Damian released the following statement today:
Damian Hinds, MP for East Hampshire, has warned of the possible consequences for East Hampshire of the new draft National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), which could mean much higher density housing developments in some rural locations.
The proposals come on top of the government’s decision in December 2024 to nearly double the housing target for East Hampshire, while at the same time reducing numbers in some urban areas, including parts of Birmingham and London.
The consultation on the National Planning Policy Framework includes proposals that could increase housing density in areas within ‘reasonable walking distance’ of railway stations. Walking distance isn’t defined, but ministers have previously suggested it could mean 800 metres (about half-a-mile). There would be a ‘default yes’ for housing and mixed-use development applications inside this radius.
Ministers are proposing housing densities of 40+ homes per hectare in the 800m zone. This is significantly higher than typical historic planning applications across East Hampshire.
The proposals would require an even higher density, for stations considered ‘well-connected’ – meaning located in one of the top 60 Travel to Work Areas (TTWAs) in England and with at least two trains an hour in either direction on a normal weekday. Then it would be a minimum 50 dwellings per hectare.
Although the draft doesn’t say explicitly which places are in these areas, separate government documents suggest all East Hampshire stations count as being in the TTWAs for Portsmouth, Basingstoke, or Guildford & Aldershot – all of which rank in the top 60 areas.
The criterion on trains per hour is somewhat uncertain: footnote 26 in the consultation document suggests it could be not just stations which do have two trains either way per hour, but also include stations that “have a reasonable prospect of being served” at this frequency.
The proposals would impact planning applications for market towns such as Alton, with higher density schemes being brought forward. But the biggest impacts could be on smaller settlements like Bentley or Rowlands Castle: the housing densities being considered are much higher than in these villages currently.
Damian Hinds said: “East Hampshire has already been required to take unreasonable and unrealistic increases in housing targets. These new proposals would be very damaging if put into action.
“In principle, it makes sense to site homes near stations – but you can’t take the same policy approach that may be right for sizeable towns and just apply it the same way in rural areas. Some of what is set out so far is also unclear and I am urgently seeking reassurances from ministers.
“East Hampshire is already facing overall targets which are way too high, and I strongly oppose inappropriate levels of housing density which would dramatically change the character of the area.”
Damian has written to the Housing Minister setting out his objections and seeking clarification about the proposals.
- Ends -
Notes to editors
· Damian’s full response to the consultation can be found here: Housing and planning | Damian Hinds
· The government’s NPPF consultation can be found here: National Planning Policy Framework: proposed reforms and other changes to the planning system - GOV.UK
· Map of Travel to Work Areas: https://open-geography-portalx-ons.hub.arcgis.com/documents/ons::travel-to-work-areas-december-2011-map-in-the-uk/explore
· It is assumed that national park designation would override the 800m ‘default yes’ zone, though this is not explicit in the consultation document. Both Rowlands Castle and Bentley stations are by the national park boundary
· The wording of the train service criterion footnote 26 is “in the normal weekday timetable, are served (or have a reasonable prospect of being served due to planned upgrades or through agreement with the rail operator) throughout the daytime by four trains or trams per hour overall, or two trains or trams per hour in any one direction”
