Planning Development Control Committee - 18 September 2012 Report Item 9

Application No: 12/97661/FULL Full Application

Site: Hill View Farm, Blissford Road, Blissford, , SP6 2JH

Proposal: Retention of one mobile home for occupation by Mr M Horsburgh

Applicant: Mr Horsburgh

Case Officer: Paul Hocking

Parish: GODSHILL

1. REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Previous Committee consideration Contrary to Parish Council view

2. DEVELOPMENT PLAN DESIGNATION

Conservation Area: Western Escarpment

3. PRINCIPAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES

CP1 Nature Conservation Sites of International Importance CP8 Local Distinctiveness CP12 New Residential Development DP1 General Development Principles DP6 Design Principles

4. SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING GUIDANCE

Design Guide SPD

5. NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK

Sec 6 - Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes Sec 7 - Requiring good design Sec 11 - Conserving and enhancing the natural environment

6. MEMBER COMMENTS

None received

7. PARISH COUNCIL COMMENTS

Godshill Parish Council: Recommend permission -

Mr Horsburgh was born in Blissford and originally the family owned a cottage but this had to be sold because of a large tax bill. He is well known in the village and is always on call and ready to help anyone and quick to respond to emergencies. 38

The village still has properties and farms endeavouring to keep alive the commoning and farming way of life and Mr Horsburgh helps to maintain fields by lending his sheep to graze. The mobile home enables Mr Horsburgh to continue to live in the village and run his forestry business. If he was forced to leave, it is unlikely that he would be able to continue with his business.

The mobile home has minimal visual impact on the landscape, is modest in size, and in its present use is entirely appropriate for a forest worker. The Parish Council is concerned that the National Park Authority policies on social exclusion be taken into account when considering this application as well as the very limited life chances and education provided by Mr Horsburgh’s challenging early life.

This application has the strongest possible support of every member of the Parish Council.

8. CONSULTEES

8.1 Natural : The application site is adjacent to the SSSI/SAC/SPA/Ramsar sites and we therefore recommend that the New Forest National Park Authority consider this application, alone and in combination with other plans or projects, against New Forest National Park Policy CP1.

8.2 Ecologist: Recommend refusal: The site is within 400 metres of the New Forest Special Protection Area (SPA) and it has not been demonstrated by the applicant that adequate measures would be put in place to avoid or mitigate any potential adverse effects on the ecological integrity of the SPA. The proposal is therefore contrary to policy CP1.

9. REPRESENTATIONS

9.1 One letter of objection:

The original dwelling was sold and immediately thereafter a residential caravan was put on the land; The caravan is sited close to the boundary and takes away privacy and results in loss of outlook; Noise and disruption from vehicles and light pollution; Loss of value of property; The local planning authority has promised for the last decade that the caravan would be removed; The rights of the applicant should not be allowed to take precedence over the rights of homeowners in the area; The breach of planning control should now be brought to an end.

One petition in support of the application containing 32 signatories: 9.2

Malcolm Horsburgh has lived and worked at Hill View Farm for the last

60 years and an application has been submitted to the National Park

Authority to allow him to stay for the rest of his life.

The National Park Authority should allow Malcolm Horsburgh to stay in

his mobile home at Hill View Farm. He is a well known and much liked

member and contributor 39to the local community.

27 letters of support:

Applicant has lived and worked in the area for many years and is an asset to the community; 9.3 Application supported; Known the applicant for decades and should be allowed to stay into his retirement; A commoner who needs to reside at Hill View Farm; Caravan is not detrimental to the New Forest and hardly visible from the road; Hard working and an important member of the community; Applicant provides assistance with local work/jobs; A special case and part of the history/heritage of the Forest; Active in community life; No harm arising from retention; Mobile home now screened.

