Scroll down to see all the news stories affecting Milford-on-Sea
If you would like to be nominated to become a Parish Councillor for Milford-on-Sea at the local elections being held on 2nd May 2019, you have until 3rd April to do so.
Nomination papers are now available to download from:
You can also pick up a copy from the Parish Office.
Nomination papers must be delivered by hand to New Forest District Council Offices at Appletree Court, Beaulieu Road, Lyndhurst – they will not be accepted if sent via the post, e-mail or fax, or any other medium.
They do not have to be delivered in person by the candidate or his/her agent, but they must be delivered by hand. The closing time and date for the submission of nominations is 4.00 p.m. on Wednesday 3 April 2019. Under no circumstances will nomination papers be accepted after then.
More information about the Parish Council and what is involved in becoming a councillor is available here
Opening statement of Milford-on-Sea Parish Council to the Inquiry into the Planning Appeal for MOS1 – Land north of School Lane.
First, I must emphasise, Milford on Sea wishes to build affordable houses to help as far as possible the needs of local people who cannot afford to live in the village in which they were born, in which their families may have lived for generations, or in which they work and which they love.
The PC has tried over many years – to my personal knowledge 16 – to bring forward sites for affordable homes. We are happy that Milford is now acknowledged as a Forest Village with all that that entails : no right to buy for renting families, no staircasing out for part owners – a step in the right direction towards preventing our low cost housing becoming available on the open market which would just feed the demand for second homes in Milford – (the only coastal village for miles either side). Thereby hopefully preserving some measure of diversity in our village residents.
Milford wishes appropriate housing to be built.
To that end, after a tortuous process and difficult decision making MOS1 was identified as the only site for the 30 houses which Milford was obliged to provide under the terms of the current local plan.
These 30 houses the PC was told had to be provided on green belt land – any other sites which came forward would be considered as ‘bonus’ sites and would not be accounted for as part of the 30 obligation.
So the village entered into, with much heart searching and, at the end of the day, with no option. designation of MOS1 as the preferred site for these 30 houses.
MOS 1 was a piece of land within the green belt. The village took it on the chin that precious green belt land was to be sacrificed on the altar of local need and it conceded that it could live with these 30 houses because, we understood, these houses were to be affordable – in our opinion built on an ‘exception’ site. It is noteworthy that in its statement of evidence NFDC uses the word ‘exception’ in relation to this site 13 times. MoS1 policy is referred to as being the key policy of this application.
It is ironic to note that Pennyfarthing was supportive of the Council’s allocation of the site through Policy MoS1. They made representations in support of the allocation. They confirmed their view that the policy was both legally compliant and sound, and in supporting the policy they noted that “The site provides an opportunity to deliver much needed affordable housing to the settlement of Milford-on-Sea”.
The inspector ratified and endorsed this policy – but with stipulation: in an almost unprecedented statement the inspector demanded that various conditions must be met before any building took place. Crucial to this judgment is 30 dwellings ONLY – and these 30 must be to address the needs of the local population – ie the need for affordable rented family accommodation and some shared ownership – these tenures to take up at least 2/3 s of the dwellings – the remaining 1/3 to be low cost accommodation. We understood we had to accept this market housing to make the affordable housing viable. But – this third was to be low cost – with no facility to extend the accommodation in order that it should remain as low cost as possible.
Perhaps we should have realised that in order to justify the building of this market housing the land had to be redesignated and been aware that when it was no longer green belt it would become a sitting target for any planning application. But we trusted in the inspector’s directive.
We may have been deceived: if an inspector’s ruling can be swept aside by a profit motivated developer’s cynical disregard of that ruling then what is the point of an inspector? And what hope for the point of future public consultation? And what belief can we have in a developer’s assertion as Pennyfarthing gave that it wishes to build houses to meet a community’s needs when those assertions are condensed to a ‘nod and a wink’ to meeting that local need when applications come forward.
Viability studies! – those provided by opposing sides seem to us to be a ‘he said/she said’ dialogue. The Parish Council contend that while the studies are not irrelevant, they are superfluous to the argument: we do not accept on any level 42 houses on this site – no matter what the proportion of so called affordable housing may be – we stick by the principle that the loss of the green belt site was for 30 houses and no more. This site is and was an EXCEPTION.
I will mention the car park – a concrete blot on the green belt at the entrance to the village. The PC along with so many residents know that this is a ludicrous and dangerous place to put an entry and exit onto the busy B3508. It is on a bend.
