Author Archives: lymingtonsociety

Whetherspoon’s Press Release 2010

Posted on by
Reply

Lymington Society

Letter to the editor of the Lymington Times

Dear Sir

The planning application by Wetherspoon’s for a pub next to the Parish Church in Lymington has merited your leading front page article for its newsworthiness and controversy. No doubt people are going to have strongly opposing views about this sort of pub in this location.

The Lymington Society tries to be objective about all planning applications and informs the planners as much as possible on each application. Here it may be helpful if the Society informed the public through your pages as well. Can I firstly amplify the comments of the Lymington Society spokesman in your article by inserting the four paragraphs that you omitted from the press release.

“However we note that local people have expressed concerns about the likelihood of such a large premises becoming a public house so near to the church and the adjacent graveyard. 

The Society understand the concerns and also has reservations about what may well become an extremely large destination public house being developed so near to an area that some people may feel is inappropriate. 

Large destination pubs such as this may become have been associated in the past with very late night licences and public order concerns, as we see regularly on TV news programmes. 

Therefore whilst welcoming in principle investments such as this that bring new facilities, jobs and economic activity to the town, the Society hopes that the authorities will not allow a very late licence for this establishment which could cause problems for those living in the town centre from noise and nuisance from inebriated revellers in the early hours”.

This press release did not “cautiously welcome the move,” but welcomed a commercial investment that brought vitality and economic activity to the High Street, but not the noise and nuisance of an establishment with the reputation of Wetherspoon’s, which from their website reads

“During the day, our Lloyds No.1 bars can offer a quiet, relaxed pub, for all to enjoy a drink or meal; at night, the teams up the mood and tempo.   The night-time teams are really focused on, and enthusiastic about, people having fun and providing a really vibrant atmosphere.   Watch out for our regular party nights – great fun and often a bit of an eye-opener!   At the weekends, many of our Lloyds No.1 bars have live DJs or live music.”

The commercial ethos of Wetherspoon’s, as I understand it, is to sell drink at a price lower than other outlets which will not only damage the business of those outlets, but on the basis that there is no similar outlet between Bournemouth and Southampton, make Lymington High Street a focus, or destination, for that type of pub. It is very questionable whether that is appropriate to the present character of Lymington and its High Street.

The authorities would no doubt try to control excessive noise and disturbance from such a pub, but there would be continual friction and on the basis that this can be described as a “destination pub” designed to attract large numbers of young people from a wide area, there would no doubt have to be a regular police presence in the High Street. A few years ago there were continual disturbances monitored by the police inQueen Street because of the pubs there. To repeat those disturbances in the High Street next to the church and opposite a long established care home seems completely unnecessary.

Accordingly, whilst in principle welcoming facilities for young people in the right places, as the press release did, it clearly cautioned against this sort of outlet next to the parish church. The Lymington Society have now had an opportunity to discuss this within its executive committee and with many of its members, and the clear feeling accepted by everyone is that this is a proposal for what might, in certain circumstances, be the right facility but in completely the wrong place.

I appreciate that many with strong religious or traditional views may say that the proposal is outrageous and that it should not even be considered. The Lymington Society have now considered the proposal fully and objectively and, on all the arguments, a pub of the Wetherspoon’s type is clearly wrong for Lymington High Street and in particular for this location immediately next to the entrance to the Lymington parish church.

For the full objection of the Lymington Society dealing with all the issues please look at our website.

Yours faithfully

 

Clive Sutton

 

Lymington Society Objection to Ford’s Redevelopment

Posted on by
Reply

Lymington Society Objection to Ford’s Redevelopment Application – May 2010

The South East Plan requires local planning authorities to protect and enhance the character of small country towns.   In particular,Policy CS2 requires that “New development will be required to be well designed to respect the character, identity, and context of the area’s towns, villages and countryside.   All new development will be required to contribute positively to local distinctiveness and sense of place, being appropriate and sympathetic to its setting in terms of scale, height, density, layout, appearance, materials, and its relationship to adjoining buildings and landscape features, and shall not cause unacceptable effects by reason of visual intrusion, overlooking, shading, noise, light pollution or other adverse impact on local character and amenities.  .  .  .” while Policy CS3 requires that “Development proposals must protect and, where possible, enhance sites of recognised importance for nature and heritage conservation  .  .  . New development proposals should maintain local distinctiveness and where possible enhance the character of identified features.  .  .  .”

 The following extract from the applicants’ website gives an idea of what may be expected from their claimed 767 nationwide establishments:  “During the day, our Lloyds No.1 bars can offer a quiet, relaxed pub, for all to enjoy a drink or meal; at night, the teams up the mood and tempo.   The night-time teams are really focused on, and enthusiastic about, people having fun and providing a really vibrant atmosphere.   Watch out for our regular party nights – great fun and often a bit of an eye-opener!  At the weekends, many of our Lloyds No.1 bars have live DJs or live music.”   Even in today’s secular, iconoclastic world it would be hard to devise a more inappropriate proposal than to separate such an establishment from a tranquil, historic church and its surrounding precinct only by an ancient listed wall.   (The front door of the proposed drinking establishment and the west door of the church are separated by but 20 yards).   A distinctive feature of the town is the high number of dwellings clustered on and around the High Street, many of which would be within the likely sound footprint of the applicants’ description above.   (The closest, just 20 yards across the street, is an old people’s home).   There is no merit to be found, either, among the other possible supporting reasons for a change of use.   The A1 category, once lost, is unlikely to be regained and the vibrancy of the High Street will be diminished in proportion.   Employment opportunities would be scarcely more numerous than those offered by the existing shop.   No additional dwelling space is proposed, affordable or otherwise.   The building lies opposite a busy road junction which is already habitually congested by vehicles many of which are parked illegally, and has no off-street parking space for delivery vehicles or for customers; and Lymington and Pennington are already well provided with pubs and clubs distributed both along the High Street and around the wider town.

 It may be argued that such an establishment would serve the needs of the town’s younger inhabitants in a way that the existing High Street pubs do not, but the public order experience of recent years from establishments aimed at a similar target clientele suggests that where “The night-time teams are really focused on, and enthusiastic about, people having fun and providing a really vibrant atmosphere” the centre of the Conservation Area, between parish church and rest homes, is not an appropriate place.   This application fails the tests of Policies CS2 and CS3 of the Core Strategy, and  also conflicts with the distinctive character of the High Street and the standing of its ancient church, and should be refused.

 

Planning Application to replace Fords with a J D Wetherspoon pub: Press Release 1 Press Release 2 Planning Objection

Posted on by
Reply

Lymington Society

Letter to the editor of the Lymington Times

Dear Sir

The planning application by Wetherspoon’s for a pub next to the Parish Church in Lymington has merited your leading front page article for its newsworthiness and controversy. No doubt people are going to have strongly opposing views about this sort of pub in this location.

