Medical practices are overloaded 4. Parking in roads now excessive ie Cranleigh

PO16


Object

"Development allocation HA1, North/South of Greenaway Lane Para 11.23...""Measures to ensure new developments generate as little vehicular movement on the existing road network as possible should be considered from the outset"" I consider that having the access to Brook Lane for both these sites would put excessive pressure on those who have to join Brook Lane from their existing properties. It is already a problem leaving our driveway, #68,at certain times of day. Surely a better plan would make access to these two sites on Lockswood Road, which has no properties with a frontage on the main road. Para 11.25...""Appropriate visibility for all highway user can be provided"" Vehicles leaving Greenaway Lane, as proposed, are on a blind corner and have little warning of traffic approaching from the Clocktower end of Warsash. I would not consider this to be appropriate. The bottom end of Brook Lane has become a parking area for much of the working day, causing a hazard, and would interrupt the view from any future access road to the proposed lower development. Para 11.17...""Management of congestion"" Genuine alternatives to the motor car are wishful thinking. Try getting to Whiteley, where much of the employment and retail is, from Brook Lane, on public transport. Cycling is outside the capability of many older residents, such as we are, in our mid-eighties. The X5 bus route passes our door and most of the time is virtually empty, suggesting it does not serve popular destinations, such as Brookfield school, the Community hospital and Brook Lane Surgery. If the proposed housing is directed at the younger generation then they will most likely use private transport to go to work, perhaps early in the day. Congestion is already present on Brook Lane and Barnes Lane where they join the A27. It probably causes considerable pollution to residents living locally. I accept that more housing is needed but the plan suggests that more consideration has been given to Slow Worms and Badgers than shown to the present residents of Brook Lane and of Warsash in general."

SO31


Object

Roads becoming more dangerous with extra traffic movements approx. 900 per day. Children will need to be schooled outside of their catchment areas.

PO16


Object

Too many people already use the laybys and road in Tukes Ave to park whilst shopping in Asda, the extra vehicles cause chaos and dangerous condition for people such as myself living here. People park inconsiderably already and lately we have a number of large vehicles parkin have too with no parking or limited parking for those houses it will make it worse not to mention more dangerous for the local schools with the extra traffic.

PO13


Object

Gosport and Fareham have seen their green spaces eaten away by our Councilors eager to increase their rate revenue at the expense of the residents. This must stop or the environment that we try to make our lives in will not be worth candle. The tailback of traffic to go from Bridgemary to Fareham is always all busy most of the day taking up to 30 minutes to do the 1/2 mile trip. The bottleneck at Fareham will only get worse with the extra volume of traffic.

PO13


Comment

HMG wish to increase the housing supply, however, it is not just about building houses since the infrastructure needs to develop concurrently or even earlier in some cases. So we need the roads first, the schools, health facilities and the people/professionals to make them work. Existing infrastructure is already under stress. Local jobs are in decline which means more traffic on the roads to go to places of work. Our ancestors built houses near the workplace. In Fareham we will build nearly 12,000 homes by 2036, where will 20,000 people work given other boroughs in Hampshire are going through the same process. Please refrain from the use of affordable homes. To a millionaire a house at £600K is affordable but to a young married couple it is not affordable. More rental apartments/two bedroom homes are needed for the more impoverished in society.

PO14


Comment

We are not in agreement as it will cause more traffic provided and delays in the rush hours. also, it is hard enough to get a doctors appointment now without additional residents. Perhaps the Councillors would like to move to Gosport to experience these problems.

PO13


Object

The roads cannot support the level of traffic currently, the infrastructure is at saturating point. Quality of life will be affected significantly , wildlife will be affected.

Postcode not provided


Object

Reassure the people of Locksheath and Warsash that amenities WILL come FIRST and then fewer people will object to new housing. Complete the road that was intended and suggested many years ago south of the Warsah road. We were promised new schools and this road in the 1980s and NOTHING happened The medical facilities in the Locksheath/Warsash areas are woefully lacking. Doctors are very overcrowded and the local ''hospital is not being used to its full capacity or using its potential. Please unlock this major problem before putting large numbers of new houses in the area. It would also take some of the pressure off the Q.A.

Postcode not provided


Object

Accepting that the housing need is not the control of the Council, and that these houses need to be built somewhere, in order to encourage less pollution loads of transport could develops be required to provide an electric vehicle changing point for each house that is built. Could the developers also be required to fund the subsidy to allow a descent , frequent, cheap public transport system around the Borough. In conjunction with HCC, Portsmouth & Southampton City council, could park & Rides be established at junctions 3,4,5,7,8,9,10,11,12 of the M27 with a subsidised bus service running along the M27 between the park & ride & linking local bus services to transport people into the towns & cities. If this is done well I believe the commuter traffic on the M27 could be significantly reduces, but if required a plan that covers the M27 to the M3 up to Winchester. The Currant improvements to the A27 to aid traffic flow will largely be negated by the housing proposal near J9 of the M27. In addition, the only Junction on the A27 from station roundabout to J9 M27 that does not have pedestrian crossing id the junction with Peak Lane & Catisfield Rd. The estate south of the A27 have 4 schools yet the nearest Play parks is north of the A27 in Blackbrown park. The means children have to cross a busy junction on the A27 to access a play park & also Dr's on Highlands Rd.

