Taken from The News article
"The PUSH figures are untested and should not be seen as a final housing target for the local plan. The council is pro-actively pursuing a number of developments with Welborne." Quote byPaul Stinchcombe, representing Fareham Borough Council.
From the Voice for Portchester Facebook page courtesy of Siobhan Paula Fox Houlihan
Cranleigh Road Appeal - update
I was there until 4pm today and it was long, sometimes not understood because of all the legal jargon going back and forth but here is just a round up if interested.
If there is any mistake I make here please let me know and I will edit this post. I don't pretend to know everything going on here and so am only human so am capable of mistakes. Please be kind if I'm wrong!
Welborne Village is well under massive delays in building works.
Make no mistake Welborne is going ahead - but very slowly.
FBC should have in place a 5 year plan for certain amount of houses - according to the government- Persimmon homes are arguing that because Welborne is so far behind you have to put houses up elsewhere. We are effectively taking some pressure off Welborne by building on lands near us.
Lots more applications to build other dwellings in this and surrounding area have been refused and they went through all of them scrutinised why.
So all very technical today. People who have registered to talk and voice their objections (like me) will talk on Thursday afternoon.
But I did leave today thinking - we have no chance. Let's hope tomorrow is a better day.
Hope this is of some help to you.
Snippets from "Fareham - Countryside or More Housing? - The Big Debate" Facebook page
The Council’s arguments seemed a mess, a bit wishy washy, vague. I felt Persimmons QC really had the chap from Fareham on the ropes. I’m hoping today will find out what the developer’s arguments are, go away and tomorrow come out all guns blazing; hmm why don’t I believe that? I expected FBC to do a lot better. There was a lot of technical stuff. I think FBC agreed they were not meeting their housing numbers but then were saying they’re delayed on Welborne but delay was temporary. I wasn’t impressed with the Council and several murmurs and gasps from the public. I know you and Chris Nixon would have been annoyed with the Council. Ps if this application gets through its not Persimmon we should blame. I would lay the blame at the Council’s door
Is it true FBC presented a portfolio/ folder that wasn't even indexed and that got short shrift from the inspector?
Indexed ha! If it was, Donald Duck indexed it. A lot of time was wasted flicking and scrabbling through various appendices and folders, it was farce. Based upon today I would say the developers had the better arguments, were better at highlighting Council failures e.g. the Navigator, they highlighted land at Lockswood centre and I would have expected the Council to have been a darn sight better organised and planned. I hope tomorrow goes better, it could go either way - the teacher from school did a good deputation
It seemed that the Council’s relying on Welborne and they downplayed the delay. Should have an impact on delivery. From what I heard they believed any delay was temporary and the Welborne CPO showed the Council’s commitment to Welborne. Causes for concern Persimmon’s legal team know their stuff and at times I felt they had the Council on the back foot. See what tomorrow brings.
I contacted Cllr's Bell and Walker regarding the letter that came through our doors recently. They had hoped to hear from residents who would be willing to attend and possibly speak at the inquiry. I was informed that although 300 letters had been delivered I was the only person to respond. This is a great concern to all of us who care about preventing infill developments on our precious green spaces. FBC are investing in this appeal by appointing a specialist planning QC and the local Councilors will be stating how opposed residents are to this development but that will look like an empty gesture if there isn't a resident's presence!
Please don't assume someone else will speak on your behalf, as clearly this isn't happening, no residents have come forward to attend or speak. This really is our last chance to make our voices heard and protect this space for the future. Cllr Walker has an inquiry-planning meeting on Wednesday April 19"‘. He desperately needs to hear from residents willing to speak and would like to arrange a pre meeting with those volunteers so that the messages have the greatest impact. Please take the initiative and contact Cllrs Bell or Walker on 02392 384943 immediately and offer your services, even if you do not feel able to speak up you can attend and at least demonstrate your support
Text supplied by Margaret Tolley
Cranleigh Road Appeal - Fareham Borough Council v Persimmon Homes
Persimmon Homes' appeal against the Council's decision to refuse its planning application will be heard by a Government Planning Inspector at a Public Inquiry on 25th April 2017, commencing at 10:00 am at the Council's offices. The appeal is likely to last for four days and residents can attend.
