Report Item 3 Application No 10/95806 FULL

Planning Development Control Committee - 18 January 2011 Report Item 3

Application No: 10/95806/FULL Full Application

Site: Brown Gables, Forest Edge Road, Crow, Ringwood BH24 3DF

Proposal: Outbuilding

Applicant: Mr P Gray

Case Officer: Clare Ings

Parish: RINGWOOD

1. DISTRICT/BOROUGH: New Forest District Council

2. REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Contrary to Parish Council view.

3. DEVELOPMENT PLAN DESIGNATION

No specific designation

4. PRINCIPAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES

DP1 General Development Principles DP12 Outbuildings

5. MEMBER COMMENTS

None received

6. PARISH COUNCIL COMMENTS

Ringwood Town Council: Recommend permission.

7. CONSULTEES

7.1 NFDC Engineering & Land Drainage: No objection subject to a condition requiring details of surface water drainage.

8. REPRESENTATIONS

8.1 One letter from neighbouring property: no issues of concern.

9. RELEVANT HISTORY

9.1 Outbuilding (95404) refused on 22 September 2010.

9.2 Roof alterations in association with new first floor (86851) refused on 15 March 2006.

9 10. ASSESSMENT

10.1 Brown Gables lies to the west of Forest Edge Road, an unmade gravel track serving a number of properties which is accessed off the road between Ringwood and Burley in the Crow area of Ringwood. The plot is generous in size with the dwelling set at the eastern side. It is served by two accesses and there is a gravelled parking area to the front of the dwelling. The dwelling itself is a large detached chalet bungalow of render and tile with an attached double garage. A fence separates the garden from the parking area. The plot is characterised by mature vegetation and large trees. This size of the plot, dwelling and mature landscaped nature of the application site are characteristic of the area.

10.2 The proposal, which is a resubmission following a previous refusal, is for a large outbuilding comprising a double garage, double and single car ports, a store and log store with storage accommodation above, served by an internal staircase. It would be constructed of timber on a brick plinth under a clay tile roof and would measure some 117m² in footprint. The highest part of the ridge would be 5.2m. It has been marginally reconfigured since the previous refusal, but is not significantly different in scale. There has been no reduction in the height of the outbuilding.

10.3 The key planning considerations are the scale of the outbuilding and its appropriateness to the existing dwelling and its plot, and its impact on the wider New Forest area.

10.4 The relevant policy is DP12 which requires that outbuildings should be incidental to the use of the dwelling, but also that they should be located with the residential curtilage and not capable of providing additional habitable accommodation. It is the overall scale of the development, both its footprint and height, which would result in a single building which would not appear incidental to the main dwelling. As a result of this scale, including its height which would be greater than that of the dwelling (which scales off at 4.7m), it would have the appearance of competing with the main dwelling on the site rather than being wholly subservient to it, and would considerably add to the built development within and across the plot which would detract from the rural character of the area.

10.5 The outbuilding is unlikely to have any impact on the amenities of adjoining dwellings due to the nature of the boundary treatment. However, the scale of the outbuilding is such that it would not appear incidental to the main dwelling and therefore would not comply with policy DP12. It would have a detrimental impact on the spacious character of the area and the New Forest National Park as a whole. The application is therefore recommended for refusal.

11. RECOMMENDATION Refuse Reason(s)

1. The proposed outbuilding, by virtue of its scale and height, would considerably detract from the rural character of the area, consolidating the impact of built development in associated with the dwelling and would not be considered to be incidental to the main dwelling. This would be harmful to the character and appearance of the New Forest National Park and the proposal could not be considered appropriate to the dwelling and its curtilage. The proposal would therefore be in direct conflict with the requirements of policies DP1 and DP12 of the New Forest National Park Core Strategy and Development Management Policies (DPD) December 2010. 10 41 41 67 75 00m 00m 68 69 70 71 72 73 74

104700m 104700m

46 46

45 45

44 44

43 43

42 42

41 41

40 40

39 39

103800m 103800m 41 41 75 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 00m 00m

New Forest National Park Authority South Efford House, Milford Road, Everton, SO41 0JD Item: 3

Tel: 01590 646600 Fax: 01590 646666 Ref: 10/95404/FULL

11 Planning Development Control Committee - 18 January 2011 Report Item 4

Application No: 10/95835/FULL Full Application

Site: Rest Harrow, Hightown Hill, Ringwood, BH24 3HE

Proposal: Two storey outbuilding.

