CONTROVERSIAL plans for a quad biking, paintballing and moto-paragliding centre in Kingsley have been turned down by the district council following an outcry from some villagers.

A planning application had been submitted to East Hampshire District Council seeking permission to use agricultural land at Old Park Farm for the different outdoor activities, and to build a reception building for the new activity centre.

But the plans were not well received by some residents and 71 of them wrote to EHDC objecting to the plans. Kingsley Parish Council also lodged an objection to the application.

The report of case officer Keith Oliver said: ÒThe business would be geared towards the corporate market, which it is anticipated would form 40 per cent of the business.

ÒThe quad bikes and paintballing would also be marketed locally within an area of up to one hourÕs drive distance. The moto-paragliding would be a specialist activity with enthusiasts coming from a much wider area.

ÒThe applicants consider that the proposals would safeguard existing farm jobs, and in total provide the equivalent of three full-time jobs. In addition some benefits may accrue to local hoteliers and caterers.

ÒThe operation now sought is based on a similar venture in France, and would provide Ôa limited specialist range of quality exercises uniquely different from other UK centresÕ.Ó

But the plans were strongly opposed by residents who expressed fears that the venture would prove too noisy and be a nuisance to Kingsley residents.

Increased traffic, the Ôundesirable impactÕ on the countryside and impact on local wildlife are among the fears which were expressed by those who opposed the application.

Kingsley Parish Council, joined by its neighbour Binsted Parish Council, objected to the plans, arguing that it would be too noisy, there was no need for the centre as similar facilities exist elsewhere in the district, and expressing fears that it would harm local wildlife.

They said: ÒWhile we acknowledge that the government is encouraging farmers to diversify, this should not be done in an insensitive manner to the detriment of the land and local residents.

ÒAll land is under intense pressure especially in the South East and this application puts an unacceptable amount of further pressure on this area of comparatively quiet beautiful Hampshire countryside.

ÒIt will do nothing but harm to the considerable amount of wildlife that includes badgers, deer, foxes, owls, partridges etc. in an area which is something of a haven and not constantly disturbed by human beings.

ÒWe view this application at the extreme end of the disturbance scale and totally out of keeping with the local area.Ó

In his report Mr Oliver said that the application not only attracted objections from a number of Kingsley residents but also the concerns of other council officers.

The environmental health officer recommended a list of conditions to limit the impact on Kingsley, while the landscape officer and network development officer expressed concerns at the proximity of the activity centre to two public footpaths.

The archaeological officer and ecology officer also raised some fears about the plans.

In his report the planning officer said that the fears of residents were very real and that he did not believe planning conditions would be enough to safeguard the village.

ÒThe site is ringed by public rights of way, and concern has been raised as to the impact of the development on the peace and tranquillity of the countryside.

ÒIt is likely that many people from the village and the surrounding area will use the footpaths and bridle ways as a local resource for the peace and solitude they afford.

ÒThe introduction of recreational activities unrelated to the area could be seen as an intrusive feature contrary to the existing character.

ÒIn addition the uses rely on a large catchment area, with the likelihood that the majority of users would come by private transport, due to the lack of public transport serving this site.Ó

The plans were refused on the grounds that there was not enough evidence to suggest an activity centre is needed in a rural area which has poor public transport links, and because of the noise which would be heard by walkers using the adjacent public footpaths.