Read the notes from our community meeting

Friends of the Meadow held a community meeting at 1pm on 30th November 2022 in All Saints Church Community Hall, Milford on Sea.

The meeting was prepared and chaired by Friends of the Meadow – Victoria Waller and Nicola Priest.

There were approximately 70 members of the community and representatives from the District Council and Parish Council.

Attendees were invited to share their thoughts on the meadow on post-it notes. After redacting personal or sensitive information we will make photographs of these post-its available for people to view.

Introduction 

Friends of the Meadow thanked everyone for attending and for their support and outlined the following:

• This initiative was set up two weeks ago.
• It started because we were upset that we might lose our meadow. But we were just as upset by the response. Despite many people we spoke to being against the development, they said ‘there’s nothing you can do’, or ‘I don’t understand the process’. 
• We want to make our voice heard.
• In 2014, there were 15 Objections and the Application to build on the meadow was Refused.
• There are currently over 142 Objections on the NFDC Planning Portal, and we sent an additional 190 Objections to the Planning Officer yesterday. We have been told this is more than they have seen for such a development.
• For those who haven’t seen it, we have a website, facebook page and we have had coverage in the New Milton Advertiser and Lymington Times.
• We have also met with the school council at the primary school to explain the planning and diplomatic process. The council were enthused by the meeting and are looking at what they can do to object to the development on the meadow. 
• This all helps to raise awareness and make our voice heard
• But we have much more to do

Friends of the Meadow stated the following as to who they are, who they are not and the purpose of the meeting:

Who We Are

• We are the friends of the meadow – together we are parents, parishioners, nature lovers, school children, business owners, grandparents, walkers, volunteers, picnickers, historians, grave visitors, teachers and residents of Milford on Sea.
• We have something in common. We believe our meadow is important, and should be protected.
• We are an informal, open and inclusive group of parishioners offering our time for a cause we believe in
• We have formed to provide a platform to unite the community in response to the Application
• We are opposed to activities that will cause harm to the amenity, ecology, history of the Old Meadow
• Our aims are to increase awareness of the Planning Application to develop the site, to coordinate a response to oppose the development, to assist parishioners in making their voice heard through engagement in the planning process, and to find a way forward that provides the most benefit for the community

Who We Are Not

• We do not have all the answers
• We are not planning or legal advisors
• We are not politically or religiously motivated
• We are not here to judge individual opinion 

Purpose of the Meeting

• To introduce ourselves to those we have not met
• To provide information on the Application across a range of subjects by local experts
• To provide an opportunity to ask questions and share ideas 
• To agree a way forward

1. The Site 

1. Ownership of the Site  

Friends of the Meadow discussed how the ownership of the site is a legal issue and presented on the following:

Questions around ownership have been asked the most, ‘I thought Miss Gillespie gifted the meadow to the community, how could half of it be sold to a developer?” There are of course many opinions on this, but for clarity, these are the facts that are available.

Miss Gillespies Will was signed on 23rd Feb 2015, 3 months before her death on 2nd June 2015.

As her Last Will and Testament, this is now in the public domain.

In her Will, Miss Gillespie bequeathed the southern part of the meadow to the village. She stated, I quote “to give the southern part of the meadow to Milford on Sea Parish Council to be used as an amenity for the Parish of Milford. Provided always that it is kept as a natural meadow.”  

She gave the rest of her estate to Friends of Christchurch Priory Church, quote “absolutely to be used for the fabric and in particular its choral tradition at the discretion of the Vicar and Churchwardens”

For clarity the southern part of the meadow was shown.

Both parts of the site come with restrictive covenants. Perhaps most significantly a right of way. A local property lawyer has reviewed the title deeds to these plots, the plan, and TP1 land transfer document and has stated the following “the parish council land does benefit from a right of way on foot over the rest of the land, but there is no specific route. That doesn’t mean one has the right to walk over all the land – only that the route can be made anywhere on that land, so the route could be the most direct route or more of a circuit. The priory land also reserves a right of way to the friends of the Christchurch Priory on foot over the parish council land. In addition, there is a Caution over the Application land under Caution Title Register HP769738. This interest is a first refusal of the land, a right of way and a right of common.

