Planning Applications


Key Planning Applications to November 2016

Planning History Taylor Wimpey

  • Outline application approved 11/2006
  • S106 signed 12/2007
  • Design code application received 02/2008 resolution to approve subject to amendments at joint PDC 6/2008
  • Infrastructure application received 02/2008 resolution to approve subject to amendments at joint PDC 6/2008
  • Phase 1 residential received 02/2008 pending decision, negotiations ongoing. Joint PDC scheduled 11/2008
  • Phase 2 residential approved, subject to conditions 10/2010
  • Nursing home outline planning permission approved 09/2011
  • Phases 3 and 4 residential approved, subject to conditions 06/2012
  • Amended plans for a Care home was approved 01/2015
  • Phase 5 (was employment) now residential approved, subject to conditions 07/2015

Planning History Grainger

  • Outline application approved 11/2006
  • Design code application received 02/2008 resolution to approve subject to amendments at joint PDC 17/6/2008
  • Infrastructure application received 02/2008 resolution to approve subject to amendments at joint PDC 17/6/2008
  • Phase 1 application, anticipated submission 1Q 2009
  • New outline planning application ‘Berewood’ was granted, subject to conditions, in 03/2012
  • Phase 1 application was granted, subject to conditions, in 03/2012
  • Phase 2 infrastructure was approved in 06/2013
  • Phase 2 planning permission was granted in 06/2014
  • Private Rental Accommodation replacing some employment land was approved, with conditions in 03/2015
  • Phase 3A planning permission was granted 01/2017
  • Phase 3A landscaping planning permission was granted 02/2017
  • Phase 4 and 13 infrastructure was approved 05/2017 with partial discharge of conditions.
  • Phase 13A was submitted in 07/2017 and was approved 02/2018
  • The temporary building including site office and community facility was approved in 07/2017 and a new application to change the parking layout was submitted in 10/2017 which was approved 03/2018.
  • Phase 9B and 10A were submitted in 11/2017 and is pending consideration


A new community is proposed at West of Waterlooville, one of four Major Development Areas (MDAs) required by the Hampshire County Structure Plan 1996-2011 (Review).

Two planning applications were submitted to both Havant and Winchester Councils who are the local planning authorities.

Developer George Wimpy (UK) Ltd (now Taylor Wimpey PLC) submitted the outline plans for the site at Old Park Farm, south of Hambledon Road in Waterlooville to provide:

  • 450 new homes,
  • 24 live/work units,
  • 7.29 hectares of employment land,
  • provision for retail, food and drink, financial/professional and health,
  • areas set aside for recreation and open space
  • The construction of new accesses from Hambledon Road.

Winchester City Council reference no. 05/00500/OUT
Havant Borough Council reference no. 05/40000/000

Grainger PLC submitted the outline plans for the site at Plant Farm to provide:

  • 2550 dwellings
  • the provision of 12.5 hectares of employment land (including B1, B2 and B8),
  • 85 live/work units,
  • mixed use land including 7.19 hectares of commercial uses, land for primary school, a local centre, land for allotments, land for a cemetery, open space, recreation and play areas,
  • construction of three vehicular access points to the public highway at Maurepas Way, London Road and Milk Lane,
  • Associated infrastructure including a vehicular link to Old Park Farm.

Winchester City Council reference no. 10/02862/OUT (06/02538/OUT)
Havant Borough Council reference no. APP/10/00828


NB applications relating to householders, non material amendments, discharge of conditions or auxiliary items have not been included here.

33 responses to “Planning Applications

  1. I totally disagree with houses etc being built on the area known as newlands common,as that field(now known as newlands common) was one of the last remnants of fields which is basically the history of waterlooville,waterlooville always used to be farmland,now people like grainger are ruining waterloovilles HISTORY AND HERITAGE,by wanting to build more houses,Waterlooville needs to have some history and heritage left,to remind the people who have lived in waterlooville(and its surrounding villages ie purbrook and widley)there all their lives of what and how waterlooville used to be like,instead of allowing grainger to bulldoze and ruin the field by building houses,this should not be allowed and there should be a law against are based in london and i dont think that they would like it if a property developer based around here decided to knock down an area of london that is basically the history of london to build houses or a shopping i strongly OPPOSE grainger building houses on the field now known as newlands common as its the local residents history and heritage

  2. Is the area to the rear of Puffin Walk and Partridge Gardens to be developed?

    • David, not as part of the Major Development Area, that’s all south of Hambledon Road. I am not aware of any other planning applications for rear of Puffin Walk, but if there were, as a neighbour you would probably be notified

  3. Thank goodness ASDA have refused to move their store to make way for a road to this new development. Where do these daft ideas come from? Put an underpass in Maurepas Way the same as I use to access the town approaching from the North. Where are these plans displayed by the way?

