Join Inform Fareham button
  Portchester Devastation Portchester Devastation Portchester Devastation Portchester Devastation Portchester Devastation Portchester Devastation

Cranleigh Road   Seafield Road   Wicor Path   Winnham Farm  

Planning decision


Well the Planning Committee rejected the outline application for the Seafield Road/Moraunt Drive site on Wednesday. So much animation and even animosity towards the developers - in this case Radian Homes - has rarely been seen in the chamber. The main vitriol was aimed at the ecological (or rather lack of) ecological care. How long have Portchester residents been complaining of this cavalier attitude towards the current residents of this and in fact numerous other sites around the borough?

We are told that there is nothing that can be done to prevent this destruction but it has been proved beyond any reasonable doubt, that this work is being carried out at the wrong time of year and to a discredited ecological report.

How is it possible that the ecologist should be employed by the developer. It is a clear case of conflict of interest.

The question has been raised - What caused this reaction? Could it be the two exceptional deputations from CHIP’S - Conserving Habitats In Portchester and the accompanying Album of Photographs that was submitted along with the deputations.



Sadly the developers have not listened, the site is now decimated, a testimony to the developers callous regard for wildlife. However, landowners cannot remove themselves from responsibility.


They've destroyed my home


I watched the short video on the Inform Fareham Facebook page and decided to try a stills presentation.

I hope that it affects you as much as it did me when I was putting the pictures together.
Slide 1 Slide 2 Slide 3 Slide 4 Slide 5 Slide 6 Slide 7 Slide 8


Chips meeting


Excellent turn out at a meeting arranged by ‘Conserve Habitats In Portchester’ (C.H.I.P’s ) last night, save Portchester from development.

Cakes, biscuits, tea or coffeee were available free of charge. Computers were also available to allow residents to access Fareham Borough Council Website to forward their representations on with regard to the Local Draft Plan, using the online consultation comment form. Paper copies of the form were also available for residents to fill in, many residents took the opportunity to do so. The organisers lost count on the number of residents who turned up!



Stand up for Portchester
When it's gone it's gone for ever


Cranleigh Road appeal falls by the wayside


 Cranleigh Road appeal press release.

So now we have it. The legal challenge to the Cranleigh Road development has run out of steam. In fact, as we expected, it was probably a mere dream from the start.

Once again expectations have been raised and dashed. All the hot air that the Inspector failed miserably in his task whilst examining all the evidence presented to him, and that his report was wrong on so many points, was simply nonsense. The cry that ‘the Inspector failed to take into account a whole raft of issues’ seems to have had little substance or credence in law and therefore the Inspector's findings stand. Worse still, because there will be no legal challenge the Inspector's report will carry huge weight in any subsequent appeals, just like The Navigator appeal that went unchallenged and consequently became a stick with which the Cranleigh Appeal Inspector beat us. The decision not to challenge has now come back to haunt us

Developers will undoubtedly use the Cranleigh Road Appeal to bring forward greenfield sites across Fareham, sites that are not in our local plan for development. If the Cranleigh Road Inspector failed so spectacularly then the question must be, why no appeal?

A sense of ‘all is not lost’ may now try to be created as the fallback position and the political spin will be the planning appeal Fareham Borough Council won earlier this the month. This appeal concerned a proposed redevelopment of four detached, four-bedroomed, chalet-style dwellings at Meon View Farm, Old Street in Stubbington overlooking the Titchfield Haven Nature Reserve.

The appeal Inspector’s report for this small victory is  here.

To have such a precarious fallback position as one’s only optimism in fighting off those who are determined to raid and ravage the countryside we love and clear it of it's precious wildlife is astonishing and demonstrates what a mess we are in. There is a huge difference in an inspector looking at a development of 4 houses than one the size of Cranleigh Road for example. Although the inspector clearly took on board the Council’s Core Strategy, which we should all welcome, the appeal was certainly not on the same level of Cranleigh Road, when both sides employed legal barristers to wrestle through a number of complex legal arguments, like land supply, etc.