The PC also emphasises that it will not accept that starter homes can be acknowledged as part of the developer’s affordable housing obligation – NFDC’s strategic housing officer has underlined that a family wishing to purchase such a starter home on this site must earn around £42,000 a year in order to be able to fund such a purchase. Milford on Sea’s parish councillors are local people. We KNOW people – they are our children – our children’s children – they do not earn £42,000 a year and they are doing their best: often they provide services to the more wealthy population of Milford – they are our carers, our gardeners – actually even the district’s teachers, nurses and paramedics – I KNOW – they love Milford – some of them won’t even employ a plumber unless he lives in Milford because they care about the local economy. Many of them are in receipt of housing benefit to live in private renting accommodation so that they can live here, use our shops, and, yes, enjoy our school, walk our walks and maintain our village. What false economy is that?
Please do not allow starter homes to be considered as affordable housing.
The NFDC’s proof of affordability acknowledges that the village need identified (about 57 families) who would qualify for some form of affordable home in the village is probably an understatement. I can guarantee that this is the case. I know families living in private rented accommodation and who are in receipt of housing benefit to enable them to do so have more or less given up – it has taken at least 8 years to come to the top of Milford’s list if you’re lucky.
We do not need more executive type homes – we will not function as a dormitory for Southampton or Bournemouth, housing people who do not use the village. Milford is a great place to live – it’s a community which looks after its own – it’s a community which works – it’s not all born and bred here but if you live there the full on community care takes the pressure off those in need – the village must meet the housing needs of the people who live and use the village – and who give so much back.
Please re-endorse the original inspector’s directive for this site and dismiss this appeal.
Closing statement of Milford-on-Sea Parish Council to the Inquiry into the Planning Appeal for MOS1 – Land north of School Lane.
The Parish Council represents the whole of the village – as its elected members.
The rationale for the redesignation of this green belt site has been lost in the mire of viability:
The site is intended for 30 houses providing 2/3 affordable dwellings and the remainder low cost homes crucially to meet local need.
The village, as I have said earlier, ‘took it on the chin’ that it would lose a precious and beautiful site to help 30 families from its less privileged population to remain in the village.
Now we are faced with 42 dwellings – it’s components hardly touching the locality’s housing needs.
Public satisfaction with the planning process is at an all time low locally – we feel deceived and conned – a developer and landowner who profess to care about the housing needs of the locality apparently ‘needs’ to put 23 executive houses on a site especially designated for low cost housing – unbelievable and tragic as far as the residents are concerned. We find it extraordinary that our Local Planning Authority gave no regard to the planning inspector’s directives for this site – if only it had then this unhappy situation would not have arisen.
We are warned that if the 30 limit was to be reimposed or if more affordable housing was imposed on the site Pennyfarthing may walk away – the landowner would get nothing and the village would not get any affordable housing at this time. It’s tempting to say so what? Pennyfarthing is not offering to build the sort of affordable units the village needs and the Parish Council firmly believes the village would prefer to wait than to accept yet more executive houses on a development which would enable so few of the people on its Homesearch register having a chance of a home here.
If the Inspector is minded to allow this appeal the Parish council will be vigorous in its pursuit of 70% truly affordable dwellings on the development and will push for those to be family rented accommodation – not just ‘a unit’ which could be a one bedroom flat – together with some shared ownership and truly low cost market houses. The provision on a site of 42 houses of 70% truly affordable dwellings which meets the local housing need would help to ameliorate the sense of betrayal that the village feels – having let this green belt site go in good faith.
We encourage the inspector to consider other issues within policy MoS1, as suggested by Mr Brown, in coming to his decision. – NFDC councillors obviously considered issues other than viability when coming to their decision to unanimously refuse the planning application. Please consider the whole of policy MoS1 – for example:
The Parish Council opposes the location of the car park. We acknowledge that Pennyfarthing can win the argument that they are providing parking for recreational amenity – but let’s not kid ourselves – it’s no good as a ‘drop off’. First, few children are ‘dropped off’: our younger children are handed to teachers and handed back to a parent at the end of the day – that means parking for those not able to walk to school. The older ones who may be dropped off will find the proposed ‘drop off’ point too far away and too difficult to get into and out of. So – not really of any help to Manor Road, Knowland Drive, School Lane or the Lymington Road. This is not just a local problem and I think the majority of schools, certainly in this area and I am sure further afield, have similar problems. We do not have a solution – but we cannot pretend that this car park in this location with its entrance on a bend will do very much to help the school parking.
The expectation was that the car park/drop off point would be located at the southern end of the site but of course where it has been located does help to fit in 42 houses rather than 30 as does the relocation of the play park from the housing development onto the land to be ‘given’ to the Parish Council. We have been informed by the school that it is not happy with the proximity of the houses or the distance of the ‘drop off’ point from the school.
