Murrell Green: Know the Impact
An evidence-led community awareness campaign
Murrell Green: Know the Impact
Murrell Green is not simply a housing estate. It is a proposed new settlement whose effects could be felt across Hook, Winchfield, Hartley Wintney, Phoenix Green, Odiham and the wider road, health, education and utility networks.
The application is now live
Read it. Question it. Respond by 13 August.
Hart District Council has registered application 26/01201/OUT. The consultation closes on Thursday 13 August 2026. Online comments require registration or login, and anonymous representations cannot be taken into account.
Before submitting: Hart states that names and addresses are published, while telephone numbers, email addresses and signatures are withheld. Keep a copy of your representation and confirmation.
Our position
Not against homes. For proper planning.
The proposal contains potential benefits: affordable homes, an all-through school, local facilities, open space, sports provision and habitat improvements. Those benefits are meaningful only if they are funded, delivered at the right time and legally secured.
The question is not simply what is shown on the masterplan. The question is what will actually be delivered, by whom, when, and before how many homes have already been occupied.
A resident’s route through the application
Four questions that make the detail easier to judge
Can local infrastructure cope?
Look beyond one junction or service at a time. Consider whole journeys and the combined pressure on roads, schools, healthcare, water, drainage and utilities.
Will facilities arrive before the homes?
A promise on a plan is not enough. The important questions are who pays, who builds, the occupation trigger and what happens if delivery is late.
What protection is permanent?
Landscape, ecology, settlement separation and heritage safeguards need long-term ownership, management, monitoring and enforceable protection.
Who is accountable?
Residents should be able to distinguish what is merely described from what is funded, legally secured, monitored and ultimately delivered.
The seven public-interest tests
A detailed framework for a complex application
The four resident questions above are expanded here into seven tests used throughout the evidence base.
Infrastructure
Can roads, schools, healthcare, water, sewerage, electricity, telecoms and emergency services accommodate the development?
Delivery
Will infrastructure arrive before it is needed, or only after hundreds or thousands of homes are occupied?
Protection
What permanent safeguards will prevent settlement coalescence and protect landscape, ecology and heritage?
Movement
Will sustainable travel measures genuinely reduce car dependency, and what happens if the assumptions are not achieved?
Accountability
Which promises are legally secured, and what remedies apply if delivery is delayed or viability is later challenged?
Evidence
Are the applicant’s assumptions complete, current, transparent and independently tested?
Legacy
Who owns, maintains and funds the infrastructure, green space and mitigation for decades after the developer leaves?
What could change
The issues residents experience in everyday life
Traffic and movement
Your journey is a chain of junctions. How do individual modelled delays combine across the wider network?
Schools and healthcare
What must be operational before the first, 500th and 1,000th homes are occupied?
Utilities and drainage
Connection possible is not capacity confirmed. Who funds upgrades and who maintains the systems?
Landscape and settlement separation
Open space on a plan is not automatically permanent separation.
Ecology and biodiversity
A 10.2% habitat gain is claimed. What is the contingency if delivery falls short?
Construction and phasing
Fifteen years is a generation, not a temporary inconvenience.
Affordable housing
A major potential benefit — if percentage, tenure, distribution and timing are firmly secured.
Section 106 and accountability
What is promised, what is funded, what is legally secured and what arrives first?
Show us the deal
Promised. Funded. Secured. Delivered.
A masterplan illustration is not a delivery agreement. This tracker records the actual status of infrastructure and public benefits.
