Whetherspoons letter to the editor

Editor Lymington times

Sir

I appreciate that it is necessary for front page reporting to summarise an issue and get a headline but when this headline does not really reflect the true position I hope you will allow a right of reply on your letters page.

The Lymington Society is not in the business of waving white flags. The Society is a body which looks after the interests of the whole Town on an objective and practical basis bearing in mind that any particular issue, whilst important, is one of many and once that issue has been dealt with as fully as possible it is time to move on and look after other issues. This is the distinction between the Lymington Society as an amenity Society, which has now coming up its 50th anniversary, and other single issue groups who may well be prepared to fight on until the last gasp over the issue with which they are concerned.

In the case of Wetherspoon’s we opposed both applications. We encouraged responses and there was a huge response of 900 individuals against planning permission on the second application. The decision did not reflect the views of the Town or the 900 objectors and the Society spent a lot of its resources in time and money in establishing whether the decision could be challenged. It might have been possible to challenge it but the view taken by the Committee was that even if there was a successful challenge then it was extremely likely that the same councillors would vote in the same way on another decision, which would be required as a result of a successful legal challenge, and a lot of time and effort would have been spent for nothing.

The Lymington Society has never been involved in licensing issues because they particularly affect individuals who live nearby. However if the licensing could have been a back door to preventing a public house in such a sensitive location then we would have objected, but consider seriously whether the council, which is now the licensing authority, would be likely to refuse an alcohol licence for a public house for which it had just granted planning permission.

All that could be achieved would be to limit the licensing hours, but that is a matter which is best argued by the neighbours for their own particular needs and by the police in respect of public order.

The main body of the press release was as follows and I hope you will allow it to be printed here. “The Lymington Society have supported the 900 individual objections to the location of the proposed Wetherspoons public house next to the church. A considerable amount of time and effort was spent in doing so and considering the validity of the eventual permission passed.

The permission has been granted and there is a hearing in respect of licensing. The Society’s opposition is not so much as to the extent of the licensing but to the fact of the public house in that location itself.

The Society’s view is that the hours of licensing and any conditions placed on the premises are matter for the neighbours who would be directly affected, the police who will need to monitor it and potentially the Town Council if they feel it appropriate to express a view on licensing in the Town centre.

It has not been the Society’s practice to become involved in licensing matters which would have the effect of preferring or disadvantaging one licensed premises over another once planning permission has been approved in principle.

If as a result of the operation of the premises, representations to the licensing authority are clearly in the interests of the Town then Society would reconsider its position.”

The Society’s Committee is conscious that the combination of it’s lack of legal action against the Council in respect of Wetherspoon’s and its acceptance of the current plans in relation to the Redrow site, are tending to give the misleading impression that the Committee is accepting the power of large organisations in pushing through planning applications which the townspeople don’t want.

The Committee can only deal with the art of the possible and if it is likely, as in the case of Wetherspoon’s, that the Council Planning Committee will maintain a subsequent decision, and in the case of Redrow that the developers could fall back on a previous planning application with a extra 100 units then the Committee will object as long as reasonably possible, or negotiate the best outcome, and continue to deal with other issues. Currently the next issue is the amount of green belt land surrounding Lymington that should be allocated for housing.

The Society’s AGM has been advertised for 20 March at 7:30 PM at the Community Centre and of course members are welcome to take the Committee to task if it is not carrying out their wishes. The meeting has been publicly advertised and it is hoped that non members will attend as observers and if they feel strongly about the Town, then join the Society and make their voices heard. The first question asked by any inspector or barrister in any planning appeal or enquiry is to know what membership the Lymington Society represents!

Yours sincerely

Clive Sutton

Chairman

W Class ferries Press Release

Lymington Society Press Release 18.02.09

Natural England confirms that the W. class ferries will have significant adverse effect on Lymington River

Lymington Society argue that any environmental impact must be mitigated within the River

Lymington Society Fully Supports Continued Ferry Service to the IOW

The Lymington Society firmly supports continuation of a reliable, environmentally friendly and modern ferry service from Lymington to Yarmouth which we acknowledge brings tremendous benefit to both communities. However this must not be at the risk of damage to the EU protected Natura 2000 habitats which the whole community wishes to see protected.

Lymington Society Argued for Full Environmental Impact Assessment of New Ferries

Since the W. class ferries were first announced in 2007, the Lymington Society has been concerned to ensure that the Wightlink proposal to bring very much larger ferries to the Lymington River was subjected to detailed scrutiny by the authorities and was instrumental in persuading Natural England that this proposal required detailed environmental scrutiny. We would have preferred that a Full Environmental Impact Assessment had been carried out rather than the more limited Appropriate Assessment (AA) which only looks at environmental concerns.

The Society Has Been Actively Involved during the Appropriate Assessment Process.

However, during the AA process, we have been co-operating fully with Natural England and their marine consultants, HR Wallingford, to ensure that all aspects of the environmental impact have been fully considered, including making detailed submissions and attending briefing meetings as a stakeholder in the process.

HR Wallingford Concluded That W. Class Ferries Will Cause “Adverse Effect” to the EU Protected Habitats in the LymingtonRiver Contrary to European Habitats Directives

As has now been reported in the Lymington Times, the HR Wallingford report concluded that due to insufficient control by the authorities of their speed, the current C Class ferries have over many years caused major environmental damage and loss mudflats and salt marshes along the length of the Lymington River.

  • HR Wallingford confirmed that the majority of the damage that has occurred in the upper reaches of the river since the ferries arrived in the mid-19 70s is due to the operation of the ferry service and not as many has claimed due to tidal flow or increased wind and wave action.
  • Although the current ferries have been more tightly controlled since 2007, HR Wallingford predict that they will continue to cause some further erosion to the protected habitats in the river if they continue in service at the current speed.
  • HR Wallingford have concluded that the W. class ferries, despite going slower than the C Class used to, will cause the same amount of erosion to the protected habitats and the river generally as the C Class did when their speed was allowed to be in excess of the speed limit.
  • They are predicting that the wave action caused by the W Class ferries on the intertidal mudflats will cause adverse effect to 1.3 hectares of mud flat per decade.
  • In addition the scouring action of the much more powerful Voight Schneider engines will deepen the river by at least half a metre causing a widening of the river by 20%. This could cause the loss of 3.7 hectares of saltmarsh, mainly in the Lymington River in the next 30 years or so.
  • Direct action of the thrusters on the riverbank, when turning corners or when steering to avoid being blown off course by the wind, may have a direct effect on the riverbank and the intertidal areas.
  • There is a large amount of uncertainty concerning the effects of the thrusters on the riverbank and the intertidal areas and the effects may be significantly greater than currently calculated.

Natural England’s Advice to the Regulators

Following the publication of the HR Wallingford report, Natural England have concluded that Wightlink have failed to demonstrate that the new ferries will not cause an adverse effect on the protected habitats to which the Lymington river runs.

