WAVERLEY councillors last week rejected plans to build a massive 82-unit elderly people's assisted living building on land, at Expedier House, in Hindhead. The 1.84-hectare site lies directly on the A3, and if proposals had been given the green light, the existing building would have been demolished, along with the felling of several trees. The application, which also includes associated parking, an access road and landscaping, on the Portsmouth Road site, was recommended for refusal, and attracted a storm of protest from Hindhead residents. Councillors spoke of their dismay at the size of the scheme and its impact on the local infrastructure, and voted accordingly. However, the proposals of Bewley Homes Plc and British Car Auctions Ltd – who already occupy part of the site – will come back for appeal thanks to a backlog of planning applications in Waverley Borough Council's (WBC) overstretched planning department. Gina Pink, WBC's principal enforcement officer, spoke of the "staff concerns" facing the department, with just two enforcement officers dealing with more than 1,000 planning applications. To meet government targets, the department has 13 weeks to determine each application: and if the deadline is not met, the applicant has a legal right to appeal. Originally built as a hotel, the high, imposing building features a five storey octagonal tower, was used as a training centre, and converted to offices in 1983. Consequently, Expedier House has been much altered, losing many of its internal and distinctive features: it was once considered for listing by English Heritage, but was subsequently deemed to be of insufficient merit. Haslemere Town Council objected to the proposals, citing "excessive density", inadequate car parking for both residents and visitors, and concerns that the development would exacerbate traffic congestion, given the site's propensity to the Hindhead crossroad. Waverley Borough Council received 47 letters about the application, with the majority objecting on grounds ranging from a desire to preserve the building, concerns for the loss of trees, worries about a lack of infrastructure, doubts about the need for another care home in Hindhead and the "massive scale" being totally out of character with the surrounding area. And the opposition came thick and fast at the meeting of Development Managing Committee B, held at WBC's Godalming HQ, last Wednesday. Major Jeremy Whitaker claimed the development was a "disaster waiting to happen", with the unnecessary felling of several "beautiful" trees. He continued to warn of the "population explosion" that would see an extra million people in the area by 2026, raising concerns about local infrastructure, particularly in the light of threats to close the Royal Surrey Hospital, and local schools and doctors surgeries being "under enormous pressure". "There should be no local building before there are enough jobs to support the local area," he added. Jean Arrick, Conservative WBC councillor for Hindhead and former Mayor of Haslemere, also objected, representing the "views of a large number of local residents and Haslemere Town Council". "The proposal is a significant overdevelopment of the site," she said, "it's huge!" And her fellow councillors were in agreement. Independent Diane James remarked: "It is unrealistic in terms of getting elderly people to rely on minibuses to get them places. I don't see why they should be shoehorned into this kind of establishment." Jean Thompson spoke of her desire to keep the building intact. "We should not be bashing down buildings like this – this used to be hotel." While the whole site is protected by a tree preservation order, if undertaken, the proposals would see "significant tree loss and root damage." This would in turn cause the site to be more open, with the amenity value of a large tree belt diminished. Officers recommended that the proposal be refused on grounds of an "undesirable overdevelopment" of the site, with a building that would not harmonise satisfactorily with the amenities of of the locality. But despite their unilateral disapproval, the council chamber will once again be forced to examine the proposals at a later – as yet undecided – date.
