Planning Development Control Committee - 19 January 2010 Report Item 1

Application No: 09/94259/LDCE Lawful Development Certificate Existing

Site: Annexe Trim Cottage, Woodgreen Common Road, Woodgreen, Fordingbridge, SP6 2BD

Proposal: Application for a Certificate of Lawful Development for existing use of ancillary building as separate unit of accommodation

Applicant: Mrs Hollick

Case Officer: Deborah Slade

Parish: WOODGREEN

1. DISTRICT/BOROUGH: New Forest District Council

2. REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Contrary to Parish Council view Referred by Authority Member Previous Committee consideration

3. DEVELOPMENT PLAN DESIGNATION

N/A

4. PRINCIPAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES

N/A

5. MEMBER COMMENTS

John Sanger: In view of the site's history, the application should be referred to the planning committee.

6. PARISH COUNCIL COMMENTS

Woodgreen Parish Council: Recommends refusal on the grounds that the applicants and their agents were well aware of their responsibility to inform the local planning authority if at any time the use changed from accommodation for a carer to other accommodation.

7. CONSULTEES

7.1 Authority's solicitor: Concludes that the Certificate should be issued. The building has all the attributes of independent residential accommodation. Suzanne Green and her partner appear to be ordinary tenants on an Assured Shorthold Tenancy and in no way are they connected to the main house. Whilst the

1 Parish Council's concerns are understood, this is a Certificate of Lawful Development application and not a planning application. It is only the evidence that can be assessed, i.e. what has been the use of the building for the four years preceding the date of the application.

8. REPRESENTATIONS

No representations received.

9. RELEVANT HISTORY:

9.1 Addition of utility room and shower room and erection of a garage (31239) approved on 14 February 1986.

10. ASSESSMENT

10.1 Members will recall that this application was considered by the Planning Development Control Committee in October 2009. The item was deferred to allow the Parish Council time to submit evidence to counter the claims made by the applicant.

10.2 Procedural Matters

Applications for Lawful Development Certificates (LDC) made under Section 191 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 are different from normal planning applications in that they enable anyone to apply to the Planning Authority for a decision as to whether a specified existing use, operation, building or failure to comply with a planning condition or limitation, which has already been carried out on the land, is lawful for planning purposes.

10.3 In respect of the existing use of any building as a single dwellinghouse, if an applicant can show that the use has been continuous for at least four years (prior to the date of the application), then the Authority has to issue a certificate confirming that the use is lawful for planning purposes.

10.4 The onus of proof in a LDC application is firmly on the applicant. The relevant test of the evidence is the "balance of probability". The applicant's own evidence does not need to be corroborated by "independent" evidence in order to be accepted. Such applications are normally determined by the Authority's Senior Solicitor under delegated powers. The relevant circular (Circular 10/97: Enforcing Planning Control) clearly states that provided the applicant's evidence is sufficiently precise and unambiguous, and if the Authority has no evidence to contradict or undermine the applicant's version of events, then the certificate should be granted.

2 10.5 Background

The annexe at Trim Cottage is a wooden single storey outbuilding located within the side garden of the main Trim Cottage, at a distance of about 6m from the main dwelling. It was first permitted as a garage for the house in 1986 and measures approximately 10m x 4m in footprint.

10.6 In 2001 the agent was advised that conversion of the garage to provide ancillary accommodation for a live-in carer for Mrs. Mary Hollick, who has arthritis, would not require planning permission provided that it was truly ancillary to the main dwelling. The building was therefore converted in 2002.

10.7 Mrs Hollick's daughter and son then contend that when the conversion was complete in 2002, the condition of Mrs. Hollick's arthritis was still under control and was not deteriorating, so they decided to let the annexe as a separate dwelling under an Assured Shorthold Tenancy. Through personal contacts they found Suzanne Green as a tenant. The applicant states that the rent received was a most helpful additional income.

10.8 Evidence that suggests the Certificate should be granted

A copy of the tenancy agreement dated 20 December 2002 has been submitted with the application. Rent of £450 per month has been paid since then. Suzanne Green and her partner Jeremy McClements moved into the property in January 2003 and still reside at the property. They have not provided personal care to Mrs Hollick and have their own full time jobs.

10.9 Until the end of 2007 Mrs Hollick remained generally in good health, independent and looking after herself. Following a fall in 2007 Mrs Hollick had to go into hospital and showed symptoms of dementia. She moved into a residential care home in 2008 and her son and daughter now have power of attorney over her affairs.

10.10 This history is verified by sworn statements from:

Caroline Kemp, Mrs Mary Hollick's daughter; Martin Clarke, family friend for 15 years; Clive Hollick, son of Mrs Mary Hollick; Mrs Suzanne McClements (nee Green), tenant of the Annexe.

10.11 The consultation period has now been open for an additional two months. No neighbouring representations have been received.

10.12 Council Tax has been paid on the annexe continuously since 1 July 2002 and this has been verified by the Council Tax section of New Forest District Council.

10.13 Evidence to the contrary

Statements have been submitted by William Hart and Edmund Hollinghurst of Woodgreen Parish Council and also by Joy Jahn, a resident of Woodgreen. The statements were signed before the Clerk to the Parish Council.

10.14 Mr Hart and Mr Hollinghurst state that they reported the annexe as a possible breach of planning control in 2002. They were informed that Susan Green provided some care to Mrs Hollick and had employment elsewhere. Mrs Hollick had a fall in 2007, and when she moved out of Trim Cottage, the Parish Council reported a breach of planning control to the Local Planning Authority in 2008. The statements consider that the Parish Council and possibly the Authority have been misled.

10.15 Ms Jahn states that she has known Mrs Hollick since she moved to the village and joined the Women's Institute. Members of the Institute believed that the people living in the annexe provided care to Mrs Hollick.

10.16 Assessment of the evidence

In terms of the physical form of the building, it appears as a separate unit and has an independent pedestrian access, but no vehicular access.

10.17 On the balance of probabilities, it is considered that there are no grounds to withhold the issue of a certificate for a separate unit of accommodation. The statement considered to carry the most weight is that of Suzanne McClements who rents the cottage as she confirms that she and her husband were not carers in any way for Mrs Hollick, that they had separate bills, paid separate council tax, had full time jobs and did nothing more than carry out the odd neighbourly task for their neighbour.

10.18 The application has been assessed by the Authority's solicitor, who agrees that the Certificate should be issued. The Authority's solicitor states that the building has all the attributes of independent residential accommodation. Suzanne McClements and her husband appear to be ordinary tenants on an Assured Shorthold Tenancy and in no way are they connected to the main house. Whilst the concerns of the Parish Council are understood, this is an application for a Certificate of Lawful Development and not a planning application, it is only the evidence that can be assessed, i.e. how has the building been used for the four years preceding the date of the application, i.e.

4 since 3 July 2005.

10.19 When assessing the counter-evidence, the declaration of Ms Jahn merely refers to the fact that it was generally thought in the Women's Institute that the people who lived in the annexe were carers and Mrs Hollick did not contradict that opinion. It appears to be an assumption that was made by individuals in the village rather than hard evidence that the individuals concerned were carers, particularly in light of the fact that they had sworn declarations to say the opposite.

10.20 As regards the statement from the Chair and Vice Chairman of the Parish Council, this contains useful background information and it is understandable that they might feel aggrieved as it appears that the Parish Council and possibly the Authority have been misled. However, the only issue the Authority can consider is the status and use of the building in question for the requisite four year period and on this basis it is considered that the Certificate should be granted.

11. RECOMMENDATION

That the Certificate be issued in the terms sought.

5 Little Acorns 41 41 76 77 00m 00m

Forest Glen 117600m 117600m

Tank

Rest Harrow

Coombe

Cottage 75 75

Trim Cottage

New Forest Close

68.3m El Sub Sta

Tennis court Broomy Cottage

Speedwell 117400m Cottage 117400m

Apple Tree Cottage 41 41 76 77 00m 00m Item:1 New Forest National Park Authority Woodside Ref:09/94259/LDCE Cherry South Efford House, Milford Road, Everton, SO41 0JD Cottage Trees Forest Thatch Tel: 01590 646600 Fax: 01590 646666

Planning Development Control Committee - 19 January 2010 Report Item 2

Application No: 09/94497/FULL Full Application

Site: Land of Kents Farm, Winsor Road, Winsor,SO40 2HN

Proposal: Dwelling

Applicant: Mr R Dawe

Case Officer: Clare Ings

Parish: COPYTHORNE

1. DISTRICT/BOROUGH: New Forest District Council

2. REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

At the request of the local Ward Councillor, Henry Force, on the grounds that the dwelling should be allowed for the daughter to help on the farm.

3. DEVELOPMENT PLAN DESIGNATION

Conservation Area Listed Building

4. PRINCIPAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES

NF-H6 Dwellings for agricultural or forestry workers in the New Forest (page 146) NF-RB1 Re-use of buildings on the New Forest (page 179) DW-E20 Setting of listed buildings (page 69)

5. MEMBER COMMENTS

None received

6. PARISH COUNCIL COMMENTS

Copythorne Parish Council: Recommend refusal for the reasons below:

contrary to housing policy objection would be set aside but only if necessary agricultural test can be satisfied

7. CONSULTEES

7.1 NFDC Engineering & Land Drainage: No comment

7.2 Reading Agricultural Consultants: No essential need for the provision of an additional dwelling at the site. The proposal would need to comply with the criteria at Annex A of PPS7 and the LP policy:

(i) existing functional need - current herd appears to be 26 cows generating 26 calving events per year which is too few to warrant the provision of two dwellings on the site (ii) needs relates to full-time worker - the herd size is only equivalent to 0.35 of a full time worker - no need for the provision of two dwellings

(iii) unit/activity has been established for at least three years - no accounts have been submitted, and therefore no detailed assessment is possible. However, it is considered highly unlikely that a suckler herd of 26 cows would prove to be a viable business

(iv) size of dwelling should be commensurate with needs of the farm - the current proposal is 240m² double the size set out in the policy, although some of the accommodation would double up for farm use. In reality, these must be being provided in the existing farmhouse and there is no need to duplicate this accommodation

(v) is there suitable accommodation elsewhere - there are five properties on the market nearby, although it is not known if they would be affordable in terms of the farm income.

8. REPRESENTATIONS

8.1 Eight letters / e-mails received in support of the application for the following reasons:

there is a need for one of Mr Dawe's children to help with the running of the farm building already exists and so no additional visual impact on appearance or character of the area will help support the long viability of a local farm

8.2 Information submitted in support by the applicant:

the dwelling is required for the daughter, Leisa, and her children following a failed marriage and there is not enough room in the existing dwelling Leisa is the Farm Administrator / Secretary and will work in the new farm office being provided in the conversion her help is required during calving and other general help with livestock (current farmer is 67 years old) Leisa also undertakes administration work for contracting business and provides food and drink during the day for these

8 workers Leisa is necessary if the applicant is away from the farm to provide additional security

9. RELEVANT HISTORY:

9.1 Replacement agricultural building (Prior notification of intention to carry out agricultural development). No further details required advised by letter dated 11 January 2007.

10. ASSESSMENT

10.1 Kents Farm lies to the north of Winsor Road and is approached via a long track which drops down to the farm. The farm comprises an existing farmhouse, which is Grade II listed, a steel framed barn and yard, and a brick building, the subject of this application, and which is currently under construction. Agricultural fields and paddocks surround the farmyard. Winsor Road comprises residential development along its frontage.

10.2 The proposal is to use part of the partially constructed building as an additional three-bedroom dwelling for the applicant's daughter and family, with the remainder to be retained in farming activities, such as storage. The dwelling would have a habitable floorspace of some 240m² on two floors, which would include a farm office and shower for contract workers and the kitchen would also be used during the day by farm workers.

10.3 The key planning consideration is the need for the additional dwelling, specifically having regard to the functional and financial tests set out in Annexe A of PPS7 and policy NF-H6. Also for consideration is the impact of the dwelling on the character and appearance of the existing farmhouse and the wider area.

10.4 Functional and financial tests

New residential development in the countryside is strictly controlled; exceptions being those dwellings which are required for either agricultural or forestry workers, and then only where it has been demonstrated that the dwelling is required in relation to the agricultural enterprise. In order to demonstrate that the dwelling is required, evidence is required to prove that:

there is a clearly established existing functional need to demonstrate that the dwelling is essential for the proper functioning of the enterprise for one or more workers to be readily available at most times, e.g. that animals require essential care at short notice; the need relates to a full-time worker or one who is primarily employed in agriculture; the unit and activity has been established for at least three years, have been profitable for at least one of them, are

9 currently sound and have a clear prospect of remaining so and that details have been submitted to demonstrate this fact; the functional need could not be fulfilled by another existing dwelling on the unit or any other accommodation in the area which is suitable and available for occupation

These tests are detailed in both Annex A of PPS7 and policy NF- H6 of the local plan.

10.5 Functional need

A small herd of cattle is kept on the farm, which is calculated to be about 26 cows and which would generate some 26 calving events a year. Although calving would require close attention to welfare, including hourly checks, and a worker would be reasonably expected to be available at this time, the small number of calving events would be too few to warrant the provision of two on-site dwellings - the existing farmhouse and the additional dwelling. The size of the herd (26) would also be calculated to generate the equivalent only 97 days work per year (based on the John Nix Management Pocketbook) or 0.35 of a full-time worker. This clearly demonstrates that there is insufficient work for the provision of two dwellings, and particularly the additional one.

