Spitalhatch Crossroads 

Spitalhatch crossroads (Wilsom Road / Ashdell Road / Paper Mill Lane / Mill Lane) is already officially recognised as a traffic problem: this is not just local opinion.

The Evidence

1. It’s identified as overloaded in the official Neighbourhood Plan
The Alton Neighbourhood Development Plan (2021) specifically lists Spitalhatch as:

“known to be overloaded at present during peak periods.”

It also calls for improvements to reduce delays at this junction.

2. The Council’s own Transport Strategy found capacity stress
The Alton Transport Strategy (2015) assessed this junction and identified operational pressure at peak times, with some arms close to or over practical capacity.

No major upgrade has been delivered since.

3. There have been serious injury collisions
The current Transport Assessment confirms that two serious injury accidents occurred at Spitalhatch, both involving cyclists.

This shows the junction is not just congested — it is safety-sensitive.

4. Heavy goods vehicles use the junction
Because of the weight restriction on Paper Mill Lane, HGVs route through Spitalhatch.
Large vehicle turning movements combined with congestion increase risk for cyclists and pedestrians.

5. Traffic has increased since the original studies

Since the earlier council transport studies:

• Lidl opened on Mill Lane

• The CALA Homes brewery redevelopment was built

• Langrish Grove was developed off Wilsom Road

All of these feed additional traffic directly into the Spitalhatch junction.

The Key Concern

The current planning application argues that it does not need to model the junction because it adds fewer than 30 vehicles per hour.

But when a junction is already officially described as “overloaded,” even small increases in traffic can make congestion and safety problems worse.

No updated modelling of Spitalhatch has been provided.

Why This Matters

Under national planning policy, development should not be approved if it would cause:

• An unacceptable impact on highway safety, or

• Severe cumulative traffic impacts.

Given:

• The junction is already identified as overloaded,

• Serious cyclist injuries have occurred there,

• Traffic has increased significantly in recent years,

Residents believe it is not reasonable to conclude that further traffic will have no serious impact without proper modelling.

EHDC’s Employment Land Review Update (2023) identifies no strategic shortfall in industrial land and reports a negative requirement for industrial floorspace (–48,000 sqm / –11.9ha). The Local Plan provision is stated to be broadly in line with commitments and allocations.

The application provides no evidence of unmet demand, no occupier requirements, and no local market needs assessment.

Within 0.5 miles of the site, 14 industrial/commercial units are currently available for lease or sale, demonstrating existing supply.

Allocation as employment land does not in itself prove current need. In the absence of evidence of shortage, the claimed employment benefit is not substantiated.

Key Gaps & Weaknesses in Developer’s Flood and Drainage Reports

1. Climate Change Assumptions

• Uses 25% climate allowance in report.

• Drawings reference 24%.

• No clear justification for the allowance chosen.

• No clear evidence higher-end allowances were tested.

2. Infiltration Contradiction

• Infiltration testing found negligible soakage.

• Report says infiltration is unsuitable.

• Drawings specify unlined permeable paving allowing infiltration.

Question: Which is it — infiltration works, or it doesn’t?

3. High Groundwater vs Below-Ground Tanks

• Groundwater recorded on site.

• Scheme relies heavily on underground attenuation tanks.

• No clear evidence of:

  • Buoyancy checks

  • Groundwater ingress impact on storage

  • Structural resilience in flood conditions

4. No Clear Tailwater (Flood-Level) Modelling

• Discharge is to a watercourse within the floodplain.

• No clear confirmation that modelling accounts for high river levels during flood events.

Risk: Outfalls may be submerged during flooding.

5. Surcharging in Model Outputs

• Hydraulic results show surcharged nodes/tanks.

• Report claims no flooding or ponding to design standards.

Inconsistency not explained.

6. Floodplain Compensation Not Evidenced

• States “volume-for-volume” flood compensation.

• No detailed level-for-level calculations shown in drainage submission.

• No clear demonstration of hydraulic connectivity.

7. Split Outfalls Due to Blockage Risk

• Network split to avoid possible blockage of flow control.

• No clear blockage sensitivity testing provided.

• No clear exceedance routing plan if controls fail.

8. Maintenance Relies on Future Occupiers

• Drainage maintenance proposed under lease agreements.
  
  

• No clear site-wide secured management company or enforcement mechanism.

9. Foul Pumping Station in Flood Area

• Relies on on-site pumping station.

• No clear detail on:

  • Backup power

  • Emergency storage

  • Flood resilience of pump equipment

  • Pollution prevention during failure

Summary

The submission contains:

• Internal inconsistencies

• Limited evidence in key areas

• Missing technical clarification

• Assumptions not fully demonstrated