NP boundaries and objectives
Following my initial comments after early perusal of the draft plan, upon looking more closely At it I feel that some of the logic utilised in establishing the boundaries would benefit from further explanation.
The relevant appendix states that “Titchfield history and traditions helped plan the boundary”
Titchfield was clearly founded because of it’s association with the sea and remained an important port until the 18th century.
That association continues today through The Haven boat harbour, the nature reserve, a Meon and Brownwich beaches, the cliff walks and other sea related leisure activities, all of which are extremely popular and generate heavy traffic and footfall throughout all seasons.
5.1 of the plan makes reference to “protected public open spaces such as Chilling Woodland, Thatchers copse and The Haven nature reserve forming a distinctive Southern approach to the village”
Furthermore appendix13 makes reference to Meon shore.
I am completely baffled therefore to find that the Southern boundary has been set to run through Triangle Lane which by so doing excludes every one of these highly relevant historic and currently important recreational gems within the parish of Titchfield.
I also wish to point out that although the Western boundary is described as following the line of Brownwich Lane, it does not in fact touch Brownwhich Lane at any point, it being depicted on the map as being considerably further to the West.
Referring now to Posbrook Lane, it is described in the plan as being the cycle route to the beach.
It does not go to the beach, it leads to Triangle Lane which then becomes Meon Rd before reaching the beach.
The real question however is why refer to a cycle route to a location not considered worthy of inclusion within the NP. If it had been included anyone with local knowledge would be aware that the these latter two sections of road constitute the most hazardous thoroughfares for both pedestrians and cyclists within the Parish and should in fact have been considered as part of the plan area for that reason if nothing else.
It is also worth mentioning that probably the most popular PYO strawberry picking region serving the surrounding area is accessed via Posbrook Lane but this also falls outside of the proposed boundary line.
In consideration of the housing policy I note that the forum has recognised that the balance should be redressed between the increasingly aging population of the village, the affordability of existing housing stock and purchase ability of younger people. It is stated that the results of the survey questionnaire would be “a key factor” in formulating a policy to address this problem.
I would be pleased if it could be explained precisely how hiding behind the Fareham Borough proposed local plan has had any benefit whatsoever in this respect.
This is particularly the case now that their own plan has been shot out of the water by recent government intervention.
Surely a positive approach to this by allocating a number of social and low rental type homes within the plan area is the correct solution.
Objection to the forthcoming “Posbrook” appeal would probably have carried more weight had such a proposal been included within the draft NP. As things stand recent events have probably strengthened the developers hand in this respect.