The Lymington Society tries to be objective about all planning applications and informs the planners as much as possible on each application. Here it may be helpful if the Society informed the public through your pages as well. Can I firstly amplify the comments of the Lymington Society spokesman in your article by inserting the four paragraphs that you omitted from the press release.

“However we note that local people have expressed concerns about the likelihood of such a large premises becoming a public house so near to the church and the adjacent graveyard. 

The Society understand the concerns and also has reservations about what may well become an extremely large destination public house being developed so near to an area that some people may feel is inappropriate. 

Large destination pubs such as this may become have been associated in the past with very late night licences and public order concerns, as we see regularly on TV news programmes. 

Therefore whilst welcoming in principle investments such as this that bring new facilities, jobs and economic activity to the town, the Society hopes that the authorities will not allow a very late licence for this establishment which could cause problems for those living in the town centre from noise and nuisance from inebriated revellers in the early hours”.

This press release did not “cautiously welcome the move,” but welcomed a commercial investment that brought vitality and economic activity to the High Street, but not the noise and nuisance of an establishment with the reputation of Wetherspoon’s, which from their website reads

“During the day, our Lloyds No.1 bars can offer a quiet, relaxed pub, for all to enjoy a drink or meal; at night, the teams up the mood and tempo.   The night-time teams are really focused on, and enthusiastic about, people having fun and providing a really vibrant atmosphere.   Watch out for our regular party nights – great fun and often a bit of an eye-opener!   At the weekends, many of our Lloyds No.1 bars have live DJs or live music.”

The commercial ethos of Wetherspoon’s, as I understand it, is to sell drink at a price lower than other outlets which will not only damage the business of those outlets, but on the basis that there is no similar outlet between Bournemouth and Southampton, make Lymington High Street a focus, or destination, for that type of pub. It is very questionable whether that is appropriate to the present character of Lymington and its High Street.

The authorities would no doubt try to control excessive noise and disturbance from such a pub, but there would be continual friction and on the basis that this can be described as a “destination pub” designed to attract large numbers of young people from a wide area, there would no doubt have to be a regular police presence in the High Street. A few years ago there were continual disturbances monitored by the police inQueen Street because of the pubs there. To repeat those disturbances in the High Street next to the church and opposite a long established care home seems completely unnecessary.

Accordingly, whilst in principle welcoming facilities for young people in the right places, as the press release did, it clearly cautioned against this sort of outlet next to the parish church. The Lymington Society have now had an opportunity to discuss this within its executive committee and with many of its members, and the clear feeling accepted by everyone is that this is a proposal for what might, in certain circumstances, be the right facility but in completely the wrong place.

I appreciate that many with strong religious or traditional views may say that the proposal is outrageous and that it should not even be considered. The Lymington Society have now considered the proposal fully and objectively and, on all the arguments, a pub of the Wetherspoon’s type is clearly wrong for Lymington High Street and in particular for this location immediately next to the entrance to the Lymington parish church.

For the full objection of the Lymington Society dealing with all the issues please look at our website.

Yours faithfully

 

Clive Sutton

Chairman’s Report for the AGM 17th March 2010

Posted on by
Reply

Ladies and gentlemen.

As those of you who have had the patience to listen to my previous Chairman’s addresses will know that I tend to pick up the theme from the previous address and carry it forward.

Last year in asking the question: “What has the Lymington Society done this year which I can share with the members”, I reminded you of three recent headlines in the paper which the Lymington Society was connected with: “Chaos As High Winds Halt New Ferries”;” Landmark Homes Development on Wellworthy Club Site Refused”; “Builders Face Big Bill As Bid to Keep too High Homes Refused”. You can obviously all identify these headlines and how things have developed since then.

The theme that struck me this year at our last monthly committee meeting on 9 March was the amount of dedicated detailed work that the committee members put into the work of the Society.

Here is another list of meetings attended by Members of the Committee in the preceding month:

  •  1st of February: Exhibition on Shoreline Management Plan — attended by one committee member
  •  1st of February: Friends of Lymington Railway AGM — attended by two committee members
  •  25th of February: Local Distinctiveness meeting with council planners — attended by four committee members
  •  4th of March: Lymington Parking Study meeting — attended by one committee member
  •  8th March: meeting with Natural England regarding ferries and mitigation of their damage — attended by three committee members
  •  9th March: presentation by Redrow on their new development attended by five committee members
  •  Finally 9th of March: our monthly committee meeting attended by all committee members including our president Peter Chitty, although one member could not stay, but came to deliver the envelopes he had stuffed with the notices of this meeting!

Is there any other organisation or any other chairman which is as lucky to have such a dedicated group of committee members always ready, if not vying, to attend meetings on subjects which they have a particular interest in connected with the Lymington Society.

As a result of those meetings one can summarise the Society’s current situation.

On ferries we have responsibly promoted a situation where the ferries issue is going to be resolved with a full intervention of the appropriate authorities and not purely on the basis of a take it or leave approach by Wightlink, and with proper liaison with Natural England as to an assessment of the impact of the larger ferries.

On the linked aspect of the shoreline, so important to Lymington, we are closely involved with that subject.

On the railway line, we support the friends of Lymington Railway and will maintain a useful liaison that will benefit Lymington and potentially affect development in the future

On Local Distinctiveness, this meeting has been one example of our lead role in cooperation with the planners in an analysis which I will mention more on in a moment

On the Redrow Riverside site, as I shall now call it, an extremely useful dialogue with Redrow as to its plans.

Finally I can say that our association with the Pennington Residents Association continues ensuring that our representations on Pennington are co-ordinated, if not always identical, and I paid particular tribute to Chris Howe for his cooperation.

Expanding on the subjects of these meetings can I say that the old Wellworthy Club site, which is going to be such an important building at the gateway to Lymington, is edging towards an agreed development with the cooperation of the developers, who have put forward various schemes. We thought the last scheme was probably as good as it would get but had strong reservations about the lack of parking and the effect on traffic.  The planners would like something better and we hope that the eventual scheme will do justice to that sensitive corner.

I say this from the point of view that the other sensitive entrance to the conservation area, the traffic lights, is now in process of development with the assistance of the first crane of that size in the Lymington area. As this can be seen from the Keyhaven marshes there is no escape from being reminded of this planning decision.

The second major issue this year has been the Council’s initiative on Local Distinctiveness in which they have involved the Society from the beginning.

I can remind members of a very useful meeting hosted by the Society with local councillors to ensure that we all got off on the right foot with this.