PO14


Object

There are obvious infra issues, which I will not comment here: medical, employment, schools, dentists, police. My concerns would be the increased utilities (gas, water, IT, waste). Can we be reassured that our current levels of service will be retained; waste collection, access to data (www). Will we be expected to pay the same council charge. Has an environmental assessment been carried out. What is the transport plan to move increased vehicles from Portchester – Fareham etc. In summary 250-500 new homes = more requirement for infra and services.

PO16


Object

Where are the plans for extra GP's & schooling . I moved to the area of Salisbury Green and there are no plans for additional schools or GP's and the roads are not going to cope! The M27 is a nightmare and needs address longer slip roads like at Whitley & fly overs, double lanes ONLY create bottle necks. Needs sorting it Matters !!

SO31


Object

There is inadequate infrastructure to support this building. The roads are overcrowded now, school, doctors & hospitals are oversubscribed. Open spaces are needed for air quality and wildlife needs protecting.

PO16


Object

As Fareham is already one of the worst congested towns in the country. Would we not be better off solving traffic problems before introducing another 16,00 cars to roads that are already at a standstill.

PO16


Object

I object to those planned buildings. we do not have the Doctors to cope with the people living in these areas as it is. No room in the schools either. How will the QA cope. I drive home from Gosport everyday from work to Birdwood Grove, the traffic, build up is getting worse and I can often be found sitting in a traffic jam from the bird estate roundabout to my Birdwood turning longer than it takes me to travel home from Gosport ferry. How Bad will this become with the extra houses.

PO16


Object

Fareham Draft Local Plan to 2036 Having attended the CAT meeting at Ferneham Hall on 8th of November and having managed to read several extracts from the lengthy plan documentation, I have the following comments which I trust will be taken into account as part of the consultation process. 1. It seems eminently sensible to have a local plan of record to guide future development in the borough, not least to protect the residents from unsuitable and inappropriate planning applications from speculators and others. 2. It is no surprise that by extending the timescale of the plan to 2036 further planning sites would be needed as the town grows and prospers. 3. The challenge is of course to select the appropriate land and type of development. 4. The next step is to phase the development which brings the most benefit but considers the challenges of the disruption which development inevitably brings to residents and the travelling public. 5. As the timescale progresses, changes will be needed to reflect new circumstances, so the plan needs the flexibility to respond to those changes. I would suggest regular updates, perhaps bi-annually or even annually if circumstances change radically. 6. The following guiding principles are important from my perspective: a. The development of appropriate INFRASRUCTURE is a priority and should be done very early in the development process, preferably before any built environment appears. b. Existing brownfield sites need to be first c. Other brownfield sites will become available which should be added as they become available. d. The MOD /Navy may well release brownfield sites as the pressure on military savings progresses eg. The Southwick MOD site. e. Given that Welborne is to be built, the communities around the boundary should be protected from further development, at the very least until the site is at an advanced stage. So I OPPOSE any further development at Funtley,for example. 7. With regards to the appropriate nature of the selected sites, it is difficult to fully understand how the experts have come to their list, and moreover, quite hard to envisage how some of the larger sites would look as a result of the development. 8. It is appropriate to regenerate and revitalise the town centre. A note of caution about parking spaces. Please be cautious about reducing any allocation. The car will not go away. However over the planning period cleaner small cars will be here sooner rather than later. I cannot see how cars will reduce in numbers any time soon. I hope my remarks are positive and useful.

Postcode not provided


Comment

Re INF1 c) Where appropriate, the Council will require developers to provide this infrastructure as part of development proposals. Alternatively, this must be secured by planning obligations; Schools. With the exception of St Anthony's Primary School there has only been an increase in the number on roll in the schools that existed in the area for at least 35 years. There is an optimum size for successful learning in any school and particularly for Primary schools. Certainly, and appertaining to the transport issues described above, huge numbers of pupils will be walking, cycling and being driven to and from school. This may be considered the responsibility of the LA but FBC must apply political pressure to ensure mitigation of the increasing population pressure on the limited resources of the area. Health care provision Health care provision for the increasing population of the area cannot be simply left to the tender mercy of the CCG. Much more use must be made of the Fareham community hospital. As with education, discussed above, FBC must start to apply some real political pressure with regard to this issue.

SO31


Object

Living very near the A27 and knowing the volume of traffic going west into Fareham along the A27 particularly at peak times I cannot see with roads as they are and the number of new homes planned at Morant, Cranleigh, Romsey Avenue and Winnham Fareham, how the A27 can possibly cope with the inevitable increase in traffic. Also the inevitable increase in levels of nitrogen dioxide must have a significant affect on the health of children, the elderly and people with lung conditions. All these sites will need to use the A27 to reach, Portsmouth, Fareham, the M27 etc. The number of houses and the size of these houses will mean a significant increase in population in the area which will hugely increase the pressures on the schools, doctors and dentists all of which are already under pressure to provide the service we expect.

