Murrell Green: Know the Impact
Murrell Green planning application 26/01201/OUT
Murrell Green: Know the Impact
2,160 homes. A new settlement between Hook and Winchfield. The question is whether the roads, schools, healthcare, water and other infrastructure will be there when they are needed.
Not against homes. For proper planning. Understand the proposal, explore the evidence, and follow what happens as Hart assesses the application.
Hart-wide planning consultation · 26 October – 7 December 2026
Hart Local Plan 2044: housing, employment, infrastructure and the countryside
Hart’s forthcoming consultation looks beyond housing alone. It will help shape the district’s approach to future homes, employment and commercial land uses (potentially including warehousing and logistics), transport, community facilities and environmental protection.
The first Land Availability Assessment is expected to consider sites put forward by landowners and promoters. A submitted or assessed site is not an approved development or an allocation. The Murrell Green outline application remains a separate planning process.
Consultation documents and how to respond will be available from Hart when the consultation opens. We will examine the evidence, particularly around Hook and Winchfield.
New formal evidence · 5 October 2026
Three Parish Councils submit a joint objection
Winchfield, Hook and Hartley Wintney Parish Councils have submitted a joint formal response to application 26/01201/OUT, led by Winchfield Parish Council and supported by independent planning, transport, ecology, landscape and heritage evidence.
The complete authorised submission is reproduced here for public access. Hart District Council’s planning register remains the authoritative record. Winchfield Parish Council has also published the joint response on its official website. View the WPC announcement ↗
Public meeting update
Winchfield Parish Council extraordinary open meeting — 7 September 2026
Winchfield Parish Council held its extraordinary open meeting at Winchfield Village Hall on Monday 7 September 2026 to discuss the Murrell Green planning application. The presentation slide deck used at the meeting is available below.
Start here
Murrell Green in two minutes
You do not need to read hundreds of planning documents to understand the core questions. These are the essentials.
The proposal has potential benefits
New homes, affordable housing, education, local facilities, open space and habitat improvements could all be valuable.
Scale changes the test
A settlement of this size has to work as a whole: transport, schools, healthcare, water, drainage, utilities, ecology and community facilities must be deliverable together.
The public needs enforceable answers
The key question is not simply what appears on the masterplan, but what is funded, legally secured, timed and delivered before homes are occupied.
2 minutesUnderstand
→
10 minutesChoose
→
OngoingTrack
What to watch as Hart assesses the application
Five live points
Evidence position summarised from material reviewed to 5 October 2026. Hart’s live application record continues to receive documents and consultee material; later evidence may change these positions.
National Highways has requested further modelling evidence, while Wokingham Borough Council presently objects on highways grounds and has requested further assessment of traffic effects beyond Hart’s boundary.
See the evidenceFoul-water infrastructure needs cannot yet be determined from the information supplied.
See the evidenceA formal objection raises issues around designated sites, protected species and ecological connectivity.
See the evidenceThe INF7 flood-alleviation safeguard remains a question requiring current technical evidence.
Understand the issueHart passed Gateway 1 on 23 September. Government guidance updated on 24 September confirms that the pause and review of local government reorganisation is not a reason to delay plan-making, so Hart’s 30-month Local Plan process continues on its present district boundary.
See what changes nextWhat could change for you?
Choose the issue that matters most
Start with the impact you understand from everyday life. Each card gives you the issue, what the current evidence says and a useful question to put to Hart.
01
Traffic & movement
How will a complete journey work — not just one junction at a time?
- What we know
- National Highways has asked for further evidence on trip assumptions, distribution and modelling before it can give fully informed advice.
- A question to ask Hart
- Ask Hart to demonstrate the cumulative effect on M3 Junction 5, Hook, local junctions and connecting roads under realistic travel assumptions.
02
Schools & healthcare
Will essential services be there before residents need them?
- What we know
- The masterplan identifies community infrastructure, but residents need clear funding, delivery responsibility and occupation triggers.
- A question to ask Hart
- Ask what must be open before the 100th, 500th, 1,000th and later homes can be occupied — and what happens if delivery is late.
03
Water, drainage & flooding
Connection is not the same thing as confirmed network capacity.
- What we know
- Thames Water says it cannot yet determine foul-water infrastructure needs without further drainage information. Phoenix Green also remains a live flood-resilience question.
- A question to ask Hart
- Ask for the confirmed foul-water solution, flood evidence, upgrade programme, funding and occupation-linked safeguards.
04
Landscape & separation
What will permanently prevent settlement coalescence?
- What we know
- Open space shown on a plan does not by itself establish permanent ownership, management or protection.
- A question to ask Hart
- Ask which landscape and settlement-separation areas will be legally protected, by whom, for how long and under what management regime.
05
Ecology & biodiversity
A numerical biodiversity gain does not settle every ecological impact.
- What we know
- The Wildlife Trust has raised objections concerning designated sites, protected species, the Whitewater corridor and ecological connectivity. Separately, Natural England’s 16 September evaluation reports that the wider Thames Basin Heaths SAMM strategy is meeting its core aims; that does not determine whether Murrell Green’s own SANG and site-specific mitigation are adequate.
- A question to ask Hart
- Ask how functional wildlife corridors, protected species and long-term habitat management will be secured and monitored in practice.
06
Delivery & accountability
A promise on a masterplan is not yet a delivery agreement.
- What we know
- For a development expected to build out over many years, timing, funding, legal obligations and fallback arrangements matter as much as the headline promise.
- A question to ask Hart
- Ask Hart to distinguish clearly between what is promised, funded, legally secured and tied to an enforceable occupation trigger.
Keep it simple
Four questions for the whole application
Can infrastructure cope?
Consider the combined pressure on roads, schools, healthcare, water, drainage and utilities.
Will it arrive in time?
Ask who pays, who delivers and what must be complete before occupation milestones.
What is protected permanently?
Landscape, ecology and settlement separation need ownership, management and enforceable safeguards.
Who is accountable?
Separate what is described from what is funded, secured, monitored and delivered.
For technical readers: see the seven public-interest tests
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 obligations are not performed?
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?
See the delivery problem
Homes and infrastructure have to move together
A fifteen-year build is a sequence, not a single event
EarlyFirst homes
GrowingHundreds occupied
Mid-buildCommunity established
LaterFinal phases
The important question is which roads, services and facilities must exist at each stage — not merely what is intended by the end.
A journey is a chain
Home→Local road→Hook→J5→M3
Small delays at separate junctions can combine. That is why residents need to understand complete journeys and cumulative effects.
Show us the deal
Promised. Funded. Secured. Delivered.
evidencedpartly / conditionalto be confirmed
The masterplan tells us what is intended. The public needs to know the delivery status. This snapshot highlights six of the biggest commitments; the full evidence tracker remains available below.
Affordable housing
PromisedPromisedFundedTo be confirmedSecuredTo be confirmedDeliveredNot yet
Schools
PromisedPromisedFundedTo be confirmedSecuredTo be confirmedDeliveredNot yet
Healthcare / community
PromisedPromisedFundedTo be confirmedSecuredTo be confirmedDeliveredNot yet
Roads & J5 mitigation
PromisedProposedFundedTo be confirmedSecuredFurther evidenceDeliveredNot yet
Public transport
PromisedProposedFundedTo be confirmedSecuredTo be confirmedDeliveredNot yet
Drainage & foul water
PromisedProposedFundedTo be confirmedSecuredFurther evidenceDeliveredNot yet
Previous consultation resources
Explore the issues raised during public consultation
The extended general public submission period ended on 18 September 2026. These resources remain available as a record of the principal planning issues and evidence. Hart continues to assess the application and formal consultee responses are still developing.
PersonalPlanning-focusedEvidence-led
What concerns you most?
Traffic & movement
Useful facts
- National Highways has issued a holding recommendation and requested further modelling evidence.
- The lower-traffic case depends on significant and sustained changes in travel behaviour.
Questions you might address
- Has the full end-to-end journey impact been modelled, including M3 Junction 5 and local junctions?
- What happens if the assumed reduction in car trips is not achieved?
- Which transport improvements are funded, secured and required before occupation milestones?
Schools & healthcare
Useful facts
- Education and community facilities are important potential benefits of the proposal.
- The practical issue is whether capacity, funding, land, delivery bodies and occupation triggers are secured.
Questions you might address
- What facilities must be operational before the first major occupation milestones?
- Who funds and delivers each facility, and what is the fallback if delivery slips?
