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 HA16-HA26 Summary of Comments

 

HA16: Military Road

HA17: 69 Botley Road

HA18: Funtley Road North

HA19: 399-409 Hunts Pond Road

HA20: North Wallington and Standard Way

HA21: Hampshire Rose

HA22: Wynton Way

HA23: Stubbington Lane

HA24: 335-337 Gosport Road

HA25: Sea Lane

HA26: Beacon Bottom East

Representations on Development Allocation HA16: Military Road

Number of representations on policy: 118

Objection: 108

Support: 2

Comment: 8

Objections

Very strong concerns of highway and pedestrian safety and access -

Drift Road, Pinks Hill and Military Road are considered unsuitable for increases in residential traffic and HGVs that will need to access the site. The absence of pavements raises very strong pedestrian safety concerns; whilst street lighting and narrow road widths and the inability to widen these roads also raises very strong concerns for vehicular safety and accessibility. Roads are particularly unsuitable in snow/ice conditions.

Very strong concerns about the risk of surface water flooding with increased run-off specifically mentioned and its effects on properties down the hill from the proposed development site. Increased risk of fluvial inundation also highlighted as very strong concern as a result of this proposed development site.

Very strong concerns that there is insufficient drainage and sewage capacity. Linked to the flooding issue above, development of this site will lead to increased pressure on already inadequate drainage and sewage systems leading to flooding issues in Wallington.

Strong concerns over the presence of Gault (Blue Clay) which could cause subsidence impacting on any development of this site.

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

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

Impacts to newts, owls, pheasant, deer, bats, field mice, woodpeckers and slow worms. Rare orchids have been found on the site in the past.

Concerns that the development will lead to worsening air pollution and air quality issues in the area. Also concerns of air quality for any new residents living on the site due to the proximity of the M27 and A27 intersection.

Concerns of the effects of noise pollution from the M27 and A27 intersection on the new residents of the proposed development.

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

Concern over the lack of public transport provision and lack of shops and services for Wallington; making the development unsustainable and increasing the use of the private car.

Concern that the site acts as a buffer between Fort Wallington Industrial estate and residential housing. As such, this buffer should not be lost to any development.

Concerns over the pressure that the development will put on existing doctors' surgeries.

Concern that the burden of development isn't being spread evenly across the Borough. Wallington has already seen lots of recent development and taken its fair share.

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

Concern over the loss of trees and hedgerows on the site

Concern over the visual impact the proposed development will have on short to long distance views of the area/Wallington.

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

Concerns over the pressure that the development will put on existing dental provision.

Concern over the loss of agricultural land.

Concern at the potential impact of development at this site on the significance of the Grade II Listed Fort Wallington. Criterion h) is too week and an assessment of the likely impact of the development of this site on the significance of Fort Wallington should be undertaken with it being ascertained there would be no significance harm to that significance before this site is taken forward, in order to ensure adequate protection is afforded to the listed building in accordance with paragraphs 132, 133 and 134 of the NPPF (Historic England).

It's also unclear if the noted assessment was undertaken as part of the Stage 2 detailed assessment of potential housing sites, with no current confirmation that this has been done and that it concludes that there would be no unacceptable harm to the significance of this listed fort (Historic England).

Support

Support for the comprehensive development of the site (Foreman Homes)

Support for the Inclusion of bullet point (i) regarding ground water Source Protection Zones in Policy HA16. (Environment Agency).

Comment

Hampshire Countryside Service has aspirations to upgrade Fareham Footpath 505 (Paradise Lane) into a multi-user route and provide a link along Military Road to Fareham Bridleway 100 in Broadcut. Hampshire Countryside Service would like to explore if this and surrounding developments could help deliver these aspirations. (Hampshire County Council – Countryside Service).

The proposed allocation will require the provision of 2, 3 & 4 yr old early-years childcare places as there is no local capacity surplus. The use of community facilities should be made available to providers seeking to establish a business (Hampshire County Council Children's Services).

Assessment reveals that there is underground wastewater infrastructure that 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. As such proposed additional policy wording to HA16 is required. This should be "Provide future access to the existing underground water and wastewater infrastructure for maintenance and upsizing purposes." (Southern Water).

Careful consideration is required due to the underlying aquifer (Portsmouth Water).

Although as part of an objection to the principle of the site being allocated, development of this site should be of the same standard, cost, and visual appearance of the existing houses in the area.