Applicant: Mr & Mrs Gray

Case Officer: Liz Young

Parish: RINGWOOD

1. DISTRICT/BOROUGH: New Forest District Council

2. REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Contrary to Parish Council view.

3. DEVELOPMENT PLAN DESIGNATION

No specific designation

4. PRINCIPAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES

DP1 General Development Principles DP12 Outbuildings

5. MEMBER COMMENTS

None received

6. PARISH COUNCIL COMMENTS

Ringwood Town Council: Recommend permission.

7. CONSULTEES

7.1 Tree Officer: No objections; proposed development would be sufficiently remote from trees so as to avoid an unacceptable impact.

8. REPRESENTATIONS

8.1 None received.

9. RELEVANT HISTORY:

9.1 Two storey addition and garage and conservatory (34173) approved on 2 April 1987.

10. ASSESSMENT

10.1 Rest Harrow is a detached dwelling located in rural surroundings at the end of a shared access track adjacent to Hightown Hill. Areas of woodland lie to north east 12 and south east of the site and it also lies in close proximity to the open forest. Screening along the north west boundary is fairly limited, enabling views of the property southwards along the access track. The site is not directly adjoined by any residential properties. The property has already been extended beyond its full potential under current policies following a consent for a large two storey extension incorporating an integral garage in 1987 (reference 34173).

10.2 Consent is sought to replace the existing two bay carport with a three bay garage with room above (along with an external staircase). The external footprint would be increased from 38 square metres to 78 square metres and height would be increased from just under four metres to just under 6 metres. The building would also be re-oriented by 90 degrees and re-positioned to a more prominent location so that it would be parallel and adjacent to the north west boundary of the site. Three rooflights are proposed in the rear (north west) elevation.

10.3 The development would not impact upon any neighbouring residential properties and the main issues under consideration would be the extent to which the proposed building could be regarded as appropriate and incidental to the dwelling along with the impact upon the character and appearance of the wider area (having regard to the cumulative impact of development within the site).

10.4 The proposed building would have a gross internal floorspace of 116 square metres (well beyond the upper floorspace limit which applies to “small dwellings” under the policies of the adopted Core Strategy). The significant head room and availability of natural light, along with the substantial floorspace could potentially enable the building to provide additional habitable living accommodation. Its overall design, scale and massing is such that it would not enable the building to be considered either incidental or subservient to the main dwelling, and would also significantly increase the amount of development on the site. The development would therefore be contrary to the policies of the New Forest National Park Core Strategy.

10.5 The proposal would therefore be contrary to policy DP12 of the adopted Core Strategy which seeks to avoid any form of habitable accommodation within outbuildings (regardless of whether or not it could potentially become independent). The proposed development would therefore fail to be appropriate or incidental to the existing dwelling and would be harmful to the character and appearance of the New Forest National Park, particularly when having regard to its prominent siting and the lack of screening along the north west boundary and the extent to which the dwelling has already been extended.

10.6 A proposal for a three-bay garage, albeit with dormer windows, was recently dismissed at appeal (Uppacott, Bagnum Lane, Ringwood ref: APP/B9506/D/10/2128556). That dwelling was similarly in a fairly isolated position with limited external views, and the Inspector stated "....In any case, whether (the outbuilding) can be seen or not, the impact on the character of the area remains very important, particularly as this is a national park....the proposed outbuilding is very large because of the combination of its height, width and length, so it would have a significantly greater impact on the character of the area....".

10.7 The application is therefore recommended for refusal due to its size and harmful impact on the character of the New Forest National Park.

13 11. RECOMMENDATION

Refuse

Reason(s)

1. The outbuilding as proposed, by virtue of its scale, massing, design and floor area, would not be incidental or appropriate to the dwelling and its curtilage, and would consolidate the impact of built development associated with the dwelling. These factors, together with its prominent siting would also result in an unacceptably harmful impact upon the rural character and qualities of the New Forest National Park landscape. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies DP1 and DP12 of the New Forest National Park Core Strategy and development Management Policies (DPD) (December 2010).