- How will existing local services cope during the years before new facilities are fully operational?
Water, drainage & flooding
Useful facts
- Thames Water says it cannot yet determine foul-water infrastructure needs from the information currently available.
- Hart’s policy map continues to show the Phoenix Green INF7 flood-alleviation safeguard.
Questions you might address
- What foul-water upgrades are required, who pays for them and when must they be completed?
- What current evidence supports any change to the Phoenix Green flood-alleviation safeguard?
- How have climate change and cumulative development effects been incorporated into the drainage and flood assessment?
Ecology & landscape
Useful facts
- The Wildlife Trust has formally objected and raised concerns about protected species, SINCs and ecological connectivity.
- Landscape and green-space benefits require long-term protection and management if they are to endure.
Questions you might address
- How will important ecological corridors remain functional after lighting, recreation and urbanisation effects are included?
- What long-term body will own, manage, monitor and fund habitat and landscape commitments?
- What enforceable remedy applies if biodiversity or mitigation targets are not achieved?
Construction & phasing
Useful facts
- The development is anticipated to be built over approximately fifteen years.
- Long construction programmes can affect traffic, noise, dust, road condition and neighbouring communities in different phases.
Questions you might address
- What routes, hours and controls will apply to construction traffic throughout the build period?
- How will cumulative disruption be monitored and enforced rather than considered phase by phase?
- What protections and complaint-resolution mechanisms will neighbouring communities have?
Infrastructure & legal delivery
Useful facts
- A masterplan can describe benefits without itself securing their funding or timing.
- The campaign tracker separates Promised, Funded, Secured and Delivered so residents can see the difference.
Questions you might address
- Which major commitments are already funded and which remain subject to later negotiation?
- What Section 106 obligations and planning conditions will stop homes being occupied ahead of infrastructure?
- What happens if ownership changes or a delivery body cannot perform?
Want to contact Hart? The published general public submission period has ended, but the application remains under consideration. You can contact Hart Planning Services quoting application 26/01201/OUT. Hart will determine how correspondence received after the published period is treated.
Follow the application
Stay with the evidence
The general public submission period has ended, but Hart’s assessment continues. Follow new consultee responses, revised evidence and the commitments that may be secured before determination.
View Hart application ↗Stay informed
Get campaign updates
Spread the word
Share the evidence
Help neighbours follow the evidence and understand how the application develops as Hart and consultees continue their assessment.
For those who want the detail
Evidence hub
The resident journey above gives the conclusions first. This section keeps the technical material, source documents and detailed tests available for scrutiny.
01Official consultee evidenceWhat statutory and specialist consultees have said, including National Highways, Thames Water and neighbouring authorities
| Consultee | Current position | Workstream | What the response says | What remains to be resolved |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hampshire & Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust | Formal objection / requests refusal | Ecology, BNG, protected species, SINCs, River Whitewater and nature recovery | The Trust says the Environmental Statement has not demonstrated that impacts at this scale can adequately be avoided, mitigated or compensated. It highlights seven SINCs within the boundary, recreational pressure, the Whitewater corridor and nationally important barbastelle movements. | Require the applicant to resolve the specialist ecological objection before determination, including functional protection of Brenda Parker Way and other bat corridors, realistic SANG/BNG assumptions and long-term mitigation. |
| National Highways | Holding recommendation – do not grant before 13 November 2026 | M3 Junction 5, trip generation, distribution, model validation and travel-plan delivery | National Highways accepts the Do Minimum external car-driver case but does not accept the claimed one-third reduction in two-way car-driver trips. It asks for trip-distribution evidence, calibrated/validated base-model evidence, appropriate motorway growth treatment and ring-fenced travel-plan funding. | Treat the strategic-road-network case as unresolved until National Highways has reviewed the requested information and issued fully informed advice. |
| Hampshire County Council (Highway Authority) | Consultee response published 7 September 2026 — current local-highway advice now on Hart’s live record | Local highway network, access, junction capacity, road safety and transport mitigation | Hart’s application record now includes the Highway Authority’s formal response published on 7 September 2026. It is later than the earlier consultee snapshot and should be read alongside National Highways’ separate strategic-road-network advice. | Use the Highway Authority’s latest response as the authoritative local-road position and track any requested modelling, mitigation, conditions or further information through to determination. |
