Opposition grows to 300 homes on Fareham fields
PLANS to build 300 new homes on countryside in the south of Fareham have been criticised.
Hallam Land Management wants build a new estate on green fields off Longfield Avenue.
The scheme would be in addition to Fareham Borough Council’s plans to build up to 7,000 homes in the north of the town.
Many residents who turned up to a consultation at Wallisdean Junior School on the plans are worried about losing the green gap between Fareham and Stubbington.
Mandy Frost, 49, who lives in Longfield Avenue, said: ‘I’m 100 per cent against this. I don’t want it opposite me. That was one of the reasons why I bought the house – it’s green land opposite where I live. It’s about peace and tranquillity. I think it will destroy the area.’
Lesley Johnston, 61, added: ‘I’m just lost for words. It’s unnecessary.
‘They should be keeping that land open because we are supposed to have a gap between Fareham and Stubbington.
‘Heaven knows how they are going to cope with the roads.’
No planning application has yet been submitted to the council. The land is not listed as a housing site in the borough’s Local Plan.
Ward councillor for Fareham south, Trevor Howard, said he was against it.
‘Most of the community from round here from what I have heard are against it as well,’ he said.
‘This is what we have the SDA for, to stop all this infilling.
‘It’s not needed. If we start on this one, in 10 years’ time someone will want to build on another bit of land.
‘Stubbington and Fareham will be one. We’ll lose all the green fields.’
But Alan Rundle, 76, of Barnfield Court disagreed and said more homes are needed.
‘I think it’s imperative,’ he said. ‘There are more people about.
‘I think it’s essential that it goes ahead.’
Ruth McKeown, director of Hallam Land Management, said it was important to get the views of those living in the local community.
‘It has got to be community-led and have community support,’ she said.
‘We have had a lot of people come in and they have had mixed views.
‘The biggest reservation has been about losing fields to development.’
Email to a friend
Print this page
Looking for...
Featured advertisers
Jobs
Search for a job
Motors
Search for a car
Property
Search for a house
Weather for Portsmouth
Friday 25 May 2012
Today
Sunny
Temperature: 13 C to 25 C
Wind Speed: 22 mph
Wind direction: East
Tomorrow
Sunny
Temperature: 13 C to 23 C
Wind Speed: 24 mph
Wind direction: East
Comments
There are 35 comments to this article
Page 1 of 3
stobartrules
Thursday, February 16, 2012 at 07:06 PMhere we go soon there will be no land anywhere! when they put the estate there they will have a lovely smell of peel common sewer works!!!! in my local news letter from our mp that the top of hillson drive going down towards the motorway there are plans to build 950 ish houses. if they are going to be council lets hope they are for people from fareham and not gosport, portsmouth and belive it or not surrey!!!! the council said to me and my wife we would wait 2 years for a place that was 7 years ago!!!! i am 100% agains all new devlopments that we DON'T NEED!!!!
Fareham99
Monday, February 13, 2012 at 11:19 AMWhy would any developer NEED to build on this greenfield site when Fareham Council tells us there are many many other brownfield sites available which are the priority for re-development. Keep the green separation. Look what is happening to the Portchester and Fareham green gap along the A27. This Council have approved a massive new pub and restaurant building taking up a large chunk of remaining green frontage between the Cams Hall Gatehouses and the Victorian railway viaduct. Shame on them.
bladesblue
Monday, February 13, 2012 at 11:17 AMSo we are having a wide ring of new estates surrounding Fareham. What is it 7500 Wickam to M27, 3500 Wickham to Whitely, 2000 Warsash and 300 Stubbington. Then there are the unannounced areas still up the Councils sleeve. At least we have all the infrastructure in place, one road into Whitely, two into Knowle, a couple in Warsash and Triangle Lane in Stubbington. Tough on motorists who will, any way, have been taxed off the road by then leaving busses and trains. Sewage can go direct into sea and drinking water from supermarkets.
Shaun Cunningham
Monday, February 13, 2012 at 09:23 AMI keep my comments short!!! Fareham is no longer building for the local need but the needs for the whole of South East Hampshire and beyond. Is that what the residents of Fareham want? Time to ask the question and find out. ?
