17 February 2015 Report Item 1 Application No

Planning Development Control Committee - 17 February 2015 Report Item 1

Application No: 14/00760/FULL Full Application

Site: Inchmery House, Inchmery Lane, Exbury, Southampton, SO45 1AE

Proposal: Two storey home office/studio building (demolition of existing orangery and store)

Applicant: Lady Grosvenor

Case Officer: Clare Ings

Parish: EXBURY AND LEPE

1. REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Contrary to Parish Council view

2. DEVELOPMENT PLAN DESIGNATION

No specific designation

3. PRINCIPAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES

DP12 Outbuildings DP1 General Development Principles DP6 Design Principles CP2 The Natural Environment CP8 Local Distinctiveness

4. SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING GUIDANCE

Design Guide SPD

5. NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK

Sec 11 - Conserving and enhancing the natural environment

6. MEMBER COMMENTS

None received

7. PARISH COUNCIL COMMENTS

Exbury & Lepe Parish Council: Recommend permission. There have been discussions between the applicant and the planning officers raising the issue of potential misuse of the building for residential purposes. We take the view that this can be dealt with making any approval subject to a condition.

1 8. CONSULTEES

8.1 Building Design & Conservation Area Officer: No objection, subject to materials and joinery details.

8.2 Tree Officer: No objection.

8.3 Land Drainage (NFDC): No objection, subject to a condition for details of disposal of surface water.

8.4 Ecologist: No comments received.

9. REPRESENTATIONS

9.1 One representation received in support of the application

10. RELEVANT HISTORY

10.1 Polytunnel (14/00217) approved on 19 May 2014

10.2 Single storey extension; external alterations and creation of new access (Inchmery Lodge) (13/98307) approved on 9 May 2013

10.3 Greenhouse (11/96113) approved on 21 March 2011

11. ASSESSMENT

11.1 Inchmery House is a large dwelling set within extensive grounds which overlook the Western Solent. The house itself is characterful, constructed of Exbury buff brick, and although unlisted, due to its historic and vernacular interest is considered to be an undesignated heritage asset. Within the grounds are a number of other buildings and features, including a two storey garage block with accommodation over, Inchmery Lodge at the entrance to the site, an orangery/store adjoining a formally laid out garden, pool and pool house, and Inchmery Park Cottage, a two storey 1960s house, now in the same ownership as the main dwelling, but currently vacant.

11.2 The proposal is for a contemporary-style two storey outbuilding to replace the orangery/store. It would be sited on a marginally different footprint. In terms of scale, it would be significantly larger than the existing building with a footprint of some 186m² (the existing measures 117m²), with first floor accommodation over one section. The building would be constructed of galvanised steel cladding and vertical timber oak cladding, with one element an intensive green roof. The outbuilding would allow for the occupants of Inchmery House, both of whom have demanding jobs requiring a high degree of space and privacy, to work from home, but separating their work from the main residence to create a better work/life balance. The space would allow meetings (the applicants are patrons of a number charities)

2 and tutorials to take place without the need to travel to London. Part of the space within the building (35m²) would form a boat store.

11.3 The main considerations are the degree to which the proposal would comply with policy DP12 which relates to outbuildings; the design and scale of the proposal; its impact on the main dwelling and its curtilage; and its impact in the wider landscape.

11.4 Policy DP12 is a fairly permissively worded policy which would allow the erection of an outbuilding provided that it would be located within the residential curtilage, would be required for a purpose incidental to the use of the main dwelling; and would not provide any additional habitable accommodation. Despite appearing to meet some of the criteria, there are other policies of the Core Strategy which also have to be met; in this case Policies CP8 and DP1, and specifically there is a concern with the scale, appearance and massing of the building. The outbuilding would have a floorspace of 281m², a height to ridge of just under 8m (marginally less than the adjoining Inchmery Cottage, but significantly greater than the existing orangery which has a height of 5.5m). Whilst this has been reduced from the scheme seen at pre-application stage, this goes well beyond what would normally be considered as an incidental outbuilding envisaged by the policy. In addition, the design coupled with the two-storey element would appear overly domestic and is such that it would not take much for the building to be converted into residential accommodation, notwithstanding that this could be conditioned.

11.5 The use of the outbuilding has been described as being for home working, and has been designed to meet the particular needs of the applicants which, have been argued, are unique. However, this has led to the requirement for space to hold meetings and other functions associated with charity work and, while these demands are noted, it is this element which has dictated the significant scale of the outbuilding. In addition, it is this use which is considered would go well beyond the acceptance of home working, and sets it outside the parameters of the policy.

11.6 Whilst the outbuilding is some distance from the main dwelling, it lies in very close proximity to Inchmery Cottage with which it would compete visually. It would not have a subservient relationship with this property, and therefore would not be considered incidental.

11.7 There are a number of appeals in the New Forest relating to outbuildings which have been dismissed because of their relation to the main dwelling and their appearance. In one appeal decision in particular at Drifthole Cottage (APP/B9506/A/08/2080259), the Inspector in dismissing the appeal made the following comments:

3 "....the proposed new building would contain accommodation that could readily be used as additional residential accommodation, and the internal layout of the building would also make it eminently suitable for use as a self-contained annexe. The appellants have indicated that it is not their intention that the proposed new building would be used as additional living accommodation....However, changes in their circumstances or in the ownership of the property could lead to a desire to use the accommodation as additional residential accommodation or as a self-contained residential accommodation without any external alterations being required."

11.8 Although the outbuilding would have limited impact in the wider landscape, due to its location within the site, the scale and activity associated with the development would set it well outside the expectations of policy DP12 and paragraph 7.42. The applicants have indicated their willingness to enter into a S106 agreement to secure the use of the outbuilding for ancillary purposes and not to sever the outbuilding from the main dwelling to create a new planning unit, but it is not considered that this would overcome the key concerns relating to the scale of floorspace proposed. The application is therefore recommended for refusal. 12. RECOMMENDATION

Refuse

Reason(s)

1 The proposed home office/studio, by virtue of its scale, size, form, appearance and intended use, could not be considered incidental or appropriate to the main and secondary dwellings at the site or the curtilage. It would also facilitate the creation of a separate dwelling for which only a minimal amount of internal alteration would subsequently be required. As such it would be contrary to the requirements of Policies DP12, DP1 and DP6 of the New Forest National Park Core Strategy and Development Management Policies (DPD) (December 2010).

