Although this is the home page, to check for the latest updates go to the revisions page.
A petition has been set up by the club against the plans which would be presented to the council ahead of a decision being made (perhaps somebody in Stubbington can let me know where the petition can be found).
"Planning permission has been submitted to Fareham Borough Council to redevelop Stubbington Village Club into ten dwellings by the premises management company.‘We need your support to oppose the development. Please sign this petition and save this well loved and used community club.’
To comment on the application, click here
Link to The News article
"A deadlock between Winchester City Council, developers and the Government risks losing £14million earmarked for major road improvements in Whiteley, the catalyst for the major North Whiteley housing development."
Link to the Daily Echo article
Does ANYBODY know what is going on?
A letter sent to residents this morning suggested Fareham Borough Council doesn't have a local plan. We have 3 actually.
The Fareham Borough Local Plan consists of three parts and sets out the Planning Strategy for the Borough up to 2026. The Council has recently committed to a review of its Local Plan to reflect emerging housing and employment needs until 2036.
The purpose of this review process is simply not to apply one large rubber stamp, 'Agreed' but hopefully to apply some robust thought to the many questions local residents are asking with regard to housing numbers and more importantly issues revolving around infrastructure and the destruction not only of our local wildlife habitats but our quality of life.
For some to suggest developers are bringing forward piecemeal development outside of Fareham Borough Council's local plan strategy because this Borough doesn't have a development plan is not only nonsense, but shows a clear lack of understanding of the facts and a willingness to pass the buck.
The potential developments at Cranleigh Road, Portchester and at Brook lane, Warsash are clearly outside of this Authorities, local plan part 2, which is why after careful consideration by planning officers and the planning committee both were rejected, to do anything other than reject the planning applications would have consigned the local plan part 2 to the trash bin.
The problem, of course, since the The Welborne Plan, local, plan part 3 and the Local Plan Part 2, Development Sites & Policies were adopted this Borough has added a further 2000+ new homes to an already inflated total. These additional homes will need, may I say it, a home. Whether that home is a brown field site or a green field site will be part of the review process of the local plan.
The local plan review will go out to public consultation at sometime in the future. It is critical that local residents have their say at that point.
The review of the local plan.
So now Cllr. Woodward is admitting that Welborne won't be the end of the development requirements over the next 20 years.
How can they announce that
"The council has refused two applications in Warsash on greenfield sites, claiming that the schemes – Taylor Wimpey and Foreman Homes for 80 and 150 houses on land north of Brooks Lane – went against its no greenfield policy." and say that exactly the same time
“We are committed to not building on greenfield sites but not cannot rule out the possibility.”
Could this be preparation for Newlands?
Link to the Daily Echo article
Hundreds of council bosses across the south received payments totalling more than £100,000 in one year alone, new figures have revealed. They include a senior Fareham Borough Council employee who received £387, 541 – the highest town hall pay packet in the region in 2015-16.
Link to the Daily Echo article
Link to The News article
At Monday's Executive Council meeting the Executive Leader made the announcement that there is £8.4bn. up for grabs from Central Government for the development of "Garden Towns and Villages" apart from the £228,000 already obtained for Welborne. That bit would just about cover the cost of a 2 bed terraced house by the time that they are built.
£3bn from The Home Building Fund (loan financed)
£2.3bn from The Housing Infrastructure Fund (grant financed)
£1.2bn from Starter Homes Equity Funding on the basis of early delivery
and £1.7bn from The Accelerated Construction Enabling Finance.
It's amazing how many sub-committees and QANGOs need to be involved in giving our money away. I wonder what the overhead cost of these organisations are. It's also a point to ponder on how much will be left of the grants and loans by the time FBC have sorted out their compulsory purchase orders and made their applications, found a new development partner and seen their way through the probable High Court case(s) that will follow and how much of it will be swallowed up by these actions.
