COUNCILLORS broke their own planning rules and granted planning permission for four houses on a site which falls - in part - out of the settlement policy boundary last week. Despite numerous objections from local residents, a developer was given permission to build four two-storey houses with new access at The Greatham Inn (formerly The Queens), Petersfield Road in Greatham at last Thursday's East Hampshire District Council's south planning meeting. The chairman of Greatham Parish Council, Elwyn Evans, voiced his disappointment at the outcome. "I am very angry that the planning committee decided to grant this planning permission despite 66 letters of objection from residents of Greatham, and without even receiving any detailed plans which had been requested months ago." He added: "The reasons given for going over the settlement policy boundary were obviously spurious, and it was yet another example of a developer being given a planning permission in total disregard of real concerns raised by local residents, and without their being properly consulted." The applicant was originally given the go ahead to build the four homes two years ago after a public inquiry. However, in September 2004 it was discovered that a discrepancy between two site plans meant that part of the proposed site was three metres out of the settlement policy boundary. An amended plan was submitted to the planning committee to deal with this issue as a minor amendment to the already approved scheme. However, this proposal was rejected at the south planning committee in February as members felt that something so important could not be dealt with as a minor amendment. The new application was publicised and Greatham Parish Council and local residents were consulted. There was fierce objection, and 66 letters were sent to EHDC opposing the application. Concerns were raised that allowing this application would set a dangerous precedent. Greatham Parish Council also pointed out that the developers had submitted no plans showing how the shrub bank would be dealt with in terms of retaining walls, drainage, profiling and landscaping. Without these things, they felt it was impossible to consider fully the visual impact of the proposals on the neighbouring land. Jeremy Heppell, a planning officer, said: "In normal circumstances this would not be considered, but we believe the threat to the future viability of the Greatham Inn is such that it can be regarded as an exceptional circumstance." He warned that if part of the pub car park was developed in the future, up to eight, out of 24, car parking spaces could be lost, which would substantially affect its viabiity. Members shared his fears that refusing the revised scheme could lead to an application being made to build on the part of the car park that lies within the SPB. Local member Judy Onslow said: "My main concern has always been that the pub will not survive with the support of the Greatham residents alone. An application for three houses is more suitable for the land available." Elizabeth Cartwright felt that to protect the pub they had to go along with the application. Andrew Pattie disagreed: "A settlement policy boundary can only be encroached upon under exceptional circumstances and I don't believe these are exceptional enough. "If we accept this, within four years the car park could still be built upon. We would then have lost in every way. We have to take a risk. If the owner takes back the land will the Greatham Inn survive? I suspect it will. The SPB is absolutely vitally important to the stability of the environment which is sacrosanct." Brian Dutton agreed: "There are too many ifs and buts considering it's outside the SPB. We are hanging ourselves if we approve this." Six members voted in favour of Judy Onslow's proposal to refuse the application and 10 voted against it. Eleven members voted in favour of granting permission. The committee gave the go ahead for the four houses but added a condition to ensure that the car park is retained in perpetuity.
