Join Inform Fareham button
  Road signs M27 Traffic queue Rape field 20 Thousand cars Funtley 10 Thousand houses

external organisations

Action Against Destructive Development Eastleigh

Link to the Action Against Destructive Development Eastleigh website

Eastleigh’s ancient woodlands ARE threatened by council’s Local Plan


Quote from an article on AADDE's website
Despite grave concerns from experts associations like The Woodlands Trust ...Eastleigh council voted for a Plan that includes 5,200 new houses and a new road north of Bishopstoke and Fair Oak.

The picture of the affected woodlands is not particularly clear in the link from the article, so here it is, hopefully reasonably accurately outlined, in a clearer format.

Thretatened woodlands


Copied from AADDe's website


ADD UPDATE, 12 March 2018: We thought the time was right to post the letter to the Daily Echo below, published on 28 December 2017, which refutes a suggestion made by Martin Kyrle, former Mayor of Eastleigh, that everyone protesting against Eastleigh’s Local Plan are “amateurs”! We thank David Betts, a parish councillor for Allbrook & North Boyatt, for standing up for the professionals opposed to, and working hard to prevent, Eastleigh’s monstrous Local Plan.

Under the heading “Not so many amateurs protesting”, David Betts wrote (click here for image):

“I REFER to the letter from Martin Kyrle (December 20) in which he refers to the recent Local Plan meeting at the Ageas Hilton at which Eastleigh Borough Council voted in favour of a highly controversial proposal to support the council leadership in the development of some 5,000+ homes and a new road to the North of Bishopstoke that will traverse areas close to ancient woodland and across the highly protected Itchen Valley – a Special Area of Conservation protected at the highest level.

“I am usually of the opinion that, at my age, 72, there is little to surprise me, but I truly believe Mr Kyrle has succeeded in raising arrogance to a new level of prominence and adopting a view totally inappropriate for someone in his position.

“He objects to criticism of his council colleagues when accused of “not listening”, but listening is more than hearing the words, it is also having an open mind to absorb input from all sides and make objective decisions. In this regard the council certainly were not listening and the decision on the plan was in direct opposition to extensive, well-informed opinion based on sound professional knowledge and experience from a wide swathe of expertise wholly relevant to the subject.

“Mr Kyrle refers to the “protesters” as amateurs and the council planning officers as “professionals” who, of course, are therefore omniscient and therefore able to make decisions impervious to challenge and in fact, before all relevant evidence is collated, which is certainly the case here!

“Mr Kyrle would do well to check his facts before expounding on the competencies of substantive individuals whose views differ from his. There were some 33 public speakers at the meeting and objectors to the plan were very much in the majority – certainly over 30. Referring to these individuals as “amateurs” is dangerous stuff indeed Mr Kyrle!

“Among their number we find, amongst others, professional surveyors, architects, highway engineers, environmental specialists and the backing of noted legal counsel with deep planning expertise.

“Objectors also included representatives from the Woodland Trust, Angling Trust and Campaign to Protect Rural England, amongst other notable organisations. The list also of professional qualifications extant within the group would do great credit to any similar number in local government or any branch of public service.

“Amateurs? I think not Mr Kyrle and I believe you should spend some time extracting your foot from your mouth!

“I am confident that many other objecting entities will be evident over the coming months in respect of the Local Plan and it is incumbent on local councillors to listen. This is one of, if the not the most, important planning decision to be made in Eastleigh for a generation. It is not a rehearsal and has to be made with the support of the local community as a whole, not a council leadership with entrenched views and closed ears.

“Eastleigh deserves better – much better!”


There are many other interesting articles on their site - well worth a looked


We might know where nowhere is on July 20th


During a council meeting being held on July 20, Eastleigh Borough Council will be indicating the area to the north and east of Bishopstoke and Fair Oak as the preferred location for a new development which could see 5,200 new homes, shops, schools, open spaces and a new access road north of Allbrook, Bishopstoke and Fair Oak.

The meeting will take place at Kings Church in Hedge End at 7pm. Members of the public who would like to have their say should contact the council and register in advance.

 Link to the Daily Echo article


The road to nowhere


Eastleigh’s Local Plan and the new road to nowhere – DIY traffic modelling

Possible road plans

At the moment, EBC cannot make statements that the proposed new road will ease congestion or alleviate future increased traffic based on anything other than conjecture.