However that isn't the end of this particular scenario as there are plans to register an outline planning application for 150 dwellings just yards from this site. That will prove the real point of the victory. So yes, some good news but we all need to be a little cautious and if that’s the only hope we have then we must fear for the future.

Some of us have a deep passion for our countryside and care deeply about the wildlife within it. The thought that the badgers in the Cranleigh Road field now face being bullied out of their home, a home which they have occupied for years, is totally unacceptable to many residents.

We must be cautious going forward because developers wanting to build on greenfield sites will be much encouraged and more energetic and detailed in their challenge. They will undoubtedly employ highly experienced legal people to fight their case and in doing so elevate some very key issues which were not raised in the appeal above. One wonders if out local MP, a highly experienced and respected planning barrister, could be persuaded to help support her constituent's council with some (free) advice possibly.

It is time for those who are driving this economic expansion to take some responsibility. It is time for them to apologise for their madness. It is time for them to stop their mindless political game of spin and restore some integrity and honesty into the decision-making processes. Those who have driven this policy, and worse still continue to do so, which is unfit and is unsupported by the vast majority of Fareham residents should take responsibility for their utter failure to protect our greenfields and step aside. Put it bluntly they should resign


Maybe I should start a poetry page


Another poem decrying what not just Portchester, but probably ALL fareham residents are feeling about the destruction of the remining green land in our Borough

Poem - Anonymous

Click image to enlarge

 View as a pdf file


A crie de coeur


How poignant. This poem by an unknown resident of Portchester speaks volumes - I am sure that everybody that read this website agrees with the sentiments expressed here.

He prefaced it with this comment:

"I woke up this morning with great sadness for Portchester, and wrote the following, woefully "inspired" by the demise of of Portchester's jewels and true lifeblood, her green fields."

Poem - Silence the Land

Click image to enlarge

 View as a pdf file


Cranleigh Road pt 2

Outline planning application lodged


Foreman Homes flyer Now that Cranleigh Road seems to be a done deal Foreman Homes wants to take the next field along, the one off of Romsey Avenue. I believe that this is the field next to Cranleigh Road which appears to be at least twice the size.

Note the phrase "Prepared in response to the need for new homes to serve Fareham Borough Council, our proposal will be shaped by your comments". - How about


Foreman Homes will be holding an unmanned display of the proposal on Thursday 7th September at the Roundabout Hotel, PO16 8SB between 15:00 and 19:00. The proposal will then be on display at Portchester Library form the 8th to the 15th September. This is in no way a consultation as their will be no representatives from Foreman Homes at either display although according to the letter that has been delivered to local residents "The feedback received will be fully considered in progressing our propsals for this site." This is quite a difference in phrasing from that which they originally offered in the above leaflet

Their website pertaining to this site will be available at from the 8th to the 21st September.


Cranleigh Road

Cranleigh Road pt 2   Seafield Road   Wicor Path   Winnham Farm  

Cranleigh Road

Everything prior to the appeal has been moved to the archives page.


Points for FBC to consider


Fareham Borough Council is expected to receive legal opinion on Friday of next week concerning two issues, both associated with the Cranleigh Road planning appeal decision. The Council would want to take time to consider the ramifications of any possible legal challenges, simply because it is a huge step and has financial implications and therefore patience is necessary while Fareham Borough Council considers the report from its lawyers.

Considerations Fareham Borough Council will need to take into account:

To challenge the award of costs against Fareham Borough Council

 Costs Decision / Discussion on the Ministerial Letter

1) Inspector’s conclusion ”IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Fareham Borough Council shall pay to Persimmon Homes South Coast, the costs of the appeal proceedings described in the heading of this decision limited to those costs incurred in dealing with the issue of housing land supply”

I think most of us would disagree with that statement. What is interesting the Inspector in the link above, addresses this now famous Ministerial letter. Very clear the Inspector has read the letter and believes the letter supports his position. The Council believes otherwise. Anyway, worth a read.

2) Legal basis to challenge the inspector's decision.

Paragraph 5 of the  inspector's report is interesting:
Following the close of the inquiry, the Supreme Court issued a judgement1 concerning the interpretation of paragraph 49 of the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework) and its relationship with Framework paragraph.

