Ringwood councillors angered by developer's property pricing

DISSATISFIED Ringwood councillors have vowed to argue against the final part of a major housing scheme, angry at the developer’s apparent U-turn on cheaper housing.

The planning committee voted to send their chairman, Cllr Chris Treleaven, to the district council to argue against phase four of Linden Homes’ bid for Crow Lane and Crow Arch Lane.

Their stance has been prompted by an apparent reverse Linden Homes made on a pledge that it would include affordable housing in the final phase of its scheme.

Originally it was for 175 homes – including more than 80 affordable units – but that drew the ire of town councillors, who noted it featured only a handful of private houses local people could actually afford; most were three-or four bed homes starting at £400,000.

But Linden Homes then went back before the council, said they had heard the concerns and wanted to add more homes to the fourth phase of the project, hinting the dwellings would be affordable to local residents.

That news was welcomed by members, who then said they were underwhelmed when the new plans – which proposed 34 homes instead of the originally mooted 22 – subsequently went before them and did still not appear to include any private housing locals would be able to afford.

They also expressed concern at Linden Homes’ Construction Management Plan (CMP), which suggested large lorries transporting materials to the site could go down the narrow Crow Arch Lane. Members wanted assurances that be ruled out – adding it would cause “chaos”.

But Linden Homes has not deleted their intention to divert lorries down that route from its CMP, despite the warnings of members.

Minutes from the town council’s latest planning meeting stated the committee thought the CMP “not fit for purpose”, adding: “Members detailed their dissatisfaction with the (CMP) and were disappointed that concerns identified at the previous meeting, in respect of density, housing mix, access to the site and the proposed route for construction vehicles, had not been addressed.”

The houses in phase four were considered to be an “overdevelopment”, it went on. “The development is out of character with its rural setting and bearing in mind the nature and size of existing buildings in the area.

“It was not accepted that the mix of houses provided on the open market, compared to affordable housing, satisfies the local demand and it was requested that provision be made for one and two bedroom open market properties.”