Accessibility and Display Options

Choose accessibility and display settings
Text Preferences
Colour Schemes
Save Close


Development Allocations Chapter Summary Comments

Representations on Policy DA1: Development Allocations

Number of representations on policy: 30

Objection: 16

Support: 4

Comment: 10


Concern that the areas of Portchester and Warsash take almost half the overall housing allocation. Concern that there is already not much surplus natural greenspace in Portchester and that sites allocated are of as much ecological importance as those rejected in other parts of the Borough.

Concern over the development allocations in Portchester including loss of green space and natural environment with negative impacts such as overcrowding and pollution likely. Further concern regarding impacts upon local infrastructure in Portchester including traffic, schools and doctors.

Concern raised about the impact of development arising from the development allocations upon the wider environment (e.g. loss of countryside / undeveloped land).

Concern raised about the impact of development arising from the development allocations upon highway safety, particularly for the elderly, less mobile and younger population groups.

Some concern regarding cumulative impact of traffic arising from the development allocations particularly in the western part of the Borough with that south of the M27 in Eastleigh Borough.

Some concern about the consequences of local politics upon the proposed strategy and allocation of sites for the delivery of new homes.

Some concern on population growth generally and number of people resulting in demand for new housing and subsequent additional development allocations.

Too many proposed homes are concentrated in north Fareham (i.e. Welborne).

Welborne and supporting infrastructure should be developed before other sites are considered. Other areas with brownfield sites should provide for any additional housing.

Concern that in light of the potential new standard methodology FBC should consider whether there is the potential for any additional housing sites which are suitable, available and achievable. (Gosport Borough Council).

Sites identified do not disclose the extent to which these or combinations of them can contribute to the site selection priorities.

The publication of the draft plan with specific allocations and statements that 'planning permissions will be granted' should have followed an earlier issues and options consultation on the potential sites. The absence of this has made it impossible for people to suggest alternative sites based on sound evidence, and the marginal land supply would require a further public consultation stage if any sites were to be deleted. (The Fareham Society).

Residential development is supported on suitable sites, but some of the sites proposed for housing are not likely to provide good quality residential environments and should be allocated for employment uses. (The Fareham Society).

Many of the proposals for housing in the Town Centre appear to be over ambitious. The proposals for the Civic Quarter and Market Quay with multiple other uses appear to be particularly excessive/unrealistic for the size of the sites. The over emphasis on housing at the expense of convenient parking. For example, in the Civic Quarter, at Market Quay and the closest part of Lysses car park to the High Street will undermine the viability of the remaining shops in Town Centre. (The Fareham Society).

Object on basis that 75-77 Church road hasn't been included in the draft residential development allocations following its previous allocation in Local Plan Part 2. It should be included as an allocation due to its location in the settlement boundary and sustainable location in proximity to services, facilities and transport links. Allocating this site will also have a number of environmental, social and economic benefits. A determined appeal has recognised the site as an appropriate location for new housing and was only dismissed on the basis it could accommodate a greater level of development. (Landowner).

Greater detail is required on the infrastructure requirements for the proposed development allocations. Further concern that these will impact upon existing infrastructure.


Support given to the proposed development strategy on the basis the development sites appear to have the least impact possible.

Suggested that the Brownfield Land Register should be compared with the sites currently proposed in the Draft Local Plan to ensure that all possible brownfield sites have been included to prevent the unnecessary loss of greenfield sites. (CPRE).

Support given to this policy. (Affordable Housing Provider).

Pleased to see that the flood risk sequential test has been followed and that all built development on sites will be located within flood zone 1. (Environment Agency).


Allocation of sites is flawed such that sites within the SHLAA process have been excluded from all of the options set out in the 'Sustainability and Strategic Environmental Assessment – Sustainability Report'. Disagree that with their assessed location as countryside. Site is sustainable in terms of its location and suitable and noted to have been assessed as developable and available. The site should therefore be allocated for housing. (Landowner and Site Promoter).

Further allocations capable of delivering within five years will be required to ensure a buffer of sites for delivering the full housing requirement within the Plan period. The Council should ensure delivery assumptions are robust and that contingencies are in place should Welborne not deliver as envisaged. The buffer of 300 dwellings above the Council's housing requirement would only require one years of delays and non-delivery at Welborne to impact upon the Council's housing delivery requirements. Allocating additional sites now would also account for the Government's new standardised OAN methodology. (Landowner).

Considered that land at Rookery Farm should be added as a proposed site allocation. (Site Promoter).

Land at Old Street, Stubbington (SHLAA ID 31) should be allocated for the development of 160 dwellings and added to table DA3 to help meet the shortfall in housing needs which Policy H1 fails to meet. (Landowner).

Two tables named 'Table DA2' in the Draft Plan. Assumed one of these should be 'Table DA3'. (Landowner).

