A COMMUNITY is celebrating after controversial plans for 42 homes were rejected.

The proposals for the residential site on land north of School Lane in Milford-on-Sea were dismissed by New Forest District Council’s planning committee.

Pennyfarthing Homes’ scheme was turned down due to the limited affordable housing in the proposed development. Its form was also deemed to be unsustainable.

More than 200 objections were raised against the plans, including from Milford Parish Council.

One of the contentious issues around the proposals was that the land had been part of the Green Belt, until it was deselected to build 30 affordable homes.

These initial plans for 30 homes - a third affordable rented, a third shared ownership and a third small market - were ratified by a planning inspector, with provision for public open space, allotments and a drop off point for the school.

However, Pennyfarthing Homes’ proposals for 42 homes featured 17 detached houses, eight semi-detached houses, 11 terraced houses and six flats.

The parish council said the flats - four two-bedroom and two one-bedroom - would provide the only affordable rented accommodation in the development.

Members of the planning committee sided with these concerns and refused the application.

A report listing the reasons for refusal says the proportion of affordable housing proposed falls “significantly below” the council’s planning policies.

The report adds: “The site was only released from the Green Belt and allocated for housing on the basis that its development would meet local housing needs which would not otherwise be provided for and this alone provided the exceptional circumstances which justified the alteration of the Green Belt boundary.

“Having regard to the exceptional circumstances which underlie the site’s allocation for development, it would not be appropriate to allow such a limited provision of affordable housing and low cost market housing.

“The proposal is considered to be an unsustainable form of development which would seriously prejudice the objectives of the development plan.”

Councillors went against the advice of a planning officer, who recommended approval of the scheme.

The officer’s report claimed “sufficient justification is considered to have now been demonstrated to allow for an exception to policy to be made in this instance”.