During the summer, the Government published its latest National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). For most people, this will have passed them by – admittedly, it is not the most exciting of titles. But for East Hampshire, it is a hugely important document.

The Government’s accompanying press release declared: “Full steam ahead to fast-track more homes near stations”. On the face of it, I’m sure this was broadly welcomed by many. But for those of us who live in rural communities, it raises some serious concerns.

The Government has at least taken on board some of the feedback from its consultation on the NPPF. Minimum housing densities around “well-connected” railway stations – defined as stations with at least two trains per hour in either direction – have been reduced from 40 to 35 homes per hectare. For the busiest stations, the proposed density has also been reduced from 50 to 45 homes per hectare.

But this would still mean higher densities than what is in keeping with the character of largely rural areas.

It is sensible to require, as the new framework does, developers to prove that a pub has no realistic chance of continuing to operate successfully before allowing it to be converted into homes, offices or shops.

But there is a wider planning challenge facing East Hampshire.

Earlier this year, I wrote to Angela Rayner following her return to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, asking her to reconsider the use of the ‘standard method’ for calculating housing targets for individual councils. For East Hampshire, its use has resulted in the housing target effectively doubling.

Sadly, that plea has fallen on deaf ears. The standard method remains in place and East Hampshire District Council still faces the enormous challenge of finding sites for unreasonably large numbers of new homes each year.

At the same time, the council has had the rug pulled from underneath it with the Government’s decision to pause Local Government Reorganisation, which would have split the district in two. I was pleased that has been halted, though it should never have been initiated. We are now left with considerable uncertainty about what happens next.

And this document, too, creates confusion rather than bringing clarity.

The NPPF says that “gaps between settlements are to be no larger than needed”. But what exactly does that mean in practice?

Does it pave the way for ribbons of development between villages? Could villages gradually blur into one another, losing the distinctive character and identity that makes them special?

And then there is the issue of unauthorised development. The NPPF claims to strengthen the rules around intentional unauthorised development, making clear that councils should give “substantial weight” to the issue when considering retrospective planning applications.

But by the time a retrospective application is submitted, the damage is often already done – not only to the land itself, but also to the quality of life and enjoyment of the area for those living nearby. I called for the wording to be stronger than “substantial weight”.

These are not abstract planning questions. They go to the heart of what East Hampshire will look and feel like in the years ahead.

And that really matters.

We need more homes. We need homes that local families can afford. And we need development that provides the infrastructure our communities need – including water supplies, electricity and roads – and works with those communities rather than against them.

The Government may think that building more homes quickly near railway stations will solve the housing problem. I am not convinced.