The parties were given an opportunity to comment on the implications of this judgement for their cases. I have taken the judgement and the parties’ comments into account in coming to my decision

“Housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites.” Link to that decision

On another issue

Paragraph 42 of the inspector's report

Badger Setts

“Given that the site has been neglected for some considerable time, the presence of the badger sett and the submissions regarding its ecology, it attracts a medium value for its conservation interest

What a disgraceful comment.

Other Considerations


44. I understand the concerns raised by residents particularly regarding the impact of traffic on congestion on the wider network and on Hatherley Crescent/Cornaway Lane at school dropping off/pick-up times. The planning application was accompanied by a robust Transport Assessment (TA) the scope of which was agreed with Hampshire County Council (HCC) as the Highway Authority (HA). In light of this study and its findings, the HA and the lpa, subject to the imposition of appropriate planning conditions, have no objection to the proposal on highway safety or traffic generation grounds. I have no reason to disagree with those conclusions

45. In terms of the impact on the wider area, the TA concludes that the capacity of junctions within the study area would not be significantly impacted upon and that the estimated marginal increases in queue lengths would not significantly impact on the operation of the highway network. Congestion occurring at school drop off and pick-up times is restricted to short periods of the day and occurs only on weekdays during term time. Given the location of the site directly abutting the school, the development would be unlikely to generate additional vehicular traffic to and from the school. In my experience, additional traffic generated by the development would only likely to have an impact during the short morning drop-off window. These impacts are not a reason to withhold permission. Ecology

46. The site is located some 350m from the Portsmouth Harbour Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) which forms part of the wider Portsmouth Harbour Special Protection Area (SPA) and Ramsar Site. The appellant submitted ecological appraisals and produced an Ecological Construction and Management Plan. Given the proximity of the site to the national and internally designated sites referred to above, there is potential for the development to affect the interest features for which they were designated

47. The appellant submitted to the LPA a Habitat Regulations Assessment (HRA), which has been assessed by Natural England (NE). Based on what I consider to be a robust study, the HRA concludes that having regard to measures that could be built-into the scheme and a financial contribution to the Solent Recreation and Mitigation Partnership, significant effects are unlikely to occur either alone or in combination with the interest features of the SPA and Ramsar. In light of these finding, and similar to the conclusion reached by NE, I conclude that an appropriate assessment under the regulations14 is not required. Similarly, subject to the development being carried out in accordance with the details submitted with the application, NE indicates that the development would not damage or destroy the interest features for which the Portsmouth Harbour SSSI has been notified. Again, I have no reason to disagree with that conclusion

48. There is an active badger sett within the site, which the appellant proposes to relocate within the area of public open space to the west. Badgers and their setts are protected by legislation15. Whilst the LPA has no objection to the relocation, the developer would require a separate licence from NE to remove the Badgers. Whilst I note the concerns raised regarding the efficacy of artificial badger setts, they are, in my experience, in common usage and successful. I have no reason, in this case, to conclude there would be unacceptable harm or loss

49. From the representations made both orally and in writing, I am in no doubt that the appeal site is highly regarded by local residents and the adjacent primary school as an ecological resource. The school’s activities in introducing its pupils to the natural world are substantial and nationally recognised. Although the appeal site is privately owned and there is no public access to it, I recognise that the school views the site as a resource and an indirect source for the wildlife that inhabits the school site. Clearly whilst there would be some loss of habitat, this relates to many species that are common and widespread.

50. The proposed area of public open space albeit it would be divorced from the school grounds by a housing estate would be publicly available and could be laid out and managed as an improved ecological resource. Moreover, the tending and maturing of private gardens does provide a range of diverse habitats for a wide range of species. Whilst not a direct replacement the variety of habitats provided by private gardens would mitigate any impact on local ecology

Lost for words?

Shaun Cunningham


Reference to 'The Navigator'


The Inspector in his report interestingly refers to the “The Navigator” appeal decision. 20th January 2015.

Although this not a surprise because Persimmon Homes refer to The Navigator report in their submitted evidence to the inspector and which formed a critical part of their argument for development at Cranleigh Road. On reading the Cranleigh Road inspectors report it is very clear he supports The Navigator inspectors findings.

