A LAST-ditch intervention by landowner Meyrick Estates has delayed a decision on the future of a threatened Victorian villa.

George Meyrick came forward at the last minute to say the Meyrick Estates would pay £1.3million to prevent Radcliffe Court in Manor Road from being demolished to make way for a modern block of flats.

Planning board members had been due to consider a recommendation to approve the redevelopment, but instead decided to defer the application.

Cllr David Kesley, chairman of the planning board, blasted the Meyrick Estate’s approach and said he was “wary” of their promises.

He said: “This application has been going on for over a year.

“This is the third time it has gone before the planning board and on each occasion they come up at the last minute with some sort of objection, or in this case a valuer’s report saying they will buy the site. I’m just really angry with the Meyrick Estates at the moment.

“They are supposed to be the guardians for a fair percentage of our town and they’re almost holding the town to ransom.

“I’m not holding my breath that they will follow through on their promises.

“My concern would be if they do take this site back that it will just stand empty for another 10 years.

“We do not want another eyesore like the Cliff End Hotel, another of their properties.”

A district valuer will now consider and compare the submissions of the Meyrick Estates and the applicant Lynwood Park Ltd and the application will come back before the planning board at the earliest possible opportunity. The submission from Mr Meyrick said chartered surveyors had concluded the restoration of Radcliffe Court was “both viable and achievable.”

But planning agent Ken Parke, on behalf of Lynwood Park, said the Meyrick Estates were “attempting to frustrate the development proposals by way of viability”.

“During the last application Meyrick claimed they were a charitable body and wished to buy the site. Did any offer materialise? No, and still it has not,” he said.

“They are now claiming it is viable to retain the building. But the marketing and other evidence demonstrates that it is not.”