Pinks Hill should be widened and a 20mph speed limit extended to all roads in Wallington.

There is archaeological potential in the area which must be explored and preserved.

Although as part of an objection to the principle of the site being allocated, the effects of the development on the water table/river discharge should be explored- suggestion of a comprehensive hydrological and geological survey to be carried out.

There is potentially an existing (10 year) covenant on site which could restrict development.

Due to former MOD activity in this area, unexploded ordnance could be present.


Representations on Development Allocation HA17: 69 Botley Road

Number of representations on policy: 30

Objection: 27

Support: 0

Comment: 3

Objections

Very strong concern that the development is unacceptable in highway terms and will generate additional highway safety issues. Access should not be considered from Beacon Bottom. Pedestrians already find it difficult to cross the road. Access for emergency vehicles will be worse.

Strong concern that there will be insufficient school places to accommodate children from this development (particularly when considered with the cumulative impact from other developments).

Strong concerns over the pressure that increased development will put on existing doctors' surgeries – already long wait times to see a doctor.

Strong concerns that the development will lead to worsening air pollution and air quality issues in the area (with resulting health implications).

Strong concern that there are too many homes planned in the area and that small sites (such as this) will not deliver the infrastructure required to support development.

Concern that the development will lead to a loss of habitats and wildlife. Impact to birds specifically mentioned.

Concern over the loss of countryside/greenspace.

Concern that there is insufficient car parking at the shops and insufficient play area/open space.

Concern that public transport in the area is insufficient to serve the development and should be improved.

Concern that brownfield sites should/should have been looked at first.

Concern about loss of trees/hedgerows.

Concern about noise pollution.

Concern over the loss of gap/buffer between Locks Heath and Whiteley.

Concern about drainage infrastructure.

Concern about light pollution.

Concern that the allocation of this site contradicts the NPPF and the Council's own site selection priorities.

Concern that the proposal will have an adverse impact on character and function of existing landscape on/around Beacon Bottom.

Concern that there are insufficient dentists.

Concern that this site is only needed due to delays in the Welborne development.

Concern about the noise impact and the loss of buffer area to help mitigate noise from the M27.

Concern about suitability for and impacts from construction traffic.

Concern that the affordable housing requirement has not been specifically mentioned as a requirement for this site.

Concern that this is site is not sustainable.

Concern that no direct notification was received about the draft plan and that the Special Edition of Fareham Today was not received.

Comments

Additional local sewerage infrastructure will be required to accommodate the development and underground wastewater infrastructure will require an easement free from buildings and substantial tree planting. Additional criterion requested to policy to read (g) provide a connection at the nearest point of adequate capacity in the sewerage network, in collaboration with the service provider; and (h) provide future access to the existing underground infrastructure for maintenance and upsizing purposes. (Southern Water)

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).

Hampshire County Council have an aspiration to formalise a route [right of way] across this site between Beacon Bottom and Botley Road, so request that this aspiration is incorporated into the policy. (Hampshire County Council)

Any development should complement area and have breaks in housing to give an uncluttered feel.

ALTERNATIVE SITE: Newlands Farm would be a more appropriate.


Representations on Development Allocation HA18: Funtley Road North

Number of representations on policy: 19

Objection: 15

Support: 1

Comment: 3

Objections

Very strong concerns that development will lead to increased surface water flooding, particularly during peak rainfall.

Very strong concerns that there is insufficient drainage to cope with increased amount of development in this area- this relates to waste water treatment as well as surface water.

Very strong highways concerns. The existing highway network including bridges in the vicinity of the development could not cope with increases in traffic. In addition, safety of all users of the highway (cyclists and pedestrians) is questioned. Concerns over the use of heavy goods vehicles on narrow bridges and those with height/weight limits is also expressed.

Strong concern over the loss of countryside/ the development being outside of the present Defined Urban Settlement Boundary and in a sensitive landscape.

Concern over the lack of public transport provision and pedestrian footways in Funtley.

Concern over contaminated land.

Concern over the lack of services and facilities in the area (doctors, schools, shops etc.).

Concern that development is not being evenly spread across the Borough.

Concerns over land subsidence.

Concern over the lack of school and doctors' places which development will exacerbate.

Concern over the increased prevalence of rodents as a result of more development.

