Councillor Warns Garden Village Approval Could Spur 10,000 New Homes

Concerns Over Housing Expansion Near a Small Village

A local council member has raised concerns about the proposed development of thousands of homes near a small village, warning that it could lead to an even larger number of housing projects in the future. The debate took place during a three-hour meeting of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council’s Environment and Infrastructure Committee on Thursday, September 4, starting at 6:30 pm. The discussion centered around elements of the newly released draft local plan, which includes ambitious housing targets for the area.

The draft plan proposes the creation of a "garden community" with at least 2,500 houses in Upper Swallick, along with a total of 4,500 homes across Basingstoke over the next 15 years. This proposal has sparked strong opposition from residents in nearby villages such as Cliddesden, Ellisfield, Winslade, Old Basing, and Lychpitt. Hundreds of people gathered in protest ahead of the meeting, expressing their concerns about the potential impact on the local environment and community.

Councillor's Warnings About Future Developments

Councillor Andrew McCormick voiced his concerns during the meeting, suggesting that allowing this development could open the floodgates for even more housing projects. He stated, "Frankly, I don't believe that it will just be two and a half thousand houses in the next planning period. I think once we start building there, we'll open the floodgates."

McCormick warned that the project could lead to as many as 10,000 houses being built south of the M3, creating significant transportation challenges. He pointed out that the A339 is already congested during peak hours, and alternative routes like Woods Lane would be overwhelmed. He also expressed disappointment that Upper Swallick was included in the plan when other options were available, particularly in areas like Witchurch.

Several planning applications for the site at Upper Swallick have been rejected in the past due to environmental and logistical concerns.

Questions About Alternative Sites

Councillor Kate Tuck, representing the Basing and Upton Grey ward, questioned why another site near Hatch Warren, which had previously been considered, wasn't being used for the new housing developments. She explained that the site south of Hatch Warren had been rejected in the past due to its impact on the countryside, neighboring villages, and agricultural land. However, she argued that Upper Swallick scores worse on these criteria and could cause more damage to the village setting and landscape.

A council officer responded that the Hatch Warren site is smaller and would yield significantly fewer homes. She also noted that it would be heavily affected by noise from the M3. In contrast, a garden village in Upper Swallick would be more self-sustainable.

Government Changes Impact the Local Plan

Dr. Paul Harvey, the leader of BDBC, explained the changes to the local plan. He mentioned that the previous administration had created a plan with widespread public support, but the arrival of the new government disrupted this effort. The government increased the housing target by over 40%, forcing the council to reset its planning process.

Cllr Andy Konieczko, the Cabinet Member for Strategic Planning and Infrastructure, added that changes to the National Planning Policy Framework required the council to plan for significantly more new houses. The target has increased from 850 to approximately 1,150 new homes per year. More land is also needed for employment uses and supporting infrastructure.

Ongoing Process and Community Input

Konieczko acknowledged that getting the Local Plan back on track has involved making tough decisions, including allocating sites that were previously resisted. He emphasized that the draft Local Plan is still in its early stages and that the council plans to consult on draft proposals later in the year through a Regulation 18 consultation. This will allow everyone to provide feedback at an early stage, ensuring transparency and community involvement in the decision-making process.