2. Significance of the Site 

1. Ecology 

Keith Metcalf, a local conservationist was invited to give a statement on the meadow:

Opening Statement: The remaining grassland covering much of the two sites at Old Milford Meadow i.e. the Parish Council and Christchurch Priory compartments is probably classified as Lowland Meadow. This meadow could best be described as ‘unimproved neutral grassland’. The meadow may well have been used in the past for grazing sheep and I have a vague recollection that back in the late 1980s, I recall seeing sheep on this meadow.

Under the UK Biodiversity Action Plan on Priority Habitats: the UK Steering Group Report (1995) says, unimproved neutral grassland habitat has undergone a remarkable decline in the 20th century. By 1984, semi-natural grassland had declined by 97% over the previous 50 years. Losses continued in the 1980s and 1990s to the extent that such habitat is now probably less than 15,000ha across England and Wales.

Existing Wildlife: I have not undertaken a recent survey of the wildlife, but am very familiar with the site having been involved in the Parish Council’s initial management of the whole site. When the land was first gifted to the people of Milford-on-Sea parish, the council received approval from Christchurch Priory to manage the whole site.

From working on the site during the lands early management with the Milford Conservation Volunteers, we noted that the site was not particularly rich in wildlife, though some early records were taken which remain on display in the notice board just inside the single gate to the south of the site. A copy of this 2019 record follows at the end of this report.

Developers Wildlife Survey: A summary of their independent report carried out by an appointed ecologist says:

Birds – High potential for nesting and breeding birds

Habitat – Moderate adverse impact to local value

International – Moderate adverse impact

Badgers/Bats/Dormice – Minor negative impact

Lighting Strategy – Needs to be at or below 1 Lux

Recommended Biodiversity Enhancements:

Installation of 1 Swift Brick

Installation of 1 Ibstock bat brick

Two Hedgehog gaps to be cut in fencing gravel boards (15cm x 15cm)

Summary of NFDC Ecologist:

On Biodiversity Net Gain, ecologist Chris Hodman BSc, MSc MCIEEM says:

Quote: “I am not of the opinion that the proposed development will deliver biodiversity net gain as stated, and I have reservations about the use and management proposed for the paddock area which directly relates to biodiversity net gain/losses on site”.

Archaeological Interest:

In an historical document I have previously read, it was suggested that as this site is so close to All Saints Church, that in the event that the site came forward at some future date for

development, an archaeologist should be appointed to check for possible signs of the original wooden church that probably existed prior to the current church construction.

Ongoing Management of the Parish Council-owned meadow compartment:

Ongoing hay-cut management of the meadow would be compromised by the wide five-bar gate access off Knowland Drive/Dacres Walk becoming blocked. If the development on the northern section of the whole site means that access to the Parish Council appointed hay-cut contractor would become inaccessible, either a new wide access would need to be made via the Churchyard area, or negotiations would need to be undertaken with the new owner to see if they would create a wide access route to the western side of their plot to allow ongoing Parish Council maintenance vehicles to access their southern portion of land.

Conclusions:

As we know, a previous development planning application for two properties on the Christchurch Priory site was refused. If an investigation into the reasons for refusal have not already been carried out, this should be a priority

The Parish Council part of the whole site is of particular importance to the community. It is used regularly by a variety of user groups and well maintained by Milford Gardeners club.