Natural England’s Position on Mitigation of the Effects of the W. Class Ferries

Operational Mitigation Not Sufficient to Reduce Adverse Effect to Acceptable Levels

It was originally thought that changes to the methods of operation of the new ferries (so-called operational mitigation), such as speed reductions, or restrictions on passing in the river, might be sufficient to reduce the damage caused by the new ferries to an acceptable level.

Following discussions with the Harbour Commissioners and Wightlink, Natural England have concluded that no operational mitigation will reduce the adverse effects of the W. Class to an acceptable level.

Mitigation of Adverse Effects by Habitat Re Creation

Natural England indicates in their advice that instead of operational mitigation, they are willing to consider allowing Wightlink to pay for re-creation of alternative habitats elsewhere in the Solent Maritime SAC (Special Area of Conservation).  This is regarded as an alternative mitigation of the effects of the new ferries rather than operational mitigation which was previously considered likely.

Currently no scheme of mitigation through habitat recreation has been designed or approved and this will take some time to be designed and costed and agreed with natural England. Natural England state that any habitat re-creation scheme offered by Wightlink as mitigation, must have a high degree of probability of being successful to allow it to be accepted as mitigation for the effects of the W. class ferries.

Consideration of Natural England’s Advice in Light of the H R Wallingford Report

With the release of the final HR Wallingford report on the likely environmental impact of the W. class ferries on the river and the issuing by Natural England of their advice to the Regulators, whose permission Wightlink require to operate the service, the Full Committee of the Lymington Society has discussed the impact that the ferries are likely to cause in the river and whether Wightlink should be allowed to commence commercial service using the W. class ferries

Consideration of Natural England’s Current Position

The effects of Natural England’s advice is that they appear to be accepting that the upper reaches of the Lymington river and the Inner Harbour will be subject to possibly major environmental damage with loss of salt-marshes, mudflats and general visual amenity and that Wightlink will be allowed to pay for this lost habitat to be recreated elsewhere in the Solent maritime SAC

Natural England’s Acceptance of Adverse Effect on the Lymington River Undermines Breakwater Scheme Recently Approved by Natural England

However another proposal concerning the Inner Harbour and upper reaches of the river, was recently also approved by Natural England. This involves the proposal by the Harbour Commissioners to build two large stone breakwaters to protect the remaining salt marshes still remaining in the Lymington River. It is thought by most observers that without this protection, much of the remaining salt marshes in Lymington River will be lost in the next 10 to 20 years – exposing the harbour to the full effects of increasing storms due to global warming.

It is likely that within the next 20 to 30 years, much of the remaining saltmarsh in the Solent will be lost due to what is called “costal squeeze” as rising sea levels overwhelm existing salt marshes which are unable to retreat inland due to harbour walls such as the sea wall around the Salterns.

Position of the Lymington Society in Light Natural England’s Advice

Sacrifice of Lymington River saltmarshes and environment not acceptable to allow Wightlink to bring larger ferries to the river

Whilst understanding that Natural England with its regional and national remit, may take the view that recreated habitat elsewhere in the Solent Maritime SAC may be acceptable as an alternative to habitat lost in the Lymington River, the Society does not feel that Lymington should be asked to effectively sacrifice its mudflats and salt marshes, which the new breakwaters are supposed to protect and their replacement by salt-marshes in another part of the Solent.

We therefore do not find it acceptable that Wightlink should be given permission to operate a service which it is now knownwill cause possibly major damage to the Lymington River and be allowed to offset this by creating salt marshes somewhere else in the area.

All Alternatives Should Be Fully Examined before Allowing Adverse Effect on the Lymington River.

Under European law and the operation of the Habitats Directive, compensatory mitigation such as habitat re-creation should not be considered until all alternatives have been examined and the minister at Defra has declared that the development in question must go ahead because of Overriding Public Interest. Compensatory habitat re-creation may then be considered as an absolute last resort.

Natural England has indicated that habitat recreation inside the designated protected area (in this case the Solent Maritime SAC) does not count as “compensatory mitigation” under EU law and they argue that they are allowed to consider such re-creation of habitat before considering alternatives. We understand that legal advice is being taken by various parties including the Lymington River Association on this interpretation of EU law

The Society Does Not Agree That All Alternatives Have yet Been Fully Considered

The Society understands that all three of the old ferries are still available and that (subject to their annual passenger certificate being renewed) they could continue in service for the foreseeable future. It has become public knowledge that at the time of the sale of Wightlink to the current owners, the report on the current ferries produced by naval architects Hart Fenton concluded that the ferries could be used for an additional period of at least another 10 years.

Statutory Duty of the Harbour Commissioners to Protect the Environmental Integrity of the Lymington River

It is our understanding that the Lymington Harbour Commissioners have a statutory duty to protect the environmental integrity of the area under their control and protection. If they allowed the W. Class ferries to commence operation, knowing in advance that environmental damage and adverse effect, would take place on the remaining saltmarshes and the natural beauty of the Lymington River, this may be considered by some to be incompatible with their obligations to protect theLymington River and Harbour.

In addition, due to the uncertainty described by HR Wallingford, the direct effects of the thrusters on the riverbed and the intertidal areas (which may well be much greater than currently estimated,) the level of the adverse effect which the river might be subject to, is completely unknown at this stage and may be much greater than feared.

We therefore call on the Harbour Commissioners to use the precautionary principle and put the protection of the Lymington River and the salt marshes, which their own breakwaters are being built to protect, first and to refuse Wightlink permission to allow these much larger ferries, which it is now known will cause possibly major environmental harm and loss of amenity to the town, to start a regular service in the Lymington River

Speaking after the Lymington Society committee meeting, Dr Donald Mackenzie Press Spokesman for the Lymington Society said:

“Because of the large increase in size of the W. Class ferries compared with the old ones and the equally large increase in engine power and windage, it was always likely that the new ferries would prove to be significantly more damaging to the EU designated Natura 2000 habitats and the Lymington River generally, than the current ferries.

This has now proved to be the case, and many hectares of habitats – which are supposed to be protected to the highest level under their EU Natura 2000 designations, are likely to be destroyed or degraded by the new ferries over the years ahead – especially in the upper reaches of the Lymington River and in the inner harbour.

It is very regrettable that for so long the current ferries have been allowed to routinely travel faster than the recognized speed limit and that they have been found to have caused so much damage – especially in the upper reaches of the river.

From the start, the position of the Lymington Society on the new ferries has been to press the authorities to fully and properly investigate all aspects of the environmental and safety impacts that these new ferries might cause.

The Society successfully lobbied Natural England and the regulators involved, to give this proposal the scrutiny which we felt it should have and we have been co-operating with Natural England and their consultants HR Wallingford through regular meetings and other communications, to ensure that all aspects of the possible environmental impacts were properly considered

It is now clear that the W. class ferry will definitely cause increased environmental damage to a large area of the river in the years ahead. It is also clear that there is very considerable uncertainty about how much damage may be caused and that the potential is for the damage to be significantly worse than has currently been estimated, if the effects of the thrusters are as great as some people fear they may be. If ever there was a case for the use of the “precautionary principle” when deciding environment issues, then this is such a case.

