Couple appeal for understanding over mobile home at beauty spot

Salisbury Journal: The mobile home off Puddleslosh Lane The mobile home off Puddleslosh Lane

A MEETING was due to be held at the Town Hall last night over a mobile home sited off a rural lane in Fordingbridge.

Objectors have been putting leaflets around the town after becoming concerned over the two-unit mobile home off Puddleslosh Lane.

The caravan is the subject of a planning application to New Forest District Council, to site it there for three years to enable Sophia Fletcher and partner Nick Crowe to get an agricultural business off the ground.

Objectors say they fear the business will lead to extra traffic on a public bridleway, and that permission could ruin the area for people who enjoy the area for walking, riding and cycling.

One letter of objection from Jay Andrews refers to an earlier application for a site in neighbouring Marl Lane, for a Gypsy family to site their caravans, which has gone to appeal, and another farm at Tinkers Cross that has won permission for a temporary home.

She says: “It seems the whole of the area is under attack from people chancing their luck and getting under the NFDC planning laws.”

But Miss Fletcher and Mr Crowe say they are simply using agricultural land for agricultural purposes, and are appealing to the public to support their farming enterprise.

They also say they have been subjected to verbal abuse and intimidation when they are just trying to get their business, C&F Gourmet Farm Foods, started.

Miss Fletcher said: "Before we bought the land in Puddleslosh Lane, we read in the district council’s Core Strategy that it seeks to encourage agricultural enterprises and allow agricultural workers dwellings to support a rural workforce.

“When we found this empty field in an area with no special designations, we thought it would be the ideal spot to establish our new business, to supply specialist high-end foods such as goat milk and meat and elephant garlic, for which we have identified a local untapped market.”

But Charles Berridge of Marl Lane says their mobile home is “creeping intrusion” and would be “the start of the demise of the area as we know it”.

Nicki Salmond, also of Marl Lane, said permission would “set a dangerous precedent for future development of open countryside in this area”.

And Michael Wilson of Allen Water Drive said: “It may as well be a tower block, it's so ugly and out of place.”

The couple, who moved the mobile home on to the site on February 22, have promised to tone down the exterior of the mobile home after complaints.

And they are supported by several people.

Simon Noble of Southampton said: “Two young people working hard to achieve something very worthwhile. Taking measures to support wildlife conservation along the way. They deserve 100 per cent support.”

Reuben Lowe added: “I can understand local anxiety towards development with respect to recent planning applications nearby.”

But he said the land was on the market for a long time before the couple bought it and local people could have bought it themselves to stop anyone using it for agriculture. He said: “They have chosen not to do so, change is inevitable and they missed their opportunity.”

Miss Fletcher added “We knew taking care of our enterprise from a distance would involve an increase in traffic movements on Puddleslosh Lane.

“We also knew we would need to live here for the welfare of our animals, but the mobile home has not yet been lived in and is only being used as an agricultural store.

“We have asked for permission to live there, to take care of our goats and expand the business. We believe our living on the land would generate less traffic than having to visit the holding every day.

“We hope very much the council will recognise the merits of our new enterprise and give us the opportunity to play a modest part in achieving its rural strategy."

Comments (6)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:43am Thu 10 Apr 14

SuzLees says...

I have read this report and feel I must comment on the narrow minded , nimby attitude of the negative objectors. It would seem that here we have two young people willing to roll their sleeves up and do what is probably a seven day, fifty two week of the year job to earn a living . Would it be preferred by these "critics " that young people not be allowed to start a rural green enterprise and farm the countryside with the hope that they may offer local employment to others in the future? Or might they be happier if these young people just sat at home watching daytime TV, in a home paid for by state benefits and job seekers money ?
Britain was built on enterprise and farming, our need to "home grow "and import less is paramount for our economy and to reduce the effects of global warming. It's encouragement is backed by all the political parties ! So please look at the bigger picture for everyone's benefit and future .
I have read this report and feel I must comment on the narrow minded , nimby attitude of the negative objectors. It would seem that here we have two young people willing to roll their sleeves up and do what is probably a seven day, fifty two week of the year job to earn a living . Would it be preferred by these "critics " that young people not be allowed to start a rural green enterprise and farm the countryside with the hope that they may offer local employment to others in the future? Or might they be happier if these young people just sat at home watching daytime TV, in a home paid for by state benefits and job seekers money ? Britain was built on enterprise and farming, our need to "home grow "and import less is paramount for our economy and to reduce the effects of global warming. It's encouragement is backed by all the political parties ! So please look at the bigger picture for everyone's benefit and future . SuzLees
  • Score: 3

2:17pm Thu 10 Apr 14

AndrewM says...