10.6 Financial information

No business accounts have been provided to satisfy the financial tests, other than a letter from the applicant's accountant stating that the combined agricultural and agricultural contracting enterprises produce a net income in excess of £25,000 to £30,000. However, the financial test is specific in that it is the agricultural enterprise concerned (ie on site) that has to generate sufficient income and should be profitable and sustainable. Without full business accounts it is not possible to fully assess the financial information, but it is unlikely that 26 head of cattle would prove to be a viable business sufficient to support a second dwelling at the site.

10.7 Other dwellings

Consideration has to be given to the availability of other accommodation in the area - a requirement of Annex A of PPS7. The information from Reading Agricultural Consultants, an independent body who advises the National Park on applications relating to agricultural issues, determined that there were a number of properties for sale in Winsor village which would be sufficiently close to the farm to provide the appropriate accommodation. The size and prices range from 3 bedroom to 4 bedroom dwellings, and between £395,000 to £580,000 in price. However, without the necessary details of the farm income, it is not possible to determine whether these would be affordable.

10 10.8 Other issues

The conversion of the barn to a dwelling would not significantly change the visual appearance of the building on the surrounding area, especially given its location at the bottom of a slope and adjoining other farm buildings. Nor would there be any further impact on the setting of the adjoining listed building.

10.9 The application has also generated a certain level of support, although the Parish Council has objected. There are also specific personal reasons for the dwelling relating to the daughter. Whilst there is every sympathy for these circumstances, such personal reasons are rarely sufficient to overcome the strong policy stance that there is no requirement for the dwelling.

10.10 Conclusion

In conclusion, based on the information submitted with the application, it is not considered that the either the functional or financial tests have been met and that there is no requirement for an additional dwelling at Kents Farm. The other issues are insufficient to set aside policy and a refusal is therefore recommended.

11. RECOMMENDATION

Refuse

Reason(s)

1. The proposed development would constitute an additional dwelling in the countryside for which there is no established requirement. Insufficient evidence has been submitted to demonstrate that neither the functional nor financial tests set out in Annexe A of PPS7 have been met and there is no requirement for the additional dwelling at Kents Farm. In addition the size of the proposed dwelling would significantly exceed that considered appropriate for a farmworker and would not be commensurate with the scale of the agricultural enterprise. The development would therefore be contrary to policy NF-H6 of the New Forest District Local Plan First Alteration and Annex A of PPS 7 Sustainable Development in Rural Areas.

11 43 43 07 10 00m 00m 08 09

114300m 114300m

42 42

41 41

40 40

39 39

113800m 113800m 43 43 10 07 08 09 00m 00m Item:2 New Forest National Park Authority Ref:09/94497/FULL South Efford House, Milford Road, Everton, SO41 0JD

Tel: 01590 646600 Fax: 01590 646666

Planning Development Control Committee - 19 January 2010 Report Item 3

Application No: 09/94545/FULL Full Application

Site: Bay Tree House (formerly Rockley Rise), Undershore Road, Lymington, SO41 5SA

Proposal: Replacement dwelling (demolition of existing dwelling)

Applicant: Mr & Mrs Worthy

Case Officer: Deborah Slade

Parish: BOLDRE

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

DW-E1 General development criteria (page 57) DW-E23 New development in Conservation Areas (page 70) DW-E41 Protected species (page 81) NF-E1 Control of development (in the New Forest) (page 135) NF-H4 Replacement dwellings in the New Forest (page 144)

5. MEMBER COMMENTS

None received

6. PARISH COUNCIL COMMENTS

Boldre Parish Council: Considers this proposed two-storey dwelling is over- sized and would be very intrusive. Previous policies have indicated a discreet roof height in an area so visible from the river and town.

7. CONSULTEES

7.1 Environmental Services - Conservation Area: No objection. The proposal is not considered to do any particular harm to the character of the area. The proposed redesign is a mix of roof shapes with a central half hipped roof, overshadowed by assorted gables juxtaposition and a pent-type dormer and balcony. It is

13 flanked either side by two gable roofs, one a garage and the other end a storey and a half with small dormers. The design statement refers to the inspiration being taken from the Arts and Crafts Movement, although the proposal looks to be dated more from the 1990s. Care must be taken to assess the distant views to this site from across the water to the west.

7.2 NFDC Engineering & Land Drainage: Recommend approval subject to condition.

8. REPRESENTATIONS

8.1 New Forest Association: Objects to the proposal:

There is no application for Conservation Area Consent to demolish the existing building; Plans note that outbuildings are to be re-built but these are not shown on the proposed plans; The proposal exceeds floorspace limits and any replacement dwelling should reflect local distinctiveness.

9. RELEVANT HISTORY:

9.1 No recent planning history (nothing since 1982).

10. ASSESSMENT

10.1 This site is at the end of a small concrete cul-de-sac rising up the hill slope from the waterside. It is a road of mixed residential properties dating from the 1950s, none of which are considered to have any particular architectural interest. The site is on the higher land towards the end of the road. The existing bungalow has no particular architectural merit. The locality lies within the Forest South East Conservation Area.

10.2 Consent is sought for a two storey replacement dwelling. In architectural terms, the proposed replacement dwelling would comprise a mix of roof shapes with a central half-hipped roof, overshadowed by assorted juxtaposed gables and a pent-type dormer and balcony. This would be flanked either side by two gable roofs, one a garage and the other end a storey and a half with small dormers. The design statement refers to the inspiration being taken from the Arts and Crafts movement, but the proposed dwelling is not considered to be Arts and Crafts style itself; rather it appears of an architectural style favoured in the 1990s.

10.3 The proposal has been amended during the course of the consideration of the application to reduce the size of the proposed dwelling slightly and to remove rooflights from above the garage.

14 10.4 Policy NF-H4 of the Local Plan accepts the principle of replacement dwellings (although Conservation Area Consent would still be required to demolish the existing dwelling). The main issues that need to be considered are:

Visual impact; Impact upon neighbours; Floorspace; Ecological issues; Impact upon trees; Drainage.

10.5 Visual impact

The resultant dwelling would be more noticeable within the streetscene and in views across the water than the existing bungalow is at present. However this would not be considered detrimental to the character of the Conservation Area, as views of a few large, detached houses along Undershore Road presently characterises this area.

10.6 The dwelling would have a similar footprint to that which exists on the site, and would be considered to be proportionate to its plot. It would be well separated from the dwellings to either side (there would be 8.8 metres to the dwelling to the north and south of the proposed house). The proposed ridge height of the dwelling would be a maximum of 7.7 metres. The ridge height of the adjacent dwellings is 7 metres (Broadwater) and 8 metres (Windrush) so it would be considered to fit in well with the existing houses.

10.7 Impact upon neighbours

The location of fenestration and orientation of plots means that the dwelling would not be overbearing or cause overlooking to neighbouring properties. As such there would not be any harmful impact upon neighbouring amenity.

10.8 Floorspace

The existing house is 202.1 square metres. The proposed house would be 262.5 square metres, which represents a 30% increase in floorspace over the existing. It would be necessary to condition that no windows are added to the roof of the garage roof to ensure it is used as storage space only.

10.9 Ecological issues

It is not considered likely that any protected species would be harmed by the proposal. There is a possibility that bats may utilise the existing roofspace of the dwelling, but the applicant states that none are known at the property. In any case Conservation Area Consent would be required to take down the existing dwelling. An

15 informative should be added to the decision notice explaining the legal requirements in respect of bats. From the Hampshire Biodiversity Information Centre records, the only protected species of note at the site is an Ulmus Minor, which can be adequately protected during development by appropriate Tree Protection measures.

10.10 Impact upon trees

The Tree Officer confirmed that no full tree survey was required to accompany this planning application, and the proposal would not necessitate the removal of any significant trees at the site.

10.11 Drainage

The New Forest District Council drainage section states that full calculations of the intended sustainable drainage system must be submitted for approval prior to the commencement of the development, and that all soakaways should provide for a 1 in 10 year event and be located so as not to affect adjacent property.

10.12 Conclusion

Overall the proposal is considered to be compliant with Development Plan policies and the recommendation is for approval.

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. No development shall take place above damp proof course level until samples or exact details of the facing and roofing materials have been submitted to and approved in writing by the New Forest National Park Authority.

Reason: To ensure an acceptable appearance of the building in accordance with policies DW-E1 and DW-E23 of the New Forest District Local Plan First Alteration.

3. No other windows or rooflights other than those hereby approved shall be inserted into the first floor or roof of the building hereby approved unless express planning permission has first been

16 granted.

Reason: To prevent the creation of additional habitable space so as not to contravene Policies NF-H3 or NF-H4 of the New Forest District Local Plan First Alteration.

4. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any re- enactment of that Order) no extension otherwise approved by Classes A, B or C of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Order shall be erected or carried out without express planning permission first having been granted.

Reason: To ensure the dwelling remains of a size which is appropriate to its location within the countryside and to comply with policies NF-H3 and NF-H4 of the New Forest District Local Plan First Alteration.

5. The conservatory shall only be constructed to the design and materials shown on the approved plans. No alteration shall subsequently be made to the external walls and roof of the building, notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 or the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995.

Reason: Permission would not normally have been granted for an addition to this property as this would have been contrary to policies NF-H3 and NF-H4 of the adopted New Forest District Local Plan First Alteration. The New Forest National Park Authority considers that an exception could reasonably be made for a conservatory of the size and type proposed as this would only serve as secondary accommodation rather than as part of the living space of the dwelling.

6. The development hereby approved shall not take place until the arrangements to be taken for the protection of the trees and hedges on the site (to be identified by agreement with the New Forest National Park Authority beforehand) have been approved in writing by the New Forest National Park Authority, and unless the details thus approved have been implemented.

Reason: To safeguard trees and natural features which are important to the visual amenities of the area, in accordance with policy DW-E8 of the New Forest District Local Plan First Alteration.

7. No external lighting shall be installed on the site unless details of such proposals have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the New Forest National Park Authority.

Reason: To protect the amenities of the area in accordance with policies DW-E1, DW-E23 and DW-E43 of the New Forest District

17 Local Plan First Alteration.

8. Before development commences, details of the means of disposal of surface water from the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the New Forest National Park Authority. Development shall only take place in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In order to ensure that the drainage arrangements are appropriate and in accordance with policy DW-E50 of the New Forest District Local Plan First Alteration.

Informative(s):

1. All bats and their roosts are fully protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000) and are further protected under Regulation 39(1) of the Conservation (Natural Habitats &c.) Regulations 1994. Should any bats or evidence of bats be found prior to or during development, work must stop immediately and Natural England contacted for further advice. This is a legal requirement under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and applies to whoever carries out the work. All contractors on site should be made aware of this requirement and given the relevant contact number for Natural England, which is 02380 286410.

18 43 43 27 35 50m 00m 30 32

96250m 96250m

60 60

57 57

95500m 95500m 43 43 35 27 30 32 00m 50m Item:3 New Forest National Park Authority Ref:09/94545/FULL South Efford House, Milford Road, Everton, SO41 0JD

Tel: 01590 646600 Fax: 01590 646666

Planning Development Control Committee - 19 January 2010 Report Item 4

Application No: 09/94576/LDCE Lawful Development Certificate Existing

Site: Home Farm Boldre Grange, Southampton Road, Boldre, Lymington, SO41 8PT

Proposal: Application for a Certificate of Lawful Development for existing use of garage as a dwelling

Applicant: Mr & Mrs G Wallis

Case Officer: Liz Young

Parish: BOLDRE

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

N/A

5. MEMBER COMMENTS

None received

6. PARISH COUNCIL COMMENTS

Boldre Parish Council: Recommend refusal; hope the Authority will address the problem of unlawful occupation of garages and other outbuildings; this is an increasing loophole in planning, creating a quantity of new dwellings.

7. CONSULTEES

No consultations required

8. REPRESENTATIONS

8.1 None received.

20 9. RELEVANT HISTORY:

9.1 Outbuilding (94110) refused on 9 July 2009 (Appeal Dismissed).

9.2 Outbuilding (93679) refused on 6 February 2009.

9.3 Detached double garage (70877) approved on 16 March 2001.

9.4 Removal of additional Condition 1 on pp 55908 (restriction of use) refused on 12 November 1997 (appeal allowed).

9.5 Erect double garage (55908) approved on 8 February 1995.

10. ASSESSMENT

10.1 Procedural Issues

10.2 In respect of existing uses of land (with the exception of independent dwellings) and a breach of planning condition, if an applicant can show that such uses have been continuous for at least 10 years (prior to the date of the application), then the Authority has to issue a certificate confirming that the use is lawful for planning purposes. In the case of independent dwellings, buildings or engineering operations, the relevant time limit is 4 years. Recent Case Law demonstrated that even where the occupation of a building as an independent dwelling is in breach of a planning condition, the four year (rather than the ten year) rule applies. However, where the use of the building as a dwelling house is in breach of an occupancy condition, it is necessary to consider both the occupancy and use of the building in question (rather than solely its use).

10.3 Background

This application relates to a residential building with an external footprint amounting to just under 70 square metres. The building was originally constructed as a garage within the domestic curtilage of Home Farm (planning consent 55908) and incorporates a kitchen, living room, bedroom and bathroom. The building continues to share the existing curtilage, access and parking area associated with Home Farm and is subject to a condition (consent 62319) which states that the building should not be occupied as an independent dwelling.

21 10.4 Home Farm itself is a modest detached bungalow and the plot is situated adjacent to a modest cluster of agricultural buildings. The wider setting is essentially rural and the plot is set well back from Southampton Road to the south west. The curtilage is adjoined by three modest residential properties and a saw mill is located immediately to the south east. The south west boundary is adjoined by open fields.

10.5 This application seeks to demonstrate that the existing building has been occupied continuously for the last 4 years as an independent dwelling and has therefore become lawful.

