VEGETABLES have lost out to housing in a High Court ruling in London on plans to build on allotments at Eastleigh.

The ruling is a victory for Eastleigh Borough Council over Eastleigh and Bishopstoke Allotments Association, which had campaigned for five years against the council's plans for 140 affordable homes.

In the court proceedings, on Monday, Mr Justice Calvert Smith acknowledged "a looming crisis in allotment provision" but turned down a legal challenge on behalf of the allotment holders to a government decision allowing the disposal of allotment land.

The council had granted planning permission for housing on allotments at South Street and Monks Way. The Secretary of State for the Environment subsequently agreed to the disposal of the allotments, following a public inquiry.

A request from one allotment holder for a judicial review of that decision, which was the subject of Monday's proceedings, was the latest stage in the legal process.

Keith House, Liberal Democrat leader of Eastleigh council, said: "We're very pleased that a decision has at long last been taken on this long-running saga. This now leaves the way clear for the provision of much-needed housing".

Mr House pointed out that, to replace the allotments at South Street and Monks Way, the council had provided new allotments at five new sites around the borough, including Chandler's Ford, Boyatt Wood and Chestnut Avenue. He said the council was also retaining sites close to those that are to go.

Tim Holzer, chairman of the allotments association, said the judge's decision was a huge disappointment, and he insisted that the Secretary of State's decision had been flawed. "It's an anomalous decision that is inconsistent with the requirements and application of allotments legislation and has relied upon conclusions that are factually incorrect."

Mr Holzer said the association had fought tirelessly not only to save the threatened sites in Eastleigh, but also to prevent the basis of protection for all statutory allotments from being undermined.

By not proceeding to judicial review, the judge's decision had increased uncertainty surrounding the protection that could be expected for statutory allotments across the whole country.