Open the public promises and delivery tracker
Promise, funding, security and delivery tracker
This tracker should be maintained as a live public document. “Promised” means described in application material. “Funded” means a costed and identified funding route. “Secured” means contained in a condition or completed legal obligation. “Delivered” means operational and available to users.
| Item | Promised | Funded | Secured | Delivered | Priority action |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 40% affordable housing | Yes | Draft Heads of Terms (“HoT”) | Draft HoT | Not applicable | Confirm denominator, tenure, distribution, phasing and viability review. |
| Primary school land/provision | Yes | Contributions proposed | Land/proportionate contribution in draft | Unknown | Secure land transfer, build responsibility and opening trigger. |
| Secondary school land/provision | Yes | Contributions proposed | Land/proportionate contribution in draft | Unknown | Separate trigger and interim secondary capacity. |
| Primary healthcare capacity | Yes | Contribution to be agreed | Draft only | Unknown | Identify provider, scheme, calculation, indexation and delivery outcome. |
| Bus service / sustainable transport | Potential/proposed | To confirm | To confirm | Unknown | Operator, route, frequency, subsidy duration, triggers and fallback. |
| Highway works and accesses | Yes | Applicant / obligations | Access sought now; wider works to agree | Unknown | Publish full junction and corridor schedule, triggers and road-safety audit. |
| Utilities reinforcement | Need identified | Provider/developer to confirm | Not yet clear | Unknown | Obtain capacity letters and no-occupation-before-capacity controls. |
| SANG | Yes; required mitigation | Applicant / management funding | To be secured | Unknown | Area, opening trigger, ownership, capacity and perpetual management. |
| BNG | 10.2% habitat; 16.2% hedge; 19.9% watercourse claimed | Applicant | Draft HoT / biodiversity plan | Unknown | Contingency, monitoring, 30-year management and remedial action. |
| Sports pitches/pavilion | Yes | To confirm | Details reserved | Unknown | Type, public access, delivery trigger, operator and maintenance. |
| Local centres/employment | Yes | Market delivery | Phasing controls to agree | Unknown | Minimum floorspace, delivery triggers and anti-stalling provisions. |
| Open space/play | Yes | To confirm | To be secured | Unknown | Phasing, adoption, management company and public access. |
| SuDS/drainage | Yes | Applicant / long-term body | Conditions/obligations expected | Unknown | Phased independence, adoption, inspection and failure remedy. |
| Potbridge Brook restoration | Yes | To confirm | To be secured | Unknown | Delivery phase, ecological targets and maintenance. |
| Community facilities | Yes | To confirm | Phasing controls to agree | Unknown | Define actual uses, floorspace and earliest delivery. |
| Library contribution | Yes | Contribution to agree | Draft only | Unknown | Value, indexation and service purpose. |
The public tests
What must be complete before each stage of occupation?
For example: what must be complete before the 100th, 500th, 1,000th, 1,500th and final home can be occupied?
100th home500th home1,000th home1,500th homeFinal home
Open the detailed commitments register
| Commitment | Promised | Funded | Secured | Delivered | Trigger / date |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DELIVERY TRACKER | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | To be confirmed |
Open the full evidence workstreams
Appendix B: detailed evidence workstream templates
Completed from the application documents. These are working evidence records, not final planning conclusions. Each entry should be updated when Hart, statutory consultees, the applicant or the final Section 106 provide later or conflicting information.
01Transport and highways
- Source documents and versions
- Transport Assessment HD112-R006 v2.0 (18 June 2026); Trip Generation Report HD112-R009 (18 June 2026); Transport Policy Review HD112-R014/B (18 June 2026); Site-Wide Framework Travel Plan HD112-R007 v1.0 (17 June 2026); traffic surveys, accident data, site-access model outputs and off-site junction outputs; access drawings for three A30 accesses and one B3016 access.
- Applicant proposition
- A vision-led, mixed-use settlement in which internal services, active travel, public transport, mobility hubs and travel-plan measures reduce external car trips. Four principal vehicular accesses are proposed: three from the A30 and one from the B3016. Totters Lane is to be closed or restricted to general through-traffic in parts.
- Baseline evidence
- Manual classified counts were undertaken at key junctions in September 2025. The A30/B3016 junction, Dilly Lane/Thackham’s Lane and wider A30, B3016, A287, Hook, Hartley Wintney, Fleet, Winchfield Station Road, Potbridge Road and M3 junctions form part of the assessed network. Five years of recorded collision data from April 2020 to March 2025 were reviewed.
