New application lodged - P/23/1549/OA
Basically the same application, but with slight modifications to the site access arrangements - claimed to be acceptable to the Highways Agency. WVCA maintaining its opposition to the proposals.
Outline Planning Application P/22/0363/OA – Land at Pinks Hill
Text of Letter to The Planning Inspectorate
3rd Floor, Temple Quay House, 2 The Square, Bristol BS1 6PN
27th November 2023
I am writing in my capacity as Chair of Wallington Village Community Association (WVCA), we have over 400 members and we wish to support Fareham Borough Council’s decision to reject this application.
Our concerns remain that the site is unsuitable for development for the following reasons:
- The site is poorly connected to the village and highway provision is totally unsuitable to support a housing development. The proposed access points to the site are not suitable, the access to the North is directly onto the road leading to the SUEZ waste handling site, over 100 LGVs accessing this site daily. The proposal does not propose footpaths or lighting to protect pedestrians as they gain access to the local facilities via Standard Way.
- The proposed footpath on Military Road does not have the approval of the landowners, the developer has failed to engage with the landowners to seek their approval.
- The appearance of the development is totally out of character with the local environment.
- The noise and air pollution from the 4-lane feeder road to the M27 is considerable and will expose residents to considerable long term health risk.
- Heritage conservation, the development will impact on the site lines to the grade 2 listed Wallington Fort which is adjacent to the proposed site.
- The development takes away from the rural landscape and this area has been identified as countryside to be protected in the strategic plan adopted by Fareham Borough Council.
- The five-year housing supply in the opinion of the local community will be met by the significant development at Welborne which is well progressed, and the first units will come to market in early 2024. There are sufficient other approved developments that will come to market before this site is completed.
The WVCA remains of the opinion that this is an ill-conceived and poorly developed submission and should be rejected.
Yours Sincerely,
Russell Kew
Chairman, Wallington Village Community Association
Subsequently the application P/22/0363/OA was refused, and the decision notice issued on 17th March 2023.
Deputation to Fareham Borough Council Planning Committee
Outline Planning Application P/22/0363/OA – Land at Pinks Hill
Wallington Village Community Association is strongly opposed to the application and supports the clearly expressed views of so many residents that the site is unsuitable for development on several grounds. The association therefore welcomes the measured deliberations of the Borough Planning Officers on the many critical issues raised by the application and the conclusion that it should be refused.
Wallington is surrounded by busy roads with industrial premises on several sides and at its centre. Neighbouring roads include the (8-Lane) M27, a 6-lane motorway approach road, Wallington Way carrying an increasing burden of traffic via Broadcut to the Industrial Park and Standard Way/Pinks Hill with heavy industrial and fast-moving commuter traffic.
Landscape depletion and the prospect of losing one of our few remaining wild spaces (especially when environmental issues like biodiversity are headlining) is a matter of sorrow, but serious misgivings about the possible human cost may be the more significant matter to address. In this respect we were surprised that serious safety issues were not even more strongly pointed up in officers’ assessment, especially in relation to pedestrian movements such as school journeys. Locally, traffic/pedestrian conflict difficulties formed a material issue recently (see P/19/0894/OA).
We believe that, if approved, the development would have a predictable and unavoidably detrimental effect on the quality of life of both existing and future residents through traffic growth on roads that cannot sustain it. There were major (and vociferous) public concerns in the early 1970’s when Fort Wallington Industrial Estate and Fareham Industrial Park were commissioned in advance of Wallington Way (the Link Road). This gave rise to the (unplanned) retention of a link to the Motorway approach road – i.e. Pinks Hill!
We doubt whether noise, air pollution and drainage issues could ever be satisfactorily mitigated for any occupants of this site. Nor do we believe that reasonable safety could ever be guaranteed for present or any future road users or pedestrians accessing onto the congested junctions at the top of Pinks Hill.
