Planning Development Control Committee - 18 September 2012 Report Item 1
Application No: 12/97407/FULL Full Application
Site: Former Little Chef Site, A31 Eastbound, Picket Post, Ringwood, BH24 3HH Proposal: Use of building for restaurant (A3 use) and hot food takeaway (A5 use) Applicant: Ms Davies
Case Officer: Laura Harry
Parish: ELLINGHAM HARBRIDGE AND IBSLEY
1. REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
Deferred from previous meeting Contrary to Parish Council view.
2. DEVELOPMENT PLAN DESIGNATION
No specific designation
3. PRINCIPAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES
CP8 Local Distinctiveness CP15 Existing Employment Sites DP1 General Development Principles
4. SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING GUIDANCE
Not applicable
5. NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK
Sec 3 - Supporting a prosperous rural economy Sec 11 - Conserving and enhancing the natural environment
6. MEMBER COMMENTS
None received
7. PARISH COUNCIL COMMENTS
Ellingham, Harbridge & Ibsley Parish Council: Recommend refusal:
Insufficient and conflicting information within the application which prohibits the Parish Council to make an informed decision. Information which the Parish Council would want to be informed of includes an indication of trading hours, staff requirements, assessment of potential impact on local residents and the environment. Concerns raised why NPA stated in correspondence with the applicant that no design and access statement was required, when the Parish Council agree it is extremely important. Parish Council question why an application was required when A3 use already
includes the hot food takeaway. 1 8. CONSULTEES
8.1 Environmental Protection NFDC: No objection.
8.2 Highway Authority (HCC): The Highways Agency should be consulted.
8.3 Highways Agency: No objection.
9. REPRESENTATIONS
9.1 One comment received from New Forest Access For All organisation:
access to the premises should be flat and level; entrance door should be wide enough to allow for the easy entry of a wheelchair/scooter; and door threshold should be at or below floor level so as not to impede the easy entry of a wheelchair/scooter.
10. RELEVANT HISTORY:
10.1 Erection of a motorist restaurant (30042) granted 29 November 1985.
10.2 Erection of a motorist restaurant with managers living accommodation and construction of 49 car parking spaces - Happy Eater Restaurant (31142) 21 May 1986.
11. ASSESSMENT
11.1 Members will recall that this application was deferred at Committee in August to allow officers to give consideration to appropriate conditions to ensure that the extended use would not have an adverse effect on the surrounding locality.
11.2 The application site comprises the former Little Chef unit, which is located just off the A31 at Picket Post in Ringwood. The application site is surrounded by open forest with only a petrol filling station (eastbound), Pavilion and Cricket Ground to the south-west and petrol filling station on the opposite side of the A31 (westbound). The closest residential properties to the application site are two dwellings sited to the south of the petrol filling station on the other side of the A31.
11.3 Consent is sought for the use of the building for a restaurant (A3 use) and hot food takeaway (A5 use). The proposal does not involve any external alterations to the building or change in layout to the application site. The opening hours of the unit are currently unrestricted. It is anticipated that employment would be above 20 people, full and part time, but this would depend on the end operator (details of which are not know yet).
11.4 Little Chef vacated the property in January 2011. The existing use of the building is an established restaurant. The planning history shows that the restaurant was granted permission in the 1980s. However, the Authority does not hold any record of a planning application for a mixed restaurant (A3 use) and takeaway (A5 use). Officers’ understanding of the operation of Little Chef restaurants is that generally, until recently, they operated purely as a restaurant and did not provide a takeaway service. With the 2 exception of a menu for Little Chef restaurants stating that takeaway is available (recently introduced) no evidence has been provided that a takeaway service existed within this unit. On this basis and further to concerns raised at the meeting in August the main issues for consideration is, should members resolve to approve the application, whether conditions need to be imposed on the approval.
11.5 The main issues for consideration are:
Bin storage Hours of use Lighting Boundary treatment.
11.6 The introduction of a takeaway element to the business in addition to a restaurant use could result in an increase in litter. The applicants have indicated a willingness to provide an appropriate number of litter bins on site and it is considered that this can be addressed by a suitable condition (Condition 1)
11.7 There are no neighbouring residential properties in close proximity to the application site but it is important to note that the site lies immediately adjacent to the open forest. It is considered that there would be relatively limited adverse impact on amenity in terms of noise due to the established restaurant use of the building, its location on the A31, the adjacent petrol filling station and neighbouring residential properties only on the other side of the A31. The location of the application site is such that the majority of customers would be passing trade and thus additional traffic generation is unlikely. Notwithstanding this opening hours are currently unrestricted and given the location of the application site in relation to the open forest, it is considered that there should be some control over hours use in order to respect the tranquillity of the National Park and an appropriate condition is therefore recommended (Condition 4).
11.8 The application site abuts the open forest and is enclosed by trees on the boundaries thus restricting visual impact to the wider rural landscape. Notwithstanding this, given its proximity to the open forest it is considered that unrestricted lighting could have an impact on 'dark skies' with unacceptable light pollution. The applicant has confirmed that no lighting will be required other than the external lighting which currently exists. Notwithstanding this assurance from the applicant it is considered prudent to impose a condition restricting further external lighting (Condition 2).
11.9 Members expressed concern that there had historically been problems in relation to boundary treatment at the application site which impacted on the open forest. The applicant has confirmed that there are no intentions to remove any of the existing trees or vegetation which encloses the site and there are no plans for new planting or enclosures. Notwithstanding this it is considered that the introduction of a take away service requires the matter of boundary treatment and enclosure to be revisited in order to ensure that the impact on the wider open forest beyond the site is protected from any adverse impact and a suitable condition for further treatment in relation to boundary treatment/enclosure is recommended (Condition 3).
3 11.10 In conclusion, it is considered that conditions in relation to bin storage and lighting be attached to an approval, should members resolve to approve.
12. RECOMMENDATION
Grant Subject to Conditions
Condition(s)
1. Bin storage must be provided within the site before the first occupation of the building, details of which shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the New Forest National Park Authority prior to the first occupation of the building. The approved bin storage shall remain in the locations as approved in perpetuity.
Reason: To prevent nuisance arising from litter as a result of the takeaway and to ensure an acceptable appearance of the site in accordance with Policies CP6 and DP1 of the New Forest National Park Core Strategy and Development Management Policies (DPD) (December 2010).
2. 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 DP1 and CP6 of the New Forest National Park Core Strategy and Development Management Policies (DPD) (December 2010).
3. The building shall not be first occupied until
(a) details of the treatment of the boundaries of the site have been approved in writing by the New Forest National Park Authority, and (b) these means of enclosure have been implemented in accordance with the details thus approved.
Reason: To ensure that the development takes place in an appropriate way and in order to ensure protection of the adjacent open forest from adverse impacts in accordance with Policies CP19 and DP1 of the New Forest National Park Core Strategy and Development Management Policies (DPD) (December 2010). 4. No activity shall take place on the site in connection with the approved use other than between the hours of 06:00 and Midnight.
Reason: To safeguard the amenities of residential properties and to preserve the tranquillity of the National Park in accordance with Policies DP1 and CP6 of the New Forest National Park Core Strategy and Development Management Policies (DPD) (December 2010).
4 41 41 88 94 00m 00m 90 92
106600m 106600m
64 64
62 62
60 60
105800m 105800m 41 41 94 88 90 92 00m 00m
New Forest National Park Authority Lymington Town Hall, Avenue Road, Lymington, SO41 9ZG 12/97407/FULL
Tel: 01590 646600 Fax: 01590 646666 Ref:
Date: 06/08/2012
SCALE: 1:5000 © Crown Copyright and Database Right 2012 Ordnance Survey 1000114703
5
Planning Development Control Committee - 18 September 2012 Report Item 2
Application No: 12/97491/FULL Full Application
Site: 66 Woodlands Road, Ashurst, Southampton, SO40 7AF
Proposal: New vehicle access; hardstanding
Applicant: Mr & Mrs Wateridge
Case Officer: Laura Harry
Parish: ASHURST AND COLBURY
1. REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
Contrary to Parish Council view.
