Fareham Borough Council have arranged four CAT meetings on Welborne:
Would it not be better if we were at a point that we knew whether or not FBC were going to allow Buckland the chance to actually do anything? After all FBC are still out looking for alternative developers who will go along the CPO route and if we do land up going that route then the whole charade will have to start again with new plans that the new partners want. I am sure that they wouldn't want to be tied into somebody else's plans, especially when they still aren't fully formualted.
It's funny how the Ferneham Hall and Funtley meetings - the ones that cover North Fareham, Wallington and Portchester - those areas that this development will have the most effect on - have been planned to coincide with the Cranleigh Road enquiry. Could this possibly be the old political ploy of burying bad news on a busy day? Let's hope that the FBC representatives have enough time between the two meetings to get their stories straight otherwise it could turn quite sticky for them.
Link to The News article
Council's written response
1. Why do FBC now intend this amalgamation as Welborne public consultation was based on it being a stand-alone, self-contained development and this fact was also reiterated by FBC officials during Inspector Hoggers EiP in 2014?
The Council’s commitment to undertake a Local Plan Review is set out in the Council’s Local Development Scheme (Revised September 2014). This commitment to a review was subsequently provided within both the Development Sites and Policies Plan and the Welborne Plan, through Main Modifications, as requested by the examination Inspector.
The Local Plan Review will be comprehensive in nature, updating and reviewing all components of the Borough’s Local Plan: Part 1 Core Strategy; Part 2 Development Sites and Policies; and Part 3 The Welborne Plan, to form one Local Plan document.
The commitment to undertake a Local Plan Review does not change the development principles of Welborne as a distinct new community
2. If LP3 is to 'dissapear' as a stand-alone development, then surely Funtleys miserly 50M settlement buffer must also 'go' and the strategic gap policy to prevent ‘coalescence between settlements’ must be equally applied to Funtley, the same as Newlands etc.
As confirmed in our response to question 1, the commitment to undertake a Local Plan Review does not change the development principles of Welborne as a distinct new community. The policy on maintaining settlement separation (WEL5) was found sound by the Inspector, following the inclusion of Main Modification 3 to the policy (Ref: paragraph 30 of the Inspector’s Report on the Welborne Plan).
The purpose of the Local Plan Review will be to review and where evidence justifies, either revise existing policies, or develop new policies. Where evidence has not changed, then existing policies are likely to be included in their current form. Each existing policy will be reviewed on its own merits.
3. How will the amalgamation on LP2 and LP3 effect dispersion of housing numbers, i.e. will Welborne have to grow (back to the 10,000 number) especially as some LP2 sites are already known and documented not to be easily deliverable,
i.e. Reference, SHLAA Jan2014 Vol-3 id-0058
Until the land (outside the boundary of extant permission P/10/0390/FP) can be secured in order to open up the site to development, it cannot be considered a deliverable site within the first five years of the plan. The site is, however, considered to be desirable location for housing development and could form a longer term development option.
The total number of dwellings to be delivered at Welborne, 6000, as identified in the Welborne Plan, is not envisaged to increase as part of the Local Plan Review. All sites included within Local Plan Part 2: Development Sites and Policies were proven through the examination into the DSP Plan as being deliverable within the period to 2026. This includes the site referenced above, Housing Site H6: East of Raley Road, Locks Heath, where it is acknowledged that this site is a longer term option, i.e. beyond years 0-5, but nonetheless still deliverable within the Plan period to 2026.
Good evening everyone.
There's lots of smiling faces in the chamber tonight.
You have your Welborne,
What an injustice
Mr Hogger clearly couldn't distinguish the political theatre from the real spirit and soul that beats within the hearts and minds of Fareham residents.
The reason why so many turn their backs on today politicians, too many residents have come to understand they have no say, unable to shape the future of this town, Welborne is not their vision.
The vision of Welborne belongs to the mind-set here in this chamber; many of you have put up the shutters to the public disquiet years ago. Not interested in wider public sentiment. What is so extraordinary many of you couldn't even debate the complexities of Welborne, because you don’t grasp Welborne?
