News: CDC outlines development options

At a public meeting in the Village Hall, attended by over 70 residents, Chilbolton Parish Council’s Community Development Committee outlined options for housing development in the Village that will be put to a public vote.

Cllr David Hall, Chair of CPC, opened the meeting explaining that the Parish Council are not “pushing or objecting to any one option.” They were asking the Village “what do you want us to do?” He emphasised that this included the option of no community-led development.

Background

Cllr Hall said that Chilbolton’s Neighbourhood Development Plan, backed by 89.9% of residents in a referendum, had identified the need for 10 affordable and 10 smaller homes. Two registers exist: Test Valley Borough Council’s register for affordable and social housing, and the Parish Council’s own register for the smaller market houses.

TVBC’s draft Local Plan had allocated 65 homes to land northeast of Drove Road. There was now uncertainty about whether that plan would be delivered.

CPC’s approach to housing is that it should be community-led, and the Village should have a strong say on where and how it is delivered.

Housing options

Cllr Neil Connor outlined the five housing options that residents were being asked to consider:

• James Painter’s application to build 35 affordable and 40 market homes at Drove Road, currently being considered by TVBC planners, with 246 objections from the community, and objections from CPC and the Observatory
• TVBC’s Local Plan for 65-homes at Drove Road, claiming to be community-led, but objected to by CPC following discussion with residents
• A smaller development at Drove Road of 10 affordable homes, 10 small market homes and 5 self-build homes, which was the subject of a pre-application by CPC to TVBC in April 2025
• An alternative development at Gravel Hill, in conjunction with English Rural, of 10 affordable and 10 low-cost market homes, currently in the early stages of discussion
• No community-led housing development at all, which under planning guidelines would leave the parish open to speculative development outside the settlement boundary

Community-led sites

Cllr Martin Watson described the two possible sites for community-led development: Drove Road and Gravel Hill.

Drove Road

This site, a mix of 1, 2 and 3 bed houses, was presented in a pre-application to TVBC. Their response identified a number of issues to be addressed.

Cllr Watson said that it included a shop, parish office and a surgery over which there was now some doubt. It also featured a roundabout at the junction with Drove Road, which wouldn’t now be included.

The site would be connected to the mains sewer at Eastman’s Field.

Gravel Hill

The alternative was a site at the corner of Gravel Hill and Martins Lane for 10 affordable and 10 low cost market properties for local people. There would be a mix of 1, 2 and 3-bed houses.

It would include changes to the junction to improve safety. There was also potential for a public footpath that would link to Cart Lane, but this was not shown on the diagram and was not agreed.

Cllr Watson emphasised that the picture displayed was “at best, a concept, a diagram to talk about.” The positions of the houses were likely to change and more parking spaces would be included.

A member of the public then asked for an explanation of the presumption in favour of development.

Cllr David Hall said “The [National Planning Policy Framework] states that applications are likely to be supported unless the harms outweigh the benefits. Hence the 75-home application from James Painter. It’s known as the ’tilted balance’ where local authorities look favourably on [plans].”

Questions from the public

Peter Collis, who is Vice-Chair of the CDC, then opened the meeting to questions and comments. The Parish Council will be making a summary of questions and answers from the meeting on their website.

Parochial Church Council

Immediately, Mr Andrew Kent stated that he was at the meeting in his role as Chair of Chilbolton’s Parochial Church Council. He said “CPC have asked the PCC for a grant from the Church of England. PCC are not involved, we are not consultees, so we have to ask lots of questions.”

Mr Collis said “If the questions are detailed we should have a separate meeting.”

Mr Kent replied “That’s not possible. The PCC meet in seven days, the members are here now. We need to discuss in a public forum.”

Cllr David Hall responded saying “We want people’s views on the options, technical detail is for another meeting. This meeting is not for discussing the minutiae of grant application.”

Mr Kent said “Are you denying us the chance to ask questions?” He then asked “You said there are two options. Why are you not considering Betts Farm and land near Hunts?”

Cllr Martin Watson said “We had a matrix, which is available on the CPC website. It was an assessment of four sites. Two came out more or less equal: Drove Road and Gravel Hill. Two were significantly less attractive: Betts Farm and the land near Hunts.”

Mr Kent said “The matrix doesn’t make a lot of sense.”

Gravel Hill residents

A number of residents who live on or near Gravel Hill made points and asked questions.