Our aim


Eastleigh Borough Council (EBC) is without a Local Plan. Its last attempt to agree such a plan was thrown out by the planning inspector in 2014. A new plan, which will cover the period to 2036, is now emerging. Our aim is to inform the debate to ensure the best outcome:

  • We recognise that as a growing, successful borough, Eastleigh needs to provide thousands of new homes to hard-working people. Managed well, developments of this nature could make a significant contribution to the economic, cultural and social fabric of the borough. These developments are inevitable, but need to be done right.
  • EBC is faced with a number of options as it considers how best to deliver this requirement. If it chooses the right options, these developments can bring widespread benefits right the way across the borough for the benefit of Eastleigh: (i) they can improve transport links by opening up rail connections between Eastleigh, Fareham and on to Portsmouth; (ii) they can build stronger communities by creating comfortable homes for families and doing so in a manner that integrates these new homes successfully into the borough, building stronger, closer ties between people; and (iii) they can also be managed in a way that minimises environmental impact. Eastleigh is fortunate to have some of the finest countryside in South East England and this needs to be carefully preserved.
  • A plan to deliver each of these requirements already exists. But the council’s apparent preferred choice for the strategic planning development to develop new homes – options B and C – threatens to create an isolated community on the northern edge of the borough, separated from the rest of the borough, hampered by inadequate transport links and one which risks irreparable long-term harm to the beautiful countryside.
  • The wrong choice would be a major blow not just for the people most directly affected by the development but for the whole of the borough, now and for generations to come. It could cause real, lasting damage and fail to capitalise on the positive potential these developments could bring.


Petition: Give communities back the right to decide where houses are built


We are urging all our supporters to sign a new UK Government and Parliament petition calling for communities to be given back “the right to decide where houses are built”. The release this week of the government’s housing white paper means the time is ripe for applying such pressure!

In particular, the petition “calls for a parliamentary debate on government Housing and Planning policy over building on greenfield land and seeks community right of appeal on planning decisions and the removal of the presumption in favour of sustainable development.”

It goes on: “Too many communities are now forced to accept large housing developments seeing the irreversible loss of valuable greenfields without the right of appeal. The failure of government planning policy has resulted in the loss of valued countryside and agricultural land and leaves communities forced to grow too fast without appropriate infrastructure. Major changes to planning legislation are required to protect established communities across the UK and deliver the right housing in the right places.”

To sign the petition, please click here.


Community Action Fareham CAF logo

Link to the Community Action Fareham website

Community Action Fareham works with community groups and charities in the Fareham borough, growing community spirit so that people feel included, and are active, healthier and happier. Importantly, we work with our local councils who provide funding for us to support this community activity.

This is the organisation that supports and/or runs:

Possibly with all of the problems that our Health Service faces probably the most important of these groups are the Voluntary Car Scheme in helping to get people to and from hospital appointments, and the Voluntary Sector Health Forum where you can find out about what is going on in this sector with a calendar of meetings and minutes of previous meetings. Unfortunately minutes of some of the latest previous meetings seem to be unavailable.


Campaign to Protect Rural England CPRE logo

Link to the Campaign to Protect Rural England website

Let us PUSH for a BIG debate.


Field of rape

Sign CPRE- Hampshire’s petition

CPRE - Hampshire now have 10931 signatures

"1 MAR 2018 — We've been blown away by the number of people who are passionate about protecting the South Hampshire countryside. In just a few weeks 10912 of you have called on the Leaders of Eastleigh, Fareham, Winchester and Test Valley Councils to stop the urban sprawl that threatens our green spaces. Thank you.

While you were signing, we have been meeting with Council Leaders and MPs from the area and our next aim is to get enough signatures to trigger a debate at Full Council in each of the Local Authorities (Fareham: 1,500, Eastleigh: 5,000, Winchester: 500, Test Valley: 1,500).

We've got a way to go so please keep sharing the petition to help us get there, especially if you're in Winchester or Test Valley!"

Petition text:

"Dear Cllr Woodward, Cllr House, Cllr Horrill & Cllr North,

A consequence of the growth of the South Hampshire Sub Region is a need for more housing, which in recent years has significantly encroached into the surrounding countryside. Designation of a Green Belt around the urban area (as part of a strategic vision for Hampshire) would limit further encroachment, prevent the coalescence of settlements, and prompt a greater contribution to new housing from regeneration of the urban area.