An archaeologist should be appointed to survey the whole site, including the land in the ownership of the Parish Council prior to any development works being carried out

Ongoing maintenance of the Parish Council-owned meadow section should remain a priority as requested for both sites by Ms Braithwaite in her gift to the community

Access should be provided to the Parish Council-owned portion so that they can adhere to Ms Braithwaite’s dying wish that the whole site be maintained as a wildflower meadow

I am not of the opinion that the site is currently good for wildlife. The enhancements proposed for the northern site i.e. 1 swift brick, 1 bat brick and a pair of hedgehog holes is not going to provide the Biodiversity Net Gain that all new development should contain, so I would seek more benefits e.g. 2 swift bricks, 2 bat bricks and retaining a wildflower edge along the churchyard side of the site

Finally, I suggest that even if the developer gains approval, the meadow area of the Parish Council-owned section could be gated and stock fenced and at appropriate times of the year a small regulated number of sheep introduced to benefit the wildflower meadow and provide added amenity value to the community site.

Thanks to the late Tony Locke for many of the following wildlife records and to all MCV and Gardeners Club volunteers who have helped maintain Old Milford Meadow since 2018.

2. Archaeology / History 

Friends of the Meadow outlined how the Milford on Sea Historical Society were informally approached to make a statement today but have declined because they are a records society and don’t get involved in campaigning. Therefore they described the historical importance using statements from previous planning decisions.

The Planning Inspectorate’s upheld Refusal on Appeal under APP/B1740/W/15/3129860 stated that “in conflict with Policies CS2 and CS3 of the Core Strategy for New Forest District Outside the National Park and Policy DM1 of the Local Plan Part 2 Sites and Development Management Document, the proposed development would have an unacceptably harmful effect on the setting of nearby listed buildings and on the character and appearance of the Milford on Sea Conservation Area.” 

The County Archaeologist advised under Clause 14.11 of the response to 14/11229 that the development plot lies within the historic village of Milford, which is an area that has been identified as having high archaeological potential. They state, “It is considered likely that development in this area will encounter archaeological remains that will shed light on the origins and development of the village.” 

Item 14.6 of the Conservation Officer’s Refusal of 14/11229 describes the rich history of Milford-on-Sea, which is mentioned in the Domesday Book of 1086. Its analysis of the potential for physical effects on the Site confirms activity in the area dating back to prehistoric times. As the Site has remained as a meadow since these times, there is a high potential for remains of early mediaeval or mediaeval date. 

The Archaeological Report submitted in the Application is “principally a desk-based study, and has utilised secondary information”, it notes, “observations are limited since archaeological remains can survive below-ground with no visible surface indications of their presence. It is possible that unknown archaeological remains may be present within the Site, and the presence of modern infrastructure may possibly have inhibited identification of any possible upstanding remains.” It concludes that “groundworks and excavations in relation to the proposed development could result in the disturbance to, or loss of, any buried archaeological features that may be present within their footprint, in turn resulting in the total or partial loss of significance of these assets.” 

3. Parish Council  

The Parish Council had explained prior to the meeting that their response to the planning application had been made on the New Forest District Council’s website and we quote “Milford-on-Sea Parish Council sought advice prior to the Planning Committee Meeting and is legally bound to declare an interest on this application because the Parish Council has a legal right of access over the whole parcel of land. As a result of this declaration of interest Milford-on-Sea Parish Council made neither comment nor voted on merits or otherwise of this application. Members of the public were invited to speak to the Committee. These comments were noted, and Councillors encouraged people to communicate their concerns directly to New Forest District Council Planning Department.” 

At the meeting a representative of the Parish Council explained their position as follows:

At the Parish Council planning meeting, it was suggested that the Parish Council had this benefit over the land and they therefore had a prejudicial interest and it was felt at that time that the parish council couldn’t make a comment. However, the Parish Council have, over the last few days taken further advice legally and NFDC democratic services. The Parish Council have been informed yesterday that they can make a comment. The Parish Council has to declare its interest, but it can make its opinion known. The Parish Council will therefore look at this planning application again at the planning meeting on Monday and make a comment. The Parish Council has also been told that should this planning application go to development control, they will have a right to speak at that meeting. 

