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 HA6-HA15 Summary of Comments

 

HA6: Cranleigh Road

HA7: Warsash Maritime Academy

HA8: Pinks Hill

HA9: Heath Road

HA10: Funtley Road South

HA11: Raley Road

HA12: Moraunt Drive

HA13: Hunts Pond Road

HA14: Genesis Centre

HA15: Beacon Bottom West

Representations on Development Allocation HA6: Cranleigh Road

Number of representations on policy: 78

Objection: 75

Support: 1

Comment: 2

Objections

Very strong concerns that the development will have an unacceptable impact to traffic congestion in the vicinity of the site and the A27. Also, that road safety will significantly worsen.

Congestion on the A27 is highlighted particularly the stretch between Cams Hill School/Downend Road Junction and the Delme Roundabout. Issues with access to the site and the level of existing parking on Cranleigh Road as a result of the nearby school and Wicor Recreation Ground (the latter mainly problematic on weekends).

Very 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, 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).

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

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

Impacts to Skylarks, Deer, Brent Geese, Badgers, Foxes, Slow Worms etc as well as impacts on the neighbouring Portsmouth Harbour SPA and the bird species associated with it.

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

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

Concern that development has not been evenly spread across the Borough and that Portchester has been especially burdened by new development.

Concern over loss of gap between Portchester and Fareham (some respondents refer to loss of strategic gap).

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

Concern over impact to other infrastructure, chiefly sewage capacity.

Concern over the loss of agricultural land.

Concern that the affordable homes built here will not be affordable.

Concern that development of the site will be detrimental to the landscape.

Concern that there is a lack of shops, services, public transport and jobs in Portchester, resulting in more car use.

Concern over the amount of light, noise and dust pollution resulting from the development.

Concerns about the risk of flooding with increased run-off specifically mentioned and effects of climate change on the development.

Concern that the development will bring an increase in crime to the area.

Concern over the density of the scheme being too high.

Concern that the development will take place within the vicinity of an existing oil pipeline which runs north to south along the eastern perimeter of the site.

HA6 is adjacent to a site which has been identified as a 'primary support area' 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 'primary support area' site for Brent Geese and Waders. (The RSPB).

Support

Support for a comprehensive development of the site. (Persimmon Homes).

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

Hampshire County Council request an appropriate mitigation strategy to be agreed to mitigate the increased pressure upon Fareham Footpath 111a and Wicor. (Hampshire County Council – Countryside Service).

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).

Promoters will need to prove that the site and local facilities are accessible by walking, cycling and public transport. (Hampshire County Council- Highways).

Hampshire County Council has concerns about the cumulative impact development in Portchester will have on the Delme Roundabout and 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 (both are the subject of a bid to the DfT Safer Roads Fund). As a result, impacts (as well as cumulative impacts) of development will need to be assessed and on-site and/or off-site highway improvements secured. (Hampshire County Council- Highways).

Proposed amendments to policy wording of HA6. This includes the deletion of part e) and h) of HA6. Changes to part c) and part d) of HA6 to reflect what was agreed and consented to in the extant planning permission on the site. (Persimmon Homes).


Representations on Development Allocation HA7: Warsash Maritime Academy

Number of representations on policy: 177

Objection: 168

Support: 1

Comment: 8

Objections

Very 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 as an issue.

Very 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). 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 overcome the issue of school hall space and other school facilities as well as quality of children's schooling. Furthermore, there are concerns that there is no school places available at Hook with Warsash Academy.

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. New hospital also needed.

Strong concerns that the development will lead to worsening air pollution and air quality issues in the area. Particularly concerned that there has been insufficient consideration of air quality implications from more cars/congestion resulting in health implications.

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

Particularly concerned over the impacts to deer, bats, badgers as well as impacts to bird species associated with the neighbouring SPA.

Issues with Newtown Road and the level of parking/obstructions and access on this road are highlighted.

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

Concern that the density of the development proposed is too high. This will impact on the character of the area, parking and traffic issues mentioned above.