- Predicted effect
- Modelled results vary materially by scenario. At the A30/B3016 priority junction, one AM movement increases from about 15.5 seconds average delay in the 2025 surveyed year to about 35.1 seconds in the 2045 Do Minimum scenario; Sustainable Core and Plus scenarios reduce this to about 31.1 and 27.5 seconds. Some new site-access junctions are modelled with low delay, but residents experience complete routes rather than isolated junctions.
- Mitigation offered
- Primary streets designed to accommodate buses; new and improved walking/cycling links; mobility or travel hubs; travel information, cycle parking, EV charging and shared-mobility measures; travel-plan management and monitoring; potential bus services; junction works; speed-management measures; and changes to Totters Lane and Odiham Road.
- Key assumptions
- The lower-impact forecasts depend on internal trip capture, delivery and use of the school/local centres, public-transport provision, active-travel uptake and sustained travel-plan performance. Early phases may generate more external trips before facilities are available. Traffic, air-quality and noise conclusions share many of the same demand assumptions.
- Fixed now / reserved later
- The principle and detailed geometry of the four main accesses are submitted now. Much of the internal street layout, bus routing, detailed active-travel network and land-use arrangement remains for reserved matters, planning conditions or later design-code approval. The parameter plan allows movement alignments to vary at reserved-matters stage.
- Delivery mechanism
- Expected through planning conditions, highway agreements, Section 106 obligations, travel plans and later reserved-matters approvals. Exact bus-service funding, duration, monitoring thresholds and remedial measures were not fully fixed in the documents reviewed.
- Occupation trigger
- Not yet demonstrated in a definitive, public occupation-trigger schedule. The essential requirement is a binding schedule showing what must operate before first occupation and before defined housing thresholds, particularly the school, bus services, active-travel links and off-site highway works.
- Responsible body
- Applicant/developer; Hampshire highway and transport authorities and their successor body; Hart District Council and successor unitary authority; bus operators; Travel Plan Co-ordinator; and relevant landowners for off-site connections.
- Monitoring and remedy
- Travel Plan monitoring is proposed, but the campaign should seek measurable mode-share targets, reporting intervals, independent audit, automatic remedial funding and restrictions on further occupation if targets or infrastructure triggers are missed.
- Resident impact
- Potentially longer and less reliable journeys on the A30/B3016 corridor and through Hook, Phoenix Green and Hartley Wintney; construction traffic over many years; altered local-route choices following Totters Lane restrictions; pressure on stations and parking; and dependence on the timely arrival of buses, schools and local services.
- Questions to consultee
- Which scenario should be treated as the robust case? What precise measures are required to achieve Sustainable Core/Plus? How are M3 incidents and diversionary traffic treated? What are the cumulative route delays, not just individual-junction results? What housing occupations are permitted before bus, school and off-site works? What remedy applies if actual car trips exceed forecasts?
- Campaign-ready message
- The model assesses junctions. Residents experience whole journeys. The lower-traffic outcome depends on promised sustainable travel becoming real, early and enforceable.
- Publication status
- AMBER - suitable for publication with source references. Junction-specific figures must be checked against the final submitted model and any highway-authority response before use.
02Education and healthcare
- Source documents and versions
- Environmental Statement Chapter 6 Socio-Economics and Health; Planning Statement R001v2 (July 2026); Design and Access Statement; Affordable Housing Statement R005v1 (May 2026); Draft Heads of Terms R007v1 (18 June 2026); Economic Statement R002v3; and applicant material describing an all-through school and healthcare provision/contributions.
- Applicant proposition
- A new all-through school is proposed, described in application material as providing about 630 primary and 1,200 secondary places, with nursery/pre-school provision. Healthcare is addressed through provision or financial contributions, alongside community and local-centre uses. Affordable housing is presented as a major social benefit.
