Inform Fareham Focus Group


Not a brick will be laid

Home About us Developments Transport Videos
Last updated:12-09-2018 Last updated:06-07-2018 Last updated:13-11-2018 Last updated:18-11-2018 Last updated:14-10-2018

Due to personal reasons this website will cease to be available from 01-01-2019.

If anybody would like to take the task on please contact me and I shall supply all of the published information that I have.

All of the old website is still available here.

Unfortunately the site had grown to such an extent that it was taking far too much time to keep it updated it so I have simplified the site to just give the information that is really necessary - New Planning Applications and Traffic incidents. If anybody wants to add more pages then I am only too happy to attempt to do so but it will be with words, links and images that are supplied by you.

All of the videos are still there so if you need to check you still can.

Titchfield Neighbourhood Plan

Nick Girdler made an impressive deputation at September's Executive Committee. To be totally honest I don't understand all of the ins and outs of what has gone on but I would suggest that all Titchfield residents listen carefully to his presentation - Fareham Council's response will be posted in due course but take note that if this referendum takes place then it is one time that if you don't vote you will automatically be assumed to have agreed and that may be to your regret.

The video is available on our You Tube page

FBC's response is availabele here

Cllr. Woodward's Pollution Sollution

At Monday's Executive Cllr. Woodward gave a presentation about the supposed pollution problem in Fareham. As one of 23 local authority areas in the country that apparently has this problem FBC is being forced to act on a computer study that predicts that we will have a problem around the Market Quay roundabout area until 2021 when the pollution will resolve itself without intervention. Is the cost of this action justifiable when the PREDICTED level of pollution will be just 0.9μg/m3 above the legal limit of 40μg/m3 or 2.25%, also the fact that in six months time we SHOULD no longer be subject to these limits, doubtless they are needed but should they be set by a body that we will supposedly no longer be accountable to? Possibly the UK should have even more stringent controls on this type of pollution because of the higher population density than is found in the vast majority of EU countries.

Surely the first move should be to actually monitor the pollution levels to see if there is a problem at all. Computer simulations and predictions are notoriously unreliable, just look at the way that the housing requirements for Fareham have changed even though the ONS has admiited that the population figures have been over-estimated. It is possible that there is no problem to be addressed, alternatively it could just as easily be a great deal worse than the predictions.

The solution according to Cllr. Woodward is to subsidise First Bus to give them cleaner buses. Will this resolve the problem that is supposed to be being addressed? As far as I can see just 14 buses a day travel this route so subsidising the whole of First Bus is going to have very little effect on the problem.

To quote the sound bite:

"Personally I think the quickest fix possible would be taking the money which is on offer, and there will be significant sums on offer, ploughing it all into bus subsidies for a couple of years to ensure that Fareham has got the cleanest, newest, most frequent, cheapest bus fleet running regularly around the Borough ... ".

Does Cllr. Woodward honestly believe that this is a viable plan? Will it reduce atmospheric pollution in the relevant areas and what will happen in 2020 when the money has been spent modernising the First Bus fleet, will they carry on with the cheapest, most frequent and newest bus service or we will just go back to having an inadequate and probably even more expensive service but with nice new buses?

In case I have inadvertantly misunderstood Cllr. Woodward's ideas the actual words spoken at the meeting are available here

Something must be going on at Barad d'Ur

The Planning Committe meeting for this month has been cancelled. I wonder why? Could it possibly have anything to do with having to find the sites for an ADDITIONAL 2,000 to 2,500 dwellings that we have had lumped on us? Is there any possibility that a more careful approach to the original Local Plan would have not left us in the appalling position that we now find ourselves? It might be easier to accept if somebody would be prepared to accept responsibility for the situation that we are now in had PUSH not been so keen on the total urbanisation of South Hampshire.

So now I guess we must get prepared for the Daft Local Plan mk lll. One wonders when our MP and Executive Leader will be meeting with James Brokenshire to "Lay it on the line that the Borough should not be expected to cope with an ever-rising volume of housing thrust on it by Whitehall" (quote from Summer 2018 In Touch). At the moment I would think that at least one floor in the Tower of Power is burning the midnight oil trying to shoe horn these additional dwellings in.

Then don't forget that there is a very interesting appeal coming to our Borough on November 26th and 27th about the Compulsory Purchase Order for Stubbington By-Pass that our EL has kept saying doesn't exist. Maybe the latest fiasco will finally force the admission that it was meant to be the Newlands access road all along. Funny really how quiet this has been kept - nothing in the press, no announcement by our Council on something that is very close to many residents hearts.

