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

Development Strategy Chapter Summary Comments

Representations on the Development Strategy

Number of representations on policy: 24

Objection: 20

Support: 3

Comment:1

Objections

Concern raised about cumulative impact of development within the Borough and that the development strategy will result in overdevelopment.

Concern raised that development strategy as proposed is imbalanced and needs to be more evenly spread throughout the Borough.

The approach of the Draft Local Plan does not present issues and options to deliver the development requirements and/or it is not for the public to digest and consider alternative sites.

The evidence base should have been published as and when it was complete and available.

Brownfield sites should be developed before countryside/greenfield. Greenfield sites should not be developed.

Development strategy should prioritise smaller developments which would spread out new housing more evenly.

Some concern about the development of housing in all other areas including on brownfield land outside of Welborne.

Sites should be used more intensively (for example 4-storey flats with one parking space).

Consultation with infrastructure providers does not appear to have always happened/is not reflected in the Development Strategy.

There should be no more homes, it is already overcrowded and infrastructure cannot cope. New homes should not be built at the detriment of people already living in the area.

The only type of housing needed is Council [affordable] housing and it should only be these houses that are built.

There is a lack of cohesive planning in the area resulting in gridlocked roads, increasing pollution and pressure on infrastructure.

There is no opportunity for the public to challenge the work of PUSH which underpins much of the requirements of the Local Plan.

Site Selection Priority 5 should be expanded on to make clear the exact status of such sites. In its present form useful sites may be overlooked.

Site Selection Priority 7 has been ignored when it comes to the allocations in the western ward (where there is already road congestion) – no indication of how the increased traffic will be accommodated.

Some of the site selections (Romsey Avenue mentioned specifically) do not deliver against the three dimensions of sustainable development.

Current development strategy and site selection suggests a rushed plan to address the housing need.

Developers have land-banked sites with redundant glasshouses and have let them fall into disrepair to use as leverage for securing housing development.

There are many anomalies and inconsistencies with the chosen Allocations. For example, some sites are in locations that are remote from existing urban areas, or are too noisy and therefore are not in a suitable area for housing. One major inconsistency identified lies with the selection of certain allocations that are in areas identified as having high landscape sensitivity in the Landscape Assessment evidence and/or also being judged to have low or medium development potential in the Sustainability Appraisal Funtley Road South and Newgate Lane South are such examples. Conversely, some sites identified as having low landscape sensitivity and/or high development potential have not been included as preferred housing sites.

Not enough is being done to provide mixed uses for accommodating both housing and employment uses.

Support

HCC support in principle the strategic allocations which are spread across the borough so long as there is evidence to demonstrate that the strategic road network will not be significantly affected and that where necessary appropriate mitigation interventions are proposed. The A27 is a fundamental part of the strategic road network and the priority will be to maintain this road hierarchy by not adding unacceptable additional delays to the efficient functioning of this corridor (Hampshire County Council – Highways Authority).

Access to new development should be located where capacity can reasonably be provided on the local and strategic network. The interim TA shows that the incremental traffic impact of all the site allocations is forecast to affect links and junctions on the wider highway network which might not be attributed to an individual site allocation (Hampshire County Council – Highways Authority).

Support the approach within the Development Strategy to consider the potential impacts on the historic environment in the SHLAA and SA.

Support the idea of maintaining as far as is possible the Meon and Stubbington Strategic Gaps. (Titchfield Village Trust).

Support for the preferred development strategy being proposed by the Council. (Titchfield Neighbourhood Forum).

Pleased to see that each potential site in the SHLAA is assessed against a sustainability objective of 'conserve and enhance built and cultural heritage' as part of the Stage 1 assessment. (Historic England).

Comments

We have seen unprecedented development in recent years and the plan now seeks to further increase the number of new homes.

A reference to 'historic parks and gardens' should be included the sustainability objective in the Stage 2 assessment of the SHLAA. (Historic England).



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