The Lymington Society

Development Control
New Forest District Council
Appletree Court
Lyndhurst
Hampshire
SO43 7PA

3^rd February 2005

Dear Sirs

Re: Application by Paxton Properties regarding Webb’s Site - objection

I understand this second application is to be heard by the Development Control Committee at a meeting on 9^th February next.

This letter is firstly to make representations in relation to the application on behalf of the Lymington Society and secondly to ask that our representative can speak under the arrangements for representations to be made directly to the Committee before planning decisions are taken.

I believe that will be Doctor Donald Mackenzie.

The Lymington Society’s representations have been delayed by discussions between the Society and the Council Officers in relation to both applications but we are now able to set out our position in relation to the development and in particular the second application.

Since our first objections were lodged, the Society has had the benefit of holding a meeting which was open both to its members and to members of the public at which considerable disquiet was expressed in relation to the proposed development.

The Society is very concerned to see that in complete contravention to the supplemental planning guidance which was arrived at in conjunction with various bodies including the Society, the Council has allocated the site almost entirely for housing. Without sufficient provision for daytime activities the Site will become an isolated development without any real connection with the Town or possibility of a life of its own.

A suitable pedestrian access linking the site with the Town is a fundamental requirement of any development on this scale, which changes the whole town’s character.

It is quite clear that the Council, having started to involve the community in consultations over the site in relation to the supplementary planning guidance, have departed from that consultation process so far as the current applications are concerned. There is considerable disquiet that an application is liable to be granted which is so different from the supplemental planning guidance without there having been further consultation.

The overall scheme does not do justice to the uniqueness of the Site and we have specific concerns about:

the density of the proposed development and its impact on traffic congestion and public services locally
the lack of family homes
the overall height of the buildings, which will be raised by the necessity for flood protection.
and the lack of open space and public amenity at this unique riverside location.

We are aware that the Council Officers now take the view that on the basis of the previous decision which is being appealed, permission should be granted. Obviously that is a matter for the Council but it cannot change the Society’s view that the present application stands alone and should be opposed with a view to a better development proposal being put forward giving rise to a greater range of use within the site and a greater variety of housing as opposed to the apparent uniform small flats proposed.

Whilst the Society appreciates the reasons why the Council Officers have arrived at their recommendation to accept the current proposal and effectively the previous proposal, the Society has to look at this from the overall position of the effect on the Town and the location, and must continue to register its opposition to the development proposed from the current application as well as the previous application.

The Society appreciates that the Councilors must take note of the Officers’ advice but emphasise that the decision is for the Councilors. We rely on them to take into account the feeling of the local community which the Society has established in its public meeting.

Yours faithfully

Clive Sutton

{Body}