Whetherspoon’s: The Society’s objection

Posted on April 22, 2011 by lymingtonsociety

47 & 48 St Thomas Street; change of use to public house (Use Class A4) with wildlife & pub gardens; shop front alterations; fenestration alterations to include rear doors & louvre; kitchen extraction; jumbrella. OBJECTION

The Lymington Society strongly urges you to reject this application. We welcomed the Development Control Committee’s decision to refuse the previous application 95473 in September 2010 and we consider that the additional information in the current application offers little new evidence.

The new application can’t change the finding that the proposed change of use is incompatible with existing uses at adjacent sites. If implemented, the proposal would carry serious risks for the balance and vitality of the High Street. The proposal is therefore incompatible with Policies CS5, CS1, CS2, CS3 and CS24 of the Core Strategy and saved policies DW-E23 and BU-TC4 of the superseded Local Plan and with the objectives and policies of PPS5 Planning for the Historic Environment.

The LPA has already determined that the proposed change of use of the application premises is incompatible with the existing use of adjacent premises. Specifically, the Development Control Committee refused the previous application because the location of the site was in conflict with Core Strategy Policy CS5, which says: “The proposal would…conflict with an objective of the Core Strategy to provide for a high quality, safe and attractive living environment for communities in a way that respects and safeguards the special qualities, character and local distinctiveness of the area, and in particular, with the requirements of policy CS5 ‘Safe and healthy communities’ which requires that particular attention be given to creating places that are structured so that different uses do not cause conflict, and that environments are created in which people feel safe.”

The Developer’s planning statement supporting the current application seeks to challenge this. It says “Within historic town centres, the juxtaposition of churches, residential accommodation and public houses is far from unusual. A number of pubs operated by [the applicant] are in similar locations, next to – or even combined with – churches”.

It says further that the “Proposed alterations to the external fabric and appearance of the building [will have] no adverse impact on the character and appearance of the conservation area or on the setting of adjoining listed buildings. The proposed change of use will not detract significantly from either the character or appearance of the area or the amenities which local residents and occupiers / users of other properties nearby may reasonably expect to enjoy.”..

However, we believe that the developer’s view is inaccurate and that the proposed change of use would have an adverse impact, in particular on the parish church and its precinct. The churchyard is a breathing space in the town centre, a place of repose and tranquillity, sometimes a place of solace and consolation.

The Lymington Conservation Area Appraisal recognises the particular status and importance of the parish church and churchyard to the town centre. The Local Distinctiveness SPD says that “The churchyard at St Thomas is a very important open space in the town centre. Between High Street, the “Tins”, the town Hall and Avenue Road, it provides both green amenity and various important links that allow visitors to enter the town centre on foot. Any development that threatens the sense of tranquillity or the character of this spiritual amenity should be avoided”.

The current proposal does threaten this sense of tranquillity and the character of this spiritual amenity. When consulted about the previous application, the Community Safety Officer suggested that measures would be required to combat the anticipated increased levels of anti-social behaviour; specifically that it would be necessary to “restrict access to the churchyard through the provision of lockable gates, lighting and CCTV”

The need for measures such as these would interfere with the existing use of the churchyard and would diminish its abiding presence in the town centre, which brings positive benefits to the health and stability of the community as a whole

The anticipated increase in anti-social behaviour is not an issue that can be satisfactorily addressed through Licensing Conditions nor can the behaviour of the people who come and go from a pub be controlled by even the most professional of pub managers once they are no longer on the premises.

In reaching its decision, The Development Control Committee also recorded detailed concerns that

“On the basis of the limited details submitted…the Council is unable to be satisfied that the changes would not have a detrimental impact on interests of acknowledged importance. In particular, the likely requirement for a mechanical kitchen extraction system and chiller condensing units and arrangements for the removal of rubbish, the Council considers that these features would lessen the value of the building as a key unlisted building and would adversely impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, the setting of adjoining listed buildings and on the residential amenities of local residents by reason of noise and disturbance. The proposal would therefore be contrary to policies CS1, CS2 and CS3 of the Core Strategy…and [saved] policies DW-E23 and BU-TC4…and to the objectives of PPS5 – Planning for the Historic Environment.”