Records would show that Wallington has had a good record of absorbing new residential development but this application, if passed, would create a very different settlement – incoherent, isolated, surrounded by and overlooking heavy traffic and incapable of being welcomed into the community.
We would earnestly petition the Planning Committee to reject this application.
WVCA Executive - March 2023
The Horses’ Field:
In August 2022 there was a welcome result of refusal of the Appeal against FBC’s non-determination of this application within the prescribed time which had been lodged by Foreman Homes in respect of the application for outline planning permission for 32 houses.
See www.fareham.gov.uk/casetrackerplanning reference P/19/0894/OA.
The hearing before the Government Inspector took place on 23rd August 2022 and our chairman, Russell Kew, attended the hearing, as did a representative of the Fareham Society. The Inspector, in rejecting the proposals, did so on the grounds that there were problems that could not easily be resolved – notably in relation to the flip-flop road idea and the risk of possible traffic conflicts. Less said than we would have liked about the many other negative indicators for the site.
WVCA maintains the view that it hardly seems an attractive place to live. It is in an exposed, elevated position close to an eight-lane motorway and alongside a steeply graded, de-restricted road used by heavy industrial traffic serving industrial sites whilst providing a fast commuter route motorway-bound. Maindell pumping station is still a standby facility for Portsmouth Water and below the field targeted for development is a system of cavernous adits.
WVCA is also unhappy to record this site – one of our few remaining green field locations - as the first one in our ‘area of benefit’ potentially falling victim to the nitrate mitigation scheme.
Reference: P/19/0894/OA
Address: Land East of North Wallington Road, Wallington Fareham
WALLINGTON VILLAGE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION
OBJECTIONS AND OBSERVATIONS TO REVISED APPLICATION FOR OUTLINE PLANNING PERSMISSION FOR LAND EAST OF NORTH WALLINGTON ROAD
January 2020
Wallington Village Community Association (WVCA) wishes to sustain its objection to the development of this site as expressed in its submission in November 2019. The minor reduction in the proposed dwellings from 32 to 29 in no way changes our objections and observations and we wish to continue to oppose the application on environmental, highway and flooding / drainage grounds. We wish to make the following additional comments:
1. ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS
1.1 Greenspaces
The existing site, together with the other small undeveloped fields in Wallington, provide a vital buffer between housing and business development. Such buffers will become even more important with the proposed major development on the north side of the motorway (Welborne).
1.2 Wildlife and natural vegetation
In our previous submission we drew attention to numerous concerns relating to the removal of a vital habitat for protected species, including dormice.
The Hampshire County Council Ecologist continues to raise concerns about the conservation of the local dormouse population.
We believe that the proposed removal of vegetation on the site boundary, together with the threat to the maturing trees (which were planted by the Association in 1993 and 1994), will have serious environmental consequences.
1.3 Pollution concerns
As we noted earlier, the proximity of the motorway to the site will result in serious noise and ir pollution. The 2.6m fencing recommended by the FBC environmental health officer to mitigate the problem will be unsightly. We would also add that with climate change, residents should be able to ventilate their homes by opening windows whilst not suffering from unacceptable traffic noise and exhaust fumes.
2. HIGHWAYS / TRANSPORT
We have previously drawn attention to the inadequacy of the roads within the vicinity of the proposed development and the fact that they are incapable of taking further traffic. These serious reservations remain. We note HCC’s Senior Transport Engineer’s concerns on Pinks Hill and other local roads (dated 21/6/19 but posted 4/10/19) in which he concludes that “the LPA [should] maintain a holding objection to the application until [the highway] issues have been satisfactorily resolved”.
In contravention of the National Planning Policy Framework (July 2015) paragraph 108 (b) the site does not provide “safe and suitable access … for all users” and contrary to FBC policy there is no safe and reliable routes for cyclists or pedestrians accessing public transport.
