Planning in Lymington by Jonathan Hutchinson

Address to the Lymington Society AGM - 18 March 2009

We all have views about the way the town has been and is being changed by development.   We, your Committee, talk about it whenever we meet and our views were recently published on our website.   I don't intend to repeat that here, but I want to talk for a few minutes about how we got to where we are and where present trends are driving us.   I am concerned here particularly with the outer circle - the built-up circumference between the town centre and the New Forest - and less so with the town centre, which is better protected by its conservation area.  

North of the High Street, much of what we see today had its origins in the years between the wars, while to the south the big changes came in the 1950s on land which had formerly been dominated by the grand estates surrounding Fairfield House, Grove House and Colonel Rooke's Woodside.   It is easy to spot the styles of each postwar decade
Fairfield Close (1950s)
Tyler Court (1960s)
mock Georgian Wykeham Place (1970s)
Farnley's Mead (1980s)

They all in their own ways contribute to the historic tapestry of the outer town, whose charm lies principally in the low height, diversity of shapes and spacious plots of its houses, which are often set back at random angles in extensive and mature green growth along semi-rural lanes.   We believe that change and renewal should seek to preserve and where possible improve upon those special qualities, which so well reflect the town's superb site between forest and sea.

Until the last few years of the last century, open spaces were still available within the town boundary on which developers could build traditional if not always pretty estates, such as Marsh Lane, Old Orchards and Vitre Gardens.   But by the end of the century there was no such space left (I am not going to mention the chicken factory) and we had a government intent on adding ever more houses to the nation's urban tapestry more or less regardless of context.   Three aspects of the new orthodoxy embodied in the notorious national planning policy known as PPG 3 which we saw as particularly objectionable were

Developers were quick to seize their opportunity, and although PPG 3 has now been replaced by a slightly less destructive version, the genie it let out of the bottle set off a train of events whose consequences are still unfolding.

We have put on to our website an analysis of some 48 of the more controversial redevelopment applications made since the turn of the century.   It makes depressing reading.   The weight of the assault has so far fallen mainly on four areas [shown on the plan below] defined by Southampton Road, Avenue Road, Belmore Lane and Waterford Lane, all of which most observers would agree are important arteries through and round the town and so have a major influence on its character and appearance.  

All of them feature massively increased density and most also embody buildings which are substantially taller than those they replace.  

Not all those 48 applications were successful at the first attempt, for a standard developer's ploy is to put in an exaggerated one to start with as a sighting shot, followed by another depending on the response to the first.   If an application is finally refused, an appeal is almost inevitable and the decision is made by a functionary from the Planning Inspectorate in Bristol.  Appeals entail little cost and no risk to the developer.   The probability of success is 40% for all appeals and has been higher for these big high-density ones.   There is no further appeal against the Inspector's decision.   Of the 48 applications, only two small ones were ultimately defeated.   The developer nearly always wins in the end.

Your Committee has not been asleep in the face of this growing threat.   We have entered, and will continue to enter on behalf of you our members, objections to applications which we felt or feel threaten Lymington's established character.   The road to Appletree Court is familiar to us as we travel it to argue our case before the Development Control Committee.   But we are not affiliated to the flat earth society, and would just as willingly plead in support where we judged a redevelopment to improve on the current building stock.   Sadly, there haven't been any such in recent years, as blocks of tiny cupboardless flats in vast ugly buildings, and grand but tall and gardenless houses follow in monotonous procession.   Let me remind you of some of them, starting in Southampton Road:

In 2003, when the Development Control Committee granted consent for Andrews Lodge, 32 flats replaced someone's former home in a building which announces its presence as if through a megaphone.

Moving on, we come to the site of McCarthy and Stone's next project.   Its Southampton Road frontage extends nearly 100 yards and it is so big that I couldn't get it all in one photograph.   It started as an application for 53 flats, which was refused by the planning officers under delegated powers.   The inevitable appeal was dismissed, but was quickly followed by a second application for 42 flats.   The Town Council and the Society objected, but the planning officers were inclined to approve.   Thanks in part to intervention by this society, senior planners intervened, but the internal conflict at Lyndhurst resulted in the case never reaching the elected members of the Development Control Committee.   Instead, it was decided by the Inspector at a further appeal, from which the NFDC was lucky to escape without being hit by an order for costs.  

