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

Housing Allocations HA1-HA5 Summary of Comments

 

HA1: North and South of Greenaway Lane

HA2: Newgate Lane South

HA3: Southampton Road

HA4: Downend Road

HA5: Romsey Avenue

Representations on Development Allocation HA1: North and South of Greenaway Lane

Number of representations on policy: 755

Objection: 747

Support: 4

Comment: 4 (some further comment points noted as part of wider objection or support)

Objections

Strong concerns that the development will have an unacceptable impact to traffic congestion in the vicinity of the site and that road safety will significantly worsen.

Congestion at the points at which connecting roads reach the A27 are highlighted together with the inability of these junctions to accommodate improvements (Barnes Lane and Brook Lane in particular), the potential for rat-runs, lack of pedestrian crossing points (on Warsash Road in particular), more bike lanes needed, delays to emergency services, that the location of bus stops to junctions has not been properly considered and reference to the number of deaths on Fareham roads last year. A 'no right turn' introduction from Warsash Road into Common Lane should be considered.

Strong concerns that there will be insufficient school places to accommodate children from the development.

Concerns are raised for primary and secondary level education (schools are full) together with the lack of A-level provision in the area. The lack of places at schools will mean more children will be transported (largely by car) out of the area adding to the traffic issues. Any extensions to schools will reduce the outside space and providing new classrooms will not get over the issue of school hall space and other school facilities. Hook with Warsash is an Academy and cannot/does not want to expand.

Strong concerns over the pressure that the development will put on existing doctors' surgeries – due to already long wait times (4-6 weeks) and surgeries not having capacity for new patients. New hospital also needed.

Strong concern that the development will lead to a loss of habitats and wildlife.

Impacts to protected and non-protected species on site (badgers, bats, deer, foxes, hedgehogs, rabbits, owls, setts (burrows), lizards, dormice, newts, stag beetles, birds, slow worms, bees and insects mentioned). Impacts to flora and fauna.

Concern over the loss of countryside/greenspace. Loss of one of the few greenspaces left in Warsash. Site should remain as countryside. The site is outside of the Defined Urban Settlement Boundary.

Concerns that the development will lead to worsening air pollution and air quality issues in the area.

Concern that there has been insufficient consideration of air quality and the implications from more cars/congestion. Concern of resulting health implications due to the poor air quality levels.

Concern that there are too many homes planned in the Warsash/western wards area, cumulative impact with other sites in the area, Warsash has already seen lots of recent development and taken its fair share.

Concern that the proposal will have a detrimental impact on the character of the area and the village identity of Warsash.

Concern that there is a lack services to provide a sustainable community. Lack of shops, services and jobs in Warsash, resulting in more car use. Lack of parking at shops in Warsash and at Locks Heath District Centre/unable to park at local shops often, resulting creep of on-street parking on Brook Lane. Not enough for youth to do.

Concern over loss of gap between Warsash and Locks Heath (some respondents refer to loss of strategic gap/greenbelt).

Concern of lack of dentists and capacity for new patients.

Concern over impact to other infrastructure (gas, electric, drainage, recreation space, broadband inadequate, sewerage, water supply, need for SUDS, telephone exchange).

Concern that there is a lack of/insufficient public transport to serve the development/area and that more public transport is needed.

Concern relating to the scale of population increase that will arise from the development in Warsash (25% and 30% increases mentioned).

Concern over noise pollution from increased use of roads and more people.

Concern that this development/site would not have been needed were it not for the delays in Welborne being delivered.

Concern over the detrimental impact to the quality of life for existing/new residents.

Concern that development needs to be spread more evenly over the borough.

Concern about the risk of flooding with increased run-off specifically mentioned, flooding on Greenaway Lane and a flood zone in the south east of the site

Concern about the loss of jobs and the loss of the strawberry growing industry as a result of developing the site.

Concern over the loss of trees and woodland.

Concern over the loss of agricultural land/good fertile land.

Concern that brownfield sites would be better/use of empty retail space instead.

Concern that there are not enough cycle lanes.

Concern that the rural nature of Greenaway Lane would be detrimentally affected and any opening up of Greenaway Lane would be a safety concern.

Concern that crime levels will rise.

Concern that there is insufficient provision for care homes, retirement flats, assisted living and/or bungalows.

Concern that the land has been designated as brownfield.

Concern that the area is expensive/high value and affordable homes built here will not really be affordable.

Concern that there has not been enough/any joint working with infrastructure providers (schools, CCG, highways, etc.).

Concern that the increase in homes will place pressure on social services.

Concern that any new development will not include sufficient parking for the homes resulting in overspill of parking from the development.

Concern that there has not been a town centre first approach to development allocations as per the NPPF.

Concern that local amenities/infrastructure should be delivered before any homes on the site are complete.

Concern over the impacts to residential amenity for neighbouring/nearby occupants (noise, overlooking, privacy, overshadowing).

Concern that the site is not sustainable.

Concern about the detrimental impact to the landscape.

Concern that the site contradicts many of the site selection priorities in the Draft Plan (priorities 1, 3 and 7 in particular).

Concern over the disruption and problems that will arise during construction.

Concern over the impacts to property values.

Concern that the development proposed is overdevelopment/density too high. Related concern that the density of the current planning applications, if reflected over entire site, would far exceed the 700 dwellings referred to in the Draft Policy.

Concern about the potential impact to archaeological remains.

Concern that development should not exceed 2-storey (policy criteria currently refers to 2.5 storey).

Concern that immigration is the only reason for the need for this site/more housing.