North Wallington has no pavement in the proximity of the development, is narrow and is poorly lit. From Riverside, where there is a pedestrian pavement it becomes very narrow and there are parked cars throughout the village, making it impossible for vehicles travelling in opposite directions to pass.
The junction of North Wallington and Standard Way is dangerous with parked vehicles and moving vehicles accelerating to climb the hill, whilst those descending are only required to abide by the national speed limit of 60 mph.
At the entrance to the Suez undertaking, very large HGVs have to swing to the offside of the road in order to turn into the facility and close by on a bend is the entrance to Fort Wallington Industrial Estate where once again HGVs exiting the estate have to swing across the road when they turn left to depart, as they should, via Standard Way. Recently, there was a road traffic accident here.
Pinks Hill, is unlit, very narrow and steep. The blind bend at the bottom of the hill on the downward slope is very dangerous and a potential for rear shunts as vehicles queue to enter the A27 link to the motorway.
3. FLOODING and DRAINAGE
In our previous submission we drew attention to the local problems of flooding and inadequate sewerage systems.
There is a local predisposition to flooding – run-off as well as fluvial which makes it vital that the open spaces exist to absorb rain water.
Sewerage systems throughout Wallington are at full capacity and we would draw attention to the fact that just four new houses has required the regular attendance of a sewage tanker (Honey Wagon).
4. CONCLUSION
For the above reasons we continue to oppose the outline application and would ask that permission be refused.
Submitted on behalf of:
Wallington Village Community Association
David F.B. Kett
Hon. Sec.
Reference: P/19/0894/OA
Address: Land East of North Wallington Road, Wallington Fareham
WALLINGTON VILLAGE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION OBJECTIONS AND OBSERVATIONS TO APPLICATION FOR OUTLINE PLANNING PERSMISSION FOR LAND EAST OF NORTH WALLINGTON ROAD
November 2019
Wallington Village Community Association (WVCA) wishes to object to development of this site for up to 32 dwellings at this location on environmental grounds (including the loss of natural habitat), and in particular access and aggravated traffic problems, together with an increased flooding risk. We would ask that you also consider the points raised in our previous concerns relating to Foreman Homes outline applications for other land within Wallington.
1. ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS
The site lies within the Portsdown Hill Landscape Character Area, and development would be visible to traffic travelling east on the M27. It is close to the Water Meadows which are a designated SINC. Because of the topography, any development would dominate the existing dwellings – Riverside Cottages.
1.1 Wildlife
Currently, the site is a habitat for protected species (slow worms, lizards, dormice, bats and possibly badgers) as well as foxes and other wild animals. The existing trees and shrubs provide a home for breeding and nesting birds, including overwintering birds. With more and more development, including Welborne to the north of the motorway, there are fewer and fewer green spaces in Wallington and its close neighbourhood.
The Hampshire County Council Ecologist has concerns and inter alia believes that “sufficient information has not been submitted that the favourable conservation status of the local dormouse population will be maintained”.
1.2 Archaeological concerns
The HCC Archaeologist points out that there is moderate potential for further prehistoric remains on the site and that Palaeolithic remains have been found in the area.
1.3 Pollution concerns
Fareham is in a Nitrate Vulnerable Zone and Natural England in its submission raises concerns about nitrogen and phosphate in the waste water from this development.
The Noise Impact Assessment is dated 14 November 2018 and so predates the work being undertaken to convert the M27 into an “Smart Motorway”. There is little doubt that the site will be subject to significant noise and air pollution which will be made even worse once Welborne has been developed.
However, the major issues with the site concern highways and flooding.
2. HIGHWAYS / TRANSPORT
The roads within the vicinity of the proposed development are incapable of taking further traffic.
The i-Transport Statement dated 6 February 2019 accompanying Foreman Homes application for the land on Standard Way (P/19/0169/0A) quoted both national and local planning policies.
