Number of representations on policy: 6
Concern that the Strategic Policies are contrary to the site selection/refining points in the Development Strategy chapter. Each strategic policy should provide explanation as to how they meet the site selection/refining points and how they are sustainable.
Concern that the sites allocated in the Draft Plan fail to deliver sustainable development, and does not represent the needs of the communities within the Borough. Therefore, the sites allocated in the plan fail the presumption in favour of sustainable development
The Council supports the Draft Fareham Local Plan 2036 in that it seeks to marginally exceed the PUSH SMHA PAN 2011 – 2036 (April 2016 update) and also meets the requirements of the PUSH Spatial Position Statement up until 2034. This aligns with the emerging approach of the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan 2016-2036. (Eastleigh Borough Council).
The Draft Plan does not raise any issues that warrant a formal representation. It is noted that the Draft Plan meets the housing requirement set out in the PUSH Spatial Position Statement and extend this to 2036 based on the PUSH OAN. This is welcomed as it is important in terms of addressing strategic issues in the sub-region, under the Duty to Cooperate. (Winchester City Council).
We support Fareham Borough Council's endeavours to have an up-to-date Local Plan in place, particularly in view of potential changes to the NPPF and associated methodology for calculating required housing numbers. (CPRE).
Gladman are supportive of the emphasis of Policy SP1. The policy seeks to affirm he LPA's commitment to making local planning decisions based on a presumption in favour of sustainable development. It provides assurance of a local approach to planning that will proactively seek to improve the social, environmental and economic wellbeing of an area. (Gladman Developments).
The Draft Local Plan does not provide a definition of the term 'sustainable', and is therefore interpreted in a number of ways by developers and Councillors.
Number of representations on policy: 13
Concern that other areas of the Borough (such as Portchester and the Western Wards) would not have been needed for housing were it not for the delays in Welborne being delivered.
Concern that greenfield sites are being used to address housing needs. Brownfield sites in the Borough should be used to accommodate the Borough's housing needs.
Concern that the scale of the development at Welborne is not justified and does not meet the requirements of the community.
Concern over the impact to infrastructure, particularly roads, water supply and sewerage, in the Borough.
Concern that development needs to be spread more evenly across the Borough.
Concern that there is a lack of/insufficient public transport to serve the Borough and that more public transport is needed.
Concerned that the proposed development at Welborne will have an unacceptable impact on traffic congestion on the M27.
Concern that there is too much on road parking across the Borough and that there should be more parking restrictions.
We support the approach outlined in paragraph 1.4 and the Council's background papers in respect of Welborne. We also support the proposed revision of the development trajectories within the plan, which create some flexibility of delivery to respond to market conditions. (Buckland Development).
A requirement of the proposed development at Welborne should be to maximise the number of dwellings on site, especially smaller and high-density units.
All the Council's resources should be focused on the delivery of Welborne with support from the Government.
Requirements of developing the Welborne site should be to:
Freehold some of the commercial area for local businesses.
Create some of the proposed junction for the motorway at Wickham Road with a roundabout also on the road for both the north and south of the A27.
Ensure that the proposed upgrade of the A27 junction does not encroach on Fareham Common.
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.
Concern that the development at Welborne will have an unacceptable impact to traffic congestion in the vicinity of the site.
Number of representations on policy: 6
Strong concern that there was insufficient consultation with Gosport Borough Council over the expansion of Daedalus – due to the implications. (Ward Member - Gosport Borough Council).
Concern that the proposed expansion does not recognise the importance of the Daedalus waterfront development in Gosport Borough – Fareham and Gosport Local Plans should align on this issue. (Ward Member - Gosport Borough Council).
This Council supports the additional employment allocation at Daedalus. (Gosport Borough Council).
More information regarding the proposal for the electric converter that is to be situated on the Daedalus required. Confirmation that when in operation the converter would neither produce noise nor atmospheric pollution is required.
No reference is made regarding recreational, sport or leisure flying at Daedalus (Solent Airport). There is no reference to light general aviation, the operation of gliders, private aircraft or microlight aircraft. This sector is growing rapidly. It is questioned why these sectors have been omitted from the Plan.
