Churchill Retirement Living plan to demolish former Lymington police station for 32 flats is refused by New Forest District Council planning committee

A CONTROVERSIAL plan to tear down the former Lymington Police Station to build 32 retirement flats was thrown out by New Forest District Council this morning (Wednesday).

There was a smattering of applause after 15 members of its planning committee voted against Churchill Retirement Living’s plan for the Southampton Road site.

But it might not be the end of the saga; Churchill planning agent Stuart Goodwill cited a recent appeal decision to allow 45 retirement flats at Stanford Hill which, he said, should have given the authority a "clear and unequivocal" steer to approve. He hinted at an appeal.

Churchill’s plan included 21 one-bed and 11 two-bed apartments, plus communal facilities and 12 parking spaces.

However, it was hugely unpopular, with more than 1,400 people signing a petition against, and Lymington and Pennington Town Council and The Lymington Society were also unhappy. Meanwhile, 76 residents wrote to NFDC lodging objections. Not one person wrote in favour.

At the committee, Mr Goodwill stressed Churchill had agreed to pay the council £970,000 towards providing affordable housing, and insisted that would make a "significant" contribution to the district.

Churchill bosses "shared the sentiments" of locals who were aghast at high house prices, he said, and he claimed statistics showed 45% of those who moved into Churchill developments did so from homes within the New Forest district.

"Every [Churchill] property bought frees up two others down the chain," he alleged.

But Cllr Barry Dunning hit out at Churchill’s claims there was a "demonstrable need" for retirement homes in Lymington, pointing out there were more than 60 still unsold currently on Right Move – many of which, he said, had been on the market for over a year.

Lymington, in fact, needed more affordable homes for young people and first-time buyers, he and LPTC planning committee chairman, Cllr Andy Ash-Vie, stated. Cllr Ash-Vie noted the strength of opposition, adding: "If you allow this, you are debasing local democracy to being utterly valueless."

Lymington Society spokesman Donald Mackenzie believed it was a "seismic moment" for the future of Lymington, urging rejection to protect the town from similar developments.

He said what was proposed was a "monolithic block" and NFDC did not have to simply approve it because it was not meeting its five-year housing delivery plan.

In ultimately rejecting Churchill’s overtures, councillors took up a call to arms by committee members Hilary Brand and Malcolm Wade.

"We should be trying to push developers to be a bit more innovative in what they do," she said. "We know they are there to make a profit, [but] we should be trying to build communities."

Taking issue with some of Mr Goodwill’s claims, Cllr Wade pointed out people who bought homes vacated by people who moved into Churchill developments were often from outside the area and rented them out, so was not helping first-time buyers.

"You cannot turn the New Forest into a giant care home," Cllr wade went on. "We need to keep young people living in our community."

The refusal was proposed and pushed by Cllr Anne Corbridge, who listed five separate reasons, including that elderly housing did not meet local need.

She also highlighted NFDC conservation and tree officers had lodged objections, there was inadequate parking and turning space for emergency vehicles, and a lack of outside amenity space for users of the facility.

Among the more vociferous objections was Cllr Maureen Holding. "This has gone from a police station to looking like a prison," she said.

"We must listen to local people, that’s what we are here for and who we represent."

Speaking after the meeting, Lymingtonn Society spokesman Donald MacKenzie said the Local Plan prepared by NFDC was "totally unsuited to the needs of the area and needs a complete rethink".

He continued: "The responsibility of the council is to provide a mix of housing suitable for all groups in the district, as set out in the Local Plan and to stop supporting more retirement homes through fear of having costs awarded against them at appeal.

"With the critical shortage of affordable homes in the district the council needs to put in real effort and resources to take on developers at appeal and make the case that 'enough is enough' and that more affordable homes must be the priority from now on."