PO16


Object

Living on Warsash road in the center of the village I feel that the structure of the road is not strong enough to cope with the traffic during and after building. There has been a number of serious water leaks in this year and the pavements are subsiding. In the long run there has been no concrete plan for the safety of children cycling to school and daily access along Brook lane. The Brookfield School is at capacity now , and there is no room to squeeze more cars , pedestrians and cyclists outside the school. It is an accident waiting to happen. We need a infrastructure led development with a large central government spend to bring the infrastructure of the area up to a level that will facilitate the aims of the planning proposal. The current plan is insufficient for future travel and communication , this needs to be agreed , funded and the developer with government held accountable for any shortfall in the delivery. My fear is that the motor car once again will be expected to be the prime mover of people in a densely populated area.

SO31


Object

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

SO31


Comment

This whole development plans for our area is an absolute NO NO. Our surgeries overloaded, as is schools. Traffic is a nightmare now, 740 more cars (or 1480) would cause CHAOS. Wildlife so affected by development. Emergency Services have trouble passing through traffic. The A27 is so congested now. Most housing will have 1 or 2 cars. What is classed as "Affordable". When 1 2 bedroom showing on Right Move as £299,000. Pollution is at High Level now, can only get worse. All sites within Portchester should be REJECTED. FBC & Planning have failed to support the community. Sad that our local wildlife will be gone! Community facilities not even thought about. FBC should leave Portchester out of the mass Development Plans. Asbestos and oil pipes have been noted in the past from MOD as being buried under Cranleigh site.

PO16


Object

Please help reduce traffic congestion Reduce distances people have to travel and end some vehicle journeys; Provide grocery shops within 10 minutes' walk of every household in built-up areas. They would be located on a one-mile grid approximately. Build new dwellings as close to existing centres of employment as possible Build new quiet, unobtrusive places of work within existing built-up areas – a kind of mixed development. Could parts of the employment proposals at Midpoint 27, Segensworth South and Solent 2, Whitely be relocated within built-up areas? Incentivise people to live closer to work. For example, offer a reduction in Council Tax for someone living within one mile of their work. Operate business buses, like school buses. For example, businesses in Segensworth and Whitely could run mini-buses or buses to bring their employees to work, saving a lot of car journeys. Help improve air quality Give incentive and encourage people to move up the air quality ladder: Car to bus – increase the availability and attractiveness of mini-bus and buses. Diesel car to Petrol car to Hybrid car to Electric car. Car to Electric bicycle to Bicycle to walking. Help slow population increase Encourage smaller families. The first sentence on page 4 in the Special Housing update, October 2017 says it all; 'Fareham is a Borough with a growing population'. The insatiable demand for housing is causing entirely by Fareham's growing population. As sensible project for Fareham (and everywhere else) would be to plan for ways to slow population growth – so that by 2036, say – our demand for housing can plateau. A major contribution to the housing plateau would be to accept a steady-state economy, thereby reducing the damaging effects of endless growth. In 2017 we can see that never ending economic growth – on our finite planet – spells progressive destruction to nature, wildlife and the environment. The natural world tends to be devalued and rebranded as 'resources' for human consumption. Schools School places must be provided to match the number of local school children. I'm told local schools (in the Western Wards) are full and children would need to travel. It is not clear where to. New development without sufficient school places add to traffic congestion, family upset and cannot be justified. Services to new housing Electricity, gas and water are often considered to be plentiful. In reality they are precious and increasingly more costly to provide. Electricity – to avoid burning more fossil fuels, and causing more climate change, we must generate more renewable energy in Fareham. Legislation must be passed that all new suitable homes and industrial buildings should have mandatory solar power systems capable of delivering a minimum of, say, 2500kWh per annum. Gas – a fossil fuel. Most gas is imported, and a drain on the economy. Extra demand for gas strengthens the case for fracking in England – another retrograde development. Water – water is a scarce resource. The South of England is classed as an 'Area of Serious Water Stress' by DEFRA, the government Department for Environment. Food and Rural Affairs. Abstraction from the rivers Test and Itchen has had to be reduced to maintain water for conservation. Energy Conservation. Legislation for higher standards of home insulation is needed to save precious energy.

