East Hampshire District Council planning committee voted to refuse a “contentious” planning application that would have demolished two shops on 39 Chapel Street in Petersfield.

An existing florist and part of a Turkish restaurant on Bakery Lane – described as a mini version of the famous Lanes in Brighton – will not be replaced by a single-storey retail unit.

There was enormous support for the existing shops owned by Bilsen Gonul and Kristina Cousen. With 124 written objections received by the council and a packed public gallery attending the meeting on Thursday, February 20.

Applicant Heinz Naef sought to replace Bazaar, the function room connected to the Fez Restaurant called unit C, and unit D, The Blacksmith’s Daughter, a florist with a single shop. 

This was the third application with two refused, one in May 2024 refused on appeal and the other in October 2024. 

If approved, both businesses would have closed. It would have meant Bazaar could not be interconnected with Fez with access to the kitchens. 

The Blacksmith’s Daughter, a timber structure suitable as a florist would not have moved into the new proposed glazed building. Keeping the building cool in summer months would be difficult without air conditioning and consequently unsuitable for use as a florist, the committee heard.

However, the council officer recommended approval of the application. Revised plans included a 21-metre by 4.8-metre-wide building with a pitched roof, a red brickwork base below dark timber cladding and a slate roof, toilets, cycle and bin storage for a single retailer.

In her closing, Kristina said: “I object to being called a shack when I have a celebrity client list, and people love the way it is presented and I am very, very busy.”

Objecting to the planning application, ward Councillor David Podger for St. Peter’s (Lib Dem), said: “The survival of two of Petersfield’s most cherished independent businesses is clearly a matter of public interest. Evidenced by over 120 objections and the many members of the public who have come along to this meeting to show their support for Mrs Gonul and Ms Cousen.”

Cllr Podger based his opposition on the loss of the livelihoods of the existing occupiers and their employees. He questioned the need for more commercial space in Petersfield and loss of the unique heritage and character of Bakery Lane which would be “irreparably damaged” should planning permission be approved.

He said Bakery Lane has been described as a small version of The Lanes in Brighton, an area packed with upmarket restaurants, quaint tea rooms, and traditional pubs, famous for its narrow, twisting alleyways filled with independent shops.

“The strength of feeling in the town is well represented by the front page of today’s Petersfield Post ‘D-Day on Bakery Lane as Fez and florist await fate’,” he said.

The officers report said the alleyway, Bakery Lane, features a metal archway sign at one end, which reads ‘To The Shops’ highlighting this route as an important footway to the Chapel Street and Lavant Street shopping area.

Town councillor John Lees (Con) said part of the vibrancy of Petersfield is its independent shops – much loved and used by residents – and “thriving thanks to the community we have”.

Of the 124 written objections, one said: “It is essential to support these thriving traders at a time of the homogenisation of our high streets and increasing rental and rates costs.”

Another opposed the development: “So the character of Bakery Lane is preserved for future generations.”

Despite all the arguments put forward, the committee refused the application for two reasons. The planning officer said the application was refused because abolishing the buildings would fail to enhance the Bakery Lane area – and neither did the design and materials proposed for the replacement building. 

After the meeting, Cllr Podger said: “We were fortunate that the planning committee were brave enough to take the decision to refuse the council officer’s recommendation and they were prepared to make up their own minds. Because if it goes to appeal the council have to defend their decision which will take time and money. 

“It was a contentious issue. We knew it was going to be a tough fight.” 

The committee voted six to three to refuse the planning application.