THE Ministry of DefenceÕs attempt to Òbeat the systemÓ and rob Bordon of the chance of having a hotel or college has failed after planners said that it must play by the rules.

Two planning applications submitted by the MoD to place around 60 homes at St Lucia Lodge and RE Lines in Lindford Road were thrown out by East Hampshire District CouncilÕs north planning committee last Thursday - keeping alive the dream of a hotel, business park or college setting up on site.

Plans to convert the redundant St Lucia Lodge into 18 residential apartments, and to develop the neighbouring RE Lines site into a housing development of around 42 homes were being recommended for approval by case officer Nicky Powis.

This is because although the latest review of the local plan allocates both RE Lines and St Lucia Lodge for a hotel, educational or employment use, it is currently undergoing the formal consultation process.

But the first review of the local plan - the development blueprint for the district - which has already been formally adopted does not allocate the MoD sites for a specific use, stating only that it be developed appropriately.

The committee heard that some groups, including those campaigning against the allocation of the Walldown Triangle in Hollywater as suitable land for housing, have objected to the new allocations for St Lucia Lodge and RE Lines, arguing that it should be allocated for housing instead of the triangle.

This means that the second review of the plan can be given very little weight meaning that the committee had to determine the application against the policies of the adopted plan.

Senior planner Chris Murray said that the MoD was using the fact that the second review has not been adopted as Òa tacticÓ and that it was trying to push through plans for homes before the current plan expires.

This way the MoD could sell off the site to housing developers for a larger profit then it would get for any other use.

He said: ÒObviously the allocations in the second review of the local plan is not to the liking of the MoD which is the reason why they have put these applications in now.Ó

But he told the committee that it cannot judge the two applications against the second review of the plan and must stick to the first review.

The committee was appalled by the applications and pointed out that the MoD had not published a development brief for the two sites for public consultation before submitting the two applications.

Geoffrey Whittle (Headley) said: ÒThe MoD is trying to beat the system but we must tell them that they must go through the correct procedures.

ÒUntil they have published a development brief we are not in a position to discuss this application.Ó

Many other councillors agreed. Tony Ludlow (Farringdon) said: ÒThe MoD know these rules, we have published them, so why should they bypass these rules?Ó

The committee also said that it would hate to see the site lost to housing when so many other facilities were needed in the town.

Ferris Cowper (Grayshott) said: ÒAs councillors we have done so much listening to the people of Bordon and Whitehill. If we donÕt refuse this then what was the point of all of that listening?

ÒI donÕt intend to let the people of Bordon and Whitehill down and I donÕt think that this council should either.

ÒThe biggest single challenge faced by this district council is to facilitate somehow the regeneration of Bordon and Whitehill.

ÒThe biggest problem with doing this is the complete shortage of available land.

ÒThis piece of land has come up and we must use it for what we need instead of allowing the MoD to secure it for houses, which is obviously the most profitable for them.

ÒWe need to meet the needs of the community and if we grant this permission then we will lose all credibility.Ó

BordonÕs three district councillors also argued against the applications with Zoya Faddy stating that it was not only a ÒgatewayÓ into the town but also Òan ideal opportunity to make something really great on that siteÓ.

ÒWe could have a business park or an economic centre there. There is also a need for educational facilities which could be developed in tandem with a business centre.Ó

Committee chairman Patrick Burridge warned that if councillors refused to approve the two applications that the MoD was likely to lodge an appeal meaning that a planning inspector would have the final say.

But councillors were not put off and said that the government department must follow the rules like everyone else.

The committee agreed by a large majority vote to throw both applications out on the grounds that development briefs first needed to be produced in accordance with the local plan.

The loss of an employment site at St Lucia Lodge was also a second ground for refusing that application.