2. DEVELOPMENT PLAN DESIGNATION
No specific designation
3. PRINCIPAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES
CP2 The Natural Environment CP8 Local Distinctiveness CP19 Access DP1 General Development Principles
4. SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING GUIDANCE
Not applicable
5. NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK
Sec 11 - Conserving and enhancing the natural environment
6. MEMBER COMMENTS
None received
7. PARISH COUNCIL COMMENTS
Ashurst and Colbury Parish Council: Recommend permission: This is a reasonable development with no impact on neighbours in any way.
It is noted that other properties in the road have two access points. The most recent application was 83479 in December 2004 for 20 Woodlands Road when one of the reasons quoted for approving the application was
“In view of the current advice from the Highways Authority it is considered that the retention of a second vehicular access will not cause harm to any existing or ncrease dangers to road users” proposed schemes for traffic management,6 or i The Council knows of no change to that situation or of any plans by the Highways Authority for any existing or proposed schemes for traffic management which need to be considered. It also notes that other dwellings in the road have adjacent vehicle access and it must be significantly more dangerous to have vehicles from adjacent properties possibly exiting at the same time than the possibility of two vehicles in the same property doing so.
8. CONSULTEES
8.1 Highway Authority (HCC): Objection - The use of the proposed access would be likely to cause undue interference with the safety and convenience of users of the adjoining classified highway, Woodlands Road.
8.2 Tree Officer: No objection - Although the Ash tree has attained a size at which it is beginning to contribute to visual amenity, the impact of its loss in the wider context of surrounding tree cover would be modest.
8.3 Forestry Commission: Do not support an extra access to the property, however would have no objection if the old access were to be closed.
8.4 Ecologist: Recommends refusal: Will result in loss of internationally and nationally designated nature conservation site (New Forest SAC and SSSI). The proposal is contrary to policy CP2. No mitigation is proposed for this loss.
8.5 Natural England: Insufficient information to determine the effect on designated sites. Will lead to a net loss of a designated site and no mitigation proposed.
9. REPRESENTATIONS
9.1 None received.
10. RELEVANT HISTORY:
10.1 None relevant.
11. ASSESSMENT
11.1 The application site comprises a detached two storey dwelling, set within a relatively large plot which comprises a double garage with lean-to shed and separate shed/log store to the north of the site (side and front). There is an existing vehicular access over the verge which provides access to these buildings. The property is located on Woodlands Road, which is a classified highway.
11.2 Consent is sought for a new vehicular access and hardstanding. The access would be in the south-west corner of the application site. The access would cross over the verge (owned by the Forestry Commission) and would be approximately 4 metres in width. The proposed hardstanding would have an area of approximately 56 square metres and would comprise a permeable surface with a top layer of gravel.
7 11.3 The main issues for consideration are:
Highway safety; Impact on Site of Special Scientific Interest; Impact on trees; and Impact on amenity.
11.4 Highway safety
The use of the proposed accesses would be likely to cause undue interference with the safety and convenience of users of the adjoining classified highway, Woodlands Road. In the first instance there is a presumption against the formation of secondary vehicular accesses onto classified roads, where a property already benefits from appropriate access. This is based upon various studies that demonstrate that the greater the number of accesses onto a classified highway, the greater the number of accidents that occur. Secondly, the proposed layout does not incorporate adequate turning facilities to ensure that vehicles can gain access to/egress from the highway in a forward gear. There is a presumption against the provision of vehicular accesses onto a classified highway where adequate turning facilities are not provided.
11.5 The Parish Council commented that other properties in Woodlands Road have two accesses, the most recent application for a second access was at 20 Woodlands Road. However, this application was granted permission in 2005 by the New Forest District Council and the consultation response for this application stated '... it should be noted that this is based upon the specific circumstances that exist in this instance and should not be seen to set a precedence with regard to the formation of second vehicular access onto classified roads within the New Forest District'. On this basis the objection received from the Highways Authority for this application is both appropriate and sustainable.
11.6 Impact on Site of Special Scientific Interest
The proposal involves the formation of a new access across a verge which is owned by the Forestry Commission and forms part of the New Forest Site of Special Scientific Interest. The proposal therefore results in the net loss of the SSSI with no mitigation proposed for such loss. In the absence of any such mitigation the proposal is considered to be contrary to Policy CP2 of the New Forest National Park Core Strategy and Development Management Policies (DPD) (December 2010).
11.7 Impact on trees
The proposed access would necessitate the removal of Laurel shrubs and be in very close proximity to a young Ash tree. The plan shows that the Ash tree is at a distance of approximately 700mm from the new access drive. There is a likelihood that the groundworks associated with the driveway (500mm) would, at this proximity, cause extensive root damage and, depending on the nature of the roots encountered, a threat to stability.
11.8 Although the tree has attained a size at which it is beginning to contribute to visual amenity, the impact of its loss, in the wider context of surrounding 8 tree cover would be modest. It is also the case that this species has the potential to attain much larger proportions by which time it would be likely to cause some nuisance and/or anxiety to residents and require regular maintenance. Under the circumstances, whilst still a young tree, it would be difficult to resist its loss.
11.9 Impact on amenity
The proposed development would result in a large amount of hardstanding to the front of the property. This would create a fairly harsh appearance particularly as the proposal would result in the removal of shrubs and trees along the boundary which soften the appearance of the site and help to break up the built development along Woodlands Road. Notwithstanding this, the proposed hardstanding does not require planning permission as it would comprise porous materials and is therefore permitted development under Class F, Part 1 of the General Permitted Development Order 2008. Thus, it is considered that an objection on amenity grounds in terms of visual intrusion could not be sustained.
11.10 Conclusion
The application site already benefits from a vehicular access onto Woodlands Road and does not incorporate adequate turning. The proposal would introduce an additional access onto this classified highway, which is considered to be to the detriment of highway safety contrary to policy CP19 and DP1 of the Core Strategy. In addition the new access would necessitate loss of SSSI for which no mitigation has been provided. Planning permission is therefore recommended for refusal.
12. RECOMMENDATION
Refuse
Reason(s)
1. The application site already benefits from a vehicular access onto Woodlands Road and does not incorporate adequate turning. The proposal would introduce an additional access onto this classified highway, which would be likely to cause undue interference with the safety and convenience of users of the highway, contrary to policies CP19 and DP1 of the New Forest National Park Core Strategy and Development Management Policies (DPD) (December 2010).
2. The proposal would result in the net loss of the New Forest Site of Special Scientific Interest for which no mitigation has been proposed. In the absence of acceptable mitigation, the proposal is considered to be contrary to Policy CP2 of the New Forest National Park Core Strategy and Development Management Policies (DPD) (December 2010) and the National Planning Policy Framework.
9 43 43 26 34 00m 00m 28 30 32
111200m 111200m
10 10
08 08
06 06
04 04
110200m 110200m 43 43 34 26 28 30 32 00m 00m
New Forest National Park Authority Lymington Town Hall, Avenue Road, Lymington, SO41 9ZG
Tel: 01590 646600 Fax: 01590 646666 Ref: 12/97491/FULL
Date: 31/08/2012
SCALE: 1:5000 © Crown Copyright and Database Right 2012 Ordnance Survey 1000114703
10
Planning Development Control Committee - 18 September 2012 Report Item 3
Application No: 12/97513/FULL Full Application
Site: 7 Harewood Green, Keyhaven, Lymington, SO41 0TZ
Proposal: External alterations to side elevation (additional windows and alterations to existing) Applicant: Mr T Penfold
Case Officer: Laura Harry
Parish: MILFORD-ON-SEA
1. REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
Contrary to Parish Council view.
