LINDFORD is celebrating after scoring a second successive victory in its battle to retain an early 20th century house. Savile Properties Limited wanted to demolish the Victorian property in Liphook Road and replace it with eight flats. Under the controversial proposals, 14 parking spaces would have been provided. A new access would also have been built. The application drew fierce criticism from Lindford Parish Council and 22 local residents when it was submitted last year. Concerns included the plans being out of keeping with the area, sustainability, inadequate parking and increased traffic. But it was eventually thrown out by East Hampshire District Council's north planning committee – against the advice of the officers – as overdevelopment and being out of keeping with the area. The victory was short lived, however, as the developer appealed three months later - throwing the future of the property into the balance once again. But this week the village was celebrating again when a government inspector ruled in its favour and dismissed the appeal. In his report, John Greenwood found that the density of the proposed development was too high for a village such as Lindford. He said: "Both the council and local objectors expressed concern about the density of the development which would be about 80 dwellings per hectare. This is well in excess of the range indicated in paragraph 58 of Planning Policy Guidance 3: housing of between 30 and 50 dwellings per hectare. "The same paragraph encourages higher densities in places with good public transport accessibility but the examples given clearly exclude areas such as Lindford." Mr Greenwood said he had serious reservations about the "design solution" proposed by the developer. He said: "A planning design statement was submitted with the application but this provides no clear indication of the design principles which governed the submission, whilst the 'design solution' refers simply to the distribution of parking between the front and the back of the building and the intention to erect a two-storey building with pitched roofs reflecting 'local Victorian styles of architecture'. "In my opinion this does not explain or justify the form and mass of the submitted scheme which I find to be inappropriate in its context for the following main reasons. First, the layout gives undue prominence to parking spaces at the front of the site. I recognise that the care home next door has extensive hard surfacing but this appears to be of long standing and should not be regarded as a precedent. "Second, the wide archway with wrought iron gates under it appears to me to have been introduced as a merely functional requirement rather than as an integral part of a cohesive design for the building as a whole. It also appears to me that it is entirely uncharacteristic of the area and that it would seriously detract from the street scene. "Third, the juxtaposition of the heavy main roof with a flat central section to accommodate a second floor, two gables of different widths and heights and two dormers which bear little relationship to the design and form of the lower part of the building produces a restless elevation without a coherent form. "The combined effect of these features with the prominent siting of the building, its overall mass and its proximity to the site boundaries, would, in my opinion, result in a development which would significantly detract from the character and appearance of the area." District councillor for Lindford Yvonne Parker Smith told The Herald she was delighted with the inspector's decision. "The parish council and myself fought against it because it was totally out of character with the street scene. We have not got many older buildings in Lindford, so we are absolutely delighted with the decision. "We have suffered setbacks lately, for example the Chase Road development, so to have this victory for common sense is good news." Parish council chairman Ian Skelton-Smith said: "We wanted to preserve the building which is relatively significant in the middle of Lindford. The design of the flats was rather ugly. "We are delighted that it has been refused. They have obviously listened to what we said."
