Letter to Lymington Harbour Commissioners

Posted on by
Reply

Mr P. Griffiths

Chairman

Lymington Harbour Commissioners

25 February 2009

Dear Mr Griffiths

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yours sincerely

Clive Sutton Lymington Society Chairman.

Ferry River Trials

Posted on by
Reply

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

An overview of planning in Lymington

Posted on by
Reply

AN OVERVIEW OF PLANNING IN LYMINGTON
by Jonathan Huthchinson

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Several points stand out from a study of the list:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are three possible defences against the threat:

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

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

c.   Extension of the Conservation Zone

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

Lymington and Pennington

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jonathan Hutchinson

15 December 2008

Overview of Planning on Lymington

Posted on by
Reply

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

AN OVERVIEW OF PLANNING IN LYMINGTON
by Jonathan Huthchinson

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Several points stand out from a study of the list:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are three possible defences against the threat:

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

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

c.   Extension of the Conservation Zone

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

Lymington and Pennington

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jonathan Hutchinson

15 December 2008

 

Desmond Swayne Questions in the House

Posted on by
Reply

19 Nov 2008 : Column 334

Lymington River

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Mr. Frank Roy.]

6.58 pm

Mr. Desmond Swayne (New Forest, West) (Con): Through you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank Mr. Speaker for allowing me this opportunity to bring the question of the Lymington river to the attention of the House almost a year after I first raised it. Complex technical and legal matters are involved, so to dispose of the business in the time available, there will have to be a measure of simplification.

The mouth of the Lymington river is bounded by the Solent marine conservation area, as designated by the habitats directive. The New Forest district council coastal protection team believes that, at the current rate of erosion, the salt marshes that constitute the special conservation area will not survive another generation. In 1991, HR Wallingford was commissioned by the Lymington harbour authority to investigate the erosion consequent on the existing Wightlink ferry service between Lymington and Yarmouth. The company reported the extent of the erosion and predicted that it would continue, as has now transpired. The erosion had been noticed at the time by the then harbour master, and I mention in passing that it strikes me as extraordinary that the regulators were prepared to live with that, rather than take action to deal with it.

Leaving that aside, a new horror has now arisen. Wightlink is to replace the two ferries of the existing service with three, much bigger ones. The new ferries—

It being Seven o’clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Mr. Blizzard.]

Mr. Swayne: The new ferries have almost 76 per cent. more water displacement, and the jet thrusters used to propel them have almost 200 per cent. more horsepower thrust. Those jet thrusters—quite different from the conventional screw propulsion systems—are largely directed at the bed of the river, gouging it up and leaving the spoil to have to be dredged and dumped out by the Needles. In addition, they have 84 per cent. more windage. Windage is a complicated term, but essentially it means that for a significant amount of the time, those thrusters are pointed directly at the banks of the salt marshes, leading to a much faster rate of erosion.

To implement the new ferries, Wightlink believed that shore works would be required so that they could be berthed and loaded. A planning application therefore had to be made, and that application will be determined by New Forest district council and the Marine and Fisheries Agency. Those bodies will be guided in their determination by Natural England, based on whether there will be any adverse impact on the special area of conservation. The Marine and Fisheries Agency decided that an appropriate assessment must take place to establish whether there will be an adverse impact.

Mr. Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con): Does my hon. Friend not accept that, owing to open port duty regulations, the only reason that would prevent Wightlink from using the new ferries on the Lymington river is
19 Nov 2008 : Column 335
that they are unsafe? Despite extensive sea trials and investigations, no evidence has been produced to suggest that they are, or that there are any substantive environmental impacts.

Mr. Swayne: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, although I disagree with that analysis. I shall explain why shortly.

I made it clear from the start that, for a number of reasons, I was not satisfied with the appropriate assessment. First, it excludes from the equation important areas of policy that will be affected, not least the leisure yachting industry in Lymington, which has a huge impact on the economy of Lymington, and the implications for traffic through the New Forest national park consequent on the greater capacity of the new ferries. In addition, under the appropriate assessment, there would be no public consultation.

The collection of data for the appropriate assessment is being carried out by the consultants BMT SeaTech, under the supervision of the Lymington harbour commission in its attempt to design the safety parameters in which the ferries can operate. However, hydraulic measurements to establish safety are wholly different from the hydraulic measurements that are needed to establish whether there is an adverse environmental impact. I was never persuaded that the right measurements would be taken, never mind how those measurements would be interpreted.

My third reason for being suspicious of the appropriate assessment arises from the way in which Natural England decided to interpret the regulations. It seems to me that Natural England is measuring “adverse impact” as incremental, additional damage—the extra damage of the new ferries, over and above that caused by the existing ferries. That runs counter to both the spirit and the letter of the regulations. The existing ferry service is accountable to article 2.2 of the habitats directive, which requires maintenance and restoration of a favourable conservation environment. I do not believe that that is happening, although it is supposed to be happening now, while the existing ferry service is in place.

The new ferries constitute a plan or project under regulation 48 of the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994. As such, they need to be judged in their own terms, and not against the old ferries, which do not constitute part of that plan or project. As far as I am aware, the old ferries have a long life ahead of them—at least another 13 years. For all those reasons, I believe that a full environmental impact assessment is a better way forward than an appropriate assessment. In that, I am supported by New Forest district council, the elected local authority.

I thank the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) for at least keeping the door open to the possibility of an environmental impact assessment. In his written answer to me of 13 October, he said that

“a number of related environmental issues need to be considered, potentially with an environmental impact assessment.”—[ Official Report, 13 October 2008; Vol. 480, c. 938W.]

The Minister has left the door ajar; I want him to open it and go through it, because the situation has changed
19 Nov 2008 : Column 336
dramatically. On Monday, the Lymington harbour commissioners were informed by Wightlink that it no longer requires the shore works to which the appropriate assessment was attached. Furthermore, it has judged that the ferries are safe to operate, notwithstanding the fact that Lymington harbour commissioners are still conducting the sea trials. Wightlink has therefore unilaterally declared that it will implement the new service in December, without asking permission from anyone.

Mr. Turner: That is what my hon. Friend does not seem to understand; Wightlink is entitled to do so. It is entitled to use the river whenever it wishes.

Mr. Swayne: I understand that; I just happen to disagree with it, as will now unfold. Wightlink will pursue the option that I mentioned without seeking permission from anyone. I ask the Minister to perform two actions. First, will he make contact with his ministerial colleagues in the Department for Transport to establish fully the legality of what Wightlink is proposing to do, and what the powers of the Lymington harbour commissioners are? If they do not have the power to overrule Wightlink, there does not seem much point in having harbour commissioners.