Alternative sites should have been considered before this allocation i.e. SHLAA ref 3008 Land South of Longfield Avenue.

Fears that increased development will lead to security and crime issues for existing residents.

Support

Support for the comprehensive development of this area. (Reside Developments)

Comments

Fareham Bridleway 515 runs to west of the site, while a disused railway line runs to the east. HCC have aspirations to upgrade Bridleway 515, and provide a right of way along the old railway line. As such, contributions from this development should be made to help improve the adjacent Bridleway 515 (Deviation Line) (Hampshire County Council – Countryside Service).

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).

Quantum of development should be increased to around 27 dwellings to take into account the increased developable area (following the non-requirement for open space on this site). (Reside Developments)

Amendments to policy wording of HA18 suggested. This is in relation to the location of the pedestrian footway. (Reside Developments)


Representations on Development Allocation HA19: 399-409 Hunts Pond Road

Number of representations on policy: 22

Objection: 19

Support: 1

Comment: 2

Objections

Very strong concerns that the development will have an unacceptable impact on traffic congestion in the vicinity of the site and surrounding roads such as the A27.

Issues of on street parking (particularly when the nearby sports field is in use and people using the local shops). Speeding and highway safety are raised especially.

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

Very 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.

Strong concern over the loss of countryside/greenspace. Loss of one of the few greenspaces left in Titchfield Common. Site should remain as countryside/be preserved for community benefit. The site is outside of the Defined Urban Settlement Boundary (some respondents refer to loss of the strategic gap/green belt).

Concerns over the pressure that the development will put on existing dental provision.

Concern that the burden of development isn't being spread evenly across the Borough. Titchfield Common/ the Western Wards has already seen lots of recent development and taken its fair share.

Concern over a lack of public transport serving the area and a lack of shops and services and recreational opportunities.

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

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

Support

Support for the inclusion of bullet point (e) in HA19 regarding Flood Zones. (Environment Agency).

Comments

Hampshire Countryside Service requests an appropriate buffer is provided to Kites Croft Local Nature Reserve and that development provides a contribution towards protecting and enhancing the site from recreational pressure. In addition, the County Council has aspirations to provide a multi-user route along Hunts Pond Road and would like appropriate mitigation to achieving this. (Hampshire County Council – Countryside Service).

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).

National Grid prefers that buildings are not directly beneath its overhead lines. This is to protect the amenity of potential occupiers of properties in the vicinity of lines and because National Grid needs quick and easy access to carry out maintenance of its equipment to ensure that it can be returned to service and be available as part of the national transmission system. Such access can be difficult to obtain without inconveniencing and disturbing occupiers and residents, particularly where properties are in close proximity to overhead lines. (National Grid).

Land beneath and adjacent to the overhead line route should be used to make a positive contribution to the development of the site and can for example be used for nature conservation, open space, landscaping areas or used as a parking court. (National Grid).

Potential developers of the site should be aware that it is National Grid policy to retain our existing overhead lines in-situ. The relocation of existing high voltage overhead lines will only be considered for projects of national importance which has been identified as such by central government. (National Grid).

The statutory safety clearances between overhead lines, the ground, and built structures must not be infringed. To comply with statutory safety clearances the live electricity conductors of National Grid's overhead power lines are designed to be a minimum height above ground. Where changes are proposed to ground levels beneath an existing line then it is important that changes in ground levels do not result in safety clearances being infringed. National Grid can, on request, provide to developers detailed line profile drawings that detail the height of conductors, above ordnance datum, at a specific site. (National Grid).

ments to policy wording of HA18 suggested. This is in relation to the location of the pedestrian footway. (Reside Developments)


Representations on Development Allocation HA20: North Wallington and Standard Way

Number of representations on policy: 85

Objection: 80

Support: 1

Comment: 4

Objections

Very strong concern that the development is unacceptable in highway terms and will generate additional highway safety issues and add to existing congestion. Concern that access to the site will be difficult with parked vehicles (many from nearby employment areas) making it single width in places. The road is already used as a rat-run. There are no pavements causing a safety issue for pedestrians. There is a large amount of lorry movement in vicinity of site. Already insufficient parking in area. Access onto Delme roundabout is difficult.

Strong concern about flood risk with development of the site increasing run-off to the River Wallington exacerbating existing flood risk issue and jeopardising flood risk mitigation plans. Springs add to flood risk/high water table. Maindell pumping station pipes run diagonal across the site.