14 41 41 74 82 00m 00m 76 78 80

105400m 105400m

52 52

50 50

48 48

104600m 104600m 41 41 82 74 76 78 80 00m 00m Item: New Forest National Park Authority Ref: 10/95835/FULL South Efford House, Milford Road, Everton, SO41 0JD

Tel: 01590 646600 Fax: 01590 646666

15 Planning Development Control Committee - 18 January 2011 Report Item 5

Application No: 10/95850/FULL Full Application

Site: Vereley House, Vereley, Burley, Ringwood, BH24 4HH

Proposal: Revised alignment of access track.

Applicant: Mr Hughes

Case Officer: Liz Young

Parish: BURLEY

1. DISTRICT/BOROUGH: New Forest District Council

2. REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Contrary to Parish Council view.

3. DEVELOPMENT PLAN DESIGNATION

Conservation Area

4. PRINCIPAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES

CP2 The Natural Environment DP1 General Development Principles CP8 Local Distinctiveness

NATIONAL PLANNING POLICIES

PPS5 Planning for the Historic Environment PPS7 Sustainable Development in Rural Areas PPS9 Biodiversity and Geological Conservation

5. MEMBER COMMENTS

None received

6. PARISH COUNCIL COMMENTS

Burley Parish Council: Recommend refusal; appears to be the reinstatement of the original track which was subject to enforcement and there is no reason to allow the reversal of the enforcement notice.

7. CONSULTEES

7.1 Tree Officer: No objections raised.

7.2 Ecologist: No objections raised on the understanding that the track as now proposed would not encroach any closer towards the Site of Importance for Nature Conservation.

7.3 Landscape Officer: No objections raised. 16

7.4 Natural England: No objections raised; the proposed development is unlikely to have a harmful impact upon the designated New Forest SSSI / SPA / Ramsar Site.

8. REPRESENTATIONS

8.1 None received.

9. RELEVANT HISTORY:

9.1 Creation of access track; reinstatement of temporary track to grazing; area of hardstanding (93914) refused 27 May 2009 and subsequent appeal allowed 25 September 2009.

9.2 Erection of stable block with office over and dormer windows (71440) approved on 4 May 2001.

10. ASSESSMENT

10.1 This application relates to a relatively isolated area of land which forms part of the estate associated with Vereley House. The land lies outside the domestic curtilage and is predominantly used for grazing. The southern boundary of the curtilage (which forms the north boundary of the application site) is enclosed by a narrow belt of trees. A Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) lies to the east.

10.2 A large stable block with office above has recently been constructed immediately north of the SINC following the grant of Planning Consent 71440. This was followed by an enforcement investigation (QU/08/0273) relating to the subsequent construction of a track from the main access drive to the stable block. No enforcement action was taken at the time because a further planning application (reference 93914) for a track slightly to the north had been refused and was under appeal. This application was subsequently allowed on appeal and the track which was subject to the enforcement investigation was grassed over.

10.3 Consent is now sought to construct a gravel track which would link the existing stable / office building to the main drive into Vereley House. The track would measure just under 280 metres in length and would have a width of just over 3 metres with a central grass strip. The surface itself would comprise 50mm compacted hoggin over a sub base of quarry scalpings. The track follows a similar line to that which was previously grassed over. However, this previous track was significantly wider and also did not include a central grass strip.

10.4 This application seeks to achieve the re-alignment of the track which was approved on appeal under Planning Consent 93914, moving it further away from the trees and curtilage boundary (southwards) by a distance of up to 3 metres. The track as proposed would overlap with the approved alignment at its eastern and western ends.

10.5 The main issues under consideration are;

. Whether the revised positioning of the track would have a greater impact upon the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and the wider New Forest landscape. . Potential harm to trees which enclose the domestic curtilage. . Any ecological considerations.