Please work together to plan for growth in South Hampshire and protect our most valued green spaces by introducing new Green Belt policy in your Local Plans.

Join the residents of South Hampshire who have said, "ENOUGH is ENOUGH"

felled tree


Over 10,000 signatures now.


10,000 signatures for CPRE's petitionClick here to add your signature

CPRE- Hampshire have over 10,000 signatures supporting their petition.

“Dear Cllr. Woodward, Cllr. House, Cllr. Horrill & Cllr. North,

A consequence of the growth of the South Hampshire Sub Region is a need for more housing, which in recent years has significantly encroached into the surrounding countryside.

Designation of a Green Belt around the urban area (as part of a strategic vision for Hampshire) would limit further encroachment, prevent the coalescence of settlements, and prompt a greater contribution to new housing from regeneration of the urban area.

Please work together to plan for growth in South Hampshire and protect our most valued green spaces by introducing new Green Belt policy in your Local Plans”

The message from residents is clear, they have a voice which needs to be listened to.


How accurate were/are PUSH's housing projections.


CPRE have done a little bit of homework on the housing requirements that PUSH and their partners have landed us with, it backs up many of the arguments that have been made over a long period now.

The demographic household projections for Fareham over the period 2011-2036 are 9,485 households (56,220-46,735), which equates to 380 dwellings per annum (dpa). This projection includes people being born, dying, marrying, divorcing, reaching 18, migrating etc and is carefully balanced out across the entire country so that people are not double-counted. Fareham’s annual target from PUSH (as calculated by GL Hearn) was 455 dpa from 2011-2034, but this includes an element of encouraging people into the borough to drive economic growth and also an increase over and above the demographic requirement to try to fund affordable housing. This means that people are being double-counted, unless you subtract those people from some other district or borough. This has not been taken into account in the GL Hearn PUSH figures.

The new OAN proposal currently out for consultation from government gives Fareham a target of 531 dpa from 2016-2026, which includes the base demographic projection for that period (which is 401 dpa) and then adds an uplift as Fareham is deemed to be an expensive place to live. The theory being that if you over-supply an expensive area then house prices will come down. The problem is that house pricing is not simplistically driven by supply and demand, but by many other factors such as mortgage availability and rates, investor purchases for buy-to-let or as a safe haven for overseas funds. And new builds only comprise a very small percentage of the overall market and are unlikely to have enough magnitude even under these proposals to change market forces. Furthermore, if by massively exceeding demographic demand, the house prices actually did come down, then firstly the builders would stop building (as their profits would slump) and secondly every existing house owner would be in negative equity. And we would be back to a sub-prime crash again as in 2007. There are surely other policy initiatives which could enable young people to get onto the housing ladder.

It is a complex task to try to compare all the different time scales, and then to convert dpa requirements into allocations over a plan period. It is also worth noting that a plan never runs for an entire period, and is updated/reviewed about every 5 years, which makes the whole task of looking ahead to 2036 fairly meaningless. And there are new demographic projections due in 2018 which could change those currently being used. Nonetheless, under either the FBC/PUSH scenario or that proposed in the OAN consultation, it appears that Fareham is being expected to take more than its own indigenous need should suggest.


Be positive: the Housing Minister’s challenge to CPRE


"A week ago the Housing Minister Gavin Barwell gave CPRE’s annual lecture – you can read it here and view it here. The theme of the speech was familiar: how can we build more new homes? But it was a great improvement on similar speeches I have heard, for two reasons."

CPRE logo Link to article by CPRE

HMG logo Link to Gavin Barwell's speech


Flawed housing targets


Set up to fail: why housing targets based on flaw numbers threaten our countryside CPRE logo Link to article by CPRE

CPRE Hampshire's Planning and Policy Group is keen to draw your attention to the findings from 'Set up to fail: why housing targets based on flawed numbers threaten our countryside'. The report can be found on the CPRE website (* see link below).


Housing White Paper


We’re hugely heartened that the paper promises the continued protection of the Green Belt, support for more brownfield development, and to address the failures of the housing market as opposed to the further meddling with the planning system – all fundamental issues CPRE has relentlessly banged the campaign drum on.

