The inspector overseeing the inquiry into an appeal for a controversial development was confronted by an angry resident during a site visit last week.
The Worcester Park resident remonstrated with the inspector at the junction of Green Lane and Central Road, where an observation of traffic congestion was taking place.
Councillor Stuart Gordon-Bullock, who has helped lead a campaign against St James Homes’s plan to build 147 new homes in the Hamptons, said the incident was a reflection of the depth of feeling against the appeal.
He said: “Once the resident knew he was inspecting the existing traffic problems, he launched into a tirade about how dire the situation already was without St James exacerbating the problem with more homes in the area.
“There were quite a few expletives used, but it absolutely corroborated what we have been saying at the inquiry all along and was genuinely heartfelt.”
The six-day inquiry, which has so far cost the taxpayer £83,000, concluded last Wednesday, but the inspector is not due to make his report for several months with Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Hazel Blears having the final say.
Residents oppose the plan on the grounds the ward has a lack of social infrastructure to cope, such as already overcrowded schools, a lack of GP services and congested roads.
St James Homes have attempted to make concessions on some points under section 106 agreements, but Councillor Richard Butt, a retired chartered surveyor, said these were “minimal” and did “nothing to benefit the community” where the development would only make it worse.
He said if the appeal was rejected St James would be forced to make a fresh application, but residents would demand they “engage with us at every level”.
Matthew Townend, St James’ head of land and planning, said: “We believe that our application makes best use of a site designated for housing and complies with local, regional and national planning policy.
"However, should the Secretary of State not uphold our appeal, we will review our proposals to reflect the basis of the appeal decision.”
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here