WAVERLEY faced a severe grilling this week as the two-day public inquiry into a controversial planning application to turn a former nursing home into a block of flats got under way.
David Elvin, who gave evidence on the first day of the two-day inquiry on Monday, also described the council's concerns over the area's sustainability as "bizarre and irrational".
Residents turned out at Waverley Borough Council HQ in force for the inquiry which comes after a development company lodged an appeal. It was because of Waverley's failure to come to a decision on the plans within the eight weeks allowed under government planning guidelines.
Later Waverley said that had the issue been allowed to be debated, it would have recommended refusal. The council blamed the delay on the amount of work required on the planning application before it went to committee, and staff shortages.
Householders were outraged by the density of the proposed development which comprised of 20, two-bedroom homes, six one-bedroom and one two-bedroom affordable units, which included an additional building at the rear of the former nursing home to form an L-shape.
David Elvin, the barrister acting on behalf of Laing Homes said in his opening statement that the proposal was of appropriate and sympathetic design and would be replacing an "ugly" building of little merit.
"This proposal is an appropriate mix of residential use, private, affordable flats, which is currently missing from the area at present. The location is plainly suitable for residential use and the proposed density has already been agreed by the council as appropriate.
"It is imperative to use these kind of sites for housing as it takes pressure of an already constrained county."
Mr Elvin rebuked the central objections from Waverley and local residents who argue that the proposal is out of keeping with current houses, would be intrusive to neighbouring properties and have a detrimental impact upon local trees.
He criticised the conduct of Waverley officers, who he claimed made significant errors when judging the application.
"Waverley officers had got the distances between properties wrong, and told members that distances were half their actual size, so this appeal has been analysed on a flawed basis."
Mr Elvin also disputed claims that the site was unsustainable. "To suggest this is an unsustainable location when it is close to local conveniences and an adequate bus service is bizarre and irrational."
Defending the council, Alison Oakes argued that the scale and design of the development would have an adverse effect on the area and would result in a lack of privacy for current residents. "The development is simply too big and too near neighbouring properties."
Miss Oakes also said the proposal would be an "unacceptable threat to trees" and did not provide a children's play area.
"We do not feel the limited local transport facilities are sufficient and as a result would lead to increased car usage."
Her comments were reiterated by John Blackwell, employed by Waverley as an independent planning consultant. He claimed that the trees were a key feature of the area and would lead to a "real and perceived loss of privacy for existing residents".
On Monday, residents had the chance to have their say.
Waverley councillor David Harmer, speaking as councillor for the area, spoke of the lack of infrastructure and lack of school places for young children. He said Beacon Hill School had very few vacancies and Churt School was full.
Mr Harmer also spoke of the inability of people to travel to work by bus because of the poor service and threatened cut -backs in local bus services.
"It flies in the face of government policies," said Mr Harmer.
In all, eight residents gave evidence with Andy Arrick, a consultant planner whose home backs on to the proposed development, saying that no one was in dispute with the principle of development on the land, purely the density and the position of the four-storey block with a basement.
He told the inquiry that Laing had lodged its appeal on the 57th day after registration of its application, without accounting for Christmas and new year holidays.
He said he doubted whether the developers had ever intended serious negotiations with the council. He felt fewer units on the site would be acceptable.
Marie Buckley another neighbour said she had never objected to residential development but not 27 units. She accused developers of being "driven by money".
Planning inspector David Smith was expected to make a second site visit before announcing his decision within the next six weeks.