10.6 Summary of available evidence

Evidence submitted with the original planning application incorporates a statutory declaration from the applicant, Mr Wallis, the occupant of Home Farm along with photographs of the interior and exterior of the building. The statutory declaration states the following:

In October 2003 the applicant submitted and received approval for alterations to the building under Building Regulations (the attached plan dated October 2003) shows a sink, kitchen units and a cooker point (the shower and toilet already having been in place). The cooker was purchased in 2004 and gas supplied shortly after. The works were completed no later than early 2005 and subsequently signed off by a Building Inspector in February that year. Advice from the Planning Authority to the applicant up until May 2005 indicated that he could utilise the building for bed and breakfast purposes. Cooking facilities were re-instated in June 2005. A lady initially occupied the building for short periods of two or three days from the beginning of July 2005) She then occupied the building on a more permanent basis from July 2005 onwards. She has not used any facilities within Home Farm itself and she continues to occupy the property.

10.7 Additional evidence has been submitted by the agent which includes a letter from the current occupant of the building, Miss Walton, and an explanation of the arrangements for rent and utilities payments. Miss Walton confirms that she rents the building from the owners of Home Farm and is responsible for payment of gas bills (along with a share of the electricity and water bills which are not metered separately). Information forthcoming from New Forest District Council indicates that the appropriate council tax payments have not been made on the premises. There is no evidence of any rental contract, receipt of rental payments or utility bills.

22 10.8 Conclusions

The nature and layout of accommodation along with the fixtures and fittings within the building demonstrate that it is equipped to enable fully independent occupation. Additional information submitted now also serves to demonstrate that the building has been occupied independently from Home Farm. There is currently no evidence available which would contradict the applicant's claim. After consulting the Authority's solicitor it is considered there is sufficient evidence to enable a certificate of lawfulness to be issued for the use and occupation of the building as an independent dwelling.

11. RECOMMENDATION

That the Certificate be issued in the terms sought.

23 43 43 07 12 50m 50m 10

99250m 99250m

90 90

87 87

98500m 98500m 43 43 12 07 10 50m 50m Item:4 New Forest National Park Authority Ref:09/94576/LDCE South Efford House, Milford Road, Everton, SO41 0JD

Tel: 01590 646600 Fax: 01590 646666

Planning Development Control Committee - 19 January 2010 Report Item 5

Application No: 09/94620/FULL Full Application

Site: Ambervale Farm, Pitmore Lane, Sway, SO41 6EQ

Proposal: Variation of Condition 1 of Planning Permission 07/91461 to allow increased numbers of daily vehicle movements Monday to Friday from 60 to 100 vehicles of which 80 shall be heavy commercial vehicles (HCVs)

Applicant: G Farwell Ltd - C/o Agent

Case Officer: Mark Funnell

Parish: SWAY

1. DISTRICT/BOROUGH: New Forest District Council

2. REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Referred by Authority Member (Ted Johnson) Previous Committee consideration (April 2009)

3. DEVELOPMENT PLAN DESIGNATION

No specific designation

4. PRINCIPAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES

Hampshire, Portsmouth, Southampton and New Forest National Park Minerals and Waste Core Strategy: DC1 Sustainable minerals and waste development DC2 Sites with international and national designations DC6 Highways DC8 Amenity DC13 Waste recycling

New Forest District Local Plan First Alteration: NF-E1 Control of development in the New Forest (p135)

5. MEMBER COMMENTS

Ted Johnson: Asks that the case is referred to the Planning Development Control Committee given the recent planning history. Requests that a specific comment is sought from the Highway Authority on the routing to / from the site, given the instances where Farwell's lorries are seen travelling through Pennington village.

25 6. PARISH COUNCIL COMMENTS

6.1 Sway Parish Council: Recommends refusal. No material change in situation since the previous application. The concerns raised previously by neighbours should be taken into account, in particular the concerns about noise, dust and the impact on the environment of the proposed increase in the movement of heavy goods vehicles.

6.2 Lymington and Pennington Town Council (neighbouring local Council): Any comments will be reported orally at the committee meeting.

7. CONSULTEES

7.1 Highway Authority (HCC): No highway objections. Comments as follows:

The Highway Authority comments on the previous application (ref. 92990) were based upon the prior cessation of activities on the adjoining site at Mount Pleasant (which involved an estimated average of 80 - 120 HGV movements per day), and this has now occurred. If the current application were granted, overall there would be a net reduction in HCV movements on the local highway network (compared to when both sites were operational previously). The routing taken by HCVs from the two sites differs. Operations at the Ambervale Farm site are restricted by Section 106 Agreement which requires that HGV’s turn left out of the site along Pitmore Lane to the Wheel Inn junction, and that they turn either left or right at that junction using either Silver Street or Sway Road, and not pass through Pennington village. An increase in vehicles at Ambervale Farm would therefore be subject to greater controls than the Mount Pleasant operation was, although there would be a small increase in movements on Silver Street and Sway Road (as Mount Pleasant vehicles were allowed to drive through Pennington). Should any such incidences of lorry routing breaches be reported, the County Council would be able to enforce the provisions of the lorry routing agreement. Ongoing operations on the Ambervale Farm site have not resulted in any accident trends on local roads, and there are no accident trends in the vicinity of the site which are likely to be exacerbated should this variation of condition be permitted. Considering the small proportionate increase in traffic levels which may result from this application, no highway and transport objections are raised.

7.2 Environment Agency: The Environment Agency has assessed this application as having a low environmental risk. Due to workload prioritisation the Agency is unable to make a full

26 response to this application.

7.3 Environmental Protection NFDC: Comments to be reported orally at the meeting.

8. REPRESENTATIONS

8.1 Applicant's agent: This application is a submission of application ref. 08/92990. The applicant wishes to provide the Authority with an opportunity to reconsider the proposal. Operations at the Mount Pleasant site (from which it is proposed to 'adopt' some vehicle movements) ceased on 1 September 2009.

8.2 A total of 23 representations have been received in objection to the application (15 from Pitmore Lane; 3 from Sway Road; 3 from Ramley Road, Pennington; 1 from The Square, Pennington; and 1 from Wootton):

Many representees make reference to their objections to the previous application and query why the same application has been re-submitted. Object to additional heavy vehicle movements in Pitmore Lane. The number of large lorries in Pitmore Lane has increased dramatically over the last few years. Pitmore Lane has no pavements or street lighting, and is unsuitable for heavy goods vehicles - pedestrians and horse riders are at risk. The 'designated lorry route' (Silver Street / Sway Road) cannot cope with these HGV movements - one of the applicant's own vehicles was recently involved in an accident at Gordleton Bridge. There are also many instances of 'stalemates' or large vehicles edging past each other. The applicants are incapable of ensuring that their drivers use the recommended route. Reference is made by representees to vehicle(s) seen using Ramley Road (through Pennington), Pitmore Lane (to the north into open forest) and North Common Lane; and the problems associated with such alleged use. The extra lorry movements would create more work on the site, therefore more noise and dust affecting local residents. Living directly opposite the site, extreme dust has been suffered during dry spells of the summer, incessant noise from concrete crushing machinery, and reversing bleepers on vehicles. Since the previous application, the noise emanating from the site is still as bad and the dust no better. The company is continuing to push the boundaries from the limitations on the original appeal decision. If Mr Farwell wishes to expand his business he should move it to a more suitable site.

27 Finally, two representees reiterate all the points raised by the Pennington Residents Association below.

8.3 Pennington Residents Association: Comments as follows:

None of the reasons for rejection of the previous application have changed. An increase in traffic would have a materially harmful effect upon highway safety and convenience. The roads leading to and from the site are of inadequate capacity, width and alignment, as witnessed first hand in an HGV by the Planning Inspector considering the proposed Ice Cream Factory at Gordleton. The Traffic and Transport Report is unaltered and makes no reference to this summer's road traffic accident involving a Farwell's vehicle and a private vehicle at Gordleton Bridge. The routing agreement is, as recorded by local residents and road users, ignored on a regular basis. The recent long overdue reduction in vehicle movements from Mount Pleasant Quarry has provided some welcome environmental relief to local residents with improved safety. The vehicle routes from the site do not meet the rules (which include the proximity to housing, and safety) set out in the Minerals and Waste Core Strategy.

8.4 Cllr Penny Jackman (District Councillor, Pennington): Objects.

No safe access to local lorry route (A337). Witnessed the accident at Gordleton Mill referred to above. No pavements to Pitmore Road - contrary to DC6. Children from a residential special needs unit walk along Sway Road to the A337. Concerns over dust affecting local residents - contrary to DC8. Conflicts with National Park purposes. No overwhelming local need for 40 vehicle movements.

9. RELEVANT HISTORY:

9.1 On 21 April 2009 permission was refused for a variation of Condition 1 of Planning Permission 07/91461 to allow increased numbers of daily vehicle movements Monday to Friday from 60 to 100 vehicles of which 80 shall be heavy commercial vehicles (HCVs) (ref. 92990) Under appeal

9.2 On 19 December 2008 permission was granted for the retention of a portakabin for use as office (ref. 93337).

9.3 On 25 June 2007 permission was granted to vary condition 1 of planning consent APP/Q1770/A/06/2026438 to cease heavy commercial vehicle movements on Saturdays and provide for the redistribution of the permitted movement over the working

28 week (Monday to Friday) (ref. 91461).

9.4 On 14 February 2007 permission was granted on appeal to vary condition 9 of Planning Permission APP/Q1770/A/03/1118751 (original ref. 75507) to allow 44 HGV movements on weekdays and 23 on Saturdays (ref’s APP/Q17750/A/06/2026438 and 87141).

9.5 On 23 February 2004 planning permission was granted on appeal for the use of the site as an inert waste material transfer station and recycling facility, works to existing partly constructed building, and construction of new vehicular access (ref’s APP/Q1770/A/03/1118751 and 75507).

10. ASSESSMENT

10.1 Members may recall that this proposed variation of condition was refused planning permission at the Planning Development Control Committee on 21 April 2009. This followed a deferral for further information at the Committee meeting on 21 October 2008. The applicant has now submitted the same proposal for re-consideration. The applicant has simultaneously appealed the refusal of the original application and claimed for costs against the Authority.

10.2 Ambervale Farm comprises a waste transfer station off Pitmore Lane, Sway. Consent is sought to vary condition 1 of planning permission ref. 91461 to allow for an increase in the number of daily vehicle movements (Monday-Friday) from 60 to 100 of which no more that 80 would be heavy commercial vehicles (HCV's).

10.3 By way of background, the site was originally granted consent on appeal in 2004. Condition 9 of the decision stated:

“The total number of daily lorry movements entering or leaving the site shall not exceed a maximum of 54 movements on weekdays of which not more than 26 shall be heavy commercial vehicle movements and on Saturdays a maximum of 28 movements of which not more than 14 shall be heavy commercial vehicles movements. A record of all lorry movements shall be kept at the site and made available to the Waste Planning Authority on request. Heavy commercial vehicles are those exceeding 7.5 tonnes gross vehicles weight. A lorry entering and leaving the site shall be regarded as having carried out two movements".

10.4 Subsequently, in 2006, the applicant applied to vary condition 9 to allow 44 HGV movements on weekdays and 23 on Saturdays (ref. 75507). Hampshire County Council refused the application which was later also granted on appeal. In his appeal decision the Inspector stated that:

“The application anticipates that an increase in throughput to 22,000 tonnes would result in a maximum of 82 daily waste vehicle movements, of which 10 would be the larger eight- wheeled vehicles. A temporary limit of 44 vehicles has been proposed until 2008 so that the main increase from the previously permitted level would follow completion of the adjacent quarry restoration”.

The Inspector imposed a restrictive traffic condition on movements in and out of the site through this appeal decision.

10.5 In 2007 the applicant gained planning permission to vary condition 2 of the above appeal decision to cease heavy commercial vehicle movements on Saturdays to provide for redistribution of the permitted movements over the working week (Monday-Friday). Permission was granted subject to the following condition:

“The total number of daily lorry movements entering or leaving the site shall not exceed a maximum of 60 movements on weekdays of which not more than 50 shall be heavy commercial vehicle movements and on Saturdays a maximum of 6 movements of which none shall be heavy commercial movements. A record of all lorry movements shall be kept at the site and made available to the Waste Planning Authority on request. Heavy Commercial Vehicles (HCV’s) are those exceeding 7.5 tonnes gross weight. A lorry entering and leaving the site shall be regarded as carting out two movements.”

This is the condition which the applicant now seeks to vary by way of a further increase in vehicle movements.

10.6 The applicant states that this proposed increase would be offset by the cessation of activities at the nearby Mount Pleasant quarry operated by New Milton Sand and Ballast, which was originally due to be restored by 30 December 2008, and has now been restored in accordance with an approved extension of time to 31 August 2009. The applicant considers that with the cessation of the works at the Mount Pleasant site the overall reduction on the highway of traffic, together with the proposed increase, would be approximately 20 vehicle movements per day.

10.7 The applicant has stated that officers of the County Council indicated in the past that there would be scope for increasing the movements to and from the application site once the operations at the Mount Pleasant site ceased. The applicant adds that evidence presented at the original appeal showed that the movements of heavy goods vehicles were not a significant component in the road accidents that had occurred in the area and there is no evidence that this has changed. The applicant

30 concludes that there is a need for this recycling facility which is a valuable facility serving the local population.

10.8 In considering the previous application in October 2008, the Planning Development Control Committee concluded that further information was needed on the local need for the site, and also asked for further highways advice. Details of the catchment area and loads from each locality were provided by the agent, and an officer from the Highway Authority (HCC) answered questions at the April 2009 Committee meeting.