Concern over the lack of pedestrian crossing points (on Warsash Road in particular), and the lack of cycle lanes and connectivity between existing cycle lanes.

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

Concern over loss of gap between Warsash and neighbouring urban areas (some respondents refer to loss of strategic gap/greenbelt).

Concern that there is a lack of shops, services, public transport 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 youths to do.

Concern over the impact of the proposed development on emergency services. Particularly in terms of response times.

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

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 over the pressure that the development will put on existing dentist provision.

Concerns about the risk of flooding with increased run-off specifically mentioned and effects of climate change on the development.

Concerns raised that the site should be retained as an educational use; either as existing, or a primary/secondary school or as a A-level College.

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

Concern that there is insufficient provision for care homes and the development will only add to the problem.

Concern that there has not been enough/any joint working with infrastructure providers (schools, CCG, highways, etc.) and neighbouring authorities Portsmouth and Southampton City Councils.

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

Concern over the loss of trees on the site.

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

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

Concern over the loss of agricultural land.

HA7 is adjacent to a site which has been identified as a 'primary support area' 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 'primary support area' site for Brent Geese and Waders. (The RSPB).

Concern at the potential impact of the development of the site at Warsash Academy notwithstanding criteria f) and g) (even if Policy D3 is amended as requested), on the Grade II listed Cadets Residence and Linked Walkway and Refectory Block (which, according to the National Heritage List for England, is the listed building on this site, not the building indicated on the site allocation map). It's considered that an assessment of the likely impact of the development of the site on the significance of this listed building should be undertaken and its ascertained that there would be no significant harm to that significance before these sites are 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).

Objection made on the basis that it's unclear if the noted assessment (as stated in the comment above) was undertaken as part of the Stage 2 detailed assessment of housing sites (SHLAA) with no current confirmation this has been done with it concluding that there would be no unacceptable harm to the significance of the listed building (Historic England)

Support

Support for: Comprehensive development of the site, for primary access on to Newtown Road, the 4-storey limit on the height of new buildings, the requirement for the site frontage on Newtown Road to be well Landscaped, the requirement for a heritage statement to be submitted with a future planning application, the requirement for boundary trees and hedgerows on the western boundary to be retained and incorporated within the design of the development. (Turley and Southampton Solent University)

Support for the principle of providing pedestrian and cycling facilities. Include extra wording at the end of point d) "….. the extent of which will be considered as part of a future planning application." (Turley and Southampton Solent University)

Support a development which is within existing building footprint, is well designed, respects local character and provides adequate parking.

Comments

Contributions from this development should be made to help mitigate and improve Hook with Warsash, and Strawberry Field Countryside Service sites, Footpath 6, which forms part of the long-distance walking route, the Solent Way, and footpath 10 which runs along the southern boundary of the site. A suitable buffer should also be provided alongside footpath 10 to protect its amenity value. (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 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).

Mitigation for site and off-site highway improvements needs to be secured. These will be for local improvements to the A27 corridor and for mitigating traffic impacts on the local road network arising from the development. (Hampshire County Council- Highways).

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

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

Alternative site 3127 Land at Downend Road should have been considered before this allocation.

Fewer homes/lower density would be better on the site and make it more acceptable.

Although as part of an objection to the principle of the site being allocated, development should provide buildings to the highest ecological/environmental standard if permitted.

Although as part of an objection to the principle of the site being allocated, roads need to be made safer if the scheme is permitted.

All existing vegetation to be retained and new dwellings should be screened from the River Hamble.

Development will be very sought after with good views and access to the coastline. However, infrastructure needs and possible traffic consequences have to be considered.

The site should be proposed as a retirement complex.

Due to the lack of a drive way and on road parking, certain residents along Newtown Road have an existing resident parking agreement with the Maritime College which enables them to park in the college grounds in perpetuity. This will need to be considered as part of any redevelopment proposals.

