Local_Plan.md

I do not see that Fareham Borough Council has applied its own requirements for site selection when it comes to the choice of Greenaway lane sites (north and south). I looked at EV13 (Background Paper: HOUSING SITE SELECTION), which states:

“The purpose of this paper is to explain, in broad terms, the processes undertaken to inform the selection of housing sites for the Draft Fareham Local Plan 2036”

I have also read through the referenced paragraphs from the "National Planning Policy Framework" (NPPF)

However, looking at the list of "Refining Points", I find nothing but contradiction in the selection of these sites:

1. Maximise any developable brownfield opportunities inside the existing urban area.

These are not brownfield sites.

2. Look positively at any developable brownfield opportunities outside of the urban area.

As per point 1, these are not brownfield sites.

3. "Consider and include regeneration and redevelopment opportunities inside the urban area"

I draw your attention to Section 2 of the NPPF, in particular paragraph 23, which states:

Planning policies should be positive, promote competitive town centre environments and set out policies for the management and growth of centres over the plan period. In drawing up Local Plans, local planning authorities should:

• recognise town centres as the heart of their communities and pursue policies to support their viability and vitality;
• define a network and hierarchy of centres that is resilient to anticipated future economic changes;
• define the extent of town centres and primary shopping areas, based on a clear definition of primary and secondary frontages in designated centres, and set policies that make clear which uses will be permitted in such locations;
• promote competitive town centres that provide customer choice and a diverse retail offer and which reflect the individuality of town centres;
• retain and enhance existing markets and, where appropriate, re-introduce or create new ones, ensuring that markets remain attractive and competitive;
• allocate a range of suitable sites to meet the scale and type of retail, leisure, commercial, office, tourism, cultural, community and residential development needed in town centres. It is important that needs for retail, leisure, office and other main town centre uses are met in full and are not compromised by limited site availability. Local planning authorities should therefore undertake an assessment of the need to expand town centres to ensure a sufficient supply of suitable sites;
• allocate appropriate edge of centre sites for main town centre uses that are well connected to the town centre where suitable and viable town centre sites are not available. If sufficient edge of centre sites cannot be identified, set policies for meeting the identified needs in other accessible locations that are well connected to the town centre;
• set policies for the consideration of proposals for main town centre uses which cannot be accommodated in or adjacent to town centres;
• recognise that residential development can play an important role in ensuring the vitality of centres and set out policies to encourage residential development on appropriate sites; and
• where town centres are in decline, local planning authorities should plan positively for their future to encourage economic activity.

Warsash is very much not part of the town centre. The community is poorly serviced by public transport, and accessing the nightlife in Fareham town centre is impossible without private transportation. I do not remember the last time my family used Fareham town centre, due to other resoruces providing much better facilities, which are very much more accessible to us.

4. "Achieves housing supply in the short/medium term in order to address housing need"

With reference to paragraph 47 in the NPPF, which states:

To boost significantly the supply of housing, local planning authorities should:

• use their evidence base to ensure that their Local Plan meets the full, objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing in the housing market area, as far as is consistent with the policies set out in this Framework, including identifying key sites which are critical to the delivery of the housing strategy over the plan period;
• identify and update annually a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide five years worth of housing against their housing requirements with an additional buffer of 5% (moved forward from later in the plan period) to ensure choice and competition in the market for land. Where there has been a record of persistent under delivery of housing, local planning authorities should increase the buffer to 20% (moved forward from later in the plan period) to provide a realistic prospect of achieving the planned supply and to ensure choice and competition in the market for land;
• identify a supply of specific, developable sites or broad locations for growth, for years 6-10 and, where possible, for years 11-15;

These sites may support family homes, but they are not sites that support the growth of children aged 6-10 or 11-15. I suspect most families moving into the area will need to travel out of the ward to access education, as neither Hook with Warsash nor Brookfield have the scope or ability to expand further. FBC have certainly not provided any evidence suggesting otherwise.

5. “Avoid further sites that rely on wider significant infrastructure delivery where the timing of the work and/or funding are beyond the control of the site promoter/developer.”

Infrastructure is so lacking in Warsash that the community has been told it can't have a much-required pedestrian crossing.

Brook lane is already extremely busy, and is the route many 11-16 year olds have to travel to get to Brookfield school.

