Embedded Files
SMASH Your local voice against inappropriate housing development.
LATEST HEADLINES from SMASH
This article was updated on the 26/05/2026
East Hampshire District Council latest news - News click here RSS feed
Neighbourhood plan survey
Your views are welcome and needed by the the Neighbourhood plan steering group.
Please fill in the online questionnaire. Use this link here Link to survey
What do you like?
What don't you like?
What could be better?
Please refer to the 'Declaration of the concerned' below if it helps.
Extract here full version below.
1. Landscape Harm and Impact on Rural Character
The scale and location of the development would significantly alter the rural landscape and undermine the character of South Medstead.
2. Unsustainable Transport Location
The site is not well served by sustainable transport options, increasing reliance on private vehicles.
3. Highway Capacity and Safety Issues
Existing roads, railway bridges and A31 junctions already experience congestion and safety concerns particularly at rush hour, which would be exacerbated by such a large development.
4. Infrastructure Constraints
Local schools, GP surgeries, utilities, and other services are already under pressure and lack the capacity to support substantial additional population growth.
5. Conflict with the Settlement Hierarchy
The scale of the proposal is inconsistent with the role and size of South Medstead within the district’s settlement hierarchy.
6. Prematurity Relative to the Emerging Local Plan
Determining such a large development ahead of the completion of the Local Plan risks undermining the proper strategic planning process.
7. Ecological and Environmental Constraints
The proposal raises concerns regarding environmental impact and the protection of local habitats and biodiversity.
8. Cumulative Impact of Development
When considered alongside ongoing and approved development for example Beechlands road (62), Land West of Longbourn Way (95), Boyneswood road (54) and 61 Lymington Bottom road (46), the cumulative effect of so many houses in close proximity using the same roads, lanes, infrastructure and services - would fundamentally change the scale and urbanise South Medstead.
9. Surface water Flooding
Lymington Bottom Road at Five Ash Pond, Grosvenor Road and at the Clementine green grocers regularly flood after heavy rain. Last year a car was abandoned at the Five Ash Pond due to flooding and on another occasion the road was closed.
Thank you
SMASH team
SMASH petition passes 5,000 signatures – election candidates back declaration against major Medstead housing proposal
Following the election last Thursday we now know that Antonia Cox was the winner. We congratulate her on her appointement to County Councillor and the other candidates that who participated.
This is where the hard work starts. We call on Antonia, David and Alexandra to help us fight the Cala/Bewley proposal.
SMASH will be in touch shortly.
Together we will excel
Thank you all
Team SMASH
Before
After
Open letter to EHDC Response
OPEN LETTER TO EHDC
Dear
Richard Millard Leader of EHDC, Dawn Adey Chief Executive of EHDC and Adam Harvey Chief Planning Officer of EHDC ,
Our petition opposing large-scale development in the villages of Medstead and Four Marks, launched in 2022, has now exceeded 5,000 signatures—representing around two-thirds of our combined population. This is not a marginal concern or a vocal minority; it is an overwhelming democratic mandate from the communities you serve. It is backed up by compelling authentic evidence from real concerned people - see Attachments above.
Despite this, our villages continue to face relentless development pressure. Since 2017, the southern part of Medstead or 'South Medstead' as the Council call it has seen 338 houses built, with a further 257 already approved in. This is a 140% increase in dwellings in this location. Now, Cala and Bewley are proposing an additional 850 homes around Lymington Bottom Road in 'South Medstead'. Taken together, this scale of expansion is not only disproportionate—it is unsustainable, unjustifiable, overwhelming and unsafe.
The public response has been unequivocal. At the recent developer consultation, the level of anger and frustration expressed by residents was unprecedented. People feel ignored, side lined, and increasingly distrustful of a planning process that appears to disregard both local voices and cumulative impact. Putting several development sites in close proximity to each other and treating them as 'individual' sites which don't interact together goes beyond the realms of common sense and is indefensible.
With the May elections upon us, SMASH has asked all candidates for the Alton Rural Ward to take a clear and public stand. Three have already endorsed our “Declaration of the Concerned.” see Attachment above.
Voters are paying close attention to where candidates—and current representatives—stand on this issue.
It is critical to recognise the political reality: support, or even passive acceptance of developments on this scale will be seen by residents as a direct failure to represent their interests.