The National Planning Policy Framework (July 2015) paragraph 108 (b) states that the sites that are developed should have “safe and suitable access … for all users”. Fareham Borough Council Local Plan Part One – Core Strategy (2011) states that FBC will permit development which is “designed and implemented to prioritise and encourage safe and reliable journeys by walking cycling and public transport.”
This site will not meet either policy aim. The local highway network with steep gradients, and in places absence of pavements or street lighting is dangerous for pedestrians and cyclists. The nearest public transport links are not located within acceptable walking distances and children would have to walk or cycle or be driven to access the schools.
Hampshire Highways in its submission raises grave concerns about the plans and states that it is unable to comment because of lack of information.
2.1 North Wallington and Wallington Shore Road
North Wallington has no pavement in the proximity of the development, is narrow and is poorly lit. From Riverside, where there is a pedestrian pavement it becomes very narrow and there are parked cars throughout the village. Currently it is often necessary to reverse some significant distance because of oncoming traffic. Additional vehicle movements will exacerbate the problem.
Extreme care has to be taken on the bend by the Cob and Pen public house and on Wallington Shore Road where there are more parked cars. Accessing the A27 from Wallington Shore Road at the Delme roundabout is currently difficult.
The junction of North Wallington and Standard Way is dangerous with vehicles accelerating to climb the hill and those descending are only required to abide by the national speed limit of 60 mph.
2.2 Standard Way
Standard Way from the junction with North Wallington to Pinks Hill and the A27/M27 link is unlit, bendy and a shared space with no pavement. Pedestrians take their life in their hands and vehicle drivers have to take great care. In snow or icy conditions, the hill often becomes impassable and will force more traffic to drive through the village using North Wallington / Wallington Shore Road.
At the entrance to the Suez undertaking very large HGVs have to swing to the offside of the road in order to turn into the facility and close by on a bend is the entrance to Fort Wallington Industrial Estate where once again HGVs exiting the estate have to swing across the road when they turn left to depart, as they should, via Standard Way.
At the bottom of Standard Way, there are two hazards:
- Two pedestrian underpasses under the M27
- The one directly opposite North Wallington is frequently used by cyclists and additional vehicles exiting the proposed development will prove a significant danger to them. The second one, just to the west of it, is used by walkers who have to cross-over from the south side to access the underpass.
- Vehicles, particularly HGVs, that are parked day and night on the south side of the road from the junction with North Wallington to the Lock and Store unit.
- In the morning their drivers are frequenting the burger van; in the afternoon many of the drivers are dog walkers; and at night they are HGVs parked up. These vehicles obstruct the highway and reduce it to a single lane, requiring vehicles to queue. Additional traffic will make matters worse.
2.3 Broadcut
Broadcut is already very busy with commercial traffic. At rush hour, significant queues build up at the Sainsbury’s roundabout. More traffic will make things worse.
2.4 Pinks Hill
The development will inevitably lead to more vehicles using Pinks Hill to access the M27/A27. It is very narrow and steep and in winter conditions it is often impossible to use the road as vehicles have been known to jack-knife.
There is a World War Two type FW3/25 (ARMCO) pill box which is the only example of an intact anti-invasion pill box on Portsdown, which would make widening the road very difficult. (source www.portsdown-tunnels.org.uk/invasion_defences/pinks_pill_box.html)
The blind bend at the bottom of Pinks Hill on the downward slope is very dangerous and a potential for rear shunts as vehicles queue to enter the A27 link to the motorway.
3. FLOODING and DRAINAGE
Land drainage in the area is a problem and there is a local predisposition to flooding – run-off as well as fluvial. It is vital the open spaces exist to absorb rain water. The site has a significant slope and there is a danger if developed, more rain water will run into the river Wallington which already is liable to flood and threaten Riverside Cottages.
Sewerage systems throughout Wallington are at full capacity and Southern Water in previous reports have warned that they may be unable to cope.
4. CONCLUSION
For the above reasons we oppose the outline application and would ask that permission be refused.