17 10.6 Although the track as proposed would be moved further out into the field, its alignment would still relate closely to the curtilage boundary, the main driveway to Vereley House and also the stable block / office building. The inclusion of a central grass strip, the modest depth and the use of appropriate surface materials would enable the development to have a more agricultural appearance which is not considered to be out of keeping in such a rural context. The proposed development would therefore be in accordance with Policies DP1 and CP8 of the adopted New Forest National Park Core Strategy.

10.7 The proposed track would pass close to Lime and Oak trees. However, existing ground conditions, following construction of a track to facilitate construction of the stables (subsequently overlain with turf following enforcement action), are such that, by leaving the existing base in place by the trees, as proposed, and adopting the minimal dig surfacing over a transition zone to conventional construction further from the trees, there would not be any further damage to tree roots. The development would therefore be in accordance with Policy CP2 of the adopted New Forest National Park Core Strategy.

10.8 The development does not lie in close proximity to the New Forest SSSI / SAC / SPA / Ramsar Site and it is considered that the site itself does not offer any significant potential for protected species. Furthermore, the track now proposed would not encroach any closer towards the Site of Importance for Nature Conservation than that which was approved. The proposal would therefore not have an unacceptable impact upon the ecology of the New Forest National Park.

10.9 Whilst the concerns raised by the Parish Council in relation to the comparison between the current scheme and the previous track which was subject to enforcement are noted, the track now proposed would be significantly narrower in width and its impact would also be mitigated by the central grass strip. In allowing the appeal for the creation of an access track (reference 93914), the Inspector noted that due to the topography and landscaping it would not be possible to devise a vehicular route through the grounds of the house. The Inspector also concluded that the two strips of rolled hoggin (similar to that proposed under the current scheme) would resemble a number of similar agricultural accesses in the locality. The appeal was allowed on the basis that it would not be an alien feature in the landscape.

11. RECOMMENDATION

Grant Subject to Conditions

Condition(s)

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2. The approved track will be constructed only in accordance with the details set out within the document "Arboricultural Implications" dated 25 October 2010. Any change to these details shall only be with consent from the New Forest National Park Authority.

18 Reason: To preserve the character and appearance of the New Forest landscape and the Burley Conservation Area in accordance with policies DP1 and CP8 of the New Forest National Park Core Strategy and Development Management Policies.

Informative(s):

1. All water from the site must be dealt with on the site and not discharged to the highway or highway ditch. All watercourses and ditches on the site must be retained.

2. The Developer must contact the Environment Agency, in the first instance, if he intends to pipe, culvert or alter any part of the ditch or watercourse. Generally the presumption is against piping of watercourses except in locations where there is no alternative such as road crossings.

19 41 42 98 06 00m 00m 00 02 04

105400m 105400m

52 52

50 50

48 48

104600m 104600m 42 41 06 98 00 02 04 00m 00m Item: New Forest National Park Authority Ref: 10/95850/FULL South Efford House, Milford Road, Everton, SO41 0JD

Tel: 01590 646600 Fax: 01590 646666

20 Planning Development Control Committee - 18 January 2011 Report Item 6

Application No: 10/95871/FULL Full Application

Site: Meadow Brook, Barrows Lane, Sway, Lymington, SO41 6DD

Proposal: Retention of outbuilding (Kennel) linked to existing garage and lean-to extension to stable

Applicant: Mr A Aitken

Case Officer: Deborah Slade

Parish: SWAY

1. DISTRICT/BOROUGH: New Forest District Council

2. REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Contrary to Parish Council view.

3. DEVELOPMENT PLAN DESIGNATION

Conservation Area Listed Building

4. PRINCIPAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES

DP1 General Development Principles CP6 Pollution CP7 The Built Environment CP8 Local Distinctiveness DP6 Design Principles DP12 Outbuildings DP22 Field Shelters and Stables

NATIONAL PLANNING POLICIES

PPS5 Planning for the Historic Environment PPG24 Planning and Noise

5. MEMBER COMMENTS

None received

6. PARISH COUNCIL COMMENTS

Sway Parish Council: Recommend permission: The kennel is at the back of the house and within the curtilage. No adverse impact on neighbours and in-keeping with the rural environment.