Two points emerge from this.   Firstly, the project never reached the elected Councillors and secondly, the existence of Andrews Lodge and other developments in Avenue Road were called upon as precedents.   The result is that this important site is about to sprout a huge three-storey building that its citizens don't want, complete with its own version of Rapunzel's Tower, and the town is stuck with it for the next half century without ever having had a chance to vote for it.

Buckand House Now
Proposed

Right across the road is Buckland House, a familiar building which has fallen on hard times.   The developer only discovered that it is beyond repair after he had bought it, which seems curiously negligent on his part, and wants to replace it with the building shown to the right above.   In another location it would be splendid, but we objected because it is three storeys high, its Italianate form contrasts unfavourably with the listed Victorian terrace along Southampton Road, is in the conservation area and it would add 12 more flats to an oversupplied market.   The Development Control Committee agreed and an appeal inevitably followed, to be heard at Lyndhurst next month.

Turning into Avenue Road we pass two rows of 3-storey flats and terrace houses which replaced nos 5 to 9 between 2004 and 2007.   They have become part of the scene and are now called upon in design statements as precedents for further applications, as sites along the road fall vacant.   However, the building now nearing completion at No 37 is the one which has drawn most recent publicity.  

There have been four applications covering this site since 2004.   The first, for 41 flats in a 3-storey neo-Georgian style, was refused by the planning officers and an appeal was dismissed.   Undaunted, the developer came back in 2005 with a bid for 43 flats and was again refused by the officers.   In 2006 the developer returned again with the building you now see, which contains 14 houses and flats but is just as massive as the original (and, as we recently learned, bigger than intended).   The officers gave their consent, again without troubling the elected Councillors.   Only last week did the project reach the full Committee, when retrospective permission was sought for changes introduced during the building stage, and was comprehensively refused.   The officers explained that they had not put it to the Committee before, in spite of the controversial history of earlier applications, because the Town Council had not objected - though they admitted that the Society had, and there is circumstantial evidence that it only reached the Committee last week following Society intervention.   An appeal is almost inevitable.

Crossing St Thomas Street to Belmore Lane, described even by a developer as "semi-rural", this view shows the hoarding outside the site of what was No 56, for which 8 houses were permitted under delegated powers in 2006 and which is already being quoted as a precedent.  
Refurbished House
New Flats

Further up the lane is an example of a recently refurbished house which is a welcome improvement, but right behind the photographer stands a brutal double block of 14 flats, granted at the first bid by the full Committee in 2001.   These are soon to be joined by another unwelcome development which is best illustrated on a plan.  

What used to be a single 1½ storey house screened by greenery is to be replaced by four bigger ones.   The first application in 2007 was refused by the officers.   The appeal followed swiftly, together with an application for 3 even bigger houses which was opposed by the town and rejected by the full Development Control Committee.   A second appeal quickly joined the first in the queue.   Several months later the Inspector allowed the first appeal and the second was withdrawn, so the Committee's second rejection was not even considered by the Inspector.   The applications included an extensive arboricultural assessment and all sorts of conditions were imposed to preserve the greenery.   Now look at the cleared site to judge what they were worth.  

While all this was going on, an application to build two houses in the garden opposite the site was bravely rejected by the officers and the appeal was dismissed.   Another inspector soon afterwards allowed a further appeal for a refused application to build another house in a garden across the road, 30 yards away.

Finally, in this necessarily truncated summary, I come to Waterford Lane and its dependent Close, for which a plan again helps. 

There have been 15 applications from 3 developers covering five contiguous sites sites since October 2005.   Along the way, the full DCC granted four and refused three, the officers granted two and refused two and there were two appeals, both dismissed.   The rest were withdrawn.   The outcome is that six serviceable houses will be replaced by 22 taller ones.   Some are by common consent aesthetically challenged, such as the 11 overbearing orange brick buildings which now form Abbots Brook, while others such as those now taking shape in Waterford Close and on offer at £1 million a time are attractive buildings, but standing in absurdly small gardens like elephants clustered round a waterhole.  
Abbot's Brook

Waterford Close
Waterford Close

A feature of the planning system is that each application was considered as a separate issue, and at no point did anyone consider the collective effect of the whole.   And by separating their plots into small units, developers can not only argue for each one in isolation but can keep each below the threshold above which they can be required to make a contribution to the provision elswhere of affordable housing.