To come back to a piece of legislation to which my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) drew my attention, my understanding is that Wightlink believes that its absolute right to use the ports is consequent on the Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act 1847. The Act was put in place to ensure that shipping could continue to trade after the great storms that had washed away so many of our harbours. Ships had moved further up river because of the disappearance of the harbours, and many people were denying the ships access.

I have been briefed on legal advice to the effect that under the existing ferry arrangements, Wightlink is responsible for some 22,500 ferry movements a year, which stands well outside the parameters of the 1847 Act. If Ministers were prepared to take the matter to court, the Act would be overturned in respect of the port of Lymington, as it has been for other ports, under existing case law. That is the first action that I ask the Minister to take.

The second action is on the environmental impact assessment. Now that the appropriate assessment option seems to have disappeared, I should like him to initiate a full environmental impact assessment. Notwithstanding the fact that there are now to be no shore works, I have no doubt that the option of the environmental impact assessment remains with him, because Natural England’s advice—based on the legal advice that it was given—was that Wightlink proposes a plan or a project, and the European Commission is clear in its advice about the interpretation of the habitats directive. It says:

“The term ‘project’ should be given a broad interpretation to include both the construction works and other interventions in the natural environment”,

of which this is most definitely one.

I am not anti-ferry, and I want there to be a thriving ferry service between the ports of Lymington and Yarmouth, because it is vital to my constituents and to those of my hon. Friend. But a lot of fear has been floating about, and people have been saying that Wightlink has made it known that it does not intend to renew the safety licences of the existing ferries after next spring—in other words, Wightlink has said, “There won’t be a ferry service unless you accept these new ferries.” It has
19 Nov 2008 : Column 337
now gone further, effectively saying, “It doesn’t matter what you do; we’re going to implement the new ferries.”

The Lymington to Yarmouth route is a profitable monopoly. Wightlink has invested a significant sum in the project, and I just do not believe that there is any prospect of Wightlink walking away from it. I therefore believe that we should call its bluff. Wightlink is owned byMacquarie, which has form. It has gained the most aggressive reputation for the way in which—how can I put it charitably, Madam Deputy Speaker?—it pursues the interests of its shareholders with a singular vigour, and it is time for Ministers to call Macquarie to order.

I believe that, had there been a marine Bill, we would never have been in this position, and I hope that there will be a marine Bill in the Queen’s Speech, because it will certainly have my support. We do not have a marine Bill, and we will not get one in time for Lymington, but I believe that, under existing regulations, Ministers have the power to act, and I am here tonight to ask them to do so.

7.12 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Huw Irranca-Davies): I congratulate the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) both on the passionate and extensive way in which he has set out the case on behalf of his constituents, and on the way in which, since I have been a Minister, he has been persistent, consistent and diligent on behalf of his constituents on a wide range of related issues. As he said, he is not necessarily anti-ferry, but he wants a proportionate way forward, and to deal with very significant issues regarding the potential environmental impact.

The debate is very timely because of the issues that the hon. Gentleman has raised, and because of developments that I shall come on to. By the end of my contribution, I hope to have dealt with all his points and given clear and categorical assurances about what we consider to be the way forward to reach the right outcome not only on the environmental issues, which are close to the hon. Gentleman’s heart, to those who have worked locally with him, and to my heart, because it is a very beautiful and precious part of the world, but on the economic and social interests that are linked to the ferry.

It may be helpful if, in part of my contribution, I set out how we have got to where we are and how we can take the matter forward. I shall also deal with some of the hon. Gentleman’s comments on how the issue has developed in literally the past 24 hours. That will also give me the opportunity to talk not only about the area but about the Government’s commitment to protecting our biodiversity—our variety of species and habitats. That is very close to the Government’s heart as well as to his.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned that the salt marshes and mudflats at the Lymington estuary are internationally designated as part of theSolent and Southampton Water special protection area for birds. They constitute a Ramsar site, and are part of the Solent maritime special area of conservation; they are also part of the national sites of special scientific interest series.

The harbour itself is part of a complex of sheltered, semi-natural estuaries in the Solent, supporting a diverse
19 Nov 2008 : Column 338
coastal ecology. The key features of international interest are extensive salt marshes, supporting plants such as sea lavender, sea blite and sea purslane. In addition, the extensive mudflats and sandflats support marine invertebrates that provide food for thousands of water fowl, which arrive each autumn to feed on the rich food supply of the sheltered inlets marking the Solent estuaries.

However, although, like the hon. Gentleman, we recognise the significance of the nature conservation interest, we, like him, are also aware of the socio-economic importance of Lymington harbour. We are therefore keen for there to be a balanced and sustainable solution to any problems facing the port. The harbour needs a solution that takes into account nature conservation, landscape, and archaeological and environmental issues, while securing the future of the recreational and commercial activities that sustain the local economy and enrich the lives of communities and visitors. We are keen to support such a solution.

On the habitats directive and requirements under regulations, I should say that development applications likely to affect European protected sites need to be assessed under the habitat regulations; there is a legal procedure associated with applications that may have a significant effect on a protected site. The procedure requires an “appropriate assessment” to be carried out by the consenting body or competent authority. In relation to the conservation objectives, that includes a detailed study of impacts, mitigation measures and an assessment of alternative solutions. When the assessment process suggests that there are no alternative solutions, but there may be adverse effects on the protected site, the development can go ahead only if it is judged that there are “imperative reasons of overriding public interest”, or IROPI, and if the member state—in this case, the UK—takes all compensatory measures necessary. That is some of the background.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned Wightlink. The development proposal affecting Lymington harbour is the subject of an application by Wightlink Ferries. It wants to operate larger ferries from Lymington harbour to Yarmouth, on the Isle of Wight. The enabling shoreside works require consent, and through the consent procedure the need for an appropriate assessment under the habitat regulations has been triggered. The hon. Gentleman has been aware of and involved in that issue. The appropriate assessment will include the effects of changing from the existing ferries to the new W-class vessels.

As the hon. Gentleman will understand, it would be inappropriate at this stage for me to comment in detail on the assessment or speculate on its likely outcome. Only after it has been completed will we have a complete picture of the likely effect on the protected sites of operating the larger ferries.

Mr. Swayne rose—

Huw Irranca-Davies: The hon. Gentleman may not want to intervene, as I will come in a moment to how the issue has developed.