The area north of Pylewell, where HR Wallingford have implicated the ferries in causing most of the loss of habitat over the years, is supposed to be protected by the new breakwaters for which the Harbour Commissioners have only just received permission from Natural England

It is therefore doubly important that this vital natural resource for wildlife in the Lymington River, as well as for the amenity value of the scenery – which we all take the granted, is properly protected and not sacrificed for future generations, in order to allow Wightlink to increase the level of traffic – especially lorries and buses – which they carry to the island.

It would be perverse indeed if having been given permission by Natural England to build new breakwaters to protect the remaining River saltmarshes, the Harbour Commissioners consented to a new environmentally damaging ferry service which then put at risk those very same saltmarsh habitats.

We believe that there it is a viable alternative to bringing the W. class ferries into service, as the old ferries are still all available and could be pressed into service quickly once they have been through their annual recertification process.

 We therefore call on the Lymington Harbour Commissioners to put the interests of Lymington ahead of that Wightlink and to make it clear that these ferries are simply too large and too damaging to be allowed to start regular commercial service in the Lymington River.”

Dr Donald F. Mackenzie

Lymington Society Press Spokesman

Local Distinctiveness South of the High Street


To the south of the High Street, modern Lymington has emerged from several former large estates which dominated much of the the area until the middle of the twentieth century;  Woodside, Fairfield and South Hayes among them.   Many of the avenues connecting the town’s central conservation area to that on its largely nineteenth century south-eastern edge – Church Lane, Waterford Lane, Broad Lane, Belmore Lane, Rooke’s Lane – retain in their names reminders of their origins and their character.   The houses which grew up along and between them as the original estates were sold off reflect the architectural styles of their times, but for the most part share common characteristics of generous spacing and comparatively low height, set among mature green growth and open spaces.   In recent years these characteristics have been to some extent been compromised by modern housing estates with greater density and depressingly uniform appearance.   Two of them (Farnley’s Mead and Grove Place, both built around 1985/6) have matured well and merged into their older surroundings, and others in the Old Orchards area have at least retained a substantial number of mature trees and open spaces.   More recent development has taken a new and unwelcome direction, with the demolition of perfectly sound houses in favour of more numerous, larger, taller and more ostentatious buildings on their former gardens.

 

Belmore Lane, not long ago described even by a developer as “semi-rural”, was until recently lined by comparatively modest 1½-storey or 2-storey houses most of which were semi-hidden by hedges and trees.  Since 2001 it has come under prolonged attack by developers, and three of its houses have been or are being replaced by 14 flats and 11 other houses, with concomitant intrusions on both the skyline and the former open space.   Several other houses with generous gardens are known to be of interest to developers, but any further development of the kind now in progress will inflict irreversible damage on the character of this lane.

 

Two offshoots sharing an exit from Belmore Lane are Fairfield Close and Courtenay Place.   Both feature space, low rise buildings, mature trees and greenery in generous gardens.   Fairfield Close is an attractive remnant of the former Fairfield Estate, of which it formed the kitchen garden, and is lined by walls of mostly ancient reclaimed bricks.   It has three eighteenth century buildings which once housed the estate’s stables, coach house and fruit house.   Adjoining the central Conservation Area, it deserves serious consideration for inclusion within it to preserve its mature and pleasant aspect from risk of dense and inappropriate development.   Courtenay Place is by some margin the most attractive of the town’s rather too numerous mock-Georgian terrace developments, being set in mature and spacious grounds and visually discreet.   It could not take further development without losing its essential character.

 

Further down Belmore Lane away from the town centre, Farnley’s Mead was an estate development of the 1980s consisting of substantial detached houses set in medium-sized plots.   It attracted criticism at the time on account of its perceived higher-than-normal density, but it has matured well and the houses and gardens are uniformly well maintained.

 

Rooke’s Lane, bordering the northern edge of the extensive Woodside Park, fronts a pleasingly diverse mixture of entirely appropriate modest houses in the style of the mid-20th century, set in generous gardens among mature greenery.   It also gives access to a discreet unsurfaced and unnamed lane just west of Newenham Road, one of several which are a feature of the town, which leads to several attractive houses set in mature and generous gardens typical of the mid-20th century.   Newenham Road and Lockerley Close are more modern, with detached family houses in contemporary styles set in slightly smaller gardens.   Modest infilling might be acceptable if carried out in the same architectural idiom, but the intrusion of brutal dense building blocks such as those imposed on Belmore Lane would destroy the visual balance of this pleasant neighbourhood.

 

Between Rooke’s Lane and Belmore Road to the north lies an estate laid out along the pattern of roads served by Bitterne Way and Old Farm Walk.   The houses are of the same designs as those which line Daniell’s Walk, suggesting that they were built a tthe same time and by the same builder in the years after the Second World War.   Like those in Daniell’s Walk, many have since been modifed and extended, bringing some pleasing variety to the neighbourhood, but together they have a noticeably different character and distinctiveness which comes from the general absence of large mature trees and the conspicuously neat and high standard of both house and garden maintenance throughout the estate, giving it a strikingly “factory-fresh” appearance.   Some recent tall and dense development in Ravenscourt Road and the newly-created Londesborough Place off Stanford Hill throw this neat appearance into even greater relief.   There has been some infill development which matches the surrounding s in style.   Large-scale dense redevelopment would impose serious damage on the character of this attractive area

 

All Saints Road is bordered to the north by the extensive housing estates of Vitre Gardens, Old Orchards and Anchorage Way, all typical estates of the late 20th and early 21st century.   No doubt they are all practical and efficient houses, but their visual uniformity and dense spacing are saved from anonymity only by the retention of some mature trees and hedges, and a good measure of open space, which do provide a visual link to the nearby New Forest.   The houses are all likely to undergo incremental change year by year as owners adapt and extend them.   Such changes should be welcomed so long as they are in scale, as they add detail and variation to the dull uniformity of  such large-scale developments.

 

To the south of All Saints Road, the “Woodside Triangle”, the southernmost neighbourhood of the town bounded by Viney Road, Woodside Lane and All Saints Road itself, abuts the open fields of the New Forest to the south and west.   The triangle’s buildings, set in generous plots among mature trees and shrubs, range from modest 19th-century or older cottages through inconspicuous 1½-storey homes to the substantial modern mid-20th-century 2-storey  houses bordering the unadopted Woodside Avenue.   One attractive aspect of their collective character is that no two are alike but all are complementary.   The parish church of All Saints stands at the north-east corner of the area and the listed Woodside Manor at the southern apex of the triangle.   Several of the houses fronting All Saints Road have in recent years been imaginatively modernised and restored, adding features such as a new crinkle-crankle wall and a thatched annex to the thatched De La Warr House.   The area embodies features which successfully reflect both the historic town to the north and the Forest to the south.  Inappropriate redevelopment here would impose serious injury on the character of the town and its relationship with the Forest.