- Baseline evidence
- The socio-economic/health assessment relies principally on published datasets and service information. The material reviewed states that no primary surveys and no bespoke socio-economic modelling were undertaken. Existing schools, GP services and hospitals will necessarily carry early demand until new or expanded capacity is available.
- Predicted effect
- A development of up to 2,160 dwellings will create substantial new demand for early-years, primary, secondary, GP, pharmacy, community and hospital services. The applicant presents the school and contributions as mitigation/benefit, but the practical effect depends on timing, commissioning, staffing and whether the projected population and pupil yield match actual occupation.
- Mitigation offered
- Land and/or delivery arrangements for an all-through school; nursery and pre-school provision; healthcare space or contributions; community facilities; and affordable housing. The draft Heads of Terms anticipates education and health obligations, but the reviewed material does not establish all final amounts, providers, delivery dates or staffing commitments.
- Key assumptions
- Pupil-yield, age profile, household size, school catchments, available spare capacity and NHS contribution formulas. A building or contribution does not itself provide teachers, GPs, nurses or appointments. Early residents may rely on Hook, Hartley Wintney, Fleet, Basingstoke and wider NHS facilities.
- Fixed now / reserved later
- The parameter plan identifies a school area and allows school buildings up to 14 metres, but detailed school design, phasing and specification are reserved. Healthcare provision is less physically defined in the submitted parameters and appears dependent on later agreement and commissioning.
- Delivery mechanism
- Section 106 planning obligations, land transfer, education funding agreements, planning conditions and future reserved matters. NHS/ICB and education-authority acceptance will be essential. Affordable housing must be secured through the Section 106 agreement with tenure and phasing controls.
- Occupation trigger
- Not established in a complete public trigger schedule. The campaign should require clear thresholds for temporary and permanent school capacity, healthcare contributions/premises and community facilities before the demand arises, with no reliance on late-phase delivery.
- Responsible body
- Applicant/developer; Hampshire education authority and successor unitary authority; academy or school sponsor; NHS Integrated Care Board and primary-care providers; Hart/successor authority; and registered providers for affordable housing.
- Monitoring and remedy
- Annual population and pupil-yield review; school-capacity and GP-capacity reporting; transparent expenditure of contributions; affordable-housing delivery audits; and occupation controls or additional contributions where demand exceeds assumptions.
- Resident impact
- Potential pressure on existing schools, GP practices, urgent care and hospitals during early and intermediate phases; longer journeys for education and healthcare; and uncertainty over whether promised community infrastructure opens before residents need it.
- Questions to consultee
- Which existing schools and surgeries are assumed to absorb initial demand? What are the first-occupation and later triggers? Is the school fully funded or only land-reserved? Who will operate it? What precise healthcare project will contributions buy? Is new staffing deliverable? Is 40% affordable housing firmly offered, with what tenure split and viability protection?
- Campaign-ready message
- A school is shown. Healthcare is discussed. The public needs to know when the doors open, who provides the service and how many homes may be occupied first.
- Publication status
- AMBER - core proposition is publishable, but precise school-place numbers, healthcare sums, affordable-housing percentage/tenure and triggers must be checked against the final Section 106 and consultee responses.
03Utilities, drainage and flood risk
- Source documents and versions
- Utilities Assessment and statutory undertaker records; Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy HD112-R010 (12 June 2026) and appendices; Phase I Geo-Environmental Site Assessment (August 2025 and supporting parts); Potbridge Brook BNG/restoration note; parameter and land-budget plans.
- Applicant proposition
- The site can be served by new or reinforced water, wastewater, electricity and telecommunications infrastructure, with drainage managed through SuDS, attenuation, blue corridors and watercourse restoration. Existing high-pressure gas and electricity infrastructure will be protected, diverted or designed around.