SO31


Object

When considering the planned infill building please consider the following The existing secondary roads are now at capacity each day, with normal traffic trying to feed onto the Motorway network, or just trying to negotiate from one area to another. Roadworks, mishaps or an accident can see the whole area gridlocked for hours. There is currently no solution. The addition of at least 2 more cars per house will only exasperate this, and increase the already poor air quality Fareham has. Fareham Police Station is to close in 2019 together with Waterlooville, Havant and Hayling Island, replaced by one in Portsmouth. Although we are promised Portsmouth Station will have fast response links to the area, it has yet to be proved, and would need to be enhanced if it were to provide cover for all the proposed, new, developments. Doctors, Surgeries, Schools, Emergency Services and our Hospitals are already at breaking point. Queen Alexandra Hospital in summer 2017 was rated by the CQC as "inadequate" and will never be able to cope with the influx of all the additional people. Additional facilities, which have not been proposed, may take the initial pressure off, in the end will not sustain the demand, and cannot be strategically located to fulfil the needs of residents. A perfect example of this is the fact that "Fareham Community" Hospital is actually located 4.9 miles from Fareham Centre and 9.3 miles from the eastern site of the Borough but there is no direct bus route to the hospital. Both local water companies have expressed concern regarding the pressure more demand would put upon them. On this point serious infrastructure needs to be addressed, prior to building, and has yet to be put in place. In many of these proposed development areas there will be destruction of Wildlife habitat once this is gone, it is gone forever. Fact. The projection of necessary housing is built on assumptions from statistics by the ONS, if we must have a Welborne, let us destroy that natural resource first and then reappraises the situation, not destroy all areas at once. The only way to have affordable housing is for it to be State owned. Trying to enforce a commercial enterprise to sell a product at a lower than market value is not realistic, and even then, once it is sold for the first time the next sale will be market lead. There are approximately 1000 applications with FBC for re-homing, these can easily be incorporated into Welborne, and is not an argument for the Draft Local Plan. Planning should be sustainable, close to public transport, with reasonable access to shops, schools, health facilities and green areas for relaxation. We were promised that Welborne would negate any infill housing in Fareham. I implore the Council to keep to this promise. We enjoy our current greenfield sites, with its wildlife, the food, and fresh air it provides. These proposals are not Development, they are OVER DEVELOPMENT.

Postcode not provided


Comment

I'm writing to express my total opposition to the proposed housing development at Romsey Avenue. Hampshire County Council have just spent approximately 6.3 million pounds on a futile road widening scheme along The Avenue in order to improve traffic flow and now Fareham Borough Council are encouraging housing developments at Downend and at Romsey Avenue which will effectively choke off traffic on the A27 and cause massive amount of congestion. Evidently, little or no recognition has been given to the fact that traffic congestion on the A27 is already causing frequent tail backs from the Delme Roundabout to Beaulieu Avenue from any time from 5.00pm onwards. Currently it can take anything from between 20 to 25 minutes to travel the short distance from our home in Birdwood Grove to the Delme Roundabout and now the council is preparing to choke off traffic on the A27 at two critical points. Additionally, the council is sanctioning the erosion of green field, agricultural land and also damaging the ecology of the are whilst also demonstrating the inability to make adequate preparations for the impact on local social and NHS services. Much of the planning appears to be being made "on the hoof" by councillors whose political loyalties to central government cause them to ignore the feelings of the residents whose lives will be adversely affected by these hastily conceived plans. We were given many assurances in the wake of the Wellbourne development that this would effectively be the only development required to meet Fareham's growing housing needs, but evidently this was false, as was the suggestion that a doctor's surgery would be provided at the new development. As a consequence of the unreliability of statements emanating from FBC there is a growing recognition that FBC have often deliberately misled the general public and can not be trusted to respond to the democratic wishes of its residents. Expanding housing in the sort of ad hoc, ill conceived fashion now being developed by FBC demonstrates a complete disregard for the adverse impact such developments will make on residents living close to the proposed development and the effects of habitat destruction, pollution, traffic congestion and the overloading NHS services already in crisis within the borough. On the evidence of these schemes, it appears that FBC could not be trusted to "organise a piss up in a brewery" never mind run an efficient and above all honest Borough Council that is responsive to the needs of its citizens.

PO16


Comment

My objection is as follows: 1. There is very little 'green space' left in the area as it is without concreting that which remains. 2. The road infrastructure is inadequate as it is and Welbourne as yet to rear its ugly head. Any further development will overwhelm the road layout. Downend Rd with its narrow rail bridge will cause problems for vehicles and pedestrians alike. 3. Medical facilities within the Portchester area are overstretched. QA hospital is nigh at saturation point without Welbourne let alone any other development. 4. The current schools would appear to have any spare capacity and no magic wand will cure that. 5. I am not convinced that the Portsmouth Water Company has additional reservoirs to satisfy future needs let alone extra houses. 6. The state of the drains in the area is at best poor and more houses will not improve matters. 7. The police in the area are stretched and more people having a demand on their services will not improve matters. 8. The comments re the police applies equally to the Fire & Rescue Service. 9. The residents were informed that with the Welbourne development would safeguard what green remained. This would appear to be a lie!! 10. The M27 has difficulty coping with the current loading so more houses (more cars etc) will not help. 11. Please wake up & listen to the electorate for once!

PO16


Object

My over-riding concerns are the proposed 100-plus new dwellings and the apparent total lack of adequate highway structure. At present we have little more than C roads leading of the M27 slip road, constructed some 200 years ago. They are already totally inadequate for the HGVs that service the industrial parks in the vicinity, let alone be capable of catering for a minimum of 150 family vehicles generated under the Draft Local Plan.

PO16


Object

Although I do not live in Portchester I visit family and Fareham shopping centre on a regular basis. There is no highway infrastructure to support this and will also affect the A27 which is already a very busy road and would get worse with all the extra vehicles. Also, schools that are already full would not be able to cope with the demand, meaning children would have to travel further afield, which would mean more traffic on roads again. These fields are top quality land and should not be destroyed. This is also an area which has many species of wildlife which a lot are protected which is nice to see when walking around the shoreline. The inclusion of this site as a residential allocation is unsafe, unjustified and so the draft plan is unsound.