Those of us who can remember will know the inspector came under a barrage of criticism for allowing the Navigator’s appeal.

The inspector report on Cranleigh Road says

“The Local Planning Authority was aware during the Navigator appeal in December 2014 that the Objectively Assessed Need - Push Document identified in the 2014 South Hampshire SHMA - Strategic Housing Assessment is materially higher than the Core Strategy - Fareham Borough Council Local Plan - local Plan -part 1."

The decision in the Navigator appeal, which was not challenged, (Keyword there, not challenged) was predicated on an acceptance that 2014 Objectively Assessed Need provided a more suitable basis for a 5-year Housing Land Supply calculation”.

The inspector goes on to say, and this is very important,

“I consider that the 5-year Housing Land Supply should be assessed on the basis of the PUSH April 2016 OAN - Objectively Assessed Need - Push Document"

The Cranleigh Road inspector fully endorses “The Navigator“ appeal decision”


Press release re lost appeal


Developers successful with Cranleigh Road Appeal

Fareham Borough Council has been advised that Persimmon Homes have been successful in their appeal to build new homes on land at Cranleigh Road, Portchester. This follows a Public Inquiry held by a Planning Inspector at the Civic Offices between the 25-28th April 2017.

The Planning Inspector did not consider the Council had currently identified sufficient land across the Borough to provide housing needed over the next five years. Whilst the Planning Inspector acknowledged that high quality agricultural land would be lost, and that development of this piece of countryside would harm its character and appearance, he concluded that any harm was outweighed by the need to make land available for housing within the Borough.

This means outline planning permission has been granted for a residential development of up to 120 dwellings accessed from Cranleigh Road, along with public open space, including a play area, pedestrian walk ways, surface water drainage and landscaping. The Council will be seeking legal advice on the soundness of the appeal decision.

Executive Leader of Fareham Borough Council, Cllr Seán Woodward, said: “I am extremely disappointed with the outcome of this Appeal as the Planning Inspector has failed to acknowledge the Council’s clear commitment to housing delivery over the long term in its current planning strategy.

“Welborne is now set to be rapidly moved forward by Buckland Development Limited (BDL) which has submitted a planning application and is progressing both planning, infrastructure and site assembly work. This follows years of delays caused by legal disputes over the control of the 380 acre Dean Farm estate owned by the Benge family which, following the Council implementing a development strategy with a possible compulsory purchase order, have now been resolved following the acquisition of the land by BDL which now controls over 90% of Welborne.

“The timing of the decision is most unfortunate as the Council had already acknowledged the need to identify further housing sites in a new Local Plan over a longer timescale. The Council has been working over the last two years to create the new plan with an end date of 2036 rather than 2026. This extended timescale of course requires additional housing sites, especially ones which will provide for early delivery due to the Welborne delays. Work has included a ‘call for sites’ from landowners and we will be consulting the public about the proposed new plan in the Autumn. Obviously the provision of 6,000 homes at Welborne, albeit over a longer timeframe, continues to mean that we do not need additional sites in the Borough for those 6,000 homes.”

The application to build homes at Cranleigh Road was initially refused by Fareham Borough Council in March 2016. The Council received around 500 objections to the development from local residents and societies.

Link to the planning officer's decision and his decision on costs


Seafield Road

Cranleigh Road   Cranleigh Road pt 2   Wicor Path   Winnham Farm  

Seafield development

Destruction at Seafield Road


Heavy duty petrol hedge cutters.. no qualified ecologist on site (which was promised) and all before planning permission given!!

There are protected reptiles hibernating here and they haven’t been moved, they appear to be poking the hedge cutter into the ground!!

Can anybody tell me how this is “best practice”?? How can this not be disturbing/harming these protected species? They should have been moved to safety months ago! This is being done by Ecosupport. One would have thought that if they had the relevant accreditation for this sort of work then licence numbers, accreditation symbols, etc. would appear quite heavily on their website, after all if companies are Gas Safe registered they certainly let you know but the only comment that I can see on their website is:
In order to obtain a licence Natural England must be satisfied that the development, mitigation and compensation scheme proposed meets the 'three tests' of the Habitats Regulations (2010). Ecosupport has considerable experience in gaining licences for protected species designing pragmatic mitigation and compensation strategies which are achievable on the ground. - No statement that they actually have one!