- Baseline evidence
- The site contains significant existing apparatus, including a high-pressure SGN gas pipeline described as a high-risk asset of importance to local supplies, electricity transmission infrastructure and multiple telecoms assets. The western site includes River Whitewater/Potbridge Brook floodplain, Flood Zones 2 and 3, surface-water flow paths and historic flooding. Historic landfill, infilled pits and ground-gas risks require investigation.
- Predicted effect
- Up to 2,160 homes plus schools, employment and community uses will create major new potable-water, wastewater, power and telecoms demand. Development changes runoff patterns and creates long-term dependence on SuDS and attenuation assets. Utility diversion/reinforcement and contaminated-ground remediation may affect cost, phasing and local disruption.
- Mitigation offered
- SuDS basins, swales, controlled discharge, exceedance routes, floodplain avoidance, watercourse buffers/restoration, utility diversions and reinforcement, protective easements, connection strategies, contaminated-land investigation/remediation and long-term management arrangements.
- Key assumptions
- Technical connection availability is not the same as confirmed network capacity. Drainage performance depends on final levels, phasing, climate-change allowances, maintenance and downstream conditions. Utility providers may require substantial off-site reinforcement. Intrusive ground investigation and gas monitoring were recommended but not completed within the Phase I assessment.
- Fixed now / reserved later
- Broad SuDS, floodplain, green-infrastructure and utility corridors are indicated, but detailed drainage design, final levels, outfalls, adoption, utility reinforcement and remediation remain subject to later design, conditions, permits and provider approvals.
- Delivery mechanism
- Planning conditions; Section 106 obligations; Section 278/utility agreements; drainage approvals; environmental permits; provider connection agreements; remediation verification; and estate-management/adoption arrangements.
- Occupation trigger
- A definitive schedule is not yet established. No dwelling should be occupied until the relevant foul-water, potable-water, power, telecoms, drainage and emergency arrangements for that phase are operational, with strategic works completed before dependent phases proceed.
- Responsible body
- Applicant/developer; water and wastewater undertakers; National Grid/electricity network operators; SGN; telecoms providers; Lead Local Flood Authority; Environment Agency; Hart/successor authority; management company or adopting body.
- Monitoring and remedy
- Provider capacity confirmations; staged drainage verification; flood-event and SuDS performance reporting; maintenance audits; contamination validation; gas monitoring; and enforceable repair/upgrade duties funded for the life of the development.
- Resident impact
- Construction disruption from utility works and diversions; possible pressure on existing networks if reinforcement lags; changed local drainage and flood-risk perceptions; long-term exposure to poorly maintained SuDS; and uncertainty over who pays when private infrastructure fails.
- Questions to consultee
- Has each provider confirmed capacity rather than merely a feasible connection? What off-site reinforcement is required and who funds it? Where will foul flows be treated? What are the drainage exceedance routes? Can one phase depend on infrastructure in a later phase? Who owns and maintains SuDS permanently? Have landfill gas and contamination risks been intrusively tested?
- Campaign-ready message
- A line on a utility plan is not capacity. A drainage strategy is only protection if it is built, maintained and funded for generations.
- Publication status
- AMBER - publishable as a scrutiny framework. Avoid asserting network failure or flood increase unless confirmed by statutory consultees or final technical evidence.
04Landscape, ecology and heritage
- Source documents and versions
- Environmental Statement landscape, ecology and heritage chapters and figures; LVIA methodology and character extracts; Arboricultural Impact Assessment edp6792_r014b; BNG and SANG Report; statutory biodiversity metrics; protected-species appendices; heritage assessment edp6792_r012b and geophysical surveys; SANG/SAMM Statement R006v1.
- Applicant proposition
- A landscape-led masterplan with about 58% green/blue infrastructure, on-site SANG, retained and new woodland/hedgerows, public open space, sports, SuDS and ecological enhancement. The applicant reports BNG of 10.2% habitat, 16.2% hedgerow and 19.9% watercourse units, and proposes mitigation for nearby designated sites and protected species.