I turn now to the science and the appropriate assessment. The competent authority has been in close contact with Natural England over the scientific work needed properly to assess the impact of the new ferries; as Minister, I have been keeping an eye on that issue. The competent authority has consulted Natural England on the different impact of the larger ferries. Without going into the
19 Nov 2008 : Column 339
details, I should say that the scientific work includes an initial assessment of whether the existing ferries appear to be having any detrimental effects, in order to assist in predicting whether the new ferry will cause additional such effects.

The assessment includes consideration of mapping evidence to assess changes to the navigational channel, consideration of sediment movement and a review of other natural and anthropogenic influences on the navigation channel. The work will also consider propulsion and ship wash modelling and other effects likely to result from the increased size of the new ferries.

Mr. Swayne: I do not complain that the Minister is dwelling on the appropriate assessment, as I did so myself. However, is he confident that the appropriate assessment will be completed? It is tied to the application for the shore works. Wightlink is now saying, “We don’t need the shore works and we’re going to start next month without them.”

Huw Irranca-Davies: The hon. Gentleman makes a valuable intervention. When I deal with the immediate issue before us, I will refer to the need to ensure that the timeliness of any decisions works for the balance of the environment and the economic considerations.

In terms of the assessment, the requirements of the habitat regulations will ensure that the adverse effects will be identified and mitigating measures explored. The current position is that the new ferries are undergoing sea trials under the management of the Lymington harbour commissioners. This work is primarily aimed at determining safe navigation and speeds, but valuable environmental information will also be gathered. It is hoped that the appropriate assessment will be concluded before Christmas. I am not in a position to give any guarantee on that, but I am watching the situation very closely. It is important to ensure that the assessment is sufficiently rigorous.

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would want me to record the valuable input of the Lymington River Association. Although opposed to the introduction of the larger ferries, it has, to be fair, entered into a constructive dialogue with Natural England about the scientific issues. Although it has not been possible to include all the science that it has proposed, Natural England has pursued some of its suggestions and is still considering others. I hope that this valuable dialogue will continue in future, and I know that the hon. Gentleman will encourage that. I understand that he has met officials from the statutory agency, Natural England, to go through the issues relating to the appropriate assessment. I sense from this debate that he may still have some reservations about the scope and timeliness of the scientific work, but I hope that this important dialogue will continue.

Let me turn now to the wider environmental issues to explain some of the background. I will come to the point about timeliness, but it is important to explain why we have got to this position and some of the ways forward. Several regulators have a role to play in a proposal for a new development, including, in this instance, the local authority, the local harbour commissioners and DEFRA’s Marine and Fisheries Agency—the MFA. The MFA was asked to license minor improvements to berths in Lymington harbour
19 Nov 2008 : Column 340
under the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985. It was not apparent when the original application for the works was submitted to the MFA that it could be part of a wider process facilitating the introduction of these new ferries. That information came to light only through subsequent discussions between regulators, the applicant and stakeholders. Since then, my Department, alongside the MFA, has continued to work with other Government Departments, the Government office for the south-east and regulators in order to address the issues that this complex case presents within the regulatory regime.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and his constituents for raising wider concerns over the possible effects, including possible traffic increases, the effects on local yachtsmen, and the environmental and economic impacts. However, I note that, as with many issues of this type, there are always at least two sides to every story. I understand that many people at the other end of the ferry route, in Yarmouth, feel that these ferries provide a lifeline for them to the mainland. Many of them rely on the service for access to health services, education and employment. We must also consider the important social and tourism aspects and the economic benefits to Lymington. Of course, the new ferries will comply with all modern safety and operational standards, so we need to ensure that our course of action is the right one.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the marine Bill. I will not go into great detail on that, but I think he is right to mention it, and we will welcome his support when it is introduced. We are looking forward to that. The Bill will bring in a new planning system allowing for the creation of a much more integrated regime for planning in the coastal zone—that is long overdue. It will also provide for the designation and protection of marine conservation zones. Together with European marine sites, MCZs will contribute to the UK’s achieving, first among the nations, an ecologically coherent network of marine protected areas. As the hon. Gentleman says, that may not be in time, despite our best wishes, but the marine Bill will have an impact in future.

I come now to the immediate issue before us. The proposal by Wightlink to introduce new ferries in the near future seems, on my first reflections, to be rather premature in the light of the ongoing assessments, and I would suggest that Wightlink might constructively like to reflect carefully before pursuing this course. Although I am not aware of anything unlawful in this proposal, Wightlink is a harbour authority as well as a commercial company, and although I accept that its existing ferries may no longer meet safety standards, and that it is waiting for a decision on its application for consent to the enabling shoreside works, I urge it to give due consideration to its responsibility for the environment.

The regulators need to consider carefully the full implications of any such action. There are general duties under the habitats regulations that require Lymington harbour commissioners to have regard to the requirements under the habitats directive when exercising their functions and the commissioners would need urgently to assess the position. Furthermore, it is of particular concern that the company is contemplating the introduction of new ferries on this route before the appropriate assessment under the habitats regulations has been completed. We are not talking about a big overlap of time in this case. Should the assessment, when completed, show that the operation of the new ferries would have an adverse
19 Nov 2008 : Column 341
effect on the integrity of the protected site, and that mitigation measures could not be agreed with Wightlink, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the other regulators would need to consider carefully, and as a matter of urgency, any regulatory powers they have or might need to exercise in order to fulfil the UK’s obligations under the habitats directive.

I should point out that my officials have already met the Department for Transport to discuss this case. I will instruct them as a matter of urgency to explore further with that Department and other regulators, including the harbour commissioners, the implications of any such action. I will consider carefully any existing regulatory powers that might need to exercised in order to fulfil the UK’s obligations under the habitats directive.

I will not step over the mark tonight and outline the exact course of action that I am likely to pursue, and I stress the balance between the social and economic needs of the ferry service and its responsibility, as a harbour commissioner, to the environment. After reading the transcript of this debate—the strong and powerful contribution of the hon. Member for New Forest, West, the intervention by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) and my comments—I hope that Wightlink will take its responsibilities seriously, consider the issue in the round and recognise that an appropriate assessment is under way, through which we are rapidly gathering the science to make an appropriate decision. I hope that, on that basis, we can find a way forward and that Wightlink hesitates before acting prematurely and rapidly introducing the larger ferries. I hope it recognises that, although it is a commercial operator, it has wider responsibilities.

