A meeting was held at the Village Hall to discuss the NPA’s Draft Plan for the next 20 years in the New Forest.  There were approximately 100 of you who attended the meeting and this was both very welcome and useful.  From such a small parish, this is confirmation indeed that you care and are prepared not only to stand up and be counted, you also want to try and do something to protect our way of life in the Forest.

 

The result of the meeting is the response (see below) which we have sent to the NPA on your behalf.  We now await the NPA’s decisions on either their acceptance or their dismissal of not only the thoughts of this parish, but also every other parish in the Forest.

 

As we are updated so we will update you via your website.

 

A big thank you to all who attended the meeting.

 

New Forest National Park Authority

 

East Boldre Parish Council Response to Draft Plan

 

Q1, Q2(a), Q2(b)

 

Many of the villagers had found the Plan difficult to read and to follow, frequently making comments such as "woolly" and "full of contradictions and inconsistencies". In general the language used should be simpler if the residents of the Forest who, after all, are those most affected, are readily to appreciate the Plan. There should be a well-written Executive Summary.

 

Any cross-referencing should be useful and accurate. For example, the National Park Purposes mentioned on p.2 may not be familiar to every reader, but they are so fundamental as to warrant pointing out; sadly the paragraph numbering for the reference appears to have been edited out.

 

A useful piece of information, possibly referred to here but placed in an Appendix, would be a list of those bodies and organisations that were consulted in producing the draft.

 

 

Q3

 

As written the Plan has given rise to so much hostility that only a major rewriting can win the public sympathy needed for any successful implementation. The present level of hostility is especially unfortunate, for there are many good points which, if made clearly, would attract support. After all, most residents - whether having many generations there, or having chosen to move to it more recently - love 'their' Forest and wish to see it conserved.

 

 

Q4

 

The Vision should be expressed far more succinctly. The 9 points, often overlapping, and with elaboration lose all impact. If the Purposes can be expressed in two statements, why does the Vision need to be longer? The essential concept seems to be of an area where the semi-natural character is maintained, or even, where possible, extended, so that (1) the indigenous wildlife can flourish, (2) the way of life of the inhabitants can continue and (3) visitors can enjoy the peace and beauty.

 

 

Q5

 

Chapters 1 & 2 should be greatly condensed, with most of the detail placed in an Appendix. Both are often too patronising in tone and too backward looking. Our view is that some development, continuing the processes of the last 1000 years, is inevitable if the Forest communities are not to decline, so the pressures should be neither exaggerated nor presented too pessimistically.

 

The NPA would be more credible if all the facts were correct. We have already had experience of officials appearing to be unable to distinguish between Boldre and East Boldre. Gross errors such as the interesting re-routing of the Brockenhurst - Lymington railway, as well as the major re-positioning of Christchurch and New Milton on the maps pp9 and 36 are obvious, but they destroy confidence in other "facts" in the document.

 

 

Q6

Zoning may be a useful concept for the planners, but is of questionable value to the general public. However, if it is to be used we feel that there are many areas where the zone boundaries are naturally ill-defined or overlap. Moreover, the definitive map should be accurate. For example, we believe that the area of farmed land (Zone 3) along the East Boldre to East End road is considerably larger than shown.

 

 

Q7, Q8, Q9

 

P.1 is laudable, but reduction of the environmental footprint is a matter for other bodies, such as the County and District Councils. The tone patronises residents and existing local government, whereas a less arrogant attitude could engender more cooperation. P1.2 can be supported. P1.3 seems to accept the inevitable, but the matter of coastal defences is beyond the competence of the NPA. P1.4 is again well outside the NPA's competence.

 

 

P.2 is a "busybody's" charter. Certainly East Boldre has developed, warts and all, over many years, as have other villages, and it is quite artificial to stop that at some arbitrary point. Whilst "gentrification" and "suburbanisation" may be thought alien to the area and should be resisted, "prettification" is just as bad. We support points such as resisting piecemeal encroachment of the Forest or the loss of trees and hedgerows of amenity value. However, matters such as street signage and design (PP2.2) are the responsibility of the local Councils and should consider the safety of the residents as well as the photographs taken by visitors. Similarly, it would be very nice to see undergrounding of cables, but only at reasonable cost. PP2.4 is another example of the patronising and unwelcome attitude of the NPA, even though we can have sympathy with some of the points.

 

P.3 The NPA does not strengthen its case by exaggeration. The aircraft noise in our part of the forest is minimal, so a doubling of commercial traffic to Southampton is hardly likely to concern us; indeed, the alternative of having to travel to Heathrow or Gatwick, with the overall environmental impact that implies, would be far less acceptable. No doubt the same is true of the area affected by traffic to Hurn. Similarly, on p.56, a 12% increase in visitor numbers over 20 years seems negligible; indeed, if the NPA is effective in promoting understanding of the Forest a far greater increase should be expected.

 

If seasonal road closures (PP3.1) are to be implemented the needs of residents must be taken into account; this is another area which is, or should be, outside the remit of the NPA, though it may be appropriate for it to make representations to the District and County Councils.