Submitted on behalf of:
Wallington Village Community Association
David F.B. Kett
Hon. Sec.
Email: wvca1@tiscali.co.uk
Planning Issues - March 2019
Site name: Military Road Wallington
Reference: P/19/0130/OA
WALLINGTON VILLAGE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION
OBJECTIONS AND OBSERVATIONS TO APPLICATION FOR OUTLINE PLANNING PERSMISSION FOR LAND ON MILITARY ROAD FAREHAM
March 2019
Wallington Village Community Association (WVCA) wishes to object to development at this location on a broad range of environmental issues including the loss of natural habitat, access and aggravated traffic problems and increased flooding risk.
1. INTRODUCTORY OBSERVATIONS
Many of the supporting reports and documents submitted by Foreman Homes are desk based and, though apparently glossy and professional, are in fact contradictory and inaccurate in detail.
For example, the Contextual Study is dismissive in tone and fails to mention that Wallington contains a Conservation Area and some listed buildings. It states, inter alia, that: “The houses within the village are typically semi-detached with a few areas of older-styled terraced properties and some larger detached houses…The Wallington River at the west of the site…is fronted by several rows of terraced houses.” Whilst there are photographs of some of the properties in the wider area, there are no photographs of the listed cottages in Drift Road. Some recognition of the Conservation Area and some Listed Buildings is to be found in the desk based Archaeological Report. Furthermore, it fails to acknowledge Welborne and states that “there is vacant Greenland to the north”.
Distances in the Transport Statement are clearly as the crow flies and in no way realistic – e.g. the bus stop in Wickham Road is not 800 metres away.
Finally, the reports often fail to address the impact of the proposed development to the local environment.
2. THE SITE
2.1 Location
This is a significant green field site, one of a dwindling number of locations within the Village currently protected with a designation of Coast and Countryside. The designation has been re-affirmed at two public enquires in the last thirty years. It could not reasonably be described as having “low landscape sensitivity” considering its prominence or proximity to a site of archaeological/historical significance.
Furthermore, the site lies within the Portsdown Hill Landscape Character Area, confirmed by Fareham Borough Council’s Landscape Character Assessment and acknowledged by Foreman Homes.
With the proposed Welborne development to the north of the M27 there will be even fewer open space for enjoyment of outdoor recreational activities.
Both to the north and south of the site there are Grade 2 listed buildings – Fort Wallington to the north; East Hill House to the south. The fort is recognised as being “of regional significance with the fabric of [the] surviving wall nationally important.” The house is deemed to be of national significance.
Finally, we believe that, in any event, the number of proposed properties is too many for the site. (See also email 7/3/19 from FBC Urban Designer)
2.2 Physical characteristics – flooding and sewers
The site has a significant slope and the Flood Risk Assessment is incorrect when it states that water flood risk is low and that there are no records of the site being affected by ground water flooding.
There is a problematical and well-known land drainage issues on the site caused by numerous springs and the presence of an area of so-called Blue Slipper Clay. The geological discontinuity means that flooding potential is high and downhill properties have already experienced it, one incident taking place as recently as this year. Interference with anything in the local water table is undesirable given the local predisposition to flooding – run-off as well as fluvial.
Springs are evident on the field and are becoming more and more active in the gardens of properties on Drift Road, Military Road, Woodlands and through to East Hill Close.
The developer proposes that the third most preferred surface water removal option be used – the existing Southern Water sewer in Military Road / Drift Road. Occasional flooding of properties over a number of years demonstrates that the sewage system is unable to deal with significant surface water removal. Furthermore, in times of heavy rainfall and high tides the extra water will adversely affect river levels causing localised flooding (East Hill Close and Wallington Shore Road)
Some properties in Military Road to the south of the site are connected to what was until recently deemed to be a private sewer and joins the main sewer in Wallington Shore Road.
There is known weakness in sewage capacity as evidenced by the Clifton Mews case some years ago (the successfully opposed ‘Clargester’ discharge into the river proposal) and more recently by the major problem apparently caused by the new houses in Delme Drive.
