The following objection to Newlands was registered on the FBC planning portal on 15-08-2016. Has anything changed or are any other sites in Fareham capable of supporting residents? Surely this vital objection should overrule ALL other plans. In this instance we must congratulate the CCG for being totally honest in admitting that they can't cope, but that seems to have no relevance in the current climate.
Planning Application Reference: P/15/1279/OA
Thank you bringing the application for development for the site at Longield Avenue to our attention. We are writing to formally raise an objection to the proposed housing development on this site, for the construction of up to 1,100 new dwellings. The current position of Primary Care medical provision for this area is under signiﬁcant pressure and any additional population growth will destabilise the existing services.
Capacity in primary care provision in the Stubbington and Lee on the Solent areas is already much stretched. The wider area has high numbers of GP vacancies, and the availability of GPs coming into general practice to fill these vacancies is low. The existing surgery at Stubbington already has a high ratio of GPs (per whole time equivalent) to patients, with the practice averaging more than 400 patients per GP over the average. In addition to the high numbers of patients per GP the local practices have high consultation rates per patient, which further impacts on GP time and overall practice capacity. Further signiﬁcant housing development in the area at this time would exacerbate this already signiﬁcant pressure. The inclusion of an 80 bedded care home in this application would require additional healthcare support for this community and subsequently create greater pressures on the local practice who would be required to provide home visits to this facility.
The provision of a new health centre in this location would not address the issues of healthcare provision, within this area. I hope that we have been able to articulate sufﬁciently why we would be unable to support an application of this size at present. If you have any questions I would be grateful if you would direct them to …
Link to the objection
Link to the Daily Echo article
Hallam Land's website for Newlands
This quote from the 'Report on Newlands CAT meeting at Stubbinton below
"Cllr. Woodward was at great pains to point out on several occasions that when the planning department look at the plans in the summer, one thing they will consider is ‘Does the use of this land comply with the local plan?’ No it doesn’t. Therefore, one assumes that the planning department will refuse outline planning permission on those grounds alone."
With the Cranleigh Road Appeal being lost because of lack of adequate housing supply over the next 5 years, will that make any difference? If HLM decide to appeal and win will the DRAFT Local Plan be able to be modified in light of this massive change to the current circumstances? From comments that Cllr. Woodward have made on Facebook lately, it seems highly unlikely. It would almost seem that he has forgotten what the first word of this publication - DRAFT - it should mean that it is up for discussion and consultation but I fear that it is already set in concrete.
Councillor Shaun Cunningham's take on the Newlands site. Could we be landed with Welborne AND Newlands. From this it would look as if there is a fair bet that that between them they will supply just 70% of the developments that Councillor Woodward has signed Fareham up for so we would only need to find 3000 additional houses in our once fair Borough. IFA2 - if it goes ahead - will provide about 6 of the additional 3500 jobs that Daedalus is meant to supply whilst taking up a fair amount of the site, so whilst this by-pass would be a boon for local residents is it that necessary for the success of the site? The other question is which would be preferable- no Newlands and no by-pass or Newlandss and the by-pass?
Possibly one saving grace is that the MOD and Southern Water have both raised objections to the site (see article below) although they may not carry as much weight as one might hope for especially as Southern Water reckon that they have capacity but with conditions
Cllr. Woodward stated at the CATS meetings that they would accept and take into account all comments received before the planning meeting. The decision was to have been made on 13-05-2016 but has been deferred until 01-07-2016. So far 587 comments have been registered on the planning website - if you haven't commented yet and wish to do so you can either e-mail the Planning Department, complete the comments form on the FBC website or write to
Fareham Borough Council
Hampshire PO16 7AZ
Full planning application details available here
Notice though, nothing from the Portsmouth Health Trust or the CCG yet.
Southern Water's submission 5.9MB 2 pages
From our initial assessment of the existing apparatus it appears that there is limited opportunity to divert existing critical drainage apparatus, and therefore Southern Water objects to the proposed development layout. If planning permission were to be granted, Southern Water (as the statutory sewerage undertaker) would request that the Council (as the Building Control Authority) refuse Building Regulations approval on the grounds that building over the public sewer cannot be permitted.
That reduces the land available somewhat.
Police and Crime Commisioner's submission 238kB 9 pages
Adjacent to the proposed primary access from Longfield Avenue there is a healthcare facility, retail outlets and a primary school. It is important that sufficient parking is provided (especially at the start and end of the school day) to ensure that vehicles are not parked on the public highway when using the facilities, and thus causing an obstruction to the public highway.
Woodland Trust's submission
Ancient woodland is irreplaceable; once lost it cannot be re-created. The Trust believes that any damage or loss to ancient woodland is entirely unacceptable and should be avoided at all costs.
HCC School's submission 64.7kB 5 pages
Contribution asked for by HCC is £8,815,619 (why not just make it a round £9M), how do they manage to get it to such an exact figure at this stage and is this at today's values or have they allowed for the inevitable hike in costs that ALWAYS seems to happen to these things, just like the new leisure centre?
HCC Transport's submission 79.43kB 2 pages
Enough said already.
Regional and City Airports Management' submission 385kB 2 pages
One from Regional and City Airports Management, Daedalus.
Gosport Borough Council's submission 385kB 2 pages
And it's one sure way to upset the neighbours.
CAT Meeting: Re Newlands Development
February 29th at Holy Rood, Stubbington
March 8th at Ferneham Hall, Fareham.