Welborne is a mindset of shadows, control freaks who believe Fareham should build not just for their own housing needs but for the needs of thousands from outside the Fareham boundaries.
The Cry is one of….Come on in….We are building for YOU.
Enough to make one weep. Where is the honesty in the statement Welborne is for Fareham. To shut down debate by way of careful control and shape the consultation process to meet your objectives is in my opinion the action of those who are scared to lose the wider public debate.
I am not interested in taking part in a PR exercise asking Cllr Woodward a question, all I ask is Cllr Woodward listens to the residents of this Borough.
The dream Build Welborne and along with it comes cheap housing is flawed. To sing Welborne will bring affordability to the housing market here in Fareham is no more than a stunt playing on peoples emotions. Affordability in the housing market is far more complex than a bucket of sand and cement. There is not one person here who honestly believes building 6000 houses and affordability will return to the housing market.
After hours of effort to a cause, residents recognised early on they were speaking to a breeze block wall, a wall which had no gateway, the doorway to constructive dialogue shut. The only echo resounding was from the local parrots.
“You’re having it any way” was the only squawk filling the airwaves from this Council This label "Local residents have a real say in the communities" is not worthy or true and is no more than a sound bite politicians like to play, it is time they had the honesty and courage to say it stands for nothing just another void where politicians masquerade as the power of good when in fact they are the power of double talk.
I am proud in being party to an extraordinary assembly of individuals and community groups whose goal was to challenge this council on Welborne, not for the sheer hell of it; it was and still is because we believe Welborne is not fit for purpose.
This group of extraordinary people share a common goal, we believe Welborne is wrong for Fareham; we collectively share the view that Welborne is a disservice to this proud town but above all else we sincerely believe there is a better way.
This remarkable band of thought which crosses all sections of the political spectrum has worked tirelessly in their endeavours and I am proud that in years and decades ahead the public record will be a testimony to their professionalism.
The public record will show future generations how others fundamentally disagreed with this Council's pursuit of creating a new town of 1000 acres incorporating 6000 new homes and destroying a back drop which makes one proud to live in Fareham. Future generations when reading the public record will be able to read who shaped this town against the will of the residents.
I am proud of that public record and it will shine in the years ahead.
There is nothing wrong in questioning, there's nothing wrong in having a different opinion and there's nothing wrong in seeking to bring this council to account for we are stronger forit, because to believe something is wrong and do nothing brings into question why we were given the power of thought.
Councillors how many of you have read the Welborne Plan?
Many of you sitting here tonight haven't a clue what the Welborne plan is going to do to this proud town of ours. Many of you have chosen a path which is not one of seeking out knowledge in the pursuit of understanding what is before you tonight but a path of one following each other, the blind leading the blind, the leader knowing a tug of the reins is all that's required.
May I say to the Councillor who believes Funtley had moved its global positioning, such insight shows why printing 31 copies’ of the Welborne Plan for Councillors was a waste of Paper and Ink.
If I was to sit you all down and give you an examination on the Welborne Plan the pass rate for the test would have to be revised down just like the ratio for affordable homes at Welborne, I would safely say out of 31 councillors perhaps 6 would pass, no grade A’s sorry to say, while the rest would struggle to obtain a grade C, with others needing a resit.
School report, could do better, Needs to concentrate more.
With more in depth thinking.
It is my belief there are councillors in this chamber who couldn't answer the most basic questions on the Welborne Plan and yet they sit here tonight and pass a plan which is horrifying more and more residents by the day.
Tonight you will undoubtedly pass a plan that does not have the support you pretend it does. There's nothing worse than believing the sun is shining yet step outside and one finds a raging storm.
Councillors you are here to represent Fareham, not South East Hampshire, you are here to represent the good people of this Borough and not the undemocratic organisation in the name of partnership for urban south Hampshire, community known as PUSH, although others have more creative thoughts.