The Developer tries to address the Council’s concerns in the planning statement supporting the current application. It says “An acoustic survey has been undertaken to ensure that acceptable noise levels are not exceeded”. However, the acoustic survey carried out on its behalf by Spectrum, a noise specialist, is mainly limited to the generation and transmission of noise from the interior of the building andtakes little or no account of the comings and goings from the proposed premises. For the reasons described above, the amenities enjoyed by local residents are more likely to be significantly compromised by noise and disturbance created outside the building.

The Developer’s planning statement says “At the time the residential care home for elderly people was first established, there was a pub opposite at 45 St Thomas Street (“The Lymington Tavern”). Clearly, that relationship was not considered to be a problem at the time of granting permission for the care home use.” However, the pub described was small and uninviting, with customer numbers rarely entering double figures, which was one reason why it failed. To suggest a comparison is absurd, and also shows why scale is so important a factor in the analysis of this application.

It says “[the applicant’s] operating policy [explains] management measures that are taken to minimise any disturbance to people living nearby and using other neighbouring premises.” However, experience proves otherwise. Drinkers are drawn to cheap alcohol as moths to a flame. It is inevitable that incidents will occur, whatever management policy may be. Lymington has its own history of such incidents, which suggests that it is not immune. And management has no control over events which occur outside the premises, such as vomiting, urination, loud conversations, banging car doors, noisy engines and traffic congestion. In response to the previous application, the Police said that “the applicant’s Design and Access Statement does not respond to advice in paragraph 87 of DCLG Circular 01/2006 (Guidance on changes to the Development Control System) that such statements should demonstrate how crime prevention measures have been considered in the design proposal” and concluded that they were “unable to support” the application.

It says “The objective of [the Core Strategy] is fully supported and information provided with this re-submitted application seeks to demonstrate that the proposed change of use is consistent with the associated planning policy.” The LPA has already decided that it is not, so long as the premises are between the Church and a care home.

It says that “the church of St Thomas is itself currently undergoing major change and investment…[the applicant] wishes the Church every success in achieving its aim of attracting many more visitors to events in the building…“. However, the church is engaged in a different business and does not sell alcohol so the intended analogy is irrelevant…

It says that “All deliveries will take place from St Thomas St, as they do now to the existing retail premises. A service door to be inserted at the west end of the “shop front” will provide access to a service corridor running through to the back of the building and the garden…all collections of refuse and material for recycling will be carried out from St Thomas Street, as they do now. ” Currently, however, the retail premises at 47 & 48 St Thomas Street are open for up to 8 hours a day on six days a week and trading is light. The change of use proposed would see the premises open up to 17½ hours a day, seven days a week, with a turnover incomparably greater. There is no parking space outside the shop other than the street, which is a congested junction. It is unjustifiably optimistic to suppose that deliveries and refuse collection will take place “as they do now”.

Finally, the Developer’s planning statement says “The premises will create up to 50 new jobs. It is estimated that of these about 15 will be full time and 35 part time…”

However, such claims should be balanced by the probability that jobs will be destroyed elsewhere in the High Street. It is very unlikely that the town could absorb the extra supply created by such jobs without attracting large numbers of visitors from elsewhere.

Behind this application, presented as a simple change of use to an existing building, is concealed a project of a scale which is exceptional and whose potential consequences for the town need to be properly understood.

Figures available from its published 2010/11 accounts show that the applicant’s 775 national pubs employ an average 27 staff (or 15 “full-time equivalents”) to generate annual sales of £1.29 million. The application here considered includes a promise to create 50 new jobs, some of them part-time (the pro-rata “full-time equivalent” number is 28) which suggests an annual sales target of around £2.3 million or £6,300 every day of the year, half of which, by the applicant’s own admission, would be sales of alcohol This sales projection is consistent with the large floor area of the premises (including the proposed “beer garden”) which is about the same as that of the town’s Tesco supermarket and substantially exceeds the area of any other drinking or food establishment in the town.