- Baseline evidence
- The 184.2-hectare site is predominantly agricultural but includes woodland, wood pasture, hedgerows, ponds, lakes, reedbed, Potbridge Brook and heritage features. It lies about 1.85 km from the Thames Basin Heaths SPA and close to six SSSIs, including Odiham Common with Bagwell Green approximately 0.12 km away. Dormouse presence was confirmed; bat roost features, breeding/wintering birds, reptiles, great crested newt habitat and notable invertebrate potential were recorded or assessed. Heritage assets and historic parkland lie within or around the site.
- Predicted effect
- Permanent conversion of countryside and reported loss of about 116 hectares of best and most versatile agricultural land; changes to landscape character and views; loss or alteration of trees/hedgerows and habitat corridors; construction disturbance; and potential effects on heritage setting and below-ground archaeology. The applicant classifies many residual effects as mitigated or not significant, but this does not mean no change.
- Mitigation offered
- SANG and SAMM; habitat creation and enhancement; Potbridge Brook restoration; woodland, orchard, meadow, wetland and hedgerow planting; ecological corridors; tree protection/replacement; lighting controls; species licensing and method statements; archaeological investigation/recording; landscape buffers and long-term management.
- Key assumptions
- The habitat BNG margin is only 0.2 percentage points above the statutory minimum for area habitats and depends on condition, time-to-target and long-term management. New planting takes years to perform like mature vegetation. Mitigation must remain continuous through a 15-year build, not merely appear on the completed plan. Some ecological updates were scheduled into 2026.
- Fixed now / reserved later
- Broad SANG, green-infrastructure and development parameters are shown, but detailed planting, habitat condition, lighting, building layout, public access, management and many ecological/heritage measures remain for reserved matters, conditions, licences and management plans.
- Delivery mechanism
- Planning conditions; Section 106 and habitat-management obligations; biodiversity-gain plan and legal conservation covenant/management mechanism; SAMM payments; protected-species licences; archaeological written schemes; tree-protection plans; and long-term estate management.
- Occupation trigger
- SANG and necessary ecological mitigation should be available before the homes generating recreational pressure are occupied. Replacement habitat and corridors should be functional before losses occur. Definitive phased triggers were not fully demonstrated in the material reviewed.
- Responsible body
- Applicant/developer; Natural England; Hart/successor authority; Hampshire ecology/heritage advisers; Environment Agency; SANG/estate-management body; archaeological contractor and county archaeologist.
- Monitoring and remedy
- 30-year or longer habitat monitoring; annual condition reporting; replacement of failed planting; species monitoring; independent BNG audit; SANG visitor/capacity review; lighting compliance; and corrective habitat works if target condition is missed.
- Resident impact
- Permanent change in rural setting and settlement identity; temporary and long-term visual effects; altered access to countryside; construction disturbance; loss of mature landscape before replacement planting establishes; and possible benefits from accessible green space, sports and restored habitats if delivered well.
- Questions to consultee
- What is the BNG contingency above 10%? Which surveys remained incomplete? Are habitat losses delayed until replacements function? How much SANG is genuinely usable rather than buffer/SuDS land? Who funds management after the developer leaves? Which tree/hedgerow losses arise from the approved accesses? What further archaeological trial trenching is required?
- Campaign-ready message
- The scheme offers real green-space and habitat benefits, but the landscape changes permanently and the ecological result depends on decades of successful delivery and management.
- Publication status
- GREEN/AMBER - headline figures and confirmed species/designation facts are usable with careful sourcing. Do not imply the entire site is high-value habitat or nationally important archaeology.
05Planning policy and housing need
- Source documents and versions
- Planning Statement R001v2 (July 2026); Environmental Statement planning-policy chapter; Winchfield Neighbourhood Plan and Hook Neighbourhood Plan references within the application; Housing/Affordable Housing Statement; Economic Statement; Statement of Community Involvement; national and local policy reviews.