Concern that the proposal contradicts the NPPF requirement for social, economic and environment to all be considered.

Concern that there will be increased light pollution resulting from the development.

Concern about impact to the Special Protection Area (SPA) and associated species.

Concern that the wildlife corridors are insufficient and/or must be provided.

Concern that there are already large queues for the recycling centres and that this will get worse.

Concern that the development must be coordinated as one.

Concern about the impact to businesses due to the increased traffic levels and issues with access to the area.

Concern that some of the trees covered by TPOs are of low quality (Foreman Homes and Bryan Jezeph Consultancy).

Concern that there is no evidence to support all the 'protected habitats' shown (Foreman Homes).

Concern about the true need for junior pitches on the site and the implications for SUD provision and also the potential disturbance to residents. A financial contribution to improvements/provision elsewhere is preferred (Bryan Jezeph Consultancy).

Concern that a 2-storey limit on development is not appropriate (i.e. too restrictive) (Bryan Jezeph Consultancy).

Concern that a wider buffer should be provided around 65 Warsash Road as it faces (rather than backs onto) development.

Concern that the footpath shown exiting onto Warsash Road is partly privately owned and therefore the use of the footpath cannot be permitted.

Concern that the leisure centre [Holly Hill] is already too busy.

Concern that access may be created through Victory Hall and any potential destruction of hall.

Concern that the site is not deliverable (requires multiple parties to work together and some land is not available).

Concern that the decision(s) to accept this site have already been made.

Concern that there is insufficient policing in the area.

Concern that the land should be instead used for sports/play.

Concern that there will be a detrimental impact to the River Hamble (historic importance and wildlife).

Concern that the existing two nursing homes on Brook Lane already have insufficient parking.

Support

HCC support the housing allocation located in an existing residential area with local shops and facilities and served by public transport (Hampshire County Council).

The site is in an accessible and sustainable location, walking distance to a range of facilities and services (Foreman Homes and Bryan Jezeph Consultancy).

Support the inclusion of this site as a preferred site (Bryan Jezeph Consultancy, Taylor Wimpey and WYG on behalf of Bargate Homes).

The site is needed to overcome the 5-year housing land supply shortfall (Bryan Jezeph Consultancy).

The site could deliver in the short term (Foreman Homes and WYG on behalf of Bargate Homes).

Although as part of an objection to the principle of the site being allocated, support for the sensible approach to density.

Comments

ALTERNATIVE SITE: Newlands Farm would be a more appropriate site as it would deliver the infrastructure to serve the development.

Fewer homes/lower density would be better on the site. More of the site should be left open. Suggestion that homes should just be located to the north of Greenaway Lane or just to the east side of the proposed allocation.

ALTERNATIVE SITE: Another Welborne type development should be provided instead.

ALTERNATIVE SITE: More homes at Welborne should be added instead.

ALTERNATIVE SITE: Homes should instead be provided at Down End West (Portchester).

ALTERNATIVE SITE: More homes should be provided north of the M27 (to take pressure of road network) instead.

A better or new park is needed.

ALTERNATIVE SITE: More homes should be provided at Whiteley instead.

ALTERNATIVE SITE: Homes should instead be provided near Junction 11 of the M27.

If housing was provided as bungalows/for the elderly then there would be less pressure on the roads and schools.

ALTERNATIVE SITE: Homes should instead be provided at Posbrook Road (Titchfield).

ALTERNATIVE SITE: Homes should instead be provided at Titchfield Common.

ALTERNATIVE SITE: Homes should instead be provided at St. Margaret's Lane.

Concerns on the impact of the trips generated from the Warsash allocation on the A27 corridor and specifically the Barnes Lane and Brook Lane junctions. The A27 is part of the strategic road network and the priority will be to maintain this road hierarchy by not adding unacceptable additional delays to the functioning of this corridor. Therefore any improved junction with the A27 would need to prioritise flows along the A27. Substantial investment is already underway on the eastern part of the A27 corridor between Segensworth and Fareham as part of improving access to Fareham and Gosport by improving journey time reliability and vehicle flows. Therefore further study work will be needed to investigate the impact of the proposed allocations on the western section (Segensworth to Windhover roundabout) of the A27 corridor. Suggest that mitigation for site and/or off-site highway improvements is secured for local improvements to the A27 corridor. (Hampshire County Council – Highways Authority)

Site allocation should include reference to the adopted Hampshire Minerals and Waste Plan (2013) due to mineral safeguarding (sand and gravel likely to underlay site) (Hampshire County Council – Strategic Planning).

The impact from the new housing developments on school place planning in the local area is being assessed. The level of development identified for Warsash, totalling 700 dwellings, would equate to a demand for an extra 210 primary age pupils or 30 per year group. A review of pupil forecasts is being undertaken taking into account these new housing developments (Hampshire County Council Children's Services)

Hampshire County Council has a statutory responsibility for education in the Borough. In combination with other development in this area, it is anticipated that there will be a generated demand for up to 90 30-hour places for 2-3-4 year olds. As there is currently no spare capacity in these areas the proposed development therefore needs either directly or by way of a financial contribution, to address the identified need. (Hampshire County Council Children's Services).

Additional local sewerage infrastructure required to accommodate development (Southern Water).

Additional criteria should be added to policy to include (j) Provide a connection at the nearest point of adequate capacity in the sewerage network, in collaboration with the service provider; and (k) Provide future access to the existing underground water and wastewater infrastructure for maintenance and upsizing purposes (Southern Water).