4. District Council 

Friends of the Meadow had invited our two District Councillors to attend, one of whom was present at the meeting to learn more about the cause. 

e. Friends of the Priory Church Christchurch Priory

The Friends of the Priory church Christchurch were invited to attend the meeting however they were unable to attend and sent a statement. The full statement was available to view on the tables before and after the meeting and there is a link at the end of the notes to view the full statement. Quoting from their written response “Despite our best endeavours to attend in person on the day we have been unable to reschedule other commitments.” Further “We were both surprised and obviously delighted to learn that in 2016 Diana Gillespie had left the bulk of her estate to our charity […] One of the restrictive covenants was that “the parties agree that the boundary between the Property and the Transferor’s retained land shall be defined by a clear shallow ditch”. This has not been activated due in the main to our lives being put on hold for nearly 2 years due to the pandemic. Graham Wells your parish clerk and one of the trustees from the charity had a meeting some time ago to discuss taking this forward and questioned whether it would be a task for the volunteers who look after the parish land or should we involve a professional contractor. We can confirm regardless of the outcome of the planning consent for our portion of the private meadow land that we will take this overdue task forward in 2023 so that there is a clear boundary marker for clarity going forward and the cost will be born by the Charity. The restrictive covenants on the Council’s land do not apply to our land.

On the subject of the TP1 legal transfer document, shortly a response in respect of the Right of Way will go direct to Milford on Sea Parish Council as they are the legal owners of the land.”

And to quote finally from the letter “ Since taking ownership of the meadow land, we have and will continue to work closely with the Parish Council and our neighbours to try and accommodate all of our needs. However, as Trustees we have a legal obligation to work in the interest of the Charity to maximise the worth of any assets. It must try to achieve the best financial outcome for the Charity. In addition, and particularly in this case we are also very mindful of the need to fulfil Miss Gillespie’s wishes.”

6. All Saints Church  

An eco church representative gave a summary of the importance of the meadow to the church. 

7. The Milford on Sea Gardening Club 

The Gardening Club currently maintains the meadow owned by the Parish Council. There was no representative from the club at this meeting.

8. Milford Explorers Nursery

The nursery manager sent apologies but asked for the following statement to be made on her behalf:

“This meadow is used at least twice a week by children at Milford explorers nursery. They thrive in the natural beauty, developing an understanding of the natural world around them, enjoying the freedom to roam, search for bugs and enjoy gardening. The meadow poses an extremely low safeguarding risk as it is, however with building works, houses, outbuildings and stables this will destroy the safety of being able to bring the children there. We hold summertime picnics for all our families and leavers events and believe this meadow should be saved purely for the residents of Milford to enjoy.”

9. Local Resident 

Wendy Mason, a local resident in Deans Court was unable to be here and sent her apologies and asked another resident to present her views and objections to the planning application.

2. Planning Application and Public Consultation Process

The process 

The Friends of the Meadow highlighted that planning documentation was available to view on the boards and explained that many people had asked how to comment on the planning application so they gave the following overview:

The planning officer, Jessica Cooke, was invited to attend to present on the process. She was unable to attend, but sent the following statement:

“We have arranged for a set of plans and documents for you to show at your residents meeting. 

Planning Policy

Following on from our discussion, in terms of planning policy, please see below for local and national planning policy documents: (we have these as online links)

• National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2021
• NFDC Local Plan 2016-2036 Part 1 Planning Strategy
• NFDC Local Plan Part 2 Development Management Policies
• ‘Saved policies’ of the Local Plan Part 1: Core Strategy 2009
• Milford on Sea Village Design Statement
• Milford on Sea Conservation Area Appraisal and Character Statement

Material Planning Considerations

Residents are welcome to outline all of their concerns in writing and we will determine whether or not a concern is a material consideration that can be taken into account in the planning assessment. A copy of the information set out in our neighbour notification letters which relate to planning considerations is provided below, but please note material considerations are not limited to this list and further information relating to material planning considerations can also be found online.

‘RELEVANT CONSIDERATION FOR YOUR PLANNING APPLICATION

To give you some guidance as to what are relevant planning considerations in deciding planning applications, the following are examples of what we can and cannot take into account.