Local distinctiveness will create a new Supplementary Planning Guidance covering the whole area of the town not covered by conservation areas to identify locally distinctive characteristics, with which new development should be sympathetic and should comply. One can imagine that if that policy had been in place, so that inspectors had to follow it, several of the more prominent new buildings recently would not have been built in the way that they have.

On the subject of what the Society considers planning mistakes in the area of Avenue Road, I suspect the final local distinctiveness document will identify some of these and say that they should not be followed as precedents as they have been built out of character with their particular locations.

That brings me onto the biggest new development which will soon take place on the old Webb Site, now Redrow’s site. I recall this is one of the first issues I dealt with as Chairman, to be involved in the original supplemental planning guidance prior to the original planning permission, which conspicuously was not followed by the Council at that time. The position is that we are now fixed with the original permission that was provided by the Council, against many of the members’ better judgement.

Redrow’s could build on the basis of that permission, but as we learnt at presentation last week they have chosen to dramatically review the plans and come up with a much improved scheme.

Firstly specialist architects have been brought in and we were addressed at our meeting by Sir Richard McCormac of  MJP Architects who is a former President of the RIBA.

The previous scheme had allowed for the road access with the condition of a rear pedestrian access somewhere across the railway.

The imaginative difference of the current scheme has been to make the pedestrian access across the railway the central focus of the site and a link with the Town.  The bridge over the railway would be part of a graded access from the station car park, described possibly as “Station Square”, onto a high level entrance square of the development. The semicircular development radiates out from there with radial visual lines to and from theRiverside. On the Riverside, buildings will connect with the water and relate to it rather than looking away and inwards from it as the previous development did.

The development will, as presently considered, still be quite dense with up to 300 units but much broken up and protected by trees. The other committee members and councillors and planning officers, who were at the meeting, felt that this was an imaginative way to review the development, given that there is planning permission for a significant scheme at present.

Another feature which has pleased me particularly is how the Council have now involved local organisations such as this Society with the initial concept, rather than the exclusion which took place under earlier regimes. I recall how when we have called the previous developers to a public meeting to explain their plan, councillors said that if they had been put in touch with public feeling, they would have started their plan from a completely different concept.

Perhaps this is what we have now achieved. I hope that in due course the current developers, Redrow, will be able to attend a meeting to explain their plan to our membership as a whole and to take into account any feedback, as indeed happened at this recent meeting.

The climate of dialogue with the planners has really changed dramatically over the last few years, in response, I hope, to the reasonable and objective approach taken by the Society committee members to development matters.

Not least this has occurred in relation to the Town Council, who have been extremely grateful by the frequent presence of Jonathan Hutchinson dealing with planning matters. I think they would not mind me saying that when Jonathan goes to express the Society’s view on important issues which affect the character of the town, they wish he would stay to help them with the more mundane problems that as planning committee councillors they have to face!

On the question of cooperation, can I say that whilst in the past successive Town Councillors took the view that cooperation between the Town Councillors and the Society was incompatible with their public position, again we now have an extremely good working relationship with the current mayor Cllr Jan Hawker, who attended our local distinctiveness meeting.

I am afraid our current cooperation does not extend to the practicalities of ensuring that our AGM and an important Town Council meeting did not clash which is why the Lady Mayoress is not able to be here today, but I can assure our members that that is purely accidental and does not reflect on our relationship and she would be here if she could.

I am only the spokesperson for a Committee whose individual efforts for the Society are on a much more dedicated basis than mine. I tend to guide and encourage the Committee and where necessary pick up the pieces, but it is the other committee members who, all of them in their different ways, form the engine room of this Society.

I have named the committee members specifically previously and I will not embarrass them again but they are here today and can be spoken to informally afterwards. I will mention our thanks to Marion Jakes who joined us a couple of years ago as a committee member and took an interest in marshes and coastal matters but resigned recently.

The remaining members continue to offer themselves for re-election. I appreciate that new blood is always welcome but this committee works extremely well with all existing members having a task to do. I can assure you that it is in no way running out of steam or ideas and you would be well advised to re-elect its members rather than lose any of its wealth of talent.

Ladies and gentlemen I commend the committee to you for re-election in due course.

 

Clive Sutton

Chairman Lymington Society 

Reed Beds

Posted on by
Reply

lymsoc-3Reed Beds

The Environment Agency is modifying its strategy for the reed beds to the North of Bridge Road. Currently a Tidal Flap prevents salt water penetrating the area, but as tides get ever higher this is preventing the area from draining properly. The Tidal Flap will be replaced by an opening with a mechanism that only shuts at very high tides, to prevent flooding. This will change the ecology of the area as described in this letter and newsletter article. Click here

Chairman’s Report for the AGM 18th March 2009

Posted on by
Reply

Ladies and gentlemen. 

Those of you were who were at this meeting last year will remember that Peter Chitty read my address to you and I’m grateful to him for having done that.

This year, as the time came round to the Annual General Meeting, I thought to myself last Friday morning, “What has the Lymington Society done this year which I can share with the members” .

As soon as I had scanned the Lymington Times for the 14th of March the answer was clear.  In that paper they were at least four these items in which the Lymington Society is actively involved, if not in the news, then behind the news.

“CHAOS AS HIGH WINDS HALT NEW FERRIES”.  The Lymington Society was obviously not responsible for the high winds or the chaos, but what that headline indicates is the way in which the Harbour Commissioners are stringently monitoring the introduction of the new ferries.

I appreciate that everyone has mixed views about the introduction of these large ferries.  I would imagine when members heard my report last year about the very recent issue of the ferries people might have thought that there had been a degree of exaggeration in their size.  I think any such question is now dispelled.  They are very large, and the windage in high winds will mean that there has to be a large amount of sideways thrust onto the banks of the River to keep them in position.

The Society’s position has been consistent throughout; to ensure that the various statutory bodies have complied with their responsibilities and have not allowed Wightlink’s construction of the ferries, in advance of any approvals, to be a rubber stamp for their decisions.  One of the most difficult tasks has been to find who is responsible for making the decisions and to engage with them in a realistic way.

During the course of the year the Solent Protection Society, who are really the lead voluntary organisation responsible, have changed their position from acceptance to criticism and some of you may have seen the Chairman of the Solent Protection Society on the television, when the ferries were introduced without permission and without warning, expressing their opposition.  Some of our Committee members would say, “All very welcome but a bit late in the day” .

The decisions on the ferries will take their course and you may be aware that there is a judicial review application by the Lymington River Association taking place at this moment.  I can say that the Committee did not feel it appropriate to go as far as joining in legal proceedings in relation to the ferries partly because of exposure to costs and partly because that would place us in an active opposition to the ferries which has not been the basis of policy.

You should remember that when the Committee first became involved, the issue of the ferries was effectively accepted by the Solent Protection Society, the yacht clubs and to a certain extent the Harbour Commissioners and it has been significantly due to the Society’s efforts started at our public meeting at the end of 2007 which has raised the profile of these issues.

