INTERPRETATION of a neighbourhood plan has sparked unprecedented discord among the residents of Odiham and North Warnborough, with a call for a vote of no confidence in the majority of the parish council.

And last Thursday parishioners flocked to the ballot box to officially register their concern in a parish poll which resulted in more than 60 per cent voting ‘Yes’ to the question: ‘Have you lost confidence in those parish councillors who did not uphold the policies of the neighbourhood plan when they failed to object to the deer park planning application (Reference: (17/O3O29/FUL)?’

In a 29 per cent turnout, described by a Hart District Council spokesman as “a miracle” in this type of election, 1,153 people had their say with 707 voting ‘Yes’.

Confidence had been drawn into question when, despite a whopping 500 public objections, Odiham Parish Council registered its support for a controversial application by Surrey-based Octagon Developments Ltd for change of use on part of the historic deer park at Dunleys Hill, North Warnborough, from agricultural land to public and private open spaces, to include a 28-space car park and the construction of seven large residential properties.

Obectors argued that the decision flew in the face of neighbourhood plan policy which, according to Save the Deer Park Action Group spokesman Hugh Sheppard, defines the deer park as a conservation area, forming a local gap to avoid the residential coalescence between Odiham and North Warnborough and is not one of the seven sites allocated in the area for housing.

Parish council chairman Jon Hale explained that for those councillors who voted, as consultees, to support the application, it was a case of balancing policy against public benefit which, in this case, they believed to be significant.

In allowing the owner to build seven houses on the 110-acre site, it would enable him to restore the park and introduce a managed deer herd, renovate a medieval wall, to upgrade footpaths and introduce a cycleway which, said Mr Hale, would provide a long sought after link between the two villages. In addition, it would, he said, result in the gifting of a lot of land to the community.

One of the problems had stemmed, he believed, from the fact that people viewed the deer park as common land, grazed by cows and horses and the occasional deer, and which was open to the public, when in fact it was privately owned.

The current proposal would, he believed, secure the land as a park, restoring the deer population, and offering a level of protection that it currently did not have.

He said: “The community will still be free to roam and to use the public footpaths, but it is not common land.”

He was equally clear that under the scheme the income derived from the building of the seven houses on part of the land would have to be reinvested by the owner in the restoration of the historic park.

Of the parish poll, Mr Hale described it as “divisive” and a difficult time for those councillors who had been subject to the ‘loss of confidence’. Furthermore, it had come at a financial cost to the community of £1,800.

However, the Save the Park Action Group believes the parish poll was needed as a wake up call for those on the parish council who they felt were not listening to their electorate.

The group does not share Mr Hale’s confidence that by accepting this application the park will be secure from future development, believing that if the deer park is to be protected neighbourhood plan policy should be adhered to and that would clearly prohibit the building of “seven luxury mansions” outside the settlement boundary, in a conservation area and in the local gap.

The group argues that Odiham Parish Council’s position that the deer park would be safeguarded from further development if it signs up to the proposed plan “ignores expert advice”, fearing that “claims that the proposal outweigh the loss of countryside, setting and amenity just don’t stack up”.

So at odds were they with the parish council decision they felt compelled to register their concerns.

In thanking all those who had supported the ‘Yes’ campaign and supported the vote of no confidence, Mr Sheppard accepted that while the outcome was only advisory “it might, just might, encourage some of our parish councillors to think a little more about the neighbourhood plan policies and what being a representative means”.

“And if it doesn’t, parish elections beckon next year,” he said.

Mr Sheppard’s parting plea, however, was to endeavour to heal the scars left by the parish poll by appealing for a restoration of unity.

“Now let us all work together for the community’s benefit, cooperatively and in friendship,” he said.

• Hart District Council has since put back the agreed expiry date for the deer park planning application for determination on May 23.