Flexibility is sought in terms of uses for the site to enable a viable and successful development. As such, the wording to Policy HA7 is requested to be amended to "Proposed Use: Residential (including C2 and C3) or other compatible uses (e.g. Hotel (C1))". (Turley and Southampton Solent University)

Further capacity work on the site is currently being undertaken. This is indicating that the indicative capacity should be increased to 150-200 dwellings. (Turley and Southampton Solent University)

Proposed boundary changes of the allocation to exclude the MOS (Maritime & Offshore Safety) Building and include an area of land west of the built development. These changes also have implications for the 'Educational Facilities outside the Urban Boundaries' Policy boundary mapping and will need to be amended accordingly.

Amendments to policy wording of HA7 suggested regarding pedestrian and cycling facilities. Suggested to include extra wording at the end of point d) "…..the extent of which will be considered as part of a future planning application." (Turley and Southampton Solent University)

Amendments to policy wording of HA7 suggested regarding part g) wording is as follows "There is a binding agreement that will deliver an appropriate re-use of the listed buildings (subject to consultation with Historic England) within a phased programme of works linked to the delivery of residential development or other compatible uses" (Turley and Southampton Solent University)

Amendments to policy wording of HA7 suggested to require the retention of only the most important trees. (Turley and Southampton Solent University)

Removal of criteria j) 'Coastal Change Management Areas' in Policy HA7 as this is covered by Policy NE4 in the Local Plan. (Turley and Southampton Solent University)

Proposed amendments to policy wording of HA7 part k) in the beginning "Where appropriate and not covered by CIL,…" and at the end of part k) "Consideration will be given to abnormal costs associated with the redevelopment of this brownfield site and the reuse of listed Buildings to ensure future development remains viable. Similarly, the impact of the existing or lawful use of the site on local infrastructure will be considered when calculating additional infrastructure requirements for its redevelopment" (Turley and Southampton Solent University)


Representations on Development Allocation HA8: Pinks Hill

Number of representations on policy:108

Objection: 95

Support: 1

Comment: 12

Objections

Very strong highway concerns. Particularly concerned that development will lead to worsening congestion in Wallington Village and on to the M27. Concern over noise from the motorway and the impact that may have on the amenity of existing and new residents in the proposed development. Also concern over the use of heavy good vehicles along the narrow Pinks Hill. Furthermore, there are concerns over the Pinks Hill Road, particularly in terms of traffic hazards due to the steep incline of the road.

Very strong concerns over the narrow access to the site. Pinks Hill is not an adopted highway and there are issues with the suitability of the road for such a development, including the use of heavy good vehicles, as noted above. Also, very strong concerns over the lack of pedestrian access.

Very strong concerns that the traffic from development will lead to worsening air and noise pollution, particularly in terms of the proximity of the development to the motorway.

Very strong concerns over health issues in respect of the proximity of the site to the nearby household waste centre.

Strong concerns over the amount of water runoff in the area which has historically created flooding issues and high-water levels in the River Wallington. Also concerns that developing the site will create increased surface run off from underground springs.

Concerns over the depletion of countryside/greenfield land.

Strong concern that the development will lead to a loss of habitats and wildlife. Impacts to species on site such as deers, badges and foxes.

Concerns over the lack of green spaces in and around Wallington village. The site currently provides a green buffer between Wallington and the motorway.

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

Concerns over the lack of sewerage infrastructure in the vicinity.

Concerns over the lack of public transport to and from the site.

Concerns that there is a lack of shops, services and jobs in the area, and in particular, access to such facilities.

Concerned that the site is not easily accessible and isolated.

Concerns that the proposed development would change the village character of Wallington.

Concerns over the impact of the proposed development on historical assets on the site, such as the Wartime Pillar Box.

Concerns over the loss of wildlife on the site, particularly in relation to common birds/butterflies and deer.

Concerns over subsidence on the site.

Concerns over noise from the industrial estate and motorway.

Concerned that there are too many homes proposed for Wallington/Fareham, and that the development of the site could create urban sprawl.

Concern over the loss of trees.