Alternative connection point onto Lockswood Road suggested (Foreman Homes).

Welcome the explicit reference to education provision in all the draft housing allocations. In relation to HA1 recommend that the next iteration of the Local Plan provides further detail to clarify whether an onsite school is required [or the] extent of capacity in nearby schools and potential/suitability for expansion to existing schools. (Education and Skills Funding Agency Department).

Confirmation that Vero Ltd. want no part of the housing development and development will make their position untenable (Vero Ltd).

If developed the land should be freehold rather than leasehold.

Places like Winchester District should build more.

More recreation (indoor and outdoor) is needed.

We do not need more houses.

Building flats on fewer sites would be better.

The site allocation includes 28 Brook Lane but this does not form part of the land promoted for residential development and should be omitted from the allocation (WYG on behalf of Bargate Homes).

Criterion (a) – (i) are overly prescriptive and do not allow sufficient flexibility. Criterion (a) in particular should be changed to read 'the design and layout of proposals should be informed by and be broadly consistent with the Development Framework Plan…' (WYG on behalf of Bargate Homes).

Criterion (b) should be amended to read 'the quantum of housing proposed shall be broadly consistent with the indicative site capacity'. (WYG on behalf of Bargate Homes).

Criterion (c) should not restrict the use of Greenaway Lane to serve only frontage dwellings. The capacity of Greenaway Lane to accommodate access to further dwellings should not be discounted at this stage (WYG on behalf of Bargate Homes).

Criterion (h) to too restrictive. Decisions over retention of trees should be at the planning application stage. (WYG on behalf of Bargate Homes).

Critierion (i) should also refer to CIL (WYG on behalf of Bargate Homes).

Partial or Anonymous Representations on Development Allocation HA1: North and South of Greenaway Lane

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.

Support

About time Warsash had more development

There is a need for more affordable housing in this area

Better to use free space in communities rather than true greenspaces


Representations on Development Allocation HA2: Newgate Lane South

Number of representations on policy: 529

Objection: 517

Support: 4

Comment: 8

Objections

Very strong highway concerns that development will lead to worsening traffic particularly in the vicinity of the allocation. Strong concerns that the development will lead to worsening traffic congestion in Peel Common / Bridgemary / Newgate Lane in Gosport Borough and increased rat-running of traffic. Concern raised that the Newgate Lane South improvements will be nullified by the development and impacts on traffic flow further up the A32 towards the Quay Street Roundabout. Concern also raised about how the development will not help traffic flow in and out of the Gosport Peninsula.

Strong concerns that the proposed allocation will impact upon the quality of life of Gosport residents, particularly in Peel Common and Bridgemary in relation to traffic and infrastructure impacts.

Strong concerns with the proposed demolition of 165 and 167 Tukes Avenue for access purposes and undue distress caused to existing residents.

Strong concerns raised to the proposed access points from the site into Gosport Borough (Bridgemary and Peel Common). Many objections raised on access points into Bridgemary adjacent to Woodcot Primary School due to safety concerns. Concerns also raised about proposed access from Brookers Lane.

Strong concerns raised on the loss of the existing Strategic Gap which prevents both physical coalescence and provides a gap between communities. Some of these objections note this to be in conflict with the existing FBC policy to protect the Strategic Gap in this location (some respondents refer to the loss of green belt land).

Concerns there will be insufficient school places to accommodate children from the development. Particular concern expressed that there would be an undue burden placed on education facilities in Gosport Borough. A development of this size should be providing for a new school.

Concerns over the pressure that the development will put on existing doctor's surgeries. Particular concern expressed that there would be an undue burden placed on health facilities in Gosport Borough. A development of this size should be providing for a new doctor's surgery. Some concern also expressed that existing facilities within Fareham Borough would not be able to cope and are currently unfit for purpose. (e.g. Stubbington Medical Centre).

Concerns that traffic from the development will lead to worsening air pollution. Particular concerns raised to the Council's commitments towards reducing air pollution due to a continued breach of air quality limits and that allocating this site would not help to achieve air quality reduction targets.

Concerns over the depletion of countryside/greenfield land.

Concerns that increased traffic will impact upon the safety of road users, pedestrians and cyclists. Particular concern with the proposed access points via Tukes Avenue opposite Woodcot School from a safety point of view. Reference made to how rat-running will impact upon road safety.

Concerns over the loss of open space in terms of its recreational value it serves existing residents in the surrounding area of Peel Common / Bridgemary in Gosport Borough.

Concerns that the development will lead to the unavailability of parking particularly with overspill onto Tukes Avenue as a result of proposed access points in this area. Also concern that parking in Tukes Avenue is already limited due to people using the road to park when shopping in Asda, which results in limited parking spaces for residents.

Concerns over how the proposal constitutes overdevelopment and cramming. Reference also made to the already high density of development in the area.

Concerns over how additional traffic from the development will impact upon Fareham residents using Newgate Lane / getting in and out of Speedfields Park / Stubbington / further north to the A32 and Quay Street.

Concerns over how the development would impact upon biodiversity and ecology. Reference made to the site accommodating deer, voles, bats, overwintering birds, birds of prey, robins, green finches, blackbirds and sparrows.

Concerns over the lack of dentists near the proposed allocation.

Concerns over the lack of infrastructure in the vicinity with much of this emphasis relating to how it would specifically impact upon Gosport Borough in terms of financial implications and reduced capacity for Gosport residents.

Concerns raised that the site is prone to drainage and flooding problems and how this may be exacerbated by development.