10.9 The application was then refused for the following reasons:

(1) The proposed increase in vehicle movements at Ambervale Farm would prejudice the two statutory National Park purposes and would involve operations that would not primarily serve communities within the National Park. It would therefore be contrary to policy DC2 of the Hampshire, Portsmouth, Southampton and New Forest National Park Minerals and Waste Core Strategy (2007). More specifically:

(a) The proposal would be detrimental to the character, amenities and relative tranquillity of the New Forest, and would erode the special qualities of this part of the National Park and compromise the enjoyment and understanding thereof.

(b) The proposal would involve an expansion of a small scale operation more focused on serving local communities to one that would serve a significant proportion of customers outside the National Park. It would also involve the continuation of vehicle movements associated with a temporary and site specific mineral extraction (now landfill) site, for the benefit of a permanent waste management operation.

The proposal would therefore also conflict with policy NF-E1 of the New Forest District Local Plan First Alteration and the high level of protection afforded to National Parks in PPS7 Sustainable Development in Rural Areas (para. 21).

(2) The proposed increase in vehicle movements would give rise to unacceptable additional impacts on local residential amenity by virtue of the additional heavy commercial vehicle movements and the likelihood of further levels of dust arising from an intensification of operations. This would be contrary to policy DC8 of the adopted Hampshire, Portsmouth, Southampton and New Forest National Park Minerals and Waste Core Strategy (2007).

31 (3) The proposed increase in vehicle movements would give rise to both inconvenience and potential hazard to other road users, taking account of the size of vehicles involved, the suitability of the local road network, the existing use of the network by local residents, businesses and recreational users (including cyclists and horse riders), and the alleged incidents of vehicles not adhering to the routing agreement. The proposal would therefore conflict with the requirements of policy DC6 of the Hampshire, Portsmouth, Southampton and New Forest National Park Minerals and Waste Core Strategy (2007).

10.10 The main considerations for this new application are:

The key planning policies, including policy DC2 of the Minerals and Waste Core Strategy, and whether the proposal would prejudice the two statutory National Park purposes; Whether that are any material changes in circumstances that serve to overcome the three reasons for refusal of application ref. 92990.

10.11 Planning policies and impacts on the National Park

The main policy to consider remains Policy DC2 of the Minerals and Waste Core Strategy. This states:

"Minerals and waste development, which is likely to prejudice the purpose of the following designated sites and their settings [list includes New Forest National Park], will not be permitted unless the reasons for development outweigh the likely adverse impact, taking into account the requirements of relevant legislation and guidance".

The key consideration is therefore whether the proposal would prejudice the two statutory National Park purposes, and if so whether the reasons for the development (including any benefits for National Park communities) would outweigh any adverse impacts that are identified.

10.12 Since the previous decision in April 2009, the South East Plan has also been adopted. Its relevance is mostly strategic, but Policy C1 (The New Forest National Park) states: "High priority will be given to conserving and enhancing land and its specific character within the New Forest National Park".

10.13 Have there been any material changes in circumstances to overcome the three previous reasons for refusal?

In terms of potential material changes in circumstances, the applicant's agent states that there is now certainty that operations at the Mount Pleasant site have ceased.

10.14 Nonetheless, Members of the Planning Development Control Committee were aware in April 2009 that operations would cease by the end of August 2009 (not least because the application for an extension of time to restore the site was approved at the preceding committee meeting in March 2009). It is not considered that the cessation of operations alters the Authority's decision to refuse the application.

10.15 In particular, in refusing the application the Committee Members gave weight to the two National Park purposes, the character and amenities of the New Forest, the apparent extent of skip collections taking place outside of the National Park (around 75% based on an analysis of the applicant's figures) with much of the waste being brought into the Park for sorting / recycling, and the inherent temporary nature of the Mt Pleasant operations. These concerns have been referred to in more detail in the Authority's statement in defence of the appeal that was sent to the Planning Inspectorate in December 2009.

10.16 With respect to the second reason for refusal, this cited the additional impacts on local residential amenity by virtue of the additional heavy commercial vehicle movements and the likelihood of further levels of dust arising from an intensification of operations. The Environmental Protection team at the District Council has been re-consulted on the application and any comments received will be reported orally at the Committee meeting. Several representees continue to refer to issues of noise and dust as concerns.

10.17 With respect to the third reason for refusal, this cited the inconvenience and potential hazard to other road users that the proposal would give rise to. The Highway Authority (HCC) previously raised no objection to the proposal, but in refusing the application the Authority gave weight to the concerns and experiences of members of the public of using the local road network, and other factors as set out in the text of the reason for refusal. With the current application, the Highway Authority has commented again and reiterated its 'no objection' to the proposal. Whilst these comments are noted, there have not been any material changes in circumstance that were not predictable when the decision was taken in April 2009 that suggest this reason should be withdrawn.

10.18 Conclusion

Notwithstanding the favourable officer recommendation on the previous, identical planning application for this proposal, the refusal of that application is an important material planning consideration. Since the decision, although the Mount Pleasant site has been closed and vehicle movements associated with it have ceased, this closure was expected when the decision to

33 refuse was taken in April 2009. The Highway Authority continues to raise no objection, but representees continue to raise concerns about the proposal. It is therefore concluded that there is no material change in circumstances such as to change the Authority's decision of April 2009. The officer recommendation therefore accords with the previous decision to refuse.

11. RECOMMENDATION

Refuse

Reason(s)

1. The proposed increase in vehicle movements at Ambervale Farm would prejudice the two statutory National Park purposes and would involve operations that would not primarily serve communities within the National Park. It would therefore be contrary to policy DC2 of the Hampshire, Portsmouth, Southampton and New Forest National Park Minerals and Waste Core Strategy (2007). More specifically:

2. The proposed increase in vehicle movements would give rise to unacceptable additional impacts on local residential amenity by virtue of the additional heavy commercial vehicle movements and the likelihood of further levels of dust arising from an intensification of operations. This would be contrary to policy DC8 of the adopted Hampshire, Portsmouth, Southampton and New Forest National Park Minerals and Waste Core Strategy (2007).

3. The proposed increase in vehicle movements would give rise to both inconvenience and potential hazard to other road users, taking account of the size of vehicles involved, the suitability of the local road network, the existing use of the network by local

34 residents, businesses and recreational users (including cyclists and horse riders), and the alleged incidents of vehicles not adhering to the routing agreement. The proposal would therefore conflict with the requirements of policy DC6 of the Hampshire, Portsmouth, Southampton and New Forest National Park Minerals and Waste Core Strategy (2007).

35 42 42 95 99 00m 00m 96 97 98

97500m 97500m

74 74

73 73

72 72

97100m 97100m 42 42 99 95 96 97 98 00m 00m Item:5 New Forest National Park Authority Ref:09/94620/FULL South Efford House, Milford Road, Everton, SO41 0JD

Tel: 01590 646600 Fax: 01590 646666

Planning Development Control Committee - 19 January 2010 Report Item 6

Application No: 09/94629/FULL Full Application

Site: Willows, Brook Hill, Norley Wood, Lymington, SO41 5RQ

Proposal: Replacement dwelling; demolition of existing bungalow

Applicant: Mr N Hartshorn

Case Officer: Mark Funnell

Parish: BOLDRE

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

DW-E1 General development criteria (page 57) DW-E23 New development in Conservation Areas (page 70) NF-E5 Design of new development in the New Forest (page 140) NF-H4 Replacement dwellings in the New Forest (page 144)

5. MEMBER COMMENTS

None received

6. PARISH COUNCIL COMMENTS

Boldre Parish Council: Recommends refusal. The urban style of the replacement dwelling is not compensated by its 'green' credentials. It would look too tall for its width and with so much glass would give an urban appearance with potential for light pollution which would be at odds with this very rural community.

7. CONSULTEES

7.1 Environmental Services - Conservation Area: No objection subject to a condition on materials. Comments as follows:

The proposal for redevelopment on this site is for a relatively small, mostly single storey but in part two storey, three bed

37 house. It has been designed on sustainable principles, with a compact floor plan with relatively shallow vary-pitched, sedum covered roofs. The walls are to be timber clad. The new dwelling is sited towards the southern boundary of the site and with the two storey part at this end, with the scale of the form diminishing towards the east. On balance, it is concluded that this is a reasonable design for this backland plot. It is basically single storey and has minimal impact upon its surroundings. The modern design with rural overtones - sedum roof, timber cladding, sustainable details, etc, is appropriate for this location.

7.2 Tree Officer: No objection subject to condition of agreed tree protection to include an accurate plan plotting retained trees, fencing, any ground protection and working and storage areas.

7.3 NFDC Engineering & Land Drainage: Recommends approval subject to a condition requiring details of surface water drainage.

8. REPRESENTATIONS

8.1 Letter from applicant's agent: The footprint of the dwelling has been reduced since the last proposal. The front of the building remains the same to line up with neighbouring properties to the south. A step has been introduced in the roof above the kitchen to remove the double height space, which also reduces the mass of the building. The rear balcony has been replaced with a juliet balcony. It is to be an interesting and sustainable new house in this sensitive environment.

8.2 Summary of points raised in the letters of objection from five local properties (The Cabin, Hillcrest, Rambler, Tussocks and Holme Glen):

Properties in the local area, which is a tight knit community, are mostly bungalows and are generally lower in height than the application proposal. Unacceptable visual impact; overbearing in its setting. Another smaller dwelling is being enlarged. A first floor could be added to part of the house in future, as the floor would be dug down and rooflights are already shown on the plans. Queries whether the glass fish pond enclosure would be a conservatory and not habitable accommodation. Concerns about overlooking and loss of privacy, in particular as the dwelling would still have a second storey with a balcony and large windows to the rear, and the first floor side window would not be obscure glazed. The proposed dwelling would cause loss of light to nearby properties. Light pollution would be created due to the full length glazing. The light tubes could be very visible and out of keeping.

38 The dwelling would be moved past the rear domestic boundary. Unconvinced by claims made for biodiversity and sustainability when taking into account the destruction of the existing bungalow.

9. RELEVANT HISTORY:

9.1 Demolition of dwelling (Conservation Area Consent to Demolish) (94630) submitted on 4 November 2009 and under consideration.

9.2 Replacement dwelling; demolition of existing bungalow (94077) refused on 20 July 2009.

9.3 Demolition of dwelling (Conservation Area Consent to Demolish) (94127) refused on 20 July 2009.

9.4 Erection of garage (12738) granted permission on 27 March 1979.

9.5 Bungalow (16672/2) granted permission on 24 August 1973.

10. ASSESSMENT

10.1 The Willows, formerly Forest Ranch, comprises a modest bungalow with shallow pitched roof, set within its curtilage with outbuildings and a paddock beyond. To the south lies Hillcrest, another single storey property, and to the north lie dwellings along Joys Lane, including Oakdene, The Nook and Rambler, all single storey / chalet bungalow properties. The northern site boundary features a number of trees, including some mature oaks. The site lies within the Forest South East Conservation Area.

10.2 Consent is sought to replace the existing bungalow with a one and two storey dwelling with sloping sedum green roof. The external walls would be timber clad. The dwelling would rise to a maximum ridge height of 6.45 metres, with a juliet balcony to the rear. A glasshouse would be attached to the side of the dwelling.

10.3 For information, amended plans received during the course of the application have omitted a rooflight above the kitchen, and with respect to the glasshouse have both shown it in more detail and reduced its size by a small amount.

10.4 The application follows the refusal of a previous planning application for a replacement dwelling. It was a slightly larger dwelling of similar design, and the reasons for refusal related to excessive floorspace and impacts on the amenities of neighbours. An application for Conservation Area Consent to demolish the existing dwelling was also refused as an approved scheme for its replacement was not in place.

10.5 Policy NF-H4 of the Local Plan allows in principle for the replacement of existing dwellings (the demolition is the subject of a separate Conservation Area Consent application). The main considerations are:

the siting of the dwelling; the design of the dwelling and its acceptability in its local context, including the Conservation Area status; the floorspace of the dwelling any impacts on the amenities of neighbouring properties; any impacts on trees.

10.6 Siting

The siting of the dwelling would be as per the existing dwelling, with the front wall in line with the adjacent property (Hillcrest). Although some representees have raised concerns that the red line of the application (which normally denotes its curtilage) was shown immediately to the rear of the dwelling in the last application, but now includes a larger area of land to the west. Nonetheless, the red line now shown does accord with the red line on both the original consent for the bungalow (1973) and a subsequent application for a garage (1979).

10.7 Design and context

The design of the dwelling was not a reason for refusal with the previous scheme. Although the current proposal would have a split level roofline (in order to stay within the maximum floorspace allowable), the Conservation Officer considers that the design would still be acceptable. The ridge would be higher than Hillcrest adjacent by a small amount, but not to an extant that would be considered detrimental to the streetscene.

10.8 The Parish Council comments on the proposed dwelling's 'urban' style. Nonetheless, its sedum roof and timber cladding should ensure that it is not out of place in this rural setting, albeit it does not match the design of adjacent properties. With respect to the glazing and potential light pollution, the largest areas of glazing would be confined to the rear of the property, and there are no long views in the landscape that would be adversely affected by internal illumination of the dwelling.

10.9 Floorspace

The original floorspace of the dwelling has been calculated as 88.3 sq metres. The proposed floorspace, based on the ground floor and the partial first floor, comes to 114 sq metres, which is just within the maximum permissible 30% increase. Some representees have raised concerns that the ground floor could be set lower and a full first floor could be added in future (i.e.

40 additional floorspace above the kitchen / dining area). In response, the applicant has agreed to remove a rooflight over the kitchen, and conditions are proposed requiring details of the slab level of the dwelling and that any further rooflights would need separate planning permission. Overall, the massing of the dwelling is considered to be acceptable, and it is concluded that the floorspace to be provided within the dwelling would not be contrary to policy NF-H3, and that a further refusal on floorspace grounds could not be sustained.

