Creating a concrete jungle and damaging the environment — those are the main fears for Hart District Council after it reviewed a 20-year plan for development in the south-east of England.

The council is objecting to revised proposals in the South-East Plan for Hart, which include increasing the number of new homes being built every year.

There are also fears that the deletion of the ‘strategic gaps’ policy in the plan will mean villages like Crookham will get swallowed up by Fleet and Church Crookham, and that there will be no distinction between Fleet and Farnborough.

A draft South-East Plan was prepared in March 2006 by the South-East England Regional Assembly (SEERA), a body made up of 75 councillors from the region’s local authorities plus representatives from the business, voluntary and environmental sectors.

The draft document sets out the changes SEERA believes are required to improve the quality of life in the region, including plans for housing, the economy and transport, up to 2026.

In July this year, changes to the plan were proposed by the Communities and Local Government Secretary Hazel Blears. Her suggestions included a proposal to increase the number of new homes planned in Hart district from 200 a year to 220.

Her report also talked about setting aside 100 to 150 acres (40 to 60 hectares) of business land over the next 20 years in order to make sure there is room for employment growth.

In a report to the council’s cabinet last Thursday, Cllr Richard Appleton, the portfolio holder for planning and regulation, outlined the council’s objections to the changes.

Cllr Appleton, the Conservative member for Fleet West, said the council objected to the business land allocation.

He said: “The concern there is that there’s this figure for 40 to 60 hectares. Where has that figure come from? Are there related studies about this or is it just something that has been plucked from the air?”

Cllr Appleton believes that an increase in business land will naturally result in demand for more homes, putting more pressure on infrastructure in Hart.

“There seems to be this spiral between employment land and residential land,” he said.

Cllr David Healey, a Conservative member for Fleet Pondtail, said he was also concerned about the plans for employment land. It would be difficult to find land suitable for businesses, he warned.

“I hope we consider there is a special protection area concern. In other words, we cannot easily get permission for employment land near the SPA,” he said, referring to building restrictions surrounding the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area.

The South-East Plan was also criticised for not giving enough focus to environmental issues. Cllr Appleton said: “We are concerned about how little notice they are taking of environmental concerns. They keep talking about houses and jobs but at what point do we talk about the environment?”

Hugh Sheppard, chairman of the Hart and Rushmoor branch of the Campaign to Protect Rural England, agreed that the plan had not taken environmental considerations into account. He attended Thursday’s cabinet meeting to ask the council to strengthen its concerns about environmental issues in the South-East Plan.

It was agreed to ask SEERA to include ‘environmental protection’ as one of the issues that need addressing by authorities in north-east Hampshire.

The decision by Mrs Blears to delete the strategic gap policy was also unpopular with councillors. Campaigners fighting the mega-depot planned for the Pyestock land — a site which used to house Ministry of Defence engineers — argued that warehouses would completely wipe out the strategic gap between Fleet and Farnborough, and Hart district councillors agreed.

It was one of the reasons listed by the council for refusing Prupim and Astral’s application in March. Cllr Appleton said: “The proposal to abolish gap policy concerns us. There’s implications for the Pyestock appeal and there’s implications for preventing the coalescence of Fleet and Farnborough.”

As part of the council’s response, Cllr Appleton’s report will strongly object to the deletion of the policy.

The response will now be passed to SEERA. Once the assembly has collected and considered all the feedback it has received, a final South-East Plan will be published.