A practical sequence of proposed steps for East Hampshire.
Short, medium and longer-term stages describe what should happen first. They are not promised completion dates. Costs, funding and powers must be established before adopting a proposal.
Proposal
Keep community buildings affordable to run
Bordon’s community-centre upgrades and Alton’s club solar panels are reported installed.
Usable community places offer a practical benefit beyond large redevelopment plans.
Who could lead: East Hampshire District Council and community building operators.
- Start now — proposed
Record energy use and running costs before and after the work on a comparable basis.
- Next steps — proposed
Use measured savings to improve maintenance and affordable community access.
- Longer term — proposed
Share which improvements worked before supporting further buildings.
How to judge progress
Starting point: Dated completion or installation reports.
Measure: Weather-adjusted energy use, costs and community opening hours.
Trade-off: Installation costs and maintenance matter; a forecast saving is not proof of a lower bill.
Cost: No costed delivery assessment has been established here. These are proposed sequences, not funded promises or completion deadlines.
Bordon: Forest Community Centre energy upgrades →
Alton: solar panels at the Social Bowling Club →
Proposal
Resolve the Health Hub funding gap openly
The council says the Health Hub’s funding and terms were unresolved in September 2026.
People need a credible route to healthcare without losing existing provision prematurely.
Who could lead: NHS health commissioners, Defence Infrastructure Organisation, developer and East Hampshire District Council.
- Start now — proposed
Publish the outstanding decisions and the effect of each option on existing services.
- Next steps — proposed
Assess a deliverable hub alongside the alternative of retaining and improving Chase Hospital.
- Longer term — proposed
Track access to appointments and services after any agreed change.
How to judge progress
Starting point: Council request for confirmation by 24 December 2026.
Measure: Agreed funding, signed terms, service-continuity plan and access to care.
Trade-off: A larger new facility may offer more, but delay and unfunded running costs can undermine the benefit.
Cost: No costed delivery assessment has been established here. These are proposed sequences, not funded promises or completion deadlines.
Whitehill & Bordon: proposed Health Hub →
Proposal
Target home improvements where they help most
A limited Home Health Fund covers eligible households in the wider Bordon area.
Small home improvements can support people whose health or circumstances make cold homes harder.
Who could lead: East Hampshire District Council.
- Start now — proposed
Check current eligibility and remaining funds, with clear advice for people outside the scheme.
- Next steps — proposed
Prioritise suitable improvements and verify installation quality.
- Longer term — proposed
Measure household benefit and report how the limited fund was used.
How to judge progress
Starting point: June 2026 fund announcement; awards and balance not verified.
Measure: Eligible households assisted, completed work and changes in comfort or energy use.
Trade-off: A small fund cannot meet every household’s need and does not cover the whole district.
Cost: No costed delivery assessment has been established here. These are proposed sequences, not funded promises or completion deadlines.
Whitehill & Bordon: warmer homes grants →
Proposal
Keep town-centre promises tied to delivery
Whitehill & Bordon’s foodstore and Health Hub have different delivery risks and timetables.
A new town centre needs useful services, not a single date that implies everything is ready.
Who could lead: Developer, landowner, NHS and East Hampshire District Council.
- Start now — proposed
Publish separate verified milestones for shops, health services and access.
- Next steps — proposed
Keep residents informed about delays and temporary arrangements.
- Longer term — proposed
Check that occupied buildings deliver the intended everyday services.
How to judge progress
Starting point: Foodstore construction update and unresolved health-hub terms.
Measure: Confirmed openings, service availability and unresolved infrastructure dependencies.
Trade-off: Commercial construction and NHS decisions follow different funding and approval routes.
Cost: No costed delivery assessment has been established here. These are proposed sequences, not funded promises or completion deadlines.
Whitehill & Bordon: proposed Health Hub →
Whitehill & Bordon: new foodstore →
Proposal
Make room for homes people can afford
Average private rent is £1,262 a month (August 2026) in East Hampshire council area. This is £197 lower than the England average for the same month. Homes rented privately ranged from 6.1% in Alton Whitedown to 25.2% in Petersfield St Peter's — a gap of 19.2 percentage points.
Housing costs matter most alongside earnings and the number of affordable homes available. A local average cannot tell us whether a particular household can afford its home.
Who could lead: The housing and planning authorities, housing associations and developers.
- Start now
Publish the local waiting list, temporary accommodation and affordable-home delivery figures together. Start by checking the different needs in Petersfield St Peter's and Alton Whitedown; census differences are not proof of unmet demand.
- Over the next few years
Test proposed housing sites against affordable-home need, access to work, school places and water capacity.