Original planning application 19/11/2014

The Hampshire County Council Stubbington Bypass Compulsory Purchase Order 2017"

The Hampshire County Council (B3334 Stubbington Bypass) - Compulsory Purchase Order 2018"

So this is where the CIL will go.

£10M is to go on redeveloping Ferneham Hall. The idea is that the Community Infrastructure Levy should be spent on making improvements to infrastructure or facilities. Accepted that this is a community building but should not this money be spent on helping to offset the problems caused by the developments for which the charge was made?

According to the report tabled at the last Executive Committee meeting on average only 53% of the seats are used at any performance. A quote from the reprt says

"It is clear, however, that the layout and design of the building is no longer fit for purpose. Customer expectations have changed significantly since 1982, and they are attracted to large, air-conditioned buildings, with lots of space and natural light, offering comfortable seats with unrestricted views in the auditoria. There is also the expectation of a café culture where people can relax, meet, eat and drink in an attractive location at any time of the day.

A great deal has been learnt about venue “accessibility” over the last 40 years and Ferneham Hall struggles to meet current customer expectations"

Bear in mind that the multi-storey car park is due to be replaced by more housing and that public transport ceases in the early evening, will the venue be any more accessible after this spend? Would it not be more appropriate to spend the money on projects local to the developments that raised the levy? Will Warsash residents, for example, make much use of this facility? The more popular the venue becomes the more difficult it will be to get there unless residents want to invest in taxi fares, still at least the taxi will be less polluting after we have subsidised their replacement by cleaner vehicles.

Link to the FBC development brochure.
Link to an article in the Daily Echo


Is somebody trying to gag the opposition in Fareham?

Council Leader uses Code of Conduct Complaint to try and silence opposition.

April 2018

In April I was informed by the monitoring officer of Fareham Borough Council I had brought he Council into disrepute by publishing this post on Facebook.
facebook quote

To be accused of bringing the council into disrepute is a serious charge and has consequences on my integrity and a stain on my record.

I do believe in fair play and I requested who made the complaint.

Cllr Woodward and a staff member of Fareham Borough Council made the complaint.

It is appalling and outrageous that Cllr Woodward finds it necessary to trawl through social media analysing Facebook posts and using them to bring Code of Conduct complaints against other elected members of Fareham Borough Council.

In my opinion, it is nothing short of bullying and intimidation to try and silence others who do not believe in his vision of utopia, heaven on earth.

It is clear to me, any elected member seen to publicly criticise Fareham Borough Council will be targeted for using the main pillar in our democratic system, the voice of opposition. This attempt to shut down and stifle debate must be challenged, such moves cannot be acceptable and must stop NOW.

This raises an important issue.

1) Is it right for the leader of the council to act in this manner?

2) Why are Council staff reading members Facebook posts? Are they acting under instructions? Surely they have more productive tasks to get on with.

I will say this to Cllr Woodward, you have failed in your quest to silence me and I will not be intimidated by such practice and will continue representing the residents of Portchester East and the wider community of Fareham, speaking out when the need arises.

I have refused to accept the charge that I have brought Fareham Borough Council into disrepute and have informed the Council of my position.

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing”

Edmund Burke

As for the staff member of Fareham Borough Council who was party to the complaint, I feel disappointed in their action, because the complaint in my opinion is politically motivated. Perhaps the officer was merely a tool in some grand plan. I take the view that officers should show political independence at all times because otherwise there will inevitably be a loss of confidence which is so important in a councillor’s working relationship with them.

I spend a great deal of my time investigating issues raised by ward residents and in the course of addressing those issues I have to speak with council officers at all levels. I have always thanked them for their time and for their efforts in bringing solutions forward and praised them for a job well done when I believe it is appropriately to do so.

I hold great respect for the member's code because it is there for a reason, to uphold high standards in public life, however, when it is used to try and close down and stifle councillors from representing residents then that is not acceptable to me and should not be acceptable to others either.

While members may sit at opposing ends of the political rainbow that does not remove an important quality that we all need adhere to, respect for each other.

I hope Cllr Woodward will now reflect on his actions and start working with all elected members of the council.

Yours Sincerely

Shaun Cunningham

Cllr for Portchester East

Inform Fareham Focus Group

Follow Inform Fareham on Facebookacebook Watch videos about local governance

Terms of Use.   Privacy