A NEW village modelled on Mottisfont is to be built at nearby Upper Timsbury.

It follows last week's unanimous decision by borough planning control members to give Coastal

Plant's ambitious and controversial project the green light to build the new 'hamlet called Tilebourne on the former Redland Tile works site off Rudd Lane.

But before the first brick can be laid a thorough survey for methane gas must be carried out and action take to prevent any potential leaks affecting people's health in the future.

Methane gas has been one of villagers' big worries in the application's long history along with access to the site via the narrow Rudd Lane.

Hursley-based consultants Pro Vision has designed the 30-home community.

Their managing director James Cleary said: ""The scheme is modelled on Mottisfont and is intended to be a balanced proposal with a range of impressive houses a village green and surrounding amenity area. It was accepted by the parish council and local residents that residential was preferable to extensive industrial use and it was for this reason the borough council approved the planning brief with the residential option in the first place," said Mr Cleary.

Coastal Plant's application has not had an easy journey through the planning process. Southern planning committee members and borough officers recommend refusal but planning control members took a different view.

Planning control member, and deputy borough leader, Martin Hatley, who backed the proposals said: "The site already had outline planning permission and there had not been any changes since that consent was given in 2003. This latest application is just the related more detailed 'reserved matters' stage dealing with layout, siting, design and landscaping etc. However, of great concern to both councillors and local residents was the perceived health risk of methane gas emissions generated from both on and off site landfill activities."

He said the council had made it a condition of granting permission that the applicant enters a "section 106 agreement," which prevents any development taking place until a scheme to deal with any contamination has been submitted.

"This robust agreement satisfied the planning committee's concerns and the voting was accordingly unanimous," said Mr Hatley.