2.3 Pollution
There is recognition in the desk top study that the site is close to the M27 and A27 and “there is potential to expose future site users to elevated pollution levels”. There is also some local concern that air quality has deteriorated as of late.
As FBC’s own environmental report recognises there is potential for noise pollution, something that properties to the south of the site have experienced.
2.4 Visual and Ecological Value of the site
The site comprises a visual amenity quite unique in the area because of its rural, unspoilt character. Because of its prominent location its quality is not restricted to the village itself and is clearly visible from the rear of the High Street in Fareham and Lysses path car park. It enhances the townscape as a green and wooded field in front of Fort Wallington and it acts as a buffer zone between the industrial estate in the Fort and the housing.
Its value in terms of the natural habitat cannot be overstated. The site contains mature oaks and the west of the site is identified as a priority habitat. In addition, protected species (slow worms, lizards, dormice and bats) are acknowledged to inhabit the site. The area is regularly used by Roe deer, foxes, badgers, rabbits, bats, and owls (Barn and Tawny). Wild orchids which only grow on the South Downs are to be found here. Whilst there is no mention in the HCC Ecology Team Report of Great Crested Newts, we are aware that these were found in an earlier study. Of course, it also provides grazing land for horses.
There can be few areas in the borough in which such a diversity of animal life can exist so close to housing. Development pressures are potentially fatal to such unique places – once lost they can never be re-created and the quality of life for humans as well as animals, is thereby diminished.
2.5 Archaeology
Fort Wallington is recognised (Foreman sponsored desktop Archaeology Report) to be “of regional significance with the fabric of [the] surviving wall of national importance”.
However, the proposed development will screen the community’s view of what remains of a building of such significant nineteenth century military history. The application makes no attempt to address this issue, a point recognised in the report by the County Archaeologist.
The desk top report (points 7.8 and 7.9) mention East Hill [House] which is a Grade 2 listed building to the south which the report wrongly states is in Military Way [sic]. It acknowledges that the building is “considered to be nationally important” but incorrectly states that the “the site has limited views of the fort with mature trees in the front garden … but only limited views to and from the PDA”. All four properties have rooms (especially on the second floor) from which the proposed development will be very visible.
3. TRANSPORT and HIGHWAY ISSUES
The Transport Statement contains inaccuracies and omissions. The distances cited to various locations must be as the crow flies as they in no way reflect reality. There is also no mention of gradients which make cycling difficult and would force those with young children and buggies to use motor vehicles. Public transport is practically non-existent.
Military Road, Drift Road and Pinks Hill are unlit shared spaces and as such unsuitable for providing access to or from the site. They pose a significant danger to pedestrians, cyclists and motor vehicles.
3.1 Military Road
Speeds are regretfully not as the Transport Statement claims “commensurate with the character of the lane” and far greater than 18 mph cited in the report. It is incorrect to state that it has an “exemplary safety record”. Accidents and near misses do occur but are not significant enough to be reported to the police.
The blind bend opposite Woodlands is very dangerous and has recently been the site of a minor accident. The egress from East Hill House is difficult and has also been the site of accidents. Both of these locations are proposed entrances the PDA.
The junction of Military Road and Pinks Hill is difficult with restrictive sight lines in both directions. As the FBC’s Transport Planner states in an email dated 27/2/19: “The available southward visibility splay is inadequate to enable emerging drivers to see approaching vehicles. Additionally, the junction has an unsatisfactory southern radius and inadequate forward visibility for drivers turning left into Military Road.” In recent times, vehicles are being parked on the junction, (probably by those employed in industrial estate) which makes matters even worse.
With the speed limit on Pinks Hill being the national speed limit (60 mph) it is surprising what speeds vehicles manage to achieve, especially at the start and end of the working day.
