Planning Report - March 2022

We have participated in Planning Inspectorates examination of Fareham’s Local Plan on 8th March concerning Development Strategy, Landscape and Strategic Gaps. There were two further days, the 17th March on the proposed new Housing Area on the gap land South of Longfield Avenue and then 31st March - Transport and other Infrastructure and probably several days of winding up. This is a truly torturous process principally attended by planning experts employed by developers who do nothing else but trot out challenges and favourable decisions gleaned from Planning Inspectorate Examinations and enquiries held over many years. Most of the examples they use have nothing in common with the Gosport Peninsula but have become accepted practice elsewhere. For example, one prior enquiry accepted that a Strategic Gap need be only 400yards wide! So why not accept this for Fareham to Gosport. It’s not helped that GBC withdrew their objection on traffic issues, as now the response to any objection from south of the gap are: “Thank you for your input but Gosport has withdrawn their objections” That translates into this is a Fareham plan, so issues from Gosport area can be ignored……

We will keep on trying to highlight and uphold all the issues that arise from filling in the Strategic Gap but I have to say it feels an awful lot like “flogging a dead horse.”

Daedalus Waterfront Area. After a long delay for various reasons, the already approved development of Wykeham Hall and adjoining houses in King’s Road appears to be going ahead. The LRA have supported this plan despite some local objectors. It is considered important to complete the connection between the post war Lee housing and the modern housing development in a complimentary manner. The retention of the Wykeham Hall frontage and the relatively open nature of the connection from the corner of King’s Road is important in this respect.

Refusal of 21/00550/FULL, 21 Manor Way. Opposite the Le Breton Farmhouse and within the Conservation Area an application for 2.5 metre fence was refused. Owners have erected a normal fence panel on top of two concrete plinths and set back on the slope together this is not far off the refused height. They have also built a low wall abutting the pavement. Is this acceptable? The LPA has yet to make a decision if the new fence and wall is acceptable or too much like the application that was refused.

Planning Application 21/00373/FULL, 86 High Street, the burnt-out shop behind the painted panels. A revised submission has answered some of GBC’s Conservation Officer concerns, but the oversize of this development and inadequate parking also raised by the LRA and GS has not been addressed. With a similar large ‘overdevelopment’ previously approved on the same site there is not much chance the ‘overmassing’ (as it is called in planning terms) will be addressed.

Planning Approval 21/00414/Full, 67a Marine Parade East. Plans for a much higher building with an overpowering glass and balcony frontage were submitted, but withdrawn. The LRA and Gosport Conservation Officer together pointed out the design did not conform to the Marine Parade design guidance and many local residents objected. Newly submitted plans make some concessions towards meeting the design guidelines but it will transform the property into an apex of glass at the front and high wall of odd fenestration at the back, probably still not what the neighbours behind consider much of an improvement over the first submission.

FBC Planning Application P/22/0165/0A 375 Houses off Newgate Lane. We have submitted an objection to this application on the grounds that it breeches CS20, CS22, DS1 & DS2 of Fareham’s existing Local plan. This is a speculative planning application and is not part of their 5-year housing plans detailed in the Local Plan to be examined by the Planning Inspectorate in a March planning inquiry. This would further breach the policies that protect the Strategic Gap.



29 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All