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is explicit—where development would result in demonstrable harm, it should be refused. Given the volume of recent and approved housing, the impact on Medstead's village character, surface water flooding, utility capacity, strain on inadequate infrastructure, loss of green fields and wildlife and the strength of community opposition, that threshold has already been exceeded. This proposal would compound that harm significantly and exponentially.
We therefore call on you to take a clear and principled position: oppose this development and stand with the communities you serve.
Anything less will be interpreted as a disregard for the expressed will of the community.
I look forward to your response.
Yours sincerely,
SMASH + over 5,000 signatories
Steve Adams
Chair SMASH
CC's Cllr Nick Adams King was copied on this letter
Attachments
Follow this link to see these documents below
Declaration of the concerned
250+ comments from the petition website
Community questionnaire after the consultation (sent to Cala/Bewley)
Petition link click here
RESPONSE TO OPEN LETTER
Dear Steve,
Thank you for your email and for submitting the attached petition and supporting statement. The strength of local feeling you have described, and the concerns raised by residents of Medstead and Four Marks, are clearly articulated and understood.
At the outset, it may be helpful to clarify how the local planning authority is required to approach matters of this nature. Planning decisions must be made strictly in accordance with the statutory planning framework, having regard to the development plan and any other material planning considerations. Matters relating to party politics, elections, or the political positions of candidates are not material planning considerations and cannot lawfully be taken into account when determining planning applications. Doing so would risk prejudicing the decision‑making process.
That said, objections, representations and petitions are taken into account where they raise material planning issues. These include, for example, cumulative impact, landscape and settlement character, highways and transport, flood risk, infrastructure capacity, sustainability, and compliance with national and local planning policy. The weight given is determined by the planning merits of the issues raised, rather than the number of representations received.
Turning to the specific submission made, I should reiterate that no planning application has yet been submitted to the Council by Cala Homes, Bewley Homes or any other developer in relation to the proposal referenced. In the absence of a live application, the local planning authority is not able to formally consult on, or determine, representations relating to a specific scheme. For that reason, the submission of a petition opposing a particular development proposal is premature at this stage in planning terms.
When a planning application is submitted and validated, the Council will carry out a statutory public consultation. At that point, petitions and individual representations may be submitted through the Council’s planning consultation process, and any material planning considerations raised will be properly assessed and reported as part of the decision‑making process.
It is also important to note that petitions are not limited to planning applications alone. Opportunities will also arise to submit petitions and representations during forthcoming Local Plan consultations, where the principle, scale and distribution of growth – including settlement strategy and cumulative impacts – can be considered at a strategic level. Those consultations are an important mechanism for communities to influence the overall planning framework, rather than decisions on individual sites in advance of an adopted plan.
In addition, and more generally, I should note that the Council does not operate a standalone petitions scheme, and planning matters are typically excluded from debate at Council meetings because of the risk of prejudicing decisions that must be taken through the statutory planning process. While there are limited routes for submitting public questions or making public addresses to full Council under the Council’s standing orders, these are not substitutes for the formal planning consultation processes and do not influence the determination of individual planning proposals. Any such engagement must be handled carefully and cannot pre‑empt or override the consideration of planning matters through the Local Plan or development management processes.
In summary, while the Council acknowledges receipt of the petition and accompanying material, its formal consideration must occur at the appropriate stage of the planning process, either through consultation on a submitted planning application or through the Local Plan consultation process and must be confined to material planning considerations.
Thank you again for engaging with the planning system and for setting out your concerns in detail.
Kind regards,
Adam
Adam Harvey
Chief Planning Officer | T: 01730 234193 | M: 07341462872
Planning Services
The SMASH petition “Say NO to 1,300 houses in Medstead and Four Marks” has now surpassed 5,000 signatures — representing more than two-thirds of Four Marks and Medstead population.
Thank you to everyone who has signed and shared their views. The strength of this response sends a powerful message to decision-makers at EHDC and beyond: local residents are deeply concerned about the scale and pace of development proposed for our villages.
In Medstead alone, 257 homes have already been approved but not yet built, and the impact of these developments is still unknown. Many residents feel that our area has increasingly become a “dumping ground” for housing, without the corresponding investment in roads, healthcare, schools, drainage, and other vital infrastructure. A recipe for disaster.
As green fields and valuable farmland are lost, there is growing concern about the long-term impact on the character of our villages, our countryside, our wildlife and the sustainability of local services for future generations.
