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

Infrastructure Chapter Summary Comments

INF1: Infrastructure Delivery

INF2: Sustainable Transport System

INF3: Road Network Improvements

INF4: Renewable and Low Carbon Energy

Representations on INF1: Infrastructure Delivery

Number of representations on policy: 188

Objection: 139

Support: 5

Comment: 44

Objections

Strong concerns that development would lead to worsening traffic flow and congestion with particular emphasis to areas where large scale greenfield development is proposed.

Strong concerns that there would be insufficient school places to accommodate children from development with particular emphasis to areas where large scale greenfield development is proposed.

Strong concerns over the pressure that development will put on existing doctor's surgeries with particular emphasis to areas where large scale greenfield development is proposed.

Concerns over how development would impact upon biodiversity and ecology with some reference to specific areas where large scale greenfield development is proposed.

Concerns raised on the loss of countryside and greenfields with some reference to specific areas where larger scale greenfield development is proposed.

Concern raised about the impact of development upon emergency services including issues around highway accessibility arising from newly proposed development. Engagement with emergency services is therefore required.

Concern raised about the impact of development upon the provision of utilities infrastructure (e.g. gas, electric, water, drainage and broadband).

Concern that the Plan does not show the corridors needed for utility infrastructure such as water, sewerage, M & HP gas and oil, HV electric and telecoms and their associated functional sites. Sewer systems should be designed to work by gravity not be a series of pumping stations which have long term energy needs. Major roads should not be regarded as these corridors.

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

Concern raised in general terms about the lack of or inadequate infrastructure to support the proposed development strategy.

Concern raised that infrastructure won't be provided early on as a priority before any built development is completed or sufficiently progressed.

Concern that Welborne and supporting infrastructure should be built first before other sites are considered within the Borough.

Concern raised that the development strategy will not be supported by an adequate provision of shops, jobs and local services.

Concern that the development strategy is not cohesive or strategically balanced with regards to the associated impacts upon infrastructure (e.g. jobs not near to homes).

Concern raised about the proposed development strategy and the impact upon social care facilities provision.

Some concern over loss of trees and green infrastructure as a consequence of increased development.

Some concern over secondary impacts as a result of oversubscribed health services (e.g. illness / depression / mental health).

The Council must liaise and work with its partner organisations (e.g. Hampshire County Council, Fareham and Gosport CCG, Hampshire County Council across its various statutory infrastructure related services) as far as this is possible. Communication between all other District and Borough Council's is also vital particularly with regards to the provision of locally based infrastructure.

No evidence of a joined-up approach taken by the Council with other service providers to plan the delivery of infrastructure that's required (e.g. education provision).

The need for additional health facilities is not referenced in the CIL 123 List and there is no financial mechanism for collecting contributions towards health facilities.

The building of approximately 3,000 new dwellings will have an impact upon healthcare services. There will be undue pressure placed upon already overstretched services and budgets as a result of an aging population.

Increased pressures on health services will place secondary pressures on Hampshire County Council as it seeks to provide an increased number of care packages for the elderly in order to free up bed spaces in primary care facilities such as hospitals. No evidence that the Council has consulted with Hampshire County Council as to how they will address this in the face of limited budgets.

unacceptable for the Council to state that health provision must be supplied by the CCG and that education provision must be supplied by Hampshire County Council. By proceeding with these development's, the Council is exacerbating the situation and must take its own share of responsibility or the problems that will be caused by the Plan.

Queen Alexandra Hospital will be unable to cope with increased demand. A new hospital is needed to accommodate for population growth to serve Borough residents.

Too much is being built too quickly which will have implications upon infrastructure already under strain.

Infrastructure won't be able to cope in Portsmouth.

There is a lack of shops and community facilities including those located within a suitable catchment to serve residents of new homes particularly in the case of the larger proposed development allocations.

There is too much emphasis upon encouraging rather than requiring improvements to infrastructure.

Street lighting needs improving.

The Government and developers need to fund infrastructure projects.

The Draft Local Plan is insufficient for future travel and communication.