 

Church Lane and its southern extension Broad Lane are similar in character to Belmore Lane.   Its northern end in the central conservation area, which once formed the boundary between the Fairfield and Grove estates, is is lined by listed buildings and ancient walls, two of which are of the characteristic serpentine or crinkle-crankle type, which give way to a more open aspect bordered by housed differing widely in style and size, again set among mature trees and greenery.   The houses on the eastern side of the lower Church Lane (south of the Conservation Area), two of them completed quite recently, are all substantial buildings set in comparatively large gardens and well screened from the road by dense hedges.   The plots are known to be of interest to developers, but the destruction of such recent substantial and attractive buildings in pursuit of greater densities would be indefensible on sustainability grounds alone.

 

Daniell’s Walk (with its offshoot Daniell’s Close), which links the road to Belmore Lane, was at one time a path across the Fairfield Estate but was developed as a housing estate following the sale of the latter in the 1950s.  Its borders feature two massive Monterey pines (a third has recently been felled, creating a substantial gap in the skyline).   Its houses stand in long narrow gardens featuring mature greenery and are variations of a uniform style, some being bungalows and some having 1½ storeys or added loft extensions.   They were originally constructed from common materials with little variation of texture or colour, but many have been extended, re-roofed or otherwise altered and the appearance of the whole is now pleasingly varied.   Extensive redevelopment would seriously threaten the character of the whole unless it were of similar style, a successful example of which may be seen on the north side of the road near its western end.

 

Broad Lane and its several offshoots feature a range of buildings from the large modern estates off the Orchards through the Edwardian development  of Burrard Closeand the substantial modern houses of Tranmere Close to the low-rise houses of widely varying ages and styles fronting the road itself, all set in mature greenery.  Some of the offshoot lanes, such as Bingham Drive, Ambleside Road and Goldmead Close, serve small estate developments all of which probably took shape following the sale of the Fairfield Estate in 1950.   The buildings are of fairly uniform mid-20th-century style and some stand in what today are seen as generous plots.    Though perfectly serviceable, they are in no way distinctive within the character of the wider town and could accept redevelopment as opportunity arises.   A recent attempt to replace a single house at the juction of Bingham Drive and Chrch Lane with a terrace development was rejected as inappropriate and has not been renewed.

 

Broad Lane has one unnamed, unsurfaced offshoot lane, immediately north of the Orchards estate, in the manner of that described earlier off Rooke’s Lane.   It has no name, but serves several diverse and attractive houses as far as its head, which backs on to Pyrford Lodge, off Belmore Lane to the west.   Like its peer lanes elsewhere in the town,, it contribute a pleasant rural feel to the local character which would be destroyed by dense redevelopment.

 

Waterford Lane, with its offshoot Waterford Close, was until recently another pleasant green corridor between Church Lane and Stanley Road, lined at its northern end by closely-spaced two-and three-storey houses set in generous gardens with mature greenery.   That character has however been considerably altered by recent planning approvals, which have approved the demolition of five serviceable two-storey houses and their replacement by 22 taller (2 storeys plus attic), tightly packed and in some cases ostentatious new dwellings (the 14 terrace houses in Abbots Brook, for example, featuring a bizarre orange brick which has no equivalent anywhere else in the town) which together form an unwelcome visual assault on the integrity of the area.  Towards its southern end, the character of the lane changes as it merges with Brook Road, where the buildings are smaller and more tightly packed in the manner of an unpretentious seaside town.   This group belongs to the Queen Katherine Road group described later.

 

Skirting the southern boundary of the Conservation Area eastwards from Church lane, the 1980s development of  South Grove features a group of substantial houses set in comparatively small plots among mature trees and greenery.   The houses (three recent additions are nearing completion) have matured well and merged with the character of the Conservation Area to the north.   A case can be made for their inclusion in that Area.   The contiguous commercial site immediately to the east, currently occupied by Travis Perkins but earmarked for housing should it become vacant, will need careful development if the result is not to contrast uncomfortably with its neighbours.

 

Queen Katherine Road and its close parallel neighbour Bath Road both serve to connect the town centre Conservation Area to the Kings Saltern Conservation Area, along the line of the river’s west bank.   Their character is markedly different to that of the lanes further to the west.   The substantial bulk of the Berthon boatyard and the smaller Sanders sail loft are prominent immediately south of the central Conservation Area, with a few substantial detached houses fronting the northern end of Queen Katherine Road where it joins Nelson Place.   The domestic architecture immediately south of these is dominated by buildings between the roads which are instantly recognisable as being of the uniform, nationwide semi-detached council house style of the 1930s and 1940s.   Most of these houses are now privately owned and some have undergone extension and alteration, thereby introducing some welcome visual variety.   A few, however, appear to have been neglected, detracting from the appearance of the whole.   Most have comparatively long but narrow gardens which could accept development on an appropriate scale.

 

The character of the Bath Road/Queen Katherine Road corridor changes to the south, becoming more tree-lined and featuring mainly detached houses of varying designs in larger gardens.   Solent Avenue is densely tree-lined throughout, its buildings standing well back from the road, with a character of its own as it leads down to the northern edge of the Kings Saltern Conservation Area at the Recreation Ground.

 

Brook Road, Spring Road, Westfield Road north of the Conservation Area and Stanley Road all feature closely-spaced, unpretentious houses built over a long period starting probably in the mid-19th century and continuing with replacements and infills to the present day.   The area has a character of its own, distinct from that of the rest of the town and not unlike that of a working west country port town, most of the houses having the air of having been built for those who earned their living from the sea.   Exceptions are Springfield Close and Mayflower Close, both of which have modern detached houses in generous plots similar to those found elsewhere in the town, though with less surrounding green growth.   The area as a whole provides an orderly transition between the leafier lanes to the north and west and the maritime character of the contiguous Conservation Area to the south.   Sympathetic redevelopment would be possible so long as it preserved the subtly varying styles which make the area distinct.

 

Local Distinctiveness North of the High Street

Local Distinctiveness North of the High Street

 

Draft narrative as a background to local distinctiveness prepared by Clive Sutton in respect of the area to the east of Southampton Road and the north of the High Street.

 

Southampton road from St Thomas’s Park going north.

 

We are very lucky to have the attractive Georgian houses on the west side of Southampton Road Road.  It is true that they are mirrored on the right-hand side by 1930s detached houses but because of the width of the road the two styles are distinctive and complement each other.

 

There have so far been two intrusions into the east side of Southampton Road between St Thomas’s Park and the traffic lights but these have not irreparably changed the character, as although both created flats and to a certain extent set precedents, they have not significantly changed the character of the Southampton Road at that point.

 

Any further developments of flats as opposed to houses will start to tip the balance and instead of the cottages on the west side being reflected by the present variety of housing on the west side they will be overwhelmed by any further multiple ownership housing.

