THE village of Four Marks appears to have another fight on its hands with the submission of an application for yet more large-scale building – this time in Blackberry Lane.

With 35 letters of objection already lodged with East Hampshire planners, residents are preparing to do battle over an application by Fleet-based Shaley Homes Ltd to build up to 68 new homes on a four-acre site to the rear of 97, 99, 101 and 105 Blackberry Lane, and Four Marks Parish Council appears to be right behind them.

Warning that “Four Marks is still under the cosh from developers”, parish councillor Timothy Brake is concerned that some residents may be unaware of this latest application which, he says, could result in another 360 vehicle movements per day on the surrounding road network.

Furthermore, while the application is only in outline form, to establish the access onto Blackberry Lane, according to the illustrative outline plans, it could result in the residents of Baynards Close and Lymington Bottom being overlooked by three-storey buildings.

Having castigated a Government inspector for “driving a coach and horses” through East Hampshire District Council’s planning policy after he gave the go ahead in June last year for the construction of 75 new homes in Lymington Bottom Road, to push the current housing allocation for Four Marks and South Medstead to more than 80 per cent over the 175 recommended provision for the period 2011 to 2028, the fear is that this could happen again.

According to chairman Simon Thomas, Four Marks Parish Council’s planning committee voted to register strong objections to the application on grounds of “non-compliance with multiple planning policies, too high a quantum and density, and lack of appropriate access both in Blackberry Lane and the wider village context through to the A31”.

The application, he says, is on three large back gardens that are outside the settlement policy boundary for Four Marks and should, therefore, be treated as a “greenfield site”.

Having concluded that this “speculative application” is against many national and East Hampshire District Council (EHDC) planning policies, and that the site is not identified in the EHDC local plan allocations or the Medstead and Four Marks neighbourhood plans, Mr Thomas added: “This site is not required to meet any planned housing targets as we are already 80 per cent over-delivering against the local plan. The high density and layout of this site is better suited to central Portsmouth or Croydon and is just not in character or sustainable with Four Marks’ strained infrastructure.

“After so much rapid housing development and new planning approvals recently, with no additional facilities, adding yet more dwellings in this small residential lane could cause even more traffic chaos.”

While Hampshire County Council highways has already posted its objection due to insufficient information, residents have begun to wade in with strong feelings evident over access, the impact on already over-burdened junctions onto the A31 at Lymington Bottom and Telegraph Lane, and reinforcing the feeling that the area has already taken more than its housing quota, and that the services and infrastructure simply cannot cope.

There is concern also over inappropriate over-development of the site and the fact that the development would, according to one objector, “undoubtedly open up the prospect of additional housing to the west between Blackberry and Alton Lane. Such a move would meet the aspirations of some landowners and developers but it is patently not what the public wants.”

The application comes just weeks before the election on May 5 which will give residents the opportunity to vote to accept the Medstead and Four Marks Neighbourhood Plan, leading to speculation that the would-be developer is trying to avoid complying with local policies appertaining to a revision to the settlement policy boundary and back garden development.