Pedestrian commuters in significant numbers use the road between 06.30 and 8.30; between 12.30 and 14.00; and between 16.00 and 18.00. Additional motor traffic would put them at serious risk.
3.2 Pinks Hill and Standard Way
Pinks Hill is very narrow and steep. In winter conditions it is often impossible to use the road as vehicles have been known to jack-knife, making it impossible to access Military Road, other than in four-wheel drive vehicles.
There is a World War Two type FW3/25 (ARMCO) pill box which is the only example of an intact anti-invasion pill box on Portsdown, which would make widening the road very difficult.
(source www.portsdown-tunnels.org.uk/invasion_defences/pinks_pill_box.html)
The blind bend at the bottom of Pinks Hill on the downward slope is very dangerous and a potential for rear shunts as vehicles queue to enter the A27 link to the motorway.
The bend opposite the Suez site is blind and dangerous. Those using the route have had numerous near misses with HGVs driving over the midline. HGVs exiting the Fort have also to cross the midline.
Future industrial / commercial development in the vicinity will exacerbate the problems.
3.3 Drift Road, North Wallington and Wallington Shore Road
These roads are very narrow with parked vehicles, especially on the corner of Drift Road and North Wallington. There is no pavement on Drift Road and sections of North Wallington.
The roads through the village and surrounding roads are incapable of accommodating further traffic. It is already difficult to drive along these roads without having to reverse because of oncoming traffic. Accessing the A27 from Wallington Shore Road at the Delme roundabout is currently difficult and queues build up at evening rush hour on Broadcut. The proposed development will worsen the current difficulties.
4. CONCLUSION
For the above reasons we strongly oppose the outline application and if it were to go ahead, we would seek significant mitigation, which would include £5 million escrow.
Submitted on behalf of:
Wallington Village Community Association
David F.B. Kett
Hon. Sec.
Email: wvca1@tiscali.co.uk
Reference: P/19/0169/OA
Address: Land at Standard Way Wallington Fareham
WALLINGTON VILLAGE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION
OBJECTIONS AND OBSERVATIONS TO APPLICATION FOR OUTLINE PLANNING PERSMISSION FOR LAND AT STANDARD WAY WALLINGTON FAREHAM
March 2019
Wallington Village Community Association (WVCA) wishes to object to development of an Employment Space at this location on environmental grounds (including the loss of natural habitat), and in particular access and aggravated traffic problems, together with an increased flooding risk.
1. THE SITE
The site lies within the Portsdown Hill Landscape Character Area, confirmed by Fareham Borough Council’s Landscape Character Assessment and acknowledged by Foreman Homes. and would be visible from traffic travelling east on the M27. Despite its size it is a habitat for protected species (slow worms, lizards, dormice and bats) as well as foxes and other wild animals. With more and more development, including Welborne to the north of the motorway, there are fewer and fewer green spaces in Wallington and its close neighbourhood.
The Hampshire County Council Ecologist has concerns that under the proposals there is insufficient space for the reptiles and there is a threat to the dormice.
The HCC Archaeologist and the developer’s own commissioned archaeology report both acknowledge that the site has moderate archaeological interest. The report (18/2/19) from Hampshire’s archaeologist raises concerns that “having identified that an archaeology issue exists…the planning statement nor the design and access statement offer any insight to satisfy the planning authority that archaeological issues will be addressed.”
However, the major issues with the site concern highways and flooding.
2. HIGHWAYS / TRANSPORT
The i-Transport Statement dated 6 February 2019 quotes both national and local planning policies.
The National Planning Policy Framework (July 2015) paragraph 108 (b) states that the sites that are developed should have “safe and suitable access … for all users”. Fareham Borough Council Local Plan Part One – Core Strategy (2011) states that FBC will permit development which is “designed and implemented to prioritise and encourage safe and reliable journeys by walking cycling and public transport.”