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

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

Concerns over the lack of parking, particularly for those who use Wallington industrial estate as a car park. Furthermore, there are concerns that the proposed development would exacerbate the existing on road parking in the vicinity.

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

Concerns over the improvements to the roundabout at Broadcut, and the impact this may have on traffic.

Concerns over the lack of affordable housing proposed on the site.

Support

The site is close to the town centre and employment sites. The site also benefits from having good access to infrastructure and development of the site would not impact on wildlife.

Support noted.

Comments

Pinks Hill should be widened to accommodate an increase in traffic and a 20mph speed limit enforced along this stretch of the road. Land to the rear of 5 Woodlands should be considered as part of the site allocation. The land could be used in connection with the widening of the road to accommodate the additional traffic and assist with providing pedestrianised areas.

It is not clear that this allocation is well located in relation to local services and facilities accessible by active travel modes and therefore does not appear to accord with the general principles of sustainability in that they are unlikely to reduce the number and duration of vehicle 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 and the Countryside Service. Footpath 505 runs along Paradise Lane to the east of the sites. HCC have an aspiration to upgrade the footpath as a multi user route and provide a link along Military Road to Fareham Bridleway 100 in Broadcut. HCC would like to explore whether these sites could help deliver this aspiration (Hampshire County Council – Highways).

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).

More flexibility should be provided in the proposed density in the Draft Local Plan. The density is currently too low, and a density of 37.5dph would be more appropriate. More flexibility should also be provided in how the pedestrian and cycle connectivity will be delivered (White Young Green).

White Young Green are currently undertaking further noise assessments to investigate the extent of mitigation required. In addition, an Illustrative Framework for Pinks Hill should be removed as it adds little to the site allocation (White Young Green).

The Environment Agency welcomes the inclusion of criterion j which takes account of the source protection zones on and around the site (The Environment Agency).

Southern Water is the statutory undertaker for Wallington. 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. Additional criterion suggested as '(l) 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).

My late father held the leaseholder for a part of this land known as "allotment 27" after purchasing from Cay Builders (Caterham) in 1976. On his death in October 2011, this passed to my mother Catherine Walker, as part of his estate. As I have acted as deputy for my mother in respect of "Property and Affairs" since January 2013 (appointed by Court of Protection) and hold all the documentation associated with this leasehold, please can I ask you to submit all the correspondence regarding the acquisition and development of this land to me (Mr Anthony Walker).

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

Concern at the potential impact of development at this site on the significance of the Grade II Listed Fort Wallington. Criterion i) is too weak 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).


Representations on Development Allocation HA9: Heath Road

Number of representations on policy: 90

Objection: 86

Support: 1

Comment:3

Objections

Very strong concern that the development is unacceptable in highway terms and will generate additional highway safety issues. Particularly concerned that development will lead to worsening congestion on the A27 and M27. Also concerned over the safety of children walking to school.

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.

Concerns over the depletion of countryside/greenfield land. Particular concerns that the development of the site would mean the loss of the gap between Locks Heath/Warsash/Sarisbury/Park Gate.

Concerns over the loss of green space and woodland.

Concerns that there are too many homes in the Western Wards and on the site. The size of the development should be reduced to a maximum of 50 homes on the site.

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

Concerns that the development will lead to a loss of habitats for wildlife. Particularly concerned on the impact on deer/bats/birds/snakes/sloe worms/foxes/hedgehogs. Badger setts should be retained.

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. Particularly concerned over the impact of the development on local shopping centres.

Concerns over parking in the area, particularly in the Locks Heath Centre and near local schools, such as Locks Heath Juniors and Infants.

Concerned over the lack of infrastructure in the vicinity in general. Also concerned that the current infrastructure is overloaded.

Concern over the lack of facilities in the local area for young children. The site could be put to better use such as for open space and play facilities.

Alternative sites should be considered in favour of the Romsey Avenue allocation, this includes Newlands Farm, brownfield sites, Fareham Town Centre sites and an extension of Welborne.

