RESIDENTS from Medstead and Four Marks gathered on Boyneswood Road last Sunday to protest after the William Lacey Group began work on the development of 80 more homes on the Friars Oak Farm site, having failed, they believe, to comply with pre-commencement planning conditions.

Accusing East Hampshire District Council (EHDC) planners of applying “double standards” – one set of rules for the community and another for the developer – protesters were making the point that the William Lacey Group had not only failed to provide a safe route along Boyneswood Road for pedestrians having to cross the entrance to the site, but Boyneswood Lodge, through which access was to be obtained, had not been demolished, as per the plan.

The safety of pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders crossing Boyneswood bridge remained an issue – and there was still concern over the positioning of the mains sewage connection to serve the development.

Furthermore, according to protesters, the council, in their own words “is fully aware that with the development now having commenced, the applicant is in breach of the Section106 agreement...requiring that monies relating to education and transport contributions are due before commencement”.

As Time’s Up protesters met at the gates of the development site, just a stone’s throw from the Victorian railway bridge that gives access onto the busy A31, attention was drawn to “the poor traffic management system, officially left in the hands of workmen” which, they felt, seriously impeded the safety of pedestrians and cyclists using the bridge, most notably during the school rush hour.

While both EHDC and Hampshire County Council felt it to be a matter for the police, the official stance from Hampshire Constabulary was, in reply to an inquiry by Medstead Parish Council, that “this was to be expected in the vicinity of building sites” and that the police would not intervene.

While the two-year planning permission for the site and the time allocated for the completion of pre-commencement planning conditions expired on October 9, in the opinion of EHDC planning officers “the works to create the access into the site from Boyneswood Road fulfils this requirement under the Planning Act”.

Speaking on behalf of the protesters, Fabio Perselli pointed out that while EHDC may believe the deadline for commencement has been met, “it has absolutely not been met, according to the 300-plus objectors” who point out that, under the conditions, Boyneswood Lodge should have been demolished by now, and yet it still stands.

“The site cannot be surveyed, let alone signed off,” he said.

They believe, therefore that the application should be “called in immediately and put through the planning committee afresh”.

EHDC has responded stressing there are no grounds for enforcement action as, in the opinion of planning officers, the developer has met all the conditions it was asked to meet before work began on the site.

The statement continued: “Work on the site, specifically the creation of the access into the site, began before the planning permission expired, which would have been two years after permission was granted. As a result the planning permission for the 80 dwellings remains in place.”

While confirming that the William Lacey Group had not yet paid contributions to education and transport as specified by the permission, it has formally asked to alter the timings of these payments, a request that is currently being assessed.

On the issue of foul and surface water drainage to serve the site, this was fully considered during the planning application and “the plans assessed and approved by Thames Water and by EHDC’s drainage officer”.

District councillor Ingrid Thomas said: “This site has always been very controversial and, as the date approached for the expiry of permission, an application was made to change the order that things needed to be done in order for the site to start work.”

As a result, work began on the access road, and this was agreed, by officers, to constitute the starting point.

Remaining committed to gaining a safer pedestrian access across the Boyneswood Road bridge, in the form of a separate pedestrian bridge, Mrs Thomas added: “Our community is beginning to feel the force of too many building sites starting work and building at the same time. All the developers have signed up to regular meetings with the community but as yet none have actually organised a meeting.

“Residents deserve better and should be treated with respect by these companies who will be working in our midst for several years to come. We don’t want mud on the roads, lorries using the wrong routes or sites operating outside agreed hours. Let’s hope things can be done better.”