 

To seek involvement of Parish Councils (PP3.3) when there is little evidence that the views of such bodies are listened to is unrealistic. Unless a Vision and Plan for the Forest is produced which is truly acceptable to the residents of the Forest this just will not happen.

 

Lighting (PP3.3) is not directly a matter for the NPA. We value the low level of light pollution in the village, but we also value our safety, so a reasonable approach must be taken to allow what local communities judge to be necessary street and security lighting.

 

 

Q10, Q11, Q12

 

The conservation policies proposed by the NPA seem to wish to put the clock back by some unspecified number of centuries. Nevertheless, the proposal mentioned earlier, to link some of the wilder parts of the Forest to allow wildlife to migrate seems reasonable. CP2.2 and 2.3 are another busybody's attempt to "prettify" the Forest; the tone is arrogant and not calculated to gain the support of the residents who will have to suffer this control. On the other hand, scrapping of all controls is not an objective of the Parish Council or its residents; the previous planning policy operated by NFDC, which has the merit of extending beyond the NPA boundaries, was felt to be perfectly satisfactory.

 

Support for agriculture and, specifically, commoning (CP3.1) is appropriate, given the role these play in local communities. At the same time, these communities need to remain viable so it is necessary to recognise and accept an inevitable process of change. Much of CP3.2 seems to be the province of DEFRA. CP3.3 needs to recognise the role of conifers in woodland management, as well as softwood production being an important local industry. CP3.4 seems like another attack on recreational horse keeping, which appears to us an excessively strong reaction against something which contributes greatly to, and is one aspect of the natural development of the local economy.

 

 

Q13, Q14, Q15

 

A major inconsistency is the desire, on the one hand, to protect the Forest against the pressures of people and, on the other, to promote the use of the Forest by visitors (even though the predicted growth of visitor numbers of 12% over 20 years is small and probably less than the margin of error of the statistics). It should be made clear that UP2.1 will not adversely affect the inhabitants of the Forest; here again much of the policy is a matter for NFDC and HCC. However, in general we can support this Chapter, and certainly UP2.5.

 

There seems to be little justification for the statements made about the impact of recreation; many believe that the regrettable decline in numbers of some birds has more to do with climate change and farming practices than with visitors to the Forest.

 

 

Q16, Q17, Q18

 

We regard LP1.2 as important, so planning policies must not be so draconian or implemented so strongly, that such developments do not take place. Likewise LP1.3 is important, for there needs to be the possibility of re-balancing the housing stock, particularly to make it easier for young, single people to remain in the area.

 

L3. Measures to reduce animal accidents and other adverse results of road traffic are generally to be welcomed by Forest residents. However, this is essentially a matter for the District and County Councils and, moreover, some aspects are already in hand with those bodies and Parish Councils. Improved public transport would be welcomed, but there is no recognition in the proposals of the amount of improvement needed before any benefits would be observed.

 

 

Q19, Q20, Q21

 

In the short time the NPA has been in existence it has acquired a poor reputation for working with others. Many of the actions are really the province of other bodies so, where the actions are desirable, the NPA should seek to persuade rather than dictate. Many local people believe that "regular liaison" with the NPA really means extra, costly bureaucracy and that the objectives could be better achieved without the NPA.

 

The list of priority actions is a real rag-bag with no clear structure of priorities. It needs redrafting after the rest of the plan has been revised and after it is clearer what will actually be acceptable and practicable.

 

 

Q22

 

DC1 and DC2 are phrased in such a way as to appear unduly autocratic and restrictive, even though some of the criteria of DC2 appear quite reasonable. "Built heritage" is a cliché in villages such as East Boldre, where the very diversity reflects their growth and development.

 

In view of the remarks made under Q16-18 it is to be hoped that DC3 and DC4 would allow development on an appropriate scale and nature to take place even in the smaller villages.

 

DC5 and DC6 appear to be acceptable. DC7, on the other hand, appears to be ridiculous if applied to small outbuildings in back gardens not even visible from the road or surrounding open space; such policies reinforce the view people have of the Park planning authority being an unreasonable and interfering body.

 

In the smaller villages there is already a serious lack of services. DC8 should be modified to allow the possibility of developments to improve these services - for example, by establishing a farm shop. Again, DC9 as stated is probably stricter than is consistent with maintaining the viability of communities which are partly dependent on agriculture.

 

Horse keeping and management (DC12 - DC14) is the matter about which most concerns have been expressed. Certainly the policies proposed seem unaware that good animal husbandry requires some provision of hard standing and shelter, occasional rugging, subdivision of paddocks etc. Moreover, the evidence supporting the need for stricter controls should be provided and be verifiable - the evidence in East Boldre is that there is so little riding that the idea of its damaging the Forest is quite unbelievable.

 

Controls DC15 and DC17 have implications for the smaller villages. On the face of it they seem acceptable, but should be modified allow the possibility of services or a change in services, where there is already a nucleus outside the main service villages.

 

Although most of DC18 appears reasonable, it should be modified to allow pointers to local services in small villages which are off a main road.

 

Q23

 

It would be helpful to know which bodies participated in drawing up the policy options.