New Forest District Council approves request to change use of industrial units Ampress Park in Lymington

PERMISSION has been granted to allow industrial units in Lymington to be used for a range of other services, such as restaurants, gyms and offices.

The buildings at Ampress Park were originally constructed by housebuilder Redrow Homes as a condition of its redevelopment of the former Webb’s chicken factory, now known as Lymington Shores.

It was intended for the units to be occupied by small industrial business start-ups, but they have never been brought into use.

Redrow submitted a request to New Forest District Council to alter their use to include restaurants, recreation and fitness, medical or health services, creches, offices, storage and distribution.

It also signed up to a condition not to allow them to be used for retail, to protect the town centre.

However, the idea was opposed by Lymington and Pennington Town Council over fears it would harm the “equilibrium” of the local economy.

Cllr Anne Corbridge, NFDC member for Buckland, accused Redrow of “deliberately” keeping the units empty.

She said: “What I am fundamentally feeling is that Redrow has not honoured their obligations over this whole big development which goes all the way from the ghastly blot on the landscape Lymington Shore, to Ampress Park.

“It is just another step which takes us fundamentally further along their path on buildings that they have, I’m sorry, kept deliberately vacant all this time.”

As reported in the A&T, the developer recently lost a bid to escape an agreement to install a £1m pedestrian bridge – still unbuilt – over the railway line linking Lymington Shores to the centre of town.

NFDC’s executive head of planning, regeneration and economy, Claire Upton-Brown, told the meeting there had been “significant interest” in the units due to a lack of employment space in the district.

However, she added that a current condition on the buildings meant that leases were not allowed for more than 28 days on a rolling basis, which left businesses with no security.

She described how a start-up business with one or two employees might take days to move in before potentially having to relocate again “which is hugely disruptive to actually running your business”.

She added: “I think it is highly unlikely you would see that as an attractive proposition.”

A committee report backed the change of use and members voted in favour of the plans by seven votes to two.