The consequences of adding at a single stroke such a massive increase in the supply of food and drink to a High Street which is already adequately supplied by 21 hotels, pubs, restaurants and coffee houses spread along its length are such that their impact would change the whole balance of the town centre and so alter the factors by which the merits of the application should be judged.

The stated policy of the applicant is to set prices below those of competitors, so it must be assumed that local custom would be drawn to the new establishment at the expense of existing outlets. Some of them would fail and so reduce the choice available, and alter the balance and vitality of the High Street as well as destroying existing livelihoods and jobs. But the implied sales targets would also suggest a need for a substantial increase in visitors from outside the town, most of whom would be likely to come by car, with consequences for congestion and parking. Whatever the eventual balance, there would be a considerable increase in both pedestrian and vehicle traffic in the vicinity of the premises, adding weight to the first reason the LPA gave for refusal of application 95473. The noise and hubbub inseparable from such traffic, which would continue for up to 18 hours a day, and reaching its peak in the “quiet” evening hours, would be external to the premises and so beyond the control of the applicant.

Conclusion The additional information included in the current application includes no new evidence to alter the Development Control Committee’s decision of September 2010. The proposal if implemented carries serious risks for the balance and vitality of the High Street and the site remains inappropriate for its proposed change of use, being incompatible with Policies CS5, CS1, CS2, CS3 and CS24 of the Core Strategy and saved policies DW-E23 and BU-TC4 of the superseded Local Plan and with the objectives and policies of PPS5 – Planning for the Historic Environment.

Redrow: Letter to the editor

Posted on March 25, 2011 by lymingtonsociety

When the former Webb’s chicken processing factory closed down, the Lymington Society took the view that its unique riverside site offered a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to the town. We were therefore pleased to be invited by the New Forest District Council to contribute to the drafting of Supplementary Planning Guidance for the redevelopment of the site. From the outset we took the view that the site should not become another dense dormitory but should be developed in a way which opens the riverside to the whole town and vice versa, with buildings which reflect the Georgian character of the town rising on the hill behind it and the nature of the surrounding National Park.

The supplementary guidance, when completed, included a request to link the site to the town as much as possible and also to provide employment or at least commercial businesses on the site.

At that stage the government was pressing for high-density development and a proposal was put forward by the then developers for a mixed-use development with 205 private dwellings, 93 affordable dwellings and 10 live/work units; a total of 308 dwellings. In addition the proposal sought a 100 bed hotel (later changed to a care home), a restaurant, office accommodation and one retail unit. The proposal included a pedestrian bridge over the railway and a riverside walkway.

The plan envisaged ten large interlinked blocks of four storeys under steep pitched roofs in a style which, apart from its height, did reflect to some extent the visual style of the Georgian roofscape on the hill behind. This proposal was opposed by the Society as too dense, but the application was nevertheless granted on 8^th June 2005, with certain conditions attached.

Redevelopment was held up by the recession, and the site was sold by Paxton Holdings to Redrow. Access across the railway line for both pedestrians and wheeled traffic, essential if the site is to be successfully integrated into the town but always an intractable problem, held up progress but seems now to have been solved. Meanwhile Redrow, engaged MJP Architects, a leading London firm whose buildings “aim to delight both client and users and respect and enhance the surrounding landscape or urban environment”, to look again at the site. Sir Richard McCormack gave a presentation to which both local Councillors and the Society’s committee were invited. Those present were impressed by the proposed new layout of the site, which included a direct link to the town by a bridge over the railway from the station, thus opening up the most important feature of the river frontage. On the other hand, we were disappointed that there was to be only a marginal reduction in the number of dwellings, and that the buildings would apparently be monolithic blocks with flat roofs, dominating and contrasting with the town behind, particularly when seen from the National Park across the river. The buildings have not yet been designed in detail but the concept has been available for inspection.

The Society’s view is that whilst the scheme may be an outstanding example of modern architecture in the right setting, an historic Georgian riverside town set in the New Forest National Park can not be that setting, and that Lymington’s traditional architecture would be either in conflict with the mass of the new development or overwhelmed by it.