4 44 44 36 44 00m 00m 38 40 42

99200m 99200m

90 90

88 88

86 86

84 84

98200m 98200m 44 44 44 36 38 40 42 00m 00m

New Forest National Park Authority Ref: 14/00760/FULL Lymington Town Hall, Avenue Road, Lymington, SO41 9ZG Scale: 1:5000 Tel: 01590 646600 Fax: 01590 646666

Date: 29/01/2015

Planning Development Control Committee - 17 February 2015 Report Item 2

Application No: 14/00843/FULL Full Application

Site: Land At Romsey Road, Ower, Hampshire, SO51 6AH

Proposal: Change of use of land to 4 No. Travelling Showpeople plots; hardstanding; new access; gates and fencing

Applicant: Mr Graham

Case Officer: Deborah Slade

Parish: NETLEY MARSH

1. REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Contrary to Parish Council view (in part)

2. DEVELOPMENT PLAN DESIGNATION

No specific designation

3. PRINCIPAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES

DP1 General Development Principles CP13 Gypsies, Travellers & Travelling Showpeople CP1 Nature Conservation Sites of International Importance CP19 Access CP2 The Natural Environment CP8 Local Distinctiveness DP6 Design Principles

4. SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING GUIDANCE

Development Standards SPD

5. NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK

Sec 3 - Supporting a prosperous rural economy Sec 11 - Conserving and enhancing the natural environment Sec 6 - Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes

6. MEMBER COMMENTS

None received

7. PARISH COUNCIL COMMENTS

Netley Marsh Parish Council: Recommend refusal:

• The site is at the gateway of the New Forest National Park for a partly residential use but partly for industrial use with storage, maintenance and repair of large vehicles and fairground equipment – the latter use more suited to an industrial estate than a rural site within a National Park.

• The Parish Council believes these requirements of Policy CP13 have not been met in this application, that the development would be detrimental to the National Park and local residents, and that it would be contrary to Policies CP8 and DP6. There are concerns about environmental damage to the site, the possible effect on the water table and light pollution if security lighting was required.

8. CONSULTEES

8.1 Ecologist: Objection: it has not been demonstrated that the proposal is in accordance with policy CP1 (impact on SPA) and CP2 (impact on reptiles), and the proposal appears contrary to Natural England's standing advice on reptiles.

8.2 Planning Policy Officer: No objection in principle as there is an identified need for a small number of travelling showpeople's pitches within the National Park.

8.3 Landscape Officer: Objection on grounds that the proposal will have any overall negative impact upon the landscape character of the immediate and wider area.

8.4 Highway Authority (HCC): No objections subject to condition.

9. REPRESENTATIONS

9.1 12 representations received objecting to the proposal on the following grounds:

• no evidence of other sites having been considered and no demonstrated need for this site • not near an existing settlement or local facilities - unsustainable • not an appropriate use in the National Park (gateway site) • detrimental visual impact and potential eyesore • industrial/commercial use rather than residential • area is rural / agricultural in character • contrary to policies of Core Strategy which does not permit new residential caravans or mobile homes • poor and dangerous access and significant increase in traffic • light pollution, noise and disturbance, waste disposal

7 • detrimental impact on wildlife • lack of safe access or children's facilities • poor drainage in area and development would increase risk of flooding

9.2 Three letters in support:

• strong showmen's fraternity in Hampshire • need for sites • children already attend Wellow School • existing site is dangerous and overcrowded

10. RELEVANT HISTORY

10.1 No relevant planning history

11. ASSESSMENT

11.1 The site comprises a parcel of agricultural field of around 1.8 hectares, situated adjacent to Romsey Road and within the Parish of Netley Marsh. To the west of the site is a nursery, and to the south of the site is Green Pastures Farm and caravan site. To the east lies further agricultural land. To the north is a single property, Golden Meadows, beyond which is the M27 motorway.

11.2 Permission is sought to use the site as 4 no. travelling showpeople's plots, with 4 no. associated stone hardstandings of around 30m x 40m each (120m2). The rest of the field would remain grass with a 7m wide landscaping belt of native species planted along the front of the site. A new access would be formed at the north-eastern end of the site, with a tarmac apron onto Romsey Road.

11.3 The proposed use of the site would be mixed, including residential, business and storage purposes. It is intended that the site would be in use all year, with some maintenance of equipment being undertaken in the four yard areas, but the majority of equipment maintenance would be undertaken off site. Any work carried out on the site would be undertaken during normal working hours (which could be secured by planning condition).

11.4 Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (PPTS) (2012)

National planning guidance is set out in the PPTS which was published alongside the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) in March 2012. The PPTS requires local planning authorities to identify a supply of deliverable sites to meet specific local needs but also to ensure that the scale of such sites does not dominate the nearest settled community. As noted above, there is an identified need for a small number of travelling showpeople's pitches within the National Park and in this

8 instance, the application site is some distance from the nearest settled community with relatively few immediate neighbours. The PPTS also refers to “strictly limiting new traveller sites in open countryside that is away from existing settlements or outside areas allocated in the development plan” and the proposed site is in relatively close proximity to facilities located in Totton and nearby villages.

11.5 Hampshire Travellers Accommodation Assessment (2013)

In response to the requirements of the PPTS the Authority worked with a consortium of 10 other local planning authorities in Hampshire to prepare an updated needs assessment for gypsies, travellers and travelling showpeople. That report was finalised in April 2013 and concludes that the level of need within the National Park is four plots although it is acknowledged that this is an estimate and the consultants recommended further work to be undertaken. There are no specific allocated or identified sites within the National Park at the present time and so this proposal would help to meet an identified requirement for this type of accommodation within the National Park.

11.6 New Forest National Park Core Strategy (2010)

Policy CP13 of the Authority’s adopted Core Strategy (2010) sets out the criteria against which an application for travelling showpeople’s site will be assessed. The applicant travels as part of the Cole family business, which is already well established on an existing site at Netley Marsh, but with no capacity for expansion. It is accepted that the applicant and the Cole family are bona fide travelling showpeople, with a strong connection to the New Forest and Hampshire. It is also evident that the existing site at Netley Marsh is cramped and overcrowded. Policy CP13 of the Core Strategy requires proposals for permanent travelling showpeople’s sites to demonstrate that:

• the landscape impact is acceptable; • the site is well located on the local highway network, • residential amenity of surrounding occupiers is not detrimentally affected, and • there are local facilities in the vicinity.

11.7 In regard to the first criterion, the proposal would have a significant landscape impact when viewed from Romsey Road. At present, this frontage is characterised by a traditional and fairly low-cut hedge and comprises a grassed field similar to those to the south-east of the site. Instead, the site would be characterised by a thickened 7m deep tree and landscape belt, a new vehicular access, behind which would be the four domestic / yard plots with associated caravans and equipment. The proposed planting along the frontage and within the site would to some degree mitigate views of the structures beyond. However, the change in character

9 of the site would be detrimental to the appearance of the site.

