All files have now been moved to the reading list - it just seemed tidier
The following map showing proposed developments was created from the planning documents filed with FBC from around the beginning of 2015. The sites shown are purely for new residential builds, it does not include extensions, replacement dwellings or industrial changes (except for Daedalus).
For your information these are the compilations that I created and from which I worked. I cannot guarantee that I have caught ALL of the applications but have done the best that I can. The rejected applications were only started at the beginning of January 2017 as that was when I first thought that the history of these sites might prove of interest in the future.
Approved planning applications
Undecided planning applications
Rejected planning applications
Click anywhere in map to enlarge.
Solent Times article
The Chatham House Rule reads as follows:
"When a meeting, or part thereof, is held under the Chatham House Rule, participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s), nor that of any other participant, may be revealed.
The world-famous Chatham House Rule may be invoked at meetings to encourage openness and the sharing of information.
Meetings, events and discussions held at Chatham House are normally conducted 'on the record' with the Rule occasionally invoked at the speaker's request. In cases where the Rule is not considered sufficiently strict, an event may be held 'off the record'."
If you notice it says 'MAY be invoked DURING a meeting'. Meetings are normally conducted 'ON THE RECORD'. So why is it necessary for our Executive Leader, Portfolio Holder for Planning & Development and Director of Finance and Resources to be involved in a freebie presumably funded by an organisation that takes their payment from developers. By banning ALL attribution and identification of attendees how can this lead to openness and sharing of information?
September - Cranleigh Road Portchester, appeal lost
October - Warsash, Funtley, Fareham Town and Portchester destroyed.
Now - Newlands
Today we hear Newlands has awoken from a deep slumber, is anybody really surprised? On Friday when the Review of the Local Plan was published, Warsash, Fareham Town Centre and Portchester were hit very hard with new housing. Today it is the the turn of South Fareham to receive some bad news. It is becoming like a game of rugby. Developers competing in a ruck to see who can push themselves over the line and win the game to bring their plans forward.
How depressing to witness our wonderful countryside being fought over in such a manner. The losers are the residents of Fareham who are merely spectators in a game where our local Plan is holed , weak, feeble, worthless and has no strength.
All we have now is political spin. The great Welborne promise can now be seen for what it always was a tall story plucked out of the air to serve a political game.
Click image to enlarge
So much for all of the money being spent on the A27 upgrade, this one should add new congestion to our very expensively upgraded road system. I just wish they would stop using the phrase 'affordable' homes, how about 'cheaper but still unaffordable'.
I guess that the attitude to parking is one of 'less people in 'affordable' homes can afford to own cars so we don't need as many parking spaces'. What seems to be forgotten is that 'affordable' houses are only 'affordable' for the first time buyer, after that they go back to full market value which means that owners can afford more cars. It's all short-termism again.
Link to the Daily Echo article.
Residents prepare to fight plans for 600 homes off Brook Lane in Warsash.
180 for Foreman Homes, 85 for Taylor Wimpey, 140 for Bargate Homes and 185 for Land and Partners. (links to planning applications).
At last our councillors are admitting the damage that was caused by the Cranleigh Road debacle, and this isn't the end of it yet, it isn't the beginning of the end or even the end of the beginning - it is the beginning of the beginning.
Quote from Cllr. Woodward's deputy Cllr Trevor Cartwright -
"Since the Cranleigh Road appeal has come out where the inspector has said that we have a two year housing supply instead of five has opened up the development floodgates which could have devastating consequences for Warsash and could increase the population 30 per cent."
Link to the Daily Echo article.
Picture from the above article - I am not too sure what he is so happy about, I do think that the Echo could have found a more appropriate one, possibly in deep despair with tears in his eyes.
The proposal, which would also include three schools, new shops and 50 hectares of green space, was submitted by a consortium comprising Taylor Wimpey, Crest Nicholson, Bovis Homes and JGP Lakedale, and was approved by Winchester City Council in October 2015.
"Councillor Seán Woodward, leader of neighbouring Fareham Borough Council and a Solent LEP director, said: “The scheme is good news for locals because the £15m grant brings forward the development of vital roads infrastructure several years early."
With improved access to Whiteley will this add to Fareham Town Centre's demise and will the schools and other promised infrastructure appear like they did when Whiteley was originally built, late, very, very slowly and effectively unfinished?
Link to the Daily Echo article.
