A Winklebury ward councillor has welcomed a planning inspector's decision to throw out an appeal by a developer to turn a former pub site into shops.
Developer Clareton (Basingstoke) Ltd had wanted to turn the troubled Three Barrels site into retail units but his plans were kicked to the kerb by councillors on Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council's planning committee in February. And last week Government inspector Terry Phillimore rejected the developer's appeal to overturn the decision.
Local residents and ward councillors had fought to prevent the proposals, which they said would ruin the area. Under the plans the inward-facing stores, which face into a shared courtyard, would have been renovated to face out onto the road.
Since plans were submitted in December last year, two petitions with 543 signatures and 24 letters of objection were sent in to the council. Earlier this year, campaigner Lea Jeff outlined residents' opposition to the plans, when she told the Observer: “The plans are not in keeping with the square - the whole thing is ridiculous. It's the whole insensitivity of it and our petitions show a community do not want it. If they just turned the shops around then there would be less of an outcry.”
Councillor Robert Donnell welcomed Mr Phillimore's decision. He said: "The council made the right decision to reject the planning application at the Three Barrels and now the Conservative-led Government has backed that decision by rejecting the appeal.
"Cllr Stephen Reid and I spoke against this development at committee and I am glad our arguments have yet again been backed. This is a good day and a good decision for Winklebury. I will continue to do all I can to stop the developer turning his back on the local community."
In his decision, issued on August 23, Inspector Phillimore said: "Through its orientation of the shopfronts in the opposite direction from the central square, the proposal would fail to engage with this public space, thus not reinforcing its central role in the local context and conflicting with the above policy objectives.
"By creating a secondary retail frontage to the car park, the proposal would lead to spatial confusion rather than legibility. No convincing reason has been put forward as to why an alternative arrangement which responds to the square is not feasible."
