 |
The
Lymington Society
|
 |
||||
Press Release from the Lymington Society
Date 15.0.05
Public Hearing at Planning Appeal best way forward for the Webb’s
Chicken Factory site at Bridge Road Lymington Following the Deferment by NFDC
Development Control Committee
Following the recent
deferment for a month of a decision on the second Planning Application by
Paxton Holdings the Lymington Society issued the following statement:
The planning position
in relation to the Webb’s Site as has now reached such a critical stage. On
9th.February, our Councillors deferred a decision in respect of
the second planning application, which means that in a month’s time we face
the unhappy prospect of an unsatisfactory compromise or a costly appeal.
If they had been able
to make an unfettered decision our Councillors would probably have voted to
refuse the current application. They were concerned about the unimaginative
use of a unique riverside site for a high density development of small units,
which would become an isolated dormitory rather than a living part.of our Town. We already have
the example of the
But the Council Officers
advised that the Councillors should not refuse the second application because
the Developer had now complied with the detailed issues upon which the first
application was refused. The problem is that the Officers’ advice ensured
that the refusal of the first application was not made on grounds of principle
and density - the main objection of local people, the Lymington Society and
the Town.
The Officers encouraged
the current development, with the condition of the payment of a substantial
sum to compensate for the fact that the development was to be almost wholly
high-density residential. This is a departure from the mixed use anticipated
by the Lymington Society and other local bodies. It is a radical departure
from the significant amount of industrial use specified in the Supplemental
Planning Guidance for the development.
Earlier soundings of
local views in relation to this high-profile development would have avoided
the current debacle. The Developer indicated its willingness to take account
of local views before the first application but the Council discouraged the
tripartite meetings the Lymington Society proposed between ourselves,
the developer, and the Planners. Local input into the proposals through the
Supplemental Planning Guidance has been effectively torn up and thrown away
by the Council in its response to the first planning application.
Speaking on Monday
Mr
“Input by parties wishing
to speak to the Councillors at Planning and Development Control Committee
meetings has been limited to presentations of one or two minutes, which has
prevented our Lymington Councillor, among others, from expressing views and
suggestions. I appreciate that there must be a guillotine but it must be proportionate
to the importance of the application and the same guillotine cannot apply
to a 300 unit prime site development as it does to an extension to an existing
house.
We are where we are,
and, as stated by Lymington Society Committee Member
What is so far missing
from these deliberations is fully argued input from local people who have
to look at the development and live with it. We understand the Developer intends
to precede with its Planning Appeal where an inspector gives wide latitude
to third parties to present their case and where the public can see the basis
upon which the decision has been made. If this results in
an expenditure to the Council, and consequently unfortunately to the Council
Tax payers, then that is a consequence which the Council will have to accept
and account for.
The Councillors must
not accept the second planning application, which does nothing to address
the fundamental objections of local people, but allow it to go forward to
a Public Appeal Hearing with the first application”
Notes for Editors:
The
Lymington Society is an amenity society with over 400 members and keeps a
“watching brief” on developments likely to affect the environment of Lymington.
Its aims are stated as:
• A civic Society for all
• Wishing to protect the character of our historic town
• To ensure new development is in keeping
• To encourage the maintenance and improvement of civic amenities
• To provide a forum where residents can express views on such subjects
publicly
Contacts:
Chairman:
Hon Sec: Dr
Spokesman: Dr
{Body}