Some are suggesting that the Inspector’s report on Cranleigh Road is a rogue report and Mr S R G Baird had a bad day when writing it.
Does this argument stand up?
Appeal Decision - Land north of Cranleigh Road and west of Wicor Primary School, Portchester, Fareham, Hampshire
His report makes uncomfortable reading for many residents wondering if their local Greenfield site is next in-line for housing. The Cranleigh Road Inspector interestingly refers to the “The Navigator” appeal decision, 20th January 2015. When the appeal report was released it also came under a barrage of criticism.
Appeal Decision - Land adjacent to ‘The Navigator’, off Swanwick Lane, Lower Swanwick, Hampshire
Could it be argued the two inspectors were not that miles apart in their thinking with regard to allocations of land? Persimmon Homes refer to The Navigator report in their submitted evidence to the Cranleigh Road inspector and which formed a critical part of their argument, however, on reading the Cranleigh Road inspectors report it is very clear he supports The Navigator inspectors findings. The inspector's report on Cranleigh Road says “The Local Planning Authority was aware during the Navigator appeal in December 2014 that the Objectively Assessed Housing Need update - Push Document identified in the 2014 South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment is materially higher than the Core Strategy Adopted- local Plan -part 1.
The decision in the Navigator appeal, which was not challenged, (Key word 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 - Objectively Assessed. The Cranleigh Road inspector fully endorsed “The Navigator“ appeal decision” (see "The Navigator appeal decision above).
It's all very well for some to say the Inspector in writing his judgement on Cranleigh Road was being unjust and his report is unbalanced, however if one reads the two appeal judgements they actual concur on some very important facts. Could it be argued, 'The Navigator' appeal inspector outlined a fault line within our local plan and the Cranleigh Road inspector merely endorsed it with calamitous consequences for Fareham?
ps. The Objectively Assessed Housing Need report, the one that originally started this calamitous train of events, was created by a company called GL Hearn who are part of the Capita Group. A quote from an article in The Independent
"The little loved outsourcing company Capita has just reported an ugly set of results. It's parting company with its chief executive, has seen £300m wiped from its market value, and is set to get booted out of the FTSE 100."
Some time has passed since the bombshell of the Cranleigh Road Appeal decision. Some are asking why the deafening silence? Perhaps the Executive Committee meeting on the 4th September will bring an announcement of some kind? There will be a video of the meeting posted. Let us hope that if there is one announcement made, that it will focus on how we move forward.
Reading the inspector's report leaves one deeply puzzled as to why there was such a yawning gap between the case presented by Fareham Borough Council and the conclusions of the inspector. The gulf between the parties is huge especially on the housing land supply figures. The base line for calculating the land supply figures and the case presented by the various camps were diverse in where the starting point was and just as importantly, the timing when new housing should come forward, especially in the short to medium term.
The Council's planning team are no fools, they have a huge amount of expertise and are extremely professional people. Could it be that there was some unknown influence pulling them in a direction they had no control over, against their professional judgement. That is pure speculation, however, there does seem to be something odd here.
At the meeting we may hear some news on Welborne, which is more or less certain to follow Buckland's proposals even though there are still major difficulties to overcome. It seems likrly that the CPO route is now history along with the preferred partner idea, although others may have a different opinion.
October's Executive on the 9th October is where the local plan review will be published and we will all know the preferred site allocations that the council favours, the key word here is preferred, developers have their own ideas and are happy to lead.
What will be interesting is the next housing development going forward to the Planning Committee. The question is, will the Council try to hold the line, because each greenfield site does have its own unique development yardstick, or will they accept the Cranleigh Road Inspectors assessment of the current housing land supply and pass the plans?
recently published a letter from a local resident. Because it was a letter it is not available in the on-line version of the paper so here it is in it's entirety - along with a reply from Cllr.Keith Evans
Tom Davies wrote to you regarding the result of Persimmon Homes’ planning appeal in Fareham.
He said it was regretful; and I am sure that most people in Fareham would whole heartily agree with him because the council will now ﬁnd it hard to turn down any planning applications, however undesirable.
The outcome of the appeal was, however, entirely predictable.
It wasn't because the planning system is broken, as Tom suggested, it was the council’s own fault.
Its defence against unwanted developments is the Local Plan and from its initial conception that plan has been a disaster.
