A MIX of homes, offices and a hotel will not be built on Swindon's former railway works after councillors rejected plans.
Two companies wanted to build 238 apartments, offices, a hotel, and leisure facilities on the old railway works sites off Kemble Drive.
But despite warnings that it could jeopardise investment in Swindon and leave the sites lying empty, Swindon Council's planning committee told developers the plans were not good enough.
Ward councillors Des Moffat and Kevin Small (Lab, Western) had urged the committee to reject the plans, arguing that the development would create a 'concrete jungle' and would put at risk the chance of the area achieving World Heritage Site status.
But the two developers fought back. Jeremy Baker, from Carillion, said their development would create something Swindon could be proud of and Redrow Homes said it had invested money and confidence in Swindon.
Peter Andrews, chief executive of the New Swindon Company, added that it was important for the regeneration of the town.
"We believe that failure to support the officer recommendations send out a very bad message," he said. "It jeopardises investment."
Carillion had applied to build 106 apartments, a 78-bedroom hotel, offices, a restaurant and leisure facilities while Redrow Homes wanted to build 132 apartments, offices and leisure facilities.
Although they were two separate applications, much of the debate about the principle of the development on the site took place over the first application, from Carillion.
Coun Doreen Dart (Con, Blunsdon) supported the plans.
"This is an application that needs to be determined," she said.
"Maybe it is not the best of all worlds but I believe at the moment it is the best we are going to get. Otherwise it is going to go away for another seven, eight, nine years and we are going to have a site with nothing on it at all."
But Coun Maurice Fanning (Lab, Gorse Hill and Pinehurst) said the committee had to hold out to get the development right and not give in to developers.
"I do not react kindly to having a sword of Damocles dangled over my head with developers saying this is the last time we are going to bring this forward," he said.
He proposed that both applications were refused on the grounds of over-development, a lack of affordable housing, poor design and access issues.
Both votes were won.
Isabel Field
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article