  4. Help ! just seen some new plans that came through the door yesterday
    looks like the field behind my house I thought was to be allotments is now to be a buliding site

    I posted the mail detailed below on the Newlands site.However if anyone can answer some of my questions would really appreciated it.
    As a resident of Purbrook Gardens (80) I have an obvious interest in the location of houses intended for construction directly to the rear of my property.

    On previous plans I have seen there were no plans to build houses directly behind the town houses at Purbrook Gardens (am sure it was ear marked for allotments) why the change ?
    It seems that of all other residents that are to be affected by this new development Purbrook Gardens is the most directly affected i.e everywhere else has either a main road industrial estate or trees or fields separating them from any construction yet we have it on our doorstep and potentially have to live on a building site for years.

    I am not against the development and understand probably more than most the need for affordable housing etc as bringing up a young family with four children is far from easy.
    However we have worked hard for years and have a happy and safe home so would appreciate my concerns to be taken in to account as we could be massively affected by this development !

    ● What are the sizes of the houses to be built on the site directly to the rear of my property ?
    ● Will the new houses be positioned so to over look my property ?
    ● What proximity of the nearest new home to mine (80 Purbrook grds)?
    ● What will be the proximity of the road to access the new homes to my property ?
    ● As the size of the gardens of the townhouses in Purbrook gardens are very small would there be an opportunity to purchase additional land to improve on this for the residents ?

    I have some other real concerns

    My first concern is one of access to the new homes

    Regards the use of the alleyway between my property (80) and that of (81).
    As I am led to believe the alleyway is private and for use of the residents to access there properties and “not” a public footpath.
    However it already acts as a public footpath for every Dog owner and rambler in the area who are too lazy to use the public footpath access on the London road. (most are considerate)
    However I have had a number of near misses with people on push bikes, mini motos’s and dog owners letting dogs off leads to run though the alleyway as we exit our property (I have a 2 yr old and 3 yr old so its a real worry that they could be hit my a push bike )
    We have also had lots of Damage to the fencing over the years by people learning over the fence into our property and bikes scraping down it etc
    The alleyway is a narrow space that echo’s noise between the two buildings and both my property and (81) front door open onto it.
    My concern is that it will be use in the same way by all the new residents of the development as it will certainly be the shortest route to the shops etc for any home built to the rear of Purbrook Gardens and hence the problems we currently have will just get worse..

    My other concerns are of Health and safety

    Its obvious form the plans that we will be living right on top a building site when works starts and hence have to noise and other pollutants and have real concerns living so close to a building site with young children and want to know how you intend protecting the site for access by inquisitive children etc.

    The other is in relation to the Gas plant near to Purbrook Gardens.Has the proximity of the new houses to the gas plant been looked into and are there any health and safety report’s available ?

    I look forward to receiving your reply

    Mr L.Cole

  5. I. Completely agree with Darren Platt.

  6. I do believe all of the ideas you’ve introduced to your post. They’re very convincing and can certainly work. Still, the posts are too quick for novices. May just you please lengthen them a little from subsequent time? Thanks for the post.

  7. Hi,
    Are there any site plans online for the Dukes Meadow / Wellington Park part of the development? I’d like to know what, if anything, is planned for the area west and south of the estate, between Auger Row, Closewood Road and Newlands Lane (ie where the pylons and ponds are).

    • Pete, apologies for not responding sooner, I used to get notified of appends and will rectify this.
      The area you have mentioned is known as the Western Open Space, it will be landscaped out and create a natural area for dog walking etc linking up with the similar open space and Country Park on the Grainger site to the South. The area nearest the Hambledon Road will be contoured and grassed to provide an informal kick about space. There will be no residential build as it’s not permitted to build so close to the pylons, but there is outline approval for a care home West of Harrow Way and employment land beyond that.

      • Thanks for the reply! Would the employment land be kept east of the pylons, or could it go underneath or west of them?

  8. Mike emmerson

    Is it true there is a mosque to be built on these sites and is it true that Birmingham city council are to purchase a large number of these homes.