I believe that there is a way forward. The debate has shown the complexity of regulation in the marine
19 Nov 2008 : Column 342
environment. I feel strongly that—curiously—the marine Bill is uniquely fitted in Europe to introduce a coherent and integrated regime, which has the buy-in from stakeholders at the earliest opportunity, and can consider such an eventuality in future.

In the meantime, there is a regulatory framework, and work is under way, in which the hon. Gentleman has not only been involved but pushed along diligently. That is the way we need to proceed. That would be my message to the constituents with whom the hon. Member for New Forest, West has worked, to those who rely in his constituency and that of the hon. Member for Isle of Wight on the important economic link that the ferry constitutes, and to the operator, who has an understandable desire to improve the service. I also ask them to take their responsibilities seriously and work with the agencies and regulators who are currently involved with making the appropriate assessment. We can then determine the further action that might need to be taken.

I thank the hon. Member for New Forest, West for raising the matter in a timely fashion and for the way in which he did so. I urge him to continue his close involvement with the issue and to keep communicating with the Department directly. I hope he is reassured that I, as a Minister, the Department and my officials are fully engaged in the matter and keeping a close eye on progress. We want to work with Wightlink and agencies in the area to ensure the right outcome, which balances priorities in a beautiful, diverse and environmentally important area of the coast.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Seven o’clock.

Chairman’s letter to Lymington Times 9th August 2008

Posted on by
Reply

Dear Sir,

Thank you for giving publicity to the efforts of the Lymington Society to ensure that all aspects of the introduction of the larger ferries by Wightlink into the Lymington Yarmouth service fully considered particularly by statutory bodies whose duty it is to report on these matters.

The Society is concerned to ensure that the matter is fairly considered and seen to be fairly considered. With this in mind it is unfortunate that when Wightlink received a preliminary report leading to a statutory appropriate assessment in connection with their planning application, and they provided quotes in your paper which gave the impression that this report gave the go-ahead for the new ferries without any further consideration by the statutory bodies concerned.

That statement was retracted in a subsequent edition of the paper but by then the seeds of doubt had been placed in the mind of the public that the decision has effectively been made.

It is unfortunate also that no discussion was allowed by the District Councillors about the question of an Environmental Impact Assessment in respect of the ferries because of the legal advice received by the Council that such an environmental impact assessment was not required. The Society are asking the Council to provide a copy of the advice given that it has led to a decision being made and a decision which has pre-empted further discussion of the matter in the Council.

Lastly it is unfortunate to read in your recent edition of the paper that the Harbour Commissioners are publicly considering their response to “rumours” that some people were planning to take action once Wightlink’s new larger W. class vessels are launched later this year. The fact that such a rumour is reported in a public meeting of the Commissioners so that it is his liable to be reported in your paper can only exacerbate any tensions which may arise as a result of the sea trials of these ferries when members of the society have heard no rumours to this effect.

The society hopes that the consultation processes can continue without inaccurate reporting of position by either side, a fair review of the legal position in relation to the environmental impact assessment and restraint by those in public positions in raising issues in relating to “rumours”.

Yours faithfully

Clive Sutton

Chairman’s Report for the AGM 2nd April 2008

Posted on by
Reply

Ladies and gentlemen. 

At the time of my dictating this report it is intended that it should be read for me by our new Life President, Peter Chitty, due to the fact that for professional reasons I need to be in Cyprus early on Thursday morning.  He will have given you his first opening welcome to the meeting in his own words in his new capacity as Life President.  Peter continues to attend some of our committee meetings and provides valuable continuity.  I am grateful to him for that.

I am sorry not to be able to be here tonight to hear Joanna Close Brook’s talk on Buckland Rings, with which she and I have been associated since 1987 through little-known Buckland Trust which ran the small museum at the Toll House Pub and was the blueprint for what I believe is now a leading local museum, the Lymington Museum.

I think I first gave my Chairman’s report for the AGM in 2002.  I do not think there was much to report in those days but there has been more and more to deal with over the years.  Major issues have been and in some cases continue to be:

  • The Webb Site and its public meeting;
  • The density of development under PPG 3;
  • The flats resulting from that policy and the public meeting resulting from that issue which led to the acceptance by the New Forest District Council of a petition from that meeting and an amendment to its policy;
  • The question of the Pinetops development;
  • The preservation of the Old Infirmary Masters house;
  • The demolition of the Canon Street School;
  • The recent issue of the ferries.

The last two issues of the Cannon Street School and the ferries are matters to be reported to you at this meeting.  In my Chairman’s report for the last AGM I reported that we had commenced Judicial Review proceedings against the New Forest District Council. 

The newsletter has recently come out and those of you who have been able to read through the report on the Cannon Street School issue will know that the summary is that in the course of our legal complaint against the Council it is our view that we exposed a flaw in the Council’s decision-making process and that in other circumstances the decision to demolish the school might not have been made.  Obviously, the clock could not be put back, and at that stage the school was being demolished and for us to proceed to a full hearing to prove a point would have been beyond our resources. 

We brought matters to a close on the basis of total barristers’ fees for both ourselves and a contribution to those of the Council totalling £3,406.  I have to take responsibility for the fact that this is more than I anticipated when we started the case. However, we left a position with the Council where we withdrew on mutually agreeable terms which did not leave us beholden to the Council in any way and I was thereby able to report the matter fully to you in the last newsletter.

The exercise has eaten into our resources and I hope that Peter Chitty as our ex-treasurer will forgive the fact that some of his hard earned reserves were used in this exercise.  However, I think the overall feeling of the Committee is that the exercise, although expensive, was worth it to show our commitment to take action where necessary in any circumstances that might arise in the future. 

Obviously, if we were to commit ourselves to anything other than modest expenditure we would need to start an appeal to cover ourselves for funds.  However, the point has been made, and given other similar circumstances we are prepared to take action to either challenge the Council or any statutory body, or if necessary support them, if such action is to be in the interests of our Members and Lymington’s residents, whose interests are not being properly taken into account.

Due to some quick thinking by Members of the Committee, the old Bell Tower from the school has been bought by the Society and is available to be installed at some appropriate location in the future. Any suggestions would be welcome.  Members will be able to see it if they visit Buckland Manor Garden on the visit scheduled in June.

It was proposed a year ago at the last Annual General Meeting that the annual subscription should be increased to £10.  I did not think it constitutionally appropriate to make an increase without prior notice at that meeting but that notice has now been given for this meeting and the proposal will be made to increase the subscription.  I believe there are some generous Members amongst us who pay an additional sum with their basic subscription and to them I express my thanks.

