1.      Introduction

It feels like we have come full circle.

When this petition first began, we were fighting a proposal for 1,200 houses in Medstead and Four Marks. That was four years ago. Since then, we have endured a change of government, several revisions of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), and now we face yet another upheaval as EHDC is subsumed into a new Unitary Authority.

But through all the noise and political churn, one truth has not changed:

We still need the right homes, in the right places and at the right price, supported by the right infrastructure—so that East Hampshire remains a great place to live, work, and raise the next generation.

Instead, it often feels like the opposite is happening, policies shift, structures change, and yet communities like ours are expected to absorb growth on a scale and speed that no reasonable person would call “modest” or “sustainable”.

The reality on the ground: Medstead is a village and this is not “modest development”

Since 2017, there were approximately 350 homes in what EHDC calls “South Medstead”. Since then another 340 homes have been built, and a further 257 have received planning approval.
That is 597 dwellings built and/or approved—an increase of roughly 170% in the last 8–9 years. This is far in excess of ANY other village location in East Hampshire.

"South Medstead” and Four Marks are designated as a Tier 3 settlement: a place with a “more limited range of services”, suitable for “modest development to meet local needs.”

So, let’s be clear. Adding 850 more houses on top of the 530 already approved (257 in Medstead, 273 in Four Marks) is not modest development. It is not proportional. It is not fair. It is not locally led and it's certainly not sustainable. It is simply mass, overwhelming, overdevelopment in rural villages.

No wonder residents increasingly say:
“Medstead and Four Marks has become a dumping ground for new development—while infrastructure stands still.” and

"Why are our lovely villages being "planned" by large housing developers, all simply for profit?"

And the data backs them up.

2.      Evidence of infrastructure stress

A range of local evidence shows infrastructure is already strained—often to breaking point:

Highways

The A31/Lymington Bottom Road, A31/Boyneswood Road, and A31/Telegraph Lane junctions regularly operate at or above capacity in peak hours. Developers’ own transport assessments repeatedly model junctions close to “severe” thresholds—precisely the kind of cumulative impact test the NPPF recognises as grounds for refusal (NPPF para 111).

Flooding and drainage

The entire Lymington Bottom/Lymington Bottom Road corridor is an ancient river channel and frequently “comes to life” after heavy rain. Regular serious flooding occurs at Four Marks School and at the Lymington Bottom Road/Five Ash Road junction and Grosvenor Road in Medstead —making school crossing hazardous and at times rendering Lymington Bottom Road and Grosvenor Road impassable, both for pedestrians and vehicles.

Utilities

Residents report repeated water pressure failures, sewer surcharging/discharge impacting the River Wey chalk stream at Alton/Holybourne, and electrical outages—issues acknowledged in correspondence from water providers in connection with recent planning applications.

Urbanisation and loss of village character

Back-garden and infill developments of dense, red-brick estates are completely changing the character of “South Medstead” beyond recognition— as field after field is built over, and wildlife habitat is lost, whilst damaging the very social cohesion that makes village life work. Over time it becomes an unacceptable dormitory community as so many new residents work outside the village as there is little local employment.

3.      The cumulative harm is obvious—even if the spreadsheets pretend otherwise

In the last couple of years alone, Medstead has seen several developments approved within a stone’s throw of each other, including:

Boyneswood Road (54)
Beechlands Road (62)
Longbourn Way (95)
61 Lymington Bottom Road (46)

All these developments funnel traffic onto the same constrained network—west to Winchester, east to Farnham, or north via Medstead village to Basingstoke, which is effectively a single lane through Medstead village High Street due to permanently parked cars.

All vehicles heading to the A31 are forced through pinch points:

• the single-lane road tunnel on Lymington Bottom Road, or
• the single-lane chicane over the railway bridge on Boyneswood Road. We've already heard of road rage incidents at this location with the current level of traffic.

Common sense tells us what will happen when hundreds more homes are added into a small area feeding into the same bottlenecks: cumulative harm.

Yet too often, traffic modelling and desk-based assessments appear to contradict lived reality.

And when local knowledge is dismissed, consequences often follow. When EHDC ignored local warnings about flooding in the village of Farringdon, the result was disastrous, the newly built houses had to be demolished due to ‘flooding’.

It should be a lesson: ignoring residents is not just disrespectful—it can be a risky decision-making strategy.

4.      Planning policy is clear: housing numbers do not override sustainability

Even where housing land supply pressures exist, the NPPF does not require councils to approve development that is plainly unsustainable:

• NPPF para 11(d)(ii): permission can and should be refused where adverse impacts significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. Given the cumulative consequences outlined above, this threshold is met for many proposals in Medstead and Four Marks.
• NPPF paras 110–111: development must be safe and must not create unacceptable impacts on highway safety or severe cumulative impacts on the road network.
• Decision-makers are required—through planning practice guidance and established case law—to assess the cumulative impact of committed development, not pretend each application exists in isolation.
• “Boosting housing supply” is not a blank cheque. Inspectors have repeatedly dismissed schemes in rural contexts where infrastructure capacity, settlement hierarchy, and cumulative harm are not credibly addressed.

5.      Call to action: this is the moment to show up

Cala and Bewley are proposing 850 new houses either side of Lymington Bottom Road, Medstead.

For the reasons above, this proposal should be rejected—at Planning Committee and if necessary, at appeal.

But I must be honest, based on past decisions, rejection is not guaranteed unless residents make their voices impossible to ignore.

So, I urge you to attend the forthcoming “consultation” meetings and make your views known:

Tuesday 13 January – Four Marks Village Hall, 2pm – 6pm
Wednesday 14 January – Medstead Village Hall,  2pm – 7:30pm

ATTENDANCE IS IMPORTANT 

THIS COULD BE OUR LAST CHANCE TO SAVE OUR VILLAGE

Further details and useful information are on the SMASH website: http://www.smashonline.co.uk  

Please strongly object to this proposal. Please don’t be taken in by the developer’s "vision of utopia". This is the developer’s ploy to make the reality of a huge urban style red brick housing estate in a village location more palatable.

Thank you for your support throughout 2025, and I wish you a healthy and joyful 2026.

I will leave you with my poem written at the beginning of this journey - which I hope will not prove prophetic:

I used to live in a village
I would like you all to know
I used to live in a village
Not so long ago

I used to live in a village
Where farmers farmed their land
I used to live in a village
Now they take cash in hand

I used to live in a village
With countryside where I grew
I used to live in a village
Now houses obscure my view

I used to live in a village
Where wildlife used to live
I used to live in a village
Will future generations forgive?

I used to live in the village
We need to ask ourselves why?
I used to live in a village
We let our village die!

Happy New Year,

Steve
Chair, SMASH