ÒPEOPLE are more important than treesÓ was the message from district councillors who enthusiastically approved extension plans for the Chase Community Hospital.

East Hampshire District CouncilÕs north planning committee rejected the recommendation of officers and gave the scheme the rubber stamp, paving the way for work on the extensions to begin next month.

Last week it was feared that the refurbishment projects could hit a hurdle after officers recommended to the committee that it refused planning permission for the extension, housing a four-bed ward, because it involved the loss of too many trees which have special protection.

Instead officers were in favour of amended plans, moving the extensionÕs position and meaning that only three trees would be lost. But this option is costlier and health chiefs were hopeful councillors would approve the cheaper option.

Case officer Keith Oliver outlined to councillors the reasons why a refusal had been recommended.

He said: ÒIt is quite a feature of the hospital that it has many trees - it adds character.

ÒIf this extension goes ahead then some of the best trees in this part of the site would be lost.Ó

The committee heard that changing the position of the extension would mean that only three trees would have to be felled but also add between £30,000 to £40,000 to the refurbishment bill.

Councillors were also told that it would mean patients would have a view of a brickwall instead of having a more scenic view of trees.

Geoffrey Whittle, cabinet member for health and environmental health, asked for the plans to be put to the committee and urged members to approve the original scheme because of the impact that the amended plans Òwould have on the patientsÓ.

The councillor got the backing of almost every other member of the planning committee.

Whitehill - Hogmoor councillor Michael Watkinson described the trees to be felled as ÒspindlyÓ and said that even with them being removed Òthere is still a substantial tree screenÓ.

He pointed out that the need for extra facilities in Bordon and Whitehill justified the handful of trees being removed.

ÒWe are left in a position that we have to lose some of our green areas and that is because of poor planning,Ó he said.

Yvonne Parker-Smith (Lindford) also gave the scheme her backing by declaring that to refuse it would be Òabsolute and complete nonsenseÓ. She said: ÒPeople are more important than trees.Ó

Other members of the planning committee expressed similar views and suggested that the hospital be asked to plant replacement trees which will mean that the town will lose nothing.

Only one councillor voted in favour of the officersÕ recommendation, which pleased Geoffrey Whittle who, after the meeting, told The Herald: ÒI am delighted that the committee decided to support this applicationÓ.

The ChaseÕs redevelopment project manager, Lisa Briggs from the North Hampshire Primary Care Trust, was equally thrilled.

She told The Herald: ÒI am delighted that the plans have been passed and can confirm that building work will start within the next month.

ÒThe trust is confident that work will be completed on target and that the hospital will be fully operational as of April 1, 2004.Ó

The redevelopment work will be carried out in three phases, the first of which is to be completed by Christmas. It will see significant building work to redevelop the existing ward area to provide purpose-built facilities for the implementation of the new intermediate care model of patient care.

Additionally, two new generic treatment rooms will be built to support the increasing work of the Bordon hospitalsÕ Diagnosis and Treatment Centre.

The reception area and outpatientsÕ areas will also be refurbished and a second car parking facility developed, although planning approval is still required.

The hospital will not close during the refurbishment period. However, bed numbers will drop during the first phase and rise again during phases two and three. All existing services that run out of the Chase Hospital will continue as normal.