The other major issue is the ferries which had not raised its head at the last AGM.  In fact initially I wondered whether it was our role to get involved.  However it does come under the Society’s aims, possibly slightly stretched, but my major concern has been that, rightly or wrongly, it appeared to be a subject which was being swept under the carpet by the statutory bodies involved.  This led to third public meeting, and possibly the most successful of all given the numbers involved, and the opportunity that it gave to all parties involved to make their points known and to realise the strength of the concern in the Town about the ferries.

Members may wonder what our policy is in relation to the ferries at present.  Your Committee’s policy is to make sure that the issues surrounding the introduction of the new ferries were put into the public arena and that the decision-making processes of the relevant statutory bodies were carried out fairly.  Since our meeting, Desmond Swayne has had an adjournment debate in the House of Commons to which the Minister, Joan Ruddock, had to reply in detail.  He referred to our meeting as showing the strength of feeling in the Town. 

Wightlink have agreed to carry out the reports which they are being asked to carry out which currently is an Environmental Assessment for English Nature. The Harbour Commissioners have obtained a new report which I believe will be published shortly.  The issue of an Environmental Impact Assessment is still not resolved.  From my discussions with the Council I am aware that they are relying very much on their legal opinion as to this. 

I can say that in the interests of openness I have made a request to the NFDC for the disclosure of that legal opinion which they are dealing with under the Freedom of Information Act and will give a response to you in due course. Don MacKenzie has written letters to the statutory bodies asking for such a full assessment.

Whilst those processes are being properly carried out, with or without our pressure, then I believe our purpose is to remain objective and to await the outcome of those reports.  If the ultimate decisions appear to fly in the face of the reports and common sense then we may change our position to be more proactive in resisting the new larger ferries.  However, whilst many of our individual Members may have strong views against the ferries, whatever the ultimate reports and decisions, this Society’s policy, during my time as Chairman, has been to be objective and constructive and not to be a mouthpiece purely for individual views or interests. 

It is that policy I believe which has gained us the respect of the Authorities such as the NFDC in accepting our petition on flat developments in the Town and in now starting to take into account our views as an amenity Society in relation to major new developments.

An example of this has been the involvement by the NFDC in a meeting with ourselves and the Council Planning Officer and the Developer and other interested parties in the Pinetops development greenbelt issue, and to take preliminary views which may assist the owner of the site in making a further application that might be accepted by the various interests in the Lymington and Pennington.

That leads me on to our new relationship with the Pennington Residents Association.  We have informal co-operation with them in which one of three of their Committee Members regularly come to our Committee meetings.  This enables us to coordinate our ideas and representations.  I have to say that our thinking may not have been exactly the same over the Pinetops issue, but we have not fallen out, and I welcome their attendance at our meetings and I hope some or all of the Pennington Residents Association Members are here tonight.

That brings me on to your Committee.  I will not be here tonight to ensure their re-election en bloc but I hope I can rely on Peter Chitty and yourselves to ensure that that happens.  I have been a member and chairman of many voluntary committees both local and national over the past 30 years.  I have to say that I have never been on a Committee which has had so many diverse talents and where everyone is taking the strain evenly.  It is one of the few Committees I have experienced where as Chairman one does not have to concern oneself with all the issues, and can rely on others to be responsible.

You are asked to elect your Committee who will then elect or confirm their officers on the grounds that they think that those officers are the right people to do those tasks.  The current position is as follows.

Myself, Clive Sutton, as Chairman, and you will have to judge me tonight by what Peter Chitty has read you.

Ivor Johnston, as the Society’s Secretary.  He is the person who tidies up all the loose ends and reminds us what needs to be done so that the rest of us do not have to worry about it.  The Committee meeting Minutes and agreed follow-up correspondence are often on our e-mails from him almost before we have got home! An invaluable support for a Chairman.

Derek Sheffer, who is not here tonight, but as Membership Secretary has also taken on the role of Treasurer.  He has caught and held many new members and anyone who is prepared to take on the role of Treasurer to any committee needs effusive thanks from the Chairman.

Don Mackenzie, as press officer.  He is probably the most public face of the Committee and our publicly pro-active member and encourages other members in the newsletter, social events, speaks on planning matters and is proactive in many of our campaigns.  He will be leading a short discussion on one or two items of interest.

Nic King, who manages to field the planning applications and guide us through them.  I should have said that in addition to all the major issues the ongoing individual planning applications need to be considered, analysed, reported on, thought about and representations made.

Jonathan Hutchinson, recently on the Committee, who is backing Nick King in this onerous task.

Nigel Seth-Smith, who has very successfully taken on the task of Social Secretary and has dealt with the newsletter. He will be giving you a report.

Rose Tainsh, who came on the Committee because of her success in the Bath Road planning appeal and is always willing to help out where she can particularly with the newsletter delivery.

Joe Bloggs, who I hope will come forward to offer his or her services by coming along to a Committee meeting and seeing whether he or she likes us and fits in and can add something and then be formally elected at the next AGM, unless that Joe Bloggs feels like putting himself or herself forward at the meeting tonight.

I have laid it on a bit thick, and if anything have underplayed your Committee members merits, because I will not be here, and I want you all to know how hard, efficiently and effectively your Committee work for this Society.  I hope the Society is now thought of, and will continue to be thought of, as a hard-working, respected and responsible Amenity Society for the Town.

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for your support here tonight.

Clive Sutton

Chairman Lymington Society 

Public Meeting on new ferries

Posted on by
Reply

The Society hosted a public meeting last night, Nov 1st 2007, at the Community Centre, to enable public debate about Wightlink’s proposed new ferries. All interested parties were invited to attend, with assurances from Society chairman Clive Sutton that they would have a fair opportunity to state their case.

We expected a good turn out, and were pleased to be able to use the new Hall at the community Centre, which has accommodation for 200. However, we were rather overwhelmed by the numbers, as well over 300 people attended the meeting. At least a half of the audience were standing, and the sound system struggled to manage. Evidence that the topic is an important one to the town, and that the Society’s role is very much appreciated.

The Meeting

The meeting opened with a welcome and introduction from Clive.

This was followed by a presentation of the Main issues by Society Press Spokesman Donald Mackenzie, in which he presented the history of events leading up to the meeting.

Andrew Willson, Managing Director of Wightlink, then presented the reasoning behind the need for, and choice of, the new R Class ferries.

Peter Griffiths, the Chairman of the Harbour Commission, discussed the makeup and responsibilities of the Harbour Commission, and their involvement to date with this issue. He also took the opportunity to aprise the Lymington community of the threat to the salt marshes, and to appeal for help with this serious situation.

