Lymington’s Last Shore
NEW: Petition - people queue to put their names down in dissapproval of Redrow Plans.
“We”ll be stitched up.” Says one Councillor! [with regard to Officers recommendation to approve].
IF YOU FAVOUR MORE SYMPATHETIC PROPOSALS, LOBBY OUR COUNCILLORS WITH ONE CLICK!
4 Storey Apartment Blocks on raised 1.8 Metre platform, 168 Dwellings & 2 Storey Car Park.
(NFDC Planning application status: In Favour: 25 , Against: 103 , Petitions Against: 6 )
*** Latest – Redrow application to go before planning committee for a second time ***
Redrow”s latest planning application 11/97849 – (click here to view) with New Forest District Council (NFDC) is for another controversial building scheme on Lymington River. Under duress, one ”supporter” says – ”this latest application is the lesser of all the previous evils.” However, the deadline (21st February 2012) for concluding details to be signed off between the developer and the NFDC has passed- without a signed agreement. As a result, planning permission does not exist for the controversial scheme, and the application will go back before NFDC planning committee (expected to in May).
NOW is the last chance to lobby in favour of a more sympathetic, lower density and sensible scheme.
Why permission should not be granted: (Committee members are urged to research the application in detail before voting).
1. The sought permission contravenes council policy on many counts including height, scale, density, character, and open space provision. (See Planning Policy here). Fundamentally, a NFDC policy document drawn up to help ”ensure” the best for the site (and the town) states that “The middle of the site should remain low-rise.” (p.13, NFDC 2002). Click here to view.
2. There is a clear public consensus that the plans are for a significant overdevelopment of the prime riverside site and the plans are for an unsuitable cramming of buildings to suit the developer”s profit margin. It is widely recognised that a sympathetic development should prevail – not another chicken factory for people.
CLICK HERE TO SEE REDROW PROJECTED IMAGE
Height: 19 Metres, 4 Storey. Scale: Disproportionate. Density: 168 - Too Dense. Character: Not sympathetic. Style: Dormitory. Section 106 Agreements: Bridge over railway: Not guaranteed. Pier & pontoons: Not guaranteed. Restaurant: Not guaranteed. Required open space: 1.3 Hectares – Proposed Open Space: 0.5 Hectare shortfall.
Redrow clarifies its position: Saturday 19th November 2011 - Lymington Times – Redrow announced that they have no intention of building out the existing granted (2005) permission 82337 for 298 dwellings. (It is not viable - See why here). This comes after controversial unveiling of their new plans in the 22nd October Lymington Times with a warning that they would resort to the 2005 permission if their newer plans are not given consent. This was interpreted as a veiled threat and caused many to believe that these new plans are a fait accompli.
New Plans: The latest plans include 168 dwellings in dense apartment blocks and 12 houses, a restaurant, art house, pier with pontoons, railway bridge and 2 storey car-park. The number of dwellings proposed are less than the withdrawn application (and present consent that is not viable). Technical issues are behind this ”drop” in numbers. Nevertheless, these plans still include a large number of very tall, densely populated apartment blocks that are totally unsympathetic to the area.
NOTE: Images/pictures/artists impressions include ones of favourable angles to suit the marketing of the proposals or are inaccurate and misrepresent the context of the proposals.
HAVE YOUR SAY
To submit your OBJECTION/SUPPORT to the New Forest District Council visit the link below:
http://web3.newforest.gov.uk/planningonline/acolnetcgi.gov?ACTION=UNWRAP&RIPNAME=Root.PgeResultDetail&TheSystemkey=177347
(Scroll to the bottom of that page and select “Submit A Public Online Comment”)
OR click HERE to go straight to the comment form OR email: dev.control@nfdc.gov.uk
Representations made for previous applications do not count. Please have your say on this application Now.
Height: For Redrow to achieve the 168 dwellings, they propose that the buildings need to be 4 floors in height and densely built including apartment blocks. Importantly, the ground floor level of buildings will have to be 3.9 meters above ordnance datum (in accordance with Environment Agency guidelines). The junctions on each end of Bridge Road (Bridge Road – Waterloo Road & Bridge Road – Undershore Road) are both measured at 2.1 meters above ordnance datum (see Ordnance Survey map). The resulting development ground floor levels will be 1.8 meters above the level of Bridge Road. The proposals would be far too high and overbearing, in context of this being a ”Gateway to Lymington”, and in terms of how they would affect the immediate area.