2. DEVELOPMENT PLAN DESIGNATION
No specific designation
3. PRINCIPAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES
DP1 General Development Principles DP6 Design Principles
4. SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING GUIDANCE
Design Guide SPD
5. NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK
Sec 7 - Requiring good design Sec 11 - Conserving and enhancing the natural environment
6. MEMBER COMMENTS
None received
7. PARISH COUNCIL COMMENTS
Milford on Sea Parish Council: Recommend refusal.
The Parish Council felt there was a very big difference between the existing windows on the side elevation and those proposed by the application and were concerned about overlooking of the neighbouring property at number 8. There had been an oral objection from the occupant of number 8.
8. CONSULTEES
No consultations required
11
9. REPRESENTATIONS
9.1 One letter of objection from neighbour (8 Harewood Green). Loss of privacy. Overlooking main bedroom. Concerns about screening trees in the applicant's garden and whether they would be affected.
9.2 One letter of support from neighbour (6 Harewood Green).
10. RELEVANT HISTORY:
10.1 None relevant.
11. ASSESSMENT
11.1 7 Harewood Green is a three storey end of terrace property faced in brick. The main amenity space of the property is to the rear with a relatively large side garden. There are mature trees and shrubs along the eastern boundary between the application site and the neighbouring property number 8 Harewood Green. The dwelling is located at the end of a cul-de-sac at right angles to the neighbouring property.
11.2 Consent is sought for external alterations to the side (east) elevation of the dwelling. The alterations would involve replacing two windows with a single larger window and an additional three windows towards the rear of the east elevation at ground, first and second floor level. The windows would have white UPVC frames.
11.3 The main issue for consideration is whether there is an adverse impact on neighbouring amenity in terms of overlooking as a result of the proposed development.
11.4 The east elevation faces the garden of number 8 Harewood Green. In order to assess the impact of the windows on the neighbouring property each window has been taken in turn:
1. The existing east elevation comprises two small windows which serve the landing. These windows would be replaced by a longer window. The views from this window would not change, it does not serve a habitable room and thus it is considered that there would be no adverse impact in terms of overlooking.
2. The ground floor patio window would not result in any overlooking.
3. The first floor window would serve a kitchen and the second floor window would serve a bedroom. The windows would be sited towards the rear of the east elevation and would look towards the garden of number 8 Harewood Green. This area of garden is not the immediate amenity space of the property which is actually sited directly behind the dwelling (patio area). This area of garden is more than a distance of 13 metres from the application dwelling and there is a close boarded fence and mature trees along the boundary which intervenes. It is considered that there would be no adverse impact in terms of overlooking.
12
11.5 Expanding on bullet point 3 in the above paragraph, guidance issued by Building Research Establishment in Digest 209 'Site Layout planning for daylight and sunlight: A guide to good practice' 1991 states that the privacy of neighbouring properties can normally be preserved by maintaining a distance of 10 metres between overlooking first floor windows and neighbouring gardens. The distance in this case is 13 metres and there is an intervening mature boundary. A condition could be imposed to ensure that this boundary remains in perpetuity. (Condition 2)
11.6 The front garden of Number 8 Harewood Green and windows on this elevation clearly front and are visible from within the public realm. The angle between the two properties and siting of the proposed windows to the rear element of the east elevation would ensure that there would be no direct overlooking into any of the windows of number 8 Harewood Green. The amenity space and immediate garden area to the rear of number 8 Harewood Green would not be visible from the proposed windows as the house itself would block this area from view.
11.7 It is considered that there would be no adverse impact on neighbouring amenity in terms of overlooking. The proposed windows would be in keeping with the existing dwelling and would not have an adverse visual impact on the streetscene. Planning permission is therefore recommended subject to conditions.
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. The boundary treatment identified X-X on the approved plan shall be retained in perpetuity. If any trees die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased these shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size or species, unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation.
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).
13 2 3 43 43 05 08 00m 00m 06 Jesmond Cottage Sewage Pumping Station Solent View 0.9m Broadoak Issues
8
Aubrey Farm 7 Cottage Pond Midfarms Woodlea Pear Tree Coventry Cottage Cottage Drain Salterns 1 View
Forfeits LYMORE LANE 91800m 91800m Wigeon Cottage
1.5m
Marsh View Aubrey Cottage 7 Keyhaven 1 Pond 16 Haven Bank Lodge 16 Keyhaven
Barn GREEN 12 HAREWOOD Green End
War Drain 0.9m Meml Seashells TCB Water Level Gauge 1.8m LB West Cottages
Keyhaven Floodgates
Fairlee
Ho 4 1 NTL Tide Gauge
Carrick Peel 1.5m John 3 MLW
Nursery Pump House Cottages1 1.5m Mud MHW NEW ROAD Sandham Fishers Mead Floodgate DiamondCottage Homelea Ken Sluice Cottage Path Mud New Slipway Nyecreek91500m House 0.9m Club 91500m The Gun Inn Hawkers (PH) MP Cottage Car Park Yacht Club MLW PC 1 5 Car Park Pontoon OId Coastguard 1 Cottages Hurst Castle Sailing Club 4 Long RangeSalt Salterns SHIPWRIGHTSCottage WALK FS Car Park
Keyhaven Shutlers
43 43 1
Cottages 2 08 05 2 1.2m
Creek End 06 Shingle 1 00m 00m Pond
New Forest National Park Authority Lymington TomorrowTown Hall, Avenue Road, Lymington, SO41 9ZG Ref: 12/97513/FULL Tel: 01590 646600 Fax: 01590 646666 Drain Jetty Date: 04/09/2012 Sedge End Keyhaven Shingle Path Mud House SCALE: 1:2500 Mud © Crown Copyright and Database Right 2012 Ordnance Survey 1000114703 Sluice
14 Salt Grass 0.6m Cottage
Planning Development Control Committee - 18 September 2012 Report Item 4
Application No: 12/97575/FULL Full Application
Site: North Lodge, North Drive, Ossemsley, New Milton, BH25 5TJ
Proposal: Retention of alterations to an existing barn
Applicant: Mr Govier
Case Officer: Paul Hocking
Parish: NEW MILTON
1. REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
Referred by Authority Member
2. DEVELOPMENT PLAN DESIGNATION
No specific designation
3. PRINCIPAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES
DP19 Re-use of Buildings DP22 Field Shelters and Stables
4. SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING GUIDANCE
Guidelines for Horse Related Development SPD
5. NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK
Sec 11 - Conserving and enhancing the natural environment
6. MEMBER COMMENTS
Alan Rice: Having known the existence of the barn for many years, and in order to avoid any confusion, it is requested that the application be referred to Planning Committee should the Officer recommendation be for refusal.
7. PARISH COUNCIL COMMENTS
New Milton Town Council: Happy to accept decision reached by NFNPA: Acceptable subject to Heritage Area policies.
8. CONSULTEES
No consultations required
9. REPRESENTATIONS
9.1 None received 15
10. RELEVANT HISTORY
10.1 Enforcement Notice - The erection of a storage barn - served on 15 March 1991 and appeal dismissed on 24 January 1992.
10.2 Proposed storage barn (46090) refused on 5th December 1990.
11. ASSESSMENT
11.1 The application site borders open forest and accommodates a large two-storey dwelling, previously extended, and an outbuilding. The curtilage has mature trees to the road frontage with paddocks to the south and east.