7. CONSULTEES

7.1 Environmental Services - Listed Buildings: The dog kennel has been wedged into a narrow space between a garage and the boundary wall of the adjacent Listed 21 coach house. A structural survey has been undertaken on behalf of the owner's of Avon Water House, which identifies the certain risks to the fabric of the listed building. The design of the parapet and the proximity of the unauthorized structure with the adjacent party wall is both untidy and unmanageable. In light of the possible detrimental effects upon the listed building, the retention of the dog kennel in it present position and form cannot be supported.

REPRESENTATIONS 8. 8.1 Representations have been submitted by the neighbouring properties which lie immediately adjacent to the outbuilding, Avon Water House and the Coach House. Objections have been raised on the grounds of:

. Harm to adjacent Listed Building and its setting; lack of possible maintenance, structural damage through damp penetration from water run-off; impact upon neighbouring amenity through positioning of kennel; security risk; inaccurate plans; poor design.

8.2 The applicant has written in support of the application, contending that the kennel building is free standing and has no contact or effect on the neighbouring Coach House. No Building Regulations consent is required, and the outbuilding is unlikely to increase risk of crime.

9. RELEVANT HISTORY:

9.1 Conservatory (95041) approved on 11 May 2010.

10. ASSESSMENT

10.1 Meadow Brook is a detached property situated behind front gates and a hedge and accessed from Barrows Lane near Sway. The house is within the Sway Tower Conservation Area and is adjacent to a Grade II Listed Building, Avon Water House. Beyond the curtilage of the property at the back of the house, several fields are within the ownership of the applicant.

10.2 Within the curtilage of the dwelling, and at the back of the house, there is a stable block to which a lean-to hay store has been attached. At the front of the dwelling there is a double garage, and between this double garage and the neighbouring boundary, a further single outbuilding has been constructed, for private use as a kennel. Permission is sought for the retention of these two structures.

10.3 The stable building, including the attached hay-store, has a resultant footprint of around 71 square metres. The outbuilding has an irregular shape, but is around 4.5 metres in length by 2 metres in width.

10.4 The footprint of the resultant stable building is larger than that which would normally fall within the definition of 'modest' which is set out in Policy DP22. However, the stable is in a curtilage location, and is sited at a distance of around 13 metres away from the adjacent Listed Building, with some intervening boundary vegetation. The resultant stable building is basic but rural in its appearance, and is not considered to harm the setting of the Listed Building nor the wider character of the Conservation Area. Given its curtilage location, and lack of prominence in public views, it is not considered to be unduly detrimental to the character of the wider National Park. The neighbour raises concerns about impact upon neighbouring amenity caused by odour and rats; however stables are legitimate 'incidental' uses and the use itself along with the existing stable are established. 22 The addition of the hay store is not considered to cause any demonstrable additional impact upon the amenity of Avon water House, and does not bring the stable building in any closer proximity with the neighbour overall.

10.5 Turning to the outbuilding, this is again sited with little impact upon the streetscene. However there are certain issues regarding its siting and proximity to the Listed Building which warrant detailed consideration.

10.6 The first concern is the impact upon the fabric and setting of the Listed Building. Both structures, the outbuilding and the adjacent part of Avon Water House, which appears to be the curtilage-listed Coach House, are sited on the curtilage boundary, so there is a resultant distance of only 20 centimetres between the two. The neighbours at Avon Water House have commissioned a structural survey that concludes that the outbuilding is likely to be causing the evident damp and potentially foundation damage to the Coach House building, as surface water is being channelled into the gap between the two buildings. The Authority's Conservation Officer has considered the structural survey and agrees that this seems to be the case. On the basis of the submitted information, it has not been demonstrated that the outbuilding is not having a detrimental impact upon the fabric of the Listed Building.

10.7 The Land Drainage Authority also raises concerns in this regard. Normally in this location, details of surface water drainage would be requested prior to commencement, to demonstrate that run-off could be adequately dealt with. However, as this structure is present, there is a lack of evidence to prove that the structures are not resulting in an increase in run-off which puts drainage pressure on adjacent land and can exacerbate flood risk.