- Over the longer term
Check whether completed homes reduce unmet need, rather than counting planning permissions as delivery.
How to judge progress
Starting point: Average private rent is £1,262 a month (August 2026) in East Hampshire council area. Homes rented privately ranged from 6.1% in Alton Whitedown to 25.2% in Petersfield St Peter's — a gap of 19.2 percentage points. 21 March 2021; 31 of 31 current wards have comparable figures.
Measure: Affordable homes completed, households waiting, time in temporary accommodation, and rent compared with local earnings.
Trade-off: More homes can put pressure on infrastructure and land. Affordability requirements also affect development viability.
Cost: No costed delivery assessment has been established here. These are proposed sequences, not funded promises or completion deadlines.
Evidence: Average monthly rent →
Evidence: Average home price →
Whitehill & Bordon: warmer homes grants →
Proposal
Plan homes and care around an older population
23.1% of people in East Hampshire council area were aged 65 or over (21 March 2021). People aged 65 or over ranged from 4.4% in Whitehill Pinewood to 30.8% in Petersfield St Peter's — a gap of 26.4 percentage points.
Age alone does not mean poor health or a need for care. Accessible homes, reliable transport and support close to home matter as people get older.
Who could lead: Adult social care, local health services, housing providers and transport authorities.
- Start now
Compare the location of older residents with access to care, shops and transport. Start by checking the different needs in Petersfield St Peter's and Whitehill Pinewood; census differences are not proof of unmet demand.
- Over the next few years
Prioritise home adaptations and care capacity in places with the clearest unmet need.
- Over the longer term
Build accessible homes and joined-up care into local development plans.
How to judge progress
Starting point: 23.1% aged 65 or over; 21 March 2021. People aged 65 or over ranged from 4.4% in Whitehill Pinewood to 30.8% in Petersfield St Peter's — a gap of 26.4 percentage points. 21 March 2021; 31 of 31 current wards have comparable figures.
Measure: Waits for home adaptations and care, avoidable hospital stays, and accessible homes delivered.
Trade-off: Services need skilled staff and ongoing funding. Age profiles alone cannot measure unmet care need.
Cost: No costed delivery assessment has been established here. These are proposed sequences, not funded promises or completion deadlines.
Evidence: People aged 65 or over →
Proposal
Bring support closer to people in poor health
3.6% of people reported bad or very bad health in East Hampshire council area (21 March 2021). Across England, the figure was 5.2%. People reporting bad or very bad health ranged from 2.3% in Froxfield, Sheet & Steep to 5% in Whitehill Chase — a gap of 2.7 percentage points.
This is how residents described their health in the census. It can reveal differences between neighbourhoods, but does not diagnose illness or measure current waiting times. Age profiles differ between places, so these shares do not measure service quality.
Who could lead: Local health services, public health teams, employers and community organisations.
- Start now
Use neighbourhood evidence to find where poor health and barriers to services overlap. Start by checking the different needs in Whitehill Chase and Froxfield, Sheet & Steep; census differences are not proof of unmet demand.
- Over the next few years
Test accessible local support and publish who is reached and who is missed.
- Over the longer term
Review whether health gaps narrow, alongside housing and employment improvements.
How to judge progress
Starting point: 3.6% reporting bad or very bad health; 21 March 2021. People reporting bad or very bad health ranged from 2.3% in Froxfield, Sheet & Steep to 5% in Whitehill Chase — a gap of 2.7 percentage points. 21 March 2021; 31 of 31 current wards have comparable figures.
Measure: Access to services and the health gap between neighbourhoods, using comparable age-adjusted measures when available.
Trade-off: A census snapshot is dated. New service decisions also need current needs assessments and residents’ experience.
Cost: No costed delivery assessment has been established here. These are proposed sequences, not funded promises or completion deadlines.
Evidence: People reporting bad or very bad health →
Whitehill & Bordon: proposed Health Hub →
Proposal
Connect local skills to local opportunities
38.7% of people aged 16 or over had a degree or equivalent (21 March 2021) in East Hampshire council area. Across England, the figure was 33.9%. People aged 16+ with no qualifications ranged from 7.9% in Bentworth & Froyle to 22.6% in Alton Eastbrooke — a gap of 14.6 percentage points.
Qualifications show one part of the skills available locally. They do not show whether people have secure jobs or work that uses those skills.
Who could lead: Employers, colleges, universities and the relevant skills authority.
- Start now
Compare vacancies and employer needs with training available to local residents. Start by checking the different needs in Alton Eastbrooke and Bentworth & Froyle; census differences are not proof of unmet demand.