Redrow intend to carry out a public consultation to test local opinion, which will be held on 14th August. While they are to be complimented on the fact of consulting the public, the Society is concerned that the potential result will be to demonstrate to the Local Planning Authority that the public prefer one alternative to the other, whereas we believe it likely that neither is likely to have substantial public support.

The Society’s position, which we think reflects that of most people in the town, remains that a dense development of four-storey flats, which will add substantially to the town’s population and congestion without any commensurate increase in its infrastructure, and that in the changed circumstances of 2010, neither the approved plan nor the current MJP proposal, is the best that could be achieved for the town or the National Park from this unique site. The Committee of the Lymington Society, hope that this background is helpful to Society members and to the wider public when considering their response to the consultation.

I hope there will be a large turnout of the public at the consultation. If anyone would like further information on this proposal from the Lymington Society please contact any of the committee members shown on the Society’s website.

Clive Sutton

Chairman

Chairman’s Report for the 2011 AGM

Posted on March 15, 2011 by lymingtonsociety

Ladies and gentlemen,

I well remember my father as a parish priest scratching his head for a theme for his sermon. I do the same in a secular way every year for the Lymington Society Annual General Meeting. This year I received a call yesterday afternoon from a helpful committee member, which reminded me of the AGM today. At the time I was in the process of clearing out an enormous amount of excess papers and in my hand were Lymington Society papers going back 10 years which reminded me that I had been asked to become Chairman in May 2001.

Many of you will remember the previous Acting Chairman Leslie Dry, who in asking for new committee members in his Acting Chairman’s report for March 2001 said: “It is essential if the Association is to continue, to find new officers for the coming Annual General Meeting and I would urge members to offer themselves for committee service since the Lymington Society is really the only forum to defend the Town against the overwhelming pressures of development”.

How right he was and I hope you agree that that is what the Society has done in the intervening 10 years.

In my first report to the members in October 2001, I said: “I would like to see the Society being not only reactive to proposals but also constructive and, where appropriate, supportive of the council’s planning policies. If however, we feel the policies, or individual applications, are wrong, we will be vociferous in opposing them”.

In the next paragraph I said: “One of the major current planning it is the future of the Webb Site. This is something on which I think and I believe the Society and its membership can have an important voice”.

Enough of quoting from the past, but I think it is interesting to go back every now and then to see where one started from and see what has been achieved in the light of that. Here are a few milestones from the past 10 years.

There was the Society’s contribution to the 2001 Supplemental Planning Guidance on the Webb Site, sadly largely ignored by the granting of the original Webb Site planning permission by the then councillors.

There was the first public meeting by the then developers, Paxtons, explaining their proposals, at which Paxtons said that, if they had been encouraged to meet the Society and its membership before developing their plans, they would have taken into account numerous of the points made by the members and the public at that meeting.

There was the start of planning applications for flats in our residential roads. These lead to another public meeting at which the planning officers and councillors were present, and which started a sea change in their thinking. The situation has been like stopping a super tanker, and I think we are now beginning to see official opposition to further flat developments in residential roads, but I’m afraid not without some significant change to the character of those roads having taken place. Change which has not inevitably and irrevocably changed Lymington’s character, but which could have done if loud opposition had not been voiced initially.

There have been issues over the ferries in which I hope the Society, in holding a public meeting, laid the ground for a level playing field preventing Wightlink from getting away entirely with a fait-accompli, and in respect of which the debate still continues.

Coming more up-to-date: in the last year, there has been the recent cooperation with the council officers over Local Distinctiveness, where the efforts put in by our committee members have led to the character of the town being reflected in the Local Distinctiveness Guidance, which will now inform planning decisions, and planning inspectors who come to review those decisions.

Even more up-to-date, and there has been the part played by the Society in the issue over Wetherspoons and the wholehearted opposition by the community to a “destination” public house immediately adjacent to our parish church and churchyard. Our efforts, with others, led to a unanimous vote by councillors against this, and our efforts will have to be renewed again for the inevitable new application, lodged in these cases in the hope that our opposition will be worn down by having to go through the whole process again.