10.8 As it has not been demonstrated that the outbuilding is not causing harm to the adjacent Listed Building, this also has a detrimental overall effect upon the character and integrity of an important element of the Conservation Area. The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to Core Strategy policy CP7, which explains that proposals should maintain and enhance features of the built environment.

10.9 The neighbours raise concerns about noise caused by the close proximity of the outbuilding, and the flat roof near to an upstairs window which reduces the security of the Coach House. This upper floor provides habitable accommodation, and so there is likely to be some degree of detrimental impact from the siting of a designated dog kennel immediately adjacent to habitable accommodation. This impact upon amenity cumulatively adds weight to the concern that the outbuilding is inappropriately sited, as does the concern regarding security of the adjacent dwelling. However, kennels for private use are acceptable incidental uses within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse therefore there is not considered to be a specific harmful impact upon residential amenity caused as a result of the structure which would warrant refusal on grounds of residential amenity alone.

10.10 Overall it is therefore concluded that it has not been demonstrated that outbuilding is not causing harm to the intrinsic listed fabric of Avon Water House and specifically its curtilage-listed Coach House, as evidenced by the structural report. Therefore the development is considered to be detrimental to the character of the Conservation Area. Neither does the development provide adequately for surface water drainage.

23 11. RECOMMENDATION

Refuse

Reason(s)

1. It has not been demonstrated that the kennel building is not causing harm to the fabric of the adjacent Listed building by way of damp and potential damage to foundations, as is considered likely by the structural survey. The development is therefore considered to be harmful to the setting of the Listed Building through its proximity and design, and is not considered to preserve the character of the spacing of these buildings within the Sway Tower Conservation Area. As such the proposal is contrary to policies DP1, CP7, CP8, DP6 and DP12 of the adopted Core Strategy and Development Management Policies DPD (adopted December 2010) as well as PPS5.

2. The development does not give due consideration to surface water drainage and it has not been demonstrated that the structures will not cause additional surface water run-off from the site which may cause drainage and/ or flooding problems on adjacent land. As such the development is contrary to policy DP1 of the adopted Core Strategy and Development Management Policies DPD (adopted December 2010) and PPS25

24 42 42 77 85 00m 00m 78 79 80 81 82 83 84

97700m 97700m

76 76

75 75

74 74

73 73

72 72

71 71

70 70

69 69

68 68

96700m 96700m 42 42 85 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 00m 00m

New Forest National Park Authority South Efford House, Milford Road, Everton, SO41 0JD Item: 6

Tel: 01590 646600 Fax: 01590 646666 Ref: 10/95871/FULL

25 Planning Development Control Committee - 18 January 2011 Report Item 7

Application No: 10/95888/FULL Full Application

Site: The Bungalow, Middle Road, Sway, Lymington, SO41 6BB

Proposal: Single storey rear extension; roof alterations

Applicant: Mr & Mrs Haynes

Case Officer: Laura Harry

Parish: SWAY

1. DISTRICT/BOROUGH: New Forest District Council

2. REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Contrary to Parish Council view.

3. DEVELOPMENT PLAN DESIGNATION

Defined New Forest Village

4. PRINCIPAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES

DP1 General Development Principles DP11 Extensions to Dwellings

5. MEMBER COMMENTS

None received

6. PARISH COUNCIL COMMENTS

Sway Parish Council: Recommend permission - the proposal is very similar to work already carried out on nearby properties.

7. CONSULTEES

No consultations required

8. REPRESENTATIONS

8.1 None received.

9. RELEVANT HISTORY:

9.1 Extension to kitchen & bathroom & 2 rooms in the roof space (89/40585) granted on 22 February 1989.

10. ASSESSMENT

10.1 This application is for the extension of a small dwelling in excess of policy limitations within the defined New Forest Village of Sway. The property is a 26 detached dormer bungalow set within a moderately sized, rectangular shaped plot which slopes downhill from north-west to south-east.

10.2 Consent is sought specifically for a single storey rear extension and roof alterations which comprise a dormer window on the north-east elevation and altering the roof slope on the front elevation to a cropped gable. The proposed development would be faced in brick and roofed with tiles to match the existing dwelling.