The eastern exit from the site will take cars logically into Lymore Valley and thence to the Everton junction via narrow rural lanes rather than driving through the estate and then having to turn right onto the B3058. Lymore Valley residents are very concerned about this since many of these lanes are very narrow.
This is not a case of the Parish Council being against development per se – on the contrary we would welcome an application that addresses the needs of our local people. This application does not address those needs and we therefore request that the decision to refuse permission be upheld. No compromise should be considered on this site until other options have been explored.
The Planning Inquiry for the MOS1 site (Land North of School Road) will take place from 12-15th February at Lymington Town Hall, Avenue Road, Lymington. Proceedings will start at 10am.
The Parish Council will be represented at this meeting but members of the public are also welcome to attend.
The case documents are available on the District Council’s website on this link: http://planning.newforest.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=_NEWFO_DCAPR_201161
The application number is 17/10606. Alternatively the documents can be viewed at NFDC reception, Town Hall, Avenue Road, Lymington between 8.45am and 5.15pm Monday – Thursday and 8.45am -4.45pm on Fridays.
Further information about the appeal process can be found here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/771621/Procedural_Guide_Planning_appeals_version_4.pdf
The decision will be made by the Inspector at the close of the hearing and may take several weeks before it is published. When made, the decision can be viewed here: https://www.gov.uk/appeal-planning-inspectorate
GROUNDS/ MAINTENANCE OPERATIVE
Part Time 24.5 hours per week. Flexible working
Salary Circa £16k
Milford-on-Sea Parish Council is seeking an enthusiastic and motivated person to join our team
Reporting to the Parish Clerk and Council, responsibilities will include: grounds maintenance on all Parish owned land, maintaining to a high standard playing surfaces on football and cricket pitches, Maintaining play equipment, sports pavilion, benches and machinery.
Holding a chainsaw and spray licence would be desirable or a willingness to obtain these will be essential.
This is a developing role and as such the council is initially offering a 1-year contract starting 1st April 2019 (after which the position will be reviewed and potentially adjusted to a permanent position). The candidate will need to be flexible and adapt to changing circumstances.
Benefits will include: pension, 20 days holiday + bank holidays.
Full Job Description and Person Spec can be downloaded here:
To apply, send your CV together with a covering letter to:
or by post to: 22 High Street, Milford-on-Sea SO41 0QD
Closing date for applications Thursday 31st January 2019
Interviews will take place during the week commencing 11th February 2019
New Forest National Park’s Coastal Ranger has organised a beach clean, which will take place along Hurst Spit on Mon 31st Dec, 10am-12.30pm.
You are all cordially invited to join some of the National Park staff and take action together.
Party into 2019 with a clear conscience, knowing you have helped clean the coastline!
Please contact Aynsley Clinton at Aynsley.email@example.com or 01590 646629 to find out more or to book your place.
The Parish Council has a casual vacancy for a Councillor, to be filled by co-option.
If you would like to help your community be a better place to live, work and relax and are able to devote a little regular time for this non-paid position, send the Parish Office a brief resume along with a covering letter explaining what you could bring to the role.
The deadline for applications is noon on Monday 3rd December and interviews will be held on the morning of Thursday 6th December.
For full details contact the Parish Office.
In accordance with Section 89 (3) of the Local Government Act 1972, where the vacancy occurs within six months before the day on which the councillor whose office is vacant would regularly retired, an election shall not be held under Section 89 (1) of the above Act, and the vacancy will be filled at the next ordinary election of councillors on Thursday, 2nd May 2019.
The Council may choose to co-opt a member to fill the vacancy for the period until that election.
The Parish Council has been notified by the District Council that the owners of the White Horse Pub in Keyhaven Road intend to sell it.
The pub is registered as an Asset of Community Value, which means that if any Community Interest Group would like to bid for it, they have until 17th December to do so.
If you want to like to submit an expression of interest in the pub, contact the Parish Office on 01590 644410 or email firstname.lastname@example.org
New Forest District Council is planning to undertake maintenance works to the lower (stepped) sea wall, adjacent to Hurst Road East car park, Milford-on-Sea.
These are essential works in order to repair damaged areas of the concrete sea wall caused by repeated shingle abrasion since it was constructed in the 1960s. The work is to ensure the sea wall remains intact and continues to perform its function. Without maintenance it is likely that over time the sea wall will be subject to significant future damage. This is the first phase of maintenance works to the wall; subsequent phases of work will need to follow on which are likely to be carried out in 2019/20.