| Network Rail / South Western Railway | Rail consultee response published 7 September 2026 — read current position on Hart’s live record | Railway interface, station/access implications and rail-related transport matters | Hart’s application record now includes a rail-related consultee response published on 7 September 2026. This is current project-specific evidence and is distinct from the historic 2015 discussion about possible relocation or expansion of Winchfield station. | Read the latest response on Hart’s live application record and use it as the authoritative current rail position; keep the historic station-relocation material clearly labelled as historic context only. |
| Bracknell Forest Council | Consultee response published 26 August 2026 — read current position on Hart’s live record | Wider / cross-boundary highway and infrastructure effects | Hart’s application record shows a Bracknell Forest Council consultee response published on 26 August 2026. This site does not paraphrase the substance until checked against the original response. | Read the original response on Hart’s live application record and incorporate any material cross-boundary transport requirements into the cumulative highway assessment. |
| Wokingham Borough Council | Present objection on highways grounds / further information requested | Cross-boundary traffic forecasting, junction capacity and wider highway effects | Wokingham Borough Council presently objects on highways grounds and has requested further assessment of traffic effects beyond Hart’s boundary, including cross-boundary forecasting and junction-capacity work. | Require the applicant to address the neighbouring highway authority’s requested evidence and incorporate any material cross-boundary impacts into the cumulative highway assessment before determination. |
| Thames Water | Foul-water capacity not yet determined; occupation safeguard requested | Foul-water network, reinforcement, pumping/discharge strategy and pollution risk | Thames Water says it has been unable to determine the foul-water infrastructure needs and cannot yet assess the impact on its foul network. It asks for a drainage strategy with proposed discharge points and pump rates, and seeks a condition preventing occupation unless capacity, an agreed phasing plan or required upgrades are in place. | Require a confirmed foul-water solution and occupation-linked delivery plan. Do not treat connection feasibility as evidence that network capacity and reinforcement are resolved. |
| Natural England | Response published 19 August 2026 — verify current position on Hart’s live record | Statutory nature-conservation advice, protected sites and ecological mitigation | Natural England has submitted a consultation response recorded on Hart’s application file. Separately, on 16 September 2026 Natural England published an evaluation reporting that the wider Thames Basin Heaths SAMM programme is meeting its core aims, with protected bird populations stable or increasing in some cases despite housing growth and visitor pressure. That wider finding does not by itself establish that Murrell Green’s proposed SANG or site-specific mitigation is adequate. | Read the latest Natural England response on Hart’s live application record as the project-specific advice. Keep the wider SAMM evaluation separate: it supports the established strategic-mitigation approach but does not remove the need to test Murrell Green’s SANG capacity, design, accessibility and other site-specific ecological effects. |
| National Grid Electricity Transmission | Conditional no objection – electricity transmission assets only | Overhead-line clearances, tower stand-off, easements and maintenance access | National Grid requires statutory clearances, a minimum 15 m stand-off from towers to buildings, structures and drainage, no easement conflicts and unrestricted tower access. Its response expressly relates only to electricity transmission assets. | Check the controlling plans against the 15 m and easement requirements. Keep the separate high-pressure gas-main/diversion challenge open pending current project-specific operator/HSE confirmation, route, rights, cost and programme. |
Status reviewed 21 September 2026 against the substantive consultee positions identified to date. Hart’s application record is live and continues to receive documents; the original responses remain authoritative and later amended plans or consultee advice may change these summaries.
02Strategic settlement testNine connected workstreams that test whether the settlement works as a whole
Show that the settlement works — not just that it can be drawn.
Strategic timing: Hart Local Plan 2044
Hart completed Gateway 1 and published its Self-Assessment Summary on 23 September 2026, formally starting the new 30-month plan-preparation period. The first formal consultation runs from 26 October to 7 December 2026 and will seek views on the draft vision, proposed spatial strategy and a summary of evidence gathered to date.
The Murrell Green application remains a separate live planning application. The emerging Local Plan is nevertheless important context because it will decide the overall amount and distribution of development, site allocations and the longer-term spatial strategy for Hart.
