Fareham Local Plan Part 2 Development Sites and Policies
The Fareham Society wishes to submit the following comments on the Fareham Local Plan Part 2 Development Sites and Policies.
The Civic Area, Market Quay and the Shopping Centre
Policies DSP26 and DSP27 seem to be very ambitious, what is the likelihood that the sites will be developed in the lifetime of the plan. The Society considers that there is a significant danger that if pursued in haste in constrained economic times, poor quality schemes will result. Economics eventually led the selection of what was not the best scheme for Market Quay; this resulted in poor architectural and design quality including materials and other detailing. For example, long distance views of the badly designed and executed rear elevation as seen from the Lower Quay and Salterns area.
Paragraph 5.67. The Civic area functions very well with its present cluster of uses, but would be improved if permeability can be achieved through to West Street to assist safer and convenient access to Ferneham Hall in the evenings. An arcaded glazed walkway through the shopping centre was suggested by the Fareham Society in the 1970s Town Centre Inquiry, where the disadvantages of the long east-west barrier formed by the shopping centre were well discussed.
In relation to Policies DSP29 it is considered that an arcaded walkway through the shopping centre should be a priority.
The Society seriously suggests that the clumping together of most of the public buildings on the Market Quay site could be counter productive. Having a more even spread of facilities in the relatively small area of the central town centre allows for a wider area of footfall benefitting all the shops both north and south of West Street, the new arcade taking the main flow, but of course keeping the other existing entrances to the shopping centre.
The present Market Quay site is not large enough to adequately accommodate a replacement library of a similar floorspace, a suitable replacement for Ferneham Hall, generous parking to serve an entertainments venue including the cinema and open space.
The list of principal uses seems to be totally unrealistic even excluding the additional uses that will be sought if they can be delivered. A reference to a library and entertainment/arts should be included in Policy DSP26 Civic Area and the reference to library should be deleted from Policy DSP27 Market Quay. There are advantages in having a venue for civic functions close to the Civic Offices.
Para 5.78 should refer to the listed railway viaduct.
Policy DSP27 should include the specific requirement for a multi-storey car park because, as stated in paragraph 5.82, this is only way the same amount of parking spaces as would be lost through the redevelopment could be re-provided. It should also include the same reference to phased development as that included in Policy DSP26.
Portchester District Centre
Policy DSP36 states that expansion of Portchester District Centre will be permitted but there is no explanation for the very significant expansion of the centre shown on the Proposals Map.
Transport and Access
The Development Sites and Policies Plan should recognise the effect of development outside the plan area and area. It should include specific reference to the A32 Wickham Road because the traffic on this road will be significantly increased due to the proposed development of Welborne and the changes to make M27 junction 10 all moves proposed in the Welborne Plan.
Para 6.15 refers to the dualling of the A27 between the Titchfield Gyratory and the Gudge Heath Lane junction. It is understood that this proposal may not be progressed. The report to the Hampshire County Council Executive Member for Economy, Transport and Environment on 17th March 2014 states:
5.4 Following initial assessment this phase of the A27 improvement has been afforded a lower priority. Whilst the original scheme objective to provide for east west movements from Fareham to M27 junction 9 still remains there is now a greater emphasis upon improving access from the peninsula to the M27, via Stubbington bypass, which will help alleviate pressure upon other parts of the network in central Fareham feeding onto the A27, for instance at Peak Lane. In addition initial findings identified that it would not be possible to upgrade parts of this section without impact upon third party land, hence it is recommended that potential dualling is not progressed along this section and efforts will be focused upon improving the junctions to provide additional capacity.
6.2 That based upon the above, a further round of public consultation should be undertaken for the following, as shown on the appended plan:
v. A27 Corridor Phase 3 junction improvements only (no dualling).
In the light of this the text of paragraph 6.15 should be updated. Any proposals that require land to be safeguarded or acquired to implement a scheme.
Paragraphs 6.18 and 6.19 refer to the Stubbington by-pass. These paragraphs need to be updated to reflect the decision of the Hampshire County Council Executive Member for Economy, Transport and Environment on 17th March 2014 to carry out public consultation on the Stubbington Bypass - preferred route , linking Titchfield gyratory and Titchfield Road to Gosport Road and Peel Common roundabout
Para 5.174.3 refers to the updated South Hampshire Strategy. This updated Strategy has not been subject to public consultation or independent scrutiny/examination and therefore cannot require the Borough Council to deliver a particular amount of housing through the Local Plan.
Policy DSP2 refers to the preparation of a Design Supplementary Planning Document. The Society seeks confirmation that this will include Guidance for shop fronts.
Heritage and Conservation
Table 1b, the Roche Court site should be added to the list of Historic Parks and Garden; the completed research produced by Hampshire County Council and the Hampshire Gardens Trust is available.
Countryside and the Natural Environment
This section should recognise that outside the defined urban settlements has largely been manmade by referring to countryside as well as the natural environment.
Policy DSP8 needs to clarify that the leisure and recreation uses that may be permitted are those that do not involve the building of large structures.
Policy DSP13, how will enhancements 'be supported', by land or financial contributions from FBC?
Open space, paragraph 4.22, the latest addendum is unsound because it includes an arbitrary reduction in the accessibility standard from 300m to 400m and ignores the accessibility constraints such as railways, motorways and other major roads as covered in the Greenspace Study. It also appears to double count the former railway land north of Highlands Road by including it in the statistics for both Fareham North and Fareham North-West.
The Plan refers to Air Quality in the objectives on page 50 and to the existing Air Quality Management Areas in paragraph 6.6. The Welborne Sustainability Appraisal recognises the likely impact on the two Air Quality Management Areas and states that the Strategic modelling results have so far shown limited impacts on these two locations in terms of traffic increase.
The Welborne Sustainability Appraisal on page iv states
'However, air quality may worsen in locations close to new or upgraded road junctions, or roads which are predicted to receive significantly increased volumes of traffic.'
Many of these roads are within the area covered by the Development Sites and Policies Plan and the Welborne strategic transport modelling does not provide adequate traffic or air quality information to consider the impact of significantly increased volumes of traffic on these roads. A full transport assessment is required to provide the necessary information.
Changes to the Proposals Map
There is a typing error in the Legend on page 229, it should be cemetery.