CPRE logo Link to article by CPRE:


tackling housing crisis needs realistic housing targets


CPRE have releases a very informative article on the forthcoming Government white paper
Quote from theCPRE logo article by CPRE:
"CPRE is concerned that the Government will recommend setting even higher housing targets in areas of high demand in response to 'market signals'. Further inflated and unachievable targets for local authorities will inevitably be missed because of a lack of supporting public funding, and councils will then be forced to release more land, with developers able to ‘cherry pick’ the most profitable greenfield sites, rather than brownfield sites or sites that are supported by local communities. The impact of this is likely to be most acutely felt in the villages and small towns of the south and south east."


Eastern Solent Coastal Partnership

Eastern Solent Coastal Partnership website


The Eastern Solent Coastal Partnership (ESCP) formed an alliance in 2012 to deliver a combined, efficient and comprehensive coastal management service across the coastlines of four Local Authorities of Fareham Borough Council, Gosport Borough Council. Havant Borough Council and Portsmouth City Council."By being part of a group of co-operating Local Authorities, Fareham has clearly gained access to real expertise and government / agency grant monies.

"Development of the high quality Coastal Strategy for the Fareham coastline by the ESCP would not have been possible acting by ourselves with our own resources". Cllr Keith Evans, Partnership Joint Member Board, Executive Member for Strategic Planning and Environment, Fareham Borough Council


Funtley Village Society

Link to Funtley Village Society website
Welborne information page

Deer funtley fields

Funtley Village Society has 5 primary objectives:

  • To help sustain a corporate interest in the village as a community
  • To foster those features of village life which the majority of the villagers consider to be of benefit to them and their neighbourhood
  • To resist those changes that the majority of villagers consider to be detrimental to them and their neighbourhood
  • To represent the views of the villagers to local authorities and other outside bodies
  • To provide a means of communication to the village for local authorities and other outside bodies

Response to the Draft Local Plan


This link will take you to the FVS response to the Fareham Borough Councils Draft Local Plan. It objects to the inclusion of both development sites north and south of Funtley Rd. We hope you managed to all get your comments in too!

The planning application for the development north of Funtley Rd has been withdrawn by Reside Developments - we suspect the reason to be that this was not in the current Local Plan so would not have been approved. We're sure it will be back though...


Funtley's additional comments


This is the Funtley Village Society's response to the Buckland Development Plan.

An extremely well argued critique of traffic, heath, pollution and water problems.

 Link to FBC Planning portal


Objections to Planning Application P/17/0045/OA


We oppose the outline planning application on the following grounds: The current situation is that the designated site for development is designated as 'countryside' under the Fareham Local Plan.

Your colleague, Peter Kneen, has confirmed to us that for development to take place on designated countryside land, it has to be under 'exceptional circumstances'. Such 'exceptional circumstances' may be, we understand, as follows:

  1. For 100% affordable housing.
  2. For agricultural/forestry/fishing purposes.
  3. To build a new 'Stately Home'.

This application does not meet any of these criteria. The only one that comes close is for 100% ‘affordable homes’. However, given that the current proposal for 27 homes only includes 11 'affordable' homes, and that the developer and landowner are neither a registered housing association nor any such similar body, it is our contention that none of the necessary criteria for countryside development are met by this proposal.

Read the rest of the objection here.


Knowle Village Residents Association

Link to Knowle Village Residents Association website

Knowle village

Knowle is a unique village set within acres of farmland and boasts countryside walks to the local pub in Funtley


