Why It Makes No Sense
The facts behind East Hampshire’s plan and why our countryside doesn’t need to be sacrificed.
Better Options Already Exist
East Hampshire doesn’t need to sacrifice its countryside to meet housing targets.
Developing existing sites near towns, cities, and transport links would deliver the same number of homes without destroying rural Hampshire.
A New Local Authority Is Coming
Between 2026 and 2028, East Hampshire District Council will be replaced by a new Unitary Authority combining five district councils and part of Hampshire County Council.
The main purpose of this change is to allow more strategic housing planning — placing new homes closer to jobs, roads, and rail, rather than scattered across open countryside.
The council’s own figures show the new authority would have 6.48 years of predesignated housing land, compared with East Hampshire’s 2.7 years. That means there is no pressure to rush through unsuitable developments now.
An Unfair Burden on One Area
Currently, 90% of East Hampshire’s new housing is being built on just 30% of the district’s land — because the remaining 70% sits within the South Downs National Park, where development is restricted.
The result is an unbalanced plan that places almost all growth in a small area of countryside between Farnham and Alresford — an area already struggling to cope with recent expansion.
Ignored Public Opinion
Despite widespread objections from residents, parish councils, and environmental groups, East Hampshire officials continue to press ahead with this plan without full public consultation.
If passed, it would tie the area to 20 years of unsuitable, infrastructure-poor development — a decision made just before local government reorganisation could bring a fairer, more sustainable approach.
The Sensible Alternative
Use brownfield land first
Locate new housing near major towns and transport routes
Protect open countryside and heritage landscapes
Plan strategically under the new authority, not through short-term local targets