High Court throws out latest appeal by Redrow on promised footbridge at Lymington Shores development

A DEVELOPER has lost its latest appeal in an effort to drop plans for a £1m footbridge linking Lymington Shores to the centre of town.

As reported in the A&T, the crossing to the train station from the Lymington Shores development was agreed when Redrow Homes won permission in 2012 for 168 properties at the former Webbs chicken factory site off Bridge Road.

After construction stalled, the developer asked NFDC in 2021 for permission to change a condition which would effectively drop the requirement.

After a series of appeals, a judicial review has now ruled the developer cannot back out of its deal to build the footbridge.

At a hearing on Wednesday Mrs Justice Lieven dismissed Redrow’s appeal, saying: “A major part of the development has been completed for a number of years.

“However, and whilst this was discussed at the hearing, I have not heard or seen any substantive evidence to justify convincingly why limited progress appears to have been made with regard to the implementation of the footbridge.

“The footbridge constitutes an integral part of what was originally applied for under the 2012 permission, and the appellants therefore accepted a need for this part of the scheme, firstly by including it as part of the description of development and secondly in committing to its construction as part of the accompanying legal agreement, subject to the inclusion of a trigger restricting the occupation of a number of residential properties.”

The decision was welcomed both by New Forest District Council and the Lymington Society.

A, NFDC spokesperson told the A&T: “The council welcomes the High Court judgement upholding the inspector’s decision that the variation to condition application – in an attempt to change the legal agreement to deliver the bridge – was not an appropriate mechanism for doing so.”

Lymington Society chair Don Mackenzie said: “Redrow... has used every legal manoeuvre to try and have the best of both worlds by getting the benefit of the planning application to build their apartments but not provide almost any of the community benefits, such as the bridge or the gallery or the retail units, that they had freely agreed to provide to obtain the original planning permission.

“It cannot be the case that developers can promise the earth in terms of community benefits and legal obligations to get valuable planning permission and then renege on these obligations once the development has been largely completed.”

He added the promised bridge and other community and commercial facilities were “essential” if the development was to become the vibrant area originally envisaged.

The A&T has approached Redrow for comment.