Through all these issues I have tried to encourage the committee members to be objective, and they have responded. We are not a campaign group. There are other such groups, for example the groups set up to oppose the Redrow development and the Lymington River Users Group set up to oppose the ferries. Our objective is to ensure that the planning process works fairly and, where we do not feel the right decision is being made, to oppose that decision; and not only to oppose that decision but to encourage the right decision to be made.

An example of this is the Wellworthy Club site, where we encouraged a better effort by the developers, which they responded to with an Art Deco development, but which unfortunately was just too much for the site. We hope that the third proposal now being built will reflect the character of that site.

I can’t say that the development at the traffic lights has been one of our best successes but at least one can say that the building merges into the remainder of Southampton Road to the north without being able to set a precedent for further similar redevelopment up Southampton Road. We wait to see the results of Colton’s redevelopment opposite, having said goodbye to the old landmark of Buckland House.

That leads back to the thorny subject of the Webb’s chicken factory site exactly 10 years on. I would like to encourage everyone now to call it the Redrow site, at least in recognition of the effort which that company have put into trying to improve on the original Paxton’s planning permission. I said earlier how Paxton told us that, if the powers that be had not kept the Society apart from them as developers, then a lot of the issues raised could have been taken account of in the original plans.

Council policy has changed dramatically since then, and we have been involved with Redrow in their proposals. However, unfortunately, in trying to do something better Redrow engaged an architect who told me quite frankly that he only designed in square blocks. If only they had run that one past the Society before going ahead! Having realised their mistake, Redrow very fairly carried out a consultation which led to a final application with pitched roofs in a very individualistic style, which, however sympathetic one tries to be, just does not look as if it should be located in Lymington.

I go back to my first quotation: “If, however, we feel the policies or individual applications are wrong, we will be vociferous in opposing them”. We have every sympathy for Redrow’sefforts but the end result has to be right for Lymington. With that in mind we think the right way forward is to call another public meeting to be held on 4 April for everyone’s views to be aired and we will be inviting Redrow and councillors and planning officers to that meeting. Don Mackenzie will be giving you more of the background details of the applications as a preliminary to that meeting.

(The public meeting referred to here did indeed take place, and is referred to elsewhere on the website- ed)

Of the 10th anniversary of the new committee of the Society can I again record the efforts of those who do so much on a daily basis and on whom I can entirely rely to carry out theirduties.

Peter Chitty, our President and wise head. It’s not what he says, but what he doesn’t say, that I rely on.

Ivor Johnston, our Secretary keeping the paperwork and the correspondence in order and hosting our monthly meetings.

Don Mackenzie, our press officer who fires us up when necessary.

Nic King, who has dealt with the planning for so long.

Jonathan Hutchinson, who has recently put in so much detailed effort on the planning side and makes a fantastic team with Nic King.

Derek Sheffer, who manages the accounts and the subscriptions and membership so quietly and efficiently.

Nigel Seth-Smith, who manages the website and edits the newsletter to a form where my office photocopier produces it at the touch of a button.

I am very thankful not to be in the position of Leslie Dry 10 years ago who indicated that without fresh blood in the committee the Society was at risk of being able to continue. We may need changes and fresh blood in the future but at the moment this committee is firing on all cylinders and reacting to every challenge. I hope you will continue to give it your support.

