Sir, Having reviewed the draft proposal I was delighted to see that the strategic gap that protects Titchfield and Stubbington from being absorbed into Fareham. However, I am forced to wonder just how credible that statement is. The same policy exists now and yet Fareham are forcing Compulsory Purchase Orders onto farmers in order to build a road in the strategic gap. TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE!. The strategic gap must be precisely that, it must remain devoid of all development so that it cannot be eroded by property developers who take the existence of a road as an lever to add housing down it. Fareham must stop the plans to build a road through the gap and must firmly and positively tell developers that the green space and farm land adjacent to both sides of Peak Lane and that then extend across Ranvilles Lane out to Titchfield Road must be totally free of any and all kinds of development. The InTouch magazine this month declares that Stubbington will be forced to take ~25% of the housing that developers want to build. Stubbington does not offer the brown space needed for 2302 homes; it offers the Strategic Gap that your policy protects. THE ANSWER IS NO! No Road through it! No housing on it!
"The policy states that ""Development proposals will not be permitted where they cause severe adverse harm to the physical and visual separation of settlements, the settlement pattern and the character of settlements in accordance with the Fareham Borough Landscape Assessment."" This seems to be undermined by a) the Newgate Lane South development, as a result of which the border of the current Fareham / Bridgemary Stubbington / Lee-on-Solent Strategic Gap has been reduced and b) the current Newlands development planning application (if realised - current status unknown to the public) which along with the Stubbington by-pass, would in effect, diminish that Strategic Gap to nothing. While the reference elsewhere to the Stubbington Bypass states that: ""The bypass is not being provided with an intention of serving or facilitating additional new homes."" there is nothing in that section or anywhere in the plan that provides assurance that while there may be no intention of serving ....etc., there is actually an intention to ensure that there is NO development of additional new homes in that Strategic Gap. Unfortunately, the Newgate Lane South allocation further reduces my confidence in your ability or willingness to defend this or any other strategic gap, and in doing so, adhere to your own stated policy. I also quibble with the ""severe"" qualifier in the policy - this allows considerable latitude in defining the impact of any development and while understandable as a ""get-out"" provision for yourselves, does not give the impression of a commitment to maintaining these gaps. I would like to see a much clearer exposition from you of your commitment to ensure the continued existence, undiminished, of the current strategic gaps around Fareham / Stubbington / Lee-on-Solent / Gosport."
Keep the gap, fix the roads, build houses on Daedalus site.