DAVID Hooper (letter February 24) should not feel guilty that he didn’t make the effort to look at the plans for the Aspect Park development. In April 2008, prompted by the early removal of trees, I look through the planning file and raised my concerns with our three Old Town councillors, the Pipers Area Residents’ Association, our MP, the local media, and others - there was virtually no response.

I have a copy of the 2005 statement circulated by the developers, showing that the frontage buildings would be up to four-storeys high, and emphasising the green credentials of the proposals. In 2007 consultation notices were issued (although for some reason not in Lakeside). The developer’s design statement of September 2007 indicated that the Pipers Way and Marlborough Road frontages would be quite the opposite of “green”; we would get “... a strong urban edge... the development of substantial mass and presence... buildings between five and three-storeys in height... continuous built frontage...” The frontage would provide “... visual and acoustic buffering (mitigation of the adverse effects of the surrounding heavy... traffic)...” - in other worlds reflecting such effects away from Aspect Park and towards existing residents.

Despite the developer-babble, the proposals have little to do with design merit, and much to do with justifying the highest building density they can get away with. And to increase the impact of this “visual landmark” this “recognizable skyline”, the frontage will now be up to five-storeys (and add one more for services housings) rather than the original four, increasing the density of first phase dwellings by about 15 per cent. Contrary to a suggestion by my local councillor, this increase in density would not have been dictated by government guidelines, which do not define required densities and in fact state, “... More intensive development is not always appropriate...” So why was the height increase allowed?

This site could have provided plenty of new homes in a manner fully consistent with the council’s own policy of development “... sympathetic to the local environment...”, which would have been welcome in my “backyard”. But there has been a remarkable reticence to tell us about its impact. The developers have emphasised the lovely views towards the Downs for those behind the frontage; under its then chairman, the Residents’ Association was apparently sympathetic to the proposals in meetings with the council and developers - but without informing or consulting its constituents. And our councillors? Their main concern seemed to be to promote, in their electioneering for May 2008, their negotiation of a “... huge package of improvements relating to the Burmah site... another first for Old Town and Lawn!”

This isn’t about inadequate planners; it’s about the exploitation of inadequate planning law. There’ll be plenty more to come - if we don’t like it, we should get active for change.

C A SCHOON

Sandown Avenue