A video of the goings-on is here


Ecosupport about to remove the wildlife


radian letter about the removal of wildlife from Maoraunt Drive

Is it right that the developers select their own ecological company? Surely such important actions should be divorced completely from them. It all just makes one think of brown envelopes.

Carrying out this type of work now may avoid nesting birds but it won't do much hibernating reptiles will it? Why not wait until after the bird nesting season> I guess that would stop them bringing the site on-stream quickly enough even though there appears to be no planning application - could this be another one that was decided under Chatham House rules?


Public consultation closes on the 2nd January 2018


The public open space to the South of Wicor Path was originally intended to be given over to the ownership of Fareham Borough Council. The proposal now is to hand this land to a land management company with the result the owners of the 49 properties will be charged an annual fee to manage the land South of the Wicor Path, Portchester.

This land will also remain fenced off. If you are interested in the site then please ensure you make your views known before the close of play on the 2nd January 2018

There are some very interesting document especially on ecology.

Link to the Planning Application
Land to the West of Seafield Road & Moraunt Drive; South of Tattershall Crescent Portchester Fareham
Residential Development Of 49 Dwellings, And Provision Of Open Space And Habitat Land, Access Off Moraunt Drive. (Management Statement And Revised Management Plan)


Outline planning application lodged


Housing mix Affordable housing layout

Housing mix Affordable housing layout

 Link to the planning application


Where was the Churchlands Trust?


proposed plan Great turn out last night at the exhibition held by Radian homes at Portchester. It was rather hot to say the least. Praise to the local community in being firm but constructive in their thoughts.

Radian Homes have gone away knowing they have a huge PR exercise to undertake if they are to ever get the public on their side. To date the whole process of bringing their development proposals forward and the way clearing of the site has been undertaken, land which is a rich and a diverse home for wildlife, has been a PR disaster for them.

It was really disappointing to see the landowners not making the effort to be there, especially the local landowner Churchlands. Residents need answers to numerous questions which Churchlands could have provided last night. An opportunity for them to build those community bridges which are desperately required, an opportunity for them to face residents. Sadly, they failed to grasp that opportunity because they didn't turn up.

Radian Homes have promised to listen and to address some of the issues which are causing concern, namely the Wicor Path fencing and to address some of the ecological issues. I take heart that Radian Homes want to build those community bridges, that they understand the anger of local residents. What is not so clear is does Churchlands want to be part of this process? Building those community bridges which are desperately needed, I hope so, and yet I have a feeling Churchlands are not up to the task.

The land in question is outside of the local plan, classified as, countryside and open space.

Access & Parking

The site would be served by a single vehicular access point onto Moraunt Drive, which would act as an extension of the existing road.

The parking strategy has been informed by Fareham Borough Council’s parking standards which require 2 spaces for every 2-3 bedroom house and 3 spaces for 4 bedroom houses. The site will provide approximately 12 visitor parking spaces; this is above Fareham Borough Council’s standards.

Report by Shaun Cunningham, stolen from our  Facebook page

 Link to Radian Homes - proposed development at Seafield Road


And now for Radian's plans


Plans from Radian Homes include a residential development on the northern half of the site – 45 per cent of which would be affordable housing – and the provision of new public open space, with areas of high quality ecological habitat, on the southern half.

The plan is a response to Fareham Borough Council’s need to deliver an additional 2,000 homes by 2036.

Radian have arranged a consultation at The Castle Centre on July 6thfrom 16:00 - 20:00.

The News icon Link to The News article


Ecology versus Developers


It does seem a shame that creating an ecology report seems to need to destroy the ecology first - still I suppose that it makes counting things easier if they aren't there to start with.

 Link to the Daily Echo article


Radian's plans


Let's see what it looks like after they have submitted their plans, basically just another load of cars trying to exit at The Seagull pub roundabout.

