INSPIRATION and innovation are missing from plans to build on a prominent site on the edge of Lymington river, say town councillors.

The council is recommending that New Forest District Council refuse Paxton Holdings Limited's 300-home scheme for the old Webbs chicken processing factory site off Bridge Road.

The district council refused earlier plans for the riverside site in June. Paxton Holdings is appealing against the decision. In the meantime it has submitted the revised scheme.

New plans show 205 private flats, 93 affordable flats, 10 live/work units, a 100-bedroom hotel, a restaurant with river views and a riverside walk.

Town council clerk Ray Jones decribed the plan as "probably one of the most important and controversial applications we've had to deal with".

That is reflected in the town planning committee's thorough treatment of them.

Members say it is a "unique site which deserves world class architectural design".

It will provide little benefit to the town, minimal opportunity for business development and will lead to a loss of potential industrial land, they say.

The hotel could be converted to homes if it fails as a business.

No construction should go ahead without a pedestrian bridge or underpass to cross the railway line to provide a link with the rest of the town, they add.

The number of new homes would have an adverse impact on educational and health resources, councillors said.

There are also concerns about traffic jams due to the proximity of the site entrance to the railway level crossing.

Councillors also said the plans should not be considered in isolation and heed should be taken of the closed infirmary site and potential development on the current hospital site.

The town needs 'proper' homes with gardens and garages, a balanced mix of housing.

"The design style put forward is for flats only, which represents the second homes market and as such a further 300 homes of this type could change the profile of the town as we know it.

"The lack of imagination and innovation in the design wastes the site's potential as a landmark development site."

First published: September 29