What others are saying about the plan

FBC Press Release states:
‘Residents will be asked to vote ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to the question: ‘Do you want Fareham Borough Council to use the Neighbourhood Plan for Titchfield to help it decide planning applications in the neighbourhood area?’

If more than 50 per cent vote ‘yes’, then Fareham Borough Council will ‘make’ the Titchfield Neighbourhood Plan. This means the plan will help determine planning applications in the Titchfield Neighbourhood Area and it will also form part of the statutory development plan for Fareham.’
Independent External Examination:
The examiner, Mr Timothy Jones, Barrister FCIArb, a member of the Planning Bar, considered all the documentation submitted and also visited the area twice to gain a full impression of Titchfield. He examined the Consultation Statement to the written Plan to ensure that all the Basic Conditions were met. He writes in his summary “I commend the Draft TNP for being in an easy -to- read style”. He was satisfied with the Consultation Statement and says “I am impressed by the Consultation Statement, which shows more extensive consultation than is often the case.”

In housing matters, Barrister Jones states that the report on housing numbers has been produced by reputable consultants and is specific to Titchfield. He sees the need for affordable housing but does not think this will be met totally by windfall sites. He agrees with the Plan that no development should take place on greenfield sites and concludes “that housing provision should be determined by national and district policy”

Timothy Jones also says: “I recommend that the modified NDP proceed to a referendum, the referendum area being the area of the Draft TNP.”
The Posbrook Lane Appeal:
As the Neighbourhood Plan had been submitted to FBC at the time of the Appeal, then 80% of the Plan influenced the process. That is why David Phelan, our Forum representative, played such an integral and important part in the Appeal process and successful outcome. If it had been approved then 100% of the plan would have influenced the process.
Community Aspirations:
The Neighbourhood Plan, in addition to legally binding policies, contains Community Aspirations. These are suggestions within the Plan area that residents have identified for change. Providing the Plan is approved, a group within each area will work hard to ensure these aspirations are achieved. The groups are housing/planning, traffic/parking, historic Titchfield, the building and natural environment, the economy and business.
Paul Robinson:
“Without the safety net, that an endorsed Neighbourhood Plan offers, being in place, future changes that FBC might need to visit upon us will be very much harder to rebut.

I absolutely recognise that housing is one of the issues closest to our hearts, but the NP addresses a host of other initiatives. If unsighted on the Plan, I would encourage a quick read to get a feel for the span of policies that set criteria that the Council would be obliged to recognise should the Plan be endorsed.

That a massive amount of hard work has been put into development of the NP is no argument to vote for its endorsement at the referendum. But it is worth noting that to vote against it would deprive us all of a degree of legislative protection against future Council initiatives, some of which could be extremely unpalatable, unwelcome and ultimately impossible to adjust regardless of the degree of lobbying on our part.”

2 thoughts on “What others are saying about the plan

  1. Peter Wheal

    I am sorry you are proposing to vote NO without undersanding the full facts.

    At the Posbrook Appeal, David Phelan, a member of the Forum, attended every day and sat on the table between the FBC representative and the Foreman Homes Barrister. He also made several presentations and visited the site with the Appeal party. The reason for this is that the Neighbourhood Plan had been submitted which meant the Appeal adjudicator was required to take note of 80% of the Plan. If the Plan had been approved at the referendum then everyone would have been required to take 100% note of the Plan.

    If you read the Plan carefully you will see that the 153 houses referred to relate to a need, not what will be built. The Plan also specifies where and what types of homes should be built if the need arises. There is a paper copy of the Plan in Daisey B’s and in the Queen’s Head if you prefer to read the Plan directly.

    If the Plan is approved then there are many others areas as well as housing that FBC will have to consider as the Plan with be a legally binding document.

  2. Andy Kelley

    I was thinking I’d vote ‘yes’ until I looked in more detail at the arguments. This is a complete no-brainer. If we say we want 153 more houses but we don’t identify anywhere to put them, that’s carte blanche to put them anywhere – including green fields! We will have no control at all.
    FBC successfully resisted Posbrook Lane without the aid of a neighbourhood plan, and it looks like they currently don’t want any significant development in the village, so why force them to put in 153 houses ‘on the basis of national and district policy’ ?? I’ll be voting NO.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.