News: Residents confront Parish Councillors over 25-home development

It was billed as a presentation of the Parish Council’s response to TVBC’s proposal that 65 homes be built in Chilbolton over the next seven years. But the meeting pitted Parish Councillors against a tough audience of around 80 residents who were eager to talk about CPC’s own 25-home development.

What happened was an impromptu commentary by villagers on events of the last eight months. In an atmosphere that was often tense and sometimes angry, residents quizzed councillors on their handling of the proposed 25-home development. Site location, the number of houses, how big they would be, the settlement boundary and a referendum - all were raised, and all in a critical tone.

Presentation on response to TVBC draft Local Plan

Three members of the CPC Planning Committee gave the presentation: Cllrs Sue Larcombe, Tony Ewer and Debbie Collis. They started by giving some background as to why TVBC have been forced to draw up their plan. They then explained how the Parish Council will respond to it.

On the number of houses proposed and how quickly they will be built the Parish Council’s response will say:

• Chilbolton only supports 25 houses and objects to any more
• Chilbolton objects to the Housing Trajectory plan: rather than being delivered by 2032, the houses should be delivered by 2042
• While recognizing the pressure on TVBC to build houses, Chilbolton does not agree that 65 houses - an increase of 14.3% in the Village - is appropriate. 25 houses would be a 5.5% increase
• Any further houses required by TVBC should depend on actual need, based on evidence, such as a housing need survey

Concerning infrastructure for any development, CPC will say:

• Professional plans should be made for utilities and services to resolve existing problems and ensure proper support for any new homes. This includes: water, sewerage, ground water, electricity, Internet, mobile phone service and footpaths
• These improvements should be made before the new houses are built

They will also say that the new homes must conform to Chilbolton’s Neighbourhood Development Policy, including:

• The size of the houses built and the plots they occupy
• The green nature of Chilbolton should be maintained
• The houses should support sustainable energy usage
• Adequate provision should be made for cars, including parking and charging

Questions about the response to the Local Plan

A member of the public asked “Where did the number of 65 houses come from?” Cllr Larcombe said that she had spoken with TVBC planners who said that they had use an industry standard of 30 houses per hectare on a site size of 2.3 hectares.

On TVBC’s response to Chilbolton’s pre-application for 25 homes, a member of the public pointed out that it contained a number of criticisms which would apply equally to their own 65 home proposal. He said “you can be more robust going back to them, and the pre-app might be useful”.

A member of the public asked whether the response to TVBC would say that a 65-house development is not community led, “in fact,” they said, there’s no support for 25 homes, let alone 65".

On houses that already have planning permission in Chilbolton, such as Test Valley Farm, a member of the public asked whether the number of homes permitted would count towards the allocation of 65 houses. Cllr Ewer replied that it would not, as all approved applications had already been taken into account within Test Valley’s calculations.

Questions about CPC’s 25-home development

Site selection

A member of the public asked “Why focus on one site, other sites are better than this site, and why is it 25?” Cllr Ewer replied “Well it’s 20 from the NDP and 5 houses to make the development viable”. Cllr Collis said that “It’s not necessarily the preferred site. CDC are exploring other options”. Cllrs Ewer and Larcombe shook their heads in disagreement. Cllr Larcombe said “For ten years this has been the preferred site, partly because the [landowner] would gift land”.

Asked by a member of the public what the sites were, Neil Connor, acting Chair of CDC, said there were four (SHELAA references in brackets):

• Betts Farm (484)
• Land next to Martin’s Lane (431)
• Gravel Hill
• Land near Eastman’s Field (389)

Settlement boundary

A member of the public asked “If we’re all in favour of affordable housing, why can’t we have a referendum?” He added that there had been a significant change to what had been mandated in the Neighbourhood Development Plan (NDP) - it had required that 20 homes were sited within the Settlement Boundary. His question “What is the the Parish Council afraid of?” was met with loud applause.

The point about building the proposed homes within the Settlement Boundary was repeated several times by residents, and was vocally supported by those at the meeting.

Housing requirements

A villager who has raised children and grandchildren in the Village observed “We don’t need big houses for millionaires, we need small houses for youngsters”.

Another resident said “What we need is proper low-cost houses”.

Number of homes

Referring to the NDP, a villager said “we voted for 20 houses sited within the Settlement Boundary”. Asked by Cllr Ewer where that had been stated in the NDP, she said “Section 7.12”. This section reads:

New Residential Development

In accordance with the adopted Local Plan, the principle of development is supported within the Settlement Boundary within the Parish. However, the community survey and evidence base indicate there is a clear need for smaller houses (1-3 bedrooms). Policy HD1 therefore supports proposals within the Settlement Boundary which respond to this local need. Outside the settlement boundary is treated as the countryside and there are strict controls over new housing in these locations.

Another resident backed this view saying that at the Planning Committee meeting three days before, “It was agreed that it was 20-ish houses, not 25. We need that amendment to be included”.

Referendum

The topic of a Village referendum was mentioned several times by people at the meeting.

A resident observed “You said in February that the [Strategic Working Group’s] terms of reference included the fact that a referendum should be held. But you disbanded the SWG and you’ve prevented the [Community Development Committee] from including a referendum in their terms of reference. You’ve gone back on your word”.

Cllr Tony Ewer responded saying “The referendum in the SWG terms of reference was for a future Neighbourhood Development Plan. I agree that it was badly written. It is only the NDP that legally requires a referendum”

The SWG clause on a referendum says:

The Working Group must keep in mind that the outcome is decided finally by a Referendum and thus the Working Group must provide facts and implications for draft proposals rather than dictate outcome in a biased way

The resident pursued her point, asking “How can you be community led if you don’t have a referendum?” Cllr Ewer replied “That’s a good question”.

When asked by a resident whether any planning application should be presented to the Village for a referendum, Cllr Ewer replied “My personal point of view is, yes, that we should”.

Construction traffic

A resident observed that at the December 2024 presentation it was made clear that construction traffic would be routed away from the Village via the upper part of Drove Road and Martins Lane.

“You’ve done a complete about-turn” he said.

Pre-application response from TVBC

A resident noted that “the pre-app is pretty damning. It highlights that it is not community led. Most people would agree with some affordables, but this looks like satisfying [the landowner]”.

A resident pointed out that the TVBC’s departmental responses to the pre-app lodged in April - Housing, Ecology, Archeology, Landscape 1, Planning Policy - were dated February/March 2025. Only Landscape 2 was dated April/May. He concluded that most of the pre-app commentary related to the “paused” pre-application from February.

Summary

This was a bruising encounter for Cllr Tony Ewer and Cllr Sue Larcombe, which was at times difficult to watch. The strength of feeling in the room was evident and tempers flared.

In a time where Chilbolton has seen some rocky meetings, this one stood out. One moment caught the tone of the whole meeting, when a member of the audience shouted out “We don’t trust you any more”.