When I say the Society’s efforts I have to qualify that by saying: Donald MacKenzie’s efforts on behalf of the Society, supported, albeit at times reluctantly, by the Committee.  But I can say at this stage the Committee are satisfied with the Society’s position, and grateful for Don’s efforts, in that the regulators all are fully engaged and hopefully the final decisions will be transparent.

Next on page 12 of the paper is the headline “LANDMARK HOMES DEVELOPMENT ON WELLWORTHY  CLUB SITE REFUSED”.

I hope you will link this with the last edition of the Society’s newsletter at page 5 where, for the first time, the Committee tried to engage the members in opinions on a new and important proposal for the town.  You had my view and Ivor Johnston’s view and were asked to send or e-mail your views to Ivor Johnston.

Although we have approximately 400 members I have to say I was slightly disappointed that or we only had seven replies; some of those I believe from non-members.  It is going to be my intention in the future to ask the membership for their views on controversial schemes where the decision may not be entirely clear, so that in giving representations to the planners or other bodies we can say that we have taken into account the views of our members.  If you get a similar appeal in the future do please respond.

In this case the view that I suspected would prevail, that this building was magnificent but in the wrong place, did in fact prevail with both the Town Council and the Planning Committee, and it has been rejected.  However the background to that application does show the constructive dialogue which a developer can have with the Committee.  We were approached by the developers on an earlier proposal which was as big, but bland, and we suggested something more of a landmark building.  the architect came back to visit the Committee with the current proposal which, impressive as it is, is not quite going to hit the right note at that position set against the surrounding houses and the rest of the Town’s Georgian character .

Moving on in the Newspapers supplement we have “BUILDERS FACE BIG BILL AS BID TO KEEP TOO HIGH HOMES REFUSED”.  This is a reference to the new building which I now understand is known as a Rapunzel’s Tower by local residents, which is at the corner of Avenue Road and Lower Buckland Road .

The history of this is that this application was actively opposed by the Society at an earlier application and appeal.  On the basis of stating the Society’s position, without fear or favour, I have to say that the new application went through on the basis of delegated powers to the council officers because the new application was not opposed by the then Lymington Town Council.  The Society have raised, and will continue to raise, questions as to how a building of this size and nature could go through on delegated powers without the consideration of the elected planning councillors, regardless of any other factors.

This building firstly clashes with the character of the residential homes in Avenue Road and, possibly worse, overshadows the buildings on the other side of Buckland Road.  The current issue is the fact that the building is larger and higher than the approved plans. At last councillors are starting to reflect the views of local residents as to the sort of buildings that should be erected although those decisions can still of course be challenged before planning inspectors.  I feel that the efforts of the Lymington Society over the past eight years or so, to make representations against this sort of development, has supported some new councillors with views in tune with the local community to get onto the planning Committee.

Our opposition was led by Jonathan Hutchinson saying that the development was a striking example of the desecration of the area.  He is quoted as saying “This building is a standing reproach to the inability of the planning system to prevent developers from turning this old market town into a cod version of the celebrity retreat of Sandbanks.  You have the power to insist this ugly pile does at least match the terms of consent for its construction.  I urge you to do so.”  I think you may be hearing more from Jonathan Hutchinson on other applications in a similar vein.

Finally we now have the notice that the decision to oppose the demolition and redevelopment of Buckland House, supported by the Society, is now subject to appeal.  This is a difficult decision on the basis that one might say that Buckland house would probably never have got planning permission in its day, but it is a landmark of Lymington prominently by the traffic lights and has some character appropriate to its age, and it is unfortunate if character is lost.  I was assured at the time of the original McCarthy and Stone planning application on the other side of the road that Buckland house had been bought as an administrative headquarters for local developers and that there was no question at that stage of the building being redeveloped.

Finally I regret to say that the battle over the McCarthy and Stone development on the other corner of Avenue Road and Southampton Road has now been lost so that we will have a joined up building going all the way along the length of the newly erected hoardings and round the corner, on the basis that as it is sheltered housing it needs to be one unit.

This, with the development of Buckland House if it is finally allowed on appeal, will produce a barrier of new building between the existing listed buildings of the lower part of Southampton Road and the traditional individual family houses of the upper part .

Finally on the question of development generally, the Society feel the time has come, with the present possible pause in this rate of development due to economic circumstances, to take stock of the development that has occurred in Lymington and which is threatened, with a view to there being a policy for remaining undeveloped areas.  The Committee want to involve the membership in a meeting to consider that at some stage in the future.

The Society is not only preoccupied with development and ferries and business matters but provides opportunities for members to socialise.  One of most enjoyable meetings this year was at Buckland Rings on a thankfully fine day in the summer where members were able to go all the way round the Rings, following Joanna Close-Brooks’ talk at the last AGM, and appreciate such an important historical site within Lymington and what is currently being done there.  We also had a garden party at Buckland, Christmas drinks at Stanwell House, and a view of the Women’s Land Army exhibition at the Museum.

That brings me to the effort made to print the newsletter, organised by Nigel Seth-Smith, and which has settled into a comfortable routine for printing now that I have got an all-singing all-dancing colour printer for my office.  Thanks also to the distributors of the newsletter.

Our informal arrangement or association with the Pennington Residents Association is continuing well with representation on our Committee meetings by one of their Committee members on a regular basis so that each organisation knows of the other’s concerns and can co-operate and assist.

Looking at my last report I took the opportunity in my absence to compliment the Committee on their work.  I will not bore you again with the details but I repeat how grateful I am to the fact that the individuals on the Committee are so active and can be relied on to deal with their responsibilities.  I would like to make particular reference to the responsibilities that Jonathan Hutchinson is taking on in respect of planning and his team-work with Nic King on that aspect.  We have also welcomedMarion Jakes onto the Committee, who is taking a particular brief for matters involving the Solent, the foreshore and the marshes. All members offer themselves for election.

The subscription went up to £10 per member last year which is a satisfactory figure and is maintaining our finances.  The treasurer will report and I think our finances are healthy.

The Committee can only work with the knowledge that its members support its aims. We don’t seem to get too many complaints from members so we may be doing the right thing or perhaps the members are not particularly interested.

Today is your opportunity in the questions following this to make your comments, complimentary or otherwise, as to how the Society is complying with your expectations.

Finally can I make a short reference to the presentation that you will have tonight from the Lymington Forum through its representative Clifford Jakes, which replaces the talk from Sally Fear, who is unable to be here.