With local elections taking place on May 7th, the 'Alton Rural Ward' encompasses Medstead, Four Marks and surrounding villages, from Bentley to Ropley. Given the importance of these decisions, SMASH asked the current candidates for this ward to sign a “Declaration of the Concerned”, which commits to oppose the damaging proposal by Cala/Bewley to build 850 houses east and west of Lymington Bottom Road in Medstead.
Should this proposal come forward as a planning application, many residents fear it would effectively finish off 'South Medstead' as a village, as it would be totally urbanised with a dramatic increase in traffic on the local village roads. It would put pressure on services and utilities and finally it would concrete over the last of the green fields in this part of Medstead.
The declaration reflects the concerns of 5,033 residents who have signed the petition, as well as the many, many others who support our campaign to 'Keep Medstead Rural'.
We are pleased to confirm that the following candidates have endorsed the declaration, and we thank them for their support:
Antonia Cox
David Burton
Alexandra Ehrmann
For more information about our campaign and the declaration, please visit:
http://www.smashonline.co.uk
Thank you again to everyone who continues to support SMASH and stand up for Medstead, Four Marks and our surrounding countryside.
SMASH
Declaration of the Concerned
Regarding the Proposed 850-Home Development in South Medstead
South Medstead has been among the most heavily targeted areas for housing development in East Hampshire over the past nine years and continues to be so. During this period, over 338 houses have been constructed, and a further 257 houses have been granted planning permission within the last 18 months alone.
If all of these developments proceed, the total number of households in the south Medstead will rise to 945 , representing an increase of over 170%. In effect, South Medstead will have seen its population almost triple over this period, yet there has been no commensurate increase in infrastructure, services, or local employment opportunities to support such enormous growth.
While residents fully recognise the need for new housing, there comes a point where the scale of development exceeds what is reasonable for a rural settlement. At that stage, development begins to appear unplanned and disproportionate, rather than part of a balanced and sustainable strategy.
Given the scale of housing already delivered and approved locally, it is clear that South Medstead cannot fairly be characterised as opposing development. The community has already absorbed substantial growth.
However, residents and local elected representatives are increasingly concerned that this trajectory cannot continue indefinitely without serious consequences for the character, infrastructure, wildlife habitat, safety, and sustainability of the area. The SMASH ‘Say no to 1300 houses’ petition has reached over 5000 signatures showing the strength of concern locally.
The recent proposal by Cala Homes and Bewley Homes to build approximately 850 additional homes in South Medstead represents a scale of development that the community believes is wholly disproportionate and unsustainable.
For this reason, the undersigned have come together to formally express their concern and opposition.
This proposal should not proceed for the following reasons:
1. Landscape Harm and Impact on Rural Character
The scale and location of the development would significantly alter the rural landscape and undermine the character of South Medstead.
2. Unsustainable Transport Location
The site is not well served by sustainable transport options, increasing reliance on private vehicles.
3. Highway Capacity and Safety Issues
Existing roads, railway bridges and A31 junctions already experience congestion and safety concerns particularly at rush hour, which would be exacerbated by such a large development.
4. Infrastructure Constraints
Local schools, GP surgeries, utilities, and other services are already under pressure and lack the capacity to support substantial additional population growth.
5. Conflict with the Settlement Hierarchy
The scale of the proposal is inconsistent with the role and size of South Medstead within the district’s settlement hierarchy.
6. Prematurity Relative to the Emerging Local Plan
Determining such a large development ahead of the completion of the Local Plan risks undermining the proper strategic planning process.
7. Ecological and Environmental Constraints
The proposal raises concerns regarding environmental impact and the protection of local habitats and biodiversity.
8. Cumulative Impact of Development
When considered alongside ongoing and approved development for example Beechlands road (62), Land West of Longbourn Way (95), Boyneswood road (54) and 61 Lymington Bottom road (46), the cumulative effect of so many houses in close proximity using the same roads, lanes, infrastructure and services - would fundamentally change the scale and urbanise South Medstead.
9. Surface water Flooding
Lymington Bottom Road at Five Ash Pond, Grosvenor Road and at the Clementine green grocers regularly flood after heavy rain. Last year a car was abandoned at the Five Ash Pond due to flooding and on another occasion the road was closed.
For these reasons, we respectfully urge the planning authority to reject any such proposal and ensure that future development is proportionate, sustainable, and aligned with the long-term planning framework for East Hampshire.