10.10 The glasshouse / conservatory at the side of the dwelling could be treated as an exception to policy (being under 20 sq metres in size, with sufficient glazing and an acceptable appearance), subject to a condition that it stays within the definition of a conservatory.

10.11 Residential amenities

The removal of the first floor rear window above the dining area has removed a key concern with the previous proposal regarding overlooking towards the garden of Rambler. Although some oblique overlooking, particularly of the end of Rambler's garden, would be possible, the distance involved, and the lack of direct overlooking of windows on the dwelling, would mean that a further refusal for this reason could not be sustained.

10.12 The removal of the balcony in favour of a juliet balcony is considered to overcome the previous concern about potential overlooking of Hillcrest. Although the existing dwelling has no first floor windows and the proposed dwelling does, they would mostly look down the garden and there would only be an oblique view of the garden further from house. Again, it is not considered that a refusal could be sustained. The narrow side window to the first floor bedroom could be obscured glazed.

10.13 Trees

Impacts on trees were not a reason for refusal previously, and given that the siting of the dwelling reflects the previous application (where the Tree Officer raised no objection subject to tree protection during construction), then no new issues are anticipated.

10.14 Conclusion

The reasons for refusal of the previous application (floorspace and impacts on residential amenities) are considered to have been overcome in the current application, and the recommendation is for permission subject to conditions.

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. No development (including demolition) shall take place until a tree protection scheme is submitted to and approved in writing by the New Forest National Park Authority. The scheme shall include an accurate plan plotting retained trees, tree protection fencing, any ground protection, and working and storage areas. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved scheme.

Reason: To safeguard trees and natural features which are important to the visual amenities of the area, in accordance with policy DW-E8 of the New Forest District Local Plan First Alteration.

3. Before development commences, the proposed slab levels in relationship to the existing ground levels set to an agreed datum shall be submitted to and approved by the New Forest National Park Authority. Development shall only take place in accordance with those details which have been approved.

Reason: To ensure that the development takes place in an appropriate way in accordance with policies DW-E1, DW-E23 and NF-H3 of the New Forest District Local Plan First Alteration.

4. Before development commences, details of the means of disposal of surface water from the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the New Forest National Park Authority. Development shall only take place in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In order to ensure that the drainage arrangements are appropriate and in accordance with policy DW-E50 of the New Forest District Local Plan First Alteration and the 'New Forest District Council and New Forest National Park Authority Strategic Flood Risk Assessment for Local Development Frameworks'.

5. Within one month of the date when development first commences a scheme of landscaping of the site shall have been submitted for approval in writing by the New Forest National Park Authority. This scheme shall include:

(a) the existing trees and shrubs which have been agreed to be retained; (b) a specification for new planting (species, size, spacing and location); (c) areas for hard surfacing and the materials to be used (d) other means of enclosure; (e) a method and programme for its implementation and the means to provide for its future maintenance.

No further development shall take place after 3 months unless these details have been approved and then only in accordance with those details.

Reason: To ensure that the development takes place in an appropriate way and to comply with policies DW-E1 and DW-E6 of the New Forest District Local Plan First Alteration.

6. No development shall take place above damp proof course level until the following details are submitted to and approved in writing by the New Forest National Park Authority:

(a) samples or exact details of the external facing materials, including the finish of the timber cladding; and (b) details of the type and construction of velux windows.

The development shall be implemented in accordance with the details that are approved.

Reason: To ensure an acceptable appearance of the building in accordance with policies DW-E1 and DW-E23 of the New Forest District Local Plan First Alteration.

7. The first floor window on the south elevation of the dwelling hereby permitted shall at all times be glazed with obscure glass and fixed shut.

Reason: To safeguard the privacy of the adjoining neighbouring property (Hillcrest) in accordance with policy DW-E1 of the New Forest District Local Plan First Alteration.

8. No first floor windows or rooflights other than those hereby approved shall be inserted into the building unless express planning permission has first been granted.

Reason: To safeguard the privacy of the adjoining neighbouring properties and to restrict the potential to create further habitable floorspace within the dwelling in accordance with policies DW-E1 and NF-H3 of the New Forest District Local Plan First Alteration.

9. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any re-

43 enactment of that Order) no extension (or alterations) otherwise approved by Classes A, B or C of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Order, garage or other outbuilding otherwise approved by Class E of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Order, shall be erected or carried out without express planning permission first having been granted.

Reason: To ensure the development at the site remains of a size and floorspace which is appropriate to its location within the countryside and to comply with Policies NF-H3 and NF-H4 of the New Forest District Local Plan First Alteration.

44 43 43 52 57 50m 50m 55

98000m 98000m

77 77

75 75

97250m 97250m 43 43 57 52 55 50m 50m Item:6 New Forest National Park Authority Ref:09/94629/FULL South Efford House, Milford Road, Everton, SO41 0JD

Tel: 01590 646600 Fax: 01590 646666

Planning Development Control Committee - 19 January 2010 Report Item 7

Application No: 09/94630/CAC Conservation Area Consent

Site: Willows, Brook Hill, Norley Wood, Lymington, SO41 5RQ

Proposal: Demolition of dwelling (Application for Conservation Area Consent)

Applicant: Mr N Hartshorn

Case Officer: Mark Funnell

Parish: BOLDRE

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

DW-E24 Demolition in Conservation Areas (page 71)

5. MEMBER COMMENTS

None received

6. PARISH COUNCIL COMMENTS

Boldre Parish Council: Recommends refusal due to concerns over the proposed replacement dwelling (planning application ref. 94629). The urban style of the proposed dwelling is not compensated by its 'green' credentials. It would look too tall for its width and with so much glass would give an urban appearance with potential for light pollution which would be at odds with this very rural community.

7. CONSULTEES

7.1 Environmental Services - Conservation Area: The existing bungalow on this site is a very ordinary 1960s dwelling, built in flettons under a concrete tile roof. It makes no particular contribution to the site or surrounding on this what is effectively a backland site. No objection to its demolition and redevelopment.

46 8. REPRESENTATIONS

8.1 Summary of points raised in the letters of objection from two local properties:

Unconvinced by claims made for the biodiversity and sustainability of the replacement dwelling proposal when taking into account the destruction of the existing bungalow. Would involve the loss of a smaller dwelling. Raise concerns about the merits of the proposed replacement dwelling.

9. RELEVANT HISTORY:

9.1 Replacement dwelling; demolition of existing bungalow (94629) submitted on 4 November 2009 and under consideration.

9.2 Replacement dwelling; demolition of existing bungalow (94077) refused on 20 July 2009.

9.3 Demolition of dwelling (Conservation Area Consent to Demolish) (94127) refused on 20 July 2009.

9.4 Erection of garage (12738) granted permission on 27 March 1979.

9.5 Bungalow (16672/2) granted permission on 24 August 1973.

10. ASSESSMENT

10.2 Conservation Area Consent is sought to demolish the existing bungalow, alongside a separate planning application for a replacement dwelling.

10.3 The application follows the refusal of a previous Conservation Area Consent application to demolish the bungalow. The reason for refusal was the lack of an approved scheme in place for a replacement dwelling, which is a Local Plan requirement.

10.4 The main consideration is policy DW-E24, and whether the bungalow makes a positive contribution to the character of the Conservation Area.

47 10.5 As with the previous application, it is considered that the bungalow does not make a positive contribution to the character of the Conservation Area, by virtue of its more suburban form. However, the policy makes clear that Conservation Area Consent should only be granted subject to prior or concurrent permission for re-development. This is to avoid the long term presence of an unsightly demolition site or a gap in the streetscene.

10.6 Given that the proposed replacement dwelling (planning application ref. 94629) is considered acceptable and is recommended for permission - see separate report item - then the current Conservation Area Consent application is also recommended for approval.

10.7 Although representees raise concerns about the loss of a smaller dwelling, and the sustainability (e.g. carbon emissions associated with the demolition and re-building of a dwelling) of the proposals, it should be noted that policy DW-E24 of the adopted Local Plan focuses on the affects of demolition on the character of the Conservation Area, whilst policy NF-H4 allows replacement dwellings in principle.

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.

48 43 43 52 57 50m 50m 55

98000m 98000m

77 77

75 75

97250m 97250m 43 43 57 52 55 50m 50m Item:7 New Forest National Park Authority Ref:09/94630/CAC South Efford House, Milford Road, Everton, SO41 0JD

Tel: 01590 646600 Fax: 01590 646666

Planning Development Control Committee - 19 January 2010 Report Item 8

Application No: 09/94644/FULL Full Application

Site: La Pergola, Southampton Road, Lyndhurst, SO43 7BQ

Proposal: Outbuilding

Applicant: Mr Passarelli, La Pergola Restaurant

Case Officer: Laura Harry

Parish: LYNDHURST

1. DISTRICT/BOROUGH: New Forest District Council

2. REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Contrary to Parish Council view.

3. DEVELOPMENT PLAN DESIGNATION

Conservation Area Defined New Forest Village

4. PRINCIPAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES

DW-E1 General development criteria (page 57) DW-E23 New development in Conservation Areas (page 70) NF-F1 Food and drink premises in defined New Forest villages (page 165)

5. MEMBER COMMENTS

None received

6. PARISH COUNCIL COMMENTS

Lyndhurst Parish Council: Recommend permission - would not wish to see the outbuilding used for residential purposes.

7. CONSULTEES

7.1 Environmental Services - Conservation Area: Recommend refusal, it would be an unattractive building that would not fit in with the rural, edge of Forest location, lacking any reference to rural vernacular and would be imposing when viewed from the adjacent open land.

50 7.2 Tree Officer: Recommend refusal - Loss of public amenity provided by the Ash tree growing in the Lyndhurst Conservation Area.

8. REPRESENTATIONS

8.1 None received.

9. RELEVANT HISTORY:

None relevant.

10. ASSESSMENT

10.1 La Pergola is an Italian restaurant located on Southampton Road in the Defined New Forest Village of Lyndhurst and within Lyndhurst Conservation Area. A large car park for restaurant customers is situated immediately north west of the building. There is a paddock to the south west, fields to the north and open forest to the south of the application site.

10.2 Consent is sought for an outbuilding to be used as a double garage and for the storage of furniture and equipment. The outbuilding would have an external floor area of approximately 100 square metres and a height of 6.3 metres. The outbuilding would be faced in red/brown brick work and roofed with brown plain concrete tiles, with white pvc windows and doors.

10.3 The key planning considerations are:

scale and design impact on the landscape character of the area trees

10.4 Scale and design

The scale of the proposed outbuilding, which would be 6.3 metres in height and have a floorspace of approximately 100 square metres, would not be considered appropriate to the existing building (restaurant), plot and surrounding area. Furthermore, the proposed outbuilding would dwarf an existing outbuilding on neighbouring land. The bland design of the proposed outbuilding, lack of detailing and a featureless side and rear elevation would create an outbuilding of suburban appearance. Accordingly the proposed outbuilding would be inappropriate and unsympathetic to the character of the area and local vernacular, having an adverse impact on the amenities of the area in terms of visual intrusion. Additionally the proposed outbuilding would contrast negatively with the existing outbuilding on neighbouring land which has some fine detailing, uses local materials and has a rural feel to it.

51 10.5 Impact on the landscape character of the area

The outbuilding would be an unattractive building which would be inappropriate within this rural, edge of Forest location. It would lack any reference to rural vernacular and would be imposing when viewed from the adjacent open land. Accordingly the outbuilding would neither preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area.

10.6 Impact on trees

The proposal would incorporate the removal of a developing Ash tree. This tree forms an important visual amenity in that it helps to break up the outline of the adjacent buildings and forms a partial screen between the car parking area and adjacent buildings. The loss of this tree would be detrimental to the public amenity provided by trees in the area.

10.7 Comments on Representations

Although the Parish Council recommend permission, it does also have concerns that the outbuilding should not be used for residential purposes. However, the proposed use of the outbuilding would be for a garage and for storage.

10.8 Conclusion

The proposed outbuilding in terms of scale and design would be inappropriate and unsympathetic to the character of the area and local vernacular, having an adverse impact on the amenities of the area in terms of visual intrusion, contrary to policies DW- E1 and NF-H5. The outbuilding would have an unacceptable impact upon, and would neither preserve nor enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area, contrary to policy DW-E23. The proposal would incorporate the removal of a developing Ash which forms an important visual amenity, contrary to policy DW-E8. Planning permission should therefore be refused.

11. RECOMMENDATION

Refuse

Reason(s)

1. The proposed outbuilding in terms of scale and design would be inappropriate and unsympathetic to the character of the area and local/rural vernacular and would be imposing when viewed from adjacent open land. Accordingly the proposed development would have an adverse impact on the amenities of the area in terms of visual intrusion and would neither preserve nor enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area. For

52 these reasons the proposed development would be contrary to policies DW-E1, DW-E23 and NF-H5 of the New Forest District Local Plan First Alteration.

2. The proposed outbuilding would incorporate the removal of a developing Ash which forms an important visual amenity that helps to break up the outline of the adjacent buildings and forms a partial screen between the car parking area and adjacent buildings. The loss of this tree would be detrimental to the public amenity provided by trees in the area contrary to policy DW-E8 of the New Forest District Local Plan First Alteration.