Clifford will outline the Forum’s position but so far as the Society is concerned the Forum is looking proactively at the future of Lymington whereas the Society tends to react to developments as they take place or we try to structure decisions affecting Lymington.  However our joint objectives are for the benefit of Lymington and therefore I would like to ensure that the Society gives the Forum every opportunity to tell the public, and in particular the Society’s members, of the Forum’s aims and proposals.  It is very convenient that the AGM is so close to the presentation of the Forum’s report. However in the time-honoured words of the small print, “the views of the Forum are not necessarily those of the Society.”

Ladies and gentlemen that brings my remarks to a conclusion and thank you for your continued support here tonight.

 

Clive Sutton

Chairman Lymington Society 

Letter to Lymington Harbour Commissioners

Posted on by
Reply

Mr P. Griffiths

Chairman

Lymington Harbour Commissioners

25 February 2009

Dear Mr Griffiths

It has been announced by Wightlink that Wightlink have decided at a Board Meeting yesterday to commence a commercial service with the new W Class ferries from midnight tonight. Wightlink have issued a statement this afternoon.

As you will know, following an exhaustive Appropriate Assessment process conducted under the Habitats Directive, Natural England  have issued advice to all the Regulators that the new W Class ferries will cause a significant and as yet un-quantified “adverse effect on the Natura 2000 designated sites that the ferry passes through in the Lymington River in the decades ahead” .

With their press release Wightlink have produced an opinion from their solicitors and leading counsel to the effect that Wightlink are a statutory harbour authority in respect of Lymington Pier and therefore have environmental duties under section 48A of the Harbours Act 1964.

Those duties should have regard to the conservation of the natural beauty of the countryside and natural features of special interest and to take into account any effect which the proposals may have on those features.

Similarly the opinion states Wightlink has statutory functions requiring it to have regard to the requirements of the Habitats Directive so far as those requirements may be affected by the Wightlink’s activities.

The clear effect in the case of the Lymington River is to the saltmarshes and the river channel itself.

No doubt other opinion may contradict Wightlink’s own opinion that it can effectively act as judge and jury as its own statutory harbour authority but regardless of that, the legal opinion that Wightlink has received has made it quite clear that under the above provisions Wightlink should carry out an environmental assessment of the effect of introducing the new ferries. An environmental assessment shall be equivalent in form and scope to the appropriate assessment process which is under way by Natural England.

There are clearly issues between the various marine surveyors and experts involved in that process and Natural England’s consultants at least, HR Wallingford, take the view that there is unacceptable impact resulting from the new ferries.

Wightlink have effectively pre-empted further discussion and argument which would lead to a resolution and conclusion of the appropriate assessment by concluding that their experts are correct and on that basis, subject to a final sea trial, are proposing to enter the ferries into service.

In view of the unresolved issues between the surveyors that would appear to be a premature conclusion. However Wightlink states in its press release that the advice shows that Wightlink has fully complied with its legal obligations. This would appear not to be the case on the face of the documentation produced by Wightlink.

The Lymington Society have never sought to be an expert in this issue but have sought to ensure that the interests of the Lymington and its environment are fully taken into account in the decision-making processes and are protected and accordingly the Society draws this position to your attention representing that you as a relevant authority should take steps to prevent Wightlink’s prejudgement of the regulatory position.

In the circumstances the Society urge all the regulators to ensure that they use the powers at their disposal to ensure that Wightlink are prevented from starting this commercial service prematurely which according to Natural Englands experts, will lead to a clear adverse affect on the Natura 2000 site by the anticipated 23,000 ferry sailings per year of the significantly larger ferries.

Yours sincerely

Clive Sutton Lymington Society Chairman.

Ferry River Trials

Posted on by
Reply

Lymington Harbour Commissioners
New Ferries River Trials Information Update to Stakeholders – No. 4
Wightlink have defied the will of all the regulators in deciding to introduce their new ferries before the necessary safety trials are complete and the environmental concerns have been resolved.
They have taken this action despite repeated requests from the LHC and their previous undertaking not to do so. They claim that they are justified because of the needs of the Isle of Wight, but the real problem that has lead to this situation is Wightlink’s determination to design and build ferries in advance of meaningful consultations with all the regulators. As a result, all subsequent consultations have taken place against the commercial necessity on the part of Wightlink to introduce ferries that had already been paid for.
We have once again requested Wightlink to desist from this action, and are contacting all the relevant Government Departments for support in preventing it. However, if Wightlink go ahead without completion and acceptance of the risk assessment we will be providing whatever harbour patrols are appropriate to help safe guard other river users. These actions will be taken by the Commissioners in order to minimise any threat to the safety of other river users but without condoning the introduction of the new ferries. It has been confirmed to us by Government that as presently constituted, the Commissioner’s do not have the power to prevent the new ferries sailing.
We expect the full BMT report to be available by 5 March and it will be circulated to stake holders for consultation as soon as possible.
In this fast developing situation, we will keep you all informed as they occur.
Peter Griffiths – Chairman LHC
24/2/2009.

An overview of planning in Lymington

Posted on by
Reply

AN OVERVIEW OF PLANNING IN LYMINGTON
by Jonathan Huthchinson

The Lymington Society exists, inter alia, to foster good development in the town of Lymington and its immediate surroundings;  to watch in a critical and constructive way the activities of and decisions made by all levels of government and local authority where they affect its interests;  and to provide a public forum for the welfare of the town and to enable residents to express their personal views.

Redevelopment goes on all the time as part of a general process of renewal, and it is not the business of the Society to oppose it on principle.   Rather, we seek to influence it and to keep it within bounds of aesthetics, practicality and scale defined by the historical shape and texture of the town.

The purpose of this note is to trace the evolution of the town during the past quarter of a century and to assess the extent to which development has been contained within the bounds set by the town’s history and location.

Lymington is a town with a long history and has been well described in the Local Authority’s various planning documents.   Three main threads are woven into its special character:  the Forest, the sea and its history as a market town.   It is not, and has never been, a dormitory town, and there are good reasons why it should not become one in an age dedicated to the idea of sustainability.   The Georgian town centre and the conservation area surrounding it show some scars, but have on the whole been well preserved from the worst effects of redevelopment, and in some instances, notably improved by it.   Canterbury House in Gosport Street, the Round House at the west end of St Thomas Street and the recent rebuilding of the Angel Yard are outstanding examples of urban renewal which enhance the quality of their surroundings.   This summary focuses on the outer circle surrounding the conservation area, in which the greatest threat lies.

The changed economic circumstances following the Second World War saw major changes as former large estates on the town’s fringes were broken up and sold off for what is nowadays known as redevelopment.   Many of the buildings dating from that time stand in generous gardens off leafy lanes among mature trees and shrubs which, together with their modest height and low density, set the standard for the outer town’s character and appearance.   Subsequent development during the last quarter of the twentieth century filled in open spaces with housing estates, such as Farnley’s Mead off Belmore Lane, Vitre Gardens offStanley Road, the extensive developments west of Marsh Lane and Old Orchards off Broad Lane.   These estates reflect the architectural fashions of their time and to today’s eye some are more appealing than others, but on the whole they match the low-rise, medium density idiom of the earlier town and have matured well to merge into their backgrounds.