 

Accordingly any changes of housing on his side should only be to a similar style and density. The 1960s row of chalet bungalows could be replaced on that basis with single ownership two-storey housing.

 

Southampton Road Avenue Road junction.

 

This is a curious configuration of a one-way street coming in to a major crossroads and adds interest to the junction.

 

That is going to be substantially prejudiced by the planning permission which has been given for the McCarthy warden assisted accommodation, due to the substantial scale of the building and its uninterrupted mass around the corner which cannot be hidden by the varying types of roofs which are being employed.

 

The junction is going to be a clash between the older buildings in the conservation area and the more modern buildings for which permission has been given on the northern corners of the crossing and unfortunately those buildings will subtly alter the tone of both Southampton Road and Avenue Road, and must not be allowed in future to set a precedent for any further changes.

 

The remainder of Southampton Road to the north of the traffic lights has a pleasing and relaxed feel of detached houses and gardens set back with the notable exception of St Andrews Lodge.  That building must not be allowed to be reflective of the distinctiveness of that part of Southampton Road.

 

There has been the replacement of a bungalow on the other side of the road with a detached house which when it is occupied will sit very well with in the street scene the developers of that property are to be congratulated.  It should set the tone for any replacement houses that maybe needed because of any unsuitability of any existing houses which are not capable of being modernised.

 

Development has already taken place on the west side near Alexandra Road.  Tyler’s Close could in due course, if commercially necessary, be redeveloped into individual houses within an estate.

 

At Alexandra Road, Southampton road becomes more interesting following the original curved route dating back to the 15th century as shown on the original 16 century Buckland map.

 

The Grosvenor Mews development is set back behind high foliage.  Any redevelopment of the Grosvenor Mews buildings, if that was ever commercially necessary, would need to be to an attractive standard at no greater density.

 

An example of such development has already taken place on the hospital site where new houses do not impinge on the character of Southampton Road although they are artificially divorced from that in the same way as Grosvenor Mews and Tylers close.

 

This has, to a certain extent set a pattern for the road, with some houses fronting the road and some areas where the houses look away from the road.  This variety is a feature of Southampton Road.

 

At Hollywood Lane the road becomes almost rural leading on to the Tollhouse Pub and the open fields behind it and then on to the open fields to the left approaching the Marsh Lane roundabout.

 

The Marsh Lane roundabout will form an area of distinctiveness and is heavily used by traffic.  The western side will never be built upon due to the Hampshire County Council ownership.  The North-East corner has the new Ambrose Corner development by Coltens, yet to be completed, but on the basis of what is there already and what has been built further on it will not be unattractive housing so long as there is a reasonable amount of foliage fronting the road.  Again the houses will be facing away from the road into their own cul-de-sacs.  No doubt when the development is finished the roundabout could be made more attractive and some of the street furniture and telegraph poles improved.

 

The problematical area is the two semi-detached houses and large bungalow on the southeast side which could be considered a possible development prospect.

 

Any developer would wish to bring new development closer to the road, although there is a big separation by the layby which presumably cannot be built on.  Any redevelopment of that area would be unfortunate and unnecessary because it would expand and diminish the effectiveness of the sensitive redevelopment which has already taken place on the east side of Southampton Road from Marsh Lane to the railway bridge.

 

That area has achieved its own local distinctiveness by a development which could at first have seemed an unnecessary replacement for individual houses in their own gardens, but having been nearly completed has achieved an attractive frontage to the west side of the road with the possible exception of the unnecessary square “Tesco” Tower building halfway along.  Otherwise the frontage housing is attractive and the rear housing is as attractive as one would expect from a development of that necessary density.

 

Reaching the railway bridge the two new flat blocks of affordable housing have sat well in their surroundings since they were built, contained as they are by both the bank of the road and the railway line.

 

South of them is an area still to be developed subject to planning permission were there has been an argument over the density and the perhaps in the current climate the developers could look to a lesser density.

 

The relatively new development of the Ampress Park industrial side with its garage and reclad units of the Wellworthy factory with extensive areas for building and of course the hospital, has overall been a success.

 

The area has been reserved for commercial use but if that must be changed it would not be entirely inappropriate for there to be housing mixed with commercial use.

 

With the garage shop providing such a wide range of supplies there is almost a community feel growing up with the new developments on Southampton Road using that shop as its local store and also the use of the shop by people working in the Ampress site and the hospital.

 

There is the old Wellworthy car parks site underdeveloped where a hotel is being thought to be the right answer and probably still is, but if necessary similar housing to that on the south side of the railway bridge would not be out of place there.

 

The extent of the redevelopment so far in the town can be appreciated by observing the Marsh Laneroundabout which is the main artery into the town from the North and the amount of continuous traffic coming in to continue both along Southampton Road or Marsh Lane.

 

Marsh Lane is a new connecting road built 30 years ago to access the eastern part of the town and serve the new estates on either side. Those estates are now matured and the road has a wide and pleasant aspect.

 

It leads into the southern Marsh Lane area of functional industrial development of factories of the original Marsh Lane together with local authority depots and an unmade residential road on the west side.  The allotments are undeveloped and during an area of demand for allotments are unlikely to be developed, but if necessary, presumably with low density housing preferably fronting the road to create a street scene rather than another enclosed development would be appropriate.  However retention of the open allotment space would be preferable to create a distinct break between the industrial area to the south and the estates to the north.

 

There is a general area of openness because of the grass verges on the other side of Marsh Lanebetween the road and the railway line and of course the undeveloped marshes beyond.

 

East Hill roundabout with development all round it now completed seems more attractive than theMarsh Lane roundabout having less signs and street clutter.  It is complemented by the new housing fronting the street and reflecting the remainder of Gosport Street.  The developers seem to have achieved the benefit of the houses fronting the road whilst being serviced for vehicles at the rear.  This has led to small gardens and a rather utilitarian parking and garage forecourt area at the rear but it is functional and has allowed the frontage is to be closer to the road and attractive.

 

There is housing on the north east corner of the Gosport Street and Bridge Road roundaboutwhich is possibly part private and part local authority and may be subject to development pressures in the future.  It is at the moment all uniform 1930s housing, and any redevelopment of an individual house into what would be likely to be more intensive development would break up the uniform rooflines.

 

The whole area of the roundabout, whilst nothing special in architectural terms, is established and appropriate in its surroundings quite close to the town.  One bungalow to the use of the roundabout could usefully be redeveloped into a house to reflect the adjoining houses in the same way as the redevelopment of the bungalow in Southampton Road has done.

 

Gosport Street is an attractive mixture of Edwardian and Victorian houses of which there has been a partial redevelopment in Canterbury house which, whilst fussy, is successful.

 

The unknown question in this area is the potential redevelopment of the factory units on the southeast corner of the roundabout which will no doubt occur when there is a new upsurge in housing prices.

 

Any redevelopment must reflect the existing houses to the south of the site and opposite side ofGosport Street and again it may be unfortunate if houses face inwards and away from the street.  They should face the road in some form or other probably with rear vehicle access in order to reflect the distinctiveness created by the other houses facing the road in a similar way in this area.