PO3


Object

Wallington is an entity in itself this should be respected. The sites selected for housing are entirely unsuitable. One is so near the M27 that the noise would be intolerable even with double glazing. The other is on a steep site. Traffic considerations apply to both. The existing roads are very narrow & there are no footpaths. Children could not walk to school, nor disabled use mobility aids. Any pedestrian use would be unsafe, servicing both these sites would be difficult and entry to M27. Both sites should be objected outright and left as necessary open space.

PO16


Object

NO MORE HOUSES IN WARSASH Warsash was a beautiful quiet village and gradually it has become busier and is losing its identity. The increase in traffic is already causing problems now. At times the A27 is almost impossible to get onto, it is like being on an island. At certain times of the day cars have difficulty getting out of their drives on Brook Lane. Barnes Lane has become busier since the opening of the Sports Centre. Hunts Pond Road gets blocked trying to get onto the roundabout. Peters Road – since building the new houses it has become like a one-way street. The houses in Greenacres Road have very little space and /or parking so large cars and vans park on Peters Road. Primate Road – if you can get across to Primate Road cars are parked all along the road for the school and other vehicles past the school have been parked all day nearer to the junction. Doctors/Nurses – it is almost impossible to get appointments in less than a month. Telephoning in the morning and waiting for someone to ring you back is not always successful, a prescription left at reception is not good enough without seeing you. Schools – Brookfield School was full and children had to be carried by bus to schools outside the area. Wildlife – We have foxes, badgers and deer in this area and their habitat has already been encroached upon and we are seeing less birds. As the names suggest, these were LANES they were not made for the traffic they carry now. They cannot take much more.

SO31


Object

Infrastructure The Infrastructure section of the draft Plan, and the draft Infrastructure Delivery Plan are inadequate and do not demonstrate that the required infrastructure is known in sufficient detail and will be provided when required. The Council will be aware that the provision of additional health facilities is a major concern, but currently contributions towards the provision of additional health facilities are not included in the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulation 123 list. The draft Infrastructure Delivery Plan, in Table 7, also refers to CIL funding for several other categories of infrastructure that are not currently included in the Regulation 123 list, for example fire station re-provision and library provision. The Regulation 123 list should be updated urgently to incorporate contributions towards the provision of additional facilities, particularly health facilities, as a matter of urgency, using the formula set out in the Fareham and Gosport Clinical Commissioning Group response set out in the draft Infrastructure Delivery Plan.

