The leader of the opposition has hit out at Hampshire County Council’s U-turn in favour of a quarry Hamble airfield.

The authority had turned down Cemex's plan to extract sand and gravel - and that sparked an appeal.

But as reported by the Echo, the council dropped its opposition on the first day of the inquiry - leaving residents to fight on their own.

At the council regulatory committee meeting on May 20, an update on the quarry appeal was given by officers who said more hearings are due in June.

The regulatory committee chair said that it would be “totally inappropriate” and “wrong” to ask to discuss the case as it is active.

READ MORE: Hamble residents 'abandoned' by Hampshire County Council over quarry

But this decision was not welcomed by the leader of the Lib Dems, Keith House, who left the meeting, saying there was no point in being part of the committee.

Cllr House, speaking at the county council’s general meeting two days later, asked the council leader, Nick Adams-King: “Is there any point to the regulatory committee?”

“Yes,” Cllr Adams-King said.

Cllr House then called for responsibility for “overturning” the regulatory committee’s decision “without any consultation” and an apology to the Hamble community.

Cllr House said: “Which cabinet member will take responsibility for overturning the regulatory committee’s decision without any consultation on Hamble Airfield, which took two and a half years to get to the committee and had over 5,000 objections and took full days both the regular shoulder committees time? And will the leader offer a belated apology to the handbook community?”

Cllr Adams-King said that he is aware of the Hamble community’s fear and concern about how the quarry process has progressed.

However, he said: “As some wise person once said, the law is an ass, and on this occasion, the planning system is also an ass.”

He added: “This is not a matter that the county council can control.”

He explained that there is a process in which the applicant has the right to appeal and present new information that “might challenge any of our previous decisions”.

“We might not like that; we might feel all that there is a democratic deficit in doing so, but it is the system, and it is the process. It is not anybody’s fault that that has happened.”

“We might not like it, but it’s what’s happened, and there’s no fault of the regulatory committee or indeed of the council for that process. Ultimately, this issue will be decided by somebody from the planning inspectorate, someone who is not part of our democratic community.

“The fault lies with the system; it doesn’t lie with anybody here.”