Protesters want 100-home plan near Oakhaven Hospice thrown out

CAMPAIGNERS furious that green belt land close to Oakhaven Hospice could be developed with 100 homes have urged a planning inspector to throw out the plan.

Members of the Lymington Society (LS) and the Pennington and Lymington Lanes Society (PALLS) are fighting the plan to develop land between Lower Pennington Lane and Ridgeway Lane. They are two quiet country roads and the land is next to the award-winning Hospice.

The critics argue the “tranquillity” offered by the hospice, which cares for terminally ill people, could be upset and the roads are ill-equipped to handle the extra traffic the development will generate. More than 700 people have joined PALLS to object.

The two groups, supported by Lymington and Pennington Town Council and the hospice, took their protests to the inspectors assessing the draft Local Plan, Caroline Mulloy and Kevin Ward.

Known as Strategic Site 6 in the document, which sets out development policy for more than 10,000 new homes until 2036, the land is being promoted by Cicero Estates for development with the help of planning agent Ken Parke Planning consultants.

Controversially when NFDC first proposed which sites it would put forward for development in the draft Local Plan, site six did not feature.

It was only after a subsequent public consultation period that the site was added – alongside a number of significant changes to the document. That prompted 328 last-minute objections.

Because no more public comments were accepted after those changes were made, campaigners were angry the only chance they could lobby the council over the site was at the public assessment, and accused NFDC of undermining democracy.

At the meeting, the promoters of the site insisted they did not intend to increase the 100 homes number proposed and revealed they had held discussions with Oakhaven Hospice, which previously expressed objections.

Oakhaven chief executive Andrew Ryde said the talks were fruitful and there was an agreement a “buffer” zone of undeveloped land between the development and hospice would be maintained and a car park area created for staff.

This was welcomed but the hospice still had concerns, he said, about the impact of the development on the local infrastructure – mainly the roads – and aspects of the plan.

The promoters claim putting 100 houses on the land would not generate enough traffic to require significant changes to the lanes, which are currently less than four metres wide in places.

They are proposing to realign and widen Ridgeway Lane to six metres near Poles Lane as part of the proposed new site access, which is on land within the National Park, and construct around 80m of proposed new pavement over soft verges and ditches in Ridgeway Lane.

At the meeting, New Forest District Council resisted the calls to stop developing the land from critics – who point out previous plans to build houses on it were refused by planning inspectors.

The council also said it included words in a planning document in 2016 that referenced developing land “south of Lymington” which amounted to a consultation over the land and denied claims it had not consulted properly by pointing out the plan was now undergoing a public examination.

Both LS and PALLS said chief among their concerns is the impact the development will have on the hospice and the local roads. They argue the inspector should take notice of the

previous refused decisions relating to the site and the council had undertaken an invalid consultation.

Speaking after the meeting, spokesman for the LS, Donald Mackenzie, remained sceptical the number of homes would remain at 100 – suggesting that could increase to at least 120.

“The society is opposed to this proposal for ‘a minimum of 100 houses’ on this beautiful site, which is on the boundary of the national park and only a few hundred yards from the Solent and the important designated nature conservation areas nearby,” he said.

Mr Mackenzie added: “We hope the planning inspector will take note of all the arguments that the society, town council and other local people have made, and reject the removal of this site from the green belt and its allocation for a major housing development.”

PALLS chairman Bruce Tindall thanked those who had supported the campaign and urged NFDC to drop the idea. “Lymington and Pennington Town Council object to the plans, as do the Lymington Society, in fact just about everyone except the district council and, of course, the site promoters – who will reap the profits and then walk away from the subsequent problems,” he said.

“Perhaps the district council will work with, instead of against the community, including PALLS, to safeguard the lanes and public rights of way network through these green belt fields by proper management and maintenance and ensure that this precious resource can continue to be enjoyed by residents and visitors alike.

“We think the developer’s representations contradict their own promises of a high quality development retaining most trees and hedgerows. We fear the outcome would be a bland housing estate and rat-run next to and within the national park between these beautiful and ancient lanes.”

A decision will be made over the sites contained within the Local Plan when it is adopted by the inspectors later this year.