Pressure from developers has grown substantially during the past five years.   It has followed partly from the response of central government to what it sees as demographic trends, and partly from the housing bubble and the consequent opportunities for the pursuit of profit.   As the results have assumed a recognisable shape and taken a clear direction, the Society has become increasingly concerned by the growing threat to the historic character of the wider town.   As open space has dwindled, developers have increasingly turned towards demolition of familiar and perfectly serviceable buildings in spacious plots, to make room for densely packed dwellings, often of three storeys or more.   Inevitably, and in spite of the imposition by the planning authority of arboricultural conditions, greenery is being lost or diminished and the relationship between space, buildings and greenery, essential to the character of the town, is being irreversibly altered.   There is good evidence of the activities of predatory developers seeking to buy up houses everywhere in the town where spacious sites are to be found, particularly along the margins of the semi-rural lanes such as Church Lane, Belmore Lane and Southampton Road which give the outer town its essential character.   The recent collapse of the housing market has seen a reduction in this activity, but it is unlikely to be permanent.   Recent developments along Avenue Road, in Belmore Lane and in Waterford Lane and Waterford Close show clearly how this remorseless pressure will, if it continues along its present path, change the character and appearance of the outer town very substantially within a generation.

Attached (Annex A) is a list of 48 planning applications, the majority of them submitted within the past five years.   The list is limited arbitrarily to five locations (Avenue Road, Belmore Lane/Fairfield Close, Cannon Street, Southampton Road and Waterford Lane/Close because those are the areas whose character is currently most threatened.   The redevelopment of the former industrial site between the quay and the causeway known as “the former Webb’s chicken factory” is not included because it is of a different order, being more of a lost opportunity than an assault on a familiar neighbourhood.   The town centre is also excluded, being subject to rather tighter rules and so less threatened.

Several points stand out from a study of the list:

a.   Every application listed has succeeded in the end without major alteration.   (It is difficult to find any developer’s application which has been successfully resisted  through the appeal stage)

b.   The very large majority of the listed applications are much more densely packed into the sites of the houses and gardens they replace.   Less obviously, most are also a storey or more higher.

c.   While there is evidence of a general lack of response from the public during the consultation process, where there has been a response it has always been overwhelmingly opposed to what is proposed.   The 3 cases allowed at appeal did not muster a single supporting submission from the public.

d.   To the outside observer there is no obvious pattern in the level at which applications are decided.   A particularly egregious case was 87241.   Two earlier applications were refused under delegated powers and one appeal was dismissed, yet a third application of similar scale (currently the subject of a fourth, retrospective application to vary the terms of consent) was granted.   Although self-evidently controversial, none of the applications was considered by the full Development Control Committee.   Another case, 92050, never was settled by the LPA, apparently because of internal differences between planning officers as to the proper level, and was eventually allowed by the Inspector on appeal.   The consequences of this indecision have yet to unfold, but they amount to a serious defeat for the Society in its aim to foster good development.

e.   It is clear that developers are ready to go to appeal whenever an application is refused.   The system might have been designed to encourage them to do so, as there is no penalty for failure and they can readily afford the costs in time and money, while the likelihood of success is good (The latest NFDC figures show that in the year ending July 2008 40% of appeals were allowed).   One example arose from 91226.   The application was opposed by every one of the 13 neighbours who chose to respond and was refused by the LPA under delegated powers on the recommendation of the Town Council.   A second application was refused by the full DCC, also on the Town’s recommendation, at a meeting attended by every interested neighbour.   A second appeal promptly followed.   Several months later the Inspector allowed the first appeal (heard under written representations) and the second was withdrawn.   The views of the inhabitants, the Town Council and the DCC were thus all set aside, reducing any pretence of local democracy to dust.

f.   There is growing evidence in the papers supporting applications that each new development approved is swiftly taken into the body of argument put forward by developers to demonstrate the suitability of further, similar development.   Thus the character of Avenue Road is on the brink of irreversible change from the leafy ambiance implied by its name to one of higher, denser blocks of flats and terraces.   Planning Officers seem reluctant to resist such argument, being content at best to settle for a halfway compromise.

The town’s, and the planning officers’, defences against the advance of mass development are few.   The Local Plan relies on a range of numbered and carefully crafted policies, of which the most commonly quoted is DW-E1:  “Development shall be appropriate and sympathetic in scale, appearance, materials, form, siting and layout, and shall not cause unacceptableeffects by reason of visual intrusion, overlooking, shading or other adverse impact on local amenities”.   But these standards are essentially abstract and easily subverted, as the record of decisions and appeal results shows.   Inside conservation areas and for listed buildings the rules are stricter and the hurdles for developers correspondingly higher, but at or close to their boundaries the tension between preservation and development is weighted in favour of the latter and opportunities abound to exploit ambiguities of words and responsibilities in favour of the big battalions with scant regard for the views of those most affected.   What is lacking, as the history of the last five years shows all too clearly, is a clear and unambiguous vision for the town’s long-term future, legitimised by the assent of those who have the most feeling and regard for it – the current inhabitants.   Instead, as each new application is approved or appeal allowed the range of precedent is extended, thus encouraging the developers to press for ever deeper inroads into the town’s disappearing heritage.

There are three possible defences against the threat:

a.   A new and enforceable strategy defining unambiguous boundaries to what is acceptable;

b.   Wider use of existing powers to define “Areas of Special Character”:

c.   Extension of the Conservation Zone

A New Strategy.   New strategies take years to write and require considerable verbal dexterity to accommodate all points of view while retaining any useful meaning.   The latest version of the Core Strategy, shortly to be adopted, which claims to embody a “vision” of the next 20 years, includes the following (the full text is at ANNEX B):

Lymington and Pennington

9.27  Lymington is an historic town  .  .  .  The main issues in the town are the maintenance of the attractive historic centre, traffic and parking, providing scope for continuing economic prosperity, and the affordability of housing for local people.   [note:  “Affordable housing” is a thread which runs through all planning policy, and few would disagree with the intention behind it, but it features in only one of the applications which appear in Annex A.   The redevelopments which threaten the town’s character are of a different order, a point it is important to emphasise in any discussion of the threat.]

9.28  .  .  .  .  The spatial strategy does not rely on continuing the recent trend, which has affected parts of Lymington in particular, of redeveloping large family homes with flatted developments.  .  .  .