In order to undertake these works, part of the eastern side of the car park will be closed to the public, to allow the contractor to operate a secure compound for the duration of the works (please see map below). Temporary pedestrian and vehicular diversions will be in place to manage access within the car park and around the works.
The scope of the work is to undertake concrete repairs to the sea wall. To facilitate the work there is likely to be increased noise generated by power tools, as well as from plant operating in the working area. There are also likely to be periodic deliveries of equipment and materials. Access to the lower foreshore will be restricted in the works area (yellow hatch) during working hours.
The work is planned to start on Monday 01/10/18, with completion approximately 4 to 5 weeks later (subject to suitable weather and tide). As the work is tidally restricted, working times will need to allow for this; however, it is anticipated that the majority of work will be undertaken between 7am & 6pm, Monday to Friday (apologies for any inconvenience caused).
The developer of MOS1 site – land North of School Road – has appealed to the Planning Inspectorate in a bid to overturn the decision of New Forest District Council to refuse their application to build 42 homes there.
To view the grounds of appeal please refer to the “Appeal Form” document attached to the case on the District Council’s website:
The Planning Inspectorate have an online appeals service which you can use to comment on this appeal at https://acp.planninginspectorate.gov.uk, these must be made by 19/10/2018.
If you prefer to write in, please write quoting the appeal reference to the Planning Inspectorate, Temple Quay House, 2 The Square, Temple Quay, Bristol BS1 6PN to arrive no later than 19/10/2018.
The Parish Council has requested that the hearing be held locally – we will keep you informed of progress on this.
Milford-on- Sea Parish Council strongly opposes the release of Green Belt for the development of 110 homes on Strategic site 7. Building on the Green Belt should be considered only in exceptional circumstances and always in response to local need. NFDC planning officers are reported as stating that Green Belt development is inappropriate, Milford’s local need is not for more private sector homes but for family affordable accommodation which would likely form a small part of this proposed development if this land was removed from the Green Belt.
The Parish Council has grave concerns that should this land be released, developers would not comply with the stated requirements for affordable homes to be built. There is strong evidence to support this as recent press coverage on the release of Green Belt has highlighted. This is proved by Milford’s recent experience at the school lane site (MoS1), where a recent planning application took little or no regard for the conditions already set down by central government as well as the inspectorate and unbelievably was supported by NFDC Planning officers.
How can residents and the Parish Council have any faith in the new Local Plan bearing in mind these events?
The existing area is on a road leading to the school, which is walked by residents of all ages. The proposed development would therefore adversely impact on a great many residents and should not be removed from the current Green Belt village boundary.
The Local plan is not sound for the following reasons:
- The overall assessment of need is exaggerated. Two very different assessments have been presented by NFDC both contain conjecture as to demand.
- The assessment of need in Milford-on-Sea is also exaggerated. There is no economic or social housing need that must be accommodated by building on the Green Belt as there are significant vacant sites within the village envelope that stand ready for development. There is an additional Green Belt exception site in the existing Plan for 30 units of varying types which has not been developed.
- If these existing sites were developed the real need for affordable housing in the village would benefit local residents and not those migrating into the village who often seek to buy second homes, would be met.
- Other sources of additional housing include the steady intensification of land use within the village and the recent conversion of a holiday park to permanent accommodation.
Milford-on-Sea’s infrastructure is already under considerable strain, including:
- The Road System: this suffers from a T junction bottleneck leaving the village and added congestion at the school adjacent to the proposed site would render Manor Road, The Lymington Road and other surrounding roads crowded and dangerous at all times not just during school terms. The proposed development would also add additional pollution to the area where the Junior School is situated. Because the proposed site is some distance from the village centre this would add to the flow of traffic into an already busy the village centre with increasingly little parking available.
- Public services: the school is already over-subscribed and the medical services are also at full stretch serving a particularly high proportion of older residents.
- Effect on wildlife population: the proposed site hosts diverse and thriving wild life including Roaming Deer, Badgers, Foxes, Buzzards, Nesting Birds, Voles and Owls and thus the proposed development would have an extreme detrimental effect on the village’s wild life population.
- The sewage system: this frequently causes sewerage to flow into people’s homes; despite considerable expenditure by the water authorities the current system is not fit for purpose. Any addition to the current system would be short sighted and possibly dangerous to property and life.
The Consultation Process
NFDC have arranged two consultation processes – both include the holiday months of July and August. The suggested format for responses is, for the responders, in an unfriendly format that is cumbersome, repetitive and time-consuming.
This has inevitably has a chilling effect on the willingness and patience of responders.