Paragraphs 4.21-4.23 do not fully recognise the scale of the impact of the IFA2, and Employment Allocations EA1 and EA2 on the Strategic Gap. These developments at Daedalus will reduce the expansive views southwards across the airfield and reduce the perceived gap between the two business parks at the northern end of the site. (The Fareham Society)
Number of representations on policy: 11
Concern that the additional housing would not have been needed were it not for the delays in Welborne being delivered.
Concern that development will have an unacceptable impact on traffic congestion, particularly at Junction 11 of the M27.
Concerns that there is insufficient infrastructure in the vicinity.
Concern over the number of shops, cafes and restaurants in Fareham Town Centre.
Concern that improvements to the night time economy in the Town Centre will result in associated noise and antisocial behaviour.
Concern that are too many houses proposed in the Town Centre.
Concern over the lack of affordable housing proposed in the Town Centre.
Concern that there are too many vacant units in the Town Centre.
Concern that there are not enough central community facilities in Fareham Town Centre that are available in similar towns in Hampshire.
Concerns that the proposed demolition of the car parks in the Civic Area and at Market Quay will not be carefully phased.
Concerns that that some of the sites proposed for housing in the Town Centre are unsuitable and should be allocated for employment.
Concerns that some of the uses proposed for the Town Centre are unrealistic.
Concern about the lack of parking in the Town Centre.
Detailed plans should illustrate safe pedestrian access between West Street and the Civic Quarter, particularly at times when the shopping centre is closed.
We are pleased to support this policy, and consider that 600 dwellings should be considered as a minimum, as the town centre is a sustainable location and could support very high-density development. (CPRE).
We would like to see reference made to the conservation and enhancement of historic buildings within Fareham Town Centre as part of the positive strategy for the historic environment as referenced in the NPPF. (Historic England).
We propose an alternative strategy of a higher number of dwellings for Fareham Town Centre, by way of brownfield sites and regeneration, which would release more sensitive greenfield sites. We would appreciate the opportunity to discuss this further. (CPRE).
Further opportunities for the town centre should include better quality community facilities, a permanent place for rough sleepers such as the old post office and more efficient use of Fareham Shopping Centre.
The railway station should be redeveloped into a transport hub which should include hotel, retail uses with homes.
The Local Plan should comply with the NPPF without meeting the fully objectively assessed need providing it meets the two circumstances set out in paragraph 14 of the Framework (Historic England).
Number of representations on policy: 21
Concern that the status of strategic gaps lessens the protection of other greenfield areas, such as those in Portchester.
Concern that the proposed allocation at Newgate Lane (site allocation HA2) will set a precedent for building homes in the Strategic Gap, and leave the Council vulnerable to appeals from developers. It is also contradictory to PUSH Policy 15 and Inspectors Report for the LP2.
Also concerned that the allocation of HA2 in the gap is contrary to the policy requirements.
Concern that the allocated sites in the draft Local Plan would remove the strategic gap between Warsash and neighbouring communities, such as Sarisbury Green.
Concern that there has not been sufficient justification included in the Local Plan or its evidence base as to why the Strategic Gaps have been selected as illustrated on the Policies Map.
The site allocation HA2 would physically and visually diminish the long established strategic gap at Gosport/Fareham and Lee on Solent/Stubbington. In addition, the PUSH Spatial Position Statement states that Councils should identify in their Local Plans strategic gaps of sub-regional importance and that these gaps are important in maintaining the sense of place, settlement identity and countryside setting for the sub region and local communities. It also recognises that gaps can provide space for uses such as recreation area, transport corridors, etc. The supporting text for the policy contradicts the removal of the Newgate Lane area from the strategic gap and is contrary to the Council's evidence base. GBC agrees with the Landscape Assessment and considers that the Woodcot area should remain within the gap (Gosport Borough Council).
Concern that Romsey Avenue is not designated as a Strategic Gap in the Draft Local Plan. The site should prevent urban sprawl in Portchester and has a high value in terms of supporting wildlife.
Concern that the minor development outside of the urban area boundaries would hinder the integrity of the Strategic Gap.