Concerns raised that Fareham Borough Council is required to have discussions and agreement with Gosport Borough Council with regards to the specific allocation of this site and that such dialogue has not been undertaken. A few specific references made to how Fareham Borough Council has failed to comply with the 'Duty to Cooperate'.

Some concern raised that the development of this site would constitute coalescence / urban sprawl.

Some concern that the development of the site would have a negative impact upon the economy (particularly access to Daedalus) due to increased traffic and congestion and concern that there would not be any jobs available for new residents.

Some concern that the proposed allocation of this site is due to political reasons (e.g. Newgate Lane Southern Section road only built to allow the development / political dogma / Councillors don't live locally within the area / planning committee ignoring views of many local Gosport residents).

Some concern that the development will negate the benefit produced from the new Newgate Lane South road, by placing additional cars immediately onto it.

Some concern that this development/site would not have been needed were it not for the delays in the delivery of Welborne.

Some concern about the lack of community and social facilities to be provided with the development.

Some concern about how the development would stretch the emergency services (e.g. police and fire), whilst highways congestion may hinder emergency services.

Some concern about how the development would result in the loss of agricultural land.

Some concern about how the development would result in the loss of trees and hedgerows.

Some concern about how the development would result in cumulative impacts along with other developments in the area, including IFA2, Daedalus and the Newgate Lane South road improvements, all of which are located in nearby proximity within the Strategic Gap.

Some concern about how the development would result in increased crime.

Some concern about how the development would result in the loss of local amenity value for existing Gosport residents including privacy, sunlight and overlooking.

Some concern about the level of noise pollution likely to arise from the development including during the construction phase.

Some concern raised about how the development would impact upon the general character of the Peel Common Estate and surrounding area.

Some concern raised about how the development may not provide any / enough affordable housing and the prices of the new houses will not be affordable for those people living in the area.

Comment received about how the development would result in an increase in litter.

Comment received about how the development would result in an increase in insurance premiums for existing residents.

Comment received stating that legal action will be taken against Fareham Borough Council due to proposed demolition of homes to create new access route via Tukes Avenue.

Comment received stating that the proposed development can't be justified as it's inconsistent with the findings of the Council's landscape character assessment.

Comment received stating the site should be alternatively used for essential services (e.g. health / police).

Comment made that there will be a lack of bus routes available from the development.

Concern that the lack of public transport choices from the development will impact upon the AQMA on Newgate Lane with this being supported by information in the Interim Transport Assessment. (Gosport Borough Council).

Concern over insufficient detail of how school places would be impacted by the proposals or medical/community facilities. (Gosport Borough Council).

There is potential to harm the amenities of local Gosport residents with the introduction of new access points to existing residential areas (increased traffic). (Gosport Borough Council).

There is no provision in the policy to protect the amenities of existing residents in the vicinity. (Gosport Borough Council).

The proposed allocation would appear to contradict proposed policy SP6 and its supporting text and that the integrity of the Strategic Gap would be impacted by the sheer scale of the development and physically and visually diminish separation of the settlements. (Gosport Borough Council).

The allocation has the potential to negate the benefits of the Newgate Lane South improvements due to a negative impact on traffic flow. (Gosport Borough Council).

Objection raised to proposed allocation proposed housing allocation which is proposed to access the new Newgate Lane South. The purpose of the current improvements to Newgate Lane are to address existing traffic congestion and environmental issues on Newgate Lane and other corridors providing access to the Gosport peninsula and to facilitate better strategic access to jobs at Daedalus. The proposed allocation is likely to increase both the levels of out-commuting from the peninsula in the morning peak travel period and negate the purposes of the Newgate Lane improvements and is therefore not supported. (Hampshire County Council Highways Authority).

The allocation of this site would be contrary to both proposed Policy SP6 and Policy CS22 within the Local Plan Part 1 Core Strategy with regards to harm caused to the physical and visual benefits of the Fareham/Lee-on-the-Solent Strategic Gap. Further development on the part of the Daedalus site within this gap raises further concerns. (Lee Residents Association).

The allocation will have a severe detrimental impact on the surrounding road network, roads already formally recorded as over capacity at peak periods and would be in conflict with criterion c) of proposed Policy CF1. (Lee Residents Association).

The allocation of HA2 would completely contravene sub paragraphs a), b), d), e), g) and h) of proposed Policy INF2. (Lee Residents Association).

The allocation of this site will seriously undermine the principle for the construction of the Newgate Lane South relief road of which is not intended to serve a new large housing development. (Lee Residents Association).

Concern that the site can only be accessed by private transport which will aggravate congestion and pollution concerns on the Gosport peninsular and upon the Daedalus Economic Zone. The proposal will also place a strain on existing infrastructure intended to support Gosport residents. (Lee Residents Association).

Support

Support for the general principle of the proposed allocation for residential development of approximately 475 dwellings. (Miller Homes, Bargate Homes).

Promoter of northern parcel has an agreement with Redrow Homes and are committed to working collaboratively with the other two land parcels within the proposed allocation to prepare a detailed framework, which will be informed by further technical work. A phased approach of separate planning applications, informed by the Development Framework is supported. (Landowner).

Northern parcel is available to deliver housing within the next 5 years. (Landowner).

Support for the principle of the allocation – the southern portion of which (3002) can deliver 100 dwellings. Bargate Homes are committed to working collaboratively with the promoters of the other two land interests within the draft allocation to deliver a high-quality development (Bargate Homes)

The inclusion of the site is welcomed. The site does not have any significant constraints, which could not be overcome be mitigation, and a key piece of infrastructure (Newgate Lane South Relief Road) is under construction. The site could be delivered quickly and in the early stages of the plan period. Pegasus are promoting Land to the North of Gosport Road to be included as a site for housing in the Draft Local Plan. The site lies adjacent to HA2 (Pegasus Planning Group).