11.8 The applicants require a site with good access to the highway and in this respect the site lies in close proximity to the M27 and benefits from a simple connection via the eastern end of Romsey Road. It is therefore considered that the site is well located on the local highway network. The applicant has provided swept path analysis to demonstrate that vehicles can gain access to/ egress from the highway in a forward gear and that gates would be set back a minimum of 25m from the highway. For these reasons, the Highway Authority has not raised any objections (subject to conditions).

11.9 The closest residential properties are Golden Meadows (located the other side of Romsey Road, to the north of the site) and Five Oaks (located across the nursery access around 100m away from the closest proposed plot). Given the degree of separation and intervening road, there is not considered to be any likely significant impact upon residential amenity of neighbouring properties. The hours of use of the site for work on equipment could be secured by planning condition to the 'normal' working hours which are proposed by the applicants.

11.10 Finally, in terms of the criteria applied by Policy CP13, the site is within the relatively close vicinity of local facilities in Totton and the nearby villages, as is the existing Netley Marsh site. The applicants’ children attend Wellow School and would be able to continue to do so. The proposed site is slightly closer to Wellow School than the existing site. As the proposed site is in similar proximity to services as the existing Netley Marsh site, this matter is considered to be adequately addressed.

11.11 Ecological matters

Policies CP1 and CP2 require that proposals do not cause harm to protected species or habitats. The Authority's ecologist has raised objection on the grounds that ecological mitigation would be required to offset additional residential impacts upon the SPA, and that further survey of reptiles is required. On the first matter, the applicants are willing to make a financial contribution towards SPA mitigation. On the second matter, Natural England's Standing Advice requires reptile surveys to be undertaken at suitable times of year i.e. whilst reptiles are active. The ecological survey submitted with the application was conducted in November 2014, when any reptiles would have already hibernated. The Authority's ecologist has therefore objected on grounds of lack of information on which to base an ecological mitigation plan for the site. In essence it is not known what reptiles may use the site and whether the development could impact upon them. The ecological survey which accompanies the application recommends further survey works to be undertaken and it is considered essential that this work has taken place

10 before impacts upon protected species can be fully considered.

11.12 Site selection

The Applicants have been looking at potential sites within the local area for the past 15 years. In the recent past they had an appeal on land in Plaitford which was dismissed in 2009. Following this, the Agent advises that the applicants have been on numerous estate agents' lists, have looked at a number of sites, the major issues being access (owing to the rural nature of the New Forest) and overlooking. In addition to this, there have been discussions with regard to council-owned land and other sites in the New Forest, but none have been conclusive in finding a suitable site. The Netley Marsh site cannot be extended as it is too constrained and has substandard access. No other alternative suitable land has been identified by the applicants.

11.13 Nonetheless, the details provided of other potential sites which have been looked into by the applicants are considered lacking. For this reason, it is felt that the application does not adequately demonstrate that the search for a more suitable, alternative site has been exhausted, and that therefore it is not possible to find a site without causing significant landscape impact. In the absence of a detailed sequential approach having been taken, it can only be concluded that there may be a feasible site which meets all of the planning criteria of policy CP13, whereas this site does not. It is considered that such a proposal which would cause significant landscape impact could only be supported if it could be demonstrated that there were no viable or better alternatives within the search area.

11.14 The proposal would adversely affect landscape interests, and this consideration must be weighed against the suitability of the site in addressing a policy need, in providing suitable access, in being close to the existing site, and in upholding neighbouring amenity. It has not been demonstrated that there is no better alternative to this site, i.e. a site which meets the latter objectives whilst upholding landscape appearance. In absence of this information, and given that the proposal does not meet with all of the criteria of Policy CP13, the proposal cannot be supported.

12. RECOMMENDATION

Refuse

Reason(s)

1 It has not been demonstrated that there are no alternative sites within the National Park which could be used that would be acceptable in terms of landscape impact. This proposal would have an unacceptable impact upon the character of the landscape, and in absence of a sequential test to show that this is

11 the only feasible option, there is no justification to override the harm caused to the landscape of the New Forest. As such the proposal is contrary to policies CP13 and CP8 of the New Forest National Park Core Strategy and Development Management Policies (DPD) (December 2010).

2 Insufficient ecological information has been provided to demonstrate that the proposal would not have a harmful impact upon reptiles at the site and that their habitat would be adequately protected in accordance with Policy CP2 of the New Forest National Park Core Strategy and Development Management Policies (DPD) (December 2010) as well as Natural England's Standing Advice.

12 43 43 18 26 00m 00m 20 22 24

116400m 116400m

62 62

60 60

58 58

115600m 115600m 43 43 26 18 20 22 24 00m 00m

New Forest National Park Authority Ref: 14/00843/FULL Lymington Town Hall, Avenue Road, Lymington, SO41 9ZG Scale: 1:5000 Tel: 01590 646600 Fax: 01590 646666

Date: 29/01/2015

Planning Development Control Committee - 17 February 2015 Report Item 3

Application No: 14/01004/FULL Full Application

Site: Land Off Lepe Road, Exbury, SO45 1AJ

Proposal: Construction of a 9ha Solar farm to include solar panels to generate electricity; associated plant buildings; perimeter fencing; landscaping and associated works; internal access track

Applicant: MTS Exbury Solar Ltd

Case Officer: Deborah Slade

Parish: EXBURY AND LEPE

1. REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Referred by Authority Member.

2. DEVELOPMENT PLAN DESIGNATION

No specific designation

3. PRINCIPAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES

CP19 Access DP1 General Development Principles CP2 The Natural Environment CP4 Climate Change CP5 Renewable Energy CP7 The Built Environment CP8 Local Distinctiveness CP17 The Land Based Economy

4. SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING GUIDANCE

Not applicable

5. NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK

Sec 3 - Supporting a prosperous rural economy Sec 10 - Climate Change, Flooding and Coastal Change Sec 11 - Conserving and enhancing the natural environment Sec 12 - Conserving and enhancing the historic environment

6. MEMBER COMMENTS

Richard Frampton – The Application should be determined by committee in view of the potential significance of the development.

14 7. PARISH COUNCIL COMMENTS

Exbury & Lepe Parish Council: Do not support this proposal and recommends refusal on the basis that it fails to comply with Government policy through its intention to use good quality agricultural land, its failure to acknowledge the special nature of a National Park and fears that it could lead to further industrialisation of the area. There is significant opposition from parishioners.