Geoff Holmes, the Commodore of the Royal Lymington Yacht Club, then spoke, giving the Club’s position, and relating how it has become increasingly concerned over the potential impact of the new larger ferries.

There followed presentations from personal speakers. These were concerned users of the river, with personal expertise and experience.

Chris Baldwick Boats, Moorings, etc
Roger Wilson Junior Sailing
Michael Derrick Displacement
Dr Ken Hay Windage, Horsepower and Damage to Riverbanks
Derf Paton Environment
Mike Beggs Traffic, Transport and Freight
Dr Tom McEwen General Concerns
Mark Malanaphy General Concerns

Dr Mackenzie, Andrew Willson, Peter Griffiths and Geoff Holmes were then invited onto the stage, and the audience put questions to them. The final hour or so of the meeting consisted of questions from the audience. It was evident that the ferry service is much valued, and that the skill and good nature of the ferry crews is much appreciated, but the community is nevertheless very concerned about the impact of the new ferries, and is unhappy about the procedures to date. Several times the question was asked “How can it have come to this point?”

Desmond Swayne MP expressed the thoughts of many present when he asked why Natural England had declined their invitation to attend. Many feel that they are the Government body with authority to take the necessary steps to protect the delicate marine environment.

The meeting closed at just after 10:00 pm. The chairman thanked all of the participants, and expressed his appreciation to all attending, particularly as over 150 people had been standing throughout. The meeting had a spot on the BBC local news at 10:30.

The meeting was recorded, and we will be posting a transcript on this website when it is available. There was an enormous amount of useful detail in the presentations and Q and A session.

For a Transcript of the Meeting Click Here

This transcript is a close to verbatim as we can manage. During the question and answer period, the secretary made notes and these can be seen Here. These included questions asked after the transcript tape ran out, so they are NOT verbatim.

LATEST: Solent Protection Society Drops Support for New Ferries – Watchdog’s ferry U-turn

80 members attended the Solent Protection Society’s AGM on Monday. At the end of the meeting the Society resolved to register its objection… pending the completion of the relevant competent assessments, prior to them entering into service. Society Spokesman Susan Preston Davis told the A&T : ” In the light of additional information recently made public by Wightlink and in the Adjournment Debate in the House of Commons on Nov 27th, the society has decided to oppose the ferries pending the analysis of the assessments commissioned by the Lymington Harbour Commissioners.” Society Chairman Shelagh de Carteret Evans added “Whilst appreciating the need for new ferries, we are concerned at the potential impact of the proposed new ferries, and have contacted Wightlink and the Lymington Harbour Commissioners to register our objection. We will be carefully monitoring the outcome of the relevant assessments.”

Friday 2nd Nov: Wightlink orders third new ferry for Yarmouth route.

Isle of Wight ferry company Wightlink has confirmed that it has placed an order for a third new ferry for its Lymington to Yarmouth route, despite a public outcry about the size of the new ships. The news comes the day after a public meeting in Lymington which was called because of the high level of anger in the town at the introduction of the new ferries, currently being built in Croatia, which displace almost twice as much water as the existing vessels. Campaigners claim that the new 1,496-ton ships will damage the environment of the Lymington River with its reed beds and salt marshes and will be a hazard to other vessels. Some sailing activities from the Royal Lymington Yacht Club are also said to be under threat.

Southampton Echo: Friday 2nd Nov: FERRY operator Wightlink has pledged to establish new guidelines for the two larger boats it controversially plans to introduce to Lymington River next year. Speaking at a packed public meeting last night, chief executive Andrew Willson said that he will use a new risk assessment – ordered by the Lymington Harbour Commissioners – to establish rules for his ferries. He made the promise as the two sides in the fiery debate over the larger ferries met for the first time at a meeting attended by more than 250 people. Wightlink made assurances about the ferries’ necessity and low impact but other users of Lymington River made calls for further assessments. Fears of more water displacement and damage to the salt marshes were top of opponents’ worries. Mr Willson said: “The way forward is for the harbour commissioners to undertake a further risk assessment. We will use the results and conduct trials to determine appropriate guidelines for the ferries.” advertisement From next summer, Wightlink plans to replace two ferries on its Lymington to Yarmouth service. The new £10m vessels, each weighing 1,495 tons compared to the current 850 tons, will displace almost twice as much water.

Public Meeting on Wightlink ferry proposals November 1st 2007

Posted on by
Reply

The Society hosted a public meeting last night, Nov 1st 2007, at the Community Centre, to enable public debate about Wightlink’s proposed new ferries. All interested parties were invited to attend, with assurances from Society chairman Clive Sutton that they would have a fair opportunity to state their case.

We expected a good turn out, and were pleased to be able to use the new Hall at the community Centre, which has accommodation for 200. However, we were rather overwhelmed by the numbers, as well over 300 people attended the meeting. At least a half of the audience were standing, and the sound system struggled to manage. Evidence that the topic is an important one to the town, and that the Society’s role is very much appreciated.

 

The Meeting

 

The meeting opened with a welcome and introduction from Clive.

 

This was followed by a presentation of the Main issues by Society Press Spokesman Donald Mackenzie, in which he presented the history of events leading up to the meeting.

 

Andrew Willson, Managing Director of Wightlink, then presented the reasoning behind the need for, and choice of, the new R Class ferries.

 

Peter Griffiths, the Chairman of the Harbour Commission, discussed the makeup and responsibilities of the Harbour Commission, and their involvement to date with this issue. He also took the opportunity to aprise the Lymington community of the threat to the salt marshes, and to appeal for help with this serious situation.

 

Geoff Holmes, the Commodore of the Royal Lymington Yacht Club, then spoke, giving the Club’s position, and relating how it has become increasingly concerned over the potential impact of the new larger ferries.

 

There followed presentations from personal speakers. These were concerned users of the river, with personal expertise and experience.

 

Chris Baldwick Boats, Moorings, etc

Roger Wilson Junior Sailing

Michael Derrick Displacement

Dr Ken Hay Windage, Horsepower and Damage to Riverbanks

Derf Paton Environment

Mike Beggs Traffic, Transport and Freight

Dr Tom McEwen General Concerns

Mark Malanaphy General Concerns

Dr Mackenzie, Andrew Willson, Peter Griffiths and Geoff Holmes were then invited onto the stage, and the audience put questions to them. The final hour or so of the meeting consisted of questions from the audience. It was evident that the ferry service is much valued, and that the skill and good nature of the ferry crews is much appreciated, but the community is nevertheless very concerned about the impact of the new ferries, and is unhappy about the procedures to date. Several times the question was asked “How can it have come to this point?”

