While the Council applauds the NPA vision the detail seems heavily biased towards all things natural and environmental with little or no regard to the main indigenous species i.e. the Human Race forming local communities.
The Council are unhappy with the designation of “Service Village” as this would suggest a concentration of development with no apparent plan for additional infrastructure.
There is no doubt that tourism is the major part of the local economy and local crafts and industries must continue to support the tourist trade both as an educational tool and historical tradition.
However it is a fallacy to expect all local people to work in the local area on ancient crafts.
This is totally unsustainable. The economy must be supported with modern, low impact, high tech opportunities which would be suited for development within the NP.
The development control policies regarding the provision of social housing do nothing to enhance the local community.
They only serve to divide communities and to urbanise the “Service Village” into a social housing estate. It also precludes sensible development for building one small property into which a couple could downsize thereby releasing a family home resulting in a continuation of the local community.
The policies also seem to suggest a need for an increase in visitor accommodation but at the same time discouraging any major development, surely a contradiction at the very least.
With the inevitable increase of both tourists and residents concentrated in the “Service Villages” vehicle movements and therefore traffic is going to increase dramatically. Yet another contradiction as the vision aspires to a reduction in the use of the motor vehicle.
This can only exacerbate the pressures already imposed on Lyndhurst.
Similarly any attempt to close roads or to introduce a road pricing structure can only be detrimental to the local community and economy including the commoners and farmers.
Whilst the Council acknowledge that planning regulations in respect of certain equine activities already exist the draconian measures proposed by the NPA are mainly inappropriate.
To attempt to dictate the method and type of feeding or physical care of animals is arrogance in the extreme.
In fact so called “recreational horses” have become part of the character of the forest settlements.
The Council also notes that there is a desire to remove advertising posters and tourist direction signs indicating amenities.
Again how can the local community thrive if it is not only stifled by the inability to promote itself but is falling over all the lost tourists due to lack of direction?
The Parish Council as a locally elected body has formed these views after some consultation with the local electorate.
We request an extension of the consultation period at least until the 31st December 2008 or until a revised draft is produced to enable the proposals to be studied in more detail.
At the inception of the NPA the Council was informed that the powers given under the New Forest Act, the role of the Verderers, that of the Commoners and the New Forest Consultative Panel would not be diminished.
The NPA would be a co-ordinating body attracting new national and international funding.
The definition of co-ordinating seems to be “to ride roughshod over the existing”
Lyndhurst Parish Council believes in CONServation and not PREServation.
We should not have, nor do we need, an historical artefact behind glass to which people can press their noses and wonder what went on in times gone by.
The Forest was created by man, his animals and his industries and has evolved through almost a thousand years into what it is today.
We are now in the twenty first century and should treat the Forest as a Vibrant, Living, Evolving environment.
Yes we should conserve but also replace so there is a forest for the future.
Yes we should consult but also engage with the people.
Please do not pickle the Forest in aspic. Let it live.
PLEASE THINK AGAIN! |