No consideration has been made to building a railway line into Welborne and running a shuttle service into the currently unused bay platform at Fareham Railway Station.

The Borough needs additional sustainable development of its infrastructure and that includes more residential accommodation. However, the sites identified in the Draft Plan fail to deliver a sustainable solution in respect of its discreet communities and lets down those communities represented.

There is no evidence of consultation whereby the Hampshire School Places Plan 2017-2019 is still operating on the assumption that the bulk of the houses will be built at Welborne. The School Places Plan 2017-19 makes no provision for schools to serve new developments as proposed in the Draft Plan.

The assumption that the expansion of school buildings can be provided for within their existing site footprint is disingenuous. This is because of national policies relating to the protection of playing fields and school land.

Much of the commentary under infrastructure doesn't relate to projects or communities.

It's not enough to just have an umbrella policy (Policy INF1). The infrastructure requirements and how they are to be provided and financed should be specified for each major site. (The Fareham Society).

Support

Support for the requirement for all new development to deliver the necessary infrastructure that is needed to serve the site and especially the acknowledgement of the role financial contributions have in securing that provision. The delivery of costly, off-site highways, transport and school infrastructure is expected to be funded by the developments that generate that impact (Hampshire County Council).

Support given to the Policy, particularly its reference to phasing in large developments, onsite provision where appropriate, and flexibility in the supporting text on the delivery mechanism. (Education and Skills Funding Agency).

Pleased to see that phasing is a key consideration in this Policy. This may be especially important for wastewater disposal moving forward. (Environment Agency).

Support the requirement for development to provide and/or contribute towards the delivery of new or improved infrastructure. This is in line with Ofwat's view that local infrastructure, such as local sewers, should be funded by the development if this is specifically required to service individual development sites. (Southern Water).

We need new homes.

Comment

It's important that the Council contact Southern Water to ensure there is capacity both within the sewerage system and at the relevant treatment works to accommodate the quantum of development proposed. Peel Common Waste Water treatment works serves the majority of Fareham Borough and discharges into the Solent which is currently failing under the Water Framework Directive (WFD) for dissolved inorganic nitrate. The PUSH Integrated Water Management Study will also provide further information and evidence in relation to this. (Environment Agency).

The Council should also consult with Southern Water to ensure they are confident they can supply water for the quantum of development proposed. The Water Resource Management Plan runs from 2015-2040 and outlines how Southern Water intends to secure its water supply over the 25-year period. This was done in consultation with the Environment Agency. It's suggested that given the challenge water resources present in this area that water efficiency measures are promoted and incorporated in development wherever possible. (Environment Agency).

Some concern regarding how health services will be impacted in the Fareham area, where anecdotally the length of time to obtain a routine appointment is between five and three weeks. Whilst some of the small pockets of development may be able to be absorbed, some of the larger areas of development may have a destabilising effect on practices, particularly if recruitment of healthcare professionals. remains an issue (Fareham and Gosport CCG).

Estimated that the level of additional demand that will be placed on NHS primary care does not warrant the commissioning of an additional GP surgery. The increased demand will be accommodated by the existing GP surgeries open to new registration requests from people living in the area of the proposed development, however additional capacity within the premises will be required. (Fareham and Gosport CCG).

In order to meet the additional demand on health services that new housing will bring, the Clinical Commissioning Groups would wish to apply for s106 or CIL Contributions on individual schemes, on behalf of local GP practices, to enable targeted infrastructure improvements for existing local practices, to ensure that quality of service is not compromised. (Fareham and Gosport CCG).

Section 106 or CIL contributions for developments that are on the boundaries of both Eastleigh Borough Council and Winchester City Council areas should be collected on the request of the West Hampshire CCG. Local practices in some cases will be more affected by certain developments than Fareham and Gosport CCG due to the geography and boundaries of local GP practices. All requests would relate to the specific requirements of the practices to enable continued delivery of high quality care to patients registering at the practices. (Fareham and Gosport CCG).

Page 122, Section 11.10 of the document refers to Healthcare linked to community halls. This is not how healthcare is provided as General Medical Services have to be delivered from CQC registered premises. (Fareham and Gosport CCG).