• How long would the construction take and how much nuisance would there be? How many large vehicle movements would there be? Mr Collis said that there wasn’t enough detail yet to answer these questions accurately. He observed that the same issues would arise for any site.
• There would be increased traffic from the new residents. It’s a narrow, dangerous road. There could be 180 additional traffic movements each day. Cllr Hall said that these things will have to be investigated. Cllr Watson said “I get the point about the traffic, that would be part of any [planning] application.”
• Having houses opposite will have a financial effect
• You have not considered the effect on the local area. What consideration was given to the Conservation Area? Cllr Watson said that the site analysis matrix covered proximity to the Conservation Area, and used the same questions that TVBC use in their site analyses. Mr Collis said “We used the same criteria for all sites. It’s open and visible and has all been published. We looked at four sites, we’re presenting two. Nothing has been decided - we need villagers’ views.”

Settlement boundary and further development

A member of the public observed that the Gravel Hill site is outside the settlement boundary and could lead to housing development further down Gravel Hill.

Cllr Watson observed that the only site within the settlement boundary that could accommodate 20 homes was Test Valley Farm. All of the proposed sites are outside the settlement boundary, so the question becomes where, sensibly, can the boundary be extended.

Parking

A member of the public asked where visitors to the Gravel Hill site would park. Cllr Watson said “there isn’t enough parking for visitors. It will have to be addressed.” Mr Collis added that parking was a problem throughout the Village.

Role of the Church Commissioners

One attendee was concerned that “the floodgates would be opened” to further development by using Church Commissioners’ land. She cited two developments, each over 1,000 homes in other parts of the country. She also observed that they had offered up land near Hunt’s in the SHELAA process for up to 150 houses.

Cllr Watson replied “That’s a good question. That’s the issue of no development in the Village. Church Commissioners could put in a speculative application.” He also said that CDC had discussed the issue of further CC development, including at Martins Lane. They had said they were not looking at any other land in Chilbolton.

Another resident asked whether CDC had considered the Church Commissioners' policy on the development of agricultural land. He said that it was to “convert agricultural land to housing or commercial use, to yield much higher profits than currently.” He added that the Gravel Hill site would be a convenient access route to further land.

Cllr David Hall said that the Church Commissioners had appointed consultants only for the Gravel Hill plot being discussed at the meeting. It had been put forward to the Parish Council in 2024.

Any development, he added, must not be in contravention of the Neighbourhood Development Plan. For example, that was the substantive objection to the 75 home planning application.

75-home planning application

Referring to the existing planning application from Mr James Painter a resident said even if it were rejected, it could go to appeal, which he described as “a lottery,” adding “we could end up with 95 new homes.”

Cllr Hall said that TVBC planners would only decline permission if it felt it wouldn’t fail on appeal. As far as the Parish Council were concerned there would only be one development: if the 75-home plan, or a smaller version was approved they would work with Mr Painter in line with the Neighbourhood Development Plan, and would drop any other site.

How will the options be voted on?

A resident asked how any vote would be undertaken and how it would be administered. “Would it be independent and monitored?” she asked.

Peter Collis said “We want an open and transparent process.” It would be anonymous and open to every adult in the Village. It would be independently run and stand up to scrutiny.

Cllr Neil Connor said that CDC were consulting with TVBC and the Hampshire Association of Local Councils for the best practice approach.

Next steps

Cllr David Hall said that the Parish Council would summarise and share feedback from the meeting. Residents could ask further questions and provide comments by emailing the Clerk. These would also be included in the summary.

He said that “a vote would be held in August or September, which would give a directional steer before any further steps. We might hear about the 75 home application, but we still want Village opinion.”

He thanked everyone attending on what was a hot Saturday morning, and closed the meeting saying “We have no agenda other than doing what the Village wants.”

Summary

The meeting achieved what the Parish Council wanted. They had a chance to explain the options for development, which includes the option for no community-led development. They made it clear that residents would be making the decisions through an independently verified process.

After a brief, bizarre intervention by the Parochial Church Council, residents were able to share their views and ask questions. Those from Gravel Hill were well represented and they expressed their concerns eloquently.

One villager revealed that he is the fourth generation of his family in the Village, and that he has children and grandchildren. He remembered playing, as a child, in a field that is now Drove Hill. His view was “It is inevitable that houses are built. It’s far better to fight for what we want, than fight against what we don’t want.”