- Over the next few years
Link training to real jobs, including routes for people without formal qualifications.
- Over the longer term
Track sustained employment and earnings after training, not just course starts.
How to judge progress
Starting point: 38.7% with a degree or equivalent; 21 March 2021. People aged 16+ with no qualifications ranged from 7.9% in Bentworth & Froyle to 22.6% in Alton Eastbrooke — a gap of 14.6 percentage points. 21 March 2021; 31 of 31 current wards have comparable figures.
Measure: Sustained jobs, earnings and training completion for residents who face barriers to work.
Trade-off: Training takes time and cannot create demand for jobs on its own. Qualifications are not a complete measure of ability.
Cost: No costed delivery assessment has been established here. These are proposed sequences, not funded promises or completion deadlines.
Evidence: People aged 16+ with a degree or equivalent →
Evidence: People aged 16+ with no qualifications →
Whitehill & Bordon: new foodstore →
Proposal
Target safety work where problems repeat
Mapped police records are available for neighbourhoods in East Hampshire council area.
Published locations are approximate and some crimes are not mapped. Counts show recorded incidents, not the chance of an individual becoming a victim.
Who could lead: The local police force, council community safety team and relevant services.
- Start now
Check recurring places and categories alongside local police priorities and residents’ reports.
- Over the next few years
Test focused prevention and support, with a comparison period agreed before the work starts.
- Over the longer term
Publish whether problems fall, move elsewhere or return, and adjust the response.
How to judge progress
Crime evidence and coverage →
Starting point: Use the dated, complete periods shown in Crime and safety; keep anti-social behaviour separate.
Measure: Comparable recorded incidents, repeat victimisation and residents’ reported experience; never a single crude league table.
Trade-off: More reporting can increase recorded crime. Enforcement and support may work differently for different problems.
Cost: No costed delivery assessment has been established here. These are proposed sequences, not funded promises or completion deadlines.
Proposal
Turn published plans into visible progress
5 named local projects or plans have official evidence in this collection.
A published plan makes responsibilities and intentions easier to inspect. It does not prove that funding is secured or that promised benefits have arrived.
Who could lead: The named project owners and council scrutiny bodies.
- Start now
Put the scope, owner, funding position and next milestone in one public place.
- Over the next few years
Report delivery against the agreed scope and explain delays or changes.
- Over the longer term
Check the benefits residents actually receive after completion.
How to judge progress
Starting point: The dated stages in Projects; unknown costs and funding remain unknown.
Measure: Milestones met, costs against the approved budget, and measured outcomes after delivery.
Trade-off: Delivery reporting takes staff time, but a launch announcement alone cannot show value for money.
Cost: No costed delivery assessment has been established here. These are proposed sequences, not funded promises or completion deadlines.
Whitehill & Bordon: proposed Health Hub →
Whitehill & Bordon: new foodstore →
Whitehill & Bordon: warmer homes grants →
Bordon: Forest Community Centre energy upgrades →
Alton: solar panels at the Social Bowling Club →
Proposal
Target support where disadvantages overlap
Households facing two or more measured disadvantages ranged from 6.6% in Horndean Catherington to 23.8% in Alton Eastbrooke — a gap of 17.1 percentage points.
These households met at least two census conditions covering education, employment, health and housing. This is not an income or poverty measure.
Who could lead: The council's housing, public health and employment teams, with local services.
- Start now
Check current advice and support access in Alton Eastbrooke, using the census pattern as a starting point and asking residents what is missing.
- Over the next few years
Test joined-up housing, work and health support, and publish who takes part, who cannot reach it and what changes.
- Over the longer term
Track sustained outcomes and whether gaps between neighbourhoods narrow, using comparable dates and measures.
How to judge progress
Starting point: Households facing two or more measured disadvantages ranged from 6.6% in Horndean Catherington to 23.8% in Alton Eastbrooke — a gap of 17.1 percentage points. 21 March 2021; 31 of 31 wards.
Measure: Access to support, unresolved housing problems and sustained work or health outcomes. Census percentages alone cannot measure a new programme's success.
Trade-off: Targeting neighbourhoods can miss people in need elsewhere. Avoid labelling every resident by the average for their ward.
Cost: No costed delivery assessment has been established here. These are proposed sequences, not funded promises or completion deadlines.
Evidence: Households facing two or more measured disadvantages →
Whitehill & Bordon: proposed Health Hub →
Whitehill & Bordon: new foodstore →
Whitehill & Bordon: warmer homes grants →
Bordon: Forest Community Centre energy upgrades →
Alton: solar panels at the Social Bowling Club →