Comments

More suitable areas / sites for building housing including: brownfield sites (no specific sites mentioned); Warsash (no specific site mentioned); Stubbington (no specific sites mentioned); north or west of the A32 (no specific sites mentioned); north of Fareham (no specific sites mentioned); other site of Newgate Lane (i.e. western side) behind existing housing (no specific sites mentioned); one of the many other green and open areas within the Borough (no specific sites mentioned); larger housing sites to be located closer to the motorway; smaller developments that would spread out the housing preferably to the north of the M27 (no specific sites mentioned); redevelopment of areas that need knocking down and rebuilding (no specific sites mentioned); put them in the Fareham area (no specific sites mentioned); the open ground behind Collingwood near to Stubbington / Peak Lane (i.e. Newlands Farm).

Infrastructure provision by developers should be that necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms, directly related to the development and fair and reasonable in scale and kind to the development. (Site Promoters).

The supporting text to the policy indicates that, subject to preparation of and compliance with the overarching Development Framework, the Council will accept separate planning applications allowing for the phased delivery of the allocation. Miller Homes & Bargate Homes seek clarification that this does not in fact refer to separate planning applications being an accepted approach rather than the phased delivery of a single outline consent. As such, Miller Homes & Bargate Homes support the approach of working collaboratively to prepare an overarching Development Framework allowing each individual interest to bring forward separate planning applications. (Miller Homes, Bargate Homes).

Whilst Miller Homes & Bargate Homes support the principle of the allocation at HA2 we would request the wording of the specific requirements set out in part A to J of policy HA2 be presented so as not to be unduly restrictive at the strategic scale ensuring the evolving scheme can respond to the recommendations of any future technical reports prepared in support of a planning application. For instance, HA2 (I) pre-empts the Flood Risk Assessment and the most appropriate drainage strategy. The most appropriate strategy may be best provided separately or on a different alignment to the existing drainage ditches via a network of swales and attenuation ponds. (Miller Homes, Bargate Homes).

Whilst Miller Homes do not object to the provision of the necessary infrastructure clarity is sought in the policy or the supporting text that the provision of infrastructure will have regard to the tests set out in paragraph 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010, specifically that they are: a) necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; b) directly related to the development; and c) fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development. (Miller Homes).

Additional local sewerage infrastructure is required to accommodate the proposed development (involving making a connection to the network at the nearest point of adequate capacity). Insufficient capacity is not a constraint to development as extra capacity can be provided. Additional policy criteria recommended. (Southern Water).

Existing underground wastewater infrastructure is present beneath the site and needs to be taken into account when designing the proposed development. An easement would be required, which may affect the site layout or require diversion. This easement should be clear of all proposed buildings and substantial tree planting. (Southern Water).

Proposed site is within 400m of Peel Common Wastewater Treatment Works (WTW). Southern Water's concern is that the proximity of any 'sensitive' development to the WTW, such as housing, could have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of the site's future occupants arising from the WTW's essential operational activities. Such impacts may include odour from wastewater processing. It is therefore important that the layout of any development scheme at this site should be informed by an odour assessment, to ensure there is adequate separation from the WTW. Additional policy criteria recommended. (Southern Water).

There is an existing main running through the site and the developer should seek more information on this from Portsmouth Water before submitting a planning application. (Portsmouth Water).

Hampshire County Council operates as the Minerals and Waste Planning Authority. Site is covered by a minerals and waste safeguarding as it is likely to be underlain by sand and gravel. Further assessment to understand the suitability and viability of extraction of known mineral resources in that location needs to be considered. This is to ensure that the mineral deposits are not sterilised by non-mineral development. (Hampshire County Council Minerals and Waste Planning Authority).

Additional school places may be required to be delivered from developer contributions secured through a Section 106. (Hampshire County Council Children's Services).

Hampshire County Council has a statutory responsibility as the Highway Authority for Public Rights of Way. Fareham Footpath 76 runs along the northern part of the site, where it connects with other rights of way. A number of other rights of way are located to the east of the site. HCC recommend that any development at this location retain Footpath 76 within a buffer, and provide connections to the route. In addition, the County Council request that appropriate mitigation measures are provided towards enhancing the local rights of way network. (Hampshire County Council Rights of Way).

Hampshire County Council has a statutory responsibility for education in the Borough. It is anticipated that there will be a generated demand for up to 40 30-hour places for 2-3-4 year olds. As there is currently no spare capacity in these areas the proposed development therefore needs either directly or by way of a financial contribution, to address the identified need. (Hampshire County Council Children's Services).

Local Planning Authority would need to satisfy itself that excluding the proposed site HA2 from the designated strategic gap is not detrimental to the integrity of the gap, leading to the coalescence of the Fareham and Stubbington settlements, and harmful to the overall purpose of the Strategic Gap policy. (Hampshire County Council).

MOD supports the requirement for further work to assess the importance of the northernmost field for overwintering birds, due to the concern that birds could potentially be displaced onto the adjacent playing fields, which would impact on the operation of HMS Collingwood. (Defence Infrastructure Organisation (on behalf of the Ministry of Defence)).