53 QUEENS ROAD 43 43

03 05 18 00m 00m 04

108400m 108400m 6

Thistledown Pinewood

Myrtle Cott Tantany

Rufus House Track

Tyrell Lodge Heather Hill

83 83

Fire

Station Car Park

108200m 108200m

38.7m

War

Cattle Grid Memorial Car Park

B 3056 43 43 05 03 04 00m 00m Item:8 New Forest National Park Authority Ref:09/94644/FULL South Efford House, Milford Road, Everton, SO41 0JD

Tel: 01590 646600 Fax: 01590 646666

BEAULIEU ROAD

Planning Development Control Committee - 19 January 2010 Report Item 9

Application No: 09/94646/FULL Full Application

Site: Emery Down Post Office, 5 Silver Street, Emery Down, Lyndhurst, SO43 7DX

Proposal: Change of use to two dwellings; external alterations

Applicant: Mr P Searle, Blaydon Developments

Case Officer: Liz Young

Parish: LYNDHURST

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

DW-E1 General development criteria (page 57) DW-E23 New development in Conservation Areas (page 70) DW-E36 Special Areas of Conservation (SACs), Special Protection Areas (SPAs) and Ramsar sites (page 79) DW-E37 Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) (page 79) DW-E41 Protected species (page 81) DW-T8 Access, safety and traffic management requirements (page 100) NF-H1 New residential development in the New Forest (page 143) NF-H3 Extensions to dwellings in the New Forest (page 144) NF-S5 Loss of rural shops in the New Forest (page 162) NF-RB1 Re-use of buildings on the New Forest (page 179)

5. MEMBER COMMENTS

None received

6. PARISH COUNCIL COMMENTS

Lyndhurst Parish Council: Recommend permission.

7. CONSULTEES

7.1 Highway Authority (HCC): No objections subject to a condition to

55 ensure the garage door shall be of a segmental design (details of which should be submitted for approval to the National Park Authority prior to commencement).

7.2 Environmental Services - Conservation Area: Recommend refusal; proposed works would necessitate the rebuilding of much of the roof and possibly the whole front wall, destroying any structural integrity and character within the existing building; the proposed Mock-Georgian panelled garage door would be inappropriate in this context; concerns over the potential to match existing brick work following the infill of existing shop windows.

7.3 Ecologist: The development would necessitate significant works to the roof of the existing property (in comparison to the former consent that had a smaller impact in this regard). Due to the position of the property bat species may be present. The applicant should take professional ecological advice and submit survey details which also include relevant mitigation measures.

7.4 Natural England: The proposals as presented have the potential to affect species protected under European or UK legislation (including bats). The proposals are unlikely to have a significant effect on the interest features of the New Forest SAC / SPA / Ramsar Site and therefore do not require Appropriate Assessment. If permission is granted, conditions should be imposed relating to the method of construction and protecting verges immediately adjacent to the site.

8. REPRESENTATIONS

8.1 One letter of support received from the occupant of a neighbouring property.

9. RELEVANT HISTORY:

9.1 Change of use to two dwellings; external alterations (94111) approved on 23 July 2009.

9.2 Detached garage (71764) approved on 15 June 2001.

10. ASSESSMENT

10.1 Emery Down Post Office is a detached two and a half storey building positioned on a steeply sloping plot and fronting directly onto Silver Street. The property also lies close to the corner of Silver Street and the main road through Emery Down, and is a prominent building within the Emery Down Conservation Area. The property does not appear to benefit from any off road parking, although there is a small pedestrian gate between the building and its associated domestic outbuilding providing access to the garden to the rear. Within the building is a vacant shop and some domestic accommodation (kitchen and internal

56 stairwell) on the ground floor level, and further residential accommodation at first floor level. The residential accommodation has effectively been split into a main three bedroom unit accessed from the front, and what appears to be a long-established small studio flat accessed from an external stairway to the rear.

10.2 Consent is sought to reconfigure the internal layout of the building, effectively incorporating the shop into two larger residential units. This application has been submitted as an alternative to the development approved under planning permission ref. 94111, where the principle of loss of the shop and the creation of two larger residential units was accepted. The approved scheme incorporated very limited external alterations (the removal of the external staircase and associated elevated door, the addition of patio doors to the rear and the introduction of garage doors to the front).

10.3 The current application now also proposes the introduction of two dormer windows on the front elevation of the building. The design of the garage doors has also now changed from a simple side hung opening (timber) to "up and over" style doors. The internal layout and use of the proposed building remains unchanged from the previous submission.

10.4 The key issues now under consideration are:

The impact the development (taking account of the changes to design) would have upon the character and appearance of the Conservation Area; The impact upon also protected species populations; Other considerations (highways, affordable housing).

10.5 Impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area

Emery Down Stores is recognised within the Conservation Area Character Appraisal as being of significant vernacular interest and this latest scheme would now necessitate the reconstruction of the front wall and roof of the simple frontage to the west. This prominent building frontage currently makes a positive contribution to the street scene and the proposed works would lead to the loss of any existing integrity and character. The dormer windows themselves would have a modern form and would severely impact upon the character and appearance of the existing building. In addition to this, the proposed garage door, by virtue of its method of opening, materials and "Mock Georgian" design, would be harmful to the building frontage. The proposed development would therefore conflict with Policy DW-E23 of the adopted Local Plan.

57 10.6 Ecology

It is not evident that the conditions requested by Natural England relating to the protection of the designated sites (which directly adjoin the curtilage) can reasonably be complied with, particularly when taking into account the absence of any vehicular access into the domestic curtilage. The area of SSSI which directly adjoins the building is covered by tarmac and is not of any ecological value. It would therefore not be reasonable or necessary to restrict the storage of equipment and vehicles during construction in order to protect the designated site.

10.7 Nonetheless, taking account of the fact that the development now proposed would impact upon the roofspace of the building, there would be significant potential to affect species protected under European or UK legislation (particularly bats). Both Natural England and the Authority's Ecologist raise this as an issue with the current application with its proposed roof alterations. In the absence of an ecological survey establishing the presence of such species or any assessment of the likely impact of the development upon their habitats or adjacent designated sites, to grant consent would be contrary to the requirements of PPS9 and Policies DW-E41, DW-E36 and DW- E37 of the Local Plan.

10.8 Other considerations

No objections have been raised on this revised scheme by the Highway Authority, subject to condition. Given that there would not be a net increase in the number of residential units at the site, there would be no implication in terms of affordable housing provision.

10.9 Conclusion

Although the principle of the intended use of the building is accepted, the appearance of the building as now proposed would not be acceptable in this Conservation Area context, and further work would be required to demonstrate that the development would not cause any unacceptable ecological impacts.

11. RECOMMENDATION

Refuse

Reason(s)

1. The proposed dormer windows and garage door would have a significant and harmful impact upon the historic fabric and character of the existing building, which is identified within the Conservation Area Character Appraisal as being of significant

58 vernacular interest. The development would therefore fail to preserve the character and appearance of the Emery Down Conservation Area and would conflict with Policies DW-E1 and DW-E23 of the adopted New Forest District Local Plan First Alteration.

2. There is insufficient information accompanying the planning application to determine the effect the proposed development would have upon protected species and also the adjoining New Forest SSSI, SAC, SPA and Ramsar Sites. The proposed development would therefore be contrary to the requirements of PPS9 and Policies DW-E36, DW-E37 and DW-E41 of the adopted New Forest District Local Plan First Alteration.

59 42 42

87 Horse Shoe Farm 89 00m 00m 88

Hall Horseshoe Cottage FF

Def

Pennyfield

108500m 108500m End Cottage

The Thatched House Hare Hatch Bridgwater 15 Cottages Clematis 0.91m RH

Cottage Crane Cottage

Penny Cottage Oaktree Dunelm Little Cote

Church Und Redcote Christchurch Cott Cottages Ship Cottage Green SILVER STREET 3

FF House

2 The Charcoal Cott 1 1 Nook

Cottage Honeysuckle Cott Double Cream 5 69.8m TCB Wisteria Cottage One Cream LB 84 Cottage 84 Northerwood Lych Gate Merton

Cottage Lodge

El Sub Sta Christ Church

Cattle Grid

79.2m

108300m 108300m 42 42 89 87 88 00m 00m Item:9 New Forest National Park Authority Ref:09/94646/FULL South Efford House, Milford Road, Everton, SO41 0JD

Tel: 01590 646600 Fax: 01590 646666

Planning Development Control Committee - 19 January 2010 Report Item 10

Application No: 09/94652/FULL Full Application

Site: Busketts House, 15a Busketts Way, Ashurst, Southampton, SO40 7AE

Proposal: One dormer window (rear elevation); conversion of attic space; rooflights to north west and north east roof pitches

Applicant: Mr A West

Case Officer: Laura Harry

Parish: ASHURST AND COLBURY

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

DW-E1 General development criteria (page 57) NF-H3 Extensions to dwellings in the New Forest (page 144)

5. MEMBER COMMENTS

None received

6. PARISH COUNCIL COMMENTS

Ashurst and Colbury Parish Council: Recommend refusal - Intrusion on the privacy of number 15 Busketts Way from the rooflights in both the bedroom and garden. Other issues raised relating to existing windows on the north east elevation are not relevant.

7. CONSULTEES

No consultations required

8. REPRESENTATIONS

8.1 One letter of objection received from a neighbouring property number 15 Busketts Way regarding the impact of the proposed

61 development on residential amenity. The objection primarily relates to the proposed rooflights on the north east elevation which are considered would overlook rooms and the front door of the neighbouring property. Other issues raised relating to existing windows in the north east elevation are not relevant.

9. RELEVANT HISTORY:

None relevant.

10. ASSESSMENT

10.1 Busketts House is a detached two storey dwelling, faced in red brick and set within a moderately sized, rectangular shaped plot, with a detached double garage to the rear of the dwelling. The dwelling is situated in a cul-de-sac comprising a mixture of residential properties varying in age and style, with Fletchwood Copse (woodland) immediately north.

10.2 Consent is sought for a dormer window and two roof lights on the north west (rear) elevation of the dwelling and two rooflights on the north east (side) elevation to facilitate the conversion of the roof space for a bedroom and en-suite. The walls would be clad in vertical tile hanging, roofed with plain clay tiles and the windows would be dark hardwood to match the existing dwelling.

10.3 The key planning considerations are:

general development criteria impact on the streetscene and New Forest impact on neighbouring amenities

10.4 General development criteria

The proposed dormer window and rooflights on the north west and north east elevations would be modest in scale, suitably sited and simple in design. The proposed materials would match the existing dwelling and are therefore considered appropriate. There are no floorspace restriction as the property is not a small dwelling and is located within the Defined New Forest Village of Ashurst.

10.5 Impact on the streetscene and New Forest

The siting of the dormer window and rooflights on the rear elevation would not be visible from the streetscene. The two rooflights on the side elevation may be visible from the streetscene, but there would be no detrimental impact in terms of visual intrusion due to the modesty of the proposal.

The two rooflights on the north east elevation at the lowest part of the frame would be 1.8 metres and 2 metres above ground level. As a result of the rooflights’ height above the floor of the room in which they would be installed there would be no detrimental impact in terms of overlooking or loss of privacy to the neighbouring property number 15 Busketts Way. Additionally the application dwelling and neighbouring property are not in line with each other. The application dwelling is set further forward in comparison with number 15 Busketts Way. The dormer window to the rear of the property would look directly onto the garden within the application site and woodland to the rear. There are existing dormer windows on this elevation and whilst it is accepted that the proposed dormer window would be higher than the existing dormer windows and may overlook the garden of the neighbouring property number 15 Busketts Way to some degree there would be no significant detrimental additional impact.

10.6 Representations

One letter of objection received from a neighbouring property number 15 Busketts Way and a recommendation of refusal received from the Parish Council; both regarding impact on the amenities of number 15 Busketts Way. Specifically the rooflights on the north east elevation would lead to a loss of privacy into the bedrooms and dining room and would overlook the front door. The proposed dormer because of its height would have some effect of overlooking the garden. These issues have been addressed in paragraph 10.6. Other issues raised are not relevant to this application.

10.7 Conclusion

The proposed development would be appropriate to the existing dwelling and the surrounding area in terms of its siting, scale, design, materials and appearance, without having a significant detrimental impact on the amenities of any neighbouring properties, complying with policy DW-E1. There would be no detrimental impact on the streetscene or wider character of the New Forest in terms of additional impact or visual intrusion, complying with policy NF-H3. Planning permission is therefore recommended.

11. RECOMMENDATION

Grant Subject to Conditions

Condition(s)

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the

63 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 external facing materials shall match those used on the existing building.

Reason: To ensure an acceptable appearance of the building in accordance with policy DW-E1 of the New Forest District Local Plan First Alteration.

64 43 43 32 33 00m 00m

15a

110600m 16 110600m 11

9 14

1 2

BUSKETTS WAY

110500m 26 110500m

El Sub Sta WOODLANDS ROAD

1.22m TB Path (um)

17.1m 43 43 32 33 00m 00m Item:10 New Forest National Park Authority Ref:09/94652/FULL South Efford House, Milford Road, Everton, SO41 0JD

Tel: 01590 646600 Fax: 01590 646666

Planning Development Control Committee - 19 January 2010 Report Item 11

Application No: 09/94666/FULL Full Application

Site: Elm Cottage, Pilley Bailey, Pilley, Lymington, SO41 5QT

Proposal: Replace flat roof with pitched roof over existing single storey rear extension

Applicant: Mr A Baxendine

Case Officer: Paul Hocking

Parish: BOLDRE

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

DW-E1 General development criteria (page 57) DW-E23 New development in Conservation Areas (page 70) NF-H3 Extensions to dwellings in the New Forest (page 144)

5. MEMBER COMMENTS

None received

6. PARISH COUNCIL COMMENTS

Boldre Parish Council: Recommend refusal: During a site meeting it was noted that the submitted plans were incorrect; the neighbouring property 'Rose Cottage' in fact extends partially beside the proposed development. This significantly alters the perception meaning that an increased height of 1.5m on a structure only 0.5m from the boundary will unacceptably reduce the natural light to the rear of 'Rose Cottage' especially in the winter when the sun appears low in the sky.