All comments previously made about the planning application have been sent to the Planning Inspector for consideration. If you have something else to say, that hasn't already been said, or if you haven't yet made any comments but would like to, the Inspector will normally allow you to speak.
If you want to speak at the Public Inquiry it is important that you are there when it opens on the first day (25th April) at 10:00am.
It is on the first day that the Inspector will ask if any interested people want to speak, register their names and tell everyone about the timetable and the order the proceedings will take.
Cranleigh Road, Portchester planning application
The amended outline planning application from Persimmon Homes South Coast sought to develop the land north of Cranleigh Road and west of Wicor Primary School
Fareham Borough Council Officers Final,Report to the Planning Committee - Recommendation - Refusal
Link to the original planning application 17 March 2015. The application was completed on 24 March 2016
Key issue - Five year land supply
Persimmon Homes South Coast thoughts on this important issue
Statement of Common Ground - 5 year Land Supply
The appeal dates for this development have been set for the 25th April to the 28th April. The proceedings will be held at the Council Offices starting at 10:00.
Both sides will be using Queen's Councillors so yet again the only real winner out of this will be the legal profession and the inevitable loser will be us, the ratepayers, whichever side wins.
After Cranleigh could this be the next part of Portchester to go?
Persimmon Homes have filed their statements to support their appeal against the refusal to grant permission for this estate. Among their reasons for appeal are the following statements:
Videos are on the videos page
The meeting was very well attended with over 220 people showing interest in what was happening.
It started with a presentation given by Kim Hayler of FBCs Planning Department, Basically it explained what has happened at this particular site in the site and how the appeal made by Persimmon Homes will be handled, time scales how to make representation.
The public were then invited to ask questions to which the chairwoman Cllr. Susan Bell, Kim Hayler and another member of the Planning Team attempted to supply answers. One thing that came out of one of the questions - GPs must make their own representation - is that if we want local services - Education, GPs, even the CCG then they MUST MAKE THEIR OWN REPRESENTATION to the inspector if they want any weight to accorded their views. The inspector will NOT approach them.
In some parts the sound recording is awful, unfortunately one of the microphones that they were using seemed to be playing up, after a little bit of massaging the quality is much better than I had expected except in the Unknown question but the answer was good video. Unfortunatley I couldn't do anything with that.
We have until the 29th of October to submit comments
By snail mail quoting ref. APP/A1720/W/16/3156344 to:
The Planning Inspectorate
Temple Quay Houses
2 The Square
or online at https://acp.planninginspectorate.gov.uk quoting reference 3156344.
So if you wish to make your point you need to start now.
Link to The News article
Still waiting to hear the grounds of the appeal, which is important to know and who the inspector is. Once the inspector is appointed, he or she, will announce a timetable of proceedings.
The timetable will allow members of the public to express their thoughts. Residents should be aware if they have already submitted representations to the council when the planning application was considered by Council officers/ members of planning committee, then those representations will be considered by the inspector and form part of the appeal process.
Once we know the grounds of the appeal residents may wish to revisit their comments and update them. The actual appeal hearings could be some months away.
Developers web site
Looks like Welborne will come more and more into play unless our council extracts their digit the promise about it supplying so many of our future housing needs will prove completely undeliverable.
Quote from BJC's website.
Link to The News article
"With applications and their subsequent appeals for this site going back three decades, it is hardly surprising that people living around the Cranleigh Road area in Portchester describe the ongoing situation there as a ‘never-ending war.’"
I said that I would resurrect this page if and when Persimmon raised their appeal. Well it seems that time has now come, apparently the appeal was raised yesterday.
During the last Executive Committee meeting the Mayor said that
"We live in exciting times". Trouble is this is the kind of excitement that we could do without.