Concern that this site is rolled over from the current Local Plan when there is no justification it will be delivered. Suggest it should instead not be allocated but be windfall if brought forward.

Concern over the loss of trees.

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

Concern that there is already overdevelopment in the western wards.

Concern over the impact on the emergency services and further development will impact on response times.

Concern over the character of Warsash village.

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

Concern over light pollution.

Concern over impact on surface water drainage.

Concern that development needs to be spread more evenly across the Borough.

Concern over the lack of public transport in the area.

Concern over anti-social behaviour.

Concern over the amount of infill development in the western wards.

Concern over flooding in back gardens.

Concern over the lack of care homes in the vicinity to accommodate the elderly.

Concern over the loss of strawberry fields.

Concern over the proposed access from Heath Road into the site. Access should be from Centre Way.

Concern that homes should be built to high sustainability standards and that material used should blend in with those used for homes in the vicinity.

Support

Hampshire County Council in its role as a public landowner support the proposed re-allocation of land at Heath Road (Hampshire County Council Property Services)

Comments

Hampshire County Council are the landowners of the site and support the allocation in the Local Plan. However, an application has been submitted by HCC for the site and in order for there to be consistency between the application and policy the Council should provide more flexibility in terms of the proposed dwelling heights. In addition, further clarification should be provided by the Council in terms of the reference to the sewerage easement (Hampshire County Council - Estates).

Peters Road and Heath Road have become a rat run with speeding cars. Traffic calming measure should be implemented along both road.

A new doctor's surgery should be built. The surgery in the Lockswood Centre is full.

The Local Plan Review 2000 allocated the site as a SINC which suggests that a number of trees with TPO's are present on the site, which could limit the developable area. In addition, the site is under different ownerships where agreement would need to be reached by promoters to plan for a comprehensive development, which could lead to potential delays in delivery of the site. Furthermore, a planning application has not come forward despite the site being allocated in the LP2 (Pegasus Group).

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).

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).

An outline planning application this site has recently been submitted for consideration by the Borough Council in response to the existing Local Plan Part 2 Policy DSP40 to support the delivery of the Borough's local housing needs. Three-storey development on part of the site is supported, having regard to the amenity of existing dwellings, whilst there is no knowledge of a sewerage pipe across the site (Hampshire County Council Property Services).

N.B There was a planning application for the site under consideration at the time of the Regulation 18 consultation and many of the consultees objected to the planning application.


Representations on Development Allocation HA10: Funtley Road South

Number of representations on policy: 22

Objection: 18

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 rain 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, the safety of all users of the highway (cyclists and pedestrians) is questioned. Issues over the use of heavy goods vehicles on narrow bridges and those with height/weight limits is also expressed.

Strong concerns that the cumulative effects of this development as well as HA18 and Welborne will lead to urban sprawl and the village of Funtley "losing its identity". It must be protected.

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

Concerns over the loss of wildlife and woodland (deer, woodpecker, dormice and bats)

Concern over the lack of public transport provision 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 loss of agricultural land

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.

The view corridors stated in HA10 bulletpoint f) are totally inadequate to maintain views that properly recognise the site's landscape context. (The Fareham Society)

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 has 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).

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

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).

Density of development should be increased in order to accommodate more dwellings. (Reside Developments)

Amendments to policy wording of HA10 suggested this is in relation to the provision of a community building, contribution of infrastructure to be funded by the development (open space, play areas and highways). (Reside Developments)


Representations on Development Allocation HA11: Raley Road

Number of representations on policy: 89

Objection: 87

Support: 0

Comment: 2

Objections

Very strong concern that the development is unacceptable in highway terms and will generate additional highway safety issues. Particularly concerned that development will lead to worsening congestion on the A27 and M27. Also concerned over the safety of children walking to school, the lack of mitigation and improvement measures proposed on the nearby highway network.

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.

Concerns that the development will lead to a loss of habitats for wildlife. Particularly concerned on the impact on badgers/bats/deer/slowworms/owls/great crested newts and foxes.