10. RELEVANT HISTORY

10.1 High Court Injunctive Action (adjourned pending the determination of this planning application).

10.2 Siting of a caravan for a forestry worker for a temporary period of 3 years (97334) refused on 19 June 2012.

10.3 Enforcement Notice served on 21 January 2005.

10.4 Siting of mobile home for agricultural occupancy (78547) withdrawn on 07 October 2003.

10.5 Siting of mobile home for agricultural occupancy (71116) granted on 15 June 2001 for a period of two years.

10.6 Lawful Development Certificate for the siting of a caravan (69432) refused on 30 August 2000.

10.7 Three Enforcement Notices served on 18 October 1999 - Appeals dismissed on 12 September 2000.

11. ASSESSMENT

11.1 The application site comprises a holding of approximately 3 hectares situated in the open countryside around 2 miles to the east of Fordingbridge. It is set within the Western Escarpment Conservation Area. Access is via Blissford Road, a narrow country lane, which also serves a number of farms and a small enclave of residential properties. The site itself is accessed along a short track and accommodates a mobile home, agricultural barn and some further small structures. The land is set to pasture.

11.2 The applicant seeks permission to retain his mobile home for his sole occupation following which it would be removed from the land.

40 11.3 The key planning considerations relate to:

The acceptability of the proposal in principle; The impact of the mobile home in the landscape; Ecological implications.

11.4 Site History

Members will recall that they authorised injunctive action to be pursued in September 2010 owing to the applicant’s failure to comply with an Enforcement Notice that was served in 2005. The Enforcement Notice requires the use of the land for the stationing of a mobile home to cease and for that mobile home to be removed. The applicant continues to reside in the mobile home on the land affected.

11.5 After protracted correspondence the applicant was served with Court papers in March 2012 along with details of a Court date for a Directions Hearing in April. During that short intervening period the applicant submitted a planning application on the basis the mobile home should be retained for him as a forestry worker. That application was refused at Committee in June 2012 following which a Court date had been scheduled for August. In the (again short) intervening period the applicant advised that he would like to submit an application based solely on his personal circumstances. Officers considered it to be appropriate, on-balance, to provide the applicant with a final submission and thus agreed to adjourn further Court action until the determination of this application.

11.6 Principle

The applicant has resided at the site for the majority of his life. He occupied the adjoining property (now known as Kingfisher Cottage) with his parents and latterly with his brother. In the 1990's the property had to be sold for financial reasons and it was following this, in 1998, that the mobile home was stationed on the land. Although the applicant contends that there was always a caravan on the land, it was concluded by the Planning Inspectorate at appeal in 2000 that the use had not taken place such that the applicant’s residential occupation was lawful. An extant Enforcement Notice remains on the land.

11.7 The applicant continues to reside in the unauthorised mobile home. The exceptional circumstances pleaded relate to the work the applicant undertakes in the local area and that he would, ostensibly, have nowhere else to live. On this latter point the Authority is aware that the applicant has not made an application for housing to Council (despite the matter also being before the High Court) and it cannot be reasonably concluded that carrying out of forestry, limited agricultural or handy-man type jobs (or indeed providing some assistance to the local community) warrants the retention of a residential mobile home. Furthermore, it is considered that the applicant cannot derive support from Section 6 (paragraph 55) of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) as his case does not accord with any of the special circumstances cited.

11.8 A personal permission is sought with the time period being open-ended and could potentially subsist for many years. Whilst there is some 41 sympathy for the situation the applicant found himself in the 1990's and the circumstances emanating from the sale of the adjoining dwelling, these are not considered exceptional to warrant a departure from policies that are fundamental to the protection of the qualities of the National Park.

11.9 Similar circumstances could frequently arise (and indeed do) and if used to justify similar residential development in the National Park could substantially erode its character and intrinsic qualities the importance of which to protect at this site has been highlighted and enforced by the predecessor planning authority and more recently when Members approved injunctive action in 2010 and unanimously refused the applicants other recent planning application in June 2012.

11.10 Impact of the Mobile Home

The site is within the Western Escarpment Conservation Area and the positioning of the current mobile home is within Character Area 'G' (Frogham, Blissford and scattered isolated development). This area comprises a large area of arable land to the north with a scattering of settlement at Blissford Cross. The area is bordered by Godshill and surrounding agricultural land.