PO16


Comment

Large Format Response - Ref0043

SO23


Comment

[Education and Skills Agency] Submission of the Education and Skills Funding Agency 1. The Education and Skills Funding Agency (ESFA) welcomes the opportunity to contribute to the development of planning policy at the local level. 2. The ESFA launched on 1st April 2017, bringing together the existing responsibilities of the Education Funding Agency (EFA) and the Skills Funding Agency (SFA), to create a single funding agency accountable for funding education and training for children, young people and adults. The ESFA are accountable for £61 billion of funding a year for the education and training sector, including support for all state-provided education for 8 million children aged 3 to 16, and 1.6 million young people aged 16 to 19. 3. Under the provisions of the Education Act 2011 and the Academies Act 2010, all new state schools are now academies/free schools and the ESFA is the delivery body for many of these, rather than local education authorities. As such, we aim to work closely with local authority education departments and planning authorities to meet the need and demand for new school places and new schools. In this capacity, we would like to offer the following comments in response to the proposals outlined in the above consultation document. General Comments on the Local Plan Approach to New Schools 4. The ESFA notes that significant growth in housing stock is expected in the borough; the emerging Local Plan provides for 11,300 homes to the end of the plan period in 2036. This will place additional pressure on social infrastructure such as education facilities. The Local Plan will need to be 'positively prepared' to meet the objectively assessed development needs and infrastructure requirements. 5. The ESFA welcomes reference within the plan to support the development of appropriate social and community infrastructure, as set out in Strategic Priority 4 and the site selection priorities/refining points on page 18. In light of the requirement for all Local Plans to be consistent with national policy, you will have no doubt taken account of key national policies relating to the provision of new school places, but it would be helpful if they were explicitly referenced or signposted within the document. In particular: Education and Skills Funding Agency Department for Education Sanctuary Buildings Great Smith Street London SW1P 3BT Tel: 0207 340 7000 www.gov.uk/esfa 2 - The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) advises that local planning authorities (LPAs) should take a proactive, positive and collaborative approach to ensuring that a sufficient choice of school places is available to meet the needs of communities and that LPAs should give great weight to the need to create, expand or alter schools to widen choice in education (para 72). - The ESFA supports the principle of Fareham Borough Council safeguarding land for the provision of new schools to meet government planning policy objectives as set out in paragraph 72 of the NPPF. When new schools are developed, local authorities should also seek to safeguard land for any future expansion of new schools where demand indicates this might be necessary. - The Council should also have regard to the Joint Policy Statement from the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and the Secretary of State for Education on 'Planning for Schools Development'1 (2011) which sets out the Government's commitment to support the development of state-funded schools and their delivery through the planning system. 6. In light of the above and the Duty to Cooperate on strategic priorities such as community infrastructure (NPPF para 156)2, the ESFA encourages close working with local authorities during all stages of planning policy development to help guide the development of new school infrastructure and to meet the predicted demand for primary and secondary school places. Please add the ESFA to your list of relevant organisations with which you engage in preparation of the plan. 7. In this respect, the ESFA commends, for example, the approach taken by the London Borough of Ealing in producing a Planning for Schools Development Plan Document (DPD)3. The DPD provides policy direction and establishes the Council's approach to providing primary and secondary school places and helps to identify sites which may be suitable for providing them (including, where necessary and justified, on Green Belt/MOL), whether by extension to existing schools or on new sites. The DPD includes site allocations as well as policies to safeguard the sites and assist implementation and was adopted in May 2016 as part of the Local Plan. The DPD may provide useful guidance with respect to an evidence based approach to planning for new schools in the emerging Fareham Local Plan, securing site allocations for schools as well as providing example policies to aid delivery through Development Management policies. 8. Ensuring there is an adequate supply of sites for schools is essential and will ensure that Fareham Borough Council can swiftly and flexibly respond to the existing and future need for school places to meet the needs of the borough over the plan period. Strategic Policies 9. The ESFA supports Policy INF1 (infrastructure delivery), particularly its reference to phasing in large developments, onsite provision where appropriate, and flexibility in the supporting text on the delivery mechanism. 1 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/6316/1966097.pdf 2 NPPF paragraph 180 specifies that this collaborative working should include infrastructure providers. 3 https://www.ealing.gov.uk/info/201164/local_plans/1961/planning_for_schools_dpd 3 10. While the ESFA supports the overall aims of draft Policy CF4 (educational facilities outside urban area boundaries), the following suggestions are made in respect of criteria (b) and (d). b) It would be helpful if this criterion allowed for comprehensive redevelopment of school facilities or intensification of an existing education use, such as the colocation of schools or significant expansion of a school if justified in the future by a rising school population. This would demonstrate a flexible, positive approach, while still taking account of appropriate scale in relation to school development, recognising that each case must be considered on its merits. d) The ESFA supports the stipulation that the loss of playing fields will be justified only if they are surplus to requirements or will be adequately replaced elsewhere. It is recommended that the supporting text include further detail on what 'adequately replaced' might constitute, such as a slight reduction in quantity if justified by improved quality and/or accessibility, for example. Site Allocations 11. The ESFA welcomes the explicit reference to education provision in all the draft housing allocations in the plan. In regard to draft Policy HA1 (North and South of Greenaway Lane), the ESFA recommends further detail in the next iteration of the plan, to clarify whether an onsite school is required. The plan recognises that there is insufficient primary school capacity in the vicinity of the site, and the development will provide around 700 homes. This would indicate that a new school should be considered as part of the development, supported by clear signposting to the evidence base which demonstrates the number of school places generated by the development, the extent of any capacity in nearby schools and the potential or suitability for the expansion of existing schools. The ESFA supports the Council's intention to review infrastructure requirements at the time applications are considered, but suggests that the issue of whether an onsite school is likely to be required, and the most appropriate funding mechanism, should be addressed as the policy develops. Infrastructure Delivery Plan 12. The ESFA recommends that further information be added to the Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) on the provision of education for 16-19 year olds. Table 3 sets out the phases and types of education considered as infrastructure, but could be amended to include 16-19 phase, or reference made to this having been included within the secondary phase. 13. Furthermore, proposals for secondary education appear to be absent in the IDP. Table 7 sets out the detailed infrastructure requirements and planned infrastructure projects, including the need for school expansions by settlement and the numbers of primary school places generated by proposed development in that area. Presumably there is not sufficient capacity in secondary schools to absorb all housing growth in the plan to 2036. The new housing will also generate pupils requiring a place at a special school, about which the IDP is silent. As well as being informed by the Hampshire School Places Plan, the IDP should provide sufficient detail on the longer-term expectation of all education needs and provision costs associated with the Local Plan period to 2036. 14. It would be useful if a Planning for Schools topic/background paper could be produced, expanding on the evidence in the Council's IDP and Hampshire County Council's School Places Plan, setting out clearly how the forecast housing growth at allocated sites has been translated (via an evidence based pupil yield calculation) into an identified need for specific numbers of school places and new schools over the plan period. This would help to demonstrate more clearly that the approach to the planning and delivery of education infrastructure is justified based on proportionate evidence. If required, the ESFA can assist in providing good practice examples of such background documents relevant to this stage of your emerging Plan. Forward Funding 15. In the event that any final housing site allocations include a requirement for an onsite school, emergi

SW1P


Object

Our objection to this development are the same as the Romsey Road one:- We object to this development because:- 1. The surrounding road will not cope with all the extra traffic. 2. The schools haven't spaces for large amounts of extra children. 3. Doctor surgeries are always busy, how are they going to manage. These problems never seemed to be addressed. The Downend Road is busy most of the day, at peak times it can be queued back to The Thicket, waiting for the traffic lights to change at the bottom. Changing the sequence of the lights is not the answer. Also will the narrow railway bridge just before The Causeway cope, and we all know The Thicket will be used as a rat run to avoid part of the A27.