Partnership for Urban South Hampshire PUSH Icon

Partnership for Urban South Hampshire website

Landscape picture

Joint Committee
Seán Woodward Fareham BC   Donna Jones Portsmouth CC
Guy Shepherd East Hampshire DC   Keith House Eastleigh BC
Stephen Philpott Gosport BC   Judith Grajewski Hampshire CC
Mike Cheshire Havant BC   Jonathan Bacon Isle of Wight Council
Edward Heron New Forest DC   Simon Letts Southampton CC
Nick Adams-King Test Valley BC   Caroline Horrill Winchester CC
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
Paul Buckley Havant BC   Bruce Tennent Eastleigh BC
Malcolm Johnson East Hammpshire DC   Arthur Mandry Fareham BC
Diane Furlong Gosport BC   Rob Humby Hampshire CC
Paul Buckley Havant BC   Ian Ward Isle of Wight Council
Allan Glass New Forest DC   John Ferrett Portsmouth CC
Jeremy Moulton Southampton CC   Roger Tetstall Test Valley BC
Linda Gemmell Winchester City Council      
Chief Executives
Nick Tustian Eastleigh BC   Peter Grimwood Fareham BC
John Coughlan Hampshire CC   Sandy Hopkins Havant BC
East Hants DC
John Metcalfe Isle of Wight Council   Bob Jackson New Forest DC
David Williams Portsmouth CC
Gosport BC
  Dawn Baxendale Southampton CC
Anne-Marie Mountfield SLEP   Roger Tetstall Test Valley BC
Laura Taylor Winchester City Council      
Co-opted Members
Paddy May Partnership for Urban
South Hampshire
  Kevin Bourner Homes &
Communities Agency
James Humphrys Environment Agency   Gary Jeffries Solent Local 
Enterprise Partnership

What started it all?


The starting point and driver of the Draft Local Plan was work commissioned by The Partnership for Urban South Hampshire:

The orthodox thinking of those who conform to the narrative that we need to build 250 to 300 thousand new homes a year across the UK to meet housing demand will point to the fact that Fareham’s Draft Local Plan is based on evidence which is coherent with The Partnership for Urban South Hampshire's (PUSH) commissioned reports, of course they are correct. The relevant reports are:
Objectively-Assessed Housing Need
South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment

Both reports reflect the Department for Communities and Local Government's (DCLG) assessment of housing need which in turn bases its assessment on the Office for National Statistic’s (ONS) National Population Projections. The problem is that the calculations used in all this work are projections based on assumptions, conjecture and theories with a large dose of hope that the final figures may be plausible, reasonable and convincing. If one looks at past forecasts by the ONS then one can see that there is a persistent record of overemphasising with regard to future household projections. There is also the matter of what accuracy to apply to the figures being used to determine future household need.

Household projections are driven by assumptions on future levels of fertility, mortality and net migration. Over the years the ONS has had to correct their forecasts downwards on all of these measures. The household projections use the latest population projections from ONS and are inevitably dependent on the accuracy of those estimates. The projection methodology for the population projections does not include calculations of probability, standard errors or confidence intervals and, similarly, cannot be calculated for the household projections and therefore in all probability have inaccuracies, but who cares? If we ALL keep saying we need 300,000 new houses a year then that must be true! The figures being used for building thousands of homes across Fareham could well be hopelessly out of tune with reality and yet no one has challenged the data used by PUSH to determine housing need in this Borough.

When PUSH commissioned their reports it was their intention to allow the public to have their say on the report’s findings through a public consultation. The consultation was delayed and finally withdrawn with the announcement that the public consultation would form part of the various Draft Local Plan Reviews which members of PUSH would bring forward.

We would suggest that to transport the public consultation of PUSH’s work to the local plan reviews being undertaken by the members of PUSH is far too late in the planning process and this is born out by Fareham’s Local Draft Plan consultation. There has been no opportunity for Fareham, or indeed any other areas, residents to challenge PUSH’s work and the data which is driving new housing numbers.

The Draft Local Plan already has a built-in strategy, principally that development should be located in three key areas. Warsash, Fareham Town Centre and Portchester. Other areas being targeted are Park Gate, Wallington, Stubbington and Funtley.

The government are clear, communities should be part of the planning process, they should be involved at the earliest stages of a Draft Local Plan when evidence gathering is initiated and officers start to shape the strategy and direction of the plan. Our Draft Local Plan doesn’t even have options for residents to consider, merely a list of preferred housing allocations which addresses the crisis caused by the failure of the Welborne Plan that in turn caused the Cranleigh Road Inspector to decide that our present local plan was unsound. With no options being presented to residents one should not be surprised if developers undertake the task on behalf of the Council.


PUSH Spatial Position Statement to 2034


It is clear that Fareham will now have to find substantial new housing. Last November the figure was thought to be 2000+ above the projected figure of 6000 for Welborne. Today that figure of 2000 is a huge underestimate by a very long way. Residents should also note the long waited public consultation with regard to PUSH's housing figures have now been totally abandoned and residents will have to use Fareham's local plan review to challenge PUSH's housing assessment for this area.