The Strategic Gap designation covering the southern part of the Meon Valley is not necessary and should be deleted from the draft Local Plan. The Fareham Borough Gap Review (2012) confirmed that the gap designation is necessary where "The open nature and sense of separation between settlements cannot be retained by other policy designations". The open nature and sense of separation between the settlements of Stubbington and Titchfield can be effectively retained by the other nature conservation designations/polices within the draft Plan; which serve to prohibit development in these areas, thus preventing coalescence. (WYG on behalf of Bargate Homes Ltd)
Fully support the policy.
Welcome the retention of the 'Meon' Strategic Gap which is consistent with the PUSH Spatial Position Statement. (Winchester City Council)
The retention of Strategic Gaps in the Borough, in particularly the Meon Gap is welcome.
Supports the idea of protecting Strategic Gaps between distinct settlements.
Strongly support the proposal to leave a green gap between Fareham and Stubbington.
The policy should be strengthened to not allow any development in Strategic Gaps.
The Strategic Gaps should be retained in the Borough, the Council should focus on infrastructure, particularly the road network and develop on Daedalus.
The policy should incorporate more flexibility by not preventing all development in the Gaps. Limited development should be allowed where it does not lead to the physical and visual merging of settlements. (Gladman Developments).
Site allocation HA2 has not been included as part of the Stubbington/Lee on Solent and Fareham Gosport Gap. The LPA should demonstrate that the exclusion of HA2 is not detrimental to the integrity of the Gap, leading to the coalescence of Fareham and Stubbington, and harmful to the overall purpose of the policy (Hampshire County Council – Strategic Planning).
Infrastructure, such as the development of new roads, should not be allowed in the Strategic Gap.
Strategic Gaps prevent the coalescence of Fareham with Titchfield and Stubbington.
We support the retention of the Meon and Stubbington Strategic Gaps in order to preserve the unique conservation areas of the village and abbey. However, we object to any further housing in Titchfield Village, which would be contrary to draft Policy SP6. (Titchfield Village Trust).
The Strategic Gap designation covering the land west of Old Street is unnecessary. The open nature and sense of separation of the land can be retained by other nature conservation designations, such as the SINC and Titchfield haven nature Reserve. The Landscape Appraisal which forms part of the application for the land west of Old Street concludes that the development proposes would not create long term landscape effects (WYG on behalf of 3 landowners).
In assessing the validity of the Strategic Gap that covers the land west of Old Street it is important to consider that there is no direct route within the Gap between Titchfield and Stubbington, and the perception of the gap is therefore diminished. In addition, there is no inter-visibility between the two villages and no location at which the gap is visually reduced and do not erode the landscapes special qualities and characteristics (reference made to the Meon Valley). The buffer proposed as part of the proposed development will limit the visibility of the built development where there would be clear separation between two urban areas (WYG on behalf of 3 landowners).
Reference to the integrity of the gap should be included in the draft Policy (Councillor – Gosport Borough Council).
Number of representations on policy: 7
Concern that developers are land grabbing sites outside of the urban area (in the countryside) due to the delays in Welborne being delivered.
The policy does not apply to site allocations HA15 and HA26. In addition, the housing proposed at both sites is contrary to the character of housing in the area.
Concern that there will be a greater need for infill development due to the delays in Welborne being delivered. Concern that greenfield sites are being used for new development in the Borough, when new development should be focused on brownfield sites.
Concern that the policy is too restrictive and could lead to the Council failing to demonstrate a rolling five-year housing land supply that is not positively prepared. The Council's approach to development in the countryside should include a criterion based policy where demonstrably sustainable development adjacent to the urban area would be given positive consideration. This would address the issue of insufficient levels of site allocations within the Local Plan. (Gladman Developments).
Hampshire County Council request that a reference is included in the policy text to the rights of way network as HCC have a statutory responsibility for Public Rights of Way. (Hampshire County Council – Strategic Planning).
CPRE requests that an additional point should be included in the policy criterion on light pollution. (CPRE).
The policy is currently inflexible and should provide further guidance/measures as to the approach to be taken by the Council in relation to housing in the absence of a 5 year housing land supply (HLS). The current policy (DSP40 in LP2) provides a number of contingency policy measures where there is a lack of a 5 year HLS. (Turley/Reside Developments).