11.2 The application seeks retrospective consent for alterations to a barn including a canopy for equestrian purposes.
11.3 The key planning considerations relate to the scale of development supported by the Authority's adopted equestrian policies within the Core Strategy and the planning history of the site.
11.4 In the early 1990's an Enforcement Notice was served concerning the unauthorised erection of a building on agricultural land. This was the subject of an appeal and was dismissed. The building was then demolished and therefore the Enforcement Notice has been complied with. The building the subject of this current planning application has remained on the site throughout this period and therefore prior to the works that have recently been undertaken was immune from enforcement action.
11.5 The property has since been purchased by the applicant who has undertaken various significant works to the building in the form of a new brick plinth, complete re-cladding/walling and the addition of a frontage canopy The application is presented on the basis of the building being required for the stabling of horses for recreational purposes.
11.6 It therefore follows that for the works to be permitted they need to comply with the requisite policy - in this case DP22 for equestrian buildings. Policy DP22 specifies that such buildings should be modest in scale. This has also been supported in appeal decisions and is further supported by the Authority's adopted equestrian SPD where at paragraph 5.5 (page 5) the size of a loose box is defined. Three loose boxes, which is considered appropriate for private stabling purposes, of the size defined in the SPD equates to no more than 50 sq. metres when also allowing for a modest canopy.
11.7 The building the subject of this application is however approximately 100 sq. metres. It is therefore not considered to be a modest building and the works that have been undertaken therefore are contrary to policy DP22.
11.8 In addition, there is no planning history for the building, which is on agricultural land, and whilst there is some evidence to support its use for equestrian purposes nothing, for example, is known about whether there have been intervening uses. In any event, the onus in such matters is on the applicant. In the absence of documented history, supported by a 16 certificate of lawfulness, the works now undertaken facilitate the use of a building on agricultural land for equestrian purposes which is considered contrary to policy DP19 as no evidence as to the genuine redundancy of the building has been submitted with the application. For these reasons the development is considered inappropriate and contrary to the policies DP19 and DP22 and is thus recommended for refusal.
12. RECOMMENDATION
Refuse
Reason(s)
1. The works undertaken are intended to support the use of a building on agricultural land for equestrian purposes. The building itself is not modest in scale for an equestrian use and further to this the applicant has not demonstrated that the building is genuinely redundant and not capable of fulfilling any beneficial agricultural use. The development is therefore inappropriate and is contrary to policies DP19 and DP22 of the adopted New Forest National Park Core Strategy and Development Management Policies DPD and the Authority's adopted Guidelines for Horse-Related Development SPD.
17 42 42 32 38 00m 00m 34 36
99000m 99000m
88 88
86 86
84 84
98200m 98200m 42 42 38 32 34 36 00m 00m
New Forest National Park Authority Lymington Town Hall, Avenue Road, Lymington, SO41 9ZG
Tel: 01590 646600 Fax: 01590 646666 Ref: 12/97575/FULL
Date: 31/08/2012
SCALE: 1:5000 © Crown Copyright and Database Right 2012 Ordnance Survey 1000114703
18
Planning Development Control Committee - 18 September 2012 Report Item 5
Application No: 12/97581/FULL Full Application
Site: Forest Edge, Frogham, Fordingbridge, SP6 2HT
Proposal: Double garage.
Applicant: Dr P Wilmer
Case Officer: Liz Young
Parish: HYDE
1. REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
Contrary to Parish Council view.
2. DEVELOPMENT PLAN DESIGNATION
Conservation Area: Western Escarpment Special Area of Conservation Site of Special Scientific Interest Special Protection Area
3. PRINCIPAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES
CP1 Nature Conservation Sites of International Importance CP8 Local Distinctiveness DP1 General Development Principles DP12 Outbuildings
4. SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING GUIDANCE
Design Guide SPD Hyde Village Design Statement
5. NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK
Sec 11 - Conserving and enhancing the natural environment Sec 12 - Conserving and enhancing the historic environment
6. MEMBER COMMENTS
None received
7. PARISH COUNCIL COMMENTS
Hyde Parish Council: Recommend permission
The proposed garage would be no more obtrusive than the existing building; Side hung doors would not be practical due to the sloping ground; Care should be taken to ensure there would be no harm to the New Forest
SSSI during construction. 19
8. CONSULTEES
8.1 Natural England: Raise objections due to insufficient information to determine the effect on the New Forest SSSI and SAC.
8.2 Conservation Officer: Recommend Refusal;
Existing garage and outbuilding are very modest in scale and rustic in character. Proposed double garage would have too much bulk above the head of the garage opening and the impact of the full width garage door would be out of context. This combined with the added impact of a wide roller shutter would make the proposal unacceptable.
9. REPRESENTATIONS
9.1 No comments received.
10. RELEVANT HISTORY:
10.1 Two storey front extension (82180) approved on 14 September 2004
10.2 Replacement detached double garage and ground floor extension (65330) approved on 25 January 1999
11. ASSESSMENT
11.1 Forest Edge is a modest, two storey detached cottage located in a relatively rural and isolated location at the end of a gravel track which runs eastwards across Hyde Common. A number of residential properties lie to the north off Abbotswell Road, whilst Forest Edge and it's immediate neighbour, Steppers are surrounded by open forest and the designated Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), Special Area of Conservation (SAC), Special Protection Area (SPA) and Ramsar Site. The property lies on land which slopes steeply towards the south.
11.2 Consent is sought to replace an existing detached garage / log store which lies immediately north east of the property. The building currently has a modest summer house adjoining the rear elevation and this would be retained. The existing building (excluding the summer house) has an external footprint of 29 square metres and the proposed building would have an external footprint of 36 square metres. Ridge height would be increased slightly from 3.6 to 3.8 square metres. Facing materials would comprise timber cladding and roof slates.
11.3 No neighbouring properties would be affected by the proposal and the main issues under consideration would be:
The extent to which the proposed replacement building would be appropriate to the dwelling and whether it would preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. The impact the proposed garage would have upon the ecological value of adjacent designated sites. 20
11.4 One of the key issues identified within the Conservation Area Character Appraisal for the Western Escarpment Conservation Area is the requirement for new outbuildings such as garages. The document recognises the cumulative impact that this form of development can have. Achieving a traditional design for rural outbuildings is therefore one of the key objectives of the Conservation Area Character Appraisal. The existing building is very modest in scale as a result of its very modest width and scale and the fact that the log store is in the form of a subservient lean-to addition, enabling the main element of building to retain a steeply pitched roof. The proposal would result in the main and secondary element being amalgamated into one. This factor, combined with the overall increase in size and the inclusion of a suburban up and over style door would detract from the rural character of the area.
11.5 The resultant shallow pitched roof and wide span would be at odds with a number of the key principles set out within the Design Guide, Supplementary Planning Document (specifically pages 35 - 36). This document seeks to ensure outbuildings would be incidental and subservient to the main dwelling. The main way of achieving this would be to ensure such buildings would diminish in scale to respond to different uses whilst minimising bulk. The proposal (in contrast to the existing building) would consolidate the impact of built development rather than reduce its impact. The outbuilding would not echo the narrow spans of the existing building or the main house (another key recommendation of the Design Guide) and the proposal would therefore fail to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. The development would therefore be contrary to the requirements of Policies CP8, DP1 and DP12 of the adopted New Forest National Park Core Strategy.
11.6 Whilst the points raised by the Parish Council are noted, it is not evident that the ground immediately in front of the garage is steeply sloping to the extent that it would prevent the inclusion of side hung doors. Even if it were demonstrated that this was the case, there are a number of more traditional alternatives to the up and over style door that have been used elsewhere within the New Forest National Park.