8. CONSULTEES

8.1 Highway Authority (HCC): No highways objections, subject to condition.

8.2 Natural England: No objection on grounds of impact upon designated sites.

8.3 Landscape Officer: Objection on grounds of impact upon landscape.

8.4 Ecologist: Objection on inadequacies of information relating to Field Woundwart, waders and Brent Geese.

8.5 Archaeologist: No objections subject to conditions.

8.6 Environment Agency: No objections provided that the Flood Risk Assessment is satisfactory.

9. REPRESENTATIONS

9.1 55 objections received:

• Contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework • The development would be harmful to the enjoyment of the use of the public right of way. • Harmful impact upon the setting of a Grade II Listed Building - Lepe Farmhouse. • Loss of agriculture land. • Harmful visual impact and detrimental to the unspoiled open character of the landscape. • The New Forest already has other solar farms on more appropriate sites. • The proposal is not 'small scale'. • Other proposals for solar farms within the New Forest have been refused on landscape grounds which sets a precedent for future applications. • A detailed site selection has not been carried out. • Would result in the industrialisation of agricultural land. • Adverse impact upon wildlife. • Disturbance to nearby properties during construction.

15 9.2 Representations of objection received from the Exbury and Lepe Community Group (122 members):

• Loss of primary agricultural land. • A proper site selection has not been carried out by the applicant. • 25 years is not a temporary period. • Visual impact from the public right of way. • The applicant has disregarded the importance of the New Forest National Park. • Contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework.

9.3 Letter of objection received from the New Forest Association setting out similar concerns as those raised by residents.

9.4 Letter of objection received from the CPRE setting out similar concerns as those raised by residents.

9.5 Nine representations of support received:

• A solar farm would help to reduce CO2 emissions and generate clean renewable energy. • It would not spoil the enjoyment of the New Forest National Park. • A 9 hectare site is a small site. • There is not a lack of agricultural land. • The proposal would diversify land use with little impact on the local community. • The proposed planting would screen the development.

9.6 Letter of support received from the Exbury Estate:

• The Exbury Estate consists of 898 acres of agricultural land. • The application site is a large industrial scale arable field. • The proposal would establish a long term income for the Estate which in turn will help to ensure the future employment of 5 full time staff and 14 part time staff. The estate is one of the main employers in the village. • The Estate business runs at a deficit and the proposed solar array would halve the Estate’s annual deficit and generate much needed income to ensure the Estate's work in supporting the local rural economy can continue as well as helping to secure rural employment for the future.

9.7 Three representations of comment received:

• The proposal would detract from the public right of way. • The area is a National Park and it seems a shame to cover it in solar panels. • It would be preferable if the solar farm were built on an existing industrial site.

16 10. RELEVANT HISTORY

10.1 Application for Screening Opinion under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) regulations (2011) for a proposed solar farm (14/00642), determined that EIA not required on 12 August 2014

10.2 Agricultural Barn (12/97174) approved on 5 April 2012

11. ASSESSMENT

11.1 The application site comprises an area of farmland some 9 hectares in size, located to the east of Lepe Farm House and accessed from Lepe Road. To the north is a bridleway and track leading to East Hill Farm. To the east is a footpath. To the south is Pophams Wood.

11.2 Permission is sought for a 5MW solar farm, comprising 2.15m high panels, surrounded by 2m high deer fencing, and associated buildings comprising a Control House, Substation, DNO substation and a Transformer Station. A new access road would be created from the west, as well as a parking and roundabout area within a site compound some 90m x 40m in area, at the front of the site, for the construction phase (and subsequent decommissioning phase). There would be CCTV cameras on 3m high poles. The land surrounding the panels would be seeded with wildflower mix. The application has been accompanied by a Design and Access statement together with a number of other supporting documents.

11.3 The main issues for consideration in this application are :

• the extent to which the proposals comply with policies contained within the Core Strategy, the National Planning Policy Framework and National Planning Practice Guidance; • the wider socio-economic and environmental benefits that could accrue from the proposal; • the impact of the proposals on the landscape character of the site, the surrounding locality and the intrinsic landscape value of the National Park generally; • loss of agricultural land; • the impact of the proposals on ecological interests; • Impact upon agricultural land • the impact on heritage interests; and • flood and drainage characteristics.

11.4 Policy Considerations - Central Government Policy & Guidance

The National Planning Policy Framework is generally supportive of renewable energy with authorities being encouraged to design policies to maximise developments while ensuring adverse

17 impacts are addressed satisfactorily, including cumulative landscape and visual impacts (Section 10 Para 97). The issue of impact on landscape is a further focus (Section 11 Para 115) where it is confirmed that:

“Great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in National Parks, the Broads and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, which have the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty.”

11.5 Subsequent to the NPPF, the government has now published the National Planning Practice Guidance which provides further advice in relation to specific topics such as renewable energy. This more recent document introduces requirements which have previously not been considerations for such schemes.

11.6 The guidance looks at what the particular planning considerations that relate to such schemes and in particular mentions that Authorities will need to consider:

• encouraging the effective use of land by focusing large scale solar farms on previously developed and non-agricultural land, provided that it is not of high environmental value; • where a proposal involves greenfield land, whether the proposed use of any agricultural land has been shown to be necessary and poorer quality land has been used in preference to higher quality land; and the proposal allows for continued agricultural use where applicable and/or encourages biodiversity improvements around arrays; • the need for, and impact of, security measures such as lights and fencing; and • the potential to mitigate landscape and visual impacts through, for example, screening with native hedges.

11.7 The most relevant part of the guidance infers a sequential approach whereby such schemes should firstly be considered on brownfield sites and non-agricultural land. An inspector re-enforced this approach in a recent appeal decision concerning a site in Ipswich stating that:

“The first question to ask is whether the use of agricultural land is necessary. This exercise should demonstrate that no suitable brownfield land or non-agricultural land is available within a search area. Whilst the plan area may in circumstances be an appropriate search area, there is no policy guidance which advocates restricting searches to within a local authority's administrative area. The PPG at paragraph ID 5-003 confirms that ‘Whilst local authorities should design their policies to maximise renewable and low carbon energy development, there is no quota which the Local Plan has to deliver’. Therefore there is no need to site renewable energy development in a particular local authority in order to meet a local green energy quota.”

18 11.8 The Inspector then considers that the appellants search has been confined to too small an area, being far from robust and completely inadequate.

11.9 In the case of this application the applicant has undertaken an 'alternative site search report' which is focused around the 'viable grid connection' of the Langley Substation. There is nothing within central government policy guidance which states that the search criteria should begin within a viable grid connection and assume there is a suitable site near to it. This search has encompassed an area of 5kmn radius which takes in the south-east corner of the National Park as well as some sites in NFDC such as Fawley Power Station. The report concludes that there are no brownfield sites within that 5km area but fails to identify the brownfield site of the decommissioned Fawley Power Station itself which is within 5km of the grid connection. The report also fails to refer to paragraph 115 of the National Planning Policy Framework which specifically refers to National Parks when considering the policy context of the search. No other potential grid connections have been considered.