7. CONSULTEES

No consultations required

8. REPRESENTATIONS

8.1 One representation received from the adjoining property 'Rose Cottage' objecting to the proposal: Incorrect and misleading plans; natural light will be significantly reduced by the height of the ridge of the roof and will overshadow kitchen and bathroom windows; close proximity; a proposal in 1989 was refused due to neighbouring impact; photographs provided.

9. RELEVANT HISTORY:

9.1 Addition of kitchen with bedroom over (41218) refused on 18 April 1989.

10. ASSESSMENT

10.1 The application site is approached via a narrow road that terminates by the neighbouring property. The area has a traditional New Forest character, with thatched properties set amongst open forest. The site itself accommodates one half of a pair of modest semi-detached workers cottages set within mature curtilages. The site is within a conservation area and the building is identified on the appraisal maps as it displays local vernacular detailing.

10.2 The proposal relates to a pitched roof over an existing rear extension. The eaves height would remain unaltered at 2.5 metres and the height to ridge would be 4 metres. Matching slates would be used.

10.3 The key planning considerations are:

To ensure the development is appropriate to the existing dwelling and its curtilage whilst preserving the character and appearance of the conservation area; and To ensure the development can be accommodated without detrimentally affecting neighbouring amenities.

10.4 Would the development be appropriate to the existing dwelling and its curtilage and preserve the character and appearance of the conservation area?

The pitched roof would be considered to enhance the rear elevation of the building (extension) and would not increase its prominence within the wider landscape. The development is therefore appropriate to the existing dwelling and its curtilage and would preserve the character and appearance of the conservation area by taking the opportunity to introduce a traditional building form.

10.5 Can the development be accommodated without detrimentally affecting neighbouring amenities?

The proposal would increase the height of the rear extension. The eaves height would remain unaltered at 2.5 metres although the ridge height would be 4 metres. The orientation and proximity of the properties are noted (and corrected plans have been received to this effect), however due to the receding slope of the roof (due to its dual-pitched form) the impact on the adjoining property 'Rose Cottage' would not be considered detrimental.

10.6 Concern has been expressed about a loss of sunlight to the rear windows/doors of Rose Cottage. The closest window of Rose Cottage serves a kitchen and any direct loss of sunlight that might be attributable to the development cannot be reconciled as detrimental such that planning permission should be refused given that also the rights of the applicant to develop their land need to be taken into account. The kitchen window is followed by a door serving a small hallway and then by an obscure glazed bathroom window. Finally there are a pair of french doors serving the living room which are set approximately 4 metres from the adjoining boundary. There would be no tangible loss of outlook and therefore the proposal would remain in compliance with policy DW-E1 as the development would neither result in a detrimental loss of natural light nor loss of outlook. The scheme that was refused permission in 1989 was set over two storeys and was just over 5 metres in height. The recommendation is therefore to grant planning permission.

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 external roofing materials shall match those used on the existing building.

Reason: To ensure an acceptable appearance of the building in accordance with policy DW-E23 of the adopted New Forest District Local Plan First Alteration.

68 Path (um) 43 43 34 36 00m 00m 35

98800m 98800m

Track

Rose Plot

Cottage Cottage

Elm Cottage 87 87 Highlands

The Pink Cott

Forest Cottage Pilley Bailey

Laurel Cottage

Drain Drain

Drain

Sunny Side Ytene Greenacre

Path (um) Drain

Gravel Pit

98600m Cottage 98600m

Pond 43 43 36 34 35 00m 00m Item:11 New Forest National Park Authority Ref:09/94666/FULL South Efford House, Milford Road, Everton, SO41 0JD

Planning Development Control Committee - 19 January 2010 Report Item 12

Application No: 09/94677/FULL Full Application

Site: 2 Normandy Close, Sway, Lymington, SO41 6EF

Proposal: New roof (raised ridge); two storey rear extension; external alterations; outbuilding

Applicant: Mr Beeson

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

Defined New Forest Village

4. PRINCIPAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES

DW-E1 General development criteria (page 57) NF-E1 Control of development (in the New Forest) (page 135) NF-E5 Design of new development in the New Forest (page 140) NF-H3 Extensions to dwellings in the New Forest (page 144)

5. MEMBER COMMENTS

None received

6. PARISH COUNCIL COMMENTS

Sway Parish Council: Recommends refusal. The neighbours recommend refusal and should be listened to. The decision on this application should be made by the planning committee.

7. CONSULTEES

7.1 NFDC Engineering & Land Drainage: No comment.

8. REPRESENTATIONS

8.1 Representations from six neighbouring properties have been

70 received. They are all letters of objection, and the reasons cited are as follows:

The extension would be too large and bulky; It would be out of character with the house and surroundings; The height, scale, design and materials are inappropriate for this context; The extension would lead to overlooking of neighbouring properties; There would be an increase in traffic; The extension would set a precedent; The proposal would cause overdevelopment of the plot.

9. RELEVANT HISTORY:

9.1 New roof (raised ridge); two storey rear extension; external alterations; outbuilding (94168) approved on 7 August 2009.

9.2 Alterations and extension with addition of lobby / store (12300) approved on 7 February 1979.

10. ASSESSMENT

10.1 Normandy Close is a cul-de-sac within the defined village of Sway. It is typified by several detached bungalows which are of fairly uniform appearance; most have hipped concrete tile roofs although no. 2 Normandy Close has a gable-ended roof. They are all of suburban design and materials.

10.2 Consent is sought to raise the roof of no.2 so that the height of the overall building would be changed from the present height of 4.9 metres to 6 metres. The application is also for the removal of the small front gable and the addition of a two-storey, flat-roofed rear extension, as well as a single-storey outbuilding at the side / rear of the property.

10.3 The application represents an alternative proposal to that in planning application ref. 94168, which was granted permission under delegated powers in August 2009. However, the procedure taken to determine the application (under delegated powers by planning officers rather than by committee determination) and therefore the validity of the consent has been questioned. In response, the applicant has re-submitted the application, and has also made changes to the proposal in the light of previous local objections. The revisions are as follows:

The roof profile of the two storey rear extension and the internal first floor space would be reduced by the introduction of sloping, tiled slides to the extension (rather than vertical walls at first floor level). The number of first floor rear windows would also be reduced.

71 Alterations to the positioning of rooflights on the front elevation.

10.4 The site is within the defined village of Sway and for this size of original dwelling there is no absolute floorspace restriction to be adhered to. The main issues to consider are therefore:

Visual impact; Impact upon neighbouring amenity; Impact upon trees; Impact upon protected species; Use of buildings.

10.5 Visual impact

The resultant bungalow would still have a gabled form as it would appear in the street scene. It would have several velux windows in the roof at the front, but these do not in their own right require planning permission. The increase in ridge height would be noticeably different to other bungalows in the cul-de-sac, but would not be considered to cause any form of specific harm to the street scene as the uniformity is not of specific design merit in this instance. This property, which already has a gabled roof, is already different from the hipped-roofed bungalows which are more prevalent in the cul-de-sac. The clay tiles would improve the appearance of the dwelling, and the wall material, which is specified as 'brick / render / timber cladding' could be designed so as to compliment the structure.

10.6 The two storey extension to the rear would be flat roofed in part, with sloping, tiling sides to reduce help ameliorate the bulk of the proposed extension.. The roof would not be visible within the wider area. As such the rear extension is not considered to be harmful to the character of the wider area. The proposal does not include a sedum roof which was a feature of the previously proposed extension (ref. 94168).

10.7 The proposed outbuilding would be 15.6 metres long, 4.15 metres high and 3.2 metres wide. It would be very close to the boundary shared with no. 3 Normandy Close, which already has a lengthy outbuilding positioned along the shared boundary. The eaves of the proposed outbuilding are 2.5 metres high. Its gable end would be apparent from Normandy Close, but due to its orientation, it would not be prominent or visually intrusive at the site. Sufficient back garden would remain to prevent this from being classed as an overdevelopment of the site.

10.8 Impact upon neighbouring amenity

In terms of neighbouring amenity, the velux windows would only afford views of the sky and are therefore not considered to cause loss of privacy. No side windows are being proposed at first floor

72 level. At the rear, windows would face onto the applicant's own back garden for a distance of 16 metres. The perimeters of the garden are well vegetated and direct views of neighbouring gardens are not possible through the presence of trees and hedges. The end of the gardens belonging to Sunrays and Oak Croft would be affected to a small degree, but this would be the ends of the gardens more than 15 metres from the houses and this is not considered to comprise an unacceptable degree of overlooking.

10.9 The back garden of Appledore could be viewed at an oblique angle but again it would be the end of the garden more than 15 metres away from the neighbouring house that would potentially be affected, and the windows of all neighbouring properties are at least 25 metres away from the proposed windows on the first floor back wall of 2 Normandy Close. Views of the garden of no. 3 Normandy Close would be sufficiently obscured by the outbuilding in the garden of no. 3 and the proposed outbuilding at no. 2. The proposed outbuilding at no. 2 would not harm the amenity of no. 3 due to the presence of the existing outbuilding at no 3 and the relatively low height of the proposed structure. The additional 1 metre in height on the ridge of 2 Normandy Close is small enough not to cause any overbearing impact upon the neighbouring properties.

10.10 Impact upon trees

No trees would be directly affected as a result of the proposed extension and alterations.

10.11 Impact upon protected species

The existing concrete tiles and low eaves line at the site are unlikely to provide habitat for bats to live in. There are no known protected species records at the site, and the area is not subject to specific ecological designations. Nonetheless, an informative would be advisable in case bats are encountered during development.

10.12 Use of buildings

Concern has been raised that the proposed outbuilding would be used for business use. The application indicates its intended use as a garage, garden studio and garden store. A condition is recommended such that the use of the outbuilding would have to be incidental or ancillary to the occupation of the dwelling.

11. RECOMMENDATION

Grant Subject to Conditions

73 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. No development shall take place above damp proof course level until samples or exact details of the facing and roofing materials (in relation to the dwelling and outbuilding) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the New Forest National Park Authority. The development shall only take place in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure an acceptable appearance of the proposed development in accordance with policy DW-E1 of the New Forest District Local Plan First Alteration.

3. The outbuilding hereby permitted shall only be used for purposes incidental or ancillary to the dwelling on the site and not for any other purpose, unless express planning permission has first been granted.

Reason: To protect the amenity of the area in accordance with policies NF-H3 and NF-H5 of the New Forest District Local Plan First Alteration.

Informative(s):

74 Ridge

42 May Cottage 42 73 74 00m 00m THE CLOSE Brook Long Meadow Myway Bechers

Cottage Cedar Birch View

Forestholm

Cockington St Christopher Sunnyside Treetops

Lyewood Stone Russet Cottage Fair Gallop BRIGHTON ROAD

Glendale Forest Close Conifers Terren

Knightwood Sunny Way Glenrosa

Fairfield Bay Tree Copperbeech Cottage Cott 98800m 98800m Chimes Squirrels Hide Forestway Brackenmead

Oak Croft 3 48.2m

7 Copperside

NORMANDY CLOSE Apple Garth Makaira

Robeen

Cottage

Kettlethorns Terreville Appledore Shalom Sunrays Hillside

Glencoe MEAD END ROAD Normandy Pine Cottage

1 Arnecroft 9 House

Highfield

98700m 98700m 48.8m 50.0m Doric House Marlings Cottage 46.6m El Sub Sta

Sway Wood House Crossways

Swaywood

Cottage St Andrews

Hallands 42 42 73 74 00m 00m Item:12 Old Orchard New Forest National Park Authority Ref:09/94677/FULL South Efford House, Milford Road, Everton, SO41 0JD

Tel: 01590 646600 Fax: 01590 646666 Mill Cottage Sway Wood

75 Cokes Green

Planning Development Control Committee - 19 January 2010 Report Item 13

Application No: 09/94688/ADV Advertisement Consent

Site: Forest Gate Lodge, 161 Lyndhurst Road, Ashurst, Southampton, SO40 7AW

Proposal: Illuminate existing post mounted sign

Applicant: Mr M Hannon

Case Officer: Karen Brett

Parish: ASHURST AND COLBURY

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

DW-E1 General development criteria (page 57) NF-E6 Advertisements in the New Forest (page 141)

5. MEMBER COMMENTS

None received

6. PARISH COUNCIL COMMENTS

Ashurst and Colbury Parish Council: Recommend refusal as illuminated signs are not appropriate in villages and increase light pollution

7. CONSULTEES

7.1 Highway Authority (HCC): No objection.

8. REPRESENTATIONS

8.1 None received

9. RELEVANT HISTORY:

9.1 Use as guest house/hotel (62075) granted 24th September 1997.

76 10. ASSESSMENT

10.1 The application site is a large detached property which is used as a Bed and Breakfast facility set in a good sized plot located at the start of the service road which serves the main shopping area of Ashurst. There is a residential property to one side and a veterinary surgery on the other boundary. The site backs onto a commercial works. The surrounding area is a mixture of various shops, public houses and residential properties. The application site lies within the defined New Forest village of Ashurst.

10.2 This application seeks permission to provide illumination to the existing sign which advertises the Bed and Breakfast accommodation at the site. This sign is located at the front boundary of the site and is fixed to a metal post which extends beyond the front fence of the site. This sign has been sited at this location for a number of years and there are two small trough lights in existence although these are not used at the present time. It is proposed to use these exiting lights to provide illumination to the existing sign.

10.3 The main planning consideration relates to whether the introduction of illumination to the existing sign would have a significant visual impact on the surrounding area, or whether there would be any implications in terms of road safety.

