East Hampshire has been subject to a huge increase in the house building target set by central government. That is well known.

Less widely known, thus far, is an additional new government proposal for higher housing densities that could affect a number of local towns and villages – those with train stations.

The proposals were buried in a recent technical consultation on the ‘National Planning Policy Framework’. When that consultation was announced in the Commons it sounded to many that it would not apply very wildly since it was focused only on the top ‘travel to work areas’ in the country.

But it turns out every station in East Hampshire is probably inside one of these areas, classed by government as being within the orbit of either Portsmouth, Basingstoke or Guildford.

In essence, the proposal is for a ‘default yes’ approach to developments located within ‘reasonable walking distance’ of a station. That distance is not clearly defined, but it is suggested it could mean around half a mile.

In practical terms, this would mean expected housing densities of 40 homes per hectare or more in these areas.

For villages like Bentley and Rowlands Castle that happen to have a railway station, the proportionate impact could be particularly stark.

There is, of course, logic in having the places people live be near transport links. But in cities and major towns housing densities are higher anyway.

Applying the same density benchmarks to settlements in rural areas risks serious consequences. High-density housing would fundamentally alter the character of countryside villages.

The proposals go further still. Areas deemed “well connected” - those served by at least two trains per hour in each direction - could see densities rise even higher. While the consultation does not specify locations, it is very possible that towns such as Alton could fall into this category (the document doesn’t say how it treats terminus stations).

It is assumed the density requirements would not apply inside national parks, but this isn’t set out explicitly.

I want home ownership to be within reach for more local people. Local housing supply should reflect local needs. However, and it’s a big ‘however’, the pace and scale of development must be carefully managed. Growth should respect and enhance the character of existing communities, not undermine it.

East Hampshire has already been set housing targets that I and many others consider excessive, doubling the previous requirement. That’s an increase in target much higher than the urban average (and some parts of London and Birmingham have even had their target reduced).

We also now have the impending impact of local government reorganisation, moving housing decisions further from local communities. These new proposals risk compounding that pressure and could prove deeply damaging.

At the moment these are still proposals, but I have raised my concerns directly with the minister, and will continue to. A more balanced approach must prevail.