Newgate Lane currently experiences congestion during peak traffic times and an increase in congestion associated with this allocation could impact on the operation of HMS Collingwood. Notwithstanding the envisaged completion of the Newgate Lane South road scheme, MOD therefore supports the requirement for further off-site highway improvement and mitigation works and the need to reduce the impact of this allocation on the road network around HMS Collingwood. (Defence Infrastructure Organisation (on behalf of the Ministry of Defence)).

HA2 is adjacent to a site which has been identified as a 'low use' site in the updated Brent Geese and Waders Strategy. Appropriate mitigation must be used to ensure any development does not have an impact on the adjacent 'low use' site for Brent Geese and Waders. (The RSPB).

It is critical that the amenities of residents in the vicinity of the proposed development are not harmed by the proposal. (Gosport Borough Council).

Partial or Anonymous Representations on Development Allocation HA2: Newgate Lane South

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.

Support

Lots of improvements to roads, can be accessed from all directions and is close to new employment sites and sixth form college. Improvements to cycle paths in this area will make it safer to commute by bike to Fareham and Gosport, which will help reduce pollution.


Representations on Development Allocation HA3: Southampton Road

Number of representations on policy: 27

Objection: 14

Support: 5

Comment: 8

Objections

Very strong concerns that development will lead to worsening traffic congestion in the vicinity, including the A27, M27 and roundabouts.

Very strong concerns over the pressure that the development will put on existing doctors' surgeries – due to already long wait times.

Strong concerns that there will be insufficient school places to accommodate children from the development.

Strong concern that traffic from the development will lead to worsening air and noise pollution, as the site is likely to be reliant upon car use.

Concerns over the lack of dentists near the proposed allocation.

Concerns over the loss of countryside in this location.

Concerns over the lack of shops and services in close proximity to the site – leading to more car use.

Concerns over a lack of infrastructure in the vicinity.

Concerns that the development will lead to the unavailability of parking for services and other properties in the vicinity.

Concerns that walking routes to schools will be both dangerous and difficult.

Concern over the scale and location of all development proposed within the Borough.

Concern that further development will lead to problems with surface water drainage both at and near to the proposed allocation.

Concern over the limited/ complete lack of public transport available at/near the proposed allocation.

Concern that the development will lead to a loss of habitats for wildlife.

Concern over the lack of walking and cycling facilities to/from and at the site.

Concern that vehicular access onto the A27 will cause new congestion – would prefer access to be restricted onto Segensworth Road only.

Concern over access onto Segensworth Road due to congestion/ geometry of Segensworth Road and Witherbed Lane junction.

Concern over a lack of recreational facilities available at the site.

Concern that development will lead to traffic rat-running along residential roads.

Support

Support for the comprehensive development of this area together with a phased approach.

Support for amending the urban boundary to include the proposed allocation.

Support for proposed allocation as access can be obtained from the widened A27.

Support for location as some existing development is already present.

Location is close to existing employment areas.

New development will bring new household expenditure into the area supporting local retailers (particularly garden centres).

Comments

Improvements to Segensworth roundabout and junction 9 should be required as part of development.

Highway access improvements required in vicinity of proposed allocation.

School places need to be provided to meet requirements of development.

Development must protect existing woodland at the site.

Not reasonable/ practical for southern part of site to access via Segensworth Road – has benefit of existing access onto Southampton Road (A27).

Hampshire County Council, as a landowner, is prepared to make its land available to support the comprehensive redevelopment of the site, subject to the approval of the County Council's Executive Member for Policy and Resources (Hampshire County Council Property Services).

Site allocation should include reference to the adopted Hampshire Minerals and Waste Plan (2013) due to mineral safeguarding (sand and gravel likely to underlay site) (Hampshire County Council – Strategic Planning).

Proposed development will require the provision of additional school places (Hampshire County Council - Education).

Development must provide appropriate mitigation measures towards the protection and enhancement of Kites Croft SINC located to the south of the site, to mitigate for increased recreational pressure (Hampshire County Council – Countryside).

It is not clear that the proposed allocation is well located in relation to access by active travel modes to local services and facilities and as such, is likely to give rise to increased number and duration of vehicular trips. HCC raises concern with this allocation and will comment further once the local plan TA has been finalised and it has been determined whether these concerns can be addressed at a strategic level (Hampshire County Council – Highways).

Hampshire County Council has a statutory responsibility for education in the Borough. In combination with other development in this area, it is anticipated that there will be a generated demand for up to 44, 30-hour places for 2-3-4 year olds. Despite new provision opening at Titchfield Community Centre and Segensworth early in 2017 there is no spare capacity in these areas. The proposed development therefore needs either directly or by way of a financial contribution, to address the identified need. (Hampshire County Council Services for Young Children).

Southern Water is the statutory water and wastewater undertaker for the area covering the proposed allocation. Underground infrastructure is present at the site and needs to be taken into account when designing the proposed development through an easement, or possibly a diversion. Additional criterion suggested as '(l) provide future access to the existing underground wastewater infrastructure for maintenance and upsizing purposes' (Southern Water).


Representations on Development Allocation HA4: Downend Road

Number of representations on policy: 181

Objection: 176

Support: 3

Comment: 2

Objections

Very strong highways concerns. Particularly concerned that development will lead to worsening congestion and delays on The Causeway, The Ridgeway/Portsdown Hill Road/Shearwater Avenue/A27/Downend Lane. Concerns over the use of heavy goods vehicles particularly on the narrow railway bridge, and that it will not support vehicles of that size/weight. Also concerned that road safety will significantly worsen.

Strong concerns over the pressures that the development will put on existing health care facilities – due to already long wait times.

