Members of Waverley southern area planning committee unanimously rejected plans by Camberley-based Habitas Developments for 16 new homes on almost 4.2 acres of land at Chasemoor, Portsmouth Road, last Wednesday.
The site which runs alongside the north western side of old A3 Portsmouth Road and the new A3 Hindhead tunnel approach trunk road lies close to Kingswood Lane, is within a mile of Grayshott village centre and borders on the East Hampshire District Council (EHDC) boundary.
The plans which attracted 27 letters of objection and one of support, brought objections from Grayshott Parish Council among which was a perceived “threat to the character of the village”.
EHDC also objected on the grounds the development was planned on an isolated site not within Local Plan.
Increased traffic and the harmful effect on the rural character of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) were also included among its objections.
Waverley planning officers recommended the application, which proposed five three-bed and 11 four-bed homes with access from the Old Portsmouth Road, should be refused.
Borough councillor Jim Edwards told the meeting the proposed development was “outside the settlement boundary and an over-development.”
And he considered the gardens in the large homes were inadequate with those in small semi-detached houses in the vicinity twice the size.
“The development is totally unacceptable as far as I can see.”
Calls for a deferment to allow the developers to remedy any concerns by planners were rejected by Stephen Mulliner (Haslemere East and Grays- wood), who said plans – which made no provision for affordable homes – has too many properties for the site’s size, and were not suitable to defer.
Haslemere, Critchmere and Shottermill’s Carole King described the application as “premature.” She said: “There needs to be a huge improvement on bedroom sizes which don’t meet the national standard and the proposed back gardens are far too small.”
She also considered the planned communal play area “out of keeping,” along with the layout and density of the site, and for being too close and harmful to existing properties.
Speaking in support of the application, the agent’s Michael Conoley maintained the ANOB had been “downgraded’ since the building of the Hindhead tunnel and the homes would be completely screened by mature trees and surrounded by their own landscaping. The effect of the environment he claimed was “negligible” because of the tunnel.
In calling for an adjournment of the decision because of the lack of a planning meeting in April, Mr Conoley said a recent viability report stated the developers would provide more than £500,000 for affordable housing at another site in the borough.
Waverley officers gave 10 reasons for refusal. Among them were its location and harmful effect on the landscape and AONB and natural landscape of the Surrey Areas of Great Landscape Value, as well as being against planning guidelines.
They also found the proposed development was not in accordance with the council’s housing need for an inclusive and mixed community, with no affordable housing, insufficient play space, overlooking and its quality of accommodation.
There were also concerns over levels of overshadowing of one proposed dwelling because of mature trees which could result in harm to future property owners and a possibility of pressure to lop or fell other mature trees in the future.
There was also the lack of a legal agreement for developer contributions to primary education and highway and environmental improvements.
Finally, officers said insufficient information had been submitted to show the properties would not be significantly affected by noise from the A3.
A previous application for 44 homes, including 13 affordable homes on a larger plot in the same vicinity was turned down in May 2015.
nFears over inspector’s ruling p7
Comments
This article has no comments yet. Be the first to leave a comment.