Hart Gateway 1 summary ↗ · Government LGR / plan-making guidance ↗ · Local Plan timetable ↗
Hart’s own benchmark: infrastructure-led growth
Hart says its ambition for the new Local Plan is infrastructure-led growth, planning new homes alongside improvements to schools, health services, transport and leisure facilities. Murrell Green can therefore be tested against Hart’s own stated principle: are the necessary improvements clearly identified, funded, legally secured and timed to arrive with the development?
Roads and M3 Junction 5
National Highways does not currently accept the applicant’s claimed one-third reduction in two-way car-driver trips and has asked for further modelling evidence.
What would resolve this? Publish the current evidence, responsible body, delivery trigger and enforceable fallback.Public transport and rail
Historic Hart infrastructure work recorded discussions with Network Rail and South West Trains in which relocation and expansion of Winchfield station westwards, towards the Murrell Green area and north of the M3, was considered. The current application does not propose a new station and instead relies on the existing Hook and Winchfield stations. The factual strategic question is whether that historic option has been reconsidered as part of Hart’s emerging Local Plan or infrastructure planning.
What would resolve this? Publish the current evidence, responsible body, delivery trigger and enforceable fallback.Foul water
Thames Water says it cannot yet determine the foul-water infrastructure needs or assess the development’s impact without the discharge points and pumping information.
What would resolve this? Publish the current evidence, responsible body, delivery trigger and enforceable fallback.Water and the Whitewater
The Wildlife Trust raises water-resource and wastewater concerns in an ecologically sensitive chalk-stream catchment.
What would resolve this? Publish the current evidence, responsible body, delivery trigger and enforceable fallback.Ecology and connectivity
Seven SINCs, protected species, the Whitewater corridor and landscape-scale connectivity remain live issues despite the claimed numerical BNG.
What would resolve this? Publish the current evidence, responsible body, delivery trigger and enforceable fallback.Brenda Parker Way
The applicant identifies Brenda Parker Way as the main barbastelle commuting route. Physical retention is not enough if lighting, recreation or urbanisation reduce ecological function.
What would resolve this? Publish the current evidence, responsible body, delivery trigger and enforceable fallback.Flood resilience / INF7
Land at Phoenix Green remains shown as safeguarded for flood alleviation. The evidence supporting any conclusion that the safeguard is no longer required should be published and tested against current climate assumptions.
What would resolve this? Publish the current evidence, responsible body, delivery trigger and enforceable fallback.Electricity and gas infrastructure
National Grid has issued a conditional response on electricity transmission assets only. The separate high-pressure gas-main diversion still requires current route, approval, rights, cost and programme evidence.
What would resolve this? Publish the current evidence, responsible body, delivery trigger and enforceable fallback.Schools, healthcare and community facilities
Benefits should be tied to clear funding, delivery responsibility and occupation triggers so growth does not arrive years ahead of infrastructure.
What would resolve this? Publish the current evidence, responsible body, delivery trigger and enforceable fallback.03Hart Local Plan 2044 — Gateway 1 and October consultationThe strategic choices that now move into formal public consultation
Gateway 1 completed
Hart published its Gateway 1 Self-Assessment Summary on 23 September 2026. This formally starts the 30-month plan-making period under the new plan-making system.
26 October – 7 December 2026
Hart’s first formal consultation in that 30-month period will seek views on the draft vision, proposed spatial strategy and a summary of the evidence gathered to date.
What the plan will decide
The new Local Plan will address housing alongside employment and commercial development, infrastructure and environmental protection. It will set the longer-term spatial strategy and identify proposed land allocations.
Why this matters to Murrell Green
The current planning application can be considered on its own merits, but the October consultation will provide a wider comparative framework for understanding where Hart proposes to accommodate growth and what infrastructure and environmental evidence supports that spatial strategy.
What to watch on 26 October
Housing need and employment land; warehousing, logistics and other commercial proposals; spatial distribution; submitted and assessed sites; Winchfield, Hook and Murrell Green; roads and rail; school and healthcare capacity; Thames Basin Heaths SPA, SANG/SAMM and environmental assessment; cumulative impacts and reasonable alternatives. Inclusion in the Land Availability Assessment is not an allocation.
04Phoenix Green flood safeguardThe INF7 designation and the evidence needed to understand its future
Why is safeguarded flood-alleviation land no longer required?
Hart’s adopted policy map continues to identify a Phoenix Green flood-alleviation safeguard. If the Council’s present view is that the safeguard is no longer needed, the public should be able to see the technical evidence supporting that conclusion.