It will be very interesting to see how hard our Council are prepared to defend their case. If you need to refresh your memory on what went on the original planning meeting the videos are here
A special Planning Committee meeting has been arranged for Thursday 24th March starting at 10:00 with just one item on the agenda.
PLANNING APPLICATION P/15/0260/OA – LAND NORTH OF CRANLEIGH ROAD/WEST OF WICOR PRIMARY SCHOOL PORTCHESTER FAREHAM.
Statement (ES) and the applicant reducing the number of units proposed to 120:
Four hundred and ninety two objections were received...
Just a couple of quotes from the report...
Page 8 - Hampshire County Council (Lead Flood Authority) - Hampshire County Council as Lead Local Flood Authority have viewed the application and consider the proposal for surface water drainage meets the current standards/best practice in relation to surface water drainage. Where the proposals are connecting to an existing drainage system it is likely that the authorities responsible for maintaining those systems will have their own design requirements that will need to be reviewed and agreed as part of any Planning Considerations - Key Issues surface water drainage scheme.
Page 7 - Southern Water Services - There is an objection against the proposed surface water drainage strategy. Southern Water will not accept the connection of SUDS facilities such as basins, ponds, swales to public sewers or to sewers offered for adoption as public. Should the application receive planning permission a condition should be imposed securing approval of the foul and surface water sewerage disposal before development commences
Page 9 - PLANNING HISTORY
Applications for residential development of the site were refused in 1981, 1982, 1983, 1986, 1996 and 2004. Appeals following refusals in 1986, 1996 and 2004 were dismissed. The most recent application, (P/04/1907/OA) was refused on 23 December 2004 for the development of more than 30 dwellings per hectare, including 50% affordable provision, together with a new square incorporating community uses and public open space provision, associated landscaping and roads. An appeal was lodged and subsequently dismissed on 8 May 2006. The application site was the same as the current proposal. The appeal was dismissed on the grounds that the principle of residential development on the site was contrary to Local Plan Policies, the loss of space which contributed to the local gap was unacceptable as was the loss of Grade 1 and 2 of agricultural land. Since the previous appeal the 'local gap' and 'coastal zone' designations have been removed, however the site continues to lie outside of the defined urban settlement boundary and is still classified Grade 1 and 2 agricultural land.
Just noticed this one as a really good objection to this development. PDF 11MB 21 pages. Wonder if FBC will ignore this as well? Apparently residents who should have received notification of this proposed for a second time still haven't had them. It really does stsrt to make you wonder.
Here is the revised Ecological Survey PDF 1.71 MB that was required by FBC prior to going any further with the planning application.
There are two reasons why one needs to think carefully about any development on the fields of Cranleigh Road.
This appears to be the latest plan available on FBC' website but I believe it applies to the unmodified application.
As the environmental statement has now been completed and submitted the application has just been re-presented. The developers have dropped the number of dwellings to 120.
The planning application can be viewed here but I cannot find the environmental report that this application was dependent on. If anybody finds it let me know and I shall add a link here.
The latest News article can be found here.
Nothing is definite yet but it looks as though the land next to Seafield Road, Moraunt Drive and Tattershall Crescent is being cleared - could this be the landowners, one of whom is The Churchlands Trust, preparing it ready for development as the land has been brought forward under the Fareham Borough Council's call for new sites in November 2015? Presently the Council is considering whether the site is suitable for housing. Previous applications were made in 1995 and 1997 one of which was refused and the other withdrawn. The site is outside the urban fringe, classified as countryside and open space. Another Cranleigh Road one could say.
The current position is, a month ago the landowners started to clear brambles and undergrowth in order to be able to undertake a Survey, however, this has now included the felling of most if not all the trees. On part of the site, 20 year old oak trees have been destroyed.
There is the small matter of protected species, slow worms, other reptiles, badgers, bats, bird life, etc. The site landowners have legal responsibilities towards protecting such wildlife. The big question, has an ecological survey been done?
