A date has been set for a hearing on the future of a former care home.

Plans for 47 retirement flats at the former Edwina Mountbatten House care home, at the gateway to Romsey, was unanimously refused by councillors earlier this year.

The proposal from Churchill Retirement Living drew criticism from residents and councillors over its size, bulk and impact on surrounding properties.

The developer lodged an appeal in April against Test Valley Borough Council's decision.

The inquiry will be held at Crosfield Hall, starting on Tuesday, August 13.

It is expected to last for five days, with the result issued on or before October 17. 

In TVBC's statement, it said: “The council will provide contextual information with regard to the setting of the appeal site, thereby allowing for the understanding of the sensitivity of the setting of the Romsey Conservation Area and to the importance of the listed buildings in close proximity to the site. 

“It will be confirmed that the development will harm the amenity of the neighbouring properties of 38-48 Palmerston Street and 30-36 Palmerston Street by way of overbearing impact resulting from the scale and proximity of the development.”

The developer has also submitted an application for costs, meaning that if successful the council tax payer will foot the developer's costs. 

The planning application received 13 objections and one supporting comment. The planning committees of Romsey Town Council and Romsey and District Society had both objected. 

In Churchill's statement of case, it said: “The appellant’s case clearly sets out that the appeal site is located in a sustainable location in Romsey, within reasonable walking distance of key local services and facilities, is in accordance with the Local Plan for new development, and will deliver significant and tangible benefits to the new and existing community.

“The location of the development will make a positive and sustainable contribution to the local economy in terms of placing development where it is needed in an accessible location ensuring there is no undue reliance on use of the private car for future occupants.”

Four representations have been submitted. Romsey and District Society said: "The public benefits such as they are do not justify the proposed development and do not outweigh the harm to the setting of designated heritage assets. We respectfully request the Inspector to dismiss the appeal."