From left to right Nick Adams-King, Sir Charles Cockburn, Steve Adams, Antonia Cox
Members of SMASH supported Saturday’s ‘Day of Action’ planned by the Community Planning Alliance Group. This countrywide initiative was organised to bring to the attention of government and local decision makers that hundreds of thousands of people love and treasure the countryside and green spaces and don’t want to see these special places built over by totally inappropriate developments. Once their gone they’re gone.
Medstead and Four Marks continue to be targeted by multiple developers who have no concern whatsoever about overdevelopment, our village character, wildlife, our rural location, or the thousands of additional vehicles which will gridlock our local roads.
This is why SMASH and F4FM are still fighting to save our villages from this total urbanisation. Please join us in this fight.
We would like to thank Sue Barnes for organising the local event, and everyone who attended, including Sir Charles Cockburn, Chair of A31 Alliance Group, all members of the public and the various political party representatives, including Antonia Cox, (Con), Matthew Kellerman and Andrew Oates (Reform) and Dominic Martin and Alexandra Erhmann (Lib Dems) along with our local District Councillor Roland Richardson.
Special thanks go to Nick Adams-King the Leader of Hampshire County Council who also attended and who was keen to understand our local issues concerning overdevelopment and to convey his passion in saving the countryside. He is also a Cllr for Romsey Rural and Test Valley Borough Council, where green spaces and countryside are also under threat.
Thank from the SMASH team.
Steve Adams Chair.
http://www.smashonline.co.uk for more information and please sign our petition https://c.org/4m5Ln9sqFP only 26 needed to reach 5000 signatures.
Chair SMASH
PS I understand there will be a further press release from CPA publlished Nationally and in the Alton Herald later
This is the picture we are sending the our PM Sir Keir Starmer with this letter
Subject: Hands off our nature, parks and green spaces
Dear Prime Minister
Before you came to power, and regularly since, you have said that you will not build on green spaces. Yet that is exactly what your Government is doing. Our green and pleasant land is at risk as never before. • You have imposed sky-high housing targets on rural areas while there are enough brownfield sites, empty homes & commercial buildings and unbuilt planning permissions to create over 3 million homes • You are asking the private sector to solve the housing crisis by building on green spaces, when it's social housing that's needed. • You have brought in a Planning & Infrastructure Act which allows developers to pay to destroy habitats and introduced the Fingleton reforms which further weaken environmental protections.
• You have introduced so-called ‘grey belt’ rules which are unleashing development on thousands acres of pristine countryside in the green belt.
• You are industrialising the countryside with pylons and solar panels, when solar should be on rooftops and cables should be underground or subsea.
• Our town and city centres are facing dereliction in the absence of strong financial and planning incentives for regeneration
• Urban parks and playing fields are being sold, rented out for big commercial events or left to dereliction and sold to speculators
• You have asked your departments and agencies to regulate for growth instead of for communities and the environment. And to top it off, you have blamed nature and communities, with an unpleasant and divisive rhetoric, for blocking development.
Your government is destroying the very nature and countryside that voters love and want to protect. This is why today, 18th April, well over 100 communities all over the country are organising events to show politicians how important their green spaces, parks and nature are.
Enough is enough.
Stop the attacks on nature, parks and green spaces.
Yours…
SMASH
Stand with Medstead Against Speculative Housing
(Local action group)
Medstead
Alton
Hampshire
Cala and Bewley have proposed 850 houses in South Medstead - Please help to stop this monstrosity
Medstead Parish Council - announcement
We are pleased that MPC have made a public statement concerining the Cala/Bewley illustative proposal.
Under the new housing targets the Parish of Medstead has been allocated a minimum of 467 dwellings to be built over the next 19 years. The shortfall is currently 200 dwellings as we already have 257 approved.
Adding 900 would:
a) be unnecessary,
b) 'unbalance' our community and rural character,
c) cause untoward disruption on roads. lanes and junctions to the A31 as over 2,000 additional vehicles would be added to our local roads.
The views of residents were captured at the consultation meetings held by the Developers and also in a subsequent survey carried out by SMASH see Useful documents 2026 .
The views of the residents overwhelmingly show very strong opposition to this huge urbanising development.
SMASH are putting together a report should an application be forthcoming. We have already requested that an Environmental Impact Assessment is needed. This is supported by MPC and FMPC.
Watch this website for more news.
SMASH team
Petition Update January 2026 227 needed!