Click either picture to enlarge


What about the wildlife?


And after the juggernauts rolled onto the land, succesfully missing all residents, wildlife is now being found injured or destroyed.

"It is wildlife vandalism. The species that have been living here for so long have had their habitats severely compromised."
Mel Hefford, wildlife conservationist

Well it's hardly surprising with something like those machines rolling over such a small area is it?

The News icon Link to The News article


and still the machinery rolls in


Big Tractor The News icon Link to The News article

In a quote from the site owners they say

"The work was ‘investigative’ to establish ecology, topography and drainage reports for a pending planning application."

If that is all that they are trying to achieve why do they need such blooming great machinery. Just taking that thing on-site, without doing any work, will wipe-out 50% of the wildlife.

Is it just me or could there be a few porkies here? because they then go on to say

A statement on behalf of site owners the Churchlands Trust and Danisco said: "We can confirm that investigative works are currently taking place on the site to enable a series of essential reports. These will inform plans for a high-quality residential development. Any such plans would include access to a new area of open parkland on the shore."


In the meantime


Seafield development Portchester residents are taking a stand against ground clearance in this area. Whilst they are resigned to the fact that development WILL go ahead at some point in the future they are extremely concerned that there still hasn't been an environment survey. If vehicles like this are allowed on site by the time that a survey could be completed there will be none left.

The News icon Link to The News article


Index to Seafield Road Archived documents


Wicor Path

Cranleigh Road   Cranleigh Road pt 2   Seafield Road   Winnham Farm  

Here's what is being proposed


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.


Nothing official yet


Wicor Path 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.


Winnham Farm

Winnham Farm

Link to Miller Homes website

Cranleigh Road   Cranleigh Road pt 2   Seafield Road   Wicor Path  

You really MUST read this!!


Link to an objection by a local resident

This one really is an abject lesson in how to write an objection. It will be a real treat if the Planning Team try react to this one.

It really is worth reading because it sets out the problems with this proposed development so well.


Comments on the Developer's literature


A27-Downend Road junction improvements A27-Downend Road junction improvements> A27-Downend Road junction improvements

Click any image to enlarge

Can anybody tell me what a "Virtual Footway" is (right hand picture)? Is it a footway for virtual people?

Quotes from the developer's literature in italics:
3.12 A detailed and robust appraisal of traffic impacts been carried out to assess the future operation of the local highway network when the cumulative effects of growth are considered. This identified that two junctions on the local network are likely to exhibit capacity issues in the future, both ‘with’ and ‘without’ the development coming forward:
A27 / Downend Road
A27 Delme Roundabout

3.13 The development proposes to deliver the improvement to A27 / Downend Road and provide a contribution to the improvement of A27 Delme Roundabout.

If the two junctions are likely to exhibit capacity issues in the future without the development, then another 450 houses exiting onto Downend Road certainly isn't going to help. Talk about an oxymoronic comment.

And lastly on this subject:

6.64 Early work has identified the potential to improve the Downend Road / A27 traffic signal junction to improve its operation by:
Providing a second approach lane on Shearwater Avenue
Upgrading the pedestrian crossings to a puffin crossing
Installing the latest signal technology to improve efficiency 6.65 Investigation is also ongoing to consider what improvements at the A27 Delme Roundabout may be needed.

Is that really going to have any effect?

Having glanced through the plan one or two points jumped out, some are just semantics but how can the developers allow the same inane phrases to be used time and time again. They seem to just take us for fools that cannot understand the implications of what is going on:

1.3 This Design and Access Statement demonstrates how the master plan has sought to create an inclusive new community and a development that responds to its surroundings and the local context.

What absolute drivel - are they saying that Winnham Farm will have GP surgeries, schools. Just what do they mean by "inclusive"?

Pure semantics this one:
6.42 A continuous frontage is maintained along the primary street to aid legibility
What on earth has legibility got to do with housing development. The dictionary definition of the word legible is "The degree to which writing or text can be read easily because the letters are clear, the text is printed well, etc.:"
Is every house going to be sign-written?


Now for the Planning Application


So we now have the Planning application for Winnham Farm and the Cams Bridge pedestrian access, these join a whole raft of live planning applications across Fareham.