10.3 The dwelling as it existed on the 1 July 1982 had a floorspace of 68 square metres and is therefore classed as a „small dwelling‟ (property with a floor area of 80 square metres or less). The extension and alterations to the property in 1989 (89/40585) increased the floorspace of the dwelling to 100 square metres. Post 1989 a 3 square metre porch was added to the dwelling. Thus the proposed development, taking into account a previous enlargement (40585) and the porch, would increase the floorspace of the property to a total of 130 square metres.

10.4 Policy DP11 seeks to control the cumulative impact of proposals to extend and replace existing dwellings with larger dwellings to no more than 30% of the existing floor area, or no more than 100 square metres in total if the existing dwelling was less than 80 square metres, as is the case with this particular application. The approval of such development contrary to these policies would result in the loss of a small dwelling and the contribution it currently makes to the housing stock at the lower end of the market and the greater effects of increased activity and pressures associated with larger dwellings, which would damage the unique character and quality of the National Park.

10.5 In this particular case, the proposed habitable floorspace would substantially exceed the maximum floorspace allowance of 100 square metres for small dwellings permitted under policy DP11. Whilst the policy does allow in exceptional circumstances for a larger extension (to a maximum floorspace not exceeding 120 sq. metres) to meet the genuine family needs of an occupier who works in the immediate locality no extenuating circumstances have been put forward by the applicant to demonstrate such a need. In any event, the proposals even exceed this floorspace limit (the proposed total being 130 sq. metres). The proposed development would therefore conflict with the aims of policy DP11 which seeks to prevent this cumulative erosion of the character of the New Forest and also to maintain a balance within the housing stock. Furthermore, granting permission would make it more difficult for the Authority to resist proposals for similar developments. For these reasons planning permission should be refused.

10.6 Numerous appeal decisions have supported the policy of seeking to limit extensions to dwellings within the National Park. This was the case in an appeal for 1 Mill View, Woodgreen Road, Breamore, Hampshire (92959) where an extension would have increased the floorspace by 37%. The inspector concluded that '... the proposal would materially harm the aims of policies which seek to protect the unique character and quality of the New Forest National Park'.

11. RECOMMENDATION

Refuse

Reason(s)

1. The cumulative impact of proposals to extend and replace dwellings, if not carefully controlled, would lead in the long term to the urbanisation and erosion of the special character of the National Park. Consequently Policy DP11 of the New Forest National Park Core Strategy and Development Management Policies (DPD) (December 2010) seeks to limit the proportional increase in the size of small dwellings in the National Park recognising the benefits this would have in minimising the impact of buildings and activity generally in the New Forest and the ability to maintain a balance in the housing stock. This proposal would result in a dwelling with a total habitable floorspace exceeding 100 sq. metres, contrary to Policy DP11 of the New Forest National Park Core Strategy and Development Management Policies (DPD) (December 2010).

28 42 42 74 82 00m 00m 76 78 80

99200m 99200m

90 90

88 88

86 86

98400m 98400m 42 42 82 74 76 78 80 00m 00m Item: New Forest National Park Authority Ref: 10/95888/FULL South Efford House, Milford Road, Everton, SO41 0JD

Tel: 01590 646600 Fax: 01590 646666

29 Planning Development Control Committee - 18 January 2011 Report Item 8

Application No: 10/95904/FULL Full Application

Site: 1 Bramblebank Cottages, Calshot Road, Calshot, Southampton, SO45 1BR

Proposal: Two storey extension and balcony

Applicant: Mr & Mrs Holmes

Case Officer: Liz Young

Parish: FAWLEY

1. DISTRICT/BOROUGH: New Forest District Council

2. REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Contrary to Parish Council view.

3. DEVELOPMENT PLAN DESIGNATION

No specific designation

4. PRINCIPAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES

DP1 General Development Principles DP11 Extensions to Dwellings

5. MEMBER COMMENTS

None received

6. PARISH COUNCIL COMMENTS

Fawley Parish Council: Recommend permission; would request that the finish should match.

7. CONSULTEES

No consultations required

8. REPRESENTATIONS

8.1 One letter of objection received from the occupant of Number 4 Bramblebank Cottages raises concern that the proposal would degrade the look and character of Bramble Bank Cottages.

