CIVIC chiefs have been criticised by the Local Government Ombudsman for the way they handled a controversial planning application in the New Forest National Park.

Proposals for a three-bedroom house in Brockishill Road, Bartley, were given the go-ahead in 2013, despite strong opposition to the scheme from people living in the area.

The application was submitted by one of the local commoners –villagers with the right to let their ponies and cattle graze the landscape.

Clare Bates said the house would enable her children and future generations to keep commoning alive.

Cheers rang out from her supporters sitting in the public gallery at Lymington Town Hall when the scheme was approved by the New Forest National Park Authority (NPA).

But the Local Government Ombudsman has ruled that the authority failed to prove that she needed to live near her animals.

The NPA has been ordered to pay the complainant, Bartley resident John de Trafford, £300 towards the cost of lodging his protest.

The Ombudsman’s report says: “Commoning is widely practised without living on site. I do not consider that the authority has explained why it considered the need for a dwelling has been met in this case.

“Based on the evidence I have seen, there was fault in the case officer’s report.”

Last night Mr de Trafford criticised the NPA for failing to properly examine the need for a commoner’s dwelling on the site.

He added: “This case first went before the authority in 2012. It continuously refused to listen to local residents, who said the proposal did not meet the requirements of its own core policies.

“Sadly it is too late for the residents of Brockishill Road.

“The dwelling is now built and what were once green fields are now blighted by a collection of barns, agricultural equipment and associated farm clutter, including a caravan.

“The Local Government Ombudsman noted that the site had previously been used by a commoner who did not live there.”

An NPA spokesman said: “We accept that one element of the complaint was described by the Ombudsman as an ‘administrative fault’ related to whether the requirement for the commoner’s house could be met in any other way. We agreed to pay the complainant £300 and apologised for his time and trouble, as recommended by the Ombudsman.”