Clive Sutton, Society Chairman

The Marine Bill

Posted on October 27, 2010 by lymingtonsociety

The Forthcoming Marine Bill and Other Matters

Marion Jakes – Lymington Society Committee Member for the Waterside

In these times of climate change, sea level rise, disappearing saltmarshes and erosion, not to mention other man-made damage to the river, we could sometimes have reason to believe that there are just far too many agencies with overlapping responsibilities – NFDC, National Park, Harbour Commissioners, Natural England, DEFRA, the Environment Agency, to name a few – and none apparently with enough individual power to reach joined-up decisions and deal effectively with the issues. Some of this may change soon when the Marine and Coastal Access Bill becomes final legislation later this year. The Bill covers a wide set of objectives including a new marine planning and licensing system under the proposed Marine Management Organisation (MMO) which will coordinate all marine matters throughout the UK. New Marine Conservation Zones (MCZ) will be established to protect habitats and species increasing the level of protection to 22% of UK waters from the current 2.2%, and there will be increased powers to modernise fisheries management and enforce regulation policies. Last, but definitely not least, is the provision for the completion of a Coastal Access route round the entire UK coast, including privately owned land. This topic has been covered in the national press and is a delicate balance between providing for the interests of walkers to enjoy a “coastal experience” at first hand, and those of landowners who may be keen to preserve the privacy of their land and its stability from the extra pressures of walkers leading to further coastal erosion. Consultation on the Coastal Access issue is currently underway with a stated possible exemption for parks and gardens. Locally the draft North Solent Shoreline Management Plan is being finalised for consultation in the coming weeks and provisions are being made for recommendations on coastal defence policy for both publicly and privately owned land. These include ‘no active intervention’ and ‘hold the line’ designations. Our area of the north Solent is particularly sensitive due to the large extent of saltmarshes, river habitat and wide extent of private land ownership. We will be commenting on the consultation document so do let us know of any strong views you have to counteract suggestions for ‘no active intervention’ , currently thought to be areas eastwards from Elmers Court to Sowley.

Plain English Guide to Localism

Posted on October 17, 2010 by lymingtonsociety

The planning system helps decide who can build what, where and how. It makes sure that buildings and structures that the country needs (including homes, offices, schools, hospitals, roads, train lines, power stations, water pipes, reservoirs and more) get built in the right place and to the right standards. A good planning system is essential for the economy, environment and society.

There are, however, some significant flaws in the planning system as it stands. Planning does not give members of the public enough influence over decisions that make a big difference to their lives. Too often, power is exercised by people who are not directly affected by the decisions they are making. This means, understandably, that people often resent what they see as decisions and plans being forced on them. The result is a confrontational system where many applications end up being foughtover.

The Localism Bill contains proposals to make the planning system clearer, more democratic, and more effective.

Abolition of regional strategies

“Regional strategies” were first required by law in 2004. These strategies set out where new development needs to take place in each part of the country. They include housing targets for different areas, set by central government. Local communities had relatively limited opportunities to influence the strategies.

The Government thinks that this centrally-driven approach to development is bureaucratic and undemocratic. Rather than helping get new houses built, it has had the effect of making people feel put upon and less likely to welcome new development.

The Secretary of State has already written to local authorities to tell them that the Government intends to abolish regional strategies. The Localism Bill will fulfil this intention, and get rid of the law that requires regional strategies.

Neighbourhood planning

Instead of local people being told what to do, the Government thinks that local communities should have genuine opportunities to influence the future of the places where they live. The Bill will introduce a new right for communities to draw up a “neighbourhood development plan.”

Neighbourhood planning will allow people to come together through a local parish council or neighbourhood forum and say where they think new houses, businesses and shops should go – and what they should look like. These neighbourhood development plans could be very simple, or go into considerable detail where people want. Local communities would also be able to grant full or outline planning permission in areas where they most want to see new homes and businesses, making it easier and quicker for development to go ahead.

Provided a neighbourhood development plan is in line with national planning policy, with the strategic vision for the wider area set by the local authority, and with other legal requirements, local people will be able to vote on it in a referendum. If the plan is approved by a majority, then the local authority will bring it into force.

Local planning authorities will be required to provide technical advice and support as neighbourhoods draw up their plans. The Government will also fund sources of help and advice for communities. This will help people take advantage of the opportunity to exercise influence over decisions that make a big difference to their lives.

Community right to build

As part of neighbourhood planning, the Bill will give groups of local people the ability to bring forward small developments. These might include new homes, businesses and shops. The benefits of the development, for example, profits made from letting the homes, will stay within the community.

Requirement to consult communities before submitting very large planning applications

To further strengthen the role of local communities in planning, the Bill will introduce a new requirement for developers to consult local communities before submitting planning applications for very large developments. This will give local people a chance to comment when there is still genuine scope to make changes to proposals.

Strengthening enforcement rules

For people to have a real sense that the planning system is working for them, they need to know that the rules they draw up will be respected. The Localism Bill will strengthen planning authorities’ powers to tackle abuses of the planning system, such as making deliberately misleading planning applications.