 

Desmond Swayne MP expressed the thoughts of many present when he asked why Natural England had declined their invitation to attend. Many feel that they are the Government body with authority to take the necessary steps to protect the delicate marine environment.

 

The meeting closed at just after 10:00 pm. The chairman thanked all of the participants, and expressed his appreciation to all attending, particularly as over 150 people had been standing throughout. The meeting had a spot on the BBC local news at 10:30.

 

The meeting was recorded, and we will be posting a transcript on this website when it is available. There was an enormous amount of useful detail in the presentations and Q and A session.

 

For a Transcript of the Meeting Click Here

 

This transcript is a close to verbatim as we can manage. During the question and answer period, the secretary made notes and these can be seen Here. These included questions asked after the transcript tape ran out, so they are NOT verbatim.

 

LATEST: Solent Protection Society Drops Support for New Ferries – Watchdog’s ferry U-turn

 

80 members attended the Solent Protection Society’s AGM on Monday. At the end of the meeting the Society resolved to register its objection… pending the completion of the relevant competent assessments, prior to them entering into service. Society Spokesman Susan Preston Davis told the A&T : ” In the light of additional information recently made public by Wightlink and in the Adjournment Debate in the House of Commons on Nov 27th, the society has decided to oppose the ferries pending the analysis of the assessments commissioned by the Lymington Harbour Commissioners.” Society Chairman Shelagh de Carteret Evans added “Whilst appreciating the need for new ferries, we are concerned at the potential impact of the proposed new ferries, and have contacted Wightlink and the Lymington Harbour Commissioners to register our objection. We will be carefully monitoring the outcome of the relevant assessments.”

 

Friday 2nd Nov: Wightlink orders third new ferry for Yarmouth route.

 

Isle of Wight ferry company Wightlink has confirmed that it has placed an order for a third new ferry for its Lymington to Yarmouth route, despite a public outcry about the size of the new ships. The news comes the day after a public meeting in Lymington which was called because of the high level of anger in the town at the introduction of the new ferries, currently being built in Croatia, which displace almost twice as much water as the existing vessels. Campaigners claim that the new 1,496-ton ships will damage the environment of the Lymington River with its reed beds and salt marshes and will be a hazard to other vessels. Some sailing activities from the Royal Lymington Yacht Club are also said to be under threat.

 

Southampton Echo: Friday 2nd Nov: FERRY operator Wightlink has pledged to establish new guidelines for the two larger boats it controversially plans to introduce to Lymington River next year. Speaking at a packed public meeting last night, chief executive Andrew Willson said that he will use a new risk assessment – ordered by the Lymington Harbour Commissioners – to establish rules for his ferries. He made the promise as the two sides in the fiery debate over the larger ferries met for the first time at a meeting attended by more than 250 people. Wightlink made assurances about the ferries’ necessity and low impact but other users of Lymington River made calls for further assessments. Fears of more water displacement and damage to the salt marshes were top of opponents’ worries. Mr Willson said: “The way forward is for the harbour commissioners to undertake a further risk assessment. We will use the results and conduct trials to determine appropriate guidelines for the ferries.” advertisement From next summer, Wightlink plans to replace two ferries on its Lymington to Yarmouth service. The new £10m vessels, each weighing 1,495 tons compared to the current 850 tons, will displace almost twice as much water.

Chairman’s Report for the AGM 21st March 2007

Posted on by
Reply

Ladies and gentlemen can I welcome you all to this Annual General Meeting of the Lymington Society.

Bill Hope-Jones

This year the meeting is not formally opened as in former years by our late President, Bill Hope Jones. He was our President for many years. Last year I announced that he was no longer attending Committee meetings nor the AGM. Sadly, he died before Christmas. I am sorry that there has not been a greater public recognition of the benefits he brought to this Town, by his involvement in setting up the Community Centre and being a founder member of the Lymington Society.

New President

Last year I also had to announce that my battle to retain Peter Chitty as an active member and Treasurer of the Committee had finally been lost and he had persuaded me to accept his resignation. I am pleased to say that we have secured his services in another guise and he has kindly agreed to be our new President.

The Secretary has guided us through the appropriate election procedures during the formalities. Well what a year it has been! Having been through the usual subject including the Webbs Site, in my last annual report for the 4th April 2006 Annual General Meeting I never dreamt so much would have happened before the next Annual General Meeting.

Public Meeting

Very soon after the last meeting there was enormous dissatisfaction over the manner in which the Waterford Lane planning application was passed and at the same moment McCarthy and Stone decided to make an application for a monstrous building on the corner of Avenue Road and Southampton Road

I well remember the pressure under which I was placed to do something over the Waterford Lane application, and at the same time I saw on the NFDC website the size of the proposed building at the junction of Avenue Road in Southampton Road.

Another public meeting was clearly in order to obtain our members and the Town’s views on these important planning issues following on from the precedent of our extremely successful public meeting over the Webbs Site a couple of years earlier.

The meeting took place on 21st June last and whilst I had expected to have one or two Councillors, we were all impressed by the fact that many members from the NFDC turned up and more would have come from the Town Council, if it had not clashed with a planning meeting.

I and Don Mackenzie opened the meeting and, after several questions from the floor, Mel Kendal, the Leader of the Council, took the floor to explain the Council’s position. One of the things they made very clear was that money was not an issue in relation to the opposition to unwarranted planning applications and that they were prepared to take on appeals when necessary. Chris Elliott, the Chief Planning Officer, followed that with an explanation of the difficulties faced by the Planning Officers. There were more questions and the meeting went on well beyond when most of the members of the audience should have been in bed.

The meeting was well publicised and Don McKenzie had a spot on in local television and I think rumours of our meeting even got as far as Government Departments. It filled three rooms in the Community Centre.

Petition leads to Society being Invited to Become Involved

As a result of that meeting and the petition which was circulated at the meeting and afterwards amounting to 1700 signatures Mel Kendal invited us to a Council meeting in October to present the petition formally to the Council.

The resolution passed at that meeting reads as follows:

“Design which is inappropriate in its context, or which fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions should not be accepted.”

And I hope this is having a direct influence on Officers’ recommendations and the Council members’ decisions by relieving the pressure to build high-density developments in residential areas in Lymington.