One further point.   It is often argued at planning hearings and appeals that few of the locals took the trouble to object.   We all know the reasons for that, (and this Society exists as a collective voice) but it isn't always true.   The applications I have described in Belmore Lane and Waterford Lane all drew high levels of reaction from neighbours, nearly all of it unfavourable.   One Waterford Lane application had over 70 objections.   I have since heard a senior planner in a Council meeting rule that the number of objections is irrelevant, which if true reduces the process to the status of a Zimbabwean election.

These examples are threatening enough, but looking ahead there is more cause for concern.   Developers are in business to make money.   The easiest way, given the following wind of government policy, is to build estates on green fields.   When there are no more green fields they look for the biggest gardens, where they can outbid private buyers and recoup the outlay by cramming in the maximum number of houses.   Now look at this section of the town map.  

It is obvious where the pressure will come if our planning system remains biased in favour of the developer.   Many of the plots I have picked out are owned by people who are not young, and all the larger ones could disappear in a generation under brick canyons of tall and expensive buildings separated by just a few feet, while today's less attractive buildings on smaller plots remain because they are less economic to acquire and redevelop.   Not a prospect we should relish leaving to our children, or for those in desperate need today of houses they can afford to buy and live in, provision of which remains one of the town's most pressing needs, but which has figured scarcely at all in what I have been describing.   We need to have a better defensive plan now, before the threat is renewed.

You may think that this all sounds rather critical of the Town and District Councils.   It is not intended to be.   We may not always agree, but the Society very much prefers to work with the grain and to support them in battle on all our behalves.   Some time back your Committee sought and was given an opportunity to air its concerns to the Development Control Committee in Lyndhurst.   It had a fair hearing, as recorded in the DCC's Minutes of 14th February 2007:

RESOLVED:

That the Cabinet be advised of the Committee’s views in respect of the Lymington Society’s petition as follows:

i) That work on preparing the ‘Core Strategy’ for the District will inform longer term decisions about the disposition of housing provision in the area. The Lymington Society (and many other interest groups) will be able to contribute to the analysis of the options through a consultation exercise in the autumn of 2007;

ii) In the interim, the Council will have full regard to the guidance in PPS1 and PPS3 that all new development must have regard to and be appropriate in its context; and

iii) A consultation exercise will be carried out on procedures to be followed by the Planning Development Control Committee. This will be considered by the Committee as part of a thorough review in the summer of 2007.

I do have to say now, though, that progress has been glacially slow.   The draft Core Strategy Document came round at the end of 2008 and we were invited to comment, but found it difficult to discern anything resembling a clear strategy in its 120 pages of generalisations, which are more a wordy compendium of all possible views than a vision of where we are going.   I am not aware of the outcome of the promised 2007 review of procedures, but when seen from here the handling and outcomes of some of the applications I have described do not give me much ground for optimism that we are better prepared to resist the renewed assault of big developers when the current economic hiatus ends.   Developers are fleet of foot, while bureaucracies plod along at a more measured pace.   For example, the only reference in the draft core strategy to the overdevelopment I have described is contained in the single sentence that " . . . it [ie the 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.  .  .  ."   That is too little, and too late.   Developers are already crawling all over the larger garden plots such as Waterford Close and Belmore Lane and well supported tales abound, from the days before the economic gloom, of extravagant offers being held out to current owners.

In our response to the draft Core Strategy, we proposed three ways of  extending the town's defences:

Firstly, a clear, short and enforceable strategy for the town - a vision if you prefer.   In other words, a Town Design Statement.   Typing those three words into Google produces 627,000 replies, but Lymington doesn't have one.   Without a strategy, how can one hope to win the war?

Secondly, we should press for wider use of existing powers to define "Areas of Special Character".   Only one exists at present.   Can it be true that only one such area matches the description?

Thirdly, we should re-examine the extent of the Conservation Area.   Does history stop just a few yards from the High Street?

We hold no ill-will towards our elected representatives, nor do we seek to undermine them, but we do believe that we all have to raise our game if we are not to be overrun by the big battalions.   I have personally been aware, when appearing before both Town and District Council planning committees, that most of their members feel sympathy for our concerns, but they feel hemmed in by the system imposed from above, and particularly by the seemingly arbitrary decisions handed down by the Inspectors from Bristol, often enough accompanied by orders for costs.    My purpose this evening has been to alert you to what is happening and in prospect, and to encourage you as Society members to give us your support in our endless war against the ugly and the inappropriate developments which increasingly threaten our town.