PUSH understands only too well their Spatial Position Statement will carry an awful lot of weight within any local plan review. It is fair to say the public don't have a chance in challenging the numbers. PUSH knows full well that in abandoning the consultation which they have repeatedly promised the residents, they have made the task of challenging their numbers by residents and community groups more or less impossible. The definitive description of this act is "calculated".

This is what the Spatial Position Statement sets out to achieve - quoted from their PUSH icon website:

"The PUSH Spatial Position Statement sets out the overall need for, and a distribution of development in South Hampshire to 2034. It sets out the employment and housing development needed to promote economic growth, jobs and homes for all. It is focussed on achieving a renaissance of Portsmouth, Southampton and the other urbanareas, protecting the most important aspects of the environment and co-ordinating transport and other infrastructure. It proposes development targets for individual Councils within South Hampshire.

It forms a significant part of the statutory duty to co-operate that Councils have with each other, and will inform the preparation of Local Plans by each Council within PUSH."

Provision will be made for at least 104,350 net additional homes across South Hampshire and the Isle of Wight over the 2011-34 plan period. The distribution of housing provision is set out below.

Distribution of housing

Or 10% of the total is within Fareham not including Welborne.

PUSH icon The PUSH Spatial Position Statement to 2034 and associated evidence

This replaces the South Hampshire Strategy (2012) and its associated evidence, which looked to 2026:


Link to the original 2014 PUSH South Hampshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment report PDF Icon PDF file 3.12Mb

This is the document from which PUSH determined way back in 2014 that we would need as many houses as we did. Then they upped the figure even further. An interesting snippet is that according to this report nearly 70% of the households in the area covered by PUSH had an annual income of less than £50,000. On this a typical loan to value of 3 times - which is probably a fairly sensible and affordable mortgage would give a house value of £150.000.Don't forget this is HOUSEHOLD INCOME not salary - so who is going to be able to afford the new houses? Also don't forget to add on the extra costs - mortgage arrangement fees, surveyors fees, legal fees, stamp duty above £125,000, removal fees and so on.


Save Greenaway Lane and Stop the over-development Save Greenaway Lane picture

Link to the Save Warsash website

This web page has been built to raise awareness and provide information on the proposed building plans within the Warsash area.

Whilst understanding the need for new sustainable housing, the implications of the Council’s New Draft Plan with its proposal for 800 houses in Warsash alone and 1500 for the wider Western Ward and Titchfield Common area needs to be seriously addressed.

If you would like to be added to our Facebook Group – which provides more detailed information – please CLICK HERE FOR LINK.


Solent Local Enterprise Partnership SLEP Icon

Link to the Solent Local Enterprise Partnership website

The Solent Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) was formed after the Government offered local areas the opportunity to take control of their future economic development. It is a locally-owned partnership between businesses and local authorities and plays a central role in determining local economic priorities and undertaking activities to drive economic growth and the creation of local jobs.

Gary Jeffries Solent LEP Chairman Managing Director, Hughes Ellard
Chris Allington Solent LEP Business Director Managing Director, Oxford Innovation
Nick Gross Solent LEP Business Director Chairman, Coffin Mew
Stuart Hill Solent LEP Chairman Operations Executive, IBM UK & Ireland
Brian Johnson Solent LEP Chairman Development Director - BAE Systems Naval Ships
Russell Kew Solent LEP Business Director Chief Executive, Wightlink
Dave Lees Solent LEP Business Director Managing Director, Southampton Airport
Sandra Sassow Solent LEP Business Director CEO - SEaB
Sir Christopher Snowden Solent LEP Higher Education Director Vice-Chancellor - University of Southampton
Cllr Jonathon Bacon Solent LEP Local Authority Director Barrister
Cllr Donna Jones Solent LEP Local Authority Director Leader, Portsmouth City Council
Cllr Keith Mans Solent LEP Local Authority Director Hampshire County Council
Cllr Simon Letts Solent LEP Local Authority Director Leader of Southampton City Council
Cllr Seán Woodward Solent LEP Local Authority Director Chief Executive, Fareham Borough Council
Chairman of the Partnership for Urban South Hampshire
Anne-Marie Mountifield Solent LEP Local Authority Director Executive Director Partnership for Urban South Hampshire

**Cllr Jonathon Bacon co-represents the wards of Brading, St Helens and Bembridge, he is also an Executive Member for Children's Services and was elected as Leader of the Isle of Wight Council.

