Back to list

Date submitted

1 August 2026

Submitted by

Interested party

It is ironic that I should be submitting my objection to 2026/0000005/CROWN, Haslar IRC, Gosport, the day after the Government's announcement of its Devolution Blueprint for Britain, in which it has sought to set out its desire to devolve decision making to a local level on the basis that Britain is considered to be "over-centralised". That the Home Office is seeking to bypass the local planning authority, whilst at the same time publicly boasting that the Government is handing back powers to local communities, is an act of blatant hypocrisy that has not escaped the notice of the local community. I have a number of reasons for wishing to oppose this application, many of which will, no doubt, appear in other representations. But I want to highlight just two. I intend to demonstrate why I believe this application is contrary to Gosport Borough Council's adopted Local Plan; its emerging Local Plan; and also the National Planning Policy Framework. Before I go into detail, I would point out the anomaly in the process of responding in this particular case. The website signposts readers to the background documents where, it says, details of the application can be found. But many of the background papers are heavily redacted. This, I would contend, is not compatible with a genuine consultation. Policy LP3 of the GBCLP and Policy D2 of the emerging GBCLP 2042 address strategic matters. Rather than go into detail, suffice to say, they cover the Council's long-held position with regard to the regeneration of the Haslar Peninsular at which the proposed development site lies at the heart. The sites on the Haslar Peninsular include Blockhouse, the former Haslar Hospital, as well as the proposed development site. The historical and architectural relationship of these sites is complex, interwoven and interdependent. The introduction of a substantial development at odds with the overall strategy would undermine the entire strategy. One only has to read policies RA3 to RA7 of the emerging Plan to appreciate the devastating and destabilising impact the proposed development would have on the entire peninsular. Furthermore, paragraphs 20 to 23 of the NPPF give local authorities a very clear steer as to the importance of strategic policies. Paragraph 20 says, "Strategic policies should set out an overall strategy for the pattern, scale and design quality of places". This is precisely what both the current and emerging Local Plans do, and this development proposal drives a coach and horses through it. The proposed development can in no way, shape or form be described (in the context of a Local Plan) as "strategic". It is opportunist, expedient and incompatible with both guidance and with the Local Plan. Were the proposed development to be approved, it would have the very likely effect of rendering the entire strategy defunct. The implications for economic regeneration and housing in this vital part of Gosport could be catastrophic and irreparable. I, therefore, submit that the proposal is contrary to Policy LP3 of the GBCLP; Policy D2 of the emerging GBCLP 20242; and guidance within with paragraphs 20 to 23 of the NPPF. The other principal point I would like to make relates to heritage. The proposal is for utilitarian buildings with no architectural merit to be sited adjacent to a Conservation Area. At the time the current GBCLP was published, Haslar Barracks was not a designated Conservation Area. I would, therefore, wish to refer to the emerging GBCLP 2042 and, in particular, Policies DE4 to DE6. The Conservation Area status document relating to Haslar Barracks describes it as "a site of national historic significance", and "the only significant regimental infantry barracks complex relating to the threat of invasion stemming from Napoleon's development of the camp at Boulogne". The barracks' development at a period between the breakdown of the Peace of Amiens and the Battle of Trafalgar means it is a site of exceptional historical value. Policy DE4 refers to the "setting" of any heritage asset; and Policy DE5 refers to the "setting" of a Conservation Area. This is reflected in NPPF guidance, which describes "buildings of local historic value", and heritage assets more generally, as an "irreplaceable resource". Paragraph 207 of the NPPF says, "In determining applications, local planning authorities should require an applicant to describe the significance of any heritage assets affected, including any contribution made by their setting." So, Policies DE4 and DE5 are consistent with the NPPF guidance. The question in respect of this application is whether three-storey buildings of utilitarian design and with no architectural merit should be permitted to be built within close proximity to a Conservation Area containing (largely) single-storey buildings of national historical significance. That, of course, is quite apart from the questions of whether it is acceptable to remove the right to make the decision from the local planning authority; or whether details of these buildings and their appearance should be withheld from the public by means of redacting drawings within the application papers. Whilst I would accept that the scale and appearance of the proposed buildings are reserved matters, I contend that it is vital to make these points at this stage of the process. For the reasons I have set out, I object to the Crown Development Application 2026/0000005/CROWN.