Reforming the community infrastructure levy

As well as being able to influence planning decisions, local people should be able to feel the benefits of new development in their neighbourhood. Local authorities are allowed to ask developers to pay a levy (charge) when they build new houses, businesses or shops. The money raised must go to support new infrastructure – such as roads and schools. This is called the community infrastructure levy.

The Localism Bill proposes changes to the levy to make it more flexible. It will allow the money raised to be spent on maintaining infrastructure, as well as building new infrastructure. It will give local authorities greater freedom in setting the rate that developers should pay in different areas. And crucially, the Bill will give the Government the power to require that some of the money
raised goes directly to the neighbourhoods where development takes place. This will help ensure that the people who say “yes” to new development feel the benefit of that decision.

Reform the way local plans are made

Local planning authorities play a crucial role in local life, setting a vision, in consultation with local people, about what their area should look like in the future. The plans that local authorities draw up set out where new buildings, shops, businesses and infrastructure need to go, and what they should look like. .

The Government thinks it is important to give local planning authorities greater freedom to get on with this important job without undue interference from central government. The Localism Bill will limit the discretion of planning inspectors to insert their own wording into local plans. It will also ensure that rather than focusing on reporting plans’ progress to central government,
authorities focus on reporting progress to local communities.

Duty to cooperate

Not all planning decisions can, or should, be made at a neighbourhood or local level. In many cases there are very strong reasons for neighbouring local authorities, or groups of authorities, to work together on planning issues in the interests of all their local residents. This might include working together on environmental issues (like flooding), public transport networks (such as trams), or major new retail parks.

In the past, regional strategies formed an unaccountable bureaucratic layer on top of local government. Instead, the Government thinks that local authorities and other public bodies should work together on planning issues in ways that reflect genuine shared interests and opportunities to make common cause. The duty will require local authorities and other public bodies to work together on planning issues.

Nationally significant infrastructure projects

Some planning decisions are so important to our overall economy and society that they can only be taken at a national level. These include decisions on nationally significant infrastructure projects such as major train lines and power stations. Currently, these decisions lie in the hands of an unelected public body, called the Infrastructure Planning Commission. It is not directly
accountable to the public. The Government thinks that these important decisions should be taken by Government Ministers, who are democratically accountable to the public. The Localism Bill will abolish the Infrastructure Planning Commission and restore its responsibility for taking decisions to Government Ministers. It will also ensure the National Policy Statements, which will be used to guide decisions by Ministers, can be voted on by parliament. Ministers intend to make sure that major planning decisions are made under new arrangements at least as quickly as the present system.

APPENDIX 2

Neighbourhood planning – The Government’s proposals in the Localism Bill

1. The Localism Bill (published in December 2010) makes new provisions for neighbourhood planning, which would create a radical new element in the planning system in England. Through these provisions, local community groups (where designated as neighbourhood forums) and parish councils will be empowered to bring forward proposals for a development plan for their neighbourhood area or for an order granting planning permission(s) in that area. They will beable to require the local planning authority (LPA) to assist them in the preparation of their proposals and require them to take the proposals to independent examination. Proposals for plans or orders which are carried in a referendum will need to be brought into force by the local planning authority In this way, neighbourhood communities will be given real power to shape the way that the areas in which they live develop and grow. Neighbourhood planning also provides for community organisations to bring forward site specific development proposals through a Community Right to Build Order.