11.10 Policy Considerations - Core Strategy

Notwithstanding the above, consideration needs to be given as to whether the proposal accords with Policies contained within the Core Strategy with particular reference to Policy CP5 which confirms that such proposals for renewable energy schemes will be permitted where they are:

a) small scale;

b) located and designed to reduce visual impacts; and

c) do not have significant impacts on the special qualities of the National Park.

11.11 Previous applications for solar farms include a 12 hectare site which was granted permission by the Authority in 2011. In that case it was clearly demonstrated that the specific socio-economic benefits of the proposal merited being given additional weight. There remains doubt of whether the scheme would sit comfortably within the definition of small-scale development. Consideration should be given as to whether there are other environmental, social and economic benefits that would outweigh the in-principle policy objection.

11.12 Policy CP17 confirms that land based businesses that help maintain the overall character and cultural identity of the National Park will be supported by supporting farming that is beneficial to the forest through farm diversification. In this case the land is presently farmed and would not be farmed if permission were granted, thus resulting in a net reduction in utilised farmland.

19 The applicant considers that the additional source of income provided by the proposal would generate a long term income for the Exbury Estate and would 'halve the deficit' of the estates finances. The additional monies generated would enable the applicants to continue their farming and associated rural stewardship of their land. However, no estate-wide plan, nor financial information, has been put forward to demonstrate or substantiate this point. It is not clear how the other half of the deficit would be addressed.

11.13 Previous support for such large installations have been based on an appreciation of wider economic benefits for large estates with an existing workforce that would benefit from the scheme and allow finances to be ploughed back into the agricultural elements of the business. On the basis of the current information on the agricultural enterprise which currently is undertaken at the site and the limited wider socio-economic benefits, it has not been demonstrated that the scheme would provide an agricultural diversification to outweigh other concerns with the scheme.

11.14 Landscape Impact

It is firstly important to note that the recent Planning Practice Guidance on solar farms at the outset states that the deployment of large scale solar farms can have a negative impact on the rural environment, particularly in undulating landscapes. This site is gently undulating and from the site visit it became clear the solar installation would be widely visible from a range of views, from the west, north and east, including from a public footpath and public bridleway. Whilst there are copses adjacent to the site to the north-east and south-west, these only provide limited breaks in views. Whilst there is a hedgerow along the boundary with the bridleway track to the north, this is a low-cropped hedgerow with views over the top towards the wide expanse of farmland to the south. The footpath to the east is directly across the field and across the brow of the hill, resulting in a direct interaction with the landscape and a sense of openness of landscape, with trees and copses to the horizons. This footpath forms part of the 'Lepe Loop', a popular circular walk, and it was being utilised by a small group of walkers at the time of the site visit. When at the site, there is a sense of being completely surrounded by countryside, with almost no modern development, except for a modern agricultural barn to the west, which is not intrusive nor appears unexpected. The site has much 'natural' beauty and is typical of an area of the National Park which provides for enjoyment and understanding of its special qualities to walkers, riders and visitors.

11.15 By comparison, the proposed installation would comprise an unexpected, industrial installation within an otherwise open, characterful landscape. As well as the panels, there would be the CCTV, security fence, ancillary equipment housing buildings

20 and compound, and service road - all of which would add to the urbanisation of the site. The installation, being in the centre of the field, would not relate to existing field boundaries, and rather would rely on a 2m securing fence, to be 'selectively grown with ivy' as proposed visual mitigation. The presence of a 2m high fence grown with ivy in the middle of an otherwise open, agrarian landscape would look intrusive and out of place within its own right, so even if this were to completely screen the panels, it would not resolve the problem of visual intrusion. The site compound would be outside of the security fence, and would have an urban character of its own for the duration of the construction phase.

11.16 New hedgerows are proposed in areas which are presently open farmland; these would not relate to existing field boundaries and would follow the form of the installation to the east. Whilst this would provide some mitigation, the establishment of a proper native hedgerow from scratch would take 5-6 years, assuming optimum care is taken, during which time the installation would be largely unmitigated from views. Mention is made of a 'green corridor' to the east of the installation but this is not shown on the proposed planting proposal.

11.17 Conclusion on landscape impact

The impact of solar panels and associated infrastructure on landscape with changes in levels can have more of an impact than on a level site. In this particular case, the site is particularly visible from public vantage points. The impact of the development would be obvious from the footpath, bridleway/ track, and from roads to the west and east. It is considered that this would have a significant, detrimental impact on the character of this rural landscape and the character of the National Park.

11.18 Notwithstanding the above, even if the application site offered no views outside the land under the ownership of the applicant, this in itself would not mean that landscape impact should be discounted. Impact needs to be considered both in respect to the immediate locality, irrespective of ownership, and it is also important to consider the impact that such schemes would have on the intrinsic character of the National Park, both individually and cumulatively.

11.19 It is considered that the agricultural land and its character is important in this rural location and a development of the size and appearance proposed would have an adverse impact on the both the immediate area, the intrinsic landscape character of the National Park both individually and cumulatively with other large schemes within the Park.

21 11.20 Impact on Ecology

It is noted that Hampshire Biodiversity Information Centre records are held of the locally notable species of Field Woundwort being present on site, and this has not been considered in the ecological survey. In addition, the ecological report highlights that survey work for waders and Brent Geese has not been possible, however Natural England has raised no objection on this latter point. Nonetheless the Authority's Ecologist raises objection on grounds of insufficient consideration of notable flora species at the site in relation to the former issue. The proposal is accompanied by a Tree Report which demonstrates that no tree removal is required; there are no trees directly upon the application site. Whilst the principles of biodiversity enhancements such as the sowing of wild flower seeds, bat boxes, and hedgerow creation are laudable, these could be achieved on the existing field margins and are not reliant upon the proposal itself in order for them to be implemented. The estate is already in Higher Level Stewardship schemes which require appropriate ecological management of estate land.

11.21 Impact upon Agricultural Land

Government guidance makes it clear that solar farms should avoid high quality agricultural land. The applicant has undertaken an agricultural land classification which rates the soils as 3b quality ('good to moderate'). The survey does not make reference to the Natural England Agricultural Land Classification map ALC007 dated 24 August 2010 which grades the land as 2 ('very good'). No explanation of this discrepancy is offered by the applicants though the samples which were taken by the applicants do cover the whole site in a fair manner. No sample of an adjacent site is offered to show that the site is an anomaly which is generally surrounded by site grade 2 land. The discrepancy is unaccounted for. 1983 data is included to assess the local context though this has been superseded by the 2010 data which should have been used instead. Despite these discrepancies the installation should not result in a long-term or short term significant loss in agricultural land in the area as set out in 6.2 of the report.

