A Winchester action group member claims that "profit-driven" developers have an unfair advantage in the planning process.

Margaret Fowkes told a Guildhall public inquiry how powerless she and her fellow protesters felt up against housebuilders.

"We only live here," she said. "We can't afford barristers to plead for us. We don't have the rapier and shield that developers and the planning department can employ."

"We see developers driven by profit, and planners driven by the rulebook and we feel isolated and alone among professionals," she added.

Mrs Fowkes was one of about two dozen residents at the hearing to oppose Banner Homes' scheme for 50 new houses at Salters Lane.

Although a number of changes had been made to the original plans, following discussions between developers, planners and residents, there were still serious objections and one of them was the increased likelihood of accidents at the junction of Stockbridge Road, Harestock Road and Salters Lane.

"We don't want to have blood on the roads before it is recognised that this is a dangerous junction," said Mrs Fowkes.

Action group members were anxious that the whole picture should be considered--not just one scheme in isolation.

Plans to turn the nearby site of the former Wyke Mark old people's home into 33 flats had already been given the go-ahead and another application, for 18 homes, at Dean Lane, were before the city council.

That would mean more than 100 new homes in a small area, destroying its "semi-rural" character.

Mrs Fowkes said: "The leafy lanes will be overwhelmed by traffic and the soft green edge of the city will be lost for ever."

She was supported by Salters Lane resident, Peter Verey, who pointed out that the road had no pavements, drains, gutters, or streetlights.

"Residents wouldn't want the invasion. We have chosen to live in an area which is quiet," he added.

Representing the city council, barrister, Trevor Ward, told government inspector, David Vickery. that the Banner Homes scheme was not in sympathy with the parkland character of the site.

"The proposal was not supported from the outset by a full site analysis, required by the local plan, and that remains the case," he added.

"Without a full site analysis, it makes it difficult to appreciate the impact."

However, on behalf of Banner Homes, barrister, Russell Harris, said: "The proposal should provide an appropriate mix of units. There should be a sufficient number of affordable housing units, of satisfactory quality, appropriately integrated.

"At least 50% of the units should be smaller units. Adequate provision should be made for recreational and residential amenities, existing residents should be protected and access should be satisfactory and sufficient."

"I don't think there is going to be any difference between the parties about whether those principles are applicable," he added.

"We say the proposal before you performs and scores very well."

The inquiry was prompted by the city council's failure to make a decision on Banner Homes' application--submitted in October, 2000--within the prescribed time.

It has been adjourned to a third day to be arranged next month.