8.2 One letter received from the occupant of Calshot House states that development outside the domestic curtilage should be avoided.

9. RELEVANT HISTORY:

9.1 Conservatory (65166) approved on 21 December 1998.

30 9.2 Conversion of 2 dwellings to form 4 dwellings (39863) approved on 13 December 1998.

10. ASSESSMENT

10.1 1 Bramblebank Cottage is a relatively prominent, end terraced property located in close proximity to Calshot Beach and directly opposite an area designated for public parking amongst a small cluster of residential properties. The row of cottages originally comprised two dwellings and (following the grant of planning consent in 1998) have subsequently been converted into four smaller properties. The site is elevated above road level and its rear garden is enclosed by closed boarded fencing. The front garden comprises an unenclosed lawn fronting onto a communal parking area. Woodland lies across the road to the north and west.

10.2 Consent is sought to add a two storey extension on the northern end of the property, replacing the existing conservatory. The ridge line would be extended by just under 3.5 metres and the height would match that of the existing dwelling. The proposal would also include the provision of a balcony to the front, supported on posts effectively creating an open veranda. Facing materials (painted rough cast render and concrete tiles) would match the existing building.

10.3 The main issues under consideration would be:

. The extent of floorspace increase based upon the original dwelling as it was first legally established (following the 1998 consent). . The impact the proposed development would have upon the character of the dwelling and its surroundings. . Potential loss of amenity to neighbouring residential properties.

10.4 It is evident in this case that the agent has calculated the amount of floorspace increase based upon the dwelling as it existed prior to 1988 (which amounted to just under 210 square metres). However, the dwelling has since been subdivided to form two dwellings. It is considered that the subdivided dwelling as it was formed following the implementation of these works should form the basis for calculating the 30% floorspace increase limitations. Following the 1988 consent the floorspace of the resulting dwelling amounted to just under 130 square metres. The applicant appears to acknowledge that this would the appropriate interpretation of policy in this instance by suggesting (within the Design and Access Statement) that the adjacent property, Number 2, would then not benefit from the 30% floorspace allowance (given that approval of this application would effectively utilise the 30% for both properties).

10.5 The conservatory (which gained planning consent in 1998) resulted in a floorspace increase of 6%. The proposed development would result in a gross internal floorspace of 187 square metres and this would amount to a cumulative increase of 45%. The proposed extension would therefore be contrary to Policy DP11 of the adopted New Forest National Park Core Strategy.

10.6 It is considered that the proposal would not result in an unacceptably harmful visual impact upon the immediate surrounding area. Although concerns raised by the occupants of the neighbouring property are noted, the existing building is not of any significant historic or architectural merit and the proposal would reflect its fenestration and use of materials to a sufficient degree. Similarly the proposal would not encroach towards any neighbouring properties and would not increase overlooking, loss of light or visual intrusion.

31 10.7 However, notwithstanding this, the cumulative effect of significantly enlarging properties such as this is considered to have a detrimental impact on the New Forest National Park and refusal is therefore recommended.

11. RECOMMENDATION

Refuse

Reason(s)

1. In order to help safeguard the long term future of the countryside, the Local Planning Authority considers it important to resist the cumulative effect of significant enlargements being made to rural dwellings. Consequently Policy DP11 of the New Forest National Park Core Strategy and Development Management Policies (DPD) (December 2010) seeks to limit the proportional increase in the size of such dwellings in the New Forest National Park recognising the benefits this would have in minimising the impact of buildings and activity generally in the countryside and the ability to maintain a balance in the housing stock. This proposal, taking into account a previous enlargement, would result in a building which is unacceptably large in relation to the established dwelling and would undesirably add to pressures for change which are damaging to the future of the countryside.

32 44 44 76 82 00m 00m 78 80

101800m 101800m

16 16

14 14

12 12

101000m 101000m 44 44 82 76 78 80 00m 00m Item: New Forest National Park Authority Ref: 10/95904/FULL South Efford House, Milford Road, Everton, SO41 0JD

Tel: 01590 646600 Fax: 01590 646666