Developer guide and additional data in response to the proposed development allocations has been provided following consultation on the Stage 2 Infrastructure Delivery Plan consultation. (Hampshire County Council).

Noted that the CIL 123 list pre-dates the adopted plan approach with the commitment to monitor and review the 123 List welcomed. This is particularly relevant with regards to transport and education contributions with concern noted that the County Council has received nothing towards the infrastructure it provides since CIL was adopted in 2013. (Hampshire County Council).

The Department for Education expects developers to pay for additional school places as a result of housing growth. Hampshire County Council recommends the use of developer contributions (section 106) to be used for the provision of educational infrastructure as this allows for a contribution that is directly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development. The preferred approach to s106 contributions is set out in the County Council's document: Developers' contributions towards Children's Services facilities (Hampshire County Council)

Early Years Education (EYE) is a statutory offer which is available universally to all 3 and 4 year olds. For two year olds, the offer is limited to children of families who meet low income criteria. In Hampshire, children can start their free entitlement in the term after their second/third and fourth birthday and can receive a maximum of 570 hours per child's eligibility year. In June 2015, the Government indicated that it intends to increase the offer to 1140 hours for working parents from 2017. The Childcare Bill will confirm this. The demand for both three-year-old and four-year-old places is high and it is therefore, expected that there will be continued high demand from this age group within any new housing development. The demand for two year olds continues to grow with 4,000 children likely to be eligible for this statutory offer for families who meet certain low-income level criteria. Developers should consider 80 early years places for every 1,000 houses and that these places are offered through a mix of facilities where possible. The childcare planning should allow for flexible hours of opening and covering at least 7am to 7pm for full day care. For 1,000 houses, it is anticipated that one full day provision of 50+ places, together with an additional 30 places from shared community premises, would meet the needs of this size of development. Through childcare sufficiency assessments (2008, 2011), parents prefer the early years and childcare facilities to fall within a 1-2 mile radius of their homes. There must be early consideration of the allocation of the sites and/or premises for early years and childcare. It is recommended that such provision is considered for development and occupation at the same time as that for primary schools. This is especially important within developments that have little or no accessible early years and childcare provision adjacent to the new housing development. The impact of a new housing development, alongside current capacity in the early years and childcare market, should also be considered in terms of early occupation of families and their ability to access provision and whether any interim measures are put in place prior to thresholds of dwellings occupied being reached. (Hampshire County Council Children's Services)

It is recognised that individual pockets of development may not have a significant impact on waste management infrastructure but when considered in terms of the development across the borough, and indeed Hampshire as a whole, the impact is significant. Waste disposal infrastructure provided by the County Council is provided on a regional basis. The existing energy recovery facility (ERF) and materials recovery facility (MRF) at Portsmouth receive material from both from Fareham and across south and east Hampshire. In summary, the impact of additional waste i.e. the contribution a new large development will make in terms of the cumulative impact on existing waste collection and disposal infrastructure which have a finite capacity, and the need for enhanced recycling, should be considered alongside the other infrastructure provision (Hampshire County Council – Strategic Planning).

Add reference in policy to the need for development proposals requiring a full transport assessment (Hampshire County Council – Highways Authority).

Strategic infrastructure such as extensions to wastewater treatment works can be planned and funded through the price review process, and coordinated with new development. More general overarching support is therefore sought for the provision of strategic water or waste water assets such as trunk mains or sewers, pumping stations and treatment works, which may be required to help deliver planned growth in Fareham Borough, or meet stricter standards in the treatment of water and/or waste water. (Southern Water).

In order to comply with Paragraph 17 of the NPPF, its suggested that there is an addition to Policy INF1 as follows: 'Proposals by service providers for the delivery of utility infrastructure to meet the needs generated by new and existing development will be encouraged and permitted, subject to other relevant policies in the Plan'. (Southern Water).

Welborne is not currently CIL Exempt or Zero rated but the Charging Schedule permits CIL receipts being spent on infrastructure in Welborne. The Council should review the CIL Charging Schedule in accordance with commitments in the Welborne Plan whereby it's noted within the IDP that the Council does not intend to review this. Concern this could create a double charging effect. (Site Promoter).