Southampton Road

At this very moment the Site which was so much in our minds that evening has now been refused by the NFDC and has gone for an Appeal, which is being heard at a Public Inquiry today and tomorrow. Your Committee Members have spent some time putting together their proofs of evidence in relation to this Appeal. It is a landmark Appeal. We have the disadvantage that the Council, without allowing any real input from the townspeople allowed two big developments in Avenue Road which are now built.

I think it is accepted that those approvals were a mistake. I hope and believe the Council has learnt from its mistake. However, those developments are there and we have to persuade the Inspector that those developments should not have an affect on the current application. The current Application is so gross in its size, that I hope the Inspector will dismiss it. In preparing for this Appeal I can say that the Council have now started to ask for our cooperation and support in opposing this Appeal.

The appeal is under way at the moment and Don McKenzie gave very good evidence this afternoon on the impact of the site on various factors such as need, the effect on the age balance in the community, the impact on the infrastructure, traffic problems and diversity.

I will give evidence tomorrow on the impact of the application on the overall character of the area and Ivor Johnston will talk about the impact of so many additional elderly people on the medical services in the town. I can say that the way in which the developers have approached this Appeal already is to hammer home the fact of the precedents of the two new developments on either side of Avenue Road allowed by the Council without any input from local residents. The Council are on the back foot and say that these were allowed prior to the current design standards being introduced. We however can roundly criticise the Council, as we have in the past, for allowing these buildings to be built, which we knew would give rise to this sort of application for bigger and bigger developments

One of the benefits of an independent body such as ours is that we can say things which may not be quite so politically correct as the statements that need to be made by the Council, and in doing so we can possibly more accurately reflect the real feelings of the people of Lymington. They are having to watch the character of the Town slowly but surely change from a small market town to a suburban Town into which all the modern features of urban living, including national chain stores and coffee shops, which are being drawn in by the increased population.

Whilst the Lymington Society cannot stand in the way of economic change it can try to ensure that the physical expression of that change is as much in keeping with the existing character of Lymington as possible by retaining its streetscapes. That character is retained in the Conservation Area by virtue of the Conservation Area policies, these do not apply in the surrounding urban areas. We have to be vigilant. There are other developments on the horizon which are a natural result of improvements to the Town. We now have a splendid new hospital, which has resulted in land being available for further development. That development must be in keeping with its surroundings.

Cannon Street School

Whilst we are co-operating as much as possible with the Council in encouraging them to reduce density, I have to say that one local difficulty has emerged. You are all no doubt aware of the Canon Street School Site. This was described in the Conservation Area as allowing views across to Walhampton. The Old School Building gave character to that part of Lymington and sat well with the new library which is now complemented by the new Community Hall.

However, to lose the school to another block of the modern style and dormer roof flats was to lose another part of Lymington’s character. Donald MacKenzie made our representations to the Council and attended the planning meeting in December.

We were distinctly dissatisfied with the outcome of that meeting and the way in which the decision was made for various reasons. These include the obvious interest the NFDC had in the sale price through its sister local authority the Hampshire County Council which was selling to the Swaythling Housing Association at a price based on the number of units granted.

The Planning Meeting seemed to make the decision on the number of units in the scheme itself. Permission for the demolition of the School, which was a separate application, seemed to follow without any further discussion. There has been no serious attempt to see whether the School can be retained either for community uses, as actually intended in a previous local authority document, or incorporated into a new development.

The upshot of this was that as the contractors moved in we received a barrister’s advice that there were grounds to say that the Council’s decision should be objected to under the Judicial Review process. I can say therefore that as from last Monday you as members of our committee are litigants with the New Forest District Council in the High Court.

However, before you are horrified at the prospect, can I say that we are able to continue a dialogue with the Chief Planning Officer and now the Council’s legal representative which will lead us to further meetings our respective legal advisors so that we can decide whether the Council can satisfy our legal concerns about this decision, and if not we will obviously revert to the members for a decision as to what further action we take.

At this stage the stop press news that of course during the course today the school has disappeared. The council had been aware of our position four-week and have taken no steps to prevent the contractors demolishing it. We had assumed that they would have made some representations to the contractors but possibly they’re in a position to do so. We are in no position to obtain injunction because injunction requires an undertaking to pay damages if we are wrong and we do not have the resources to pay the sort of damages that might arise from delaying a development of this nature whilst a judicial review goes through.

I intend that our barrister and the council’s barrister will meet to see whether we are satisfied whether our barrister continues to advise us that the Council’s procedures in this application were flawed. If so we will consider what other avenues are open to us.

Whilst this has been a difficult decision for the Committee to take, the Committee has been unanimous in deciding that if we do have expert planning advice to the effect that the decision is flawed, it is our duty on behalf of our members and the population of Lymington to try to take action if a significant building in the conservation area is threatened .

Webb Site

Every year I mention the Webb Site but this year it has been relatively dormant while Appeal goes through over the question of the change of use from the hotel to a care home. That Appeal is now fixed for 21st April and we will make representations on the basis that the area should not become a dormitory for old people and should have some vitality. However, our position on the Webb Site has been that we feel that the Council were going to agree to excessive density and the lack of mixed uses on the Site and that if there was an opportunity to go back to the drawing board, that would be no bad thing.

Social Events

Last year I was also able to announce the start of the regular social programme having held a couple of social meetings by the time of the last AGM. Since the last AGM we have had a full social programme which has been well supported and will be reported on by the Nigel Seth-Smith our Social Secretary.

For those of you who missed the social events or did not come to as many events as you would have liked, I hope you will attend more this year. They are extremely good value. They enable the Committee to meet the members and to gauge their feelings and to enable the members to liaise with the Committee.Our thanks go to Nigel Seth-Smith and his Committee and to those who hosted some of the events.

New Committee Member

Last year I probably caused sufficient embarrassment by naming and shaming the other members of the Committee and I will not do so again but I will repeat that this year has been an extremely active year and has been very demanding for the Committee. We have a new member, Rose Tainsh, who was very instrumental on her own behalf, and as a Society Member, in coordinating local opposition to the Bath Road Planning Application which was rightly refused on Appeal by a Planning Inspector during the course of last year.

Speaker

Finally, I am very pleased to welcome Tim Kermode as our speaker tonight. Here is another topical subject on the question of climate change and how it will affect Lymington particularly so far as rising sea levels are concerned. Tim is the Environment Agency Area Flood Risk Manager and I shall introduce him more fully in due course.

Ladies and gentleman, thank you.

Clive Sutton

Chairman Lymington Society