RESIDENTS from Hindhead who staged a campaign to stop housing developers from building a block of high density homes in a semi-rural part of the area are reflecting on having won the battle, but lost the war.
A government planning inspector has concluded that plans by Laing Homes to build 27 units with basement and surface parking were unacceptable on the one-and-a-half acre site, following the demolition of the former Wilton Nursing Home.
But it was turned down only on the positioning of the block of flats and not the density involved.
The appeal and subsequent planning inquiry were held after Waverley failed to come up with a decision within the time limit, but later said the planning application would have been refused on a number of grounds.
Among them was the effect on the character of the surrounding area, its trees and adjoining properties, lack of childrenÕs play space, plus concerns over school places and public transport.
Home owners, a number of whom spoke at the public inquiry last month, now fear that a new application for the same number of homes will be passed, opening the flood gates for home owners with large back gardens to sell them off to property developers.
ÒI think the inspectorÕs report is disappointing,Ó said the councillor for the area and leader of the minority group of Conservatives on Waverley Borough Council, David Harmer.
ÒThe decision to turn down the proposals is good, but the inspectorÕs report doesnÕt reflect the issues we raised.
ÒThe big concern for everybody is that the local plan calls for 30 to 50 homes per hectare. But in this sort of environment 30 homes per hectare should be at the top end and this planning application is for 45 homes.
ÒEverybody who has got a big house and substantial garden could consider reorganising their lives and people do think about it. We could end up with an homogeneous urban sprawl with considerably higher densities than we had in the past,Ó said Mr Harmer.
And he warned if high density housing applications continued to be permitted, Òthe character of southern England could be seriously damagedÓ.
Marie Buckley, who helped to spearhead the Winton Action Group to stop the development, said she too was Ònot altogether happyÓ with the inspectorÕs report.
She criticised Surrey County Council and Waverley Borough Council for not giving the residents Òany backup in any way, shape or form, including turning down the promise of a £26,000 contribution from the developers for school and transport, should the development go aheadÓ.
Mrs Buckley was also concerned over the lack of mention of the policy which protects semi-rural areas, known as PPG 3 supplementary guidance.
Deputy mayor of Haslemere Jean Arrick, whose garden backs onto the site, said the appeal decision was made on Òa finer point basisÓ, rather than density. She was concerned that it could create Òa worrying foot in the doorÓ situation, with people Òselling their gardens for high-rise blocks.
ÒI am very disappointed that the inspector didnÕt see it as being out of character with the area and too high a density.Ó
Government planning inspector David Smith said in his report: ÒI find that the proposal would be sustainable and would meet the government policy objective of making an efficient use of land.
ÒThe proposed built development would respect the character and appearance of the area and there would not be a serious threat to the long-term retention of trees. Adequate provision would be made for play space.
ÒHowever the proposal would significantly reduce the living condition of the occupiers of Talisman by reason of its visual impact,Ó concluded Mr Smith.