Strong concerns that there will be insufficient school places to accommodate children from the development.

Strong concerns over the proposed access into the site from Downend Road. Particularly that the proposed access is unsuitable for the size of the development and will lead to worsening traffic congestion.

Strong concerns that there is a lack of parking for residents near the proposed development, and development of the site will create further parking issues for residents in the vicinity.

Strong concerns that the traffic from development will lead to worsening air and noise pollution

Strong concerns that the development will lead to a loss of habitats for wildlife. Particularly concerned on the impact on the nearby Downend Chalk Pit SSSI and Ramsar sites and on birds of prey, badgers, foxes and slow worms.

Concerned that walking routes to school will be both dangerous and difficult.

Concerned over the depletion of countryside/greenfield land.

Concerned over the impact of the landscape in Portchester, particularly the impact on Portsdown Hill.

Concerns over the loss of agricultural land.

Concerned over the lack of infrastructure in the vicinity in general.

Concerned that the proposed development will be detrimental and the 'village' character of Portchester will be lost.

Concern over the impact of the proposed development on emergency services, particularly due to the proximity of site to QA Hospital.

Concerned that there are too many homes proposed for Portchester, particularly for the Downend Road site, and that development should be spread across the Borough more evenly.

Concerned over the pressure the development will place on existing dentists in the area.

Concern over the lack of services and facilities and jobs in the area, and the increased pressure that the development would impose on these facilities.

Concern over the lack of affordable housing proposed for the Downend Road site.

Alternative sites should be considered in favour of the Romsey Avenue allocation, this includes Newlands Farm, Swanwick Lane, Sopwith Way, Sovereign Crescent and Oakcroft Lane. Also suggested that further homes should be allocated in Fareham Town Centre.

Concern over the shortage of public open space in Portchester.

Concern over the impact of the proposed site on pedestrians and cyclists, with increasing traffic through Downend Road and onto the Thicket where there is a blind spot.

Concern over the lack of public rights of way in the vicinity.

Concern over the rise of crime in the vicinity and also the potential security and anti-social behaviour issues arising from the proposed development. In particular there are concerns that the development will create overlooking.

Concern that this site would not have been required for development were it not for delays in Welborne being delivered.

Concern over the poor drainage on the sites, in particular the impact on surface water flooding. In particular concerned about the risk of contamination from soil.

Concerns over the lack of public transport in the vicinity.

Concern over the impact of developing the site on the nearby memorial gardens and crematorium.

Concern over the pedestrian access onto Upper Cornaway Lane.

Concern over the mass/mix of housing proposed for the site.

Concern over the proximity of the site to the RNAD Bedenham (ammunitions) safeguarding zone.

Concerned over the loss of trees on site.

Concerned over the lack of waste facilities proposed.

Concerned that the appeal for Cranleigh Road has created a precedent for development in the vicinity.

Concern that a 2-storey limit to the homes proposed on the perimeter/access to the site is not appropriate (Miller Homes).

Concern that more flexibility should be provided in relation to the use of Upper Cornaway Lane as a cycle path (Miller Homes).

Veolia UK owns the land to the north known as Downend Quarry. The Hampshire Minerals and Waste Plan identified this site as a protected waste management site for a number of uses including wood sorting, transfer, etc. Concern that due to the openness of Downend Road that the proposed development will be more open and exposed to the approved operations at the quarry site. The development at Downend Road would need to demonstrate that the amenity of future residents would not be compromised by Veolia's operations (Veolia UK).

Support

The site is a suitable and sustainable location for residential development.

Miller Homes support the allocation of the site identified as Land East of Downend Road (3130) (Miller Homes).

Support given to criteria b) and g) in Policy HA4, in order to ensure adequate protection is afforded to potential archaeological heritage assets in accordance with paragraphs 135 and possibly 139 of the NPPF. The required assessment should also include an assessment of the potential impact of the development of this site on the setting and significance of the Fort Nelson Scheduled Ancient Monument to provide it with adequate protection in accordance with paragraphs 132, 133 and 134 of the NPPF (Historic England).

Comments

Southern Water is the statutory undertaker for Portchester. Southern Water's assessment of the site reveals that additional local sewerage infrastructure would be required, to accommodate the proposed development. Therefore, a connection to the network to the nearest point of adequate capacity would be required (Southern Water).

It is not clear that the proposed allocation is well located in relation to access by active travel modes to local services and facilities and as such, is likely to give rise to increased number and duration of vehicular trips. HCC raises concern with this allocation and will comment further once the local plan TA has been finalised and it has been determined whether these concerns can be addressed at a strategic level (Hampshire County Council – Highways).

Hampshire County Council has a statutory responsibility as the Highways Authority for Public Rights of Way. The allocation appears to use Footpath 117 for vehicular access to the east. HCC would not support the use of this rights of way for vehicular access. HCC have aspirations to improve the rights of way within the vicinity of this site and would therefore request appropriate mitigation measures be provided (Hampshire County Council – Highways).

Proposed development will require the provision of additional school places (Hampshire County Council - Education).

Hampshire County Council has a statutory responsibility for education in the Borough. HCC identified that Portchester is deficient by 44 early-years childcare places and with the added Portchester draft allocations, this will increase to 70 places to meet demand for 2-4-year olds. The Local Plan should address this either directly or through financial contributions (Hampshire County Council – Children's Services).

Hampshire County Council operates as the Minerals and Waste Planning Authority. The site is within a MWCA Safeguarded Site (Downend Quarry) which operates as part of a transfer station. This will need to be considered prior to development (Hampshire County Council – Minerals and Waste).


