Developers appear to be trying to take advantage of the delay in Welbourne, buying cheap land, which is out side of the Urban Development areas and then aggressively pursuing planning permission. We, the taxpayer, are footing the bill for FBC to , quite rightly, defend the Policy (which will have taken years of thorough planning) If developers were forced, via HM Gov policy, to develop within the allocated sites, the taxpayer would benefit, the local community would benefit and the Developers would be able to spend their resources in getting the approved applications built.
Warsash village is a tiny place & a dead end. To build almost 900 new dwellings here is totally unacceptable- the car parks in the village are mainly full except on a Saturday as are the local shops. We are looking at 2 maybe 3 thousand extra persons in the village-within 5 mins walk of all the amenities.
Fareham Local Plan 2036 (“the plan”) In summary, the plan is defective for reasons more particularly set out below. 1.The proposed development at HA1 will breach Fareham Borough Councils (‘FBC’) the Plan Section 4 Strategic Policies: Policy SPF Development in the Countryside Policy SP6 Development in Strategic Gaps Policy SP7 New Residential Development in the Countryside 2.The Plan Section 4 Strategic Policy SP6 at para 4.36 ignores or fails to give sufficient weight to the proposed Stubbington bypass (work to commence in 2019) which will dissect the so-called Strategic gap Fareham/Stubbington and which south of the bypass could provide additional housing sufficient wholly or partly to meet the need of the Plan to provide 700 units (identified under HA1) meanwhile retaining the strategic gap north of the bypass. Indeed at the Plan Section 11 Infrastructure at para 11.45 the plan states that the bypass is not being provided with the intention of serving or facilitating additional new homes. This arbitrary statement is made without any supporting evidence or justification and without investigation of potential development abutting Stubbington. 3. Fails to take into account Multiple applications for housing development in HA1 made recently as 2016/17 rejected by FBC on the grounds of greenbelt intrusion and so as to prevent coalescence of urban areas Park Gate and Warsash (admittedly now subject to appeal) 4. The proposed development at HA1 will breach FBC’s Vision and Strategic Properties: * in the Plan at para 2.7 as it will and has failed to ensure that infrastructure in the existing development has or will be delivered. Traffic congestion is already at an unacceptable level and will increase with HA1 causing pollution. * The Draft Development Framework for HA1 in Appendix C is arrived at solely by accepting that development there is unavoidable (to provide 700 units) and working backwards to formulate Appendix C. FBC has allowed development south of Peters Road in breach of its Strategic Policy SP6 causing coalescence of what was a greenbelt/strategic gap and has so far resisted further attempts to develop the area north and south of Greenaway Lane. Because FBC lost its appeal regarding development at Portchester (Cornaway Lane) it is unacceptable that it should now include HA1 to provide 700 units as a master of expediency in preparation of the Plan. The assumptions and key concept principles contained in Appendix C are wildly optimistic. HA1 will destroy such biodiversity that exists in the green corridor north and south of Greenaway Lane whilst exacerbating traffic congestion in Warsash, Brook Lane, Barnes Lane and Park Gate. No major road improvements are possible to alleviate the potential of an additional 700 cars. The congestion will increase pollution damaging the environment.
SP7 – There will be a presumption against new residential development outside of the urban area. Residential development in countryside locations will be permitted in instances where it can be demonstrated: - d) it comprises one or two new dwellings which infill an existing and continuous built up residential frontage, where: 1) The new dwellings and plots are consistent in terms of size and character to the adjoining properties and would not harm the character of the area; and 2) It does not resilt in the extention of an existing frontage or the consolidation of an isolated group of dwellings; and 3) it does not involve the siting of dwellings by the developments HA15 and HA26: - Clause A, B, C do not apply. Clause D1 – Existing adjoining properties compromised by the developments HA15 and HA26:- Bungalow (on the blind bend) to the west boundary, a paddock with stabling and listed thatched cottage (c.1820) with outbuildings and a swimming pool in its midst. The housing proposed is not established character of this area. Clause D2 – the new dwellings will impact upon the isolated dwellings (see above) and extend the frontage of the north side of Beacon Bottom from No.24 to the Western Woods and bend in the road. Clause D3 – the new dwellings will be sited at the rear of existing dwelling.
Policy SP7 New Residential Development in the Countryside CPRE requests that an additional point about light pollution be added to the last paragraph.