A LINDFORD action group has been advised by a barrister to make an official complaint to the local authority ombudsman about the highly contentious Chase Road development and has vowed not to give up the fight. SOIL, (Stop Over-Development in Lindford), battled for over two years to try to stop an application for 207 houses in Chase Road. But, despite overwhelming support from Lindford residents and the parish council, it was unsuccessful and the proposal was granted permission back in March. At the time, Lindford residents turned up at Liphook's Millennium Hall in their hundreds to witness the outcome of EHDC's full council meeting when members voted 20 to 14 votes to support the planning officer's recommendation and grant outline permission for the 207 homes. This was despite the fact that members had already voted to refuse the proposal at a special north planning meeting held in January, when the former head of planning at EHDC, Ian Ellis exerted his powers and recommended that it went before the full council. Lindford Parish Council sent a formal letter of complaint to EHDC and SOIL turned to a barrister to question the legality of the meeting. They were displeased at the way that some people who were vocally opposed to the site appeared to be prevented from speaking out at the full council meeting, even though they were permitted to at the special north planning meeting. They were also disturbed to find that the Mayor of Whitehill and Bordon, Faith Thomas, was advised not to speak only hours before the meeting. In a letter to EHDC, the chairman of the parish council Mr Ian Skelton-Smith wrote: "At 5 pm on the day of the meeting, Faith Thomas, the Mayor of Whitehill, received a telephone call telling her that she would not be permitted to speak at the meeting. "She had notified EHDC of her intention to speak and had been led to believe that she would be able to do so." Concerns were also voiced over a seven-page document which was only made available at the beginning of the meeting, leaving councillors no time to absorb it. It contained important information, about the proposal site, including submissions from the county ecologist, the Environment Agency, the Deadwater Valley Trust and the RSPB. SOIL has subsequently been advised by its barrister that there are a number of options available, including making an official complaint to the Ombudsman about the administration surrounding the proposal. At Monday night's parish council meeting, Ian Skelton Smith commented: "A complaint to the ombudsman probably won't stop the development but it might at least make the district council think." Ernie Smith, chairman of the SOIL group told The Herald: "For Ian Ellis to have put the planning proposal before the full council, his title would have had to have been chief of planning development. "But all our letters from him state that he was chief of planning control and if that is the case, then there is a possibility that it could be declared null and void. It's all in his title. "Unfortunately, we have been told that that is probably not enough of a reason to warrant the cost of a judicial review, which could cost anything up to £25,000." In a last-ditch attempt to get the decision overturned, the group has resolved to send all the letters that it has written to Will Godfrey, who is the chief executive of East Hampshire District Council, and all the replies that it has received back from him, to the local authority ombudsman and the overview and scrutiny committee, which is already dealing with the recent scandal within the planning department. The group will also send copies of the correspondence to the Audit Commission for its decision. The letters the group wrote to Mr Godfrey asked specific questions about some of the practices used and the letters also quizzed him about some of the things that happened at the planning meetings, which had determined the final outcome. The cost of SOIL consulting the barrister has been £500, half of which is being paid by members of SOIL, but it would be very grateful for help with the additional £250. Mr Smith concluded: "SOIL is not giving up - we will continue to fight to the bitter end. "Even now, the section 106 legal document between the developer and EHDC still hasn't been signed and until this has happened, the development can't take place. And, even after this document has been signed, we will still have 90 days grace to put forward any problems and objections. "Basically they haven't listened to local reason and opinion. Chase Road will flood and there will be access problems and it is right next to the sewage works. "After all, who wants to buy houses right next to a sewage farm?"