You may comment or object to a planning application for reasons such as:

• The proposal being in conflict with either the local or national planning policies
• Traffic generation, highway safety and parking
• Overshadowing, overlooking and loss of privacy
• Disturbance through noise, dust, fumes or other loss of amenities
• Out of character with its surroundings, including street scene and landscape

The following are considerations that are normally not taken into account:

• Loss of property value
• Issues of market competition
• Loss of a view
• Potential difficulties in property maintenance
• Disturbance caused by construction work
• Matters covered by other legislation, including restrictive covenants on land
• Issues relating to land ownership/property boundaries
• Moral or religious issues

We are only able to take into account comments which are formally submitted and publicly available, these must include the name and address of the representee. The consultation deadline for comments is 2 December, we are able to accept comments after this date, however we can’t guarantee that they will be taken on board. The target date for the decision to be issued is 16 December 2022.

As we discussed during our phone call, following your meeting with the local residents, we would be happy to address any specific points which arise from that meeting wherever possible.

I trust this answers queries so far, however, if you have any further questions before or after your meeting next week please do not hesitate to get back in touch.”

The public can comment via a form on the New Forest District Council’s website or by writing to 

Planning Development Management, Appletree Court, Beaulieu Road, Lyndhurst SO43 7PA. Please come to us at the end of the meeting if you would like the written address. 

A total of 11 consultants have been invited to comment on the Application, these include:

• Milford on Sea Parish Council
• Ecologist
• Councillor Christine Hopkins
• Councillor David Hawkins
• HCC Rights of Way
• Southern Gas Networks (previously National Grid Transco)
• Waste Management (NFDC)
• NFDC Conservation
• Archaeologist
• NFDC Tree Team

Quoting from the Council’s website “Most planning applications are determined by the planning officers, but in certain instances it may need to be referred to the Planning Committee. The Planning Committee normally meets every four weeks, but reports are completed nearly two weeks beforehand. Agendas, including the officer’s report on an application, are available for public inspection five working days before the meeting at the council offices or on the council’s website. Members of the public are able to speak at the Planning Committee.” If the Planning Committee refuses to grant planning permission then the applicant has the right to make an appeal to the Secretary of State against the decision of New Forest District Council.

The arguments against the development of this Site are well rehearsed, having been made by the New Forest District Council Planning Department and the Planning Inspectorate over the years. In their conclusion, the Planning Inspectorate stated that “I find that the adverse impacts of the proposal would far outweigh the limited public benefits it would bring.” The impacts of this development are significantly higher now than in 2014, the site now being a well used public open space. The decisions on previous applications are considered material considerations. Despite a different architectural style employed in the latest Application,  We believe the following remain valid Objections.

• The Proposal is Not in Accordance with Local and National Planning Policies 
• Extinguishment of a Right of Way
• Disturbance Through Loss of Amenity – the meadow has become a public amenity for the village
• Out of Character With its Surroundings, Including Street Scene and Landscape 
• Harm to the Setting of a Listed Buildings and to the Character of a Conservation Area in Precedent set for further development of the site.

3. Previous Applications on the Site 

1. Friends of the Meadow encouraged people to review the previous Applications and Decisions that have been printed for reference. In summary, these are outlined as follows.

b) Planning Application 90/NFDC/45023 submitted 25th April 1990 to Erect 5 houses and garage.

c) Planning Permission was Refused for 90/NFDC/45023 on the 15th April 1991. Two reasons for Refusal were provided, “The proposal represents a cramped form of development which is unsympathetic and out of keeping to the surrounding area, and in particular to the All Saints Church to the south and the old house to the east, both of which are listed buildings. 

d) Planning Application 14/11229 submitted on the 2nd September 2014 to Erect 2 link attached bungalows, 2 detached garages, driveway, and parking.

e) Planning permission was Refused for 14/11229 on the 14th January 2015. The grounds for this were “due to access issues concerning the intersection with the well-used footpath and loss of parking. In addition, the Parish Council would like to see a plan for more affordable housing which Milford desperately requires or alternatively for the land to become a public amenity for residents, reflecting the Site’s importance for the village in terms of archaeology, open green space and a haven for wildlife.” 