    • Mike, no approach has been made by any faith group to have a building on site. Neither am I aware of any approach by any other Local Authority to purchase any residential buildings on site.

      So, neither of these statements are true.

  9. Auger Row Resident


    Could you tell me where I can find a copy of the the Western Open Space drawings that I believe were circulated to members after a Winchester council meeting in March (refer to section five of and advise of timescales to implement such drawings?

    Many thanks.

  10. Dukes Meadow Resident

    I would have no problem with a mosque, church or any other religious building on the site. I would happily welcome residents from Birmingham or anywhere else in the country too.

  11. Waterlooville Resident

    I have also heard this rumour flying around local pubs and friends. Where did this story come from? Some sources have heard it directly from builders working on the site. I don’t think it is just a rumour. Tensions are extremely high at the moment and if these rumours are true there will be huge protests I am sure.

    If they are true, ask yourself a question, would most average working class families want to move into an area that has a purpose built, imposing mosque? Even if it is a proportion of the housing used as council for Birmingham, Muslim families, this is just how it starts everywhere. There will be no integration and within a few short years the whole estate will be Muslim. It will also go the way many other towns and cities are going, once it is taken over it will be a no go zones for non-Muslims.

    I therefore am firm in my opinion that yes all faiths and races are welcome but there has to be the strictest of rules on integration. There has to be effort made on both sides but the local council need to make much bigger efforts to make this happen. For the sake of the Waterlooville community, it would be an absolute disaster if this area became largely Muslim.

    Any plan for such a big impact on a local community has to be out there in the public domain to allow the community of Waterlooville to have their say and express how they feel. If it is as I suspect, being kept quiet until it is too late, there will be huge up roar in this area.

  12. Dukes Meadow Resident

    I suspect this story comes from sheer ignorance. I myself am not Muslim and as far as I can see there is not one justified or reasonable reason for anybody to start such ill informed and bordering on hysterical behaviour.

    So if a large imposing church was to be built would you be calling for the council to integrate the Christians or Catholics into the area and be imposing strict rules on integration? Would the average person not move there if there was a church or synagogue in the area? I can assure you the majority of vandalism, theft and anti social behaviour on this estate hasn’t been carried out by Muslims but charming local residents who appear to display no concept of respect whatsoever, neither for where they live or those around them. They certainly aren’t interested in integration.

    Maybe before you entertain pub chat and gossip as fact you could perhaps look at actual statistics on the ethnic and religious population in this area and in Hampshire as a whole. Maybe look at the crime statistics while your at it. Even IF a small percentage of other faiths and races moved into this area it would still be minute in comparrasion to the majority. To say otherwise and compare it to no go areas in Birmigmham sounds even more ridiculous than it is to type it.

  13. Mike emmerson

    My original post was a question,nothing more,nothing sinister and certainly not connected to any group.i asked the question to put right a number of people who had told me the rumour in the first place.i have coloured family who I love and respect, so to suggest that am connected to the edl or any one else is please do not try and make it something it is not!

    • Dukes Meadow Resident

      @Mike, my response was directed at the Waterlooville Resident’s comment as opposed to your own, apologies if it came across otherwise.
      If, as is the case, it’s a builder on the site who apparently thought it funny to start a joke about the mosque, maybe the said builder/builders should concentrate on the quality of their workmanship and spend less time fueling intolerance.


    Quick question, could anyone please provide information on the current flooding of the copse to the rear of Purbrook Gardens?
    With the school holidays I am concerned as to the safety of young children.

  15. Chris, outcome of what specifically please? Jacky

  16. My elderly parents are so stirred up by rumours of a mosque that they are planning to sell up.this is extremely distressing for them. While they harbour no ill will towards any ethnic groups it is east to see that tensions are developing in the U.K. And there will be trouble

    • Shane, apologies for delay in response. I re-iterate:, we have had no application for ANY faith buildings on any part of the MDA, so this is an annoying rumour which both I and the Community Worker have tried to dispel previously. Thanks

  17. The council never told the new residents of Wellington Park about the rubbish tip going in there but it appeared out of the blue, how would they feel if they had just purchased an apparently luxury 4/5 bed home only to find a rubbish tip appear with all the accompanying traffic on their doorstep.Affordable homes were supposed to take up 17% of Wellington Park but that percentage has risen considerably. Integration of problem families does not work, It drove us out of the estate, one family were even keeping a horse in their back garden.

  18. Pingback: Update for Residents | West of Waterlooville

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s