Local community groups and lots of individuals have been pointing out its many, many flaws for years now, only to be ignored by the council. In fact, the council has treated all comments from them, however constructive, with a total disdain, and has even gone so far as to dismantle the mechanisms for consulting with them.
Tom Davies was right to say that people must have a say, but because of the council's arrogance that has not been happening.
In my view, the fault lies squarely with one person, Sean Woodward, the counci1’s executive leader, who has been the driving force behind this ﬁasco and has used his unelected role in the Partnership for Urban South Hampshire to force Fareham to accept unnecessarily high housing targets.
The Persimmon result is bad, but is probably only the beginning.
There may well be much worse to come. Cllr. Woodward has failed the people of Fareham and I believe that if he had any integrity he would resign.
And if he doesn’t go voluntarily then I think that, for their own good his party should remove him.
And Cllr. Evans's response
Mike Parsons letter last Friday was so inaccurate and misleading that I just had to respond (Time to go? Aug 18).
He is repeating (what he has been advised in the past is quite incorrect) statements about the Push organisation imposing or forcing housing numbers on to Fareham.
Push is a freely-collaborative organisation of a number of councils in our area (including Southamptongand Portsmouth) formed ‘to help improve awareness and collaboration on matters affecting our geographic area.
Push has never imposed or forced housing numbers on any of its members.
The Push members agreed a single consistent methodology to calculate housing need but the numbers were determined by officers of each participating council for their own council.
This methodology and the numbers Fareham are now seeking to meet was fully endorsed by the Cranleigh Road government inspector.
Councils forming the Push partnership have seen real beneﬁts from the collaboration in areas of sub-regional spatial planning, environmental analysis and economic strategies.
The Cranleigh appeal decision is very disappointing but is a result of delays in delivering houses at the Welborne site. Delays just about entirely down to family arguments (and consequent court case) from within one family that owned circa 40 per cent of the Welborne site.
These issues are now resolved and we have a single landowner and development promoter for about 94 per cent of the site.
As a consequence we should now see some rapid progress with laying of cement etc before the end of 2019.
Fareham Council’s pro-active delivery strategy has been a signiﬁcant factor in this resolution.
The council is now examining options to ensure that the Cranleigh decision does not result in the free-for-all Mr Parsons suggests - and I am conﬁdent that we will achieve this.
Cllr Keith Evans
Fareham Executive Member for
Planning & Development
Developers are queuing up at present, jousting to see who can be first to puncture a hole in Fareham Council’s local plan. It is all getting rather silly now, a few developers have submitted plans for sites which have previously been robustly rejected by the planning committee. They have used their right to launch an appeal, which is fine, although very tiresome, and have now submitted duplicate proposals while their appeals run their course.
The idea is to ensure they have an active proposal on the table just in case the Cranleigh Road inspector delivers a bombshell and allows Persimmon Homes’ planning appeal for their site at Portchester.
Everyone is waiting with bated breath to see where the Inspectors pen will fall. Developers are wishing for an early Christmas, while the rest of us are hoping for an unwavering rejection of Persimmon Homes’ plans.
The Cranleigh Road decision will be known anytime within the next 10 days. When the decision is released it could be a mixed bag for all of us. Let us hope the inspector's conclusions are positive for residents.
Come October, when the local plan review is released, all this sparring will begin all over again. What a thought, what a waste, what a slap in the face for local democracy!
The public consultation on Buckland's outline planning application for Welborne is now drawing to a close. However the good news is that if you are swift you can still play your part in trying to shape Welborne by making your thoughts known on the present plans for Welborne by heading over to Fareham Borough Council’s website and using the online comments form.
We live in a democracy do we not, where one can express ones thoughts freely on proposed developments like Welborne whether those thoughts are against, in support or indifferent to the proposals on the table without others getting upset?
Comments can also be made on the following.
Land East of Brook Lane, North of Warsash Road Brook Lane Warsash
Details: Outline Application With All Matters Reserved (Except For Access) For The Construction Of Up To 140 Residential Dwellings
Land To The East Of Brook Lane And South Of Brookside
Details: Outline planning permission with all matters reserved (except for access), for residential development of up to 85 dwellings with public open space, access from Brook Lane, landscaping works, including demolition of existing redundant nursery buildings
Brook Lane - Land to the east of - Warsash
Details: Outline planning permission with all matters reserved (except for access) for residential development of up to 180 dwellings , associated landscaping amenity areas & access from Brook Lane.