Insufficient detail to how school places could be affected by the proposals and necessary to understand the impact of new housing development (HA2 Newgate Lane South) on local schools as any development of this site is likely to include a high proportion of households with children. (Gosport Borough Council).

Infrastructure for the local road network, schools, health care in Portchester is already strained. Mitigation proposals particularly for the A27 are not adequate.

Infrastructure section of the Plan and the Draft IDP are inadequate and do not demonstrate that the required infrastructure (e.g. schools and doctors) is known in sufficient detail and will be provided when required.

The Local Plan will need to be positively prepared to meet the objectively assessed needs and infrastructure requirements. (Education and Skills Funding Agency).

Reference within the plan is welcomed to support the development of appropriate social and community infrastructure as set out in Strategic Priority 4 and the site selection priorities/refining points on page 18. However, it would be helpful if reference was made to key national policies on the provision of school places (e.g. the NPPF paragraph 72 and the Joint Policy Statement on Planning for Schools Development (2011). (Education and Skills Funding Agency).

Close working with local authorities is encouraged during all stages of planning policy development to help guide the development of new school infrastructure and meet the predicted demand for primary and secondary school places. (Education and Skills Funding Agency).

Recommended that the Council considers producing a Planning for Schools Development Plan Document (as with Ealing Council) to provide policy direction on the Council's approach to providing primary and secondary school places and to help identify sites which may be suitable for these whether by extension to existing schools or on new sites. Advised that the Council uses the Ealing Council SPD as guidance for this purpose. This will ensure an adequate supply of sites for schools and for the Council to swiftly and flexibly respond to the existing and future need for school places to meet the needs of the Borough over the plan period. (Education and Skills Funding Agency).

Support also given on the Council's intention to review infrastructure requirements at the time applications are considered but suggests the issue of whether an on-site school is likely to be required, and the most appropriate funding mechanism, should be addressed as the policy develops. (Education and Skills Funding Agency).

Part a) of the policy is ineffective as not all of the required infrastructure, even on larger schemes, will be the responsibility of the developer. Responsibility for timing of the development rests with the LPA, who through the IDP, should have considered and addressed the infrastructure requirements that are needed to support the level of growth identified in the Plan. Only where infrastructure is being provided by a developer should there need to be agreement as to when the infrastructure will be provided. (Homebuilders Federation).

Part d) of INF1 is inappropriate and should be deleted. Whilst the NPPF established that LAPs should seek to support the expansion of electronic communications networks it does not seek to regulate the technical specifications of new homes in relation to high speed broadband. It is also the case that the house building industry is fully aware of the benefits of having their homes connected to super-fast broadband and what their customers demand making this policy superfluous. (Homebuilders Federation).

Suggest that requiring applications to provide sufficient space for home working is not supported by national policy. Should there be sufficient evidence Councils can seek to apply minimum space standards, outside of this it should not seek to require further considerations regarding internal floorspace. (Homebuilders Federation).

There should be no reduction of vehicle parking in Fareham Town Centre.

Both FBC and GBC should join up in fighting the Government over claims there is the space and infrastructure to support the new housing proposed.

Largely no funding for infrastructure from Government that will be required.

Provide jobs locally for the additional 15,000 to 20,000 jobs that will be required for new inhabitants – cannot rely on other areas to provide jobs when they have a similar housing growth problem.

Government should prioritise growth in the northern cities / areas rather than in the overpopulated southern areas.

Existing Local Plan provided more than enough future housing which already puts a strain on local facilities.

Council must apply political pressure to ensure mitigation of the increased population upon the limited resources of the area (i.e. the increased numbers of pupils in schools and increased health care provision which cannot be left to the tender mercy of the CCG).

Much more use must be made of Fareham Community Hospital / current lack of hospital facilities.

Consideration needs to be given to the need for more primary and secondary school places and doctor's surgeries / also a lack of these facilities.

