62 dwellings at Land West Of Old Street, Stubbington, Fareham
Summary of planning committee decision
Decided by Fareham Planning Committee on 13 Aug 2025.
What was proposed
Outline permission was sought for up to 62 dwellings, with access, landscaping, parking, infrastructure, drainage and publicly accessible open space.
“A previous application was submitted for ‘Outline planning application with all matters reserved (except for access) for the construction of up to 150 residential dwellings. Access from Old Street, landscaping, open space, and associated works’. This application was refused by the Council, and a subsequent appeal was dismissed on the 22 January 2019.”
Officer report
The site
The 3.70-hectare site comprises two fields beside Old Street, near Titchfield Haven Nature Reserve, within the Meon Gap and an Area of Special Landscape Quality.
“Site Description 2.1 The application site comprises two fields on the western side of Old Street separated by an access track which leads from the road westwards to the adjacent Titchfield Haven Nature Reserve. The land is relatively flat throughout falling away slightly towards the reserve. In total the application site measures approximately 3.70 hectares in size.”
“To the west of the site, beyond the over wintering bird land lies the Titchfield Haven Nature Reserve. The Nature Reserve is a locally and nationally designated reserve and Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). The reserve is also part of the Solent & Southampton Water Special Protection Area (SPA), Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and Ramsar site.”
Officer report
Officers recommended approval
Officers considered the proposal complied overall with the Local Plan and that housing, affordable homes and other benefits outweighed its effects, subject to controls.
“In considering the proposal against the Policy HP4 criteria, it is concluded that the proposal is relative in scale to the five-year housing land supply shortfall (part a). The site is sustainably located adjacent to the urban boundary, and the scheme can be designed to integrate with the neighbouring settlement (part b).”
“Turning to the benefits of granting planning permission, Officers consider that the proposal would make a valuable contribution towards addressing local housing supply, including the provision of a policy compliant percentage of affordable homes. The NPPF highlights the Government’s objective to significantly boost the supply of homes to meet the needs of the local community enabling land to come forwards where it is needed.”
Officer report
Consultation responses
Most consultees raised no objection subject to conditions or legal agreements, while the landscape consultant objected because of significant long-term landscape harm.
“Landscape Consultant 7.17 The Council has commissioned an independent Landscape Consultant, Ian Dudley of Rowellian Environmental Consulting Ltd, to provide an evaluation of the landscape information submitted by the applicant.”
“Objection – The Landscape and Visual Response to Application Comments acknowledges that the development proposals will cause harm, but it argues that this is acceptable because it has sought to minimise that harm as far as is possible. It is agreed that the illustrative mitigation measures act to reduce the potential level of harm, nevertheless the Landscape Consultant considers that…”
Officer report
Who spoke
A deputation was received, and Councillors [name withheld] and [name withheld] addressed the committee.
Members’ concerns
Members concluded that the development conflicted with the development plan and that its harm to the valued landscape significantly and demonstrably outweighed its benefits.
“Members discussed the application and the relevant material planning considerations at length and concluded that the proposed development is contrary to the development plan. Members expressed particular concern at…”
Minutes
The vote
A motion to refuse was carried unanimously, with nine members voting in favour and none against.
“A motion to REFUSE the application was proposed and seconded and voted and CARRIED. (Voting: 9 in favour; 0 against)”
“RESOLVED that the application was REFUSED.”
Minutes
The members' reasons
The resolution gives these reasons:
“Reasons for refusal: The development would be contrary to Policies DS1, DS3, HP1, HP4(c), HP5, TIN1(a), TIN4, NE3, NE10 of the Adopted Fareham Borough Local Plan 2037 and, Paragraph 11(dii) and 187a of the National Planning Policy Framework; and is unacceptable in that: a) the application site lies outside the defined urban settlement boundary on land which is considered to form part of a 'valued landscape'.”
Minutes
Source: the council's minutes, quoted word for word.
Sources
- Fareham Planning Committee minutes, 13 August 2025
- Agenda and papers (council website)
Source: Plota analysis of Fareham's committee minutes and officer report. Quotations are the council's own words; headings and summaries are Plota's.
Committee decisions and nationwide planning applications, in one API
The Plota API returns planning applications from every council we cover, each with its decision, whether a committee or officers decided it, and the committee date. Build it into your own tools.
See the API →At the meeting
- Committee
- Fareham Planning Committee
- Council
- Fareham
- Date
- Wednesday 13 August 2025
- Recommendation
- Officers recommended approval
- Committee decided
- Refused, against officer advice
- Minutes
- The council's minutes
- Meeting
- Agenda and papers (council website)
- Application
- The application (council website)
- All decisions
- Fareham committee decisions →
This committee's year
7 decisions in the 12 months to this meeting, 1 against officer advice.
Source: Plota analysis of the committee's minutes.