With probably about 400 residents in total attending these two meetings one would imagine that if a Hallam Land Management (HLM) ‘spy’ snuck in they would be left in no doubt about the strength of feeling against their proposals. Unfortunately this is unlikely to have any profound effect of them. There’s money to be made and that will usually trump any sentiment. Of course, that doesn’t only apply to HLM! However, it was good to see so much interest.
The issue of the strategic gap between Stubbington and Fareham was probably foremost in many minds with many residents questioning its legal veracity. Well, this was met with a convoluted answer from Cllr. Woodward because the issue is very ambiguous. What it is not - undeniably - is a greenbelt protected by law – so in that respect it has no legal standing. However, because it is incorporated in the local plan it will bear some important considerations in determining whether the HLM plans can go ahead. Cllr. Woodward was at great pains to point out on several occasions that when the planning department look at the plans in the summer, one thing they will consider is ‘Does the use of this land comply with the local plan?’ No it doesn’t. Therefore, one assumes that the planning department will refuse outline planning permission on those grounds alone. Can I also point out at this stage that the number of bars, shops, schools, doctors surgeries etc. that HLM propose to incorporate in their plan it quite irrelevant. This is all ‘window dressing’ by HLM, as is their offer to pay for part of the bypass – a sprat to catch a mackerel! So, assuming FBC tell HLM management to get lost what could happen next? HML could take it to an appeal – and this is where if could get interesting. Remember, PUSH in their infinite wisdom, have committed the Borough of Fareham to building approximately 10,000 new homes over the next 30 years or so. To put it bluntly, if the planning inspector decided that FBC are not doing enough to provide those houses elsewhere, then he COULD say yes to HLM and disregard the strategic gap! That is a worry. Inevitably Cllr. Woodward used Welborne for a bit of propaganda – we build Welborne or else. What he did not say was that it was he and PUSH who dragged us over the barrel in the first place by agreeing to build these thousands of new homes.
Other important issues that resident at both meetings raised was how Newlands will impact on health services, educational services and roads and transport. A number of residents raised concerns about the added pressure on QA, doctor’s surgeries and local schools. HLM have incorporated a surgery and a primary school in their plans. However, this is pretty meaningless if they cannot be staffed - even if these facilities were built. Being that a number of surgeries are in financial difficulties – and short of doctors - I cannot imagine a queue of takers - apart from the ones waiting for an appointment. Anything else would need money from the Clinical Commissioning Group – they haven’t got the money to expand the so-called community hospital at Coldeast never mind much else - So not a lot of hope there then. I assume that HCC would have to provide teachers and staff for a new primary school. With even more severe cutbacks in the pipeline does anyone believe that this will happen? Cllr. Woodward agreed that these were all valid points and advised residents to use them in their letters of objections. It was here that I asked a question of my own. “If the concerns about the impact on QA, health services, education and roads and transport were valid points about Newlands then this must also apply to Welborne” – Cllr. Woodward agreed and quickly moved on!
Roads and Transport. Many residents raised concerns about the impact that the added vehicle traffic from Newlands on local roads would have and how some roads may become rat-runs. Again Cllr. Woodward agreed these are valid points. It might also be relevant to say at this point that Hallam propose two junctions onto Longfield Avenue; one at Bishopsfield Road and one near to Dunstable Walk. In this context Cllr. Woodward made it known that FBC have control over a long strip of land running parallel to Longfield Avenue. Residents familiar with the area would recognise this as a piece of land that runs from Bishopsfield Road almost to Peak Lane. It is like a green corridor about 10 feet wide or so. To build these junctions HLM would have to cross this strip of land. Obviously they would have to buy the parts that they needed. Worryingly, Cllr. Woodward told me it would be worth a lot of money. Would FBC sell it?
These, then, are the more salient parts of the two meetings. There were many questions raised by residents but too many to list them all on here.
The Strategic Gap as it currently exists is shown by the black arrow, currently about 1km in length.
The Strategic Gap as Hallam Land would like it to exist is shown by the black arrow. In fact the gap is somewhat smaller as it should be drawn from the red boundary line, not right into the estate, at a rough guess about 200m.
Hallam Land have today published the revised plans for this site  along with an increase from 1,050 houses to 1,100.
With Welborne being placed on hold it is highly likely to succeed, either without a fight, or it will go to an appeal which will almost certainly be approved.
That will see the Stubbington By-Pass at least partially funded, not too sure what happens with the bit that hasn't been funded yet.
Full planning application details available here
Newlands...fields of South Fareham
Construction of up to 1,100 residential dwellings
An 80 bed care home
A new health centre
A new primary 2.5 FE primary school
Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS),
Public house/ restaurant and retail units plus provision of green infrastructure to include public open space, equipped areas of play,
Tree, hedge and shrub planting, the creation of meadows and permissive footpaths and cycleways along with structural woodland planting and allotment gardens.
Creation of new primary and secondary vehicular accesses from Longfield Avenue, along with associated improvements to the existing Longfield Avenue/ Bishopsfield Road junction and carriageway; a primary access from Peak Lane, a new access to Newlands Farm, and access to the development via a new Stubbington Bypass.
Hallam Land Manargement's web page relating to Newlands
Addendum to the Statement of Community Involvement 24.3MB 48 pages
"HLM have sought to maintain a continuing and ongoing dialogue with Fareham Borough Council and Hampshire County Council during
the development of the current proposals for Newlands."
With 94% of the public that responded AGAINST the plan, it's a shame that they didn't take notice of what we all said and just dropped the scheme.