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

Concerns over the lack of parking along Raley Road. Concerns that parents picking up children from the nearby Locks Heath Schools are using the road for parking. Also concerned that there is a lack of parking in the Locks Heath Centre.

Concern over the depletion of countryside/greenfield land. Particular concerns that the development of the site would mean the loss of the gap between Warsash and Locks Heath.

Alternative sites should be considered in favour of the Raley Road allocation, this includes Newlands Farm and brownfield sites.

Concern that there is already overdevelopment/too many homes in the western wards.

Concern that this site is rolled over from the current Local Plan when there is no justification it will be delivered. Suggest it should instead not be allocated but be windfall if brought forward.

Concern over the lack of infrastructure in the vicinity in general. Also concerned that the current infrastructure is overloaded.

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. Particularly concerned over the quality of shops in the area.

Concerned over the impact on the emergency services and further development will impact on response times.

Concern over the lack of public transport in the area.

Concern over the risk of flooding particularly in back gardens and the impact this may have on surface water drainage.

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

Concern over the loss of trees.

Concern over the need for care homes in the vicinity.

Concern about overlooking from the proposed development.

Concern about the impact of the proposed development on the character of the western wards.

Concern in respect of access into the site from Raley Road. Raley Road is too narrow.

Concern that the proposed development will be detrimental to the existing sense of community.

Concern over light pollution.

Concern over safety of residents, in particular the lack of police presence in the vicinity/Concern over antisocial behaviour.

Concern over antisocial behaviour

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

Comments

The proposed development will increase traffic.

A planning application has not come forward despite allocation of the site for a considerable length of time. In addition, the site is under different ownerships where agreement would need to be reached by promoters to plan for a comprehensive development, which could lead to potential delays in delivery of the site. Furthermore, there are access constraints in developing the southern part of the site, which may further hinder comprehensive development of the site (Pegasus Group).

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).


Representations on Development Allocation HA12: Moraunt Drive

Number of representations on policy:83

Objection: 80

Support: 1

Comment: 2

Objections

Very strong concerns that the development will have an unacceptable impact to traffic congestion in the vicinity of the site, that the access is unsuitable and that road a safety will worsen.

Congestion on the A27 and Delme roundabout are areas of particular concern, along with the narrow width of Moraunt Drive and its suitability for access (made worse by on-street parking). Emergency service vehicles will be slowed.

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 and surgeries not having capacity for new patients.

Strong concern that the development will lead to a loss of habitats and wildlife, loss of ancient hedgerows, and have a detrimental impact on the SSSIs.

Impacts to protected and non-protected species on site (badgers, bats, deer, foxes, lizards, newts, birds, slow worms, frogs mentioned).

Strong concern over the loss of countryside/greenspace. Loss of one of the few greenspaces left in Portchester.

Strong concern that the development will lead to worsening air pollution and air quality issues in the area. Concern of resulting health implications.

Concern that there are too many homes proposed in Portchester and the cumulative impacts with other sites in Portchester.

Concern that development at the site will have a detrimental impact to landscape, will be visible from the coastal path. Concern also raised that there are contradictions in landscape evidence (between the landscape evidence and the reference to landscape in the SA work).

Concern of lack of dentists and capacity for new patients.

Concern over the loss of trees (particularly what has already been lost at the site).

Concern relating to the loss of a strategic gap between Portchester and Fareham.

Concern that the houses will not be affordable for local people.

Concern about the impact to noise pollution.

Concern that the development should be more evenly spread across the Borough and that there is an uneven proportion of the new homes proposed for Portchester.

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

Concern that the development of the site will be detrimental to the character of the village.

Concern that the reason other sites have been discounted (i.e. ecology, landscape) also apply to this site and should therefore have been discounted.

Concern about the increased demand on police and other emergency services.

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

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

Concern over impact to other infrastructure (gas, electric, drainage, recreation space, broadband inadequate, sewerage, water supply)

Concern that brownfield sites should be developed first.