 

Any redevelopment of the Jewson building or site if that were to take place would need to be on a similar basis and of course in replacing the Jewson building that could reasonably be dense development because of the existing mass of the building.

 

Planning has already being granted for a high building on the corner of Gosport Street and North Close and it is hoped that that will be in keeping but that will be a marker to any further development in Gosport Street as to whether it is successful or not.

 

Canon Street has of course the Jewson Yard as a potential for development and of course it is unnecessary to have a builder’s yard like that so close to the shopping area because it would normally be accessed by vehicles rather than pedestrians.

 

On the north side of Canon Street there is an area no doubt to be susceptible to redevelopment consisting of a row of garages with gardens behind.  Any such development would no doubt reflect the old school (Mosbach Place) development which when looking up from Canon Street is still excessively high at its west end, although the east end frontage is attractive and redolent of a 1930s style development.  That design could be reflected in any development on the corner of Canon Street and North Close.

 

The Tesco’s car park area relates to the High Street and should only be redeveloped for car park purposes in some format but such redevelopment will be dependent on the overall parking issues within the town.

 

Turning into North Close, a most attractive development is the library set, as it is, back into higher ground.

 

The Edwardian houses in the part of North Close running down to Gosport Street are very attractive and their distinctiveness in the environment must be protected, and this to a certain extent has been achieved by the new single storey units on the North East end of the street which could have been slightly more imaginative.

 

Moving down Bridge Street, the same comment as to the redevelopment of the industrial side apply as applied in Gosport Street, although development could be much more setback given the area of openness to reflect the existing housing on the other side.

 

Moving beyond the level crossing is the stand alone planning issue of the Webb Site which hopefully will now achieve its distinctiveness in the low density housing and riverside frontage now anticipated for that site and will not be completely separated from Lymington so that residents can access Lymington by way of a pedestrian accessway.  It is also important that the frontage to the river is attractive as it is viewed so much from the road on the Walhampton side, and the design of the new development on the Webb Site needs to take this into account and it will no doubt be attractive for the occupiers of the new houses to have a frontage view over the River.

 

Waterloo Road has its special distinctiveness in being mixed attractive housing close to or exactly fronting the road in parts.  The Green Marine factory is an unknown quantity and it will be a political decision as to whether that will be replaced by housing or industrial units if redeveloped.

 

The feature of the road is the redevelopment of the old garage site with houses, albeit high but reflecting a river frontage feel of wharfs, which have succeeded without over dominating the remainder of the street and in particular Station Road.

 

Station Road development is now complete with those houses and is again attractive with its uniform terraced housing down both sides.  A similar situation applies in Mill Lane where the redevelopment is complete with the new Britannia Place.

 

The Quayside Marine being a riverside industry presumably will be a permanent fixture.

 

Going up East Hill there are attractive cottages at the lower end on the south side with local authority housing fairly close on the north side which will no doubt not be changed.

 

Back from East Hill is also the, presumably local authority, housing on the south side East of North Street.

 

There is a bungalow, Maycross, on East Hill which with the adjoining bungalow on the corner ofBroomfield Lane could lead to redevelopment.  Apart from the Old Masters House of the infirmary there would be no houses overlooking and there is no sense of a street identity here, which would be in fact created by new development which can be left to the creativity of an architect.

 

The Infirmary is an interesting redevelopment in the new Union Place.  The Infirmary of necessity was made into flats to preserve it and this has been achieved.  The new houses surrounding it are functional if unimaginative and reflect affordable accommodation.  The retention of the Masters House has been a master stroke in its aspect from the West and the East although the replacement of the brickwork of the western extension will blend in hopefully over time. The retention of the Masters House has avoided the isolation of the Infirmary building and put it in context.

 

The retention of the Infirmary wall and the Masters house wall in the East hill is attractive.

 

 

 

New Street now features the Hillcroft Close redevelopment which reflects the original Hillcroftbuilding and provides its own community and distinctiveness.  This will presumably be reflected by redevelopment of the Local Authority home on the other side of New Street.  However that development should not be as high as Hillcroft because of the fact that the ground is higher there and all it would overshadow everything else.

 

The remainder of New Street to has achieved its own distinctiveness of large houses either used as office or residential which sit well.

 

Madrissa Court and New Court House stand out as unfortunate additions and if they became time expired their redevelopment would be beneficial.  In fact Madrissa Court is probably the only example of conventional 60s flatted developments in the town and possibly through that horrific example the town has been saved for from similar development, until the recent permissions for dense development made to look like houses.

 

The McCarthy development of Rapunzel’s Tower is a grotesque confection of cones and peaks — and troughs — overshadowing the vernacular of the Borough Arms and small buildings adjoining.  The worst aspect of it is the Lower Buckland Road aspect where it creates a “Wall Street” effect against the other side of the road including, even the Archgate development.  It has made a mockery of the Borough Arms and the adjoining house which appears to be unsaleable.  Whether this will be significantly improved by the reduction in the height, now going through, remains to be seen.

 

The complete inappropriateness of the McCarthy development is clear from Union Place where the peaked roofs look like dragons teeth towering over the smaller houses of Lower Buckland Road.

 

There are bungalows opposite the McCarthy development on the south side of Avenue Road which will obviously lend themselves to re-development.  Lessons must be learnt and any redevelopment there should be two-storey houses preferably having a street frontage to give the street and an identity to reflect the frontages of the larger houses on the other side for the remainder of the central part of Avenue Road.

 

Those houses give the street a pleasing and open aspect but still retain an integrity and uniformity.  If necessary the two bungalows opposite the town hall exit could be redeveloped to two-storey houses.

 

Plantation Court may well be redeveloped in time but should be redeveloped to reflect the two-storey houses and not reflecting Cavendish Place which is just too overbearing.  When viewed from all sidesCavendish House resembles a beached ocean liner.  Using the example of the recent new houses at the northern end of Southampton Road, a similar density could have probably been achieved on this site without the need for such a huge block.

 

Looking across to the other side of the street is the building one might expect to see on Ocean Boulevard Miami, completely unconnected with any other building in the town and indeed unconnected with Cavendish Place.

 

The new houses adjoining Cavendish House are acceptable but look fairly blank and austere from the rear.

 

We have now reached the position of the new permitted development on the corner of the traffic lights setting a local distinctiveness now to be achieved as overwhelmingly of flatted dense developments in this area.  All that can be suggested is that the distinctiveness of this area is limited to its current boundaries and whilst it is a distinctive area of flatted developments it should not be extended any further and it can be treated during this generation of least as a lesson to those planners and planning inspectors who passed those buildings, particularly the McCarthy development at Lower Buckland Road

 

There is therefore a comparison of the local distinctiveness of this area of the North West end of Avenue Road to be set against any other area of Lymington to show that no other area of Lymington should have its existing local distinctiveness converted into this formula.