11.22 Impact on Heritage Interests

Local concern has been raised about the potential impact upon the setting of historic buildings, notably Lepe Farm House, a Listed Building at the south west of the site and East Hill Farm, which is a Listed building to the north. The local setting of the buildings would be unaffected; their curtilages and immediate contexts can still be read as intact. It is the wider landscape setting of these buildings which would be affected. Whilst they are presently set within landscapes of rural countryside, largely without modern intrusions, this would be changed by the proposal.

22 However this is linked to the landscape concerns above rather than a specific concern about the setting of these Listed Buildings per se. The proposal is accompanied by archaeological investigations and although the Authority's archaeologist determines that further work would be required, it would be feasible to address this matter by planning condition.

11.23 Flood & Drainage Characteristics

The Environment Agency raises no objections to the proposal, but recommends that the Flood Risk Assessment has demonstrated certain attributes such as how it will be feasible to balance surface water run-off and how SUDS techniques will be used. It does not appear that the Flood Risk Assessment does actually address these issues. The Land Drainage Authority have not commented on the case on the understanding that the Environment Agency would comment. It has not been demonstrated that the proposal can adequately and sustainably deal with surface water on site. Policy CP4 supports proposals which include sustainable water treatment but the proposal fails to demonstrate this. However the proposal does not fall foul of the tests of policy DP4 concerning flooding and the coast as a flood risk assessment has been provided, as required by that Policy.

11.24 Conclusion

It is considered that the proposals fail to comply with Policy CP5 in that it is not small scale and would have a significant, adverse and unmitigable impact on the immediate and intrinsic landscape character and special qualities of the National Park. It has not been demonstrated that benefits would outweigh a scheme of this size and impact.

12. RECOMMENDATION

Refuse

Reason(s)

1 The proposal would have a significant, detrimental impact on the landscape character of the area (in both short and long distance views) by virtue of its existing intermittent boundary screening and the position of array and infrastructure within the site. The proposal is considered not to be small scale and would have an adverse impact on the landscape character of the area and the special qualities of the National Park. Notwithstanding the above it is also considered that the proposal would have an unacceptable cumulative impact on the intrinsic landscape character of the National Park. It has not been demonstrated that the scheme could be considered as a form of agricultural/ estate diversification that would outweigh setting aside the adverse impact on the landscape of a scheme of this size and the scheme

23 would therefore be contrary to Policies DP1, CP8, CP5 and CP17 of the New Forest National Park Core Strategy and Development Management Policies (DPD) (December 2010), the National Planning Policy Framework and National Planning Practice Guidance.

2 The proposal fails to consider the potential for locally important species of flora which has raised an ecological objection. It therefore fails to adequately protect features of the natural environment as required by Policy CP2 of the New Forest National Park Core Strategy and Development Management Policies (DPD) (December 2010), and the National Planning Policy Framework particularly section 11.

24 44 44 37 52 00m 00m 40 43 46 49

100500m 100500m

02 02

99 99

96 96

93 93

90 90

98700m 98700m 44 44 52 37 40 43 46 49 00m 00m

New Forest National Park Authority Ref: 14/01004 Lymington Town Hall, Avenue Road, Lymington, SO41 9ZG Scale: 1:10000 Tel: 01590 646600 Fax: 01590 646666

Date: 29/01/2015

Planning Development Control Committee - 17 February 2015 Report Item 4

Application No: 14/01045/FULL Full Application

Site: Land To The Rear Of 39 - 41 High Street, Lyndhurst, SO43 7BE

Proposal: 2 No. new dwellings; Outbuildings

Applicant: Mr M & Mr A Mackenzie

Case Officer: Liz Young

Parish: LYNDHURST

1. REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Contrary to Parish Council view

2. DEVELOPMENT PLAN DESIGNATION

Defined New Forest Village Conservation Area: Lyndhurst

3. PRINCIPAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES

DP1 General Development Principles CP12 New Residential Development CP19 Access CP7 The Built Environment CP8 Local Distinctiveness DP15 Infrastructure Provision and Developer Contributions DP6 Design Principles

4. SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING GUIDANCE

Development Standards SPD Design Guide SPD

5. NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK

Sec 12 - Conserving and enhancing the historic environment Sec 6 - Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes Sec 7 - Requiring good design

6. MEMBER COMMENTS

None received

26 7. PARISH COUNCIL COMMENTS

Lyndhurst Parish Council: Recommend refusal:

• Loss of parking spaces and garden area. • No provision for deliveries to the shop. • Overdevelopment. • If granted the proposal would overturn the previously granted consent which included parking provision to the flats above the High Street premises.

8. CONSULTEES

8.1 Land Drainage (NFDC): No objection subject to a condition requesting details of the means of disposal of surface water.

8.2 Ecologist: No objection subject to conditions ensuring ecological mitigation and enhancement.

8.3 Highway Authority (HCC): No objections subject to conditions.

8.4 Housing Development NFDC: No comments received.

8.5 Natural England: No objections raised.

8.6 Archaeologist: No objections subject to a condition requesting the submission, approval and implementation of a programme of archaeological work.

8.7 Environmental Protection (NFDC): No objection subject to an informative in relation to contaminated land.

9. REPRESENTATIONS

9.1 Three letters of objection received from two neighbouring properties raises the following concerns:

• Insufficient space for two dwellings. • Insufficient space for a front or back garden, driveway or garage. • The absence of a front garden, wall or fence would be inappropriate to the street scene. • Proposed off road parking would impact upon the pavement. • Noise levels generated from the outdoor seating area of the High Street A3 premises would be harmful to the amenity of the occupants of the proposed dwellings. • Implications associated with building on potentially contaminated land have not been addressed. • Loss of light. • A dormer bungalow would be a more appropriate form of development and would enable the proposed pathway to be

27 relocated to the boundary adjacent to the supermarket. • It is not clear why there is a requirement for cycle racks in addition to the two sheds proposed to provide secure cycle storage. • Future pressure on available parking. • Felling of trees to the front of the site should not have been permitted. • Cramped development. • The site was previously attractive and supported wildlife. • Permission has not been granted for access to the rear of High Street properties.