Councillors being guardians of our democratic process is a serious matter, it's the core which blinds people together. When elected bodies stop listening and withdraw into their own mindset its brings down the wall of trust, it demolishes political tolerance but above all it destroys faith in the political democratic process.
The question I would like to ask:
Does this council exist to empower the wider community rather than to direct it…..
Today all the community groups stand oppose to Welborne, all of them,
Wallington, Funtely, Fareham Society, Knowle Wickham, supported by CPRE Hampshire
Can they all be wrong, can they all simply be speaking out just for the sake of it?
The voice of residents from right across the political spectrum believe their voices are not being listened to. They understand only too well Fareham Borough Council faces big challenges however facing those challenges is no excuse for overriding the democratic process of genuine and open dialogue with residents.
Residents wish to work with this Council in understanding the challenges ahead but in doing so we believe in a meaningful and sincere exchange of views.
Residents have a right to be heard and local councillors whatever party you represent have a duty to listen to the wider community of Fareham and address their concerns on the Erosion of that precious commodity …..Quality of Life.
Councillors you have a special responsibility to gauge public concerns within the wider context of making difficult and unpopular decisions.
So why is it you have failed to give any concessions to residents with regards to Welborne? Every criticism or objection raised by residents has been meet with a wall of defiance is that really the way for modern governance to operate, is this the way to meet the aspirations of the residents you are charged to represent.
The message ringing out "you are having Welborne regardless" sits uneasily out there but be in no doubt, if the volume of messages I have received since Hogger's report was released, the public are not amused.
I will end by saying this. Those who oppose Welborne are not quietly walking of the stage. We will be holding you to account which is the fabric of the democratic process. The process which goes to the core of accountability, it’s the corner stone which supports the pillar of good governance.
In the coming weeks a new group will be born here in Fareham
Organised and with a real heart for Fareham
I am happy to work with anyone in this chamber based not on intimidation but based on mutual respect. Just because one opposes thought does not make one a nasty person.
Councillors the ball is firmly in your court, this community of ours demands genuine debate, calls for genuine dialogue, their voices to be heard. Look no further than residents of Funtley, I can tell you now others have identical goals. A person is only finished when he quits, well I'm not quitting, the community groups are not quitting and a very large section of Residents are not quitting, the anger of the residents will only grow, we will be here reminding you of promises you will undoubtably break and are already doing so.
It is understood that the review of the PUSH Spatial Strategy will be published in mid 2015/early 2016.
This issue has been mired by muddled thinking from the outset and has never been properly addressed; to the extent that during the Full Council meeting on 21 Jan, Welborne was variously described as being “a New Town” and “an Urban extension of Fareham”, by none other than FBC’s Executive Member for Planning & Development. The revised wording now being offered under this modification serves to contradict and confuse rather than add clarity to the issue.
It should be remembered that the issue of making Welborne “South facing” was included in the Welborne Plan at the specific behest of Winchester City Council, which has long standing concerns that the additional traffic generated by Welborne, together with the provision of full functionality to J10 of the M27, will have the effect of causing a significant increase in Northbound traffic on the A32. Neither the local Community Groups (nor we suspect Winchester CC), have any confidence in the current output of the Traffic model, which predicts only a 2% increase in Northbound traffic on the A32. We contend, that this is a prime example of the extent to which the transport modelling is both incomplete and fundamentally flawed.
Furthermore, the absence of an agreed layout for the proposed J10 of the M27, has not only adversely impacted on the Traffic Impact Assessment work which now appears to have stalled, but also means that the SANGS deficit cannot be quantified. The various layout options will have a different “land take” and given the proximity to the M27, it remains our view that none of Fareham Common, ought to be considered part of the SANG provision.
We contend, that the above paragraphs demonstrate that the Plan fails to meet the NPPF requirement in terms of justification as it is not based on appropriate or proportionate evidence and cannot therefore be considered “Sound”.
With regard to Self containment, it should also be noted that the target figure has now been completely removed from the Welborne Plan; an omission that casts further doubt as to the sustainability of the Welborne development.
