A HIGH Court judge has upheld an overturned planning decision for 125 new dwellings to be built on land in Broadway.

In June this year a government inspector overturned Wychavon District Council planning committee's decision to refuse the application from the Lindner family and Spitfire for the houses and flats in Leamington Road.

The proposals were for 75 open-market dwellings and 50 affordable homes (housing with care) made up of 40 apartments and 10 bungalows.

There would also be community welfare facilities, new vehicular access and public open spaces.

A group of campaigners including The Save Broadway Campaign, The Broadway Trust and the Springfield Lane Association united to challenge the inspector's decision in the High Court.

Their hope was to protect the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty from unwanted development and save other villages in the process.

The group was represented by Richard Langham, of Landmark Chambers.

But their efforts came to nought when High Court judge The Hon Mr Justice Ouseley ruled in favour of the inspector.

Gordon Franks, chairman of the Save Broadway Campaign, told the Journal: "We are devastated that the needs of Broadway, the loss of prime agricultural land and the harm to an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty have been swept away in the drive for housing targets and money. As in many villages, these new houses are not sustainable, our infrastructure cannot cope."

Sheila Goode, whose family has lived in Turnpike Cottages in Leamington Road for generations, spoke on behalf of its residents. She said: "We are very disappointed at the High Court outcome, despite Government promises that the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty would be protected. We feel completely let down. The enormous three floor block of flats, at the front of the development, will dwarf these historic cottages that marked the traditional edge of the village and will spoil the whole street scene. We also worry for any new residents as we experienced the misery of flooding in 2007 and the development land is lower."

The plans were refused in April last year against officer recommendation. Reasons for refusal included: None of the affordable housing units are designed to meet the needs of families and those not in need of extra care facilities; the development would be overly dominant and would be of detriment to the street scene for failing to represent high quality and inclusive design; it was in an AONB and failed to meet the roles and definition of sustainable development.