- Applicant proposition
- Hart faces increased housing need and an alleged shortfall in deliverable housing land. The applicant argues that greenfield development is necessary, that Murrell Green can provide a comprehensively planned response and that the planning balance or tilted balance favours permission despite the site not being an adopted strategic allocation.
- Baseline evidence
- The site has a long history within the Shapley Heath/Garden Community debate but the present proposal is a separate outline application. It spans the Winchfield/Hook area and engages adopted Hart Local Plan policies and both neighbourhood plans. The applicant presents housing, affordable housing, economic activity and infrastructure as substantial benefits.
- Predicted effect
- Granting permission would establish the principle of a new settlement and materially influence the future spatial relationship between Hook, Winchfield, Phoenix Green and Hartley Wintney. It may also shape the inherited strategy of the proposed successor unitary authority before a new area-wide plan is prepared.
- Mitigation offered
- Comprehensive masterplanning, infrastructure, affordable housing, employment, green space, school/community provision and legal obligations are advanced as benefits that outweigh policy and environmental harm.
- Key assumptions
- The applicant’s housing-land-supply figure, housing-need calculation, weight given to neighbourhood plans, operation of the tilted balance, deliverability rate and claimed strategic benefits. These are planning judgements requiring Hart’s independent assessment; they should not be treated as agreed facts merely because they appear in the applicant’s statement.
- Fixed now / reserved later
- Outline permission would fix the principle, maximum quantum, access and parameter framework. Most detailed design remains later, but the strategic decision and red-line development envelope would be difficult to reverse.
- Delivery mechanism
- Planning permission, conditions, reserved matters, design code and Section 106 agreement. Strategic policy questions are determined by Hart as local planning authority, subject to call-in, appeal or examination processes where applicable.
- Occupation trigger
- Not applicable to the principle of development, but the planning balance should consider whether benefits relied upon to justify permission have binding delivery triggers rather than remaining aspirational.
- Responsible body
- Hart District Council planning authority and committee; successor unitary authority; statutory consultees; Secretary of State/Planning Inspectorate if called in or appealed; parish councils and affected communities as consultees.
- Monitoring and remedy
- Annual monitoring of housing delivery and land supply; transparent reserved-matters programme; review of policy compliance; and public reporting on whether claimed benefits are materialising. Planning permission itself cannot easily be “undone” if delivery later differs from the promotional case.
- Resident impact
- A strategic transformation of settlement pattern, identity and infrastructure demand; potential housing and affordable-housing benefits; and a risk that a major spatial decision is made through a single speculative application rather than a comparative local-plan process.
- Questions to consultee
- Does Hart accept the claimed land-supply shortfall? What weight is given to the neighbourhood plans? Why should this location be selected outside a plan-led alternatives process? How does reorganisation affect long-term governance? Which claimed benefits are essential to the planning balance and therefore must be legally secured?
- Campaign-ready message
- A new settlement deserves a plan-led decision. Should the application determine the future plan, or should the future plan determine where growth belongs?
- Publication status
- AMBER - use as an informed planning question, not as a definitive legal conclusion. Housing-supply and policy positions must be updated when Hart publishes its formal assessment.
06Section 106, phasing and viability
- Source documents and versions
- Draft Heads of Terms R007v1 (18 June 2026); Planning Statement R001v2; Affordable Housing Statement R005v1; SANG/SAMM Statement R006v1; Framework Travel Plan; school, health, transport, open-space and infrastructure material across the application.
- Applicant proposition
- On-site infrastructure and off-site measures/contributions will be secured through a Section 106 agreement because Hart has no adopted Community Infrastructure Levy. The package is intended to cover affordable housing, education, health, transport, SANG/SAMM, open space, sports, community provision and long-term management.
- Baseline evidence
- The draft Heads of Terms is an initial negotiating document, not the completed legal agreement. Many application benefits are described across drawings and reports but are not equivalent to binding obligations until the final Section 106, conditions and trigger schedule are agreed.