We similarly contend therefore, that it is neither positively prepared nor consistent with National policy.
It is the unanimous view of the local Community Groups, that the current proposals completely fail to satisfy WEL 5 (prevention of coalescence between Welborne and existing settlements) This view is obviously shared by those FBC Councillors whose Wards are closest to Welborne, who at the Council Mtg on 21 Jan raised a number of motions which sought to “strengthen” the Welborne Plan by increasing the size of the Settlement buffers. Suffice to say, all these motions were rejected by FBC Councillors, predominantly by those on whose Wards, Welborne will have the least impact. The only conclusion that can be drawn, is that Localism is an alien concept @ Fareham!.
It is worthy of note, that the so called “Strategic Gaps” South of the M27, (Deemed necessary by FBC in order to prevent coalescence between existing Villages/Settlements in that location), are very significantly greater in size than the derisory “Settlement Buffers” deemed acceptable for Welborne.
It should also be noted, that specific concerns regarding the inadequacy of Settlement Buffers were raised by the Chairman of the Standing Conference in his submission of 3 Dec 2014 (Responses post Examination – Issue 3 – Doc.CD38 refer)
The fact that the current draft completely ignores the views that have been repeatedly raised by the Welborne Standing Conference (SC) is not only extremely disappointing; but more importantly now calls into serious question, whether any useful purpose is being served by that particular body. The SC was established by FBC “as an Engagement Mechanism”, given that it would appear that FBC no longer take any heed as to its output, the inference is clearly that it no longer serves any useful purpose.
Given that FBC are taking heed of neither the local Community Groups nor the Standing Conference then we would contend, that MM3 in it’s current form does not meet the Duty to Co-operate, is not justified and is thus “Unsound”
In conclusion, the 50/75m Settlement Buffers singularly fail to deliver the “Visual & Physical separation” required by Policy WEL 5 (MM3 is inextricably linked to MM 16 – Pse see those comments with specific regard to the use of false evidence and the failure to take proper account of the topography of the land – CD 38 refers.)
We contend therefore that MM 3 cannot be justified, as it is based on evidence that is both inaccurate and misleading.
The proposals to highlight the importance of noise & light pollution, together with air quality are supported; clearly however the baseline data needs to be captured in advance of any development on the Welborne site. The modification (criterion v) ought be further strengthened however by inclusion of the words “need to be measured, monitored and taken full account of” in developing proposals …….
Whilst the modification is supported, it is disappointing to reflect that the draft offers no suggestions as to how this aspiration might be achieved.
Given that a substantial part of the rationale behind Welborne was to provide affordable housing, it is extremely disappointing that the Developers have been given so much latitude to undershoot the targets on viability grounds. We would contend therefore, that this lax approach to affordable housing provision, which has no mechanism that demonstrates affordable housing will be deliverable over its period, begs the question as to whether the Plan is effective in NPPF terms and therefore Sound.
This modification, which links directly to MM 2, is entirely aspirational and has yet to be backed by detailed traffic impact assessments on the already heavily congested local road network in Fareham. Notwithstanding the press releases in late Jan 2015 regarding additional Government funding being provided to the Solent LEP there is a complete lack of clarity as to which highways scheme(s) relating to Welborne are now funded and which are not. The continuing lack of clarity regarding infrastructure funding in general, does nothing to engender confidence that Welborne is a financially viable project and specifically, whether it is justified and based on proportionate evidence.
These modifications serve only to demonstrate the absolute immaturity of the means by which the significant levels of additional traffic generated by Welborne will be managed. They add no clarity whatsoever, are entirely unsatisfactory and need to be re-considered within the Phasing Plan.
Given the sloping nature of the Welborne site, it is difficult to envisage how any amount of structural landscaping will be capable of protecting the “long distance views” particularly from the South and East.