Perhaps the critics have the benefit of having heard this kind of story many times before, only for the owners to close whatever business they've started, a few years after they've gained permission for a house with an agricultural restriction, then argue the restriction prevents them getting market value and eventually they sell the whole lot for a massive profit leaving the community with less rural countryside.
Perhaps the critics have the benefit of having heard this kind of story many times before, only for the owners to close whatever business they've started, a few years after they've gained permission for a house with an agricultural restriction, then argue the restriction prevents them getting market value and eventually they sell the whole lot for a massive profit leaving the community with less rural countryside. AndrewM
  • Score: 7

2:58am Fri 11 Apr 14

karlmarx says...

AndrewM wrote:
Perhaps the critics have the benefit of having heard this kind of story many times before, only for the owners to close whatever business they've started, a few years after they've gained permission for a house with an agricultural restriction, then argue the restriction prevents them getting market value and eventually they sell the whole lot for a massive profit leaving the community with less rural countryside.
Sounds very much like the Wilton Eco Park proposal from a few years back. Result? Another housing estate and less rural countryside for the community.
[quote][p][bold]AndrewM[/bold] wrote: Perhaps the critics have the benefit of having heard this kind of story many times before, only for the owners to close whatever business they've started, a few years after they've gained permission for a house with an agricultural restriction, then argue the restriction prevents them getting market value and eventually they sell the whole lot for a massive profit leaving the community with less rural countryside.[/p][/quote]Sounds very much like the Wilton Eco Park proposal from a few years back. Result? Another housing estate and less rural countryside for the community. karlmarx
  • Score: 6

9:56pm Fri 11 Apr 14

Aethernet says...

A couple buying privately owned land and wanting a mobile home on site sounds like a developer buying MOD land and wanting to put 300 houses on it?

If you'd care to look at Wilton on a map (and Fordingbridge for that matter) you might notice that these places are not short on rural countryside. And having spent many years roaming it and barely seeing a soul, it is hardly an over-used resource.
A couple buying privately owned land and wanting a mobile home on site sounds like a developer buying MOD land and wanting to put 300 houses on it? If you'd care to look at Wilton on a map (and Fordingbridge for that matter) you might notice that these places are not short on rural countryside. And having spent many years roaming it and barely seeing a soul, it is hardly an over-used resource. Aethernet
  • Score: 2

3:32am Sat 12 Apr 14

karlmarx says...

Aethernet wrote:
A couple buying privately owned land and wanting a mobile home on site sounds like a developer buying MOD land and wanting to put 300 houses on it?

If you'd care to look at Wilton on a map (and Fordingbridge for that matter) you might notice that these places are not short on rural countryside. And having spent many years roaming it and barely seeing a soul, it is hardly an over-used resource.
No, you missed the point. An original proposal is 'altered' to achieve the actual outcome desired in the first place, further development with less rural countryside. Everything and everyone is expendable under this government.
[quote][p][bold]Aethernet[/bold] wrote: A couple buying privately owned land and wanting a mobile home on site sounds like a developer buying MOD land and wanting to put 300 houses on it? If you'd care to look at Wilton on a map (and Fordingbridge for that matter) you might notice that these places are not short on rural countryside. And having spent many years roaming it and barely seeing a soul, it is hardly an over-used resource.[/p][/quote]No, you missed the point. An original proposal is 'altered' to achieve the actual outcome desired in the first place, further development with less rural countryside. Everything and everyone is expendable under this government. karlmarx
  • Score: -7

5:25pm Mon 14 Apr 14

Bournemouth Ohec says...

They're following the lead of the illegal build on the smallholding on the Whitsbury Road.

If this doesn't get nipped in the bud it's going to be repeated all over the area.
They're following the lead of the illegal build on the smallholding on the Whitsbury Road. If this doesn't get nipped in the bud it's going to be repeated all over the area. Bournemouth Ohec
  • Score: 4

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree