REVISED plans have been submitted for the proposed housing development at the bottom of Chase Road in Lindford - but parish councillors are still unimpressed.
Developers Bellway Homes have revised their vision for the site and have now submitted an outline planning application for 207 homes to be built in the village. The previous scheme proposed 233 homes.
The planned new development would involve the demolition of eight existing homes, meaning the creation of 199 extra dwellings. 60 of these would be classed as ÒaffordableÓ, meaning that they would not be for sale on the private market but would be administered by a housing association for either rental or through a low-cost home ownership scheme.
But objectors remain unhappy about the plans and have vowed to continue their objections.
On Monday, Lindford Parish Council expressed its disappointment over the length of time given for official consultation.
As the application is merely amended, with only the number of homes changing, East Hampshire District Council is carrying out official consultation over two weeks instead of the usual month given for a new application.
The parish council received the amended plans on the day of its meeting and chairman Ian Skelton-Smith said that a separate planning committee meeting was needed to discuss the changes.
ÒWe need to tell the district council very strongly that it is not acceptable and we need time to sort through the details on this,Ó he said. ÒTo give us two weeks to comment on it seems ridiculous.Ó
The parish council agreed to hold a planning committee meeting as soon as possible to discuss the amendments.
Despite the seemingly short consultation period, EHDC senior planner Keith Oliver told The Herald that, in reality, the parish council had far longer to get their comments to planners because the application is not going before the planning committee until March.
Residents in Lindford, who have objected to the application, have expressed their confusion over why they had received multiply copies of letters, informing them of the amendments, from EHDC.
But Mr Oliver said because two applications had been received for the site and a large number of residents, some from the same address, had written in response, it was more Òcost effectiveÓ to foot the postage bill and send out letters to everyone on the list than have a member of staff spend the day sifting through the letters and files to make sure that no duplicate copies were sent to the same address.