There have been several accidents involving pupils of Brookfield on Brook Lane. Adding 700-1400 more vehicles to this already busy road at rush hour will simply increase the number of accidents involving children on their way to school.

Schooling is at near-full capacity, with no ability to expand, meaning any new families moving to the area will have to travel out of the ward for schooling - again increasing pressure on our roads.

Doctors are already under immesne pressure, and are barely able to provide an adequate level of care as it is. Last week I tried to book an appointment for my son, only to find there were none available for two months. How will our local health service cope with an influx of new patients?

6. "Achieves ‘place making’ (i.e. not just homes without community benefits such as open space, infrastructure and creating an attractive place to live)"

With reference to paragraph 156 in the NPPF, which states:

In determining planning applications, local planning authorities should take account of:

• the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation;
• the positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable communities including their economic vitality; and
• the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness.

Developments previously proposed for these sites have not been positive, and would not add to local character and distinctiveness. In fact, they would remove the last stategic gap between Warsash and neigbouring communities. It is unlikely future development applications would be able to change this.

The space is also too small to allow for the number of homes proposed and to provide the community resources FBC suggest they would like to see delivered.

7. Cumulatively and individually lessen the impact on traffic whilst delivering the new homes. Maximises opportunities for the cumulative highway impacts to be addressed.

There is nothing about these proposed sites that would lessen the impact on traffic. There is no availability to increase access to the Western Wards, which is already the most difficult part of the borough the travel to and from.

8. "Avoids more sensitive landscapes"

Referencing pg 156 which states:

Local planning authorities should set out the strategic priorities for the area in the Local Plan. This should include strategic policies to deliver:

• the homes and jobs needed in the area;
• the provision of retail, leisure and other commercial development;
• the provision of infrastructure for transport, telecommunications, waste management, water supply, wastewater, flood risk and coastal change management, and the provision of minerals and energy (including heat);
• the provision of health, security, community and cultural infrastructure and other local facilities; and
• climate change mitigation and adaptation, conservation and enhancement of the natural and historic environment, including landscape.

I have not seen any evidence to support any of these statements. The infrastructure for transport is absent, and there is no scope available to improve this.

Likewise, this is the last piece of the landscape providing a strategic gap between Warsash and Sarisbury Green. Once this land has gone to housing, it is lost forever.

9. “Minimises any detrimental impact to settlement definition/coalescence.”

This is the last space that keeps Warsash an individual settlement from Sarisbury Green. I would say that counts as a major detrimental impact.

10. Provide a sensible and logical urban extension with the ability to provide and maintain a defensible urban edge following development.

I am unclear what this statement is getting at, but these sites do not reinforce settlement identity in a sustainable manner.

11. Considers any correspondence with key infrastructure providers such as education capacity or the ability to provide education provision (as an example).

I have seen no evidence that FBC have considered provision by other providers. At the CAT meeting in Warsash, we were left with the impression other service providers will do what they need to do, but there was no sign of a joined-up approach.

12. Facilitates a diverse housing market with sites ranging in location and size (including housing supply in both the east and west Housing Market Areas of Fareham Borough).

Previous planning applications for plots in Warsash have tried to offset the developers' legal requirement to provide affordable housing by contributing financially to other developments. This allowed the developers to keep their applications relatively undiverse. While nobody seems to want to admit it, I believe these developments are being pursued by FBC partly because FBC know this will create expensive housing in a desirable area, ultimately generating more revenue for FBC.

13. Consider the accessibility of sites to services and shops to minimise the reliance on private vehicle use.

These sites will hugely impact the accessibility of the whole village. As I have already stated, it will adversely and directly impact the children who have to travel to Brookfield School. It will also bring Warsash village to a standstill.

There are only two ways in and out of Warsash, and - unless FBC plan to build a bridge or a tunnel - this will not change. It is the most difficult corner of the borough to travel in and out of already without the additional housing.

14. Consider whether the site will deliver any wider community infrastructure or benefits in addition to the basic policy requirements.

These sites will add nothing to the community infrastructure. There is no provision for additional transport links in or out of the community, no provision for additional schools, doctors, or shops. Parking will be unallocated, meaning it will spill out onto our main roads.

15. Avoid sites where there are indications that the site will be unable to deliver a policy compliant development.

Previous planning applications have already identified protected wildlife living on these sites. That will complicate any compliance from an ecology point of view.