CONCERNS have been raised over plans to build 1,200 new homes in Fareham.

The scheme, which also includes an 80 bed care home, a primary school and a community centre, is proposing to build on land south of Longfield Avenue.

In the plans, by Hallam Land Management Ltd, vehicle access with paths and cycles routes would be created onto Longfield Avenue and Peak Lane.

Stubbington ward councillor Carolyn Heneghan has spoken out against the plans.

She said: “I am against any development on that site and I have been for the past five years.

“It is a very strategic piece of land and it is my personal opinion that Londoners are finding it too expensive to live in London and Fareham railway station is within a very short distance. It would be very convenient for people living in London to buy property on that land and commute.

The plans also include a community centre and health care facility.

Cllr Heneghan added: “They talk about healthcare facility but what do they mean?

“The residents in Stubbington are very upset that you cannot very easily get an appointment. Nationwide we don’t have enough doctors. If they wanted to build a health centre -where are they going to get the doctors from?”

“Building a primary school is not cheap so it is my thought that they would offer Hampshire County Council the money.

“Hampshire County Council are closing libraries so I can’t think they have the money to built yet another primary school.”

Many residents have raised concerns over destroying the green belt between Stubbington and Fareham.

Susan Allison said: “These plans will totally wreck the amazing space and beauty of the long-term buffer between Fareham and Stubbington which provides a habitat for many wild animals.”

Plans for the area were first submitted in 2014.

Resident Anthony Read said: “I am starting to get frustrated that theses pans keep getting resubmitted with a few minor changes again and again.”

A decision on the plan is set to be made by November 18.

The Daily Echo contacted Hallam Land Management but the firm did not respond to request for comment before the paper went to print.