ONE of Bordon's oldest buildings has been saved from demolition for the second time this year by district planners, but may still be in danger. Plans to tear down Gamblins Cottage in Varna Road to make way for new housing were rejected by East Hampshire District Council's north planning committee at a meeting last Thursday. A majority of councillors voted to refuse permission to destroy the cottage and build six terraced homes on the site, fearing that the one allocated parking space per home was insufficient. This was the reason used to defeat an identical application in February, but officers warned that the designation of the scheme has since changed from private to affordable housing and now meets parking requirements. Following the decision, chief planning officer Daryl Philips told councillors the chances of upholding their refusal based on parking at any subsequent appeal initiated by the applicant were "slim". Proposals for the land, situated in the middle of a residential street a short walk from the Forest shopping and community centres, have become increasingly ambitious in the three years since the occupants moved out. An application to extend the cottage and build two new homes was given permission in July last year, but never went ahead. In February, plans for a private development of six terraced homes were lodged, but were defeated at committee on the ground that a single-space driveway would not prevent residents parking on the road. Last week, the committee faced a revised form of the same application put forward by the landowner and Drum Housing Association, intending to build the terrace as social housing, which requires only one off-street parking space each. In recommending that the committee give permission for the revised scheme, planning officer Chris Murray said: "The cottage has not been occupied for some time and is in a state of disrepair. The proposal complies with guidance to make the best use of the land, and there is a need for this kind of housing in Bordon. "The siting of the development is considered acceptable and would be in keeping with the character and appearance of the street scene." Whitehill town councillor Zoya Faddy argued that the focus for development in the town should be on larger properties, with parking provision which reflected the fact that most residents commute to work. She said: "I think it's very interesting that Mr Murray said there was a need for this type of (terraced) housing in Bordon. "I think there's a general need for four or five- bed homes, so if this is supposed to be social housing, it should be for three or four-bed houses, not more two-bed houses. "The original application was refused because there was not enough parking, but the only thing that's changed is that it is for social housing now rather than private. "I think parking still applies because if two adults are living in one of these homes they will need a car each. It is a fact that most people in Bordon need a car to get to work. "Varna Road is a very tight road. I honestly think this represents over-development, and I know the neighbours are very concerned." She was supported by Squadron Leader Geoffrey Whittle, who said the applicant wanted to build "toy box" houses to meet the council's guideline of "making the best use of the land". He said: "What does it mean to be making the best use of the land. Does it mean cramming housing in wherever it fits? I don't think so. This is gross over-development, and the density of the scheme is unacceptable. In no way do I support this. "I accept this site would not give much room for large houses but if the scheme was reduced to two houses (as per the application granted in 2005) then each would be large." Town councillor Philip Drury also attacked the density of the proposed development, saying: "Lots of Victorian housing has been demolished for being too dense; why are we returning to that? Homes in Firgrove Road are social housing but it's like a big car park." Mr Murphy replied: "It's too easy to get hung up on density figures. It sounds a lot higher, but it's not necessarily unacceptable. You have to look at the wider picture of character, amenities et cetera." But town councillor Adam Carew attacked the officers' recommendation for approval for not taking into consideration the character of Gamblins Cottage. He said: "Gamblins Cottage is a delightful cottage and one of the oldest buildings in Whitehill and Bordon, surrounded by modern development. It has fallen into disrepair but it could be renovated." He also addressed the issue of the "wider picture", saying: "Whitehill and Bordon has had 14 years of housing imbalance and this application would compound the matter and make it worse. I am supportive of Drum and I can see why they think this is a central location, but there's already permission for two larger houses, so I think this should be refused." Committee vice-chairman Anthony Williams said: "All we should be considering is what is in front of us. The parking requirement is the only thing to have changed from the previous scheme. I feel like I'm in a different Bordon. Varna Road is a cul-de-sac, not a main route. Lorries do not go down there after making deliveries at the Forest Centre, and even cars in the road won't hold up traffic. "Members are clinging to things which are either irrelevant or incorrect. If this development has one or two cars in the road outside it then it will be like every other road in Bordon." After the vote, Mr Philips warned there was little chance of success on appeal. When asked if it was possible to lodge "over- development" as a ground of objection, committee chairman Patrick Burridge said: "It would be lunacy, because we did not bring it up the first time."