 

Some areas had been missed, notably Lower Buckland Road and Hollywood Lane — I only took one tape — and also other areas off the main roads

 

Lymington Society Urges NFDC Rethink on Wetherspoons Decision

Lymington Society Urges NFDC Rethink on Wetherspoons Decision Following Legal Advice

The Society very much welcomes investment and jobs coming to the Town at this difficult time.  However following the approval of the revised planning application by Wetherspoons for change of use of 47 and 48 St Thomas’ Street to a public house in the building immediately adjacent to the parish church, the Lymington Society has received many expressions of concern both from its members and non-members alike.

Concern has been raised that the meeting at which the decision was taken did not fully consider the valid planning reasons for which the Council had earlier refused a near-identical application. Nor did it fully consider the Environmental Health Officer’s report concluding that the proposed change of use would result in a substantial loss of amenity for nearby residents, or take account of the unanimous opposition of the Town’s elected Councillors, or of the unprecedented number of objections registered during the consultation stage.

These concerns have now led to the Society taking advice as to the legality of the decision which has been made.

That advice is that the majority decision made by the Development Control Committee, is legally flawed because the decision did not take account of the earlier unanimous decision to refuse the application.

The Society has now written to the NFDC urging them to set aside the previous decision and to re-assess the application afresh taking full regard for the valid planning reasons set out both in the previous decision and in the Planning Officer’s recommendation for refusal.

The Society and those who oppose the application, believe that a further meeting would give Councillors a fresh opportunity to take into account the strong views of the Town against the proposal. In addition it would give them the chance to take further note of the unanimous refusal of the earlier application and recommendation of the Planning Officers for refusal together with the additional report of the Environmental Health Officer who also recommended refusal.

The Society hopes that those Councillors from outside the town who voted in favour of it, against the opinion of Lymington’s elected representatives from both the Town and the District Council, will reconsider their position or at least abstain, to allow Lymington to have a fair chance of making its own decision as to the introduction of a large “destination” public house in a location which so many people feel is the wrong place.

Speaking on behalf of the society, its chairman Clive Sutton said:

The Lymington Society is concerned that the decision of the Development Control Committee to approve the planning application by Wetherspoons for change of use of 47 and 48 St Thomas’ Street was taken on the basis of sentiment regarding the company concerned, rather than on the extremely important local planning issues at stake and against the recommendation of the Town’s elected representatives. 

In addition the Committee failed to properly take account of its previous unanimous refusal for a virtually identical application, or to give sufficient regard to the Environmental Health Officer’s recommendation for refusal due to the “substantial loss of amenity” likely to be suffered  by nearby residents.

The Lymington Society, which is often described as a watchdog on environmental and planning issues, feels that it has a duty to ensure that the decision on the change of use application is fairly arrived at by the Development Control Committee and that the concerns of the Lymington Councillors who had taken the trouble to vote against this proposal on a democratic basis, together with the over 900 people who had written letters of objection, have been properly taken into account. 

The Society’s clear advice is that the decision by the Development Control Committee is legally flawed as it failed to properly consider their previous unanimous refusal for a nearly identical application and that a legal challenge to the decision could be successfully mounted.  This advice confirms the feelings of many who attended the meeting that it was not conducted fairly.

We are therefore urging the NFDC to set aside this legally flawed decision and to allow the Development Control Committee to debate this proposal again.

A new meeting should this time take full account of all the important policy issues which led to the previous unanimous refusal, together with the concerns raised in the Environmental Health Officer’s report arising from the severe impact of the change of use on nearby residents in St Thomas’s Park.

Lymington Society Welcomes Decision to Recommend Refusal for Wetherspoon’s

Press Release

Lymington Society Welcomes Decision to Recommend Refusal for Wetherspoon’s

The Lymington Society has today welcomed the decision by the NFDC Planning Officers to recommend refusal for the application byWetherspoon’s to turn the former Ford furniture shop into a an extremely large “destination” public house. We will be writing to NFDC Councillors on the Development Control Committee asking them to accept this recommendation and to continue to oppose this extremely inappropriate development.

The Society previously opposed this application when it came before the NFDC Development Control Committee earlier this year and was pleased that the NFDC Councillors unanimously rejected the application at that time. The company have now reapplied and this time have provided a wealth of information on their new proposal enabling the Society to look afresh at the application. From this new information it is clear that the Society’s decision to oppose this unsuitable development was the correct one.

Speaking after the publication of the NFDC recommendation for refusal Lymington Society’s Press Spokesman Don Mackenzie said: ,

The Lymington Society welcomes investment coming into the town which will benefit the community and provide jobs and services which the community needs. However any investment must be appropriate and not threaten the character of the town – as this proposal clearly does.

From the new details it is now clear that Wetherspoon’s are proposing a massive development which will dwarf any similar public house in the area, and which will almost certainly put some, if not many establishments in Lymington, out of business.

Whilst welcoming any reasonable development which brings jobs and prosperity to the town, the Society remains deeply opposed to permission being given to such a huge “destination” public house in such an unsuitable location in the historic main thoroughfare of Lymington.

The chosen location, cheek by jowl with the historic St Thomas’s Church and with the parish graveyard bordering the very walls of the building, is simply not suitable for a massive drinking establishment of this type.

The inevitability of public order problems from the up to 200 drinkers who Wetherspoon’s envisage being accommodated, together with the noise nuisance to the many people living within earshot of the building, means that the Society feels it must oppose this highly unsuitable development which inevitably will have harmful effects on the character of the area in the years ahead.

The Society hopes that the NFDC Councillors listen to the unprecedented number of over 900 objectors and accepts the Officer’s recommendation to refuse this application.

The Society’s view of the Localism Bill

Reform to make the planning system  clearer, more democratic and more effective

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 fought over.

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.

Reassessment of Whetherspoon’s Application 96974

Reassessment of Application 96974

In the comment and correspondence which has followed the above application, the view has been heard that it is a re-submission of its forerunner 95473 and that in assessing it the LPA is obliged to confine itself to the reasons for refusing the earlier application.  The purpose of this comment is to challenge that view.

The second reason for refusing the first application, 95473, was:

2. On the basis of the limited details submitted regarding the visual impact and impact through noise and disturbance caused by physical changes which would be required  .  .  the Council is unable to be satisfied that the changes would not have a detrimental impact on interests of acknowledged importance.

These words make clear that what was not known could not be assessed.   The following paragraphs contrast the information supplied by the two application forms and design statements.   The second application (96974) contains much factual information which the first lacked, and so allows for the first time an assessment of the scale and consequences of what is proposed.

