Councillors have unanimously rejected plans for 116 houses to protect a green gap between Romsey and North Baddesley.

Members of Test Valley’s southern area planning committee agreed with the officers’ recommendation that Foreman Homes’ scheme for a 23-acre site off Highwood Lane would “diminish the physical and visual integrity” of the local gap.

The 23-acre site, which is bordered by Botley Road at its southern end is owned by the Edom Trust and included land leased by Hampshire County Council as a depot.

The scheme attracted objections from Romsey Extra Parish and Romsey Town Councils and Romsey and District Society as well as 277 individual objectors.

Concerns were raised by residents over the loss of a green gap, possible congestion on the roads surrounding the site and the poor drainage and risk of flooding.

Natural England and Hampshire and Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust both feared the development would damage the nearby Emer Bog, a Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and Baddesley Common, a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI).

Chris Wesson, chairman of Romsey Extra parish Council, told the Advertiser: “This is an important victory. This is an important gap which has been fought over before.”

He wondered if the status of the gap could be raised from “local” to “strategic” to give it more protection, Christine Bryant, who lives next to the site, also said the land should have more protection.

“Hopefully if the Revised Local Plan is adopted it will at least retain its local gap status and that should deter the developers from appealing,” said Mrs Bryant.

Foreman’s application, which was submitted in spring, came just two years after a government planning inspector rejected an appeal by Glowfern Ltd to build 59 homes on land adjoining this site’s northern boundary.

Then inspector, Gyllian Grindley, ruled that the site was “outside of the defined settlement envelope” and the green gap between Romsey and North Baddesley should be retained.

A £3 million indoor sports centre with 78 parking spaces was also part of the Foreman plan but that was dropped before it reached last week’s planning meeting.

At going to press the firm had not answered the Advertiser’s request for a comment on the decision and an idication as to whether they would appeal.