PO16


Comment

Southern Water supports the requirement for development to provide and/or contribute towards the delivery of new or improved infrastructure. This is in line with Ofwat's view that local infrastructure, such as local sewers, should be funded by the development if this is specifically required to service individual development sites. However, strategic infrastructure such as extensions to wastewater treatment works can be planned and funded through the price review process, and coordinated with new development, and Southern Water therefore additionally seek more general overarching support for the provision of strategic water or wastewater assets such as trunk mains or sewers, pumping stations and treatment works, which may be required to help deliver planned growth in Fareham Borough as a whole, or to meet stricter quality standards in the treatment of water and/or wastewater. Delivery of infrastructure improvements needs to be supported by Local Plan polices, planning consents and, in the case of wastewater treatment, effluent discharge consents from the Environment Agency. One of the core planning principles contained in paragraph 17 of the NPPF is to 'proactively drive and support sustainable economic development to deliver the homes, business and industrial units, infrastructure and thriving local places that the country needs'. The National Planning Practice Guidance states that 'Adequate water and wastewater infrastructure is needed to support sustainable development' and the National Planning Policy Framework which states that "Local planning authorities should set out strategic priorities…to deliver…the provision of infrastructure for… water supply, wastewater…" In order to address this, we propose an addition to Policy INF1 as follows: Proposals by service providers for the delivery of utility infrastructure to meet the needs generated by new and existing development will be encouraged and permitted, subject to other relevant policies in the Plan.

BN2


Object

The infrastructure in Fareham cannot support any major developments without proper road, education and health improvements first. I have no objection to any brown field sites. I tried to object online but the form has been designed so it is not possible to object to the overall draft.

PO16


Object

The proposed plan is ridiculous in all ways. We have an on going problem with traffic on this peninsula and adding 450 houses is at least 450 cars or more than likely 900 cars. The road systems will not support them. I have been driving out of Tukes Avenue and Wych lane for circa 40 years. I can not imagine anything worse than more traffic. STOP IT PLEASE!!! Which doctors surgery are they going to use, they are all full!

PO13


Comment

Any future plans for housing/ infrastructure should be nearer the motorway. Leaving Gosport is already a nightmare – pollution from traffic queues already too high! The proposed building site would be overkill for the area suggested.

PO13


Object

The Infrastructure for this sort of housing program is not in place and has not been mentioned in any plans.

PO13


Object

We are not sure of the plans for clean air and would like more information RE: transport strategy. Public transport, bus, rail and sea. These contribute to the existing problems of air pollution as a means of discharge people from using their motor cars, we need to encourage better use of public transport by keeping a tight hold of the cost to use them.

PO16


Object

It is very laudible to support infrastructure provision keeping an appropriate pace with housing. But this has so often not been achieved. The prime example was at Whiteley where provision of of health and education were years behind house buildings. Having paid lip service to proper infrastructure provision, the plan should take a more realistic approach. The main routes in the Borough meaning E/W through Fareham cannot just be appropriately improve because of the bridges over the river Wallington. Some serious thought must be given to how the Down End junction and the Delme roundabout could - physically - be improved to carry the ever increasing traffic resulting from huge developments in Portchester.

PO16


Object

ADEQUATE EMERGENCY SERVICES. (Hampshire Concern). Is there true access to all sites. Has Hampshire looked over its shoulder and noticed the Borough of Eastleigh East about Western Wards Fareham. This is SWAMPING the A27 TRAFFIC. Any accident on M27 immediately diverts south onto A27. This has on many occasions led to LONG JAMS – especially during RUSH HOUR AND SCHOOL RUNS. HAMPSHIRE provides 1. schooling – where are the new schools to provide for all these new houses – Brookfield School, Brook Lane is already overflowing. 2. Doctors Surgeries – virtually unable t cope. We have dedicated G.P's who are overstretched with work. Long hours already to cope, just at present. The Royal College of General Practitioner (RCGP's) statistics show extreme concern about number of patients and availability. Not everyone is able to access the latest bright suggestion from Jeremy Hunt that scanners will be available in Supermarkets. A scanner is only as good as the robot that reads it. Human care especially for the elderly and young mothers who may well have no transport is essential. The disabled require adequate care.

SO31


Comment

Large Format Response - Ref0052

PO12


Comment

My over-riding concerns are the proposed 100 - plus new dwellings and the apparent total lack of adequate highway structure. At present we have little more than C roads leading off the M27 slip road, constructed some 200 years ago. They are already total inadequate for the HGV's that service the industrial parks in the vicinity, let alone be capable of catering for a minimum of 150 family vehicles generated under the Draft Local Plan.

