DEVELOPERS have been thwarted a fourth time in their bid to build retirement flats in an upmarket Hampshire neighbourhood.
Residents on St Giles Hill, Winchester, have been locked in battle with Beechcroft Develop-ments for several months.
The company originally wanted to build 27 flats at Milesdown, a former children's home in Northbrook Avenue. The company bought it from Hampshire County Council and submitted its first planning application last summer.
Winchester City Council refused permission, but the company lodged an appeal. A public inquiry took place earlier this year, and a Government planning inspector sided with the local authority.
With its scheme for 27 flats turned down twice, Beechcroft focused its efforts on an alternative plan. Its revised scheme would have seen 24 properties at Milesdown. Four would have been inside the old house, while the remaining 20 would have been new. Once more the city council refused permission, and again the company lodged an appeal triggering a second public inquiry with a new inspector. It started at Winchester Guildhall in May.
Such was the volume of evidence, the two-day hearing overran, and a further session was held on June 13.
Beechcroft argued that its revised scheme overcame the concerns raised by the first inspector about its original plan.
Squeezed' The initial proposal, for 27 homes, was criticised for having a "squeezed appearance" that would damage the area's character. Residents argued that the plan was still unacceptable. They raised concerns about density and the flats overlooking their properties.
The new homes could also cause traffic problems in nearby streets, which are mostly private and pot-holed, residents added.
The company offered £20,000 towards road improvements and £980,000 for building affordable housing in the district, making £1m in total. Neil Pope, the second planning inspector, published his report last week, and praised some parts of the scheme. However, he decided that it was still not good enough, and handed Beechcroft its fourth defeat inside 12 months. The Pope report states: "The scheme is a considerable improvement."
He added that the traffic issue was not a strong enough reason to refuse the scheme. However, the density of the development and its impact on nearby homes was another matter, he said.
"Having weighed all of my findings and considered all other matters raised, I conclude that there is greater strength in the arguments for withholding permission," he added.
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 hereComments are closed on this article