Land east of Posbrook Lane, Titchfield, PO14 4EZ
Details: Outline Planning Application For Scout Hut, Up To 150 Dwellings, We need to have some thought for the planning officers who have to deal with this barrage of destruction. If only developers could take some time out and read the local plan properly, put local residents before their desires to increase the land banks they all have and stop telling us this is good for our health, when all we want is for them to go away, all so unnecessary.
Land to the west of Seafield Road & Moraunt Drive; South of Tattershall Crescent Portchester Fareham
Details: Residential Development Of 49 Dwellings, And Provision Of Open Space And Habitat Land, Access Off Moraunt Drive
Reilly Developments propose a residential development scheme for the erection of up to 46 dwellings with associated parking, access, landscaping and surface water drainage at land off Sopwith Way, Swanwick.
The scheme currently identifies 46 dwellings, of which 18 would be provided as affordable housing, in the form of affordable rented (9 dwellings) and intermediate housing (9 dwellings).
The application site is situated within the designated countryside and adjoins Sites of Interest for Nature Conservation (SINCs) to the north and beyond housing on the western side of Sopwith Way.
Link to the planning application
It is feared the 3,500 home North Whiteley development could no longer happen after claims of deadlock between Winchester City Council and developers over how many affordable homes should be on the site.
The proposals, which would include three schools, new shops and 50 hectares of green space, were submitted by a consortium comprising Taylor Wimpey, Crest Nicholson, Bovis Homes and JGP Lakedale.
Link to the Daily Echo article.
There was a petition that failed through lack of support but the Government's response was quite interesting
“Local communities are not forced to accept large housing developments. Communities are consulted throughout the Local Plan process and on individual planning applications.
The National Planning Policy Framework strongly encourages all local planning authorities to get up-to-date Local Plans in place as soon as possible, in consultation with the local community. Up-to-date Local Plans ensure that communities get the right development, in the right place, at the right time, reflecting the principles of sustainable development. Through the White Paper we are ensuring that every part of the country produces, maintains and implements an up-to-date plan, yet with the flexibility for local areas to decide how to plan in a way that best meets their needs.
A wide section of the community should be proactively engaged so that Local Plans, as far as possible, reflect a collective vision and a set of agreed priorities for the sustainable development of the area, including those contained in any neighbourhood plans that have been made.
The Framework recognises the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside. That is why our proposals are focussed on development in built up areas.
We are also absolutely clear that Green Belt must be protected and that there are other areas that local authorities must pursue first, such as brownfield land and taking steps to increase density on urban sites. The Government is committed to maximising the use of brownfield land and has already embarked on an ambitious programme to bring brownfield land back into use.
We believe that developers should mitigate the impacts of development. This is vital to make it acceptable to the local community and to addresses the cumulative impact of development in an area. Both the Community Infrastructure Levy and Section 106 agreements can be used by local planning authorities to help fund supporting infrastructure and address the cumulative demand that development places on infrastructure. Through the White Paper, the Government announced that it will examine the options for reforming the existing system of developer contributions to see how this can be simplified, with further announcements at Autumn Budget 2017.
The £2.3billion Housing Infrastructure Fund will deliver up to 100,000 new homes by putting in the right infrastructure, in the right place, at the right time. We expect the fund to be able to deliver a variety of types of infrastructure necessary to unlock housing growth in high demand areas.
There is nothing automatic about grants of planning permission where there is not yet an up-to-date Local Plan. It is still up to local decision-makers to interpret and apply national policy to local circumstances, alongside the views of the local community. Applications should not be approved if the adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits; or if specific policies in the Framework indicate that development should be restricted.
Communities are also able to make representations on individual planning applications and in response to most appeals by the applicant against a local authority decision. Interested parties can raise all the issues that concern them during the planning process, in the knowledge that the decision maker will take their views into account, along with other material considerations, in reaching a decision.
We therefore do not believe a right of appeal against the grant of planning permission for communities is necessary. It is considered that communities already have plenty of opportunity to have their say on local planning issues, and it would be wrong for them to be able to delay a development at the last minute, through a community right of appeal, when any issues they would raise at that point could have been raised and should have been considered during the earlier planning application process.
Department for Communities and Local Government
Everyone needs to take a deep breath at this point. In the months ahead some of our communities are going to hear news they will dread, news of development that they did not seriously believe would happen.