Evidence requested
Publish current flood modelling and the relevant Environment Agency / Lead Local Flood Authority position; explain the policy basis for any change; and demonstrate that climate change and cumulative effects have been assessed.
05August 2026 national planning policyWhy housing delivery and infrastructure deliverability both matter
Housing delivery
The national direction is strongly supportive of delivering more homes. That is a material benefit in the proposal’s favour.
Infrastructure capacity
For a strategic site, transport, foul-water, flood-risk and major utility constraints go directly to whether the proposed scale can be sustainably accommodated.
Nature and BNG
A numerical BNG result does not by itself settle impacts on protected species, designated sites, ecological networks or existing corridors.
Flood risk and climate
Flood-risk policy reinforces the need for current and future risk, climate change and land required for flood management to be addressed with up-to-date evidence.
06Full promises and delivery trackerThe detailed Promised → Funded → Secured → Delivered record
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 | To be confirmed — draft HoT only | Not yet secured — draft HoT only | Not applicable | Confirm denominator, tenure, distribution, phasing and binding delivery terms. |
| Primary school land/provision | Yes | To be confirmed — contribution/land mechanism proposed | Not yet secured — land/proportionate contribution in draft | Unknown | Secure land transfer, build responsibility and opening trigger. |
| Secondary school land/provision | Yes | To be confirmed — contribution/land mechanism proposed | Not yet secured — land/proportionate contribution in draft | Unknown | Separate trigger and interim secondary capacity. |
| Primary healthcare capacity | Yes | Contribution to be agreed | Not yet secured — 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. |
| High-pressure gas-main diversion | Diversion issue identified | Current cost to confirm | Current operator/HSE approval not evidenced | Not applicable | Secure current route, operator/HSE position, land rights, cost, programme and phasing before relying on deliverability. |
| Phoenix Green INF7 flood safeguard | Adopted safeguard remains mapped | Not applicable | Policy/evidence position unresolved | Not applicable | Publish the evidence and updated modelling supporting any conclusion that the safeguarded flood-alleviation land is no longer required. |
| SANG | Yes; required mitigation | Applicant / management funding | Not yet secured — proposed obligation | Unknown | Area, opening trigger, ownership, capacity and perpetual management. |
| BNG | 10.2% habitat; 16.2% hedge; 19.9% watercourse claimed | Applicant | Not yet secured — draft HoT / biodiversity plan | Unknown | Contingency, monitoring, 30-year management and remedial action. |
| Sports pitches/pavilion | Yes | To confirm | Not yet secured — details reserved | Unknown | Type, public access, delivery trigger, operator and maintenance. |
| Local centres/employment | Yes | Market delivery | Not yet secured — phasing controls to agree | Unknown | Minimum floorspace, delivery triggers and anti-stalling provisions. |
| Open space/play | Yes | To confirm | Not yet secured — proposed obligation | Unknown | Phasing, adoption, management company and public access. |
| SuDS/drainage | Yes | Applicant / long-term body | Not yet secured — conditions/obligations expected | Unknown | Phased independence, adoption, inspection and failure remedy. |
| Potbridge Brook restoration | Yes | To confirm | Not yet secured — proposed obligation | Unknown | Delivery phase, ecological targets and maintenance. |
| Delivery security | Need identified | Full costed package not yet evidenced | Not yet secured — final S106 / conditions pending | Unknown | Require the final Section 106 and conditions to identify funding, triggers and enforceable security for critical infrastructure and public benefits. |
| Community facilities | Yes | To confirm | Not yet secured — phasing controls to agree | Unknown | Define actual uses, floorspace and earliest delivery. |
| Library contribution | Yes | Contribution to agree | Not yet secured — 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
07Source libraryRead the source documents, not just our summary
Applicant — Design & Access Statement (July 2026)Lightwood’s own visual and narrative explanation of the proposal, including the illustrative masterplan, site context, design, movement, landscape, ecology and heritage approach. Applicant-produced document; inclusion here is for reference and does not imply endorsement.Wildlife TrustFormal objection — ecology, Whitewater, SINCs, protected species and nature recovery.National HighwaysHolding recommendation — M3 Junction 5, trip assumptions and model evidence.Bracknell Forest CouncilConsultee response published on Hart’s application record on 26 August 2026. Read the original on the live record for the authoritative position.Wokingham Borough CouncilPresent objection on highways grounds; further cross-boundary traffic forecasting and junction assessment requested. Read the original response on Hart’s live record for the authoritative position.Thames WaterFoul-water impact not yet assessable; capacity/phasing safeguard requested.Natural England — Thames Basin Heaths update16 September 2026 evaluation of 15 years of SAMM: strategic mitigation is reported as meeting its core aims. This is wider programme evidence, not a finding on the adequacy of Murrell Green’s site-specific SANG or ecological package.Natural EnglandConsultation response published on Hart’s application record on 19 August 2026. Read the original response on the live record for the authoritative position.National GridConditional no objection for electricity transmission assets only.Phoenix Green INF7Policy-map extract showing the designated flood-alleviation safeguard.Hart — infrastructure-led growthHart’s own statement that future growth should be planned alongside schools, health services, transport and leisure facilities.Hart Gateway 1 — 23 September 2026Hart’s official Self-Assessment Summary marking the start of the new 30-month Local Plan preparation period.Hart Local Plan 2044 — revised timetableConfirms the first formal consultation from 26 October to 7 December 2026, followed by the later Gateway, consultation, submission, examination and adoption stages.MHCLG — plan-making and local government reorganisationGuidance updated 24 September 2026: the LGR pause and review is not a reason to delay plan-making; existing authorities continue planning within their current administrative boundaries until any new unitary is operational.NPPF — August 2026Official national planning policy framework published 17 August 2026.
08Application watchLive scrutiny points and items to keep checking
Local Plan 2044 — 26 October
Hart’s first formal consultation in the new 30-month plan process opens on 26 October 2026. Check the proposed spatial strategy, housing requirement/evidence, site assessment and infrastructure/environmental material for direct implications for Murrell Green, Winchfield and Hook.
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 has shown an expected delegated decision. Hart should confirm the intended determination route for an application of this scale.
Affected parishes
The portal records Hook as the parish, while submitted material describes land across Hook and Winchfield. The consultation and neighbourhood-plan position should be clear for both.
Application watch activeCheck Hart’s live record for new documents, amended plans, consultee responses, committee details and deadline changes.
Website evidence reviewed5 October 2026
09Nature Restoration FundWhat the new environmental levy could — and could not — mean for Murrell Green and future Hart sites
The immediate effect on the current Murrell Green application appears limited: no published Environmental Delivery Plan currently covers Hart or Murrell Green.
The longer-term significance is strategic. Where Natural England creates an Environmental Delivery Plan, certain specified environmental obligations may be discharged through a Nature Restoration Levy and delivered at a wider geographic scale. That could alter how some environmental constraints are costed and mitigated on future strategic housing sites, while leaving highways, infrastructure, landscape, flood risk and other planning tests in place.
10Full evidence workstreamsResearch prompts and detailed challenge framework
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; National Highways formal response dated 12 August 2026.
- 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. National Highways accepts the Do Minimum external car-driver case but does not accept the assumption that two-way car-driver trips reduce by a third, even with the Framework Travel Plan measures.
- 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. National Highways requires funding for hard and soft Framework Travel Plan measures to be ring-fenced, with additional funding if targets are missed.
- 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 any future successor body; Hart District Council and any future successor 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
- National Highways has not accepted the claimed one-third reduction in two-way car-driver trips. Which scenario should therefore be treated as the robust case? Provide the trip-distribution methodology, calibrated and validated base-model evidence and correct motorway growth treatment. What precise measures are required to achieve Sustainable Core/Plus, how are M3 incidents/diversionary traffic treated, what are cumulative route delays, and what automatic remedy and additional funding apply if targets are missed?
- 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
- RED/AMBER - National Highways has issued a holding recommendation that planning permission should not be granted before 13 November 2026 while requested transport information is supplied and reviewed. The strategic-road-network case is therefore unresolved.
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 any future successor body; academy or school sponsor; NHS Integrated Care Board and primary-care providers; Hart District Council and any future 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; National Grid Electricity Transmission response dated 13 August 2026; Thames Water response dated 12 August 2026.
- 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. The applicant’s foul-water strategy contemplates new or reinforced infrastructure and pumping arrangements.
