Chantry homes plan enquiry

Developers Thurleigh Homes Ltd were appealing against the planning committee's refusal in February to reject its proposal to demolish homes in Chantry Avenue which have 50-metre rear gardens.

The company negotiated options to buy the homes in a move which set neighbour against neighbour in the previously quiet residential road.

The row thrust Chantry Avenue (pictured above) into the national press when objectors on the low-lying south side of the road set up a protest group for fear of being overlooked if their neighbours on the hillside opposite them sold out to Thurleigh.

They say a scheme at Chantry Avenue could set a precedent for "brownfield" redevelopment in other leafy areas of the town.

At one point last year, objectors' protest banners stood at the gates of almost all the south-side properties.

More than 40 members of the public were at St Peter's Community Centre at 10am on Tuesday for the opening day of what was expected to be a full two-day appeal.

In the event, government inspector Bob Marshall was unlucky not to complete his business by 5.30pm, when the hall was needed for another booking. It meant that the hearing had to adjourn to the Town Hall for closing statements by both sides on Wednesday.

Typically, appeal decisions at present come about two months after the hearing, meaning that appellants and objectors alike will have to bite their nails until well into the New Year before hearing the verdict.

Thurleigh Homes seek approval to replace the nine pre-war homes with 19 semi-detached and terraced houses and with two three-storey blocks comprising 21 flats on the high ground behind served by a new access road.

Under planning policy, 15 of the properties would have to be "affordable homes."

Rother legal services manager David Edwards called principal planning officer Graham Fifield to the witness stand. James Woods, counsel for Thurleigh, called planning consultancy boss Brian Woods.

Eight members of the public sought leave to make their points to the inspector.

Mr Fifield said Rother did not object to redevelopment in principle. But he said the Thurleigh proposal would have an adverse effect on the area and on neighbouring properties.

Rother argues that the appeal site is a mix of traditional housing and bungalows which, with their gardens, contribute to the character of the locality. Mr Fifield said: "There would be a row of uniform semi-detached properties fronting Chantry Avenue, with a row of parking spaces immediately behind the footpath.

"The street scene will therefore appear very monotonous when compared with the existing development and development in the vicinity."

He said the rigid blocks of flats behind would also produce a monotonous layout which would be visible from the wider locality.

He quoted the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister which said in February that though back gardens had been designated as potential brownfield since 1985, "this does not mean that all gardens are up for grabs."

Mr Woods countered by saying particular care and attention had been given to the design, size, height, bulk, mass and siting of the development so that it would not be intrusive or out of character. He said the scheme respected the existing relationships between properties in Chantry Avenue.

The scheme would enable more efficient use to be made of the land without harming the existing character of the area or the amenity of residents. He said a density of 44 homes per hectare fell within the Government's 30-50 home guidelines.

The afternoon session saw heated exchanges, particularly between Mr Woods and Mr Edwards.

Argument raged over the extent of overlooking of neighbouring properties, on the exact meaning of guidelines to protect the roots of trees subject to tree preservation orders.

Quantity surveyor John Hodson argued that his measurements showed that the new properties would tower 25ft above the old,

Ward member Cllr Stuart Wood said that what came strongly out of the planning debate was that councillors believed the scheme would be out of character.

Two wards had existing high-density development. "I don't want us to go back to over-development with 21st Century slums'¦"