Consideration needs to be given to the provision of improved public transport / no mention has been made of public transport.

No confidence that improvements to existing infrastructure will come on stream as required and are not delayed.

The provision of doctor's surgeries should be a condition of the granting planning permission.

Development not dispersed enough around the Borough – too much overdevelopment in north Fareham (especially with regards to Welborne and the Funtley proposed housing allocations).

There is a lack of road related infrastructure.

We may need more houses across the country but we also need the infrastructure to ensure these massive developments are viable places to lie with a good quality of life, sustainable communities, allowing open green areas, good air quality and excellent joined up services. Not the current short-term ideology.

The assessment and delivery of infrastructure for a new development needs to be far more crisp. The Council's Fareham Today publication (October 2017) includes too many statements encouraging provision (e.g. encouraging road improvements and creating more classroom spaces where needed / working with the NHS to encourage the timely provision of improved access to healthcare). Despite the Council being able to state it engaged with the appropriate infrastructure body, there is no guarantee it will be provided by the appropriate body – e.g. NHS with regards to its budgetary constraints.

The assessment of infrastructure needs for highways, education and health needs to be undertaken through an independent assessment. This would then require the appropriate body (e.g. HCC / CCG) to commit towards addressing that lack of infrastructure before planning permission is given. There is currently too much opportunity to blame a different area of Government for such infrastructure failings.


Representations on Site INF2: Sustainable Transport System

Number of representations on policy: 106

Objection: 78

Support: 4

Comment:24

Objections

Strong concerns raised that the Borough has a high car dependency and lack of adequate public transport serving local residents (i.e. infrequent or unreliable bus services).

Strong concerns raised in general terms about the impact of increased traffic upon existing road infrastructure throughout the Borough.

Concern that the policy doesn't include any consideration of how to reduce car use in favour of buses. Attractiveness and availability of buses and mini-buses must be increased.

Concern that developers should be required to provide sufficient electric charging points with new development / for every house built.

Concern noted about difficult pedestrian access via North Wallington with there being particular road safety issues with regards to busy traffic generated from the existing units at Broadoak.

Concern that there isn't any active policy to encourage significant modal shift of passenger transport to the railway line. The existing east west railway's capacity appears to be limited by signalling block lengths being too long. There is nowhere for a train to overtake until Fareham Station where the dead end centre platform can be used. Passing loops elsewhere on the line would also allow for faster long-distance trains to pass through. Increased frequency of trains and shorter walking routes would also encourage modal shift.

Concern there is no mention of extending the railway to Welborne.

Concern there no mention of public transport with regard to the Newgate Lane South proposed housing allocation (HA2) with no specific mention made to designated cycle or bus routes. This will lead to high car dependency and goes against government policy to support other methods of transport. Also noted it will be necessary to explore strategic transport options such as the potential for a new bus rapid transport link which could connect Lee-on-the-Solent, Daedalus, Newgate Lane, and the busway through to Fareham. (Gosport Borough Council).

Concern that there is a lack of provision in terms of how the western wards will cope with increased traffic from proposed development at HA1, HA7, HA9 and HA11.

Concern that opportunities to achieve solutions proposed through Policy INF2 with regards to active travel have not been taken with the proposed development allocations (i.e. HA1, HA3 and HA7).

Concern that there are no direct public transport links between Queen Alexandra Hospital and Fareham Community Hospital and that bus services stop too early in the day.

Concern that there is too much traffic in Fareham High Street and that the level should be cut back and made access only.

Concern raised over lack of public transport (i.e. bus services).

Concern raised about the impact of new development upon on-street parking provision and associated issues.

Concern raised about the impact of increased traffic upon local health due to worsened air quality.

Some concern regarding whether there is a transport plan to consider the increase in vehicle movements from Portchester to Fareham.

More parking is needed to serve Warsash and Locks Heath shopping centres.

The policy for residential car parking is flawed on the basis of increased vehicle sizes. Suggested 3 metres by 6 metres would be an appropriate size.

Number of car parking spaces should be two for the first bedroom with an additional space added for each additional bedroom. Concerns about the lack of parking provision serving residential developments.