9.31  The historic character of the town will be protected and enhanced.  Change will be managed to minimise any impact on the town’s historic character.  The Quay and riverfront have been enhanced to provide quality facilities for visitors and marina users.  Improvements will continue to be made to public access and enjoyment of the riverside where opportunities arise.

While this obviously reflects the recurring concerns advanced by the Society and others about Avenue Road, it is hardly a panacea for the wider town, and in view of the record of appeal outcomes it is probably no more than a vain hope in spite of the apparent recantation of earlier Government policy by PPS3.   The Inspector, unaccountable and apparently deaf to local opinion, will continue to decide.  Furthermore, the wording is already set in rapidly hardening cement and calls for amendment are unlikely to be welcome for several years at least.

Areas of Special Character.   One possible ready-made way to raise the defensive parapet does exist in the shape of “Areas of Special Character”, defined by Policy DW-E11 of the Local plan first alteration:

Within Areas of Special Character as defined on the proposals maps, development will only be permitted if it would not materially harm the character of the area.

C1.25 Within some built-up areas in the District, there are areas of residential development, spacious in character and distinguished by mature gardens and trees, that make a particular contribution to the quality of the settlements in which they are situated. They can be susceptible to pressures for infilling and redevelopment which could seriously threaten their defining characteristics. The policy seeks to ensure that in accordance with PPS1 advice that design should respond to local context and create or reinforce local distinctiveness, development within these areas is compatible with them in scale, layout and design, and does not damage the features that contribute to their character.

There remain several areas of the town which match this description very well, but curiously, there is only one such area shown on the town map (it can be found at http://www.newforest.gov.uk/media/adobe/i/g/Map_4_Lymington_and_Pennington.pdf ).   An earlier attempt by the Society to persuade the NFDC to designate some more appears to have been unsuccessful and might usefully be revived.   The attraction of the designation is that it is specific as to “compatibility in scale, layout and design”, which bears directly on the principal and repeated objections to the “demolish and squash in” practice of developers.

Extending the Conservation Area.   The origins of the Conservation Area are not easy to find, but there does not seem to be any reason why it should have lapidary status.   A case might be made for a modest extension.

Recommendation.   This note has been put together mainly as a mind-clearing exercise.   I recommend that we first discuss it in committee and, subject to what may emerge, that we seek to expose our concerns first to the NFDC’s planning officers and if necessary to its elected members.

Jonathan Hutchinson

15 December 2008

Overview of Planning on Lymington

Posted on by
Reply

Click Here for a Map of Lymington showing Recent Developments in Red
The Conservation Area is shown outlined in Pink, the current Area of Special Character filled in Yellow, and the Society’s thoughts for further Areas of Special Character outlined in Green

AN OVERVIEW OF PLANNING IN LYMINGTON
by Jonathan Huthchinson

The Lymington Society exists, inter alia, to foster good development in the town of Lymington and its immediate surroundings;  to watch in a critical and constructive way the activities of and decisions made by all levels of government and local authority where they affect its interests;  and to provide a public forum for the welfare of the town and to enable residents to express their personal views.

Redevelopment goes on all the time as part of a general process of renewal, and it is not the business of the Society to oppose it on principle.   Rather, we seek to influence it and to keep it within bounds of aesthetics, practicality and scale defined by the historical shape and texture of the town.

The purpose of this note is to trace the evolution of the town during the past quarter of a century and to assess the extent to which development has been contained within the bounds set by the town’s history and location.

Lymington is a town with a long history and has been well described in the Local Authority’s various planning documents.   Three main threads are woven into its special character:  the Forest, the sea and its history as a market town.   It is not, and has never been, a dormitory town, and there are good reasons why it should not become one in an age dedicated to the idea of sustainability.   The Georgian town centre and the conservation area surrounding it show some scars, but have on the whole been well preserved from the worst effects of redevelopment, and in some instances, notably improved by it.   Canterbury House in Gosport Street, the Round House at the west end of St Thomas Street and the recent rebuilding of the Angel Yard are outstanding examples of urban renewal which enhance the quality of their surroundings.   This summary focuses on the outer circle surrounding the conservation area, in which the greatest threat lies.

The changed economic circumstances following the Second World War saw major changes as former large estates on the town’s fringes were broken up and sold off for what is nowadays known as redevelopment.   Many of the buildings dating from that time stand in generous gardens off leafy lanes among mature trees and shrubs which, together with their modest height and low density, set the standard for the outer town’s character and appearance.   Subsequent development during the last quarter of the twentieth century filled in open spaces with housing estates, such as Farnley’s Mead off Belmore Lane, Vitre Gardens offStanley Road, the extensive developments west of Marsh Lane and Old Orchards off Broad Lane.   These estates reflect the architectural fashions of their time and to today’s eye some are more appealing than others, but on the whole they match the low-rise, medium density idiom of the earlier town and have matured well to merge into their backgrounds.

Pressure from developers has grown substantially during the past five years.   It has followed partly from the response of central government to what it sees as demographic trends, and partly from the housing bubble and the consequent opportunities for the pursuit of profit.   As the results have assumed a recognisable shape and taken a clear direction, the Society has become increasingly concerned by the growing threat to the historic character of the wider town.   As open space has dwindled, developers have increasingly turned towards demolition of familiar and perfectly serviceable buildings in spacious plots, to make room for densely packed dwellings, often of three storeys or more.   Inevitably, and in spite of the imposition by the planning authority of arboricultural conditions, greenery is being lost or diminished and the relationship between space, buildings and greenery, essential to the character of the town, is being irreversibly altered.   There is good evidence of the activities of predatory developers seeking to buy up houses everywhere in the town where spacious sites are to be found, particularly along the margins of the semi-rural lanes such as Church Lane, Belmore Lane and Southampton Road which give the outer town its essential character.   The recent collapse of the housing market has seen a reduction in this activity, but it is unlikely to be permanent.   Recent developments along Avenue Road, in Belmore Lane and in Waterford Lane and Waterford Close show clearly how this remorseless pressure will, if it continues along its present path, change the character and appearance of the outer town very substantially within a generation.

Attached (Annex A) is a list of 48 planning applications, the majority of them submitted within the past five years.   The list is limited arbitrarily to five locations (Avenue Road, Belmore Lane/Fairfield Close, Cannon Street, Southampton Road and Waterford Lane/Close because those are the areas whose character is currently most threatened.   The redevelopment of the former industrial site between the quay and the causeway known as “the former Webb’s chicken factory” is not included because it is of a different order, being more of a lost opportunity than an assault on a familiar neighbourhood.   The town centre is also excluded, being subject to rather tighter rules and so less threatened.

