Shockwaves have been felt across Romsey after Test Valley Borough Council conceded an appeal over a major scheme for retirement flats at the gateway to the town.
Churchill Retirement Living's scheme for 47 flats at the former Edwina Mountbatten House care home is likely to get planning permission when the planning inspector's decision is published.
Churchill's chairman and CEO has slammed the council, saying: “The council ought to be held accountable for its actions.”
The appeal was held after Test Valley Borough Council's southern area planning committee refused the scheme earlier this year, despite planning officers recommending approval.
The proposal had drawn criticism from residents and councillors over its size, bulk and impact on surrounding properties.
The inquiry started on Monday, August 12, with the final submissions made on August 20.
READ MORE: Edwina Mountbatten House: Appeal starts for controversial plans
Sioned Davies, on behalf of Test Valley Borough Council, said: “In light of the evidence given under cross-examination and the council having immediately reviewed the implications for the case as part of its ongoing duties of case management, it took the entirely proportionate and reasonable approach to formally withdraw both remaining reasons for refusal.
"The consequence of that withdrawal is that the council no longer opposes this appeal.”
Christopher Boyle KC, representing Churchill, said: “The scheme accords with both local and national policy. You should be granting permission without delay.
"The council has no case left. The site is at an important location and the scheme addresses this with care and sensitivity.
"The need for this development is undisputed. The scheme will provide benefits to residents and savings on the public purse.”
Despite the council no longer opposing the appeal, the planning inspector Wayne Johnson will publish the official decision in due course.
Reacting to the events Cllr Mark Cooper, chairman of the southern area planning committee, said: “Test Valley Borough Council’s withdrawal of its main reasons for refusal at the planning inquiry last Friday and confirmed at the final hearing on Monday is a huge shock to members of a Test Valley’s southern planning committee which had unanimously refused the application for 47 Churchill retirement apartments.
"The impact of the huge structure on the corner of Palmerston Street on the main entrance to the town centre on the conservation area and the dwellings opposite is stark and well illustrated by the computer generated image view from the Bypass roundabout.
“Churchill’s appeal team seems to have battered Test Valley’s planning experts into submission. I await the inspector’s decision with interest.”
SEE ALSO: Edwina Mountbatten House: Appeal date for controversial plans
Neill Beasley, a founding member of the Romsey and District Society, said: “Quite frankly, I think this is a total miscarriage of justice as I am appalled at the way in which this inquiry finished.
"It is a disgraceful result and I would like to have heard what the inspector thought of the cogent views expressed by the objectors and the proof of evidence given by the council's witnesses earlier in the week."
Churchill Living’s chairman and CEO Spencer J McCarthy launched a scathing attack on how the case had been handled.
He said: “It's a disgrace that our planning application has been handled in this way. It was recommended for approval by the professional planning officers of the council but refused, contrary to that advice, by the council's planning committee.
“This appeal process has cost the local taxpayer tens of thousands of pounds, which could have been significantly more had Churchill Living decided to go for costs against the council in light of the committee's unreasonable behaviour.
"It has cost my company hundreds of thousands of pounds in expenses and delays.
“This is not a greenfield site, it is an underutilised brownfield site in the town centre, no wonder Romsey has so much pressure on greenfield growth and expansion when the elected members don’t support this type of development.
“Our planning application should never have been refused in the first place. It goes to show how incompetent the planning committee is, and the council ought to be held accountable for its actions.”
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 hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel