A DISPUTE over land ownership could leave a pensioner living alone in Sheet battling with an 'ambitious property developer' if East Hampshire District Council gave the go ahead for six new homes, councillors were told last week. The south planning committee were looking at plans from Chertsey Estate Ltd to build one four- bedroom house, four three-bedroom houses and one two-bedroom house on land off Farnham Road in Sheet, after the demolition of Sunnymeade Cottage. Although they were recommended by their officers to give the plan the go-ahead, members decided to refuse it after hearing strong objections from villagers. They also heard from Petersfield councillor Guy Stacpoole, who outlined what he claimed would be a "series of impacts" on Sheet. Speaking on behalf of the objectors was Clive Shore, who made it clear that although he was a Petersfield town councillor, he was speaking as a resident of Sheet. Mr Shore said there was a dispute over who owned a key parcel of land in front of a workshop owned by the resident of Rotherside. The developer claimed they owned the land, but Mr Shore countered, saying: "In fact they don't, and they are putting pressure on the pensioner to relinquish her title." Mr Shore claimed: "Without this land , the access to the site is only 3.8 metres and this is too narrow to allow large vehicles to pass safely." He added: "The planner's view is that should approval be granted, and if the developers infringe on the the pensioner's land, then it is up to her to take legal action. This places a huge emotional burden on a single pensioner facing an ambitious property developer." He asked councillors: "Would you be happy with that situation? This is a responsible, well-respected council, and we ask that you don't approve these plans until the ownership dispute is fully resolved." Mr Shore claimed the plan also represented over- development of the site. And he told the meeting that the proposed development would have a material adverse impact on neighbouring properties and residents. The 60 letters – "individual responses, genuine concerns, not a petition" – and the number of villagers who had turned out to hear the planning debate last week bore testimony to significant opposition to the plan, stressed Mr Shore. In addition, he told the planning meeting the assessment of the traffic impact was flawed and should be reviewed. "All roads to the site are so narrow that two cars cannot pass – Inmans Lane, Mill Lane, School Lane and Village Street. This development will add another 12 cars to an already congested village." And he was also concerned that no consideration had been given to the increased risk of flooding on Mill Lane. Mr Stacpoole told the meeting: "This is not just about figures, its also about people and a charming little village called Sheet. There is no doubt whatsoever that this proposal would have a significant impact, or a series of impacts, on Sheet and an impact on all the neighbouring houses." Elizabeth Cartwright said she was concerned about flooding on the highway. Although Sheet was a beautiful village, it already had enormous congestion problems, said Jennifer Gray, and she was concerned about the increased risk to children walking to school because there were no pavements. Councillors refused permission on the grounds that it would have an adverse impact on the community and the neighbouring properties and the character of the area because of the size, scale, bulk and mass of the new houses and the amount of hard surfacing on the site.