2. More specifically, it is envisaged that the neighbourhood planning process will be undertaken as follows:

Parish councils and other certain community organisation would approach the local authority with a request to define an area for the purposes of neighbourhood planning. In parished areas, the applicant would have to be a parish council and the expectation is that in considering any application is that such areas will be followed. A local planning authority will need to have clear reasons relating to the planning of its area, if it does not follow parish boundaries in approving neighbourhood areas. In non-parished areas, the applicant would need to be an organisation that is capable of being designated as a neighbourhood forum.
Once a neighbourhood area has been designated, a local planning authority will have to start considering applications from organisations to be designated as the neighbourhood forum for that area. Once an organisation has been designated, it will be free to bring forward proposals for neighbourhood development plans and orders. A parish council will be free to bring forward such proposals in respects of its neighbourhood area once that area has been defined, provided it has the consent of the other parish councils (if any) whose areas are wholly or partly within the neighbourhood area.
- Local planning authorities would be subject to a duty to support the parish councils and forums in the development of their proposals. Support provided might include, for example, the provision of advice or assistance on good practice in plan-making, and alignment with national policy, EU law and local plans. There would be no duty on the local planning authority to provide financial assistance.
- If the proposed plan or order was compliant with certain legislative requirements, it would have to be submitted to an independent examination by a qualified assessor (normally held only by written representations). The examination would lead to a report which would be given to the parish council or forum promoting the plan or order and the local planning authority. The report would not be binding except in the case of Community Right to Build orders.
- Following the independent examination (and following any modifications), as long as the draft plan or order meets certain tests including ones relating to national policy, EU law and the strategic elements of local plans, the local authority concerned would need to hold a local referendum on whether the draft plan or order should be brought into force.
- Where the draft plan or order receives the support of more than 50 per cent of voters at the referendum (subject to compatibility with EU law and Convention rights), the local planning authority would required to bring the plan or order into effect. Within the neighbourhood planning process is the Community Right to Build. Under Community Right to Build, community organisations, established as a corporate body for the express purpose of furthering the economic, social and environmental well-being of an area, would be able to bring forward a proposal for a site specific development where the benefit, or receipts, from the development will be retained for the benefit of the local community. The process for applying for a Community Right to Build Order would largely follows that for a neighbourhood development order, but has been adapted so it is proportionate to the types of schemes envisaged. A Community Right to Build Order could be instigated independently of a plan or order being promoted by a neighbourhood forum or parish council.

4. Neighbourhood planning will be additional to – and not a replacement for – the existing planning system in England.However, following enactment of the Localism Bill, we anticipate that development plan documents prepared by local authorities will be strongly informed by neighbourhood planning initiatives within their areas.

5. The contents of a neighbourhood plan or order under the Localism Bill is very flexible and they could be more or less detailed [or] prescriptive. It may contain the following:

A Neighbourhood Development Plan – Generic or specific neighbourhood policies against which traditional planning applications could be judged. These policies may augment or refine or add to the policies in the local authority plan. Policies within a neighbourhood development plan could cover:

planning objectives for the neighbourhood
the broad planning context (e.g. transport connections), local facilities, services
key neighbourhood projects and infrastructure priorities
development management policies on housing, economic development, environment
site-specific policies on housing, economic development and environmental issues
changes in the coverage of some planning designations.

Neighbourhood Development Orders – A Neighbourhood Development Order which would directly grant planning permission for certain specified kinds of developments within the neighbourhood area. Permission could be full or outline, and could have conditions attached and it could be site specific or an order could grant more generalised development rights across the neighbourhood area. A Community Right to Build Order will be a special kind of Neighbourhood Development Order brought forward under the Community Right to Build and will be subject to similar requirements as a Neighbourhood Development Order in respect of independent examination and its requirements in respect of legal and policy provisions.

Whetherspoon’s Press Release 2010

Posted on May 22, 2010 by lymingtonsociety

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 May 9, 2010 by lymingtonsociety

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 April 19, 2010 by lymingtonsociety

Lymington Society

Letter to the editor of the Lymington Times

Dear Sir

“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.

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.

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 March 17, 2010 by lymingtonsociety

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 October 27, 2009 by lymingtonsociety

Reed 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

The Lymington Society

Protecting our Town and the surrounding area for the future

Category Archives: Campaigns

Whetherspoon’s: The Society’s objection

Redrow: Letter to the editor

Chairman’s Report for the 2011 AGM

The Marine Bill

Plain English Guide to Localism

Whetherspoon’s Press Release 2010

Lymington Society Objection to Ford’s Redevelopment

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

Chairman’s Report for the AGM 17th March 2010

Clive Sutton

Chairman Lymington Society

Reed Beds