BITTERLY disappointed Lindford residents lost their long battle to stop outline planning permission for 207 houses in Chase Road last Wednesday. East Hampshire District Council's full council voted 20 to 14 votes to support the planning officer's recommendation and grant outline permission for the dwellings. The application went before the full council following a special north planning meeting held in January. Despite the fact that members voted to refuse the proposal at this meeting, head of planning at EHDC Ian Ellis exerted his powers and recommended that it went before the full council. Lindford residents turned up at Liphook's Millennium Hall in their hundreds to witness the outcome of the application that they have spent more than two years fighting. Those against the application highlighted the problems of housing density, traffic calming, highways and traffic, flooding, ecology and biodiversity and lack of sustainability. EHDC case officer Chris Murray pointed out that the greenfield site had already been earmarked for development by the council in 2002. He said: "The principal should not be an issue, nor should sustainability, the council has already made that decision in the local plan. You have to decide if the difference between the two figures (165 and 207) causes demonstrable harm. "My conclusion is that there are no material reasons why this application is unacceptable. I strongly recommend you accept the recommendation and grant this permission." He added: "What has been lost during the debate are the benefits of the new community facilities. Money will be given to recreation and a significant area of open space. Contributions will also be made to education, highways and pedestrian access." Frank Lunt, speaking on behalf of Lindford residents, said: "In my considered opinion, in every respect, this has disaster written all over it. All we want is to save a small part of rural England. Please reject the application." Lindford Parish Council chairman Ian Skelton Smith said: "In opposing this development the parish council is speaking for well over 90 per cent of Lindford residents – as expressed in the Village Appraisal and other surveys. We have also had strong expressions of support from Whitehill, Headley and other neighbouring parishes." He continued: "This is the only significant greenfield space in our very densely populated village. It would be a huge development in relation to the size of Lindford. "Plans to develop the site date from the mid 1990s. They were inappropriate then, and are more so today." The developer John Brinley, speaking on behalf of Bellway Homes, said: "All that we ask is that the debate is based on fact, not on misinterpretations or unfounded allegations." He continued: "The facts are that two local planning inspectors have already allocated the planning site and the Highways Agency, English Nature and all other statutory bodies have accepted the officers' recommendation to give permission." Local member Yvonne Parker Smith spoke at length about the reason she felt that the application should be refused. She said: "Members, please assist me in ensuring that my village is not ruined, and not sacrificed to meet the housing figures." Ferris Cowper seconded Mrs Parker Smith's proposal to refuse the application. He said: "It's like having a gun to the head that if we refuse it, hell and damnation will fall on EHDC. What are we elected for if the planning process is receipt and execution of the government's instructions? We may as well pack up and go home. As councillors, if we don't think it is good or right, it is our job to vote against it. "The developer wants to make as much money as he can. This greed caused the number of houses to rise to 207, let's risk the fine. The only option is refusal." Geoffrey Whittle agreed: "If it costs money then so be it, let's not be cowed." Councillors Adam Carew and Donald Mayes decided to withdraw from the debate following legal advice and declared their personal and prejudicial interest in the application owing to their involvement with the Dead Water Valley Trust, which was consulted on the application. Patrick Burridge said: "The developer has already lodged an appeal which is due to be heard in a few weeks. We have to think in terms of the planning gain, it is a very beautiful setting for public open space, a river side walk and there will be nice community facilities. We have to think of the opportunity costs you run by refusing this application." He continued: "This is not going to stand up at appeal. I am very unhappy about the reasons for refusal." Elizabeth Cartwright agreed: "We have accepted the principle of the site. We accepted that we would agree to 165 houses. We are now left with the question, are 207 houses too many? What difference will the extra 42 make? Not much. If we grant permission, with all the conditions we can control the site. If we lose we could not impose the conditions." She continued: "We all agree that Lindford is not the most sustainable of places. I suggest we add a condition giving two parking spaces per unit, I would also prefer it if the houses were no more than two storeys high. Finally, why should the money for recreation be given to Whitehill or Bordon, why not Lindford?" She concluded: "What happens if we refuse? We know the appeal will be in May. The cost is too high in the end and when we lose the appeal we will still have the houses. The mitigating conditions make it acceptable, I am happy to support this application." Tony Ludlow said: "The risk is that you get fined, but I don't think you would lose control of the application. It is still only outline and it will come back to committee with details and conditions." Geoffrey Whittle said: "It is nonsense to say that expert witnesses are never wrong. At an appeal, expert witnesses are cross-examined and have to give answers. Don't be under the impression that their word is law." Anna James said: "I'm not bothered if this goes to appeal. This is not reckless, it is reasonable. I will not have the cost counting against us." Members voted on Yvonne Parker Smith's proposal to reject the application which was lost by 19 votes to 15 with two abstentions. The meeting then voted for the officer's recommendation to approve the application with Mrs Cartwright's suggestions added to the already lengthy list of conditions. The recommendation was approved by 20 votes to 14. Following the meeting, Frank Lunt said: "We are desperately disappointed, of course. The planning authorities have wiped their feet all over Lindford and left a muddy trail. They tell us it was a democratic process but we don't believe a word of it. They twisted every statement in their favour. My prediction is that by the time they've finished there will be 240 or 250 houses down there. It's going to be a disaster." He continued: "SOIL (Stop Over Development in Lindford group) will continue to meet on a weekly basis, we're not disbanding. We will seek advice about where to go from here. I think to overturn it would be an impossible task but we are writing to the chief executive of EHDC about several points." He added: "We will keep a close eye on the detailed plans that come to light. We need to decide how best to minimise the effect of 207 plus houses, but what form that will take we don't yet know." He concluded: "We will be continuing more vigourously because we've got our heckles up from their very poor decision." Ian Skelton Smith said: "The parish council has not met since the meeting but we will probably challenge some of the procedures - important documents only given to councillors at the start of the meeting, and two Whitehill councillors, who had spoken strongly against the development at the January meeting, given advice which led them to withdraw." He continued: "We will, in any case, work to minimise the damage and to ensure that the developer provides appropriate planning gain. On a positive note, I am pleased about the increased numbers of cars per dwelling." "It's disappointing. I think some of the councillors were swayed by the appeal which already has a date set, which many felt would support the developer. Also it would cost EHDC a lot of money which shouldn't really be a consideration, it's not very democratic." Mrs Parker Smith said: "I am totally gutted. You are elected to represent your village but are handstrung by the government saying you have to build so many houses per hectare. No one wanted 100 houses let alone that number to double with all the attendant highway problems. The parish council and the SOIL group have worked so hard. I can't believe it really, the village will grow by 25 per cent but no one seems to care about the terrible problems associated with that." She concluded: "We will have to keep a close eye when the detailed planning application comes through to ensure that all the conditions, including the new ones, are complied with." Regardless of the outcome of this meeting an appeal has already been lodged by Bellway Homes because no decision on the application was given within the statutory eight week period.
