HASLEMERE Mayor Malcolm Carter lodged a strong objection to planning officers’ recommendation to approve four new homes in Beacon Hill before they were approved last week.

Despite the town council’s objection, which was echoed by Waverley’s southern planning committee members, the application for the former furnishing warehouse site received planning consent.

After taking advice from officers, committee members decided, regretfully, they had no choice but to approve the plan, because an earlier application for three residential buildings had been approved.

The latest plan for the site in Hill Road, which triggered 19 objections, differed from the previous application in that the site area had been increased to include part of an adjacent residential garden.

The number of dwellings was increased to include a two-bedroom bungalow on the additional land, and the parking and landscaping layout was also changed to include the additional land.

Speaking during the public slot before the meeting, Mr Carter said: “It’s clear the areas for parking have now changed. the access is through a 3m-wide tunnel under a new building. There is no easy turning space for cars. This is over-development of a very small site.

“It will create a new level of residential density in the village. There is every chance cars will have to reverse out onto a road where cars are double parked all day and night, which is a safety hazard. This is a token parking scheme. The likelihood is the new residents will park on the street.

“Beacon Hill has suffered 15 new developments with no parking. At two recent appeals, the planning inspectors highlighted concerns infills caused ‘unacceptable problems.’

Councillor Peter Isherwood (Hindhead) who called the application in said: “I disagree this is a site where development can take place. It conflicts with the Haslemere Design Statement as it does not respect the character of the surroundings.

“Cars parked there are going to dominate Hill Road, manoeuvring in and out of the site. They will have to reverse across a pavement between cars parked to the left and right.

“It’s not safe. This is over development, it really is cramped.”

Other ward members agreed their biggest concern was the lack of parking for the number of homes proposed. But they were advised by their officers parking conditions for the addition of the two-bed bungalow had been met.

Deterred from objecting on parking grounds, committee members proposed objecting on design grounds, protesting it was “featureless” and the borough council could ask for something better.

But they were advised that would not be a strong enough ground for rejecting the scheme because the proposed bungalow was at the rear of the site. It would, therefore, not be visible from Hill Road, and design objections carried more weight when new buildings fronted a street.

“Finding a reason for refusal is nigh impossible,” Mr Isherwood said, withdrawing his original objection. “Sadly, the officers’ case cannot be gone against.

“The poor design of the bungalow is not really a good enough reason.”

• Members also agreed to defer an application to demolish a property in Tower Road, Hindhead, and build five new homes, after Surrey Wildlife Trust objected, insisting a full bat survey was required before any decision could be taken.