Fareham Council’s proposal to build 1,500 homes in Portchester and Warsash as well as 6,000 in Welborne has been widely covered in recent weeks.
I, for one, still remain confused as to why, if we really must have such a massive number of new houses, they can’t be more evenly dispersed across the borough, it seems only fair (and sensible)?
Local councillors have justified the proposed concentrations with a cry that no other suitable land is available. Could someone please clarify then why 150 houses which could be built in Titchfield are not to be allowed?
That is 150 fewer houses that Portchester or Warsash would have to stump up for. 150 houses in a town which is not being expected to provide any towards the 11,000+ apparently needed. It is simply not fair.
The suggestion that Titchfield took its fair share wasn’t even open for debate but instead we’ve been asked for our comments on a local plan which tells us where the houses will be and provides no alternative.
Yet these houses for Titchfield are to be refused by Fareham’s planning committee – two days after consultation on the Local Plan closed. How does the council know those houses wouldn’t be seen by its constituents as a palatable alternative?
The application is not only for houses but for a Scout hut and what looks like a huge park. The council has demanded no community facilities for Portchester and Warsash! If we have to have the houses why not those which come with something to offer?
The council says the planning application has been refused because it is to be built in countryside. Why then is it acceptable to build on countryside in Portchester and Warsash?
The effect on Titchfield’s wildlife is enough to prevent development – what about the wildlife in Portchester and Warsash? The effect on the landscape of the area will be devastating– yet Portchester and Warsash are quite suitable for devastation?
If we have to face this burden shouldn’t it be evenly felt by us all?
Brook Lane, Warsash