10. RELEVANT HISTORY

10.1 Application Site

2 New Dwellings (14/00846) withdrawn on 19 November 2014 (withdrawn due to concerns over design and the absence of developer contributions)

10.2 2 new dwellings (14/00540) refused on 16 September 2014

10.3 Extension of time limit on PP 45322 (dwelling) (NFDC/OUT/93/52553) approved on 27 August 1993 (not implemented)

10.4 Dwelling and Garage and provision of car parking area and access (NFDC/90/45322) approved on 29 August 1990 (not implemented)

10.5 39 - 41 High Street

Proposed Change of Use of Ground Floor Retail (A1 Class) and Restaurant (A3 Class) to form a deli and eatery including a rear infill extension; external rear staircase and new first floor entrance porches to existing first floor flats; new extractor flue; new external walk in cool room and associated cycle and bin stores (99090) approved on 5 February 2014 (works have commenced on site)

10.6 Application for Certificate of Lawfulness (proposed) Change of Use of office building to form 2 dwellings (12/98074) – Certificate issued on 7 February 2013

11. ASSESSMENT

11.1 This application relates to a rectangular plot located to the rear of commercial premises which front onto Lyndhurst High Street and lies within the Lyndhurst Conservation Area. The site (and also the residential units above the ground floor premises) is accessed from Wellands Road and is used informally for off road parking. The eastern boundary is adjoined by the pay and display car park which also serves the Budgens Supermarket whilst the west

28 boundary is adjoined by a pair of Late Victorian semi-detached properties. The immediate locality is relatively built up in character with a predominance of residential development and lies within the define village boundary of Lyndhurst.

11.2 Proposal

Consent is sought to construct a pair of semi-detached 2.5 storey, two bedroom dwellings. The two properties would be set back from the road in order to accommodate two off road parking spaces per unit and a gap would be retained on the west boundary to enable the retention of the existing access to the High Street properties. Secure cycle storage is proposed within the rear garden of each property.

11.3 Background

This application has been submitted in order to address the concerns which led to the most recent application (reference 14/00846) being withdrawn and the earlier submission (reference 14/00540) being refused. The main issues which led to the most recent application being withdrawn related to the impact upon the character and appearance of the conservation area and also the absence of developer contributions (although the applicant did at the time indicate a willingness to make the required contribution towards habitat mitigation. As noted at the time of the previous application the principle of new residential development within the defined settlement of Lyndhurst is acceptable in policy terms.

11.4 Developer Contributions

As a result of a recent ministerial statement (28 November) and updates to the National Planning Policy Guidance (NPPG) the Authority can no longer justify seeking contributions towards affordable housing (on development of less than 5 houses) or financial contributions towards open space or transport enhancements for residential development. However in accordance with Section 11 (Paragraph 109) of the National Planning Policy Guidance contributions towards habitat mitigation measures relating to the New Forest Special Protection Area (£1,250 per dwelling, £2,500 in total) would still apply to ensure compliance with EU Habitats Directives. The applicant has indicated a willingness to make the required contribution towards habitat mitigation and it would therefore be appropriate to impose a condition to secure this.

11.5 Design and Character

In order to address previous concerns relating to design and character the following changes have been made:

• The flat roofed elements proposed to the rear of the dwellings

29 have been replaced with a more traditional gabled roofline. • Traditional facing brick work is now proposed on the main building in place of render (where render was considered harsh and urban in character). • Softer landscaping incorporating hedging and grass infill system is now proposed to the front in place of the solid paving previously proposed. • The fenestration has been scaled down since the original submission and the awkward wall dormers have also been removed.

11.6 The proposal to use facing brick work would achieve a more mellow and traditional appearance and the removal of the wall dormers which formed part of the original submission would achieve a simplified roofline and less contrived appearance. The impact of the development would be softened further by the scaled down fenestration and the hedgerows and grass infill to the front of the site. The general principle of introducing two dwellings onto the site was not raised as a concern in the case of the two previous applications and the overall height of the proposed development would be comparable with Numbers 10 and 12 (and the eaves height slightly lower). Proposed building depth would be less than that of the adjacent properties. The proposed dwellings would maintain the established front building line along this part of Wellands Road and the majority of properties in the immediate locality are semi-detached.

11.7 Whilst comments from the neighbouring property are noted it is considered that the suggestion of introducing a dormer bungalow instead of two narrower properties would be at odds with the close knit pattern of development and the traditional character of properties in the immediate locality. Furthermore the open frontage, the set back of the building and the relative building height are considered to be generally in keeping with the street scene along Wellands Road. The development is therefore considered to preserve the character and appearance of the Conservation Area in accordance with the requirements of Policies DP1, CP7 and CP8 of the New Forest National Park Core Strategy.

11.8 Amenity Considerations

The plans accompanying the original application (reference 14/00540) included a bedroom and stairwell window on the west elevation facing towards Number 12. Overlooking (and the perception of overlooking) was consequently one of the concerns which led this application to be refused. The current proposal no longer includes a main bedroom window on the west elevation. Although a window serving the stairwell is still proposed the plans show this to be obscurely glazed and it would be reasonable to impose a condition to ensure this would remain the case. The upper floor windows would only enable oblique views towards the

30 rear most garden area of Number 12 and the properties fronting the high street. However in this particular context this is fairly typical of the relationship between semi-detached dwelling positioned in relatively narrow plots and the impact would not be unacceptably harmful or direct.

11.9 The proposal remains comparable to the original scheme in terms of layout and proximity to Number 12 and impacts associated with loss of light and visual intrusion were not considered to be sufficiently harmful so as to warrant refusal. The proposal would not impact upon the amount of light reaching Number 12 from the south. Furthermore the most substantial part of the proposed dwelling would lie alongside the parking area of Number 12 (rather than the rear garden) and there are no primary windows serving main living areas of the neighbouring property which face directly towards the proposal. The separation distance (just over 5 metres) between the two properties is comparable with that of many dwellings along Wellands Road. With regards to the amenities of the future occupants of the two units the impacts associated with the outdoor seating area of the high street cafe were assessed when this application (reference 99090) was under consideration and conditions were imposed in order to restrict the timing of outdoor seating to no later than 7pm. The proposal is therefore considered to meet the requirements of Policy DP1 of the New Forest National Park Core Strategy.

11.10 Highway Safety and Parking Standards

Although (as noted by neighbouring residents) on street parking along Wellands Road is limited, the proposed development would accommodate two parking spaces per dwelling which is considered by the Highway Authority to be a sufficient level of provision. With regards to cycle parking, the main cycle storage would be sited to the rear of the properties and would not add impact upon the building frontage. This provision is required in order to satisfy current highway standards. Visibility from the off road parking is considered to be satisfactory and the proposal is therefore in accordance with the requirements of Policy CP19 of the New Forest National Park Core Strategy.

11.11 Whilst the Parish Council comments in relation to the previous consent for the formation of flats above High Street premises are noted, this first floor residential use did not require planning consent. This was confirmed by the Certificate of Lawfulness (proposed) issued under reference 99090. Because planning consent was not required (based upon amendments to the General Permitted Development Order in October 2012) there was no scope to impose conditions to ensure the retention of parking spaces.