This site will not meet either policy aim. The local highway network with steep gradients, and in places absence of pavements or street lighting is dangerous for pedestrians and cyclists. The accompanying reports recognise that the nearest public transport links are not located within acceptable walking distances.
2.1 Standard Way
Standard Way is a steep road which from the junction with North Wallington up to Pinks Hill is a shared space and currently has no pavement. Pedestrians take their life in their hands and vehicle drivers have to take great care. The speed limit is the national speed limit of 60 mph. Vehicles traveling east accelerate to climb the hill and just short of the brow of the hill is a sharp blind righthand bend.
It is on this bend that access to the proposed site will be located. On the opposite side of the road is Fareham Heights, a small business park. This spot is extremely dangerous
Further up the hill is another blind righthand bend with an entrance to the Suez undertaking on the left. Very large HGVs have to swing to the offside of the road in order to turn into the facility.
Close to Suez and again on a bend is the entrance to Fort Wallington Industrial Estate and once again HGVs exiting the estate have to swing across the road when they turn left to depart, as they should, via Standard Way.
Vehicles travelling south would join Pinks Hill, a totally unsuitable road for goods vehicles.
At the bottom of Standard Way, there are two hazards:
- Two pedestrian underpasses under the M27
The one directly opposite North Wallington is frequently used by cyclists and vehicles accelerating up the hill will prove a significant danger to them. The second one, just to the west of it, is used by walkers who have to cross-over from the south side to access the underpass.
- Vehicles, particularly HGVs, that are parked day and night on the south side of the road from the junction with North Wallington to the Lock and Store unit.
In the morning their drivers are frequenting the burger van; in the afternoon many of the drivers are dog walkers; and at night they are HGVs parked up. These vehicles obstruct the highway and reduce it to a single lane, requiring vehicles to queue. Additional traffic will make matters worse.
If the proposed footpath / cycleway were built on Standard Way from the junction with North Wallington to the proposed employment area, pedestrians would be required to cross Standard Way at a particularly dangerous point just as vehicles accelerate and leave the 30mph area.
2.2 Broadcut
Broadcut is already very busy with commercial traffic. At rush hour, significant queues build up at the Sainsbury’s roundabout. More traffic will make things worse.
2.3 Pinks Hill
Whilst vehicles accessing the proposed employment area should not use Pinks Hill, they inevitably will. It is very narrow and steep and in winter conditions it is often impossible to use the road as vehicles have been known to jack-knife.
There is a World War Two type FW3/25 (ARMCO) pill box which is the only example of an intact anti-invasion pill box on Portsdown, which would make widening the road very difficult.
(source www.portsdown-tunnels.org.uk/invasion_defences/pinks_pill_box.html)
The blind bend at the bottom of Pinks Hill on the downward slope is very dangerous and a potential for rear shunts as vehicles queue to enter the A27 link to the motorway.
2.4 Drift Road, North Wallington and Wallington Shore Road
Inevitably, some vehicles will use these roads. They are very narrow with parked vehicles, especially on the corner of North Wallington and Drift Road. There is no pavement on sections of North Wallington.
The roads through the village and surrounding roads are incapable of accommodating further traffic. It is already difficult to drive along these roads without having to reverse because of oncoming traffic. Accessing the A27 from Wallington Shore Road at the Delme roundabout is currently difficult and queues build up at evening rush hour on Broadcut.
3. FLOODING and DRAINAGE
Land drainage in the area is a problem and there is a local predisposition to flooding – run-off as well as fluvial. It is vital the open spaces exist to absorb rain water. The site has a significant slope and there is a danger if developed, more rain water will run into the river Wallington which already is liable to flood.
Sewerage systems throughout Wallington are at full capacity and Southern Water in their report warns that they may be unable to cope.
4. CONCLUSION
For the above reasons we oppose the outline application and would ask that permission be refused.
Submitted on behalf of:
Wallington Village Community Association
David F.B. Kett
Hon. Sec.
Email: wvca1@tiscali.co.uk