The Guillemont Barracks development, which lies between Fleet and Farnborough, was unanimously refused by the council’s planning committee in April, but approved by neighbouring authority Hart District Council a week later. As the site falls in both local authority areas, with 48 homes in Rushmoor and 102 in Hart, approval from both councils was needed for the plans to progress.
Planning permission was granted in 1999 to build more office buildings adjacent to those already existing in Guillemont Park, and steel structures were put in place, however, the work was left unfinished.
The Bellway application sought to demolish the structures and build houses instead, as well as a school parking area and internal roads.
Members of Hart’s planning committee agreed that the design and layout was acceptable, but Rushmoor’s members were concerned that the proposed access off Sandy Lane, near to Guillemont Junior School, was unsafe.
Councillors also felt plans for an additional car park at the junior school were insufficient and visibility at the point of the proposed access road was inadequate.
Speaking at the council’s development management committee last Wednesday, Keith Holland, head of planning, said an appeal has now been lodged by the company and the council has received all the necessary documentation.
A spokesperson for Bellway said: “The Rushmoor planning committee refused planning permission for the redevelopment of this derelict site on highway grounds, against the advice of their professional officers and the county council as the highway authority.
“Given the professional support for this development, Bellway has submitted an appeal against this decision.”
The plans received more than 180 comments from members of the public, with many unhappy with the housing density and potential traffic increase.
One said: “The density of homes will change the residential nature of the area, making this one of the least pleasant parts of Hampshire in which to live.
“There are already problems with litter, dog fouling, pedestrian safety, buses and the security of property and shops. Instead of proper town planning this is an opportunistic application without due consideration to detrimental impact.”
Councillor John Marsh, representing the Fernhill ward, within which the development falls, he was pleased that the proposal was unanimously refused.