Here is my submission to NFDC concerning the latest application for a Wetherspoon's pub in the Ford's building next to St.Thomas church. Note that, because this is a new application rather than an appeal, any previous submissions, whether in favour or against, are NOT taken into account. If you have an opinion on this application you will need to make a submission even if you did so with regard to the previous one. The easiest way is online, click here to get to the page for this application (number 96974).

Click here to see my submission on the first application almost all of which is also applicable to the new application.

Ref: Planning Application – 11/96974, 47-48 ST THOMAS STREET, LYMINGTON SO41 9ND

I wish to register my opinion that this application should be REJECTED.

A great deal of discussion has resulted from proposals to site a large pub / restaurant next to St.Thomas' church. The debate has polarised unhelpfully so that those objecting are ridiculed as rich snobs denying youngsters their fun, and those in support are derided as ignorant drunkards on the side of big business with no regard for the character of Lymington. These caricatures are not only patently untrue, but also damaging for the community of Lymington as a whole, and risk taking the debate out of the realms of reason into the realms of politics and PR.

In the interest of breaking down this polarisation, a meeting was held between representatives of J.D.Wetherspoon (JDW) and the Parochial Church Council (who are the trustees responsible for the running of the church). This meeting was very helpful and alleviated some of the more extreme fears which had been felt. In particular the PCC was pleased to hear that the windows overlooking the churchyard were to be obscured and that no normal pedestrian access would be proposed directly to the beer garden. It is also pleasing to see that the original plan for a fully opening frontage has been abandoned in favour of the existing doors. The representatives of JDW also offered to allow any part of their management policy to be appended as conditions of approval, an offer which I would urge the council to take up if they approve the application. Following that meeting the PCC was persuaded that if JDW were permitted to develop a very large pub and restaurant on the boundary of the churchyard, then JDW would try hard to limit as far as possible the inevitable damage and disturbance to the area. For these reasons the PCC felt it would be unfair to submit an objection as a body, but that individual members should make their own submissions, whether in favour or against, at their own discretion.

The major concerns I have about the application, in common with almost all objectors, flow from the proposed location, with the entrance to the pub a matter of a few feet from the doors of the grade 2* listed St.Thomas' church, its ancient churchyard and historic memorials. Preserving the special character of this unique public space is important for all residents and visitors, whether or not they wish to enter a church or a pub.

People have described those who object to the location as NIMBYist (not in my back yard) but this is unfair; after all for most objectors, including myself, it is NOT in our back yard. In fact from a purely selfish point of view it would be helpful for the church to attract more people to our location, but we hold the church and churchyard in trust for everyone, for the future as well as the present, and must try our best to protect its character through the generations.

I have particular concerns over noise (including that from the beer garden and from the large quantity of ugly roof-top ducting) and over littering and vandalism in the churchyard (which we already struggle to keep under control). We need to bear in mind that this is a major pedestrian route to our two Primary schools, so broken glass etc. would pose a serious safety problem.

Some supporters of the application make a great deal of the fact that churches are often found next to pubs. This is a rather disingenuous argument since 'next to' is usually several hundred yards across a churchyard rather than the few feet involved in this proposal, and 'pub' means a traditional small village or town pub rather than the proposed 150-seater. Another poor argument given in favour is that there used to be a pub a little further up St.Thomas Street. Quite apart from the fact that it was not bordering the churchyard, those who remember those days also remember the problems of noise, mess and vandalism it caused in the churchyard. It is not unreasonable to expect a repeat of those problems on a much larger scale should the application be approved.

Some have said that we need a very large, very cheap pub / restaurant for those who find the prices in the existing 20 or so establishments too high. None, however, has made any case for why such an outlet needs to be bordering Lymington's quiet churchyard, on a busy High Street intersection and with no rear access. Surely an existing pub or even a new, purpose-built facility in the Webb development would give all the benefits claimed for this proposal without incurring the serious problems which seem inevitable in the proposed location.

Accordingly I urge that the proposal be REJECTED.

If you do see fit to accept the proposal, I would urge that you limit the damage as much as possible by: taking up JDW on their offer to allow management practices as conditions to the approval; insisting that the windows overlooking the churchyard be FULLY (not partially) obscured and also double-glazed; ensuring there is no direct pedestrian access to the beer garden except through the main building; hiding the ducting on the roof; insisting that they liaise with neighbours on minimising problems (I understand this last is JDW's normal practice).

Dear friends,

This month begins the public phase of our fund raising for the St.Thomas Renewal project. It's quite staggering when you think how long it has taken to get to this stage – around four years since the first investigations. It has been a very long road partly because we have had so many administrative hurdles to leap and mostly because we have wanted to make sure that we gave plenty of time for people to comment, ask questions and become familiar with our plans.

As the public phase begins I'm sure we shall all be asked by interested locals what it is that we are planning at St.Thomas. So it is very important that we all understand not only the basics of what will be done, but also the reasons behind the difficult choices we have made.

Three of the most common questions we have heard so far will no doubt come up as you chat with people about the project, so let me just rehearse some simple answers to those questions.

Why now? Some of the work is urgent and it makes sense to do everything at once rather than have several fund raising efforts and closures of the building. The cost of doing the work is rising steeply, so the sooner we get started the less it will cost. With the slow down in the national economy it is important for local employment that such projects go ahead.

Why lose the pews? They must be removed to install under floor heating (which is much the most energy-efficient system). They are poor quality and so would not be worth the considerable expense of refurbishing and re-installing them. We are spending approximately £10,000 to refurbish the four splendid oak choir pews. Using chairs not only saves a lot of money but means the space can be used much more flexibly when required.

Is it right to spend all this money on St.Thomas? Most of the money has been given to the church with conditions attached so we are not free to give it away to other charities. Very little has been spent on the fabric of St.Thomas over the past twenty years. It is our duty to pass the building on to the next generation in good order. We are keeping costs as low as we can.

Please do enthuse people about the renewal project; it is so important that we sustain this house of prayer at the heart of Lymington.

With best wishes,
Peter