f) In July 2015, a Planning Appeal APP/B1740/W/15/3129860 was lodged by Miss Gillespie’s Executor following her death one month prior. In response to the reasons for Refusal, the Statement of Case of the Appellant (Mr Adrian Colin Dence) pledged that he “is willing to enter into whatever financial agreement is necessary with the local planning authority to discharge all four of the relevant reasons for refusal concerning public open space management and provision, mitigation impacts to the nearby Special Character Areas, mitigation impacts relating to the transport network and the relevant contribution to affordable housing”, and he “believes that the proposal enhances the character and appearance of the conservation area”. 

g) On the 4th November 2015, the Planning Inspectorate, appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, upheld the decision of Refusal for 14/11229, stating that “in conflict with Policies CS2 and CS3 of the Core Strategy for New Forest District Outside the National Park and Policy DM1 of the Local Plan Part 2 Sites and Development Management Document, the proposed development would have an unacceptably harmful effect on the setting of nearby listed buildings and on the character and appearance of the Milford on Sea Conservation Area.”

h) On the 21st of October this year, Planning Application 22/11217 was submitted for the Erection of a dwellinghouse and outbuildings with associated access works and landscaping enhancements. This Application was submitted by Ken Parke Planning Consultants as agent for Friends of Christchurch Priory and Bayview Developments Limited. Which brings us here today.

3. Discussion 

Friends of the Meadow invited people to ask specific questions.

a) An attendee asked if there are any Tree Preservation Orders on the land. In response, an attendee with professional planning knowledge confirmed that all trees within a conservation area are protected.

b) A local farmer commented that the meadow is really special as it is untouched land. He has offered to help out in any way possible to protect the land, for example planting. 

c) A volunteer with a walking group in the Parish highlighted a campaign of The Ramblers called Don’t Lose Your Way which has found over 49,000 miles of rights of way missing from the definitive map in England and Wales and suggested looking at historic rights of way and paths across the land.

d) The Executor of Miss Gillespie’s Will spoke at length on her wish for this land to remain a meadow, and that he is ‘150% against the Application.’

e) A local resident and expert in biodiversity offered his support and recommended the following:

Biodiversity net gains need to be considered and a proper survey on the meadow needs to be carried out, plants identified and an environmental DNA of funghi. He commented that the planning authorities should ensure a survey is carried out in April/ May time. Further, if the meadow is ancient then it is a really important piece of land which should be protected. 

He also highlighted that and there’s a lot going on in the next couple of weeks around the biodiversity COP in Montreal. The UK is leading on the 30 by 30 initiative which is 30% of land protected from nature by 2030. He referred to the Lawton Principles in that every single piece of land which can be protected, needs to be protected and connected. He suggested looking at the wider village in how the meadow and other green land connect. It’s about ‘more, and better connected.’

• If you have any further questions that you would prefer to raise in private then please email us on wearefriendsofthemeadow@gmail.com

4. Future of the Meadow & Christchurch

Friends of the Meadow concluded with the following statement:

We believe action is required to protect this Site robustly in the long term. The community should be protected against future applications and costly planning disputes. We invite your suggestions, however we are looking into the possibility that the Site may be eligible for enhanced protection as a Local Nature Reserve (LNR) or Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINCs). Subject to the development of Strategic Site 7 (known as Swallowfields Park), the Council might consider utilising funds from the Section 106 Agreement to purchase this land or consider the inclosure of the land as Commons  (Commons Act 1876). We also believe the Right of Way should be upgraded immediately to a Public Right of Way to reflect its status. These options might benefit all parties, to protect this land in perpetuity whilst providing income for the purposes stated in Miss Gillespie’s Will. 

5. Photo in the Meadow

A photograph was taken of attendees in the Old Meadow, which is included here.

Click here to view the full statement from The Friends of the Priory Church Christchurch