- 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. National Grid has now specified statutory overhead-line clearances, a 15 m tower stand-off from buildings, structures and drainage, preservation of easements and unrestricted tower access. Thames Water says it cannot yet determine the foul-water infrastructure needs or assess the development’s impact on its foul network.
- 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. National Grid’s response is expressly limited to electricity transmission assets and does not resolve the separate high-pressure gas-main diversion. Thames Water’s response means foul-water capacity/reinforcement remains unresolved pending a drainage strategy, discharge points and pump rates.
- 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; Thames Water; South East Water; National Grid Electricity Transmission/electricity network operators; SGN or relevant high-pressure gas pipeline operator; HSE where applicable; telecoms providers; Lead Local Flood Authority; Environment Agency; Hart District Council and any future 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? For foul water, Thames Water requests the proposed discharge point(s) and pump rate(s): what upgrades are required, who funds them and what no-occupation/phasing controls will apply? For electricity, do all controlling plans comply with National Grid’s clearances, 15 m tower stand-off, easements and maintenance access? For the high-pressure gas main, where is the current project-specific operator/HSE confirmation, agreed diversion route, easement/land rights, current cost and delivery programme? Can any phase depend on later utility works, and who owns and maintains SuDS permanently?
- 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
- RED/AMBER - National Grid gives a conditional no-objection for electricity transmission assets only; it does not resolve the gas-main diversion. Thames Water cannot yet determine foul-water infrastructure needs and seeks occupation safeguards pending capacity/phasing/upgrades. These are current formal-consultee positions and should be tracked to resolution.
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; Hampshire & Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust formal objection dated 13 August 2026.
- 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. The applicant’s own bat material identifies Brenda Parker Way as the main commuting route for a high-importance bat assemblage and relies on buffering, sensitive lighting and later management; the Wildlife Trust remains unconvinced that future mitigation and lighting controls can fully address impacts at this scale.
- 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. This is material because the Wildlife Trust objects to heavy reliance on future mitigation where significant effects are acknowledged from the outset.
- 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. The Wildlife Trust says SANG does not eliminate recreational pressure on established sites and highlights dog walking, trampling, nutrient enrichment and disturbance. Definitive phased triggers were not fully demonstrated in the material reviewed.
- Responsible body
- Applicant/developer; Natural England; Hart District Council and any future 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
- The area-habitat BNG claim is 10.2%, only 0.2 percentage points above the statutory minimum: what contingency protects against later baseline, layout, condition or target changes? Are SANG recreation and the habitat-condition assumptions used for BNG genuinely compatible? What fixed width, darkness, vegetation, crossings and recreational controls protect Brenda Parker Way as the applicant’s main barbastelle commuting route? How are the seven SINCs, Whitewater corridor and surrounding designated sites protected from fragmentation and recreational pressure, and who funds monitoring/remedy in perpetuity?
- Campaign-ready message
- The Wildlife Trust has formally objected and requested refusal. The applicant’s claimed BNG does not by itself answer whether existing ecological networks, Brenda Parker Way, the River Whitewater, SINCs and protected species remain functionally protected.
- Publication status
- RED/AMBER - the Wildlife Trust has formally objected and requested refusal because of ecological harm and uncertainty over mitigation. Do not say it has challenged the BNG arithmetic or Brenda Parker Way by name; its evidence instead directly strengthens the functional-connectivity, recreational-pressure and mitigation-certainty challenges.
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 strategy inherited by any future successor authority before a new area-wide plan is prepared. The Government withdrew its March 2026 Hampshire reorganisation decision on 7 September 2026, so the future local-government structure is currently unresolved.
- 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; any future successor 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 could any future change in local-government arrangements 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 enforcement responsibility remains clear throughout a 15-year programme if local-government arrangements change.
- 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 complete records and enforcement capacity are preserved if local-government arrangements change.
- 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 District Council and any future successor authority; Hampshire education and highways bodies and any future successor 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 will retain responsibility if local-government arrangements change? 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.
Useful links
Go to the source — and hear other local voices
Hart planning applicationHart Major Sites page and application route
Developer consultation siteApplicant information
Winchfield Parish CouncilParish information
Hook Parish CouncilParish information
Hartley Wintney Parish CouncilParish information
Hook Action Against OverdevelopmentLocal campaign news
We Heart HartHart-wide campaign perspective