\n The New Forest National Park Authority (NPA) has rejected an application to transform the disused Fenwick Hospital site at Pikes Hill in Lyndhurst.\n<\/p>\n
\n NPA planning officers said the scheme would result in an established community asset being lost “without sufficient justification”.\n<\/p>\n
\n Goldcrest Custom\u00a0Homes\u00a0had sought consent to provide 15 “much-needed” houses by replacing one building and converting others on the NHS land.\n<\/p>\n
\n Plans to provide a total of 15 homes on the former Fenwick Hospital site have been rejected by the NPA (Image: Supplied)\n<\/p>\n
\n Some of the letters received by the NPA were full of praise for\u00a0the scheme, but others raised a raft of objections.\n<\/p>\n
\n The New Forest Association welcomed the retention of four cottages near the main entrance\u00a0but added: “The proposal for 11\u00a0units on the remainder of the site however appears excessive, resulting in insufficient parking, large areas of hard landscaping, and small gardens.\n<\/p>\n
\n “We support the inclusion of ‘affordable’\u00a0units but the provision of only two represents 13 per cent\u00a0of the total development, whereas it should be 50 per cent.”\n<\/p>\n
\n Plans to provide 15 houses on the former Fenwick Hospital site have been rejected (Image: Chapman Lily Planning)\n<\/p>\n
\n Several other objectors sent an identical letter to the NPA.\n<\/p>\n
\n The letter said: “The proposal for too many new houses, along with conversion of existing buildings, is excessive and represents overdevelopment of the site.\n<\/p>\n
\n “The number and massing of new buildings is out of character with the area, appearing cramped and overbearing. This level of development is unsuitable for the sensitive location of Pikes Hill.”\n<\/p>\n
\n Announcing its decision, the NPA said: “The proposal would result in the loss of an established community use without sufficient justification.\n<\/p>\n
\n “Furthermore, there is no robust evidence provided to demonstrate there is no longer a need for the existing healthcare use in the longer term, or a need for an alternative community use.”\n<\/p>\n
\n The NPA also said the proposal would fail to strengthen the wellbeing and sustainability of local communities.\n<\/p>\n
\n It added: “The loss of natural features would be at odds with the spacious pattern of development in the immediate area, thereby undermining the semi-rural character and local distinctiveness of the settlement edge.\n<\/p>\n
\n “Furthermore, the proposal would result in the loss of a non designated heritage asset.”\n<\/p>\n