AS the dust settles today on the biggest change in the New Forest's 1,000-year history, the fine details of the scheme are coming under the microscope.

Politicians, homeowners and conservation groups are trying to work out what National Park status means for their towns, villages and communities.

Rural affairs minister Alun Michael has sparked a furore with a controversial change in the original boundaries planned by the Countryside Agency for the park and discussed in detail at the long-running public inquiry into the proposals.

For some it could mean increased house prices and tighter building controls on the leafy acres around them.

Others fear they could miss out on tourism and see beautiful

scenic towns buried under concrete jungles.

And the Department for environment, Food and Rural Affairs has sent out a clear

message that the boundary is final.

With the exception of the land around Fawley power station, there will be no public consultation on where the borders lie, a spokesman for the Whitehall department said.

Sailing mecca Lymington had high hopes of being included in the exclusive boundary after being earmarked for inclusion last year.

But yesterday Mr Michael announced the town's 35,000 residents would be excluded.

The news was met with amazement by civic chiefs.

Jane Clarke, Mayor of Lymington and Pennington, said: "We are very disturbed by the news we have been left out.

"Quite a lot of what we had considered was New Forest is outside the boundary and that's bound to have an effect on planning.

"We do not know the exact repercussions of this news for the town until we have gone over the minister's report in detail.

"What would look to be a concern is whether more planning will now be allowed in Lymington and Pennington that would not have been allowed if we had been inside the National Park.

"It could be a sad day for the market towns."

Ringwood mayor and New Forest district councillor Michael Thierry's initial reaction when told his town was not to be included in the park was: "You're joking!"

He thought because of its proximity to the park, Ringwood would not miss out.

He said: "Ringwood will not be subject to National Park planning restrictions but it will still be subject to the New Forest District Plan."

House prices are also likely to be affected by the new status.

Bill Walsh, owner of Brockenhurst based Walsh and Co, predicted houses inside the boundaries could see their values rise by ten per cent.

He said the increase could help villages such as Burley, Brockenhurst and Beaulieu buck a national downturn in house prices predicted by agents throughout the industry.

But there would be no such protection for those left out like Lymington, Fordingbridge and Ringwood, he said.

Mr Walsh said: "Prices are likely to rise because of the change of status simply because of the scarcity. If no more development is allowed in the Forest

villages then prices will rise.

"The only other nightmare there is the danger of red tape, which is already quite extensive, becoming far greater.

"There will be enormous resentment for simple changes. The level of control that's already tight will get a lot tighter."

The most notable omission from the new park is Dibden Bay.

Campaigners were overjoyed when Associated British Ports was told it could not build a new container port on the environmentally protected land.

Now their hopes that the patch of land would be protected forever by being included in the National Park have been dashed.

Peter Frost, one of the Verderers, the New Forest's ancient guardians, admitted it was a blow that Dibden Bay had been left out.

He said: "That is very bad news considering that Dibden Bay fitted the criteria. This shows the government is caving in. I was surprised when they turned down the plans to develop Dibden Bay as a port because I thought they would fudge it.

"This is the way they've fudged it by leaving the door open for future development. The conservationists will be up in arms."

Brian Dash, Hampshire county councillor for Dibden and Hythe, said: "I'm extremely disappointed Dibden Bay has been left out. The Waterside has always been part of the New Forest. It's been eaten into by the needs of industry. We understand that but at least we wanted Dibden Bay."

A spokesman for ABP confirmed their fears.

She said: "The land was acquired as port operational land for potential future port development and that remains the position.

"ABP welcomes the Secretary of State's decision not to include the land at Dibden, which had been reclaimed for port use, within the New Forest National Park boundary.

"This is a positive decision and confirms our position at the National Park inquiry that the reclaimed land at Dibden does not meet the criteria for inclusion in the park."

Dave Yates, chief executive of New Forest Council, said: "

"Our main emotion at the moment is one of surprise over the boundaries. These appear to have been drawn much more narrowly than was recommended and clearly excluded Lymington, Ringwood but also major areas of Totton and around Dibden Bay. This is a surprise and a disappointment."

Ken Thornber, leader of Hampshire County Council and councillor for Brockenhurst, was also dismayed by the decision to leave out the three areas.

He said: "I had hoped all three areas could have had the security that a national park authority could offer them because they are an integral part of the New Forest."

See also the Spotlight feature by clicking the More News section of 'This is Southampton'.