Developers should be required to fund or subsidise a cheap and reliable public transport system within the Borough.

Park and Ride should be provided at Junctions 9, 10 and 11 on the M27 along with a linked subsidised bus service and joined up to local bus services.

Air quality is very important but statements such as 'minimise road transport emissions where possible' and 'seek to counter cumulative impact' are ineffective, weak and in need of strengthening.

The issue of fine particulates arising from the principle transport corridors even if all vehicles are battery electric powered has not been addressed and will still be probably 50% more than current levels.

Give people more incentive to move up the air quality ladder. i.e. car to bus / diesel car to petrol car to hybrid car to electric car / car to electric bicycle to bicycle to walking.

Paragraph 11.30 with regards to emissions and Air Quality Management Areas is unobserved in relation to sites identified in Warsash.

Support

Support given to Policy INF2 which aims to ensure the accessibility of existing highways networks are not harmed and provision is made for public transport and active travel. (Gosport Borough Council).

Support given to Policy INF2 in order to reduce the impact of development on the surrounding local road network. (Ministry of Defence).

Support given to the Council's intention of improved infrastructure to support more and safer active travel in the Borough whereby more funds are needed for improved walking, cycling and public transport movements which will help towards a decrease in car journeys.

Supportive of any steps which would see Bus Rapid Transit expanded in the Borough.

Comment

The primary focus of the County Council as highway authority is to:

Maintain the function of the M27 and A27 for strategic connectivity

Maintain and where appropriate improve the safety and capacity of the networks linking local communities to the A27 and beyond.

Further develop the concept and provision of public transport including Bus Rapid Transit within the borough and with links to adjoining areas.

Promote access to local services and facilities by sustainable transport modes (public transport, walking and cycling).

(Hampshire County Council, Highways Authority)

Close liaison will be needed with both HCC's Children's Services and Economy, Transport and Environment to support and develop in partnership the Fareham Active Travel Strategy. In particular reference to home to school travel to promote sustainable travel should include early indication of barriers that prevent walking and cycling to school and a strategy to remove those barriers. (Hampshire County Council).

New housing development should make a financial contribution towards ensuring that access to schools and other community facilities through walking and cycling is promoted and any necessary improvements to walking and cycling routes are to promote sustainable travel are funded and implemented through Borough and County initiatives. A strategy should be should be developed to ensure Fareham Borough Council and Hampshire County Council achieve this. (Hampshire County Council).

Even if additional housing does not result in school expansions the identification of suitable walking and cycle routes to schools together with any funded improvements that may be required, should be made. (Hampshire County Council).

Funding support should be provided to enable HCC to work with local schools on School Travel Plans (STPs) so new communities can be encouraged and supported to walk and cycle replying less on the car. Such financial support should be made through Section 106 agreements or the use of CIL funding. Such a strategy will contribute to the improvement of air quality as identified in paragraphs 11.32 onwards. (Hampshire County Council).

The current bus station in Fareham Town Centre is too small.

All people should be able to obtain a bus pass.

New busways are needed like that which runs through Gosport. This would be cheaper than a tram system.

Developers of the proposed allocations should be made to financially support a move towards modes such as cycling and walking through infrastructure and travel planning.

The Council should make the most of developer contributions from allocations close to the A27 to improve the safety and accessibility of infrastructure along this route, particularly for cyclists. The A27 would be very suitable for a cycle super-highway with the right infrastructure whereby it should be made safe and convenient to cycle.

Shared paths are suitable for children or people riding slowly but not for a large number of commuters who prefer to use the road as it is faster and avoids multiple delays at signalised crossings and potential conflicts with pedestrians.

It is considered essential to build a new railway station on the railway line between Fareham and Eastleigh at Welborne. This will have benefits including helping to reduce traffic congestion in and around Fareham and Welborne and provide greater accessibility for local residents to other centres out of the Borough by train for employment, shopping and other purposes.

Noted that Network Rail are carrying out a scoping study for a two platform station at Welborne. The location of Welborne and other housing developments next to the Fareham to Botley railway line and the resulting opportunity for accessing these developments with a rail station is the reason to put the housing in this area of North Fareham.