£650,000 to protect a reasonably large part of our, what would otherwise be, a fast eroding coastline. FBC aren't responsible for it and as it won't affect enough houses there are no grants available but the cost of a couple of 3 bed detached houses isn't exactly a LOT of money when you think of the legacy that it will save.
According to Councillor Bell this is probably
"The biggest project that the Council has ever had to look at." I'll bet that it's not a patch on what they are about to try with Weborne. One building, admittedly complicated by a single service - electricity. Welborne not only has electricity but all of the other services as well for 6,000 houses and associated buildings including industrial.
The Office of National Statistics has released a very interesting interactive map of densities of the UK by local government areas. Nine of the 'Garden Villages' are in areas with an average population density of less than 400 people/km2, three between 1000 and 2000/km2 and two above 4000. Fareham comes in at 1530/km2. Because of Fareham's unique position between the most densly populated area outside of London and the large conurbation of Southampton, the real comparison is more like 3250/km2 (averaging out Portssmouth, Gosport, Fareham, Eastleigh and Southampton). The same argument could also apply to North Cheshire and Dunton Hills, although in both of these cases the effect would be to reduce the average density.
The figures seem to work out like this
|Bailrigg, Lancaster||44||Culm, Devon||166|
|Deenethorpe, Northants||148||Dunton Hills, Essex||4210|
|Halsnead, Merseyside||1689||Infinity Garden Village, Derbyshire||90|
|Longcross, Surrey||1390||North Cheshire||4448|
|Spitalgate Heath, Lincs||120||St Cuthberts, Cumbria||25|
|Long Marston, Stratford-upon-Avon||124||Oxfordshire Cotswolds||155|
|Welborne, Hampshire||1530 (3250)||West Carclaze, Cornwall||153|
Another point to remember is that South Hampshire can ONLY develop in one direction whereas Dunton Hills has 360 degrees of freedom, I honestly don't know enough about North Cheshire as I don't have enough information on the exact location. Is it right and can Fareham really afford this level of development?
It's nice to know that we are not alone in protesting about these new 'Garden' villages and towns.
Various other organisations similar to ours have been formed to object to the lack of TRUE accountability to the local residents, thousands of objections and still the plans go ahead (see the comments and link here).
Harlow & GIlston
Stop Harlow North
Campaign Against Urban Sprawl in Essex
Stop Erosion of Rural Communities in Local Essex
No Otterpool New Town/Shepway Environment and Community Network
Residents Against Inappropriate Development
Stoke Mandeville Action Group
Residents Against Cullompton Exploitation
It shows how much notice developers take of restrictions placed on the granting of planning permission.
"The discount supermarket giant was given permission by Fareham Borough Council to open in Portchester’s Castle Trading Estate on the condition that ‘vital’ highway works were completed last November."
It's debatable who is actually responsible, Lidl or Open Reach but the bookings should have been made in plenty of time and work shouldn't have been started until ALL of the necessary changes to existing infrastructure had been completed. A silly little thing like this is causing major disruption to to the area and this is just one relatively tiny job, just think how Welborne could screw Fareham up completely. I wonder if there will be any form of penalty for them?
Link to The News article.
Quote from a reply to the Give Communities back the right to decide where houses are built petition to HMG
"Local communities are not forced to accept large housing developments. Communities are consulted throughout the Local Plan process and on individual planning applications."
Note the phrase "Communities are conulted". Can anybody on this site actually remember exactly when we were truly CONSULTED? We were told that Welborne would be built and we have been TOLD that Fareham must take another 6,000 plus on top of Welborne. I have lived here since 1984 and I still can't remember when the housing numbers were DISCUSSED and our views actually TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT.
Link to the Govenment response.
At the moment there are 19,471 signatures, it needs to be 100,000 to get debated so please, if you haven't signed the petition please - do it now.
Not only wil Fareham Borough be increasing its precept but Hampshire is also adding 5% to the domestic rates bill so that will be another £1 a week for a band 'D' property, it's in an effort to close a £98M funding gap. Business rates are a completely different kettle of fish though especially with the revaluation that is occurring. Small businesses can check their rateable value at Find and check your business rates valuation.
