A GROUP of local residents is determined to fight a proposal by Hampshire County Council to redevelop a site in Alton in what they believe to be an "unacceptable and irresponsible" manner. As neighbours, they are objecting to an outline application for the construction of 27 new homes following the demolition of the former Whitedown School and neighbouring Hampshire Ambulance Station in Albert Road. The proposal, they say, is for an overdeveloped site of "inappropriately high" buildings which would create parking and traffic flow problems in the area of Albert and Butts Road. They further claim HCC has been "mischievous" in the timing of its application, which was lodged with East Hampshire planners on December 20, with a cut-off date for comments by January 10. In a letter to The Alton Herald this week, Tim and Elaine Hodgson point out that East Hampshire District Council offices were closed from December 22 to January 2 and so the plans have been unavailable for viewing. While acknowledging that "development of the site is inevitable", they refer to it as "yet another substantial over-development in Alton which will create too much additional traffic into The Butts". And they are urging people with similar views, but who may have been too tied up with Christmas to realise the urgency of the situation, to lodge their objections with EHDC at Petersfield "before it is too late". The Hodgsons were joined by fellow objectors on Tuesday, all determined to highlight what they believe to be an outline plan which, if passed, could leave them with towering blocks of high-density development which will "build social problems for the future" and impact on neighbouring properties, causing "intrusive overlooking and loss of privacy." "We are offended by the type of development proposed," said Mr Hodgson, "and by the way in which HCC has gone about trying to obtain permission by submitting the application over the Christmas/new year holiday period." He is concerned that while EHDC planners received at least 32 letters of objection following a presentation to local residents in the summer, for a plan which suggested 28 houses on the site, those objectors might not know about the new plans and so will not write again. This latest outline application is for 27 houses, standing 2.5 to three-storeys high which, locals believe, will tower above their own properties and overlook the neighbouring Butts School playing field and swimming pool. In pointing out that the proposed height will be "out of keeping" with surrounding properties and with the single-storey buildings currently on the site, it is a proposal which they describe as both "inappropriate and unnecessary." Furthermore, with it having been categorised as a town centre location, they are angry over the unsustainable interpretation by HCC which seeks to assume that people will have no need for cars and will walk to their employment. "Numerous existing housing developments within the town clearly demonstrate this is not the case, with many people commuting to other towns where further employment opportunities are available," say the Hodgsons. Citing in particular the problems built into the Treloar Heights development where insufficient car parking provision has caused difficulties with access, the residents feel that the on-site parking provision for the Whitedown School site is too low for the proposed number of houses. They suggest a figure of 18 to 20 dwellings would be more appropriate, allowing for two-storey development with sufficient parking and areas of open space. Resident Clive Hutton was particularly critical of the county council's determination to follow the government's 60 to the hectare density guideline for large town developments, pointing out that Alton is, in fact, a small market town. Furthermore, he felt it was irresponsible for the planning authority to consider granting permission for any more development in Alton without improving the infrastructure. Not only, he said, was the town suffering from lack of water with the hose pipe ban still being in force, but there was increasing pressure on health and educational services and on the local job market. "There is, for example, not enough parking at Alton Station for those wanting or needing to commute to work," he said. Elaine Hodgson said: "This is not about not wanting any development at all, but about assuring that any development that does come is sensible, sustainable and fits in with the local environmen." Like neighbour Sid Sutherland, Mrs Hodgson was concerned about the impact of additional traffic movement on street safety, feeling that it was "spurious and incorrect" of HCC to suggest that the proposed housing development would generate less traffic than Whitedown School. "The school opened in the morning and closed at 4 pm. It was closed every weekend and during long school holidays and, being a special school, most of the children arrived by minibus, not in cars," said Mrs Hodgson. She pointed out that the housing estate would result in traffic generation on a "24/7" basis with increased volumes inevitable. In fact, based on a recent traffic survey which indicated a figure of 40,000 vehicle movements in and out of the site per year, using the quoted "norm" of six movements per household per day a 27-home development would clock up 59,130 movements per year. If the number of homes was reduced to 18 this figure would drop to a more acceptable 39,420 movements, she said. As taxpayers, while recognising the pressure on both Hampshire County Council and South Central Ambulance Service NH Trust to maximise receipts from the sale of the site, the residents were adamant - East Hampshire planners should act in the best interests of all parties. "Local residents matter as much as budgetary targets," they stressed.