Additionally, the Landscape schemes designed for the “Settlement Buffers” need to take full account of the topography of the land in question. As a case in point, the illustration @ CD 38 (Section 1/Funtley) depicts a level site – the reality however is that the land slopes steeply from the Funtley side and thus the “scheme” as currently proposed, would be wholly ineffective in terms of providing Visual Screening.
This lack of “detailed consideration” is manifest throughout the Welborne plan and you will be aware that in previous submissions, the Community Groups rightfully took objection to a picture of a 100 year old Tree belt (albeit of some 50m in width), being included within CD 38 as “an illustration of the Separation Buffers @ Welborne”
Accordingly, we contend that MM 16 cannot be justified in that it relies on evidence that is both inaccurate and misleading.
Whilst this modification is a slight improvement on the previous text, it is disappointing that energy efficiency targets are being set so low and that the whole section remains riddled with caveats that will allow the Developers to undershoot the target on viability grounds, the rules on which are undefined.
The whole purpose of this modification was to provide clarity to the Inspector (and indeed to the Public also) as to the means by which Waste water in particular, would be dealt with. It adds no such clarity and is symptomatic of an immature and incomplete Welborne plan that requires much further work. It is inconceivable that the Welborne plan can be considered “Sound”, when such fundamental issues of infrastructure provision remain undecided and in the absence of a clearly defined waste water treatment plan over the project lifetime.
The local Community Groups sought assurances in this regard at the time of the Core Strategy and were placated then, by promises that it would be addressed at the AAP/Local Plan stage of the Planning process. Yet again, FBC are now seeking to defer until a Planning application is submitted, a fundamental issue such as determining the downstream flooding risk posed by Welborne, to the villages of Wallington, Funtley & Tichfield. This is entirely unsatisfactory and in the absence of any evidence that the downstream flood risk can be mitigated, then we contend that the Plan can be considered neither deliverable nor effective.
This modification is supported.
The proposal(s) to defer completing J10 of the M27 (2022) and provision of a Secondary School (2026) are believed to be not only fundamentally flawed, but will also generate wholly unacceptable traffic impacts.
Provision of a Primary Care Centre is not envisaged until the end of Main Phase III (2026); this ought be advanced in the Phasing Plan. By then, some 2,800 homes will have been completed and no evidence has been produced at any stage, that the existing Surgeries can cope with demand on this level.
In similar vein, FBC have neither sought nor received any assurances, that QA can cope; not only with the 6,000 homes being proposed for Welborne and the further 4,000 across the Borough as per their Core Strategy), but also, with all the other development being planned within the QA Catchment area. (QA Hospital has failed to meet it’s A & E targets for the past 2 years and was recently named as being the 6th worst performing Trust in the entire Country - Southampton General was ranked as 12th worst and so clearly there is no “spare capacity” in the local area; existing FBC Residents have every right to be very concerned).
There is a disproportionate volume of housing proposed for either side of the Knowle Road in the early phases of the plan; this sits somewhat uneasily with the notion that Welborne is “South facing” and will establish vehicle movement patterns, in advance of the highways improvements, that will subsequently prove difficult, if not impossible to break.
Deferral of the main internal spine road network until some point in Main Phase III (2022 – 2026) is viewed with particular concern, as by 2022 full functionality ought have been provided to M27/J10, thus forcing all traffic onto the existing A32.
This modification is supported.
It is important that the Public have full visibility as to the delivery of key objectives and critical infrastructure for Welborne and the proposal to highlight risks that have impacted to the Standing Conference using a Delivery Risk Register is supported.
The Strategic Review Group, which thus far have met only very infrequently, has no Independent representation.
Additionally, it should be noted that no Viability Risk Register for the Welborne Plan has been placed in the public domain and despite repeated requests, the infrastructure funding shortfalls for each Financial Year of the Welborne plan have not been made available.
Accordingly, there is not a shred of evidence as to the viability of the Welborne Plan and as a result, there can be no confidence as to whether the Welborne plan is deliverable. In the absence of any such information, we content that the Plan cannot be considered effective in terms of the NPPF and is therefore “Unsound”.