11.7 The whole of the existing and proposed outbuilding lies within the New Forest SSSI, SAC, SPA and Ramsar Site and it is evident that the curtilage of the property has, at some point in the past encroached north east onto the open forest. Based upon all available information it appears to be the case that this has been the case for over 10 years. However the proposed building would result in additional encroachment to the north east and the loss of more land which lies within the New Forest designations. The potential loss of the features of interest of this site would be harmful to the requirements of Policy CP2 of the adopted New Forest National Park and there is no overriding material consideration which would provide any justification for the net loss of habitat.
11.8 Although the applicant states that the size of the building would not be increased the plans show an increase in footprint from 29 to 36 square metres. The increased width of the building and the infilling of the eastern corner would result in the building encroaching further onto the New Forest SSSI. 21
12. RECOMMENDATION
Refuse
Reason(s)
1. The proposed building, by virtue of its scale, span, shallow roof profile and large up and over door, would fail to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area. The impact of the development would be exacerbated significantly by its very prominent siting and the displacement of existing subservient elements. The proposal would therefore conflict with the requirements of Policies CP8, DP1 and DP12 of the adopted New Forest National Park Core Strategy and also the requirements of the Design Guide (Supplementary Planning Document).
2. The proposed development would lie within and lead to the direct loss of the New Forest Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), Special Protection Area (SPA), Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and Ramsar Site. There are no measures put forward which would mitigate or compensate for the loss of the designated site and the proposed development would therefore be contrary to the requirements of Policy CP2 of the adopted New Forest National Park Core Strategy.
22 Deerlands 41 41 73 76 00m 00m The Laurels 74 Polmear Cottage Windy Ridge
112950m 112950m Frogham Hill
Hall Dolserau The Forester's Arms Moorlands Clovelly (PH) Springfield ABBOTS WELL ROAD Crossways Holly LB Homestal Cottage GP Whistlers The Roost Abbots Well 78.0mFROGHAM CROSSTHE PADDOCK Heathcote Mousehole The BeechesThe Vale Timberene Frogham View Moonrakers Crossroads Cross The Nook The Cottage Wind Moorhaven Acorns 4 Song 1 Jubilee House Track
The Bishops Glen Felden Cottage Arran Lavender 28 Cottage 28 Holly Path (um) Hyde Hyde Stables Church Seagry Lawn
Peter's Spring House
Forest Path (um) Edge Track Spring
Steppers
26 Path (um) 26 Path (um)
Track
Hyde Common
Path (um)
Track
112500m 112500m
Spring 41 41 76 73 74 00m 00m
Path (um)
New Forest National Park Authority Lymington Town Hall, Avenue Road, PathLymington, (um) SO41 9ZG
Tel: 01590 646600 Fax: 01590 646666 Ref:Collects 12/97581/FULLSinks The Cottage 48.5m Date: 04/09/2012 Thatched Cottage SCALE: 1:2500 © CrownEdgehill Copyright and Database Right 2012 Ordnance Survey 1000114703 Badgers Sandy Haunt 23 Corner
61.9m
Planning Development Control Committee - 18 September 2012 Report Item 6
Application No: 12/97599/FULL Full Application
Site: Land Off Shirley Holms Lane, Shirley Holms, Sway, Lymington, SO41 8NL Proposal: Change of use of land to mixed agricultural/forestry and canine training use Applicant: Mr Butler
Case Officer: Laura Harry
Parish: BOLDRE
1. REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
Contrary to Parish Council view. Previous Committee consideration.
2. DEVELOPMENT PLAN DESIGNATION
No specific designation
3. PRINCIPAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES
DP1 General Development Principles CP2 The Natural Environment CP8 Local Distinctiveness CP14 Business and Employment Development DP17 Extensions to Non Residential Buildings and Uses
4. SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING GUIDANCE
Not applicable
5. NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK
Sec 3 - Supporting a prosperous rural economy Sec 11 - Conserving and enhancing the natural environment
6. MEMBER COMMENTS
None received
7. PARISH COUNCIL COMMENTS
Sway Parish Council: Recommend permission Application 12/97215 was rejected on many grounds, including it being contrary to CP14, CP17, DP1, CP2 and NPPF. This revised application improved on many of these grounds. There is now a thorough ecology report and the vehicle movements will be moderate and the sight lines from the exit towards the east could be improved by some judicious pruning of adjacent vegetation. Recommend that all the recommendations in the Ecology Report be carried out as a condition of granting permission. 24
Boldre Parish Council: Recommend permission:
Support the principle of a very rural small business, which could not be accommodated in a village or town. Seek to put in place firm restrictions on any future development i.e. of buildings, especially when those could lead to lawfulness certificate or road surfaces so that the rural nature of the site is not compromised. It is noted that previously some training had been undertaken on the open forest and this proposal should relieve pressure on the National Park.
8. CONSULTEES
8.1 Ecologist: No objection subject to condition.
8.2 Highway Authority (HCC): No objection subject to conditions.
8.3 RSPB South East Regional Office: No comment received.
8.4 Hampshire and Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust: No comment, but request that the advice of the Authority's Ecologist is sought.
8.5 Environmental Protection NFDC: No objection.
9. REPRESENTATIONS
9.1 13 letters of support received:
traffic and ecology issues addressed; supports the local tourism industry and the rural economy; access to land by vehicle would be strictly limited; local wildlife would not be disturbed / endangered; minimal environmental impact on the immediate area; noise would be minimal and unlikely to cause disturbance; provide initial part time employment; and site would be actively managed.
9.2 4 letters of objection received regarding the following:
the disturbance to local wildlife; danger to pond life species; noise nuisance to residents; extra vehicular activity unsuitable for local country lanes; nuisance of unsociable hours; and loss of tranquillity.
9.3 One comment received regarding the protection of the environment and whether a full Environmental Impact Assessment needs to take place before any change of use is allowed.
10. RELEVANT HISTORY:
10.1 Change of use of land to mixed agricultural/forestry and canine training (97215) refused 23 April 2012. 25
11. ASSESSMENT
11.1 Members will recall a previous application being considered at Committee in April, for a change of use of land to mixed agricultural/forestry and canine training. The previous application was refused as the proposal would result in a material increase in vehicular activity in what is considered to be an unsustainable and remote location, insufficient information regarding the likelihood of protected species and habitats of local importance being present, and concerns in relation to highway safety. This application has been submitted in order to seek to address the issues raised previously as reasons for refusal. 11.2 Therefore the main issues for consideration are:
the principle of the development; highways and access; and impact on designated sites, habitats and protected species.
11.3 Principle of the development The application site comprises agricultural land and is accessed via an unmade track off Shirley Holms Lane in Sway. Small scale employment development outside the four defined New Forest villages is contrary to Policy CP14 of the Core Strategy. Whilst it is acknowledged that a suitable location could be difficult to find within the defined villages a more suitable location closer to the defined villages would be preferable than the site in question which is considered would result in greater vehicular activity in a remote and unsustainable location. There is an overarching policy presumption against development which is considered to be unsustainable as is considered to be the case in this particular proposal given the remote location of the site. Further information submitted in this application does not allay the concerns previously raised about the unsustainable location for such an activity. 11.4 Highways and Access
In order to address the highway objection, relating to visibility raised in respect of the earlier application (97215), the applicant commissioned a speed survey where traffic speeds were taken across the week. Based on the speeds recorded the access visibility requirement can be considered as applicable to the Manual for Streets (Mfs) guidance. The other concerns in relation to off-road parking/turning facilities and siting of gates are able to be addressed by the imposition of conditions should members resolve to approve. Whilst a notional parking area has been shown on the submitted plans further details are required in order to fully consider its impact on the landscape and this could be achieved by way of a condition.