PO16


Object

I completely object to the proposed new housing in Titchfield Common of 460 allocations, on the basis that current healthcare provisions are already inadequate and this development will put further pressure on to an ailing Jubilee surgery. Please refer to attached reviews of the surgery as evidence. I object to all housing proposed, outside of Welborne and the brownfield sites. No greenfield land should be used to keep the rural feel of a Hampshire town. More importantly the lack of infrastructure (road, medical, educational) is of serious concern in your proposals. You cannot build housing with no provision to support over subscribed GP surgeries and schools. You risk depriving the borough of these services and making Fareham and more unpleasant and unsafe place to live. Refer to evidence REF 0015

PO14


Object

Currently, the roads in the Western Wards are fairly well grid locked at peak times, both am & pm. With such high proposed development figures, it will make the situation unbearable for those who must travel in and out of the area at those times. By my reckoning, there is likely to be around two thousand more vehicles on our roads and that is completely unrealistic.!!!

SO31


Object

Large Format Response - Ref0084

SO31


Comment

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Local Plan. It may seem deeply cynical but I wander if consultation is really the right word for the way the leadership at Fareham Borough Council conducts it's business. To date it's always just a tick box exercise to demonstrate that FBC has let its residents know what is happening. Since 2005 I have never seen a scintilla of evidence to show that FBC leadership have listened, taken note and have either modified or changed their agendas. Obviously with all the changes in planning legislation it is almost impossible to gauge what is unreasonable or not permissible so no doubt north Fareham and Funtley in particular will continue to have every blade of grass submerged under a sea of concrete. All my objections remain the same on this plan: LACK OF INFRASTRUCTURE, specifically road systems, inadequate hospital & doctors facilities, and the persistent downstream flooding and drainage problems in Funtley. The plan has far too much development concentrated in North Fareham, specifically with Welborne and in spite of promises yet more proposed sites that will completely alter the semi rural location we live in. Will we have yet another rubber stamp Inspectors exercise? Or does anyone really look at what is proposed in a rational and ethical way? We may need more houses across the country but we also need the infrastructure to ensure these massive developments are viable places to live with a good quality of life, sustainable communities, allowing open green areas, good air quality and excellent joined up services. Not the current short term ideology! Other parts of the Borough also have proposed sites for development, all have their objections and reasons for not supporting them. However, there is nothing on the scale of North Fareham, with 6,000 in Welborne, & 78 in HA10 & HA18. Is enough ever enough ?

PO17


Object

Response to Draft Fareham Local Plan 2036 . I have attended council meetings CAT meetings and have purchased a full copy of Fareham's draft plan. I will make a few general observations before focusing on four proposed developments which cause me anxiety and concern. Infrastructure I am very concerned about traffic congestion especially in Brook Lane. A lane is described in my dictionary as "a narrow, often rural, road street or path." Brook Lane was not made to accommodate the volume of traffic that we now experience. It is already congested at all times of the day with cars, lorries and vans attempting to join another overly congested road, the A27. We have been living in Locks Heath for 5 years and the volume of traffic has increased dramatically in that time. I dread to think how an ambulance or fire engine would be able to navigate its way through the traffic in response to an emergency call. Big queues of traffic really do have a huge impact on air quality, something I know the council has been required to monitor carefully on a stretch of the A27. We left Southampton because my wife suffers with asthma. Her condition initially improved after our move to Locks Heath but her breathing problems are beginning to emerge again. It is extremely difficult to obtain a doctor's appointment now. I can't imagine what it would be like if the proposed developments went through in Warsash and Locks Heath. I was a headteacher for 17 years and taught for 42 years. I am concerned about the effect the planned developments will have on our local schools. [redacted] I know they are at full capacity and [redacted]. Too often in the past, local authorities have reacted to a surge in pupil numbers by installing temporary classrooms, often at the expense of valuable recreation areas. Recent reports have indicated an increase in the number of obese children. Lack of exercise is one of the contributory factors. Many parents have to face the difficult task of sending siblings to different schools when a particular age group is full. This increases the number of car journeys on our already congested roads.

Postcode not provided


Comment

Large Format Response - Ref0083

SO51


Object

Reduce distances people have to travel, and end some vehicle journeys; -Provide grocery shops within 10 minutes' walk of every household in built-up areas. They would be located on a one-mile grid approximately. -Build new dwellings as close to existing centres of employment as possible. -Build new quiet, unobtrusive places of work within existing built-up areas - a kind of mixed development. Could parts of the employment proposals at Midpoint 27, Segensworth South and Solent 2, Whiteley be relocated within built-up areas? -Incentivise people to live closer to work. For example, offer a reduction in Council Tax for someone living within one mile of work. -Operate business buses, like school buses. For example, businesses, in Segensworth and Whitely, could run mini-buses to bring their employees to work, saving a lot of car journeys.

Comment

School places must be provided to match the number of local school children. I'm told schools (in the Western Wards) are full and children would need to travel. It is not clear where to. New development without sufficient school places adds to travel congestion, family upset, and cannot be justified.

SO31



Browse

Follow us

Facebook Twitter You Tube Flickr

Fareham Town Centre

View Fareham
Today online





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