Solent LEP states its three priorities to grow economy


It makes you wonder just how many QANGO's are actually involved in this current method of local government.

The News icon Link to The News article


The Fareham Society  Fareham Society

Link to the Fareham Society website

The Society's submission for Welborne


Extremely interesting reading, it certainly raises some points that are going to be difficult to answer. Still we shall just have to wait and see what comes out at the end.

To quote from their conclusion

It is again clear that many issues have not yet been resolved to the extent that would enable permission to be granted. The Society therefore objects to the outline application for the following reasons:

  • The design of the new M27 junction 10 does not improve the existing substandard weaving distances between junctions 10 and 11.
  • It has not been demonstrated that 6,000 dwellings together with the necessary infrastructure can be accommodated within the application boundary.
  • Deviations from the Strategic Framework Diagram in the adopted Welborne Plan result in the submitted outline application being unacceptable, particularly in relation to the district centre, schools, sports pitches, allotments, landscape buffers/greenspace (which also covers the setting of the historic buildings) and the primary road network.
  • It has not been demonstrated that the development proposed could take place without significant adverse impacts on local residents of the surrounding residential areas and villages, through additional traffic congestion and the consequential air quality impact and vibration.
  • It has not been demonstrated that the development proposed could take place without the risk of flooding on parts of the site and the A32 or increasing the risk of flooding on the rivers Wallington and Meon.
  • It has not been demonstrated that waste water can be dealt with without risk to surface and ground water, see Environment Agency comments.
  • The application makes inadequate provision for open space, sports pitches, SANGs and insufficient contributions towards the Solent Recreation Mitigation Partnership.

Whilst not explicitly part of the application to be approved, The Society also objects to :

  • The phasing of the District Centre which could result in the construction of another out of centre retail destination with a consequential significant adverse impact on Fareham Town Centre.

 Link to submission


Wallington Village Community Association WVCA icon

Link to Wallington Village Community Association website

Village Hall

Wallington Village Community Association is the civic amenity society that serves Wallington, an old settlement within the borough of Fareham in Hampshire. Geographically the village lies at the head of Portsmouth Harbour and is bounded to the north by the M27 motorway, to the east by the motorway approach road and lies for the other two sides beside the River Wallington.

Wallington Village Community Association's OPA submission


"On behalf of Wallington Village Community Association (WVCA), I offer the following comments on what is clearly a very comprehensive Outline Planning Application (OPA) by Buckland Development Ltd (BDL):"

This is the Association's response to the recent Outline Planning Application for Welborne. Well worth a read and it may help other residents to pen their own observations about our new "village".

WVCA Icon Link to the submission PDF Icon


The Wickham Residents Association

It takes time but the papers do catch up, eventually


The Daily Echo finally picked up on the Wickham Residents Association submission to the OPA (you saw it here on the 23rd of May). Such ashame that they couldn't even lift a quote correctly as Wickham will adjoin NOT adjourn Welborne (oh wouldn't that be nice) and the submission was written by Anton Hanney not Anton Heaney. Still it's much better than just being ignored.

And the best quote of the lot from Cllr. Woodward:

“We have developed the Welborne plan to highlight all the elements that may hold back the developments and have found ways to deal with any setbacks.”

I think that one needs to go alongside the infamous "Not a brick" quote.

 Link to the Daily Echo article


OPA Submission


This is the Association's response to the recent Outline Planning Application for Welborne.

"Too many statements concerning infrastrucutre provision put forward in support of the Welborne plan lack credibility. We are particularly concerned over the following inadequacies..."

Link to the submission PDF Icon


The Wickham Society

OPA Submission


There is no website for this organisation but they can be contacted via Chris Hoare on 01329 836947

As we are sure you will appreciate, residents in Wickham can only view such a large development as Welborne, so close to our boundary, with apprehension. Wickham has evolved over many centuries and is a unique community of historic significance that we cherish and are anxious to protect for future generations.

Link to the submission PDF Icon


Index to Archived documents

Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE)
Eastern Solent Coastal Partnership (ESCP)
Funtley Village Society
Partnership for Urban South Hampshire (PUSH)


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