Nursling residents have won the latest round in their battle to stop 350 homes being built on a “green gap” separating the village and Southampton.

It comes after Test Valley’s planning control committee blocked Barker Mill Estates’ scheme to build on land off Redbridge Lane. Barker Mill will now almost certainly appeal against the unanimous ruling, which was greeted by clapping and cheering.

Before Tuesday’s 150-minute debate, protesters gathered outside with placards. Immediately after the verdict became known, overjoyed objector Laura Hedges, who lives at Rownhams Close, said: “I am really pleased. This was democracy in action. Now we are going to battle on to make sure these plans don’t succeed.”

More than 100 objectors turned up at the meeting at Romsey’s Crosfield Hall to listen to the debate. Putting Nursling and Rownhams Parish Council’s views on the scheme to the meeting, councillor, Mike Maltby, warned. “Cities continually expand.

“Nursling and Rownhams is the front line of this expansion and at risk of being absorbed by Southampton if this gap is lost. If we become part of Southampton, then the front line moves on to North Baddesley, Chilworth and Romsey.”

He also told the committee that the grassroots authority could not find a single benefit to the community in Barker Mill Estates’ proposals.

But Tim Jobling, for Barker Mill Estates, disputed this and promised high-quality development, along with a package of measures to benefit the community.

Planning officers claimed that, although the proposals went against policy, there was a homes shortage in the South-East and the Nursling site would go towards meeting this and justified a departure from countryside policies which restricted development. However, committee members felt that the retention of the green gap, which was included in the borough’s original local plan, was more important and should be saved from bricks and mortar.

Nursling and Rownhams member, Phil Bundy, said he “couldn’t find evidence for justification” for such a massive departure from policy.

“Test Valley is preparing to sacrifice a whole community to justify housing numbers that can easily be challenged.

“There’s no exceptional circumstances for this scheme and our case must be that we are seeking to uphold policy to retain coalescence between Test Valley and Southampton,” warned Mr Bundy.

His borough ward colleague, Nigel Anderdon, accused Barker Mill Estates of trying to “short change” the parish by “attempting to squeeze the 4.5 acres of public open space required within the application onto previously allocated land (3.1 acres) at Joe Bigwood Close in the village.

He pointed out that borough policy stated recreation needs had to be met on site or as close to the proposed development as possible and that, currently, there was a deficit of three out of four types of open space within Nursling and Rownhams.

Andover Harewood’s Jim Neil called the application “pure optimistic opportunism”, while Valley Park’s Alan Dowden also attacked the plans. “To me, policy is paramount and the local plans states it is a green gap. This area is like the last green lung between Hillyfields and Southampton.

“It will be destroyed if houses are put on it. I’d much prefer to see horses in the field than houses. I also believe this gap is essential in shaping the settlement of Nursling.”

Over Wallop’s Tony Hope retorted: “It’s vital to retain the gap. Members decide this application and I will not be bullied by other members or officers on this.”

His remarks followed warnings that the authority could be liable if a government inspector ruled in favour of Barker Mill Estates.

Dun Valley’s Neville Whiteley also agreed the application was “totally against” policy and a “speculative development”, adding that if a private individual had submitted the plans, they would be told it was against policy. Mr Whiteley said it was and it had to be stopped.

When put to the vote, all members rejected the scheme on the grounds that there was no demonstrable need for it in the countryside and it was contrary to the borough local plan policies. There were also a number of highway issues.

Tim Jobling said after the meeting: “The trustees are taking advice as to whether they should appeal. As the officers have pointed out, the decision could have financial ramifications for all local tax payers in Test Valley “Despite what was stated, the trustees have not threatened that and would never go to appeal on the basis that their costs would be paid. Any award is at the discretion of the inspector. If we go to appeal, it will be following professional advice.

“The trustees have noted the concerns and are examining the issues in an attempt to mitigate the perceived problems and make the development more acceptable.”