THE CONTROVERSIAL £150m development which could change the face of Winchester city centre has survived - for now.

More than 150 residents packed Winchester Guildhall on Thursday night as civic chiefs resoundingly voted to protect the Silver Hill regeneration.

Civic chiefs approved a Liberal Democrat amendment against ditching the scheme by 43 votes to eight after more than three hours of debate, but the Lib Dems criticised the lack of information offered by city officers and said they could abandon the scheme in future.

Follow the meeting as it happened

Dozens jeered and waved signs urging the council to abandon developer TH Real Estate and start again amid fears their long-touted scheme would wreck the city centre.

Cllr Jan Warwick, a former Conservative cabinet member, told the meeting: "[This is] a scheme which, before even a brick has been laid, has managed to stir up the very reasonable people of Winchester to march in protest.

"I urge the council to extract itself from the tired and outdated proposals that is Henderson's limited vision of Silver Hill. Let us all aspire to build something that we will all be proud of."

The decision means the scheme, approved in 2009, is closer than ever to going ahead. TH Real Estate is working to fulfil the final conditions of the contract and hopes to be on site this winter.

Council leader Stephen Godfrey, who later backed the Lib Dem amendment, faced boos and heckles as he warned that scrapping the scheme, approved in 2009, would send a dangerous message.

He said: "Does it tell employers that Winchester is a good place to set up business? Does it tell potential investors that Winchester is a safe place to fund future development? Does it tell residents that Winchester is a good, go-ahead place in which to live, when there will be fewer jobs in a dilapidated town centre?

"We will be telling the people of Winchester that we don't really care about what's best for Winchester."

Tensions rumbled throughout the meeting in the Bapsy Hall as angry residents drowned out councillors defending the scheme. There were calls of "shame" as the motion was passed.

Lib Dem councillor Martin Tod said: "Each option has major implications on cost, on timing, on the council's finances and on our ability to achieve important public benefits such as a bus station and social housing. We have had no clarity on any of these options and it would be wrong to terminate without that information."

Anti-Silver Hill campaigner Kim Gottlieb, who lost a second vote to end the contract, said he was "disappointed but not surprised" by the decision.

He told the Chronicle after the meeting: "The real point that wasn't understood is that serving notice tonight would have kept all the options open. By not terminating we end up with the one option and one developer.

Asked whether he would take further legal action, after successfully quashing controversial changes to the scheme in the courts, he said: "We will pursue every legal means possible, commercial means possible, whatever route possible to ensure that this city gets the scheme that it properly deserves, not the one that's about to be foisted upon it."