If the landowner is saying that it is being done because of brambles invading gardens it would only need a small area to be cleared, not removing 20 year old oaks and why haven't they kept the land in a reasonable state during the intervening years? It sounds very much like a pretty poor excuse for despoiling the countryside. The Solent Way won't be much of a walk if all of these developments along it's edge carry on.
Previous justification for development here This was put forward in 2014 but rejected by the council.
Link to The News article
Radian Homes will be holding an exhibition on the 6th July to present their plans for 49 dwellings on this land west of Seafield Road, Portchester.
Radian Homes are planning to submit a planning application by the end of July.
The exhibition will be held from 3pm to 8pm at the Castle Street Hall, Castle Street, Portchester.The period between 3pm and 4pm will be open exclusively to residents in the immediate vicinity of the site.
Not clear if the landowners will be present? I hope they are, because they need to answer a number of questions.
In May the developers behind a proposed development on land North of Wicor Path appeared with aerosol cans containing blue dye. They proceeded to spray a line around the boundary of two neighbouring landowners parcels of land, South and North of Wicor Path.
There was a problem however, the land they were contaminating with their blue dye was not theirs, in fact the land belonged to Fareham Borough Council and Hampshire County Council. The developers with full support of the landowners failed to ask permission, they simply took it upon themselves to contaminate other landowner's land with their blue dye while exercising their skills in graffiti design.
They didn't stop to ask FBC or HCC, no, this is where their fence was going, full stop. HCC then asked the graffiti designers to sign a legal document for the use of their land. This request was enough to frighten off the invaders from HCC land. Meanwhile, on the Eastern boundary discussions opened up to find a compromise to allow the invaders the use of FBC land for a period of time. After nearly two weeks of discussions the invaders turn down every single compromise put to them, every single one. They wanted a 6 foot solid wooden fence. They turned down a request for a 4 foot fence and a final compromise allowing them to erect a 6 foot open chain fence. Both reasonable compromises. They are now hacking their way through undergrowth in the bird nesting season. Says it all really.
For the developers and landowners to make out they are the good guys and everyone else are the bad guys is simply a fabrication of the truth.
"Better the devil you know".......... I don't think so.
Quote from the Welcome board
""In 2015, the average home in the South East of England increased in value by £29,000 while the average annual pay in the region was just £25,542" (page 9, Housing White Paper) and "by 2020 only a quarter of 30-year-olds will own their own homes. In contrast, more than half the generation currently approaching retirement were homeowners by their 30th birthday""
I wonder how many 30 year olds will be able to afford one of these homes?
And the rest of the boards.
And the best of luck to anybody wanting to leave the development during the rush hour.
Having attended the Miller Homes presentation yesterday various points came to light.
Click either image to enlarge
Quote from the Daily Echo article
Councillor Nick Walker, chairman of the Fareham Borough Council planning committee, added: “The government has said, based on recent objectively assessed need and housing targets, that we need to build more than 2,000 new homes across the borough, but only 1,000 can be delivered on brownfield sites which mean greenfield sites will need to be used.”
“Winnham Farm is a suitable Greenfield site that is a reasonable size but the question is: will it get public support?”
Will it matter if it gets public support? Let's wait and see how Cranleigh Road turns out.
Click an image to enlarge
I am not sure whether the start time is 15:00 or 16:00 - depends on which article you want to read.
Please note - no application for planning has been lodged - YET.
Miller Homes are currently undertaking pre-application discussions with Fareham Borough Council and other key stakeholders.
Subject to the comments received through their pre-application discussions and public consultation it is their intention to submit an outline planning application in the summer 2017. This will follow a period of careful consideration of all the comments received during the consultation process.
Assuming the planning application is positively determined in the autumn of 2017 they anticipate that work could start on site in 2018.
Full details can be found at Miller Homes' website
A public consultation will be held on Tuesday 2nd May at Cams Hill from 16:00 - 20:00.