Traffic: The site entrance/exit lies less than 5 meters from the level crossing. Redrow insist that there will be no traffic problems and that they have an agreement with Network Rail to integrate traffic signals that would cater for a scheme even with 300 dwellings. Our live survey findings (see results here) show other opinions regarding this.
Local Services: Local services as they stand will not be able to offer facilities for the sudden large increase in population - (see here). Schools, Dentists, Doctor Surgeries, Hospitals are already at capacity (or passed it).
Amenities: Redrow are considering integrating plans for a pier for access to and from the river. The implementation of this would likely require third party involvement – however, it will be instrumental in making this not just a destination for visitors from the water, but a site that provides access to the water. On this basis, they are also in talks with the local rowing club relating to accommodating the club on site. The new plans include a restaurant and art house which are certainly welcomed and are an encouraging use of space on this site. However all these aspects are not necessarily going to be agreed upon, even if the application is approved. This should not be allowed to be the case, and completely puts the whole idea of an inviting ”destination” at risk.
Open Space: The latest plans do include open space although it sits between two large apartment blocks and falls significantly short of Council planning policy by 0.5 hectare. It seems to be a result of having to integrate space within a dense building scheme rather than from complimenting this riverside site with what it naturally offers. See the New Forest National Park Authority”s response to the plans - see here.
The Future: This site is crying out for a sympathetic development. It should be developed in a way that visitors and residents can use and enjoy it. Its height and density should respect the character of its surroundings. It could include a low number of dwellings, with a focus on amenities that will make the site a real ”destination” for people to come to. This could benefit the developer in the long term, as opposed to their name being tarnished due to an inappropriate development for short term financial gain.
6 Comments on Lymington’s Last Shore
-
Roy Froud on
Sat, 4th Feb 2012 3:15 pm
-
Deborah Cardwell on
Thu, 8th Mar 2012 11:12 am
-
Judith Duval on
Thu, 26th Apr 2012 3:12 pm
-
Pauline Lightbody on
Fri, 27th Apr 2012 7:22 am
-
B Cox on
Sat, 12th May 2012 12:38 pm
-
Nigel Round-Turner on
Mon, 21st May 2012 4:10 pm
It is not often that we get the opportunity in our everyday lives to create a legacy that will be passed on to the next generation. When one looks at some of the beautiful buildings in Lymington and the surrounding area, it’s pleasing that many good decisions were made, and very few poor ones (the Town Hall building on Avenue Road being a particularly unsightly legacy).
It is therefore vital that the correct decision is made regarding the former Webbs Factory site to ensure that a positive legacy is created. From looking at the designs, it seems that no consideration is being given to this most important factor, and that a negative, ugly, legacy is being created that will not only trouble the current dwellers and visitors to Lymington, but future generations to come.
Do we really want visitors from the Isle of Wight and east of the Forest to say of Lymington: “My goodness, what were they thinking of when they built that monstrosity alongside the river?”
Looking at the number of people who are protesting against this development I do wonder if we should try to do more.
If we want to sway the council we need more people to object. Should we be handing out leaflets in the high street or something? Maybe getting a petition signed on Saturdays when the town is full? I am happy to give up a few hours if others would be as well.
I had a note back from one counsellor who said that this will not go to the next planning meeting. Do we know why? Is this good or bad? Deborah
Is it too simplistic to suggest that Lymington is a beautiful Georgian town therefore can the architects not come up with a Georgian design in keeping with the surrounding area?
The height of the proposed building is too great. At 4 floors high it will be totally out of keeping with surrounding area.
Further more the ground has been raised considerably, so to what height do they propose to build these 4 floor flats? –
They could end up looking 6 floors high.
This site is raised by the minimum (E.A) required 1.8 metres above the adjacent road level. If four (4) storey buildings (as planned) are put on top of that, it will end up blighting this beautiful riverside. We should be building something that really suits our town and something that is sympathetically designed. When entering the town from the Isle of Wight or from the Forest to the East, people form their first impressions of Lymington.
Is it a good idea to ruin the chances of impressing people as they enter the town?
We have an opportunity to develop this land into something all can be proud of. Let’s not ruin this piece of land.
I stood on the station platform last week (May 17th) and was appalled by the height of the existing “platform” of soil which has been created presumably to avoid any risk of flooding. The whole development will look completely out of kilter with the surrounding area, and will appear to be built on a mound.
The whole scheme needs to go right back to square one.
Have your say...