11.5 Impact on designated sites, habitats and protected species
In order to address the ecology objection, relating to insufficient information about the likelihood of protected species and habitats of local importance being present in respect of the earlier application (97215), the applicant has submitted an ecological report. The presence of great crested newts and breeding Canada geese have been identified within the 26 site. The report concludes that it '... is difficult to quantify what scale of impacts on the habitats might arise from the change of land-use as a lot of this will depend on the intensity and duration of use. It is therefore recommended that the site is revisited after 1 years use to review the condition of the habitats on site and provide suitable mitigatory measures should they be deemed necessary.' If the recommendation was one for permission a condition could be imposed requiring the change of use to comply with the mitigation and monitoring measures within the ecological report to ensure that there would be no adverse impact on protected species and habitats of local importance.
11.6 Other matters
It is considered that, providing no activity would take place outside the hours of operation, there would be no adverse impact on neighbouring amenity in terms of noise as a result of the proposed change of use. There is a need to maintain an adequate supply of back-up grazing land available to commoners. The proposal suggests a mixed use including a continued use for grazing land. Whilst the practicality of this use being continued is questionable, it is not considered that a refusal could be sustained on the loss of back up grazing land.
11.7 Conclusion
Although the proposal addresses the issues relating to highway safety and ecology the principle of the development which was the first reason for refusal on the previous application has not been addressed. The proposal does not sit comfortably within either policies CP14 or CP17 given its somewhat specialised nature, however notwithstanding this, there is an overarching need for employment uses to be sustainable and this is clear from the recently published National Planning Policy Framework. Given the remote location of the site and not being either in or even near to a Defined New Forest Village, the proposal is considered to be contrary to policies CP14 and CP17. Planning permission in therefore recommended for refusal.
12. RECOMMENDATION
Refuse
Reason(s) 1. The proposal would result in a material increase in vehicular activity in what is considered to be an unsustainable and remote location neither being within or near the defined New Forest Villages. The proposed change of use would therefore be contrary to policies CP14, CP17 and DP1 of the New Forest National Park Core Strategy and Development Management Policies and section 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
27 43 43 00 10 00m 00m 02 05 07
98500m 98500m
82 82
80 80
77 77
75 75
97250m 97250m 43 43 10 00 02 05 07 00m 00m
New Forest National Park Authority Lymington Town Hall, Avenue Road, Lymington, SO41 9ZG
Tel: 01590 646600 Fax: 01590 646666 Ref: 12/97599/FULL
Date: 31/08/2012
SCALE: 1:7500 © Crown Copyright and Database Right 2012 Ordnance Survey 1000114703
28
Planning Development Control Committee - 18 September 2012 Report Item 7
Application No: 12/97606/FULL Full Application
Site: The White House, Southampton Road, Godshill, Fordingbridge, SP6 2LE Proposal: Replacement Barn
Applicant: Mrs P Venables
Case Officer: Liz Young
Parish: GODSHILL
1. REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
Contrary to Parish Council view.
2. DEVELOPMENT PLAN DESIGNATION
Conservation Area: Western Escarpment
3. PRINCIPAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES
DP1 General Development Principles DP20 Agricultural and Forestry Buildings DP22 Field Shelters and Stables CP2 The Natural Environment CP8 Local Distinctiveness
4. SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING GUIDANCE
Design Guide SPD Guidelines for Horse Related Development SPD
5. NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK
Sec 11 - Conserving and enhancing the natural environment Sec 12 - Conserving and enhancing the historic environment
6. MEMBER COMMENTS
None received
7. PARISH COUNCIL COMMENTS
Godshill Parish Council: Recommend approval.
Proposal would replace an old barn blown down in a gale and would be smaller than the previous structure.
29 8. CONSULTEES
8.1 NFDC Engineering & Land Drainage: No objection subject to condition.
8.2 Natural England: No objections raised:
The proposed development is unlikely to have a harmful impact upon the New Forest SSSI. Potential harm to protected species, local wildlife sites and local landscape should also be assessed. Biodiversity enhancements should be encouraged.
8.3 Conservation Officer: No objections.
8.4 Tree Officer: No objections raised.
8.5 Ecologist: No objections raised.
9. REPRESENTATIONS
9.1 One letter of support received from the agent (following a request for more information from the case officer):
The land is used for pasture / paddocks and by visiting horses as part of the existing bed and breakfast use (typically 2 horses visiting at a time). There is 1.8 hectares of paddocks to the rear of the site. The applicant currently has two horses using the paddocks and stabling. The barn is necessary to store hay for bedding and feed, along with machinery for cutting the grass. The rear yard has six stables with tack room and workshop.
10. RELEVANT HISTORY:
10.1 Additions of field shelter, grooming room and feed store (60691) approved on 13 March 1997
10.2 Erection of a stable block of 2 loose boxes and a tack room (27269) approved on 17 August 1984
10.3 Stable block consisting of 3 loose boxes (23891) approved on 10 May 1983
11. ASSESSMENT
11.1 This application relates to a site which currently accommodates an open barn / field shelter with a footprint of approximately 30 square metres and a height of approximately 2.5 metres. The building is a simple structure comprising a mono-pitched roof and is completely open on its front elevation. The building lies on land which lies outside the domestic curtilage of the White House and adjoins the eastern boundary of the site, directly adjacent to a public right of way. The field access (a five bar gate) lies directly south of the building. The building lies within a cluster of three other buildings, all of which are used for stabling and 1.8 hectares of 30 paddocks lie immediately to the north of the building. The applicant also states that a larger barn previously existed on the site, although this collapsed during a period of high winds. The site lies within the Western Escarpment Conservation Area.
Proposal
11.2 Consent is sought to replace the barn (an open pole barn which appears to have originally been constructed for agricultural use) which has now fallen down. The replacement building would be positioned at right angles to the eastern boundary. The external footprint would amount to 136 square metres (similar to that of the previous structure), whilst the roof (a mono-pitch) would measure 4.5 metres. External facing materials would comprise green corrugated sheeting on the roof and the external walls would be clad in timber with green corrugated sheeting on the upper sections.
11.3 The main issues to consider would be:
The extent to which the proposed building would be necessary for the purposes of agriculture / maintenance of the land (having regard to the increased size of the structure). The extent to which the proposal would preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. Potential loss of amenity to neighbouring residential properties. Potential harm to boundary trees which have amenity value and provide screening to the site.
Agricultural Need
11.4 Information submitted by the agent would indicate that the predominant use of the site is for horses and ponies which are not part of a commoning activity. In the case of agricultural land (land which lies away from residential curtilage and has had no other specific use) such as the application site, the policies of the Core Strategy (specifically DP22) generally only provide scope to permit the introduction of modest amounts of stabling in association with recreational horsekeeping and this is also echoed within the Supplementary Planning Document on Horse Related Development. Having regard to the large amount of stabling already within the site it is therefore considered that the proposal to introduce a large barn amounting to over 130 square metres (which is not considered to be sufficiently modest) would be contrary to the aims and objectives of the Core Strategy in relation to Recreational Horsekeeping (specifically Policy DP22) and also the requirements of the Supplementary Planning Document on Horse Related Development.
