Winchester civic chiefs are backtracking on their controversial plans for new housing for vulnerable people in Stanmore and Highcliffe.

Two of the four schemes are now at risk because a looming deadline means the city council runs the chance of losing Government funding.

The council has been taken aback by the vehemence of the opposition from residents who say they have been kept in the dark about the proposal.

It had envisaged linking with the Eastleigh Housing Association to use £500,000 of Government funds to build up to 32 homes on four sites - at Fox Lane and Thurmond Crescent, in Stanmore, and Gordon Avenue and Fivefields Road, in Highcliffe.

On Wednesday, at the cabinet meeting, councillors approved the transfer to the association of two sites at Thurmond Crescent and Fivefields Road and that will enable funding to be gained before the deadline of March 31st.

But the future of the other two sites is now in jeopardy. Councillors want to get assurances from the association and the Housing Corporation that they could switch funding to other sites if Fox Lane and Gordon Avenue are deemed unsuitable.

The cabinet will next discuss the issue on Wednesday, March 19th.

Council leader, Sheila Campbell, apologised to members of the public present for the handling of the scheme.

"Had we had time, our officers would have consulted specifically about these sites. That was not done except in a cursory way. For that I apologise. We accept this process has caused much more disquiet than it should have done.

"We will be seeking clarification from the Housing Corporation and the EHA as to what we can do about the other two schemes which now are somewhat in jeopardy," she added.

Jim Cutts, of Fox Lane, criticised the councillors' handling of the scheme: "The underhand and devious way this information was kept from all residents, especially as £180,000 was spent on a so-called community planning exercise is, in itself, a shameful and outrageous scandal.

"If the cabinet does not squash this ill-conceived and ill-considered proposal at this stage, then we believe that you will see an unprecedented level of objections to the planning proposal."

City councillor, Patrick Davies, who represents Stanmore, said nothing had been done to examine other parts of the city and district for sites.

He warned that the council could repeat the same mistakes if it suddenly foisted schemes on other sites.

Ken Kershaw, a housing manager, said the sites had been identified solely for the process of bidding for funding and did not tie the council to building there. Alternatives could be considered.

Bob Merrett, director of health and housing, said the council had a duty to house more people such as those coming out of care or prison. It was trying to eliminate the use of bed and breakfast. The Sussex Street hostel was not ideal for many people, he said.

A mental health nurse from Stanmore said many of the vulnerable people would not want to live in easily identifiable homes but would preferred to live in ordinary homes.

Mr Kershaw said many of the people it was proposed to move into the four homes needed supervision and management - such as youngsters who had lived in care for years.