- Predicted effect
- The final legal package will determine whether benefits arrive before demand, whether contributions retain value through inflation, whether later viability arguments can reduce provision and whether successor authorities can enforce obligations throughout a 15-year programme.
- Mitigation offered
- Section 106 obligations; planning conditions; land transfers; financial contributions; travel-plan and highway arrangements; SANG/SAMM; affordable housing; school/community facilities; open-space and management provisions; and monitoring fees.
- Key assumptions
- The developer remains viable and engaged across multiple phases; obligations are indexed and enforceable; delivery bodies accept land/funding; infrastructure costs do not lead to later renegotiation; and the successor unitary authority inherits complete records and enforcement capacity.
- Fixed now / reserved later
- The draft categories of obligation are visible now, but final sums, definitions, trigger points, phasing, review mechanisms, security, step-in rights and remedies remain to be negotiated. Reserved matters may alter detailed layouts without necessarily reopening the principle.
- Delivery mechanism
- Executed Section 106 agreement, planning conditions, bonds/escrow or other financial security, land-transfer agreements, nomination agreements, highway agreements, biodiversity-management arrangements and formal monitoring/enforcement processes.
- Occupation trigger
- This is the central unresolved issue. A complete matrix is required for first occupation and subsequent thresholds, showing each road, bus service, school phase, healthcare payment/facility, affordable-housing tranche, SANG area, sports/community facility and utility work.
- Responsible body
- Applicant and each phase developer; Hart/successor unitary authority; Hampshire/successor education and highways bodies; NHS/ICB; registered providers; Natural England; management companies; and any land recipient/operator.
- Monitoring and remedy
- Public obligation register; indexed contributions; bond or security for critical works; independent monitoring; annual compliance statement; prohibition on further occupations after missed triggers; step-in rights; late-payment interest; and transparent viability-review clauses.
- Resident impact
- If obligations are robust, residents gain earlier infrastructure, affordable housing and enforceable protection. If weak, facilities may be delayed, reduced or replaced by contributions that do not create actual capacity, leaving existing communities to carry the impact.
- Questions to consultee
- What is promised, funded, legally secured and delivered? What are the exact triggers? Which obligations can be varied for viability? Are critical works bonded? What happens on land sale or developer insolvency? Who enforces after reorganisation? Are management charges and long-term liabilities transparent?
- Campaign-ready message
- Show us the deal: 2,160 homes - what is promised, what is secured and what must arrive first?
- Publication status
- RED/AMBER - the framework is publishable, but no claim that an item is “secured” should be made until the executed Section 106 and final conditions are available.
Live scrutiny points
Questions raised by the validated application record
Reference consistency
The validated application uses Planning Portal reference PP-14984242, while some supporting documents refer to PP-14737917. Hart and the applicant should confirm that every document relates to the same submission.
Committee determination
The portal currently shows an expected delegated decision. Hart should confirm whether an application of this scale, with an Environmental Statement and legal obligations, will be determined by Planning Committee.
Affected parishes
The portal records Hook as the parish, while the submitted material describes land across Hook and Winchfield. Hart should confirm the formal consultation and neighbourhood-plan position for both parishes.
Application watch activeThe Hart record is checked daily for new documents, amended plans, consultee responses, committee details and deadline changes.
Website record last checked27 July 2026
New statutory-consultee responses should be added to the evidence tracker when monitoring alerts identify a material update.
When did we get your attention?
Large numbers become personal consequences
Use this sequence for social posts, short films and posters. Every published figure should include a source reference.
2,160homes proposed
15 yearsanticipated construction
116 habest and most versatile agricultural land identified as lost
One decisionlasting generations
Stay informed
Join the email list and receive verified campaign information.
Show public concern
Support a clear petition seeking independent scrutiny and enforceable infrastructure commitments.
Make a planning representation
Write in your own words, using planning matters and evidence relevant to your daily life. Hart requires registration or login for online comments.
Submit to Hart Read the commenting guide