Strong concerns that the development will put more homes in a poor air quality area (with resulting health implications). The site currently acts as a buffer from M27 so it's development will make things worse.

Strong concern about the noise impact and the loss of buffer area to help mitigate noise from the M27.

Concern over the loss of countryside, few remaining green/open space in Wallington.

Concern that there is no public transport in Wallington.

Concern about the detrimental impact to the character of the area/Conservation Area.

Concern that the site is remote with some distance to nearest schools and facilities.

Concern that the sewerage infrastructure is inadequate to serve new development in this location.

Concern that the development will lead to a loss of habitats and wildlife. Impacts to specific species mentioned include Egrets and Kingfishers and also flora (Orphys Apifera)

Concern that development is on an aquifer, water company's advice should be sought.

Concern about the impact to nearby properties, in particular Riverdale Cottages which have no parking and could be over dominated by new development.

Concern that there will be insufficient school places to accommodate children from this development (particularly when considered with the cumulative impact from other developments).

Concern as to how the area is already used as overspill parking from the nearby employment areas.

Concerns over the pressure that increased development will put on existing doctors' surgeries.

Concern that development of this site will have a detrimental impact on the quality of life.

Concern about disruption/issues during the construction process.

Concern over the loss of trees.

Concern at the loss of agricultural land.

Concern that development is not evenly distributed across the borough.

Concern that Welborne was meant to meet the housing need and it has not.

Concern about the impact to views.

Concern that the Council are incorrect in considering the site to be a 'low sensitive' landscape.

Concern that the Council are incorrect in considering the site to have 'good accessibility'.

Support

Support allocation of site which is well served by existing infrastructure. Site confirmed as available, achievable and suitable Existing trees and hedgerows along roads can be retained. Site could contribute to Council's 5-year housing requirement. (Foreman Homes).

Comments

Welcome the inclusion of bullet (i) in the development criteria which takes account of the source protections zones on and around the site. (Environment Agency).

Additional local sewerage infrastructure would be required to accommodate the development, making a connection to the network at the nearest point of adequate capacity. Additional criterion should be added to the policy to read (k) provide a connection at the nearest point of adequate capacity in the sewerage network, in collaboration with the service provider. (Southern Water).

Careful consideration is required due to the underlying aquifer (Portsmouth Water).

Fareham footpath 505 runs along Paradise Lane to the east of these sites. HCC have an aspiration to upgrade Footpath 505 to a multi-user route and provide a link along Military Road to Fareham Bridleway 100 in Broadcut. The County Council would like to explore whether these site allocations could help deliver this aspiration. (Hampshire County Council).

The proposed allocation will require the provision of 2, 3 & 4 yr old early-years childcare places as there is no local capacity surplus. The use of community facilities should be made available to providers seeking to establish a business (Hampshire County Council Children's Services).


Representations on Development Allocation HA21: Hampshire Rose

Number of representations on policy: 3

Objection: 1

Support: 0

Comment: 2

Objections

Concerns that the development will have an unacceptable impact on traffic congestion.

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

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.

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

Comments

Assessment reveals that there is underground wastewater infrastructure that 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. As such proposed additional policy wording to HA21 is required. This should be "Provide future access to the existing underground water and wastewater infrastructure for maintenance and upsizing purposes." (Southern Water).

Fareham Footpath 81 runs along Fareham Park Road. HCC would expect any development at this location to minimise impacts upon this route. In addition, the County Council have an aspiration to formalise a link from Highlands Road to Mayles Lane, and as such, request that these allocations include appropriate mitigation towards achieving this aspiration. (Hampshire County Council – Countryside Service).

It is likely that any generated demand arising for provision of 2,3 & 4 year olds from this development can most likely be accommodated locally but at a stretch. Use of community facilities should be made available to providers seeking to establish a business. (Hampshire County Council Services for Young Children).


Representations on Development Allocation HA22: Wynton Way

Number of representations on policy: 4

Objection: 0

Support: 2

Comment: 2

Support

Support for comprehensive development of the site.

Hampshire County Council in its role as a partial landowner of the allocation supports the re-allocation of this site in the emerging Fareham Local Plan and re-affirms the availability of this landholding. (Hampshire County Council Property Services).

