The Hiltonbury Farmhouse Pub, a grade 2 listed building in North Millers Dale, is leased by Punch Taverns from Cranbury Estates. Punch want to re-open the pub and have made several planning applications to make alterations inside and outside.
The pub is adjacent to an open grass area about 35m x 50m which is subject of an agreement between Cranbury Estates and Eastleigh Borough Council made in 1980. The agreement and original plan of the area specifically commits Cranbury Estates to maintaining the community car park and public open space as a planning condition.
Fencing off the Green
Clive Watkins, representing some residents in the Deanery and Wallington Drive, said this green has always been used by residents of North Millers Dale as an amenity area. Punch Taverns have applied for planning permission to fence off the green and turn it in a private pub garden and put tables on it.
Mr Watkins said, “We are very against this and apart from all the traffic and noise, we feel that they should not be allowed to fence off this open space.
The Chandler’s Ford Parish Council supports our view following a meeting with them. A meeting has also been held with Steve Brine MP, who has been very helpful with advice. The planning application comes before the Eastleigh Borough Council LAC at 7pm on 6th July at the Dovetail Centre, Methodist Church, Chandler’s Ford (TBC).
We local residents are against any loss of this public space and would like to get as many residents as possible to attend this meeting. We feel Punch Taverns should not be permitted to fence off the green which will be lost forever for use by residents of the area.
Our view is that by all means refurbish the pub and turn it into more of a food pub rather than a wet pub. Punch Taverns must not be allowed to fence off the green.”
The planning application reference number is F/16/78284 and the post code of the pub is: SO53 2LE. The time for responses is now over so the meeting referred to above is now the way to make your view known. For more information contact: Clive Watkins; email: solentsailor@hotmail.com
What’s your view?
What do you think? Should the grass area be maintained as a public amenity, or should Punch Taverns be able to use it as they see fit? Is an agreement made 36 years ago still relevant today? If we allow this encroachment onto public land, where will the next loss be? Is land next to a pub the best place for public amenity area – is there other land that could replace it?
Please leave your comment and share with the community.
Open Spaces
There has always been a tension between land owners and the public. It came to a head in 1932 with the “Great Trespass” on Kinder Scout in the Pennines when Manchester Ramblers walked across ‘private’ grouse moors. Legislation began then and now generally takes the part of the public in giving reasonable access to walk on land for leisure. The public, for their part, must respect styles, gates, livestock, crops and any fire risk.
Trespass is not a criminal offence but you may be liable for any damage caused to crops or livestock. Of course assault of gamekeepers is criminal.
If you find an obstacle in your path, go around or move as much of it as necessary to continue.
The Ramblers Association and the Open Spaces Society are very helpful with questions and the law on public areas.
Oh Happy Days! Fond Christmas Memories in Chandler’s Ford 1950s – 1960s
Growing up in Chandler’s Ford: 1950s – 1960s: The Big Freeze in 1963 (Part 7)
Never miss out on another blog post. Subscribe here:
I have not had the opportunity to see the application to see the full extent of what Punch Tavers want to do to my old home as I have only just seen this article.
I find it Ironic that people are fighting over something that used to be a Duck Pond next to our orchard and My Father’s vegetable garden and nobody living on Millers Dale complained when the powers that be decided to build all over Hiltonbury Farm but Hey Ho, that’s progress.
I think it would be beautiful to sit outside in the summer and have a lunch or dinner of an evening but do they require the whole green?
I think not, so surely a compromise should be that Punch Taverns are given permission to place a few (say 10) Tables out on the green without a fence. There is, as far as I can see no reason why a fence should be erected.
It is a dog in the manger attitude to fence it off as it stops the locals using it at all and with The Lovely English weather I am not sure that Punch Taverns will be able to serve people outside on many occasions and certainly not through the winter months.
If Punch Taverns read this, I look forward to an invitation to the reopening of Hiltonbury Farmhouse as a place to eat food like my Mother used to make and eat lunch outside like I used to do with our family in The Summer. Shades of The Darling Buds of May!!
I still fondly remember when it was still a Farm in the English Country side.
I look forward to having Dinner on the green next Summer.
