Analysis: Responses to the proposed 75-home development
As Chilbolton Parish Council prepares to agree its response to James Painter’s proposal to build 75 homes, we look at what residents have been commenting on in their responses.
Overwhelming opposition
So far 213 people have responded, lodging 208 public comment documents with Test Valley Borough Council planners. Of these, 209 (98%) have objected to the proposals.
Of these objections, 206 are from residents of Chilbolton. This amounts to over a quarter of registered electors in the Village.
Of those who objected, 14 (6.6%) said that they would support the smaller 20-25 home project put forward by the Parish Council.
Out of the 456 households in Chilbolton, 146 (32%) have responded, overwhelmingly with objections.
Support, some with conditions
Three people (1.4%) have written in support of the 75-home development. One said “The proposed development could offer a realistic route onto the property ladder for people like me who contribute to the area but are currently priced out.”
Another supported it on condition that the development was phased, that it complied with Chilbolton’s Neighbourhood Development Plan and that “the Highways Authority are satisfied there would be safe capacity for vehicle access to/from the Site.”
A third supported the development “as people in this country need houses and we don’t have enough”, but only if “the infrastructure is developed at the same time.”
One neutral response
Chilbolton Village Hall, an independent charity, registered a neutral comment. They noted that they hadn’t been consulted about the Village Hall site being included in the planning application, but they would welcome discussions about “viable community facilities.” They did however say that “Eastman’s Field is not practical for vehicle access (particularly two-way access) to any new development.” They were also concerned about the “long-term benefits of keeping the green space open view from the rear of the village hall.”
What was objected to?
The objections expressed by residents are those which have featured regularly in public meetings. Concerns are dominated by traffic volumes, road safety and infrastructure, particularly sewage and flooding. Over-development and the unsuitability of Chilbolton as a site are also common themes.
The legal planning framework is often mentioned: the National Planning Policy Framework, TVBC’s Local Plans - both existing and “emerging”, and Chilbolton’s Neighbourhood Development Plan are all referenced.
The necessity of having to travel by car - few jobs in the Village, no schools and no bus service - appear regularly. This is linked in many responses to increased traffic volumes, and greater hazard to vulnerable road users, compounding the existing risks of narrow, winding roads and few pavements.
This table shows how frequently topics were referenced in responses to the proposed plan - percentages are the proportion of the 213 responses which mentioned the category:
| Category | Count | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Traffic volume increase | 139 | 65.3% |
| Sewage and sewerage already cause problems | 103 | 48.4% |
| Over-development in a village like Chilbolton | 89 | 41.8% |
| Safety of vulnerable road users endangered | 87 | 40.8% |
| Flooding risk | 85 | 39.9% |
| Community facilities not justified | 77 | 36.2% |
| Chilbolton Neighbourhood Development Plan | 71 | 33.3% |
| Infrastructure must be fixed before development | 68 | 31.9% |
| Water supply already has problems | 65 | 30.5% |
| Narrow winding roads with blind bends | 62 | 29.1% |
| Character of the Village will be changed | 56 | 26.3% |
| No public transport means travel by car | 51 | 23.9% |
| Development is outside settlement boundary | 50 | 23.5% |
| Electricity supply already has issues | 47 | 22.1% |
| No demand for so many houses | 46 | 21.6% |
| Environmental damage | 45 | 21.1% |
| Lacks community support | 31 | 14.6% |
| Light pollution | 30 | 14.1% |
| Construction traffic bringing danger and congestion | 25 | 11.7% |
| Few pavements means risk to pedestrians | 25 | 11.7% |
| National Planning Policy Framework | 24 | 11.3% |
| Wildlife will be threatened | 23 | 10.8% |
| No jobs means travel by car | 20 | 9.4% |
| No schools means travel by car | 17 | 8.0% |
| TVBC Local Plan | 16 | 7.5% |
| Cow Common SSSI endangered | 15 | 7.0% |
| 4-bedroom homes not in CNDP | 13 | 6.1% |
| Broadband is at capacity | 13 | 6.1% |
| Agricultural land loss | 12 | 5.6% |
| Insufficient parking is provided | 12 | 5.6% |
| Noise from the new development | 12 | 5.6% |
| Access to development is unsuitable | 11 | 5.2% |
| Eastman's Field unsuitable access | 11 | 5.2% |
| Mobile phone signal already weak | 11 | 5.2% |
| Cart Lane access is unsuitable | 10 | 4.7% |
| Parking congestion in the Village | 10 | 4.7% |
| Cycleway/footpath is unnecessary | 8 | 3.8% |
| Sets a precedent for further development | 7 | 3.3% |
| Archaeology, possible Roman structure | 6 | 2.8% |
| No street lights means risk to pedestrians at night | 5 | 2.3% |
| Smell arising from sewage | 5 | 2.3% |
| Drove Road is a bridleway | 4 | 1.9% |
| Roundabout is a dangerous feature | 2 | 0.9% |
Where did responses come from?
Of the 207 responses from residents of Chilbolton, 193 specified where they lived. The spread of responses covers almost all streets in the Village. Understandably, there is a weighting towards those areas which would be directly affected by the development, in particular by traffic.
| Street | Count | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Drove Road | 39 | 20.2% |
| Village Street | 35 | 18.1% |
| Station Road | 24 | 12.4% |
| Drove Hill | 20 | 10.4% |
| Durnford Close | 11 | 5.7% |
| Coley Lane | 8 | 4.1% |
| Cart Lane | 8 | 4.1% |
| Test Rise | 8 | 4.1% |
| River View Close | 7 | 3.6% |
| Branksome Close | 6 | 3.1% |
| Eastman's Field | 5 | 2.6% |
| Paddock Field | 4 | 2.1% |
| Joys Lane | 4 | 2.1% |
| Winchester Street | 3 | 1.6% |
| Garston Mede | 3 | 1.6% |
| Oak Tree Close | 2 | 1.0% |
| Lynton Meadow | 2 | 1.0% |
| Branksome Avenue | 1 | 0.5% |
| Ivy Farm Lane | 1 | 0.5% |
| Chilbolton Down | 1 | 0.5% |
| West View Drive | 1 | 0.5% |
Summary
The scale of the public response is remarkable. The number of meetings held during the year and wide interest in any potential development has motivated villagers to take the time to respond. Pleas from the Parish Council, urging people to put their thoughts in writing, have also had an effect.
Perhaps more striking still is the quality of the responses. Residents have taken to heart the advice to “make your response your own” rather than simply copying verbatim what others have said.
Amongst those, some responses stand out. There are clearly “subject experts” in the Village who have brought that expertise to bear in their comments. Others speak tellingly of their own lived experience in the Village, and how a 75-home development would affect them.
There is still plenty of time, if you haven’t already, to make a comment. It’s a chance to give your thoughts, or even add something to comments you’ve already made. The final deadline is 11 Feb 2026.