Pennyfarthing Homes’ scheme for 170 homes off Manor Road, Milford, approved by New Forest District Council despite huge opposition by residents and parish council

Angry residents shouted and jeered as New Forest District Council approved controversial outline plans for 170 new homes on fields in Milford.

The application by Pennyfarthing Homes for land north of Manor Road sparked hundreds of objections, including from the parish council, and resulted in a campaign group being formed.

The scheme, which will provide 85 affordable properties, was granted by the council’s planning committee on Wednesday with a vote of six to four in favour.

Around 200 members of the public had turned up to the council chamber to voice their disapproval, with claims many had been turned away to watch proceedings remotely due to health and safety concerns.

Upon permission being granted, one objector called out: “Pennyfarthing should never be allowed to build another house in this area!”

Speaking after the meeting, resident Gill Watson told the A&T: “From our perspective, the voice of the community has been completely ignored.

“We believe the basis on which it has been refused is flawed”.

As reported in the A&T, a previous bid to develop the site with 190 homes was withdrawn.

The current proposal features a mixture of properties, ranging from one and two-bedroom apartments, as well as three, four, and five-bedroom homes.

It also includes children’s play areas, and areas of alternative natural recreation green space to be used by residents and the wider community.

The site will be served by three vehicle access points from Manor Road, along with a pedestrian and cycle access from Lymington Road.

Opponents had argued the site should be developed with no more than 110 homes – a figure set out in New Forest District Council’s development plan for the site.

More than 680 letters of objection were lodged and campaign group Milford Residents for Sustainable Development was formed to oppose the development.

The group claims the scheme would destroy the character of the village, endanger children attending the nearby primary school, exacerbate flooding and sewage problems, and impact wildlife and biodiversity.

The scheme was also branded a “gross overdevelopment” by Milford Parish Council.

Speaking at the meeting, Cllr Sue Whitlock, chair of the parish council’s planning committee, said: “Never has Milford-on-Sea cared so much and in such great numbers about any local issue.”

She said villagers welcomed new homes and affordable housing, but added: “Not in such numbers that will jeopardise the quality of the environment, overload the services, and sacrifice Milford’s character on the altar of profit.

“The newly formed group Milford Residents for Sustainable Development has addressed in detail many fundamental flaws in this application. The parish council, in line with its residents, endorses and applauds the work done by this group and wholly agrees with its objectives and objections.

“Please listen to the people.”

Discussing the application, Cllr David Hawkins said: “I think the arguments put forward by the residents and parish council are very valid – and it is not nimbyism.

“110 [homes] is fair, 170 is over the top. This could damage the infrastructure of Milford on Sea if we’re not careful.”

Cllr Malcolm Wade said he understood the “depth of emotion” of residents, adding: “The problem is, it is in the Local Plan for a minimum of 110 homes, and we have to follow planning rules.

“New Forest District Council has not built enough houses over time, and everybody now with a development in their community is actually paying the price, as there is no way to fight against it [at appeal] and win.”

Cllr John Sleep added: “Each town or village has to expand and unfortunately anyone who lives with a green field behind them spends their whole life expecting that field to be developed.

“I understand the concerns and this is not the first time we’ve sat here and heard this issue, [worries] about roads, and doctors, and hospitals, and each time it’s a development that bothers everybody in the community; but in the circumstances, I think we’re on a cleft stick here, whether its 170 or 110.”

An alternative proposal by Cllr David Hawkins to refuse the application was voted down with four votes to five in favour.