If planning permission for Change of Use included the condition that the green be left as a community amenity and unfenced, then that’s enough to prevent Punch Taverns fencing it off. The green may belong to them, but if it’s subject to a planning condition that prevents them unless the body which imposed that condition, almost certainly Eastleigh Borough Council, agrees to waive it. That’s unlikely – why would they? All the residents have to do is petition the borough council to uphold the existing planning consent and its conditions. I’m sure they’d be pushing at an open door.
If Punch Taverns really want to put some tables outside, what they should do is petition the borough council for the original condition to be waived to allow that on a specific number of occasions, say, for example, Saturdays and Sundays in June, July and August between noon and seven o’clock, and in return pay a fee which the borough council will then ear-mark for some specific amenity for the local residents if they can come up with something they’d like to have. A child’s swing in one corner, perhaps? Or a permanent garden seat so that older people can sit in the sun and chat? It’s up to them to propose something which can be erected and kept maintained. That way Punch Taverns get a bit of what they want – the facility to serve meals out of doors in good weather – the residents get what they want, i.e. the green doesn’t get fenced off, and in return for modifying their demand that the green isn’t fenced off they give Punch Taverns a bit of what they want and get an amenity for themselves in lieu. Seems to me that way everyone gains something.
That sounds like a very sensible plan Martin.
Thanks,
Thanks, Andy. I, of course, also remember it as a farm. When Margaret, my late wife, first got involved in politics and was our first-ever Liberal councillor back in the 1970’s, wasn’t it you who got her to become a vice-chairman of Chandler’s Ford Cricket Club?
I believe that would have been my Father John Vining as he was Hampshire County Councilor for Chandler’s Ford for about 15 years and of course the Cricket was played on the field that is now North Millars Dale and I was their mascot back in the early 50’s, played a bit in the 60-to’s but always cut the grass with a gang mower and my trusty little Ferguson tractor.
I moved away from Hiltonbury late 70’s when the building started but moved back 5 years ago and now live near my old home, still love the Flexford and Knightwood areas and spend a lot of time walking the dog in the areas that I used to farm. It seems strange but lovely memories.
As far as the green is concerned I see the partial use of some of the area by Punch Taverns on summer occasions, a perfect solution to the problem.
Andy,
I remember you mentioned Chandler’s Ford Cricket Club in this comment: Chandler’s Ford School Days: 1970s – 1980s by Betty Brooking.
(Andy Vining as a mascot.)
I like Andy’s idyllic ‘Darling Buds of May’ where diners, drinkers and picnickers can mingle on summer evenings. There will be ball game players, frisbee flickers, noisy children enjoying a game and don’t forget people with defaecating dogs. How long could it last before complaints start? Some people are not tolerant of dogs and children.
There may be laws about fencing off eating areas so that dogs are kept out. Does anyone know?
It seems there are often good cases for fencing off public land but we know where that will lead in the end. “You don’t know what you’ve got ’till its gone.”
I believe that there is no law that specifically restricts dogs from eating areas. It’s just that most restaurant owners choose to disallow dogs as that is generally what diners prefer.
Andy and Martin,
I enjoyed reading your posts and found them most interesting. We are quite a reasonable lot here in The Deanery and we met with Punch to discuss their plan. There is a development agreement made between EBC and Cranbury Estates in 1980 which protects this open space and my worry is as expressed by Mike, that under the old adage’ once its gone its gone’ if any sort of fence goes up the space will be lost forever. I have enjoyed using the green for many years and would like future residents of the area to do so as well. Anyway as and when the pub does re-open I would be happy to buy both of you a pint and to hear more about the history of the area.
Hi Clive. I agree with you and just don’t see any reason for a fence. I hope it all works out for the residents and will certainly take you up on your offer when I am back from my holiday.
Cheers
Andy
Who owns / leases the land? If it is not in the land leased by Punch Taverns then surely it is not their call to say how it is used. If it is, then “caveat emptor” springs to mind and they should have checked the terms before they leased it.
Also, to add an interesting fact to that insert about public rights of way: they are only rights of way when used for a bona fide journey. A case was upheld by the courts when someone was sued for trespass when using a public footpath as a vantage point for spying on his neighbour’s land. He wasn’t making a journey, therefore not entitled to use the right of way.