Concern about the impact to the SPA / Brent Goose use of site.

Concern about the detrimental impact to the wellbeing of the existing population and their quality of life.

Concern over the long-term upkeep and maintenance of buffer land on edges of site.

Concern about problems arising from construction traffic.

Concern that there are insufficient community facilities in the area.

Concern that the density of the development is too great.

Concern that the plan should have included an issues and options stage.

Concern over the impacts to property values.

Concern that the new homes on this site are only needed due to immigration.

Concern that the house types/designs will be out of character with the area.

Support

Support for the inclusion of the site in the Draft Plan and the findings of the evidence base in determining the site as 'preferred'. (Site Promoter).

Support criteria (b), (d) and (f) of the site policy. (Site Promoter).

Comments

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).

Concerned with the site allocation which is adjacent to a site identified as 'Secondary Support Areas' in the updated Solent Wader and Brent Goose Strategy (Site Ref. F13) (RSPB)

Criterion (a) is not consistent with Open Space SPD and reference to open space should be removed. (Site Promoter).

Criterion (c) is too prescriptive (building height) and should be a matter for the application as site specific landscape work may find it acceptable. (Site Promoter).

Criterion (e) may be difficult to achieve. The desired east connection to Seafield Road is subject to ownership and legal barriers. This criterion should be removed. (Site Promoter).

Criterion (g) should include a specific reference to CIL. (Site Promoter).

Partial or Anonymous Representations on Development Allocation HA12: Moraunt Drive

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

The allotments remain in current use and should be retained.

Derelict properties should be brought back into use first.


Representations on Development Allocation HA13: Hunts Pond Road

Number of representations on policy: 45

Objection: 39

Support: 1

Comment: 5

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 adjacent sports field is in use and people using the local shops), Speeding and highway safety are raised especially.

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.

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

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.

Concerns about the risk of surface flooding as a result of this proposed development site.

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

Concern that the density of the development is too high and that development of this site would be detrimental to the rural village setting of the area.

Concerns that there is insufficient drainage and sewage capacity to accommodate development.

Concern over the loss of trees and hedgerows on the site

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

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

Concern that the proposed access to the site is dangerous.

Concern the development will lead to an increased need for care home places.

Support

Hampshire County Council in its role as a public landowner (Children's Services are aware of this proposal and have declared the land surplus to their requirements) supports the proposed allocation of this site in the emerging Fareham Local Plan subject to Member approval to confirm the availability of this landholding should the Local Plan be adopted (Hampshire County Council Property Services)

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).

Assessment reveals that additional local sewerage infrastructure would be required to accommodate development due there currently being insufficient capacity. As a result, Southern Water propose new additional criterion wording to Policy HA13 to 'Provide a connection at the nearest point of adequate capacity in the sewerage network, in collaboration with the service provider' (Southern Water).

Although as part of objections to the principle of the site being allocated, development of this site should be retained and brought into community uses. Suggestions of creating a nature reserve on site, turning the land into a car park or other ancillary uses for the adjacent sports pitches is mentioned.

Alternative sites such as SHLAA Refs: 3008 Land South of Longfield Avenue and 3127 Downend Road Cluster should have been chosen instead of this site.

If housing is built within a specified time, there will be financial implications for the Locks Heath Free Church.

Although as part of an objection to the principle of the site being allocated any development should not contain any social housing and be similar to the existing character of the surrounding area.

Although as part of an objection to the principle of the site being allocated, the existing treeline along Hunts Pond Road should be retained and a 10m buffer in place.


Representations on Development Allocation HA14: Genesis Centre

Number of representations on policy: 122

Objection: 115

Support: 1

Comment: 6

Objections

Strong concerns over the loss of the Genesis Community Centre, which is well used by a number of groups/ages, in particular the location of the centre in terms of being easily accessible and also a key youth facility.

Strong concerns that the loss of the facility will mean that a number of users/groups will also be lost, such as mother and baby groups, specialist health groups. The centre also supports a number of health programmes including a diabetes prevention programme.

Highway concerns. Particularly concerned that development will lead to worsening congestion on the A27 and M27.

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

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

Concerns over the number of parking spaces in the Locks Heath Centre. In particular, there is concern that the proposed development will create further parking issues in the vicinity. Also, there is concern over the lack of parking facilities in shopping parades in the western wards in general.

Concern that there are too many homes proposed for the Western Wards, particularly for the Genesis Centre site.

There are concerns that the site is being allocated for retirement homes and there are too many retirement developments in the western wards in general.

Concern that the loss of the centre will lead to an increase in anti-social behaviour from youths.

Concerns that the development will lead to the loss of open space.

Concerns that there is a lack of services/shops and jobs in the vicinity and in the Western Wards.

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

Concerns that the development will lead to a loss of habitats for wildlife. Particularly concerned on the impact on deer, badgers and foxes.

Concern that the development of the site will lead to crime and anti-social behaviour as there would be nowhere for youths to meet and socialise.

Concerns over the accessibility of the site.

Concerns over public transport in the vicinity, in particular the lack of public transport, including bus services. There is also concern over the future of the bus stop serving the Locks Heath Centre.

Concerns over the relocation of a new community facility to an inaccessible site.

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

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

Concerned that the development in the Western Wards should be spread more evenly around the Borough. In particular, there are concerns that the Western Wards are being overdeveloped.

Concerns over the lack of infrastructure in the area, in particular with reference to gas electric, broadband and drainage).

Alternative sites should be considered. Comments are in favour of the Romsey Avenue allocation and Newlands Farm proposals.

Concern that this site is rolled over from the current Local Plan when there is no justification it will be delivered. Suggest it should instead not be allocated but be windfall if brought forward.

Concern over the impact of the character of the western wards, in particular the 'village' character of Warsash.

Concern over the impact of the proposed development on emergency services

Concern over the cumulative impact of housing proposed in the western wards, particularly where it is in close proximity with the housing proposed in Bursledon in the Eastleigh Borough.

Concern over the impact of light pollution from the proposed development.

Concern over the lack of affordable housing proposed.

Support

Support for the regeneration of the Genesis Centre site. Notes that development of the site will ensure that a better-quality community facility is provided elsewhere.

Comment

There is underground infrastructure that needs to be taken into account when designing the proposed development. An easement will be required clear of proposed buildings and substantial tree planting. Addition criterion recommended to include '(g) Provide future access to the existing underground infrastructure for maintenance and upsizing purposes'. (Southern Water)

Confirmation sought that development of the site would include a new community facility that is equal or better to that of the existing facility.

We are concerned that the development of the site will lead to difficulty in accessing the Locks Heath Centre.

The site is closer to a number of shops and services than the site at Greenaway Lane.

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).


Representations on Development Allocation HA15: Beacon Bottom West

Number of representations on policy:59

Objection: 56

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. Difficult for emergency vehicles to use.

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

Impacts to protected and non-protected species on site (slow worms, bats, sparrows, chiff chaffs, woodpeckers, starlings, owls, foxes, rabbits and deer mentioned).

Strong concern over the loss of countryside/greenspace and that the allocation of this site is outside of the urban area.

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

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

Concern on the impacts to other infrastructure such as gas, water supply, electric and sewerage. Also concerned that there is not enough parking at shops.

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

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

Concern that there are too many homes planned in the area and the cumulative impact as a result.

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

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

Concern that brownfield sites should be developed first.

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

Concern that there are a lack of shops, parks and social amenities to serve the development.

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

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

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

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

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

Concern about light pollution.

Concern that the development is not sustainable.

Concern that there is no provision for care homes.

Support

Support for the sites inclusion in the draft plan as a housing allocation. Confirmation that the site is available and free of significant constraint and could support a development of 30-35 dwellings.

Comments

HCC 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).

Additional criteria should be added to read as follows; (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)

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

ALTERNATIVE SITE: Newlands Farm would be a more appropriate.



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