Application Forms.   Comparison of the application forms shows that the only difference is in the proposed hours of opening:

Application number

95473

96974

total site area

1420.1 sq m

1420.1 sq m

net indoor trading area

delete 474.8 sq m

delete 474.8 sq m

drinking establishment

add 474.8 sq m

add 474.8 sq m

restaurants and cafes

add 0 sq m

add 0 sq m

existing parking spaces

0

0

proposed parking spaces

0

0

existing employees

0

0

proposed employees

0

0

hours of opening

not known

Monday-Friday:  07:00 to 23:30Saturday:             07:00 to 00:30Sunday:               07:00 to 23:30

Bank Holidays:   07:00 to 00:30

Do the plans incorporate areas to store and aid the collection of waste?

no

no
Have arrangements been made for the separate storage and collection of recyclable waste?

no

no

Design Statements.    The D & A Statement accompanying application 95473 is just 287 words long.   The 98 words describing the proposal were:

AMOUNT OF DEVELOPMENT  There will be minor revision to the internal layout and the installation of a disabled platform hoist, goods hoist and disabled WC. A new kitchen, storage areas, and new bar will be installed.   New customer toilets will be created on the first floor.

 

LAYOUT  As described above, minor changes are planned to the internal layout only.

 

SCALE  No changes are planned which will affect the scale of the building overall.

 

LANDSCAPING  The existing neglected and overgrown rear walled garden area will be cleared and used as a new beer garden associated with the public house.

The Planning Statement accompanying the current application is by contrast 38 pages long and sets out specifically to provide additional information:

.  .  There is an opportunity to resolve locally the issues which led to the initial refusal, primarily by submitting further information and technical documents enabling a fully informed and balanced judgement to be made.

It includes the following:

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.   This statement contradicts the “proposed employees” question in the application form, and allows the very substantial scale of the proposal to be seen for the first time.

The proposal is to provide food and drink (both alcoholic and non-alcoholic) to customers throughout the day. The layout allows for 26 tables and 114 seats plus standing customers. Only the ground floor and rear terrace are to be used for eating and drinking, with the toilets and office accommodation on the first floor. A further 12 tables and 48 seats are proposed for the rear terrace. Furniture will remain in situ at all times and will not be removed to allow greater vertical drinking occupancy at peak times.   This new information gives a further measure of the scale of the proposed operation.   The 114 seats are all indoors;  another 48 are shown at tables on the proposed rear terrace, making 162 in all, plus “vertical drinking occupancy” space which in the applicants’ own verbal estimate could see up to 200 customers on the premises at one time.

J D Wetherspoon outlets are not just “pubs” in the conventional sense; they offer a wide range of food and non-alcoholic beverages, food is available from opening until 22:00 every day.   Because of its likely customer base and location, we would anticipate that food sales at the premises will comprise 45% to 50% of total sales by value.  .  .  The proposed opening hours are between the hours of 07:00 for breakfast with alcohol sales from 09:00, closing at 23:30 Sundays to Thursdays, and 00:30 Fridays and Saturdays.   Hours for the sale of alcohol   .  .  would normally commence at 09:00 and cease 30 minutes before the close of the premises to allow a gradual dispersal of any remaining customers.  The applicant is at pains to emphasise the proportion of non-alcohol sales.   But these sit uncomfortably against the  claim in both application forms that 100% of the trading space will be assigned to the A4 purpose of a drinking establishment, and must be seen in the context of the proposed opening hours and the very substantial turnover (conservatively estimated at more than £2 million annually) implied by the number of promised jobs.   Furthermore, for the last 1½ or 2½ hours of every day food will not be available.

There will be no on-site parking provision for cars or other motor vehicles.   Customers and staff travelling by car will be expected to use the town centre’s public car parks or park on street, where permitted.  .  .  The situation remains as at present, with these retail premises being serviced from the street.   This is normal in Lymington and most town centres.  There has been no objection from the highway authority and there is no reason to assume that there will be any abnormal risks created by the proposed change of use.  .  .  All deliveries will take place from St Thomas St, as they do now to the existing retail premises.  .  .  As with deliveries, all collections of refuse and material for recycling will be carried out from from St Thomas Street  .  .  .   These extracts conflict oddly with the information supplied in both applications in answer to the question “Do the plans incorporate areas to store and aid the collection of waste?”   Judged on the scale set by the number of jobs to be created, there is, as has been pointed out in many of the 883 objections so far lodged against the application, good reason for supposing that the proposed change of use will pose “abnormal risks” as a consequence of increased road traffic.   The dismissal of such risk by the Highway Authority appears complacent, while the same authority’s claim that “traffic is not a planning matter” is contradicted by PPG 13, on which an Inspector relied in February 2011 as the sole ground for dismissing an appeal by the same applicant against refusal of a similar change of use application in Beverley.

An acoustic survey has been undertaken  .  .  This shows that neighbouring residents (including those in the care home opposite) and users of other property nearby should not experience any undue noise from plant and equipment used on the premises or from the use of the designated terrace area by customers.   While this new information is welcome, it has been pointed out by objectors that it is open to challenge on several grounds, particularly as it does not concern itself with noise created off the premises by movement of people and motor vehicles.

Conclusion.   Application 96974 can not be regarded as a resubmission of the refused 95473 which, as recorded in the reasons for its refusal, was notably deficient in essential information.   The new application makes possible for the first time an understanding of the scale and scope of what is proposed, and assessment of it must examine every relevant factor, many of which are revealed by its supporting documents for the first time.

J D Wetherspoon’s Latest Application – The Society’s View

The national pub chain J D Wetherspoon has renewed its application to change the planning status of Ford’s furniture shop from “retail use” to “drinking establishment”.   The new application (96974) is a repeat of the earlier application (95473), augmented by more detailed information responding to the concerns which led to the Council’s earlier refusal in September 2010.

The Development Control Committee refused the earlier Application (95473) because:

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.”

In framing the reasons for its decision, The Development Control Committee added:

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.”

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 impact on, and 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 new application includes a promise to create 50 new jobs in Lymington, some of them part-time (the “full-time equivalent” would be 28) which suggests an annual sales target of around £2.3 million or £6,300 every day of the year, half of which would be sales of alcohol   This sales projection is consistent with the large floor area of the premises and 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.   To achieve the expected level of sales would need several hundred customers to visit the premises every day, many of them in the evening.   The plans include table seating for upwards of 150 people, plus generous standing room

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 served by 21 hotels, pubs, restaurants and coffee houses spread along its length are such that their impact would be felt throughout the town.

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, so altering the balance and vitality of the High Street and 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 NFDC gave for refusal of application 95473 and in particular threatening the tranquillity of the Church precinct.   The noise and hubbub inseparable from such traffic, which would continue for up to 18 hours a day and reach its peak in the “quiet” evening hours, would be external to the premises and so beyond the control of the applicant.

This is a massive project which has generated strong feelings on both sides, and whatever their views it is important that as many as possible of the town’s residents make them known before a decision is made.   To do so, you can either visit the NFDC planning website at

http://web3.newforest.gov.uk/planningonline/acolnetcgi.gov?ACTION=UNWRAP&RIPNAME=Root.PgeResultDetail&TheSystemkey=174943

or write to: Mr David Groom, Development Control Manager, Planning and Transportation, New Forest District Council, Appletree Court, Lyndhurst SO43 7PA

 

Whetherspoon’s: The Society’s objection

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.