To consider double tracking of the rail line running from Fareham to Botley as per the remit of the Welborne Station scoping study.

Noted that there is limited public transport available in order to access essential services which will result in increased car journeys.

Cycling should be encouraged particularly as it's a key theme in the Hampshire Local Transport Plan 2011-2031.

Cycling should be given priority over motor vehicles which in turn will make it safer to cycle.

Safer walking and cycle routes are needed throughout the Borough.

The provision of cyclepaths and cycle superhighways needs to be a condition of planning consent.

Building of the Stubbington Bypass will be at odds with encouraging active transport with particular concern raised about crossing this road to access Ranvilles Lane and Peak Lane.

Greater separation is needed between shared paths/cycleways from roads in order to increase safety, associated high levels of pollution and noise risk (e.g. new section of Newgate Lane by Speedfields Business Park) along with improved cycle infrastructure in general.

More 20 mile an hour zones are widely required in order to reinforce the commitment to active transport (e.g. Warsash area).

Desire to see how proposals for electric and possibly driverless cars can be incorporated onto the road network whilst planning must future proof for these and other technological advances and eventualities. (CPRE).

When building more houses in Fareham Town Centre, consider building blocks with only car share and no personal cars. This would save land and encourage more sustainable transport.

Increase the cost of car ownership.

Increase the frequency of bus services which would result in more people opting to take the bus including on days when bus services are not provided (e.g. Sundays).

On slowing the maximum speed limit for traffic, it will by necessary to increase the rate at which traffic can exit and enter the Warsash / Locks Heath area by controlling all junctions with the A27.


Representations on Site INF3: Road Network Improvements

Number of representations on policy: 72

Objection: 66

Support: 2

Comment: 4

Objections

Concern regarding access from Barnes Lane and Brook Lane and their capacity to accommodate the increase in traffic and the peninsula location of Warsash south of the A27.

Concern that the main east west routes in the Borough through Fareham cannot be appropriately improved because of the bridges over the River Wallington.

Concern that junction improvements and mitigation works to the junction of Downend Road with the A27 and Delme Roundabout will do little to improve traffic flow.

Concern noted that both Fareham Borough Council and Gosport Borough Council should work together to build a new road across the creek to link up with Portchester and Portsmouth instead of further adding to traffic congestion on the A32.

Concern that the idea of duelling the A27 between Fareham and the M27 will not help with traffic flow in Warsash and onto St Margarets Roundabout already congested.

Concern that road works on the A27 running through Titchfield to Park Gate are also taking too long and adding to traffic problems.

Concern that traffic calming measures are needed to provide child safety.

Concern that any further development must include provision for improvements at Delme Roundabout for traffic approaching from Portchester Road.

Concern that the current design of the A27 provides little scope to cope with increased traffic that would come with the increase in dwellings thereby limiting any perceived economic benefits.

Concern about the improvements planned to the major traffic routes given that four of the development allocations proposed in Portchester will significantly impact on the traffic volume on the A27 Portchester Road.

Concern about building Newgate Lane South when access routes into the proposed Newgate Lane South housing allocation (HA2) will be redirecting traffic away from it.

Concern about whether the impact of increased housing primarily arising from the North and South of Greenaway Lane proposed housing allocation (HA1) in the Western Wards has not been properly considered in relation to traffic flows further afield (e.g. up to Windover Roundabout).

Concerns raised about the narrow footbridge on Downend Road and how this will not be able to cope with increased levels of traffic arising from the Downend Road proposed housing allocation (HA3).

Concerns raised about the impact of increased traffic upon the local road network within the vicinity of the proposed housing allocations at Romsey Avenue (HA5) and Cranleigh Road (HA6).

Concern of no plans for any pedestrian crossing to allow people cross the A27 anywhere west of Allotment Road or navigating the roundabout at Park Gate adjacent to the petrol garage.

Concern raised about the impact of increased traffic upon local health due to worsened air quality. Particular reference to these concerns also made to specific areas where larger scale greenfield development is proposed.