Representations on Development Allocation HA5: Romsey Avenue

Number of representations on policy: 350

Objection: 341

Support: 2

Comment: 7

Objections

Strong highway concerns. Particularly concerned that the development will lead to worsening traffic congestion on the A27, Beaulieu Avenue and on Romsey Avenue.

Strong concerns over the pressures that the development will put on existing health care facilities – due to already long wait times.

Strong concerns that there will be insufficient school places to accommodate children from the development, such as Wicor School.

Strong concerns that the development will lead to a loss of habitats for wildlife. Particularly concerned on the impact on the nearby Portsmouth Harbour SPA, on Brent geese, slow worms, deer, badgers, bats, etc.

Strong concerns over the loss of Grade 1 agricultural land.

Strong concerns generally over the lack of infrastructure in the vicinity.

Strong concerns that the traffic from development will lead to worsening air and noise pollution.

Concerned that walking routes to school will be both dangerous and difficult.

Concerned that the access into the site is too narrow, which could create potential hazards when accessing the site. Also concerned that the access is currently used for parking

Alternative sites should be considered in favour of the Romsey Avenue allocation, this includes Newlands Farm.

Concerned that the appeal for Cranleigh Road has created a precedent for development in the vicinity, including the allocation at Romsey Avenue.

Concerned over the amount of development that is proposed in Portchester and the development should be spread more evenly across the Borough.

Concerned that the development will create a precedent for the loss of countryside in the Borough.

Concern over the pressure the development will put on existing dentists.

Concern over the lack of services and facilities and jobs in the area, and the increased pressure that the development would impose on these facilities.

Concern over the shortage of recreation facilities and public open space in the vicinity.

Concern over the impact of the development on the character of Portchester (including the heritage assets in close proximity).

Concern over the lack of affordable housing proposed for the Romsey Avenue site.

Concern over the impact on the emergency services, particularly in terms of accessing the site and additional pressure due to the size of the development.

Concerns that the development will lead to increased surface water flooding, particularly during peak rainfall.

Concern that there are too many homes proposed at Romsey Avenue, in conjunction with the other sites proposed in the rest of the Borough.

Concern over the loss of trees on site.

Concern over the impact on landscape views.

Concern over the lack of public transport provision in Portchester.

Concern over the noise from construction of the proposed development.

Concern over the proximity of the site to the RNAD Bedenham (ammunitions) safeguarding zone.

Concerned the site will result in the additional depletion of natural resources and lack of reference to renewable energy use on site.

Support

The site is well served by existing infrastructure, services and facilities.

The development provides an opportunity to enhance cycle and pedestrian connections in the vicinity.

Romsey Avenue is a practical location for houses to be built in Portchester.

HCC support the location of the Portchester South housing allocations in existing residential areas which are served by local shops, facilities and public transport (Hampshire County Council – Highways Authority).

Comments

The development site should be allocated as a Local Green Space.

Sites for housing development should be allocated on brownfield land.

Southern Water is the statutory wastewater undertaker in Portchester. Underground infrastructure is present at the site and needs to be taken into account when designing the proposed development through an easement, or possibly a diversion. Additional criterion suggested as '(i) provide future access to the existing underground wastewater infrastructure for maintenance and upsizing purposes'. (Southern Water).

Concern that the trips generated from the allocations will feed additional traffic onto roads in the local road network which are difficult to improve. Therefore the site promoters will need to prove that the sites and local facilities are accessible by walking, cycling and public transport and will need to assess the impact on the local roads of traffic heading to the A27 corridor and secure site and/or off-site highway improvements to mitigate the impact of the development (Hampshire County Council – Highways Authority).

HCC has concerns about the impact of both the Portchester Down End (HA4) and the Portchester South allocations on the Delme roundabout and the A27 Portchester Road. This includes the impact on the identified accident sites at the both the Castle street and West street roundabouts on the A27 in Portchester which are both the subject of a bid to the DfT Safer Roads Fund. Therefore the cumulative impacts of development along the A27 corridor between the Delme Arms Roundabout and the city boundary need to be assessed and any identified significant impacts mitigated (Hampshire County Council – Highways Authority).

HCC has a statutory responsibility as the Highways Authority for Public Rights of Way. Footpath 111A and Wicor is a nature reserve and countryside service, both of these amenities are in close proximity to the site. HCC require an appropriate mitigation strategy for the increased pressure on the assets that the development would generate. (Hampshire County Council – Highways Authority).

Hampshire County Council has a statutory responsibility for education in the Borough. HCC identified that Portchester is deficient by 44 early-years childcare places and with the added Portchester draft allocations, this will increase to 70 places to meet demand for 2-4-year olds. The Local Plan should address this either directly or through financial contributions. (Hampshire County Council – Children's Services).

It is critical that all site allocations are reassessed against the updated Solent Waders and Brent Goose Strategy. A number of the proposed sites including the site at Romsey Avenue is now recognised as having greater importance to the network of SPA supporting sites and identified as a 'Primary Support Area. The Council must assess all of the sites including HA5 to demonstrate that all less damaging options have been excluded. In the absence of this assessment the RSPB concludes that the Plan would fail the NPPF tests of soundness. 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 lower than that identified in the PUSH SHMA. (RSPB).

The status of this site in the new Solent Wader and Brent Goose Strategy has changed from 'Uncertain' to 'Secondary Support Area' and as such mitigation measures will be required. (Hampshire & Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust).



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