Hundreds of residents are relieved that plans for about 200 homes on a green field have been turned down.
A total of 402 people objected to the homes. Just 42 were in favour.
Wokingham Borough Council refused to give planning permission for the new estate between and Tape Lane and Lodge Road, the B3030 Winnersh to Twyford road.
At the moment the field is home to ponies and horses.
Hurst Parish Council chairman Wayne Smith said: “We’re very relieved but we’re not complacent. We understand it will probably go to appeal. At this stage, the village will be very happy about the decision made by WBC.”
Councillor Smith brought together village groups which had earlier disagreed about how to fight the plan. As a result the Say NO! to 200 houses in Hurst campaign was launched.
Protect Hurst Action Group, said they were pleased about “the robust refusal by WBC for this totally inappropriate planning application.”
John Osborne of Hurst Village Society said: “HVS welcomes the decision … to refuse planning permission … while it is not certain but it is considered highly likely that the applicants will submit an appeal to the planning inspectorate.
“Therefore it is important to fully understand and reflect in detail on the reasons given by the council for refusing … permission and as to the likely ability of the developers to persuade a planning inspector at any potential public inquiry that those reasons [for] refusal are inappropriate or can be overcome.”
One villager, who did not want to be named, said the refusal included serious concerns about highways, ecology, landscape and trees and that the historic green gap should remain between the settlements of Hurst and Whistley Green.
The council officer’s report about the refusal said the proposals would create: “a new unplanned large housing estate on a greenfield site in the countryside outside of settlement limits. It would be significantly out of scale with [the] neighbouring small village of Hurst.”
Best farming land would be lost, added the report. There was limited public transport. There were concerns about greater crested newts, skylarks and bats.
The applicant had failed to show road safety would be protected. The estate would need at least two access roads: only one was proposed.
The applicant had used figures from Wales and Greater London to work out numbers of vehicle trips from the homes. This was “not an acceptable comparison as they are not representative of this site in relation to size, population and car ownership levels,” said the report.
The scheme did not “make adequate provision for affordable housing” because there was no completed legal agreement. The report said the plan did not secure chances for training and apprenticeships because there was no completed legal agreement.
The applicants, Mactaggart & Mickel, said they had no comment to make on the refusal.
