More than 200 homes will be built on a disused college campus in north Watford after a three-year planning battle came to an end.

Taylor Wimpey North Thames Ltd will begin construction of 217 new homes on the former West Herts College Leggatts Campus, in Leggatts Way, later this year after a planning inspector overturned Watford Borough Council's decision to reject the proposal.

The plan includes 47 one-bedroom flats, 104 two-bedroom flats, two three-bedroom flats, 28 three-bedroom houses and 36 four-bedroom houses.

It also includes a neighbourhood centre, play area, access from Leggatts Way and North Western Avenue (A41) and car parking.

Approval for the redevelopment was received at the third time of asking, bringing to a close a planning battle that began in 2007.

The first proposal for 248 homes was withdrawn in October that year before a second application was refused by the council's development control committee 12 months later.

A third application was refused by the council in January this year, due to the “excessive number of flats and insufficient proportion of houses”.

The development will comprise 70 per cent three and four-storey flats and 30 per cent two and three-storey houses.

It was also considered to be “out of character with the existing residential area” but this decision has now been overturned by the government-appointed inspector.

Mr P Clark, in his decision published on July 21, said the relationship of the proposal to the character and appearance of the surrounding area was “appropriate”, adding that he was not convinced the large number of flats was “unacceptable”.

But the council did escape paying costs to the developer as Mr Clark felt the application was not refused on unreasonable grounds.

Councillor Iain Sharpe, who represented the council at the appeal hearing in June, said: “We refused the application against [planning] officers' advice because we wanted to see a greater proportion of houses rather than flats.

“It was always going to be a difficult case. I thought we made our arguments as effectively as we could have done. The fact costs were turned down showed we did have a case to argue but none-the-less, the decision is disappointing.

“I really wanted to see more houses on that site. There's relatively limited land for houses as opposed to flats [in Watford]. We really wanted that site to have a greater proportion of family houses.”

A council representative added: “Everything issue is carefully considered by the committee. Our decisions are not taken lightly – we are trying to do the best for Watford.”

County Councillor Ian Brandon also "deplored" the decision.

He said: "The amount of flats that will be built on this development is only one of a catalogue of reasons why this should have been refused. North Watford needs a new school and this was a prime site for one to be built."

The inspector's decision has caused concern among local residents who opposed the redevelopment.

John Robb, from Silver Dell and a governor at nearby The Orchard Primary School, said: “It's all very well having all these houses but there's no infrastructure. The traffic's bad enough. We don't need any more cars here. And at local schools there aren't enough places. I don't know what they were thinking.”

Janet and Vito La Porta, from North Western Avenue, added: “I just think there's going to be too many houses there for the road structure. I don't think it can cope as it is.

“Eventually it was going to be passed. The feel round here doesn't feel the same. The community has gone.”

A Taylor Wimpey representative said: “We are delighted to have been granted planning approval for our new development on the Leggatts Campus site in Leggatts Way, and we look forward to starting work on the homes in November to enhance and provide much-needed housing to the community.”

Meanwhile, Leggatts ward councillors have received an apology from the council, after they were not informed about the date of the hearing, which meant they were unable to attend.

Councillor Steve Johnson said: “I was very disappointed we were excluded because we represent local people and weren't able to put any points across. There should have been more family homes. If we cannot represent local people, what's our role?”