11.11 As previously determined by Members, the use of the land for the stationing of a mobile home is harmful to the character and appearance of the Western Escarpment Conservation Area (see also pages 29 - 30 of the Character Appraisal). This is by virtue of its non-conforming design and domestic appearance which in-turn detracts from the landscape character and unique quality of the New Forest National Park. The mobile home is therefore also contrary to the advice contained within the Authority's adopted Design Guide. In landscape terms, the presence of a mobile home on the land is harmful and conspicuous particularly when noting that paragraph 115 of the National Planning Policy Framework states that great weight should be afforded to conserving the landscape and scenic beauty of National Parks.

11.12 Ecology

As previously determined by Members, the development is within 400 metres of the New Forest Special Protection Area (SPA) and it has not been demonstrated by the applicant that adequate measures would be put in place to avoid or mitigate any potential adverse effects on the ecological integrity of the SPA. For this reason the development would be contrary to policy CP1.

11.13 Representations

The application has generated local support, including that of the Parish Council, and it is understood that the applicant provides assistance in the local community with some of the work he undertakes. It also understood that the applicant has lived in the area most of his life. It is further also understood that the applicant does not come from a privileged background although it is noted that he has previously been professionally represented for the purposes of both planning and court. However these factors, as commented upon in sections 11.6 - 11.9 of this report are not exceptional to warrant a departure from the strict policies against residential 42 development that prevails in the open countryside of the National Park (CP12 and Section 6 of the NPPF). In addition, the objection that has been received pertinently highlights some additional impacts associated with residential development at this site and the history of efforts to resolve this breach of planning control.

11.14 Conclusion

In summary it remains the case that the retention of the mobile home is harmful to the character and appearance of the area, which since the service of the Enforcement Notice is now within a Conservation Area of a National Park. It is concluded that there are not exceptional circumstances that warrant a departure from the policies that seek to strictly control new residential development in the open countryside of the National Park. Given these factors, and the impacts on the Special Protection Area, the application is recommended for refusal.

12. RECOMMENDATION

Refuse

Reason(s)

1. The circumstances of the applicant are not exceptional to warrant a departure from the strict presumption against residential development in the open countryside of the New Forest National Park and thus the continued siting of the mobile home results in an unwarranted contravention of policy CP12 of the adopted New Forest National Park Core Strategy and Development Management Policies DPD. Furthermore, the applicant cannot derive support from Section 6 (paragraph 55) of the National Planning Policy Framework.

2. The use of the land for the stationing of a mobile home is harmful to the character and appearance of the Western Escarpment Conservation Area. This is by virtue of its non-conforming design and domestic appearance which in-turn detracts from the landscape character and unique quality of the New Forest National Park contrary to policies DP1, DP6 and CP8 of the adopted New Forest National Park Core Strategy and Development Management Policies DPD, the Authority's adopted Design Guide SPD and Section 11 (paragraph 115) of the National Planning Policy Framework.

3. The site is within 400 metres of the New Forest Special Protection Area (SPA) and it has not been demonstrated by the applicant that adequate measures would be put in place to avoid or mitigate any potential adverse effects on the ecological integrity of the SPA. For this reason the proposal is contrary to policy CP1 of the adopted New Forest National Park Core Strategy DPD and Government Planning Policy contained with Section 11 (paragraph 109) of the National Planning Policy Framework.

43 41 41 70 76 00m 00m 72 74

114400m 114400m

42 42

40 40

38 38

113600m 113600m 41 41 76 70 72 74 00m 00m

New Forest National Park Authority Town Hall, Avenue Road, Lymington, SO41 9ZG

Tel: 01590 646600 Fax: 01590 646666 Ref: 12/97661/FULL

Date: 31/08/2012

SCALE: 1:5000 © Crown Copyright and Database Right 2012 Ordnance Survey 1000114703

44