PLEASE SIGN THE ORIGINAL PETITION https://c.org/4m5Ln9sqFP
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
Last chance to save our Village
850 new houses proposed in 'South Medstead' - SMASH STRONGLY OPPOSE this application
Cala and Bewley Homes have invited residents to two 'Consultation' meetings, one on Tuesday 13th January and the other on Wednesday 14th January at Four Marks and Medstead Village Halls respectively. They are proposing 2 huge speculative urban style housing estates, totalling 850 dwellings over approx.106 acres of the last remaining open green fields in the southern part of Medstead. This proposal is inappropriate/unsustainable/unfair/overwhelming.
These huge urban style housing estates (which are much more suited to towns and cities) will totally change the character of Medstead and our lovely rural village will be destroyed!
Background
Medstead and Four Marks is designated as a Tier 3 settlement by EHDC. This assignment recognises that the settlement has 'a more limited range of services....' but is suitable to accommodate 'modest development to meet local needs...' 850 on top of the 530 already approved (257 in Medstead, 273 in FM) is not modest it is mass overwhelming development.
In 2017 there were approx. 350 houses in ‘South Medstead’ (as EHDC planners like to call it!). Since then there have been approx. 340 more built with a further 257 given planning approval – that amounts to an approximate increase of 170% in the number of dwellings built or with approval here over 8/9 years, which is significantly more than any other village location in East Hampshire!
Furthermore, when you add on the current number of new dwellings already approved in Medstead & Four Marks (ca 530) then around 3,000 more vehicles will be added to the A31 and our local village roads. This number doesn't even include all the extra delivery/white vans that will also come as all these new residents do their on-line shopping! Even with the developer's promises of some unproven highway improvements, this huge increase in traffic will inevitably bring lots more congestion/queues, road safety issues & increased air pollution/green house gases, both adversely affecting peoples’ health & contrary to EHDC climate emergency goals. The Council acknowledges that M&FM are not sustainable locations, they are car dependent. There were several accidents that we know off on the A31 in FM over the last 18 months and then just before Christmas there was sadly a fatality on the A31 by the new roundabout where they are building 320 houses outside of Alresford.
What about the local wildlife – where will they go? A vast area of green habitat will be lost. Where will the deer, badgers, foxes, hedgehogs, bats, red kites, owls, buzzards, sparrowhawks, hazel dormice etc. live and forage? Certainly not in small gardens surrounded by high fences. Even when biodiversity improvements are promised by developers, often they never materialise. A recent research report by WILD JUSTICE (authored by university academics) found that of the new build housing estates they evaluated only 53% of the promised ecological enhancements were actually delivered.
Click on the link to see the report WILD JUSTICE
What about our local flooding issues? We all know about the regular flooding at Lymington Bottom Road by the pig farm, at Beechlands Road, at Grosvenor Road, outside Clementines at Lymington Barns. None of this has ever been improved by building more local houses! In fact, flooding has worsened at Lymington Barns since the Austin Fields estate was built above it. Who hasn't seen the accumulated surface water outside the fruit shop being pumped unlawfully onto the highway by the railway bridge after heavy rain?
If this development goes ahead then it means the end of 'South Medstead' as we know it. This development along with the others given permission last year i.e. Off Holland Drive (54), Beechlands Road (62) Longbourn Way (95), at 61 Lymington Bottom Road (46) will amount to a total of 1,100 new dwellings.
This will bring 10+ years of local building construction work. This means that, us the local residents, will have to endure a significant increase in construction traffic, noise and dust, to name but 3 issues.
What can you do?
Attend the 'consultation' sessions on the 13th and 14th January at the village halls (see poster opposite).
Word of Warning
Don't get 'sucked in' to the developers' 'promises' or perhaps their leading questions, e.g. 'Do you want more affordable housing? Of course, most people would say yes to this question. But beware, they often then 'spin' these responses to indicate residents are 'for' their proposal.
However, in the last 9 years, 130 affordable units have been built in 'South Medstead' alone and there are currently a further 70+ approved. We doubt the local need extends any further than these numbers. Affordable properties should be planned for where they are needed most and it's certainly not Medstead currently.
So don't forget, any positive comments you make may be used by the developers as support for their proposals. So please make sure that your objections are clear.
Leave your feedback and ensure it is recorded. Take a photo if you can and send it to us at SMASH.
Join the SMASH FB page at SMASH FB and keep up to date via this website.
Thank you once again for your help and support.
