CLAIMS of intimidation by the landlord, a threat to tear down workshop signs and warnings that services may be cut were all alleged as a routine planning inquiry became heated last week. The inquiry - into whether approval should be given to pull down buildings in a traditional small business site and replace them with five houses - had been largely dealing with planning policies and the impact on small companies in Haslemere. But accusations started flying when local businessmen and residents had their say, with one accusing site owner Peter Hunt of threatening him should he appeal against the proposal. The allegations were made during the public inquiry into the appeal at Waverley Borough Council's offices in Godalming. Christopher Ashton-Jones, who runs Sheen Botanical Labels at the site, in Bakehouse Yard, off Petworth Road, also told the inquiry that he had a "gut-feeling" Mr Hunt would cut off his services if he did not leave the site. Making the allegations while giving evidence, he said: "In August 2004 he approached me to say he had applied for planning permission, and that I would be extremely unwise to oppose it or encourage others to do so. "This was done in such a threatening manor that I resigned from the Haslemere Society." Mr Ashton-Jones told the inquiry that he quit because the society would be opposing the plans and he did not want to be seen as siding with either party. He added: "I received two letters from Mr Hunt. The first said he was going to take down the company sign and that we were not to place any sign on the exterior of the building. As a small company we feel proud to have a royal warrant and want to display it. "The second letter gave us 30 days' notice to remove a hydraulic press from a shed that we had re-roofed for £900. "If he succeeds in this application we would have to move. We would have to close down our business." However, Graeme Keen, acting for the appellant, said Mr Ashton-Jones' fears were not consistent with events. He told the inquiry that Mr Ashton-Jones had written a letter at the time of the application praising Mr Hunt as a landlord - a letter he resubmitted this year. Mr Hunt did want to take the signs down, he claimed, but only to replace them with one general sign listing everyone who used the site. As far as the services were concerned, Mr Hunt had served Mr Ashton-Jones with notice to quit the building - citing health and safety reasons - and had said that once he left the services could be shut off. The appellant also faced tough questioning from other residents who strongly feel the site should be left for business use. Robert Serman, president of The Haslemere Society, told the inquiry that there were not any areas in and around Haslemere suitable for small business, and that the planned houses would take away Haslemere's character. He said: "It says 'The scheme has been sensitively designed to be in keeping with the Surrey vernacular'. I groan when I see these words as we can envisage a plethora of tile hanging, twee plastic leaded windows, lots of frilly leadwork, contrasting brick coigns and banded brickwork. "We might even finish up with a few pieces of wood nailed on to one or two to make them look really rustic. "It is all horrible, crude, vulgar. We are building the slums of the future by overpopulating these areas." Joe Baker, another user of the site, said he had proved companies would be interested in Bakehouse Yard by advertising the available space. However, he had not advertised it with the owner's permission. Guy Williams, acting for Waverley Borough Council, said in his closing speech that the appeal should be rejected because several key planning policies state that all efforts should be made to keep business sites that may be useful. He claimed that the appellants had not done enough marketing to show there was no interest in the site, and added the application would have been better if it was for a mixture of business and residential use, or to revamp the run-down buildings on the site. He said: "On the issue of the site's viability, the evidence is just not good enough to say it is not viable. "No-one has provided us with evidence to show a viability study, and there are no work costs. "The whole point in going to market is to see if it is viable and letting the open market decide. The council should expect the developer to show some robust evidence." However, Mr Keen hit back at the council in his closing speech, saying that Ailsa Rhodes - who was not present but sent in a statement highlighting flaws in the appellant's marketing - had done little to explain what evidence was needed. A decision should be taken in a maximum of six weeks' time.