The residents of Portchester hear repeatedly how sensitive other potential greenfield sites are and how the countryside plays an important role in providing buffer zones between communities. Why is it then that Portchester, Wallington, Warsash and Funtley - and let us not forget Funtley has Welborne in their backyard - are not allowed some green space. The sensitivity of sites such as Winnham Farm, Seafield Road and Romsey Avenue are simply pushed into the long grass.

How convenient it has become to play the sensitivity card to protect unallocated sites and yet the fact that the very same arguments used to protect those sites could be applied equally well to other sites is simply waved away leaving sites like Winnham Farm at the mercy of developers. It is totally unacceptable.

The present plan is clear, Winnham Farm is outside the urban fringe designated as countryside, just like Seafield Road and a whole cluster of sites in Warsash, which have live planning applications submitted.

The access to Winnham Fareham is terrible, how on Earth are the Developers going to mitigate 1000 Vehicle movements per day to and from the site. The truth is, they cannot. Messing around with traffic lights to make them smarter is no more than a side show.

If our council can spend £18 million in bringing forward an airport which less than 0.1 percent of residents will ever use then they can jolly well spend some money protecting our greenfields. This Council spent £600,000 at Welborne on a failed and totally unnecessary bid to kick-start the development, and yet are hesitant to take on developers who are hell-bent on driving a coach and horses through our present local plan.

Yes, this Council has a 5-year land supply problem but in addressing the issue we should be resolute in ensuring that the council is seen to be applying the same criteria to all communities but even more importantly to allowing the planning process to follow its natural course and have housing allocations determined at the proper and rightful place, the public inquiry into the Draft Local Plan.

Link to an article in The News reflecting residents views on the matter. ⇧Top⇧

And now for the sales blurb


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.


Miller Homes presentation. 02-05-2017


Having attended the Miller Homes presentation yesterday various points came to light.

  • They seem to accept that the development is going to do absolutely nothing to ease the traffic congestion on the A27 although HCC have apparently requested that they become involved with improving the Delme Arms roundabout. Whatever they do there though will just exacerbate the situation at Market Quay. The representative that I spoke with described the improvements to the Downend Road - A27 junction and accepted that changing it will have very little affect on the traffic flow because the problem is actually caused by the roundabouts further down the line.

  • As with FBC, when tackled on the Hospital loading problem, I got the normal "We have been in close consultation with F&G CCG but it's their problem, not ours"

  • They have been asked by HCC Education to help to pay for the enlargement of Red Barn, Wicor and Cams Hall schools. Although if Cranleigh Road does get past the appeal then there won't be any land left for a Wicor School enlargement.

  • If FBC reject the plan they will almost certainly go to appeal.

  • Dowend Farm site plan

  • Possibly even more worrying was that the representative admitted that the plan that they have published is incorrect in that it shows the land involved for this development is smaller than that shown and that they have options on the land to the north and to the west on the other side of Downend Road. So 350 house could easily become 1000 or more although no plans have been made for these additional sites AS YET.
    The area coloured red in the picture at the head of the page is the area that the current planning application refers to, the green is that part that was mistakenly added and the blue part is the area that Miller Homes have an option on. These areas have been drawn from memory from a plan that I was shown at the presentation so may not be 100% accurate.

Here are copies of the feedback form issued, no space for any commants about REAL concerns, traffic, health, education.
feedback form feedback form

Click either image to enlarge

The News icon Link to article in The News


Miller Homes presentation.


Quote from Daily Echo icon 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.


And another 350 for Portchester?


If Cranleigh Road get the go ahead next week does that mean that it will be open house for another 350 just over the road. All traffic exiting onto the same stretch of the A27

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 hat work could start on site in 2018.

Full details can be found at Miller Homes icon Miller Homes' website

A public consultation will be held on Tuesday 2nd May at Cams Hill from 16:00 - 20:00.


Inform Fareham Focus Group   

Follow Inform Fareham on Facebookacebook Join Inform Fareham now Watch videos about local governance

Sitemap & Page Revisions.   Terms of Use.   Privacy