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
Eastleigh’s Local Plan and the new road to nowhere – DIY traffic modelling
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
"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."
Link to article by CPRE
Link to Gavin Barwell's speech
Set up to fail: why housing targets based on flaw numbers threaten our countryside
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).
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.
Link to article by CPRE:
CPRE have releases a very informative article on the forthcoming Government white paper
Quote from the 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."
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 has 5 primary objectives:
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...
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:
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 is a unique village set within acres of farmland and boasts countryside walks to the local pub in Funtley
|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|
|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
|Dawn Baxendale||Southampton CC|
|Anne-Marie Mountfield||SLEP||Roger Tetstall||Test Valley BC|
|Laura Taylor||Winchester City Council|
|Paddy May||Partnership for Urban
|Kevin Bourner||Homes &
|James Humphrys||Environment Agency||Gary Jeffries||Solent Local
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.
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 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."
POSITION STATEMENT H1: HOUSING DISTRIBUTION - page 34
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.
Or 10% of the total is within Fareham not including Welborne.
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 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.
|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|
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:
Whilst not explicitly part of the application to be approved, The Society also objects to :
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.
"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".
Link to the submission
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.”
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
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