A HOUSING association can now forge ahead with plans for 25 homes in Whitehill after securing planning permission on appeal.
Sentinel Housing Group submitted proposals to East Hampshire District Council in September last year to axe five former police houses and Sutton Field garage block in Petersfield Road and replace them with 25 houses and flats, comprising 11 two-bedroom homes, eight three-bedroom homes, two four-bedroom homes and four one-bedroom flats.
Under the plans the access to the site would be split with 19 of the homes accessed through Sutton Field, while the remaining six homes would have access from Petersfield Road.
District planners threw out the plans in January this year, which led to the developer appealing against the decision to the secretary of state for the Environment, Transport and the Regions.
It was decided that the appeal should be determined by way of written representations.
However, at the same time the housing association also had another appeal underway which it had lodged against an earlier set of plans to demolish the former police homes and garage block and replace them with 25 homes. But this set of plans proposed the access to be only from Sutton Field.
Planning permission was won on appeal in March this year for the first appeal, but the developer did not start work on the development because, The Herald understands, they preferred to proceed with the second scheme.
Following the appeal decision in favour of the applicant the district council notified the planning Inspectorate that it no longer wished to contest the applicant's second appeal.
In June, while waiting for a decision on the second appeal, the housing association resubmitted its plans, which were subject of the ongoing appeal, to East Hampshire District Council in a bid to get work started on the site.
Just a month later a government planning Inspector overturned the district council's decision and allowed the housing association's second appeal.
Local residents and district councillors raised concerns that the development would cause further parking problems in Sutton Field and expressed fears over highway safety should the plans go ahead, but planning Inspector Christian Leigh said that the development would cause "no harm" to highway safety or the free flow of traffic.
"The previous Inspector found that the scheme before him made adequate provision for car parking and would not worsen the existing parking situation or free flow of traffic in Sutton Field," Mr Leigh's report said.
"He also found that the cul-de-sac of Sutton Field was an adequate highway network to safely accommodate the volume of traffic that would be generated by the 25 dwellings accessing the appeal site. Finally, he concluded that the junction of Sutton Field with the A325 Petersfield Road was adequate.
"The current proposal would see a reduction in the number of vehicle movements along Sutton Field due to the new access point to Petersfield Road. Given the conclusions of the previous Inspector I am of the opinion that the proposed development would cause no harm to highway safety or the free flow of traffic along Sutton Field or at its junction with Petersfield Road."
He added: "A condition could be attached to ensure alternative off-road car parking for those residents who would lose car parking."
Mr Leigh also said that vehicles accessing and leaving the site via the existing access on to Petersfield Road would not pose a danger to highway users.
"The road is straight which aids visibility and at my site visit speeds did not appear high. Therefore, I am satisfied that the limited amount of traffic that would use this access would not be harmful to highway safety or the free flow of traffic."
Concerns were raised by local people about the effect the proposed access from Petersfield Road would have on the trees along the front of the site, but Mr Leigh concluded that the proposed access would not "unacceptably harm this local landscape feature".
"The access would be taken from an existing access point, although the layout plan shows the removal of one tree. I agree that the trees along the Petersfield Road frontage of the site contribute to the character and appearance of the area and I am satisfied that the proposed access would not unacceptably harm this local landscape feature."
The town council expressed concern that there was a demand for larger houses in Bordon and Whitehill, while the developer was proposing a mix of smaller and larger homes.
But Mr Leigh said that while there was a demand for larger homes there was also a need for the type of housing which the housing association was proposing.
In conclusion, Mr Leigh decided to allow the developer's appeal, but added that the district council should acquire a legal document from the applicant's relating to affordable housing provision and a contribution to off-site open space.