11.5 It is evident that the building (for the reasons outlined above) would not be necessary for the purposes of agriculture or commoning and it would also therefore fail to satisfy the requirements of Policy DP20 of the Core Strategy. The need to strictly control new development on agricultural land was highlighted in an appeal decision relating to land at Linwood Farm, Ringwood (APP/B9506/A/08/2066163). This also related to a replacement building, although in this case the building to be replaced was larger than that which was proposed. Before dismissing the appeal the Inspector noted that no information had been provided in relation to current or 31 intended stocking levels, farming practices or commoning rights. He also noted the modest size of the holding (over 4 hectares in comparison with the 1.8 hectares at the White House). Having regard to these points it is considered that the building now proposed would not be proportionate to the size of the holding and that the intention to use it predominantly in relation to horsekeeping would indicate that it would not be necessary for the purposes of agriculture or commoning.
Visual Impact and Amenity Considerations
11.6 Notwithstanding the fundamental policy concerns over the intended use of the building. The proposal would not lead to an unacceptably harmful impact upon the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. The proposal would lie away from the boundary with the neighbouring property to the south and would not lead to a significant increase in visual intrusion, loss of light, noise or odour.
Boundary Trees
11.7 The proposed barn would lie in close proximity to two Sycamore trees which have significant amenity value, largely due to the fact that they lie alongside the public right of way. Because these trees were not shown on the original site plan accompanying the planning application an additional plan has been provided by the agent. This plan indicates that the proposal would be sufficiently remote from these so as to avoid a directly harmful impact.
12. RECOMMENDATION
Refuse
Reason(s)
1. The proposals are for a building on agricultural land to be used for equestrian purposes. The building is not considered to be modest in scale and would therefore be contrary to the requirements of Policy DP22 of the adopted New Forest National Park Core Strategy and Development Management Policies DPD along with the Guidelines for Horse Related Development (Supplementary Planning Document). Furthermore It has not been demonstrated that there is a functional agricultural need for the building and the proposal would therefore also be contrary to Policy DP20 of the adopted New Forest National Park Core Strategy and Development Management Policies DPD.
2. It has not been demonstrated that there is a functional agricultural need for the building and the size of the proposed building would be disproportionate to the size of the holding (particularly when having regard to the extent of other built development within the site). The development would therefore be contrary to the requirements of Policy DP20 of the adopted New Forest National Park Core Strategy and Development Management Policies DPD.
32 41 41 75.6m 71 74 50m 50m 73
Breach Acre Path (um) Hall
Twin Oaks ESS ESS
Robins Way Redlands Brock 114900m Holme 114900m Caravan and Camping Site Heath View Garden Cottage Culverhay Heatherlea
Ridgeway GablesThree Lodgemoor
Ling Ridge
Godshill Farm Street Acre LB HomesteadCottage Lampton Lodge 47 The Old 47 Bakehouse The WELL White House
LANE St Giles Chapel Croadene Street Farm House The Hillcroft Well Ground Rathgael House Cypress
SOUTHAMPTON ROAD Joycol Croft Cottage 75.9mSims Tudor Farm Cottage 114600m 114600m Hampton View Street Farm Elmleigh Buildings Street Cottage 41 41 74 71 73 50m 50m
New Forest National Park Authority Lymington Town Hall, Avenue Road, Lymington, SO41 9ZG
Tel: 01590 646600 Fax: 01590 646666 Ref: 12/97606/FULL
Date: 04/09/2012
SCALE: 1:2500 Arniss Farm © Crown Copyright and Database Right 2012 Ordnance Survey 1000114703
33
Planning Development Control Committee - 18 September 2012 Report Item 8
Application No: 12/97633/FULL Full Application
Site: Bradgate, Kings Lane, Sway, Lymington, SO41 6BQ
Proposal: Two storey side extension (demolition of existing conservatory)
Applicant: Mr & Mrs Gill
Case Officer: Laura Harry
Parish: SWAY
1. REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
Contrary to Parish Council view.
2. DEVELOPMENT PLAN DESIGNATION
No specific designation
3. PRINCIPAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES
CP8 Local Distinctiveness DP1 General Development Principles DP6 Design Principles DP11 Extensions to Dwellings
4. SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING GUIDANCE
Design Guide SPD
5. NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK
Sec 7 - Requiring good design Sec 11 - Conserving and enhancing the natural environment
6. MEMBER COMMENTS
None received
7. PARISH COUNCIL COMMENTS
Sway Parish Council: Recommend permission.
Appears to be a well considered extension within the same footprint and appropriate to the existing dwelling.
8. CONSULTEES
No consultations required
34 9. REPRESENTATIONS
9.1 One letter of objection from neighbour (Lyndene).
The extension would overpower 'Lyndene'. The concern relates to the high gable end taking light and dominating the view from the side conservatory.
10. RELEVANT HISTORY:
10.1 Single storey rear addition (75739) granted 03 October 2002.
10.2 1 & 2 storey additions & detached garage (66461) granted 06 August 1999.
10.3 Single-storey rear addition (demolish existing addition) granted 13 December 1993.
11. ASSESSMENT
11.1 Bradgate is a traditional New Forest cottage. The property is two storeys in height and has been subject to a number of modern additions including a conservatory to the side of the property, large single storey extension to the rear and solar panels on the roof slope of the front elevation. The application site also comprises a detached outbuilding to the rear of the property in close proximity to the eastern boundary. The property is located on Kings Lane in Sway among a group of 13 houses. There is a strong building line along this road and thus the principle elevation of Bradgate lines up with the principle elevations of the neighbouring properties on either side of the application site.
11.2 Consent is sought for a two storey extension. The extension would be 2.5 metres in width, 5.1 metres in depth and 7.1 metres in height to the ridge. The extension would be faced in brick and roofed with slate to match the existing dwelling. The windows would have timber frames to match the existing.
11.3 The dwelling complies with the floorspace restrictions set out in Policy DP11 and there are no objections to the design of the proposed extension. However, it is considered that the siting of the two storey extension to the side of the property would have an overbearing impact on the neighbouring property Lyndene, which is located to the west of the application site.
11.4 The Design Guide (SPD) (page 29) states that extensions should avoid impacts on neighbouring properties, such as building bulk and loss of light. Policy DP1 in the Core Strategy states that all new development should ensure that amenity is not adversely affected in terms of, but not restricted to, overlooking or shading. Lyndene is a hipped roof bungalow with two windows and a conservatory on the side (east elevation) of the property, facing the application dwelling. It is considered that the extension would be unlikely to have an adverse impact on neighbouring amenity in terms of additional shading due to the relationship between the two properties and their orientation. Notwithstanding this, it is considered that there would be an overbearing impact and loss of outlook as a result of the proposed
development. 35 11.5 The application dwelling currently has a single storey side extension which has a solid brick wall forming its side elevation. This side elevation of the conservatory forms part of the shared boundary between the application site and the neighbouring property Lyndene. There would be a distance of approximately 3 metres between the conservatory on the neighbouring property and the facing blank wall of the two storey extension. The existing side elevation of the conservatory is 4.5 metres in height compared with the proposed extension which would be 7.1 metres in height, amounting to an increase of 2.6 metres. Due to the siting of the proposed extension on the shared boundary and its proximity to the neighbouring property it is considered that the development would have an adverse impact on the occupiers of the neighbouring property in terms of overbearing impact, contrary to Policy DP1 and the Design Guide (SPD) (page 29).
11.6 The proposed extension would interfere with the outlook from the conservatory and other windows on the side (east) elevation of Lyndene, to the extent that the building would appear unduly intrusive and oppressive. It is considered that the development would result in a significant reduction in the level of amenity that an occupier of an adjoining property could reasonably expect to enjoy in this area. Planning permission is therefore recommended for refusal.
12. RECOMMENDATION
Refuse
Reason(s)
1. The proposed two storey side extension would have an overbearing and oppressive impact on the amenity currently enjoyed by the occupiers of the neighbouring property (Lyndene). The development would therefore be contrary to Policies DP1 and DP11 of the New Forest National Park Core Strategy and Development Management Policies (DPD) (December 2010) and the Design Guide (SPD) (page 29).
