|
This page was updated on
15.04.2008
Planning
Planning Report submitted at the AGM Tuesday November 6th 2007
The planning subcommittee has maintained a similar level of activity to last year which confirms our view that the number of applications in Portchester has stabilised after the steep annual increases up to 2005.The introduction of our web site has enabled our work to reach a wider audience but we have been at pains to ensure that those members not "on the net" have been kept informed at monthly meetings and through the newsletter.
We are pleased to report that in the matters of opposing speculative development on the Vospers site, retaining the Portchester/Fareham local gap, preventing the council destroying the tarmac surface at Kenwood play area and contributing to the Examination-in-Public of the South East Plan very positive progress has been made. We have also supported the development of the play and leisure area at Northern Infants school. Also we strongly backed well-planned and carefully designed improvements to properties within our two conservation areas resulting in successful outcomes. Liaison with the Planning Enforcement Officer has also proved of great value.
We remain very concerned regarding the determination of Fareham Borough planning committee to permit endless construction of high density flats which are changing the whole character of Portchester. This is especially disappointing in view of the overwhelming evidence that our housing stock is totally biased against family homes and that the flat rental market is in danger of collapse because of oversupply.
Equally unsatisfactory has been the lack of consideration to road safety matters when planning consents are given. The Society is making formal representations to Fareham Borough Council for more emphasis on the vitally important issue of road safety and also the conduct of meetings at which these problems have occurred.
Finally, the stream of information our planning subcommittee continues to receive from members has been of outstanding value and we are most appreciative. It is always reassuring to know we have a sound knowledge of the opinions of a wide cross-section of local residents when we enter discussions on tricky planning points.
Planning
Most planning matters fall within the Society’s aims to protect and preserve the quality of the local environment. We work closely with Fareham and Hampshire councils to protect the streetscene and character of Portchester. We are very active in all matters concerning planning applications and attempt to suggest improvements where possible. Where applications are obviously detrimental we challenge and object to them – often with considerable success. Portchester includes two very important conservation areas (Castle Street and Cams Hall) in which we strive to preserve the integrity of the environment. But our preservation work also includes the whole of Portchester from the harbour shoreline to the chalk grasslands of Portsdown Hill.
Planning issues are dealt with by a subcommittee which ensures that even in the most detailed submissions a spectrum of members’ opinion is properly reflected. The subcommittee work also ensures that a number of members gain knowledge of the legal aspects of the planning process. We wish to be informed of planning issues of concern to residents and we obtain an excellent response. Please use this website if you have any such concerns – whether you are a member or not.
Current Concerns paragraph
1. added 22nd January 2008
RESIDENTS DESPERATE ABOUT GREEN SPACE
1.
When Fareham Borough council announced its intention to remove a
large area of open informal leisure space from the Cams Hall
conservation area it received 112 representations from Portchester
residents. This unusually large response was not surprising considering
how much the area is valued, especially as it has a harbour coastline,
contains part of the Solent Way, is free from sports pitches and hard
standings and is excellently maintained by the parks department whilst
retaining much of its natural environment.
Glyn Wadey from The Portchester Society believes the huge response was because residents were very doubtful regarding the Council’s motives! “Nothing has changed since the land was included as part of the conservation area in the Local Plan drawn up 10 years ago. So if it merited conservation status then why remove that status now? I directed that question in writing to the Council and then in person at the recent Executive Committee meeting. No one could answer that question so it is hardly surprising that residents had reservations about the Council’s long-term motives”.
Mr Wadey hopes that the reassessment of the Castle Street conservation area at present being planned will include a proper explanation of the reasons for any changes because the green spaces there form the backdrop to the Grade 1 listed castle. “We in The Portchester Society now recognise that our green spaces must be given the very highest level of planning protection and shall vehemently oppose any attempt to build on a single inch because once built upon it disappears forever” said Mr Wadey.
2. Streetscene and Housing Density. Applications to demolish houses with large gardens for replacement with high rise flats continue to be favoured by developers. The detrimental effects on road safety, streetscene, wildlife and trees and on the amenity of neighbours – through being overlooked – are obvious. Yet Fareham Development Control has established a precedent at the Condor Road Roundabout in Portchester Road which will greatly weaken its position in rejecting such unneighbourly schemes in the future.
3.
Local
Development Framework. We have worked hard to inject protection for the
coastline, the green gap between Fareham and Portchester and the current
bungalow / 2 storey mix which is the hallmark of Portchester. We will
continue to seek a proper level of protection before the Framework is
finished. Another worrying aspect is the re-examination of the concepts
governing the two conservation areas (Castle Street and Cams Hall). In Castle Street conservation area,
for example, any relaxation of the current status: “essential features are
the landscape setting comprising the back gardens of buildings fronting
onto Castle Street, the open land which provides the setting for the
Castle and many fine trees” would be disastrous.
4. Cycling Facilities.
At present Fareham has no effective budget to improve conditions for
cyclists and we believe there is a desperate need for both Hampshire and
Fareham to come together to devise future progress.
Long Terms Concerns
1. Transport It is well known that any disruption on the M27 or A32 – including heavy build ups at rush hour – quickly gridlock traffic through Portchester. We can find no realistic proposals which could prevent this situation worsening due to the overpopulation inherent in the SE Plan. Most certainly not the provision of a “crawler lane” for a short distance of the M27 on Portsdown Hill which will be of no value whatsoever to local travellers between Portsmouth/Fareham/Gosport without massive improvements of the roads onto the motorway at Wymering and Fareham East.
2. Local Council Autonomy The pressure on local planning committees to produce very rapid planning decisions in South Hampshire is being continually increased as developers become able to take advantage of the raft of planning regulations from central government designed to smooth the path for over population and high-density building. Under such pressure it is not surprising that the planning staff will occasionally recommend questionable developments and councillors will grant permission for them. This causes much disappointment, anger and frustration amongst residents who in the power struggle to utilise land for civic amenities as against crude profit can only rely on the councillors they have elected to protect their interests. It seems that of all of the qualities a prospective councillor could offer, a determined and independent stance on the importance of conservation of our amenities is of the greatest priority. But when the election literature comes through your letter box in 2008, how many councillors will even mention their planning responsibilities or will be able to boast of a truly independent record in votes on planning decisions? Did you know that most contentious decisions are decided on purely party lines? What on earth has party loyalty to do with leisure facilities for our children or highway safety? Show some sympathy for councillors trying hard to resist overpopulation of our once beautiful countryside but no sympathy at all for those willing to “throw in the towel” and simply bow down to the diktats of a distant central government.
                 
|