New housing figures are set, however within the overall total, the actual location of where they will be allocated is still being mapped out. Yes, we have Welborne and many would recognise the figure of 6000 new homes but even that figure is very fluid in that FBC needs to be realistic in what can be achieved between now and 2036.
Looking at all the data, the shortfall in new housing to be allocated by way of the review of the local plan is approximately 2000 or so. The figure actually drifts back and forth as planning officers survey and validate supporting evidence, but generally speaking, our shortfall is around 2000, give or take a few hundred.
If we take out the 600 already allocated for the Town Centre which has been revised downwards from a high of 800, that leaves approximately 1400 ± 200. This figure could, and in all probability will change, but not drastically.
There is one point we all should be aware of, the review of the local plan will undoubtedly mean sites which are being rejected today will inevitably be placed within the new local plan.
The review of the local plan is under way. The problem is, when the draft of that plan goes public in the Autumn, our present plan starts to lose its value and the weight will shift towards the direction the new plan will take. Developers and landowners will grasp that opportunity. Hence so many variables at play.
The review of the local plan will go out for public consultation and residents can voice their thoughts. Please do so, it is very important you do, although this opportunity is still some months away.
We need to be realistic and honest here, the additional homes which have been adopted into Fareham's new housing numbers have to go somewhere, NO is not an option. Any frustrations and there will be some for sure should be directed to those who are responsible for allowing Fareham to become a builders yard and in doing so destroying the fabric of this town.
Time frame of the Local Plan
Britten-Norman still aren't overly happy with the idea
"A spokeswoman said: “Britten-Norman operates in the aerospace industry which is both highly regulated and extremely safety conscious.
The studies undertaken by National Grid are helpful in highlighting some of the potential risks but at present do not in themselves propose solutions to deliver full mitigation of the risks.”"
Neither is Caroline Dinenage MP or the Hillhead Residents Association who have applied to Sajid Javeed to have the planning permission revoked because the correct place for this is Fawley and not here.”
Interesting times ahead.
Link to the Daily Echo article.
Click in the picture to enlarge
Almost everyone was surprised by the Fareham converter decision - but not, it seems, the National Grid, whose baby it is. A week before the council's pronouncement, the grid awarded contracts of more than half a billion pounds for the construction of the monster. Nice to be in the know."
Article in the Private Eye satirical magazine.
The development, Friary Meadow, will be built in fields just off Cartwright Drive, near Titchfield Abbey in Fareham, and will cost approximately £35m to build.
Councillor Sean Woodward, leader of Fareham Borough Council, said: “Fareham has the highest proportion of over 85-year-olds in the UK so accommodation like Friary Meadow will help to supply much-needed housing for the older generation which has been strongly supported by the residents of Titchfield.”
Link to the Daily Echo article.
So that is North Fareham, Porchester, Warsash and now it looks like Titchfield is likely to have it's own problems along with Funtley (in the sidelines at the moment) and you really can't sideline Newlands, no matter what we are told. Until Welborne is sorted then virtually every major application for planning is either going to be approved straight off or will be the focus of an appeal.
With Stubbington By-pass exiting into the Titchfield gyratory an additional 400 cars trying to join the A27 from Titchfield is going to go down a treat. It will be like trying to get out of Gosport all over again.
Link to the Daily Echo article.
It makes you wonder, if Cranleigh Road, Brook Lane, Newlands and all of the other possible sites get passed because Welborne isn't ready, go to appeal and the developers win, will they knock these numbers off of Welborne or will we get all of the in-filling PLUS the 6,000 at Welborne?
I seem to remember a while ago that a certain senior councillor promised us that Welborne would mean NO more in-filling. It doesn't seem like that from here. Must have been in a dream, surely our councillors would not mislead us like this, would they?
Horrified country lovers could only look on as developers working on Bloor Homes, Crowdhill Green site pumped gallons of water from their overflowing and clearly inadequate bund onto a meadow rich with wildlife, including rare reptiles. The torrent of water which as one walker describes was like a raging river, tore into the Woodland Trust's Ancient woodland, Crowdhill Copse, washing away rare plants and undermining the roots of trees that have stood for decades. One upset nature lover remarked tearfully "I don't know how much wildlife has perished due to this, in the summer I saw various lizards and Roesel's Bush Crickets here" The Woodland Trust and Environment Agency have been notified and will be investigating. The sobering point here is that we have only had moderate rainfall and the development is causing this flooding. Imagine what will happen when we have heavy consistent rainfall. This site is only three hundred or so houses. Eastleigh Borough Council are minded to allow in excess of 6,000 here. This is high ground where there are many headwaters running into the river Itchen. Take a look at a flood map and its obvious to all but the most educated developers hydrologists that Bishopstoke and Fair Oak will suffer unprecedented major flooding.
