I REFER to the article "Desperately needed' care home rejected" in last week's Bucks Free Press in which Simon Scott labelled a council decision diabolical. You failed to put the point of view of the residents in the Lucas Road, High Wycombe, area who had opposed it and gave bare lip service to the council's comments. The article was unbalanced in its reporting.

Proposals by Lloyd Scott Healthcare are to tear down a four bedroomed house which they bought a few months ago and to put up a building four-five times the size on the site with car parks on the front and rear garden, housing 36 residents and numerous staff in an ordinary residential street. Lucas Road is in the middle of the Amersham Hill Conservation Area and the proposals are contrary to published planning policy for the area, as Lloyd Scott Healthcare well knew. It also contravenes covenants on the land which prevent alterations to the existing building without consent and prevent using the land for commercial purposes.

Their representative has confirmed that they were aware of these covenants.

The building would overshadow the neighbouring residential property cutting out the sunlight. One neighbour would have a commercial kitchen directly facing their property with the noise and smells that that generates. Apart from the fact that sheer bulk of the building is inappropriate for the location the increased height from two to four floors would mean loss of privacy for many neighbours.

The proposal is also inappropriate for other reasons. It is at the apex of two hills, one up from Totteridge Road and the other from Amersham Hill. There are no amenities nearby and residents would be virtual prisoners. Wycombe District Council has also pointed out that the building would not meet standards required for residents.

Lucas Road is a busy cut through and the entrance to the site would cause a significant traffic hazard with a considerable number of traffic movements in and out daily. Residents are already demanding traffic calming measure because of the risk of a serious accident.

With regard to the support allegedly given by the "health chiefs", whilst I have no doubt that they support a new home in principle, I do not believe that they examined the specific proposals before lending their support to this scheme.

The planning application for the scheme received written objections from about 50 residents, six district councillors, East of Amersham Hill Residents Association, which represents about 200 households, and the Wycombe Society, which is highly respected for preserving the amenities of Wycombe. It was also rejected by planning officers at Wycombe District Council. Planning laws and policies are there to preserve and enhance the amenities of Wycombe for the benefit of all residents.

I have no doubt that more residential places for the elderly are required. However that need must be balanced up not only with individual rights of residents but with the needs and requirements of Wycombe as a whole and the needs and rights of the proposed residents. Mr Scott wishes to cram 36 residents on the site of an ordinary family house, riding roughshod over the rights of the people living nearby and with scant regard to the amenity of the area and Wycombe as a whole. He wishes to do this for commercial reasons. His motivation is not as altruistic as your article might suggest. What would be diabolical would be if he was allowed to get away with it.

David J Moore

Chairman

Amersham Hill

Residents Association

Terry Orchard

High Wycombe