Several points stand out from a study of the list:

a.   Every application listed has succeeded in the end without major alteration.   (It is difficult to find any developer’s application which has been successfully resisted  through the appeal stage)

b.   The very large majority of the listed applications are much more densely packed into the sites of the houses and gardens they replace.   Less obviously, most are also a storey or more higher.

c.   While there is evidence of a general lack of response from the public during the consultation process, where there has been a response it has always been overwhelmingly opposed to what is proposed.   The 3 cases allowed at appeal did not muster a single supporting submission from the public.

d.   To the outside observer there is no obvious pattern in the level at which applications are decided.   A particularly egregious case was 87241.   Two earlier applications were refused under delegated powers and one appeal was dismissed, yet a third application of similar scale (currently the subject of a fourth, retrospective application to vary the terms of consent) was granted.   Although self-evidently controversial, none of the applications was considered by the full Development Control Committee.   Another case, 92050, never was settled by the LPA, apparently because of internal differences between planning officers as to the proper level, and was eventually allowed by the Inspector on appeal.   The consequences of this indecision have yet to unfold, but they amount to a serious defeat for the Society in its aim to foster good development.

e.   It is clear that developers are ready to go to appeal whenever an application is refused.   The system might have been designed to encourage them to do so, as there is no penalty for failure and they can readily afford the costs in time and money, while the likelihood of success is good (The latest NFDC figures show that in the year ending July 2008 40% of appeals were allowed).   One example arose from 91226.   The application was opposed by every one of the 13 neighbours who chose to respond and was refused by the LPA under delegated powers on the recommendation of the Town Council.   A second application was refused by the full DCC, also on the Town’s recommendation, at a meeting attended by every interested neighbour.   A second appeal promptly followed.   Several months later the Inspector allowed the first appeal (heard under written representations) and the second was withdrawn.   The views of the inhabitants, the Town Council and the DCC were thus all set aside, reducing any pretence of local democracy to dust.

f.   There is growing evidence in the papers supporting applications that each new development approved is swiftly taken into the body of argument put forward by developers to demonstrate the suitability of further, similar development.   Thus the character of Avenue Road is on the brink of irreversible change from the leafy ambiance implied by its name to one of higher, denser blocks of flats and terraces.   Planning Officers seem reluctant to resist such argument, being content at best to settle for a halfway compromise.

The town’s, and the planning officers’, defences against the advance of mass development are few.   The Local Plan relies on a range of numbered and carefully crafted policies, of which the most commonly quoted is DW-E1:  “Development shall be appropriate and sympathetic in scale, appearance, materials, form, siting and layout, and shall not cause unacceptableeffects by reason of visual intrusion, overlooking, shading or other adverse impact on local amenities”.   But these standards are essentially abstract and easily subverted, as the record of decisions and appeal results shows.   Inside conservation areas and for listed buildings the rules are stricter and the hurdles for developers correspondingly higher, but at or close to their boundaries the tension between preservation and development is weighted in favour of the latter and opportunities abound to exploit ambiguities of words and responsibilities in favour of the big battalions with scant regard for the views of those most affected.   What is lacking, as the history of the last five years shows all too clearly, is a clear and unambiguous vision for the town’s long-term future, legitimised by the assent of those who have the most feeling and regard for it – the current inhabitants.   Instead, as each new application is approved or appeal allowed the range of precedent is extended, thus encouraging the developers to press for ever deeper inroads into the town’s disappearing heritage.

There are three possible defences against the threat:

a.   A new and enforceable strategy defining unambiguous boundaries to what is acceptable;

b.   Wider use of existing powers to define “Areas of Special Character”:

c.   Extension of the Conservation Zone

A New Strategy.   New strategies take years to write and require considerable verbal dexterity to accommodate all points of view while retaining any useful meaning.   The latest version of the Core Strategy, shortly to be adopted, which claims to embody a “vision” of the next 20 years, includes the following (the full text is at ANNEX B):

Lymington and Pennington

9.27  Lymington is an historic town  .  .  .  The main issues in the town are the maintenance of the attractive historic centre, traffic and parking, providing scope for continuing economic prosperity, and the affordability of housing for local people.   [note:  “Affordable housing” is a thread which runs through all planning policy, and few would disagree with the intention behind it, but it features in only one of the applications which appear in Annex A.   The redevelopments which threaten the town’s character are of a different order, a point it is important to emphasise in any discussion of the threat.]

9.28  .  .  .  .  The spatial strategy does not rely on continuing the recent trend, which has affected parts of Lymington in particular, of redeveloping large family homes with flatted developments.  .  .  .

9.31  The historic character of the town will be protected and enhanced.  Change will be managed to minimise any impact on the town’s historic character.  The Quay and riverfront have been enhanced to provide quality facilities for visitors and marina users.  Improvements will continue to be made to public access and enjoyment of the riverside where opportunities arise.

While this obviously reflects the recurring concerns advanced by the Society and others about Avenue Road, it is hardly a panacea for the wider town, and in view of the record of appeal outcomes it is probably no more than a vain hope in spite of the apparent recantation of earlier Government policy by PPS3.   The Inspector, unaccountable and apparently deaf to local opinion, will continue to decide.  Furthermore, the wording is already set in rapidly hardening cement and calls for amendment are unlikely to be welcome for several years at least.

Areas of Special Character.   One possible ready-made way to raise the defensive parapet does exist in the shape of “Areas of Special Character”, defined by Policy DW-E11 of the Local plan first alteration:

Within Areas of Special Character as defined on the proposals maps, development will only be permitted if it would not materially harm the character of the area.

C1.25 Within some built-up areas in the District, there are areas of residential development, spacious in character and distinguished by mature gardens and trees, that make a particular contribution to the quality of the settlements in which they are situated. They can be susceptible to pressures for infilling and redevelopment which could seriously threaten their defining characteristics. The policy seeks to ensure that in accordance with PPS1 advice that design should respond to local context and create or reinforce local distinctiveness, development within these areas is compatible with them in scale, layout and design, and does not damage the features that contribute to their character.

There remain several areas of the town which match this description very well, but curiously, there is only one such area shown on the town map (it can be found at http://www.newforest.gov.uk/media/adobe/i/g/Map_4_Lymington_and_Pennington.pdf ).   An earlier attempt by the Society to persuade the NFDC to designate some more appears to have been unsuccessful and might usefully be revived.   The attraction of the designation is that it is specific as to “compatibility in scale, layout and design”, which bears directly on the principal and repeated objections to the “demolish and squash in” practice of developers.

Extending the Conservation Area.   The origins of the Conservation Area are not easy to find, but there does not seem to be any reason why it should have lapidary status.   A case might be made for a modest extension.

Recommendation.   This note has been put together mainly as a mind-clearing exercise.   I recommend that we first discuss it in committee and, subject to what may emerge, that we seek to expose our concerns first to the NFDC’s planning officers and if necessary to its elected members.

Jonathan Hutchinson

15 December 2008