10.4 The Parish Council has objected on the grounds that bright illuminated signs are not appropriate in villages, are not in keeping with National Park policies and would increase light pollution. The location of the application site is in an area which already has a significant degree of existing illumination from other commercial activities, and therefore this sign would not introduce any significant increase in the level of lighting in this area. In addition, as the sign would be externally illuminated, the level of lighting proposed would be appropriate to provide illumination to the size of the existing sign. There is no objection from the Highways Authority on road safety grounds. However, it is proposed to restrict the hours of illumination to reduce the level of lighting to those of other similar establishments such as public houses and take-aways.

10.5 It is therefore considered that the proposed illumination of the existing sign would be appropriate to a site in this location and would not have a significant visual impact on the character of the surrounding area. Advertisement consent is therefore recommended.

11. RECOMMENDATION

Grant Subject to Conditions

77 Condition(s)

1. Any advertisement displayed, and any site used for the display of advertisements, shall be maintained in a clean and tidy condition to the reasonable satisfaction of the local planning authority.

2. Any structure or hoarding erected or used principally for the purpose of displaying advertisements shall be maintained in a safe condition.

3. Where an advertisement is required under these Regulations to be removed, the removal shall be carried out to the reasonable satisfaction of the local planning authority.

4. No advertisement is to be displayed without the permission of the owner of the site or any other person with an interest in the site entitled to grant permission.

5. No advertisement shall be sited or displayed so as to obscure, or hinder the ready interpretation of, and road traffic sign, railway signal or aid to navigation by water or air, or so as otherwise to render hazardous the use if any highway, railway, waterway or aerodrome (civil or military).

6. The sign shall not be illuminated other than between the hours of 07:00 and 23:00 hours.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of nearby residential properties in accordance with policy NF-E6 of the New Forest District Local Plan First Alteration.

78 4

43 43 106 37 38 108

00m 00m 1

112

16 11 114

9a 10 18.6m

118 7a

124

ASH ROAD 8

110500m 110500m

141

1 149

Garage 145

126

1a 153

128

130

159

159a 161

TCB 165

LYNDHURST ROAD PO 177 Ashurst 110400m 110400m 185

Works

Happy Gas Gov Cheese

Telephone El Sub Sta (PH) 187 Exchange

Mast

Car Park

Collects Chapel (private) 43 43 37 38 00m 00m Item:13 New Forest National Park Authority Ref:09/94688/ADV South Efford House, Milford Road, Everton, SO41 0JD

Tel: 01590 646600 Fax: 01590 646666

(Geriatric) 79

Planning Development Control Committee - 19 January 2010 Report Item 14

Application No: 09/94698/CAC Conservation Area Consent

Site: Poona Lodge, Old Romsey Road, Cadnam, Southampton, SO40 2NP

Proposal: Demolition of outbuilding (Application for Conservation Area Consent)

Applicant: Mr Hausen

Case Officer: Paul Hocking

Parish: COPYTHORNE

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

DW-E24 Demolition in Conservation Areas (page 71)

5. MEMBER COMMENTS

None received

6. PARISH COUNCIL COMMENTS

Copythorne Parish Council: Recommend refusal: The Parish Council is not convinced that the existing building cannot be restored. A specialist report should be commissioned to explore all options.

7. CONSULTEES

7.1 Environmental Services - Conservation Area: Recommend permission: The outbuilding probably dates from the late 19th Century or turn of the 20th Century and is in a poor condition. It is a relatively simple design of no particular quality. A structural report by a consultant engineer has been submitted. Having inspected the building on site, the lower floors are still used in part for garaging and storage, but the upper level is in an unsafe condition and the roof is in a parlous state. It is clear that the

80 building has been subject, over the years, to much alteration of its structure, resulting in a 'mish-mash' of construction, much of it of poor quality and relatively uncoordinated in terms of structural integrity. Although lack of proper repair and maintenance over the years has added to its demise, in short, the building in its present state has outlived its usefulness.

8. REPRESENTATIONS

8.1 None received

9. RELEVANT HISTORY:

9.1 Dwelling; access; demolish existing dwelling (91948) granted on 28 September 2007.

9.2 Replacement outbuilding (92777) refused on 12 May 2008.

9.3 Demolition of outbuilding (Application for Conservation Area Consent) (92778) refused on 16 May 2008.

9.4 Retention of extension (93478) appeal dismissed on 19 May 2009.

9.5 Replacement Outbuilding (94697) refused on 14 January 2010.

10. ASSESSMENT

10.1 The application site is within the Forest Central North Conservation Area and is approached from Romsey Road in Cadnam which comprises a range of family dwellings. The site is accessed via Old Romsey Road and is therefore set slightly back from the main frontage although still prominent within the immediate street-scene. To the east of the site is a mid 1980's development of properties set at a slightly lower level in relation to the application site. To the west is Poona Cottage which forms part of a group of three traditional buildings together with Poona Lodge and an outbuilding within its grounds. To the north of the site are fields and paddocks. Permission has been granted for a replacement dwelling at the site which sympathetically reflected the traditional detailing and form of the original dwelling.

10.2 Conservation Area Consent is sought to demolish the outbuilding within the curtilage of Poona Lodge.

10.3 The key issue for Conservation Area Consent to demolish a building is:

Whether the building makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

81 10.4 Does the building make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area?

Consent for the demolition of this outbuilding was refused in 2008 as it was considered that the building made a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the conservation area and although recognised to be in a poor state of repair, it was considered that the outbuilding was not beyond repair.

10.5 This submission is accompanied by a Structural Engineer's Report which recommends that due to the extent of repairs required the structure should be taken down in its entirety. The Authority's Conservation Officer agrees with the findings of the report in that an appropriate solution would be to demolish the building (see 7.1) even though it is identified as being of local vernacular and cultural interest as part of the Forest Central (North) Conservation Area character appraisal.

10.6 Given the location and condition of the outbuilding it is recommended that consent for its demolition should be issued even though there is no permission for an acceptable replacement at this juncture. This will therefore allow the applicant time to secure consent for an incidental outbuilding that complies with local plan policy.

11. RECOMMENDATION

Approval Without Conditions

82 42 42 95 96 00m 00m

Janda

Garage Santa Maria

Green Gables

Rose Tree Cottage

Yew Tree 113800m 113800m Cottage

3 Midway

2 27.7m

OrchardCourt Hawthorns

Church 1 The Poona ROMSEY ROAD The Old Forge Lodge Holt

Poona 11 Cottage Darous The Barn

Belle Villas Forest 2 Edge 1 Coronation 2 1 Villas Central Stores Amberley 10 Nuthooks House Glen Rhyn BARLEYCORN WALK 113700m 113700m

Glenmore 8

El Sub Sta

LittlecotHouse

White Hart Forest Edge Allpenny's (PH)

Woodhaze

Sylvana The Swallows Hideaway

Orchard WHITE HART LANE

42 Rise 42 95 96

Roselands Rockram 00m 00m Elvin Cottages Item:14 New Forest National Park Authority Ref:09/94698/CACOak Bank South Efford House, Milford Road, The Rise Everton, SO41 0JD

Treetops Tel: 01590 646600 Fax: 01590 646666

Norfolk House Nirvana Police House Date: 08:01:10 Trelawney

Beech Hurst © Crown copyright. All rights reserved Kingsbridge House House Wistanswick New Forest National Park Authority. Pony Licence no. 1000114703 Patch Temple2010 SCALE: 1:1250 Lymfold The Laurels Cloud Cottage 31.7m Klein 83 Stores

Ingleton Lynwood Greenways

Sunnyside

1 Forest 2 The Moorings Whatcombe

Planning Development Control Committee - 19 January 2010 Report Item 15

Application No: 09/94710/FULL Full Application

Site: Forest View, School Road, Nomansland, Salisbury, SP5 2BY

Proposal: Replacement dwelling; demolition of existing dwelling

Applicant: Mr D Stiles

Case Officer: Paul Hocking

Parish: REDLYNCH

1. DISTRICT/BOROUGH: Wiltshire Council

2. REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Contrary to Parish Council view.

3. DEVELOPMENT PLAN DESIGNATION

No specific designation

4. PRINCIPAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES

G2: General criteria for development (page 6) C6: Special Landscape Areas (page 64) HA1: Development within the New Forest (page 75) HA4: Replacement of an existing dwelling in the New Forest (page 77)

5. MEMBER COMMENTS

None received

6. PARISH COUNCIL COMMENTS

Redlynch Parish Council: Recommend refusal: The Parish Council is concerned at the scale and percentage increase of the proposed new dwelling compared with the existing building.

7. CONSULTEES

7.1 Environmental Design - Design: Recommend permission: This proposed replacement has now been amended to take into account the previous comments of the Conservation Officer. Although the scheme is relatively large for a typical New Forest cottage, the rear block is now subservient to the main part and the front elevation is restrained and will now fit in with the street scene.

8. REPRESENTATIONS

8.1 Two representations received supporting the proposal: A great design which will sit well within the plot and would still look like a forest cottage; a proportionate replacement in keeping with the area.

9. RELEVANT HISTORY:

9.1 Replacement dwelling (94379) withdrawn on 13 October 2009.

10. ASSESSMENT

10.1 The site lies on the west side of School Road and accommodates a modest bungalow set within a good sized plot. The land falls away to the west towards open countryside and the boundaries consist of varying types of hedging and fences. The character of the area is mixed, in terms of building styles, however it retains a rural appearance and setting.

10.2 The proposal relates to a replacement dwelling. It would have a height to ridge of 7.25 metres and overall depth of 15.3 metres. The building would be constructed from a red stock brick under a slate roof. The existing bungalow has a height to ridge of 5.4 metres.

10.3 The key planning considerations are:

The size and visual impact of the proposal; and The impact on neighbouring amenities.

10.4 The size and visual impact of the proposal

Whilst there is no consistency in design or materials among the individual buildings in the locality, collectively they offer an attractive residential environment and a distinctive sense of place which owes much to its rural setting and character. It is considered that due to the traditional facade of the proposed building, the development would not be harmful in the context of the street-scene and would not appear overly large or contrived from points of public vantage. It would appear sympathetic within the wider landscape.

10.5 It is considered that the proposed replacement dwelling would reflect a building of traditional design. Following pre-application advice the scheme now proposes a gradation of roofscape, form and massing that reduces the impact of the development and reflects an appropriate form and detailing of building. The development would therefore not have an adverse effect on the overall character of the area and, although the scale of the building would be larger than the existing bungalow, it would not

85 be considered harmful in this location. The proposal is therefore in accordance with policies, HA1, HA4 and C6 of the adopted Salisbury District Local Plan.

10.6 The impact on neighbouring amenities

Given the scale and orientation of the building in relation to neighbouring properties, coupled with the positioning of the windows proposed, it is considered that the building would not overlook, overshadow or create an oppressive outlook that would be detrimental to neighbouring amenities. The proposal is therefore in accordance with policy G2 of the adopted Salisbury District Local Plan.

10.7 Conclusion

The comments of the Parish Council are noted however the site is within the housing policy boundary and therefore the 'percentage increase' of the development cannot be objected to in isolation. The development is acceptable in all other regards and the Parish Council has no concern about neighbouring amenities or the street-scene. Although the proposal would reflect an increase in the massing of development associated with the site, given the scale of properties within the vicinity and size of the plot, this traditional replacement dwelling can be accommodated without harm.

10.8 Conditions are subsequently suggested to ensure the dwelling is constructed from appropriate materials/detailing and in the interests of protecting neighbouring amenities and the character and appearance of the area.

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. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any re- enactment of that Order) no extension (or alterations) otherwise approved by Classes A, B or C of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Order, garage or other outbuilding otherwise approved by Class E of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Order, or means of enclosure otherwise approved by Class A of Part 2 of Schedule 2 to the

86 Order shall be erected or carried out without express planning permission first having been granted.

Reason: In view of the physical characteristics of the plot, the New Forest National Park Authority would wish to ensure that any future development proposals do not adversely affect the visual amenities of the area and the amenities of neighbouring properties, which is in accordance with policies HA1 and G2 of the Salisbury District Local Plan.

3. No development shall take place until samples of the facing and roofing materials have been submitted to and approved in writing by the New Forest National Park Authority.

Reason: To ensure an acceptable appearance of the building in accordance with policy HA1 of the adopted Salisbury District Local Plan.

4. Before development commences, the following details shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the New Forest National Park Authority.

a) Typical joinery details including windows, doors, eaves, verge and bargeboards at a scale of no less than 1:20.

Development shall only take place in accordance with those details which have been approved and shall remain in perpetuity.

Reason: To ensure an acceptable appearance of the building in accordance with policy HA1 of the adopted Salisbury District Local Plan.

87 SCHOOL ROAD 42 42 51 52 00m 00m

Track

Edelweiss

Llamedos

Waysend Westlands 118000m 118000m Sandy Waysend Rowledge Helvetia Nook

Dalegarth Magnolia House

Pipers Gate Sandalwood

Forest View Three Corners Sand Dunes

Camelia Dell

Knightlyn Briarwood Oakleigh Rowans 79 79

Rose Cottage Tytherlea

The Bungalow Westbury

Forest Verge Hursly Glen

Helen 3 Wayleaves Plovers Barrow

Newlands 1 Hillside Cloverlea

Roselyn Mahratta

117800m 117800m

42 42 Buddleia 51 52 Sunnyside 00m Grayling 00m Item:15 New Forest National Park Authority Little Ref:09/94710/FULL South Efford House, Milford Road, Everton, SO41Wings 0JD

Tel: 01590 646600 Fax: 01590 646666 Clear

Date: 08:01:10 View

Licence no. 1000114703 SCHOOL ROAD SCALE: 1:1250 2010 Cottage

88 Campana

Pamcott