There is a lack of employment land identified in the Draft Local Plan with little thought given to where occupiers of the new homes will be employed. Do not want to see commuter towns being built. Greater consideration of infrastructure is needed (e.g. roads, rail and public transport). Alternative solutions such as Park and Ride and Park and Stroll would also ease congestion, enhance productivity and health. Fareham has areas of high business growth but locations of such business do not reflect this global ambition or setting. Much investment and well-planned development is needed. High speed broadband must also be supported to attract and retain business development across the area. (Hampshire Chamber of Commerce).

Objection made to the lack of inclusion of Land off Sopwith Way as an allocation within the emerging Fareham Draft Local Plan. The site is sustainably located and would achieve 40% affordable housing amongst other favourable considerations (e.g. design aspects and no unacceptable environmental, amenity or traffic concerns). Site has also been assessed as suitable, available and achievable within the Council's SHLAA. Whilst the site is not located within an urban settlement boundary, it is located within a built-up area whilst the schemes landscape impact is considered to be minimal. Allocating additional sites now would also account for the Government's new standardised OAN methodology in providing much needed additional housing. (Landowner and Site Promoter).

Noted that the next draft of the Local Plan will be taken forward to the HRA: Appropriate Assessment Stage. However, it is critical that before the HRA proceeds to this next stage of assessment, all sites are reassessed against the updated Solent Waders and Brent Goose Strategy. (Royal Society for Protection of Birds).

The Council must demonstrate that less damaging options have been excluded and only then should such sites be considered for allocation. This is with regards to the Council considering whether the direct or indirect damage to any such sites forming part of the Solent waders and brent goose network can be mitigated or compensated. (Royal Society for Protection of Birds).

The challenges the Council faces are recognised as it seeks to accommodate development on the scale predicted to be needed in the Plan period. However, given significant constraints affecting Fareham Borough in terms of land availability, sustainability, and in particular, the sensitivity of the surrounding natural environment, it may not be possible for the Council to deliver the assessed housing need while still meeting legislative and other policy requirements. If the Council is unable to allocate sufficient land for development without impacting on statutory wildlife sites, it may be necessary for the Council to pursue a housing requirement that is less than the objectively assessed housing figure through cooperation with other local planning authorities in the housing market area. (Royal Society for the Protection of Birds).

An additional criterion should be added to those development allocations that are within the setting of listed buildings specifically requiring proposals for development to conserve and enhance the significance of the listed buildings, in order to ensure adequate protection is afforded to these designated heritage assets in accordance with paragraphs 132, 133 and 134 of the NPPF. (Historic England).

Noted that a number of the proposed allocation sites are partially within a Hampshire County Council Archaeological Notification Area. Policies allocating these sites should also include a specific criterion requiring the pre-determination archaeological assessment, with the developable area and eventual form of development informed by that assessment. (Historic England).

Hampshire County Council recommend that a reference to the adopted Hampshire Minerals and Waste Plan (2013) is applied particularly in relation to a number of sites within the defined mineral safeguarded areas; Sand & gravel - HA1, HA2, HA3, HA9; brick clay – HA8, HA10 and site HA4 Downend Road East which is within the MWCA Safeguarded Site - Downend Quarry which operates as part of a Waste Transferring station and will need to be considered prior to development (Hampshire County Council - Strategic Planning)

All development allocations need to submit a transport statement/assessment, as determined by the highway authority, in order to identify the impacts of additional trip generation on the transportation networks and propose appropriate mitigation measures. Highway access to new development should be located where capacity can reasonably be provided on the local and strategic network (Hampshire County Council – Highways Authority).

Need to add some general policy wording which can be applied to all the development allocations to ensure that they

a) have a transport assessment

b) encourage sustainable travel by all modes

c) ensure the developments are accessible by pedestrians and cyclists

d) mitigate the impacts of additional traffic on the highway network, environment, air quality and amenity

e) secure on site and/or off-site highway improvements.

This policy needs to complement policy INF3 Sustainable Transport. (Hampshire County Council – Highways Authority).

The planning application process can't rely solely on the specific criteria set out in the site allocation policies FTC1 etc as these descriptions do not provide the complete picture and do not include the findings of a transport statement/assessment. Therefore it needs to be clear that any specific transport measures listed in the development allocation descriptions are not absolute and that the list is not exhaustive.

Suggest add a generic statement to be included in each allocation which will secure delivery of measures (through s106 contributions or s278 agreement) to mitigate the impact of the development. (Hampshire County Council – Highways Authority).

Many of the proposed infill and brownfield development sites are extremely close to major roads. All these highways and railways generate considerable noise and inadequate consideration appears to have been given to this issue which is now recognised as injurious to health. Sites adjacent to railway lines and particularly at Fareham Railway Station will also due to the nature of the subsoil be prone to ground borne vibration.

Partial or Anonymous Representations on Policy DA1: Development Allocations

Below are details of any new matters raised (i.e. not listed above) that have been received in either anonymous or partially completed representations. These representations have limited weight but have been read, considered and reflected below in the interest of transparency.


Object to development in Wallington due to the impact this will have upon the village such as increased traffic and impacts on road safety and continued erosion of village character and local environment (e.g. village water meadows).

Back to top of page Back to Top How to get here RSS Feeds