Comment

Assessment reveals that there is underground wastewater infrastructure that 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. As such proposed additional policy wording to HA22 is required. This should be "Provide future access to the existing underground water and wastewater infrastructure for maintenance and upsizing purposes." (Southern Water).

Fareham Footpath 81 runs along Fareham Park Road. HCC would expect any development at this location to minimise impacts upon this route. In addition, the County Council have an aspiration to formalise a link from Highlands Road to Mayles Lane, and as such, request that these allocations include appropriate mitigation towards achieving this aspiration. (Hampshire County Council – Countryside Service).

It is likely that any generated demand arising for provision of 2,3 & 4 year olds from this development can most likely be accommodated locally but at a stretch. Use of community facilities should be made available to providers seeking to establish a business. (Hampshire County Council Services for Young Children).


Representations on Development Allocation HA23: Stubbington Lane

Number of representations on policy: 8

Objection: 6

Support: 0

Comment: 2

Objections

Very strong concerns that the development will have an unacceptable impact on traffic congestion.

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

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.

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

Concern that the site is directly beneath a busy flight path from Solent Airport.

HA23 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).

Comments

Trees on site should be retained. In addition, the removal of the brown wooden fence that surrounds Daedalus next to Stubbington lane would be welcomed, making the area more open.

The Solent Way runs along the coast to the south of this site, and will provide a valuable recreational and utility resource for the future residents of this site. There is a need to protect and enhance the Solent Way, and therefore request that appropriate mitigation is provided from this allocation. (Hampshire County Council – Countryside Service).

Hampshire County Council has a statutory responsibility for education in the Borough. HCC identified that there exists a current 5 place deficit in childcare places. However, in isolation, the site is not significant for likely childcare demand. (Hampshire County Council – Children's Services).


Representations on Development Allocation HA24: 335-337 Gosport Road

Number of representations on policy: 8

Objection: 3

Support: 2

Comment: 3

Objections

Strong concerns that the development will have an unacceptable impact on traffic congestion.

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

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.

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

Concerns over the pressure that the development will put on existing dental provision.

Concern over the loss of countryside/greenspace. Loss of one of the few greenspaces left in the area.

Concerns about the risk of flooding particularly from surface water.

Support

Support for a comprehensive development

Hampshire County Council in its role as a landowner of the allocation supports the re-allocation of this site in the emerging Fareham Local Plan and re-affirms the availability of this landholding. (Hampshire County Council Property Services).

Comments

Although part of an original objection, comments are made to reduce the density of housing on site and plant more trees/greenery instead- to help combat the identified local air quality issues.

Assessment reveals that there is underground wastewater infrastructure that 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. As such proposed additional policy wording to HA24 is required. This should be "Provide future access to the existing underground water and wastewater infrastructure for maintenance and upsizing purposes." (Southern Water).

There is an aspiration within the Gosport Borough Council Cycle Strategy, which HCC support, for a multi-user route going south from this site, parallel to the BRT. HCC would therefore like to explore whether this allocation could help achieve this aspiration via appropriate mitigation. (Hampshire County Council – Countryside Service).

It is likely that any generated demand arising for provision of 2,3 & 4 year olds from this development can most likely be accommodated locally but at a stretch. Use of community facilities should be made available to providers seeking to establish a business. (Hampshire County Council Services for Young Children).


Representations on Development Allocation HA25: Sea Lane

Number of representations on policy: 7

Objection:3

Support: 0

Comment: 4

Objections

Strong concerns that the development will have an unacceptable impact on traffic congestion. In addition, the access to the site should be considered (suggestions made that access to the site should be from Stubbington Lane).

Strong concerns that the density of development proposed is too high and should be reduced to be in keeping with the character of the area.

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

Concern over the loss of countryside/greenspace. Loss of one of the few greenspaces left in the area.

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.

Concern over the loss of trees and hedgerows on the site.

Concern that the site is directly beneath a busy flight path from Solent Airport.

Comments

Development should be of high quality and well designed and the provision of a pavement and streetlighting should not be included. In addition, the density of housing on site should be reduced. These points will allow development to reflect the character and local distinctiveness of the surrounding area of Sea Lane.

Existing trees and hedgerows should be retained.

Proposed access should be changed from Sea Lane to be focused at Stubbington Lane.