31 11.12 Other Considerations

Whilst concerns raised by the occupants in relation to contaminated land are noted, the Environmental Health Officer considers the risk level to be relatively low. However it would be appropriate to inform the applicant of the potential contamination and to advise of the appropriate course of action in the event that evidence of contamination were discovered during construction. With regards to the proposal to include an access path to the rear of the High Street properties, the right of access over private land is a purely legal or civil issue rather than a planning consideration. Furthermore it appears to be the case that the land has historically been used to access these buildings.

11.13 Conclusion

All relevant planning considerations have been assessed as part of this follow up planning application. However there has been no significant change in circumstances on site or planning policy since the previous two applications which would give the Authority reason to turn the application down on the grounds of harm to neighbouring amenity (having regard to the removal of the proposed bedroom window to the west elevation). Original concerns relating to the absence of developer contributions have now been overcome through the applicant's willingness to make the required contributions towards habitat mitigation and (as a result of the recent Ministerial Statement of November 2014) there would no longer be a requirement for transport, affordable housing or open space contributions. The more traditional roofline and materials, simplified design and more modest fenestration have addressed previous concerns relating to the Conservation Area and it is therefore recommended that the application should be approved.

12. 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 until all of the following contributions have been made:

a) £2,500 towards mitigating the impacts of development on the New Forest Special Protection Area.

32 Reason: To ensure that appropriate Financial Contributions are made in accordance with the Development Standards Supplementary Planning Document.

3 The first floor window on the west elevation of the development hereby approved shall at all times be obscurely glazed and non-opening.

Reason: To safeguard the privacy of the adjoining neighbouring properties in accordance with Policy DP1 of the New Forest National Park Core Strategy and Development Management Policies (DPD) (December 2010).

4 No development shall take place 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.

Development shall only be carried out in accordance with the details approved.

Reason: To ensure an acceptable appearance of the building in accordance with Policy DP1 of the New Forest National Park Core Strategy and Development Management Policies (DPD) (December 2010).

5 No development shall take place until full details of ecological mitigation and compensation measures have been submitted to and approved in writing by the New Forest National Park Authority. The approved measures of mitigation and compensation shall be implemented in accordance with an approved programme of works.

Reason: To safeguard protected species in accordance with Policies DP1 and CP2 of the New Forest National Park Core Strategy and Development Management Policies (DPD) (December 2010).

6 No development shall take place until details of the means of disposal of surface water from the site have been 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 DP1 of the New Forest National Park Core Strategy and Development Management Policies (DPD) (December 2010).

7 Development shall only take place in accordance with the joinery details submitted within the application (painted timber).

33 Otherwise no development shall take place until full details of the proposed joinery details have been submitted to the New Forest National Park Authority and have been approved in writing.

Reason: To protect the character and architectural interest of the building in accordance with Policies DP1, DP6 and CP7 of the New Forest National Park Core Strategy and Development Management Policies (DPD) (December 2010).

8 No development shall take place until a scheme of landscaping of the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the New Forest National Park Authority. This scheme shall include :

a) a specification for new planting (species, size, spacing and location); b) full details of areas for hard surfacing and the materials to be used; c) other means of enclosure; d) a method and programme for its implementation and the means to provide for its future maintenance.

No development shall take place 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 Policy DP1 of the New Forest National Park Core Strategy and Development Management Policies (DPD) (December 2010).

9 The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the arrangements for parking and cycle parking within its curtilage have been implemented.

These areas shall be kept available for their intended purposes at all times.

Reason: To ensure adequate parking provision is made in the interest of highway safety and to comply with Policies DP1 of the New Forest National Park Core Strategy and Development Management Policies (DPD) (December 2010) and Section 4 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Informative(s):

1 There are a number of sites near the application site which have had past contaminative uses. It is possible that some contamination may have migrated through the ground and groundwater. Whilst the Authority has no evidence to suggest that this is the case, any observed presence of contamination during any ground invasive works should be reported to the Local Environmental Health Officer and works halted whilst the matter is considered, It is advisable to obtain specialist advice concerning

34 the potential for contamination and its recognition. Under the National Planning policy Framework, where a site is affected by contamination, responsibility for securing a safe development and / or new use, rests with the developer and / or landowner and as a minimum requirement the land should not be capable of being determined as contaminated land under Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

2 With regards to Condition 6 please be aware that any soakaways should be designed in accordance with BRE365 (Building Research Establishment) (latest revision). Three soakage tests will need to be undertaken in accordance with this standard along with the soakaway design and be submitted to Planning for approval prior to construction.

Any soakaway or sustainable urban drainage system is to be constructed and located so as not to affect adjacent property or the highway for events up to a 1 in 100 year storm event + climate change. Complying with the parameters as stated in “Category 4: Surface Water Run-off” of the Code for Sustainable Homes Technical Guide 2010 may be an acceptable standard for the discharge of the surface water drainage. Information on acceptable construction of driveways/hardstandings is contained in the Environment Agency and Communities and Local Government brochure called Guidance on the Permeable Surfacing of Front Gardens available on the internet. If you wish to discuss meeting the requirements of this condition in any further detail you can contact Margaret Davies of the Land Drainage Team (New Forest District Council) on 02380 285588.

Cott 1 42 43 99 00

Padsmore House

29 55 57 00m 00m 22 LB Sinks 9 El 1

Sub Sta

27 53 EMPRESS ROAD

Munl Offices

4 40.7m 10 2

Presby Our Lady's 14 Church 23 27 28

45 Cattle Grid

12 15

108300m 108300m

Belton Ho 2 WELLANDS ROAD

1 17

1 13 21 23 35

Fleur-de-lis

6 34 20 12 22 10

6a 7 to 21 to 7

42.5m Tel Ex 28 Little

Garth

4 21a

5 2

1 73 23 43 PH 21 25 27 75 19 A 337 31 33 39 45

35 41 11 Hotel 47 49 Stag 51 53 55 43.9m 57 59 69

HIGH STREET 20

108200m LBs 108200m

36 22 A 35 40 28 30

PH 38 50

56 42

Club The St Michael and Old A 35 Barn All Angels Church

CHURCH LANE Oxmead Cottage Youth TCBs Centre PC

El Sub Sta 2

Club 2a 2 1 Museum 42 43

99 00 Clarendon Villa 00m 00m

New Forest National Park AuthorityCommunity Centre Ref: 14/01045/FULL Lymington Town Hall, Avenue Road, Louvain Lymington, SO41 9ZG and Library PC Scale: 1:1250 Tel: 01590 646600 Fax: 01590 646666 Fern Glen Date: 03/02/2015 2 3 to 7 Car Park