Stella Bell
Monday, February 13, 2012 at 08:14 AMPRECIOUS ASSET An appeal was made by a housing association against refusal to allow 230 homes in a field north of Cranleigh Road Portchester The government inspector, Douglas Machin dismissed this appeal and the comments he made should secure the protection of this land for the next 20 years….he stated “the pattern of agricultural activity is irrelevant ……..BECAUSE SUCH HIGH GRADE LAND IS A PRECIOUS ASSET IT SHOULD ONLY BE TAKEN FOR DEVELOPMENT WHEN ALL ALTERNATIVES HAVE BEEN EXAMINED” Do you think this applies to this field? Is this another precious asset? The site of the proposed 7000 homes North of Fareham, is that also not a precious asset? Does Fareham Borough Council care about our precious assets?
sidious
Sunday, February 12, 2012 at 08:20 PM@29 Hang on - as I said, there are distinct community advantages to building near existing developments and I would always favour those developments over totally greenfield sites because of those advantages, so if that's what you and Mr Rundle want, I'm not disagreeing with you in principle. I think you've picked up on the question I had about the numbers involved, especially after Mr gregory's interjection, but that's something for the developers and the council to thrash out, AFTER considering people's views. If the locals are for it, and the land involved can take 300 homes without causing a major problem with the strategic gaps, then I'd be right behind you. Thanks for trying to make things clearer. I hope I've done the same.
jpportsmouth
Sunday, February 12, 2012 at 07:18 PMYes I do and here it is AGAIN - It seems fairly easy to copy and paste people's views from the actual story. So let's balance it out a little shall we - " But Alan Rundle, 76, of Barnfield Court disagreed and said more homes are needed. ‘I think it’s imperative,’ he said. ‘There are more people about. ‘I think it’s essential that it goes ahead.’ That's my view, I agree with Mr Rundle. But because I disagree with your view you think it's wrong. But that's my view. List many, many, many facts and it will always be my view. I WILL listen to your views and I won't say you're wrong but that will always be my view. We need this housing and that specific location.
sidious
Sunday, February 12, 2012 at 07:07 PM@27 So did you actually have an opinion about the subject in the article that you wanted to share (apart from making the very general statement that people might have different views)? Just wondering.
jpportsmouth
Sunday, February 12, 2012 at 06:50 PMOh number 26 I won't waste my breathe, maybe you should have done the same. Some people just will not listen....
sidious
Sunday, February 12, 2012 at 06:00 PM@25 I gave my opinion on the LA development, as have others. I wasn't the first to drag the SDA into it - that was surprise, surprise, a FB Councillor. Perhaps you could tell me which part of my opinion you feel is incorrec t?
jpportsmouth
Sunday, February 12, 2012 at 05:26 PMSorry you lost me there waffling on (look at what I put at @15)! You need to comment on here, if you want people to 'to debate that with anyone who disagrees', in a way that doesn't require people to have a huge background knowledge of the subject - other than the actual news story itself that we are commenting on. Waffling on, like you do, has caused ME to write far too much now! Are you one of the types who doesn't agree with anything the council does? If the council offered to give you a ten pound note would you dubiously say, "oh no thank's, elections are in May!?' Oh and by the way I DO admit I have a problem with your opinion. Because the whole of your opinion is not correct. I agree, partly, with what you are saying but you do have a kind of 'now listen to me everyone because I am the authority on this subject' tone about you.
sidious
Sunday, February 12, 2012 at 05:08 PM@22 I'm not sure where you're going with this, because the example you're using isn't really in question. I don't have an issue with differing opinions; I do have an issue with people trying to change the subject and having a go for the sake of it, simply because they have a problem with my opinion but won't admit it. To me, that's not debate. My opinion on this story is this: I don't consider development on this land essential but there are distinct advantages to building there, rather than in the area proposed in the SDA. The council could quite easily stick to its guns and state that only the 170 homes that Mr Gregory claims are outstanding are required and not 300. I'm not going to argue if people think that's not enough, even if I don't totally agree, because to be honest, I can see both sides of the coin. My opinion as far as the bigger picture is concerned is that the council should not be pressing ahead with building one huge estate of 7000 houses that exceed Fareham's requirements, when there is so much public opposition. I'm willing to debate that with anyone who disagrees.
dave3974
Sunday, February 12, 2012 at 04:41 PMwere is the extra infrstructure , we are haeding for total gridlock -what idiot is proposing this
jpportsmouth
Sunday, February 12, 2012 at 04:40 PMBut because you do not consider it essential surely you realise that other people have differing opinions?
sidious
Sunday, February 12, 2012 at 04:36 PMOne person in the article has been quoted as classing the Longfield Ave proposal as "essential"; I wouldn't go as far as calling it essential, though I do think that measured development on the edges of existing areas is better than the council leadership's proposal, for the reasons I gave earlier.
Page 1 of 3
Your view
Please sign in to be able to comment on this story.