WE believe that Basingstoke & Deane is a great place to live.

Planning for our future is a major part of the work we have been doing for the last eighteen months since we took over the running of the borough council.

Not only have we developed a Local Plan that was widely consulted upon earlier this year, but we have also found solutions that reduced the housing number to a manageable figure – down to 700 homes a year for the first five years of the new plan period, followed by another review as the legislation dictates.

READ MORE: 'Action is the word, results is what we want to see'

We removed sites like Loddon Farm, Skates Lane and West of Cufaude Farm and improved the proposals for where development could go.

We’d considered all of the comments made on the draft Local Plan and we were proposing to remove Popham in the next iteration.

All of that hard work, taxpayer’s money spent and community effort may now be undermined and the rug pulled from beneath us by the new Government’s proposed changes to the planning rules and their view that they want 1.5million new homes.

These changes would be nothing short of a disaster for our borough.

We have a plan, and we are ready to finalise it, but the Government wants to move the goalposts at this late stage.

We want to proceed with the plan we have been developing in good faith. That plan would see hundreds of affordable, socially rented homes built.

It would bring in a strong set of policies that would challenge developers to build to the highest standards.

It was a plan that had significant support from our communities across Basingstoke & Deane. It was a plan that would attract inward investment to build our economy and grow sensibly into the future.

We potentially now face a very different landscape of over 5,500 more homes on top of the plan we have.

At the same time, we are told that the hospital building programme is being reviewed. The money was never there for Basingstoke.

All the dangerous politicking by the former Conservative MP for Basingstoke has cost us dearly. We need a new hospital.

We cannot take the level of growth being suggested without a new hospital. We also need to align our growth with more GPs, schools, buses and investment in electricity and water. We cannot take the level of growth without damaging the River Loddon and Test further.

The new Government is using a sledgehammer to crack a nut and they need to stop and listen, or they risk repeating the mistakes of the previous Government.

SEE ALSO: Conservation heroes honoured for protecting Basingstoke's natural environment

We have a plan, we are ready to build the homes we know we need, in the places we can best sustain them. It’s a plan based on place-making and build quality, not just conveyor belt house building.

So here is the big test now for the new Government. Will they let us get on with the job locally with a plan that works, delivering what all of us want: high-quality and truly affordable new homes for people.

Or will they enforce their new rules and push us back to the start of the process which will delay us by years; and which will result in a developer free-for-all and scale of housing we simply cannot sustain.

We need the Government to think again. We want to get on with the job and deliver, we do not want years of planning chaos.

You can help us by writing to your MP and the Government: PlanningPolicyConsultation@communities.gov.uk

Let them know your thoughts on the planning rules changes proposed.

Cllr Paul Harvey             Cllr Andy Konieczko

Leader of the Council        Cabinet Member for Strategic Planning &                                                                   Infrastructure   

Send letters by email to newsdesk@basingstokegazette.co.uk or by post to Editor, Basingstoke Gazette, Absolutely Offices, Lutyens Cl, Lychpit, Basingstoke RG24 8AG.

All letters and emails must include full names and addresses (anonymous letters will not be published), although these details may be withheld from publication, on request.

Letters of 300 words or less will be given priority, although all are subject to editing for reasons of clarity, space, or legal requirements. We reserve the right to edit letters.