Some concern specifically relating to the increase in traffic in the Hunts Pond Road / Park Gate area.

Some concern raised that the road south of Warsash promised many years ago hasn't been delivered.

Concern that the Stubbington Bypass will impact on the Segensworth/Whiteley roundabouts and M27 motorway junction.

Concern that the plan does not address the lack of east west road capacity. The current proposal to upgrade the M27 at a cost of over £300 million would be better spent providing two new east west grade separated 40mph design speed single carriageways from west of Southampton to east of Havant one of which would incorporate the Botley Bypass. This would help traffic flows when the M27 is closed. The current dualling of the A27 from Fareham to Segensworth won't be a solution to the traffic problems with blockages at each end.

The Plan does not appear to propose any improvement to the inadequate access to Gosport both via the A32 or the Stubbington Road and Titchfield Gyratory.

No evidence that the Council has undertaken consultation with any of the relevant transport authorities.

Support

Support given to the safeguarding of the Stubbington Bypass route in accordance with Policy INF3. It is recognised that this route forms part of Hampshire County Council's plan for improving access to Fareham and Gosport and seeks to ease congestion, improve safety and the area's economic prosperity by encouraging investment and regeneration, including at the Solent Enterprise Zone at Daedalus. The accompanying text acknowledges this will create a reliable route for traffic wishing to travel from Gosport Peninsula westwards towards the M27 at Junction 9, in conjunction with the recently completed works at St Margaret's Roundabout on the A27 between the Titchfield Gyratory and Segensworth to two lanes in both directions. It states that the bypass is not being provided with an intention of serving or facilitating new homes. (Gosport Borough Council).

Support given in principle as a neighbouring Highway Authority to the extension of the South Hampshire Bus Rapid Transit network from Fareham to Portsmouth. This is in line with the longstanding 'cities first' approach to planning in the PUSH Position Statement and improving Portsmouth - Southampton (East-West connectivity in the Solent LEP Growth Strategy. Will be keen to work on these matters further with the Council through the forthcoming requirements to undertake a Statement of Common Ground. (Portsmouth City Council).

Comment

The Highways Authority welcomes the requirement for all new development to deliver the necessary infrastructure that is needed to serve the site and especially the acknowledgment of the role financial contributions have in securing that provision (Hampshire County Council – Highways Authority).

There appears to be a proposed improvement on the Draft Fareham Local Plan Policies Map at the Delme Roundabout (A27) but this is not mentioned in the Plan itself. Therefore, clarification is sought on this proposal. (Gosport Borough Council).

Whilst the Stubbington Bypass will help traffic travelling westward, from the south side of the Borough, this inevitability will seriously impact on the Segensworth/Whiteley roundabouts and the M27 motorway junction. These are seriously overloaded and already giving cause for concern which do not appear to be considered or addressed by the Draft Local Plan. In turn, this will negate recent improvements made to the A27.

A large multi-storey car park should be built for employees enabling the local roads in Warsash/Locks Heath to have yellow lines which would have the effect of considerably improving the flow of traffic in this area.

The development planned at Cranleigh Road will have an impact on traffic flows on local roads south of the A27. Traffic also travels too fast through this area (e.g. in excess of 30mph).

Improvements to the A27 west of Fareham although not already completed are welcomed as a success for improving congestion on this route from Quay Street Roundabout westward.

Roads will only be solved through bypassing the A27 Quay Street roundabout bottleneck.

Improvements are needed to the Fareham/Gosport Road from Quay Street Roundabout southwards. Public transport may not be able to replace the large volume of traffic currently using the A27 from Quay Street / B3334 down to Daedalus.


Representations on Policy INF4: Renewable and Low Carbon Energy

Number of representations on policy: 1

Objection: 1

Support: 0

Comment: 0

Objections

To avoid burning more fossil fuels, and increasing negative effects associated with climate change, we must generate more renewable energy in Fareham. Legislation must be passed that all new suitable homes and industrial buildings should have mandatory solar power systems capable of delivering a minimum of 2,500kWh per annum (as an example).



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