A SCHEME to build 19 homes in a former timber yard at Cheriton has been granted.

Councillors debated it for more than two hours, and many said they were torn between giving approval or not.

Eventually they backed the application from Desarex Properties Ltd, despite objections from around 15 residents.

Cheriton Parish Council also raised concerns but acknowledged that some villagers were in favour.

Freemans Yard at the end of School Lane, where the homes are to be built, has stood empty since the early 1990s.

In 2005 a scheme was approved to build homes and business premises there, the meeting at Winchester Guildhall on Thursday, June 17 heard.

But planning officers said developers could not make the scheme viable, which meant that new plans had come forward.

In the latest proposals all the business units had been removed because they were not as profitable as housing, the meeting heard.

Officers said the new scheme, which includes extending the neighbouring Cheriton Primary School grounds and some widening of School Lane, should go ahead.

But the villagers who objected said the proposals would also breach some of the council’s policies in its Local Plan.

One of them, Simon Scott, said: “If you grant the permission for this scheme, what is the point of having a Local Plan?”

Other concerns raised by residents included a lack of parking, over-development of the site and School Lane being too narrow.

They also complained about the recent demolition of a historic barn on the site, which would have survived in the 2005 scheme.

But council officers said the barn was not legally protected, which made it irrelevant to the latest scheme.

Cllr Ian Tait said he liked the 2010 plan because it provided five affordable houses, of which two were quite large.

Other members were less keen, but still felt that the scheme was just about acceptable.

Cllr Barry Lipscomb said: “I think we’ve probably got as good as we’re going to get and I know that the site is clearly an eyesore at the moment.”

Cllr Therese Evans said the scheme breached some policies, but also had a good design and should be allowed “on balance”.

Members then voted by eight to one to support the scheme, with only Cllr Roger Huxstep against.