This is a link to the Facebook page that it was published on - You don't need to have a Facebook account just to see the video.
Do you remember this article from January 2016? And then there was the video of Cllr Woodward, stating quite categorically that it wasn't PUSH but local councils that came up with the numbers and that PUSH just correlated them.
Well one thing is for sure, as our Council Leader is responsible for both organisations then he can ultimately be held responsible for the numbers. He really ought to make his mind up though which hat he wants to be wearing when he takes the blame.
There’s a right way and a wrong way to go about objecting to a planning proposal. Going in pitchforks blazing is definitely not an approach that’s going to yield satisfactory results.
Find out more in this fun and informative short film made for CPRE Shropshire by students from Harper Adams University.
If you like this CPRE video, why not share it with someone you know? Just send them this link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iggS2Gm6EVc
The former Fareham Ambulance station in Stow Crescent, Fareham closed in May 2014 after the South Central Ambulance service cut the number of Ambulance stations across the county and moved Fareham services along with Gosport and Havant to South East Ambulance Service’s base to Cosham.
Councillor Peter Davies, Fareham council's ward councillor for Fareham North West has welcomed the plans.
"It’s brownfield site and most importantly, provides homes, which is what we badly need in North West Fareham.
We have to keep Fareham’s green spaces clear from development so to do that we need to fill up our brownfield sites."
Link to The Daily Echo article, ps the planning application hadn't been posted on FBC's website by the 5th February.
Interesting Document - Lastest 5 year land report from FBC. The 5 year land supply figure is important, it will play a pivotal part in the Cranleigh Road appeal, in fact any development appeal here in Fareham.
Calculations made by housing charity Shelter in 2015 suggested that, to afford a starter home with a 20% discount on the price in 2020, a typical buyer in England would still need an income of £50,000 and a deposit of £40,000. In London, someone would need an income of £77,000 and a deposit of £98,000, based on average lending ratios, according to Shelter's projections.
Roger Harding, director of communications, policy and campaigns at Shelter, said: "Efforts to build more homes are welcome, but these starter homes are only likely to benefit people who are better off and already close to buying. Sadly, they will do little to help the many millions of people on middle and low incomes who need somewhere genuinely affordable to buy or rent long term."
An article by Shelter in 2015 describes some of the problems associated with this phrase
HMG Press release.
The Government have set aside £1.2Bn for the Starter Homes Land Fund. A starter home is defined as
"Starter Homes are new homes built exclusively for first-time buyers between 23 and 40 years old at a discount of at least 20% below market value." I wonder how many Fareham residents will be able to afford any of these homes even at their massively discounted (subsidised) prices.
In their press release they have said
"In addition, the Homes and Communities Agency has also today issued a call seeking expressions of interest from local authorities who are interested in using their land to deliver homes at pace through the £1.7 billion Accelerated Construction recently announced. This will see up to 15,000 homes started on surplus public sector land this Parliament."
So far I have found the Accelerated Construction Scheme quoted as £1.7bn, £3bn, £5bn. So I am not sure which this scheme refers to but £1.7bn for 15,000 homes until 2020 means a figure of over £1,133,333 per dwelling so I guess that none of these will be starter homes.
Link to The News article
Link to a Daily Telegraph article
Eastleigh Council has approved the building of another development of 6,000 houses, the same size as Welborne. So that will be two new housing areas each equivalent in size to Petersfield that will be built in the small corner of South Hampshire between Winchester and Fareham. These two sites on their own will swallow about one eigth of the whole area on their own and then there are all of the other developments that are in the pipeline - another 6000 in Fareham and goodness know how many in Eastleigh, as they have no accepted development plan. Even in Fareham we can't be sure that 6000 is teh upper number, because Welborne is still struggling with no clear resolution in site yet, developers can almost certainly use the inadequate provision argument until something concrete (pun unintended) happens.