MOVES to persuade the district council to re-examine the whole issue of a proposed major development at Lindford have failed - much to the disappointment of the parish council.

The parish council announced on Monday that East Hampshire District CouncilÕs scrutiny committee had turned down the request because it did not want to get involved in the issue of housing allocations and planning applications.

The request came after the parish council hit a brick wall with EHDC over the long-running and controversial issue of the Chase Road site

Recently a report arguing the case for the deletion of the site at the bottom of Chase Road from the local plan was sent to EHDC.

The report highlighted the fact that EHDC was originally not considering the Chase Road site until housing developer Charles Church asked it to and, in 1995, won its case at a local plan inquiry.

The site is now allocated for 165 houses although legal problems have delayed a planning application from the developer.

However, the report also said that much has changed and that the fact that it has not yet been developed, or any planning application for the site submitted, reflected Òa lack of need and market demandÓ.

But last month the parish council received a letter from district council leader Elizabeth Cartwright stating that despite the objections ÒChase Road remains a valid siteÓ and there was Òno need to reallocate itÓ.

Despite the set-back the parish council has vowed to carry on lobbying EHDC.

Chase Road working party chairman Eric Birkett said: ÒLindford is not sustainable. To get to the Forest Centre supermarkets it is a car journey of three miles each way.

ÒThe doctorÕs surgery, Lindford garage, butcherÕs shop, green grocers and ladies hairdressers have all disappeared from the village.

ÒPlanning Policy Guidance supports my views. It reads Ôany substantial development, whether a town extension, village expansion or new settlement should not exist exclusively of housing but must be planned as a community with a mix of land uses including adequate shops, employment and servicesÕ.

ÒIn anyoneÕs language a settlement of 165 houses must be a substantial new development.

ÒLindford has recently become a ward in its own right - we are not part of Whitehill.

ÒWe are a village of some 2,300 people and wish to stay that way, we should not be included in any other settlementÕs population figures.

ÒEHDC has always backed village appraisals stating it as a way of taking notice of residentsÕ wishes.

ÒWell, Lindford residents have indicated that 84 per cent are concerned for the ecology in the village while 69 per cent do not want anymore new houses.Ó

The parish council has agreed to again write to Mrs Cartwright asking her to justify the way in which the Chase Road site and Lindford as a whole is viewed by district planners.

The letter also emphasises the point that EHDCÕs policies on Lindford appear to fly in the face of government and the councilÕs own guidelines.