Link to The News article.
Foreman Homes are holding a public consultation for an undisclosed development in Posbrook Lane, Titchfield.
This is to add to the current list of developments that Foreman Homes are being created in the local, if not exactly in the Fareham, area.
These sites have all received planning permission,
England’s housing market is broken, the government has admitted, with home ownership a “distant dream” for young families, as it unveiled a white paper promising a fresh wave of home building.
The communities secretary, Sajid Javid, told the House of Commons that average house prices had jumped to 7.5 times average incomes and rents in many places swallowed more than half of take-home pay.
Link to The Guardian article
And according to the Guardian - people who have fallen through the net need not expect to get any help.
Link to The Guardian article ⇧Top⇧
Copied from the Inform Fareham Facebook page
Interesting document - worth a read. The developers thoughts, chapter 7, on Fareham's 5 year land supply figures sets out the battle ahead for the council when defending future development appeals. The chapter on Welborne is also worth a read. One needs to say, FBC are confident in their land supply figures. The Cranleigh Road appeal will sort the issue out, one way or other.
The two developers seeking planning approval at Warsash at Wednesday's planning meeting followed more or less the same argument on land supply.
Land north of Funtley Road, Funtley Supporting Planning Statement (including Affordable Housing Statement and Statement of Community Involvement)
Planning application was received by FBC this week.
Copied from the Inform Fareham Facebook page - Governing Body Meeting January 18th – Ferneham Hall
Many thanks to Mike Stephenson for attending and reporting on this marathon:
This is the first time I have ever attended a public meeting of the CCG and I have to say it is not something I would like to do frequently. It went on for approximately four hours and was full of jargon and often unfathomable abbreviations – even with my NHS background. The governing body is well populated – at least 20 members representing different bodies and interests. Just for the record FBC was represented by Cllr Bayford so there is no excuse for FBC to not know what is going on! I cannot do the meeting justice in this post (the supporting document is 365 pages long and available here) but I will write a more extensive review on the Inform Fareham Focus Group website. A video of the meeting should also appear soon. However, I may be able to summarize it thus:
The CCG is projecting a £10million deficit in their budget in the near future. This will eventually have to be paid back so the implications of that are obvious – Cuts and big changes in the pipeline under a five year STP – Sustainability Transformation Plan. Even the CCG admit that this plan is extremely ambitious with no guarantees of success. After what I sat through you can say that again. To be fair to the CCG, I think they are faced with an impossible task.
There is a chance to learn more about how the NHS in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight is planning to change over the next five years.
NHS Fareham and Gosport Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) will be holding its governing body meeting in public next week (Wednesday 18 January), and before the formal meeting there will be a one-hour session looking at the county’s Sustainability and Transformation Plan (STP).
The CCG’s chief officer, Richard Samuel, has led the process to develop the local STP, and he will give a presentation on the topic between 1pm – 2pm in the Octagon Room at Ferneham Hall, in Fareham. Mr Samuel will discuss the goals of the STP, and why the NHS needs to change, and the importance of involving local people throughout the process.
The aim is to provide people with the opportunity to learn more about the local NHS plans over the next five years – and there will of course be plenty of chances to ask questions.
The formal meeting, which follows the STP seminar session, will include items on key aspects of the CCG’s current agenda, including finance and performance.
The public is welcome to attend both the STP session at 1pm, and the full Governing Body meeting in public which starts at 2pm at the same venue.
Published on the 13th so plenty of notice for everybody
Link to The News article
Link to CCG Press release
Quote from the article by
CPRE about the lack of water supply for the current population.
"So, future needs with less effective rainfall and rising demand are obviously hard to plan for. Desalination and importing water are both very expensive.
However, saving water will help. Do what you can. Also, if you are responding to local planning applications for housing, do think about the water use and water treatment involved. Water companies always comment, refer to them in your letter, and convince your local councils to do the same." (My italics)