The Solent Way runs along the coast to the south of this site, and will provide a valuable recreational and utility resource for the future residents of this site. There is a need to protect and enhance the Solent Way, and therefore request that appropriate mitigation is provided from this allocation. (Hampshire County Council – Countryside Service).

Hampshire County Council has a statutory responsibility for education in the Borough. HCC identified that there exists a current 5 place deficit in childcare places. However, in isolation, the site is not significant for likely childcare demand. (Hampshire County Council – Children's Services).


Representations on Development Allocation HA26: Beacon Bottom East

Number of representations on policy: 43

Objection: 40

Support: 1

Comment: 2

Objections

Very strong concern that the development is unacceptable in highway terms and will generate additional highway safety issues. Beacon Bottom is considered too narrow and with the parked vehicles consistently on the road it is effectively single track. Pavement needed and problems turning out of Beacon Bottom also highlighted, traffic lights should be considered at the junction.

Strong concerns over the pressure that increased development will put on existing doctors' surgeries – already long wait times to see a doctor.

Strong concern that there will be insufficient school places to accommodate children from this development (particularly when considered with the cumulative impact from other developments).

Strong concern over the loss of countryside/greenspace and that the allocation of this site will encourage continued urban sprawl.

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

Impacts to protected and non-protected species on site (badgers, mice, slow worms, bats, sparrows, starlings, song thrush, owls, foxes and deer mentioned).

Strong concern that there are too many homes planned in the area and that small sites (such as this) will not deliver the infrastructure required to support development.

Concern about the impact to ancient hedgerows (the holly hedge on north side of Beacon Bottom specifically mentioned) and ancient woodland.

Concern about disruption and disturbance during any construction period and that the road is unsuitable for construction traffic.

Concern relating to the lack of dentists and capacity for new patients.

Concerns that the development will lead to worsening air pollution and air quality issues in the area (with resulting health implications).

Concern over the loss of gap/buffer between Park Gate and Swanwick and/or Locks Heath and Whiteley.

Concern that there are not enough jobs in the immediate area and not enough parking at Locks Heath District Centre.

Concern that the development of this site will have a detrimental impact on the landscape.

Concern that brownfield sites should be developed first.

Concern that no direct notification was received about the draft plan and that the Special Edition of Fareham Today was not received.

Concern about the noise impact and the loss of buffer area to help mitigate noise from the M27.

Concern about how sewerage will be addressed as the site is below sewer level so unable to drain into it.

Concern that development at this site will be out of character with the area.

Concern that the allocation of this site contradicts the NPPF and the Council's own site selection priorities.

Concern about the loss of trees.

Concern about light pollution.

Concern that the development of the site will have a detrimental impact on the semi-rural character of the road.

Concern that this development site would not have been needed if Welborne had delivered homes as expected.

Concern that there is no mention of care homes.

Concern that public transport from the site to Fareham Town Centre is poor.

Criteria (a) should not refer to legal covenant as this does not form a material consideration in determining any planning application for the site (Agent for site owner)

Criteria (b) is too restrictive considering locational context and topography, where dwellings on the south side of the road sit at a higher level than the site and land to north of Beacon Bottom (Agent on behalf of site owner).

Criteria (e) is too restrictive, decisions over which trees should be retained will be made at the planning application stage in the context of a tree survey (Agent on behalf of site owner).

Criteria (f) should be amended to refer to CIL as well (Agent on behalf of site owner).

Support

Support the principle of the allocation and confirm site is available to be delivered in the short term. (Agent on behalf of site owner)

Comments

An [sewer] 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. Accordingly, we propose that that the following criterion is added to Policy HA26. (g) Provide future access to the existing underground wastewater infrastructure for maintenance and upsizing purposes. (Southern Water)

Hampshire County Ccouncil have an aspiration to formalise a route [right of way] across this site between Beacon Bottom and Botley Road, so request that this aspiration is incorporated into the policy. (Hampshire County Council)

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).

The red-line shown in the draft allocation is larger than included in the previous submissions/promotion of the site. Based on this, the indicative dwelling number of 5 dwellings should be increased to 10 dwellings. This accounts for the covenant on the site and could retain existing cottage (Agent on behalf of the site owner).

ALTERNATIVE SITE: Newlands Farm would be a more appropriate.

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

Partial or Anonymous Representations on Development Allocation HA26: Beacon Bottom East

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.

Objections

Detrimental impact to the quality of life for residents near the proposed site.



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