36 ETL 42 42 88 91 50m 50m
97800m 90 97800m
Little Acre CoombeHouse
Paul's Place
Holmlea AshingtonRockies The Bungalow PAULS Bordeaux Greenways Derimor LANE Hollybush Cottage 76 Torhaven 76 Warleigh Robin Cottage
The Briars Old Oaks Troyte Green Trees
The Swallows
Oakdene Holbury
Aloma Farm Ardram
Hazelbank Oaklyn
Fletchwood Lyndene Bradgate
The Bentleys
Bransway Waldon
75 75
KINGS LANE
ETL
97350m 97350m 42 42 91 88 90 50m 50m
New Forest National Park Authority Lymington Town Hall, Avenue Road, Redgate Farm Lymington, SO41 9ZG
Tel: 01590 646600 Fax: 01590 646666 Ref: 12/97633/FULL
Date: 04/09/2012
SCALE: 1:2500 © Crown Copyright and Database Right 2012 Ordnance Survey 1000114703
37
Drain
Planning Development Control Committee - 18 September 2012 Report Item 9
Application No: 12/97661/FULL Full Application
Site: Hill View Farm, Blissford Road, Blissford, Fordingbridge, 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 England: The application site is adjacent to the New Forest 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 New Forest District 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 Lymington 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
Planning Development Control Committee - 18 September 2012 Report Item 10
Application No: 12/97717/FULL Full Application
Site: 150 Woodlands Road, Ashurst, Southampton, SO40 7AP Proposal: Single storey rear extension; front balcony
Applicant: Mr M Hodson
Case Officer: Laura Harry
Parish: NETLEY MARSH
1. REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
Contrary to Parish Council view.
2. DEVELOPMENT PLAN DESIGNATION
No specific designation
3. PRINCIPAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES
CP8 Local Distinctiveness DP1 General Development Principles DP6 Design Principles DP11 Extensions to Dwellings
4. SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING GUIDANCE
Design Guide SPD
5. NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK
Sec 7 - Requiring good design Sec 11 - Conserving and enhancing the natural environment
6. MEMBER COMMENTS
None received
7. PARISH COUNCIL COMMENTS
Netley Marsh Parish Council: Recommend permission
Do not consider the proposal to have any adverse affect on neighbouring properties or the appearance of the property, would only lend to enhance the look of the property.
8. CONSULTEES
No consultations required
45 9. REPRESENTATIONS
9.1 None received.
10. RELEVANT HISTORY
10.1 Two-storey rear extension; detached garage (90669) granted 31 October 2006.
10.2 Two-storey rear extension; detached garage (87514) refused 20 June 2006.
11. ASSESSMENT
11.1 The application site comprises a large detached two storey dwelling faced in brick and render with a tiled roof. The property is set within a substantial plot comprising a swimming pool and pool house in the front garden and two double garages, a shed and greenhouse in the rear garden. The property is sited on Woodlands Road with open forest to the south, fields to the north and the village of Ashurst to the east.
11.2 Consent is sought for a single storey rear extension, porch and front balcony. The extension would be approximately 4.7 metres in depth, 9 metres in width and 2.8 metres in height. The porch would be approximately 2.3 metres in depth, 2.4 metres in width and 2.7 metres in height. The development would be faced in masonry with a felt flat roof and UPVC windows and doors.
11.3 The main issues for consideration are:
Whether the proposal complies with Policy DP11 in relation to floorspace increase. Whether the design of the proposals would be appropriate to the application site and the surrounding area.
11.4 The dwelling as it existed on 1 July 1982 had a floorspace of 225 square metres. Planning permission was granted in 2006 for a two storey rear extension and detached garage (90669). The two-storey extension has not been constructed but the garage has been completed and thus the proposal for the two storey extension remains extant and could be constructed at any point in the future. The proposed extension, coupled with the extension which could be constructed, would increase the floorspace of the property to 328 square metres, which amounts to a 46% (103 square metre) increase in floorspace. The proposed increase in floorspace is well in excess of the maximum allowance of 30% permitted by Policy DP11 of the Core Strategy.
11.5 Proposals to extend dwellings can affect the locally distinctive character of the New Forest and increasing the size (habitable floorspace) of dwellings has the potential to cause an imbalance in the housing stock available. For these reasons it is considered important to limit the size of extensions to dwellings. In this case the issue relates to the visual impact of the proposed development in terms of scale, form, design and impact on the existing dwelling and the greater effects of increased activity and pressures associated with larger dwellings (in terms of habitable 46 floorspace) which would damage the unique character and quality of the National Park.
11.6 Policy DP6 of the Core Strategy states that all new development will be required to achieve the highest standards for design and external appearance. The proposed flat roofed extension would not be compatible with the existing building in terms of its form and design, contrary to advice contained within the Design Guide (SPD) (page 29). It would have a suburban appearance which would not be sympathetic to the style and character of the existing dwelling. Similarly, it is considered that the proposed balcony would neither be appropriate or sympathetic to the style of the existing dwelling. The proposed extension, porch and balcony would be incongruous additions to this dwelling, contrary to policies DP1, DP6 and DP11 of the Core Strategy.
11.7 Whilst it is acknowledged, that due to the siting of the extension to the rear of the dwelling and distance from the highway, that the extension would not be readily visible, whether it can be seen or not, the intrinsic character of the area remains very important, particularly as this is a National Park. This stance was taken by an Inspector when considering a proposal for an outbuilding in an isolated appeal site which was screened by many trees nearby (Appeal Ref: APP/B9506/D/10/2128556). Furthermore, the balcony would clearly be visible from the highway and open forest.
11.8 The proposed extension together with an extant consent would result in a floorspace increase well in excess of the allowance set out in Policy DP11. The development would neither be appropriate or sympathetic to the existing dwelling in terms of its scale, form, design and overall appearance, contrary to policies DP1, DP6 and DP11. Planning permission is therefore recommended for refusal.
12. RECOMMENDATION
Refuse
Reason(s)
1. In order to help safeguard the long term future of the countryside, the Local Planning Authority considers it important to resist the cumulative effect of significant enlargements being made to rural dwellings. Consequently Policy DP11 of the New Forest National Park Core Strategy and Development Management Policies (DPD) (December 2010) seeks to limit the proportional increase in the size of such dwellings in the New Forest National Park recognising the benefits this would have in minimising the impact of buildings and activity generally in the countryside and the ability to maintain a balance in the housing stock. This proposal, taking into account an extension which could be constructed under an extant application, would result in a building which is unacceptably large in relation to the original dwelling and would undesirably add to pressures for change which are damaging to the future of the countryside.
2. The extension, porch and balcony by virtue of their siting, scale, form, design and overall appearance would neither be appropriate or sympathetic to the existing dwelling. Cumulatively small scale 47 development such as this would erode the National Park's local character and result in a gradual suburbanising effect. The development would be contrary to Policies CP8, DP1, DP6 and DP11 of the New Forest National Park Core Strategy and Development Management Policies (DPD) (December 2010), section 7 and section 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework and page 29 of the Design Guide (SPD).
48 43 43 20 26 00m 00m 22 24
111800m 111800m
16 16
14 14
12 12
10 10
110800m 110800m 43 43 26 20 22 24 00m 00m
New Forest National Park Authority Lymington Town Hall, Avenue Road, Lymington, SO41 9ZG
Tel: 01590 646600 Fax: 01590 646666 Ref: 12/97717/FULL
Date: 31/08/2012
SCALE: 1:5000 © Crown Copyright and Database Right 2012 Ordnance Survey 1000114703
49