CAMPAIGNERS have won the first round of their battle to prevent up to 80 homes being built on a greenfield site in Hampshire.

Civic chiefs have rejected a controversial application to redevelop a large area of farmland opposite a Grade II listed cottage next to the New Forest National Park.

District councillors described the proposal to build scores of homes on land north of Loperwood Lane in Totton as "premature".

As reported by the Daily Echo, 20 areas bordering the national park have been earmarked for housing, including the Loperwood Lane site and neighbouring land.

But the council's new Local Plan Review is unlikely to be adopted until 2018 at the earliest.

Cllr David Harrison told fellow members of the planning committee: "It would be a big mistake to give permission for such a scheme at this stage.

"It may well be that the Loperwood Lane land is considered suitable for housing at some stage in the future, but I would like that decision to be taken in a much wider context."

The committee also heard from Kerie Wallace, who lives in the Grade II listed Calmore Cottage.

Describing the proposed development as an "absolute monstrosity" he said the new homes would generate an extra 400 vehicle movements a day as well as adding to local flooding problems by covering the "Calmore sponge" with bricks and concrete.

Mr Wallace added: "Plonking 80 houses on a field would be an environmental disaster.

"Local services are already overstretched and there are no school places available for the children of families who will live there. In no way can this be allowed to proceed."

The scheme was defended by representatives from the applicant, Howard Sharp and Partners.

Planning agent Dr Robert Wickham described the proposal as "technically sound" and said it would provide Totton with "quality homes".

But a hard-hitting report presented by council officers said the development would result in the "unwarranted and harmful urbanisation" of a rural area.

It added: "A number of applications for residential development of this site were refused during the 1990s, the most recent of which was also dismissed at appeal.

"The appeal inspector concluded it was an unjustified rural development in the countryside that would have caused material harm to the local landscape."

Objectors must wait to learn if Howard Sharp and Partners will lodge an appeal against the committee's decision.