The SMASH Team
Please sign the petition Thank you
Last chance to save our Village
850 new houses proposed in 'South Medstead' - SMASH STRONGLY OPPOSE this application
Cala and Bewley Homes have invited residents to two 'Consultation' meetings, one on Tuesday 13th January and the other on Wednesday 14th January at Four Marks and Medstead Village Halls respectively. They are proposing 2 huge speculative urban style housing estates, totalling 850 dwellings over approx.106 acres of the last remaining open green fields in the southern part of Medstead. This proposal is inappropriate/unsustainable/unfair/overwhelming.
These huge urban style housing estates (which are much more suited to towns and cities) will totally change the character of Medstead and our lovely rural village will be destroyed!
Background
Medstead and Four Marks is designated as a Tier 3 settlement by EHDC. This assignment recognises that the settlement has 'a more limited range of services....' but is suitable to accommodate 'modest development to meet local needs...' 850 on top of the 530 already approved (257 in Medstead, 273 in FM) is not modest it is mass overwhelming development.
In 2017 there were approx. 350 houses in ‘South Medstead’ (as EHDC planners like to call it!). Since then there have been approx. 340 more built with a further 257 given planning approval – that amounts to an approximate increase of 170% in the number of dwellings built or with approval here over 8/9 years, which is significantly more than any other village location in East Hampshire!
Furthermore, when you add on the current number of new dwellings already approved in Medstead & Four Marks (ca 530) then around 3,000 more vehicles will be added to the A31 and our local village roads. This number doesn't even include all the extra delivery/white vans that will also come as all these new residents do their on-line shopping! Even with the developer's promises of some unproven highway improvements, this huge increase in traffic will inevitably bring lots more congestion/queues, road safety issues & increased air pollution/green house gases, both adversely affecting peoples’ health & contrary to EHDC climate emergency goals. The Council acknowledges that M&FM are not sustainable locations, they are car dependent. There were several accidents that we know off on the A31 in FM over the last 18 months and then just before Christmas there was sadly a fatality on the A31 by the new roundabout where they are building 320 houses outside of Alresford.
What about the local wildlife – where will they go? A vast area of green habitat will be lost. Where will the deer, badgers, foxes, hedgehogs, bats, red kites, owls, buzzards, sparrowhawks, hazel dormice etc. live and forage? Certainly not in small gardens surrounded by high fences. Even when biodiversity improvements are promised by developers, often they never materialise. A recent research report by WILD JUSTICE (authored by university academics) found that of the new build housing estates they evaluated only 53% of the promised ecological enhancements were actually delivered.
Click on the link to see the report WILD JUSTICE
What about our local flooding issues? We all know about the regular flooding at Lymington Bottom Road by the pig farm, at Beechlands Road, at Grosvenor Road, outside Clementines at Lymington Barns. None of this has ever been improved by building more local houses! In fact, flooding has worsened at Lymington Barns since the Austin Fields estate was built above it. Who hasn't seen the accumulated surface water outside the fruit shop being pumped unlawfully onto the highway by the railway bridge after heavy rain?
If this development goes ahead then it means the end of 'South Medstead' as we know it. This development along with the others given permission last year i.e. Off Holland Drive (54), Beechlands Road (62) Longbourn Way (95), at 61 Lymington Bottom Road (46) will amount to a total of 1,100 new dwellings.
This will bring 10+ years of local building construction work. This means that, us the local residents, will have to endure a significant increase in construction traffic, noise and dust, to name but 3 issues.
What can you do?
Attend the 'consultation' sessions on the 13th and 14th January at the village halls (see poster opposite).
Word of Warning
Don't get 'sucked in' to the developers' 'promises' or perhaps their leading questions, e.g. 'Do you want more affordable housing? Of course, most people would say yes to this question. But beware, they often then 'spin' these responses to indicate residents are 'for' their proposal.
However, in the last 9 years, 130 affordable units have been built in 'South Medstead' alone and there are currently a further 70+ approved. We doubt the local need extends any further than these numbers. Affordable properties should be planned for where they are needed most and it's certainly not Medstead currently.
So don't forget, any positive comments you make may be used by the developers as support for their proposals. So please make sure that your objections are clear.
Leave your feedback and ensure it is recorded. Take a photo if you can and send it to us at SMASH.
Join the SMASH FB page at SMASH FB and keep up to date via this website.
Thank you once again for your help and support.
The SMASH Team
Please sign the petition Thank you
Google Sites
Report abuse